Re: O'Barr: Math is not Physics.

On May 31, 12:46 pm, "Gerald L. O'Barr" <glob...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 31, 2:04 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On May 31, 12:52 am, "Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

O'Barr: Math is not Physics.

When an aeroplane pilot trusts intuition above instruments,
he is not flying... not for long anyway.

There isn't anything in physics or science in general
that is accepted absent rigourous mathmatics.

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.

No... let's not leave to rumors and mind-melding, a survey
that would never end. We can acceess the theory directly.

You are offering no physical or mathematical
proof of a theory that can be concisely stated:

"The [ ] Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of
Light with the Principle of Relativity [is only] Apparent"http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html

That is rigourously implemented in Time dependent
Maxwell's equations.

Can you show us the "correct" way to write equation 511 ?http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html

The writers of the course material should be eternally grateful
to you for bringing the error to their attention.

Sue...

O'Barr comments:
No, Sue, I cannot give you the solution to your equation.

Then follow the narrative. You can understand a
charged comb moving an oppositely charged
pith ball, I assume. It is practically on that level.

I am sure some can, since it is only math.

Only math? It only predicts relativsic motion in
tokamaks which are only real.

There are things happening, such as particles that appear
and disappear that makes it difficult to treat in a
physical way.

It isn't usually treated in a physical way.
Virtual particles are just place holders.


But my at theory provides to us a way
to explain the appearing and disappearing of particles.
And this should eventually help.

We already know why the particles appear and
disapper. It is because Feynman and Dirac wanted
them to work that way.

Skip the equations and just read the words:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html

That will get at least one of your feet back on the ground.

Sue...



Thanks for asking.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Im sure this is a silly question
    ... Given that it's canon that particles appear and disappear from the ... Is it that they cancel out? ... You've basically discovered the cosmological constant problem. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: Im sure this is a silly question
    ... Given that it's canon that particles appear and disappear from the ... Well, probably the main thing to keep in mind here is that of the four fundamental interactions, gravity is by far the weakest. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: Im sure this is a silly question
    ... :: Given that it's canon that particles appear and disappear from the ... and that gravity is always positive. ... :: So why don't we notice the mass of all those particles? ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Im sure this is a silly question
    ... Given that it's canon that particles appear and disappear from the ... "quantum foam", all the time, (with a nod to Heisenberg so that they Don't ... So why don't we notice the mass of all those particles? ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)