Re: Errors being made by SR experts.

On Aug 1, 4:54 pm, "Gerald L. O'Barr" <glob...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Errors being made by SR experts.
(Comments from O'Barr to Jeckyl.)

SR experts say many things that are not correct.
In fact, the things that SR experts say are
physically impossible. Let us consider just a few of
these statements (let us try at least two.)
SR experts say that the speed of light in all
reference frames is c. 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. Yet SR
experts say that it is going at c in each of these
different inertial reference frames. Such an act is
of course physically impossible. It would be stupid
and silly for any person to say that it was possible.
It does not matter what you measure, it just is not
physically possible.

Of course it is possible. You just haven't laid down exactly what you
mean when you say "going at one speed along this line". How do you
measure that, exactly?

You are also making an implicit assumption that if you have two
different inertial reference frames going at different speeds along
this line (say with a relative speed of v), and the speed of the
photon in one frame happens to be c, then the speed of the photon as
measured in the other frame would HAVE TO BE c-v or c+v. Nothing could
be further from the truth! That would be a *terrible* way to guess the
speed of the photon in the other frame.

You mistake "impossible" with "inconsistent with my preconceptions".
You mistake "impossible" with "makes no sense to me". This has been
your problem from the outset.

Now LET does not say that this photon is going at
c in any reference frame (other than the one and only
ether frame, which we do not know where it is.) LET
says that each frame will measure c, not because it
is c, but only because the changes in the lengths of
the rulers being used in each frame, and the rates of
the clocks being used in each frame, will have all
been affected by their absolute motion in such a way
that what they will be able to measure c. And so,
LET confirms exactly what we know is true, that the
actual velocity is not c in all these different
frames, but only the measurement is c.
Thus we can easily conclude (we must conclude)
that SR is stupid and silly and physically impossible
to say that it is c. And only LET gets it right,
that it is only the measurements made in each frame
that makes it appear to all be c. QED!

Now does SR math confirm all this? Absolutely!
If you take any independent SR frame (any frame that
is not one of those to be measured) you can measure
the actual closing velocity or the departing velocity
of light for all 10 of these frames, and there will
be no measurement of c at all. And within each of
these 10 frames, SR measurements will show that the
rulers and clocks in all these 10 frames will be
different, and they will each be different so that
those in each frame will measure c, even when it is
not c. Therefore, SR math does not confirm what SR
experts keep telling us. The actual speed of light
in any frame is not really known. All that can
really be said is that it is not likely to be c in
any one frame, but it will always be measured to be
c. That is what SR math says. That is what LET math
says. They are the same math. And SR experts are
going to have to stop saying things that they cannot
really say or support. SR math stands against
what they are saying! Their very own math!
No sane person can deny this!

SR experts say that all velocities (speeds) are
relative. They use this assumption to derive their
math. And in the math of SR, we find that the rates
of clocks are based upon their relative velocities.
Now between any two clocks (and where there are only
two clocks, the relative velocity of one must always
be the exact equal of the other), there are problems
where there appears difference in the final times of
these clocks. Thus, when this occurs, we find that
the rates of clocks could not be based upon just
relative velocities. There was something else that
had to be present to allow these differences to
exist. Thus, we have a basic problem in the basic
assumptions of SR. In LET, it is clearly shown that
the problem in SR was in this assumption that all
velocities are relative. LET shows that between any
two frames, the velocities can appear to be relative,
but that in fact they are not.
Thus the symmetry that SR chose in its relative
velocity is only partially correct. The SR assumed
symmetry works between any two frames, but it can
become broken when there are more than two frames
involved, or more than two changes in directions,
etc.

Now anyone should have the insights and
understanding that allows all these things to be seen
and appreciated. And no one should have to be told
more than once. But I can say all these things again
and again for those who might be more slow than
others. And unless someone is going to be able to
directly address these issues, then someone is either
being blind or unscientific.

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is the speed of light really constant ?
    ... >> But if we measure the velocity of light in that particle beam and find ... nearly the speed of light (what Einstein called relativistic speeds). ... The local frame is the normal frame, ... *relative*, hence the tag "Relativity". ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is the speed of light really constant ?
    ... I was thinking that after an observer changes velocity relative to ... When you change your assumption about the frame in which lightpseed ... velocity "u" from this third frame. ... time labels and nominal distance labels to distant events ... ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Velocity addition fun.. LOL
    ... so the math you used is wrong according to other observers. ... respect to the origin in that frame of reference. ... is the relationship, if any, between the measured speeds in each frame ... Starting with one reference frame, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: EXPERIMENTS THAT REFUTE RELATIVITY
    ... velocity, and destination velocity, perhaps relative to ... Reflected ray speed: c-v ... shorter in A's frame but longer in B's. ... If, however, an absolute reference frame existed and the above speeds were ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: "How the Aether Leads to Our Reality"
    ... frame and real Fitgerald contraction. ... every moment the same velocity, and so remain displaced one from the ... Fitzgerald contract, and must finally break, It must break when, at ... If we examine the propagation of light though the cosmos we observe ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)