Re: What Does SR stand For?

Subject: Re: What Does SR stand For?

RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
. .. .

<deletes by O'Barr>

RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

O'Barr comments:
I know that this is what most of you SR experts
say is true. But being a scientist requires one to
also understand the data that is available. Some
data are more important than other data, and some
data is actually worthless. It all depends on the
nature of the problem being considered and the nature
of the data. If some data is uncertain, either in
terms of the values obtained, or in terms of how it
actually relates to the solving of the problem, then
it cannot be accepted as good data.
What we have here in terms of SR and LET is a very
critical problem. It is not a normal problem. You
do not normally have two separate approaches that
provide the identical predictions. This makes for a
special situation that cannot be ignored. Yet you
seem to want to ignore this special situation. Why
is that? Unless or until you are willing to consider
this problem in an honest way, there is no need to
continue.

RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So there is lots of experimental evidence that
spacetime exists, . . .

O'Barr comments:
Not when you consider what I said up above. And
you do not seem to want to include what I said above.

RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
. . . including the obvious fact that
space and time exist . . . .

O'Barr comments:
So just the simple fact that space and time exists
is support for 4-D? And I guess in your mind, if
space and time and matter exists, then this is also
support for 5-D to exist? And if space and time and
matter and motion exists, then this is evidence that
6-D exists? You are not a thinking individual.

RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
. . . and the experimental facts that
space and time stretch and contract in accordance
with the equations of relativity. . . .

O'Barr comments:
And so what is the science of these stretches and
what is the science of these contractions, in terms
of physical causes and physical responses? Since you
have no physical base to your theory, you have
nothing to explain or even imagine the physical acts
being considered. What fun! There is no science
to any 4-D concept, and certainly no evidence.

RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
. . . 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.

O'Barr comments:
Could this tangible, physical fabric that can be
woven and then distorted be called an ether?

<deletes by O'Barr>

RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
... 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.

O'Barr comments:
Three dimensions are obvious in everything. 4-D
has never been seen or experienced or found to be
necessary at any time. You cannot say that 4-D is
possible in any kind of a scientific way. . . .


O'Barr wrote:
... 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.

<deletes by O'Barr>

RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
There is lots of experimental evidence for
relativity, that is why the scientific establishment
has accepted relativity.

O'Barr comments:
There is no evidence that supports SR that does
not also support 3-D. This is an inescapable problem
that you will never escape. And you do not have the
intelligence to even acknowledge this fact. Why is
that? Do you just not understand it? Are you just
dumb? Or do you worship?

<deletes by O'Barr>

RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

O'Barr comments:
And SR does tell us what space is? Does SR tells
us what space is, physically? Does SR tells us what
time is, physically? SR tells us nothing! SR is
only math with zero physical specifications in its
base.

RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Unlike space and time, which obviously do exist,
there is no evidence at all for any space filling
medium or ether.

O'Barr comments:
You just said above that ***Einstein saw that
space was a tangible thing, like a fabric into which
the universe was woven. Gravity could distort that
fabric, bending space itself*** If Einstein said
that space was a material thing, how is that
different than saying there is a physical ether?
Somehow, you seem unable to really know that SR and
LET are the same theory.

<delete of some comments that space itself is
expanding. How would anyone tell the difference if
it is space itself that is expanding, or just that
the stars are all moving apart within a fixed space?
And of course, none of this relates to there being 4-
D>

<more deletes by O'Barr>

O'Barr wrote:
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?

RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Name calling will not get you anywhere.

O'Barr comments:
And ignoring these facts is again noted. It seems
as it there were any name calling, it must have been
justified. Why do none of you mention and agree with
all these obvious facts? I am not making anything
up. There really are all these non-c velocities of
light going past reference frames. Even Einstein
himself in his train example showed such data exists,
and yet you will not allow such to be said. How can
you be so unscientific? What would drive you so hard
that you cannot agree with what is obvious?


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

RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

O'Barr comments:
I find this funny, that these ideas and opinions,
which is all these things are, are actually titled
the ideas and opinions of Einstein. Yes, science is
not the ideas and opinions of anyone, not even
Einstein. Science deals with much more than just
ideas and opinions. If all you have to offer are
just ideas and opinions, so be it. But the hard
facts are these: In LET, yes, both time and space
are required to obtain predictions, and time includes
both the rate at which clocks move and their sync,
and the sync does depend upon distances. So yes,
there really are function that include both space and
time. But in LET, all these relationships can and do
occur in the simplest of 3-d space. So SR
assumptions that 4-D is required is disproven. And
there is nothing you can do about this.

<deletes by O'Barr>

RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"...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.

O'Barr comments:
LET makes no assumptions about explaining all the
properties of the ether. It merely says it exists,
that it controls the velocity of light, and controls
the lengths and rates of rulers and clocks. Anyone
has the right to say that this is a weakness of LET,
but it cannot interfere with the correctness of what
is said, and that the LET gives more information than
what SR provides.



RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

O'Barr comments:
Some of us do know more than others.


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 wrote:
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.

RLG <J...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

O'Barr comments:
But LET is correct as far as it goes, and it goes
much further than SR. It is all done in a simpler
way, being just a simple 3-D theory. And we must
reject this silly and physically impossible 4-D
concept, that includes back in time concepts, and
worm holes, and other physically impossible concepts.

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


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Article: A Century of Einstein
    ... physics ideas, ... rotation between yourself and the stars. ... I know that its common for people trying to state Mach's Principle so ... rather than "absolute relativity". ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Article: A Century of Einstein
    ... physics ideas, ... rotation between yourself and the stars. ... I know that its common for people trying to state Mach's Principle so ... rather than "absolute relativity". ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • SR, curvature terms, and Realms of Validity
    ... >is a false theory of physics, while it may very well be ... Yep, people sometimes talk about SR's "realm of validity", but I don't ... It assumes that light is in no way affected by the presence or motion ... relativity, so that the total Doppler effect on a "gravitational" and ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Article: A Century of Einstein
    ... >> By thesame tokem since special relativity reduces to newtonian ... 2AB/= c to be a universal constant- the velocity of light in empty ... > interesting to hear why in physics things are what they are, ... > constant c and their dependence of Aether energy density u. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Article: A Century of Einstein
    ... >> By thesame tokem since special relativity reduces to newtonian ... 2AB/= c to be a universal constant- the velocity of light in empty ... > interesting to hear why in physics things are what they are, ... > constant c and their dependence of Aether energy density u. ...
    (sci.physics)
Quantcast