Re: How could extra dimensions be tested?

On 30 Mar 2007 05:56:10 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 29, 1:14 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 29 Mar 2007 03:47:48 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 28, 10:23 pm, "STJensen" <RecreationalPo...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"jambaugh" <e...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So ultimately I would say that the number of dimensions "which exist"
is unbounded as their existence occurs in the mind and not in the
laboratory.

So no one has ever proposed even a theoretical test to prove there's a
dimension beyond the basic four?

Scott

There is no such thing as a "theoretical test".

Of course not. That's why we don't perform experiments.

All theories are well-
constructed guesses,

I suppose that's why empirics call what they do guesses rather than
theories because they don't need to understand how well constructed
their guesses are.

Lester can't read, apparently.

Helps enormously when replying to you.

I meant what I said when I said
theories are well-constructed guesses.

I'm sure you did. Not exactly original but there it is anyway.

It would be difficult to
characterize the guesses as well-constructed if they don't need to
understand how well constructed their guesses are.

Who's "they" and "their"? Besides you don't say what characterizes
guesses as well constructed or not. So are we to understand that a
theory is only a well constructed guess and that poorly constructed
guesses are not theories? Do you actually expose students to such
drivel? Of course I don't suppose it much matters if they don't read
what you say either.

But you go ahead, Lester, and do things your way. I'm still waiting
for results from you...

Well I can hardly be expected to get results when you refuse to
discuss my well constructed guesses in preference to Einstein's poorly
constructed guesses. Of course we might just continue to analyze your
poorly constructed guesses concerning Einstein's poorly constructed
guesses but then that wouldn't amount to a
theory since it wouldn't concern well constructed guesses.

They just guess and keep their fingers crossed.

based on a collection of observations but
extended beyond those observations. Ultimately, every theory must be
confronted by comparison with new observations -- experimental tests.

Or not.

No, not "or not".

Says who? You? But is that a well constructed guess or just your
say-so? I mean can we really rely on your well constructed guesses? It
might help if your well constructed guesses were true but then I don't
see any evidence that's one of your concerns unless you take "well
constructed" to mean true in which case I don't see evidence that
poorly constructed guesses can't be true much as quantum guesses
proved true without being very well constructed at all. As you can
imagine all this proves very confusing to those who do read what you
say but less so to those who don't which I expect is a rather large
percentage of those who bother. Never fear however as I'm confident
your "theory cum well constructed guesses" empirical epistemology will
nonetheless prevail despite its total stupidity.

~v~~
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SR time dilation on remote objects ?
    ... >>If you have evidence that it isn't, ... And I notice that you did not care to present evidence for that. ... It agrees with *experimental tests*. ... when you write it in a way which does not show the time dilation ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: STRICH Thread: Putting Relativity to Rest
    ... Let me now pick on the evidence AGAINST GR. ... course nobody in their right mind would admit failure in public, ...
    (sci.physics)