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

Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr) comments:
Thanks for responding. For a minute, I thought
you were going to leave.

deletes by O'Barr

Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
... it is unscientific to teach people that SR
proves that there cannot be an absolute
reference frame. The fact that it can be
ignored is not proof
that it is not there. And it is unscientific
for people to say there is no ether. . . . .

the ether used in LET cannot be disproved to
exist, and will never be disproved as long as SR
is correct.

James wrote:
Within the context of relativity, SR and GR, there
are no absolute reference frames. So when
teaching the theory it makes sense to state this.

Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr) comments:
In a limited way, every word you said above is
correct. SR and GR do not directly use an
absolute reference frame. And it is required that
this be stated if you are going to teach these
theories. But the error is in the science! All
physical theories should be presented and taught
as they presently stand within the known science.
And a good college professor
will be sure to do this, usually at the
introduction of the course. And the known science
includes LET. Thus, when SR and GR are taught
without the correct science, where these stupid
professors say such things that SR proved that
all ether theories were wrong, they lie!

James wrote:
Which stupid proffessors are these?

O'Barr comments:
I do not mind repeating what I said: Any
professor or any thinking person who says that our
present-day science does not allow there to be an
absolute reference frame, or an ether, is not being
scientific. LET, right this very minute, is a viable
theory, and it does not and it cannot allow any
thinking person to say that our reality cannot be
exactly as LET requires things to be! This is what
our present-day science does for us, whether you want
to admit it or not! This is not anything to do with
what I think or what I want! This is what our
science presently shows!

O'Barr wrote:
When they say
such things that SR or GR could not work if there
were an absolute reference frame, they lie.

James wrote:
Within the context of relativity [SR and GR] there
are no absolute frames of reference. You seem to
want the stupid professors to mix up different
theories.

O'Barr comments:
Absolutely not! What I want everyone to do is to
properly understand SR and GR. SR and GR are not
based upon any point that requires no absolute. And
LET explains all this!
It is like someone saying that F = ma, and so if
we find F = ma, then that proves there is no gravity
because there is no gravity in F = ma. Don't you see
that just because a theory does not use the absolute
(or does not use gravity), then just because it is
true (correct), then you cannot say that it proves
there is no absolute (or no gravity.) Until you can
show that LET is not correct, you cannot say that SR
or GR proves there is no absolute. There is nothing
that allows you to say such things! You do not
understand the limitations that exist in SR and in GR
because of LET.

O'Barr (globarr) wrote:
And I see that you yourself have not been too
careful here to say things as they should be
said scientifically. Why is that? Why are you so
afraid to simple say what we presently know?

James wrote:
I'm more scientific than you gerald. I can, at the
least, differentiate between theories.

O'Barr comments:
Good for you. Just be sure that in all the
differentiations that are made, that you to not
ascribe to any theory more than what it can actually
say or do for us!

James wrote:
What tests have been conducted which show that the
ether, and or an absolute frame of reference
exist?

O'Barr wrote:
Scientifically, if every test made shows a theory
makes correct predictions, within its error of
margin, then these tests show that that theory is
an acceptable or a correct theory.

James wrote:
All it means is the theory has made correct
predictions with respect to observed natural
phenomena. LET making correct predictions wrt
observed natural phenomena doesn't confirm the
physical existence of the ether any more than GR
making predictions wrt observed natural phenomena
confirms the physical existence of curved spacetime.

O'Barr comments:
You are talking about some very important points.
What we need to know and to understand is that not
all theories are equal. Not all theories are the
same, either in terms of their power, or their scope,
or their base, or their relationship to other
theories.
Take PV = nRT! No thinking person can say that
this theory is just a made up theory that just might
be accidentally making correct predictions! To do
this would be insane! This theory, because of the
way it is, and the number of correlations that exist,
and independent confirmations, cannot be questioned
in its basic assumptions. Some theories are able to
be this way. And so, when SR is only math, but LET
is a physically based theory, there are problems if
you try to say that they both have the same problems!
You are wrong to ignore their important differences!
I am not saying that LET is as strong as the
kinetic theory of gases. But what has to be clearly
seen is that LET is far more firm than SR has even
been, because it has the physical background that it
has, upon which the math is based. And this physical
background gives many positive correlations that will
never be found in SR.

O'Barr comments:
And therefore, for
too many repeats here to be justified, every test
that has shown SR to be correct, also affirms the
correctness of there being an ether! QED!
Again, why are you being so dense?

James wrote:
Actually you, gerald, are being dense. You actually
believe theoretical models confirm the physical
existence of theoretical constucts without real
direct experimental evidence. Get a clue. You really
don't understand the purpose of theoretical models.

[Snip the rest of geralds inane comments].

O'Barr comments:
When all you have is only a math theory, such as
what we have with SR and/or GR, then of course you
have no power at all to say anything about what might
actually physically exist. And thus, to make your
religion look better, you try to say that science can
never tell us things about actual reality. But that
is a lie! Physics exists for the purpose of finding
out what our reality really is! And we are going to
do this. Even though this belief in SR and GR will
someday be seen as the dark ages of our science, we
will rise above all this, and we will come to know
and to understand what our physical reality is all
about.
LET like concepts will be the correct direction
for us to go, and we will be forced to accept an
absolute reference frame type of physics before we
can go much further. The hand writing is now on the
wall, and we all know this. And we will do these
very things, exactly as we are now allowed to do them
by our present science! I am sorry that you missed
all this!

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