Re: What Does SR stand For?


"Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1189266221.447873.187350@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: What Does SR stand For?

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.>

Special and General Relativity say that there physically exists a
four-dimensional spacetime continuum with certain properties. There exists
an overwhelming amount of experimental evidence showing that those
properties are correct. So there is lots of experimental evidence that
spacetime exists, including the obvious fact that space and time exist and
the experimental facts that space and time stretch and contract in
accordance with the equations of relativity. Consider the below example
which typically characterizes the way science views the physical existence
of spacetime today:

"First he, Einstein, realized that space is a thing.
What this means is it was always thought that space
was just a place in which stuff existed, but space
had no real presence itself. But Einstein saw that
space was a tangible thing, like afabric into which
the universe was woven. Gravity could distort that
fabric, bending space itself." Philip Plait,
Bad Astronomy, page 147.


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.

I have answered this question of yours several times now and my answers have
explained the solid experimental evidence for the physical existence of
spacetime. There is nothing impossible about the physical existence of a
four-dimensional space, just like the physical existence of the three known
spatial dimensions is not impossible.

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.

Please stop the name calling and making unsubstantiated claims.

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.

There is lots of experimental evidence for relativity, that is why the
scientific establishment has accepted relativity.


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.

But we know that space exists and even in classical physics, with its
three-dimensional Euclidean space, the existence of space was accepted
without knowing what it is per-se. Well, science knows that space and time
exist, it is a common observation, and experiments show how space and time
are distorted by matter, and those experiments agree with the equations of
Special and General Relativity. And your "LET theory" doesn't say what
ether is in any physical sense. Unlike space and time, which obviously do
exist, there is no evidence at all for any space filling medium or ether.

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.

You should accept it. The scientific world has never claimed that spacetime
is just a fiction useful for mathematical calculations only. Minkowski and
Einstein are quite clear on this matter, Einstein calling the human
perception of time's movement a `stubborn illusion' and Minkowski giving his
famous remark "only a union of the two will preserve an independent
reality." Without spacetime, general relativity loses its explanatory power.
It's like saying the cosmos is really flat Euclidean space with space not
really and physically expanding. For example, for cosmic inflation to work,
space itself has to expand enormously so that large amounts of its
gravitational potential energy converts to vacuum energy and expansion
energy. No respectable cosmologist will say taht space isn't really
expanding. The big bang is both a model and a physical reality and physical
space is still expanding today. The observational evidence for this is
solid.

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.

The scientific community does not hold its view on the basis of "religious
reasons". If you tried to get something published in scientific
periodicals, and they rejected you, then it was for good reason. Peer
review in areas as solidly confirmed as relativity is pretty good.

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?

Name calling will not get you anywhere.

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?

I did refute it in my other post. Please read my previous posts again and
consider Einstein's own words:

"The inseparability of time and space emerged
in connection with electrodynamics, or the law
of the propagation of light. Hitherto it had
been silently assumed that the four-dimensional
continuum of events could be split up into time
and space in an objective manner-i.e., that an
absolute significance attached to the `now' in
the world of events. With the discovery of the
relativity of simultaneity, space and time were
merged in a single continuum in a way similar
to that in which the three dimension of space had
previously been merged into a single continuum.
Physical space was thus extended to a
four-dimensional space which also included the
dimension of time." Albert Einstein, Ideas and
Opinions, page 281.


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.

Yes, he failed. Please see the remarks I posted previously (which I post
again below):

Lorentz's models had this same problem:

"...In any event, Lorentz's model did not succeed in explaining the
properties of the aether." Delo E. Mook and Thomas Vargish: Inside
Relativity, page 51.

FitzGerald's model also had this same problem:

"FitzGerald had, in effect, given a formula that accounted for the
Michelson-Morley experiment, but it was little more than a fudge factor with
no explanation." Barry Parker: Einstein's Brainchild, page 45.


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.

Well, if, or until, that happens, Relativity does not have a competitor and
that is why "LET" is not a competitor to Relativity. As IEinstein pointed
out, see his previous quotes in my posts, nobody has succeeded at furnishing
a mechanical model with the correct properties.

Thanks for reading.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Corrected: Orientation for beginnners in relativity
    ... very serious one (no one teaches relativity based on Einstein's 1905 ... here  is that this is all math and NOT physics - or reality. ... For the lay person other evidence is available. ... Earth, fixated on electrons. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What Does SR stand For?
    ... There is no ether that physically, ... SR has the correct math. ... Sidelights on Relativity, ... The Evolution of Physics, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: OBarr, do solid objects exist?
    ... Bilge wrote: ... >relativity or relativistic quantum field theory. ... simple this math might be. ... physics theories are when they start out, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
    ... Matt Silberstein wrote: ... At least there is scientific evidence for the Big Bang. ... Can you do enough calculus to understand Newtonian physics? ... Can you do the math to understand the Maxwell Equations? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: What should a theory give us?
    ... Correct math ... Such old fashioned criteria for quality control have been ditched by modern physics IN ORDER THAT relativity can be accepted as a theory. ... LET states that we cannot determine our speed relative to the aether but the other property of the aether - source independence is testable. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)