Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.
- From: dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Bilge)
- Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 19:40:47 GMT
Harry:
>
>"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:Xns964792E00D882Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> "Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>> news:1114650102.388185.269750@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>>
>> > Comparisons between SR and LET.
>> >
>> >
>> > Statement now accepted by SR experts:
>> > SR and LET are scientifically equivalent theories.
>> >
>>
>> Which one has the least assumptions?
>>
>> Klazmon.
>
>That depends how you count it: as long as it's understood that SRT as used
>by O'Barr doesn't contain the assumption that space-time exists, SRT has
>less assumptions then SRT-Lorentz ("LET"), by the simple fact that "LET"
>adds an explanation to SRT.
By comparison, if you include your silly notion that the
assumption that ``spacetime exists'' should count as a postulate,
you have to replace it by three silly postulates for LET: (1) space
exists, (2) time exists, (3) a postulate that explains why the two
should be related.
>Note that some geometers claim that Spacetime exists (for which extension we
>might use the label "SSR"), and that form of SRT has therefore the same
>number of assumptions as "LET".
You are a complete buffoon.
.
- References:
- Comparisons between SR and LET.
- From: Gerald L. O'Barr
- Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.
- From: Llanzlan Klazmon
- Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.
- From: Harry
- Comparisons between SR and LET.
- Prev by Date: Re: Postulates of Relativity and The Cosmic Background - Question
- Next by Date: Re: Theory of Relativity
- Previous by thread: Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.
- Next by thread: Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
