[time 579] Re: [time 578] Re: Dr. Marmet's reply

Hitoshi Kitada (hitoshi@kitada.com)
Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:59:13 +0900

Dear Bill,

Thank you for your forwarding Dr. Marmet's interesting message. His
position that he assumes only 3 dimension as a basis for his explanation of
physical observations would agree with my view. We would be happy if he
would join us. If he agrees and let us know his address which he will use
at this time list, I will register him as a member.

Best wishes,

----- Original Message -----
From: <WDEshleman@aol.com>
To: <time@kitada.com>
Sent: Friday, August 20, 1999 6:27 AM
Subject: [time 578] Re: Dr. Marmet's reply

> Dear Bill,
> I see now that several people are discussing the concept of time. I
> like to comment about one paragraph I have extracted from below.
> --------
> > I think that both Hitoshi and I agree with the first notion, time is
> > not a dimension; it is a subjective measure of change. Your idea of
> > "Many-Classical-Worlds" is consistent with Local System theory, since
> > each Local Systems (LS) perceives all other LSs as classical particles
> > whose apparent behavior follows classical notions.
> ----------
> I certainly agree that time is not a dimension. Let me give my own
> arguments. One reason is because time-space interpretation is not
> compatible with common sense (experiments). If I am no longer allowed
> use common sense when doing science, I will no longer do science. When
> travel, we do not know how to make a turn in the fourth dimension.
> Furthermore, we know that when we can fill a bottle with a liquid (that
> flows naturally in all dimensions) the volume of liquid required is not
> proprotional to the forth power. It is proportionally to the third
> There are only three dimensions.
> Furthermore, a four dimensional world, as well as a
> are new hypotheses. The Occam's razor philosophical principle teaches
> the best model is the one requiring the minimum number of hypotheses.
> Since a three dimensional world can explain completely all the
> of Nature, (see my book), therefore, the four or multi-dimensional worlds
> require useless and therefore superflous hypotheses. If you are not
> convinced that three dimensions is enough to explain any observations, I
> can answer any objection.
> About the paragraph I have re-copied above, it is extremely interesting
> notice that using mass-energy conservation, we can show that the advance
> the perihelion of Mercury is now explained classically (in 3D) using the
> "Local System theory, in which each Local Systems (LS) perceives all
> LSs as classical particles whose apparent behavior follows classical
> notions". This is exactly the principle I am using in my book.
> I wish to inform you that I have now made a direct link to: "Frequently
> Asked Questions" related to my site. If you have seen the preliminary
> questions and answers before, note that they all have been modified very
> recently. More series of questions will appear soon. The home page
> address is:
> http://www.physicsuottawa.ca/profs/marmet/
> Sincerely,
> Paul
> =============================
> At 01:49 AM 8/14/99 EDT, you wrote:
> >
> >Paul,
> >This the first response to my mention of your work. If you would
> >respond, send it to me and I will post it. If further discussion
> >develops I will keep you informed.
> >Sincerely,
> >Bill
> >
> >In a message dated 8/13/99 11:12:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> >stephenk1@home.com writes:
> >
> >> Hi Bill,
> >>
> >> I am reading Dr. Marmet's on-line book, interesting. He uses a
> >> mechanical paradigm that I often dislike, but I like the way his mind
> >> works!
> >>

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:29 JST