SR now stands for Stupid Results.

SR now stands for Stupid Results.

SR experts worship!
That is why there is not a codified set of
statements that list the weaknesses to this theory.
Such a list ought to be in the FAQ. All real
scientists have a list of problems associated with
any real theory. They maintain such lists to
continuously 'beat over' every theory that exist so
that they are sure they know the exact weaknesses and
strength to everything accepted in every theory. But
not for SR! No! SR is sacred, and cannot be
touched.

Let us list the real weaknesses to SR, and let us do
it by the numbers:
First of all, a photon does have mass, and it
moves at the velocity of c. Now of course, no SR
expert would ever allow such a thought. No! They
have even gone to the trouble of changing the actual
meaning of the word, mass, so that legally no one can
ever again say that a photon has mass. And thus,
with this artificial change in a common English word,
then every effort to talk about any common meaning to
this word is made to be silly and impossible.
Even the simple effort to describe the meaning of
the word mass becomes silly. When an expert tries to
explain the present meaning of the word mass, he has
to say: 'mass means the rest mass of an object.' So
what did the SR expert just say? He has to say this:
(substituting the word 'rest mass' everywhere he uses
the word mass and we get): 'rest mass' means the rest
'rest mass' of an object. Now what is the rest rest
mass of an object?
Don't we all see the foolishness of redefining
words that are already part of our language? It was
the most stupid thing that anyone could do, to take a
common word such as mass, and actually make it to
mean only one narrow technical definition. Today,
you cannot even define the meaning of the word,
because mass as mass no longer even exists. It is
impossible, but that is what they have done.
And there was no scientific purpose to their act.
Scientifically, we have always been able to say rest
mass, if that was what we wanted to address, or we
could just say mass, or we could say relativistic
mass, we could say what ever was needed to be said,
and say it exactly SR correct. So why was the change
made? It was not made for any scientific benefit; it
was an act of worship.

Yet, as a photon moves in space, as it acts as a
photon, as it exists as a photon, it has mass by
every sense that can be given for the word mass. A
photon carries inertia. A photon can exchange some
or all of its inertia whenever it interacts. A
photon has momentum. It can exchange some or all of
its momentum as it interacts with other particles.
A photon has energy. It can exchange some or all of
its energy in most of its interactions. It takes
energy to form a photon. Energy must be absorbed to
remove a photon. A Photon reacts to gravity.
A photon exhibits itself to be a material event
point by point as it moves and as it interacts with
other material objects. In sum, there is no way that
a photon, as it is a moving photon, cannot be seen
except as a particle of mass. And this mass that it
has is moving at a velocity of c.
This is a problem with relativity, but it is not a
problem to hide from. It is a problem to be seen and
enjoyed as a thing to be worked on as a science. Not
something to run from and to hide from. We no longer
have scientists who work with SR, we have bigots who
worship.
This problem of mass moving at c or greater exists
everywhere. Almost all of our fundamental particles,
if we tried to apply normal physics to them, consist
of particles that have spin. Even the photon has a
spin. As we consider this, the combined effects of
the motions that must be assigned to these particles,
and the spin that must also be present, result in
part of these particles having motions faster than c.

SR is as weak as any theory can be, especially
when and where the SR experts claim that there is a
4-D reality, that SR consists of a 4-D spacetime
continuum, etc. Such physically impossible things
make SR to be a silly and an impossible theory. And
no test can be done to establish any of these
impossible things. And to tell you the truth, never
will there be such a test. Such silly and physically
impossible things should never be presented by any
real scientist, unless there was clear, direct and
unambiguous evidence.

Weakness number three: SR experts claim that the
relative speed of light in all frames is always c.
But this is not correct. All that SR can correctly
claim is that the measurement of the relative speed
of light is c, and it is only measured to be c when
you measure it relative to your own frame. When you
measure the relative speed of light going by any
other frame around you, it is not c.
Is this important? Yes, if you are going to ask
what the relative speed of light is past a specific
frame, then you need to look at what all SR observers
measure, not just what one SR observer measures.
If you want to know what the relative speed of
light is going past a train (this train can represent
a valid inertial reference frame), then you will want
to know what those in the frame of the tracks might
say, and what those on the train might say, and what
every other valid observer of this event might say.
When you consider what all valid SR observers might
say, when you consider what every valid observer
actually measures for the relative speed of light
going past the train, this is what you actually get:
You will get a report from all these SR observers,
using correct SR tools, that the relative velocity of
light pass the train is every velocity except c.
That is what you will get. Out of millions and
millions of observations, only one was able to report
a value of c. That was for the one and only observer
who was on the train. All other SR observers did not
measure c.
The final results of this effort to determine what
the real relative velocity of light is going pass the
train, according to SR, will end up being this: We
really do not know what the actual relative velocity
of light going past the train is, but it is unlikely
to be c. And all these observers will be able to
testify that the only reason why the one observer was
able to measure c was because his tools were not
correct. His tools were measured to have changed so
that the tools gave a false reading and their
measurement of c was not because it was c, but
because the tools falsely indicated a c. That is all
that SR science is able to say or to conclude. And
this is correct. And any SR expert who tries to run
away from this is someone who worships. And we must
no longer consider such people to be scientists.

Yes, SR is a weak science. It is weak because it
is only a math theory. Being only math, then its
physical interpretations are open to anything. And
thus it is a weak theory.
And these weaknesses of SR can go on and on. SR
is weak because it has known breaks in its symmetry.
SR is weak because there is an alternant theory that
works as good as SR works, but it has none of the
weaknesses that SR has.
Yes, SR is probably the weakest theory that has
ever existed. And yet today we have people who
worship it because if feels so good. But just
because a theory feels good, just because you like
what it says, that is not what science is all about.
And we must see that an end is made of these types of
people who do not use an unbiased approach to our
physics.

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

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Experimental Evidence for Special Relativity
    ... for sound reasons states that the energy W of a photon ... Plus the relation between mass and energy ... education in physics. ... that is not the definition of aether. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SR now stands for Stupid Results.
    ... statements that list the weaknesses to this theory. ... First of all, a photon does have mass, and it ... When you consider what all valid SR observers might ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Only some energy has mass?
    ... that it has mass of that value. ... with no zero rest mass absorbed the photon. ... arises - a lump of energy is absorbed by another lump of energy ... > matter in motion. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Only some energy has mass?
    ... that it has mass of that value. ... with no zero rest mass absorbed the photon. ... arises - a lump of energy is absorbed by another lump of energy ... > matter in motion. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Only some energy has mass?
    ... >> By the special theory of relativity motion ... Kinetic energy has mass. ... > claiming that a photon is massless. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)