Re: O'Barr: Modifications of SR have begun.
- From: "Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 14:44:18 -0700
Subject: Re: O'Barr: Modifications of SR have begun.
PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
O'Barr: Modifications of SR have begun.
<deletes by O'Barr>
PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Two comments:
1. The statement above (that the velocity of light
is MEASURED to be the same constant, c, in all
inertial reference frames) is not AT ALL the same as
saying that light will be said from one reference
frame to be going past all other reference frames at
c. Do you understand the difference between these
two statements.
O'Barr comments:
Absolutely I understand the difference. And those
who are using the tools in their own frame are using
different tools than those who are in some other
frame. And if their tools are different, then sure,
they could each measure something different. The
problem is not understanding these differences, but
who is correct? Reality cannot really be different
just because someone is in one frame and someone else
is in another frame. If light is measured to be
going at c in one frame, but it is not going at c in
another frame, who is correct? What if 50 different
frames say it is not c, and only one frame says it is
c! Who do you believe? Is anyone correct?
They might have all done their measurements
correctly with their own tools, but the measurements
cannot all be correct in terms of reality. Only one
or none of them are correct, they cannot all be
correct in terms of actual reality. Surely you can
understand this, can you not?
PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
2. What is MEASURED to be true in nature is
obviously physically possible.
O'Barr comments:
Not since the MMX experiment! Once we observe
that our tools are changeable tools, the rulers can
change their lengths, and clocks can change their
rates, then you would have to be stupid to think that
what we measure can be directly trusted. No thinking
individual would dare say what you have just said.
And this is where SR experts are the most stupid.
They often say and think that their measurements are
what is. But we now know that this is not possible!
When you have changeable tools, then you cannot be
sure of getting correct answers. You would have to
be insane to think like these SR experts.
PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thus, by measuring it to be the case, we have
allowed nature to demonstrate what is impossible and
what is not.
O'Barr comments:
You are funny. No! With changeable tools, what
is measured is no longer what is real. Nature, as
determined by changeable tools, cannot really be our
reality. Any and every thinking individual now knows
this. Where have you been?
PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
We do not get to decide that for nature.
O'Barr comments:
Absolutely correct! Nature is nature, and does
what nature requires. But we are scientists, and we
have a brain, and we have the ability to figure out
what nature is doing. And we have figured it out.
And we now know exactly how nature is acting, in
order for us to measure what is measured.
PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What you may be confused about is how it is
*algrebraically* possible that this happens.
O'Barr comments:
I am sorry. LET is algebraically perfect. There
are no math mistakes in LET!
PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You have it in your head that if some object (a
photon or not) is moving at some speed v relative
to some inertial reference frame, and that if
another reference frame is moving at speed u along
the same axis relative to the first frame, then the
speed of the object relative to the second
reference frame MUST be (v +/- u).
O'Barr comments:
Well, let me tell you what I believe. If all your
observations are in the same frame, using the same
tools, velocities all add up in a vector fashion. Do
you disagree with this? And thus, if in any one
frame, you actually do see a difference between the
motions of two different objects, then in any other
frame, you will also see a difference in their
motions, if your tools and measruements are correct.
So let us measure, all in one frame, that each
frame has a different motion with respect to a
specific photon. Since both of these measurements
were made in the same frame, then there really were a
difference in the motions of these two frames, and
this difference is real, and must be real in all
other frames.
So now, if you have a situation where each of
these frames say that they are moving at c with
respect to the same photon, or with respect to any
other real object, then you know that they are wrong.
Their measurements are not correct according to
reality. And thus, any science that says that their
measurements are correct is also wrong, and silly,
and impossible. QED.
PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This is the SOLE basis for saying that SR's claim
is impossible.
O'Barr comments:
My goodness. This is funny! Over the years, I
have listed over 10 reasons why SR is not a valid or
acceptable theory. How about all its breaks in
symmetry? How about all of its jumps in times? How
about all of its inconsistent handling of the mass of
a photon? SR cannot give a single reason why light
is a constant, or how a photon knows exactly how fast
to go at all points in space, or why the math forms
of all frames are the same. SR is the weakest theory
that has ever existed. And you say I have only one
reason? This post is the funniest post I have ever
answered. Why are you trying to make any of these
funny points? You don't have anything else to do?
PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
However, your algebraic assumption is simply WRONG.
Nature does not in fact behave that way. The speed
of the object in the second reference frame is
instead (v +/- u)/(1 +/-v*u/c^2). You will note that
if the object is a photon and has speed c, then in
ANY other reference frame, the speed of that photon
is (c +/- u)/(1 +/- c*u/c*2) and two lines of
arithmetic will tell you this quantity is c, no
matter what u is. Since this result agrees with
experiment, we must conclude that (v +/- u)/(1 +/-
v*u/c^2) is correct and (v +/- u) is INCORRECT,
thereby removing the source of the issue that leads
you to think it impossible.
O'Barr comments:
Well, I just don't know how to answer you. I
guess if I ever need to take the measurements of one
frame, and combine them into another, then I will
give you a call.
Let me delete all the rest of this post.
PD, in SR, in any frame, even the frame of this
earth in which we make our measurements, we are
capable of determining our complete realty. To
determine it by our measurements, and by our
intellect. And if do not use our intellect, then our
measurements will not be sufficient.
And in order to determine our reality, we do not
have to transform our measurements into any other
frame, or put it into the same form as what some
other frame would measure it. All of your thinking
up above is totally useless talk.
But thanks for trying anyway.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- O'Barr: Modifications of SR have begun.
- From: Gerald L. O'Barr
- Re: O'Barr: Modifications of SR have begun.
- From: PD
- O'Barr: Modifications of SR have begun.
- Prev by Date: Re: O'Barr: Modifications of SR have begun.
- Next by Date: Re: THE PHYSICAL TRANSFORMATION EQUATIONS
- Previous by thread: Re: O'Barr: Modifications of SR have begun.
- Next by thread: Re: O'Barr: Modifications of SR have begun.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
