Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.
- From: "Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 28 Apr 2005 14:41:17 -0700
In <1114718858.774293.131400@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
TC <tcla...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> .... if SR
>> has found any support that indicates that it might
>> be correct, then LET has that same support, to the
>> exact same degree. . . .
TC <tcla...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>This may have been true in 1905.
>
>The success of Dirac's relativistic theory of the
>electron in predicting the existence of the positron
>can be counted as support for SR.
>
>However, I know of no LET-based theory that explains
>the positron so I don't see how the success of the
>Dirac theory can be counted as support for LET.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> comments:
Tom! Thanks for reading.
Very interesting that you use the words, 'can be
counted as support for SR.' Does this mean that you
do not have to use it for this support? And you did
not show how LET could not be used. Wouldn't it be
nice if you showed how SR was used, and then how LET
could not be used? Or is this too hard to do?
What was really true in 1905 has to still be true
today. What LET will do for a person is this. LET
starts out on a deeper scientific level than SR. LET
does not assume the facts that are assumed in SR.
LET assumes that there is an ether, and with the
ether, then the absolute speed of light is a given,
not just an assumption. And LET assumes in this
ether that lengths of rulers and rates of clocks are
functions of their absolute velocities. And by using
these more basic sets of assumptions, then the
Lorentz transforms are derived.
And once this is accomplished, then in LET, it can
be shown that all measurements of the velocity of
light will be a measured constant, even if you were
in a frame moving in this ether. And so LET explains
why in SR you can start out with this assumption that
light has a constant measurement velocity of c. Do
you not see all this? LET tells us why SR works!
And because of the form of the math in the Lorentz
transforms, then in any frame in the ether, the same
math forms appear. And thus, LET also explains why
in SR you are allowed to assume that the math forms
must all be the same form. So you see, LET fully and
completely explains SR. So if you think that SR does
something, then since LET is what explains SR, then
it is impossible not to also see that it is LET that
allows one to even have SR. There is no way you can
escape. And until you explain more than what has
ever been explained before, you have no case!
I suspect that the reason you did not give us more
is because you really do not have a case at all. It
is all talk.
Thanks again for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>
+ Remove 3 dots for e-mail.
.
- References:
- Comparisons between SR and LET.
- From: Gerald L. O'Barr
- Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.
- From: TC
- Comparisons between SR and LET.
- Prev by Date: Re: Postulates of Relativity and The Cosmic Background - Question
- Next by Date: Re: Beginning ?
- Previous by thread: Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.
- Next by thread: Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
