Re: Errors being made by SR experts.

On Aug 2, 9:57 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Gerald L. O'Barr" <glob...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:1186115495.796807.274020@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Jeckyl <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Nonsense . .there is NOTHING that supports LET
over SR.

O'Barr comments:
Nothing? Are you really really sure?

Yes

[snip more nothingness]

Surely you
couldn't have forgotten all these things in such a
short period of time.

And none of that supports LET over SR .. its just your words.



Jeckyl <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
LET has a mystical undetectable ether that has
properties no other physical material has.

O'Barr comments:
Many theories have assumptions that cannot be
established directly. But as long as they are
reasonable assumptions, and they provide correct
answers,

I, and the majority of physicsits, find minkowski space and SR very
reasonable. A material substance with properties unlike anything else that
somehow causes shrinkage and slowing is not considered as very reasonable.

If the
ether really is the perfect carrier of light, then
the ether will never be seen.

Seen (as in visually) no .. but observed .. why not? Except that LEt
conveniently makes any measurement of it undetectable. Handy that.

O'Barr comments:
According to the theory of LET, every time you see
a photon moving, you are seeing the direct effects of
the ether. Every time you see that the speed of light
is independent of the velocity of its source, you are
seeing the direct effects of the ether. In fact, the
ether is the most well proved fact of all reality. It
is just as perfectly proved as is SR. And anyone who
says differently than this is being unscientific.
It is scientific to determine the existence of
something by its effects. And the effects of the
ether is everywhere. So does this help you, Jeckyl?


Jeckyl <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

O'Barr comments:
Well, it looks as if you have forgotten again all
the previous things that were said.

I do try to put your lies and deception out of my thoughts, yes.

So why wouldn't all clocks and all rulers
obey the same laws?

Why WOULD every process change by the same factor. Just because light
clocks do?

Because in our world, all the things we have and use
consist of matter that uses the same electromagnetic
forces as all other things do. It would be impossible
not to have them all do the same things. We even say
that electical forces are carried by virtual
photons. So if photons in a photon clock slow down,
then what would be exected for virtual photons in
all clocks formed of matter? Surely you have been
told this more than once. And you should not forget
it again.


That was the reasoning used by
Lorentz, and this is far better than Einstein who
just said they all did this. Lorentz showed examples
where things had to do these things in order to
satisfy the electromagnetic laws that were then known
to be valid.

You can derive SR from those laws too.

And how is geometry or any other math, which are
only concepts that might be found in a book, how are
such things as these able to do anything?

They don't DO thinkgs .. they describe things. Do you not understand the
difference?

[snip]

Jeckyl <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
No .. it provides less explanations and introduces
more things that need explaining.
O'Barr comments:
Well, maybe you ought to go back to the first of
this post and start over.

God no .. we have enough crap from you already. Repeating it doesn't make
it smell any better

If you think I am lying

I do

then why do you keep answering my post?

To put forwardthe truth for the sake of those who might be decived by you

If anyone is lying, then
that ought to be the easiest thing in the world to
prove or establish.

I have done so already .. perhaps you should re-read my posts.





Let me list what you say in the rest of this post:
**************************************
Minkowski space explains it all
***
All we can do is take measurements
***
Minkowski space explains it
***
Minkowski space explains it.

LET theorieses a magical ether that somehow makes
this happen.
***
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.
***
Yeup .. and he'll get the same results as LET.
***
[snip more of the same]
***
Of course we don't .. just like in LET.
***
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.
***
neither does LET .. your criticisms apply to both
theories
***
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
***
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')
***
a) you threw in some lies there
b) the facts that are left also apply to LET
***
Same for LET
***
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
***
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.
***
A thinking person understands SR .. that rules you
out.
***
It does NOTHING for us other than introduce magic and
mystery.
***
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.
***
There is NO fudging happening. The fudging is in the
LET explanation .
.with magicalal physical shrinking and slowing with
NO physical cause
***
No .. it does not.
***
They are .. motion doesn't physically change things.
Its only this silly LET notion that it does.
***
Of course we measure reality
***
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.
****
Nonsense
***
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.
***
And you blindly reject and misunderstand SR. That's
your problem
***
Nor can we take what you say on face value .. you LIE
continually and deliberately
***
Except LET has an underleying 'reality' that makes no
sense.
***
LET has a bunch of unsupported and unexplained ideas
to try to explain things that Minkowski space and Let
explains much more simply.
***
The stronger theory is SR
***
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.
*****************************
End of Jeckyl's comments.

O'Barr final comments:
And so, what is the sum of all of Jeckyl's
comments? If you take out all of his accusations
that I am lying, there is not much left, is there?

More lies

There is no reason for me to answer unresponsive
statements and accusations such as these.

Good .. so we won't here from you again

Why not give it a rest, Jeckyl,

Why don't you .. you lying hypocritcal ***.



O'Barr comments:
Time for bed, Jeckyl. Your day has much too
much for you. Better luck next time.


But thanks for trying anyway.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>



.

Quantcast