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

Darrin: Notice how I place my name in front of my words Gerald indicating no
remorse or concern regarding their content or import. I say what I say
freely and logically, as for complaints, if any were leveled at me, they
fell by the wayside as I received no notice or restrictions, merely comments
and humorous conjectures.
As for where I have been, I have been off getting an education in
theoretical physics (something that is clearly beyond you), unfortunately,
in order to do this, one has to leave pet theories by the wayside and come
to terms with relative reality.

"Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1112994331.995231.324660@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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?

Darrin: Notice there is no physics in Gerald's posts, merely his opinion and
worthless conjecture regarding the import of that opinion.

Darrin:
>
> 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.

Darrin: Gerald, you don't have a point, being "simple and oblivious" as
Bilge once alluded to (look it up its in one of your historical diatribes
[the ones you're saving for posterity]) lends to the very obtuse properties
of yor very dense natural characteristics.
> 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!

Darrin: Well Gerald, I forgot that the world was spinning around the Sun by
a string, it must always be on the other side of the planet.

> 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.

Darrin: Hmm, looks like a math equation Gerald, one that pertains to the
relationship of volume and pressure, neither of which have anything to do
with empty space or its absence of pressure (vacuum).
>
> 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

Darrin: The term science in and of itself disputes your points (or their
obtuse absence).

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.

Darrin: There never was supposed to be in the sense you refer to. The term
physics just confuses you. Rather, try Natural Philosophy which is the
original term. Notice no allsion to Physical is in this term, hence, it is
not required.

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!

Darrin: The definition of "explanation" is measurement moron.

> 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!

Darrin: Take it any way you like. It doesn't change the properties of your
presence or the absence of your pretense.
>
>
> 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.

Darrin: Hey did you ever try a gymnastics newsgroup? They might benefit from
your warp.


> 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.

Darrin: Hmm, let me guess, the clocks remain in some absolute time frame too
huh?

> 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.

Darrin: Of course they only occur in LET, thats why we discarded the theory,
things got real warped when trying to use it.

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.

Darrin: Gerald, we also have God, the anti-christ, George Bush, and many
other relevant props.
>
> 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.

Darrin: I don't need to change your posts Gerry. You do just fine posting
impertinence all by yourself.

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.

Darrin: Maybe you're just a simpleton and misunderstood what I was saying.


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,

Darrin: "You did not knowingly repeated them?"


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 not reading.
> Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>
> + Remove 3 dots for e-mail, Remove Gerald for
> enlightenment in physics!
>


.

Loading