Re: O'Barr comments to the net.

Subject: Re: O'Barr comments to the net.

Jeckyl <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Subject: Re: O'Barr comments to the net.
. . .

<deletes by O'Barr>

O'Barr wrote:
Your use of the word 'real' is not a good SR term.

Jeckyl wrote:
It was your term

O'Barr comments:
True, but that still does not affect or change the
point being made, does it? I can use such words
because I state very clearly that I am using an LET
type interpretation, and an LET type of an
interpretation must include such concepts as to what
is real, and what might be just a measurement made
with changeable tools.

O'Barr wrote:
It has a meaning in LET.

Jeckyl wrote:
'Real' meaning that velocity that we cannot measure
and cannot detect .. doesn't sound very real to
me.

O'Barr comments:
Whether something is real or not sometimes depends
on the explanations. If there is a valid,
reasonable, and understandable explanation as to why
something is not observable, and these reasons can be
verified, etc., then we can often live with such
things. If there are no physical explanations, and
it remains silly and physically impossible, then we
have to reject it.
So what will a reasonable person do? The
explanations used by SR experts for what happens is
that there is this 4-D spacetime geometry that, in an
unspecified physical way, causes all these things to
happen. But this geometry is not seen at any time,
it is not felt, it is not verified in one single test
as being what it is claimed to be. And so it must be
rejected.
But the ether is understood. Being a perfect
carrier of electromagnetic energy, then of course it
would be perfectly invisible to these kinds of
interactions. Being the actual medium in which
exchange particles are required to move in, then of
course it will affect the resulting field effects
that will be expected, and so all the acts of an
ether at least have causes and effects that are
local, that are proportional, and are related to the
effects being addressed.
All this makes it easy to compare the different
positions that have to be considered between SR and
LET. One has realistic and doable and physical
explanations, the other has no real explanations at
all.

O'Barr wrote:
But it seems to me that you are overlooking the
additional measurements that SR frames can make.

Jeckyl wrote:
Here we go .. more O'Barr dishonesty and
incorrectly conflating two different concepts.

O'Barr comments:
If this is so, why don't you tell us how it is so?
You keep saying that a closing velocity is not a
relative velocity, but you have never explained how
these two velocities can be different. Is one
velocity real and the other is a play velocity? Is
one measured with tools, and the other is 'make
believe'? If you are serious in saying that they are
different, then explain it.

O'Barr wrote:
There are other measurements. In Einstein's train
example, the relative speed of light going past
the train, as measured in the frame of the tracks,
was not c.

Jeckyl wrote:
Of course not .. you get the same in LET as well.. it
is a different concept .. a different sort of
measurement.

O'Barr comments:
Well yes, every different velocity measurement is
different because you are measuring different things,
at different points, under different conditions. But
all velocities are velocities, and all relative
velocities are relative velocities. Surely you have
something more than this, if you are trying to make a
point. Why don't you just state the point?


O'Barr wrote:
And this is what I have my attention on, and
you seem to want to ignore these facts.

Jeckyl wrote:
I ignore nothing .. I address it every time you
deliberately and incorrectly put forward this
position.

O'Barr comments:
Well I beg to differ. You did not do it here, and
you have never done it. You have never established
any meaningful difference between a closing velocity
or any other relative velocity. As long as you state
the frame in which they are measured, the
measurements are valid SR measurements at all times
and under all conditions that any of the other
velocities are valid. QED.

O'Barr wrote:
If there are other SR measurements that show that
the relative speed of light past a frame (and the
train is a good example of a moving frame),

Jeckyl wrote:
They show the speed of separation/close between
some other object (which may be the origin of some
other iFoR) and light. That is NOT the same as the
speed of light in that other frame

O'Barr comments:
And they are also not the speed of a snail who is
lost and does not know where to go.
The speed of light in a frame is the speed of
light in a frame. And that is a real valid velocity.
The relative speed of light that is measured by frame
A, that his frame A tools measure, for the rate at
which light is measured to be going by frame X, is
also a valid SR measurement of what his SR tools
measures of the relative speed of light going past
frame X. This is also a valid SR measurement, and it
is not c.
Thus, you now have two SR measurements, and they
do not show the same value. So why are you not going
to accept both of these measurements? You are not
going to accept one because it did not show c. But
that is not scientific. What was wrong with the
correct SR measurement using correct SR tools being
used by SR experts following correct SR procedures?
Why do you never discuss the actual problem? Why do
you never give an explanation? You just say it is
wrong. You just say it is different. But you never
justify any of these things. You are just talk, and
it is going to have to eventually end.


O'Barr wrote:
then one cannot say that every frame is seen, by
SR, to have photons going by with a relative
velocity of c.

Jeckyl wrote:
Yes .. you can. EVERY frame has light going as
speed c within that frame.

O'Barr comments:
This is certainly true, in that all measurement of
the speed of light, in free space, is c in every
inertial frame. We have never disagreed upon this
point. Why do you keep bringing it up? The point is
that there are measurements of the relative velocity
of light which are not c. Just because you can find
velocities that are c is not disproving that there
are not velocities that are not c. And since you
have never even tried to disprove the correctness of
these velocities that are not c, then my case is made
prefect and complete.

Jeckyl wrote:
The speeds of other objects in that frame doesn't
affect the speed of light in that frame.

O'Barr comments:
Absolutely true! But the speeds of other objects
in that frame does affect the relative speed of light
that is measured of light going passed each of these
moving objects. And this is what we are discussing.
Why are you not willing to stay on the subject?

O'Barr wrote:
We do have to address this problem.

Jeckyl wrote:
I have ,, by pointing out your deliberate error ..
repeatedly

[snip same old dishonesty by O'Barr]

O'Barr comments:
No, you have not answered anything. Every time I
mention this measurement of the relative speed of
light going past other frames, you immediately return
to the point that the speed of light measured within
any frame is c. You never address the fact that
external frames, those frames outside of the frame
being considered and the speed of light going past
it, do not measure c. You refuse to allow this to be
said and understood. Just as this measurement was
not c for Einstein's train, it also is not c for
every frame that exists. And until you acknowledge
this, you are no scientist.



O'Barr wrote:
In fact, the only thing that any
SR expert should say is that we do not really
know what the actual relative speed of light is
in any frame.

Jackyl wrote:
LIAR Yes .. we do

O'Barr comments:
If you take an SR inertial frame X, and then you
have every other SR inertial frame that exists
(which might be millions and millions of frames,
and have each one of them measure the relative
speed of light
that their own tools measure for light going past
frame X, not one of these millions of frames will
measure a relative velocity of c.

Jeckyl wrote:
That is NOT the same thing as the speed of light
relative to a given frame .. which is ALWAYS c

O'Barr comments:
It is not the measurement of the speed of light by
those within the frame relative to the frame, but it
is a measurement of the relative speed of light going
past this frame, as measured by others with their own
tools. Thus it is a valid measurement of the
property being sought. And it is not c. It is not
only not c, but data is obtained that shows that the
reason why this frame measures c within its own frame
is only a trick being played on it because of the way
its rulers and clocks have been affected by its
motions. In other words, even if a frame measures c,
it is not of anything to be trusted. There are
explanations as to why frames are able to measure c,
and it is not because it is c. And thus, SR math
itself supports LET, and what LET says is correct.

Surely you are just saying that they
are different, but they are all just as SR valid as
any other SR data is exists.


Jeckyl wrote:
[snip the same deliberate error and outright
dishonesty by O'Barr .. you have no shame, do you]

O'Barr comments:
I am being just as honest as I can be. What is it
that you do not agree with? You surely have to agree
that what I say is correct, that these measurements
are not c. You cannot disagree with anything I am
saying. You just say it is wrong, without showing
what is wrong, and explaining why it is wrong.


O'Barr wrote:
All that can be said is that the velocity
of light will be measured to be c within any one
frame.

Jeckyl wrote:
LIAR Within EVERY frame

O'Barr comments:
Yes, within each and every frame, the measured
velocity of light is c.

Jeckyl wrote:
Good. So stop saying or implying otherwise

[snip the same deliberate error and outright
dishonesty by O'Barr .. you have no shame, do you]

O'Barr comments:
But you see, Jeckyl, you have just ignored all SR
measurements that are not c. You have no right to
ignore correct SR data just because it is not c. You
cannot even ignore it if you give it a special name,
like closing velocity. Such acts are not able to
save you. The actual measured velocity at which
light is going by inertial reference frames is
dependent on the observer. If you are an observer
within a frame, using that frames grid of rulers and
clocks, you get c. But the millions and millions of
other frames will not support such a measurement.
All the other frames will measure something other
than c. And thus, SR experts cannot say exactly what
the real velocity of light is in any frame. They can
say what different observers might measure, but they
cannot say which observer is correct.


<deletes by O'Barr>


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: OBarr comments to the net.
    ... Jeckyl wrote: ... and what might be just a measurement ... frame, when every frame is moving at a different ... departing speed and both of these speeds have to be ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Errors being made by SR experts.
    ... Jeckyl wrote: ... somthing relative to your own frame is real. ... 'this measurement of c is not.' ... In SR it is just said that the velocity of light ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: It is not always c!
    ... Look, Jeckyl, it is obvious that you cannot take ... definition of relative velocity is justified? ... velocity within that frame. ... valculated from measurements in that frame. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Errors being made by SR experts.
    ... that the REAL velocity of the ... photon in that second frame MUST BE ... And that measurement is done for the frame they are in. ... then all of relativity is wrong. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading