Re: Errors being made by SR experts.

"Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1186079144.682781.285600@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Errors being made by SR experts.
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.

Nonsense . .there is NOTHING that supports LET over SR.

LET has a mystical undetectable ether that has properties no other physical
material has. Further, it magiacally makes all matter shrink (and all the
spaces betwteen matter shrink) and slows down all clock and processes by the
identical amount. There is no explanation as to how the movemnt through an
ether does this.

SR on the other hand, is explained by our universe being minkowski space ..
what we predict from SR math is a natural consequenc of space being
minkowski. There is no need for mystical ethers and unexplained physical
shrinking and slowing, because those things don't happen in SR.


Thus, LET, has every support as SR has in terms of
measurements. But LET also has much more.

It has more unanswered questions and assumptions. That does NOT make it a
better theory

It is able to
bring to the table explanations that SR cannot provide.

No .. it provides less explanations and introduces more things that need
explaining.

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.

The only one unscientific here is you, as demonstrated be your continual
LIES about supposed breaks in SR symmetry and misrepresentation of what SR
theory says.

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.

Minkowski space explains it all

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.

All we can do is take measurements

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.

Minkowski space explains it

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.


Minkowski space explains it.

LET theorieses a magical ether that somehow makes this happen.

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.

Of course there isn't .. you can measure what you want. Closing velocity is
simple vector additino in SR, just as it is for in LET.

Any SR observer has the right to measure the
speed of light going by any object, not just his own
frame.

Yeup .. and he'll get the same results as LET.

[snip more of the same]
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.

Of course we don't .. just like in LET.

What right do you have to ignore all this?

Because IT DOES NOT CHANGE ANYTHING regarding the speed of light being c in
ALL inertial frames of reference. Just like you get with LET.

You have no right to ignore
all this. These SR measurements do not show c.

neither does LET .. your criticisms apply to both theories

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

NO !!!!!!! That is what LET says. SR says that clocks and rulers are NOT
affected when at rest in their own frames.

Stop your lies about SR

, things do not make the light go at c.

Lights travels at the speed it travels .. the fastest speed possible .. the
only speed where a massless particle can have momentum and energy (ie for
photons to 'exist')

That is what the science of SR shows. And again and
again, you have no right to ignore these facts.

a) you threw in some lies there
b) the facts that are left also apply to LET

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.

Same for LET

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!

Yes .. we see that moving tools are shorter and slower in our frame, and we
see that those tools measure the speed as c.

The exact same thing is true of someone at rest in the moving frame ..they
will see out tools as shorter and slower and will see us measuring the speed
as c.

Everyone sees everyone measuring the speed as c. And in SR everyone is
correct in measuring the speed as c in their frame

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,

In their projection into someone else's frame that is moving relative to the
tools and clocks.

The tools and clocks do not acutally change .. moving doesn't make things
actually change in length and slow down.

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.

A thinking person understands SR .. that rules you out.

This is all anyone needs to know and to understand to
appreciate what LET is able to do for us.

It does NOTHING for us other than introduce magic and mystery.

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,

The tools do not change. Their projection into a relatively moving frame is
different. its like looking at a shadow of a building late in the day and
saying that means the building is taller because the shadow is longer.

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,

There is NO fudging happening. The fudging is in the LET explanation .
..with magicalal physical shrinking and slowing with NO physical cause

and LET explains exactly and perfectly
why and how this all occurs.

No .. it does not.

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.

They are .. motion doesn't physically change things. Its only this silly
LET notion that it does.

And thus, what was measured was reality.

Of course we measure 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.

MMx didn't say anything about tools and clocks. That is only an LET
interpreation and extrapolation of the MMx results.

More misrepresentation from you.

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.

Nonsense

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.

Our tools are fine .. there is no reason to say they are not the lengths
that they are. Unless you bleieve the mumbojumbo magic of LET.

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.

And you blindly reject and misunderstand SR. That's your problem

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.

Nor can we take what you say on face value .. you LIE continually and
deliberately
All I am doing is helping us to all see what is obvious,
that SR and LET are the same theory.

Except LET has an underleying 'reality' that makes no sense.

SR is the correct
math for our reality, but LET is the correct physics that
goes with the correct math.

LET has a bunch of unsupported and unexplained ideas to try to explain
things that Minkowski space and Let explains much more simply.

And by putting them together,
we will, as a science, have a stronger theory.

The stronger theory is SR

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.

And THAT is the sole reason for your lying and deceit .. to make YOUR THEORY
look better. You have a VERY obvious bias and that makes you unscientific
and dishonest in your posts.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The derivative of the SR function.
    ... changes in rates of clocks (along with the way the ... any frame can mathematically be accepted as the ... the changes that go on with real objects. ... Thus, in SR, where measurements are involved, then ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What is BaT, exactly?
    ... rate of the groiund clocks. ... GR prediction when sent into free fall. ... A hammer is a tool frequently used in experimental physics. ... you god Einstein neither peformed nor referred to any measurements ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: One approach for SR.
    ... >> inertial frame that is to be used, ... >> rulers, ... All these clocks will be placed into sync by ... >> measurements must be local measurements, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: One approach for SR.
    ... inertial frame that is to be used, ... rulers, ... All these clocks will be placed into sync by ... measurements must be local measurements, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Lorentz Transforms of Space and Lorentz Contraction Problem
    ... and a rocket frame. ... in the rocket frame dx' is A*dx. ... the measurements are conducted in the same inertial frame. ... in the same inertial frame" means that all clocks have be synchronized ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)