Re: The real paradoxes in SR.

Subject: Re: The real paradoxes in SR.

bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
. . .

<deletes by O'Barr>

bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You admit the math of SR is right.

O'Barr comments:
Certainly, the math is correct in predicting what
will be measured. But LET is quick to point out that
what is measured is with tools that can really be
different than what we think. And thus, what is
actually happening is sometimes different than what
the measurement is showing.

bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The only quibble you have with SR is that you don't
like its philosophical basis.

O'Barr comments:
I have no quibble at all about SR. I do know that
the interpretations given to SR by SR experts are
physically impossible. SR experts are dumb, and that
I cannot stand! It has nothing to do with anyone's
philosophy. No philosophy that I know of would allow
physical objects to do what is physically impossible.

bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You DO realize that the philosophical basis IS what
you are attacking, don't you?

You are not attacking the data. You are not
attacking the math. That only leaves the philosophy.

O'Barr comments:
And how stupid and silly do you think I am? How
can you say that this is all that there is! We have
just said that since the tools are changeable tools,
then we have what is measured (data), and what is
real. This is the subject. Philosophy is no where
to be seen in any of this. You are helpless! SR
data is only measurement data, and as measurement
data, it often is false. Physical objects cannot
jump in time, they cannot experience a break in
symmetry, they cannot both be going slower and faster
at the same time, photons cannot really go by all
frames with the exact same relative velocities. Let
us not be crazy! LET does not require anyone to be
crazy. So let us understand the superiority of LET.
It works perfectly, in the simplest of 3-D space,
with not one single thing that is physically
impossible.


bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You make it sound like you are attacking the
science, but you are not. The science could be
invalidated by data, but that is not what you are
trying to do as that would also invalidate LET.

O'Barr comments:
You are totally off base. I am not attacking SR
measurements. What SR measures is what SR measures.
What is done in error is where SR experts forget what
happened in the MMX. The MMX showed to us all that
tools are no longer trustworthy. So what we measure
with the tools we have to use cannot be accepted
without being very thoughtful and careful. It is
that simple. Real objects cannot do what SR
measurements say they do. And so we need to be sure
that we understand all this.

bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I can't argue the science with you because the
science IS the math.

O'Barr comments:
And that young man is the real problem. The
science is neither the math nor the measurements.
Man determines the science, and man controls the
math. The math does not control anything. Math is
the servant, not the god!

<deletes by O'Barr>

bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You ask for scientific critique but you KNOW that
there is no scientific critique that can tell the
difference between SR and LET.

O'Barr comments:
Yes I do know this, but most SR experts do not.
And because this is correct, then no SR expert has
the scientific right to dismiss LET. And any honest
scientist would present LET in its most favorable
light so that a correct comparison is possible.
Shame on all SR experts who are not scientific in
their assessments of LET!

<deletes by O'Barr of a lot of good things>


bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What expertice do you claim?

O'Barr comments:
I think I have, on my own, tied my shoes a couple
of times too.
Congratulations on all the good things you have
done and are doing. There is nothing better than
having done good things.

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

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The real paradoxes in SR.
    ... the math is correct in predicting what ... No philosophy that I know of would allow ... You are not attacking the data. ... data is only measurement data, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: OBarr: Changes in lengths and rates are real!
    ... you have any math in SR that is not allowed to be ... conclude that all frames are equal, on a measurement ... because, first of all, it is correct science as far ... Most physicists have ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • The Proper understanding of Modern Physics.
    ... The Proper understanding of Modern Physics. ... There is no desire to destroy the math of SR. ... The MMX disproved the ether. ... measurement, but we also had to then determine what ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Our epistemologies are prejudiced by our personal theories
    ... >> measurement or any other infallibility of anything which man does. ... >> presumption of science includes that infallibility. ... > You shouldn't talk about philosophy because you don't have the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Why a Problem?
    ... >> today seem to accept a 4-D spacetime as a reality. ... It is true, math is math, and 4D math has existed ... or within any transformations between frames (which ... would be measured if you had a certain measurement ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)