Re: O'Barr: Math is not Physics.
- From: THE_ONE <floppy01@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 31 May 2007 02:52:49 -0700
On May 30, 11:52 pm, "Gerald L. O'Barr" <glob...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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. 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).
Now we all really know the difference between
physical things and math. Yes, as this bar rotates
from one position to another, yes the math perfectly
matches the position of the bar along each axis
exactly as the above math requires, so that this
equation is always perfectly correct. But at no time
do we believe or think that the math is controlling
the object. That is beyond all logic.
There is no cause and effect relationship between
the math on a piece of paper or in your head that
could cause any effects between the math and what the
math was describing. It is like saying that the
words we write were somehow able to actually create
the reality they describe.
Well, anyway, math is just math. Math is not the
physics. When a bean rotates, the part of the beam
along the A axis does not square itself, and the part
of the beam along the B axis does not square itself,
and the part of the beam along the C axis does not
square itself, and then all three of these squares do
not add themselves together, and then the beam does
not take a square root of this sum, and low and
behold the beam then ends up at the exact right place
that the math demands. Such thinking would be
laughed at just as it should be laughed at.
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. And the modeling is not a step by step
modeling. The math has to do things to come to a
modeling point that the physical beam cannot do, and
the physical beam does things that the math cannot
do. The way the math models is not perfect, except
at the end or the completion points. The process of
the modeling is not realistic in any way.
Again, all that the math can do is only model the
physical. And the modeling itself is not realistic,
that is, what the math does in order to do the
modeling is completely non-realistic. Only the final
answer is a modeling point, not each step in getting
to that final answer. 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.
But in SR, this is exactly what they do. They
actually believe that because the 4-D math they use
does exactly describe the results, then it is the
cause. And for this, they should be laughed at.
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?
Since SR sits there with no tests, and no theory,
that could in any way justify their approach, I find
SR to the weakest physical theory that has ever
existed. It is truly impossible. What it says
happens is physically impossible. No one object can
really be going by relative moving frames all with
the same relative velocity all at the same time.
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.
And of course physical objects are not going to be
caused to do something because of any math. 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.
Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>
Face it Gerald L. O'Barr, you have to listen to SUE !
If we were able to look at the fabric of reality at its smallest
scale, we would probably find SUE with her calculator, making the laws
of physics happen.
But on the other hand, SUE could be giving us the run around. Of
course, it's " Run Around SUE ". I thought I'd heard that somewhere
before.
Or, there are explanations for why things happen, not calculations
that make things happen.
http://www.outersecrets.com/real/forum_againstum.htm
.
- References:
- O'Barr: Math is not Physics.
- From: Gerald L. O'Barr
- O'Barr: Math is not Physics.
- Prev by Date: Re: The interpretations of SR are physically impossible.
- Next by Date: Re: The Joining of SR with LET.
- Previous by thread: Re: O'Barr: Math is not Physics.
- Next by thread: Re: O'Barr: Math is not Physics.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
