Re: How many dimensions are there?

Subject: Re: How many dimensions are there?

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
. . .

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[much nonsense]

O'Barr comments:
Yes, it just might be, but you did not, nor can
you directly criticize it. Why is that? Is it
because I do not deserve the effort, I did not pay
enough money, I could not understand even if you did
explain it? Or is it that I am right, and there is
nothing you can do to really criticize it?

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Gerald, it's simple. To you, the "test" that tells
you there are three dimensions is that you look
around, see that there are three spatial
dimensions, then you tell yourself that spatial
dimensions are the only ones that can matter in
reality because if some of the dimensions of
reality are spatial then they must all be spatial,
and you consider yourself convinced.

O'Barr comments:
It might be true, that I can look around, and I
can actually see that there is a 3-D space. And it
might be true that I am convinced by what I see. And
so what you say above might all be true. But so
what? Science does not work this way. Science
demands that all accepted or important points are
supported by proper evidence. And unless and until
they are supported by proper and acceptable evidence,
then it is not considered to be science. And this is
what you refuse to understand.
Evidence, physical evidence (not math evidence)
exists that our space is 3-D. We have this data, we
can produce these results to prove that it is 3-D
anytime we care to produce it. And all I am asking
you is to do the same for 4-D. Where is the test
that says it is 4-D, and cannot be 3-D? Where is it?
If you do not have it, then your belief is
unscientific. It is unjustified. It is
unacceptable. It is junk. It must be stated to be
these things, if you do not have such evidence. And
I demand that you be scientific.
There are no scientific tests to support 4-D.
There is none. This means zero! To have a proper
and an acceptable test would require the results to
be capable only if there were 4 or more dimensions,
and such a test is physically impossible. And thus,
you have nothing. And you will always have nothing.
And thus, you stand condemned. And there is nothing
that you or any of your cohorts can do about it.



PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
To a physicist, the number of dimensions in a
space is more rigorously defined, without reliance
on intuition (which is notoriously unhelpful). It
is defined the way I described, by the
determination of a metric and an invariant
distance. The number of variables that are
required to produce that invariant is what
determines the dimensionality. It is also subject
to rigorous physical test. If this invariant
distance is indeed invariant, regardless of
observer, then you know you've constructed it
correctly. This is how we know that the universe
is not 1-D or 2-D. If we take two locations and
defined a 1-variable or 2-variable distance between
those two locations, there is no way to do that
which is experimentally invariant. It is also how
we know that the universe is not 3-D, because the
3-variable distance is not invariant regardless of
observer. However, every evidence we have so far
indicates that the 4-variable invariant IS indeed
invariant, regardless of observer. You dismiss
this as a mathematical requirement, rather than a
physical one. You would rather trust your
intuition than an experiment test of invariance
between observers.

That is of course your perogative, but it is what
separates you from scientists.


O'Barr comments:
What a mouth full. Let me repeat what you really
said, just changing a few of our words, but keeping
the exact same thoughts. This is what you really
said:

**************************************
To a mathematician, the number of dimensions in a
math space is rigorously defined without reliance on
intuition (which is notoriously unhelpful). It is
mathematically defined by the determination of a math
metric having a math invariant distance. The number
of math variables that are required to produce that
math invariant is what determines the dimensionality
of that math space.
It is also subject to rigorous mathematical
verifications. If this invariant math distance is
indeed invariant, regardless of observer, then you
know you've mathematically constructed it correctly.
*************************************


The above statements are acceptable. And this is
all that you said in your original statements. I
have no problem in accepting what you say above, as
long as we understand it to be things being done with
math.

But now you try to make some physical comments, and
this now puts you into some very bad ways:

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
*****************************************
This is how we know that the universe is not 1-D
or 2-D. If we take two locations and defined a 1-
variable or 2-variable distance between those two
locations, there is no way to do that which is
experimentally invariant. It is also how we know
that the universe is not 3-D, because the
3-variable distance is not invariant regardless of
observer. However, every evidence we have so far
indicates that the 4-variable invariant IS indeed
invariant, regardless of observer. You dismiss
this as a mathematical requirement, rather than a
physical one. You would rather trust your
intuition than an experiment test of invariance
between observers.
*************************************

Let me remind you, PD, that I am not using
intuition. I am using LET. And in LET, we are able
to perfectly work within a 1-D space, for a 1-D
problem, and a 2-D space, for a 2-D problem, and in a
3-D space, for a 3-D problem, and get the exact same
and correct answers that you get with your math.
Therefore, the fact that your math works is good, and
it is good to use it, but it is not important at all
on any kind of a fundamental level.
The fact that it works cannot be fundamentally
important unless you could show that it was unique
and that things had to be your way in order to work.
The fact that LET works, and works perfectly, shows
that the success of your math could be entirely
accidental, or just a coincidence, or just contrived,
exactly as it was done, just contrived to work.
Therefore, being just math, being without any
physical tests to support an actual 4-D approach,
makes my case as complete and solid as any physicist
would need to accept LET over something that has no
evidence. But thanks for trying.


And thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>
*********************Remove ... for e-mail.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Multiple Dimensions!
    ... understanding multiple dimensions. ... Math does not come in fixed dimensions of reality. ... believe, requires evidence, and the evidence cannot ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Acceleration of charge
    ... Set up an invariant like ... relativity requires a subtle more sophisticated definition...more ... Now you're talking about the exterior derivative, ... which has 2 dimensions, not 1. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: How many dimensions are there?
    ... How many dimensions are there? ... I see nothing wrong with using GR math. ... math and its interpretation. ... Our reality is the maximum of simplicity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Superiority of LET over SR!
    ... Jerry wrote: ... >> postulates, ... It is the pure math ... no means of saying what number of dimensions there ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: How many dimensions are there?
    ... How many dimensions are there? ... talking about how you can organize the math. ... I was talking about reality. ... and Wheeler (Spacetime Physics) and the one by ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)