Re: How many dimensions are there?

Subject: Re: How many dimensions are there?

Miguel Rios <jackyha...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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 wrote:
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!

Miguel Rios <papar...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Once again you show your poor understanding. The
plane is an object you and me can see and touch!
What is "fictitious" has to do with our "modeling"
about the plane behaviour, for instance the plane
(x,y,z,t) 4-D coordinates, its speed and direction,
etc. Nature do not has x,y,z coordinate lines or a
big screen with a clock showing the time!. All
these are human constructions. We use Newton laws
to model our everyday environment, even if it is
true that Newton theory is not longer valid outside
of its domain. The same can be said about SR or
GR. None of human model constructions are 100%
valid in every situation

O'Barr comments:
And of course I am also never perfect (even when I
keep my mouth closed.) Yes, all human models of
reality can fail from time to time. What I was
trying to explain was that there are real big
differences between the certainties of different
theories. Some people like to try to say that we can
never know anything! But the facts do not support
this. The fact that we can make airplanes and cars
and trains, are all showing that we really do fairly
well understand our world. And there are reasons why
some theories are better than other theories.
When all we have is just the math, we have a lot,
and we are blessed to have the math. But when you
have a physical theory, a physical theory upon which
the math is based, then that is a stronger theory
than just a math theory. A physical theory has far
more correlations upon which it can be tested and
supported. And with sufficient correlations, its
certainty becomes much more realizable.
Therefore, with SR and GR, these theories really
are weak theories. They do not reach to the level as
PV = nRT does, in terms of having a physical
understanding of what is physically happening, and
how and why things are the way they are. SR and GR
do not provide these kinds of things, and thus there
are zero correlations in these areas for these
theories.


O'Barr wrote:
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.


Miguel Rios <papar...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You are wrong again. Every physical model of
nature involves some assumptions, postulates and
mathematical relations, so physics and mathematics
are strongly tied together in this quest of finding
better "representations" of the way nature works.
So order is that you start with some observation of
how nature is working, you try to find some physical
model which could explain the observation and
finally you formulate some math that allow us to
make prediction of what would it happen if....

O'Barr comments:
The order you gave is a good and a proper order:
observe, find a physical base, develop the math
around the physical base. But sometimes, people
skip some of this, and they just guess at the math.
Sometimes, they just try some math relationships, and
they find something that works. This is what
happened with SR and GR. These were math efforts
that ended up working. No one had a physical reason
why the velocity of light was always a measured
constant in every frame. No one had a physical
reason why all frames had the same form for their
math. And because of this, these theories are only
math theories, and they thus carry very little
understanding of our reality it terms of the how's or
the why's.



O'Barr wrote:
... 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.

Miguel Rios <papar...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What in the world are you talking about? What does
it mean a "physical reality"? Is it different from
just reality? So our spirit then is in which
reality? And who is saying our reality (which
one?) is 4-D? Professor Landau was talking about
movement of particles. In explaining that
observation, it is a good move to use a 4-D space
as a tool. Why would I need a test for this model?

O'Barr comments:
My goodness, so many questions? Why the
questions? I thought everyone believed that our
reality was a physical reality. Or are you someone
who really believes that a photon has zero mass while
it is moving? Our reality is a real reality, having
real particles. A math theory cannot itself be our
reality. And the use of any words, or math, or form
of the math, or form of the words, cannot themselves
affect our actual reality. So the use of 4-D math
has nothing at all to say what reality might really
be. One needs to have a test that can support such
an assumption. And no physicist has to be told this.
So why are you asking any questions about it?
Let me repeat what has already been said: The
fact that you need four variables to solve a problem
does not mean that you have a four-dimensional
situation. Four variables could all be independent
variables, or they could all be coupled together, and
still not form a set of four-dimensions. Why can you
not understand this?

O'Barr wrote:
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.

Miguel Rios <papar...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You are again totally wrong about this. Just one
example about how GR theory explains very well the
observation on nature is the subject of
gravitational lenses. Here
(http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/agn/qso2237.html) you
can see the observation, the so called Einstein
cross. This phenomena is explained by GR by the
bending of light when it goes near a massive object.
So there you have one of the many cases in which GR
physical model and its mathematics agrees with
observation. Can LET give an answer to this
observation? No, because LET's domain is not the
one in which this phenomena occurs.

O'Barr comments:
GR is not able to explain gravity, or why or how
mass is able to attract light. It is able to predict
that it will happen, but it just cannot physically
explain how or why mass can physically attract light.
And of course LET cannot predict it, no more so
than SR can predict it. And so you are correct,
gravity is not the proper domain for LET. Thank you
for always being correct.


O'Barr wrote:
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.


Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How many dimensions are there?
    ... explaining that way of nature through tools like ... you believe that SR and GR is physics! ... SR and GR are only math theories. ... that our reality is a physical ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • 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)