Comparisons between SR and LET.

Comparisons between SR and LET.


Statement now accepted by SR experts:
SR and LET are scientifically equivalent theories.

The above has to be accepted for several reasons.
They have the same math. They use the same math
transforms. They make the same identical math
predictions. This means that any fact found to
support SR also supports LET. This means that if SR
has found any support that indicates that it might be
correct, then LET has that same support, to the exact
same degree. If one is proved to be in error, so
will the other. In other words, we have, so far,
not been able to find any test that could distinguish
between these two theories. In principle we should
be able to do this, but in practice, no such testing
presently exists or is known.

So which theory should we accept? Certainly there
might be other reasons for choosing a theory, other
than in having correct predictions. But we must
always keep in mind that the making of correct
predictions is the base for the scientific acceptance
or rejection of all theories. Thus, to be
scientific, and no one should ever be anything but
scientific, we must always know that either theory
might end up being correct. It would be unscientific
not to make sure that everyone knows what is
scientific, in terms of these two theories.
O'Barr's position is very clear: He accepts these
two theories as one and the same: SR is the correct
math, and LET is the correct physics that goes with
the correct math.

Since there are no scientific reasons to pick one
over the other, let us consider the excuses that are
used to pick SR over LET. The excuses often include
the following:
SR is simpler.
SR is used in all other sciences.
SR has symmetry.

Now since these two theories are the same, there
cannot really be any real differences between them.
What is said are said only because they are in the
mind of those saying these things, there are no tests
to prove any of these facts. No one can show a test
where SR is simpler than LET. No one can show a test
where SR has any kind of a symmetry that does not
exist in LET. No one can do any of the things that
are said. They are just said, and just assumed, and
there are no scientific justifications that can
really be offered. But let us look at what is said.
How simple is SR? Well, in terms of the
developing of the math, SR is simple. But the final
math is the same. So if you want to simplify the
development of your math, SR wins.
But math is only one base to what one could
consider. SR is presently accepted to be 4-D
reality? Now that is not simple! In fact, 4-D is
impossible to physically understand. It really is
only a math trick that is used to obtain math
answers. But in LET, all you have is simple 3-D. So
physically, LET wins. LET has the simplest physical
base upon which (within which) it is conceptualized.
Why is LET so complicated? In LET, with
everything being done in a simple 3-D background, in
an absolute background, everything becomes absolute,
clear, solid, understandable, definite, with never a
question as to what happens and why. There are no
reasons for kooks in LET. Only SR generates kooks,
because SR has no means of explaining what really
happens. All that SR can do is give us what ends up
being measured, SR cannot tell us why these things
are measured.
In LET, we know that rates of clocks and lengths
of rulers are functions of their absolute velocities,
and they are the exact same functions seen in simple
light clocks, and in simple equal potential surfaces
moving in a medium. Thus, the physical base to LET
is extremely simple and consists of common knowledge,
consists of things that have long been known to be
true. What becomes complicated in LET is that the
measurements, being made with changeable tools, end
up being what is complicated. The physics is very
simple, but the tools make us measure things that do
not appear to be reasonable.
In SR, one never question what real things might
be doing. In SR, one just assumes that what is
measured is the reality, and never goes further than
this.

Let us make a chart as to the simplicity being
assumed:

SR LET
********************** **************************
Math development:
Very easy to develop. Very difficult to develop.
You must consider rates of
physical clocks, and the
lengths of rulers, and how
they are use in
measurements.

Math on application level:
Can use either. Can use either.



Physical systems:
The 4-D spacetime The 3-D space approach is
continuum is physically standard, simple, normal
impossible. space which we all know.


Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>
+ Remove 3 dots for e-mail.

.

Relevant Pages

  • RE to O Barr, 27nov 2004, Reasons for an aether
    ... importance, and all future physics will need the concept, ... O'Barr 27 Nov 2004: Reasons for an ether. ... SR is only a math theory. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • OBarr 27 Nov 2004: Reasons for an ether.
    ... O'Barr 27 Nov 2004: Reasons for an ether. ... SR is only a math theory. ... needed is just having the correct physics that goes ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Career advice needed.
    ... who post here semiregularly are full professors at math or physics ... provide help to a deserving aspiring student. ... I do know of several cases of a Math graduate program accepting ... study these prereqs on your own from books (by paying a yearly fee you ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: The physical motions of photons in free space!
    ... >the choice that "The rest frame of the ether is what ... The base to SR is a math base, ... Any physics equation, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Physics versus Mathematics
    ...  Bend your math anyway you like. ... Go to the beach and see if a wave imparts some force. ... can't quite do the same for gravity. ... physic or what we describe as physics, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading