(First post, or more correctly, first written!)
The end of SR!

SR has come to an end! Its own math has killed it
dead! No scientist can continue to teach it or to
believe in it. Everything it says is impossible.
Let us see how this has happened.

SR says that the relative speed of light ***is*** a
constant c in all inertial reference frames. But
this is true only when one confines these
measurements of the relative speed of light to be in
reference to their own frame. But basic SR
principles do not require anyone to confine their
measurements to be in only one frame! SR requires
you to say and to know and to believe that all frames
are equal! All frames have an equal right to measure
all that exists within our reality! All frames have
an equal right to say and to measure and to
determining the relative velocity of light that is
existing in all frames!
And when we measure the relative velocity of light
that is actually seen in all external frames, we do
not measure c. Not in one external frame is a
relative velocity of c observed or measured! And in
fact, in all external frames, the reason why we
measure c within our own frame is fully and
completely explained! In SR, we see and we measure
that the tools being used by those in each frame take
on changes that result in such measurements.
Any thinking person knows that light can not
really be going at the same relative speed in all
frames. Such a state is physically impossible. It
has to be due to something funny in our measurements,
and SR math tells us exactly how these measurements
make it appear to be the way it is.
Let us repeat the above thoughts again, just so
we understand what is scientifically occurring. We,
on this earth, have every SR right to take a nearby
planet, and observe this planet! We can use our own
SR tools and we can determine the number of moons
around this planet. We can determine the speed at
which these moons are moving around this planet, and
there is nothing that we cannot measure if our tools
are able to do it. And if we wanted to, we could
measure the speed at which our electrical signals are
going by this planet, as it exists in the space
around us. All these measurements are good and
proper and exact and they do not fail one single
scientific requirement. We do not have to go to this
planet in order to scientifically know what is
correct.
And as we observe all moving objects within our
own frame (and all that have a constant finite speed
in our frame being a valid reference frame
themselves), not one of them are shown by our
measurements to have a relative speed of light equal
to c. Not one of them!

What does SR science really say that the relative
speed of light is in any one reference frame? Since
SR says that all frames are equal, then for any
scientist to say what the true SR relative speed of
light is in any one reference frame would require one
to know what all valid SR frames would say. And when
this is properly considered, then any true SR expert
would say that SR does not know what the actual true
relative velocity of light is for any one frame.
Proper SR frames report back all possible values.
The correct statement would actually be that the odds
would not be good that it was actually c. This is
all that anyone can really say about this problem.
And we find that this is exactly correct. No SR
expert has the right to say that it is c. That is
unscientific. The full and complete SR data does not
allow anyone to say that the speed of light in any
frame is actually c. The actual SR data shows that
it is unlikely to be c. And that is the only correct
answer that I will allow to be said on this net.

Any fair minded person knows that LET is a
complete and exact science, and has the same math as
SR. LET provides the exact same math predictions as
SR. But LET does not make any of the mistakes that
SR makes. LET does not say that the speed of light
is a constant relative c in all frames. It only says
what we now know to be true, that only the
measurements made in each frame are equal to c.
LET, being a physical theory, has nothing that is
physically impossible existing in its explanations.
LET has no physically impossible 4-D spacetime
continuums. LET does not have photons going the same
relative speed in all frames. LET does not have any
breaks in its symmetry, or any real jumps in time.

Yes, SR really is dead, and no one is going to be
allowed to continue to teach it or to say that it is
true.


Thanks for reading, and more thanks for understanding
all this!

Gerald L. O'Barr

On Jul 27, 10:27 am, "Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote:
[snip delusions]

It is so cute that you think you have any sort of impact on physics.

On Jul 27, 5:05 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jul 27, 10:27 am, "Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote:
[snip delusions]

It is so cute that you think you have any sort of impact on physics.

xxein: It isn't so cute that you refuse to learn how to walk or ride
a bike.

Rather retrovertly, you would accept only the witches and warlocks
that you approve of.

You seem to have accepted a logic from 100 yrs-ago where there were no
neutrinos and all of the stuff we have and measure today. Worse yet,
you probably think that the pretty girl smiled at you and not the guy
behind you. We could get worse yet and imagine that your whole
present sense of existence is only in your mind. Is that is what it
takes to put/take an abstract idea, such as math, into a mind and
declare a physic?

I remember defending Nixon. I thought that he had the most knowledge
of the state of affairs that would protect us as the U.S. My motive
was right for believing him, but I didn't know HIS motive. Neither do
we know the motive for the belief that scientists use to convey a
physic.

We have been through all this in every one's belief and the history of
science. We simply do not know squat, except through a contemporary
belief. It is never complete - nor does its contempory adequacy
measure up to tomorrow's discoveries.


I've heard Gerald's conclusions and I don't agree with them. At least
not in the way he explains them. But he starts with a logic that is
pre-contemporary theory and basic. We don't have to jump every time a
new discovery is made and ruin a basic logic. That is jumping from
the idea of an objectivity into a subjectivity. We may not do this
purposefully, but we are predisposed by haphazzard subjectivity
connections that have a valid observational value.

We seem to be concerned with what works to us as a captive ~frame on
the planet's surface instead of the overall picture of the cosmos. We
cannot seem to differentiate between an objective framework and a
subjectively observed one. Unless we do, we are simply chasing our
tail.

You might look at it this way: Because there is a difference between
objectivity and subjectivity, can a math alone decide if the math can
reflect either one without a logical help? Where do you go to get
this logic?

We did celestial spheres and it worked quite well at the time. Was
that the end of science? This example (and many others) illustrates
that we can never have but a contemporary view of a physic. And
certainly not a logic that is infallible.

They were right at that time. Are you right, now?

How are you so sure?

Place yourself into any past time and with the "knowledge at that
time", give us your logical opinion of a physic. Do you know how that
will change 100 yrs from now?

Will Patrick Reany ever stop asking?

Eric Gisse wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote:
. . .

[snip delusions]

It is so cute that you think you have any sort
of impact on physics.

O'Barr comments:
To you it might not matter what I think
or what I say. But we will each be judged by what
we personally think and do.

Any human being who actually says that SR is
correct, where it says that the relative speed
of light ********IS*********** c in every frame,
is not only stupid, he is insane. It is physically
impossible for the speed of one photon to be the
same in different inertia reference frames,
all at the same time,
if all these frames have different velocities
along the line of motion of the photon.

The question that must be asked is not what
I think, but what do you think? Do you really
think that any one photon can actually be going
past different relatively moving reference frames
with the same relative velocity all at the same
instant of time?

In LET, with the identical math, we do not
have to believe such junk. We know that only the
measurements show these things. And of course
these measurements are with tools that change
in each frame so that they get these c
measurements! And SR fully and completely
supports these changes in tools that are
required to support such measurements.


I am sorry if you have to be stupid and insane.
I do not like to be stupid and insane. I like to
understand things, and I like to keep things
simple, and I like to be correct, not wrong.

But this is free America. You can be just as
stupid and just as insane as you care to be.
But you will never have any science on your side.
You will never have a test to show that there is
a physical 4D spacetime continuum. You will never
have the privilidge of seeing any data to support
SR over LET. You will forever be laughed at as
time goes on, and we become more wise and
more scientific.

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr

"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote in message
oups.com...
Eric Gisse wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote:
. . .
[snip delusions]
It is so cute that you think you have any sort
of impact on physics.

O'Barr comments:
To you it might not matter what I think

It doesn't .. especially when so much of it is deliberate lies. As a result
you have no repect from those in this forum like myself who value honesty.

Jeckyl wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote:
. . .
[snip delusions]
It is so cute that you think you have any sort
of impact on physics.

O'Barr comments:
To you it might not matter what I think
. . . .

Jeckyl wrote:
It doesn't .. especially when so much of it is
deliberate lies. As a result
you have no repect from those in this forum like
myself who value honesty.

O'Barr comments:
I certainly hope that nothing I say is incorrect.
Certainly I make a lot of mistakes. I do not know
of one single post that I have made that does not
have some misspelling, or wrong verb tense, etc.
And I think I remember at least one time I said
something that was not correct in terms of actual
physics. If at any time you see me saying anything
that directly contradicts known experiments, I would
appreciate it if you would call it to my attention.
I have corrected myself before, and certainly hope
to be able to continue this practice.
If you see anything that is perfect that has my
name to it, you will know that it was not from me.
The thing that is important is whether what I say
is close enough to being right that someone else
can take what I say and make it right. Now that
would be heaven, would it not? You ought to try
this sometime, Jeckyl, to take what I say and then
repeat it in such a way that it might be right.
We would all learn by such an effort. I would
learn what you really are thinking, and you might
even learn what I am thinking.

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr

"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote in message
oups.com...
(First post, or more correctly, first written!)
The end of SR!

Nonsense .. rest of nonsense and lies snipped .. no point in even reading
your dishonest posts any more.

"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote in message
oups.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote:
. . .
[snip delusions]
It is so cute that you think you have any sort
of impact on physics.

O'Barr comments:
To you it might not matter what I think
. . . .

Jeckyl wrote:
It doesn't .. especially when so much of it is
deliberate lies. As a result
you have no repect from those in this forum like
myself who value honesty.

O'Barr comments:
I certainly hope that nothing I say is incorrect.

Sorry .. it is

On Jul 28, 11:02 am, "Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote:
. . .
[snip delusions]
It is so cute that you think you have any sort
of impact on physics.

O'Barr comments:
To you it might not matter what I think
. . . .
Jeckyl wrote:
It doesn't .. especially when so much of it is
deliberate lies. As a result
you have no repect from those in this forum like
myself who value honesty.

O'Barr comments:
I certainly hope that nothing I say is incorrect.
Certainly I make a lot of mistakes. I do not know
of one single post that I have made that does not
have some misspelling, or wrong verb tense, etc.
And I think I remember at least one time I said
something that was not correct in terms of actual
physics. If at any time you see me saying anything
that directly contradicts known experiments, I would
appreciate it if you would call it to my attention.
I have corrected myself before, and certainly hope
to be able to continue this practice.
If you see anything that is perfect that has my
name to it, you will know that it was not from me.
The thing that is important is whether what I say
is close enough to being right that someone else
can take what I say and make it right. Now that
would be heaven, would it not? You ought to try
this sometime, Jeckyl, to take what I say and then
repeat it in such a way that it might be right.
We would all learn by such an effort. I would
learn what you really are thinking, and you might
even learn what I am thinking.

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

xxein: But you have to leave a man-inspired notion of divinity out of
it. Other than that Mrs. Lincoln...

Subject: The end of SR!

Jeckyl wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
. . .
[snip delusions]
It is so cute that you think you have any sort
of impact on physics.

O'Barr comments:
To you it might not matter what I think
. . . .

Jeckyl wrote:
It doesn't .. especially when so much of it is
deliberate lies. As a result
you have no repect from those in this forum like
myself who value honesty.

O'Barr comments:
I certainly hope that nothing I say is
incorrect. . . . .


Jeckyl wrote:
Sorry .. it is

O'Barr comments:
Then be a man about it. Say exactly what is
wrong. This means to quote what was said, and
explain what you think it might have meant or said.
And then explain what is right. And hopefully, show
why it is right, and the other is wrong. If you
cannot do such simple things as these, you are no
scientist.

You have a long time ago left the world of
reality, and are now only just saying I am wrong,
with no effort to either understand or explain. It
is not a good way to act.

But thanks for trying.
Gerald L. O'Barr