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

In <mbSdnW7uz-_VrsvfRVn-pw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Tallywhacker <dda...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

O'Barr notes:
********************************************
Complaints-To: abuse@xxxxxxxxxxxx
<abuse...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: copyri...@xxxxxxxxxxxx
<copyright...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a
copy of ALL headers. Otherwise, we will be unable to
process your complaint properly
************************************************

Darrin wrote:
> Hey Gerald, I thought you were saving all this crap
>for historical purposes? What happened to the fancy
>dating game you used to portray. "I thought you
>joined some sewing newsgroup or something more
>congruent with the prattle you preach, and what with
>all that ether you been breathing, the pitch of your
>voice would let you fit right in.

Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> comments:
Darrin! Good to hear from you again! It looks as
if the complaints against you have been removed and
you are again a free man! And I see you have not
learned one thing. Let everyone observe that not one
comment made by Darrin had anything to do with
physics! What is wrong, Darrin? You can only shout
made up vulgarities as you have always done?

Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> . . . they tell us this lie
>> to hide the fact that SR is weak,
>> and has no power to tell anyone what actually
>> occurs, in order for us to measure what is
>> measured.
>> Now of course it is important to be able to tell
>> what will be measured. This is a necessary part
>> of science. It is good that SR can do this
>> as exact as it does it. But
>> since it is only math that is used
>> to obtain what is measured, then by theory, no
>> explanations or causes can be given for any result
>> presented in SR.

Darrin wrote:
> Textbook Obarrian bull*** indicating absolutely
>no intellectual growth over time (or Gerry's mind is
>shrinking in the direction of motion).

O'Barr comments:
As usual, the point being made went right over
Darrin's head. Any and all math theories, which only
give a math relationship between the variables that
are involved, cannot give a physical explanation.
That is why they are called math theories. F = ma is
one example, where no cause is able to be seen, no
matter how perfect the math might be! And here is
another math theory: F = G* M1*m2/r^2, where again
no causes are presented. These are all math
relationships only!
But with PV = nRT, this relationship is different
than those just presented, because this equation has
a physical base, upon which the math was derived, and
thus the meaning of each variable is defined and
controlled and limited and understood by the physical
base. Such a theory as PV = nRT is thus a physical
theory, since the physical base is in charge, and is
in control of the math. The physical base determines
the interpretation of the math, the limit of the
math, and the proper application of the math.

O'Barr wrote:
>> When SR experts try to explain what happens, all
>> they really do is to explain why the math gets the
>> answer they got. They will often use geometry,
>> for one example, to explain an algebra solution.
>> But the geometry is also just math, and one
>> math solution is no
>> different than another math solution. They
>> only talk in circles, and you have nothing more
>> than what you started with. Thus, 4-D spacetime
>> continuums are just a math aid.
>> It is a good math aid, a math aid that works.
>> But it has no power to explain anything.
>> It only produces the same answer that was being
>> 'explained.' You could have just repeated the
>> same math and been just as enlightened.

Darrin wrote:
> Another Obarrian posture peddling the notion that
>explanations of what is happening are presently
>indicated or illustrated as if the universe is his
>very own terrarium.

O'Barr comments:
And I find it impossible to answer your
'critique,' because for some reason, you left out any
and all meaningful content. Was there a reason for
you to even have answered this post?
Why didn't you present any science to dispute my
points? I said that in SR, there are never any
physical explanations given. Did you hear that?
Never ever in SR are physical explanations given as
to why SR effects are present. They can only give
math answers as to what will be measured. Now they
sure can give these math answers by using different
math methods. They can use integration, or infinite
sums, or geometry, or algebra, and they can call one
math an explanation of the other math, but it never
has a cause! And there is never an explanation as to
what really physically occurs! It cannot do this.
Like all other math theories, it can only give us an
answer (a value to a solution), not an explanation!
Should we take this failure of yours to address
the issue here as a point in my favor? It seems as
if all the SR experts are not willing to actually
argue the point being made. They all just go away!


O'Barr wrote:
>> Now as to your question: Why does LET predict a
>> length contraction? Well, the most direct answer
>> is that Lorentz said it did. This is his theory,
>> and he said that the length contracted.

Darrin wrote:
> Here Gerry fails to indicate a length contraction
>is defined by making time a constant and size a
>variable. When time is defined as a variable we then
>get to remain the same size and shape as always.

O'Barr comments:
In a pure math approach, you can say what you say,
that length can be anything as long as the sum total
of the times and distances involved produces the
final correct measurement answer. But in a physical
world, you cannot let things do anything you want!
In a real solid physical world, any physical object
that is inertial (and remains inertial, never changes
its velocity), then it can in reality never really
change its length under these conditions, and thus
only in LET, where such things happen, can you have a
real physical theory.
And in a real physical world, where you have a
whole grid system composed of fixed length rulers and
fixed rate clocks with constant and fixed intervals
set between these clocks, then in such a system, if
changes in the length of rulers having motion within
this grid system are observed and measured, then real
changes had to occur. The changes might not have
been as was reported, but some change did have to
occur, however proper or improper the measurement
might have been.
Only in LET do all these things occur, that real
changes do occur for objects that change their rates
of motions, and real changes do not occur for objects
that do not change their rate of motion. In SR, you
cannot even address these questions. All you can say
is what the math gives as a final measurement answer.
You cannot say what actually happens in order for you
to get your final measurement answers. What a sorry
theory, to have only a math theory.

O'Barr wrote:
>> But why did Lorentz say this? Because he
>> personally knew about the MMX, and he personally
>> knew that this contraction would have accounted
>> for the results that were shown in this
>> experiment. Lorentz
>> also personally knew what shape an equilibrium
>> surface would have to take if it moved in the
>> ether.
>> This is an E&M problem, and they had enough E&M to
>> know exactly what shape would be required. He
>> also was aware of the works of others, where
>> similar equations did appear and were in use.
>> Thus, even though Lorentz was the most cautious
>> of all the scientists in his day, he was more than
>> sure that such an approach was sound, and logical,
>> and did fit with all other facts that were known
>> in his day. And
>> I agree with Lorentz that such changes in lengths
>> are logical, sound, and matches with all other
>> facts that are still know to be true in our day.
>

Darrin wrote:
> Whatch out, pretty soon (now that Geraldd has
>elevated Lorentz to a legend in his own mind) Obarr
>is going to use the bait and switch tactic to show
>his own pet theory easily accounts for all of
>Lorentz's shortfall's, all we have to do is change
>the entire definition of physics and follow Gerald's
>non-existent yellow-brick road.

O'Barr comments:
Say anything you want, Darrin. But however smart
you might be, or however dumb you might be, you have
no right to change what I posted. In these posts,
there are ways provided so that what one person says
is clearly indicated. You, in your last post, you
violated these simple rules. You went into what I
posted, and you changed what I posted, as if I posted
it. And you gave no indication that you did this.
You just did it. And this is uncivilized. I did
not knowingly repeated any of these things in this
post, to show to everyone what you have done, but
anyone can go back into your last post and observe
what you did to my words that were not within your
own indicated presentation.
I beg you to stop doing this! Do not touch my
signature lines, or any other thing I post, unless
you clearly indicate that you are doing so. Everyone
must clearly know what you are doing, and you have no
right to change my words in these underhanded ways!

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

.