In .com
wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr) wrote:
. . .

deletes by O'Barr

Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
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?

wrote:
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.

Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
How do you know the cause? By the theory! And
how do you know the theory? By testing it! This is
what science is all about! SR was tested! SR was
found to be correct! And by the rules of science, we
must accept SR! And we do! And this is all correct
science! But what do we get with accepting SR? All
we get is just the proper math description of what we
will measure. This is all that SR is, and this is
all that it provides. It is only math, with no
physical understanding at all! This makes it a very
weak theory, a very poor theory, a theory that
provides to us zero understanding as to the causes
and the why's and the how's!
So let us take LET! This is a different kind of
a theory than SR. It starts with physical
assumptions: The physical ether, with a frame at
relative rest with respect to it, and this ether
controls the speed of light. It presents physical
evidence that the rates of clocks would be affected
by motion in this ether (light clocks are used as a
specific physical example, producing the exact math
required), and the lengths of rulers are affected
(the diameter of an equal potential sphere is used,
and the exact relationships are obtained both for the
longitudinal and the perpendicular directions.) And
so the theory is complete, with physical descriptions
and with physical causes and effects in place.
And so, being scientific, we should test this
theory! But guess what! This theory has already
been tested, and it has been found to be perfect! It
is found to be just as perfect as SR, because lo and
behold, it is SR! And thus the physical base to LET
has been fully and completely scientifically
established.
In LET, how do you change the temperature? You
change the rate of motion! And sure enough, these
changes produce the exact results that LET says would
be produced, the exact same predictions as the
correct math of SR says will be obtained. These are
all correct facts, as we presently have them and know
them!

Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
Yes, it is true, that LET and SR provides the
exact some results! But with one, there is
involved in the concept the cause.

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

O'Barr comments:
As was explained, by the application of correct
science, which includes testing, and the application
of man's intellect in examining these test results!

Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
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.

wrote:
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.

O'Barr comments:
And isn't this perfect? For this is the exact way
things are found to be within LET!
Reality is real, and reality does not allow anyone
to do anything that reality does not allow to be
done! If we cannot conclude something, this is
critical only if LET says we should be able to
conclude it! And LET does not say that we should be
able to conclude it, exactly as we find things to be!
But LET does conclude that if we send one clock up
and back, that this moving clock will have gone an
absolute farther distance in the ether than the clock
that followed a straight line, in the same absolute
time, and thus will show less time. And this is
exactly absolutely true! There are no paradoxes in
LET!

Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
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.

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

O'Barr comments:
Can you name any experiment that has been done in
SR? Since LET and SR are, mathematically, the same
theory, then any test done in SR, where the results
are found to support SR, would also support LET. And
any testing done that would falsify SR, would also
falsify LET. We must be fair in all this! LET is
the most well proved theory that has ever existed,
step by step by step, with SR, at every data point
that has been taken!

Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
It is good that things are
the way they are. Otherwise, the theory could not
be correct!

wrote:
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).

O'Barr comments:
Be sure to know that there is only one reality!
And in the domain where SR is 'proper,' this domain
has to also be the proper domain for GR! And if SR
is found to be weak in its domain (that is, LET is
found to be superior), then LET is also found to be
superior to GR, in this domain! You cannot escape!
Both SR and GR have the same identical weaknesses in
SR's domain, and they will both fall to LET (that is,
to an abs o lute reference frame approach)!

Gerald L. O 'Barr wrote:
And any o ne with a brain will know that what I
say is c o rrect.

m wrote:
My brain sho uld be examined for even reading you.

O'Barr (glo barr) comments:
It has now been examined, and found to be doing
many good things! No charge for this service!
ooo0ooo

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr
+ Remove 3 dots for e-mail.