Re: Errors being made by SR experts.

Subject: Re: Errors being made by SR experts.

Jeckyl <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
harry <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
. . . .

Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

O'Barr continues: . . .
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.

O'Barr comments:
You are wrong. This is exactly what
Einstein did, and he was right then, and he is still
correct. If you have any arguments, take it up with
him, not with me. In any one frame, anyone has the
right to combine two vectors that have been measured
in that frame by adding them or subtracting them.
Again, as long as you stay in the same frame, this is
valid.


O'Barr wrote:
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".

Harry wrote:
That happens to be a literal part of Einstein's
SRT derivation.


O'Barr comments:
Thanks for the support, Harry! This c +/- v has
to be true, or else relativity is false.



There is no reason to think that O'Barr means
anything else than Einstein did when he wrote the
same in 1905.



Jeckyl <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Its how he is using that .. he is deliberately
misrepresenting and misinterpreting it to try to
show that SR is wrong in what it says about the
speed of light.

O'Barr comments:
I am sorry, Jeckyl, it is not me showing that the
relative speed of light going past these reference
frames are not c. Your own math shows this. And
because you are not willing to agree to this shows
that you worship. You are not a scientist, willing
to say what is said by your own theory!


Jeckyl <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
That is where the dishonesty comes in.

O'Barr comments:
Your own math shows this. Is your own math
dishonest?

Jeckyl <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
He tries to use that to say that every observer,
other than us, gets a different figure than c for
the speed of light in our frame, so therefore by
majority rule, the speed of light in our frame
cannot actually be c.

O'Barr comments:
Well, isn't this correct, that only the one in a
frame measures c, and all the other SR observers do
not measure c? This is all correct. And so what are
the correct explanations? You cannot explain it.
But all the other observers can explain it. And they
are all perfect and correct SR observers. Why
shouldn't we believe what perfect and correct SR
observers measure? You are not a scientist if you
are not willing to listen to your own observers!

Jeckyl <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
That is a nonsense conclusion, as the closing speed
in some other frame is a different beast to the speed
of light in our own frame ..

O'Barr comments:
I am sorry, but the closing speed is a real speed.
Being a real speed, it cannot really be different
from any other speed. How can there be different
kinds of speed? A speed is a speed, no matter what
name is used. Call it a departing speed. That is
O.K. with me. A departing speed can't be different
than a closing speed if no changes have occurred in
either of their velocities. Or call it a blue
velocity. Who cares? As long as the measurement is
correct, and it is, then it is the relative velocity
between these two objects, in the frame doing the
measurement, and it has to be correct no matter what
name is being used to name it.

Jeckyl <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
and if those in other frames actually did observer
what we would measure in our frame correctly (by
looking at the closing speed AND the tools we would
be measuring it with), they would also agree that
we would see the speed of light as being c.

O'Barr comments:
Yes, they do see that you measure c, but never
because the real relative velocity was c, but only
because your tools gave you a false value because
their lengths and rates were not what they should
have been. Thus, SR math, being LET math, perfectly
confirms what LET tells us. Isn't that neat!
I am sorry, Jeckyl, but I have reached the limit
that I can go with your unwillingness to accept any
criticism of SR. You need to repent.


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




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: It is not always c!
    ... Jeckyl wrote: ... will use frame A and frame B as two valid SR ... measurements or calculations, ... To calculate closing or separation velocity, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The religious worship of SR.
    ... be based upon the results of measurements made of all ... the identical relative velocity as twin B, ... reference frame math, the real differences between ... Yes a photon does have mass. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: It is not always c!
    ... Jeckyl wrote: ... Newtonian physics the relative velocity (as SR uses ... relative velocity within that frame. ... But not in all SR measurements. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: OBarrs Lamentations!
    ... implications of specifying a frame. ... relative velocity as being the velocity of one object ... In math, a variable can be ... That is what SR measurements do show. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The religious worship of SR.
    ... be based upon the results of measurements made of all ... the identical relative velocity as twin B, ... reference frame math, the real differences between ... Yes a photon does have mass. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)