Re: The real paradoxes in SR.

Subject: Re: The real paradoxes in SR.

bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You do not deny the results of SR Math.

O'Barr wrote:
That is right. Are you praising or complaining?

bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Neither. Just observing the fact. From your
attitude toward SR, it would seem that there MUST be
something wrong with the math.

O'Barr comments:
It sure sounds like to me I am talking to a bunch
of dead chickens. I have said that SR and LET are
the same theory. They use the same math. In fact,
you even call your math transforms the Lorentz
transforms. In your so called relative theory, you
end up using absolute reference frame math. Don't
you know anything? So how can I be upset over your
math, if you are using absolute reference frame math?
I can't. Your math is perfect. It gets the correct
math answers. And I am getting tired that you people
are so dumb that you cannot understand these simplest
things.

O'Barr wrote:
No one can be more scientific than I have been.

bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Your prejudices are showing.
You are NOT showing scientific impartiality.

O'Barr wrote:
I am certainly against SR interpretations.
And I assure you I am
correct in this position.

bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Such a level of self assurance is not the mark of a
scientist. It is the mark of a priest that has
unconditional faith in his religion and believes
every one who is not saved by reading HIS version of
'the book' is going to hell.

O'Barr comments:
O.K. just for you, I strongly think I am right.
Is that better? Of course, for 13 years I have heard
the SR experts present their SR beliefs as being the
most well proved theory that has ever existed, and
anyone would be dumb not to accept it. These SR
experts all say that it is dumb to pay any attention
to LET! Are you ready to attack all these SR experts
just like you are attacking me?


bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Do you not see that 'your faith' makes it
impossible for anyone to discuss anything
scientific with you?

O'Barr comments:
Well, there is science and there is science.
Right this minute you are not talking science. You
have ran away from the actual subject, and you are
only talking about things that might be important,
but they certainly are not addressing the physics
that is under discussion. Why is that? I believe
that you have no knowledge at all about anything, and
you are wasting my time for nothing.

bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You can not even let yourself hear anything that
might shake your faith.

O'Barr comments:
But that should not keep you from making
scientific responses, does it, unless you want it to
stop you. So why do you allow this to stop you? Are
you too sick today to actually talk about the
physics?

bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The words do not get past the censors in your brain.
People tell you things and you do not see the things
they tell you.

O'Barr comments:
Keep it up. Keep talking about me. That allows
you to not say anything scientific. That makes you a
total loser!


O'Barr wrote:
SR is not physically
possible, and only LET can provide to us a correct
physical understanding of our reality.

bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Such a level of surity shows that you are NOT
scientific.

O'Barr comments:
Then be a man and show us all how to be
scientific! If I am too sure of things, then show my
errors. For you to sit here and just infer that am
too much this or too much that is sinful! How dare
you not state what I say that cannot or should not be
said, and if such is the case, then state it the way
it should be said. I do say exactly what my position
is. Do you mean to say that you have no position at
all, except that I am wrong? That is stupid. And
your actions are stupid.


bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
A scientist is always looking for ways to DISPROVE
his favorite theory. It is by disproving the
theory that he can learn.

O'Barr comments:
Perfect! So show me the SR efforts to disprove
SR! Show me these correct scientific acts! SR
experts have never made a positive presentation of
LET. They refuse to criticize SR. Even thought it
is the weakest of all physical theories, they cannot
even use the words that have to be used to criticize
it, because they will not to do such things.



bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You seek to disprove ONLY the OTHER theories.
That is not the mark of a true scientist.

O'Barr comments:
My goodness. You sound just like Rene. All he
wanted to talk about was philosophy. With
philosophy, of course, there is less being right or
wrong. It was a lot safer subject. You seem to like
safe subjects. Is there a reason for this?


bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You have never tried to wrap your mind around the
idea that even the idea that 1 inch + 1 inch = 2
inches requires that you make many assumptions.
Assumptions that may well not be true but that we
AGREE to make, provisionally, until some way to test
those assumptions comes along. At that point, the
scientist is ready (given sufficient evidence) to
discard those assumptions.

O'Barr comments:
You mean, I have never thought that the
Mississippi River actually flows up-hill? It really
does. And that we do not get our 21% excess oxygen
from trees. Trees die and decay and generally take
back all the oxygen they have ever produced. And
there is no stable mechanism associated with any of
these acts to hold a constant 21 percent. There is
never enough oxygen produced by trees and all other
plants (land and ocean) to account for the oxygen
that is actually seen and used. Do you really care
about these things, or are you just talking again?


bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You cling to them as the priest clings to his worry
beads. 'Not physically possible', 'Physical
understanding of our reality.' Those are your worry
beads and you will not even put them down long
enough to consider the possibility that the math of
SR/GR is BETTER than a physical model that rests
[hidden at the bottom of the physical model] upon
more fantastic assumptions than the math rests upon.

O'Barr comments:
Thank you, bz. So you are a mathematician. Math
is king to you. You do not care about a real
physical reality. No wonder there was no
communications with you. Thanks for telling us that
you are not really a physicist.


bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Perhaps it IS turtles, all the way down, perhaps
not, we will probably never know what the great
turtle stands upon, and it is not something we can
study through science.

O'Barr comments:
Yes, you make reality to sound impossible. You
say it is so impossible that science cannot even
handle it. But actually that is one purpose of
science, to push as far as we can. And today, we are
not pushing. We think too many wrong things. We
have fallen in love with the math (it sure is
easier), and we have somewhat given up on the
physical approach.
But things are going to change. And the day will
come when these days will be known as the darkest of
the dark ages of our science. We today believe in
physically impossible things, like 4-D, like change
with no change, like something being two opposite
ways all at the same time, like jumps in times, like
breaks in symmetry, like virtual photons, like life
coming from dead things, like a million and one
things. And it is a shame that no one is man enough
to say that all these things are a weakness in our
present thinking and theories.

No thanks this time.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>


.

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)
  • How scientific are SR experts?
    ... this specific math construct. ... the cause of the physics for this science. ... real objects, and what real objects can do, and only ...
    (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: 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: 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)
Quantcast