Re: Errors being made by SR experts.

"Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1186467134.455358.299540@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Errors being made by SR experts.

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Subject: Re: Errors being made by SR experts.
. . . .

Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What is the point? We want to know what all SR
observers measure this event to be.

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

O'Barr comments:
Yes, we want to know all this. Observers C, F,
and Q are all valid SR observers, and what they each
measure in their own frames has to be valid. But C
can also use his same tools, and measure the relative
speed of light going by frames F and Q, and observer
F can measure the relative speed of light going by
frames C and Q, and Q can measure what it is going by
frames C and F. And thus, just with these three
frames, there are three measurements that show an
answer of c, but six that show it to be different
than c.

Because you are measuring something other than the speed of light in your
frame

Try to be honest here .. I know its hard for you

So what is the real velocity of light as it
really goes by a reference frame?

The 'real' speed of light is c. How fast some other object or imaginary
frame is moving toward or away from that light has no bearing on the speed
of light itself . they can move around independantly as much as they want.

The count is six
to three in this case that it is not c.

Absolute nonsense. EVERY frame measure the speed of light as c. Can't you
get that through you thick head .. you've been told tens if not hudnreds of
times before. Do you have a learning disability?

And when you
expand it to all observers, there remains almost zero
odds that it is ever c.

Even more nonsense as EVERY observer measures the speed of light is c.
EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM.

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
SR asserts that each and every one of those
measurements will result in "c".

O'Barr comments:
Yes, but now you can understand how incomplete
this is.

No . there is nothing incomplete about it. SR predicts exactly what we
measure. Your implications that it somehow get ssomething wrong are a
fabrication on your part .. deliberately designed to mislead. That is
called DISHONESTY.

They get c only when they measure the
relative speed of light relative to their own tools.
But when they measure all the frames that exist, they
measure everything but c.

They will measure other frames as measuring c as well.

And when they observe that
others do get c when they do measure it in their own
frame, they do not get c because it is c, they get c
only because their tools have been changed to show a
false reading of c.

The tols in other frames, when observed from ours, are shorter and slower.
..That's what SR tells us .. and that's why we can see that ever other frame
will also measure the speed of light as c.

Really .. you are so incredibly slow .. or incredibly deceitful. I think
its the latter

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

O'Barr comments:
Well, that is good, if SR experts would always say
that these velocities are only measurements.

Speed and velocity are calculated values. There is nothing absolute abuot
speed .. it is frame dependant (and always has been).

For in
truth, that is all they can know. That is all that
the math allows to be said, is that the measurements
will be c. SR experts cannot say what the real
velocities might be.

What is real? Real is what we measure and experience .. its that thing
called 'objective reality'

But any time an SR expert says that it really is
c

It really is

or if they think it really is c,

It really is

then they are
definitely in error, and they need to be corrected.

YOU need the correction .. and I'll keep on correcting your lies as long s
you keep posting them

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It seems to be true. All experiments to date
indicate that it is true.

O'Barr comments:
Great. So we can all accept LET.

Why should we accept this weird undetectable ether material that has
impossible properties, and that it somehow makes all things shrink and slow
down by just the fright amount when moving through it.

SR doesn 't need such weird magical things.

All experiments
to date do indicate that the predictions made by LET
are all correct. Thank you for being so kind!

All experiments to date indicate that the predictions made by SR are all
correct. Thanks for backing up SR as the simpler and just as correct
theory.


PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

Except in LET, where we can never know that a measuring stick or clock is
correct in LET .. what a useless theory that is if we cannot ever really
measure anything correctly. Good thing we have SR were our own measurements
are correct


It sure looks like you have given up, PD. You
seem to have no more science to talk about.

Perhaps if you talked science instead of your LET religion, your lies and
your theory peddling, then we could talk science. But you're not interested
in science.

O'Barr comments:
As long as you remain in one frame, all velocities
are addable by simple vectors. This even includes
high velocities. Even up to 2c.

Yeup .. that doesn't give you the velocity in other frames though.

If a photon comes
in from the right at a velocity of c, and another
photon comes in from the left at c, then the rate
that they approach each other is 2c.

That is their closing speed yes .. that's what SR says.

But each one still travels at speed c.
Correct. This is why you must state which
frame is being used, etc. What is so odd about
that? But now the question of questions, which
measurement is correct?

Every iFoR frame is correct in its measurements because its ruler s and
clocks are correct in that frame.

Every
SR frame is just as correct as any other frame to
determine what reality is.

Yeup

No one has to go to any
other frame in order to determine reality.

Yeup.

I am sorry, PD, but we are at an impasse. And I
am not going to waste any more time with you. You
will just have to find out for yourself somehow.
Maybe someone on this net will take pity on you. I
hope you find you senses soon.
Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>

Condescending prick.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Spaceship Question
    ... > Its measured value might not be....because of the visual illusion. ... > The measurement in the same frame is almost certainly the correct one. ... But the measurements, which don't involve "seeing" and therefore don't ... >>matter of the state of the observer. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: IRT: A New Theory of Relativity
    ... >>in motion relative to himself to shrink, and measures clocks in motion ... you are saying that Einstein assumed the observer using the Lorentz ... same speed in all directions in his own frame. ... plugging numbers into the Lorentz transformation, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: IRT: A New Theory of Relativity
    ... >>in motion relative to himself to shrink, and measures clocks in motion ... you are saying that Einstein assumed the observer using the Lorentz ... same speed in all directions in his own frame. ... plugging numbers into the Lorentz transformation, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: IRT: A New Theory of Relativity
    ... absolute motion of the observer is higher than that of the observed frame. ... > transformations was in a state of rest relative to the ether, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: IRT: A New Theory of Relativity
    ... absolute motion of the observer is higher than that of the observed frame. ... > transformations was in a state of rest relative to the ether, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)