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

"Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1185149943.398095.191210@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Jeckyl <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The velocity of light going pass a moving train.
Jeckyl <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
. . .
.>.>. > O'Barr wrote: The velocity of light going pass
.>.>. > a moving train.
Jeckyl <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: . . . .
. . . I'm not familiar with any experiments that refute LET ....
. . . That being the case, SR and LET are the only
theories that aren't refuted (again AFAIK).


Gerald L. O'Barr comments:
I agree with the above.
But if you really know all these things,
then why have you ever said anything was wrong with
what O'Barr has said?
Jeckyl wrote:
Because what you say is incorrect regarding SR.
And because LET is an inferior theory as it raises more questinos > than
it answers.
O'Barr comments:
You are not being very specific, Jeckyl.

You weren't specific in your question.

If LET truly has the exact same math as SR,
and it does,
then it really makes the exact same predictions as SR.

Yes .. and so it has the same problems that you incorrectly claim for SR
(these fictional breaks in symmetry)

However, LET is an inferior theory as it add extra complexity and raises
more questions than it answers.


.