Re: What is the science for SR and LET?

Subject: Re: What is the science for SR and LET?

Jeckyl <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
. . . .

O'Barr wrote:
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.

Jeckyl <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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]

O'Barr comments:
Hi, Jeckyl. How are you doing? So LET is not a
good theory? Yes, I agree. LET is not perfect. It
does not provide to us too much of a way to
understand the ether. And thus we need to have a
better theory.
But this is not the question before us today.
Today, we have to choose between SR and LET. And
both of these theories have weaknesses. If you were
being scientific, if you were being completely fair,
you would be anxious to compare their weaknesses.
But all you want to do is show only the strengths of
SR, and only the weaknesses to LET. Such a position
can sure be taken. But it will not make you much of
a scientist.


O'Barr comments:
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.

Jeckyl <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
SR is ahedd of LET because LET requires us to
accept untested (and possibly untestable)
assertions. SR does not.

O'Barr comments:
Yes, SR provides to us the math that gives us the
correct predictions, but SR gives us no physical
reason for why or how the math works. In SR, we know
what is going to be measured, but we do not really
know why. Why we do not even know if there are any
real changes to things! We only know that we will
measure there to be these changes. Yes, with SR, we
only know the results; we are left to our
imaginations as to why or how. And that seems to be
our problem. Our imaginations have taken off into
stupid land, and too many of us seem to have fallen
in love with being stupid. Are you one of these
people?

O'Barr wrote:
In terms of making things correct, we have to
agree that there are real changes going on,

Jeckyl <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
How do you know? They are just measured as doing
so when moving relative to the measurer. That's
all you can say.

O'Barr comments:
Exactly as I said! You love this crazy situation
where we measure all these changes, but you get to
maintain that there were no changes at all. But if
we know that we measure a change, there did have to
be a change in something. The fact that we cannot
know whether these changes, for any specific example,
might have been just a change in time, or in
distance, or in sync, or in any combination, does not
give anyone the right to say there were no changes at
all. And thus one of the main weaknesses to SR
stands before us, and you choose to ignore it.


O'Barr wrote:
these clocks really do experience real
changes in their rates.

Jeckyl <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
How do you know? They are just measured as doing
so when moving relative to the measurer. That's
all you can say.

O'Barr comments:
This is no longer true, Jeckyl. Today, we have
done the twin experiment, and we can show that real
changes in clocks do occur. It is real. And we have
fully and completely established that the symmetry of
SR is now broken if there are more than two frames
involved.

O'Barr wrote:
And if clocks really do
experience real changes in their rates, the rulers
must also experience real changes in their
lengths.

Jeckyl <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
How do you know? They are just measured as doing
so when moving relative to the measurer. That's
all you can say.

O'Barr comments:
Sorry. If we know that real changes are going on
for clocks, then the only way that the speed of light
can be a measured constant if for lengths to also
change in a specified way. The math demands this.


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

Jeckyl <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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

O'Barr comments:
In every way that the ether characteristics have
been stated to be, it has proved to be perfect. The
ether is fixed in space, which allows all photons to
always be moving at the exact same absolute rate,
independent of their source. It allows for the rates
of clocks to be governed by this one medium, and yet
it causes it to happen in such a way that all changes
in rates of clocks appear to be only relative. It
allows the lengths of all rulers to be governed by
this one medium, yet it does so in such a way that
all changes in lengths appear to be only relative.
It does all these things perfectly.
And it does all these things in a way that can be
understood by our minds. The things done in this
ether are exactly what is known to be required in any
fixed electro-magnetic medium. The rate of a light
clock has to be the same as LET requires. The length
of dimensions of things that are electro-magnetically
held in space is exactly as LET requires. It matches
and supports all presently existing science.
No such explanations can be done in SR. And you,
Jeckyl, you are not being scientifically honest in
what you are doing in comparing these two theories.

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>

.

Relevant Pages