Re: Errors being made by SR experts.

Subject: Re: Errors being made by SR experts.

Jeckyl <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Pmb <some...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
He also used that postulate to derive the Lorentz
transformation which leaves Maxwell's equations
invariant.

O'Barr wrote:
But in LET, these Lorentz transforms are the
transforms of measurements between frames. They
are nothing more than this. All that SR is, is a
measurement science. It is not telling us what
reality is actually doing, except to the degree
that reality is approached by the measurements.

Jeckyl <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
SR says what reality is doing .. it is following
lorentz contractions.

O'Barr comments:
Anyone with a brain knows that actual reality
could not possibly be doing that SR says is
happening. What SR says is happening, that light
really is going at a velocity of c in every frame, is
silly and stupid and physically impossible. It is
only the measurements that are showing this constant
condition.

Jeckyl <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
LET says the lorentz transforms between frames are a
mathematical illusion of measurement due to the
physical shrinking and slowing when thing move in
the magical ether.

O'Barr comments:
Well, what a surprise. I did not know that you
were an LET expert. Where did you learn all these
things about LET?


O'Barr wrote to Pmb:
Bingo! You are living proof that you know
nothing of LET. All SR experts are taught that
what is measured is reality.

Jeckyl <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote about SR experts:
They are taught that what you measure is reality ..

O'Barr comments:
Right! And they are taught not to question the
results of any measurement. And so when you measure
c for the speed of light, even though you know you
are on the earth, and the earth is constantly
changing it direction of motion in space, you force
yourself to believe that light is always moving at c.
What a stupid thing to have to believe.

Jeckyl <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
and when you do that you get consistent results.

O'Barr comments:
That is correct. The results, even if they are
impossible, they are consistent with SR math. And so
you worship this math, as if it were reality.

Jeckyl <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
LET says reality is something else . .that makes
LET more complex (measured reality and real
reality).

O'Barr comments:
Boy, what a thrill. Jeckyl is a real expert on
LET! How could anyone have thought that this was
possible. Yes, in LET, we have, at the base of the
theory, what reality is doing, and from what reality
is doing (which includes all the tools used in
science, since our tools are themselves part of our
reality), we can figure out what would be measured if
our tools were being affected in the same way that
reality is affected. Isn't that smart to see all
this?

O'Barr wrote to Pmb:
And you never get the insight
that is provided by LET. What is measured in SR
is stupid and silly and physically impossible.

Jeckyl <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
No .. its not .. we measure it every day.

O'Barr comments:
How I hate your short answers. There is no logic
provided, there is no explanations provided, there is
nothing provided. Don't you know any reason at all
for saying what you say you disagree with? Just
because you can measure something, that does not mean
that it is correct. You can measure the amount of
bending of a straw placed in a glass of water, but
that does not mean that the straw is bent. Don't you
know anything? I would sure hate to see you measure
something you see in a mirror.

O'Barr wrote:
So what does LET do for us?

Jeckyl <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Nothing

O'Barr comments:
Then I guess you better start reading all my posts
over again.

O'Barr wrote about LET:>> It finds a way in which
reality can be simple,

Jeckyl <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:> How is the ether
simple, when it has werid
properties that nothing else we've ever seen has.

O'Barr comments:
Try my at theory. It takes care of some of these
important properties.


Jeckyl <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
How can it be simple when movement in this ether
cuases theses strange shrinking and process slowing
effects in precisely the same way for all amter and
all processes.

O'Barr comments:
Don't you ever learn? It has been explained
before, even in this very series of posts.

O'Barr continues from up above about LET:
and yet still produce the measurements
that are seen in SR, and accomplishes all this in
the simplest of 3-D space, etc.

Jeckyl <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yes .. its amazing how Let manages to do that. Its
allso much simpler in SR

O'Barr comments:
Well, this is about my limit. Yes, as far as the
math goes, SR is easier. No one can deny such facts.
But to get this simplicity, one has to use 4-D. And
physically, 4-D is not simpler than 3-D. In fact, 4-
D is not only more complicated; physically, it is
actually physically impossible. So there is no real
choice. If we are going to have any physical
existence at all, only LET can be considered and
used.

All of your following comments have nothing new that
I could see. Repost if I am in error. You almost
never include any physics in your rebuttals, if your
comments could be called anything at all, they are
just complaints.

But thanks for trying put up a good fight.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>



But I do like the following:
O'Barr comments:
SR requires that all frames are equal.

Yes

This means
that any frame can be used to establish the facts of
our all of our reality. Any frame!

Yes

Thus any frame
can be used to determine the actual velocity of light
that is going by any other frame.

Yes .. actual in that frame

And when this is
done, the results is that SR valid measurements show
no light is going by any external frame with a
velocity of c.

Yes .. other than one comoving with our own frame

And this violates no law of relativity.

Yes .. no violation



And this is not just my thoughts, or
just my guess, or just my hope. This is absolutely
the correct understanding of what SR math ...

And so thank you, Jeckyl, for agreeing with all this.
And this is all correct.

.

Quantcast