To Believe in SR is To Believe in a Lie!
(The physical lies that exist in SR.)

I have reached the end of my rope. I will no more
respect any person who will say that they believe in
obvious lies! Anyone who thinks knows that there are
things that physical objects cannot do.

In a one dimensional problem:
No physical object can both be going slower than
another object, and then at the same time be going
faster than that object. It just cannot be done.
Either one fact is correct, or the other fact is
correct, or they are both wrong. But they cannot
both be correct at the same time.

No two frames, that have relative motions with
respect to the other along a common line, can then
both be moving past the same photon traveling on this
line, with the same relative velocity of c. One or
more of these 'facts' have to be wrong.

The same physical object cannot have two separate
opposing physical states at the same time. If there
is anyone who is going to continue to believe such
silly and stupid and physically impossible things,
they will no longer have any of my respects.
If any person is going to continue to say that
they believe such junk, then in my book, this also
makes them stupid, and silly, and impossible to talk
to. Such thinking as is now done in SR is stupid,
and silly, and physically impossible, and to allow
yourself to believe in such impossible things, will
rot your mind and your soul.

In SR, in the paradox of the twin problem, it is
said that twin B sees twin A's clocks going slow, and
twin A sees twin B's clocks going slow. I have no
doubt that they see exactly what they see. But
anyone who really believes that these clocks are
actually both going slower than the other is a liar.
Physical objects just cannot do such a physically
impossible thing. And the final answer to this
paradox proves that this was a lie. There really was
only one object that was really going slower than the
other, either in the going out trip, or the return
trip, or both. And anyone who is not man enough to
say so is himself a liar. No one can be so dumb as
to not understand how what I say has to be true.


And anyone who is so dumb that they would actually
accept such a theory as SR, with no evidence at all
that there is such a junk as 4-D, has to be the most
stupid person of all. We have no test at all that
supports SR over LET. We have no test at all that
shows that we actually have a 4-D spacetime
continuum. Those of you on this net who teaches that
SR is a science are evil. SR is not a science, it is
simply a religion, a belief, a type of thinking that
has no evidence. And you are now all sick, and it is
now impossible for you to even reason about our
reality.

Surely some of you still have some common sense,
and I beg you to recheck your own honesty, and let us
move to higher grounds. Surely some of you know what
I am saying is correct. Surely some of you can even
understand what I am saying, and even agree with it.
Let us be more honest, and say things exactly as they
are. Yes, SR has the correct math. Yes, we should
have SR math, we should teach SR math, we should use
SR math. But to understand what is physically
occurring, we must understand LET.
In LET, we never have to say anything that is
physically impossible. We never have a physical
object that has to be moving both slower and faster
at the same time. In LET, we know that the
measurements we make are made with changeable tools,
and thus the measurements are not what they always
seem to be. Photons in any one reference frame are
almost never going by with a relative velocity of c,
but they are always measured with a relative velocity
of c, not because they are actually moving at a
relative c in that specific frame, but because the
tools being used in that frame requires these
measurements to be c.

And anyone who cannot accept the obvious is going
to be left behind. We will no longer accept lies.
We will no longer teach anyone to believe that
physical objects can do impossible things. And I do
have hope of a better world, a better understanding
of physical things. I have hope of a better theory,
a theory where no one has to believe in physically
impossible things.

Gerald L. O'Barr
Remove ... for e-mail.

"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote in message ups.com...
To Believe in SR is To Believe in a Lie!
(The physical lies that exist in SR.)

I have reached the end of my rope.

Happy dangling!

Dirk Vdm

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

In SR, in the paradox of the twin problem, it is
said that twin B sees twin A's clocks going slow, and
twin A sees twin B's clocks going slow. I have no
doubt that they see exactly what they see. But
anyone who really believes that these clocks are
actually both going slower than the other is a liar.
Physical objects just cannot do such a physically
impossible thing. And the final answer to this
paradox proves that this was a lie. There really was
only one object that was really going slower than the
other, either in the going out trip, or the return
trip, or both. And anyone who is not man enough to
say so is himself a liar. No one can be so dumb as
to not understand how what I say has to be true.


And anyone who is so dumb that they would actually
accept such a theory as SR, with no evidence at all
that there is such a junk as 4-D, has to be the most
stupid person of all. We have no test at all that
supports SR over LET. We have no test at all that
shows that we actually have a 4-D spacetime
continuum. Those of you on this net who teaches that
SR is a science are evil. SR is not a science, it is
simply a religion, a belief, a type of thinking that
has no evidence. And you are now all sick, and it is
now impossible for you to even reason about our
reality.

Surely some of you still have some common sense,
and I beg you to recheck your own honesty, and let us
move to higher grounds.

Let me ask you this question. How would you measure
the speed of a train in one direction on a straight track?

Martin Hogbin

Subject: The physical lies in SR.


Martin Hogbin wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote: ...
In SR, in the paradox of the twin problem, it is
said that twin B sees twin A's clocks going slow,
and twin A sees twin B's clocks going slow. I
have no doubt that they see exactly what they see.
But anyone who really believes that these clocks
are actually both going slower than the other is a
liar.
Physical objects just cannot do such a physically
impossible thing. And the final answer to this
paradox proves that this was a lie. There really
was only one object that was really going slower
than the
other, either in the going out trip, or the return
trip, or both. And anyone who is not man enough
to say so is himself a liar. No one can be so
dumb as to not understand how what I say has to be
true.

And anyone who is so dumb that they would
actually accept such a theory as SR, with no
evidence at all that there is such a junk as 4-D,
has to be the most stupid person of all. We have
no test at all that supports SR over LET. We have
no test at all that shows that we actually have a
4-D spacetime continuum. Those of you on this net
who teaches that SR is a science are evil. SR is
not a science, it is simply a religion, a belief, a
type of thinking that has no evidence. And you are
now all sick, and it is now impossible for you to
even reason about our reality.

Surely some of you still have some common sense,
and I beg you to recheck your own honesty, and let
us move to higher grounds. . . .

Martin Hogbin wrote:
Let me ask you this question. How would you
measure the speed of a train in one direction on a
straight track?

O'Barr comments:
What a great question.
How you would measure it is very important. But
let me say ahead of time, that the question is not
really how to measure something, but what can be said
about the total meaning of the measurement once it is
done. In SR, you claim that all measurements are a
direct statement of our reality. And for this, you
will hang, because the measurements we obtain require
us to accept things that are not physically possible.
In LET, we recognize that we do have changeable
tools. What is measured with changeable tools just
might not be what is really going on.
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.

But physically, if there are two trains on this
track, one does not need to measure the speeds of
these two trains to know which one, if any, is
physically going the fastest. All you need to do is
to attach a tight thread or string between these two
trains. If the string remains at a constant
tightness, then the two trains are going the same
speed. If the string breaks, the train in front is
physically going faster than the train in the rear.
If the string sags, then the train in front is going
slower than the train in the rear. No measurement is
needed for this: no clocks, no syncing of clocks, no rulers.
And physical events are superior to any math, for
math is not limited to physical reality, and
therefore should not always be trusted.
And I assure you, the string does not
tell you that any one of these trains is
going both faster and slower than the other,
all at the same time.

Let me know if this answers your question!
Gerald L. O'Barr
Remove ... for e-mail.

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

But physically, if there are two trains on this
track, one does not need to measure the speeds of
these two trains to know which one, if any, is
physically going the fastest. All you need to do is
to attach a tight thread or string between these two
trains. If the string remains at a constant
tightness, then the two trains are going the same
speed.

True only if the trains are traveling on an infinite, flat plane and the
tracks are parallel.

In my universe, we ran out of infinite flat plains a few months ago. We
don't have any fancy plains either. It looks like the supply will not be
replenished any time soon.

So, the train that is 'ahead' might be on a slightly divergent path and
slowing down, yet the thread might lie and say they continue to travel at
the same speed.





--
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

"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote in message ps.com...
Subject: The physical lies in SR.
What a great question.
How you would measure it is very important. But
let me say ahead of time, that the question is not
really how to measure something, but what can be said
about the total meaning of the measurement once it is
done.

All I was trying to do was to get you to talk rationally
about measurement and reality.

In SR, you claim that all measurements are a
direct statement of our reality.

Let us leave SR out of it for the moment.

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.

We all know about SR, but how would you do it?

But physically, if there are two trains on this
track, one does not need to measure the speeds of
these two trains to know which one, if any, is
physically going the fastest. All you need to do is
to attach a tight thread or string between these two
trains. If the string remains at a constant
tightness, then the two trains are going the same
speed. If the string breaks, the train in front is
physically going faster than the train in the rear.
If the string sags, then the train in front is going
slower than the train in the rear. No measurement is
needed for this: no clocks, no syncing of clocks, no rulers.
And physical events are superior to any math, for
math is not limited to physical reality, and
therefore should not always be trusted.
And I assure you, the string does not
tell you that any one of these trains is
going both faster and slower than the other,
all at the same time.

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?


--
Martin Hogbin

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

O'Barr wrote:
Subject: The physical lies in SR.
What a great question.
How you would measure it is very important. But
let me say ahead of time, that the question is not
really how to measure something, but what can be said
about the total meaning of the measurement once it is
done.

All I was trying to do was to get you to talk rationally
about measurement and reality.

O'Barr wrote:
In SR, you claim that all measurements are a
direct statement of our reality.

Let us leave SR out of it for the moment.

O'Barr wrote:
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.

We all know about SR, but how would you do it?

O'Barr wrote:
But physically, if there are two trains on this
track, one does not need to measure the speeds of
these two trains to know which one, if any, is
physically going the fastest. All you need to do is
to attach a tight thread or string between these two
trains. If the string remains at a constant
tightness, then the two trains are going the same
speed. If the string breaks, the train in front is
physically going faster than the train in the rear.
If the string sags, then the train in front is going
slower than the train in the rear. No measurement is
needed for this: no clocks, no syncing of clocks, no rulers.
And physical events are superior to any math, for
math is not limited to physical reality, and
therefore should not always be trusted.
And I assure you, the string does not
tell you that any one of these trains is
going both faster and slower than the other,
all at the same time.


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.
************************************************** ****

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


Now why don't you be straight, whatever that means,
and tell me that you understand what I am saying, and
that you fully agree. And we are going to be honest,
and tell everyone the limitations that exist in SR, and
how LET solves many of these limitations.

Thanks!

On May 19, 11:35 am, bz wrote:
"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote oups.com:

O'Barr wrote:
But physically, if there are two trains on this
track, one does not need to measure the speeds of
these two trains to know which one, if any, is
physically going the fastest. All you need to do is
to attach a tight thread or string between these two
trains. If the string remains at a constant
tightness, then the two trains are going the same
speed.

True only if the trains are traveling on an infinite,
flat plane and the tracks are parallel.

O'Barr comments:
Hog wash! The trains only need to be on a straight track
for as far as the problem is allowed to go, and they
could easily be on the same tracks.
Certainly parallel tracks and infinite planes are fine,
but you are making fun for no reason. So let me delete
what you wrote that is silly!

Oh, I am sorry, this deletes all that you wrote.

Why are you being so difficult? It is easy to understand
these physical situations. No one needs to have a problem with
such. Why are you having such a problem? Is it on purpose?

Gerald.

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

On May 19, 11:35 am, bz wrote:
"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote
oups.com:

O'Barr wrote:
But physically, if there are two trains on this
track, one does not need to measure the speeds of
these two trains to know which one, if any, is
physically going the fastest. All you need to do is
to attach a tight thread or string between these two
trains. If the string remains at a constant
tightness, then the two trains are going the same
speed.

True only if the trains are traveling on an infinite,
flat plane and the tracks are parallel.

O'Barr comments:
Hog wash! The trains only need to be on a straight track
for as far as the problem is allowed to go, and they
could easily be on the same tracks.

If they are on the same track and travel over the surface of the earth,
unless they are close together, the 'horizon' effect will cut the string.

Certainly parallel tracks and infinite planes are fine,
but you are making fun for no reason. So let me delete
what you wrote that is silly!

Oh, I am sorry, this deletes all that you wrote.

Why are you being so difficult? It is easy to understand
these physical situations. No one needs to have a problem with
such. Why are you having such a problem? Is it on purpose?

You have seemed to take such delight with proposing difficult experiments for
SR and enjoy complaining that only LET explains things properly that I
thought you might enjoy seeing some of the false assumptions that YOU make in
your proposals.

Don't you do unto others as you want them to do unto you?

If you are REALLY intersted in looking at problems (and solutions) for SR/GR
and why LET is certainly no better than SR/GR and is worse because it is a
dead end, whereas SR opened a path to a whole new universe, then you can read
some papers such as
[quote]
arXivhysics/0612041 v1 5 Dec 2006

The physics of space and time II: A reassessment of Einstein’s
1905 special relativity paper

J.H.Field

D´epartement de Physique Nucl´eaire et Corpusculaire Universit´e de Gen`eve .
24, quai Ernest-Ansermet CH-1211 Gen`eve 4.

E-mail:

Abstract

A detailed re-examination of the seminal paper on special relativity, taking
into account recent work onthephysicalinterpretation of the space-time
Lorentz transformation as well as the modern understanding of classical
elecromagnetism as a certain limit of the fundamental underlying theory
–quantum electrodynamics– is presented. Many errors both of physical
principle and of a mathematical nature are uncovered. The ‘relativity of
simultaneity’and ‘length contraction’ effects predicted in the paper are
shown to be the spurious consequences of misinterpretations of the
second postulate and the Lorentz transformation, respectively. The derivation
of the latter in the paper is shown to be flawed. In this case,and other
instances,due to cancellation of mistakes, a correct result is obtained in a
fallacious manner. Separate lists of the correctand incorrect predictions of
the paper are given. Due to the unique and revolutionary nature of its
epistemological approach (the use of ‘thought experiments’ and axiomatic
derivations) and the experimentally verified predictions of time-dilatation
and mass-energy equivalence the fundamental importance of the
paper for the development of physics is little affected by the many
mathematical errors and (to modern eyes) physical misconceptions that it
contains.
[unquote]



If you approached your critique of SR as professionally as Field does, you
would find people to be more tolerant and accepting of your comments and you
might actually produce some useful ideas. As it is, you just waste your time
and ours.

It is really no secret that there are errors in Einsteins work, but as Field
says, they often cancel and the final results are correct.

As he also shows, independent development by others have shown many of the
concepts to be correct. So, live with it, and get over the idea that only LET
is acceptable because 1)LET is a dead end. 2)LET makes no useful predictions
to separate it from SR, 3)LET is unable to handle cases that GR handles just
fine.

--
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, 7:51 am, "Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote:

[...]

So what experiment has actually falsified SR?