Re: What is the science for SR and LET?

"Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1188428505.955863.104600@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
What is the science for SR and LET?
The scientific problem we have between SR and LET
is very simple: They both have the exact same math
and they thus both make the exact same predictions.
So if there are any results at all that support SR,
these same results must, in all cases, also fully and
completely support LET.

No .. More dishonesty from O'Barr

It only supports the parts of LET that are the same as SR. It does not
completely and fully support LET at all.

There is NOTHING that supports the calim of LET outside of the areas where
it overlaps with SR. Its all just guess work, its not a good theory.

[snip waffle]

So now, let us all come together, and agree with
each other, that there is no science, no test, no
results of tests, that can clearly put SR or LET
ahead of the other.

SR is ahedd of LET because LET requires us to accept untested (and possibly
untestable) assertions. SR does not.

In terms of making things
correct, we have to agree that there are real changes
going on,

How do you know? They are just measured as doing so when moving relative to
the measurer. That's all you can say.

these clocks really do experience real
changes in their rates.

How do you know? They are just measured as doing so when moving relative to
the measurer. That's all you can say.

And if clocks really do
experience real changes in their rates, the rulers
must also experience real changes in their lengths.

How do you know? They are just measured as doing so when moving relative to
the measurer. That's all you can say.

And as we get into some of these thoughts, we will
find that LET is not too far from being the more
complete approach.

It is bsaed on untested hypothesis about the existence of a 'magical' ether
with properties unlike anything we know and which we cannot explain. Not a
good basis for a theory


Thanks for reading.

Thanks for nothing.


.