Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
To Believe in SR is To Believe in a Lie!

False.

(The physical lies that exist in SR.)

False.


I have reached the end of my rope.

Good. Now leave. Your posts have no value.

[usual crap snipped, unread]

Paul Cardinale

"Paul Cardinale" wrote in message
ps.com...
:
: Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
: To Believe in SR is To Believe in a Lie!
:
: False.
:
****head.


: (The physical lies that exist in SR.)
:
: False.

****head.

:
:
: I have reached the end of my rope.
:
: Good. Now leave. Your posts have no value.

True, but neither do yours. Now leave.

"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote in message oups.com...
On May 19, 11:35 am, "Martin Hogbin"
wrote:
"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote in glegroups.com...



Can you give me a straight answer for one train on
one track. How would you set up an experiment to
measure its average speed?

O'Barr comments:
I gave you a 'straight' answer. To repeat:

**************************************************
Formally, in SR, one has to lay out a measurement grid,
with rulers of assumed known dimensions, with
correctly functioning clocks (all running at the same
rate) located at every point where a measurement is
to be made, and then all these clocks are given a
sync so that the velocity measurement of all free
space photons show a value of c.
************************************************** ****

I have not metioned SR. I am simply asking how _you_
would measure the speed of a train.



With such a measurement grid,

How is this grid set up?

you simply record the
data at any two points where the front of the trian
arrives, take the distance represented between these
points, and divide by the time differences represented
between these two points.

How do you measure the times?


As I said before, the measurement is not the problem.
The problem are the interpretations. And SR's interpretations
are sick and physically impossible.

Let us leave a discussion of SR and LET until later.



--
Martin Hogbin

"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote in
oups.com:

Do you
really think you are saying something important?

Do YOU think YOU are saying anything important?
You haven't said anything important so far.

You aren't interested in any facts,
just in selling your opinion that SR stinks.

You don't read articles and don't give any useful references.

You haven't said anything that other's haven't already said,
but they said it better.

.....

And I have not made any
false assumptions that you, at least, have pointed
out.

You haven't? Haven't you assumed that SR is responsible for all the ills in
the world, or at least some of the lack of progress in physics, or
something that you don't like?

Where do you get all these ideas?

Reading your postings. The question is where do YOU get your ideas.





--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

On May 19, 5:25 pm, "Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote:
On May 19, 2:47 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On May 19, 7:51 am, "Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote:

[...]

So what experiment has actually falsified SR?

O'Barr comments:
This is really getting to be stupid, you know.

Yes. You have no experimental falsification of SR - all you have is
your irrelevant whining about how you think the predictions are
stupid, as if anyone cares what you think.

So sit down, and shut the **** up. The only interesting thing about
your spewing is that you have so much of it, yet it contains nothing
worth reading.

[snip stupidity]

Eric Gisse wrote:
On May 19, 7:51 am, "Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote:

[...]

So what experiment has actually falsified SR?

And which one LET ?

In mathematics, you often have solutions to problems that yield - 5
tomatoes.

Such solutions are discarded.

Let's do that with SR.

LET *and* SR are both solutions of Emma Noether's work.

What formula would give the same results for time dilation on a round
tripping B with A stationary and A moving wrt an absolute background ?

The result is the gamma factor. The fact that you no longer need the
absolute background for your round trip calculations, does not mean it
is not there.

Uwe Hayek.

--
Such an assertion can only have be provided by individuals whose
inborn ability to think has been severely repressed by excessive education.
This repression of intelligent thought is characteristic of the process by
which PhD candidates acquire their degrees. They are well taught the
accepted truth at the expense of their ability to question that truth. They
become, in other words, priests of a religion rather than true scientists.
-- H.E.Retic on the web

L'intellectuel qui pense comme autrui ne sert à rien !

This is the bitterest pain among men, to have much knowledge but no power.
Herodotus (484 BC - 430 BC), The Histories of Herodotus

IDIOCY - Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large
(usenet/news) groups.

"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote in message oups.com...
On May 19, 4:19 pm, "Martin Hogbin"
wrote:
"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote in
ooglegroups.com...



Martin Hogbin wrote:
I have not motioned SR. I am simply asking how _you_
would measure the speed of a train.

O'Barr comments:
You did not say not to mention SR. And this
is an SR site. What is your problem? I see
nothing wrong with using SR standards.

AS you know, I see nothing wrong with SR but you
do. I am therefore trying to start from a position
where we both agree.

O'Barr wrote: . . .
With such a measurement grid, . . .

Martin Hogbin wrote:
How is this grid set up?

O'Barr comments:
How is it set up? Do you mean with how
many screws? Maybe you need to tell us how
to do these things. I thought it was obvious.

Let me help you a little. In order to measure the (average)
speed of a train we need not set up a complete reference grid,
we need only set up two measurement points on the track,
separated by a known distance.

Suppose we use the 1889 definition of the metre, which was a
platinum alloy bar, how would you set out your two
measurement points?




O'Barr wrote:
you simply record the
data at any two points where the front of the trian
arrives, take the distance represented between these
points, and divide by the time differences represented
between these two points.

Martin Hogbin wrote:
How do you measure the times?

O'Barr comments.
Depending on the details, it might just be simple
stop watches. If you are really dealing with high
velocities, you might need to make special syncs and
use photo cells. What are the points you want to make?
I have personally used millions of frames a second film,
lasers, nano seconds, you name it, I am sure I have used
something close.

Let us discuss distance first, then time measurement.

O'Barr wrote:
As I said before, the measurement is not the problem.
The problem(s) are the interpretations. And SR's interpretations
are sick and physically impossible.

Martin Hogbin wrote:
Let us leave a discussion of SR and LET until later.


O'Barr comments:
Make it as late as you want. Just let me know when
you are ready to continue.

No problem. I am happy to talk about SR and LET but
first I am interested to see how you would tackle a
simple measurement problem and how you would deal
with some of the philosophical issues involved.


--
Martin Hogbin

On May 19, 8:18 pm, Hayek wrote:
[...]

....and LET is discarded because the ether is unnecessary. SR does the
same thing with less philosophical idiocy.

Subject: The physical lies in SR.

Martin Hogbin wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote:


Martin Hogbin wrote:
I have not motioned SR. I am simply asking how
_you_ would measure the speed of a train.

O'Barr wrote:
You did not say not to mention SR. And this
is an SR site. What is your problem? I see
nothing wrong with using SR standards.

Martin Hogbin wrote:
AS you know, I see nothing wrong with SR but you
do. I am therefore trying to start from a position
where we both agree.

O'Barr comments:
I have no complaints about SR. I think you are
not being very honest. Let me say what I think for
about the 100th time: SR and LET are actually the
same theory. SR is the correct math for our free
space reality, and LET is the correct physics that
supports the correct math. Therefore, Martin, I
probably support SR math even more than you do.
Let me again say, that every test that is
presented that supports SR math, that exact same test
also supports LET. Therefore, LET is the most well
proved theory that has ever existed, or at least it
is as well proved as SR.
What I take exceptions to are the SR experts who
believe in physically impossible things. SR experts
make themselves to be the most dumb people on earth.
They believe in physically impossible things. SR
experts actually believe that if you have two
inertial reference frames traveling upon the same
inertial line, with a relative velocity between them,
then a photon going by these two frames
on the same line, can actually
go by each of these relative moving frames with the
exact same relative velocity of c. This is, of
course, physically impossible. And anyone who
actually believes that this occurs, is silly, and
dumb, and impossible. You know this, and I know
this, and yet we really have people who say that they
believe this, and they teach this. And it is the
most stupid thing in this world to believe and to
teach.
We have grown men who say that a physical clock
(like in the twin paradox) can be going both slower
and faster than another clock, all at the same time.
Again, this is physically impossible. And yet SR
experts say they believe this, and they teach this,
and for this they are dumb. So my complaint is not
with SR, but with the dumb interpretations that are
made by the SR experts. LET does not require SR math
to be so interpreted. Only someone who was dumb
would ignore the interpretations by LET and hold to
the physically impossible interpretations of SR.

deletes by O'Barr

Martin Hogbin wrote:
Let us leave a discussion of SR and LET until
later.

O'Barr wrwote:
Make it as late as you want. Just let me know
when you are ready to continue.

Martin Hogbin wrote:
No problem. I am happy to talk about SR and LET but
first I am interested to see how you would tackle a
simple measurement problem and how you would deal
with some of the philosophical issues involved.

O'Barr comments:
Well, I have little interest in philosophical
issues. And I am sure that you now know that I would
set up any measurement system to be in perfect accord
with SR. It is the interpretations that have to
change, not SR math.

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr
remove ... for e-mail.



Martin,
If you really want a velocity measurement problem,
how about measuring our absolute velocity? One
approach that should work is a physical approach. I
am aware of the problems of tying to measure our
absolute velocity directly, by using clocks, etc.
But let us consider a physical approach. Being a
physical approach, no clocks, no syncs of clocks, no
actual measurement has to be done as far as the basic
test might be involved:

1) Let us take two long flat plates, one placed
above the other, and one of them is designed with
accelerators all along its length to cause it to be
able to be slammed into the plate below it.


2) If we could cause the accelerated plate to
absolutely hit the plate below it perfectly flat on,
that is, simultaneously from end to end, then we
could measure our absolute velocity. Our absolute
velocity would be indicated by noting the end to end
differences in the clock times for the upper plate to
hit the bottom plate. If there were no differences
in the end to end times of contact, then our absolute
velocity in that direction would be zero. If there
is a difference, then that difference would be due to
there being an absolute velocity vector in that
direction.

So how could this be done? First of all, one would
have to find a collision that would vary as the angle
of hit might vary. For example, what if a thin layer
of water was held on the surface of the bottom plate.
If the upper plate hit flat, the spray of the water
would form a very symmetrical pattern. But if the
upper plate hit first on one end, and then the other,
the spray of water will certain change its pattern.
So what could be done would be this: The
acceleration of the upper plate would be controlled
by power devices that could be timed by special
timing circuits. By trial and error, one could
repeat this act until the settings of these timing
circuit resulted in a perfect pattern all up and down
the plates.
Once this is achieved, we could assume that these
plates were in fact hitting in an absolute
simultaneous fashion. At this point, then the use of
SR clock sync would be used to find out the
difference in time, if any, was measured between the
contact times across the length of these plates.
Now much more could be said about every step being
taken, but at least this gives enough to understand
the basic approach. The power of this approach is to
use the power of physical reality to skip around the
measurement limitations that exist in SR. It is much
like the scissor paradox, where infinite velocity is
able to be obtained by the point of intersection of
the blades of a scissor, when they are properly
designed. This physical approach of scissors is also
a good physical approach to consider, since it would
accomplish the same thing.

"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote in
oups.com:

What I take exceptions to are the SR experts who
believe in physically impossible things. SR experts
make themselves to be the most dumb people on earth.
They believe in physically impossible things. SR
experts actually believe that if you have two
inertial reference frames traveling upon the same
inertial line, with a relative velocity between them,
then a photon going by these two frames
on the same line, can actually
go by each of these relative moving frames with the
exact same relative velocity of c.

You are incorrect. SR says that the photon is just moving and how it moves
is independent of the speed of its source or any observer.

SR says that when that speed is measured by any observer, moving at any
speed in ANY iFoR, the observer will measure the speed as 'c'.

LET and SR both say that is what happens.

SR says it is because the observer's rulers and clocks appear to OTHER
observers to be going slower and getting shorter. To the observer in the
iFoR, the rules and clocks do not change and the speed of that photon is c.

LET say that it is because the observer's rulers and clock ACTUALLY go
slower and get shorter because of some magic aether.

This is, of
course, physically impossible.

It is LET that is physically impossible.

And anyone who
actually believes that this occurs, is silly, and
dumb, and impossible. You know this, and I know
this, and yet we really have people who say that they
believe this, and they teach this. And it is the
most stupid thing in this world to believe and to
teach.


We see, every day, that things, in the distance, look smaller due to
perspective but we do not believe that some magical local aether makes them
actually smaller.

Likewise we see that, in space-time, things moving at high relative
velocities, LOOK like they are 'smaller' in certain ways due to our
perspective but we do not believe that some magical local aether makes them
actually smaller.

Why don't you spend your time and energy on something useful, like
searching for the next dinasour killing asteroid, and helping prevent the
extinction of the human race, rather than making yourself feel more
important, trolling these usenet groups, calling others silly and stupid?


--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap