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

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

Phil <cms...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
. . . . .

<deletes>

O'Barr wrote:
And of course you are not being very honest.

Phil <cms...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Gerald, that is an offensive statement. I am being
honest. The reason you think it dishonest, is
because you don't know how to "explain" all the
things with the practice of SR. I can clearly see
how both systems work, why they work, how they are
similar, and even how they are different.

O'Barr comments:
Let us see what I might mean: You say, right
here, that you can clearly see how both systems work.
But you did not say that you saw how LET works! I
have to guess that you are saying that you know how
LET works. And yet, at no time have I seen the SR
FAQ say that SR experts know that LET works! They
just do not say this. So what should I really
believe? Do you really see clearly that LET works or
don't you?
Again, from time to time, other SR experts will
say that LET works. They not only say that LET
works, but that it is totally identical to SR in ever
way. Now that is a very damming statement. If LET
is really identical to SR in terms of all scientific
experiments (and it is, because it really does have
the identical math), then LET is just as scientific
as SR.
But these other SR experts will not help me
defend LET. They will not change the SR FAQ! Why is
that?

When you and others, even right here in this
series of posts, are saying things that say that LET
will not work or is not as scientific as SR, the real
SR experts never come on board to explain that it
does work. Why is that? To me, it is the grosses
indication of living a lie that anyone can do.
Either LET works or it does not. If it works, then
SR FAQ should explain that it works. All true
scientists are always willing and anxious to always
clearly and completely show all alternate ways of
seeing things, especially if there really is true
competition. But not on this net! Not lately!

O'Barr wrote:
What does the ether do for us:
1) The ether provides to us a simpler theory!

Phil <cms...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It merely seems simpler to you because you are
familiar with it. Lack of familiarity with SR makes
it seems complex to you.

O'Barr comments:
O.K. Phil! What happened to your honesty? It
does not matter beans what anyone's feelings might
be. This is science. You tell me what is simpler, a
one-dimensional drawing or a two-dimensional drawing?
You tell me what is simpler, a three dimensional
theory, or a four dimensional theory? Familiarity
might be your personal problem, but to take a theory
that requires physically impossible things is not
simple. It is physically too complicated to even be
real, let alone actual reality. Sure, on a math
level, it can provide to us a proper model of our
measurements. But it cannot even begin to tell us
what our reality is actually doing. It is dumb to
think that physical things can actually be 4-D. You
are living as lie. And LET proves it. Reality is
just a simple 3-D reality, and this solves all of our
problems, not just one!


O'Barr wrote:
2) It allows us to have a simple 3-D theory.

Phil <cms...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
4-D can be a simple when you wrap your head around
what it is. Do that instead of wrapping your head
around what it isn't, and you will understand why
ether needs more justification than modeling
relativity alone.

O'Barr comments:
I guess wrapping your head around things is a very
simple thing to do for some. By wrapping your head,
I guess you mean going insane. Yes, when one uses a
physical theory (such as LET), then it becomes
obvious where the next step of learning could take
place. That is a blessing, not a problem. What has
happened to your science?

O'Barr wrote:
3) It allows us the simplest physical theory.

Phil <cms...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You've merely repeated what you have already
stated.

O'Barr comments:
Well, let me repeat what I intended to say:
LET gives us 1) a simpler theory!
2) a 3-D theory!
3) a physical theory!
Now it might be true that all three of these
points could be mutually supporting each other. And
thus, you might think we are saying the same thing in
each of these points. And we just might be doing
that. But yet, when people are being difficult, such
as you really are doing, I find it helpful to say
things more than once, and to more clearly state the
real problem:
It is important to be both simple, and physical,
and 3-D. All these points are in favor of LET, and
SR has to be rejected on all three accounts!
And you, of course, do not seem willing or even
able to accept one single point. Why is that? These
points being made are clear and exact and cannot be
argued. But you want to say that it is just in my
mind! You want to say that it is just because I am
not as well educated as you. You say it is just
because I do not understand as you understand.
Well, I do understand when we have left the world
of physics, and have entered into the world of
religion. And you are saying things that are
obviously sick and mentally demented. And I believe
you are doing this because you have been taught to
say and to believe these things. But LET really is
simpler, it really is physical, and it really is 3-D,
and SR is not simpler, it is not physical, and it is
not 3-D. And thus, SR is a loser on all three
accounts. It is sick and cannot be accepted when
compared to LET.

O'Barr wrote:
4) It provides to us causes and effects.

Phil <cms...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Causes and effects to explain why the rules of
traditional geometry are broken, is but one reason
LET is not simpler. SR seeks to just accept the
world as it seems. LET makes to world comply with
geometry that the world would otherwise rebuke.

O'Barr comments:
And you call this science? Because having
explanations take more words than by not having any
explanations, then a theory is no longer simple if it
provides to us explanations? Yes, SR sure wins on
this issue, it has zero explanations for everything.
That does make it simple.
I have never heard any real physicist reject
causes and effects because they add more to a theory.
If that does not prove that SR experts are crazy, I
cannot think of anything else that could qualify
more.

There is no value in continuing these comments. If
someone is going to say anything just to support
their favorite theory, that is not science. It is a
total waste of time.

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



Phil, I am sorry if I was too hard on you here, but
what I am saying above was not for you as much as it
was for others who might read it. Some of your
following remarks that I left out are a little
better. But you really should be more careful. I do
appreciate your reading my posts even if we disagree.



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: We Robot
    ... experiencing has no effect on behavior. ... Why does describing something in terms of the laws of physics ... A physicalist (call him Phil) looks at a robot which passes the Turing test ... This means that Phil considers consciousness to be irrelevant to ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
    ... thread was to respond to Phil who seemed to be thinking about what ... Stop flaming people so much for such pathetic reasons and get a ... Try resorting to talking about physics for a change. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
    ... thread was to respond to Phil who seemed to be thinking about what ... Stop flaming people so much for such pathetic reasons and get a ... Try resorting to talking about physics for a change. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Our greatest problem!
    ... Phil wrote: ... The greatest problem we face in today's physics ... the math to be correct. ... in all frames. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Pinging BigPhil and Biff theJack
    ... If they didn't jump onto the hotplates by ... accident, what makes you believe they jumped onto them ... What part of "nope, no more explanations" didn't you understand, Phil? ...
    (rec.pets.dogs.behavior)