Re: The real paradoxes in SR.

"Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1180468028.149585.15720@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

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.

I would say that your 'knowing' that is a quibble.

SR experts are dumb, and that
I cannot stand!

Consider carefully the fact that some of the best minds of the last 100+
years have spent their lifetimes trying to find holes in SR.

Consider carefully the possibility that YOU are supporting a theory that
each of those scientists considered carefully as they tried to find fault
with SR.

Consider that they found LET to be less interesting and useful than SR.

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.

You have not been listening. Your opinion that it is physically impossible
IS your philosophy, it is NOT science.

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?

I don't lable people. I will leave that kind of judgement for those who
have to put others down in order to build themselves up.

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.

'What is real' is a philosophical question, not a scientific question.

You are helpless! SR
data is only measurement data, and as measurement
data, it often is false.

Data is what data is. Measurments have built in errors. Experimentors know
this and carefully analyze their data for sources of error.

Physical objects cannot
jump in time,

That is a philosophical opinion. Not a scientific statement.

A scientific statement would be that no physical object has ever been
observed to jump in time. Making such a statement requires specifying what
is meant by 'jump', 'time', and 'physical object'.


they cannot experience a break in
symmetry

A break in symmetry isn't experienced by an object.

Someone who understands the math better than I do will have to explain to
you just how the symmetries allow the math to predict things like
conservation of momentum and how breaking of a particular symmetry will
effect the predicted properties.

But what you are talking about is when people try to explain to you that
the twin problem is not symetrical. The stay at home twin does not
experience the changes in velocity that the the touring twin goes through,
so the stay at home twin doesn't see all the sights the touring twin sees,
and moving twin doesn't experience all the time that the stay at home twin
lives through.

, 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.

You are into philosopy again.

Let
us not be crazy! LET does not require anyone to be
crazy.

It just requires faith in something that can not be seen or detected.

So let us understand the superiority of LET.

That is your opinion. 99 and 44/100% of those who have carefully studied
the subject in depths that neither you nor I can even comprehend, 99.44% of
those disagree with you.

It works perfectly, in the simplest of 3-D space,
with not one single thing that is physically
impossible.

Except an aether that has no other property but to make you happy.

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.

You are attacking a philosophy that you do not like. I didn't say you were
attacking the measurment, I said 'you make it sound like you are attacking
the science, but you are not.'

To attack the science, you need to invalidate the theory by collecting data
which is contrary to the predictions of the theory.

YOU attack the philosophy. You keep denying it, but the philosophy IS what
you are attacking, not the science, not the data, the philosophy.

Please be honest with yourself! I don't ask you to be honest with me.

Honesty with self is critical to staying sane.

A person honest with theirself does NOT need to accuse others of being
stupid or to think that one must be crazy to believe a particular theory
might be correct.

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.

That was known earlier, MMX put the lid on the coffin, but Heisenberg
supplied the final nail and Einstein drove it in.

So what we measure
with the tools we have to use cannot be accepted
without being very thoughtful and careful.

That is even more true under SR/GR than LET.

It is
that simple. Real objects cannot do what SR
measurements say they do.

Nor can real objects do what LET says they do.

And so we need to be sure
that we understand all this.

"real objects" do exactly what SR says they do.
"real objects" do exactly what LET says they do.

We either have to place our faith in an explanation based upon math or we
have to place our faith in an unseen, undetectable 'aether'.

But placing faith is required, either way.

The true scientist makes his 'faith' tennative and always searches for ways
to test the theory, hoping to find a place that the theory breaks down, for
in that break down is the possibility of learning something new.

LET has no new roads to explore, nothing new that can be tested. Any test
of SR is ALSO a test of LET. BUT SR allows for further exploration with the
hope of finding regions where it breaks down. It is already known to break
down under high G conditions. GR explains why. There is no explanation as
to why LET breaks down under high G conditions. LET is a dead end.

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!

Math is the servant. Let it serve you


<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!

Shame on all that present any theory in a distorted way just because they
disagree with it.

<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.

Except helping others do good things.



--
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.
    ... the math is correct in predicting what ... No philosophy that I know of would allow ... data is only measurement data, ... science, but you are not. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_Meyer=27s_Argument_against_G=F6del=27s_Theorem?=
    ... I'm pleased that my novel about Gödel's ontological proof got ... Combining math & philosophy is dicey. ... consistent, well, that's a proof that it is indeed consistent. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • 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: 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)
  • Re: How can DHRs be This Stupid?
    ... >> | math, but the math can be deceiving. ... >> | measurement purposes. ... >> Deimos orbits Mars, or for that matter the Moon orbits the Earth, how will ... To be more to the point, what is the physicality of ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading