"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote in message
ups.com...
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.

And you're sad

For a while, I had no urge to answer you.

That's called cowardice

You are like a child.

You ARE a child

You have to answer, even if there is no sense to your efforts.

I guess and reply to you is not going to make any difference .. you're
beyond help. But it might help other who read your crap.

The Lorentz transforms were originated by Lorentz
in and for his absolute reference frame theory.

Yes.. and they were also independantly derived from the postulates of SR

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.

No .. he assumed his postulates . LT do NOT require any concept of an ether
or an absolute frame.

Yes, these transforms are for transforms from one
frame to another,

Yes

and for use in the ether, these
were all frames in the absolute ether.

If you are silly enough to imagine there is a frame out there in which an
imaginary ether is at rest, then of course you can use Lorentz transforms
with it .. its just another frame.

Therefore,
your comment was and is simple wrong.

No .. its not. You've simply confirmed it. They are math that has no
requirement for an absolute frame WHATSOEVER.

They are fully
and completely appropriate for an absolute approach.

Of course they are, because delcaring one frame as absolute doesn't change
how the lorentz equations between any two frames (without one needing to be
absolute) works.

This is how they work. This is how they were
originally derived.

Not in SR.

Why are you afraid to even admit
that these were their original origins?

One particular derivation is irrelevant. The equations have NO REFERENCE
WHATSOEVER to an abaolute frame

You seem
afraid to even allow the truth to be said.

You don't speak the truth

Why is that?

Why don't you speak the truth .. because your a charlatan and a compuilsive
liar .. that would be my guess

Why would any scientist be unwilling to have
any truth given or said or understood or presented?

I don't knoiw .. why is that O'Barr?

It seems so childish that you do not want to even say
such obvious things.

What .. that you're a liar and a fraud .. yeah. . I'll say that if you like

It is like some kind of a game,
not scientists talking. What is your problem?

You

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

You make lots of outright lies. I don't.

that there are no breaks
in symmetry in SR.

There are no breaks in symmetry

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!

Shame on you, fraudster

There are no breaks in symmetry in LET, and there
are breaks in SR.

Its the same math .. if there are breaks in one there are breaks in the
opther and vice versa.

And for this reason alone, LET is superior

You stil canont show these imaginary breaks in symmetry that you keep
citing. That's because THEY DO NOT EXIST

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.

I keep trying to put forward the truth .. you just can't help lying ..
that's called being a COMPULSIVE LIAR. You need help.

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?

It was a reply to you specifc statemtns .. actually .. your statement had no
specifics .. just "other times and places" .. where are those supposed times
and places? And where are the specifics of these supposed breaks in
symmetrey? 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.

You're playing word games again.

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!

Prove it.

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,

It travels at c .. prove otherwise.

[snip same old crap from lying O'Barr]

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?

With you . .yes .its fun to watch you sqirm

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

There is nothing scientific about your posts.

It is the absolute that is necessary to explain the breaks in
symmetry that is seen in SR.

There is no absolute is necessary .. there is no break in symmetry.

You're just making up **** and passing it of as physics

[snip more crap from lying O'Barr]

I can't be bothered with the rest of your ****. There's no point .. you're
beyond hope. Go peddle your pathetic little theories somewhere else.