Subject: The religious worship of SR.

Jeckyl wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote:
Subject: The religious worship of SR.
.. .. ..

O'Barr's delete of many unscientific remarks


O'Barr wrote:
The Lorentz transforms were originated by Lorentz
in and for his absolute reference frame theory.

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

O'Barr comments:
Many things do occur in many different ways. Some
truths are guessed at, some truths come by trial and
error, and some are obtained by a lot of valid
thinking and the sweat of doing a lot of hard work.
Yes, in SR, Einstein just assumed certain things were
true, and they worked out. And no one should hold
any fault with such success.
At the same time, Lorentz had done a lot of
preliminary ground work, and saw that many things
could work together. And because of what Lorentz
did, we now have reasons upon which to base many of
these assumptions. So the question is not that both
ways were successful. The question is, which way
provides the greatest understanding? As we look at
SR, there is no understanding at all. There is only
the statement or the assumption that in the math, we
are just going to assume certain things. That is all
that we find in SR. Just simple assumptions as to
the way the math is to be followed.
But in LET, we get a solid physical base upon
which everything is accomplished. We have something
that is thus fully understandable. It is fully
comprehensible. It is fully and simply believable.
It is simple and has no mysterious problems of having
to have 4-D or have things that are physically
impossible. Thus, no matter how much anyone might
want to use SR, no one can sit there and not say how
LET has a stronger explanation as to what nature is,
and as to what nature is doing to us. You just
cannot deny such obvious things.


Jeckyl wrote:
. . . LT do NOT require any concept of an ether
or an absolute frame.

O'Barr comments:
When all you are doing is just using math, then of
course anyone can just write down the math, and solve
every problem. So yes, as you say, you do not need
anything to use your math. But that is not the
argument. If one were to explain the math, if one
were to provide a physical justification for the
math, then of course one would have to consider the
things being discussed. For you to say that one
does not have to explain, or justify, then of course
you are correct. Continue to use SR to your hearts
content, but you will never be able to give any
physical justifications for why the math actually
works.

Jeckyl wrote:
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.

O'Barr comments:
Yes, mathematically, you can consider the ether
frame to be just another frame. The math allows this
to happen. But physically, you cannot do this. In
order to bring understanding and a reasonable
explanation forward, one of all these frames must be
the actual frame in which all the actions are
controlled and enacted. Why are you afraid to
understand such simple concepts? You keep demanding
the right to say what the math allows, and never
allow yourself to see what might be physically
necessary in order that the math you use could
actually work. Why is that? What is it that
prevents you from saying both things are true?


Jeckyl wrote:
... They are math that has no requirement for an
absolute frame WHATSOEVER.

O'Barr comments:
Yes, the math, as math, needs nothing. But to
explain the math, to show what is physically
occurring so that the math is explained, does require
something to be shown. So why do you resist seeing
the need of the physical acts so that the correct
math is shown to apply? Why be so short sighted?



O'Barr wrote (about the Lorentz's transforms):
They are fully and completely appropriate for an
absolute approach.

Jeckyl wrote:
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.

O'Barr comments:
And isn't that neat. This then allows us to
physically accept LET, with no change at all in SR
math. But having one frame and one frame only in
which all these other coordinations are based then
gives us a physical understanding that brings full
comprehension to our reality.

O'Barr delete of many more non-scientific comments


Jeckyl wrote:
There are no breaks in symmetry

O'Barr comments:
Then how can one twin end up being younger than
another, when there was never a difference in their
relative velocities?


O'Barr wrote:
There are no breaks in symmetry in LET, and
there are breaks in SR.


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


O'Barr comments:
It is so sweet to hear you say that they have the
same math. They do have the same math. And having
the same math, they do actually predict the same
results. But you see, LET starts from a different
point than SR. LET starts at a point where there
are absolute velocities, and under the conditions
where LET starts, not all velocities are relative.
Thus, when one correctly derives these transforms,
the situations that are relative, and the situations
that are not relative, can easily be discovered and
considered.
But in SR, one only starts with relative
velocities, and thus, when conditions are found where
non-relative effects are seen, there is a break in
the original assumptions being used by SR. Sorry
about that, but that is the way the ball bounces.
And SR is thus dead. And it will remain dead as it
is not the proper way to develop the math. It is the
easiest way to get to the math. But it drags some
false concepts along with it that must be and can
only be explained by LET.


O'Barr's deletes of some more unscientific comments


Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr