Thrand Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 Picture a cube, now picture an explosion inside that cube, all six sides of that cube will represent each dimension of the initial explosion, up, down, left, right, foward, backward. I understand that up, down, foward, backward are the only relivant forces needed to form a 3rd dimension, however matter and energy explode in all six directions forming six dimensional lines through spacetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Tycho?] Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 Umm.... no. There are 4 base dimensions for one thing, with string theory I've heard from 5-13 dimensions, dont know which one is favored right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrand Posted September 23, 2004 Author Share Posted September 23, 2004 I understand the basics of (length x width x height) measurment, but what I am trying to convey is a new idea of thinking in spacetime dimensions. All six directions in an explosion can represent time being created as all matter in the universe pushes outward. All six directions have an oposite of direction to one another and those opposites represent time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuhrerkeebs Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Why would those opposites represent time? And there is only three dimensions because both the positive and negative directions are contained within the one dimension... And if the opposites represenedt time...because that would either imply 3 spatial dimensions and a time dimension or three seperate directions of time...and since it is obvious that there is not three seperate directions for time, we can rule that out...and that leaves us still with 3 spatial dimensions and one time dimension.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuhrerkeebs Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Your problem comes from the fact that you ASSUME a fixed axis...but really we could allow our axis to evolve in time, thus making it so that there is no negative direction. For example, say I am always at the center of my axis...when I take a step forwards I move in the positive direction, yet if I reorientate myself, and step back to where I was, I would still be moving in the positive direction, because my axis evolves along with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrand Posted September 23, 2004 Author Share Posted September 23, 2004 I see what you are saying, and I understand. Allow me to a few more thoughts After an explosion inertia throws matter in all six directions. The reason those six directions are so relevant is because of what happens in each direction when time begins to expand and things begin to change. Think of each direction as a fingerprint, with a recorded history, all six directions unique. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiduOrkhon Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 "Gravity (Ho hum), Electricity (Yawn) & Magnetism (Twiddle) are the 4th (Sheesh), 5th (Burp) & 6th (Flatulent) dimensions." The (ennui eliciting) URL on this all over the net. The only critics are those who haven't and apprently deign not to read it. Anyone who reads and therefore qualifies themselves as possibly disqualifying it is invited and welcome to do so. (Please say when. And how.) By all means, let someone free me of the delusions that there's something important to everyone in the above quoted title and statement. Those who do not read it for evaluation and the drawing of their own critical or constructive conclusions, after having been handed the catchless opportunity to do so, are comparably tantamount to the Inquisitors who balked the facilities of Galileo's telescopes (they feared he was right. Opted to bathe - far from North Africa - in denial, whistling in the dark, and carouseling oodles of poo poohs <'But still, it moves...'>). All of his dissentors were individually and collectively - 'We can't all be' - wrong. It is no longer for the author to prove. It is for the reader to disprove, or acknowledge. He, she or they who may disprove it will unburden and bring resolution to myself, while bringing honor to his, her, or themselves. (No skunk fighting, second guessing or otherwise critiqueing the material without first reading all of it and qualifying whatever contention<s> Please. Prego.) - KBR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuhrerkeebs Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 "Gravity (Ho hum)' date=' Electricity (Yawn) & Magnetism (Twiddle) are the 4th (Sheesh), 5th (Burp) & 6th (Flatulent) dimensions."[/quote'] According to relativity, gravity takes place as the curvature of the "first" (if you can say such a thing) three dimensions and the time dimension. Kaluza-Klein says that the curvature of the fourth spatial dimension causes electromagnetism...although I don't think anyone actually believes in Kaluza-Klein anymore... And what is the "ho hum", "burp", and "fart" crap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 I see what you are saying' date=' and I understand. Allow me to a few more thoughts After an explosion inertia throws matter in all six directions. The reason those six directions are so relevant is because of what happens in each direction when time begins to expand and things begin to change. Think of each direction as a fingerprint, with a recorded history, all six directions unique.[/quote'] Why not an octahedron? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrand Posted September 23, 2004 Author Share Posted September 23, 2004 An octahedron is a three-dimensional figure with eight flat surfaces. A polyhedron with eight plane surfaces would be the same, and it could be used in my example above as the idea would remain the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiduOrkhon Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 According to relativity' date=' gravity takes place as the curvature of the "first" (if you can say such a thing) three dimensions and the time dimension. Kaluza-Klein says that the curvature of the fourth spatial dimension causes electromagnetism...although I don't think anyone actually believes in Kaluza-Klein anymore... And what is the "ho hum", "burp", and "fart" crap?[/quote'] ********************************* Yours is a fair - closing - question, although the exact, lastly used informal expression was 'flatulence' - still, a fair question, regarding the, uhm, 'colloquialisms'. It's truly good to hear a sincere response from you, fuhrerkeebs, after our first and last communications you have proved after all to be of good humor and noble sportsmanship. The reason I added all the parenthetical informalities, separating and dividing the statement (Title) 'Gravity, Magenetism & Electricity are the 4th, 5th & 6th dimensions.' Is basically because I was doing what I thought to be a parody on the general disinterest in, reference to, or conversation about that subject, as printed and sold out in small press essays and six editions of a published small press book, distributed internationally, through the Portola Institute's WHOLE EARTH CATALOGUE in '70; posted in condensed form on the net since late '99, with a lot of alternately brief and extensive references and directions to it - at http://einstein.periphery.cc/ - while threads of controversy about dimensions continue to emerge without reference - pro or con - to the unprecedented information at that URL. Hey fuhrerkeeb, you may agree that there's an interesting thread to consider, when you enter in GOOGLE: 'Goodbye Quantum Wierdness Radical Edward diffraction Copanhagen interpretation yeap'. It's a fairly extensive (Science Forums Debate) thread, but I think you may agree, the plot thickens as it proceeds. I would be honored if you read and let me know what you think of it. Thank's for your email, sir. Sincerely, - KBR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrand Posted September 23, 2004 Author Share Posted September 23, 2004 Yes the four known forces; gravity, electromagnetism, strong force, and weak force. Gravity is the force acting between all mass in the universe and has infinate range, electromagnetism is the force that acts between electrically charged particles and has infinite range, strong force is the force that binds neutrons and protons together and is short range, and weak force is the force that causes beta decay and is short range. These four known forces came into existance (or perhaps even before) just seconds after the "big bang". The resulting explosion ejected matter into six basic directions, (up, down, left, right, foward, backward) resulting in six seperate dimensions. Each of the six directions push outward creating spacetime and seperate dimensions with unique patterns of matter and energy. Each direction defineing its opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeschylus Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 A direction and a dimension are not the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiduOrkhon Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 A direction and a dimension are not the same thing. *************************************** With due respect to Aeschlylus, the geometric definitions for physical dimensions in (functional, metric) space, are (until further notice): Geometric point: Zero (0) (This location does not occupy space, but rather is determined by the intersection of two one dimensional straight lines - neither of which occupy space). The (whatever) motion of geometric point Zero: generates a one dimensional straight line (0 to A), of arbitrary length. Although the geometric point is non existent, it is geometrically described as being 'round' in shape. Consequently, any direction (0 to A) that it may move, is at right angles - 90 dgs - from itself. Neither the geometric point, nor the Straight Line generated by its motion occupy real (functional, metric) space. When a one dimensional Straight Line moves at right angles to itself, at whatever speed, for whatever distance, it generates a 2 dimensional Plane - A to B - which likewise, does not occupy any real ('functional, metric') space. When a two dimensional Plane (A - B), moves at right angles (90 dgs) from itself, it generates a three dimensional space (B- C), occupied or unoccupied by matter ('There is no <functional, metric> space empty of field'. - Einstein). Of course three dimensional space recognizably exists; is manifest in objects, measurements and distances of every palpable description. Note that each progressing physical dimension is generated by moving at right angles - 90 dgs - from the preceding dimension. This is a law of physical (functional metric spatial) geometry, regarding the progressive formation /generation of (physically spatial) dimensions. Whereas, Einstein's General Relativity revealed the all time existence of a previously unrecognized 4th dimension, somehow closely related to 'time & motion'; prevailing within and inherent to three dimensionally manifest reality. Whereas, the 'law of - right angle - moving dimensions' (if indeed three dimensional entities are four dimensional as Einstein established; acknowledged to the present), requires all three dimensional spaces/ entities to be found moving at right angles to themselves... That is, either constantly growing smaller (shrinking), fullfilling it's established requirement to move at right angles from all three of it's dimensions, or, constantly growing larger (expanding), fullfilling the requirement of progressing dimensions moving at right angles from the preceding dimensions. As most readers familiar with the Science Forum (and many other information resources) in general, already know - there are several, considerably extended and thought provoking threads (global discussions and debates) on the subject of 'dimensions'. At least one such thread here in Science Forums, is titled: 'The Law(s) of Moving Dimensions'. Whereas : Aeschylus - and many others, within and far beyond the Science Forum herein - have maintained that: 'A direction and a dimension are not the same thing'... Along with similar statements amounting to the likewise inexplicable exclusion of the singular definition for physical (metrically functional, spatially palpable) dimensions. As already briefly mentioned, there are several threads on the Science Forum, regarding the issue of 'dimensions'. One such discussion entitled 'The Law of Moving Dimensions'. None of these conferences, known to me, qualify or directly address the above expressed, inviolable geometric definition regarding the (extrapolating, right angle procession of) 'moving dimensions'. Request that someone - or commitee, institution, other established authority - explain why the above premise, as (merely) presented by myself, as the standard for the existence and definition for physical dimensions: has been and to my knowledge, continues to be, consistently excluded from any subjection, discusssion or debate on or about physical dimensions. To my knowledge, this (functionally unavoidable) issue continues to be conspicuously omitted from all and any conferences regarding issues of 'dimensions', including the unexplained omission of the above (formally recognized and practiced) definition, from - often extended - discussions, debates and/or conferences subjecting: 'The Law of Moving Dimensions'... Repeat: I respectfully request that this apparent 'misunderstanding', on my part, or that of others engaged in this interest, be explained or otherwise clarified. As presently and enigmatically maintained (not only by Aeschylus): *'A direction and a dimension are not the same thing'. Whereas, the above cited, singular definition for physical - metrically spatial - dimensions unequivocally establishes: A direction and a dimension are (categorically) directly related, if not 'the same thing'. Aeschylus, along with several others in *agreement, do not to my knowledge, elaborate on or otherwise qualify this (popular, and what I consider altogether misleading and incorrect) exclusionary proclamation. Request correction or acknowledgement, regarding this unarguably important point. This issue is of particular interest to me, as the author of: 'Gravity, Electricity & Magnetism are the 4th, 5th & 6th Dimensions: The Reinstatement of Einstein's Presently Abandoned Unified Field - The Big Bang Theory is Wrong. ( Re: http://einstein.periphery.cc/ ) Sincerely, K. B. Robertson (Aka, etceteras) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeschylus Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 A dimension and direction are not the same thing, by playing semantic games, doesn't change their actual mathematical definition. The number of dimensions of a (vector) space is the number of lineraly indpendent 'directions' if you like (or more formally the cardinality of the maximal set of lineraly independent vectors). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiduOrkhon Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 A dimension and direction are not the same thing' date=' by playing semantic games, doesn't change their actual mathematical definition. The number of dimensions of a (vector) space is the number of lineraly indpendent 'directions' if you like (or more formally the cardinality of the maximal set of lineraly independent vectors).[/quote'] *********************************** Aeschylus: By your leave, sir. It may be better for both and each of us to abstain from proclaiming either is *'playing semantic (or any other form of capricious) games'. Note that you allude (presumably from my preceding post- THE LAW OF PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS: Revisited' - review of the geometric definition for physical dimensions) to: *'A dimension and a direction are not the same thing... doesn't change their actual mathematical definition'... With no semantic (or other inappropriate) games intended: I do not see how the 'actual mathematical definition' of physical dimensions, overrules the (singular and stringent) geometric definition for physical dimensions. (Do you question the geometric definition for physical dimensions as I <merely> reviewed them?) Should not any such two (comparable) definitions for a very specific issue (definition for physical dimensions) - geometric and mathematical - complement/parallel one another, rather than brachiate to different - especially 'conflicting' - meanings? In your repeated use of *'vector' - reference to *magnitude and direction - how does this gainsay my qualified premise that dimensions do indeed - very much - have to do with direction; in contrast to your qualified statement that 'a dimension and a direction are not the same thing'... Whereas: the right angle projection (direction) of each succeeding physical dimension is patently defined and determined - by the law of physical (functionally metric, spatial) dimensional geometry - by the 'directional' (if not magnitudinal) definition of 'vector(s)'... Fairly confident that you are familiar with the more recent works of Ouspensky (A NEW MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE: On The 4th Dimension), and other geometricians, all the way back to antiquity, regarding the meaning and (invariably identical) definition of (physical, as distinguished from any number of 'semantic') dimensions, one through three, and what is (since Einstein proved a 4th Dimension, closely related to time and motion, causing, among other definitional transitions, the revision of 'space and time', to 'space-time') called a 'hyper'-cube, or 'super-cube'. That is, a three dimensional cube (or for that matter, any 3-D physical object or entity of whatever shape or density) projecting itself at right angles from it's three recognized dimensions, thereby fullfilling it's (Einsteinian) requirement to be 4-dimensional. It is clarified throughout physical geometry that each given physical dimension proceeds at right angles from the dimension preceding it. Do you question this definition? Are you suggesting (proclaiming?) that whatever mathematical definition you allude to (which you have not specified), has precedence over the singular (unambiguous, non-ephemeral, non-anachronistic, time tested) geometric definition for physical dimensions? What is your proposed, unrevealed, mathematical definition of physical dimensions? How does it conflict with the (singular) geometric definition provided? Sincerely, KBR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeschylus Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 *********************************** Aeschylus: By your leave' date=' sir. It may be better for both and each of us to abstain from proclaiming either is *'playing semantic (or any other form of capricious) games'. Note that you allude (presumably from my preceding post- THE LAW OF PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS: Revisited' - review of the geometric definition for physical dimensions) to: *'A dimension and a direction are not the same thing... doesn't change their actual mathematical definition'... With no semantic (or other inappropriate) games intended: I do not see how the 'actual mathematical definition' of physical dimensions, overrules the (singular and stringent) geometric definition for physical dimensions. (Do you question the geometric definition for physical dimensions as I <merely> reviewed them?) Should not any such two (comparable) definitions for a very specific issue (definition for physical dimensions) - geometric and mathematical - complement/parallel one another, rather than brachiate to different - especially 'conflicting' - meanings? In your repeated use of *'vector' - reference to *magnitude and direction - how does this gainsay my qualified premise that dimensions do indeed - very much - have to do with direction; in contrast to your qualified statement that 'a dimension and a direction are not the same thing'... Whereas: the right angle projection (direction) of each succeeding physical dimension is patently defined and determined - by the law of physical (functionally metric, spatial) dimensional geometry - by the 'directional' (if not magnitudinal) definition of 'vector(s)'... Fairly confident that you are familiar with the more recent works of Ouspensky (A NEW MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE: On The 4th Dimension), and other geometricians, all the way back to antiquity, regarding the meaning and (invariably identical) definition of (physical, as distinguished from any number of 'semantic') dimensions, one through three, and what is (since Einstein proved a 4th Dimension, closely related to time and motion, causing, among other definitional transitions, the revision of 'space and time', to 'space-time') called a 'hyper'-cube, or 'super-cube'. That is, a three dimensional cube (or for that matter, any 3-D physical object or entity of whatever shape or density) projecting itself at right angles from it's three recognized dimensions, thereby fullfilling it's (Einsteinian) requirement to be 4-dimensional. It is clarified throughout physical geometry that each given physical dimension proceeds at right angles from the dimension preceding it. Do you question this definition? Are you suggesting (proclaiming?) that whatever mathematical definition you allude to (which you have not specified), has precedence over the singular (unambiguous, non-ephemeral, non-anachronistic, time tested) geometric definition for physical dimensions? What is your proposed, unrevealed, mathematical definition of physical dimensions? How does it conflict with the (singular) geometric definition provided? Sincerely, KBR.[/quote'] What your defintion essientially notes is that n-1 dimensional space can be a hypersurface in n-dimensional space, but this really doesn't define a dimensionality of a space. However in my last post I did define the number dimensions of a vector space: the cardinality of the maximal set of linearly independent vectors (Interestingly this needn't be finite or even countable). A simpler less formal defintion would be the number of numbers needed to describe every point in space. Lets say we take our familair 3 dimensional Euclidean space and define each radius unit vector as a 'direction', how many directons are there? The answer is there are an infinite amount of them. However from this subspace of unit vectors we can pick an orthonormal basis of three unit vectors (and no more) that are linearly independent, this is why we say the space is has 3 dimensions (of course again it's worth saying that the number of orthonormal bases is infinite so each 'dimension' is not related to any specific one direction). So the concept of 'dimension' and 'direction', whilst being related are most certainly not the same thing. Minkowskian spacetime is an interesting, example of a space that is flat but non-Euclidean, as it has a pseudo-Riemmanian metric. Of course spacetime, needen't be and isn't flat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiduOrkhon Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 What your defintion essientially notes is that n-1 dimensional space can be a hypersurface in n-dimensional space, but this really doesn't define a dimensionality of a space. However in my last post I did define the number dimensions of a vector space: Quote: the cardinality of the maximal set of linearly independent vectors (Interestingly this needn't be finite or even countable). A simpler less formal defintion would be the number of numbers needed to describe every point in space. Lets say we take our familair 3 dimensional Euclidean space and define each radius unit vector as a 'direction', how many directons are there? The answer is there are an infinite amount of them. However from this subspace of unit vectors we can pick an orthonormal basis of three unit vectors (and no more) that are linearly independent, this is why we say the space is has 3 dimensions (of course again it's worth saying that the number of orthonormal bases is infinite so each 'dimension' is not related to any specific one direction). So the concept of 'dimension' and 'direction', whilst being related are most certainly not the same thing. Minkowskian spacetime is an interesting, example of a space that is flat but non-Euclidean, as it has a pseudo-Riemmanian metric. Of course spacetime, needen't be and isn't flat.] Quote - Aeschylus ................................................ Aeschylus: Please be patient with this initial, rudimentary review; it leads to more worthily debateable turf, as you may or not agree... Metric Mathematics Presuming you are familiar with metric and non-metric space. That the mathematics of physical scientists is of the former definition; where metric math is mandtorily responsive to and descriptive of physical conditions or dynamics that exist, with or without persons and mathematical formulae to respond to and describe physical realities. E=MC squared, for example, describes an ongoing phenomenon, with or without people or equations to describe same... Practitioners of metric mathematics are required to be confined to mathematically describing and otherwise accounting for real - existential - physical dynamics and/or conditions. Non-Metric Mathematics Whereas the latter - non-metric - definitions of whatever real or imagined conditions or dynamics of the physical universe: are not required to respond or conform to physical conditions or dynamics. That is, for example, two non-metrical mathematical formulas - both equally and independently correct - can be and not infrequently are mutually contradictory - cancelling one another out. Perhaps a superfluous qualification of the obvious; whereas it may be that you (and many others) improvised each, as though they were and are compatibly interchangeable... There is no argument in the potentially infinite number of dimensions, if and when every direction in space is considered, from every point in space, ad infinitum... Whereas, the context of dimensions I speak of here, is not how many there could - or may - be, in non-metric space, but how many are empirically measurable, observable, and are (or may be) sensorily experienced, in metric space. ................................... You speak of 'flat but non-Euclidean, Minkowskian space-time and psuedoRiemannian metric'. You go on to say: "Lets say we take our familair 3 dimensional Euclidean space and define each radius unit vector as a 'direction', how many directons are there? The answer is there are an infinite amount of them. However from this subspace of unit vectors we can pick an orthonormal basis of three unit vectors (and no more) that are linearly independent, this is why we say the space is has 3 dimensions (of course again it's worth saying that the number of orthonormal bases is infinite so each 'dimension' is not related to any specific one direction). So the concept of 'dimension' and 'direction', whilst being related are most certainly not the same thing." ............................................ As far as I can presently determine: You are interchanging two different standards of (metric & non-metric) mathematics; while making a perhaps token reference to the physical geometry of functional (metrically standardized and measured) space-time. Please bear with the following abbreviated window of turn of the century evolutions of scientific history; hopefully with this review, we may agree (approximately?) on where 'we' are (and are not) and how and why we did (and didn't) get there (altogether here)... Riemann's ground breaking non-Euclidean geometry far preceded Einstein, who had an improvisationally gifted way of finding applications of earlier achievements (Riemann-Minkowski) or independently established contemporary systems and methods (Lorentz), to standardize what had been or was was previously considered, 'unrelated' and/or 'unconventional' (if not heretic). Although Minkowski benchmarked the modernized term of 'space-time', and Einstein further refined it - it was Galileo who originated it - with a concept of 'simultanaeity'... Later questioned but not resolved by Newton; finally resolved in Einstein's application of Minkowski's immortal proclamation: "Henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality." - H. Minkowski *Einstein and Minkowski co-jointly and increasingly leaned on Maxwell's electromagnetic equations as a variable yardstick representing and determining the the non-absoluteness of space, time and (Galileo's formerly 'simultaneous') simultaneity (of events in space). *They tandemly formulated a 'light cone' of electromagnetic emissions from a center source, the upward - 45 dg - conical portion of which represented (in the expansion of the inverse square) the distance light traveled in a second (186,282 m.p.s.), whereas the 45 degree conical shape beneath the light source was perceived as past time; it was from this conical model of light that the concept of non-absolute space, non absolute time (space-time) and non absolute simultaneity emerged; signalling the departure from Galileo's space-time, to the proposed space-time model proffered by Maxwell - who more comprehensively based his theories on what he discovered from the structural characteristics - and the speed - of light. (A platform of knowledge unavailable to Galileo.) The (quasi-flat planed) Gaussian co-ordinate system is inspirationally derived from the Cartesian (2-D mapping and chartering) co-ordinate system. but applicable only to non-Euclidean systems; only when applied to relatively smaller distances and sizes (of the Euclidean continuum). Non Euclidean space of several definitions (Cartesian, Gaussean, Riemannian) introduced considerations of a 'Finite but unbounded' universe pioneered for the most and original parts by, Helmholtz and Poincare, while once again, further and more recently refined by Einstein. As you may well know, much more can easily and importantly be added to the succession of these historical developments and transient perspectives, whereas, my point is that your mathematically proposed, mathematically standardized, 'innumerable number of points in space' do not fullfill the arrow of historical time, or the issued geometric definitions for observed, measured and sensorially experienced dimensions; specifically: Geometric Point 0, moves to generate One Dimensional Straight Line 0 - A. Moves at right angles to itself generating 2-D Plane A - B. Two dimensional Plane moves at right angles to itself generating 3-D Solid (occupied or unoccupied by matter) B - C. Einstein discovers a 4th dimension, closely related to time and motion, inherent but previously unrecognized in all microcosmic and macrocosmic three dimensional entities, consequently obliging the recognition and acknowledgement of continuous right angle motion of all three dimensional matter (growing ever smaller or ever larger. n either of the two exclusively alternative cases), at right angles to/from the three recognized dimensions. It is colloquially and scientifically maintained that the 4th dimension of time and motion is inherent - but 'unrecognzable' and even non-mathematically 'unimaginable' and 'incomprehensible' - within the three recognized spatial dimensions of width, breadth and depth (of space); whereas the 4th dimension inherent to the preceding three dimensions it resides in, previously unrecognized 4th coordinate (uniting space & time to 'space-time') is a dimension of duration - time and motion (are synonymous)... Albeit, matter is acknowledged (as well as directly experienced and observed in any falling or parabolically trajectoried object or missile - even audibly heard, in the accelerating sound of a spinning coin, plate, or automobile hubcap, settling down - while resounding ever more swiftly - on a hard surface. The (accelerating) sound of gravity - is the 4th dimension - is also frequently and distinctively audible in the rhythmically increasing rocking motions of any number of rigid objects, settling down to a quick stop on a hard surface <often in or around a kitchen sink or sideboard> ); while unrecognized as being 4 dimensional manifestations of gravity (re: http://einstein.periphery.cc/ ) Moreover, by the (processional) right angle law of physical dimensions, electricity is observed, measured and sensorially experienced as (constantly) moving at right angles out of (4-D) matter ('particles', 'charges', 'planets', 'stars', etc.); consequently identifying electricity as the 5th dimension. Summarily (until further notice?), magnetism is observed, measured and sensorially experienced as (constantly) moving at right angles to electricity; therefore identifying magnetism as the 6th dimension. ...................................... If and whatever may be measured as moving - in processional sequence - at right angles to magnetism, will self identify as the 7th dimension (Possibly heat, as it may somehow be distinguished from the inherent heat <motion> in matter and electromagnetism; though this consideration of a 7th dimension is only conjecture on the part of this record...) ....................................... Concluding the similarities - and the differences - between metric and non metric space; mathematics and geometry... The application of non metric mathematics to describe metric geometry is - however popularly employed - a non sequitur, with regard to the definition and recognition of physically manifest, measurable, observable and sensorially experienced, finitely presiding dimensions... I respectfully stand by for any counterpoints, or concurrences, from yourself (Aeschylus), or any other sincere reader & writer. Sincerely, KBR (Aka etceteras...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teotihuacan Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 It is clarified throughout physical geometry that each given physical dimension proceeds at right angles from the dimension preceding it. Do you question this definition? The rt. angle is for our human benefit. It is a copy of the opposing finger & thumb. Our "crib note", you might say. Consider again your example? A point can only exist. A point has no direction. In fact, it has no dimension either, because it is all of it. A line exists between two points. Two potential directions, one dimension. A plane exists upon two lines. They do not have to be at 90 degrees. Nor do they have to intersect, merely be distinct. An infinite number of potential directions. Two dimensions. A space exists upon two planes.They do not have to be at 90 degrees. Nor do they have to intersect, merely be distinct. An infinite number of potential directions. Three dimensions. A time may exist upon two spatial distinctions. Probaly don't have to be at 90 degrees, nor intersect. Possibly only one direction. Maybe an infinity of dimensions. So, if we discard the two anomolus samples, or account them as incomplete... non intuitive "proof". The seeming progression is: {1,0,0} {2,2,1} {2,&,2} {2,&,3}... {2,1,&}. (note: using &Ampersand as Infinity symbol) A derived "Law" then becomes, not only that each dimension contains all lower dimensions, but by observation, that the minimum number of determinates for any given dimension is 2 of it's next lower sample. Given that "present" time is dependant upon two other samples, ie. past and future, I would propose 3 distinct dimensions of time. But that is pure speculation, from the gaps in data generated, if so, and not this assumption of a linear progression that clearly could be infinite as one dimension. We have considered Dimensions 0,1,2,3,...& as in an estimate of "All". But is there a progression of numbers in direction? The ordered set is: {0,2,&,&...1} Immediately, the idea of similitude begins to strain. Some form of quadratic equation is neccessary to relate the two. How many directions in any given dimension, and whether they are aspects the same thing? Does Direction = Dimension. Your theory of point, Zero dimension, may support the derived "Law" here though, in that it may've taken two distinct incidence of "off" and "on" to establish that point that doesn't exist only because it is and nothing else. Maybe all points are binary in that way. Interesting discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiduOrkhon Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 Teotehuacan (Oaxca?): Thanks for your reply. Yes, it is an interesting discussion. I fully acknowledge other definitions for dimensions. (The word gets more or less accurately and also ridiculously applied to a lot of considerations, real and hallucinatory and/or mercenary.) Likewise I understand and acknowledge that a geometric point (0) doesn't occupy space and that it is an invention to convenience human intuition (Sort of like a linus blanket, from SNOOPY?). The same can be said of the one dimensional straight line (0 moves to A; it can't 'curve' yet, because it has no 2nd dimensiion to curve in). There's no such thing *that we know of (neither the point nor the line occupy space. Same thing 2-D plane - doesn't occupy space). On the other hand, by the right angle rule, when you extrapolate to the third dimension, you've got something more than an instrument of comfort to the human need to define real or imagined conditions. You've geometrically generated a volume of tractable 3-D space that may or not be occupied by matter, or may simply be a (semi) vacuous volume. But it's three dimensional and in the context we're dealing with, it 'exists'. Especially when it's occupied by any 'thing' (of whatever morphology, density or atomic weight)... The rule of right angle motion progressing from a preceding dimension to generate the next dimension is not any kind of arbitrary or ambiguous rule. What distinguishes it from any number of other dimensional definitions is that it's plane and solid geometry. It's remains non existent, from geometric point zero to the two dimensional plane, but, when that plane moves at right angles to itself, it's acknowledged to have fullfilled the definition for three dimensional existence, occupied or unoccupied by matter. What continues to draw attention to itself is the frequently - sometimes notably militant (if not hysterical?) - aversive, diversive and relatively digressive arguments against the (expressed/standardized, right angle motion) geometric definition - and process of generating - comprehensive, measurable, observable and sensorily experienced physical-metric dimensions. It seems that mathematics is considered to be independent of and/or superior to geometry, in this (really, basically fundamental) consideration. The mathematical approach with its advocates seem stubbornly determined to introduce (valid but unneccessary, often superfluous and cumbersome) complications to a basic geometric process of defining physical dimensions... To a point of rejecting or obfuscating The Geometric Definition for physical dimensions (It really wasn't, and isn't 'my idea', or 'my definition'.) It piques a curiosity as to why it's so important for those who impose the alternative interpretations and definitions of what constitutes 'dimensions' and how they are defined, manifest, and/or recognized - to what continues to appear as a fairly consistent rejection of one (of how many other valid) definition of dimensions. Sort of like a mathematics definitions one-up-man-ship of and over geometric definitions, which are, after all, generally much more comprehensive; tending to engage a true comprehension of what is being described or proven (without numbers, which tend to lean heavily toward abstraction, often proving a point that is still non-mathematically uncomprehended, and, incomprehensible...) This computational 'distancing' has in many cases, driven scientific thought into a cul de sac, where the numbers and equations manipulators lose a facilitative grasp of what they're alluding to, and/or 'proving'. It appears that E=MC squared, for primary example, means much more than it is recognized to prove. There are many other examples of this, if you will, mathematical chauvinism, demonstated on my site Menu - the file on 'the 4th Dimension', at http://einstein.periphery.cc/ Yes. I do leave that URL around a lot. Anyone who may disprove the (plural series of mutually supportive and confirmational) premeses therein, will be doing me (and no small number of other like minded folks, including a good size flock of distinguished professionals) a favor, since, for the past forty five years since finding it, I've been trying to disprove it, while only encountering more affirmation in the research. The geometric definition for dimensions as I present it, is not my definition. It is a long established standard for defining and identifying physical dimensions. There seems to be a pronounced impetus in any number of well informed individuals, to point out other methods for defining any number of 'other dimensions', and alternative approaches to and for defining and inventorying them. Meanwhile, my only request is that my work be disqualified, or acknowledged; as it is - 'it's hung up on the web, instead of published in scientific journals and magazines, like the real physicists present their work'... (Have you ever tried to get an essay or book, on any subject - especially theoretical physics of whatever documented quality - even acknowledged to have been received, much less read and evaluated, and even moreso-less: published? Wrestling a giant squid in a small swimming pool is more realistic. Thanks for the email. Any suggestions? Sincerely, KBR (Aka etceteras.) Vini. Vici. Entiendo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philbo1965uk Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 Hello, I have read your post in depth and can only conclude that you dont quite know what your talking about.As a scientific appraisal of what you wrote "Ive seen this somewhere before ahh in a Secondary school essay" Please do not be offfended by my comments,only sometimes the truth can set you free.So you do have a talent for thought,keep thinking....and goodluck.. Please dont ask me to explain as only a post with potential could merit a response and argument.......................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeschylus Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 Aeschylus: Please be patient with this initial' date=' rudimentary review; it leads to more worthily debateable turf, as you may or not agree... Metric Mathematics Presuming you are familiar with metric and non-metric space. That the mathematics of physical scientists is of the former definition; where metric math is mandtorily responsive to and descriptive of physical conditions or dynamics that exist, with or without persons and mathematical formulae to respond to and describe physical realities. E=MC squared, for example, describes an ongoing phenomenon, with or without people or equations to describe same... Practitioners of metric mathematics are required to be confined to mathematically describing and otherwise accounting for real - existential - physical dynamics and/or conditions.[/quote'] I do not know where you ghot this idea from, but you are completely wrong. A metric space is a (nonempty) set and a function (the metric) which maps two members of the set onto a number and which also satsifies sevral other axioms. The concept of a metric space is completely abstract (for example the real number line is an example of a metric space which I can assure is a complete abstarction), though like nearly all maths it has uses in physics. A vector space has a metric when the scalar product is defined. Non-Metric Mathematics Whereas the latter - non-metric - definitions of whatever real or imagined conditions or dynamics of the physical universe: are not required to respond or conform to physical conditions or dynamics. That is, for example, two non-metrical mathematical formulas - both equally and independently correct - can be and not infrequently are mutually contradictory - cancelling one another out. Perhaps a superfluous qualification of the obvious; whereas it may be that you (and many others) improvised each, as though they were and are compatibly interchangeable... There is no argument in the potentially infinite number of dimensions, if and when every direction in space is considered, from every point in space, ad infinitum... Again you are wrong (besides which there is no great division between using a metric and not using a metric, it dopepnds entirely on context), (vector) spaces without metrics are used in physics too. As far as I can presently determine: You are interchanging two different standards of (metric & non-metric) mathematics; while making a perhaps token reference to the physical geometry of functional (metrically standardized and measured) space-time. No I am specifically talking about vector spaces. Please bear with the following abbreviated window of turn of the century evolutions of scientific history; hopefully with this review, we may agree (approximately?) on where 'we' are (and are not) and how and why we did (and didn't) get there (altogether here)... Riemann's ground breaking non-Euclidean geometry far preceded Einstein, who had an improvisationally gifted way of finding applications of earlier achievements (Riemann-Minkowski) or independently established contemporary systems and methods (Lorentz), to standardize what had been or was was previously considered, 'unrelated' and/or 'unconventional' (if not heretic). Although Minkowski benchmarked the modernized term of 'space-time', and Einstein further refined it - it was Galileo who originated it - with a concept of 'simultanaeity'... No, spacetime comes specifically from Minkowski, nothing to do with Gallileo. Later questioned but not resolved by Newton; finally resolved in Einstein's application of Minkowski's immortal proclamation: "Henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality." - H. Minkowski What Minkowski pointed out basically it would be rather useful in the context of Einstein's STR to use to combine space and time into spacetime, due to the invariance of the interval. *Einstein and Minkowski co-jointly and increasingly leaned on Maxwell's electromagnetic equations as a variable yardstick representing and determining the the non-absoluteness of space, time and (Galileo's formerly 'simultaneous') simultaneity (of events in space). Lorentz formulated his transformations, Eibstein then formalised the theory, recognizing the failure of simulatenity, Minkowski then came up with the iodea of spacetime as a useful tool. *They tandemly formulated a 'light cone' of electromagnetic emissions from a center source, the upward - 45 dg - conical portion of which represented (in the expansion of the inverse square) the distance light traveled in a second (186,282 m.p.s.), whereas the 45 degree conical shape beneath the light source was perceived as past time; it was from this conical model of light that the concept of non-absolute space, non absolute time (space-time) and non absolute simultaneity emerged; signalling the departure from Galileo's space-time, to the proposed space-time model proffered by Maxwell - who more comprehensively based his theories on what he discovered from the structural characteristics - and the speed - of light. (A platform of knowledge unavailable to Galileo.) The discovery of the failure of simukataneity porecedes the use of lightcones. The (quasi-flat planed) Gaussian co-ordinate system is inspirationally derived from the Cartesian (2-D mapping and chartering) co-ordinate system. but applicable only to non-Euclidean systems; only when applied to relatively smaller distances and sizes (of the Euclidean continuum). Curvilinear coordinate systems can be used in non-Euclidean spaces. Non Euclidean space of several definitions (Cartesian, Gaussean, Riemannian) introduced considerations of a 'Finite but unbounded' universe pioneered for the most and original parts by, Helmholtz and Poincare, while once again, further and more recently refined by Einstein. I'm not sure where your getting this from, but a finite and unbounded universe is a specifc FRW cosmology. As you may well know, much more can easily and importantly be added to the succession of these historical developments and transient perspectives, whereas, my point is that your mathematically proposed, mathematically standardized, 'innumerable number of points in space' do not fullfill the arrow of historical time, or the issued geometric definitions for observed, measured and sensorially experienced dimensions; specifically: Geometric Point 0, moves to generate One Dimensional Straight Line 0 - A. Moves at right angles to itself generating 2-D Plane A - B. Two dimensional Plane moves at right angles to itself generating 3-D Solid (occupied or unoccupied by matter) B - C. Einstein discovers a 4th dimension, closely related to time and motion, inherent but previously unrecognized in all microcosmic and macrocosmic three dimensional entities, consequently obliging the recognition and acknowledgement of continuous right angle motion of all three dimensional matter (growing ever smaller or ever larger. n either of the two exclusively alternative cases), at right angles to/from the three recognized dimensions. It is colloquially and scientifically maintained that the 4th dimension of time and motion is inherent - but 'unrecognzable' and even non-mathematically 'unimaginable' and 'incomprehensible' - within the three recognized spatial dimensions of width, breadth and depth (of space); whereas the 4th dimension inherent to the preceding three dimensions it resides in, previously unrecognized 4th coordinate (uniting space & time to 'space-time') is a dimension of duration - time and motion (are synonymous)... Albeit, matter is acknowledged (as well as directly experienced and observed in any falling or parabolically trajectoried object or missile - even audibly heard, in the accelerating sound of a spinning coin, plate, or automobile hubcap, settling down - while resounding ever more swiftly - on a hard surface. The (accelerating) sound of gravity - is the 4th dimension - is also frequently and distinctively audible in the rhythmically increasing rocking motions of any number of rigid objects, settling down to a quick stop on a hard surface <often in or around a kitchen sink or sideboard> ); while unrecognized as being 4 dimensional manifestations of gravity (re: http://einstein.periphery.cc/ ) Moreover, by the (processional) right angle law of physical dimensions, electricity is observed, measured and sensorially experienced as (constantly) moving at right angles out of (4-D) matter ('particles', 'charges', 'planets', 'stars', etc.); consequently identifying electricity as the 5th dimension. Summarily (until further notice?), magnetism is observed, measured and sensorially experienced as (constantly) moving at right angles to electricity; therefore identifying magnetism as the 6th dimension. ...................................... If and whatever may be measured as moving - in processional sequence - at right angles to magnetism, will self identify as the 7th dimension (Possibly heat, as it may somehow be distinguished from the inherent heat <motion> in matter and electromagnetism; though this consideration of a 7th dimension is only conjecture on the part of this record...) ....................................... Concluding the similarities - and the differences - between metric and non metric space; mathematics and geometry... The application of non metric mathematics to describe metric geometry is - however popularly employed - a non sequitur, with regard to the definition and recognition of physically manifest, measurable, observable and sensorially experienced, finitely presiding dimensions... I respectfully stand by for any counterpoints, or concurrences, from yourself (Aeschylus), or any other sincere reader & writer. Sincerely, KBR (Aka etceteras...) I think you need to review exactly what relativity says about mtter gravity and other dimensions, because staem,ents like 'electricity is the 5th diemnsion' really don't make any sense in the context of relativity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 Please dont ask me to explain as only a post with potential could merit a response and argument.......................... You have made two posts on these boards now, and both have been to insult another poster. Now, while I agree that the original poster has shown that he does not understand the concepts under discussion, I find your attitude unconstructive, unscientific (you make no attempt to point out his errors) and downright rude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts