How scientific are SR experts?

O'Barr comments: How scientific are SR experts?

Let us be just as scientific as possible.

The state of our science is this:
(The following comments assume that we are using
the required LET or SR measurement format, which
consists of simple rulers and synced clocks placed in
simple free space, space that is totally unaffected
by these clocks and rulers and their motions.)

1) We find that the measurements we make of our
reality are physically impossible. We find that the
velocity of light that we obtain remains a constant
no matter how fast of an inertial frame we might
enter.
This certainly is not physically possible. It
violates all concepts of causes and effects. Anyone
who places themselves into a fast moving frame has to
expend a great deal of energy into the motions they
need to enter that frame. And then after doing this,
after spending all this energy into entering into
these fast moving frames, they find no change (they
find zero change) in their motions compared to the
same photon, and this is truly unscientific. Cause
and effects have been totally lost. Everything about
it is just scientifically wrong.

2) We find that the rates of clocks that we measure
change with their velocities. And they change even
though we do not see anything that is directly
affecting them.

We do see and we do experience all these things.

3) We at present are told that we have only one
formally accepted explanation for all these things:
There is a 4-D spacetime continuum that makes all
this happen. Not only are we told that we have only
one explanation, any other explanations that might be
mentioned are specifically shunned and are never
presented in a positive manner.

I hope that with these statements, everyone on
this net can agree. I have tried to be just as fair
and honest as I can be up to here. But now let me
continue:

4) To the best of my knowledge, the concept of a 4-D
spacetime continuum is not based upon anything
physical. There is no physical test that shows such
a thing independently exists. It is only a math
construct that properly relates the space and time
variables that are involved. All these variables can
be related to each other in several other formats,
but they are certainly relatable to each other in
this specific math construct. So this 4-D format is
accepted because, why? Because it works! And
because it shows the correct relationships between
these variables of space and time, it then becomes
the cause of the physics for this science.

Now let us look as honest as we can at these
points. Certainly this 4-D math construct does work
and it works perfectly. But if it is acceptable
simply because it works, please note the following:
All the other ways also work. If any other way
works, then it has to be accepted as the cause just
as much as any other way, if that is the base for
your act.
Also, anyone who knows math, knows that as you
include higher and higher dimensions to your math,
then more and more things can be explained or
related. Why shouldn't 4-D math be able to handle a
simple set of space and time variables? How could
that be so surprising? Shouldn't that happen whether
or not there was anything real involved?

Well, let me tell you, to have a science such as
SR, that relies totally upon a math construct to be
the cause of our reality, and specifically shuns all
other approaches, is the most sick thing I have ever
seen.

There is absolutely no direct evidence for one
single thing that is assumed in SR. In fact, you
will never have one single evidence for it, because
it is physically impossible for there to be a 4-D.
Back in the 1960's, a group of professors, at a
large conference, got together, and decided to do a
test. They knew that people in general did not and
would not accept anything like a 4-D reality. They
thought that a test would be interesting. What if
they taught everyone as if it were true, right from
the start. Would they then believe it?
So among themselves, they decided to see if people
could be made to believe such a thing. And guess
what, some of you have been made to believe. I feel
sorry for you all. It is a shame that the human mind
can do these things, but it seems as if people have
always been able to be made to believe wrong things.

Let me tell you that we do face a problem. To see
or measure what we see and measure is a problem.
What we see is not possible. So what should
intelligent people do about such a problem? Let me
tell you what we do not do. When we find something
that is impossible, we do not take something that is
impossible to explain it. What do we do? We take
real objects, and what real objects can do, and only
what real objects can do, and see if any of this can
explain it. That is what you do. And this is what
Lorentz did. He took real objects, and what real
objects could do, to see if there were a way in which
what occurs could be explained.
This is what science is all about. And anyone
who does not do it right, then the only way you can
defend your way is to resist all others who might be
doing it in a more correct way. And that is what is
being done right here on this net.
You people are all sick. You are not scientific.
If you were scientific, you would have (you would
demand) that the very best alternant approaches were
clearly and correct presented and understood. You
would insist that the best alternant would be
presented just as positive as possible. You would
make sure that the weaknesses of the presently
accepted approach were carefully and fully presented.
But you make no effort to do any of these things.
They actually seem to be unthinkable for you to do
these things.

Never have I been more ashamed. How can you
ignore the weaknesses of SR? There is nothing wrong
with tooting the strengths of SR. That is
scientific. But to admit that there are other
approaches that also are just as perfect in their
predictions is a scientific requirement. To
understand that there are no tests in evidence that
presently invalidates certain other approaches is a
scientific requirement. To explain that math is not
physical is a requirement.
If people cannot physically construct an ether,
certainly that is a weakness for LET. But cannot
someone also point out that the inability to also
physically construct this 4-D spacetime continuum
might also be a weakness for SR? And which one of
these two acts might be the most possible, or the
most realistic? These kinds of questions and
presentations are what are really needed if we are to
be scientific. And on this net, I do not see such
things being done by those who support SR.

And who is going to start to change some of these
things? Who is going to do these good things? Who
is going to really be scientific?

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

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How many dimensions are there?
    ... Miguel Rios wrote: ... about how these things in science are done. ... one of the greatest math theories that have ever ... to represent the correct physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: OBarr: The end of SR!
    ... Daryl McCullough wrote: ... Math is very useful. ... look at some science that is well known! ... meaning and nature of this physics, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SR and GR without math
    ... No other math needs to ... I just call this the methodological end of science. ... Chemists can do quite a bit with no knowledge of QM whatsoever (I don't ... > Antarctica) that are doing frontier physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: the two slits versus schrodingers cat
    ... >>2) Experimental physics has nothing to do with applied physics. ... > view from which we can define the goals of science), ... only *very* little) to do with adding dimensions ("very little" because ... that - just the math. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Big Bang Baloney....or scientific cult? [ scientific methods ]
    ... > That may be true for your science, and for some possibly Post Modernist ... of physics are like that eg the law of conservation of energy is no more ... should not be used - its context is not well defined. ... >> training but not of the type used in philosophy which is along the lines ...
    (sci.physics)