Re: O'Barr: Math is not Physics.

Subject: Re: O'Barr: Math is not Physics.

<many deletes>

Jeckyl <n...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In SR there is a little more to it .. there is also
a -t^2 term in there

O'Barr comments:
True, but I was only giving a 3-D example. Sorry
about your error, that you did not notice the
difference between 3-D from 4-D.

Jeckyl <n...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[snip]

O'Barr wrote:
No physical beam can do what the math does, and
no math can do what the beam does. The only thing
that can occur is that the math only correctly
models the physical.

Jeckyl <n...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yeup .. just like SR correctly models what we see ..
all the experimental data confirms it

[snip stuff saying the math models reality]

O'Barr comments:
There is a problem in what you just said, and you
refuse to admit it. Yes, SR math correctly models
what we measure. This is what we *see*! And all
experimental data (being data from our tools) will
confirm it because it is what is measured.
And this is very useful and important.
This makes SR math valuable. But in SR,
where it uses velocities that are near light speed,
what is measured is not perfectly what is actually
happening.
So up above, your fist line that says: SR
correctly models what we see, this is in a way very
correct. But then you said: the math models reality.
SR math does not model reality, it models what our
tools are going to measure in that reality. And thus
you miss every point that I try to make. And I
believe that this is on purpose.


O'Barr wrote:
So this is all that the math can be.
The math cannot be the cause, it cannot be
anything physical, and if you include each
and every step of the math, then it cannot even
model the way the physical beam actually acts.

Jeckyl <n...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yes.. that's fine

O'Barr wrote:
But in SR, this is exactly what they do,.

Jeckyl <n...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
No its not.

O'Barr wrote:
They actually believe that because the 4-D math
they use does exactly describe the results, then
it is the cause.

Jeckyl <n...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
No . .that is only your misguided belief about what
Sr says.

O'Barr comments:
Well, Jeckyl, you are sure saying that you
disagree with all this. But just saying I am wrong
is just that, just saying things. My experience on
this net spans 13 years, and I assure you I know what
I am saying.

O'Barr wrote:
And for this, they should be laughed at.

Jeckyl <n...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Like we laugh at you for suggesting it.

O'Barr comments:
I hope you are right!
But in this post, as usual, you just state that I
am wrong. This is not acceptable to me. Let me give
you a few examples of your ignorance:


You said:
There are plenty of test .. SR has passed them all.

O'Barr comments:
This is all true, SR has passed many tests. But
when you say this, to be scientific, you should also
point out that there are some very important tests
that have not yet been done. There has never yet
been a test to give evidence that there really is a
4-D spacetime continuum. There has never yet been a
test that can separate SR from LET. There has never
yet been a test that has shown that there is not an
absolute reference frame. The list is actually very
long and very important. And you are not being
scientific to say what you said up above and the way
you said it. These types of tests, which SR has not
passed or even taken, makes SR weak! Any true
scientist would say this. It has to be said.
SR is the weakest physical theory that has ever
existed!
I think you lie here on purpose, just to make
what I say to appear to be unacceptable. And this is
not fair, and it is not scientific. And I wonder why
no one picks up on it. To me, this makes all SR
experts just as unfair, and just as unacceptable. No
one should allow you to say what you say.


Another example, I, O'Barr said:
What (SR) says happens is physically impossible.

Jeckyl <n...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yet it does happen so it is (by deinfition)
physically possible. Looks like it is you who are
wrong then.

O'Barr comments:
When we measure a light pulse going at c, with
clocks that run at rates different than normal, and
with rulers that are at lengths that are different
than normal, with clocks synced at syncs that are
different than normal, we might measure c, when it is
actually slightly less or slightly more than c. If
you are not man enough to recognize this scientific
possibility makes it impossible for us to
communicate. And again, you have no right to be so
dumb and so ignorant that you are not even willing to
acknowledge the area of discussion.


O'Barr wrote:
No one object can
really be going by relative moving frames all with
the same relative velocity all at the same time.

Jeckyl <n...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Not unless that object is a massless photon moving
at the maximum speed c.

O'Barr comments:
In terms of reality, it does not matter what the
particle is. All particles must obey the same
reality. They must all obey the same logic
as all other particles. In LET all particles obey
the same physical rules. But if you say they don't
in SR, then SR is a weak theory. It is actually
an unacceptable theory, because of all these
violations of reality.

O'Barr wrote:
Certainly such funny things can happen if you are
only talking about what you measure. But no
matter what you measure, such acts are really
physically impossible.

Jeckyl <n...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yet they happen.

O'Barr comments:
No they do not really happen. It is impossible for these
things to really happen. They only appear to happen
because that is the way our tools are showing it.

Jeckyl <n...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
And the SR model gets things right that other
models get wrong.

O'Barr comments:
Technically this is not a lie, because there are
many theories that do get things wrong, and SR gets
them right. But if you are trying to infer that LET
gets something wrong that SR gets right, then we get
back to this basic question: Are you a liar, or are
you a dumb high school kid?


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


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What Does SR stand For?
    ... Jeckyl wrote: ... nice to know how the ether physically works. ... since it is only a math ... not justify a change in our standard physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: How many dimensions are there?
    ... explaining that way of nature through tools like ... you believe that SR and GR is physics! ... SR and GR are only math theories. ... that our reality is a physical ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: How many dimensions are there?
    ... explaining that way of nature through tools like ... When all we have is just the math, we have a lot, ... you believe that SR and GR is physics! ... themselves present to us our physical reality. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Gerald L. OBarr and the At Theory.
    ... Physics has been set back at least a 100 years ... events along with the math. ... Yes, to measure time, we need motion. ... our reality that change is possible and can occur. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: OBarr: SR is a weak theory, it is only math!
    ... >> The math is part of physics. ... > Physics has nothing to do with reality directly. ... SR is a weak science, and being only math, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)