Re: Errors being made by SR experts.

On Aug 6, 3:38 pm, "Gerald L. O'Barr" <glob...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Subject: Re: Errors being made by SR experts.

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx>





Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Gerald L. O'Barr" <glob...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
. . . .
PD wrote:
It is NOT c-v or c+v. It just isn't.
The REAL velocity of that photon in
the other frame is
(c+v)/(1+v*c/c^2) = (c+v)/(1+v/c)
= c(1+v/c)/(1+v/c) = c.
See? It's quite obvious.
I don't know where you got the idea
that the REAL velocity of the
photon in that second frame MUST BE
c-v or c+v. That is just plain
wrong.
O'Barr wrote:
PD,
You have just come in to these posts too late.
What is being measured here is not what some
one in their own frame might measure for the
relative speed of light past their own tools,
but what the relative speed of light is when
it is measured going past someone elses frame.
PD wrote:
You don't measure light going past someone else's
frame. That would be the point. Any procedure to
do so makes an implicit assumption about how
velocities combine, as I've told you in the past.
That assumption used is the one that is incorrect.

O'Barr comments:
What is the point? We want to know what all SR
observers measure this event to be.

Precisely. And that measurement is done for the frame they are in. We
want to know what Observer C in his own frame measures the speed of
passage of that same light to be. We want to know what Observer F in
his own frame measures the speed of passage of that same light to be.
We want to know what Observer Q in his own frame measures the speed of
passage of that same light to be.

SR asserts that each and every one of those measurements will result
in "c".

That is what SR
experts claim to be saying. They are claiming that
SR says something is true. They are saying that the
speed of light in every frame is c.

You were closer the first time you said it. They are saying that every
observer in his own frame will measure the speed of light to be c.
That's what you said the first time, and now you've added the mystical
statement that "they are saying that the speed of light in every frame
IS c." For SR, there is no distinction. For physicists for that
matter, there is no distinction.

I want to know
if it is true.

It seems to be true. All experiments to date indicate that it is true.

I want to know if all SR observers
confirm this. Wouldn't you, if you were going to say
that this is actually what SR says it is?
And I do not see any SR law being invalidated by
making these measurements.

I don't either.
The problem is that a statement that a *deduced* closing speed of v+c
or v-c is not a measurement. It is a *deduction* based on an
assumption, not a measurement.

Who says I cannot measure
the speed of light going by frame X, just because I
just happen to be in some other frame?

Because you can't. A measuring stick only is certified to measure
length according to any standard if it is at rest relative to the
observer. Says so right in the instruction book. If you attempt to use
a measuring stick for length while it is moving, it voids the warranty
and you're using it improperly.

I do this all
the time, and I have never been found to be wrong
yet.

That's because you haven't needed to do it to the precision where the
error in using it that way would be apparent. Once again, your
familiarity with acceptable results using a questionable procedure
does not guarantee that the procedure is correct. I get acceptable
results painting a metal roof without a primer, and have never been
found to be wrong yet, but then again, I haven't been around long
enough to uncover the problem with my procedure.

What is the speed of the radio signal going
past a satellite?

Once again, I can *deduce* a closing speed. It will have no bearing
whatsoever on any *measurement*.

If you don't know this, you might
be in trouble! If you don't know how to measure
this, then you are no physicist!


Nonsense. Wanna compare credentials? You say you are a high school
graduate. And you position yourself to judge whether others are
physicists? Have you read your Bible lately?


O'Barr wrote:
Please stop making all these silly mistakes.
What is the velocity of light going past a
train that has velocity of v? When Einstein
measured the velocity of light going past
a train moving with a velocity of v along
the tracks, then SR observers in the track
frame will measure exactly that light is
going past the train with a relative
velocity of c +/- v.
PD wrote:
No, Einstein did no such thing, and the fact that
you repeat it simply hammers in your superficial
understanding of relativity. First of all,
Einstein made no measurement -- he offered a
gedanken, which is a "suppose this, then what would
you conclude?" kind of thing that involves no
measurement.

O'Barr comments:
And is this really supposed to mean something?
Just because it was not physically done, does this
mean that it is impossible to do?

He didn't say it could be done. He was simply *deducing* a value.
You'll notice later he points out that this deduced value must clearly
be in conflict with measurement. What would you conclude from that?

Einstein also did
not physically measure the velocity of light to be c
back in 1905!

Nope. It was done by Roemer in 1676, Bradley in 1728, Fizeau in 1849,
Foucault in 1862, Comu in 1872, and Perrotin in 1900. Einstein didn't
really have to at that point.

Does that make his whole article
wrong?

Certainly not, and if you wouldn't draw the wrong conclusion from it,
it would help even further.

Einstein probably tied his shoes that day.
Does that also matter? It seems as if to me you have
nothing scientific to say, so you just start taking,
without really having a single thing to say that has
any meaning. Why is that?
I am a physicist.

You mentioned that you were a high school graduate. What are your
credentials as a physicist, if I might ask.

And I know what I can and what
I cannot measure. And I know that I can measure the
relative velocity of any light or any radio signal or
any other such signal as it might be going past me,

Yes.

or a train, or a plane or a moon or a planet or a
star or any other inertial reference frame.

No. You can deduce it, but you must use the proper prescription for
deducing it. If you us a prescription that relies on subtracting or
adding two displacements and a common time, then you are assuming that
the velocities combine as c+v or c-v, and that is simply wrong.

These
things are possible, and I know that my measurements
(I am not sure about your measurements), but my
measurements will be SR correct,

Not the way you've described them, they won't. If you end up with c+v
or c-v, that is not "SR correct".

and they will not
always be c. Now if you will not have the soundness
of mind and intellect to affirm all this, then you
are no physicist.

But I am. Sad to say.

I do not have to say more than this!

PD wrote:
Secondly, he was explaining what a ground observer
might *deduce* is the speed of light going past the
train. This *deduced* speed is called a "closing
speed" and is NEVER a *measured* speed.

O'Barr comments:
Never a measured speed? What is that suppose to
mean? This sounds like a religion! No one can
measure a closing speed? Maybe you ought to take a
class in mechanics!
Well, I can tell that you are no physicist.
Anyone with a brain can measure the relative speed of
light going past anything.

No, you can't. You can measure the relative speed of anything going
past something that is stationary in your reference frame. I don't
know how many times I have to repeat this.

If you are "measuring" the speed of ANY object A moving past ANY
object B, where both A and B are moving in your frame, the relative
speed between those two objects that you "measure" is not the same as
the result that would be obtained by ANY other observer moving
relative to you. This should be a tip that you're not really
"measuring" anything. You are performing a procedure, perhaps, but it
is not a measurement of anything real.

And it cannot matter
what English word you use to say what it is. You can
call it a closing speed, a departing speed, a
relative speed as being experience during the
passing, the measured relative speed, the deduced
relative speed, it just does not matter. There is a
physical event going on where two things are going
past each other. And this event can be measured to
be occurring at some meaningful rate. And names
being used to denote this event cannot affect or
change the physical event that is occurring. You can
call it anything you want. You can call it the blue
event. But the rate at which this event is occurring
is not c for the majority of SR observers. It is a
relative velocity event no matter what else you might
call it. And it is again not c. It is measurable,
and it is not measured to be c by the majority of SR
observers. It can be deduced, and it is not deduced
to be c. So exactly what is it that you do not
understand?

PD wrote:
The fact that the *deduced* speed varies from what
is actually *measured* was what Einstein used to
point out that the rules for deducing that speed
must be wrong.

O'Barr comments:
If the relative speed of light going past the
train was not exactly c +/- v in the frame of the
tracks, then all of relativity is wrong.

That's not true. You apparently do not understand what you're reading.
Please start over and try again.

At no time
did Einstein show that this measurement of this event
in the frame of tracks was ever different than c +/-
v. Somehow, you are the one who does not
understand, and I expect to have your full apology.
Why are you on this net?

Because you are adamantly and repeatedly making an error, and I'd like
to correct it.


O'Barr wrote:
Now if you want to
disagree with Einstein, be my guest, but
in this case, Einstein was correct.
PD wrote:
I don't want to disagree with Einstein. Your
understanding of what he said, however, is dim.

O'Barr comments:
I do not care how dim it is, but I do care whether
it is right or wrong. And you should soon see that I
am right. The relative velocity of light pass the
train, in Einstein's train example, was exactly c +/-
v, in terms of the correct SR measurement of this
velocity in the frame of the tracks.

No, it wasn't. You have not comprehended what you've read. The train
observer made NO SUCH MEASUREMENT. He simply deduced it by adding or
subtracting the velocities. But that is an incorrect prescription, as
Einstein goes on to show.

It's really a pity you've made such a basic error. You've spent a
rather long time invested in the same small mistake. Fortunately, with
some earnest rereading and perhaps some tutelage, your error can be
overcome, and there is then still time for you to gain a better
understanding of what SR *really* says.

And thus, the SR measurements that you make in
your own frame, of the relative speed of light in
all other frames that are moving relative to you,
are every velocity except c.
The only exception to this to this is
when you have the special case of the observer
measuring this event in their own frame. And all
other SR observers, in their own frames, will explain
why someone in their own frame is able to measure c.
It is not because it really was c, it was only due to
the unique changes that exist in the lengths of their
rulers and the rates of their clocks and the synchs
that they use on their clocks. That was and is the
only reason why c was or is ever measured. Not
because it was or is c. No c is shown at any time
when measured by any independent SR frame. It was
and is c only due to changes in the tools being used.
QED!!!!
And this has to be correct. It is the exact same
thing that is obtained in LET. And LET uses the
exact same math. So do not say I am wrong, unless
you can use the math to prove it. Since I know that
you cannot do this, then I know that you are being
unscientific. And this is going to stop. We are
going to put an end to these stupid and silly and
impossible concepts being used by SR experts. The
day has come to end it. And it is ended.

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "The Error in Relativistic Physics"
    ... The Science of Physics is based upon the making of measurements. ... another degree of freedom was added to the concept of measurement ... velocity is attributed to Dr. Einstein who showed, ... Special theory of Relativity, ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • "The Error in Relativistic Physics"
    ... The Science of Physics is based upon the making of measurements. ... another degree of freedom was added to the concept of measurement ... velocity is attributed to Dr. Einstein who showed, ... Special theory of Relativity, ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • "The Error in Relativistic Physics"
    ... The Science of Physics is based upon the making of measurements. ... another degree of freedom was added to the concept of measurement ... velocity is attributed to Dr. Einstein who showed, ... Special theory of Relativity, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • "The Error in Relativistic Physics"
    ... The Science of Physics is based upon the making of measurements. ... another degree of freedom was added to the concept of measurement ... velocity is attributed to Dr. Einstein who showed, ... Special theory of Relativity, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: "The Error in Relativistic Physics"
    ... Once Fitzgerald had his "aha" revelation and asserted that the reason for the results of the Michaelson-Morley Experiment was that "yardsticks" were shortening in the direction of the relative velocity ... It must be remembered however, that the Lorentz Transformation-Aether Theory of Fitzgerald, Larmor and Lorentz is actually a special case solution of Special Relativity and since the two theories are cross-derivable they are really different ways of expressing the same theory. ... One of the two interpretations of quantum physics is the "spooky" requirement that quantum effects propagate though all of space at an in infinite velocity. ... The intellectual sloppiness that has transpired is the failure of the scientific community to recognize that LCAT and STR have shown that, in making a measurement in and or between two different reference frames, one must also include the effect, if any, of the change in the reference frame on the "size" of the units of measurement employed. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)