Re: How many dimensions are there?

Subject: Re: How many dimensions are there?

Miguel Rios <papar...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
. . . .

Miguel Rios <papar...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What You, and many others around here, do not get
is that nature has its own way and us, in our for
sure infinite ignorance, we only can approach
explaining that way of nature through tools like
mathematics or physics. Scientists generate models
which can be bad, good or very good in
"representing" what nature does. In that view,
like the word Landau uses in his book, all of our
theories are "fictitious". We can not think that
GR, for instance, IS nature.

O'Barr comments:
GR certainly is not nature. GR is only math.
And what a sad, sad world you live in! Let me ask
you a couple of questions: Is a plane flying
overhead fictitious? Is the computer you are using
fictitious? The science I know is not fictitious.
And it works most perfectly!
Let me explain to you what your problem is: You,
evidently believing what professors have tried to
teach you, you believe that SR and GR is physics!
But in truth, SR and GR are only math theories. And
math theories cannot be real physics. Math can give
to us many correct predictions, correct answers to
certain measurements, but they cannot themselves
present to us our physical reality. Math cannot
provide physical explanations. And so you are
correct, that if you are going to accept SR and GR as
being physics, then you have to say that physics is
not nature. So you got that much correct.
But I assure you, that our reality is a physical
reality, and there are many areas of physics that
have a very solid understanding of our reality. And
true science has the means of coming to an
understanding of our reality. And you, sir, have no
concept at all about what science is all about.
For one simple example: Let us take this 3-D and
4-D problem. You, as a thinking individual, have
every right to think that our reality is 4-D! But
you cannot say that there is any evidence for there
being a 4-D unless and until you have a test that
confirms it. And you have no such test. And your
unwillingness to say this makes you unscientific.

What does it take to have evidence that there is a
4-D reality? You have to formulate a test where what
you get would be impossible unless there were a 4-D,
etc. And again, as long as LET is viable, and as
long as LET can explain everything that SR measures
things to be in a simple 3-D way, then SR will never
have a test to show that there is 4-D. So grow up,
and face the music. SR is a dead effort, speaking
scientifically. You have no test to support it, and
you never will have a test to support it. And since
SR and GR are just math theories, they will never
provide any physical explanations for anything. You
and your theories are the weakest theories that have
ever existed.
So there is no back in time, there are no jumps in
times, no breaks in symmetry. Your whole theory is
just math, and you cannot tell where your math stops,
and where reality begins. You are a mess from the
start to the finish. Only LET gives us a physical
base upon which physical reality can be physically
understood and shown to be physically explainable.


Miguel Rios <papar...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So in the end all of your fight about this 3-D or
4-D thing is total nonsense. The only thing that
matters is how well a given theory does in
representing what nature does.

O'Barr comments:
Well, that might be all that matters to you. Yes,
all you seem to care about is the math, and how well
it provides to us correct predictions for our
measurements. But I also want to understand nature.
I want to know both how it does what it does and why.
And to understand on this level requires us to have
much more than just a math that fits the results.
And you and all the other SR experts on this net
are stupid not to understand what you are doing. You
are lying to yourselves so that you can worship SR
and GR. You are telling yourselves and everyone else
that they are all you need. And that is a sin. SR
and GR are, as I said, the weakest theories that have
ever existed. They have no power at all to tell us
how these things work, or why they work. They
certainly are worthless as a way to understand the
why's and how's our of reality.


Miguel Rios <papar...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
By the way, the use of multiple orthogonal
dimensions is a very useful tool in analyzing and
designing telecommunication systems. Orthogonal
dimensions, like x,y,z space dimensions, are defined
as axis that satisfy the orthogonal property. The
DVB-T standard for digital television used in
Europe, for instance, uses 6817 orthogonal carriers.

O'Barr comments:
And yet you cannot think of any test to prove that
reality is 4-D and not 3-D. You see, the question is
not that you cannot find uses for 4-D math, or even
for a 11-D math or a 12-D math or your 6817-D math,
etc. The question is, is reality 4-D? And to do
this, this requires the very best minds to come to a
decision of a way to formulate a test where results
could only be this 4-D way, and be this one way only
(at least requiring more than 3-D.) And if you
cannot do this, then there is no science to your 4-D
claim.
And there is nothing wrong with this. Everyone
has a right to believe that there is 4-D. But no
one has the right to say that there is 4-D unless you
really do have evidence. When you, or any other SR
expert, says that there really is a 4-D spacetime
continuum, which gives explanation to SR, then great
harm has occurred, and someone ought to have their
teaching licenses removed.


<below includes many deletes by O'Barr>


O'Barr old comments:
You definitely have a four variable problem. And
mathematically, these four variables, when treated
in a way that you have not yet mentioned, can be
related in the same way as if they were 4-D. But
to actually call them four dimensions has not yet
been established.

Miguel Rios <papar...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Within this "fictitious" 4-D space, ...

O'Barr comments:
Yes, a 'fictitious' 4-D! This is a correct way to
say it. Thank you for saying it this way.


Miguel Rios <papar...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Note that no imaginary numbers appears up to this
time. Every thing about SR starts from here (plus
the 2 postulates).

O'Barr comments:
Yes! Note that there are no imaginary numbers up
to here! But anyone can note, if they care to
note, that there are differences in signs between
the time function and the space functions. And so
right here we see a deviation that would physically
prevent any of this from being a true 4-D function.
And thus, your choice of words above, that this was
fictitious, is certainly required.


Thank you, Miguel Rios, for being so honest.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Be careful of judging the Faith by currant standards
    ... She accumulated over 300,000 quotes and cross referenced them to the Three Conditions of Existence, as well as the various Categories and Classifications of Existence named in the Writings and the Sub-classifications or Phases of Reality she discovered in the process. ... Strange thing is that the Phases of Reality grouped themselves by our three natures, i.e. Animal or Physical Nature, Human Nature and Divine Nature. ... Purpose and Powers---perceived by our power of Faith and Intuition. ...
    (soc.religion.bahai)
  • Re: Gerald L. OBarr and the At Theory.
    ... Physics has been set back at least a 100 years ... events along with the math. ... Yes, to measure time, we need motion. ... our reality that change is possible and can occur. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Gross National Happiness
    ... the last word on physics, ... to '"Our intellect tries to impose upon nature laws which it freely ... Magee p147. ... No philosophy that equates reality with actual or possible experience ...
    (uk.philosophy.humanism)
  • 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)
  • 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. ... > general, when one has a physical theory, there are ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading