Re: Post 2. Facts and Rules for SR Transforms!

In <slrnd505ir.pt0.dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Bilge wrote:
> Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> . . .

Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Please note, G, that at this point Bilge did
>> not, and he will not, answer you.

Bilge wrote:
> You are drawing another conclusion based upon a
>false premise, namely that your experience is a
>meaningful standard despite the fact that that you
>have no common sense, that you refuse to admit your
>lack of even a rudimentary understanding of
>relativity and that you've wasted all of your
>initial good faith credits by making absolutely zero
>effort to understand any answer given by me or
>anyone else in respose to any question you've ever
>asked. Only an idiot would bother taking anything
>you say seriously, but that doesn't mean everyone
>else is you.

O'Barr comments:
Let us say that you are correct, and I have all
these false premises, and no sense, not even common
sense, and I have no ability to understand, and etc.,
etc., etc. If you were correct, then why did you
not simply state all these false premises, all these
errors in logic, and errors in science? Why didn't
you do any of these things?
What is obvious, is that either you are wrong, or
else you have no abilities at all to do what should
be simple to do if you were right. It is obvious to
me that you refuse to even talk physics. Why do you
not show the error of the twin paradox, as I have
presented it? This presentation I made was specific,
and directly and completely stated in exact math.
And what was your response? Nothing! Why was that?
And why are you then saying that I do not understand?
I think I do understand, and you have no specific
scientific response that you can make. So what do
you do? All you can do, which is just to talk, and
talk! And all your talk says nothing! And that is
exactly what you are.

O'Barr wrote:
>> And so here we go with an SR expert giving an
>> answer that was not asked!

Bilge wrote:
> Here's another answer, o'barf. Take up knitting
>and oil your rocking chair, since you are too old to
>do science. You were probably too old to science by
>the time you were 20.

O'Barr comments:
Sorry, Bilge. Again and again, your showing of
only words, and sick words at that, show that you
again make no effort to actually say anything
scientific or useful. You should not be allowed to
post on this net.

I have now several times posted the perfect paradox
of the twins, where local observers are placed at
every point in every frame, and the reports of all
these local observers can tell us exactly what is
actually seen and recorded at every point. And I do
not know if anyone is aware of this, but a lot of SR
sites have closed down. This concept that the twin
who went away and returned experienced a jump in time
is of course wrong, and the concept that an
explanation of this paradox can allow missing data is
of course wrong.
And so, most of these previous SR explanations of
this paradox was not correct, from a physical point
of view. And yet, not one SR expert has said thanks,
or shown any reaction to this. Why is that, Bilge?
Did you also miss all these points? Where are we
going to find an SR expert that is going to agree
that some of these previous explanations were
definitely incomplete on the physical level?

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

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OBarr, do solid objects exist?
    ... Gerald L. O'Barr: ... >>explanations if you can't explain anything and ... > Reading between the lines is always dangerous, Bilge! ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.
    ... Gerald L. O'Barr wrote: ... Bilge wrote: ... exact same math as used in SR. ... correct physics that goes with the correct math. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.
    ... Bilge wrote: ... >> ought to restate the question. ... Gerald L. O'Barr comments: ... math or the assumptions used in SR. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.
    ... Gerald L. O'Barr comments: ... I am sorry, Bilge. ... intentions of saying this. ... >you're just a loudmouth crackpot. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Why a Problem?
    ... Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr) wrote: ... >>The very purpose of science is to deal with and solve problems! ... Hi Bilge! ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)