Re: O'Barr: Math is not Physics.



"Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1180583526.367758.189230@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
O'Barr: Math is not Physics.
How SR experts think!


Let us consider these wild things that SR experts
say with no evidence and with no cause.

They have evidence and cause

We will do
this by using something that we know.

Everyone knows that in simple 3-D space, you can
used a simple 3-D grid, with perpendicular axes A, B
and C, to perfectly describe the position of a beam,
with one end of the beam located at the origin
(0,0,0), and one end extending from the origin of the
axes to a point a, b and c. Now we all know the
math, that the length of this beam, L, is equal to
the square root of (a^2 + b^2 + c^2).

In SR there is a little more to it .. there is also a -t^2 term in there

[snip]
No physical beam can do what the math does, and no
math can do what the beam does. The only thing that
can occur is that the math only correctly models the
physical.

Yeup .. just like SR correctly models what we see .. all the experimental
data confirms it

[snip stuff saying the math models reality]

So this is all that the math
can be. The math cannot be the cause, it cannot be
anything physical, and if you include each and every
step of the math, then it cannot even model the way
the physical beam actually acts.

Yes.. that's fine

But in SR, this is exactly what they do,.

No its not.

They
actually believe that because the 4-D math they use
does exactly describe the results, then it is the
cause.

No . .that is only your misguided belief about what Sr says.

And for this, they should be laughed at.

Like we laugh at you for suggesting it.

Where is the evidence for any cause and effects? How
is this accomplished? Where are the pressure points
that forces it to occur? What are the means of
contact, and where is the energy obtained to cause
this to happen?

Oh .. you mean questions like how does in undetectable ether in LET mangage
to crush matter and slow clocks?

Since SR sits there with no tests,

There are plenty of test .. SR has passed them all.

and no theory,
that could in any way justify their approach,

Other than it giving correct answers you mean .. it being an accurate model.

I find
SR to the weakest physical theory that has ever
existed. It is truly impossible.

But its gives correct results. So its obviously not impossible .. reality
works the way SR describes

What it says
happens is physically impossible.

Yet it does happen so it is (by deinfition) physically possible. Looks like
it is you who are wrong then.

No one object can
really be going by relative moving frames all with
the same relative velocity all at the same time.

Not unless that object is a massless photon moving at the maximum speed c.

Certainly such funny things can happen if you are
only talking about what you measure. But no matter
what you measure, such acts are really physically
impossible.

Yet they happen.

And of course physical objects are not going to be
caused to do something because of any math.

Noone says they are .. the meth is the model, remember. And the SR model
gets things right that other models get wrong. its the best we have.

Even if
it is 4-D math (or 11-D math), math has no power at
all over physical objects. We have to return to a
more sane approach in our physics.

Its is sane .. but you insistence that things that physically are observed
to happen are physically impossible needs some moderating .. you're
effectively in denial about reality .. the insanity is yours.


.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: Career advice needed.
    ... who post here semiregularly are full professors at math or physics ... provide help to a deserving aspiring student. ... I do know of several cases of a Math graduate program accepting ... study these prereqs on your own from books (by paying a yearly fee you ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: The physical motions of photons in free space!
    ... >the choice that "The rest frame of the ether is what ... The base to SR is a math base, ... Any physics equation, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Physics versus Mathematics
    ...  Bend your math anyway you like. ... Go to the beach and see if a wave imparts some force. ... can't quite do the same for gravity. ... physic or what we describe as physics, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • The Proper understanding of Modern Physics.
    ... The Proper understanding of Modern Physics. ... There is no desire to destroy the math of SR. ... The MMX disproved the ether. ... measurement, but we also had to then determine what ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What Does SR stand For?
    ... Today, because of the evidence, no one could ... shown to be simple 3-D math. ... accordance with the equations of relativity. ... But we know that space exists and even in classical physics, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)