Re: SR now stands for Stupid Results.
- From: PD <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 22:35:46 -0000
On Aug 6, 1:19 pm, "Gerald L. O'Barr" <glob...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
[unnecessary verbiage snipped]
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.
We'll see...
A
photon carries inertia.
It does? In what way? As in inertia defined by Newton's second law:
F=ma? Perhaps you'd like to tell me by what force you can cause a
photon to accelerate and what the ratio of F/a is?
A photon can exchange some
or all of its inertia whenever it interacts.
It can? Please cite an instance where a photon transfers all or some
of its inertia.
A
photon has momentum. It can exchange some or all of
its momentum as it interacts with other particles.
Yes, but momentum doesn't necessarily have anything to do with mass.
Momentum only is related to mass for objects that have mass. But you
might as well say that a whale has legs because being a mammal
involves having legs, which you assert by looking at cows and pigs and
sheep and dogs and cats.
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.
Yes, but energy doesn't necessarily have anything to do with mass.
Only one kind of energy sometimes pertains to mass, and then only for
objects with nonzero mass.
A Photon reacts to gravity.
Yes, but so does everything. It isn't true that only massive objects
feel gravity.
A photon exhibits itself to be a material event
point by point as it moves and as it interacts with
other material objects.
Yes, that's how material objects interact with each other, by
exchanging things that are DIFFERENT than themselves. Fermions
interact by swapping bosons, and there is nothing that demands that if
objects interact they must be alike.
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.
OK, so you've demonstrated that you don't know what mass is.
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.
Uh, no. There is nothing in the photon that is going around in a
little circle there, Gerald. Just because it's CALLED spin doesn't
mean there is something going around in a little circle.
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.
That's not quite what SR says, Gerald. Try again.
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.
Repeating yourself again, Gerald. Do you never learn anything? The
result of c+v or c-v for a closing speed is NOT A MEASUREMENT.
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>
.
- References:
- SR now stands for Stupid Results.
- From: Gerald L. O'Barr
- SR now stands for Stupid Results.
- Prev by Date: Re: Is the Red Shift of distant stars because of expanding universe or time dilation?
- Next by Date: Re: if gravity were geometry
- Previous by thread: SR now stands for Stupid Results.
- Next by thread: Re: SR now stands for Stupid Results.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
