Re: O'Barr: The end of SR!

In <d8endi02pnd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Daryl McCullough <stevendaryl3...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Gerald L. O'Barr wrote: . . .
>> In terms of the physical reality, 3-D is much
>> more simpler than 4-D.

Daryl McCullough wrote:
> No, it's not.

O'Barr comments:
No sane or thinking person would allow such a
thought to go unchallenged. On a physical level, a
real physical 4-D is incapable of even being
imagined. It is physically impossible.
Math, of course, has no limitations as to how many
dimensions one might want to use. In math, you can
write down a 4 just as easily as you can write down a
3. And you can arrange variables in any format you
find a relationship, or even if you do not find a
relationship, it just does not matter.

O'Barr comments:
>> Physically, 4-D is so complicated that it
>> cannot really be explained, it cannot really be
>> understood, it is just physically impossible.

Daryl McCullough wrote:
> No, it's not. If you are talking about what
>*people* can grasp, then people really can't grasp
>3-D, either. What we see is 2-D. We infer a third
>dimension.

O'Barr comments:
Say what you want, Daryl, but I 'see' in color and
in 3-D. To me, there is no 'inferring' at all. I
touch and I feel and I move and I see and I hear and
I breath, all in simple and direct 3-D. I am sorry
if you do not. I guess we are all different! I
believe you have made yourself insane, just to be
able to hold to your impossible and unnecessary
position.

Daryl McCullough wrote:
>But people have real trouble intuitively reasoning
>about 3-D. To do it right requires mathematics.
>And the mathematics of 4-D spacetime is no more
>difficult than the mathematics of 3-D space plus 1-D
>time, considered separately.

O'Barr comments:
I am sorry, mathematics is not necessary to know
in order for us to know and understand 3-D. It is
automatic and occurs for all sane people, whether
they know mathematics or not. I am sorry for you,
Daryl. I believe mathematics has become your god.

Daryl McCullough wrote:
>Physics is *inherently* 4-D.

O'Barr comments:
Starting in about the 1960's, there was a specific
effort made to make our physics to be 4-D. This was
only by choice. There was no reason why it had to be
done. It was done only because certain people choose
to do it this way. Math itself has no power at all
to force reality to be the same dimension being used
by the math. It does not work that way. I feel
silly to even to have to say such simple things!

Daryl McCullough wrote:
>Even Newtonian physics. Even Galilean relativity.
>To do physics, you have to consider the evolution of
>a 3-D universe over time. The equations necessarily
>involve 4 variables, x,y,z, and t. Relativity is a
>simplification, in the sense that it *unifies* t
>with the other three variables.

O'Barr comments:
And if all you see is a 'math' unification, then
we are seeing eye to eye. But in no way is any 'math
unification' an excuse for saying reality is anything
more than what it appears to be, a simple 3-D space!
Yes, depending on the problem, you might have many
more variables than just three. We also have
temperature, and every point in space can have a
temperature. So with 3 space dimensions, and time,
and temperature, we now have the math that could be
5-D in every math respect that you might need. But
only a fool could not or would not know the
difference between just what can be done with the
math, verses what is reality. There is absolutely no
science (zero science) to require anyone to have a
physical 4-D reality, and it is time that we have
people willing to say this obvious fact!


Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr)

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How many dimensions are there?
    ... explaining that way of nature through tools like ... you believe that SR and GR is physics! ... SR and GR are only math theories. ... that our reality is a physical ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: How many dimensions are there?
    ... explaining that way of nature through tools like ... When all we have is just the math, we have a lot, ... you believe that SR and GR is physics! ... themselves present to us our physical reality. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Gerald L. OBarr and the At Theory.
    ... Physics has been set back at least a 100 years ... events along with the math. ... Yes, to measure time, we need motion. ... our reality that change is possible and can occur. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: OBarr: The end of SR!
    ... Daryl McCullough wrote: ... Math is very useful. ... look at some science that is well known! ... meaning and nature of this physics, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: OBarr: SR is a weak theory, it is only math!
    ... >> The math is part of physics. ... > Physics has nothing to do with reality directly. ... SR is a weak science, and being only math, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)