Subject: The religious worship of SR.

Jeckyl wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
The religious worship of SR.
. . . .
And let me clarify this, SR uses Lorentz
transforms, which are an absolute reference frame
math!

Jeckyl wrote:
No.. they are a transform between any two frames.

They do not require or imly an absolute reference
frame

O'Barr comments:
You are so funny, Jeckyl. For a while, I had no
urge to answer you. You are like a child. You have
to answer, even if there is no sense to your efforts.
The Lorentz transforms were originated by Lorentz
in and for his absolute reference frame theory. Yes,
others have added to his approach, and Einstein was
able to developed these same transforms, but Einstein
did so by just assuming the same things that Loerntz
had achieved by his original approach.
Yes, these transforms are for transforms from one
frame to another, and for use in the ether, these
were all frames in the absolute ether. Therefore,
your comment was and is simple wrong. They are fully
and completely appropriate for an absolute approach.
This is how they work. This is how they were
originally derived. Why are you afraid to even admit
that these were their original origins? You seem
afraid to even allow the truth to be said. Why is
that? Why would any scientist be unwilling to have
any truth given or said or understood or presented?
It seems so childish that you do not want to even say
such obvious things. It is like some kind of a game,
not scientists talking. What is your problem?



O'Barr wrote:
It is a fact that there is a break
in SR symmetry.

Jeckyl wrote:
There is no break in symmetry in Sr .. you do
symmetric things, you get symmetric results.

The same as you measure in LET (although in LET
reality is NOT symmetric)

O'Barr comments:
This is an outright lie that there are no breaks
in symmetry in SR. I have waited and I have waited
for some SR expert to come on to this net and correct
you. But has anyone done this? No! To me, this
makes all you SR experts to be liars, to allow such
junk to stand. Shame on you all!
There are no breaks in symmetry in LET, and there
are breaks in SR. And for this reason alone, LET is
superior
and should be used to replace SR. But if you all are
going to lie about things, of course, no one can
force such truths to be of value.

O'Barr wrote:
There are places and times where velocity is
relative. But there are other times and places
where velocities are not relative.

Jeckyl wrote:
No .. you are clearly mistaken in your understanding
of SR nad LET.

O'Barr comments:
Yes, you are full of statements, but you never
give any specifics. Why is that?


O'Barr wrote:
Let me take you own words:
When it is said:
- Light is always propagated in empty space with a
definite velocity c which is independent of the
state of motion of the emitting body ...
This is a statement about our absolute reality.

Jeckyl wrote:
You're playing word games here .. Einstein did not
say "absolute"

O'Barr comments:
And I did not say that he did. Your statement
above is again an example as how you have to say
something, even if it is meaningless to what is being
discussed. I am the one who said it is absolute!
And this is correct!


O'Barr wrote:
And this, as an absolute statement, is correct.

Jeckyl wrote:
In that in every iFoR light travels at c

O'Barr comments:
I am so sorry for you, Jeckyl, but light is only
***measured*** to be traveling at c, and it is
actually only measured to be traveling at c only in
the frame in which the tools are at rest. In all
other valid SR frames, using valid SR measurement
procedures, using valid SR tools, the speed with
which light moves past any other frame is every
velocity except c. And since these velocity
measurements outnumber your velocity measurements by
several orders of magnitude, it is wrong for you to
keep saying that SR requires light to be moving past
all these frames with a velocity of c. This is not
what your math actually shows. This is not what the
theory shows. Since you use the same math as is used
in LET, then you actually get the same measurement
results that is obtained in LET, and there is no way
you can lie yourself out of any of these facts.


O'Barr wrote:
When it is said:
the velocity of light in empty space
c = 2AB/(t'A-tA).
(I would say c = 2AB/(tA2 - ta1))

Jeckyl wrote:
Then you'd be wrong

O'Barr comments:
I sure wish you would actually say what was wrong.
Was it because I wrote a capital letter where a lower
case would have been better? Why are you not
specific in your comments? Are you just playing
games?


O'Barr wrote:
This is an absolute fact in the absolute frame.
But here it is going to be used as a measurement
fact in all frames. Thus:
This is a measurement fact.

Jeckyl wrote:
What absolute frame .. there's never been one
found. You're corrupting wht
Einstein said by adding your own words. Decietful.

O'Barr comments:
This is being scientific, Jeckyl. It is the
absolute that is necessary to explain the breaks in
symmetry that is seen in SR. And every time you find
one photon moving exactly as another, step by step by
step, then you know that there is an absolute. Every
time you see all photons move independent of their
source, you see the absolute in full and complete
control. The absolute is everywhere, and if I can
see it, so can you.

O'Barr wrote:
If Einstein made any mistake, it was in this
failure to keep separate the differences between
what were absolute facts from what were
measurement facts.

Jeckyl wrote:
No . that is YOUR problem. you keep thinking the
assumption of LET are known and accepted facts.
They are not.

O'Barr comments:
Well, they are known, by at least a few around
here, and since they are the same math as SR, every
time SR math is established as being correct, then so
is LET math being established as being correct.
Therefore, LET is just as well proved as SR. Exactly
as well proved and established! And you know what,
Jeckyl, I have never heard you say these obvious
things. Why is that? Why are you not scientific
enough to agree with all these obvious things?


O'Barr wrote:
As I have said so many times, since the MMX, we
now know that what we measure (being with
changeable tools) has to be different than what
reality is actually doing.

Jeckyl wrote:
No .. we don't

O'Barr comments:
Sure we do, Jeckyl. It is obvious. We now know
all these obvious things. This is even the way that
Einstein explained it from the very first, when he
presented the train example to us. This is nothing
new. This is exactly what is going on and no one
will ever again be able to fool us into thinking
anything else.

O'Barr wrote:
When you use an LET approach, the separations
between those facts that are absolute from those
facts that are associated with measurements are
very clearly and exactingly pointed out.

Jeckyl wrote:
But that doesn't make it correct


O'Barr comments:
Sure it does! It does because it is reasonable,
it is simple, it is physically possible, it is real,
it is common sense, it is perfect, it is produces no
breaks in symmetry, it explains everything, it even
explains SR. SR does not explain anything, it can
not explain LET, in fact, it cannot even explain
itself. SR is a weak theory. But LET can explain
everything, itself and SR.

O'Barr wrote:
And thus, LET is a superiorly stated theory,

Jeckyl wrote:
No .. if it were superior, we'd all be using it.

O'Barr comments:
We are using it! SR math is LET math. So we are
using LET math. All we need to do now is to use more
of it. We need to also use its physical base, as
well as its math. And Jeckyl, we are going to see
all these good things happen, right here on this net.

O'Barr wrote:
and (LET) accomplishes the
exact same things (as SR), but does so in a way
that there are never any broken symmetries,

Jeckyl wrote:
It has the same math, and if there are broken
symmetries in SR, then they exist in LET.

O'Barr comments:
This is so great: you actually broke down and said
that these two theories have the same math. You are
now almost as great as Tom Roberts. You are almost a
real physicist. Yes, these two theories are the same
in terms of their math. And so, if the results of
the math, and confirmed by the measurements obtained,
show that there are breaks in symmetry, then they
both must show the exact some things.
But here are the differences: In SR, all you have
is the symmetry. This is where you start, where
every velocity is relative to every other velocity.
But LET begins deeper, at a point where all
velocities are not equal, but are based upon one and
only one absolute reference. So in LET, one can go
back to a deeper base where the break is explained,
and in this deeper base, in the absolute frame, there
are no breaks.
Thank you, Jeckyl, for saying a few correct
things. It sure makes it easier when people are
willing to at least state the obvious.

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr