Re: The velocity of light going pass a moving train.

On Jun 9, 11:29 pm, "Gerald L. O'Barr" <glob...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 9, 7:22 pm,

And of course you are not being very
honest.

Gerald, that is an offensive statement. I am being honest. The
reason you think it dishonest, is because you don't know how to
"explain" all the things with the practice of SR. I can clearly see
how both systems work, why they work, how they are similar, and even
how they are different.

What does the ether do for us:
1) The ether provides to us a simpler
theory!

It merely seems simpler to you because you are familiar with it. Lack
of familiarity with SR makes it seems complex to you.

2) It allows us to have a simple
3-D theory.

4-D can be a simple when you wrap your head around what it is. Do
that instead of wrapping your head around what it isn't, and you will
understand why ether needs more justification than modeling relativity
alone.

3) It allows us the simplest
physical theory.

You've merely repeated what you have already stated.

4) It provides to us causes
and effects.

Causes and effects to explain why the rules of traditional geometry
are broken, is but one reason LET is not simpler. SR seeks to just
accept the world as it seems. LET makes to world comply with geometry
that the world would otherwise rebuke.

5) With these causes and
effects, we get a realistic theory.

No more realistic than SR. All you really get is a theory which
allows you to maintain and nuture "old ways of thinking".

6) We have a simpler theory in every way.

More broken record repeating.

7) We get a theory that is understandable.

I find both understandable. So what we really get is a theory you
seem to understand.

8) We get a theory that is believable.

I find both believable. But I choose not to corral myself into
"having to believe" in either of them. So really what we get is a
theory you are willing to believe in.

9) We get a theory that is doable.

I find both doable. But I choose not to corral myself into thinking
either is the only way of doing. So really what we get is a theory
that "you think" is the only way it can be done.

10) We get a theory that has no breaks
in symmetry.

Hardly so. To change the state of motion in any inertial frame of LET
requires a complete resychronization of clocks to new construction of
simultaneity. So this is just false on its face.

11) We get a theory that has no jumps in
time.

Which is really just a repeat of what you said above, right? Again,
resychronzing the clocks will "jump time" (in your words).

12) We get a theory that has
explanations.

All it explains is why the geometry nature rebukes is still OK to
use. Nature embodies the geometry of SR. No explanation is required.

13) We get a theory that
limits the math the exact way the
math needs to be limited.

You _need it limited_ only to satisfy old ways of thinking.

14) We get
an understanding of what reality is
actually doing.

False. We (and that includes you) have no idea what reality is
actually doing.

15) We get an actual
example of how one type of clock actually
slows down the exact amount requried.

False again. If that were true, you would have "failed the test"

16) We get an example of how some dimensions
contract the exact amount required in
all direction and velocity of motion.

False again. If that were true, then the rod resting wrt the ERF
would not appear contracted to the relatively moving inertial
coordinate systems.


You do know, that in all things, LET is
superior to SR. And do you know what,
you did not mention a single one of
these advantages. Why was that? And
during all the time I have been on
this net, not at any time in your FAQ
has any of these things been said. This
makes every one of you SR experts to be
scientific liars.

This is also offensive. Besides, I don't consider myself an expert.

So if LET does all that it does, why
don't you buy it?

Gerald, I buy it works as a logical system. Nothing more. I buy SR
works as a logical system. Nothing more. I, personally, feel
justified to use either if I feel the compulsion. I see nothing
gained in all or nothing thinking. I have a flexible mind and when I
desire to, I will flex it. I have no intention of trying to make a
religious connection to underlying reality. I figure that as soon as
I do that, the delights of thinking will dull and that would sadden me
greatly.

Ultimately, we differ one very important regard. I am at peace not
knowing what underlying reality is, provide I have an understanding of
what it could be, even if it be more than one possibility. You on the
other hand, appear lost and disoriented unless you "pin down" what "it
has to be".

.