Re: Is it theory A or theory B?


"harry" <harald.vanlintel@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1188588889.924867.314490@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
: On Aug 31, 8:13 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
: > On Aug 30, 10:03 am, "Gerald L. O'Barr" <glob...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
: >
: > > Is it theory A or theory B?
: >
: > > Let us say that we have two theories:
: > > Both theories say that x^2 is 49.
: >
: > > Theory A says that x = 7.
: > > Theory B says that x = -7.
: > > Thus both theories predict x^2 to equal 49.
: >
: > > Let us now say that the scientists have learned how
: > > to measure x^2, but no test has yet been found to
: > > measure x directly. All that can be measured is x^2.
: >
: > > Now what would anyone think about these
: > > scientists, if they went and measured x^2, got 49,
: > > and then they all said that they had just proved that
: > > theory B was correct, and that theory A, of course,
: > > had to be wrong since everyone knows that theory A
: > > was a different theory than theory B?
: >
: > Fortunately, this is not the case with SR and LET.
: >
: > In this case, theory A also says that y=9 and we can measure sqrt(y)
: > and indeed we find that it is 3. Theory B, however, doesn't say
: > anything about y or even what sqrt(y) is.
: >
: > Then which theory would be favored? Well, to most people, theory A
: > would be the one favored, because it not only predicts what x^2 will
: > be, but it also predicts what sqrt(y) will be.
: >
: > Now, the stubborn advocate of theory B might say, "But the math of the
: > two, x^2, is the same, so it must be the case that theory B says the
: > same thing about sqrt(y)." And of course, that isn't so either,
: > because the prediction about sqrt(y) doesn't have anything to do with
: > x^2, nor is sqrt(y) derived from x^2. The proponent of theory B is
: > certainly welcome and in fact encouraged to try to *demonstrate* that
: > sqrt(y) follows from x^2, but simply asserting that it must be the
: > case is less than convincing.
: >
: > In the case at hand, SR makes specific predictions that are completely
: > separate from Lorentz transformations of space and time. Naturally,
: > LET makes no statements whatsoever about those predictions.
:
: Evidently you mean something different with "LET" and "SRT" than
: O'Barr, which is not surprising as "LET" is a strawman and even the
: "SRT" lable was given after-the-fact - in such cases, communication is
: quite hopeless and even besides the point.
:
: The non-issue may perhaps become clearer if you answer the following
: multiple-choice.
: Here below follow two key statements:
:
: 1. "The principle of relativity, according to which the laws of
: physical phenomena should be the same, whether for a fixed observer,
: or for an observer carried along in a uniform movement of translation"
: a. This corresponds to "LET"
: b. This corresponds to "SRT"
: c. Neither

c. Neither.
It doesn't apply to SR, which has the ridiculous assertion

'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A'

The well-known twin paradox says A meets B at a different
time to when B meets A, according to their respective clocks
and according to Einstein's personal definition of time
and simultaneity.
It doesn't apply to LET, which O'Barr assures us has the same
math as SR.


: 2. "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all
: frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good."
: a. This corresponds to "LET"
: b. This corresponds to "SRT"
: c. Neither


c. Neither. Same reason as above.

--
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif

'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.' --
Heretic Jan Bielawski, assistant light-bulb changer.

Ref: news:1188363019.673281.67710@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without
evidence." -- Uncle Stooopid.


"Counterfactual assumptions yield nonsense.
If such a thing were actually observed, reliably and reproducibly, then
relativity would immediately need a major overhaul if not a complete
replacement." -- Humpty Roberts.

Rabbi Albert Einstein in 1895 failed an examination that would
have allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer
at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich
(couldn't even pass the SATs).

According to Phuckwit Duck it was geography and history that Einstein
failed on, as if Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule would give a
damn. That tells you the lengths these lying bastards will go to to
protect their tin god, but it's always a laugh when they slip up.
Trolls, the lot of them.

"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts.






.