Re: It is not always c!

Subject: Re: It is not always c!

Jeckyl <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Subject: Re: It is not always c!

<deletes by O'Barr of many non-scientific comments>

Jeckyl wrote:
. . . All my complaint are about yiour errors in
fact and science.

Jeckyl wrote:
Relative velocity is NOT the same thing as
closing or seaparation speed. it is a different
concepty and you continue to dishonestly conflate
those two different ideas

O'Barr wrote:
Yes, I am well familiar with what SR experts have
done to change the concept (to change the
definition) . . .

<more deletes by Jeckyl>

O'Barr wrote:
Now why is it that you have not answered me,
as to
what it was or is that demands that your SR
definition of relative velocity is justified?

Jeckyl wrote:
Because it is a different concept .. so it needs a
particular term. Just like outsdie of physics,
people talk about their weight in kilograms, whereas
in physics that is wrong. You need to use the
appropriate terms to make you meaning clear. In
Newtonian physics the relative velocity (as SR uses
the term) is the same as the closing or separation
velocity, so you can interchange those two terms and
still be talking about the same value. In SR and
LET it is not the same, so you have to use the terms
correctly to avoid confusion. You deliberately use
them incorrectly to cause confusion. That's called
dishonesty

O'Barr comments:
Well, I am not perfect. And neither are you. But
I have never heard that LET has changed its
definition of relative velocity. How come you want
to think this? Can you give me a reference where LET
has changed its definition of relative velocity?
If you were perfect, then you might have taken the
trouble to see how I used these words. For example,
in my posts, I have almost always stated what a
relative velocity will be assumed to be, and I use
this definition very exactingly. You could have
corrected me at the point where I defined it, not at
the point where a measurement was given. Don't you
know how to do physics?


O'Barr wrote to Jeckyl:
. . . . you are . . .
saying that no other frame can be used to
measure this relative velocity.

Jeckyl wrote:
That is correct .. as it will then be the
relative velocity within that frame. it will
still be a valid calculation, but a calculation of
a different value.

O'Barr comments:
A calculation of a different value? Who cares?

Jeckyl wrote:
You obviously don't .. or rather, you ignore it
because it shows the errors in what you are trying
to claim.

O'Barr comments:
And what am I claiming? And what is the error?
Why don't you ever show this error? You never
show these errors that you say I am doing. You just
repeat over and over that it is wrong. Why don't you
show what is wrong? Is it because you do not
really know? Let us see in black and white what it
is that you are having a problem with! Can't you
speak?

O'Barr wrote:
Any frame you go into will get different relative
velocities! So which of all frames should you
measure the velocity of the moon? Or the earth?
Or the stars? These are also all different in
every frame.

Jeckyl wrote:
That's right .. because relative velocity if frame
dependant.

O'Barr comments:
Thank you, thank you, thank you. Of course
relative velocity is frame dependent. Thank you a
third time. So no one who thinks cares that there
are differences, as long as these differences are
self consistent within the theory! So who cares
what frame is used to measure the relative
velocities? No one! As long as the frame is
correctly identified, any frame is allowed to be
used.


O'Barr wrote:
... in SR, all velocities are relative.

Jeckyl wrote:
Yes .. so they are all frame dependant. It is only
things travelling at the speed of light that have
speeds that are not frame dependant.

O'Barr comments:
Negative, Negative, Negative. That is exactly
what I have shown you. Yes, within very narrow or
limited situations, you do get c for a measurement.
But not in all SR measurements. In fact, the
majority of SR measurements show that light is going
past reference frames at velocities different than c.
These are the type 3 and type 6 types of
measurements. And these are all perfect SR
measurements. They are all done with perfect SR
grids, with perfect SR clocks, with perfect SR syncs,
with perfect SR observers. And all these
measurements of the rate at which light is measured
to be going past these frames are all frame
dependent!

Jeckyl wrote:
[snip more obfuscating and minunderstanding by
O'Barr]

O'Barr comments:
You have no right not to understand these simple
things!

O'Barr wrote:
In SR,
all frames are just as valid as any other frame,
to measure any object or event.

Jeckyl wrote:
Yes .. but that does NOT mean they will all
measure the same thing. Implying that they should
is dishonest.


O'Barr wrote:
No one has said that all relative velocities for
all objects have to be measured to be the same
value in all frames. This would be stupid.

Jeckyl wrote:
But above you were claiming that different frames
measuing difference velocities was wrong. Make up
your mind.


O'Barr comments:
If I did say something was wrong, then why didn't
you quote me, and then state what the correct
statement would have been? Why are you so dumb that
you will never do anything that actually shows an
error? Why? Surely you are not that dumb, that you
cannot show the actual statement! That is what the
power of a computer is. You can copy and paste, and
show everyone, me and the rest of the world, an
error! You just say something is wrong, but you
never show it. Do it!


O'Barr wrote:
In all SR frames, the velocity of the earth and
the velocity of the moon and the velocity of the
sun are different. But in each and every frame,
these
different velocities are all valid and useful and
just as correct as they are measured in any other
frame. So again, what is this point that these
relative velocity values are or are not different!

Jeckyl wrote:
None .. but you try to make it significant. That
is YOUR problem, not mine.

O'Barr comments:
I see. I am not really making an error. I am
only trying to make something significant when it is
not significant. Is that the error you see? I am
not really making an error. I am only trying to make
an error, and you do not like me trying to make an
error? I think you are crazy. You have no cause
against anything I am saying. You just do not like
it that I am trying to say something. No wonder all
you can do is complain, and you can never actually
say that anything is wrong. Well, Jeckyl, keep
complaining all you want. All it is doing is making
yourself look silly when people will later look at
what you write, and they will wonder what it was you
were so upset about.


O'Barr wrote:
If there really is a
relative velocity existing between two objects,
then any and every frame has just as much right
to measure and state this fact as any other
frame.

Jeckyl wrote:
And in each frame it will be different. That is
not a problem and should be expected.

O'Barr comments:
Perfect! Then we have no more argument.

Jeckyl wrote:
Good .. then go away

O'Barr comments:
Sure, for at least a minute, just as soon as you
can honestly agree that, in SR, the measured speed of
light going past reference frames is not c in the
vast majority of SR measurements (these are your type
3 and 6 measurements), and thus, SR cannot really say
what the real speed of light is, as it goes past any
specific frame.
And that the speed of light appears to 'not
likely be c' in any one frame, and when it is
measured to be c, the majority analyses of this is
due to changes in the tools being used in the frames
where such measurements are made. That is what the
math of SR shows us, it is what any honest physicist
would have to say and believe if they were to accept
SR math.


O'Barr wrote: . . .
The
relative velocity is exactly as what I had said,
exactly as Einstein did in his train experiment,
and the measured SR relative velocity of light
going past the train, in the frame of the tracks,
is exactly as
Einstein said it was, it was c - v, and this is not
c.
This should be the end of this post!

Jeckyl wrote:
But of course, it won't be .. because not you have
to do some more lying to try to make your point

O'Barr comments:
I am not making these points! All I
am doing is showing the points that SR math makes all
by itself. I am not the one who makes the speed of
light going past the train to be c-v! I am not doing
this. I am not the one making the light going past
all independent frames to be different than c. I
have nothing to do with anything I am saying. It is
all being done by SR math. And it is SR math that is
going to destroy all these crazy SR experts, who do
not understand their very own math.
SR math shows that we cannot know for sure what
the exact velocity of light is in any frame. SR math
shows that we do measure changes in our tools. SR
math shows us that we can not trust our tools. We
can trust our tools to give us results that can be
related to predictions. Buy we cannot trust them to
produce any results that could be considered to be
absolute.
In SR, we have be honest, and say what we do
know. We can know what will be measured. But to say
that we know that any measurement is something
absolute is crazy and physically impossible.



O'Barr quoting what Jeckyl wrote:
*********************************
To calculate relative velocity of one object to
another, you need to measure the distance of the
first object from the second object at two
different time in the frame of reference of that
second object, . . .
**********************************

Jeckyl wrote:
Nothing there about a special frame.

O'Barr continues:
To me, Jeckyl, you have said (and I also know SR,
you did not really have to tell me anything) that
only the frame of the second object - if the other
is a photon -
is the one and only frame in which you
will accept its relative velocity measurement to
be correct or accepted in SR.

Jeckyl wrote:
If you are talking about the velocity of A
relative to B, then that MEANS that vleocity of A
measured in a frame where B is at rest.

That doesn't make that frame special .. it is simply
the appropriate one for that particular calculation

O'Barr comments:
The problem is this: If you had said that the
relative velocity could be the velocity of A measured
in a frame where B is at rest, this is certainly
correct. In the frame where B is at rest, one can
measure a relative velocity between B and A. This is
all good.
But this is not what you said. You said that the
***only frame*** in which you will allow this
measurement to be made is the frame in which B is at
rest. This does make frame B more special than all
other frames for this so called relative measurement.
This is insane, that a relative measurement is a
measurement that only applies to one special frame.
Such a concept stands SR on its head. It is insane,
insane, insane. There is no other word for it. And
you still have not given a reason why this has to be
true. What is done wrong if you do not do this? Why
are you not willing to explain such an insane
requirement? What mistake is made if you don't do
this? Please answer me! Give me a valid reason for
being so insane!


<many more deletes by O'Barr>


Jeckyl wrote:
You have said multiple times that because every
other frame measures a speed different to c for
light going past the frame, that means it cannot
really be going at c in that frame, because the
weirght of the data is against it.


O'Barr comments:
Let us be more careful: If an SR expert says that
***SR says*** that the speed of light is always c in
every frame, then I only have to find one valid SR
measurement to show that such a broad SR statement is
in error. Just one valid example of light going past
a reference frame at a velocity different than c
breaks the statement that is being said by all SR
experts. Just one! And I have found that there is
one. And that is all I need.
But as a fact, I did not find just one. I
actually found a majority of the measurements show
that I am right. The fact that it is a majority is
of course interesting and it is important. But it
certainly is not necessary. All that is actually
necessary is that I find at least one that is valid.
And this has been done.


Jeckyl wrote (about SR being physically impossible):
No .. it is not .. it is physically possible and
has been observed as being the case.

O'Barr comments:
The measurements we make are certainly physically
possible, because we do make such measurements. But
what the measurements imply are things that are not
physically possible. Everyone can understand that.


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: 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)
  • 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)
Quantcast