Jack Sarfatti <sarfa...@pacbell.net> wrote:

. . .
. . . You still must use O(1,3) to get from one
inertial frame to another even though there is a
preferred frame ...

Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> comments:
\ remove 3 dots for e-mail
This is mathematically correct!

Sarfatti wrote: . . .

There is no problem with reciprocity as you
incorrectly allege. . . .

O'Barr comments:
This is mathematically correct for boosts between
frames!

Sarfatti wrote: . . .

Apart from Alice and Bob seeing anomalous MM fringe
shifts on 90 deg rotations if n =/= 1 and Eve seeing
none, everything else is completely normal! Nothing
else changes.

O'Barr comments:
But if this were true, that those moving in the
ether would see these anomalous fringes, and those
who were not moving in the ether would not, then it
does not matter whether anything else were different
or not. The above would be more than sufficient to
remove SR, and put LET up as a superior theory to SR,
if any experiment could be found to demonstrate this.

Sarfatti wrote:

The anomaly is truly isolated! It is contingent not
fundamental. No change of paradigm is required. A
spontaneous broken O(1,3) vacuum symmetry in a
finite space-time region simply means that the space
of inertial frames is a vector space with an origin
rather than an affine space with no origin, i.e. no
preferred inertial Eve frame.

O'Barr comments:
What you say is mainly a mathematical examination
of what would change if such occurred. SR math would
remain very useful whether we have the results given
above or not. But math is only math. Once we have
any of the above, the physical interpretation of the
math would change by an terrific amount! And it
should do this whether we have this data or not.
There is no other way that SR can physically work,
except by the physical interpretations of LET.

Sarfatti wrote:

Ignoring GR curvature et-al for now, the kinematics
of frame transforms is still O(1,3) and the dynamics
is still O(1,3) covariant.

O'Barr comments:
Mathematically speaking, you are very correct.
The math for the kinematics of frame transforms, and
the dynamics, will still be the same math. But the
physical understanding, the physical explanation of
what is really occurring, will not be the same. And
you are not a physicist when you are not able and/or
not willing to say all this! Shame on you!

Sarfatti wrote:

A revolution is not called for. There is no
impending paradigm shift overturning Einstein as
Cahill professes. There is no return to Galilean
relativity. One simply punches an isolated hole in
Einstein's affine space of inertial frames. End of
story.

O'Barr comments:
Yes again, the math is very solid, whether SR is
there or whether LET is there. These theories are
the same theory, mathematically. The differences are
not worth the trouble to talk about. But physically,
the physical understanding and the physical
explanations as to what is really happening will be
miles apart. The story, physically, will just be
beginning. And you know it!

Sarfatti wrote:

If you can find an inconsistency here show it.

O'Barr comments:
Do you mean mathematically, or do you mean
physically? If physical rulers and material clocks
really do change their physical lengths and their
rates, then that is sure physically different than
having only changes in our perspective being
involved. The math might be the same, but the
explanations will not.

Sarfatti wrote:

Cahill is the new Herbert Dingle even if his claims
(and Consoli's in Catania) of the n =/= 1 Michelson-
Morley fringe pattern shift on 90 degree rotations
is confirmed. What he infers from that alleged fact
is not justified by the evidence and the mainstream
ideas of local gauge invariance with dynamics from
compensating field and the "More is different"
spontaneous breaking of vacuum (ground state)
symmetries from the large-scale of cosmology to the
shortest scales of high-energy physics.

O'Barr comments:
And what happened to Hoyle?
I have no real idea as to what we will get with n
not equal to 1. But I do believe that the need for
an absolute reference is already here, in terms of
the physical need to establish a physical correlation
between physically separated material frames, as
observed in SR. In other words, LET provides to us a
physical explanation to SR, and SR has no means of
rejecting this physical explanation. Unless SR is
able to provide a better physical explanation, a
simpler physical explanation, then LET is superior.
SR is unable to provide any physical explanation at
all. All that SR can do is just to verbally say that
math is the physics, and this is only a laugh to
anyone who really listens to what is being said. No
physicist should believe in magic, or in a >3
multidimensional space, unless physical evidence is
provided. No such physical evidence exists, and
cannot exist as long as LET is a viable approach.

Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com>
\ remove 3 dots for e-mail