Re: How many dimensions are there?

Subject: Re: How many dimensions are there?

K_h <KHol...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Subject: Re: How many dimensions are there?

. . . the placing of the math
into a 4-D type of format has many good features
to it. But this simple act of re-organizing
the math can not possibly have anything at all
to do with the basic physical theory.
Now if you say that there is a real 4-D, then I
also expect you to show the exact same science. I
do not just want to hear you say that there is 4-
D. I want you to science it. Tell me the test
that cannot be done unless there is 4-D, and then
let us do this test, and let the test results show
us that there is 4-D. Such a test does not exist.
And it will never exist, since there is no 4-D
that exists to even allow such an act to be
considered. Unless you become more scientific,
you are going to be made to be a fool. We are all
fools to even have to discuss such a silly thing
as 4-D, when we really all know that such a thing
is physically impossible.

K_h <KHol...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
No, it's 4d. No thickness in t means no t. Yet
t is and so it has thickness. But thickness in t
means 4d. So, 4d.

O'Barr comments:
It looks like you didn't read a single thing that
was said. Look, it does not matter at all if time is
a real variable or not. Just being real does not
make it a dimension to any other thing that exists.
Just having a certain math relationship does not make
it a dimension to any other thing. There must be a
certain physical relationship, and this physical
relationship must be testable. And you have not
shown any physical test to support a 4-D at any time
or in any way. So let me repeat what I had said up
above:

I am a physicist. And I know that if we have 3-D
space, we can sit down and decide exactly what we
mean by 3-D, and we know that in 3-D we can do things
that cannot be done in 2-D. And so we can design
scientific tests to confirm the fact if we really do
have 3-D! And we can scientifically perform such
tests, and can then provide evidence to confirm this
assumption that we have 3-D. We do not say that
there is 3-D just because we want to say it, not just
because it makes us feel good to say it. We say it
because the science requires us to say it.
Now if you say that there is a real 4-D, then I
also expect you to show the exact same science. I do
not just want to hear you say that there is 4-D. I
want you to science it. Tell me the test that cannot
be done unless there is 4-D, and then let us do this
test, and let the test results show us that there is
4-D. Such a test does not exist.
And it will never exist, since there is no 4-D
that exists to even allow such an act to be
considered. Unless you become more scientific, you
are going to be made to be a fool. We are all fools
to even have to discuss such a silly thing as 4-D,
when we really all know that such a thing is
physically impossible.

To repeat for the fifth or sixth time:

WHAT IS THE TEST
THAT CANNOT BE DONE
UNLESS THERE IS 4-D?

And until you prove that there is such a test, and
show the results of such a test that supports 4-D and
4-D only, then you have no science to your position.
At the present time, you have no science to your
position, and this makes SR the weakest theory that
has ever existed. There is no existing 4-D. It is
only a math aid. It is a math aid that works, but it
has no reality to its physical existence! It is
total junk!

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

Relevant Pages