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:
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?

Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> comments:
Please do not misunderstand me. SR math is
one of the greatest math theories that have ever
existed. I do not know of any math theory that has
been so accurate and covers such a large range as is
covered by SR. And there are tons of books in every
library that provides data to support these points.
There are no lies being said when people talk this
way about SR. But as soon as any scientist begins to
say that SR proves that there physically is a 4-D
spacetime continuum, and it is because of this 4-D
reality, man becomes unable to understand things that
happens in our reality, and that we begin to have
back in time, and other such things, then the lies
really do begin.
These are scientific lies, these are not personal
lies. Most of the people saying these lies are not
physicists. They are merely repeating what they have
been taught. But it is wrong. And it is going to
end. And you, if you are smart, you will also
understand what is really going on.
Be sure to understand, that Einstein did not
derive SR by using any 4-D. Einstein did not need 4-
D to derive it! And neither do we! And before we
accept 4-D, there ought to be some kind of a science
to this act. And there is no science to this act.
It was done only as a mathematical act, not by
science. And it is junk. It is pure junk. And any
thinking person can see that it is pure junk. And we
are going to end this unscientific junk. It can no
longer be allowed.
In simple LET, where everything done and predicted
in SR is also done, there is nothing that is hard to
understand. There are never any real jumps in times,
or back in times, or breaks in symmetries, or any of
the mysteries that are presented in SR. None! And
LET is understandable on the physical level. While SR
cannot even tell us what really happens, only what
will be measured to have happened. SR is sick. But
LET is superior in terms of its explanation powers.
It has causes and effects. SR has none! In all
ways, LET is superior!


Miguel Rios <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?

O'Barr comments:
Since SR is only math, it has no physical base
to represent the correct physics. Why even when
a change in physical length occurs, you don't
accept it. In SR you do not really know that a
change in length is even possible. To you, it is
just a change in perspective. To you, there are
never any real changes. You are a fool to accept a
theory where you do not even know what is physically
happening. All you know in SR is what is going to be
measured to have happened, you do not know what
actually happened in order for you to get what you
measure.

Miguel Rios <papar...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

O'Barr comments:
We know that math models are never a model of
nature. But physical models might be very close to
being a model of our nature. We are smart enough to
know the value of a good physical model, versus a
model that is only math. We know, for one good
example, that Newton's model of gravity cannot
possibly be the real model, but LeSages approach
could have been, if we could only find a way to make
it work. It is obvious that some models are better
than other models, and I am not talking about how
accurate they might be.

Miguel Rios <papar...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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 wrote:
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.


Miguel Rios <papar...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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?

O'Barr comments:
I am sorry, Miguel. It does not matter what I
know, or what I do not know. What matters is, what
do you know? So you tell me, what is it specifically
that you do not understand?
Do you not understand the difference between math
and physics? Do you not understand LET? Do you not
understand that Einstein, in 1905, did not use 4-D?
Do you not understand how SR and LET makes the exact
same predictions? Do you not understand anything?
What I am saying is not really new. It is not
really difficult. It is simple and straight forward.
There are no physical tests to confirm the presence
of 4-D in a physical sense. Therefore, there is no
present-day science for 4-D. It is only a math aid,
a math aid that works, but it has no substance to it
in terms of our actual reality. And I do not need
proof of this. It is you who have to have proof (or
good strong evidence) if you are going to say that
our reality is a 4-D reality. If this is what you
are believing, then it is you that needs the proof,
not me.
And since there is no such thing as a real 4-D,
then you do not have any evidence at all, and you
never will have any evidence. That is the way of
science, and I know and I do understand science.


<deletes by O'Barr>



O'Barr wrote:
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.



Miguel Rios <papar...@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.

O'Barr comments:
Look, Miguel, my million dollar education
certainly included the science of electrical
engineering. I bet you yourself do not know if the
generator that provides your home with electricity is
either a delta or a "Y" generator? What country do
you live in? But you see, we are not talking about
what I knew. I am the least on this net, and no one
should care about what I know. What do we know, as a
science, about our reality? We have no evidence that
our reality is 4-D. That is a fact that can no
longer be hidden. And we are going to do something
about it. Not because I know anything. We are going
to do something about it because that is what the
science demands that we do, and it demands that it
should be done now.


O'Barr 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.
. . . .

<many deletes by O'Barr>


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

Relevant Pages

  • How scientific are SR experts?
    ... this specific math construct. ... the cause of the physics for this science. ... real objects, and what real objects can do, and only ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: OBarr: The end of SR!
    ... Daryl McCullough wrote: ... Math is very useful. ... look at some science that is well known! ... meaning and nature of this physics, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: the two slits versus schrodingers cat
    ... >>2) Experimental physics has nothing to do with applied physics. ... > view from which we can define the goals of science), ... only *very* little) to do with adding dimensions ("very little" because ... that - just the math. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: SR and GR without math
    ... No other math needs to ... I just call this the methodological end of science. ... Chemists can do quite a bit with no knowledge of QM whatsoever (I don't ... > Antarctica) that are doing frontier physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Big Bang Baloney....or scientific cult? [ scientific methods ]
    ... > That may be true for your science, and for some possibly Post Modernist ... of physics are like that eg the law of conservation of energy is no more ... should not be used - its context is not well defined. ... >> training but not of the type used in philosophy which is along the lines ...
    (sci.physics)