Re: Definition of LET and SR (was: Re: MMX, Contraction and Constancy)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gerald L. O'Barr) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "greywolf42" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
> > Tom Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > On 11/24/2003 1:37 PM, greywolf42 wrote:
> > > > Gregory L. Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  
> Gerald L. O'Barr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> comment:
>     Can we find our absolute velocity? 
> 
> Roberts to Greywolf (I think):
> > > Not in LET. You keep claiming this, but somehow never seem to post a
> > > description of an experiment that could in principle measure this, USING
> > > LET.
> 
> "greywolf42" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Any timing test, Tom.  Just avoid e-synching. . . . .  
>  
> 
> Comments by Gerald L. O'Barr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>    I get very excited when someone says there is 
> something wrong with SR.  That is, something wrong 
> with SR math.  SR math is the same math as LET math, 
> and if SR math is wrong, then so is LET.  If anyone 
> shows that SR math is wrong, then LET would be wrong.  
> And that would be most interesting.   
> 
>   Therefore, let us see what happens if two clocks 
> are separated without being re-synched, and then used
> to measure the speed of light.    
SNIP
>    These can be added together and give us exactly:
>           2L/c.
> 
>    As can be seen, the v drops out of these 
> relationships.  It would therefore be impossible for 
> us to use this specific approach, even if 
> theoretically done, to find our absolute velocity.  
> The total time given, zero + 2L/c is the exact round 
> trip time that one would get if they were in the 
> ether frame (v=0) or any other frame, exactly as SR 
> or LET requires.  Everything is perfect, and exactly 
> according to theory.
>    Now whenever I do such problems, I almost always 
> make at least one mistake.  Please let me know of any 
> mistakes you find.

Sorry for not error checking, but I find it just too boring to check
something I checked in the past...

>    But as far as I know, as long as your problem is a 
> one-dimensional problem, SR math (that is, LET math) 
> is fairly good.  Now if you have a problem where 
> different directions are included, like say for 
> rotations, etc., then problems do occur.  But of 
> course, no one on this net seems to be interested in 
> real problems.

Protest! If you look in the archives, you should find that I could not
follow Ives' calculation on the rotating experiment that Marinov did,
and lack of help forced me to check it for myself after which I had to
agree with Ives. If Marinov's results are true, SRT is dead and LET
needs correction.

>    I need all the support I can get, greywolf, so
> I also would be interested in any specifics.  But
> this is what I got!  Exactly what did you get?
> 
> 
> Thanks for reading.
> Gerald L. O'Barr      <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>