Re: The real paradoxes in SR.

"Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1180224593.923457.161600@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

Subject: Re: The real paradoxes in SR.

bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Phil <cms...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
. . .

.....

The whole thing must be 'self consistent'.

O'Barr comments:
Obviously, everything that is true must internally
be self consistent. But the real test is having a
theory match up with other existing theories. SR
(and of course, LET) perfectly matches up with
Newtonian physics in its low velocity limit. This is
powerful stuff! SR (and of course, LET) perfectly
matches up with GR in the low mass (free space)
range. This is power, great power. When any theory
begins to be found to be consistent with all other
theories, then you know you have something important.
Why? Because any truth is itself consistent with all
other truth. And if you can establish a proper
correlation with all other things that you know are
correct, then the point is soon reach that the
statistics are on your side, and you can be free to
run with it.

SR/GR meets those requirements.

.....
Gerald's assumptions are not self consistent. He
insists that one of two theories is 'bad' because
his interpretations of that theory conflict with
what he feels is 'right'.

O'Barr comments:
One of a scientist's most important
responsibilities is his judgment.

And his ability to evaluate, absent prejudice, or to recognize personal
prejudice and make allowance for it. Coddling personal prejudice is NOT
scientific.

When there is a
conflict, or two theories that have to be decided
between, that is when being a scientist is the most
important. Technically, a test should be devised in
which it is possible to make the decision. But
between SR and LET, no test has yet been found which
can make a distinction between these two theories.

'correct' [depending on the 'flavor' of LET].

(In case anyone is reading this, the above statement
is a very important statement. The above statement
should be found in every article that tries to say
that SR is the acceptable theory.)

The above should be in every article that tries to say that LET is the
prefered theory.

There came a time when by vote (which is not
science), the scientists decided to swing to SR.

That is not quite how it is done. The polls never close until the fat lady
sings. Until an experimental falsification is found, a theory is never
completely dead.

It becomes 'practically dead' with it proves to be 'a dead end' because it
is too specialized (like genetic dead ends) and it stays in its own
'scientific ecological niche' while more general theories evolve and THEY
are testable.

This is fine. There isn't anything wrong with making
a decision as to which one to develop. To
concentrate on one would be preferred rather than to
try to develop both at the same time. However, when
such an unscientific decision is made, everyone
should be willing to state that such a decision was
made, and at some later date, the decision should be
revisited.

And they do and it is.

But for some reason, maybe the time was too long,
those involved did not want to revisit this
unscientific decision

It was not an unscientific decision! GR evolved from SR.
NOTHING could evolve from LET.

, and wanted to continue with
what they chose, even if there were reasons to
reconsider. This kind of action was and is not
scientific. And this is one reason why we have so
many problems today.

The inability to think scientifically is one of the reasons we have so many
problems today. People still believe in 'common sense'.


There is overt effort to force
the belief in SR, and such efforts are themselves
unscientific, even if SR were correct.

Logic forces belief in SR. Nothing else.

Actually, he has his own favorite theory that he is
trying to sell. He want to get people to go to his
web site, inhale the clouds of wisdom that
are there and worship him as a hero.

O'Barr comments:
Guilty as charged. At least, I do have my own
theory, and I do at the moment favor it over SR. I
assume my home page is still up, but I really do not
know. As to the rest of this comment, I certainly
can say that I do hope that I am right. What pain I
would feel if I found out that I was wrong.

I enjoy when I find I am wrong. It provides me with an opportunity for
learning.

But I
would feel ten times worse if I eventually found out
that I was right, and that I had not tried to get
others to see what I saw was right. Wouldn't that be
a terrible thing!

To that end, he makes statements that will be
controversial in order to keep threads going.


<deletes by O'Barr>

Both assumptions lead to predictions which can be
tested. For example Geralds assumptions
ultimately predict invariant measurement of light
speed and physical law invariance under
transformation . . .

Gerald says LET and SR use the same math so they
predict the same results. He then goes on to make
the contradictory statement that SR has paradoxes
that LET does not have. SR, being simpler, not
needing an aether, is, at the basis a series of
formula that 'work' and no 'explanation' as to why.

LET starts with a physical model and develops the
same formula. Gerald and some others are more
comfortable with a 'physically based' model.

O'Barr comments:
I might say some of these things a little bit
differently, but as a summation, it is fairly good.
Thanks for being able and willing to say it so well!

I try to speak truth and to be fair. If I fail to be fair or fail to treat
fellow human beings with the respect, I hope it will be pointed out.

They don't understand that their physically based
model has some 'non physical' assumptions under it.
And that 'faith' in those assumptions is no
different from 'faith' in the math of SR. Neither
has any justification other than 'they seem to work.

O'Barr comments:
Well, all theories are also written in words, so
they are all equal. You know, words are just words.
All theories (until we reach the TOE) will have a
limit upon which it is only assumptions. But this
does not mean that all theories are equal because of
this, and certainly, the deeper a theory goes, the
more acceptable it should be.

The deeper a theory goes, the more carefully it must be examined.

LET goes deeper than
SR.

Au contrare. LET's assumptions are more poorly stated.

SR only assumes the principles that are
developed in LET.

LET might be considered the step parent of SR. That does not make them
genetically related.

This should be important to any
thinking person.


(O'Barr) insists his interpretation of SR is
the correct interpretation AND that SR is impossible
because his interpretation doesn't makes sense to
him.

That is NOT the viewpoint of a scientist. That is
the viewpoint of a priest that mutters scientific
sounding phrases. He has faith in his 'AT' theory
and in 'LET' and no logic or reasoning will change
his mind.

He doesn't come here to LEARN as some of us do. He
doesn't come here to teach, he comes here to preach.

O'Barr comments:
I am sorry you feel this way. Very recently, I
presented actual renditions of the paradox of the
twins, which I have done from time to time, and not
at any time have I seen anyone contradict what I
showed.

Several people have, repeatedly, 'contradicted' what you said about SR and
paradoxes.

And my at theory is not just words. In
fact, I have even posted my basic program that shows
on the computer some of the things that the at theory
can do, to include what LeSage could not do, form
attractive forces (gravity) out of ultra mundane
particles.
It might be correct that I do a lot of preaching,
but at any time anyone could pin my ears back,
because I have presented in detail what I believe, by
math, in fixed equations, and these points cannot be
denied.

You do not deny the results of SR Math.

No one can be more scientific than I have
been.

Your prejudices are showing.

You are NOT showing scientific impartiality.


--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+nanae@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+spr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The real paradoxes in SR.
    ... present to observe it. ... The whole thing must be 'self consistent'. ... Newtonian physics in its low velocity limit. ... the scientists decided to swing to SR. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Got to laugh
    ... > take it down the drive and put it in the car, ... There seems to be two extremes of opposing views: the subjectivists where a ... Scientists as a breed tend to be ... know about anyone else but my hearing is far from consistent which will be ...
    (uk.rec.audio)
  • Re: The real paradoxes in SR.
    ... which, even if consistent in principal, are not subject to ... That should be extended to all scientists. ... laws of physics as now known and with all our other observations, ... the correct interpretation AND that SR is impossible because his ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Evolution is not a fact
    ... In science, an explanation of observations that meets the criteria of ... explanation than merely an explanation consistent with a single ... polymath genius to realize where all these hard-working scientists ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution and Observation Gap
    ... Mark VandeWettering wrote: ... It is consistent with the general scientific usage. ... I wonder why you might think that discussing science ... with people who aren't scientists and don't understand science would be ...
    (talk.origins)
Quantcast