Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.


Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
> 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. . . .

> >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.

> 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?

No. That is not what it means. It means the situation
is complicated. Dirac's theory depends on SR but also
includes more physics than is in SR,

> And you did
> not show how LET could not be used.

That's not my job. I'm not an advocate of LET.
I said "I know of no LET-based theory ..."

> ... Wouldn't it be
> nice if you showed how SR was used,

See textbooks. The full explanation is too long for usenet.
You might try this URL.
http://www.pparc.ac.uk/Ed/Notes/AMWebpage.asp

> ... and then how LET
> could not be used? Or is this too hard to do?

I have never heard of LET being used. Do you know of
it being used to derive equivalent results to Dirac's theory?

> What was really true in 1905 has to still be true
> today.

Not so. We know a lot more than we knew in 1905.

> What LET will do for a person is this. LET
> starts out on a deeper scientific level than SR.

A matter of unsupported opinion.

> LET
> does not assume the facts that are assumed in SR.

It assumes different ones. Less natural ones IMHO.

> LET assumes that there is an ether, and with the
> ether, then the absolute speed of light is a given,
> not just an assumption.

"assumes ... is not just an assumption."
You seem to contradict yourself.

> 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.

So much more simple to assume that all the laws of
physics are independent of uniform velocity.

Enough for now.

But your final statement
> .... you really do not have a case at all. It
> is all talk.
really describes your own argument.

Tom

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: MMX and FORs Revisited
    ... > that it moves at a fixed rate, ... > particle of light moves exactly the same as all other ... > that there is an ether. ... actually support the opposite - that the speed is dependent ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.
    ... >> They have the same math. ... >> support SR also supports LET. ... I think they are saying there ... the ether is undetectable. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Math Theories and Physical Theories.
    ... the supposed ether. ... math of SR requires any person to support 4-D. ... separate SR beliefs from LET beliefs, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.
    ... >> has found any support that indicates that it might ... LET assumes that there is an ether, ... be shown that all measurements of the velocity of ... And because of the form of the math in the Lorentz ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Kernel module thermal
    ... Ether your processoror your ACPI code don't support it. ... the same problem with this desktop, but my laptop running the same ...
    (Fedora)
Quantcast