Re: How many dimensions are there?
- From: "Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 07:20:05 -0800 (PST)
How many dimensions are there?
K_h <KHol...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
K_h <KHol...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
. . .
K_h <KHol...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
No, see Q tunneling for jump from point A to
point B. All you write is untrue and I gave
logical proof of 4d.
O'Barr wrote:
I am so sorry for you, K_h. Certainly there is
some logic in science. But logic is used to
formulate a test that can give evidence for the
dimension being claimed. And such a test has to
provide a statistical boundary upon which one of
two results must occur. You have no such test,
you provide no such statistics, you have
nothing! You have no science to anything that is
claimed in SR in terms of having a 4-D spacetime
reality. And you are just too dumb to even
know what is being said or required. Please
note, SR is not QM, it is a different level
of physics, and you are not addressing the
issue very well. For what SR experts claim,
no one has to turn to the very small to
experience the 4-D that SR claims to
exist!
K_h <KHol...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
No, q field theory is based on sr and so q
tunneling supports 4d. Logical proofs must apply
to reality; like logical proof 2+3=5. Likewise
with the logical proofs of 4d given. So, 4d.
O'Barr comments:
Well, you are being so funny. You keep skipping
the meat, you just ignore how silly you are being,
and you keep talking about things that have no merit
as if they were important, but you are unable to show
how they are important. Are you just playing games?
Let me tell you how you sound to me: Let us say
that the results of a recent test found that some
assumption A was shown to be correct by a very low
margin of error. And then someone says, since these
results are shown to be correct by using the English
language, then this also shows that the English
language is correct, and all other languages must be
rejected. Do you see anything funny with such logic?
Any thinking person should know that such
thinking is unscientific. To prove that that the
English Language is better than any other language
would require a test that could differentiate the
differences between these languages. And such a test
was not designed or presented or used or justified.
Now for you to think that SR is being confirmed by
QM, then scientifically, one must design a test that
will do this. Just taking a test 'based upon SR,'
might show that an SR type of an approach works, but
how do you scientifically know that LET would not
work just a well, or even better? LET actually ends
up with the exact same math as SR, and so if SR math
works, so must LET. For you to not know such things
makes you uneducated. It makes you unscientific.
And your post here does not really deserve any
attention. But I have hope. And I am still willing
to try to get you to understand.
YOu must use your logic not just to assume, but
to come up with a test that will provide evidence
that you are correct. This is science. And you have
no science! You are a sick person. And until you
SR experts become able to provide proper test
results to establish your beliefs, you are not
being scientific.
K_h <KHol...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
No, in smooth t, no instant can move to another
instant cause there are t's
between any two t's. So, in smooth t, all t's at
once. So, 4d.
O'Barr comments:
I see why you have no tests to support your words.
You cannot even say things in such a way that
tests can even be considered. You are no
scientist. Physically, real t's all laid up
together on a common
plane, in contact with each other, all on the same
line, might not be able to approach each other,
but how do you assume that time occupies space
like a solid, and thus cannot approach each other?
Your very thinking
is funny and impossible. You have no tests that
can even approach you thoughts, because your
thinking is not physically rational or specific.
K_h <KHol...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
No, thinking is rational and not impossible since
I gave proofs.
O'Barr comments:
All you did, K_h, was to say that you gave proof.
You did not show one test, with the error bars, or
the statistical error analysis, that gave any support
to the question at hand. I am a physicist. If you
are going to tell us that there is 4-D, then what
test are you using to scientifically confirm this?
Since there are no tests that addresses this subject,
then I know why you are not answering me
scientifically. You are just saying that you are
right. And you tell me that you are right because of
assumptions, but not because of any scientific
testing. So do not try to escape the problem!
How do we scientifically say that the speed of
light is c? Do we just say that it has to be
c just because it works out best this way? No!
We have scientific tests where it is measured.
and these tests have certain error bars, and if
these error bars are small enough, and if they
overlap c, we will then say that the speed of
light is c, within some error limit. This is
science! Where are your error bars for 4-D?
Where is your test and your analyses of this
test that shows that we can scientifically
accept 4-D? There is none! And you are
being unscientific! You are a shame to
all the world. SR is a sick and an
unacceptable approach. It is
non-scientific!
K_h <KHol...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
And it's not "might not be able to approach each
other" it is "definitely are not able to approach
each other". It's no assumption about space like a
solid; space like a solid was proven in past posts.
So, 4d.
All is 4d & u r 2. Y r u not for d?
O'Barr comments:
It is the nature of time, or to be more correct,
it is the fact that time itself has no nature in
itself, that allows us to do certain things with
this variable.
Let us take a line of clocks, a hundred of them,
and let them be on the x axis of an inertial frame,
each one foot apart. Let us sync these clocks in a
standard SR sync.
Now according to SR physics,
these clocks are normally made to be
perfect reference frame clocks, and they maintain the
correct time, in perfect sync, along this axis.
Now we are going to allow these clocks to become
real clocks, not perfect clocks, and we are going to
allow these clocks to be slow or fast depending upon
the temperature to which they are exposed.
Thus, the actual time of these clocks
can be affected or controlled by
the temperature of each clock, and since each clock
is a foot apart, the temperature of each clock can
individually be controlled.
Then by doing this, we can do the following. As
far as time is concerned, as determined by these
clocks, we can have time do some very silly things
along this axis. We can have time go at some points,
backwards compared to the others, or some to go
forward. Some clocks can approach the time of other
near-by clocks, or go away from other near-by clocks.
We can have clocks not only approach the time of any
near-by clock, but can even go by it, in terms of
time, and show the time of clocks that are on the
other side of it.
So here is a physical situation, where time is
able to move apart, or come together, or even go
through each other, however we might want to make
this function of time behave. So is any of this
real? Yes, it is real in the math sense. It is real
in terms of any equation that you might want to use
to describe what is going on. And all this is true
because of the definition of time being what is shown
by a clock.
Now if you really have anything scientific to say,
you should define your terms, and set up a test, and
let us see what the results of the test shows. This
is what science is all about, and it is time that we
become more scientific, if we are going to really
accept SR!
Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: How many dimensions are there?
- From: Jeckyl
- Re: How many dimensions are there?
- References:
- Re: How many dimensions are there?
- From: Gerald L. O'Barr
- Re: How many dimensions are there?
- From: K_h
- Re: How many dimensions are there?
- Prev by Date: Re: Physical interpretation in physics.
- Next by Date: Re: The real twin paradox.
- Previous by thread: Re: How many dimensions are there?
- Next by thread: Re: How many dimensions are there?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
