Re: Multiple Dimensions!

Gerald L. O'Barr:
> In SR, you make no efforts to separate the
>physical model from the math being used.

Naturally, since the math being used represents the physical model.

>Do you know why this is not done?

Because, physicists use math to represent the physics in the theory.

>Partially, it is simply ignorance. But the real problem is that
>in SR, you do not have a physical model to work from.

Incorrect. It's your ignorance that prevents you from understanding
the physics in special relativity. Your ignorance is also responsible
for your (failed) attempts to force nature to fit your preconceptions
and limited understanding of mathe.


>In SR,
>all you have is math from start to finish.
> In LET, there is a clear physical base, and in the
>physical base, it is a full and complete 3-D model.
>But the math that is used can be 4-D, or 5-D, what
>ever is found to be useful can be considered and
>used. The dimensions of the math have no direct
>bearing on the physical model!
> But the SR experts are the ones who have lost all
>connections to such logic. They have to have
>everything being the dimensions of their math,
>because that is all they have. Because the math is
>all you have in SR, then you have lost the ability to
>differentiate between physical and math things, and
>you have lost the understanding of what dimensions
>mean. Math dimensions mean nothing as for as reality
>is concerned. QED.
>
>
>Bill Hobba wrote:
>>For example my favorite theory, STM, assumes 5
>>dimensions and the source free EFE's written in 5d.
>>It then equates the induced stress energy tensor of
>>the 4d comports (to be precise of a 4d hypersurface
>>cutting though the 5d space) to the stress energy
>>tensor of the mass energy terms on the EFE's. For
>>details see http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9805018.
>>You would be much better off addressing your
>>comments to specific models rather than make general
>>comments that basically show you have no idea what
>>you are talking about.
>
>O'Barr comments:
> For any math theory, as you are doing, you can and
>should chose any number of dimensions you find to be
>useful.
> It seems like a lot of people want to give me
>advice. But the advice is never scientific advice.
>I presented the paradox of the twins, and not one SR
>expert will dare give me a different value for a
>single point I gave! Why is that? You people seem
>afraid to say what really is! Why is that? Why are
>there only name calling and suggestions to forget it,
>but you will not show the correct points?
> You 5-D up above is only math, and you could make
>it 6-D, who in the world could care. Any dimensions
>of math that can handle the complexity of your
>problem is good. The evil comes in when and where
>you try to say or make a connection between math
>dimensions with physical reality. This makes you
>sick and unscientific.
>
>O'Barr wrote:
>>> Math comes in any number of dimensions that any
>>> mathematician wants or needs. There is no way
>>> that math, by itself, is going to tell us the
>>> number of dimensions of any specific subject.
>
>Bill Hobba wrote:
>>Why not? The number of dimensions in a theory can
>>be arbitary and consistency can fix that number.
>
>O'Barr comments:
> Great! We finally have an agreement!
>
>O'Barr wrote:
>>> Man chooses the
>>> number of dimensions to use, not bases on reality,
>>> but on the ease of using the math for the level of
>>> complexity that is present in the problem.
>
>Bill Hobba wrote:
>> He chooses it for all sorts of reasons.
>
>O'Barr comments:
> That is right! Thanks again for another agreement!
>
>O'Barr wrote:
>>> Why do we (those of us who are normal, thinking
>>> people) believe in 3-D?
>
>Bill Hobba wrote:
>>Everyday experience - which science has shown is not
>>necessarily a good guide.
>
>O'Barr comments:
> As research is being done, in areas where full
>understanding does not exist, we do often see a
>separation between 'common sense' and the results
>being observed. This is normal. This is often why
>research is being done. But once we understand the
>problem, we normally expect the mysteries to disappear.
>This is what has happened with LET. LET produces all
>of SR results, doing so in the simplest of 3-D space,
>and independent time. It is just perfect. No
>mysteries. No impossible 4-D spacetime continuums.
>Thus, only false ideas require us to separate ourselves
>from normal 'everyday experiences.' I am sorry about
>your side!
>
>
>Thanks for reading.
>Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>
>+ Remove 3 dots for e-mail.
>
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SpaceTime 4D is Time 1D & Space 3D, What about 2D?
    ... > physics that is 2D that is just as literal. ... > by "motivation for the math". ... them we consider arbitrary dimensions then we consider arbitrary definitions ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: the two slits versus schrodingers cat
    ... >>2) Experimental physics has nothing to do with applied physics. ... > view from which we can define the goals of science), ... only *very* little) to do with adding dimensions ("very little" because ... that - just the math. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Multiple Dimensions!
    ... >> physical model from the math being used. ... you, Bilge, you have no power to know the difference, ... > physics in the theory. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Multiple Dimensions!
    ... >>> physical model from the math being used. ... >you, Bilge, you have no power to know the difference, ... >> physics in the theory. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Career advice needed.
    ... who post here semiregularly are full professors at math or physics ... provide help to a deserving aspiring student. ... I do know of several cases of a Math graduate program accepting ... study these prereqs on your own from books (by paying a yearly fee you ...
    (sci.physics.research)