Re: Gerald L. O'Barr and the At Theory.


Subject: Re: Gerald L. O'Barr and the At Theory.

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

shevek <shev...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote (about time):
You will need electrons at motion in an atom.
Clocks measure change. How can you have change
without motion?

O'Barr comments:
Physics has been set back at least a 100 years
because mathematicians have taken over. Your
comments and my comments just pass over each other,
because you see only the math, and I see physical
events along with the math.
Yes, to measure time, we need motion. Uniform or
regulated motion is a way to measure time. But let
me ask you a simple question: Let us take your
'moving' electron, its 'motion' being to you time!
What if you could in some imaginary way reach up and
stop this electron from moving. Did you stop time?
I assure you, time is not dependent upon the motion
of any one single particle.
Time is itself the expression or concept within
our reality that change is possible and can occur.
This condition of being possible is not dependent
upon it actually happening. You have a disconnect
between reality and the SR measurements of this
reality. You can succeed with your approach, but it
is dumb. And your understanding will always be
limited. Our reality is much more than just the
math that can be used to describe or mimic it. And
until the physical is considered first, and is used
to limit the math, to interpret the math, then you
are lost as an intelligent being, certainly as a true
physicist.

O'Barr wrote:
And the size of a door is not a function of
any clock.

shevek <shev...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What units are you using to measure your door? If
you are using feet, which are defined in terms of
meters, than you are really using the time that
light would take to travel across your door.

O'Barr comments:
What if it was night time? When all light
disappears, the size of the door vanishes?
I cannot stand to talk to SR experts. Everything
you say is correct, in a math sense, but it is as
foolish as it can be. There is, physically,
absolutely no such thing as a 4-D spacetime
continuum. There is physically no such thing as
anything physically going back in time. There has
never been any real breaks in reality. But you SR
experts think all these things are real because they
exist in your math. You will always be this dumb*,
because you cannot tell where reality ends, and the
math begins. You are * , * , * , and really *
because you do not even know that you are * .
The door exists, with expanse or extension,
whether there is present any units or even any means
to measure it. How dare you ask what units are being
used, as if the units control the size of the door!

O'Barr wrote:
It is true that each could be done by
using such an approach, but such approaches are
not fundamental to the measurement.

shevek <shev...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
Are you suggesting we need a return to older
definitions of the meter then?

I think these approaches give us better insight.

O'Barr comments:
Take any math approach you care to take. But do
not think that your math approach has the right to
change physical reality, or can affect common sense
that exists in that physical reality.


<forgive the deletes>


Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>
Remove ... for e-mail.

.

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)
  • FFiMP: Is our Universe four-dimensional?
    ... that time was a real dimension and that he revolutionized physics by ... the reality of the four-dimensionality of our Universe, ... for believing in the four-dimensionality of our ... seems to be related to the fact that relative motion cannot be ...
    (sci.physics)
  • FFiMP: Is our Universe four-dimensional?
    ... that time was a real dimension and that he revolutionized physics by ... the reality of the four-dimensionality of our Universe, ... for believing in the four-dimensionality of our ... seems to be related to the fact that relative motion cannot be ...
    (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)
Quantcast