Re: Note to all the world.
- From: dlzc <dlzc1@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 07:20:05 -0700
Dear Gerald L. O'Barr:
On Sep 11, 12:46 pm, "Gerald L. O'Barr" <glob...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Subject: Re: Note to all the world.....
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?
"All this" being the fact that by your own words, LET is damned as
wrong, indecipherable from a theory that simply describes the effects
as "perspective", and relegated to a dust bin for "special" rules...
meaning simple and of limited use?
I notice that you did not address any
of the issues. You have tried to change
the subject. Why are you trying to escape?
Your incessant ranting. I see it did not work. You apparently cannot
get beyond 1905.
You just do not want to talk about SR,
you just want to talk about GR? With
GR, you think you are safe?
No. GR is also wrong at the very small, and at the very large
(IMHO). But I don't spend thousands of words "goading the
relativists".
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.
Only at that place where mass is not involved.
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.
And?
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,
"In every frame". Therein lies the rub.
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.
Most certainly is. GR has different rules in mapping between frames
than SR does. GR is piecewise similar to SR, but a world of
difference between pieces.
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,
By this attempt at "denigration", I assume you mean it has no "Rube
Goldberg" mechanism that you find attractive?
and the physical interpretations for GR
are totally unspecified by the theory.
I seem to recall Mach being invoked, in whatever flavor. I seem to
recall the equivalence principle. I seem to recall relativity (in its
non-mathematical sense). And I seem to recall differentiable geometry
being involved. Plenty of "physical interpretations" there, if you
are not yammering on about LET.
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.
And?
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.
So we can assume that you will stop posting new threads, whose heart
is merely that LET = SR and SR = LET? One could hope you would follow
your own admonition...
David A. Smith
.
- References:
- Note to all the world.
- From: Gerald L. O'Barr
- Re: Note to all the world.
- From: dlzc
- Re: Note to all the world.
- From: Gerald L. O'Barr
- Note to all the world.
- Prev by Date: More Proof: Missis Erica Gisse knows NOTHING about SPACETIME.
- Next by Date: Re: Some Faulty Assumptions of SR
- Previous by thread: Re: Note to all the world.
- Next by thread: Re: Note to all the world.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
