Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
Title: The Absolute Reference Frame
By: Gerald L. O'Barr
(Remove 3 dots for e-mail.)
Date: 11 Aug 2006

The Lorentz ether theory (LET) is basically
correct. To more fully modernize it, we have to
state that all forces presently known appear to
follow the same mechanics as the electrical forces.
Once this is assumed, then LET becomes as universal
as Special Relativity (SR.)
The fact that this has to be assumed for LET is
not a sign of weakness for LET. In SR it is
automatically assumed that SR applies to all forces.
To assume the same thing in LET is really no
different. Both LET and SR were originally
formulated back when only electrical forces were of
concern. Since SR was the active science while
additional forces were appearing, and they were
observed to fit into an SR approach, then they were
automatically included in the existing science, as
would be expected. LET was totally dormant during
these times, and was never brought up to date by any
specific recognized group of people. Therefore,
these differences are more due to an accident of
history than to any scientific factor.
To understand the true relationship between SR and
LET, we can say that LET is the correct physics for
our reality, and SR is the correct math for our
reality. Thus, these two theories are really the
same theory. They are not the same in terms of the
assumptions upon which they are based, but they are
the same in terms of their results. In terms of
their final equations, the equations that refer to
what will be measured, they are the same.
Thus, in terms of any test result that involves a
measurement, one theory cannot be correct without the
other being correct. Any test measurement that
confirms one, confirms the other. To fail LET, one
would have to fail SR, if the failure is one of test
data or measurement. This is a most strange
relationship. It has never occurred as strong as
this before. And the only reason anyone can assign
to this is that they really are the same theory.
It must be said that LET begins at a lower level
than SR. LET begins with assumptions as to what
physical things (clocks, rulers and light) do, and
from these physical acts, then LET determines what
will be measured. The results of the physical base
produces a situation where all frames have the
appearance of being the same. It is at this point
that SR begins, after all the physical explanations
have been accomplished.
Once we reach this point of understanding, then we
can no longer allow people to think that these two
theories stand in opposition to each other. It is
important that we understand both theories, and how
they support each other.
Now as we do this, let us be as clear as we can
be. Lorentz provided us with many concepts about his
theory. For one example, he believed that there were
free electrons throughout free space. Such thoughts
have many benefits. But we do not have to accept any
of these explanations. All that we have to really
accept, to have SR, is very simple. All we really
have to accept is just the mechanics. We do not have
to consider the existing of electrons, or any of the
explanations of why c is c. All we really need to
accept is as follows:

a. Lv = Lo (1-(v/c)^2)^0.5
b. Rv = Ro (1-(v/c)^2)^0.5
c. c = the constant velocity for light
in free space

where Lo is the length of a ruler at rest in
the ether. Lv is the length of the same ruler
when it is moving in the direction of its length
with absolute velocity v. Ro is the rate of a
clock at rest in the ether. Rv is the rate of
this same clock with absolute velocity of v.

By making these three simple assumptions, we find
it adequate to develop SR. Therefore, all of the
ancient explanations of why all these things are true
are not critical to the theory. Full support can
still be given to SR, and then as the theory
develops, science can fill in the details as how and
why these things physically occur. Such an approach
allows us to include all the other forces, and the
addressing of the causes for all forces to result in
the same mechanics can be addresses as our knowledge
expands.

It is clear that physically there has to be an
absolute reference frame so that all events can be
coordinated. The free space at any one point has to
be the same as any other free point of space, or else
photons could not really know exactly how fast to
move. And rulers would not know how far to shorten,
and clocks would not know how much to slow their
rates. Only an absolute reference could do all these
things.
And LET explains to us why this absolute frame
results in all other inertial frames producing the
same form of math as the absolute frame, and thus the
absolute frame becomes lost in the middle of all the
other frames.

With all this for a background, then we are
ready to understand why our reality is so difficult
to understand. Because of the three rules assumed in
LET; a, b and c; then we know that the tools we have
and must use to make our measurements (our rulers and
our clocks) are changeable tools. And being
changeable, then what we measure with these tools
might not be what reality really is. Thus, we have
two realities. We have the real reality, the reality
of what actually happens, and then we have the
reality that is measured. The measured reality is
what is given to us by SR.

Let us repeat the above, since it is so important:
SR is an approach that presents to us the world as it
will be measured. This science is vital, and is
absolutely necessary, and must be studied and
understood. It is our first and most direct link to
reality. But it is not our reality. A more basic
reality exists below the measurements, and this is
what LET addresses.
What is measured (and as it is presented in SR)
can become very confusing, with breaks in symmetries,
with jumps in times, with some results that can
appear to be paradoxes. But with a knowledge of
LET, then we see that all real physical acts are
always very simple, with no true breaks in
symmetries, with no real jumps in times, etc. With
SR, one can always tell one another that all this is
true, but in LET, it is absolutely established to be
correct.
Let me conclude with some comments about what is
actually occurring. We have to know, that because of
the nature of our physics, we cannot presently know
when we are in our absolute reference frame. And
thus, we cannot at present know for sure how much
difference there might be between what we are
measuring and in what is actually occurring.
But we definitely know that if we were in our
absolute reference frame, that in this frame, all
rulers would be perfect in their lengths, and all
clocks would be perfect in their rates, and the syncs
would all be a perfect absolute sync. Thus, all our
test results would be a correct match to what reality
was really doing. And with these perfect tools, we
would measure the length of mover rulers to shorten,
and rates of clocks to slow. And these measurements
would all be absolutely correct, proving that such
acts are correct and real.
Thus, even though we might not really know what
things are really doing in any frame we might now
exist in, we do know that there are real changes
going on. And depending of course which direction we
might be measuring, as compared to which frame we
might be in, we from time to time might be making
measurements that are very close to actual acts.
It is important that we come to see these correct
relationships between LET and SR. It is important to
our ultimate progress. It is important to our
personal sanity. It is important so that we know
where to look for our next advancement in science.

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

xxein: How come it took you so long to express yourself in this way?
I shouldn't talk because this is what I have come to understand also,
and didn't find the words to describe it as you have done. I must
confess that I didn't think that you would come to this succinct
conclusion. It is not part of your history.

But I have an 'out'. I still realise that when one attempts to explain
something like this, gravity will say that you would not be as
'complete' as GTR. Where is LET with gravity? It isn't. LET was left
in the bullrushes as Einstein captured the day. But that was 90 yrs.
ago!

Although you didn't say it this way, SR is a correct math-measurement
for what we will measure. The fact that this concept allows GR to
function in the same way (with an additional concept - curved
spacetime) is no sure-fire solution to a physic other than that it is a
workable and allowable concept for such a math-measurement theory.

The real-actual physic is different, as you have already figured out,
but it still lacks the gravity consideration. This is where I step in
(and can't find the words to explain it to SR-GR diehards in a
language-concept that they will accept). So I don't really try hard to
explain LET-SR to them (and hardly a real gravity for the GR).

You mentioned an absolute frame. Well, there is none that appears
forthcoming from your great post. Universal expansion and gravity will
take that away. But there is a frame that allows us to consider it as
absolute much the same way as SR is a special case of GR.

Follow the energy. Gravity is the fluid dynamic of energy. Source,
movement, equilibrium/time and sinks. I don't know why matter is tied
up in energy knots, but I do know that matter requires energy to defeat
inertia in its circular or helical innards. Matter rides on the
river/flow of the energy without friction (stay in motion). But the
energy requirement of being matter also causes 1/r^2 for the inward
velocity of energy around a mass. This causes any mass to accelerate
to mass and v v.

All LET lacked was a gravity expressed in its own terms like SR-GR.
Guessing a good or proper context/conception for LET appears to have
almost everyone stymied. That's why I call my theory/concept 'the ugly
duck'. But it works to high heaven.

"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote in message
ups.com...
Bill Hobba wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
Title: The Absolute Reference Frame
By: Gerald L. O'Barr
(Remove 3 dots for e-mail.)
Date: 11 Aug 2006

The Lorentz ether theory (LET) is basically
correct. To more fully modernize it, we have to
state that all forces presently known appear to
follow the same mechanics as the electrical
forces.

Bill Hobba wrote:
Since that is known to be false (eg gravity and the
strong force) your attempt is doomed.

Gerald L. O'Barr comments:
That certainly is a possibility that my attempt is
doomed. But just because it is a possibility does
not make it so.

More than a possibility - empirically shown to be false eg the strong force
does not follow EM.

Bill

So what would you say about this? If what I said
above was interpreted to mean that all forces have
the exact same mechanics, that would certainly be
wrong. But to infer that all forces comply with a
maximum velocity of c, and otherwise are compatible
with SR physics, what is wrong with that? Could you
be more specific?

Thanks!
Gerald.

Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
O'Barr: The Absolute Reference Frame.

In .com
PD wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
Title: The Absolute Reference Frame
. . . .
The Lorentz ether theory (LET) is basically
correct. To more fully modernize it, we have to
state that all forces presently known appear to
follow the same mechanics as the electrical forces.
Once this is assumed, then LET becomes as universal
as Special Relativity (SR.)

PD wrote:
Correction: Once it is *demonstrated*, then LET
becomes as universal as SR.

O'Barr comments:
Thanks, PD. And since LET has the exact same math
as SR, then in every test that confirms SR, LET is
also being confirmed and demonstrated. Thank you for
saying this! LET is as universal as SR!

But it isn't. The math of SR extends way beyond the Lorentz equations,
which is the common ground between LET and SR. This is the part you
don't seem to get.


O'Barr wrote:
The fact that this has to be assumed for LET is
not a sign of weakness for LET. In SR it is
automatically assumed that SR applies to all
forces.
To assume the same thing in LET is really no
different. Both LET and SR were originally
formulated back when only electrical forces were
of concern. Since SR was the active science while
additional forces were appearing, and they were
observed to fit into an SR approach, then they
were
automatically included in the existing science, as
would be expected. LET was totally dormant during
these times, and was never brought up to date by
any specific recognized group of people.
Therefore,
these differences are more due to an accident of
history than to any scientific factor.

PD wrote:
You make it sound simple. It's not. When you have
a LET-consistent invariance for a QCD-like theory of
the strong interactions, let me know.

O'Barr comments:
All of this is easy. Again and again, LET really
has the same math as SR.

No, it doesn't. It has the same math over a *limited domain*
(electrodynamics). LET does NOT apply equally well in any obvious way
to other interactions the way that SR does. Sorry.

If the math of SR allows
anything to be done, then the math of LET has to
allow the same thing. Surely anyone who has taken
math knows that math does not care about anything
except the math. If you really think that there is a
problem, why don't you state the problem yourself?
Surely you can do this, otherwise, you would not have
mentioned it.

Thanks!
Gerald.

Bill Hobba wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote:
(Remove 3 dots for e-mail.)
. . . .

deletes by O'Barr

Bill Hobba wrote:
. . . the strong force does not follow EM.

O'Barr comments:
O.K. The strong forces do not follow EM. You
have now said this more than once. And I asked for
details! Where are your details? Since you have
offered no details, let me ask you a few details:
What is the maximum velocity for a gluon? What
charges are found on quarks? Are you telling me that
these charged bodies do not obey EM laws? Do their
charges add up one to one? What are their maximum
velocities?
You know, there are lots of things that we know,
and there are a lot of things that we do not know.
For you to just make these statements, with no
details, is not good communication skills. And I
really do not know how to help you. Even a single
proton, which is composed of a group of particles
made up of a strong force system, follows SR. And
thus, fully and completely follows LET.

O'Barr wrote:
So what would you say about this? If what I said
above was interpreted to mean that all forces have
the exact same mechanics, that would certainly be
wrong. But to infer that all forces comply with a
maximum velocity of c, and otherwise are
compatible with SR physics, what is wrong with
that? Could you be more specific?

Thanks!
Gerald.

PD wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
O'Barr: The Absolute Reference Frame.
. . . .
LET is as universal as SR!

PD wrote:
But it isn't. The math of SR extends way beyond
the Lorentz equations, which is the common ground
between LET and SR. This is the part you don't
seem to get.

O'Barr comments:
Well, let us see what the real facts are. If SR
really has more than LET, why didn't you just list
these differences? Why do you just say there are
these differences? Doesn't that look funny, to say
there are all these differences, but you do not list
them?
Certainly there are many other theories than just
SR. And many of these other theories make an effort
to make themselves compatible with SR. And this is
fine. And in a way, one might say that this is an
extension of SR. The problem that you have to answer
is this, has any of these 'extensions' changed the
original math of SR?
If the original math of SR has not had to be
changed, then this means that all these extensions
are also compatible with LET. For you to have any
point at all, you would have to show how any of these
extensions are not able to be supported by LET. And
this you have not done, and cannot do, if you really
end up with the exact same math.

deletes by O'Barr

O'Barr comments:
. . . LET really has the same math as SR.

PD wrote:
No, it doesn't. It has the same math over a
*limited domain* (electrodynamics). LET does NOT
apply equally well in any obvious way to other
interactions the way that SR does. Sorry.

O'Barr comments:
If by electrodynamics you include all rulers and
clocks (which include all normal atomically composed
material bodies), this is a fairly complete coverage.
If all clocks and rulers are included, then that
includes the strong forces within each of these
atoms, etc., does it not? (Normally, electrodynamics
apply to materials that carry a net charge, etc.)
Now I am also beginning to see you use a few catch
words, in that you are not really saying that LET
does not apply to these other things. You say it
doesn't apply in a way that might be obvious. But
obvious to who? I believe that you are not being
fair, and that your position is only one of doubt,
not science.
Let me repeat what I have already said:

. . . If the math of SR allows
anything to be done, then the math of LET has to
allow the same thing. Surely anyone who has taken
math knows that math does not care about anything
except the math. If you really think that there
is a
problem, why don't you state the problem yourself?
Surely you can do this, otherwise, you would not
have mentioned it.

Thanks!
Gerald.

O'Barr comments:
Surely you can be this fair. Surely you cannot
just say these things do not apply. That is not
being very scientific. And I know that we are not
that much apart in our thinking. You have posted
before, and your posts have been very good. Have you
changed your mind in any of these things?

Thanks for reading.
Gerald.

Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
PD wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
O'Barr: The Absolute Reference Frame.
. . . .
LET is as universal as SR!

PD wrote:
But it isn't. The math of SR extends way beyond
the Lorentz equations, which is the common ground
between LET and SR. This is the part you don't
seem to get.

O'Barr comments:
Well, let us see what the real facts are. If SR
really has more than LET, why didn't you just list
these differences? Why do you just say there are
these differences? Doesn't that look funny, to say
there are all these differences, but you do not list
them?

This is not the place to teach you relativity and what it really means.
But here is a list for you to get started:
a) energy & momentum & invariant mass (about which LET says nothing)
b) the Klein-Gordon and Dirac equation for relativisitic quantum fields
of spin 0 and spin 1/2 (about which LET says nothing)
c) the manifestly covariant Lagrangian for the weak interaction (about
which LET says nothing)
d) the manifestly covariant Lagrangian for the strong interaction
(about which LET says nothing)
e) the manifestly covariant Lagrangian for the gravitational
interaction (about which LET says nothing)
f) The PCT theorem, which stems from SR (and about which LET says
nothing)

And all this is just for starters.

Each of these would require a chapter to explain in detail how SR
informs these and LET does not. Would you like a reading list to get
started.

Certainly there are many other theories than just
SR. And many of these other theories make an effort
to make themselves compatible with SR. And this is
fine. And in a way, one might say that this is an
extension of SR. The problem that you have to answer
is this, has any of these 'extensions' changed the
original math of SR?
If the original math of SR has not had to be
changed, then this means that all these extensions
are also compatible with LET. For you to have any
point at all, you would have to show how any of these
extensions are not able to be supported by LET. And
this you have not done, and cannot do, if you really
end up with the exact same math.

deletes by O'Barr

O'Barr comments:
. . . LET really has the same math as SR.

PD wrote:
No, it doesn't. It has the same math over a
*limited domain* (electrodynamics). LET does NOT
apply equally well in any obvious way to other
interactions the way that SR does. Sorry.

O'Barr comments:
If by electrodynamics you include all rulers and
clocks (which include all normal atomically composed
material bodies), this is a fairly complete coverage.

Nonsense. The fact that the electromagnetic interaction happens to be
the one that we exploit most fully for our technology does NOT mean
that it is physically more fundamental.

If all clocks and rulers are included, then that
includes the strong forces within each of these
atoms, etc., does it not? (Normally, electrodynamics
apply to materials that carry a net charge, etc.)
Now I am also beginning to see you use a few catch
words, in that you are not really saying that LET
does not apply to these other things. You say it
doesn't apply in a way that might be obvious. But
obvious to who? I believe that you are not being
fair, and that your position is only one of doubt,
not science.

That LET applies AT ALL to these other things has yet to be
demonstrated. Ilja is trying. You simply maintain that it *should* be
true and wave a flag to promote that idea, but you haven't done any
work to show that it works. Being a flag waver at the front of a (very
short) parade will not earn you any points.

Let me repeat what I have already said:

. . . If the math of SR allows
anything to be done, then the math of LET has to
allow the same thing. Surely anyone who has taken
math knows that math does not care about anything
except the math. If you really think that there
is a
problem, why don't you state the problem yourself?
Surely you can do this, otherwise, you would not
have mentioned it.

Thanks!
Gerald.

O'Barr comments:
Surely you can be this fair. Surely you cannot
just say these things do not apply. That is not
being very scientific. And I know that we are not
that much apart in our thinking. You have posted
before, and your posts have been very good. Have you
changed your mind in any of these things?

Thanks for reading.
Gerald.

"PD" schrieb
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
Title: The Absolute Reference Frame
By: Gerald L. O'Barr
(Remove 3 dots for e-mail.)
Date: 11 Aug 2006

The Lorentz ether theory (LET) is basically
correct. To more fully modernize it, we have to
state that all forces presently known appear to
follow the same mechanics as the electrical forces.
Once this is assumed, then LET becomes as universal
as Special Relativity (SR.)

Correction: Once it is *demonstrated*, then LET becomes as universal as
SR.

No. That's basically a postulate. Not much to demonstrate.

Note: Already Poincare 1905 has proposed that all laws of nature
have to follow the new symmetry and tried to apply this to gravity.

The fact that this has to be assumed for LET is
not a sign of weakness for LET. In SR it is
automatically assumed that SR applies to all forces.
To assume the same thing in LET is really no
different.

Indeed. And done by Poincare 1905.

When you have a LET-consistent
invariance for a QCD-like theory of the strong interactions, let me
know.

Nothing to do.
The standard QCD Lagrangian has all the necessary properties.

Ilja

In .com
PD wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
. . .

PD wrote:
This is not the place to teach you relativity and
what it really means.

O'Barr comments:
I am sorry to hear that. Is this the place where
we can teach LET?

PD wrote:
But here is a list for you to get started:
a) energy & momentum & invariant mass (about which
LET says nothing)

O'Barr comments:
LET says nothing? The very first thing you say
makes zero sense. Should I read anything more on
your list? Why would you say something so foolish?

Might I suggest that you check out the Wikipedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org
There is a lot of junk on the net, but also, there
are from time to time good things being found.
Lorentz was able to handle energy and momentum and
mass, he knew that mass increased with velocity. All
these things were part of LET. If such things were
not a part of LET, then LET could not still be a
viable theory. Somehow, you are showing a blind eye
to the problem. Is there a reason for this?

I am not going farther, though I am sure many on
this net will. You mentioned Ilja. I am sure he will
answer some of your questions or statements.
And you mentioned winning points, and waving
a flag. None such comments were made to
accomplish anything. The fact
that LET does not mention something, even if it
didn't, is not important. The fact stands, that as
long as LET has the same math, then the same concepts
have to be compatible.

Thanks for your efforts.
Gerald.


P.S.
Below are some copy of materials off the Wikipedia
site:

You mentioned QM, or quantum effects. Here is one
statement:

Aether and quantum mechanics
Quantum mechanics can be used to describe spacetime
as being "bitty" at extremely small scales,
fluctuating and generating particle pairs that appear
and disappear incredibly quickly. Instead of being
"smooth", the vacuum is described as looking like
"quantum foam". It has been suggested that this
seething mass of virtual particles may be the
equivalent in modern physics of a particulate aether.

Here is another statement:

.. . . dark energy is sometimes called quintessence
due to its similarity to the classical aether.
Modern physics is full of concepts such as free
space, space foam, Planck particles, quantum wave
state (QWS), zero-point energy, quantum foam, and
vacuum energy.

All of these things are really just another name for
the ether. So we do see that LET might not say too
much, but modern-day physics cannot stop talking
about it.

Here are some references given in Wikipedia:

Albert Einstein, "Ether and the Theory of Relativity"
(1920), republished in Sidelights on Relativity
(Dover, NY, 1922) [2]

Albert Einstein, "Ideas and Opinions" pp. 281, 362.
ISBN 0-517-88440-2

H. Ives "The measurement of velocity with atomic
clocks", Science Vol.91 (1940), p.65

P. Dirac "Is there an ether?", Nature 168 (1951),
p.906

G. Builder, "Ether and Relativity", Australian
Journal of Physics 11 (1958), p.279


I do not personally recommend any of these
references or statements. I hold to my position
basically because of my at theory and personal
understanding of SR and LET.

"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote in message
ups.com...
Bill Hobba wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote:
(Remove 3 dots for e-mail.)
. . . .

deletes by O'Barr

Bill Hobba wrote:
. . . the strong force does not follow EM.

O'Barr comments:
O.K. The strong forces do not follow EM. You
have now said this more than once. And I asked for
details! Where are your details?

One word - confinement. So well known the fact you ask for it is very
revealing.

Bill

Since you have
offered no details, let me ask you a few details:
What is the maximum velocity for a gluon? What
charges are found on quarks? Are you telling me that
these charged bodies do not obey EM laws? Do their
charges add up one to one? What are their maximum
velocities?
You know, there are lots of things that we know,
and there are a lot of things that we do not know.
For you to just make these statements, with no
details, is not good communication skills. And I
really do not know how to help you. Even a single
proton, which is composed of a group of particles
made up of a strong force system, follows SR. And
thus, fully and completely follows LET.

O'Barr wrote:
So what would you say about this? If what I said
above was interpreted to mean that all forces have
the exact same mechanics, that would certainly be
wrong. But to infer that all forces comply with a
maximum velocity of c, and otherwise are
compatible with SR physics, what is wrong with
that? Could you be more specific?

Thanks!
Gerald.

Bill Hobba wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
. . .

deletes by O'Barr


Bill Hobba wrote:
. . . the strong force does not follow EM.

O'Barr wrote:
O.K. The strong forces do not follow EM. You
have now said this more than once. And I asked
for details! Where are your details?

Bill Hobba wrote:
One word - confinement. So well known the fact you
ask for it is very revealing.

O'Barr comments:
Confinement? Yes, no individual quark can fully
escape from all other quarks, it seems. And this is
not what charged particles can do, unless there is a
black hole for charges. But this was not the
question! The question was not if there are not
differences between EM and these other forces, but
whether there are differences that would prevent them
from being acceptable in LET. Confinement does not
interfere with the strong force existing in an LET
world, does it? So what is your point?
Let me repeat this: the question at hand is this,
is there anything in reality, as seen in SR,
that is un-allowed in LET?

Here is a repeat of what was said, at one point of
the discussion:

O'Barr said:
* The Lorentz ether theory (LET) is basically
* correct. To more fully modernize it, we have to
* state that all forces presently known appear to
* follow the same mechanics as the electrical
* forces.
*
* Bill Hobba wrote:
*Since that is known to be false (eg gravity and
*the strong force) your attempt is doomed.
*
* Gerald L. O'Barr comments:
* That certainly is a possibility that my attempt is
* doomed. But just because it is a possibility does
* not make it so.
*
Bill wrote:
*More than a possibility - empirically shown to be
*false eg the strong force does not follow EM.
*
*
O'Barr wrote:
* So what would you say about this? If what I said
* above was interpreted to mean that all forces have
* the exact same mechanics, that would certainly be
* wrong. But to infer that all forces comply with a
*maximum velocity of c, and otherwise are compatible
* with SR physics, what is wrong with that? Could
* you be more specific?


O'Barr comments:
Bill, I am really sorry if you think that I was
saying that every force had to be exactly the same as
EM. Everyone knows that all forces are different
than all other forces one way or another, otherwise,
they would not have a different name, etc. What I
was saying, and what is true, if LET is correct, is that
all known forces must then follow the same set of
mechanics that EM follows, the mechanics that is
allowed and/or exists in LET.
I am sorry that I did not say it perfectly, but I
sure thought that the reasoning was clear.

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