Re: O'Barr: The end of SR!

In <d8joi601dbi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Daryl McCullough <stevendaryl3...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr) wrote:
>> . . .

<deletes>

O'Barr wrote:
>> . . .
>> So let us see you try! Let us see you show us
>> and explain to us, in a direct physical way, this
>> simple physical 4-D reality!

Daryl McCullough wrote:
>Mathematics is the most direct way of explaining
>physical reality. If that isn't enough for you,
>then too bad.

O'Barr (globarr) comments:
Math is very useful. But math is only a man made
tool. Math by itself has no power at all to do
anything.
You seem to be a very slow learner, Daryl. Let us
look at some science that is well known! Take
Newton's law of gravity: F = G*M1*M2/r^2. This law
is not perfectly correct, but it is adequate for most
normal purposes. It is only math! Being only math,
it cannot and it does not tell us one actual thing as
to why or how gravity works. It is only a math
theory. Newton's law of gravity is not a physical
theory. Being only a math theory, then Newton's law
of gravity is a weak theory, not having the power to
explain or describe the cause or provide to us the
why's or how's of nature in creating these gravity
forces. Math is thus unable to do such things! All
that math can do is to provide to us a calculated
result, but with no physical understanding at all as
to the science.
Now let us take the kinetic theory of gases. This
theory begins with a physical assumption as to the
science. And upon these physical assumptions, the
math is then developed. In this theory, with a
physical base, then understanding of the why's and
how's is there, and when we use the math: PV = nRT,
we know the why's and how's, we understand the
meaning and nature of this physics, and the
limitations and boundaries where it applies.
As you can see, math is not enough. SR math is
not enough to understand SR. SR is a weak theory and
it is a failure in that it is not able to tell us
what is actually occurring. We must have more. And
LET gives us the more that is lacking in SR.

O'Barr wrote (about physical 4-D):
>> I do get carried away, don't I! But no science
>>has yet shown that it is physically possible. The
>>only thing that science supports is 3-D.

Daryl McCullough wrote:
>That's not true. The science supports the 4-D
>picture of relativity.

O'Barr comments:
Science has never supported physical 4-D. Since
all the math of SR is fully and completely
supportable with the simplest of physical 3-D, then
anyone who is thinking will stay with the simplest.
Only fools would want to imagine something more
complicated than what would be necessary. To imagine
something more complicated than what was necessary
would be unscientific. No one would do such a silly
thing unless they were forced to do this. And there
is so far not one single experiment that would force
anyone to do such a stupid thing! So let us be
scientific. Tell me, Daryl, the science that forces
us to accept this physically impossible 4-D spacetime
continuum! Tell us all! Tell us what this stupid
step is all base upon! Thanks!


Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>>No, your retina is essentially a 2-D surface. What
>>>you see is 2-D. That's what makes realistic
>>>photographs possible. You (or your brain, I should
>>>say) infer a third dimension by computing
>>>differences between the left image and the right
>>>image.

O'Barr wrote:
>> Well, you seem intent in pressing a point. . . .

Daryl McCullough wrote:
>Yes. The point is that 3-D is an inference made
>from observations, it isn't something that we
>know directly.

O'Barr comments:
You seemed to have deleted too much. After the
'inference' of hundreds of independent confirmations,
it becomes something more than just an inference.
And 3-D is now of this status, of being an accepted
fact. Any thinking person knows this.

Daryl McCullough wrote:
[description of 3-D vision deleted]

O'Barr wrote:
>>And if this is inferring, then it is
>>inferring, but it is 3-D that must be there even in
>>order for the 'inferring' to be done.

Daryl McCullough wrote:
>I would say the same thing about 4-D. We
>infer it.

O'Barr comments:
I know you say certain things about 4-D, and as I
have been pointing out to you, you are wrong. There
has never been one scientific test where 4-D is
unambiguously shown. SR can not show that a 4-D
interpretation is necessary. There has never been
one single scientific experiment where 4-D is a
required interpretation.
And let me tell you something. If it were true
that you SR experts were honest enough to admit that
you were just inferring it, this would be fine. Any
person is free to infer anything they want. But you
do not say that you are just inferring it. What do
you say? This is what you say:
You say that 4-D is the way things are. You do
not say that you just infer it. You therefore lie!
You say that SR proves that there is 4-D. You relish
in all this. You lie and you lie, and you lie until
everyone believes you. And you talk as if the math
is the physics. You are not scientific in any of
this. You are all liars. You are forcing things to
be the exact opposite of what they are, just because
you want to believe what you want to believe. There
is zero science to back your selves up, and these
acts are going to end! They have ended. And you
will be the laugh of the whole world because you were
fooled by such silly thinking.

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>

P.S. Let us be sure to understand what is going on.
There used to be people who believed the world was
flat. We do, at times, laugh at those who used to
have such beliefs. But we know why people thought
the earth was flat. We can, being human, excuse such
beliefs. But in terms of SR, we now know that there
was a specific effort made, by people who can now be
identified, to force our belief in 4-D. This belief
in 4-D was a planned effort. It was not a scientific
effort. It was pure bull, done just because they had
the power to do it. They will forever be held up to
scorn, for such a misuse of public trust!

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How many dimensions are there?
    ... Miguel Rios wrote: ... about how these things in science are done. ... one of the greatest math theories that have ever ... to represent the correct physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • How scientific are SR experts?
    ... this specific math construct. ... the cause of the physics for this science. ... real objects, and what real objects can do, and only ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SR and GR without math
    ... No other math needs to ... I just call this the methodological end of science. ... Chemists can do quite a bit with no knowledge of QM whatsoever (I don't ... > Antarctica) that are doing frontier physics. ...
    (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: OBarr: The end of SR!
    ... Daryl McCullough wrote: ... Math, of course, has no limitations as to how many ... effort made to make our physics to be 4-D. ... to force reality to be the same dimension being used ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)