Note to all the world.
- From: "Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 07:49:59 -0700
Note to all the world.
Let me tell you all: SR math is exactly the same
as LET math. This is absolutely true, and there is
nothing you will ever be able to do about it. You
will forever have LET upon you, for every second that
you live. And if you ignore this, it will be to your
everlasting shame.
Because SR has the same math, then SR has to
measure exactly what LET measures. You cannot
prevent this. If LET says that the rates of clocks
run slower when their absolute velocities are
greater, then SR is going to measure clocks going
slower anytime their absolute velocity is the
greatest. You cannot prevent this. If an object is
making circles around another object, both having a
clock, then the clock on this circling object has to
have an absolute velocity greater than the other, and
thus the circling clock has to be going slower. And
this fact is an absolute fact, and destroys the SR
concept that all velocities are relative.
In the twin paradox, the same truth is seen. The
twin who takes a straight line between two space-time
positions has to have had, in general, less of an
absolute velocity than the twin who took a non-
straight line path. And thus, one twin has to have a
different age than the other. Again, this breaks the
assumption of SR that all relative velocities are
equal.
In the twin paradox, their relative velocities
are always equal. And thus all relative velocity
effects must also be equal. But their absolute
velocities are not equal. It is their absolute
velocity that is in control, not their relative
velocities.
Because SR has the same math, then SR has to
measure exactly what LET measures. You cannot
prevent this. If LET says that the speed of light in
reference frames varies with the velocity of these
frames within the ether, and that measurements will
show these velocities between light and frames to
vary, then your SR measurements must show such
variances.
And this fact occurs in SR! All independent SR
frames will measure the speed of light going passed
all other frames to be different than c, and
different than all other frames. And thus, SR, SR
math, confirms LET. It does not confirm the SR
experts' favorite statement that the speed of light
is always c in all frames.
SR experts have taken a very narrow situation
(where the speed of light is measured only within
one's own frame), and have used this as being the
facts of SR, rather than use the universal fact of
what one frame can really measure, which is the
relative velocity of light going past all frames, not
just their own frame. And for this, you will all be
seen in a very poor light.
Because SR has the same math, then SR has to
measure exactly what LET measures. You cannot
prevent this. If LET says that this is only a three
dimensional world, and if LET can obtain correct
predictions under this assumption, then so can SR
obtain all that it gets from the same assumption. At
no time is SR ever required to use a real 4-D
spacetime continuum. And this will remain a truth
for as long as LET exists. And LET will exist for as
long as SR exists.
And SR math supports these concepts perfectly.
All that SR measurements require is a simple 3-D
space grid and a simple independent time. For
example: a simple, slow motion sync can be placed
within a grid, and the point from which the clocks
originate is not in need of being specified. The
time system in place can be totally independent of
the physical grid.
Now these statements made above are not just small
unimportant statements. And yet, not one SR expert
has so far been kind enough to agree with any of
them. Why is that? It cannot be because any of
these points are not true. It cannot be because none
of you can understand them. So why is it that you
cannot even engage in a reasonable discussion of the
facts?
I do not have time to run around and around this
subject. If you really care to really discuss the
issue, then please address these facts. Otherwise,
stop wasting my time.
Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>
**********************Remove...for e-mail.
PS: Certainly, you all know O'Barr, and he is not
very perfect. He is the least one on this net.
Every single one of you can take what I have said and
make it better. And you each should do this. But
you better not change the facts!
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Note to all the world.
- From: Paul B. Andersen
- Re: Note to all the world.
- From: Jeckyl
- Re: Note to all the world.
- From: Paul Cardinale
- Re: Note to all the world.
- From: dlzc
- Re: Note to all the world.
- From: meda
- Re: Note to all the world.
- Prev by Date: Re: Some Faulty Assumptions of SR
- Next by Date: Re: "How Does Light 'Know' How Fast to Travel?"
- Previous by thread: Re: speeds higher than speed of light imposible not to exists
- Next by thread: Re: Note to all the world.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
