O'Barr>Reality!

Reality!

Today, it is no longer possible to talk to SR
experts. They are no longer rational people. It is
almost as bad as tying to talk to liberals. Liberals
do not think about what they say, they just talk, and
what sounds nice to them is automatically assumed to
be correct. They therefore end up being wrong every
time they open their mouths.

The facts are these. Back in Newton's days,
everyone thought that empty space was empty space,
and everything that existed was independent of the
space in which it existed. If you had a ruler, it
was a ruler, it was a certain length, and this length
was fixed. It did not matter what direction you held
it, or with what velocity you moved it. It was
always the same length. And the same was said of a
clock. The clock kept the same time, whether it was
facing East or West, was moving fast or slow. It
just did not matter. And all science was based upon
these simple assumptions.

But with the MMX, Lorentz (along with a few
others) saw that rulers were not fixed lengths in
space. Space became something very different than
what Newton had assumed. And eventually, Lorentz
presented his ether theory, where length and time were
affected by their motions in the ether.
This theory, presented by Lorentz, was scientific.
It made (gave, produced) correct predictions. It had
the guts that provided full and complete physical
comprehension, with full and complete cause and
effects in place. There was never any confusion as
to what was occurring. The cause was always present,
was always the same, and was proportional to the
effect. It was simple. It was physical. It was
understandable. It all occurred in the simplest of
3-D space and 1-D time.
In Lorentz's ether theory, the measurements
obtained were indeed strange, in that the velocity of
light was always the same, no matter in what frame it
was measured. In this theory, the results in all
frames seemed to be the same physics, where no
evidence of absolute motion was directly available.
But it was all based upon simple and obvious
assumptions. There was never anything strange in the
details. It was just strange or surprising in the
final results. But once one saw how the math
accomplished it, then there was nothing at all to be
concerned about. The results were normal for the
functions being followed.
So let us repeat what has so far been said. In
Newton's day, since rulers and clocks were fixed,
then anything that was measured with these fixed
clocks and rulers were correct measurements. And any
prediction that told us what real things did, would
be exactly what would also be measured. But once we
have clocks and rulers that can change, then what
would be measured by these changeable tools would not
always be the same as what was actually done by the
reality being measured.

It is here that SR comes in. SR assumes that we
must keep the old approach. We must assume that what
is measured is our real reality. SR assumes that
there is nothing wrong with our measurements, or with
our measurement tools. Nothing really changes in our
clocks or rulers. So what does SR use to explain all
these strange results? Well, this is what is so
strange. SR really has no real explanations. It
just says that this is just the way it is.
SR just says that if there is anything to any of
this, it is due to space itself. The geometry of
space changes. SR says this with no evidence. It
has no test to show that this is what is occurring.
It provides no explanation as to how it is possible
for space to change. In LET, it says space is
absolute. There are never any changes in space. The
changes are only in our tools. But SR says the
changes are in our space. And so how can space
change? And how can space change if the only thing
that occurs is our motions? And what if more than
one of us moves at the same time? Can space change
in two different ways at once? It is the most stupid
and physically impossible thing, and yet this is what
is said to be true in SR.
So in SR, space changes, it warps. Space becomes
different. Our perspective changes. SR says
anything and everything. But nothing that SR says
makes any physical sense.
What SR does do, is that it has the correct math
that does provide to us, just as LET, the correct
results that will be measured. But SR provides no
physical reason for getting any of these results.
And yet, it claims to be superior to LET. Here is a
science, SR, that has no explanation, and yet claims
to be superior to LET, exactly because it has no
explanations. Now isn't that just like a liberal. A
liberal has no thinking going on. What sound nice is
nice. So SR, because it has nothing, it has no
explanations, so it is less. But by being less (and
thus simpler), then it is best. What a game it is
that is being played.
What we have going here is most unfair. It is
actually sick and perverted thinking. SR is weak,
and has no abilities to tell anyone what is actually
occurring. All that SR can do, is to provide to us
the actual results that will be measured. But it
cannot explain why these results are measured.
With LET, we also get these same measurement
predictions. We also know exactly what will be
measured. But what LET gives to us is also why these
things are measured the way they are measured. We
know the differences between what one can measure
with changeable tools, and what is really physically
happening. With LET, common sense returns to our
physics. We no longer have any problem with reality.
Reality becomes something that occurs in simplest of
3-D space, and simplest of 1-D time.
And the only sad thing in any of this, is that the
SR experts are unable to appreciate one single point
that has been made. They have their religion to
uphold, and they will not even admit that any of this
is even possible. They are as lost as the liberals
are lost. They no longer have any ability to think!
In LET, since a separation occurs between what
really happens, from what is measured, we find many
important things. In what really happens, there are
never any jumps in time, no back in time, no breaks
in symmetry. In LET, everything is physically
perfect, exactly as it should be. Even faster than
light would not present any physical problems.
But in SR, you have to live with and accept what
you measure as being what is. You therefore have to
have these silly and physically impossible jumps, and
breaks in symmetry. You have to have space that is
mysterious, and changing, and affected by things that
are not physically connected. You have a mess. And
you are too worshipful to even acknowledge your mess.
Shame on you all!

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>


P.S. Now in case you missed it, let me repeat for
everyone the basic mistake made by SR experts:

**** SR assumes that we must keep the old approach.
(SR) assumes that what is measured is our real
reality. SR assumes that there is nothing wrong with
our measurements, or with our measurement tools. ****

Thus SR rejected the scientific advanced that had
been made by Lorentz, where recognition of changeable
tools took place, to return to the false assumptions
of Newton that tools and measurements are fixed and
absolute. And we are going to correct this error.
LET is the superior approach, and it is going to win!

We just cannot go backwards. We cannot ignore the
fact that our tools are changeable tools. We just
cannot ignore that there is now a difference between
what is measured, and what is actually occurring.
What is actually occurring is simple, it is simple 3-
D, with no breaks in symmetry. Only our measurements
are confusing. Only our measurements are 4-D junk!
And no one can stop these simple facts from being
understood and used in our science!

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What is BaT, exactly?
    ... rate of the groiund clocks. ... GR prediction when sent into free fall. ... A hammer is a tool frequently used in experimental physics. ... you god Einstein neither peformed nor referred to any measurements ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: One approach for SR.
    ... >> inertial frame that is to be used, ... >> rulers, ... All these clocks will be placed into sync by ... >> measurements must be local measurements, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Length Contraction Fully Explained
    ... and a definition is not physics. ... Galileo's clocks yield correct measurements because ... we can send continuously signals and so keeping ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Errors being made by SR experts.
    ... your own frame, will be c. ... All we can do is take measurements ... SR says that clocks and rulers are NOT ... but LET is the correct physics that ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: collection of ideas on relativity
    ... Take note that when we measure *anything* our measurements may ... It should be physics' goal in general to have all ... have a light-source and a light-detector, and perhaps a clock and a ... an amount of time while a light-clock *derives* an amount of time. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading