Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / March 2007

... you made a deliberate mistake with a function with a
non-zero curlgrad
 http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.electromag/msg/552945d0b8c13567
 http://selftrans.narod.ru/v4_1/grad/grad02/grad02.html

Dirk Vdm

Comments by Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr@yahoo.com>
   Thank you for your article.  I believe that it
might be an important article.  I congratulate you
for doing all this.  However, it will take me a few
days before I will have the time to actually look at
what you have done, and to compare it with what I
have done.  Whether or not you have done all of what
you have said is not yet clear in my mind, but it
seems right by just reading what you have said you
have done.

  From what I have personally done, I believe that
SR is not the proper physical theory for our reality.
It has the correct math for our reality, but it is
incomplete in terms of the real physical events that
can and do occur in our reality.
  In a few days, I will be able to take the time and
trouble to find an article that I wrote, probably in
the 1994 or latter time frame, which came to similar
conclusions.  I am sure that Google will help me find
it.
   In my article, as best as I remember it, I used
two railroad tracks, one laid out going East and
West, and one North and South, and square railroad
cars were then attached to each track.  The wheels on
the cars kept one pair of the sides of these cars
parallel to the tracks that they rode on.  The car on
the North-South track would move Northward on its
tracks, with one pair of sides always in a North-
South direction, and the car on the East-West tracks
was going to move Eastward on its tracks, with one
pair of sides always parallel to East and West.
  These tracks were on wheels that allowed the
tracks themselves to move at right angles to the
direction in which they were laid.  The East-West
tracks were allowed to move directly Northward.  The
North-South track was able to move to the East.  But
in all these motions of the tracks, the tracks would
remain perfectly parallel to their original
directions.  Therefore, as was said, the car on the
North-South tracks always had a pair of sides
parallel to the North-South line.  The car on the
East-West tracks always had a pair of sides parallel
to the East-West direction.  All these points were
assumed to be correct in the frame in which the
tracks were originally laid.

  By doing this, and by having the speed of motion
of the tracks and the cars exactly right (exactly the
same), each car on each track could actually move
together (that is, be boosted into the same inertial
frame), each going at a 45 degree direction where
they each were moving at the same speed as each
other, and they each would be moving at another
speed along their separate tracks, and this would
be the same speed that each of their tracks were
moving in their rest frame.  A third box car was
also used.
   If all three box cars where allowed to start out
together at the same point, perfectly superimposed
over each other, and then all three were allowed to
move each in their own unique ways: One box car was
directly allowed magically to move in the 45 degrees
directly along its diagonal, a second one started
first to move North on the North-South tracks before
these tracks began to move to the East, and one
started to move East on the East-West tracks and then
the East-West tracks began to move North, all three
of these box cars could end up with the exact same
final motion, but they each would have sides with
different angles.
  I do not remember anyone being willing to discuss
the points that were in need of being made at the
time I wrote my article.  I sincerely hope that you
will have a better reception than what I was given.

  Thank you again for your article.

Sincerely,
Gerald L. O'Barr   <globarr@yahoo.com>

P.S.  I also did not see any reference made to my
article.  In fact, you should have referenced several
of my articles.

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote on Fri, 30 Mar 2007 09:05:15 GMT:
... you made a deliberate mistake with a function with a
non-zero curlgrad
 http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.electromag/msg/552945d0b8c13567
 http://selftrans.narod.ru/v4_1/grad/grad02/grad02.html

This is my answer for him:

This is not a proper link. We proved it few pages later, and proved
rigorously, and I multiply answered you. But - thanks for advertising.
You can also advertise my answer that I gave you many years ago and
multiply. Its meaning is, in dynamic fields, the gradient of scalar
potential is additionally dependent on time, because the dynamic field
delays from point to point. If you still were unable to grasp this
trivial truth, accept my sympathy. Should you understand it, you would
shut up so long time ago that everyone would forget of you long time
ago. ;D

As the machine re-addresses my replies to you to some idle group, it
only says, you well know how untrue your posts are, and you fear that
the colleagues will read my replies.

Sergey