Re: What Does SR stand For?

Subject: Re: What Does SR stand For?

RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jeckyl <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

O'Barr wrote:
My goodness, do I actually see you doing
some thinking? I can't believe that you are
actually thinking of what it is that we actually
know, and
what it is that we can only assume. Thank you for
making at least one effort to do this.
With our eyes we see in 3-D, with our ears we
hear in 3-D, with our hands we feel in 3-D. There
is almost nothing that we deal with in which 3-D
is not a direct part of what is done and
experienced. All of our sciences (standard
sciences) are full 3-D, and they work perfectly.
So 3-D is the standard, established by
correlations that are impossible to ignore.

RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Science cannot judge the nature of the cosmos by
ordinary human experience. If it did, the Earth
would be flat, . . .

O'Barr comments:
What a perfect example! Yes, there were times
when many people thought that the earth was flat. So
why is this not the belief today? This is not the
belief today because science can now offer evidence,
such as deep space photos, that show the earth as a
sphere. Today, because of the evidence, no one could
scientifically believe the earth is flat. So where
is this evidence for 4-D? The point being made is
that there is no evidence at all for 4-D! It is, in
fact, an outright lie. Even what is presented as
evidence (this so called 4-D math) is now able to be
shown to be simple 3-D math. Grow up, and
understand the facts. SR
math is not and cannot itself be any evidence at all.
It is evidence for 3-D, not for 4-D!

<all the rest of your examples were deleted because
they all are just as stupid as your first example
above.>


O'Barr wrote (about trying to make things 4-D):
Only those who would want to change this must have
reasons to justify such an act. If some event or
some bit of knowledge did appear that required
such,
then we would be forced to consider such. But you
see, SR experts tried to say we had such things in
SR, and they did all this in ignorance. There are
no evidences in SR to say that anything has to be
4-D. As long as LET stands as a viable approach,
then LET proves that the math of SR is fully
acceptable as a 3-D science, and so no evidence
yet exists for 4-D.
These are the facts. And no one can change
these facts. And so 4-D is not yet a science. In
fact, there is not one test, not one fact, not one
evidence to support such a silly and physically
impossible thing. So grow up, and understand this
simple point
that is being made. SR is dead. It never had any
legs to stand on, and it never will! 4-D is
physically impossible.

RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You keep claiming this over and over again and it
is untrue.

O'Barr comments:
I am not claiming anything! Your own math has
betrayed you. I have nothing to do with any of this.
I did not make up LET! I did not make up SR math.
And this is all that SR is, it is just LET math,
derived in a simpler way, that is all that it is, and
the math proves it. You have nothing to support 4-D,
and you never will. It is simply physically
impossible.


RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Are you constantly repeating this to try and
convince others on this newsgroup or yourself?

O'Barr comments:
As just said, I do not have to do anything. The
only question that exists is how long you plan on
being stupid and not let yourself understand these
simplest of things? SR math is simple 3-D math, and
you now know this, and now everyone else also knows
this. Thus, SR math is powerless in trying to
establish anything to do with 4-D. It is laughable
to think that anyone would now want to use SR math to
confirm this silly point.


RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
All of the experimental evidence for both special
and general relativity is solid evidence for the
physical existence of the spacetime continuum.

O'Barr comments:
Solid evidence you say? How can there be solid
evidence when you present zero evidence? How can
there be any evidence when there is none? Just
because you say there is, this does not make there to
be any evidence.
What a failure on your part to understand all
this. Einstein made a specific effort to make GR to
be SR as one of GR's limits. Therefore, if there
were ever found to be any weaknesses in SR, that same
weakness would exist in GR! Let us say this again!
SR is GR, and GR is SR, in the limit where SR
applies. And thus, neither SR nor GR can be 4-D, or
else they are both wrong. Take your pick!

RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
As I already pointed out, general relativity says
that gravity IS the warping of the four-dimensional
spacetime continuum. If this continuum did not
physically exist then it could not be warped and
then gravity theory would make no sense. "LET" is
not a viable approach for the reasons I gave you
earlier (and many others).

O'Barr comments:
But you see, GR does not say anything about what
space is, in any physical sense. GR, just like SR,
is just a math theory. It was just an effort to make
the math reflect the measurement results of reality.
GR did not start out by saying what space
physically was, and GR did not show how this physical
make-up resulted in 4-D, and then how this 4-D
resulted in our measurements of reality. All of this
is just made-up rot by you so called experts.


<deletes by O'Barr>

O'Barr wrote:
My comments are very justified. They are
scientifically stated. There is no
justification for 4-D, and you know it.


Jeckyl <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

O'Barr wrote:
Let me tell you what is unscientific. If you take
3-D space, and then add a fourth variable such as
temperature, you can make, mathematically, a 4-d
math function
that would be useful. But no one would be
so foolish as to try to say that this then made
our reality to be a 4-D reality. Any and everyone
would instantly see the silliness of such an
effort. Just because you end up with 4 variables,
even if they were somehow seen as a function of
each other, could not justify a change in our
standard physics.

RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This is a totally bogus analogy.

O'Barr comments:
Judge for yourself. The fact that time and
distance do have relationships when it comes to
velocities and motions, cannot in any way infer that
there is a real 4-D spacetime continuum. There are
no real facts to require it, just as LET is able to
show us. And if you take something that is not
necessary to be your 'proof' or evidence, then you
are no scientist.

O'Barr wrote:
SR has this exact same problem. If you are going
to say that our actual reality is 4-D just because
you have 4 variables, then you are not being
scientific. We have had many situations where the
number of variables have been more than three, and
have never needed any change in our actual
reality,
and therefore, your reason to require such is
unjustified and unsupportable. Until you have
real justification, it must be considered to be
dead. It is dead. Only a stupid and a non-
scientific person could not understand what has
happened.

RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So you are claiming that the scientific
establishment is stupid and non-scientific in its
acceptance of general relativity, with its
physically real warped four-dimensional space? If
you really believe that, then why not publish a
paper in a leading scientific journal saying so?

O'Barr comments:
I have tried such efforts before. Even my
company, General Dynamics, with their best scientific
minds and publishing powers, tried to get one of my
papers published and failed. For some reason, the
beliefs held today are not held for any scientific
reason, they are held for some kind of a religious
reason. And true science has not existed within the
walls of formal science for some years.
On this net, just recently, I showed everyone who
took the trouble to read it, that SR measurements
showed that the speed of light going passed reference
frames were not in general c. That the statement of
SR experts that light is always c in all reference
frames is not a true or complete SR statement. No
one was able to show that I was wrong. Everyone just
said I was wrong. And no one listened. Why was
that? All independent SR frames measure the speed of
light going past all other frames to be different
than c. These are the facts. SR measures these
facts. And LET confirms the same data. And yet not
one person would allow themselves to accept any of
these obvious facts. Again, why is this? Are you
all really stupid, or do you only worship?

O'Barr wrote:
LET math is not just 'evidence,' it is math, and
being math, it establishes fully and completely
this concept that this math (your SR math) is
simple 3-D
math. This is a point that cannot be argued. And
as long as SR math is thus fully and completely
shown to be 3-D math, it can never be used as
justification for anything to be 4-D. This is the
mistake that was made by SR experts, and this
mistake cannot be allowed to continue. And this
is not being said by me, or by any person. It is
the facts. And no one can change these facts.
Not even O'Barr.

RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
All of the above is incorrect.

O'Barr comments:
All of it?
Are you really sure?
Then why didn't you scientifically refute it?

RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
As I pointed out in my previous post, it is
anything but easy to try to force relativistic
effects into Euclidean 3-space.

O'Barr comments:
Let it be noted here that I note a slight but
important change in your way of saying this. You
tried to indicate at one time that it was impossible
to do this, but now you are only saying it is not
easy to do this. Which is it?

RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Many people tried valiantly to do so and all
failed.

O'Barr comments:
Did Lorentz fail? Lorentz did not fail to produce
the same accomplishments as SR.


RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This is why Einstein's words are as true today as
when he wrote them: that nobody could ever find a
space filling medium with the mechanical properties
required to satisfy Maxwell's equations,
Relativity's equations, the equations of
relativistic quantum field theory, General
Relativity, and many others.

O'Barr comments:
This is certainly true. And of course it is also
true of SR and GR. But we must not give up hope.
There is a whole world of mechanical science that has
not yet been developed. This is the science of
spalls, where when two bodies collide, they do not
bounce, but they combined and re-separate into two
new bodies. When they do this, a new variable is
introduced into the collision equations, an exchange
of mass, and with this new variable, we will have all
the power we need to explain the mechanics of the
ether, and all space reaching forces.

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

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What Does SR stand For?
    ... There is no ether that physically, ... RLG, I think you are getting into this a little ... SR has the correct math. ... the interpretations differ. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What Does SR stand For?
    ... Today, because of the evidence, no one could ... shown to be simple 3-D math. ... accordance with the equations of relativity. ... But we know that space exists and even in classical physics, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What Does SR stand For?
    ... RLG wrote: ... assumption is a two-faced math. ... supports LET's reality as well. ... there is absolutely zero support ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Could Bigfoot exist?
    ... that nor a bunch of math are proof of anything, ... that Bigfoot exists, I am arguing for an open-minded investigation, ... Anecdotes - stories recounted in support of a claim - do ... Without corroborative evidence from other sources, ...
    (sci.skeptic)
  • Re: OT---How the mayor...
    ... > like" - Steve Carroll ... math can part in some pretty drastic ways where the concept of 'proof' ... despite claiming your evidence proved nothing;) ... Csma has been waiting for over 2 years now, Snit... ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)