Re: Errors being made by SR experts.

Subject: Re: Errors being made by SR experts.

Pmb <some...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Errors being made by SR experts.
. . .

<many deletes made here that are not identified by O'Barr>

O'Barr wrote:
SR experts say many things that are not correct.

Pmb <some...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
... what makes you think that you're not wrong and are
just unable to comprehend it?

O'Barr comments:
Such things as this have certainly occurred, even for
me. But I have noticed several things. The making of
errors are greatly reduced when there begins to be several
different and independent correlations established with a
particular or specific point of view. If what you are
proposing is just an isolated fact, then the odds are
increased that you just might be wrong. But if what you
are proposing is something that becomes supported by
several independent concepts, then your odds of being
correct is improved. LET is supported in a multitude of
ways (even in more ways than SR), being both with the
correct math and with a supporting physical base.
Thus, LET, has every support as SR has in terms of
measurements. But LET also has much more. It is able to
bring to the table explanations that SR cannot provide.
And your rejections of these explanations are not
justified. In fact, it is unscientific not to understand
these additional explanations that are provided by LET,
and are missing in SR.

O'Barr wrote: . . .
SR experts say that the speed of light in all
reference frames is c.


O'Barr comments:
The problem here is simple: What is done with this
statement is simple. The only use made of this statement
by Einstein was to use it to say that a measurement of the
relative speed of light, when make with tools at rest in
your own frame, will be c. He really never used this
statement as being anything more than this. In LET, the
difference between the way things might really be, and the
way things are only measured to be, is carefully and fully
developed. SR experts do not seem to allow such concepts
to ever be stated or enjoyed.


Pmb <some...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This is a postulate. This means we accept it to be true
unless proven false by experimentation. As of today (102
years later) we still find no contradiction in
experiments and experiments running all day every day all
over the world rely on relativity being correct which
means the postulates must be correct. Otherwise we'd have
seen problems in the experiments.

O'Barr comments:
Everything you say here is correct. But it is what you
are not saying that is your weakness. What you are saying
above is only that the 'measurement' of the velocity of
light is always c. And the measurement is restricted to
a very narrow measurement: only in one's own frame and
only for light going past your own frame.
You are never, in the above sentence,
ever referring to the reasons why the measurement is
always c. Until you are able to address the reason why
these measurements are c, you will never have a complete
science, you will never be a complete physicist, you will
never be able to communicate with anyone who accepts LET.


O'Barr wrote:
Let us see exactly what this
means. Let us take an inertial line in space upon
which we will place the x-axis of ten different
inertial reference frames. The x-axis of each of
these ten frames will be moving along this fixed line
with a different velocity than each of the other
frames.
We will then let one photon travel along this one
line. This photon, at any one instant in time, can
only be going at one speed along this line.

Pmb <some...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
SR emphasizes that the observer is all important in
these matters. Therefore there are no observers who
measure the speed of light in their frame of reference
to be anything else but c. If an observer in the
inertial frame S1 measures the speed of light to be c
then an observer in the inertial frame S2 will measure
the speed of light to be c, even though S1 and S2 are in
relative motion. You can keep doing this forever and
you'll always get the same answer. What you're thinking
of is an observer at rest in S1 trying to measure what
S2 should measure but using rods and clocks in S1. That
is a totally invalid way of measuring things in SR.

O'Barr comments:
I know exactly what you are saying and what you are
thinking. And in the way you are saying it, and thinking
it, you certainly are correct. Every observer in their
own frame will measure light going past them to be c.
But why are you not able to understand me? There is
nothing in SR that forces anyone to only measure the speed
of light as it is going by his own tools at rest in his
own frame. Any SR observer has the right to measure the
speed of light going by any object, not just his own
frame. We have the right to measure the speed of light
going past a moving train. By a moving boat. By a moving
plane. By a moving star. We have the right and the power
to correctly measure the speed of light going past
anything. And this certainly includes the speed of light
going past any other reference frame.
And when we correctly use this power, and this right,
to measurer the actual speed of light that is going by
other reference frames, we do not get c. What right do
you have to ignore all this? You have no right to ignore
all this. These SR measurements do not show c. SR
measurements show that the reason why those who get c in
their own frames is merely because their rulers and
their clocks have been affected in such a way that they
will measure c, things do not make the light go at c.
That is what the science of SR shows. And again and
again, you have no right to ignore these facts.


O'Barr wrote:
Yet SR experts say that it is going at c in each of
these different inertial reference frames.

Pmb <some...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yes indeed.

O'Barr comments:
But don't you see that you are ignoring the majority
measurements that come from all the independent observers
who show that it is not c. Not only do they show that it
is not c, but they even give an explanation as to why c
was measured. It was not measured c because c was c, but
because of the differences in the tools. That is what the
data shows!



O'Barr wrote (about always getting c):
Such an act is
of course physically impossible.

Pmb <some...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
And yet when we go to the lab and measure it we always
get c. Remember that the earth is in motion and you
haven't yet confirmed that a light can never be at rest
in any frame without violating Maxwell's equations, i.e.
the laws of electrodynamics.

O'Barr comments:
Since SR verifies that there are changes in rates of
clocks and in lengths of rulers, then any thinking person
has to now know that there can now be differences between
what might be measured, and what real reality might actual
be. This is all anyone needs to know and to understand to
appreciate what LET is able to do for us.


O'Barr wrote:
It would be stupid
and silly for any person to say that it was possible.

Pmb <some...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Actually it would be unreasonable for someone to measure
the speed of light, obtain the value c in various frames
and then say he never measured it.

O'Barr comments:
No one is saying that you are not making a measurement,
and that you are not always getting c. The point that has
to be seen is that making a measurement with tools that
can vary with their motions, is not a sure bet in telling
anyone what is really going on. The fact that you always
get c is direct proof that these measurements are being
fudged in some way, and LET explains exactly and perfectly
why and how this all occurs.


O'Barr wrote:
It does not matter what you measure, ...

Pmb <some...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
That is a very bad philosophy of science. It
demonstrates an ignorance of the scientific method and
the philosophy behind it. That's like saying that when
you look in your right arm there is always a cute babe
there just because that's what you'd prefer to see ...
as would I. :)

O'Barr comments:
Before the MMX, it was assumed that the rates of clocks
and the lengths of rulers were all fixed and independent
of motion. And thus, what was measured was reality. Or,
what was measured was dependable and did correctly reflect
our reality. But after MMX, no thinking person could any
longer trust their tools to be dependable. The MMX was
probably the most important experiment that was ever done
because it brought to an end our direct reliance upon
experiment or test data. Science suddenly became more
complicated. Not only do we now have to make experiments,
but we have to also now understand the limitations of the
tools being used.

Pmb <some...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'll stop here since you have no respect for the
scientific method. What you're saying is to ignore what
we observe because your mind does not understand it. Bad
joo joo.

O'Barr comments:
We can never again just blindly accept what our rulers
and our clocks might tell us. We find that all forces
between our atoms are susceptible to changes with their
motions through space, and thus we do have to do some
thinking about what is actually being measured. This in
no way means that we can now ignore testing, and testing
results. But it sure means that no one should take any
measurement at its face value.


Repeat of a later post:

Pmb <some...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Gerald - I made a comment about you not following the
scientific method and that was bad joo joo. This was not
intended to be an insult towards your person. It was
intended to be a criticism to what you wrote. If you
interpreted my comments as an insult towards your person
then I humbly appologize and wish to ask for your
forgiveness.

O'Barr comments:
No offense taken. I believe your kindness here was due
to something Harry said. Harry is a good person and he is
helping me tremendously. Personally, I am happy to take
all the help that is offered by anyone at any time. I am
not really doing anything that is new or earth shaking.
All I am doing is helping us to all see what is obvious,
that SR and LET are the same theory. SR is the correct
math for our reality, but LET is the correct physics that
goes with the correct math. And by putting them together,
we will, as a science, have a stronger theory. We need
this stronger theory, and it will help us move forward in
a more sure way. It will also make it easier for my at
theory to get a proper hearing.

Thanks for reading.
Gerald.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The speed of a photon in a gravitational field
    ... speed is always a coordinate dependent quantity in GR, ... Koobee wrote of an observer, not a frame. ... long as the measurement is over a finite path. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • The Measurement of Contraction
    ... The Measurement of Contraction ... and are called length contraction and time dilation. ... length or time in his environment (the local frame). ... have introduced the concepts of observed frame and observer frame. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Measurement of Contraction
    ... length or time in his environment (the local frame). ... as a relative method of measurement. ... have introduced the concepts of observed frame and observer frame. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Measurement of Contraction
    ... and are called length contraction and time dilation. ... length or time in his environment (the local frame). ... as a relative method of measurement. ... have introduced the concepts of observed frame and observer frame. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Errors being made by SR experts.
    ... Pmb wrote: ... SR is only math. ... above is only that the 'measurement' of the ... and only for light going past your own frame. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)