Re: The religious worship of SR.
- From: Igor <thoovler@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:20:54 -0000
On Jun 26, 3:37 pm, "Gerald L. O'Barr" <glob...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The religious worship of SR.
When one finds a good way to live, to exercise
faith in the living of this good life can be correct
and desirable. But faith in a scientific theory is
not allowed. In science, support for any theory must
be based upon the results of measurements made of all
possible tests that the trained mind can consider.
If there is one failure, it is promptly noted as a
weakness, and more testing and wider investigation is
instantly began.
SR is a perfect example why faith cannot be
allowed in science. In SR, if any test indicates any
problem, the SR experts do not see it as a weakness.
They see it as being something to be removed even if
you have to change the meaning of words. Let us look
at just a few examples of these inappropriate acts.
In SR, there is a principle that velocity is
relative. It is used to accept the fact that if A is
moving away from B with velocity v, then B is moving
away from A with velocity of v. But in SR, it is
much more than just this equality in a measured
magnitude. It is an acceptance of the fact that one
velocity is the exact equal of the other in all ways,
not just in this equality of the magnitude v. This
is a mindless belief, in that it is not even really
necessary. And no one can really accept such a thing
in science, since to say (or believe) ***in all
ways*** is impossible to first of all consider in
your mind, and impossible to fully test.
Well, the paradox of the twins shows that not all
relative velocity is equal. Even though twin A has
the identical relative velocity as twin B, and twin B
has the identical relative velocity as twin A, they
do end up being different. Thus, the effects of the
relative velocity in this problem does not end up
being equal in all ways. And thus this blind belief
in relative velocity being equal in all ways is false
and cannot be supported by any scientific reasoning.
But when you worship, what do you do? Why you do
what SR experts do! You ignore it. You recognize
that it exists, but you give it a name. You call it
a break in symmetry. So now it is official. We can
keep this break in symmetry, and because we have
named it, then SR remains good and strong.
But who can accept a theory that has a break in
its symmetry? Only someone who worships the theory!
And this is what has happened. Today, in SR, there
can be many breaks in symmetry, and no one cares.
Why do they not care? Maybe because the math works!
In the case of SR, the math, being an absolute
reference frame math, the real differences between
absolute velocities and relative velocities is
present, and accounts for these breaks. In the
paradox of the twins, any twin who follows a straight
line in space has a shorter absolute path than a twin
who does not follow a straight line, and thus one
must have had less absolute speed than the other.
But a theory is more than just math. It is the
principles upon which the math is based. And the
principles of SR, in terms of the paradox of the
twins, are broken, and cannot be repaired. SR is a
destroyed belief. It is no longer an acceptable
scientific theory. Its principle of symmetry has
been fully and completely broken, no matter how
perfect the math might be.
Let us repeat this at least one more time: If
the math of SR itself confirms that there is a break
in symmetry, then that is in itself direct proof that
the principles upon which SR was formulated by
Einstein were in error. This fact cannot be escaped.
What this means is that there must be other ways of
deriving the same math, without using the same
assumptions of Einstein.
Let us look at another example: The mass of a
photon. Yes a photon does have mass. For many years
we all talked about the mass of a photon. But today,
in SR, they went to a specific effort to change the
definition of the word mass so that no one today can
say that a photon has mass. So SR again can remain
correct in the eyes of the experts. Such an act
shows the desperation that SR experts have in making
sure that SR is perfect. They will even change the
very meaning of words to fit the theory, rather than
admit that there might be a weakness to some of the
principles being used.
Please note that before they changed the
definition of this word, they had every ability
to talk about rest mass, as a mass, and kinetic
energy mass as a mass, or just talked about mass in
general. There was no reason at all to change
anything. But they did. And the only reason to
change it was due to worship.
But guess what, all you SR experts: We today can
still measure the mass of a photon. And guess what,
the value of the mass of a photon is exactly the same
as it has always been. Exactly the same! No matter
how you change the definition of words, they cannot
affect the results of measurements.
And now, let us consider the words of relative
velocity itself. Today, no SR expert will allow the
normal meaning of these words. No one can say that
the light that goes by any frame is ever anything but
c. So by definition, relative velocity of light only
means c. So now when anyone says relative velocity,
and it is not c, then it is not relative velocity.
Isn't that great!
Yes, the measured velocity of the approach of
light to a frame might be only one-half c, and the
measured departing velocity of light from this same
frame might be only one-half c. And thus, the actual
measured velocity of light passing this frame
certainly was measured to be only one-half c. But
you are not allowed to say it. No! We cannot allow
SR to be wrong. We are not allowed to say that what
was measured was the relative velocity of light going
past the frame. Relative velocity is only allowed to
be those measurements where the value that is
measured is to be c. Isn't that great! The value of
the measurement is what now determines the name of
the measurement!
But no matter how any definitions might change,
the actual measured velocity of light going past all
frames is not c, except when you are measuring this
fact for your own frame. Even in Einstein's train
example, the speed of light going past the train,
when measured by the ones in the track frame, will be
c-v, and c+v, exactly. It would be impossible for it
to be anything else, or else the very math of SR
could not be shown to be correct.
As physicists, we have to know that SR math is LET
math. Therefore, any measurements made in SR have to
give the identical answers as required in LET. And
now with all the data that has been collected, we now
have SR confirming LET from start to finish.
Everything that is required in LET has been directly
and completely established.
Those SR experts who are not willing to accept
these facts are putting their entire reputations into
question. We will no longer accept a theory that has
a broken symmetry. We will no longer accept a theory
that does not even allow the mass of a photon to be
recognized even when such a mass can be measured. We
will no longer accept a theory that does not allow
one to say that the speed of light going passed a
frame is different than c, even when such is measured
by all frames for all other frames.
We will no longer believe in a theory that
believes in things that are physically impossible.
We will no longer believe in a theory that requires a
belief in a 4-D spacetime continuum even when there
is no physical evidence to sustain such a belief.
We accept SR math because it works. But the
explanations being used by SR experts are silly, and
impossible, and no longer are acceptable.
Now several weaknesses of SR were mentioned up
above. If even one of these things that were said
were correct, then that would make SR to be an
unacceptable theory. But here I believe all these
things are correctly stated. And if so, there can no
longer be this blind acceptance of SR, or this
religious like acceptance of SR. It has come to an
end.
Thank you for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>
Remove ... for e-mail.
So you're saying that Euclidean geometry is silly and a religion?
.
- References:
- The religious worship of SR.
- From: Gerald L. O'Barr
- The religious worship of SR.
- Prev by Date: Re: Please help us to recover the Ark of The Covenant
- Next by Date: Re: How does the photon's Electric Field generate electricity?
- Previous by thread: Re: The religious worship of SR.
- Next by thread: Re: The religious worship of SR.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
