Theory that reduces complexity of dimensions to base units

[the alien blogger]

I have been trying to get this out to people for many years via 'normal' channels, but i don't personally know any cosmologists. I know astronomers, and they have told me the theory is valid and potentially significant, but they were working in planetary, solar, and plasma science, so they weren't able to advise me further. They encouraged me to find someone in cosmology or theoretical mathematics, but that was harder than i realized. And now, since there are so many people with interesting theories, mine is just one of many. At least on this forum, there's a bunch of people who may have time to view it. So, here i am.

This theory reduces the dimensions down to a base algorithm that provides the "rules" for defining dimensions. It can be used to: predict the structure of any/all dimensions; and to help visualize how what we observe about our space and universe may be explained by that definition.

The article is titled, "Defining the 4th Dimension and Beyond." It's fairly long, but it offers a chance to skip on to part 3, so feel free to do so. Thank you, in advance, for your interest...

Url removed by mod.

the alien blogger

Edited February 19, 2013 by CaptainPanic

[CaptainPanic]

!

Moderator Note

I have put this thread in the Speculations forum, since it is clearly a "speculation" about a new theory.

Also, we have a couple of rules. We do not want you to just link to a blog, or just advertise a blog. Since your post, as it stands now, is essentially just a big advertisement for the link to your blog (which actually linked t the front page, instead of the actual article, I have removed it in accordance with our forum rules, specifically section 2.7. This will only temporarily halt the discussion, until you explain what you want to discuss here. We do not want the discussion to move to the comments section of your blog.

On our speculations forum, we have some additional rules too. Please read those.

[ajb]

The article is titled, "Defining the 4th Dimension and Beyond." It's fairly long, but it offers a chance to skip on to part 3, so feel free to do so. Thank you, in advance, for your interest...

Try to give us the basic ideas here to "hook us". We would like to discuss your ideas here.

[the alien blogger]

I am truly, truly sorry about the blog link...it *honestly* never dawned on me that it was not a 'legal' link--i had every intention of keeping the discussion on here for those on here who were interested in discussing it. I have been on other forums dealing with other subjects (in totally diff field), where people would link to a blog or other place in order to initiate discussion. That was all i was trying to do. And, i would have just posted the theory here...except that it had a bunch of graphics to go with it--so it seemed logical to just do the link.

 

please....i only wish to engage in conversation about it. And, please don't relegate me to pseudo-science. This is not pseudo-science. I have had astronomers looking at this, and they have validated it as a real theory!!

 

I had put this in an appropriate category where there were other 'speculations' about cosmology such as:

"Could the universe be alive" -- a speculation

"Creation of the universe"--which speculates about multi-universes

"Antigravity is the source of dark energy (accelerating expansion)"--where it is speculated that "The essence of dark energy is antigravity"

etc...etc...

 

I used logic and the rules of geometry for my theory -- there is nothing pseudo-science in what i have postulated.

 

please...i truly didn't mean it to be an 'ad' -- i just wanted to present my theory. (also, i didn't think it was possible in a blog to link to the specific article or i surely would have -- again, my apologies)

Edited February 19, 2013 by the alien blogger

[ajb]

please...i truly didn't mean it to be an 'ad' -- i just wanted to present my theory.

We understand and harm done. So please elaborate on your ideas here.

[the alien blogger]

We understand and harm done. So please elaborate on your ideas here.

 

oops -- this *is* pseudo-science. this is embarrassing to discuss it here.

Edited February 19, 2013 by the alien blogger

[the alien blogger]

Try to give us the basic ideas here to "hook us". We would like to discuss your ideas here.

 

------------------------

ajb - i happen to like dr who and tom baker, so i will share. it was brutal, but i have re-written the theory into a text-only version...

-------------------------

 

 

Abstract

 

This theory reduces the dimensions down to a base algorithm that provides the "rules" for defining dimensions. It can be used to: predict the structure of any/all dimensions; and to help visualize how what we observe about our space and universe may be explained by that definition.

 

 

Defining the 4th Dimension and Beyond

 

Hypothesis and Basis for My Model

 

Standard Geometry tells us about the properties/rules of points, lines planes and spaces…

• A point has no form, as it is infinitely small.
• A line has only length, is comprised of at least 2 points, and is infinitely long.
• A plane has two dimensions (length and width, x,y only), a flat surface area with no thickness that extends infinitely, and its area is comprised of points and lines.
• A space has three dimensions—length, width, and height (x,y,z), and its area is comprised of points, lines, and planes.

We also know that…

• A minimum of 2 points are needed for a line to exist.
• A minimum of 2 lines (parallel or intersecting), or 1 line+1 point, are needed for a plane to exist.
• A minimum of 2 planes (intersecting or parallel) are needed for a space to exist.

So, if we had a minimum of 2 spaces, what would now exist? (And following that logic, I wondered what a “parallel” or “intersecting” space would look like.)

Since the dimensions already were defined by numbers (and to make it easier on myself so I wouldn’t have to re-program my brain when thinking this through), I used the existing numbers. However, a point didn’t have any number, but since it was infinitesimally small, and since a zero would work for the sequence, I assigned the “dimension” 0 to a point. (I did feel good when I later found out that the science field had also decided to adopt that convention. And, it makes this part of the explanation easier.)

 

Using the dimensional numbers to represent the elements that define each dimension, we have…

 

Dimension Defined by

0 ------- Point

1 ------- Line

2 ------- Plane

3 ------- Space

4 ------- ???

 

Trying to visualize going from one space to another...in order to do that, we would have to go through *something.* Time? Space-time?

 

To help visualize that part, I went back and thought about pretending I was that two-dimensional (flat) being, living on a single plane. That plane would, then, be my entire universe—any other plane would be a different universe. In order to get from one plane to another, the “something” that I would have to traverse would be a space. That is because, to get off that plane, the only direction I could go is “up” or “down”—aka 3-D. Trouble is, I would not have any knowledge about “up” or “down” because my perspective is limited within my plane-world. Likewise, in my 3-D world, it’s hard to imagine a fourth dimensional direction I would need to traverse to get to to a "different" space.

In considering how we would get between any of the other dimensions…

Going between two Points — you would have to travel along a Line.

Going between parallel Lines — you would have to travel on a Plane.

Going between parallel Planes — you would have to travel through Space.

Going between [parallel?] Spaces — you would have to travel across ????

Given that, a space could also be defined as a whole bunch of planes stacked on top of one-another. So, what is it I would need to traverse to go between spaces? It would be something that contained a bunch of spaces. That *something* would, of course, be the 4th dimension. Like the planes all stacked up to create a space…what if we were to stack a whole bunch of spaces—what would it create? What would it look like?

The Minimal/Triangular Space Model

 

I thought it might be easier if I could pare down space to a minimal size. If I could better define what a “space” actually is. So, what is a space?

 

Space is a three-dimensional area. How do you define three dimensions? One way, of course, is with x, y, and z coordinates. But, I needed something much more basic—something that would be the minimal, base structure of space, and preferably of each dimension.

I thought about the least number of elements needed to create each dimension. What would be the least possible number of points to define each dimensional object…

 

LEAST POSSIBLE POINTS

Points = Dimension

1 = Point = 0

2 = Line = 1

3 = Plane = 2

4 = Space = 3

5 = ???? = 4

We can then interpolate that the fourth dimension would be defined with a minimum of 5 points.

Now, we only have to figure out where that fifth point needed to go. Where would it go? What would a least number of points *look* like?

 

VISUALIZATION

o = 1 Point = Dim 0

o----o = 2 Points = Dim 1

o

/ \

o --- o = 3 Points = Dim 2

 

[tetrahedron] = 4 Points = Dim 3

 

??? = 5 Points = Dim 4

 

The least possible points reduces it to TRIANGLES. And the least elements, then, would logically be an equilateral triangle. If everything was equal, the 4th dimension would also require the spacing of the points to be equal, the length of the lines to be equal, the size of the planes to be equal, etc.

 

The only place that was *equally* too short for all points and planes was the dead-center. If that center somehow burrowed in deeper than just our space—poking through to a "fourth dimension."

 

Expanding on that, we would have...

 

D o L P S 4d

-- -- -- -- -- --

0> 1- 0- 0- 0- 0

1> 2- 1- 0- 0- 0

2> 3- 3- 1- 0- 0

3> 4- 6- 4- 1- 0

4> 5-10-10-?- ?

 

Where D=Dimension, o=Points, L=Lines, P=Planes, S=Spaces, 4d=4th D

 

One can interpolate that the number of spaces for the next dimension would be “5.” There are, of course, other numbers that could be easily inferred. And, this could be used to postulate “negative” dimensions (could those apply on a sub-atomic scale?)

 

Looking at the pattern, it is clearly a section of Pascal's Triangle. That is potentially significant, and it makes sense.

 

 

White Holes—Tying It All Together With Some Tantalizing Theories

 

What would the representation of it actually look like? If the extended space bulges so far inside, that it pushes out into another 'place,' it would be a sort of an “anti-space” projection on the other side of that pinhole. This becomes a tesseract--but a triangular version--that hasn't yet been represented. (The image looks a bit like a crystalline structure).

 

Apparently, it involves 'poking a hole' through our existing universe. Black holes, crush everything down to a very small point—crushing so hard, they could be poking a hole right through to another “space” in another universe-- which would mean that both spaces together would comprise a fourth dimensional existence.

 

Is time the fourth dimension? It's more likely a time-space, as the “event horizon” would imply that. It could also be something more exotic.

 

There are several questions this suggests...

 

* Are photons a real-world example of dimension 0?

 

* What if our “big bang” in this space/universe of ours, is actually

a black hole that imploded in another universe and is now leaking in

from another space/universe—a WHITE hole here?!

 

* What if all of the black holes we see here have little spaces poking

out into other universes—becoming ‘white holes’ and spawning new spaces (a bubble universe elsewhere)?

 

* Could there be any other spaces 'intruding' on the edge of our space?

 

Edited February 19, 2013 by the alien blogger

[Popcorn Sutton]

To me, under these assumptions, white holes are only conceivable if black holes do not reduce the substance traveling through it. If black holes suck everything into them, do they also reduce what enters them? If they dont, then it is conceivable that an object that doesnt get reduced would go through the hole until it reaches the so called singularity, where once it impacts the singularity, it penetrates it and continues to travel beyond that point in space. Bt if that were the case, it would simply extend the length of the black hole, even if just for a moment. It would be interesting to see where you would end up if this happened, but i dont think that it would be in another universe, you could call it another universe, but it would probably be the same one. It all depends on what type of metaphor you want to use. When i refer to the universe, i think im referring to everything, however, if you want to make a distinction between universi, then is it not conceivable that every single cell is a universe in itself? Wouldnt the same be true of every solar system and every galaxy? I like to reduce all labels to one label, and that label is the unit. More specifically, it is a unit of knowledge. So what you are trying to do here is basically create a new sense. Its going to be very hard for us to detect this 4th dimension, not that it doesnt exist, but that its probably not observable. Or maybe it doesnt exist. The only conceivable way that it could exist (in my mind at least) is by having all these third dimensional spaces occur within another 3 dimensional space, which would actually make everything 3 dimensional and not 4 dimensional. Maybe 3 dimensions are maximal. However, if you want to consider time as another dimension, which i do not want to do because it seems that it exists within a 3 dimensional space even though it may contain all 3 dimensional spaces. What I do know is that if you want a computer to calculate time the way our biology does it (which is a combination of the conceptualization process and all the knowledge that we have accumulated), then you have to assume that motion is the ultimatum. As an independent observer in the 3 dimensional space, you have accumulated points of interest, and in the present progressive, you are receiving the next point of interest, which may not be in your knowledge, and if that is the case, then you will experience a P600 where a new connection is made, and this may result in an involuntary twitch. How does this relate to the 4th dimension? Well, in order to segment data, which is very similar to giving something a shape, you need to assume that at some point, the poi becomes the npoi, and the npoi becomes immediately empty, where then the npoi accumulates information from the poi that is not within the knowledge. Theres good reason to believe that this is what the process of time amounts to for subjective beings, so maybe this conception will provide some insight into your research. It seems to be a sort of double helix effect.