Re: What is science?

Subject: Re: What is science?

Jeckyl <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Subject: Re: What is science?

<many deletes>

Jeckyl wrote:
LET is designed so that you CANNOT test the areas
where it says additional thing. ist is bad
science becuase it is not falsifiable .. those
parts of LET that differe are NOT theory .. they
are wild huesses and suppositions.

O'Barr wrote:
I have lived a long life, Jeckyl, and I have
never heard of a theory that could not be tested.

Jeckyl wrote:
Yes you have .. LET

O'Barr comments:
Sorry, every time you measure the free-space speed
of light, you are testing LET! LET (side by side
with SR) is one of the most well tested theory that
exists!


O'Barr wrote:
Are you sure you really want to make all the
statements you are making up above?

Jeckyl wrote:
Yes

O'Barr comments:
Well, there is no logic to your position. LET is
a very well tested theory, and has held up to all
this testing just as solidly as has SR.


O'Barr wrote:
Maybe you meant to say that
SR, with its physically impossible 4-D spacetime
continuum, is what you were thinking to be
impossible to falsify?

Jeckyl wrote:
SR is falsifiable and has never been refuted .. it
has stood the test of time.

O'Barr comments:
You ought to be more careful: Yes, SR math has
been tested and it has never been refuted. This has
to be true, since SR math is the same as LET math.
But there has never been, and there never will be,
any test to support unambiguously your imagined
concepts of there being a 4-D spacetime continuum.


O'Barr wrote:
What was the
standard deviation in the test that confirms the
acceptance of SR over LET?

Jeckyl wrote:
LET is not a theory , as it does not have a
falsifiable hypothesis. The ether is non-
flasifiable, and so is not science

O'Barr comments:
You are a poor loser, Jeckyl. Since you cannot
win, you then run away by saying that LET is not even
a theory. Shame on you!


O'Barr wrote:
It really sounds as if you are grasping at straws
in the wind. LET is not science?

Jeckyl wrote:
You got it

O'Barr comments:
Yes, I got it, all right! You are a sore loser!


O'Barr wrote:
But everything that has so far been measured is
exactly the same as if there were an ether in
which the absolute speed of light is c,

Jeckyl wrote:
The existence of the ether is untestable .. test
that show the SR predicted measurements do not
confirm the eixstence of the ether . its existence
is non-falsiable.

O'Barr comments:
Sorry, Jeckyl. You have no logic to your
thoughts. LET says that the ether exists. LET says
that because it exists, we will measure things to be
a certain way. We find that we do exactly measure
all things to be this way. Therefore, the ether
exists. None of this can be changed. You are wrong,
and I am right. And anyone who is reading this can
easily tell who is right.
At no time is SR saying or has to say that there
cannot be an ether.
It just says, at most, that it is not
necessary to use it to get the correct answers, if
you start at the point where they start. They of
course start at a point where the ether is actually
required: c cannot be a math constant unless you have
LET ether, and the form of the transforms cannot all
be the same in all frames unless you have LET ether.


Jeckyl wrote:
LET is not a theory , as it does not have a
falsifiable hypothesis. The ether is non-
flasifiable, and so is not science

O'Barr wrote:
Every time you make an SR test, LET could be
falsified. So your words above make no sense at
all.

Jeckyl wrote:
Then read them again. The ETHER of LET is not
falsifiable.

O'Barr comments:
But LET is falsifiable. Everyone knows this!

Jeckyl wrote:
Those parts of LET that predict falsiable
observations are .. and they are the same as SR. We
do not need to add in non-falsifable, non scientific
ether to a perfectly good working theory of SR.


O'Barr comments:
Certainly you might be correct. SR has the
correct math. And having the correct math, then you
do not need more in order to calculate what might be
measured in any experiment.
But these things you see being done in LET are
important. These things being done in LET give
explanation to the math. Math is not reality. We
live in a physical reality. And the physical ether,
and the physical assumptions of what physical things
do in this physical ether, as is done in LET, is all
necessary in order to have a physical theory, in
order to physically understand what is going on, in
order to have physical causes and effects. And all
these good things exist in LET, and not in SR.


Jeckyl wrote:
[snip more nonsense by O'Barr]

O'Barr wrote:
And so every time you repeat this, does this
make your case stronger?

Jeckyl wrote:
So .. why is it you make the same posts over and
over with the same lies.. you think that makes
YOUR case stronger.

O'Barr comments:
If they were lies, no! But because what I am
saying is correct, then they can never be said too
many times. Thank you for allowing me to say them
again and again.


O'Barr wrote:
What if I keep repeating that
LET is falsifiable?

Jeckyl wrote:
Then you'd be lying .. nothing new for you, of
course.

O'Barr comments:
But you see, Jeckyl, everyone knows that LET is
falsifiable. LET gives us the exact same predictions
as are present in SR. And SR is falsifiable. So
likewise is LET. LET is a legitimate theory in every
sense that can be considered. If any face is red, it
can only be yours!



O'Barr wrote:
So let us end this discussion here. And to show
some of the breaks in symmetry, and jumps in
times, even back in times, let me make a reference
to a presentation of the paradox of the twins, in
terms of SR:

Jeckyl wrote:
There are none

[snip more lies and nonsense from O'Barr]

O'Barr comments:
Well, Jeckyl, you are not taking this very well.
What you have snipped shows the paradox of the twins,
as done by two perfect twins. And these two perfect
twins do not miss one single point of this paradox.
And they clearly show the break in symmetry that
occurs and a jump in time that occurs, which is
even a back-in-time event. And no one has yet
shown an error in one single one of these events.

Now Jeckyl, Harry has shown a much better reaction
to my approach than you have. He is certainly going
to be on my list of the first 100 people who are
going to be listed as being the first in all the
world to accept this simple fact that SR and LET are
the same theory. I still have much faith in you,
Jeckyl, and I do expect to see you on this list.

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




P.S.
Let us start this list now! Who wants to be first
on this list? Now is the time to begin.

Place you name upon this list if you accept as a fact
that SR and LET are really the same theory. SR is
the correct math for our free-space reality, but LET
is the correct physics that goes with the correct
math.

(I know that there are many people who are already
on this list. Please feel free to pick you own spot.
Move my name to any point you want. And be sure to
leave a place for Einstein, I am sure he would be
first if he had a chance to do it.)


0) Lorentz
1) Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr@xxxxxxxxx>
2)
3)
4)
etc.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What Does SR stand For?
    ... Jeckyl wrote: ... nice to know how the ether physically works. ... since it is only a math ... not justify a change in our standard physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Errors being made by SR experts.
    ... Jeckyl wrote: ... SR math is the same as LET math. ... interpreation of reality, you get LET ... ether supporters get on this net? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What is science?
    ... I have lived a long life, Jeckyl, and I have never ... to falsify? ... The ether is non- ... and so is not science ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Are there any civil anti-relativists?
    ... Jeckyl, Randy seems to be saying that the moon and a baseball in orbit ... they will never be scientists as long as they have holes in their ... When are you going to realise that Jeckyl and Poe are troll, ... forget the fuckheaded trolls and work the math. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Errors being made by SR experts.
    ... Jeckyl wrote: ... the correct math and with a supporting physical ... Minkowski space explains it all ... the moving frame ..they will see out tools as shorter ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)