Re: Why a Problem?

In <Ot-dncmgUfTiXLzeRVn-rQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Richard Perry (RP) <no_mail_no_s...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr) wrote:
>>

<deletes by O'Barr>

>> jem <x...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>. . . my POV is very simple; until a single
>>>instrument is produced that measures spacetime,
>>>both a clock and a ruler will be needed (i.e.
>>>distinct measurements of space and time).

> Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> comments:
>> You are exactly correct! As far as reality
>>goes, as far as modern-day testing goes, there is
>>no such thing as a 4-D detector! All that anyone
>>can do is to either measure space (a simple 3-D
>>function) or to measure time. There are no other
>>choices!
>> And guess what! According to LET, these are
>>also the only choices that exist!

Richard Perry wrote:
>But this is incorrect. All of experimental and
>practical physics can be conducted without access to
>either a measuring stick or clock. The null-
>geodesic of the photon is a direct measure of space-
>time.

Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> comments:
Many things can certainly be in anyone's mind.
But scientifically speaking, it is scientific to use
rulers and clocks, and it is scientific to know and
to understand what place clocks and rulers play in
our present-day science. So no matter what you say
about what you might want to think and do, that in no
way invalidates the points being made. There is no
way that any known instrument can measure 4-D! If
there really were a way to do this, then LET would be
dead as a science. But LET is not dead as a science.
And thus what is being said here is valid, and must
be understood as science!
As a good double check, how would LET account for
what is seen in the example you gave? Why don't you
specify a specific measurement or process, and let us
see exactly how they compare!

Richard Perry wrote:
>If you want to break that measurement down into
>space-like and time-like components so that you can
>perform Galilean computations that's fine.

Gerald L. O'Barr comments:
Not only is it fine, it is perfect! It is exact.
It can always be done. In fact, it must always be
able to be done because and exactly because LET does
not allow anything else to be done!

Richard Perry wrote:
>But it isn't necessary.

O'Barr comments:
The point is not that you have to do it, but that
you can always do it. You must be able to do it
under all circumstances! Certainly, anyone at any
time can use more than one way to solve a problem in
terms of the math that is used, but the physical
reality cannot change just because you find that you
can use 4-D math to do the same thing that you can do
in 3-D math.

Richard Perry wrote:
>A light-beam can be used to extract the space-time
>displacements of elements in the system, relative
>initial and final invariant 4D displacements noted,
>and then reduce to 3D plus time coordinates for any
>chosen FoR.

O'Barr comments:
Absolutely, exactly as stated. But again, what
you can do with 4-D math, to represent 3-D math, is
totally immaterial to the discussion. Math is not
reality, just as reality is not math. And you have
no evidence at all that our actually reality is 4-D.
Absolutely zero! Now if you had a physical
situation which could not be reduced to 3-D, then you
might have at least a reason to suppose that reality
might not be 3-D. But this is not your situation,
and you better understand how important this fact is
when we try to understand our reality!
In science, you should usually pick the easiest
and the simplest way, and 3-D is by far physically
simpler than 4-D, and should be scientifically
recognized as being the preferred physical approach!
The fact that 4-D math is simpler has no meaning in
this analysis of reality! We are free to use any
math we prefer to use, but reality stands on its own,
and we have no choice in what it is!

<O'Barr delete of all the standard scientific
comments about light, which as was noted, was all
done in simple 3-D>

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

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Models. predictions, physicallity, and observations
    ... There is only one reality. ... all we have is our perceptions of what we observe. ... You seem to be saying that a clock measures time ... The name given to the measurement is ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Models. predictions, physicallity, and observations
    ... There is only one reality. ... all we have is our perceptions of what we observe. ... You seem to be saying that a clock measures time ... The name given to the measurement is ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Models. predictions, physicallity, and observations
    ... There is only one reality. ... all we have is our perceptions of what we observe. ... You seem to be saying that a clock measures time ... The name given to the measurement is ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Why a Problem?
    ... instrument is produced that measures spacetime, both a clock and a ruler will be needed. ... But scientifically speaking, it is scientific to use rulers and clocks, and it is scientific to know and to understand what place clocks and rulers play in our present-day science. ... Certainly, anyone at any time can use more than one way to solve a problem in terms of the math that is used, but the physical reality cannot change just because you find that you can use 4-D math to do the same thing that you can do ... Math is not reality, just as reality is not math. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Models. predictions, physicallity, and observations
    ... considering a broader "reality" than this. ... That said, Physics ... what is it that caused a clock to have lost ... measurement itself - "physicality" is demonstrated by changes in the ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading