Re: The appearence of car wheels near the speed of light

From: Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 03/26/05 

Date: 26 Mar 2005 15:36:27 -0800

In <jrY%d.308$Mt5.165@fed1read01>
David A. Smith wrote:
> G <g...@dialog.lk> wrote: . . .
>> Included is your statement is the tacit
>> assumption that there is a reality apart
>> from what we see: that is exactly what I think.

David A. Smith wrote:
>Then I did not word it correctly.

O'Barr comments:
  I think you did 'word it correctly!'

Smith wrote:
> Since our
>consciousness is imbedded in EM (chemistry is EM),
>since our instruments deliver this information in EM
>(even mechanical pressure is EM), since our beliefs
>are expressed in machinery supported by EM, and
>expressing some measurement in terms of our belief,
>with data recorded in EM, we will only ever have
>access to a *possible* reality... via the rules of
>EM.

Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr@yahoo.com> comments:
   And so? The rules of E&M are apparently more than
adequate for us to determine our reality! Since E&M
follows fixed and repeatable principles, which we can
know and understand, then this actually makes it
adequate for us to determine reality exactly!
  Did you have in mind some E&M law or science that
infers that we cannot know our reality?

   Every bit of our brain is also something made out
of matter. So of course we will never be able to
know anything except what matter allows us to know!
Again, is this a big deal? And every bit of our
brain is so far confined to our solar system, and so
we will only know our reality if being confined to
our solar system will allow it. Is this a big deal?
Well I believer that we have a reality, and I believe
that science tells us much about our reality. And so
far, I have seen no limit in learning anything we
need to learn about our reality.

David A. Smith wrote:
>If "reality" is simply "that which gives consistent
>results", then I cease objection.

O'Barr comments:
   Great! And it appears so far to be consistent.
Therefore, you should cease your objections.

G <g...@dialog.lk> wrote:
>> I don't think it is possible to accept that
>> there is a reality, accept that we cannot
>> access it, and then equate that reality to
>> what we can only see: these are different
>> things
>>
>> Reality Reality as seen by Light
>> AAAAA BBBBB
>>
>> Reality Reconstructed by taking into effect SRT?
>> AAAAA
>>
>> Is this possible?

Smith wrote:
>Based on our beliefs, a true function returns a
>single result for a single input. Does this define
>reality? Or does it reinforce our belief?

O'Barr comments:
   In math, you often have functions that return more
than one correct math result. Even in SR, the Length
function is Lv = Lo * SQRT(1 - cc/vv).
Mathematically, the square root sign includes both a
plus and a minus value. We most often ignore this;
we do not even mention it. In LET, it is proper to
ignore it because LET is a physically based theory,
and the physical requirements govern. But in SR, a
lot of things are ignored with no real reason except
one way works and another way does not.
   In the at theory, one root in the collision
equation was previously ignored, and now the at
theory is successful because of this ignored root.
    In order to define reality, requires more than
just one function and its results. Reality is not
properly defined until there are sufficient
justifications to accept it. This requires multiple,
repeatable and independent verifications, with no
other unanswered possible explanations remaining,
etc. It is never perfect, but there really does come
a time when reasonable scientists can come to a
consensus, and reality, or a portion of our reality,
becomes known.

G <g...@dialog.lk> wrote:
>> Let me ask this question, which is relevant:
>> is length contraction of the car (never mind
>> the wheels) reality or an illusion for X and
>> for Y?

Smith wrote>
>Any measurement either frame makes is (or can be
>made) fully consistent, and completely agree. The
>is no way to know if it "really happened", there is
>no way to differentiate LET from SRT. It may have
>really happened, or it may have been only
>perspective in spacetime.

Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr@yahoo.com> comments:
   Thank you, Smith, for being so honest. There
are not many on this net who would allow what you
said to be spoken! So we do
not really know if anything really happens, or if it
were just changes in our perspective? What a loss
position to take! What a sad position to take. What
it is, is giving up on our selves, giving up on
knowing our reality. You are a basket case!
   Well we can know! We can know our reality. We
can understand. And LET is the key to bringing
common sense back to our science. And there is not
one single fact to prevent this! Only stupid and
insane beliefs are preventing this from happening,
not science, not any evidence, just plain old
stupidity!
   To really answer this question correctly, you have
to know LET. And LET tells us that in SR, you have
both of what is real, and what is only perspective,
going on! The perspective part is where the changes
are due to just changes in the tools being used. And
in SR, these perspective changes are nothing more
than a change in measurement due to changes in the
tools being used to make the measurement. This gets
to be very confusing, to have changes when there
could be no real changes, but in LET, you are able to
understand exactly how all the measurements in SR are
obtained by simple, direct and understandable tools.
   There are no paradoxes in LET, not even imagined
paradoxes. There are never any breaks in symmetry in
LET. There are never any jumps in times in LET,
either back in time or jumps forward in time.
Everything in LET is simple Newtonian like physics,
all in simple 3-D space, and simple and independent
time. LET is fully realistic, with full cause and
effects in place, with complete explanations as to
what physical things are doing, and in how these acts
result in what is measured when we make SR
measurements.
    Anyone who would reject LET over SR, where SR
uses physically impossible 4-D spacetime continuums,
is a mockery to science. It is a sickness that is
going to end, and we will all end up laughing at
these times when people had talked themselves into
believing that there were four dimensions, and
geometry was reality. This will be known as the dark
ages of science. And how sad that we continue in
such things, when we now know better! Shame on us
all!

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com>
+ Remove 3 dots for e-mail

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Hes white, no chance *hes* a terrorist...
    ... There's a Reason He's Not Called Smith ... Remember it's politics first and reality somewhere down the line. ... Indeed, with jackoff, as he is known on rec.boats, there is no reality. ... You're just another right-wing sock puppet here, ...
    (rec.boats)
  • Re: Two photons... relative distance question
    ... > trouble if you admit an absolute reality. ... mathematics (quantification). ... Quantum phenomenon underly all of this Universe that our "common ... David A. Smith ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Dory Funk, Jr. & The Miz on 1/24 TTRS
    ... Smith. ... Check them out in the archives. ... Reality shows have come a long way since he was first in the spotlight. ... Wills made his memorable speech about Old School Versus New School. ...
    (rec.sport.pro-wrestling)
  • Re: Hes white, no chance *hes* a terrorist...
    ... There's a Reason He's Not Called Smith ... To label the terrorists a Terrorist impacts the political Administration greatly. ... Remember it's politics first and reality somewhere down the line. ... Indeed, with jackoff, as he is known on rec.boats, there is no reality. ...
    (rec.boats)
  • Re: Declining Fundamentalism ?
    ... >>>Does the teaching of science and evolution in the USA not include the ... accessible to manipulation and measurement, ... > reality which is the last thing that they want. ... > I'm sad to say that these do worst of all. ...
    (talk.origins)