Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
In . com
wrote:
Richard Perry wrote: ...
Tom Roberts posted a lengthy proof of the
experimental equality of LET and Special
Relativity, but in the end it is nothing more than
the an argument proving the equivalence of Special
Relativity to itself.

wrote:
Why is even a lengthy proof needed? Aren't they the
same thing except LET assumes one special frame (but
can't tell which one because it's indistinguishable
from others, so not so special after all), is there
more to it?

Gerald L. O'Barr comments:
It is much like this: It is like cooking an apple
pie. One person knows that there is a baker who has
an oven, and 20 minutes in this oven makes a perfect
pie. This would be called a math theory. You have
an equation, you get an answer, and the answer works!
Everyone is happy!
But then there comes along a man who says that it
is not really the oven that does this, but it is the
temperature in the over that does it. And the time
it really takes depends on the temperature within the
oven. Now both of these individuals get good pies!
But which one knows the most? The one who only has
the correct math, or the one who knows the cause?

But how does he know it is the cause? Are we
supposed to believe him because he says so? Or
does he say something like, look, I change the
temperature from 350 to 325, and it takes longer
to bake the pie.

When you can tell us how to change the aether from
350 to 325, somebody will want to listen to you.


Yes, it is true, that LET and SR provides the
exact some results! But with one, there is involved
in the concept the cause.

Or, it could be a myth. How would you know?

Cause and effects are
involved in LET, but not in SR. All you have in SR
is just the math. Thus, LET is superior! And it is
superior because it involves the physical ether, and
it describes exactly what the ether physically does
so that what we measure is measured.

FSVO "exactly". Suppose you notice that a clock
on a spaceship is ticking slower than your lab
clock. Can you say that this is because it is
moving faster through the aether, thus dilated more?
That would be a nice thing to conclude, if you could
conclude it -- but you cannot. Your lab clock might
easily be the faster one; LET gives you no clue which
of these is the correct statement.

Now it is true that the ether frame is not
directly available to us. Is this a problem? It
would be a problem, if the theory demanded that it
was to be available. But the theory itself shows
that it cannot be distinguish from any other frame,
specifically because of what it causes to happen. So
if we find that it does cause to happen exactly what
the theory says it causes to happen, then the fact
that the either cannot be made available is actually
support for the ether.

No. Failure to falsify aether in an experiment
that *could* falsify it would be support. Can you
name such an experiment?

It is good that things are
the way they are. Otherwise, the theory could not be
correct!

I hate to break the news to you, but it is *not*
correct, any more than SR itself is correct (except
as a limiting case of GR).

And anyone with a brain will know that what I say
is correct.

My brain should be examined for even reading you.