What Does SR stand For?

What Does SR stand For?

SR stands for Special Relativity. But in truth,
SR really stands for stupid relativity. SR says that
our reality is a 4-D reality. And yet, there is not
one test to unambiguously establish such a concept.
Not one test! Every test that has so far been
conducted in SR is able to be seen as a simple 3-D
test. Never has any test been conducted that had to
have been a 4-D act. Never, never, never!
Therefore, all SR experts believe in a theory
that has never been scientifically established, any
more so than that of proving LET to be correct. This
makes SR the weakest scientific theory that has ever
existed.
Let us take it by the numbers: First and most
important, to have a 4-D spacetime continuum is of
course physically impossible. No human being has
ever been able to physically comprehend such a thing.
Just ask any SR expert to give a physical
explanation! Such explanations do not exist. There
is no SR book that has the title: 'The Physical
explanation of the Theory of Relativity.' Such a
concept is not physically possible or physically
explainable.
Certainly, I can imagine some SR expert trying to
do this. I can see them in my mind's eye saying
words after words after words. But there will not
really be any explanations. There will actually be
only a bunch of words. All that can really be there
is a lot of math. Certainly, anyone can give a math
explanation. A 4-D math can be shown at any time and
at any place. Why even a 50 dimensions math can be
shown. But to actually have a real 4-D is
laughable. It is totally unimaginable. It is like
believing in 'back in time.' Ops, did I bring up
another favorite subject of SR? Yes, back in time,
or jumps in times, or all these other 'fun and games'
that we all know to be funny and actually impossible,
but often presented in SR as being real.

But these are the things that SR experts try to
force upon others, with no science, no evidence, no
ability to actually explain. All they can do is show
that certain measurements seem to show such things,
and if you get a measurement that show it, then it
must be true, according to all the SR experts.
However, ever since the MMX experiment, we have
had physicists explain that our tools are now known
to be able to change when their velocities change,
and thus what our tools measure, can no longer be
fully trusted. We measure what we measure because of
these changes in the tools, and what is measured must
then be seen to be a combination of what reality is
doing, and what our tools are doing within that same
reality. There is no mystery at all, once one
understands the total complexity to our reality.
But for some reason, the SR experts do not want to
address this fact that real changes do occur. No!
These SR experts try to say that there are no real
changes. Why they point out that all tools at rest
in a frame remain at their proper lengths at all
times. They say this as if this has real meaning.
All it really means is that if you have two
identical tools, both at rest in the same frame, of
course they will each see the other as being
identical, since if they are both at rest in the same
frame, they would have each changed the exact same
amount, and would have to see each other to be the
same when they are both at rest in the same frame.
Can you be any more stupid than this, to think that
proper lengths do not change just because you are
using two tools that saw the exact same changes?
Yes, SR experts have made themselves to be crazy.
They are no longer logical. They are no longer
scientific. They are not even able to be rational in
comparing the relationships between SR and LET.

But we will eventually understand all these
things. And even today, the need for a background in
which all these things occur is being felt by QM and
in Astronomy. SR is not going to be with us for much
longer. And I am sorry for all these SR experts, who
have made themselves to be so silly and so physically
impossible.

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

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Einsteins logic
    ... >>physical, mechanical fixed ether, then why is it in the inertial frame ... special relativity should ignore it. ... keep asking people to post an explanation you will ignore, ... >No doubt you will take comfort in the fact that all top physicists agree ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Article: A Century of Einstein
    ... >> What get me Dirk is his constant referral to philosophers to back up his ... 'Reichenbach asserts that the reality ... analysis of the theory of relativity. ... correct and reading books by physicists - not philosophers. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Article: A Century of Einstein
    ... >> What get me Dirk is his constant referral to philosophers to back up his ... 'Reichenbach asserts that the reality ... analysis of the theory of relativity. ... correct and reading books by physicists - not philosophers. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Physicists Losing Their Grip??
    ... What quantum reality versions (he ... > "Physicists Losing Their Grip ... > Niels Bohr, and it is Bohr who puts forth one of quantum physics' ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: Physicists Losing Their Grip??
    ... What quantum reality versions (he ... > "Physicists Losing Their Grip ... > Niels Bohr, and it is Bohr who puts forth one of quantum physics' ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading