The religious worship of SR.

When one finds a good way to live, to exercise
faith in the living of this good life can be correct
and desirable. But faith in a scientific theory is
not allowed. In science, support for any theory must
be based upon the results of measurements made of all
possible tests that the trained mind can consider.
If there is one failure, it is promptly noted as a
weakness, and more testing and wider investigation is
instantly began.
SR is a perfect example why faith cannot be
allowed in science. In SR, if any test indicates any
problem, the SR experts do not see it as a weakness.
They see it as being something to be removed even if
you have to change the meaning of words. Let us look
at just a few examples of these inappropriate acts.
In SR, there is a principle that velocity is
relative. It is used to accept the fact that if A is
moving away from B with velocity v, then B is moving
away from A with velocity of v. But in SR, it is
much more than just this equality in a measured
magnitude. It is an acceptance of the fact that one
velocity is the exact equal of the other in all ways,
not just in this equality of the magnitude v. This
is a mindless belief, in that it is not even really
necessary. And no one can really accept such a thing
in science, since to say (or believe) ***in all
ways*** is impossible to first of all consider in
your mind, and impossible to fully test.
Well, the paradox of the twins shows that not all
relative velocity is equal. Even though twin A has
the identical relative velocity as twin B, and twin B
has the identical relative velocity as twin A, they
do end up being different. Thus, the effects of the
relative velocity in this problem does not end up
being equal in all ways. And thus this blind belief
in relative velocity being equal in all ways is false
and cannot be supported by any scientific reasoning.
But when you worship, what do you do? Why you do
what SR experts do! You ignore it. You recognize
that it exists, but you give it a name. You call it
a break in symmetry. So now it is official. We can
keep this break in symmetry, and because we have
named it, then SR remains good and strong.
But who can accept a theory that has a break in
its symmetry? Only someone who worships the theory!
And this is what has happened. Today, in SR, there
can be many breaks in symmetry, and no one cares.
Why do they not care? Maybe because the math works!
In the case of SR, the math, being an absolute
reference frame math, the real differences between
absolute velocities and relative velocities is
present, and accounts for these breaks. In the
paradox of the twins, any twin who follows a straight
line in space has a shorter absolute path than a twin
who does not follow a straight line, and thus one
must have had less absolute speed than the other.
But a theory is more than just math. It is the
principles upon which the math is based. And the
principles of SR, in terms of the paradox of the
twins, are broken, and cannot be repaired. SR is a
destroyed belief. It is no longer an acceptable
scientific theory. Its principle of symmetry has
been fully and completely broken, no matter how
perfect the math might be.
Let us repeat this at least one more time: If
the math of SR itself confirms that there is a break
in symmetry, then that is in itself direct proof that
the principles upon which SR was formulated by
Einstein were in error. This fact cannot be escaped.
What this means is that there must be other ways of
deriving the same math, without using the same
assumptions of Einstein.

Let us look at another example: The mass of a
photon. Yes a photon does have mass. For many years
we all talked about the mass of a photon. But today,
in SR, they went to a specific effort to change the
definition of the word mass so that no one today can
say that a photon has mass. So SR again can remain
correct in the eyes of the experts. Such an act
shows the desperation that SR experts have in making
sure that SR is perfect. They will even change the
very meaning of words to fit the theory, rather than
admit that there might be a weakness to some of the
principles being used.
Please note that before they changed the
definition of this word, they had every ability
to talk about rest mass, as a mass, and kinetic
energy mass as a mass, or just talked about mass in
general. There was no reason at all to change
anything. But they did. And the only reason to
change it was due to worship.
But guess what, all you SR experts: We today can
still measure the mass of a photon. And guess what,
the value of the mass of a photon is exactly the same
as it has always been. Exactly the same! No matter
how you change the definition of words, they cannot
affect the results of measurements.

And now, let us consider the words of relative
velocity itself. Today, no SR expert will allow the
normal meaning of these words. No one can say that
the light that goes by any frame is ever anything but
c. So by definition, relative velocity of light only
means c. So now when anyone says relative velocity,
and it is not c, then it is not relative velocity.
Isn't that great!
Yes, the measured velocity of the approach of
light to a frame might be only one-half c, and the
measured departing velocity of light from this same
frame might be only one-half c. And thus, the actual
measured velocity of light passing this frame
certainly was measured to be only one-half c. But
you are not allowed to say it. No! We cannot allow
SR to be wrong. We are not allowed to say that what
was measured was the relative velocity of light going
past the frame. Relative velocity is only allowed to
be those measurements where the value that is
measured is to be c. Isn't that great! The value of
the measurement is what now determines the name of
the measurement!
But no matter how any definitions might change,
the actual measured velocity of light going past all
frames is not c, except when you are measuring this
fact for your own frame. Even in Einstein's train
example, the speed of light going past the train,
when measured by the ones in the track frame, will be
c-v, and c+v, exactly. It would be impossible for it
to be anything else, or else the very math of SR
could not be shown to be correct.
As physicists, we have to know that SR math is LET
math. Therefore, any measurements made in SR have to
give the identical answers as required in LET. And
now with all the data that has been collected, we now
have SR confirming LET from start to finish.
Everything that is required in LET has been directly
and completely established.
Those SR experts who are not willing to accept
these facts are putting their entire reputations into
question. We will no longer accept a theory that has
a broken symmetry. We will no longer accept a theory
that does not even allow the mass of a photon to be
recognized even when such a mass can be measured. We
will no longer accept a theory that does not allow
one to say that the speed of light going passed a
frame is different than c, even when such is measured
by all frames for all other frames.
We will no longer believe in a theory that
believes in things that are physically impossible.
We will no longer believe in a theory that requires a
belief in a 4-D spacetime continuum even when there
is no physical evidence to sustain such a belief.
We accept SR math because it works. But the
explanations being used by SR experts are silly, and
impossible, and no longer are acceptable.
Now several weaknesses of SR were mentioned up
above. If even one of these things that were said
were correct, then that would make SR to be an
unacceptable theory. But here I believe all these
things are correctly stated. And if so, there can no
longer be this blind acceptance of SR, or this
religious like acceptance of SR. It has come to an
end.

Thank you for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr
Remove ... for e-mail.

On Jun 26, 4:37 pm, "Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote:
The religious worship of SR.

Can we expect an equally objective and unbiased
piece about the religious worship of kinetic light
particles, sometime in the near future? )

Sue...

Gerald L. O'Barr
Remove ... for e-mail.

On Jun 26, 11:37 am, "Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote:
The religious worship of SR.

You are the only one worshiping SR here. Rather than treating it as
simply a theory like the rest of science does, you have promoted it to
the status of a religion that is worshiped by nobody but people like
you.

[snip crap, unread]

On Jun 26, 3:37 pm, "Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote:
The religious worship of SR.

When one finds a good way to live, to exercise
faith in the living of this good life can be correct
and desirable. But faith in a scientific theory is
not allowed. In science, support for any theory must
be based upon the results of measurements made of all
possible tests that the trained mind can consider.
If there is one failure, it is promptly noted as a
weakness, and more testing and wider investigation is
instantly began.
SR is a perfect example why faith cannot be
allowed in science. In SR, if any test indicates any
problem, the SR experts do not see it as a weakness.
They see it as being something to be removed even if
you have to change the meaning of words. Let us look
at just a few examples of these inappropriate acts.
In SR, there is a principle that velocity is
relative. It is used to accept the fact that if A is
moving away from B with velocity v, then B is moving
away from A with velocity of v. But in SR, it is
much more than just this equality in a measured
magnitude. It is an acceptance of the fact that one
velocity is the exact equal of the other in all ways,
not just in this equality of the magnitude v. This
is a mindless belief, in that it is not even really
necessary. And no one can really accept such a thing
in science, since to say (or believe) ***in all
ways*** is impossible to first of all consider in
your mind, and impossible to fully test.
Well, the paradox of the twins shows that not all
relative velocity is equal. Even though twin A has
the identical relative velocity as twin B, and twin B
has the identical relative velocity as twin A, they
do end up being different. Thus, the effects of the
relative velocity in this problem does not end up
being equal in all ways. And thus this blind belief
in relative velocity being equal in all ways is false
and cannot be supported by any scientific reasoning.
But when you worship, what do you do? Why you do
what SR experts do! You ignore it. You recognize
that it exists, but you give it a name. You call it
a break in symmetry. So now it is official. We can
keep this break in symmetry, and because we have
named it, then SR remains good and strong.
But who can accept a theory that has a break in
its symmetry? Only someone who worships the theory!
And this is what has happened. Today, in SR, there
can be many breaks in symmetry, and no one cares.
Why do they not care? Maybe because the math works!
In the case of SR, the math, being an absolute
reference frame math, the real differences between
absolute velocities and relative velocities is
present, and accounts for these breaks. In the
paradox of the twins, any twin who follows a straight
line in space has a shorter absolute path than a twin
who does not follow a straight line, and thus one
must have had less absolute speed than the other.
But a theory is more than just math. It is the
principles upon which the math is based. And the
principles of SR, in terms of the paradox of the
twins, are broken, and cannot be repaired. SR is a
destroyed belief. It is no longer an acceptable
scientific theory. Its principle of symmetry has
been fully and completely broken, no matter how
perfect the math might be.
Let us repeat this at least one more time: If
the math of SR itself confirms that there is a break
in symmetry, then that is in itself direct proof that
the principles upon which SR was formulated by
Einstein were in error. This fact cannot be escaped.
What this means is that there must be other ways of
deriving the same math, without using the same
assumptions of Einstein.

Let us look at another example: The mass of a
photon. Yes a photon does have mass. For many years
we all talked about the mass of a photon. But today,
in SR, they went to a specific effort to change the
definition of the word mass so that no one today can
say that a photon has mass. So SR again can remain
correct in the eyes of the experts. Such an act
shows the desperation that SR experts have in making
sure that SR is perfect. They will even change the
very meaning of words to fit the theory, rather than
admit that there might be a weakness to some of the
principles being used.
Please note that before they changed the
definition of this word, they had every ability
to talk about rest mass, as a mass, and kinetic
energy mass as a mass, or just talked about mass in
general. There was no reason at all to change
anything. But they did. And the only reason to
change it was due to worship.
But guess what, all you SR experts: We today can
still measure the mass of a photon. And guess what,
the value of the mass of a photon is exactly the same
as it has always been. Exactly the same! No matter
how you change the definition of words, they cannot
affect the results of measurements.

And now, let us consider the words of relative
velocity itself. Today, no SR expert will allow the
normal meaning of these words. No one can say that
the light that goes by any frame is ever anything but
c. So by definition, relative velocity of light only
means c. So now when anyone says relative velocity,
and it is not c, then it is not relative velocity.
Isn't that great!
Yes, the measured velocity of the approach of
light to a frame might be only one-half c, and the
measured departing velocity of light from this same
frame might be only one-half c. And thus, the actual
measured velocity of light passing this frame
certainly was measured to be only one-half c. But
you are not allowed to say it. No! We cannot allow
SR to be wrong. We are not allowed to say that what
was measured was the relative velocity of light going
past the frame. Relative velocity is only allowed to
be those measurements where the value that is
measured is to be c. Isn't that great! The value of
the measurement is what now determines the name of
the measurement!
But no matter how any definitions might change,
the actual measured velocity of light going past all
frames is not c, except when you are measuring this
fact for your own frame. Even in Einstein's train
example, the speed of light going past the train,
when measured by the ones in the track frame, will be
c-v, and c+v, exactly. It would be impossible for it
to be anything else, or else the very math of SR
could not be shown to be correct.
As physicists, we have to know that SR math is LET
math. Therefore, any measurements made in SR have to
give the identical answers as required in LET. And
now with all the data that has been collected, we now
have SR confirming LET from start to finish.
Everything that is required in LET has been directly
and completely established.
Those SR experts who are not willing to accept
these facts are putting their entire reputations into
question. We will no longer accept a theory that has
a broken symmetry. We will no longer accept a theory
that does not even allow the mass of a photon to be
recognized even when such a mass can be measured. We
will no longer accept a theory that does not allow
one to say that the speed of light going passed a
frame is different than c, even when such is measured
by all frames for all other frames.
We will no longer believe in a theory that
believes in things that are physically impossible.
We will no longer believe in a theory that requires a
belief in a 4-D spacetime continuum even when there
is no physical evidence to sustain such a belief.
We accept SR math because it works. But the
explanations being used by SR experts are silly, and
impossible, and no longer are acceptable.
Now several weaknesses of SR were mentioned up
above. If even one of these things that were said
were correct, then that would make SR to be an
unacceptable theory. But here I believe all these
things are correctly stated. And if so, there can no
longer be this blind acceptance of SR, or this
religious like acceptance of SR. It has come to an
end.

Thank you for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr
Remove ... for e-mail.

So you're saying that Euclidean geometry is silly and a religion?

On Jun 26, 12:37 pm, "Gerald L. O'Barr"

[]

why do you feel the need to foam at the mouth ?

On Jun 26, 3:37 pm, "Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote:
The religious worship of SR.

When one finds a good way to live, to exercise
faith in the living of this good life can be correct
and desirable. But faith in a scientific theory is
not allowed. In science, support for any theory must
be based upon the results of measurements made of all
possible tests that the trained mind can consider.
If there is one failure, it is promptly noted as a
weakness, and more testing and wider investigation is
instantly began.

You've convinced me! Hallelujah! I see the light! I
will throw down the false gods and worship your god!
I believe!!!

SR is a perfect example why faith cannot be
allowed in science. In SR, if any test indicates any
problem, the SR experts do not see it as a weakness.
They see it as being something to be removed even if
you have to change the meaning of words. Let us look
at just a few examples of these inappropriate acts.
In SR, there is a principle that velocity is
relative. It is used to accept the fact that if A is
moving away from B with velocity v, then B is moving
away from A with velocity of v.

Hahahaha! That's really silly!

Wait... what do we believe in our religion, Brogher
Gerald?

But in SR, it is
much more than just this equality in a measured
magnitude. It is an acceptance of the fact that one
velocity is the exact equal of the other in all ways,
not just in this equality of the magnitude v. This
is a mindless belief, in that it is not even really
necessary.

Those fools! To think that 10 m/sec to the left
is indistinguishable from 10 m/sec to the right,
where we know that... er... what, exactly?


And no one can really accept such a thing
in science, since to say (or believe) ***in all
ways*** is impossible to first of all consider in
your mind, and impossible to fully test.
Well, the paradox of the twins shows that not all
relative velocity is equal. Even though twin A has
the identical relative velocity as twin B, and twin B
has the identical relative velocity as twin A, they
do end up being different.

Ridiculous! Ludicrous!

B-b-but Brother Gerald, I'm troubled by one thing.
In the actual description of the twin "paradox",
the twins that end up different ages do not have
identical histories. I've never heard the parable
the way you describe it. Why is that?

Hmmm, I'm afraid the precepts of your religion are
going to take some time to master.

- Randy

"Randy Poe" wrote in message
ups.com...
: On Jun 26, 3:37 pm, "Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote:
: The religious worship of SR.
:
: When one finds a good way to live, to exercise
: faith in the living of this good life can be correct
: and desirable. But faith in a scientific theory is
: not allowed. In science, support for any theory must
: be based upon the results of measurements made of all
: possible tests that the trained mind can consider.
: If there is one failure, it is promptly noted as a
: weakness, and more testing and wider investigation is
: instantly began.
:
: You've convinced me! Hallelujah! I see the light! I
: will throw down the false gods and worship your god!
: I believe!!!
:
Egads... Now you'll have to quit Einstein's synagogue and
worship aether instead.



: SR is a perfect example why faith cannot be
: allowed in science. In SR, if any test indicates any
: problem, the SR experts do not see it as a weakness.
: They see it as being something to be removed even if
: you have to change the meaning of words. Let us look
: at just a few examples of these inappropriate acts.
: In SR, there is a principle that velocity is
: relative. It is used to accept the fact that if A is
: moving away from B with velocity v, then B is moving
: away from A with velocity of v.
:
: Hahahaha! That's really silly!
:
: Wait... what do we believe in our religion, Brogher
: Gerald?
:
: But in SR, it is
: much more than just this equality in a measured
: magnitude. It is an acceptance of the fact that one
: velocity is the exact equal of the other in all ways,
: not just in this equality of the magnitude v. This
: is a mindless belief, in that it is not even really
: necessary.
:
: Those fools! To think that 10 m/sec to the left
: is indistinguishable from 10 m/sec to the right,
: where we know that... er... what, exactly?
:
:
: And no one can really accept such a thing
: in science, since to say (or believe) ***in all
: ways*** is impossible to first of all consider in
: your mind, and impossible to fully test.
: Well, the paradox of the twins shows that not all
: relative velocity is equal. Even though twin A has
: the identical relative velocity as twin B, and twin B
: has the identical relative velocity as twin A, they
: do end up being different.
:
: Ridiculous! Ludicrous!
:
: B-b-but Brother Gerald, I'm troubled by one thing.
: In the actual description of the twin "paradox",
: the twins that end up different ages do not have
: identical histories. I've never heard the parable
: the way you describe it. Why is that?
:
: Hmmm, I'm afraid the precepts of your religion are
: going to take some time to master.
:
: - Randy

"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote in message
oups.com...
The religious worship of SR.
[...]

But who can accept a theory that has a break in
its symmetry? Only someone who worships the theory!
And this is what has happened. Today, in SR, there
can be many breaks in symmetry, and no one cares.
Why do they not care? Maybe because the math works!
In the case of SR, the math, being an absolute
reference frame math, the real differences between
absolute velocities and relative velocities is
present, and accounts for these breaks. In the
paradox of the twins, any twin who follows a straight
line in space has a shorter absolute path than a twin
who does not follow a straight line, and thus one
must have had less absolute speed than the other.
But a theory is more than just math. It is the
principles upon which the math is based. And the
principles of SR, in terms of the paradox of the
twins, are broken, and cannot be repaired. SR is a
destroyed belief. It is no longer an acceptable
scientific theory. Its principle of symmetry has
been fully and completely broken, no matter how
perfect the math might be.
Let us repeat this at least one more time: If
the math of SR itself confirms that there is a break
in symmetry, then that is in itself direct proof that
the principles upon which SR was formulated by
Einstein were in error. This fact cannot be escaped.

Oh yes it can - it's not a fact at all!

What this means is that there must be other ways of
deriving the same math, without using the same
assumptions of Einstein.

"His" assumptions had already been presented by Lorentz and Poincare, and
there is nothing wrong with them IF they are read as operational assumptions
of experimental physics (and that was exactly the expressed intention)!
Here they are once more, condensed to the essentials (
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ ).

In agreement with experience:
- The same laws of electrodynamics and optics are valid for all inertial
frames of reference.
- Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which
is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body: the velocity of
light in empty space c = 2AB/(t'A-tA).

I find his presentation better than that of many later textbooks authors.
Any serious objection?

Regards,
Harald

Subject: The religious worship of SR.

harry wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
The religious worship of SR.

[...]

Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
But who can accept a theory that has a break in
its symmetry? Only someone who worships the
theory! And this is what has happened. Today, in
SR, there
can be many breaks in symmetry, and no one cares.
Why do they not care? Maybe because the math
works!
In the case of SR, the math, being an absolute
reference frame math,

And let me clarify this, SR uses Lorentz transforms,
which are an absolute reference frame math!

the real differences between
absolute velocities and relative velocities is
present, and accounts for these breaks. In the
paradox of the twins, any twin who follows a
straight line in space has a shorter absolute path
than a twin
who does not follow a straight line, and thus one
must have had less absolute speed than the other.
But a theory is more than just math. It is the
principles upon which the math is based. And the
principles of SR, in terms of the paradox of the
twins, are broken, and cannot be repaired. SR is
a destroyed belief. It is no longer an acceptable
scientific theory. Its principle of symmetry has
been fully and completely broken, no matter how
perfect the math might be.
Let us repeat this at least one more time: If
the math of SR itself confirms that there is a
break in symmetry, then that is in itself direct
proof that the principles upon which SR was
formulated by Einstein were in error. This fact
cannot be escaped.

harry wrote:
Oh yes it can - it's not a fact at all!

O'Barr comments:
What is not a fact? Why did you not speak in a
full statement? It is a fact that there is a break
in SR symmetry. And the math has been checked to
show that the break in symmetry is supported by the
math. Twins who have to physically have identical
relative velocity at all times, have differences in
their ages, QED! Thus, the assumptions made in the
deriving of SR math, that velocity is relative, is in
error. What in these statements is not a fact?
There are places and times where velocity is
relative. But there are other times and places where
velocities are not relative. You better be able to
learn to live with this, since this is our reality!

O'Barr wrote:
What this means is that there must be other ways
of deriving the same math, without using the same
assumptions of Einstein.

harry wrote:
"His" assumptions had already been presented by
Lorentz and Poincare, and there is nothing wrong
with them IF they are read as operational
assumptions of experimental physics (and that was
exactly the expressed intention)!
Here they are once more, condensed to the essentials
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/


In agreement with experience:
- The same laws of electrodynamics and optics are
valid for all inertial frames of reference.
- Light is always propagated in empty space with a
definite velocity c which is independent of the
state of motion of the emitting body: the velocity
of light in empty space c = 2AB/(t'A-tA).

I find his presentation better than that of many
later textbooks authors. Any serious objection?

O'Barr comments:
Thank you Harald. It is hard to argue with
Einstein, isn't it? And your reference to his 1905
presentation was most appreciated. No one could have
done what he did back in 1905.
The necessity of arguing with Einstein is not
because he did anything so much that was wrong, but
it is how the SR experts want to re-shape it.

Let me take you own words:
When it is said:
- Light is always propagated in empty space with a
definite velocity c which is independent of the
state of motion of the emitting body ...
This is a statement about our absolute reality.
And this, as an absolute statement, is correct.

When it is said:
the velocity of light in empty space
c = 2AB/(t'A-tA).

(I would say c = 2AB/(tA2 - ta1))
This is an absolute fact in the absolute frame.
But here it is going to be used as a measurement
fact in all frames. Thus:
This is a measurement fact.

If Einstein made any mistake, it was in this
failure to keep separate the differences between what
were absolute facts from what were measurement facts.
As I have said so many times, since the MMX, we now
know that what we measure (being with changeable
tools) has to be different than what reality is
actually doing.

When you use an LET approach, the separations
between those facts that are absolute from those
facts that are associated with measurements are very
clearly and exactingly pointed out. And thus, LET is
a superiorly stated theory, and accomplishes the
exact same things, but does so in a way that there are
never any broken symmetries, nor any misunderstanding
of what the physical base is in accomplishing all the
things that are observed and measured.

Is there anything I have said that you cannot
understand and agree upon?

Thanks for reading,
and thanks again for your reference to Einstein.
Gerald L. O'Barr

"Gerald L. O'Barr" wrote in message
oups.com...
Subject: The religious worship of SR.
And let me clarify this, SR uses Lorentz transforms,
which are an absolute reference frame math!

No.. they are a transform between any two frames.

They do not require or imly an absolute reference frame

It is a fact that there is a break
in SR symmetry.

There is no break in symmetry in Sr .. you do symmetric things, you get
symmetric results.

The same as youmeasure in LET (although in LET reality is NOT symmetric)

There are places and times where velocity is
relative. But there are other times and places where
velocities are not relative.

No .. you are clearly mistaken in your understanding of SR nad LET.

Let me take you own words:
When it is said:
- Light is always propagated in empty space with a
definite velocity c which is independent of the
state of motion of the emitting body ...
This is a statement about our absolute reality.

You're playing wordgames here .. Einstein did not say "absolute"

And this, as an absolute statement, is correct.

In that in every iFoR light travels at c

When it is said:
the velocity of light in empty space
c = 2AB/(t'A-tA).
(I would say c = 2AB/(tA2 - ta1))

Then you'd be wrong

This is an absolute fact in the absolute frame.
But here it is going to be used as a measurement
fact in all frames. Thus:
This is a measurement fact.

What absolute frame .. there's never been one found. You're corrupting wht
Einstein said by adding your own words. Decietful.

If Einstein made any mistake, it was in this
failure to keep separate the differences between what
were absolute facts from what were measurement facts.

No . that is YOUR problem. you keep thinking the assumption of LET are known
and accepted facts. They are not.

As I have said so many times, since the MMX, we now
know that what we measure (being with changeable
tools) has to be different than what reality is
actually doing.

No .. we don't

When you use an LET approach, the separations
between those facts that are absolute from those
facts that are associated with measurements are very
clearly and exactingly pointed out.

But that doesn't make it correct

And thus, LET is
a superiorly stated theory,

No .. if it were superior, we'd all be using it.

and accomplishes the
exact same things, but does so in a way that there are
never any broken symmetries,

It has the same math, and if there are broken symmetries in SR, then they
exist in LET.

nor any misunderstanding
of what the physical base is in accomplishing all the
things that are observed and measured.

How do you know that.

I can just as validly say that SR has no misunderstandings either.

Is there anything I have said that you cannot
understand

No

and agree upon?

Yes .. just about all of it