Re: O'Barr: Changes in lengths and rates are real!

In <1141671721.569121.303200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
. . . Changes in lengths and rates are real!

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
No doubt. Whatever gave you the impression they
were not?

O'Barr comments:
'Impressions' are not involved. What are involved
are direct statements being made by SR experts.
The majority of SR experts have a bad habit of
saying that there are no real changes. They say
that the changes that are measured are only apparent
changes; they are only a change in our perspective.
In LET, we of course know that many changes are
only apparent changes. Many changes do not involve
any change at all in the things being measured. The
changes can be due to changes in the tools being
used. So yes, what SR experts say can be true, in a
very real sense. But what SR experts do not say, is
that when you have a complicated problem, where there
are changes in frames, etc., that in order to have a
change in your tools would itself require there to be
real changes, if not in the objects being measured,
then in the tools being used. Therefore, we find the
SR experts to be dishonest in all this. They want to
maintain that all changes are imaginary, and this of
course is physically and logically impossible under
those conditions where more than one directional
change is involved.


O'Barr wrote:
Let us be as scientific as possible. SR uses
the Lorentz transforms.

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yes, for some things. However, that is not the
only mathematical tool SR has in its arsenal.

O'Barr comments:
Sounds interesting. But to my knowledge, all the
assumptions made in SR can also be made in LET. Do
you have any math in SR that is not allowed to be
assumed to be correct in LET?


O'Barr wrote:
The Lorentz transforms are the
'absolute math' used in Lorentz's absolute
reference frame theory. Since SR uses this
absolute math, then LET and SR both have the exact
same math results.

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Well, over the domain where SR and LET both use the
Lorentz transforms, yes. However, you also have to
notice that SR implies much more than the Lorentz
transforms mathematically.

O'Barr comments:
The domain for LET and SR are identical! There is
no way for anyone to escape this fact. And whatever
it is that you think SR implies over and above what
LET supports by facts, is all in your own mind. Just
because you want to think that your 'interpretations'
are somehow not allowed in LET is funny thinking.
Maybe this is why you do not actually state what you
are thinking! I think you know that you have
nothing to stand on!


O'Barr wrote:
Thus, they must make (or produce or confirm) the
exact same predictions.

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ah, that's where you're wrong, because SR makes much
broader predictions than LET does, precisely because
it has more mathematical implications than the
Lorentz transforms of LET.

O'Barr comments:
Well, so far, you haven't given any examples of
this. Is there a reason you do not give any
examples? 'Implications' sure sounds like a funny
way to say these things. I think this means you only
think that something is true, and this is all it is,
I am sure. You just want to 'imply' that SR is
somehow different.


O'Barr wrote:
Thus, they must both be the exact same
in terms of their scientific correctness. If one
is correct, so is the other.

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Only in the region of their common application. For
the region where LET says nothing, though, and SR
says something, then SR succeeds where LET does
nothing at all.

O'Barr wrote:
You are still all talk, with no hard facts or
specific example. It is true that SR has been used
in almost all the research that has taken place since
1905. The problem that has to be understood, is that
just because SR was used, this does not prove the LET
could not have been used. And so you need to be more
definitive here, if what you are saying has any
worth.


O'Barr wrote:
If one is ever disproved,
then so will be the other, based upon the same
test result. This cannot be escaped. This has to
all be true by the very definition of present day
science (that a correct theory is the one that
makes correct predictions, as established by test
results.)

Now in LET, there is more than what there is in SR
in terms of explanations. In terms of logic. In
terms of causes and effects. In terms of what is
physically occurring. In terms of having a
physical understanding of physical things. In
terms of the physical simplicity of things.

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I disagree. To you, banging with little balls is
simpler than 4D spacetime and the native covariance
of physical laws in spacetime. Others find exactly
the opposite. This is apparently a matter of
taste, not of simplicity.

O'Barr comments:
But you see, simplicity is not a matter of taste.
Simplicity is not able to be ignored at will. 3-D is
simpler than 4-D. This is a fact no matter what else
might be considered or believed.
The position that I am presenting, that LET is
superior to SR, is not arguable. It is not
something anyone can decide just because they want to
decide. Science does not work that way. LET is
physically simpler. LET is workable, with simple
logic, with simple causes and effects in place, with
simple explanations, with simple understanding, with
simple Newtonian like mechanics. And no one has the
right to ignore such simplicity. In LET, all the
paradoxes are removed, even apparent paradoxes do not
exist in LET.
SR is a sick science. It maintains things that
are not testable (such as your 4-D spacetime
continuums.) It will eventually have to be rejected.
And then we will laugh at what was being said, by
those who were supporting 'a religion,' and even in
the face of direct evidence, turned away. This is
all most serious, and all these fun and games will
soon be seen for what they are. You cannot have
changes, and yet no changes. That is silly and
physically impossible. You cannot accelerate towards
a light source, and not have a real change in the
rate of motion of that light going past you. To say
what you say in SR, and accept it as being real, is
being as dumb as any person can be. And you know,
you know this. You know that it is stupid. And you
know that LET has none of these problems.

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

.