The mathematical weakness in SR math:

From: Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 07/01/04 

Date: 1 Jul 2004 16:17:36 -0700

The mathematical weakness in SR math:

    The math of SR is most interesting, in that it is
subjectable to, and susceptible, to a dual math
interpretation. That is, the math of SR,
mathematically, can be correctly interpreted two
different ways. SR can be interpreted exactly as SR
experts do, that there is a 4-D spacetime continuum.
But the math can also just as correctly and
completely be interpreted as done in LET. And
mathematically, there is no way to tell these two
approaches apart! They both provide identical
predictions.
  
   Please note. This weakness of SR math cannot be
changed by any act of man. It is not due to any
weakness of thought, or to anything that can be
corrected. It is just the way it is. It is just
like the square root of four! You SR experts act
just like a dumb mathematician who for years believed
that the square root of 4 was -2. You 'knew' that -2
was the correct answer because it worked. But when
someone else came along (like Lorentz) and showed you
that a +2 would also work, you refused to believe
anything so simple was correct. You decided to stay
with your -2 no matter what the facts might show. To
act this way is unscientific. It is, in fact, dumb
and dishonest!

   Therefore, the acceptance of SR is not a
scientific step. It is only a personal choice. It
is as personal of a choice as choosing either -2 or
plus two to be the 'correct' answer to the square
root of four!
   It cannot be denied! All data so far obtained to
support SR does not support SR any more or less than
it supports LET. Therefore, no one can say they
accept SR as a science based upon science! The true
science supports both SR and LET equally. And
scientifically, so far, no scientific decision can be
made between them.

   I hereby call all SR experts who do not openly and
directly agree with this to be unscientific! I
freely call all of you unscientific because this
point has been made several times, and it has never
been refuted. The fact that you ignore this cannot
change its truth. Your SR FAQ is also unscientific
because it also does not clearly and directly make
this situation clear.

   Let me make this just as direct as I can: No
scientist can truthfully say that modern test results
support SR, and thus disproves that there is an
absolute ether! Such statements, and such reasoning
and logic, involve the biggest lie possible! And it
must end!

   Now I know that all real experts agree with my
statement. That is why it is never argued. Tom
Roberts even openly agrees with the equality of SR
and LET as it is presently defined. But I call him
the most unscientific of all because even when he
knows it is true, he does not insist that anything be
done to correct other SR experts or the SR FAQ when a
correction is due. This makes him worse than most,
not better! No one can do good physics when
unscientific positions are allowed to be believed and
continuously allowed to be said!

   So is everyone going to continue to be
unscientific about such obvious things? I cannot
understand the dishonesty of this net! Anyone who
knows where modern physics is going knows that the
day will soon come when there will have to be an
ether, by one name or the other. Why are you all so
shy on such understandings? I know you cannot all be
so dumb, but you are! Shame on all of you!

Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr@yahoo.com>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The mathematical weakness in SR math:
    ... > The math of SR is most interesting, ... > interpretation. ... > just like a dumb mathematician who for years believed ... The square root function has two branches. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The mathematical weakness in SR math:
    ... > The math of SR is most interesting, ... > weakness of thought, or to anything that can be ... > just like a dumb mathematician who for years believed ... For scientists it only ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The mathematical weakness in SR math:
    ... > The math of SR is most interesting, ... This weakness of SR math cannot be ... > just like a dumb mathematician who for years believed ... > accept SR as a science based upon science! ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The mathematical weakness in SR math:
    ... > The math of SR is most interesting, ... This weakness of SR math cannot be ... > just like a dumb mathematician who for years believed ... > accept SR as a science based upon science! ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: An old SAT problem
    ... quasi wrote: ... test of math skills. ... With this interpretation questions are no longer just ... interest on the monthly income. ...
    (sci.math)