Re: Multiple Dimensions!

In <slrnd81o25.57.dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Bilge <dubi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: . . .
>> In SR, you make no efforts to separate the
>> physical model from the math being used.

Bilge wrote:
> Naturally, since the math being used represents
> the physical model.

Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> comments:
But math is not and cannot be a physical model.
Look at Newton's law of gravity: F = G*m1*m2/r^2.
This law given to us by Newton is not a physical
model. It is only math. It is only math exactly as
SR is only math. You can take Newton's law, and put
it into other forms, into a potential energy form, or
use it to get orbits, or millions of other ways. But
the physical model for this math does not exist.
And the same is true for SR!

Let me tell you, there is no one dumber than a
physicist who cannot tell the difference between a
math theory or a physical theory. Back in the days
of Newton, there was never a problem with this.
Newton knew that his gravity law was just math.
LeSage tried (and failed) to find a physical model
for the math. But everyone knew the difference. But
you, Bilge, you have no power to know the difference,
and what a shame that is! Shame on all you SR
experts who no longer can tell the difference between
plain math, and a real physical model. You have a
sickness that is going to end! We will no longer be
confused over such a simple concept!

Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Do you know why this is not done?

Bilge wrote:
> Because, physicists use math to represent the
> physics in the theory.

O'Barr comments:
Yes, it is true that physicists use math in
physics. But just because you use math, it cannot
make the math into a physical model. For example, I
do not care how many times you use Newton's law of
gravity, you will never ever get a physical model out
of this law just by using it. Your statement that
use of a law makes it physical is sick and shows a
thinking that is most embarrassing!

Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Partially, it is simply ignorance. But the real
>>problem is that in SR, you do not have a physical
>>model to work from.

Bilge wrote:
> 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.

Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> comments:
So I am not able to understand SR! This is often
said by SR experts, as they talk 'down' to those
around them. This is one reason that SR experts love
and worship this theory. It allows them to see
themselves as superior. And because you worship this
theory, then it is impossible for you to see any
weaknesses in what you worship. If SR is only math,
then only math is perfect! Anything SR does is
perfect! And thus, we never hear any SR expert say
that there are any weaknesses in SR.
But O'Barr knows the differences between math
things and physical things, and SR is a weak theory.
SR has no physical base upon which the math is
explained and limited and defined and executed. You
start out only with c as a math constant, with no
physical base to justify c being a constant. And you
start out with requiring the math forms to be the
same in all frames. Again, you have no physical base
to justify such a requirement. Thus, you start with
math, only with math, and you have no physical theory
or model upon which the math is developed.
No math, no matter what form you put it in,
algebra, or geometry, or integration, as long as it
is only math, it cannot be a physical model.
Therefore, it is a weak theory.
LET, on the other hand, begins with a physical
model. The math transforms, as used in LET, are
developed from this physical model. And thus the
physical model defines the math, limits the math,
controls the math. And by having this physical
base, LET is thus far superior to SR, where SR is
just a math theory. With LET, there is never a
question as to what really occurs, for any specific
situation. With LET, there are never any breaks in
symmetry, or jumps in time, or any paradoxes, real or
even imagined. With LET, everything is physically
simple, all done in the simplest of 3-D space. And
thus, in every way possible, LET is superior to SR.

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>
+ Remove 3 dots for e-mail.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OBarr, do solid objects exist?
    ... Bilge wrote: ... >relativity or relativistic quantum field theory. ... simple this math might be. ... physics theories are when they start out, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: OBarr (globarr) Book of Knowledge!
    ... What did Bilge write? ... statement of physics or of anything of substance. ... its symmetry. ... SR is only a math theory. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: OBarr (globarr) Book of Knowledge!
    ... > What did Bilge write? ... >statement of physics or of anything of substance. ... >its symmetry. ... > SR is only a math 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)
  • Re: The physical motions of photons in free space!
    ... >the choice that "The rest frame of the ether is what ... The base to SR is a math base, ... Any physics equation, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)