Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.
- From: "Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 27 Apr 2005 22:01:51 -0700
In <jlYbe.31571$5F3.100@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Bill Hobba <bho...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>In <1114650102.388185.269750@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 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. . . .
Bill Hobba <bho...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>In principle we should not be able to do this - that
>is exactly what mathematical equivalent means.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> comments:
Thank you Bill. What I wanted us to considered
was this: As you said, they are mathematically
equivalent. But according to SR experts, they are
not physically the same theory. So in these areas
where they are not the same, according to what SR
experts demand, differences would thus seem to be
easy to be found. Yet no differences can be found.
I think this makes us want to question what SR
experts are saying. I think they are saying there
are all these differences, when in fact there are
none!
SR claims that there is a 4-D spacetime continuum.
This is so bizarre, so physically impossible, so
unreasonable, and yet it is accepted with no
scientific evidence at all. This makes every SR
expert completely unscientific. SR experts say that
the ether is undetectable. Yet every test made
confirms the fact that the ether is doing exactly
what is predicted that it will do by the theory being
used. The scientific truth is that the ether is
detected in every way the theory says it will be
detected. And so far, it is not detected doing
anything that the theory says it is not suppose to
do. The score is absolutely perfect for the ether.
Yet, to hear the SR experts talk, it is all negative.
Thus, this is a scientific lie to say that the ether
is undetectable.
To repeat: The differences between SR and LET
are made to appear to be so opposite and so different
that it seems to be impossible not to find some test
where their differences should be seen. And yet, as
you say, they cannot do this. So, even though the
science supports LET equally with SR, the SR experts
do not allow an equal presentation between them.
This is as anti-scientific as anyone could be!
Thanks again for your comments.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>
+ Remove 3 dots for e-mail.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.
- From: Bill Hobba
- Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.
- References:
- Comparisons between SR and LET.
- From: Gerald L. O'Barr
- Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.
- From: Bill Hobba
- Comparisons between SR and LET.
- Prev by Date: Re: Nice Answer - Thanks
- Next by Date: Re: Postulates of Relativity and The Cosmic Background - Question
- Previous by thread: Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.
- Next by thread: Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
