Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.

In <Xns964792E00D882Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Llanzlan Klazmon <Klaz...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>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.
>> . . .

<SNIP>

Llanzlan Klazmon <Klaz...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Which one has the least assumptions?


Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> comments:
Which one has the least? Are you sure you do not
want to know which one has the deepest based
assumptions? Are you sure you do not want to have
the one that has the assumptions that provide the
most complete explanations? Are you sure you do not
want to have the one that has the most realistic
assumptions? Why is the least in number so important
to you? Do you have troubles in counting? Is your
mind confused if there is more than just one or two?
This position of counting the number of anything
is a position of weakness. This means that you have
lost, and you have nothing of importance to say.
What if two theories had the same number of
assumptions? Would you then compare the number of
words that were necessary? How about the number of
letters that were used? How about the number of
letters use in each word? Don't you see how funny
such thinking is? It has nothing at all to do with
the concepts that might be necessary to correctly
present our reality.

In LET, you assume an ether. By this one simple
assumption, you gain the absolute velocity of light,
with it being a constant, and independent of source.
With the ether, it provides a means for changes in
the rates of clocks, as can be directly exampled with
a light clock, with a direct function that works,
which has full causality, and consistency. And with
equal potential surfaces, you get the exact change in
length that is needed, and you get it with pre-
established and known principles. So what are the
number of assumptions required with LET? Almost no
new assumptions at all! You have just put together
all that was then known.
There are no smarts required to understand how a
light clock works. And so you might want to assume
that all clocks, by observations, seem to be the
same. So if you know the function associated with a
light clock, then you assume that all clocks follow
the same function.
Yes, the change in the dimensions of a sphere with
an equal potential charge on its surface is not known
by too many, but it is known, and it does require a
change in its shape as it moves.
So what are all these assumptions: Why you have
an ether in which light moves at c, and you have
clocks that follow the functions of a light clock,
and you have rulers that follow the changes given by
the diameters of a spherical equal potential surface.
And this is it. And you want to give all this up
because it is one more assumption that what you have
now? And your present theory does not tell you why
you measure c to be a constant? And your present
theory does not tell you why all the math forms must
be the same? And you present theory gives you no
physical understanding of the cause of anything?
Surely you need to rethink what you are actually
saying and doing. It is not like a scientist would
do. A scientist would look at everything, and weigh
all benefits. LET ends up explaining all the
assumptions that are necessary in SR. This by itself
is cause to celebrate! LET does everything it does
in simple 3-D! How could any sane individual pass
this up? It is mind boggling that anyone would
reject LET because there just might be one more
assumption, when it provides all that it provides.
It makes no sense, and it makes you unscientific if
you are not able to at least have a proper
acknowledgement of what LET is capable of doing for
us and our understanding of our reality!


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

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The real paradoxes in SR.
    ... Jeckyl wrote: ... of the ether everywhere. ... electrical forces are established by virtual photons, ... It is as natural as a light clock. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The real paradoxes in SR.
    ... Jeckyl wrote: ... of the ether everywhere. ... that says it is required for photons to travel, and so as we see phtons ... It is as natural as a light clock. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Confusion about time.
    ... The other type is a light clock which slows a the ether ... > wind blows the beam off course. ... A "light clock" consists of two parallel mirrors ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Question about light clock and derivation of time dilation
    ... >>>the mirror's motion. ... But I do agree the *light clock* is a difficult ... >> it isn't reality itself. ... >> that reality in terms of a mathematical model before you can ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)