Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
wrote:
. . .

delete by O'Barr

Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr) comments:
You are running away from the problem!
Just because this is easy, to run away,
does not mean you should do it.

Nor, necessarily, that you shouldn't. One always
has to make choices, and some are easier to make
than others.



LET is superior. It is as math perfect
as SR. But in addition to this, LET is also
physically perfect. It has no real breaks in
symmetry, no real jumps in time.

By this, you imply that SR *does* have real jumps
in time. I'm aware that you hold this wacky opinion;
you are no doubt poised to present us with a huge
post stating this opinion yet again. We've been
through it all before. There's no point in my saying
anything more about it now.

It has a
physically possible 3-D space, and it has the
potential of full and complete causes and effects
in place. It is the simplest. It has no
paradoxes, not even imagined paradoxes.

That's rich -- if a paradox can be imagined, the
theory is shot down.

In . com
James wrote:
O'Barr wrote:
. . .

James wrote: . . .
If you believe that relativity results in paradox,
imagined or otherwise, then you certainly don't
understand the theory. In this case you are trying
to introduce a problem, paradox, which doesn't
exist.

Gerald L. O'Barr comments:
Please do not misunderstand me. SR math is
correct, as a math. It has to be correct, because it
is the same math as can be used in LET. Therefore,
on the math level, there cannot really be any
paradoxes in SR math, as a math!
But everyone knows that there appears everywhere
to be paradoxes in SR! Whole books have been written
on such subjects! The whole reasons why this net
exists is because of this problem. And the problem
is, that SR has no power to explain what really
happens, and why things really are the way they
really are. In fact, in SR, the word 'really' is not
even allowed! Therefore, there are all these
unexplainable results, all these illogical results,
that do occur, and SR cannot provide any
understandable explanations! These really are
problems with this theory, and they really do have to
be faced!
Let us start at just the simple thing as always
measuring light to be c. You have a distant star,
and you measure the velocity of the light from this
star to be c. So you jump in a rocket ship and
accelerate up to 90% c, and measure the velocity of
this same light again. What do you get? Why you
still only get c, even though you are moving toward
this star at almost c. And so you again, at your 90%
c, you accelerate again another 90% c, and measure
the velocity of this same light again. And for the
second time, you again only get the same answer, c.
This is all logically impossible! It has to be in
error, in terms of what is actually happening. You
cannot really change your velocity towards something,
and not really have a change! In SR, this is a
paradox! It is just impossible for it to have
actually happened, yet you measured it as having
happened!
Only in LET do we have a real explanation, an
explanation that at least provides to us an
understanding of what could be happening, so that
such things really could occur! And thus the
imagined paradox disappears! And I stand by these
choices of words, and so would any other thinking
person! SR cannot explain, in such a way that a
reasonable person could understand, the reasons why
light is always measured to be c. All that SR can
do, is to simply say, that is the way it is!


Thanks for your comments.
Gerald L. O'Barr

Gerald
No everybody doesn't know that there appears to be paradox in
relativity There are no paradox in relativity regardless of books
you've read. If you think your misunderstanding of the theory,
constitutes a problem for the theory, you are mistaken.

You said: " Let us start at just the simple thing as always
measuring light to be c. You have a distant star,
and you measure the velocity of the light from this
star to be c. So you jump in a rocket ship and
accelerate up to 90% c, and measure the velocity of
this same light again. What do you get? Why you
still only get c, even though you are moving toward
this star at almost c. And so you again, at your 90%
c, you accelerate again another 90% c, and measure
the velocity of this same light again. And for the
second time, you again only get the same answer, c.
This is all logically impossible! It has to be in
error, in terms of what is actually happening. You
cannot really change your velocity towards something,
and not really have a change! In SR, this is a
paradox! It is just impossible for it to have
actually happened, yet you measured it as having
happened! "

It's not impossible because it IS a FACT of NATURE. You only think it
is impossible based on preconception. It is a verifiable fact of
nature.

In .com
wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
. . .

delete by O'Barr

Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr) wrote:
You are running away from the problem!
Just because this is easy, to run away,
does not mean you should do it.

wrote:
Nor, necessarily, that you shouldn't. One always
has to make choices, and some are easier to make
than others.

O'Barr comments:
I am the least on this net. I have no reasons to
run from anything! It is easy when you are right!
There is never a hard choice!

O'Barr wrote:
LET is superior. It is as math perfect
as SR. But in addition to this, LET is also
physically perfect. It has no real breaks in
symmetry, no real jumps in time.

wrote:
By this, you imply that SR *does* have real jumps
in time. I'm aware that you hold this wacky
opinion; you are no doubt poised to present us with
a huge post stating this opinion yet again. We've
been through it all before. There's no point in my
saying anything more about it now.

O'Barr comments:
But why not say something about it? Take the
easiest problem that anyone can consider, the simple
paradox of the twins. What happens in the paradox of
the twins? Why just one event occurs. One object
moves away and returns. Nothing can be much simper
than that, can it? Yet this simple act, this simple
event, involves some very strange results! How about
explaining this simple event in terms of the frames
of the object that moves out and returns, as he would
measure it in his own frames? He will see (observe)
(measure) the object that remains behind to do some
very silly things! That object will show a jump in
time! And if this jump is not real (it is seen, it
is observed, it is measured), then exactly how does
the clock end up reading what is read at the end?
Would you like to answer this simplest of all simple
problem?


O'Barr wrote (about the good things in LET):
... It has a
physically possible 3-D space, and it has the
potential of full and complete causes and effects
in place. It is the simplest. It has no
paradoxes, not even imagined paradoxes.

wrote:
That's rich -- if a paradox can be imagined, the
theory is shot down.

O'Barr comments:
Right! And since in SR, there are imagined
paradoxes everywhere, and in LET, there are not any
imagined paradoxes, then we have an easy choice to
make! It is clear as to which theory is the superior
theory!

Thanks for your help!
Gerald L. O'Barr
+ remove 3 dots for e-mail.

In .com
wrote:
O'Barr wrote:
. . .
.. . .

wrote:
No everybody doesn't know that there appears to
be paradox in relativity There are no paradox in
relativity regardless of books you've read. If you
think your misunderstanding of the theory,
constitutes a problem for the theory, you are
mistaken.

You said: ..."

O'Barr (globarr) said:
Let us start at just the simple thing as always
measuring light to be c. You have a distant star,
and you measure the velocity of the light from this
star to be c. So you jump in a rocket ship and
accelerate up to 90% c, and measure the velocity of
this same light again. What do you get? Why you
still only get c, even though you are moving toward
this star at almost c. And so you again, at your 90%
c, you accelerate again another 90% c, and measure
the velocity of this same light again. And for the
second time, you again only get the same answer, c.
This is all logically impossible! It has to be in
error, in terms of what is actually happening. You
cannot really change your velocity towards something,
and not really have a change! In SR, this is a
paradox! It is just impossible for it to have
actually happened, yet you measured it as having
happened! "

wrote:
It's not impossible because it IS a FACT of NATURE.
You only think it is impossible based on preconception.
It is a verifiable fact of nature.

O'Barr comments:
And so you have just proved my point! You did not
and you cannot explain it. All you can say, and
all you did say, was that it just happens!
But in LET, we are able to show what actually
happens, that there are real changes, but because
of the nature of these changes, the measurments
remain the same.

Thank you for your help!
Plese continue to be helpful!

Gerald L. O'Barr

Gerald
I did not prove your point. Your point is from your perspective 'it is
impossible'. There is no ether [this is a fact of nature]. If you use a
false premis to explain why something 'is' your explanation is false.
If you postulate something [ether] to construct a theory which makes
verifiable predictions then that can become a useful scientific tool.
Now lets ask the question which theory is actually used in scientific
research, SR or LET? If LET was more useful than SR it would be used
[regardless of what Harald thinks].
James

Gerald
I did not prove your point. Your point is from your perspective 'it is
impossible'. There is no ether [this is a fact of nature]. If you use a
false premis to explain why something 'is' your explanation is false.
If you postulate something [ether] to construct a theory which makes
verifiable predictions then that can become a useful scientific tool.
Now lets ask the question which theory is actually used in scientific
research, SR or LET? If LET was more useful than SR it would be used
[regardless of what Harald thinks].
James

"RP" wrote in message
...


Harry wrote:

"RP" wrote in message
...
SNIP
Here is the crux of the matter:
Lorentz is a special case of special relativity in which K in the
transform is the ether frame. In this case x=0 and t=o and the offset
cancels out leaving only the resync component.


x and t are coordinates - perhaps that's the crux of the matter!


Thus if you always assume
the ether frame to perform your calculations then you will be able to
derive the lorentz transform from Lorentz premises of: Galilean
relativity with absolute simultaneity, and physical resync of rulers and
clocks. The moment that you set K in motion wrt the ether frame all bets
are off. This is what the gedanken proves, that is, that the lorentz
transform forbids an absolute ether. This is something that Einstein saw
, that he failed to formalize a proof of the difference between his
theory and Lorentz doesn't change a thing.


I see that you won't deliver the goods...

And why should I continually repeat what I've already related to you.
"There are infinitely many ethers".

I don't recall that. And in what article did Einstein state that? I like to
see the context.
Thanks in advance!

This was derived from the transform.
IOW Einstein was stating outright that the lorentz transform is
contradictory to the premise of an absolute ether. He thought so little
of Lorentz's view that he purposely avoided the subject, not even making
reference to him in his papers. It seems to have never occurred to you
to track down the source of his disagreement.

Richard Perry

Harald

In .com
James wrote:
. . . I did not prove your point.

Gerald L. O'Barr comments:
Yes you did! Let us see what I said, if I remember
it correctly. I said:


O'Barr (globarr) previous comments:
*********************
Please do not misunderstand me. SR math is
correct, as a math. It has to be correct, because it
is the same math as can be used in LET. Therefore,
on the math level, there cannot really be any
paradoxes in SR math, as a math!
But everyone knows that there appears everywhere
to be paradoxes in SR! Whole books have been written
on such subjects! The whole reasons why this net
exists is because of this problem. And the problem
is, that SR has no power to explain what really
happens, and why things really are the way they
really are. In fact, in SR, the word 'really' is not
even allowed! Therefore, there are all these
unexplainable results, all these illogical results,
that do occur, and SR cannot provide any
understandable explanations! These really are
problems with this theory, and they really do have to
be faced!
Let us start at just the simple thing as always
measuring light to be c. You have a distant star,
and you measure the velocity of the light from this
star to be c. So you jump in a rocket ship and
accelerate up to 90% c, and measure the velocity of
this same light again. What do you get? Why you
still only get c, even though you are moving toward
this star at almost c. And so you again, at your 90%
c, you accelerate again another 90% c, and measure
the velocity of this same light again. And for the
second time, you again only get the same answer, c.
This is all logically impossible! It has to be in
error, in terms of what is actually happening. You
cannot really change your velocity towards something,
and not really have a change! In SR, this is a
paradox! It is just impossible for it to have
actually happened, yet you measured it as having
happened!
Only in LET do we have a real explanation, an
explanation that at least provides to us an
understanding of what could be happening, so that
such things really could occur! And thus the
imagined paradox disappears! And I stand by these
choices of words, and so would any other thinking
person! SR cannot explain, in such a way that a
reasonable person could understand, the reasons why
light is always measured to be c. All that SR can
do, is to simply say, that is the way it is!
********************************
END of previous O'Barr comments.


And now, with the above said again, you again point
out that SR has no explanations, exactly as I said!
So thank you!

James wrote:
Your point is from your perspective 'it is
impossible'.

O'Barr comments:
It is from my perspective, that is certainly correct!
But it is not **just** from my perspective. It is also
from science! LET, a science just as well proved as SR,
it says that what SR measures is also not possible, that
is, it is not what actually occurs. And this is what I
mean when I say these things!

James wrote:
There is no ether [this is a fact of nature].

O'Barr comments:
Since there really is an ether, then for you to say
that there is no ether makes you either a liar or a
fool. It definitely means that you are not being
scientific! Since there is an ether, then there
cannot be any test that has shown there is no ether.
And so you lie! No test has ever been done that
has shown that there is no LET ether!


James wrote:
If you use a false premis to explain why something
'is' your explanation is false.

O'Barr comments:
Again, the LET ether has never been scientifically
disproved! Therefore, this again either makes you a
liar or a fool! You have been taught wrong things
in the school where you went, and you need to repent!

James wrote:
If you postulate something [ether] to construct a
theory which makes verifiable predictions then that
can become a useful scientific tool. Now lets ask
the question which theory is actually used in
scientific research, SR or LET? If LET was more
useful than SR it would be used

O'Barr comments:
LET is being used. SR math is LET math, and thus
LET is what has been used since day one. The fact
that no one wants to say it this way is their
problem, but it is not my problem! LET is the same
theory as SR, SR is the correct math, but LET is
the correct physics that goes with the correct
math. And thus, LET, being physical,
is superior to SR!

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr

Gerald
You can call me fool, or liar, to your hearts content but it adds
nothing to your argument. You claimed LET is superior to SR because it
can explain WHY the local measurement for light is always c. To do this
you must invoke an ether. An ether which you claim is real. Every
attempt to detect a 'real' ether has ended in failure. "If you use a
false premis [the ether exists in nature] to explain WHY something 'IS'
[why the local speed of light is always measured to be c] your
explanation is false." Your conclusion that the 'ether exists in
nature' because it has never been shown to not exist IS unscientific.
Fools logic.

James