Re: How many dimensions are there?
- From: "Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:41:31 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: How many dimensions are there?
papar...@xxxxxxxxx <papar...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You say that while SR, GR and LET have the correct
math, only LET has the correct physics....
How can it be? How can SR math "be correct" AND
besides that "be the correct math for our reality",
but not represent the correct physics of our
reality?
Again you are confusing models of nature with
nature. Neither SR, GR OR LET are nature...they are
models that try to adjust to observations of
how nature works.
Now models can be as abstracts as one wishes them
to be. It is just a matter of convenience in the
task of getting useful results.
O'Barr comments:
So it looks like to me you have answered your own
question. You said that models can be as abstract as
one wishes them to be. And yes, many of our models
are more abstract than others. We do have different
kinds of models! And we also know that nature is not
abstract.
And so, when we find a model that is completely
abstract, then we know that it cannot be a correct
physical model. It might mathematically provide to
us correct math answers. It might make correct
predictions. But we can know for a certainty that it
is only a model that is of value because it mimics
reality to a degree. We can clearly state that it is
not doing so because it is actually the way reality
does it.
Now basically we have two major types of models:
We have math models and we have physical models. And
examples of math models would be SR and GR and
Newton's law of gravity. Examples of physical models
would be the kinetic theory of gases and such efforts
as LeSage who tried to use ultra-mundane particles as
a way to give physical explanation to Newton-like
gravity forces between bodies in space.
To reinforce what is being said here, take the
kinetic theory of gases. We had the relationships of
pressure and density long before the kinetic theory
itself existed. We could say that the math: PV = nRT
works, and we could test it without any physical
understanding of the what or why or how. But with
the physical assumptions of having particles (atoms)
that move and collide, we are able to take this
physical model, and derive the math. The math is the
same, whether we just find the math by trial and
error, or whether we derived it from a physical
model. But with the physical model, we have a much
stronger reason for accepting the theory. The
physical model provides to us limits in the theory,
the exact limits needed. And the physical model can
be said to be correct, just as much as we can say
that the math is correct. But because both are
present, the power and certainty of the theory is
improved, even able to be accepted with a high degree
of certainty.
These differences between just a math theory, and
in a theory based upon a physical base, is important.
They are important in order to have within the theory
a high degree of causes and effects. With power to
control the meaning of the math, with limits to the
math, the limits that are important and necessary.
LET does all this with the math of SR. It gives
limits to the math of SR, the correct limits. It
gives definition to the math. It makes SR correct,
and understandable, and meaningful. And thus, LET is
superior to SR, specifically because of its physical
base.
papar...@xxxxxxxxx <papar...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
For instance, if you measure with an oscilloscope
the voltage at your home you will see a signal
x(t)= A cos(wt). We can agree that what we see at
the screen is a representation of reality that is
close at what we would see if we could, somehow,
test with our body senses the same voltage (without
being hurt). Ok, according to you anything that
goes far from this x(t)=A cos(wt), is no longer
representing the physics of the voltage.
So, mathematical representations of x(t)= A cos(wt)
like the analytic signal, complex envelope or
Hilbert transform to you are correct math but no
correct physics...and so they are not science.
Amazing
O'Barr comments:
You are going in the wrong direction!
I see no need to answer you, on this, but Miguel
Rios, why don't you answer your own question? We
just mentioned the kinetic theory of gases, and how
we have the math, PV = nRT, and we also have the
physical model. In the math, the P that is used is
a smooth function, that can itself take on a function
shaped exactly like your electricity cosine function.
But the physical model of PV = nRT shows that P is
not a continuous function, but is actually made up of
a large number of 'hits' that come and go, etc. Now
which is the correct science?
In your math model, where the electrical potential
is shown to be a smooth cosine function, that is a
lie. If you had the power to measure with sufficient
response times, etc, you would see the potential
function bouncing around with each passing electron,
etc. It might average out to be a nice cosine wave,
but it would not be the math that you gave that would
explain the actual science. It is the physical model
that can do these kinds of things.
And I do not have to tell you or anyone else any
of these things. Only a fool would not understand
the differences between a physical model and a math
model. And you better repent. No one is saying that
either model has to be perfect. But any fool knows
which model is the most perfect, and presents the
better science.
*******************************************
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Subject: Re: How many dimensions are there?
. . .
... since SR is GR, and GR is SR, in the domain
where SR applies, and mathematically, LET is SR in
this domain, then yes, both SR and GR have to be as
perfect as LET in this domain. They all have the
same math.
In their proper domain, SR is the correct math for
our reality, and LET is the correct physics that
goes with the correct math. We should all be able
to properly appreciate all this, whether we are
talking about GR, or SR, or LET.
But physics cannot be just 'interpretation,' no
matter how 'daunting' it might be, or how 'glorious,'
or how 'divine.' Physics requires testing, testing
that can be definitive. And no such testing is
available when it comes to your multiple
dimensions.
Yes, any theory can propose any number of
dimensions
that you might care to consider, but you better not
call it science until you have test results to
support it. To say that SR has shown that 4-D
exists is not science, and those who try to infer
such junk should be disbarred from all scientific
positions.
. . . .
Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: How many dimensions are there?
- From: paparios@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: How many dimensions are there?
- Prev by Date: Re: How many dimensions are there?
- Next by Date: Re: how much intuition and mathematics is needed in relativity?
- Previous by thread: Re: How many dimensions are there?
- Next by thread: Re: How many dimensions are there?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
