Re: Math Theories and Physical Theories.
- From: "Jeckyl" <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:45:26 +1000
"Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1188259268.154103.242250@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Math Theories and Physical Theories.
Oh god .. not O'barr the charlatan again
[snip a lot of waffle]
We now are ready to talk about SR and LET.
Here we go...
SR is only a math theory.
No .. it is a physical theory .. based on light and its propogation speed
LET is a physical theory.
Physical .. but based on the existence of an undetectabel unknwon mysterious
ether
The math ends up being the same for each of
these theories. But LET is the stronger theory. And
it is stronger because it has a physical base.
It has an experimentally weak base .. the supposed ether. There is no
evidence for the existence of this ether.
Because LET exists as a viable theory, exists as a
simple 3-D theory, it removes from SR all of its
ability to force any belief in anything that SR
experts want to say.
Eh?
No SR expert can say that the
math of SR requires any person to support 4-D.
4D space explains SR very nicely.
As
long as LET exists, LET is a direct example of where
the math of SR does not required anyone to support 4-
D. If SR experts say that the math of SR requires
one to believe in 'back in time' concepts, LET is an
example of where this math does not support such an
act.
You have the same concepts in LET and SR wrt time etc. LET says the world
looks like its 4D. SR says there is no reason to assume that what it looks
like isn't what it is. Its a generalisation of LET that removes the main
weakness.. the magical ether.
If SR experts want to say that SR math forces
velocity to be c or less, LET math prevents such
things from being said.
Its that same math .. and both LEt and Sr say c is the fastest velocity
Thus, because LET
exists, then SR experts cannot use SR math to support
one single thing that LET does not support.
and vice versa .. the math is the same
Because
LET exists, then SR ends up with no math support what
so ever.
a nonsense no sequitur
Any and everything SR experts want to say
is true, will never be able to be supported by its
math. Only a definitive test, a test that can
separate SR beliefs from LET beliefs, can ever be
used by SR experts to give a scientific support to
SR.
You mean that only a definitive test that can separate LET beliefs from SR
beliefes can ever be used by LET eexperts (there are a couple of you left)
to give scientific support to LET.
Those parts of LET that are the same as SR are supported by experimental
evidence. But NOTHING that LET say that SR does not (in particular the
existence of an ether) is supported by experimental evidence.
There is no reason to believe LET is correct (other than the math that is
shares with SR)
Thus, SR math is one of the weakest math theories
that have ever existed, since at no time has any
definitive test been found to give support to SR over
LET.
LET is SR with the addition of an abolsute ether. So anything that shows SR
is correct will also support LET. What YOU need is something that supports
LET over SR. There is nothing.
There is no reason to believe LET is correct (other than the math that is
shares with SR)
Therefore, SR experts are not scientific.
Nonsense
They
are not even willing to state these facts, and what
these facts actually mean.
That only one that has a history here of hiding facts is you
They are in a state of
denial. They cannot even be honest.
Again .. you
All they can be
are mean, and vindictive, and cheat in what they say
is known, versus some reasonable scientific answers.
Again .. you
[snip waffle]
nothing left
.
- References:
- Math Theories and Physical Theories.
- From: Gerald L. O'Barr
- Math Theories and Physical Theories.
- Prev by Date: Re: Einstein & Lorentz made a BIG mistake.
- Next by Date: Re: What Does SR stand For?
- Previous by thread: Re: Math Theories and Physical Theories.
- Next by thread: Re: Math Theories and Physical Theories.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
