Re: O'Barr (globarr) Book of Knowledge!

In <slrndatt6e.2kq.dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Bilge <dubi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr) wrote:
>>O'Barr (globarr) Book of Knowledge!
>>
>> How I hate doing this, writing something that
>> should not be needed. . . .

Bilge wrote:
> . . .


Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr) comments:
What did Bilge write? Not one scientific thing.
Let us look at what Bilge wrote in total:

Bilge wrote:
> Then don't write it. It's not needed. What _is_
>needed is for you to spemd the time you waste
>writing this crap doing something that will lift you
>from your state of profound ignorance - like learn
>some physics.

> Not much, for the simple reason thatsimpletons
>such as yourself litter the newsgroups by posting
>the same crap day in and day out.

> No one will care about it tomorrow or the next day
>or the next, etc., either.

>There's nothing to lose since it never existed.

> Of course, you have no explanation for this, which
>makes your so-called cure worse than the disease.


O'Barr comments:
These 5 responses, responding to my five page
post, consisted of only 13 lines, with not one
statement of physics or of anything of substance.
This was the sum total of Bilge remarks! So why did
Bilge do all this? For fun? Because he had nothing
else to do?

Other than for his last remark, these remarks were
all in the intro or preface area, and the substance
of the post was, as was said, left with never a
scientific comment on any of it.
Why is Bilge being so unscientific? It really is
easy to explain. No SR expert at this point is able
to answer any question of substance. LET, being done
all in simple 3-D, is far simpler of a physical
theory than SR. No SR expert is able to touch this.
SR has no breaks in symmetry, while SR has breaks in
its symmetry.
You know, SR experts use to always mention these
breaks in symmetry. They thought it was a badge of
honor to be able to say such words, and they were
always anxious and willing to point out these breaks
in symmetry. It made them feel smart to be able to
note all these breaks, and to show everyone how smart
they were to be able to see and know all these
things. But lately I have noticed that they never
mention this any more. Why is this? Is this because
I would then point out to them that LET has no
breaks? How about it Bilge, how about given us a
lecture on the breaks in symmetry that exists in SR!
SR is only a math theory. SR is based upon one
single math constant, c, and a limit on the form that
the math can take. And from these two simple math
assumptions, the rest of the math becomes developed.
So SR begins with math, and ends with math. There is
never a physical base constructed upon which the math
is able to be developed, as is done in LET.
Therefore, like all math theories, SR has no physical
understanding to go with the math. Therefore, SR is
weak, like Newton's law of gravity, having no
physical understanding of what is physically
happening to provide the results obtained from the
math.
As can be seen, SR is weak when compared with LET,
and since the SR experts worship SR, then they are
not willing, like scientists would be, to discuss
these areas of weaknesses. So they bypass all these
points, and just make all these insane personal
attacks.

They really are a sad case today, and they have
reached rock bottom. Others have noted how much this
net has changed. The biggest change has been in the
SR experts themselves, in that they have lost heart,
and they are no more willing to put on a scientific
face. They are one sick group, and we are seeing the
end to this false SR position that we have a
physically impossible 4-D spacetime continuum that is
physically explaining our reality! This has come to
an end.


Thanks for reading.
Gerald. <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>
+ remove 3 dots for e-mail.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OBarr, do solid objects exist?
    ... Bilge wrote: ... >relativity or relativistic quantum field theory. ... simple this math might be. ... physics theories are when they start out, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The interpretations of SR are physically impossible.
    ... Bilge wrote: ... because of its symmetry. ... Measurements are made using physical objects. ... by the laws of physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: OBarr (globarr) Book of Knowledge!
    ... > What did Bilge write? ... >statement of physics or of anything of substance. ... >its symmetry. ... > SR is only a math theory. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.
    ... >>Bilge wrote: ... symmetry occurs on two levels. ... But as the ether is characterized, ... the physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Multiple Dimensions!
    ... >> physical model from the math being used. ... you, Bilge, you have no power to know the difference, ... > physics in the theory. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading