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

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Harry ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:

Ref: 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>    . . . 
>"  . . .  SRT is a label that Einstein gave to 
>"the relativity theory" that existed before 1917 and 
>which did not include gravitation (see his paper on 
>GRT).  That theory was not "owned" by Einstein but 
>was the theory of Lorentz and Einstein, as can be 
>easily seen by reading old publications.

Gerald L. O'Barr  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> comments:
   What?  You mean to tell me that I am not the first 
person to know and to say that LET and SR were the 
same theory?  Do you mean to say that both Lorentz 
and Einstein both agreed more than 80 years ago to 
what I now know?   Do you mean to say that all these 
SR experts who have told me that LET cannot possibly 
be true, since they now know that SR is correct, were 
lying to me?  Say this again, Harry.  Say that this 
theory was not owned by Einstein, but was the theory 
of Lorentz and Einstein, because that is really what 
it was.  They were exactly the same theory back in 
the days it was first presented!  And even today, 
they are still the exact same theory.  And I have 
been lied to, by every SR expert on this net.  I am 
still being lied to, by many who just will not be 
honest on this net!  There are still many who try to 
say that SR and LET are totally opposite theories, 
when in fact they are the exact same theory!  
Anything that proves one, proves the other!


Harry wrote:
>
>Because of the restricted meaning of the label "SRT" 
>in this group and in some textbooks, I thought that 
>a number of old papers that I read were mistaken, as 
>they give the label Special Relativity to the theory
>of Lorentz, or allow for it. In fact they were not 
>mistaken.  A funny confusion can be found in the 
>paper of Kennedy&Thorndike, as in their discussion 
>about Special Relativity, they mention "space-time" 
>but then discuss Lorentz' theory and call it 
>Einstein's.   :-))
>
>So I suggest to be more specific about this from now 
>on, for example:
>
>SRT = the theory of Lorentz and Einstein (the PoR + 
>Lorentz transforms, without interpretation)"
>   . . . 

O'Barr comments:
   Well, certainly lots of people were involved in 
getting everything to work, and in getting everything 
fully integrated; many more people than you have 
mentioned in this post.  And personally I do not 
really care how many, or what steps were taken, or 
who did what first, or anything at all.  There are 
places where such things are important.  But to me, 
we must first establish the physical facts as to what 
is correct in our physics.  And the correct physics 
is clear, that LET provides the physical explanations 
as to what is occurring, and SR is the correct math 
that goes with the correct physics.  Call anything 
you want to call things, the names LET and SR are 
totally meaningless, but the understanding of our 
reality is clear.  And no one on this net has the 
right to say things that are not scientifically 
correct, especially since they have now been so well 
established.

Harry wrote:
>   . . . . 
>   I found evidence that Special Relativity was the 
>definition that Einstein gave to the "relativity
>theory" of that time, which was regarded as the 
>theory of Lorentz and himself - a kind of agreement 
>to disagree about the underlying philosophy-, that 
>both he and Lorentz used that label for their common
>"theory" (in fact only the laws) and that such was 
>the understanding for many years.
> 
 
O'Barr comments:
   It certainly is correct that Lorentz and Einstein 
started at different points to arrive at the 
transforms.  Einstein started at the top, so to 
speak, with a guess as to the way things appear to be 
by principles that could be expressed by 
relationships using math, and Lorentz started with a 
physical theory, by simple clocks and rulers.  And 
they both ended up together, perfectly together!
   However different they started, they did end up 
with the same reality.  And there is nothing strange 
with this.  Almost any truth can be derived from a 
multitude of starting points.  And when this is done, 
one approach does not invalidate the other!  They are 
most likely to all be correct.  And if your concepts 
cannot incorporate both SR and LET, you are wrong!  
The SR experts are wrong!  They cannot accept both 
approaches, and they will have to repent!

 
Harry wrote:
>So now I simply write SRT for the mathematical 
>theory (the laws), and SRT-Einstein / SRT-Lorentz 
>when the underlying explanation/philosophy matters.

O'Barr comments:
   Do anything you want, Harry.  The evidence is 
clear as to what our reality is, and any of your 
concerns about philosophy can be up to you to decide.
   But the science, the evidence that the science has 
so far provided us, is clear.  And I dare any SR 
expert to tell me again that LET cannot be correct.  
I dare them to say this because they think that SR is 
correct, and thus LET can't be correct.  I dare any 
SR expert to tell me that SR is the exact opposite to 
LET.  I dare any SR expert to say that there has to 
be this impossible 4-D spacetime continuum.  I dare 
any SR expert to say that things just cannot work in 
a simple 3-D space.  I dare SR experts to say 
anything, unless they first do a little more 
thinking, and to consider that both LET and SR are 
the same theory, and they must both be correct!  
Because they both are correct, and they both support 
each other, and together they make each other a 
stronger theory.  

   

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr      <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>