On Jun 26, 3:37 pm, "Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote:
The religious worship of SR.

When one finds a good way to live, to exercise
faith in the living of this good life can be correct
and desirable. But faith in a scientific theory is
not allowed. In science, support for any theory must
be based upon the results of measurements made of all
possible tests that the trained mind can consider.
If there is one failure, it is promptly noted as a
weakness, and more testing and wider investigation is
instantly began.
SR is a perfect example why faith cannot be
allowed in science. In SR, if any test indicates any
problem, the SR experts do not see it as a weakness.
They see it as being something to be removed even if
you have to change the meaning of words. Let us look
at just a few examples of these inappropriate acts.
In SR, there is a principle that velocity is
relative. It is used to accept the fact that if A is
moving away from B with velocity v, then B is moving
away from A with velocity of v. But in SR, it is
much more than just this equality in a measured
magnitude. It is an acceptance of the fact that one
velocity is the exact equal of the other in all ways,
not just in this equality of the magnitude v. This
is a mindless belief, in that it is not even really
necessary. And no one can really accept such a thing
in science, since to say (or believe) ***in all
ways*** is impossible to first of all consider in
your mind, and impossible to fully test.
Well, the paradox of the twins shows that not all
relative velocity is equal. Even though twin A has
the identical relative velocity as twin B, and twin B
has the identical relative velocity as twin A, they
do end up being different. Thus, the effects of the
relative velocity in this problem does not end up
being equal in all ways. And thus this blind belief
in relative velocity being equal in all ways is false
and cannot be supported by any scientific reasoning.
But when you worship, what do you do? Why you do
what SR experts do! You ignore it. You recognize
that it exists, but you give it a name. You call it
a break in symmetry. So now it is official. We can
keep this break in symmetry, and because we have
named it, then SR remains good and strong.
But who can accept a theory that has a break in
its symmetry? Only someone who worships the theory!
And this is what has happened. Today, in SR, there
can be many breaks in symmetry, and no one cares.
Why do they not care? Maybe because the math works!
In the case of SR, the math, being an absolute
reference frame math, the real differences between
absolute velocities and relative velocities is
present, and accounts for these breaks. In the
paradox of the twins, any twin who follows a straight
line in space has a shorter absolute path than a twin
who does not follow a straight line, and thus one
must have had less absolute speed than the other.
But a theory is more than just math. It is the
principles upon which the math is based. And the
principles of SR, in terms of the paradox of the
twins, are broken, and cannot be repaired. SR is a
destroyed belief. It is no longer an acceptable
scientific theory. Its principle of symmetry has
been fully and completely broken, no matter how
perfect the math might be.
Let us repeat this at least one more time: If
the math of SR itself confirms that there is a break
in symmetry, then that is in itself direct proof that
the principles upon which SR was formulated by
Einstein were in error. This fact cannot be escaped.
What this means is that there must be other ways of
deriving the same math, without using the same
assumptions of Einstein.

Let us look at another example: The mass of a
photon. Yes a photon does have mass. For many years
we all talked about the mass of a photon. But today,
in SR, they went to a specific effort to change the
definition of the word mass so that no one today can
say that a photon has mass. So SR again can remain
correct in the eyes of the experts. Such an act
shows the desperation that SR experts have in making
sure that SR is perfect. They will even change the
very meaning of words to fit the theory, rather than
admit that there might be a weakness to some of the
principles being used.
Please note that before they changed the
definition of this word, they had every ability
to talk about rest mass, as a mass, and kinetic
energy mass as a mass, or just talked about mass in
general. There was no reason at all to change
anything. But they did. And the only reason to
change it was due to worship.
But guess what, all you SR experts: We today can
still measure the mass of a photon. And guess what,
the value of the mass of a photon is exactly the same
as it has always been. Exactly the same! No matter
how you change the definition of words, they cannot
affect the results of measurements.

And now, let us consider the words of relative
velocity itself. Today, no SR expert will allow the
normal meaning of these words. No one can say that
the light that goes by any frame is ever anything but
c. So by definition, relative velocity of light only
means c. So now when anyone says relative velocity,
and it is not c, then it is not relative velocity.
Isn't that great!
Yes, the measured velocity of the approach of
light to a frame might be only one-half c, and the
measured departing velocity of light from this same
frame might be only one-half c. And thus, the actual
measured velocity of light passing this frame
certainly was measured to be only one-half c. But
you are not allowed to say it. No! We cannot allow
SR to be wrong. We are not allowed to say that what
was measured was the relative velocity of light going
past the frame. Relative velocity is only allowed to
be those measurements where the value that is
measured is to be c. Isn't that great! The value of
the measurement is what now determines the name of
the measurement!
But no matter how any definitions might change,
the actual measured velocity of light going past all
frames is not c, except when you are measuring this
fact for your own frame. Even in Einstein's train
example, the speed of light going past the train,
when measured by the ones in the track frame, will be
c-v, and c+v, exactly. It would be impossible for it
to be anything else, or else the very math of SR
could not be shown to be correct.
As physicists, we have to know that SR math is LET
math. Therefore, any measurements made in SR have to
give the identical answers as required in LET. And
now with all the data that has been collected, we now
have SR confirming LET from start to finish.
Everything that is required in LET has been directly
and completely established.
Those SR experts who are not willing to accept
these facts are putting their entire reputations into
question. We will no longer accept a theory that has
a broken symmetry. We will no longer accept a theory
that does not even allow the mass of a photon to be
recognized even when such a mass can be measured. We
will no longer accept a theory that does not allow
one to say that the speed of light going passed a
frame is different than c, even when such is measured
by all frames for all other frames.
We will no longer believe in a theory that
believes in things that are physically impossible.
We will no longer believe in a theory that requires a
belief in a 4-D spacetime continuum even when there
is no physical evidence to sustain such a belief.
We accept SR math because it works. But the
explanations being used by SR experts are silly, and
impossible, and no longer are acceptable.
Now several weaknesses of SR were mentioned up
above. If even one of these things that were said
were correct, then that would make SR to be an
unacceptable theory. But here I believe all these
things are correctly stated. And if so, there can no
longer be this blind acceptance of SR, or this
religious like acceptance of SR. It has come to an
end.

Thank you for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr
Remove ... for e-mail.


Funny that you should call it " Religious Worship ".

It turns out that those who created this reality intended to divide
it. The outcome was the creation of a new world, or more precisely two
new worlds. The original world is divided, thanks to the removal of
the absolute truth that once held it together. One world is better
than the original, the other is worse. However, if the minds of the
original world know of the truth concerning it mechanics, then their
minds would have to be ripped apart in the process.

The end result was TRUTH DENIED !

This is why mankind in general behaves and thinks like complete
morons, and why some of those who have the smarts to see the truth,
such as John Forbes Nash, are set up to appear to be nut-cases, such
that the road to truth that they were on seems to the rest of the
world to be a road to insanity.

But this is a bummer, because talking about religion, those who are
closest to the truths are also the most innocent, and in a way the
most holy. Liars, and self centred people, can't get close to truths
since these acts move them away from truths.

And so the creators of this reality crucify the innocent, which in
short leads to the rewarding of the guilty, the criminals, the low
down scum.

Anyhow, that's why the Grand Unified Theory is kept buried.

Of course you won't believe what I have just told you, because it is
the truth, and truth is banned !

"THE_ONE" wrote in message
oups.com...
Funny that you should call it " Religious Worship ".

It turns out that those who created this reality intended to divide
it. The outcome was the creation of a new world, or more precisely two
new worlds. The original world is divided, thanks to the removal of
the absolute truth that once held it together. One world is better
than the original, the other is worse. However, if the minds of the
original world know of the truth concerning it mechanics, then their
minds would have to be ripped apart in the process.

The end result was TRUTH DENIED !

This is why mankind in general behaves and thinks like complete
morons, and why some of those who have the smarts to see the truth,
such as John Forbes Nash, are set up to appear to be nut-cases, such
that the road to truth that they were on seems to the rest of the
world to be a road to insanity.

But this is a bummer, because talking about religion, those who are
closest to the truths are also the most innocent, and in a way the
most holy. Liars, and self centred people, can't get close to truths
since these acts move them away from truths.

And so the creators of this reality crucify the innocent, which in
short leads to the rewarding of the guilty, the criminals, the low
down scum.

Anyhow, that's why the Grand Unified Theory is kept buried.

Of course you won't believe what I have just told you, because it is
the truth, and truth is banned !

Have your meds run out?

On Jul 10, 5:21 am, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"THE_ONE" wrote in message

oups.com...





Funny that you should call it " Religious Worship ".

It turns out that those who created this reality intended to divide
it. The outcome was the creation of a new world, or more precisely two
new worlds. The original world is divided, thanks to the removal of
the absolute truth that once held it together. One world is better
than the original, the other is worse. However, if the minds of the
original world know of the truth concerning it mechanics, then their
minds would have to be ripped apart in the process.

The end result was TRUTH DENIED !

This is why mankind in general behaves and thinks like complete
morons, and why some of those who have the smarts to see the truth,
such as John Forbes Nash, are set up to appear to be nut-cases, such
that the road to truth that they were on seems to the rest of the
world to be a road to insanity.

But this is a bummer, because talking about religion, those who are
closest to the truths are also the most innocent, and in a way the
most holy. Liars, and self centred people, can't get close to truths
since these acts move them away from truths.

And so the creators of this reality crucify the innocent, which in
short leads to the rewarding of the guilty, the criminals, the low
down scum.

Anyhow, that's why the Grand Unified Theory is kept buried.

Of course you won't believe what I have just told you, because it is
the truth, and truth is banned !

Have your meds run out?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It is your mind that has run out.

"THE_ONE" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 10, 5:21 am, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"THE_ONE" wrote in message
Of course you won't believe what I have just told you, because it is
the truth, and truth is banned !
Have your meds run out?
It is your mind that has run out.

No .. I'm not out of my mind yet

On Jul 10, 6:41 am, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"THE_ONE" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Jul 10, 5:21 am, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"THE_ONE" wrote in message
Of course you won't believe what I have just told you, because it is
the truth, and truth is banned !
Have your meds run out?
It is your mind that has run out.

No .. I'm not out of my mind yet

Could there have been some psychological
connection between the death of Einstein and the
onset of Dingle's dementia, or was this just coincidental?
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath024/kmath024.htm
http://www.sabian.org/alice.htm

Sue...

On Jul 10, 5:41 am, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"THE_ONE" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Jul 10, 5:21 am, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"THE_ONE" wrote in message
Of course you won't believe what I have just told you, because it is
the truth, and truth is banned !
Have your meds run out?
It is your mind that has run out.

No .. I'm not out of my mind yet

But what you are saying is that it is a work in progress, hence the
work " yet ".

"THE_ONE" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 10, 5:41 am, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"THE_ONE" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Jul 10, 5:21 am, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"THE_ONE" wrote in message
Of course you won't believe what I have just told you, because it is
the truth, and truth is banned !
Have your meds run out?
It is your mind that has run out.

No .. I'm not out of my mind yet

But what you are saying is that it is a work in progress, hence the
work " yet ".

Well .. I keep reading posts like yours and my mind gradually gets eaten
away by the stupidity. Fortunately I have a large amount of mind to start
with, and I can replenish it by thinking about physics .. its good for the
mind.

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. For a while, I had no
urge to answer you. You are like a child. You have
to answer, even if there is no sense to your efforts.
The Lorentz transforms were originated by Lorentz
in and for his absolute reference frame theory. 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.
Yes, these transforms are for transforms from one
frame to another, and for use in the ether, these
were all frames in the absolute ether. Therefore,
your comment was and is simple wrong. They are fully
and completely appropriate for an absolute approach.
This is how they work. This is how they were
originally derived. Why are you afraid to even admit
that these were their original origins? You seem
afraid to even allow the truth to be said. Why is
that? Why would any scientist be unwilling to have
any truth given or said or understood or presented?
It seems so childish that you do not want to even say
such obvious things. It is like some kind of a game,
not scientists talking. What is your problem?



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 that there are no breaks
in symmetry in SR. 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!
There are no breaks in symmetry in LET, and there
are breaks in SR. And for this reason alone, LET is
superior
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.

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?


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. 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!


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, and it is
actually only measured to be traveling at c only in
the frame in which the tools are at rest. In all
other valid SR frames, using valid SR measurement
procedures, using valid SR tools, the speed with
which light moves past any other frame is every
velocity except c. And since these velocity
measurements outnumber your velocity measurements by
several orders of magnitude, it is wrong for you to
keep saying that SR requires light to be moving past
all these frames with a velocity of c. This is not
what your math actually shows. This is not what the
theory shows. Since you use the same math as is used
in LET, then you actually get the same measurement
results that is obtained in LET, and there is no way
you can lie yourself out of any of these facts.


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?


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, Jeckyl. It is the
absolute that is necessary to explain the breaks in
symmetry that is seen in SR. And every time you find
one photon moving exactly as another, step by step by
step, then you know that there is an absolute. Every
time you see all photons move independent of their
source, you see the absolute in full and complete
control. The absolute is everywhere, and if I can
see it, so can you.

O'Barr wrote:
If Einstein made any mistake, it was in this
failure to keep separate the differences between
what were absolute facts from what were
measurement facts.

Jeckyl wrote:
No . that is YOUR problem. you keep thinking the
assumption of LET are known and accepted facts.
They are not.

O'Barr comments:
Well, they are known, by at least a few around
here, and since they are the same math as SR, every
time SR math is established as being correct, then so
is LET math being established as being correct.
Therefore, LET is just as well proved as SR. Exactly
as well proved and established! And you know what,
Jeckyl, I have never heard you say these obvious
things. Why is that? Why are you not scientific
enough to agree with all these obvious things?


O'Barr wrote:
As I have said so many times, since the MMX, we
now know that what we measure (being with
changeable tools) has to be different than what
reality is actually doing.

Jeckyl wrote:
No .. we don't

O'Barr comments:
Sure we do, Jeckyl. It is obvious. We now know
all these obvious things. This is even the way that
Einstein explained it from the very first, when he
presented the train example to us. This is nothing
new. This is exactly what is going on and no one
will ever again be able to fool us into thinking
anything else.

O'Barr wrote:
When you use an LET approach, the separations
between those facts that are absolute from those
facts that are associated with measurements are
very clearly and exactingly pointed out.

Jeckyl wrote:
But that doesn't make it correct


O'Barr comments:
Sure it does! It does because it is reasonable,
it is simple, it is physically possible, it is real,
it is common sense, it is perfect, it is produces no
breaks in symmetry, it explains everything, it even
explains SR. SR does not explain anything, it can
not explain LET, in fact, it cannot even explain
itself. SR is a weak theory. But LET can explain
everything, itself and SR.

O'Barr wrote:
And thus, LET is a superiorly stated theory,

Jeckyl wrote:
No .. if it were superior, we'd all be using it.

O'Barr comments:
We are using it! SR math is LET math. So we are
using LET math. All we need to do now is to use more
of it. We need to also use its physical base, as
well as its math. And Jeckyl, we are going to see
all these good things happen, right here on this net.

O'Barr wrote:
and (LET) accomplishes the
exact same things (as SR), but does so in a way
that there are never any broken symmetries,

Jeckyl wrote:
It has the same math, and if there are broken
symmetries in SR, then they exist in LET.

O'Barr comments:
This is so great: you actually broke down and said
that these two theories have the same math. You are
now almost as great as Tom Roberts. You are almost a
real physicist. Yes, these two theories are the same
in terms of their math. And so, if the results of
the math, and confirmed by the measurements obtained,
show that there are breaks in symmetry, then they
both must show the exact some things.
But here are the differences: In SR, all you have
is the symmetry. This is where you start, where
every velocity is relative to every other velocity.
But LET begins deeper, at a point where all
velocities are not equal, but are based upon one and
only one absolute reference. So in LET, one can go
back to a deeper base where the break is explained,
and in this deeper base, in the absolute frame, there
are no breaks.
Thank you, Jeckyl, for saying a few correct
things. It sure makes it easier when people are
willing to at least state the obvious.

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr

"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.

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