O'Barr Laminations II
(LET is rejected because it does not tell us how to
bake an apple pie!)


What a sad life I have to live. No one defends
the points I am making. There is no one with any
smarts at all.
Look, good people, no one can be so dumb as to
believe in a 4th dimension. Yes, as far as math is
concerned, believe in it. As a math, use it, enjoy
it, make it work for you. That is the purpose of
math. But to think that there is a real 4-D reality
is something totally different.
And then sin upon sin, is to believe something
that is physically impossible, with no evidence!
This is the most unscientific act of all! There is
no evidence at all that there really is a 4-D
spacetime continuum. Yes, the math of SR is shown
to work, but the math of SR is perfectly explainable
as a 3-D math. LET math, which is a simple 3-D
theory, is just as able to explain this math as is
SR. Therefore, no test can so far establish any
direct evidence that there really is a 4-D reality.
No one can be so dumb that they do not understand
this.
Now all of the above is obvious to anyone who
thinks. But now Jeckyl tops all of this ignorance
off with the latest complaint. Can anything be more
worse than this? What is Jeckyl's complaint? He
says that we must reject LET because LET does not
tell us how to bake an apple pie!

No one can be a physicist unless they are able
to know what a theory is all about. To know what a
theory is requires one to know that it consists of,
and the limitations of that belief.
LET, as it is presently considered on this net,
is not a theory of how to bake an apple pie. I guess
if you are hungry for apple pie, you might talk about
apples. But one does not scientifically reject a
theory just because it fails to address a subject
that is not part of its domain. Yes, ultimately, the
baking of an apple pie better not be at odds with
what any theory might presently require, but all
present day theories do not have to explain
everything in order to be accepted. Only a total
lack of evidence or known conflicts can presently
reject a theory.

Therefore, for anyone to criticize LET because it
does not tell us how to bake an apple pie is silly
and dumb.

LET tells us that there is an ether. That this
ether is real, and that it is the carrier of light.
And when this ether is present in free space (empty
space, no matter or gravity, etc.) the speed of
light, as controlled by this ether, is c. This is
what the theory says and demands. LET does not tell
us how it is able to do all this. Just because we do
not know how the ether does all this is not a cause
for the rejection of LET.
The ether, according to LET, causes the rates of
all clocks to change with their velocity through the
ether. The rate of change for all clocks is the same
rate that appears for a light clock. (And we all
know and understand how the rate of a light clock
varies. All it takes for a light clock to work is
simple 3-D space and the constant speed of light.
That is all! No 4-D is allowed for a light clock.
If there were any 4-D effects, then the rate of a
light clock would not be right!) The ether causes
the lengths of all rulers to change with their
velocities. The rate of change is exactly the same
rate as seen with the diameters of an equal potential
sphere. (Again, these exact changes are all done in
a simple 3-D space. No 4-D effects are allowed. If
there were any 4-D effects present, the right changes
in lengths would not be present.)
So again and again, the theory does not explain
how the ether is able to accomplish all of this.
Yes, it shows that in some cases we are able to
understand much of it. It is following things
already known and understood. But in no way is the
theory saying that the actual mechanics is being
presented.
So I am sorry, Jeckyl, that you think that LET is
somehow required to explain the substance of the
ether, how it is composed, and how it accomplish all
the things that are mentioned. All this shows is
that you are a beaten man. You can no longer present
one rational criticism of LET, so you are now making
up problems. Well, even if LET cannot show us how to
bake an apple pie, my Aunt May is able to show us how
to this, and so I do not need to have LET do all
this. So give it up, and start being a real
physicist, and start to confess that LET is most
perfect in what it does do, which is to give us more
than what SR does. LET gives us a physically based
theory, which is a far more powerful approach than
just a math theory, as SR.

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr

Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
O'Barr Laminations II
(LET is rejected because it does not tell us how to
bake an apple pie!)


What a sad life I have to live. No one defends
the points I am making.

That should make you think. :-)

There is no one with any
smarts at all.
Look, good people, no one can be so dumb as to
believe in a 4th dimension. Yes, as far as math is
concerned, believe in it. As a math, use it, enjoy
it, make it work for you. That is the purpose of
math. But to think that there is a real 4-D reality
is something totally different.

An event has always been determined by four numbers.
We call those numbers 'coordinates', and
the 'dimension' of the coordinate system is equal to
the number of coordinates, that is four.

So the co-ordinate system we have to use for events
has 3 spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension.

I snap my fingers.
The coordinates of that event is:
Lat. N 58o 32' 45", Long. E 8o 36' 17",
42m above sea level, 1529 hours September 6. 2007.

Which one of these four coordinates do you find
'unreal' and impossible to believe in?

Now I will in my four dimensional reality move
rom (here, now), to (home, now + 25 minutes).
My trajectory through space and time will have four dimensions.

Paul

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
: Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
: O'Barr Laminations II
: (LET is rejected because it does not tell us how to
: bake an apple pie!)
:
:
: What a sad life I have to live. No one defends
: the points I am making.
:
: That should make you think. :-)

Slim chance or fat chance of that.


:
: There is no one with any
: smarts at all.
: Look, good people, no one can be so dumb as to
: believe in a 4th dimension. Yes, as far as math is
: concerned, believe in it. As a math, use it, enjoy
: it, make it work for you. That is the purpose of
: math. But to think that there is a real 4-D reality
: is something totally different.
:
: An event has always been determined by four numbers.
: We call those numbers 'coordinates', and
: the 'dimension' of the coordinate system is equal to
: the number of coordinates, that is four.
:
: So the co-ordinate system we have to use for events
: has 3 spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension.

Yeah, B meets A at a different time to A meeting B,
A's tau-time is different to B's t-time.



:
: I snap my fingers.
: The coordinates of that event is:
: Lat. N 58o 32' 45", Long. E 8o 36' 17",
: 42m above sea level, 1529 hours September 6. 2007.
:
: Which one of these four coordinates do you find
: 'unreal' and impossible to believe in?

B meeting A at a different time to A meeting B, of course.



: Now I will in my four dimensional reality move
: rom (here, now), to (home, now + 25 minutes).
: My trajectory through space and time will have four dimensions.
:
Nothing moves in spacetime.