Re: Why a Problem?

Gerald L. O'Barr wrote: 
In <mIWTe.3550$Zp.1400@lakeread04>
jem <x...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


<deletes by O'Barr>

jem wrote:

When you distinguish between "math models" and
"physical models" you're making a distinction
without a difference.  All physical models (i.e.
models of Nature) contain underlying axiomatic
systems (i.e. math), where the math is the logical
framework that enables the values of real-world
measurements to be inferred from underlying sets of
assumptions.



Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr) comments:
   I believe I understand what you are saying.
Certainly in the physical model for the kinetic
theory of gases, there is math within the physical
model.  Math is everywhere.  But what must be seen is
that the physical part of the model is real, whether
there is math within or not!  It is the physical
framework that allows the math to have meaning, even
within the base.  And it is the physical model that
governs the math, not the math the physical.  Thus,
it is not a distinction without a difference, as you
are trying to infer.
   For a specific example, in the kinetic theory of
gases, it is the physical size of the particles that
involve the mean free path, and it is the number of
independent particles that allow certain variables to
remain a constant.   These physical limitations are
valuable to the concept, and because they do interact
with the math, and interact independently, and in
multiple ways, the power of these statistics become
over-whelming, and requires us to accept the
approach.  Pure math cannot do all this!

jem wrote:

The only links between Nature and models of Nature
are the measurements that are made with various
instruments, and although it's true that the
models provide nothing but "predictive answers"
concerning those measurements, it's because it isn't
possible to infer any more than that about the
functioning of Nature.



O'Barr comments:
   I think you need to put your feet on the ground,
not in your mouth!  Man has an intellect.  And when
we begin to have a set of over-lapping, independent,
self-supporting, verifications and confirmations of
certain assumptions, it would be stupid not to
eventually reach the point where such things are
accepted as being correct!  There is power in being
correct, and it results in all other things giving it
support.  And we cannot ignore such favorable
situations when they occur!  Nature is not beyond our
reach.  How dare you say something when there is no
test and no test result that requires such a
conclusion!  All that can so far be supported is our
ignorance of things, but that is all!  You are
supposing something for which there is no evidence,
and no way to support it.

jem wrote:

E.g. in the above you talked about understanding
gravity.  Well, gravity is just the name for some
defined mechanism within a model, . . .



O'Barr comments:
   Not in my book.  To me, gravity is not just a
made-up word to be applied just to a man-made model.
Gravity is a very real effect found in nature, and it
must have a cause, and we should be able to find out
its cause!
   I personally believe that the at theory provides
to us a correct physical model for the effects of
gravity.  It shows us that gravity, like all other
known forces, come in both positive and negative
modes.  However, gravity is one of the more unique
forces, in that in any one region of space, the force
of gravity is only positive or only negative.  For
most other forces, the positive and negative effects
can exist side by side, in the same region of space.
But gravity, around other particles of matter, is
attractive only.  But out in deep space, where there
are no other particles of mass within a certain
distance, gravity becomes negative (space becomes
negative.)  This can be seen by how stars are
distributed in space, when you get way above the
galaxy range.  We see a 'honey comb' design where
deep centers of space push most other stars away.
   All of this is a function of the effective mean
free paths of certain ether particles, and whether
these ether particles are in a mode of being above or
below their normal variances (distribution) in size
(mass.)  It is the gradient of the variance that
determines the direction and size of the force.
Matter always increases the variance, pure space
(where the only interactions is where ether particles
interact with ether particles - a very rare act) acts
to reduce the variance.


You're guilty of doing what you accuse others of doing, i.e. confusing Nature with models of Nature. E.g. all the elements of the Kinetic Theory of Gases are manufactured - the particles and their collisions simply represent an image (i.e. an Interpretation) of the mathematics that is the theory. There's no presumption that these particles actually exist Nature - there's just no way to test that. In fact, it's conceivable that somewhere down the rosd a better model will be developed which describes the phenomena (e.g. the readings on thermometers and barometers) using entirely different imagery.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why a Problem?
    ... >systems (i.e. math), where the math is the logical ... >The only links between Nature and models of Nature ... gravity is just the name for some ... free paths of certain ether particles, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Why a Problem?
    ... >> Nature; ... just math models, where math functions and ... provides to us no understanding of why or how gravity ... made by physics professors to teach 4-D as a real ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: if the big bang reverses will all the toothpaste eventually go back in its tubes? and then the t
    ... > Just because the math works in either direction, ... > one direction in nature but both ways on paper. ... Are you using a flawed mathematical model of gravity? ... Prev by Date: ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Definition of a Field
    ... >> All math are derived from a specific physical model of space. ... Observed facts come first, not models. ... Nature was doing what Nature does. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: How many dimensions are there?
    ... math, only LET has the correct physics.... ... physical model, and derive the math. ... the exact limits needed. ... correct physics...and so they are not science. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)