O'Barr's comments on SR and LET.

O'Barr's comments on SR and LET.


This is an important post. For some days now, I
have posted several articles on SR and LET. Let me
put some of these thoughts into one post.

We, as scientists, really do have a serious
problem in terms of SR and LET. They are always
presented as being two different theories, even being
complete opposites of each other. SR is usually
presented as a theory that says there is no absolute
frame (at least it is said, that an absolute frame is
not necessary), and LET is presented as an absolute
reference frame theory, actually being derived by
assuming and using such a frame.
However, they really do make the same math
predictions. This has been explained that this is
due to the fact that they both use the same math.
They both use Lorentz transforms. And for this
reason, a scientific choice becomes difficult. We
cannot, it seems, as yet, find a simple test that can
scientifically decide for us which one is correct.
My solution is simple: they are both correct. And
my solution works. What might indicate the
correctness of my decision? Let us just look at a
few facts.
My solution explains why we cannot find a test to
distinguish between these two theories. If SR really
is the correct math, and LET is the correct physics
upon which the math is correctly based, then it would
be impossible to find any test that could show them
to be different theories. This is an important
accomplishment of this approach.
SR says (in free space) that the speed of light is
a constant c in all inertial frames. LET says that
the actual speed of light is c only in the rest frame
of the ether. So let us see how these two theories
can be united in this area. Yes, in LET, the actual
speed of light is c only in the ether frame. And in
all other frames, it is not c. But, in LET, it is
shown that when any inertial frame use their rulers,
which have been properly shortened, and their clocks
which have the proper slower rates, and they do an SR
synch, LET shows that the speed of light in that
frame will be measured to be c.
Therefore, what SR says, and finds to be true, can
be explained by LET. And since LET is the more basic
theory, we see that LET has the power to explain SR,
but SR, just being math, has no power to explain LET.
Again, we see that this statement that LET is the
correct physics, and SR is the correct math, makes
perfect sense. And it is specifically confirmed by
these simple facts.
Let us look at some more facts. LET says that
the speed of light is only c in the rest frame of the
ether. But of course we do not know where this frame
is, and we have no reason to expect any one frame to
be at rest in the ether. In the world as we know it,
almost all objects are in motion in one way or
another. Whether we are in our own solar system, or
in a galaxy, all objects appear to not only be in
motion, but to be constantly changing their motions.
Therefore, even if a frame were at rest with the
ether, it sure would be for only an instant, and then
it would almost instantly lose its state of rest. So
in LET, one could well say that if we were able to
make a true velocity of light measurement, it would
seldom if ever be exactly c.
Now LET knows that SR frames that are not at rest
in the ether do not make true velocity measurements.
But LET does know that the measurements that are made
are often close to being correct. And LET knows that
SR frames will be able to tell (measure) that light
is not going at c in other frames around them. So
when we look at what SR frames do measure for the
speed of light, relative to any frame outside its own
frame, sure enough, we see that SR frames confirm
what LET knows to be correct.
In fact, anyone who says that SR requires the
speed of light to be c in all reference frames is not
telling the complete story. If any unbiased analysis
were made of SR data, taking all SR data that can
theoretically exist, and use such data to make a
decision as to what the actual speed of light might
be in any one frame, the decision might not be
exactly known, but one conclusion has to be for sure,
the actually velocity was not c.
The preponderance of the decisions, the vast
majority of the SR measurement data, from all the
frames that exist, shows that the actual velocity of
light in any one frame is not c. And all those
frames that show that it is not c also shows us why
it is measured to be c in the frame where it is
measured to be c, because the clocks and rulers were
not correct. And all this is exactly what LET also
says. Again, LET is confirmed to be correct,
especially by SR math. LET is able to explain what
is measured in SR. SR is not even able to explain
itself.

I know that the facts are endless in support of
LET. All presently known facts show that LET is able
to explain SR, and SR is not able to explain LET.
And we, as scientists, cannot ignore these
relationships. I have personally witness the fact
that on this net, the ignoring of these facts is
common. This does not speak well of anyone on this
net. I suggest that those on this net begin to make
a sincere effort to reconsider their position. To
actually ignore these facts is not being scientific.
To refuse to acknowledge them is actually an
unscientific act, and this cannot be tolerated.

Please, let us all respond in a civil manner. And
let us be more scientific, and at least acknowledge
the facts as they really are, and not as we are use
to saying them.

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



P.S. I know that most on this net could, if they
wanted to do it, rewrite what I have said above in a
more acceptable way. Please feel free to do so.
There is no one being excluded in this effort. And
we should all make sure that the best way of saying
these things are achieved.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ambiguity in the "Affine Connection"
    ... >Velocities measured relative to that frame are just ... Obviously, in any measurement frame, the ... No one needs to abandon the math of SR, ... and LET is the correct physics ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Ambiguity in the "Affine Connection"
    ... >Velocities measured relative to that frame are just ... Obviously, in any measurement frame, the ... No one needs to abandon the math of SR, ... and LET is the correct physics ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Ambiguity in the "Affine Connection"
    ... >Velocities measured relative to that frame are just ... Obviously, in any measurement frame, the ... No one needs to abandon the math of SR, ... and LET is the correct physics ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Ambiguity in the "Affine Connection"
    ... >Velocities measured relative to that frame are just ... Obviously, in any measurement frame, the ... No one needs to abandon the math of SR, ... and LET is the correct physics ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: The real paradoxes in SR.
    ... willingly accept measurement data for anything. ... My views are based upon facts. ... all different in every frame. ... Even in the twin paradox, twin A, with ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)