Re: What Does SR stand For?
- From: "Jeckyl" <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 10:07:21 +1000
"Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1189117731.920875.51190@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You mentioned the need of having a mechanical
explanation for the ether. Yes, it sure would be
nice to know how the ether physically works. But we
do know much about this ether.
For a start, like whetehr it even exists
And SR knows even less!
SR 'knows' as much as anyone knows about it.
We do know that
the speed of light, and the rates of clocks, and the
lengths of rulers are all controlled by the same
ether,
We know nothing of the sort. That is just one part of a particular theory
for which there is no supporting evidence.
the same reference frame, with the same
absolute velocity control. This simplifies all of
our thoughts, and our science.
NO .. it complicates it with more unknowns and 'magic'.
Did you miss all this
on purpose?
That's your department .. deliberately ignoring what is explained to you
countless times and continuing to post your lies and half-truths.
RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
As I have already pointed out, and a simple reading
of the literature of relativity shows, the
experimental evidence for relativity is evidence for
the physical existence of spacetime.
O'Barr comments:
You cannot scientifically say this as long as LET
remains viable. LET allows the math to be fully and
completely explained as a simple 3-D effect, and thus
you are left with nothing! This means you are left
with absolutely nothing. You are scientifically left
with zero evidence for anything like 4-D. I do not
expect you to make this mistake again.
NO .. This means YOU are left with absolutely nothing. You are
scientifically left with zero evidence for anything like an ether. I DO
expect you to make this mistake again because of your conitunally
dishonesty.
RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Spacetime is not impossible.
O'Barr comments:
Yes it is impossible.
Nonsense. You just refuse to understand it.
It is completely
impossible. No one has ever seen it, experienced it,
felt it, tested it, established any effects of it.
Every experiement of SR effects is it seeing it, experiencing it, feeling
it, testing it, establishing effects of it
It just cannot be.
You have provided no reason at all for it not to be.
RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You are wrong in your claim that "LET" somehow
explains relativistic effects.
O'Barr comments:
Since I have read what you are going to say, let
me point out ahead of time that you are now going to
pull a very dirty trick.
Hey .. now you know how we feel everytime we see a new post by O'Barr ..
more ditry tricks
[snip]
yes, continue to be
smart (or dumb), and miss the truth that is being
presented to you.
I imagine you don't see the hypcricy of that statement coming from you.
Let us be just as specific as we can be: If there
were a test, where if the results were X, then we
would have 3-D, and if the results were Y, then we
would have 4-D, and then you did this test, and used
an analysis to determine that you got a Y, then you
could say we had a 4-D reality. And you could say
this in a scientific way. But such a test has never
existed, and such a test has never been conducted.
So you cannot say it is definitely 3D and cannot say it is definitely 4D.
Although it does directly exhibit the qualities of 4D. In order for 3D to
work, you need to rationalise it with the addition of a magical ether.
And you are not being scientific if you say anything
different than this. I am sorry, but this is the way
it is.
Again , the hypocrisy is overwhelming
O'Barr comments:
I am sorry for your false logic. LET is aware of
the fact that our tools are not perfect,
No .. it asserts they are .. that does not mean they really are. Its just a
theory.
To me, you are acting like a
child, saying things that you are either doing on
purpose to deceive, or worse.
You utter the words of your own condemnation.
O'Barr comments:
My comments are very justified. They are
scientifically stated. There is no justification for
4-D, and you know it.
Yes .. there is. There is no proof, of course, as sceience does not proof,
only refute. Yet you make the wild assertion that 4D is impossible, even
though 4D is suported by all the experimental evidence. THAT is not
scientific.
And it is physically impossible.
And no one can have change but no
change. No one can argue against the obvious.
Yet you do it ALL the time.
RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Again, spacetime is not impossible.
O'Barr comments:
Well, if you want to be dumb, be dumb. Let us
then at least say there is so far no science to it.
Yes .. there is .. much more so than a hypothetical undetectable ether that
just happens to slow all processes that are moving in it by the same amount
and shrink all types of matter by the same amount.
This would be clear to any thinking scientist.
That's why you can't see it.
O'Barr comments:
Sorry, you can't blame me for anything. I did not
invent SR 4-D spacetime continuums. And I did not
invent LET. Your troubles have nothing to do with
me.
Oh, far from it .. it is your blatant dishonest that we have problems with.
RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The Lorentz transformation, for example, reflects a
geometric truth of space-time.
O'Barr comments:
Then why did these transforms exist before
spacetime existed?
They are math .. the have always existed . .they were discovered.
Why are they called Lorentz
transforms and not spacetime transforms?
Stupid O'Barr .. because Lorentz was the first to dervie them. He didn't
realise at the time that they meant space and time was modelled as 4D
spacetime.
You are
lying to yourself and saying things with no
scientific tests to support your conclusions.
Again .. hypocrisy
As has been pointed out many times now, there is
only two fundamentals in SR: the use of the speed of
light as being a math constant,
Playing with words. . its not a math constant .. its a physical constant in
reality
and the keeping of
the form of the math to be a constant in all frames.
Again playing with words .. it means that reality is the same regardless of
whether someone is observing it from a moving perspective or not. If
something is happening, and you observe it and I observe it, but you are
moving relative to me, the behaviour is not changed by our relative motion.
These two math acts include nothing that is
physically fundamental at all.
Nonsense .. its just you putting the word 'math' in there and trying to
trick people .. typical O'Barr deceit
[snip]
O'Barr comments:
Could any thoughts be more stupid? No one can
honestly say that SR is superior to LET if LET does
everything that SR does in a simpler way.
Exactly.. but it is SR that does things more simply .. LET add unnecessary
complication.
RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
. . . what do they say? Relativity theory says
that light really moves isotropically at the
constant speed of 3.00x10^8 meters/second relative
to all inertial frames and, consequently, that must
be measured to be true.
O'Barr comments:
And when you say it the way you just said it, it
is stupid and silly and physically impossible.
No .. it is only YOU that are stupid and silly. Unfortunately you are not
physically impossible.
The
actual speed of light cannot really be constant in
all frames,
Yes .. it can .. and it is
if there are relative velocities between
these frames.
Not in our 4D universe
And actual measurements made by
independent frames of what the speed of light is in
these other frames show that what is said above is
not true, even in SR.
LIES again.
What SR really says is the speed of light in all
inertial frames is measured to be c when you use the
tools at rest in that frame.
That's the same thing.
And this is exactly
what LET says. Both theories say and they measure
the exact same things. Your stupidity is going to
have to end.
Unfortunately, yours continues
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: What Does SR stand For?
- From: Gerald L. O'Barr
- Re: What Does SR stand For?
- References:
- Re: What Does SR stand For?
- From: Gerald L. O'Barr
- Re: What Does SR stand For?
- From: RLG
- Re: What Does SR stand For?
- From: Gerald L. O'Barr
- Re: What Does SR stand For?
- From: RLG
- Re: What Does SR stand For?
- From: Gerald L. O'Barr
- Re: What Does SR stand For?
- Prev by Date: Re: PROOF: Schwarzschild Radius r=2*G*M/c^2 is wrong
- Next by Date: Re: PROOF: Schwarzschild Radius r=2*G*M/c^2 is wrong
- Previous by thread: Re: What Does SR stand For?
- Next by thread: Re: What Does SR stand For?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
