Re: Note to all the world.

Subject: Re: Note to all the world.

David A. Smith (dlzc) <dl...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Note to all the world.
. . .

David A. Smith (dlzc) <dl...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Gerald L. O'Barr:

O'Barr wrote:
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.


David A. Smith (dlzc) <dl...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
You will be excited to know then, that SR and LET
have been experimentally falsified when significant
mass is present. So we are henceforth forever free
of your ranting, since both SR and LET only
have a limited range of applicability. Otherwise,
you will be everlastingly shamed whenever you bring
up this topic.

O'Barr comments:
Are you trying to escape all this? I notice that
you did not address any of the issues. You have
tried to change the subject. Why are you trying to
escape? You just do not want to talk about SR, you
just want to talk about GR? With GR, you think you
are safe?
Look, brother Smith, in the domain where SR is
valid (where LET is valid), GR is SR, and SR is GR.
They are the same. Any weakness for one of these in
that domain is a weakness for the other. Thus, if we
find that SR math cannot support 4-D in this domain,
then neither can GR math support 4-D in this domain.
I am sorry if this bothers you, but Einstein
especially made GR to be SR in this domain.
Let us repeat this again: If we are able to
establish that the rates of clocks are really based
upon their absolute velocities, then that forces GR
to also accept this to be valid, in the domain where
SR applies. If we are able to clearly show that only
3-D exists in this domain, then GR has to only be 3-D
in this domain. If we are able to prove that the
speed of light is not c in every frame, then GR must
also conclude this same fact, in the domain where SR
applies. There is nothing that can prevent all this
from being correct.
So yes, let us take a look at GR, and also see
and understand that GR is itself no different than
SR, in that it is only a math theory, and the
physical interpretations for GR are totally
unspecified by the theory. GR does not have to be a
real 4-D reality, no more so than SR. It is only the
math that is seen to be easily worked in 4-D. That
is all it is, just as it is in SR.

David A. Smith (dlzc) wrote:
Now, can you move past 1905, into some later years
please?

O'Barr comments:
I sure agree with this! We need to move into a
new age, at least into 2007, which is good enough for
me. We today now know more than Einstein knew, and
more than Lorentz. And we can understand both of
them. And together, with them, and with what we now
know, we can now do even better.

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



.

Relevant Pages