Re: How many dimensions are there?
- From: cable <h68or5@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 14:42:10 -0800
On Nov 5, 11:10 pm, "Gerald L. O'Barr" <glob...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
O'Barr (globarr) comments:
How many dimensions are there?
Today, we have SR experts who say that there are 4
dimensions to our reality. Let us scientifically
consider if we have 4 dimensions.
Let us begin by scientifically assuming that there
is only one dimension. If there were only one
dimension, the following test could be considered:
A test for a one-dimensional reality:
In a pure one-dimensional reality, one could have
an axis A, on which one could establish points x to
z. In between points x and z there could be millions
of additional points that could be identified. In a
simple, one-dimensional reality, it would be
impossible to go from x to z without also going pass
these millions of other points. Therefore, if a
test were made, and in this test, some specified
object was able to go from x to z, and did so without
going through one of these millions of other points,
then that would be evidence that there had to be more
than one dimension. And if one could go from x to z
and not be seen to pass any of these other points,
then the power of this test would be fully seen, and
the conclusion that there had to be more than one
dimension could not be rejected scientifically. The
evidence would be overwhelming, and would have to be
accepted not just as evidence, but as proof, that
there had to be more than just one dimension.
i suspect you dont know tha basic requirement for
a dimension
if you have a one dimension as you say, the other
dimension must be orthogonal to tha former
moreover, tha third dimension must be orthogonal
on both former dimensions
tha forth dimension must also be orthogonal on all
the previous three dimensions
and you are right, i directly visualise how a
forth dimension would be orthogonal on the
former three
The results of such a test could be handled by any
standard analytical evaluation, where the potential
error or uncertainty of the test results could be
fully and completely stated in terms of the total
number of data points taken and the proper comparison
of the results of each of the data points that had
been obtained. And if there really were millions of
confirmations obtained by any one test, with no
exceptions, the results would, as stated, be
scientifically impossible to reject.
A test for a two-dimensional reality:
So let us assume that there are two and only two
dimensions. How do we test to see if there might be
three or more dimensions? Well, with two dimensions,
one can establish a plane. Let us establish a plane
A. And on this plane A, let us have points x and z.
Let us take an identifiable object, and have it go
from point x to point z. If after it has made such a
journey, let us examine this journey. If we found
that there was even one point at which this journey
ended, and it began again at a different non-
adjoining point, then we might see this test as
evidence that there might be a third dimension. If
this object could go from point x to z and not make
any contact with plane A except at x and z, then that
would be solid evidence that there was a third or
more number of dimensions. The test data, the
results of the test, could be formulated into
statistical results that would make the results
scientifically irrefutable.
So now we scientifically know that we have at
least a three dimensional reality, because all of the
above tests can be done, and are in fact done in
examples after examples. So let us continue to be
scientific, and see if we have more than three
dimensions.
A test for a three-dimensional reality:
A three dimensional reality allows us to establish
a three dimensional grid. Within this grid, we can
establish points x and z. If we take an identifiable
object, and have it go from point x to z, we can also
analyze its journey. If we find at any time that
this journey in the 3-D grid has an end point not at
z, but jumps to a different point in the grid (in
other words, there is a break in its journey, a
disconnection between one partial journey path along
its path to a second partial journey path) we would
have evidence that there might be an additional
dimension. If we find that this object can go from
point x to z, and not appear anywhere else within the
three dimensional grid, then we would have scientific
proof (that is, irrefutable evidence) that there
would be a fourth dimension or more.
Therefore, let us have those who say that there is
a 4th dimension, and have them show us scientifically
the evidence for this extra dimension. What are the
standard deviations for your test results? To what
degree of certainty (or uncertainty) does your test
produce? If you have none of these things, then you
are not being scientific.
Yes, the SR experts are not being scientific.
They say things that are not based upon scientific
evidence. They maintain things that are not only
funny, they are really impossible. They have the
weakest scientific theory that has ever existed.
Please understand the situation. There is nothing
wrong with having a theory that has a fourth
dimension. It is an acceptable act to have any
theory you might want. But what is not allowed, one
cannot say that it has evidence when there is no
evidence. When one says that there is evidence, when
you do not have evidence, then you are not being
scientific. Those who say that SR is the most well
proved theory that has ever existed are being not
just unscientific, they are actually being stupid and
ignorant or worse. They have nothing. They have
absolutely nothing in terms of the science.
And the measurement of their honesty will be
what ever they do in their FAQ. If their FAQ
cannot be honest, and they will not allow it
to say things that are correct, then they
are also all dishonest and they ought to all be
disbarred from having a right to speak as scientists.
LET is founded upon science. It works, and is
confirmed by tests. But SR has no confirmation in
terms of its assumptions. Its math works, but only
because it is the same math as LET. And until SR
experts become able to say these things that are
correct, they are nothing but scum!
They really are the scum of this earth. They
(those professors who were at the schools that I
visited from 1963 to 1993) have all rejected the at
theory. And their rejection was only because it had
an absolute reference frame. They have destroyed me,
and my work, all based upon a lie. And this lie has
got to come to an end. There really is an absolute
reference frame, and the reality that we see and
measure has to be completely compatible with such a
reality, just as it is established in LET.
Just because the math can be put into a 4-D form
is meaningless. There are many situations where math
can be placed into a 4-D form, and it has nothing to
do with reality's dimensions. Thermal expansion is
very easily used in a 4-D type of a presentation.
That is, the temperature at every point of a three-
dimensional object can be a parameter that affects
the entire object, along with the co-efficient of
expansion that might exist at each of these points.
But I never heard of anyone that said because the
math was 4-D, then reality was 4-D. Such thinking
has no basis in facts.
This stupidity that exists in SR has got to end.
It has ended. No thinking person can continue to
accept the things that are being said by SR experts.
Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>
.
- References:
- How many dimensions are there?
- From: Gerald L. O'Barr
- How many dimensions are there?
- Prev by Date: Epiphany IaSNe
- Next by Date: Re: The Nanometre Twin
- Previous by thread: How many dimensions are there?
- Next by thread: Re: How many dimensions are there?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
