Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.
- From: "harry" <harald.vanlintel@xxxxxxx>
- Date: 2 May 2005 02:29:21 -0700
Bilge wrote:
> 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.
1) Space yes
2) Time I don't think so, but instead motion does exist.
3) Time automatically follows from 1 and 2.
I wonder what explanation Space-time believers have for the fact that
we don't experience Space-time, but distance and motion instead. Your
unscientific use of the word "silly" would sooner apply to that one!
Harald
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.
- Next by Date: Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.
- Previous by thread: Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.
- Next by thread: Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|