O'Barr: How does SR compare with LET?

How does SR compare with LET?

There is no comparison at all!
SR tells us nothing but impossible things!
LET tells us things that makes perfect sense!


In LET, If two twins start out from the same point
in any inertial reference frame, and twin A remains
at this point, but twin B moves out to a distant
point and then returns to the point where twin A is
at, how do their times compare?
In LET, the answer is as simple as possible: If
twin A remains stationary, then twin A has to be
absolutely traveling a straight line through space,
and twin B, since twin B changed directions during
this time, then twin B, in the general case, did not
travel a straight line. And everyone who has taken
the most simplest and basic geometry knows that a
straight line between any two points is shorter than
a non-straight line. And thus, on the absolute
scale, twin B had to have absolutely gone farther
than twin A, and thus had to absolutely have the
greater absolute speeds, and thus has to be younger
than twin A.
The answer provided by LET is clear, simple,
obvious, absolutely required to be true. There are
no doubts, no problems, no questions, no anything
when it comes to the LET solution. In SR the only
answer that can be given is, the math requires it.

In SR, even though SR claims that everything is
relative, everything is not relative. In SR, even
though you claim that everything is relative, you
have to use Lorentz transforms, which are an absolute
reference frame math. The very fact that you have to
use absolute reference frame math proves that
everything is not relative in SR. You therefore lie
every time you say such rot.
Even though SR can not give a reason why light is
a constant (it is just an assumed math constant), you
have to believe that in some mysterious way, every
photon knows exactly how fast to go. Now any
physicist has the right to believe in any theory
until a better one comes along. But no good
physicist can continue to believe in a theory if a
better one does come along. And LET is a far better
theory than SR, since it is a deeper theory,
providing some of the causes and justification of the
math that is being used.
In LET, there are no breaks in the absolute
symmetry, there are no absolute jumps in space or
time. In LET there are no 4th dimensional concepts,
which have no direct evidence in reality. To me,
this charade of accepting SR is simply a game, a game
to enhance one's on personal worth by maintaining a
belief that is irrational and silly and impossible,
just to make others feel inferior. And such sick
needs and reasons must come to an end.
I beg all correctly thinking individuals to no
longer allow any SR expert to say anything that is
known to be wrong. An absolute reference frame
existence is still scientifically viable. It is even
more simple and more doable than SR. And those who
are unwilling to accept such a statement that LET is
an acceptable scientific approach and are not willing
to teach such a statement and to acknowledge such a
statement, do not deserve to be employed by any
respectable establishment.

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>
remove ... for e-mail.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Help a layman with a paradox
    ... > Motion in space is relative, so if I move away from you, it is not ... help me with the twin paradox of one twin on a ... a)If we assume there is a absolute Space then motion in space is ... which our relatives are measured, we approach to a form of absolute ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SR-ians lost without absolute background
    ... To know which twin ages less, SR-ians sputter, we look ... absolute, just as it is in Newtonian mechanics. ... of relativity of acceleration, which is taken up in GR! ... is that all inertial frames share the same light cones at all ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Help a layman with a paradox
    ... >> Motion in space is relative, so if I move away from you, it is not ... help me with the twin paradox of one twin on a ... > a)If we assume there is a absolute Space then motion in space is ... c)If we assume the HIS approach to Relativity, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The absolute aging of the twins
    ... >> A twin travelling must be aging at a absolute rate regardless of the ... >> absolute speed of the other twin. ... >> So we can say that of the two twins moving inertially, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What causes time dilation?
    ... > From the SR inference that the resolution of the Twin Paradox has to ... > I cannot believe there is anything visible to us which is massless ... > passage of time for the Earth. ... > compare the rate of the passage of time. ...
    (sci.physics)