Re: How many dimensions are there?
- From: "paparios@xxxxxxxxx" <paparios@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:55:21 -0800 (PST)
Well Mr. O'Barr, I'm sorry your are so confused about how these things
in science are done.
Also, when you are so easy in despise SR in favor of LET, when both
theories are just models that try to model the way nature works, and
while, of course, during over 100 years SR has been successful in been
accepted by the scientific community as a better model than LET, that
is very peculiar since you, in addition, are saying that those
scientists are not only wrong (without any proof) but guilty of lying
to the world?
On 15 nov, 20:41, "Gerald L. O'Barr" <glob...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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:
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.
Nothing of what you say here is a proof of anything. Have you studied
in deep LET and SR theories to be so conclusive in expressing LET
superiority?
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:
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:
Well, obviously you know nothing about electrical engineering, and all
the electrical mathematical models that allowed the developing of the
technologies, those that give you the possibility of participate in
this forum with all your nonsense.
The only thing I want to enfasize is the fact that, in electrical
engineering, mathematical models work and they represent reality with
a high degree of accuracy, even if they include complex numbers,
multiple dimensions and random processes and, in general, very high
level math.
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>
It is you who should study your own qualifications, and verify if
those qualifications allow you to lower and despise the whole
scientific community without any proof. May be you should be the
disbarred person instead.
Miguel Rios
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: How many dimensions are there?
- From: Gerald L. O'Barr
- Re: How many dimensions are there?
- References:
- Re: How many dimensions are there?
- From: Gerald L. O'Barr
- Re: How many dimensions are there?
- Prev by Date: Re: How many dimensions are there?
- Next by Date: Re: How many dimensions are there?
- Previous by thread: Re: How many dimensions are there?
- Next by thread: Re: How many dimensions are there?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
