Re: The Superiority of LET over SR!

From: Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 03/17/05 

Date: 17 Mar 2005 10:02:35 -0800

In <d1bdpl$1cn$1@beech.fernuni-hagen.de>
Ilja Schmelzer <q6867...@mailstore.fernuni-hagen.de> wrote:
>Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr...@yahoo.com> wrote: ...
>> . . .

O'Barr wrote: . . .
>> But no matter what, there is a difference between
>> being able to calculate the time of these two
>>twin's clocks, and in being able to understand what
>>causes this to happen. Most definitely, in true
>>flat space, SR can calculate the correct times for
>>both twins. But in being able to explain why there
>>is a difference, neither SR nor GR can do this.
>>They do not have causes, or explanations.

Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
>I agree that there is an advantage of (my) ether
>theory that it explains the things which have to be
>postulated in SR/GR.
>
>But in principle every theory has axioms, and these
>axioms have to be postulated, cannot be explained by
>the theory itself. I also have to postulate things
>in my ether theory. Thus, the line of argumentation
>"theory X is bad because it does not explain its
>postulates" is not appropriate.

O'Barr comments:
  The scientific choice is not whether a theory has
postulates or not, but the nature of those
postulates, especially as compared with other
competitive theories. If one theory has postulates
that are deeper based than the postulates of another,
it is the stronger theory. If one theory only has
math postulates, and another has a physical base upon
which those same math postulates can be derived, then
the scientific choice is obvious, if you are going to
be fair about it.
   There are real differences between postulates.
Some really are more realistic, more reasonable, more
understandable, more believable, and simpler on a
physical level. Being simpler on the physical level
does not mean simpler to express as a math
relationship, or simpler to spell, or simpler to say,
or simpler to write, or simpler to work with. These
things are only simpler in terms of what man has to
work with. It must be the simplest that it can be in
how it works on the physical level. Nothing more or
less than this is acceptable. And LET beats SR on
all these points!

O'Barr wrote:
>> There is never anything wrong with going beyond
>> the evidence to make our hypothesis. What is
>> wrong, as a scientist, is if we forget where the
>> evidence actually ended, and begin to believe the
>> hypothesis without any evidence for the
>> hypothesis. Scientists have this dilemma, where
>>SR and LET are both valid. They made a hypothesis
>>that SR was the correct way to proceed, and then
>>fell into this trap that this ended the debate.
>>The debate was ended, but by choice and will power,
>>not by scientific evidence.

Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
>You should understand that GR _was_ scientific
>evidence against the ether:

O'Barr comments:
   Would you like to back this up with presenting
specific evidence? What people say and what the
actual facts are can sure be different.

<deletes by O'Barr>

Ilja Schmelzer wrote: . . .
> as long as where was no ether theory
>of gravity we can say that the existence of gravity
>cannot be explained by the ether hypothesis. Even
>more rigorous, that gravity is experimental evidence
>against the ether.

O'Barr comments:
   The fact that the ether theory (LET) does not
explain gravity is an important point. And it does
mean that we need more, just as you are doing with
your approach and with what I have done with the at
theory. But to say that GR or gravity is evidence
against the ether is not correct unless there is
something in the ether approach that prevents there
from being gravity.
   I hope you understand what I just said. PV = nRT
also does not explain gravity. But it would be
stupid to say that gravity is therefore evidence
against PV = nRT! There is nothing in PV = nRT that
says that there can be no gravity, and there is
nothing in LET that says that there can be no
gravity.
   Therefore, PV = nRT stands whether there is GR or
no GR. And the kinematics of LET stands whether
there is GR or no GR. Unless you know something that
I do not know, you have some very funny ideas.

<snip>

Ilja Schmelzer wrote: . . .
> . . . If LET does not explain gravity, it is not
> superior in explanation in comparison with GR.

O'Barr comments:
   Certainly, in terms of gravity. But if LET is
superior to SR in terms of presenting to us the most
correct or valid kinematics in the domain where SR
applies, then LET is also superior to GR in this same
area or domain. GR will have to be changed to
account for this, no matter how perfect GR might be
in the area of gravity.

O'Barr wrote:
>> Sorry to run at the mouth. How is your ether
>> theory going? Did you ever check out the at
>>theory?

Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
>I don't consider your at theory worth consideration.
>Sorry.
>
>My ether theory is developing very well, I have
>understood now the SM gauge fields and writing this
>down.

O'Barr comments:
   Thanks for your comments. I think I might
understand your feelings about the at theory. The at
theory is mainly a physical approach. I certainly
use math to develop the collision equations. And
this is all that has to be done, other than in
determining (setting down principles for determining)
the exact amount of spall that occurs in every
collision. But I do not use math relationships to
express the final over-all results. I let the
computer work with these basic equations, and then I
take whatever the computer says as the final results.
This might be a sign of laziness on my part, but I
love computers, and I see no reason why we should not
use them.
     So even if you do not have a math relationship
for these final results, it is clear that we get the
results of a direct attractive action, and everything
else that I say. And math wise, you can take limits
and get the basic constants directly. But knowing
exactly what these higher order terms are going to
really do is not easy, and I just do not have the
time to waste when the computer is fully adequate to
show the final results.

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com>
\ Remove 3 dots for e-mail

Relevant Pages

  • Re: my gravity theory - Web Link
    ... Michelson-Morley was attempting to test the existence of from the ... >> support the existence of my ether model. ... I'm citing the observation of gravity and magnetism itself are ... reality so in a sense, I'm trying to 'fit' the evidence, other than the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Superiority of LET over SR!
    ... > postulates, ... > math postulates, and another has a physical base upon ... and without an ether theory of gravity this ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005; a Critical Review of the Evidence
    ... A Critical Review of the Evidence ... The Einstein postulates assert an invariance of the propagation ... While the relativistic effects are well established ... and in particular for our understanding of gravity. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Dinosaurs on a smaller earth
    ... >> What Dennis posted was a bunch of stuff that had nothing to with EE. ... > true that the one author that he Emailed follows an ether view but not ... > know of no other physicist who has associated analog models of gravity ... > about five years as the evidence continues to collect, ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • =?windows-1252?Q?Re=3A_THE_GRAVITY_OF_MASSES_DOESN=92T_BEND_LIGHT=21?=
    ... pressure differentials generated because masses can exchange photons. ... The latter delivers IOTA's to replenish the ether pressure lost by the ... downward flow of ether. ... THE GRAVITY OF MASSES DOESN’T BEND LIGHT! ...
    (sci.physics)