Re: The velocity of light going pass a moving train.

On Jun 9, 7:22 pm,
Phil <cms...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 9, 12:36 pm,
"Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Subject: Re: The velocity of light going pass a
moving train.

Now I did not see anything productive in your
question. Anyone could have answered it, either
using SR or LET. . .

Phil <cms...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Gerald it was a test.

O'Barr comments:
Sure, Phil, it was only a test!
And what else do you want me to
believe?

Phil <cms...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
And I was making a point. Nothing
about your "really slower" clocks
or "really shorter" rods explain
anything which can't otherwise be
modeled or explained by other means.

All you did was show how moving
inertially wrt the ERF is just the
same as resting wrt the ERF.

There is a relationship, a symmetry
shared by all frames of
reference. That's all we
can measure, thats all we
can see. So we
just do physics and model
what it is that we see. We
don't need ether to see it.
There are other uses for ether
but it doesn't add anything
to relativity which one can
do with out.

O'Barr comments:
And of course you are not being very
honest. What does the ether do for us:
1) The ether provides to us a simpler
theory! 2) It allows us to have a simple
3-D theory. 3) It allows us the simplest
physical theory. 4) It provides to us causes
and effects. 5) With these causes and
effects, we get a realistic theory.
6) We have a simpler theory in every way.
7) We get a theory that is understandable.
8) We get a theory that is believable.
9) We get a theory that is doable.
10) We get a theory that has no breaks
in symmetry.
11) We get a theory that has no jumps in
time. 12) We get a theory that has
explanations. 13) We get a theory that
limits the math the exact way the
math needs to be limited. 14) We get
an understanding of what reality is
actually doing. 15) We get an actual
example of how one type of clock actually
slows down the exact amount requried.
16) We get an example of how some dimensions
contract the exact amount required in
all direction and velocity of motion.
You do know, that in all things, LET is
superior to SR. And do you know what,
you did not mention a single one of
these advantages. Why was that? And
during all the time I have been on
this net, not at any time in your FAQ
has any of these things been said. This
makes every one of you SR experts to be
scientific liars.

So if LET does all that it does, why
don't you buy it? Only because you do
not want to. There is no science that
keeps you from doing this. But by
staying with SR, a theory that is
illogical, then you make yourselves to
be super human, because you say you
understand it. And for some reason,
you glory in all this apparent power
you have, as you say that you understand
the un-understandable. And when you
live this lie so long, your soul becomes
totally lost, and you can no longer
even admit to any truth.
What a sad life you must all live!


Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>


.

Quantcast