Re: Definition of LET and SR

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Tom Roberts ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>Harry wrote:
>>In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gerald L. O'Barr) wrote: 
>>>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?  
>> No they were misled by textbooks, as I was myself.

Roberts wrote:
>I know of no "SR experts" around here who claim "LET 
>cannot possibly be true, since they now know SR is 
>correct".
>
>In fact, anybody who has participated around here 
>for very long and actually understands mathematics 
>knows that LET and SR are experimentally 
>indistinguishable, as I have discussed many times 
>here.

Gerald L. O'Barr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> comments:
   I know you have done this.  And I appreciate what 
you do and what you have done.  And I know of no real 
expert on this net who now disagrees with this.  It 
is a very important point.  I remember reading one 
good SR text that said to the effect: since Lorentz's 
aether theory and Einstein's Special Theory of 
Relativity had the same math, they saw no need to 
present both theories, and therefore, they would only 
present Einstein's theory.  This one statement was 
the only statement made about LET for the rest of the 
book.  
   I find that 99.9% of all students of relativity 
believe that only SR is correct, and LET was 
disproved by the MMX.  Almost all teaching done 
disapproves of  any ether concept.  It is not just an 
attitude that  they disapprove of it, but it is an 
attitude that it is impossible, it is a failure, it 
cannot work, etc.  It is taught as if it has been 
disproved.  When the real facts are just the 
opposite.  LET is proved every time you 'prove' SR.  


Roberts continues:
>Of course this does NOT imply that either SR or LET 
>is "correct" or "true".... It implies both are VALID 
>(because neither has been refuted experimentally 
>within its domain of applicability). "Correct" and 
>"true" are not parts of modern science, which 
>concerns itself with valid theories....

O'Barr comments:
   As long as the word theory is present, then the 
adjective that goes with the word theory is 
acceptable to me.  That is, a correct theory, a valid 
theory, an acceptable theory, a 'proven' theory, a 
tested theory, can all be allowed to be said for such 
theories as SR, etc.  The problem comes when the word 
theory is no longer used, and someone says that there 
is a 4-D spacetime continuum, etc.   There has never 
been a scientific test conducted to determine if 
there really is a 4-D.  In fact, if 4-D is impossible 
for man to even visualize, then a test of it cannot 
even be conceptualized, let alone conducted.  We find 
a lot of funny things being said and presented in SR, 
and there is no excuse for adult men to be this way.
(Please be sure to understand me: 4-D math 
relationships are easy, but to physically have both 
space and time being one and the same real physical 
continuum is what is impossible to conceptualize.  We 
cannot in fact visualize any real physical 4-D.)


Roberts wrote:
>In practice, textbooks omit any mention of LET; I 
>know of no textbook that claims LET is invalid or 
>"wrong", they simply don't mention it at all. This 
>complete omission is justified, as LET is irrelevant 
>in modern physics, for good reasons: its foundations 
>do not reflect the SYMMETRY PRINCIPLES of SR, which 
>are the part of SR that has led to tremendous 
>advances in theoretical physics over the past 
>century or so.

O'Barr comments:
   I agree it is totally omitted.  To say it is 
justified is certainly strange.  If we ever wanted to 
educate a person, they must understand the different 
valid interpretations that might be possible.  
Especially when one interpretation is impossible to 
conceptualize, and has no causality, no realistic or 
materialistic base, no physical explanations, and has 
jumps in time and breaks in symmetry.  And when the 
other approach has everything that is missing in the 
other, what a funny thing it is to decide that only one 
will be taught, or even mentioned.  This seems like 
to me something more than just a simple decision.  It 
seems like to me it is an overt attempt to control 
the thinking being done.  I wonder why?

<deletes by O'Barr>
 
Roberts wrote:   . . . 
>In modern physics, a theory is a set of mathematical 
>theorems that can be compared with experiments. Yes, 
>this differs from historical usages of the word....
>
>So in that sense, SR and LET can be said to be the 
>same theory. But as I emphasize around here: BEWARE 
>OF UNACKNOWLEDGED PUNS! There are many meanings of 
>the word "theory", and for some meanings of the word 
>that is not true.
>
> Note, too, there is a much larger class of theories 
>that are experimentally indistinguishable from 
>SR....

O'Barr comments:
   There is only one reality.  And both SR and LET 
supports this one and only one reality, most 
perfectly.  (We must, of course, add your wise 
statement: 'within {their} domain of applicability.')  
Our reality accommodates both of these theories, but 
only when they are correctly interpreted.  We now 
have the power and the means and the understanding to 
do this.  We must now do this.  We no longer have the 
right to ignore what we know!
   We know that the lengths of material things do 
change.  We know that the rates of clocks change.  We 
know all this.  We should not be afraid to say these 
things.  And if our tools can change, then of course 
what we measure with such tools might give us funny 
results.  We should understand what our tools are 
doing to us.  It is not that difficult!


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