Re: The demise of SR.

Subject: Re: The demise of SR.

Randy Poe <poespam-t...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The demise of SR.
(What has O'Barr done?)

What I have written in several previous posts...
. . .

Randy Poe <poespam-t...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
... is garbled.

O'Barr comments:
Well, it might be. I know that what I write is
almost always full of misspelled words, and I
sometimes even say things that are wrong. But in
general, most people can understand what was meant,
and we often find some communications occurring.
But I note that you did not quote any of my
postings to show how it was garbled. If I had to
guess, you are not able to say anything, but you felt
that you had to say something, so you are just
faking it. If you can't understand it, why did you
even respond? You are a waste of time!

O'Barr wrote about what was said, that it:
should be the demise of SR.

Randy Poe <poespam-t...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
No, the failure of one student to learn a subject
does not mean the subject is at fault.

O'Barr comments:
If any student fails to properly understand, then
any good teacher can explain to him how he has
misunderstood. And most important of all, a good
teacher can show the correct way of saying and
explaining it. How come you are unable to say what
it was that I garbled? And how come you can not say
what is correct and show us a correct explanation?
Don't you know what a break in symmetry is? Don't
you know anything? Why are you just talk?

O'Barr wrote:
But not one of
the SR experts will even address the issue.

Randy Poe <poespam-t...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The fact that you haven't seen the answers does
not prevent them from existing.

O'Barr comments:
Just as the fact that you are not showing any of
these facts also shows that you know nothing?

Randy Poe <poespam-t...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Your main problem seems to be the same one that a
number of cranks have: the inability to distinguish
between a velocity (i.e. the rate of change of
position of the coordinates of some object in
some frame) and a closing rate (i.e. a difference
in two velocities, but which is not a rate of
change of coordinates in any frame).


O'Barr comments:
Let us be exact: Anyone can know if you are
mathematically measuring a relative velocity between
a frame and an object, or measuring it directly
between two objects. The problem is, what are the
physical differences in these two methods? After
all, one could use a third object as a base, and do
it as a function between two objects, as measured by
their relative velocity between the one object as a
base. Will this make a third class measurement
system? Somehow, you have become crazy, and you
cannot see that the way a measurement is made is
immaterial, if the measurement method is sound and
correct.
The physical fact is the relative motion. The
frame in which it is measured cannot change the
physical facts. If two objects are on a collision
course, then they are on a collision course no matter
what frame is used. It does not matter what method
is used. If the collision velocity is large enough
to cause one of the objects to break apart, it is
going to break apart no matter what frame you use, or
how you calculate the impact velocity. If there are
differences in these physical facts, then SR is a
broken theory, and must be rejected.
And so you do not know what you are talking about.
All you are doing is repeating what you have been
told by SR experts, and what you have been told is
pure junk. It does not matter how you measure these
physical things, as long as the math is correct. And
the math is correct, and SR experts are silly and
their thinking is physically impossible, even by how
they handle their own math.

Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>
Remove ... for e-mail.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Errors being made by SR experts.
    ... Jeckyl wrote: ... somthing relative to your own frame is real. ... 'this measurement of c is not.' ... In SR it is just said that the velocity of light ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Errors being made by SR experts.
    ... that the REAL velocity of the ... photon in that second frame MUST BE ... And that measurement is done for the frame they are in. ... then all of relativity is wrong. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: OBarr comments to the net.
    ... Jeckyl wrote: ... and what might be just a measurement made ... relative velocity, but you have never explained how ... the train, as measured in the frame of the tracks, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Types of SR measurements.
    ... correspond to a measurement or a measurable ... in each frame. ... relative velocity of light in all reference frames ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: "The Error in Relativistic Physics"
    ... The Science of Physics is based upon the making of measurements. ... another degree of freedom was added to the concept of measurement ... velocity is attributed to Dr. Einstein who showed, ... Special theory of Relativity, ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
Loading