The strange stretch
hanson
There’s no problem to
take a Point and stretch it into a Line.
take a Line and stretch it into a Sheet.
take a Sheet and stretch it into a Block.
These are ponderable, predictable and real facts and acts of daily life.
Now, take the Block and stretch into a 4D entity….
….and the shit hits the fan. It’s like a terrorist attack onto our senses.
Reality and reason become unhinged and the master painters of nature, the
Picassos of physics emerge en mass and invent all kind of schemes, sketching
scenarios with dozens of new dimensions which attach themselves to even
stranger concepts yet…….. and the familiar, so far fruitless quarrels are on
and then even god is called upon for help. But it looks like he/she has not
answered yet.
The question that should be belabored is:
What is it, what is the underlaying phenomenon, either within our thinking
or in the external world out there, which causes nature to prohibit its
observability beyond 3D and to hide from us so effectively and abruptly
already after 3 orthogonally stacked dimensions?
Is there perhaps a conceivable mechanism which naturally and logically
terminates and forbids any physical existence of real constructs beyond 3
orthogonally stacked dimensions?
We can easily imagine an infinite amount of dots. We have no problems to
imagine a cosmic number of strings/threads by lining up these dots into
lines. But we begin to become outright frugal when it comes to make sheets
from these threads. Intuitively, there can’t possibly be as many sheets as
the number of threads these sheets are made from.
And now when we begin to stack up ALL these, still very many, bed sheets
atop of each other, we end up with looking at only one single, big 3 D pile,
space.
Now, where in the fuck are we gonna put this space, especially since there
is only space itself and we are part of it, to boot?
1,2,3……. and we come down from almost infinity to 1.
That must be the steepest growth curve ever invented.
My little flight of fancy is of course nothing new.
But any reference urls about this subject?
Thanks,
hanson
PS: That bending and twisting of space some Picassos has escaped into is of
course only because their minds have become bent and twisted in the process.
Uncle Al
>
> The strange stretch
>
> There’s no problem to
> take a Point and stretch it into a Line.
> take a Line and stretch it into a Sheet.
> take a Sheet and stretch it into a Block.
>
> These are ponderable, predictable and real facts and acts of daily life.
> Now, take the Block and stretch into a 4D entity….
>
> ….and the shit hits the fan. It’s like a terrorist attack onto our senses.
Uncle Al plinks terrorists for joy.
Google
tesseract construction 1070 hits
hypercube construction 5630 hits
"The Magic Encyclopedia ™ The Hypercube Construction (by Aale de
Winkel). The construction of hypercubes is one of the major points of
our investigation..."
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
hanson
news:3BDC5399...@hate.spam.net...
> hanson wrote:
> >
> > The strange stretch
> > ..and the shit hits the fan. It's like a terrorist attack onto our
senses.
[Uncle Al]
> Uncle Al plinks terrorists for joy.
[hanson]
"plink"? Al, "plink"?... Stay with your submarine/nuking recommendation, Al.
The mere announcement of your solution will make the good people rid their
own societies of their homegrown terrorist criminals. But "plinking"...
neeh, they won't pay attention to plinking. Your submarine/nuking is more
audible.
[Uncle Al]
> Google
> tesseract construction 1070 hits
> hypercube construction 5630 hits
[hanson]
Thanks Al, but I have visited there and have seen nada for my goobering.
All are concerned with justifications for the unreal and the unponderable.
[Uncle Al]
> "The Magic Encyclopedia T The Hypercube Construction (by Aale de
> Winkel). The construction of hypercubes is one of the major points of
> our investigation..."
[hanson]
De Winkel is an example why I posted:
> > PS: That bending and twisting of space
> > some Picassos have escaped into is of
> > course only because their minds have
> > become bent and twisted in the process.
De Winkel escapes from 3D reality right off the bat by inventing an unreal
language:
"The Construction of a hypercube is also called a "production" (in hypercube
language terminology) --- NOTE: currently this article must be seen as
preliminairy, some issues might change slightly when implented, in case I'll
intend to keep this article up to speed. --- NOTE: this article is not too
concerned with hypercube quality, the "productions" .
Yeah, right. Let him be! Let him sing! But his kind is not the choir I am
looking for.
I want an explanation why physical reality stops at 3D.
So let me restate some of the second part of my post.
==== start=== The question that should be belabored is:
What is it, what is the underlaying phenomenon, either within our thinking
or in the external world out there, which causes nature to prohibit its
observability beyond 3D and to hide from us so effectively and abruptly
already after 3 orthogonally stacked dimensions?
Is there perhaps a conceivable mechanism which naturally and logically
terminates and forbids any physical existence of real constructs beyond 3
orthogonally stacked dimensions?
We can easily imagine an infinite amount of dots. We have no problems to
imagine a cosmic number of strings/threads by lining up these dots into
lines. But we begin to become outright frugal when it comes to make sheets
from these threads. Intuitively, there can't possibly be as many sheets as
the number of threads these sheets are made from.
And now when we begin to stack up ALL these, still very many, bed sheets
atop of each other, we end up with looking at only one single, big 3 D pile,
space.
1,2,3... and we come down from almost infinity to 1.
That must be the steepest growth curve ever invented.
==== end ===
Thanks for taking an interest in the subject, Al. My interests are alongside
with your search for an empirically based description of nature. One of
these days, I will post some thoughts about ma <> GmM/r^2 and why your
probings are so intriguing to me.
regards,
hanson
tj Frazir
in the other hand . The facts began first thing first , its geting hold
of the first thing. Space . What gravity is in space.
The first thing was a Big Bang of evrything .
The walls of that bang are still outward and we are inside the walls .
Still inside the expansion of the energy that was and still is as time
its self. Its plain to me that what ever we call matter is stable and
not expanding at the rate space is. So a low must form around matter .
Is not gravity the big question ? The esence of your pondering
insperation of the thred. I could explain away magnetic repullsion and
atraction and still comply with conservation and GR.
Evryone avoids gravity stating it causes too much trouble ! Its plain
to me just why I sink in my seat . Yet no mater how easy it is no one
seams to understand the universe full of energy pushing that wall out.
Its beond the laws of conservation to think its pulling that wall out by
itself , the energy under presure inside the universe must push the wall
out. The EMF waves matte makes and the light sound the waves make and
the lowering of the energy presure of space by the presence of mass is
plain to me. I gess Im realy a simple dude in a simple universe with
allot of cash. Having some fun now and then string the intelects wile I
ponder on their sences of reality.
3s & 8s
Mark Palenik
tj Frazir wrote:
> Is the constant fack most physicsist forget whats
Whats a fack?
--
Make money for surfing the web at
http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=BSF783
(turn cookies on first)
Proud member of The Elite Council of Pointlessness.
Mark Palenik, President of
________
/-------/\
/--------\/\
|--_____ -\/\
|--|++++\--\/|
|--|+++++\-|/|RAKKON Software Productions
|--|+++++|-|/|
|--|+++++|-|//_For company info, go to,
|--|+++++|-/___http://drakkon.excelland.com/
|--\____/-/____http://www.segasonic.simplenet.com/stjr
\--------/
http://drakkon.excelland.com/
http://www.segasonic.simplenet.com/stjr
EL
From any hypothetical point at anywhere, the infinite can be divided
into two equal infinities.
Thus it is the point and the two that create the infinite plane of
Null.
On the same point of origin the infinite plane of Null can be divided
into two equal infinities.
Thus a second order division have introduced the infinite line that
was able to divide the infinite plane that divides the ALL and
infinite.
The infinite line is found to be inherently divided into two
infinities at the logical point of origin.
Therefore a point is the logical entity for joining lines, which are
logical entities for joining planes, which are logical entities for
joining ALL.
Sorry, nothing was left to join further or beyond ALL. :)
Hyper objects are relativistic entities, which demands evolution.
If the inner works of ALL was not "dynamic", 3D would not even have a
meaning.
Therefore it is and it begins by 4D spacetime.
EL
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message news:<8%WC7.5688$I4.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> The strange stretch
>
> There’s no problem to
> take a Point and stretch it into a Line.
> take a Line and stretch it into a Sheet.
> take a Sheet and stretch it into a Block.
>
> These are ponderable, predictable and real facts and acts of daily life.
> Now, take the Block and stretch into a 4D entity….
>
> ….and the shit hits the fan. It’s like a terrorist attack onto our senses.
> Reality and reason become unhinged and the master painters of nature, the
> Picassos of physics emerge en mass and invent all kind of schemes, sketching
> scenarios with dozens of new dimensions which attach themselves to even
> stranger concepts yet…….. and the familiar, so far fruitless quarrels are on
> and then even god is called upon for help. But it looks like he/she has not
> answered yet.
>
> The question that should be belabored is:
> What is it, what is the underlaying phenomenon, either within our thinking
> or in the external world out there, which causes nature to prohibit its
> observability beyond 3D and to hide from us so effectively and abruptly
> already after 3 orthogonally stacked dimensions?
>
> Is there perhaps a conceivable mechanism which naturally and logically
> terminates and forbids any physical existence of real constructs beyond 3
> orthogonally stacked dimensions?
>
> We can easily imagine an infinite amount of dots. We have no problems to
> imagine a cosmic number of strings/threads by lining up these dots into
> lines. But we begin to become outright frugal when it comes to make sheets
> from these threads. Intuitively, there can’t possibly be as many sheets as
> the number of threads these sheets are made from.
> And now when we begin to stack up ALL these, still very many, bed sheets
> atop of each other, we end up with looking at only one single, big 3 D pile,
> space.
> Now, where in the fuck are we gonna put this space, especially since there
> is only space itself and we are part of it, to boot?
>
> 1,2,3……. and we come down from almost infinity to 1.
hanson
news:7563cb80.01102...@posting.google.com...
> Hyper objects are relativistic entities,
Certainly, EL. But that was not what I was after.
My perhaps longwinded intro must have sounded confusing.
Like you, Al had the impression that I was after Hyper-bods.
Sorry.
The second half of my post asks:
> > What is it, what is the underlaying phenomenon,
> > either within our thinking or in the external world
> > out there, which causes nature to prohibit its
> > observability beyond 3D and to hide from us
> > so effectively and abruptly
> > already after 3 orthogonally stacked dimensions?
In one sentence:
***** Why do only 3D objects have physical reality? ******
I have never grabbed a physical 1 or 2 dimensional point or line.
Neither did I ever catch a 3DT or a 4D hyper-body.
AFAIAC, where I live, every ponderable mass is old fashioned 3D
Thanks,
YBBOB
hanson
"EL" <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7563cb80.01102...@posting.google.com...
hanson
news:12149-3B...@storefull-265.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> A rare post indead .
Aye, thank you, tj, rare yes, but I am not dead yet. Indeed, I still can
respond.
I don't know what's so good about my post, since I only asked a question.
But I do appreciate your honors.
> Is the constant fack most physicsist forget whats
> in the other hand . The facts began first thing first ,
> its geting hold of the first thing.
tj, you must express yourself more clearly. You know, your 3 lines sound
like your are describing your visit to the doctor after you did come out of
the establishment in the red light district in the port, last Saturday
night, after you played with the hookers' knockers, when they treated your
head. You are some hot grandpa, tj.
> >Space . What gravity is in space.
> The first thing was a Big Bang of evrything .
> The walls of that bang are still outward
> and we are inside the walls .
> Still inside the expansion of the energy
> that was and still is as time
> its self. Its plain to me that what ever we
> call matter is stable and
> not expanding at the rate space is.
Well, as long as you believe in the Big Bang you are absolutely right.
But as far as I am concerned the BB is only a belief, like the
interpretations of the bible or the Qoran. It depends what you accept as the
truth.
> So a low must form around matter .
What "low"?. Like a low in the weather forecast, predicting a storm?
> Is not gravity the big question ?
> The esence of your pondering
> insperation of the thred. I could explain
> away magnetic repullsion and
> atraction and still comply with conservation and GR.
> Evryone avoids gravity stating it causes too much trouble !
Well then, tj, never mind the gravity for a moment, just explain to us why
all masses have only 3 spatial dimensions.
> Its plain to me just why I sink in my seat .
> Yet no mater how easy it is no one
> seams to understand the universe full
> of energy pushing that wall out.
That is absolutely cool, tj. But that is not what I was after in this post.
best regards, old sailor,
hanson
"tj Frazir" <Gravity...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:12149-3B...@storefull-265.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Mark Fergerson
>
> "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:3BDC5399...@hate.spam.net...
> > hanson wrote:
> > >
> > > The strange stretch
> > > Now, take the Block and stretch it into a 4D entity..
> > > ..and the shit hits the fan. It's like a terrorist attack onto our
> senses.
>
> [Uncle Al]
> > Uncle Al plinks terrorists for joy.
>
> [hanson]
> "plink"? Al, "plink"?... Stay with your submarine/nuking recommendation, Al.
> The mere announcement of your solution will make the good people rid their
> own societies of their homegrown terrorist criminals. But "plinking"...
> neeh, they won't pay attention to plinking. Your submarine/nuking is more
> audible.
Are you aware that casual target shooting is
called "plinking"? And that some professional
snipers use the term for what they do, as well?
Did you also know that many of them favor the .22
LR? IMNSHO surgical sniping is preferable to
nuclear anything, with the possible exception of
DU .22 slugs. ;>)
> [Uncle Al]
> > Google
> > tesseract construction 1070 hits
> > hypercube construction 5630 hits
>
> [hanson]
> Thanks Al, but I have visited there and have seen nada for my goobering.
> All are concerned with justifications for the unreal and the unponderable.
Gee, had you considered that might be due to the
fact that 4D structures _are_ unponderable, thus
considered unreal? That's the essential difference
between math and physics AFAICT.
<snip>
> Is there perhaps a conceivable mechanism which naturally and logically
> terminates and forbids any physical existence of real constructs beyond 3
> orthogonally stacked dimensions?
Look at it this way; an examination of
biological systems shows that they'll exploit
_any_ physical phenomenon in the constant
competition for resources. Now, wouldn't the
ability to directly examine the 4D trajectory of,
say, a predator be advantageous to a prey animal,
or vice versa? Of course. Yet, no examples seen.
Besides, recall that certain kinds and
combinations of rotational/translational
symmetries (the kinds we see) are only possible in
3+1 spacetime, not to mention 1/r^2 gravity, etc.
Also be aware that extra dimensions
(Kaluza-Klein, superstring, and other models) have
severe limitations as to the allowed size of
"microscopic" >4D structures due to not-seen
predicted effects like short-range variations in
the aforementioned 1/r^2 thing.
Nature just don't do it that way. She don't have
to say why.
Mark L. Fergerson
hanson
Please check the reformulation of my question in my reply to EL, .
Should you elect to respond again, consideration #1 is:
Do you want to convince me or yourself?
If you are happy in your 4D world, cool!
Your concluding line....
> Nature just don't do it that way.
> She don't have to say why.
hanson
PS: Nature = She, you said?.....That might be a reason for a cyber game to
start.....
"Mark Fergerson" <mferg...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3BDCF0D4...@home.com...
Mark Fergerson
>
> Very nice, Mark. Thanks.
> Please check the reformulation of my question in my reply to EL, .
OK. The key word in your rephrasement seems to
be "ponderable". Well, since you and I seem to be
3D objects in a 4D continuum, why would you expect
to be able to observe or handle anything else? For
that matter, what would you expect a 1D, 2D, or
4-or-moreD object to look/feel like?
> Should you elect to respond again, consideration #1 is:
> Do you want to convince me or yourself?
Of course. ;>)
> If you are happy in your 4D world, cool!
Happiness is irrelevant. I just like to know how
(not necessarily _why_) things work.
> Your concluding line....
> > Nature just don't do it that way.
> > She don't have to say why.
> .... has profound philosophical content, but ......
My point is that we can try to second-guess all
we want, but the bottom line is what's observable.
That's why I mentioned K-K and superstring
theories' "predictions" of > 3D structures and
their hypothetical observable effects, which we
don't see.
> hanson
>
> PS: Nature = She, you said?.....That might be a reason for a cyber game to
> start.....
Nah, just traditional anthropomorphizing. "It"
would do as well.
Mark L. Fergerson
hanson
[hanson]
> > Do you want to convince me or yourself?
>
[Mark]
> Of course. ;>)
> That's why I mentioned K-K and superstring theories'
> "predictions" of > 3D structures and their hypothetical
> observable effects, which we don't see.
[hanson]
So, you convinced yourself with “hypothetical observable effects, which we
don't see”. It’s a little bit like sci-fi, isn’t it? I am glad you did and
do so.
I hope your “we” is mostly you, praying that “you” are “real, observable and
visible”.
But then, how can I be sure sure, considering that this is cyber space….
Nevertheless, you’re cool, Mark
hanson
EL
Names and numbers!
OK.
We are 4D beings, where the 4th dimension is where the concluded
superposition of our cognitive abilities exist, hence the 3D part
evolving through the forth is what we can grasp and no more, even if
there is.
EL
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message news:<D95D7.9037$2K5.9...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
hanson
> We are 4D beings, where the 4th dimension is where the concluded
> superposition of our cognitive abilities exist, hence the 3D part
> evolving through the forth is what we can grasp and no more, even if
> there is.
[hanson]
... kinda like a typewriter, typing away all by itself to produce a
description of itself?
You got my attention, dude.
You got an outright fascinating approach here to illuminate why only objects
with 3 spatial dimensions do have ponderable physical reality.
Let me hear more details about your insights , with the following requests:
1) Explain in plain street lingo. Later on we can talk fancy.
2) Include a rock, not only us humans, into this concept, so that we will
remain the realm of physics and do not cross over into metaphysics.
This is cool, man!
YBBOB, hanson
"EL" <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7563cb80.01102...@posting.google.com...
> [EL]
> Names and numbers!
> OK.
> We are 4D beings, where the 4th dimension is where the concluded
> superposition of our cognitive abilities exist, hence the 3D part
> evolving through the forth is what we can grasp and no more, even if
> there is.
> EL
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:<D95D7.9037$2K5.9...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> >
Mark Fergerson
>
> "Mark Fergerson" <mferg...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:3BDDD0FF...@home.com...
>
> [hanson]
> > > Do you want to convince me or yourself?
> >
> [Mark]
> > Of course. ;>)
> > That's why I mentioned K-K and superstring theories'
> > "predictions" of > 3D structures and their hypothetical
> > observable effects, which we don't see.
>
> [hanson]
> So, you convinced yourself with “hypothetical observable effects, which we
> don't see”. It’s a little bit like sci-fi, isn’t it? I am glad you did and
> do so.
I guess I better expand that. Theories that
incorporate extra (more than three space)
dimensions make certain predictions, like gravity
not obeying the 1/r^2 law at certain distances,
and we don't see such effects. That indicates the
theories aren't an adequate explanation of
reality. Not "wrong", just not adequate in current
form.
Theories that don't, like G and S relativity,
make predictions which we _do_ see, so why worry
about extra dimensions? Well, there's the fact
that the relativities have singularities (signals
that the theory fails at some point where extra
dimensions _might_ help), and the possibility that
some of those other theories just need a little
tweaking, but we won't know if everybody decides
they're not worth pursuing.
> I hope your “we” is mostly you, praying that “you” are “real, observable and
> visible”.
"We" is meant to indicate those that study such
things and those of us that study their output.
> But then, how can I be sure sure, considering that this is cyber space….
You can't of course, but then I've been told I'm
way too silly to be a cybernetic "fake" person.
How the hell do _I_ know?
> Nevertheless, you’re cool, Mark
Some would argue that, but I'm too cool to
care... ;>)
Mark L. Fergerson
EL
Hi Hans. :)
In plain street lingo and in pain of less than fancy, let us not just
include a rock but let us be rocks. <g>
Oops, sorry, I stopped writing and even thinking when I was a rock, so
I had to stop being a rock to write down my experience. <g>
To include a rock, we need to make it the ponderable (object) rather
than the pondering-able subject.
In street simple lingo, I should begin by recognizing a rock to be a
rock through a visual encounter, yet there might be no big difference
between seeing the rock or the picture taken from the exact
coordinates from which the visual sense is recognizing a rock. Now we
do agree in consensus that a picture is strictly a 2D representation
of the image of a rock, and that what gives the image a third
dimension is the fact that we do have two eyes rather than one, where
each eye can see a slightly different picture and integrate the
information mentally.
Therefore, recognizing a rock through a single eye vision, or looking
at the picture of the same object makes no difference.
Therefore, we do have 2D experiences as well as 3D experiences.
Looking at the side view of the picture paper itself we can only see a
line, which could be represented by a very thin wire, which on
observing from a side view we could reduce it to a point before it can
disappear.
Time, and the disappearing rock trick.
Let us make a movie about a rock placed on a table, taking 30 frames
per second, and stop the movie recording at frame 150, then let us
remove the rock and continue with our recording.
On playback we can see a rock that would disappear after 5 seconds.
Now the rock should occupy zero dimensions, because we have
accelerated the relative events between the 150th frame and the 151st
frame to an infinite rate while time was stopped. That is how our
simple senses could be fooled.
If we realize that a single eye has the construction that can handle
parallel and simultaneous light rays which are our mental
representation of the pints on the surface of a spherical wave
superposition of light propagation from a point through the infinite
number of radii in the continuum, then we should understand that the
nature of information stimulating our visual sense is 2D stimulations,
which varies along the third dimension of time, which corresponds to
the third spatial dimension in motion in the "normal" direction
(perpendicular) to the plane surface of visible information.
The primordial nature of existence is demonstrated in the most simple
vector, displacement. The magnitude of any dimension can be reduced to
an absolute notation (unsigned) "X". Thus, a line is "nomially"
expressed as X which is X^1, hence, a point is X^0 and a plane is X^2
and a cube is X^3. SO let us assume that a "hypercube" is X^4 and test
if it was ponderable or not. Firstly, we do understand that a point is
an abstract reduction of dimensions to zero, which is required for the
minimum dimension as a bipolar limit for the single dimension.
As you have brilliantly posted, a point can be "stretched" into a line
but stretching a point into a line is an action of displacement, that
is a point evolving in time. With zero dimensions evolving in time we
begin to have a single compound dimension of space. Now, let the point
oscillate, where a period designates conversion on limit at infinity
and reflection by crossing the vector boundary between opposite signs
of infinities. In other words, changing direction by reflection to the
opposite direction is in fact a forward direction by crossing the
boundary between infinities of opposite signs. The time period of
oscillation is what arbitrates the wavelength, which is a single
spatial dimension. Now let our wave escalate by undergoing another
displacement in any direction that has no components in the two
infinities of the first dimension. Now we have a wave plane-
propagation and a second time rate and two more infinities. If our
hypothetical point was to propagate in all possible directions which
has no components into each other we shall come back to our famous 3D
being a displacement of a point in 3D. Now our choices are saturated
in the degrees of freedom and we must break the world boundary and
begin to consider the 3D rock as if it was a point and start all over.
Now we can displace the rock along a line or oscillate the rock and
displace the oscillating rock along a plane. Now we can oscillate the
oscillation and displace the plane rock in the third dimension, and we
can sustain an oscillation to create a hyper-cubic rock, where the
cube is nothing more than an oscillating rock, which is a 3D
oscillation of a point, which is yet a 3D oscillation of a
sub-observable entity. Now we can displace the hyper-cubic rock in 3D
and create a hyper-hyper-cubic rock, so how many dimensions do we have
here?
<g>
:):):)
Certainly we can imagine an infinite number of dimensions based on the
simple rules of orthogonality of the basic three directions plus time
per world.
Since our relative world of consciousness can focus on the act of
pondering the same world or any other single world at a time, the
delta world resultant must fall under the basic orthogonal
non-interfering quantological factors evolving along the one and only
ponderable relative line of time.
The resulting delta-consciousness must be in terms of the primordial
"4D", which are not really dimensions but rather logical relations
governing the three orthogonal infinite deities (the holy triangle)
evolving respectively along the dimensionless relational comparative
line of time.
So in In plain street lingo, which I have obviously betrayed. :):):)
Kindest regards. :)
EL
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message news:<eOyD7.3084$hZ.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
Oriel36
>
> OK. The key word in your rephrasement seems to
> be "ponderable". Well, since you and I seem to be
> 3D objects in a 4D continuum, why would you expect
> to be able to observe or handle anything else? For
> that matter, what would you expect a 1D, 2D, or
> 4-or-moreD object to look/feel like?
You probably take it for granted that a movie is constructed of a
sequence of 2D images played out over time yet nobody mistakes the
images on the screen for reality even if it represents a good 3D
effect.Considering the development of the 3D Universe in a similar
manner (the development of observable and tangible objects played out
over time ;stars ,galaxies ect)from the moment of expansion to the
present,why appeal to time as an extra dimension let alone higher
dimensions to provide an explanation of 3D reality ?.
The 4D continuum view cannot be anything other than a limited or
provisional concept,at present the very real 3D cosmos is getting cut
to pieces in favor of propositions that are getting more absurd ,even
metaphysics cannot rescue you from some conclusions.If you insist that
the laws of physics were operative from the moment of expansion with
every point as the center and the rest of the Universe has been
expanding away from you>the planet>the solar system>the galaxy for the
last 14 billion years ,it may be fine for you to station the Earth at
the center of the cosmos (remember everything is expanding away from
you) but for a number of centuries men prefer a more realistic
picture.
I would not wish to interfere with Hanson's line of reason or hijack
this thread for a point that is recycled until it gets boring but when
the next 'exciting' leap in understanding the cosmos comes dressed up
in dimensions higher than 3D the laws of physics will have dissolved
into metaphysics that not even the creationists would touch.
Oriel36
> make predictions which we _do_ see, so why worry
> about extra dimensions? Well, there's the fact
> that the relativities have singularities (signals
> that the theory fails at some point where extra
> dimensions _might_ help), and the possibility that
> some of those other theories just need a little
> tweaking, but we won't know if everybody decides
> they're not worth pursuing.
Mark,
Maybe for people like Hawkings,physics is over bar the 'tweaking' and
there is nothing left for the younger generation except trivia or
biology.Of course the theories won't be worth pursuing,that's the
name of the game when you fight hard to block off any further
investigation by constructing principles of ignorance and higher
dimensional Universe(s),it is the 'genius' of self-promotion that
assures that there is a similarity between what an Archemides,a Kepler
or a Pascal accomplished and the contemporary mind even when
everything suggests that the current mathematical models tend toward
absurdity.
You don't seem to mind the absurdities and can live comfortably with
your odd creation but as Hanson's says 'that's cool'
hanson
> The strange stretch
I thank all you guys Al, EL, Mark and Oriel for responding. I have some
problems with understanding the drift of what some of you mean to say. It
comes across to me as skirting the issue, even avoiding the question. This
obviously lays in the way I presented my argument. So let me try again.
1) “why does every ponderable mass have 3 and only 3 spatial dimensions”?
2) “what causes nature to prohibit its observability beyond 3D and to hide
from us so effectively and abruptly already after 3 orthogonally stacked
dimensions?
3) “why do only 3 spatial dimension appear ponderably manifest and real in
the physical universe”?
I am not interested in the justification or the defense for the need or
existence of higher dimensional grand theories. ---- I only want to know
answers to 1-3, WITHOUT invoking 3DT, 3DT+ or T, time itself. Treat these 3
questions as the one and the same problem, which I have expressed in 3
different sentences.
The reason why I have this temporary obsession with “why does every
ponderable mass have 3 and only 3 spatial dimensions” is because if that is
not known then all those fancy grand theories (>3DT) rest on very shaky
ground and even shakier foundations. My question, “why does every ponderable
mass have 3 and only 3 spatial dimensions” emerged because of Al’s Eotvoes
EP question, Nemesis postulates and Van Flanderns grav. speeding doubts.
These 3 guys’ posts are the ones where I can detect an urge to push the
envelope and to look over the fence, ***at the fundamental level***. The
vast majority of postings by others is content to rewrite, reformulate,
recite, regurgitate, parakeet and pontificate about theories which are
known, accepted, warm, secure and cozy. This is cool and I have no beef with
it, but I no longer wonder why these 3 guys are bitched at from all sides.
It’s because their feelers do instill insecurity and fears into the existing
paradigm……. a schreck, which may turn out to have been only unjustified
anxious paranoia.
Sure there are many sincere “logical” answers like:
Mass is the 3D phenomenon which makes the universe be the 3D universe we
see.
or
Mass is a phenomenon which is fundamental and one of its properties happens
to be it’s 3D residence.
or
Mass has 3 spatial dimensions because mass is 3D space with a non zero
density.
or
Mass is a property of fermions which obey the Pauli exclusion principle,
or
Mass is the agent which relates acceleration and gravitation, or force and
space curvature,…. mass is collapsed energy, mass is the property of a
particle….etc, etc, etc.
But all such “definitions” are all really just excuses for “why every
ponderable mass does have 3 and only 3 spatial dimensions”……….
BTW, I don’t care whether somebody hijacks this thread. The more the better.
I like to see some answers which fit into my Weltbild and then move on to
obsess with something else.
Thanks and have at it with best regards,
hanson
Paul Mays
hanson wrote:
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
> news:8%WC7.5688$I4.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > The strange stretch
>
> I thank all you guys Al, EL, Mark and Oriel for responding. I have some
> problems with understanding the drift of what some of you mean to say. It
> comes across to me as skirting the issue, even avoiding the question. This
> obviously lays in the way I presented my argument. So let me try again.
>
> 1) “why does every ponderable mass have 3 and only 3 spatial dimensions”?
Because there are only 3 spatial dimensions...
>
>
> 2) “what causes nature to prohibit its observability beyond 3D and to hide
> from us so effectively and abruptly already after 3 orthogonally stacked
> dimensions?
Because there are only 3 spatial dimensions...
>
>
> 3) “why do only 3 spatial dimension appear ponderably manifest and real in
> the physical universe”?
Because there are only 3 spatial dimensions...
>
>
> I am not interested in the justification or the defense for the need or
> existence of higher dimensional grand theories. ---- I only want to know
> answers to 1-3, WITHOUT invoking 3DT, 3DT+ or T, time itself. Treat these 3
> questions as the one and the same problem, which I have expressed in 3
> different sentences.
Kewl...
hanson
news:3BE0471B...@Mays.com...
> > "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
> > news:8%WC7.5688$I4.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > > The strange stretch
> >
> Because there are only 3 spatial dimensions...
Very, very good, uncle Paul !!!!!.
Now, keep on making your case to the folks who insist that there are up to
21, if not an infinite amount of spatial dimensions, of which all expect 3,
are
supposed to be twisted, curved and/or curled up, some say a result of
intersections with other universes.
Plead your case to the guys who insist that there is no center in their
finite 3D universe.
I wish that your obvious, empirical view could convince them to work on
and present physical theories which do not escape from our 3D world reality
into branes and manifolds and other higher spatial existences where they
ride their hypercubes.
You are kewl, dude !
hanson
tj Frazir
Instant universe ? NO.
Its still expanding . All that energy from that big bang is still
getting bigger . The presure of this energy from the BB is still making
the universe larger. Still growing still going .
But what ever mass is made of , its not getting bigger. Its condenced
or what ever but its in a constant state and stable .
As the universe gets larger and mass stays the same a low forms around
mass. Mass bends space as the energy from the big bang expands . Bent
space is a low in the expansion of the universe. To fall is to be
pushed to less energy. Thats not quite like any other . This is not
they way they thought long ago. Not the eather not dark matter.
This is first thing first , gravity. Quantom physics is ass
backwards. The math is ok but what you think your mesuring is all
fucked up.
The nucleus is in motion . Its spinning and rocking at the same time
Its in orbit on its axis. Its making intence waves in the energy
from the big bang around it as it dose. The motion of the nucleus is
thermal . The wave it makes is the electron. Light is the sound the
back of the wave makes. Its still GR . nothing diferant . I just put
first thing first and there you are ...reality .
Whats the big deal ? So what ! I should not have to carve it in
stone befor conservation calls pull stupid. The energy of the universe
is under presure , deal with that !
Thompson J
Paul Mays
hanson wrote:
Don't know bout that... But my mama loves me.....
>
> hanson
EL
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
> news:8%WC7.5688$I4.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > The strange stretch
>
> I thank all you guys Al, EL, Mark and Oriel for responding. I have some
> problems with understanding the drift of what some of you mean to say. It
> comes across to me as skirting the issue, even avoiding the question. This
> obviously lays in the way I presented my argument. So let me try again.
>
[EL]
Ah! But in this case you force me to ask three questions too:
1- What is an Integer number?
2- What does "Spatial" mean?
3- What is a "Dimension".
Certainly it would be extremely kind of you to add a voluntary
paragraph on "ponderable mass", where you dedicate a verbose section
on each word of the two. :)
Only then I can really give you an answer that can satisfy you.
Kind regards.
EL
>
> 2) “what causes nature to prohibit its observability beyond 3D and to hide
> from us so effectively and abruptly already after 3 orthogonally stacked
> dimensions?
>
> 3) “why do only 3 spatial dimension appear ponderably manifest and real in
> the physical universe”?
>
> I am not interested in the justification or the defense for the need or
> existence of higher dimensional grand theories. ---- I only want to know
> answers to 1-3, WITHOUT invoking 3DT, 3DT+ or T, time itself. Treat these 3
> questions as the one and the same problem, which I have expressed in 3
> different sentences.
>
> The reason why I have this temporary obsession with “why does every
> ponderable mass have 3 and only 3 spatial dimensions” is because if that is
> not known then all those fancy grand theories (>3DT) rest on very shaky
> ground and even shakier foundations. My question, “why does every ponderable
> mass have 3 and only 3 spatial dimensions” emerged because of Al’s Eotvoes
> EP question, Nemesis postulates and Van Flanderns grav. speeding doubts.
> These 3 guys’ posts are the ones where I can detect an urge to push the
> envelope and to look over the fence, ***at the fundamental level***. The
> vast majority of postings by others is content to rewrite, reformulate,
> recite, regurgitate, parakeet and pontificate about theories which are
> known, accepted, warm, secure and cozy. This is cool and I have no beef with
> it, but I no longer wonder why these 3 guys are bitched at from all sides.
> It’s because their feelers do instill insecurity and fears into the existing
> paradigm……. a schreck, which may turn out to have been only unjustified
> anxious paranoia.
>
> Sure there are many sincere “logical” answers like:
> Mass is the 3D phenomenon which makes the universe be the 3D universe we
> see.
> or
> Mass is a phenomenon which is fundamental and one of its properties happens
> to be it’s 3D residence.
> or
> Mass has 3 spatial dimensions because mass is 3D space with a non zero
> density.
> or
> Mass is a property of fermions which obey the Pauli exclusion principle,
> or
> Mass is the agent which relates acceleration and gravitation, or force and
> space curvature,…. mass is collapsed energy, mass is the property of a
> particle….etc, etc, etc.
>
> But all such “definitions” are all really just excuses for “why every
> ponderable mass does have 3 and only 3 spatial dimensions”……….
>
> BTW, I don’t care whether somebody hijacks this thread. The more the better.
mark brown
and extrapolate errorlessly on the size and lifespan of the milky way and
other galaxies,
you see errorlessly, it's not just one big bang, but several, in linear
time,
or one big intertemporal one, but composite in characteristic,
and in linear time spread out peppered across the universe.
--
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
au...@mail.direcpc.com "all is meow when said in kitten"
au...@detroit.freenet.org perfect peace be upon you forever salami/salam
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
"tj Frazir" <Gravity...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:22986-3B...@storefull-265.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
tj Frazir
still. All the energy of the universe is inside the blast and still
getting bigger . Its because the energy expanding and forming a low
called gravity around matter that is not getting bigger that the
things you see happen.
Zagan
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
> news:8%WC7.5688$I4.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > The strange stretch
>
> I thank all you guys Al, EL, Mark and Oriel for responding. I have some
> problems with understanding the drift of what some of you mean to say. It
> comes across to me as skirting the issue, even avoiding the question. This
> obviously lays in the way I presented my argument. So let me try again.
>
> 1) "why does every ponderable mass have 3 and only 3 spatial dimensions"?
[Zagan]
Because the others exist curled up in space to a degree less than a Planck
length.
> 2) "what causes nature to prohibit its observability beyond 3D and to hide
> from us so effectively and abruptly already after 3 orthogonally stacked
> dimensions?
[Zagan]
It's really small, less than a Planck length.
> 3) "why do only 3 spatial dimension appear ponderably manifest and real in
> the physical universe"?
[Zagan]
Because the others are really small, again, less than a Planck length.
My replies are, of course, based on String Theory which may or may not be
true.
Regards,
// Jim
--
|| Free Science Fiction
|| The Keepers of Forever
|| Read reviews & download Novel
|| www.atlantic.net/~jcd
hanson
news:uEHE7.2447$yl.1...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
> My replies are, of course, based on
> String Theory which may or may not be true
Thanks, and yep, Jim, your doubts may be true.
But consider,
== Size of a dimension has nothing to with its existence. Either it's there
or it is not.
== AFA string theory and string length go, calculate the length of the
string with a Planck length cross section for the volume of an electron of
classical radius.
It turns out that the length of this string of a Planks length sized cross
section will stretch across the observable universe. I shit you not.
The simple numerical estimate for this is in my recent archive under
perhaps:
Subject: Hubble and Planck --- compared
Date: 2001-09-08 12:22:30 PST
news:<meum7.6067$5r.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
or in
Subject: Re: Superstrings = fundamental cosmic strings?
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 00:08:40 GMT
Message-ID: <c4So7.523$Md5....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
So dimensions, no matter how small, simply don't go away.
And the strange stretch in the 3D mystery continues,
hanson
Zagan
> "Zagan" <$$j...@atlantic.net.$$> wrote in message
> news:uEHE7.2447$yl.1...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
>
> > My replies are, of course, based on
> > String Theory which may or may not be true
>
> Thanks, and yep, Jim, your doubts may be true.
> But consider,
>
> == Size of a dimension has nothing to with its existence. Either it's
there
> or it is not.
[Zagan]
I'm not as up to date on string theory as I should be to discuss the matter,
but I'll risk putting my foot in my mouth (wouldn't be the first time. :)).
To put myself in perspective, I am merely a scientific minded layperson
who'd rather read a science book than watch TV. I dropped out of college in
the early 70's because I thought I wanted to be a rock star (ha!). Several
years later, when that didn't work out, I entered the "regular" job market.
I eventually landed a job as a mechanical engineer even tho I had no degree
(it's a long story). I am now the head programmer at a medical firm that
manufactures a product that is part electronic hardware and part software
(I'm a self-taught computer programmer with a knowledge of electronics). I
got these jobs by demonstrating ability, not because of a college degree
(tho having a degree would've been better). Forgive me if I sound like I'm
bragging. I just want people to know where I'm coming from. I am not a
scientist. I won't pretend to be. I'm just a regular Joe who has
demonstrated the ability to teach himself things and sometimes get paid for
it. My formal knowledge of science is limited to two years of college
(engineering program). Otherwise, my knowledge comes from having read
hundreds of science books over the years. That's who I am, and anything I
say should be considered in this light. My primary point is that I am _not_
an authority, and what I say is just (somewhat educated) opinion.
Now to your point. I agree that the "size of a dimension has nothing to with
its existence." As far as the extra dimensions string theory requires, these
are so small that there is no way we can directly experience them. At this
point we can't even produce the energy required to make "observations" to
that small a degree. In this sense, string theory is not a good theory. The
reason it is so popular is that it offers reasons for things quantum
mechanics cannot. QM describes things, but for the most part cannot say
"why" they are what we find. ST offers the possibility of explaining the
why, not just the what. It also provides a means of possibly reconciling QM
with Einstein's GR (which has been a problem for a long time). In this sense
it is a good theory. It explains things that otherwise would have to taken
as just a given without explanation. We've been doing this with classical
physics and QM all along. We know a lot of "what's" but very little of the
"why's." ST may offer some of the "why's" we've been missing.
With ST, tho, we have those pesky extra curled up dimensions. As I
understand it, these extra dimensions are required by the theory to make it
work (on paper at least)
The three dimensions of "ponderable mass" are observed because they manifest
on the macro scale. The extra dimensions of ST are not observed (directly)
because of their small size.
> == AFA string theory and string length go, calculate the length of the
> string with a Planck length cross section for the volume of an electron
of
> classical radius.
> It turns out that the length of this string of a Planks length sized cross
> section will stretch across the observable universe. I shit you not.
>
> The simple numerical estimate for this is in my recent archive under
> perhaps:
[Zagan]
I couldn't get you links to work. Can you repost your calculations here?
> So dimensions, no matter how small, simply don't go away.
> And the strange stretch in the 3D mystery continues,
> hanson
[Zagan]
You lost me here. Perhaps I've misunderstood your questions. What do you
mean by "the strange stretch in the 3D mystery?"
Best Regards,
hanson
>
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
> news:URJE7.11014$hZ.10...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > "Zagan" <$$j...@atlantic.net.$$> wrote in message
> > news:uEHE7.2447$yl.1...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
> >
> I'm not as up to date on .....
> I am merely a scientific minded layperson
> I'm just a regular Joe
Wow, Jim….what a confession. Don’t feel bad. You are ok.
Jim, I am impressed with your accomplishments and your resume. Thanks.
However, I am not a priest, minister, rabbi or televangelist and
unfortunately I do not have the authority to give absolution. :-( <g>
> I just want people to know where I'm coming from.
Ok, if you so wish. Cool by me.
> My primary point is that I am _not_ an authority,
> and what I say is just (somewhat educated) opinion.
Kewl, man. What makes you think I am an authority? and also ask yourself,
how many authorities have you seen in here? …Authorities, in here ? ….This
is a cyber party, 24/7, and party talk. It’s fun and mostly just an exchange
of scientific buzzwords, between people who have interests in the fields
they discuss. Haven’t you noticed that every time you post an equation, 95%
do run for cover and avoid responding to your post. If you post a numerical
solution to an equation then remaining 5% will beat it too. Authorities, my
ass. hahahahahh, …haha haha….
(And now, a whole bunch of resident "authorities" just got their feelings
hurt and they will accuse me again of "openly sneering at them with a
spectacular brutality", which does not negate the fact that even authority,
like beauty, only resides in the eye of the beholder).
> With ST, tho, we have those pesky extra curled up dimensions. As I
> understand it, these extra dimensions are required by the theory to make
it
> work (on paper at least)
…..which happens to be one of my beefs. If one needs to create and to
generate all kinds of imaginary unreal help tools for a description (theory)
to understand what can or may be observable, then such a construct becomes
suspect in the veracity of its prognostications.
> The three dimensions of "ponderable mass"
> are observed because they manifest
> on the macro scale. The extra dimensions of ST
> are not observed (directly)
> because of their small size.
…… but they are still here…..still here…..still here......here......
>
> [Zagan]
> I couldn't get you links to work. Can you repost your calculations here?
>
Better yet………...
Go to http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&group=sci.physics
and type in han...@quick.net or click on
Re: Superstrings = fundamental cosmic strings?
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=hanson%40quick.net&hl=en&group=sci.physics
.*&rnum=1&selm=c4So7.523%24Md5.59193%40newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net
Re: Hubble and Planck --- compared
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=hanson%40quick.net&hl=en&group=sci.physics
.*&rnum=6&selm=meum7.6067%245r.499397%40newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net
……….because many posters do not want to see new speculative stuff
[Zagan]
> You lost me here. Perhaps I've misunderstood
> your questions. What do you mean by
> "the strange stretch in the 3D mystery?"
Go google, locate and read this thread from the beginning.
Thanks and best regards to you too, Jim,
hanson
Zagan
"Zagan" <$$j...@atlantic.net.$$> wrote in message
> > "Zagan" <$$j...@atlantic.net.$$> wrote in message
> > news:RZVE7.5847$Go2.2...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com...
<snip>
> > Better yet......
> >
> > Go to http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&group=sci.physics
> > and type in han...@quick.net or click on
> >
> > Re: Superstrings = fundamental cosmic strings?
> >
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=hanson%40quick.net&hl=en&group=sci.physics
> > .*&rnum=1&selm=c4So7.523%24Md5.59193%40newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net
> >
> > Re: Hubble and Planck --- compared
> >
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=hanson%40quick.net&hl=en&group=sci.physics
> > .*&rnum=6&selm=meum7.6067%245r.499397%40newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net
> >
> > ....because many posters do not want to see new speculative stuff
>
> [Zagan]
> Thanks for the links. I'll see if I can understand it.
[Zagan]
Hi Hanson, I looked at your math and it seems to work to me.
I am, however, troubled by the use of the "classical electron radius."
Consider this definition:
"A classical distribution of charge totalling the electron's charge has
electrostatic potential energy equivalent to the electron's rest mass if it
were confined to a volume of this radius."
and
"When determined experimentally, the value will vary greatly depending on
the amount of interaction concerned. "
ref: http://tcaep.co.uk/science/constant/detail/classicalelectronradius.htm
My concern is that I tend to adopt the notion of viewing an electron as a
point particle having no size, and thus a radius of 0. It does have an
"area" of influence due to its charge, but it is _not_ a little "ball" with
a spatial dimension. Even the classical definition implicitly "admits" that
is is not talking about electron size, but rather the electrostatic energy
required to match the rest mass of an electron if this energy "were confined
to a volume of this radius." And even this volume will vary.
(A discussion of how a point particle can have mass/energy, I think, is
outside the scope of this thread.)
To be clear, the "area of influence" of an electron is not its classical
radius. It is, like gravity, infinite. But it does diminish rapidly due to
the inverse square law so that any influence much larger than an atom has to
be given over to photons, or electromagnetic energy.
My point is that your math works only if we accept the classical radius
which seems to me to be not much more than a mathematical construct (a
useful construct, but a construct nonetheless). If we assume a spatial
radius of 0, the math fails due to division by 0.
Of course, I may have no idea what I'm talking about. :-)
hanson
>
> [Zagan]
> Hi Hanson, I looked at your math and it seems to work to me.
>
> I am, however, troubled by the use of
> the "classical electron radius." Consider this definition:
>
> "A classical distribution of charge totalling the
> electron's charge has electrostatic potential energy
> equivalent to the electron's rest mass if it
> were confined to a volume of this radius."
> and "When determined experimentally, the value will
> vary greatly depending on the amount of
> interaction concerned. ". ref:
http://tcaep.co.uk/science/constant/detail/classicalelectronradius.htm
>
Right, Jim, why? I have no problem nor argument with this.
> I tend to adopt the notion of viewing an electron as a
> point particle having no size, and thus a radius of 0.
> It does have an "area" of influence due to its charge,
> but it is _not_ a little "ball" with a spatial dimension.
I will not argue with your universe. Believe the way you see fit. Cool.
But, consider if something has radius of zero, then by definition, it’s not
there.
Hence no influence areas, no lengths, no strings, nothing. End of story.
> Even the classical definition implicitly "admits" that
> is is not talking about electron size, but rather the
> electrostatic energy required to match the rest mass of
> an electron if this energy "were confined
> to a volume of this radius." And even this volume will vary.
> To be clear, the "area of influence" of an electron
> is not its classical radius. It is, like gravity, infinite. >
> (A discussion of how a point particle can have mass/energy,
> I think, is outside the scope of this thread.)
You can twist it any way you want. Cool. But the fact remains: If it is
there then it has a non zero 3D presence, whether you invoke the E=mc^2 gig
or not.
> My point is that your math works only if we accept
> the classical radius which seems to me to be not
> much more than a mathematical construct (a
> useful construct, but a construct nonetheless).
> If we assume a spatial radius of 0, the
> math fails due to division by 0.
Certainly, But I didn’t not make that assumption. Actually, I made no
assumption like that at all. I wondered what do the numbers tell me if I ask
the question about the string length of a string with a Planck length sized
cross-section.
It isn’t my fault that the electrons',m_e’s, classical radius jumped at me,
as you have seen in your ref, or in codata. The dimensions fit and the
numbers match. Why and about what more are you having doubts? The dimensions
fit and the numbers match……How these dims and numbers feel and look in our
imaginations and in our minds is how our personal universe will appear to
us. (** see PS)
Jim, take a ride on this long, thin string of Planck size cross-section,
having the volume of an electron (l ^2 * R_u * = r ^3). Ride it across the
universe, into and thru black holes down into what they say is Wheeler’s
foam and their wormholes. You see very quickly that their descriptions are
just phantasms of the real thing. But you’ll know that you’ll be always
“right”, you’d never have to guess, because your dims and your numbers
fit…….You can begin to engineer and commence to build, ……. instead of just
being able to quarrel over whether “his stick is shorter then yours” and
with great uncertainty at that.......
Follow the same guidelines of “dims and numbers fit” and you’ll discover
that “down there” in Planck’s domain you can relate the electron’s mass with
Planck’s mass or the electric charge or the Newton’s gravitational constant
to happenings in the atomic world by N_A (=N below in eqatuons), very much
in the same way you can look at a hand full, say 2 moles, of sand grains at
the beach and peek into their atomic realm simply by dividing by N_A,
Avogadros number. The reason why current probings by the professional
theoreticians go nowhere, is because they are stuck on bending space and
checking each other out who has the shortest dick. They can’t afford to
become physico-politically incorrect, or it’s career adios!. Can’t blame
them.
Here, Jim, are some few repeat equations from previous posts for your trip
across the “universe divide”:.
r_H / l_pl = (N pi * sqrt(3))..... (_pl for Planck
m,l & t)
m_pl / m_e = a * (N pi * sqrt(3))
1/f_L = t_pl *(4p/a)* (N pi * sqrt(3)) … (f_L ,
Lyman)
G = (e/m_e)^2 *(N pi * sqrt(3))^-2 *a^-3
r_e = a m_pl l_pl / m_e
a * m_e* r_H = m_pl * l_pl
H = I^2*c /r_e^3 (Hubble)
e^2 = G a m_pl^2
G = c^2 * l_pl / m_pl
G = a^-1 * (e/m_Pl)^2
G = hc / (2*pi* m_pl^2)
G = e^2 / (a* m_pl^2) , etc, etc, etc,……
Check’em on your url or with codata etc., Jim, and find new ones.
There’s a myriad of such “guide posts” to keep you on the straight and
narrow, by which you do know that you are “anchored properly”, no matter
what “they” say, because your basis rests on empirically determined and
measured, more or less fundamental constants, all existing in real
ponderable 3DT, from the limits of the observable universe (by H, Hubble
constant) down to Plancks domain, in a measurable universe divided into
realms, for some reason apparently separated by scales, the size of
Avogadros Number, N_A .
A cosmological picture begins to emerge which is based on
self-similarity. ………
Nothing new under the sun, ….eh!?!?
Perhaps another day I will pontificate on how the numbers tell me why “c” is
the way it is and under which and what conditions physics will be able to
take the next epoch making step. But for now, since all this is only fun and
diversion for me, and I obviously can’t make a buck of this, I will quit.
Well, till tomorrow or so. Or until I find some dumbfuck, like Thschols and
company recently, which I did wind up so bad that they made parties because
of me and really studied my archive.
I like such 15 seconds of fame. Vanity when shone upon feels good.
hahahahahahah…………….
> Of course, I may have no idea what I'm talking about. :-)
Hey dude, join the club. At least you and me and a few others do admit to
that.
That’s why it is fun and so exiting. And it doubles the fun because on can
fuck with the ones who insist loudly that they actually do know. But we
dumbshits, who don’t know from jack, we are pure like the driven snow at the
expense of “them” all knowing cyber brains, who labor so hard to educate us.
They deserve a hand, or a finger at least.
But these poor bastards seem to have forgotten that one of the great
unki-bunkis of the last two millenia said: “Ignorance is bliss”, and the
other one 600 years before him put it even better: “Do not believe what wise
men say, or because it is written in a holy book. --- Believe only what you
judge to be true”…. Hesssuuus and Gautamo I think, it was.....
But even that I have become to question after they ran me out of town when
they caught me fucking the minister's pretty wife on the altar in his
church ------- ahh, that was great ! ….. my memories of her
mammories! ----- yep, I was a bad little kid ---- and I loved every second
of it. --- still am --- still do.
> Best Regards,
to you too, Jim
hanson
PS: ** Almost by definition, the next truly qualitative step in physics and
cosmology will be made when we start to look at the problem far way from
today’s axioms and starting points, yet not leaving out empirically gathered
knowledge and our observable 3D reality. A good new beginning would be to
suppress our current observer fetish and its resulting theories. Then we
should ask ourselves the under-laying question:
“Why is it that a certain architecture made from seemingly non sentient
CHNO… atoms, is able to contemplate (not only comprehend = sense and
respond ) very remote 3D affairs, deep into +/-T and to synthesize it’s
environment such as to be able to reach physically beyond our solar system,
when it itself only occupies the space of a few moles of atoms.”?
When embarking onto such an endeavor we should not evoke neither men nor
God, because each makes the other run around in circles, trying to kill each
other off. Especially from this just cited, very obvious situation, God/man,
it should be obvious to ask: “Why is it that a certain architecture……..
But for now; for the knowledge we/I have as of today, for that I am
grateful.
It gives me something to bitch at.
hanson
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:<i9XD7.5799$hZ.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> > "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
> > news:8%WC7.5688$I4.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
[hanson]
> > > The strange stretch
> > 1) "why does every ponderable mass have 3 and only 3 spatial
dimensions";?
> [EL]
> Ah! But in this case you force me to ask three questions too:
[hanson]
No.No.no…nobody can “force” anybody to do anything in cyber space.
Any and all responses are always voluntary reactions to the landings on
somebody else’s beckoning but sticky fly paper.
> [EL]
> 1- What is an Integer number?
> 2- What does "Spatial" mean?
> 3- What is a "Dimension".
[hanson]
These 3 "orientators" you asked for, EL, do have the generally accepted
meanings. Take their classical and commonly accepted definition and usage.
I do not want this to become a complicated game.
Remember, my intentions in yesterdays post: “Street lingo”.
[EL]
> Certainly it would be extremely kind of you to add a voluntary
> paragraph on "ponderable mass",
[hanson]
Certainly. First we ponder and then we get to the mass.
The fat book says about "ponderable":
Etymology: Late Latin ponderabilis, from ponderare
: significant enough to be worth considering : APPRECIABLE
synonym see PERCEPTIBLE
but more important:
"Ponderable" was my physics prof’s favorite word.
When asked I him what "ponderable" meant, he hollered at us little punks:
"It's a mass with which I will pound you over your young and empty heads, so
that you will feel its impact such that you will ponder over the marvels in
the world of physics instead of constantly pondering about your girl
friends."
Hey, I took heed of his advice, especially when pounding my girl friends and
even later when he pounded SR & GR into us.
All that physics stuff was so clear and definitive, when I just had him, the
one single teacher.
Then I discovered this NG with it's many professors. And nice guy that I am,
I believe(d) all these here NG teachers, because they are all about equally
loud.
So nowadays, I have concluded that any given problem has a many solutions
as there are teachers. That enrichment is something to ponder about too.
And then come to think of, there maybe certain classes of mass which are
unponderable, higly ponderable, quantum ponderable or not ponderable at all.
Highly ponderable masses are probably naked masses, with lots of gravitation
as inversely opposed to naked singularities. That too is something I must
ponder about.
What do you think, EL?
[EL]
> where you dedicate a verbose section
> on each word of the two. :)
> Only then I can really give you an answer that can satisfy you.
Verbosity, right. More than 2 words, right again.
I certainly will appreciate your answer.
But that satisfaction thing, that is a different matter.
I have to ponder about that also.
YBBOB
hanson
PS: As I am finishing to type this response, I just see that the e-mail you,
EL, just sent me does contain the solution, the perfect and logical answer.
Beautiful! Thanks. Thank you very much. It was more than satisfactory.
I appreciate it, EL.
EL
> Kewl, man. What makes you think I am an authority? and also ask yourself,
> how many authorities have you seen in here? Authorities, in here ? .This
> is a cyber party, 24/7, and party talk. It's fun and mostly just an exchange
> of scientific buzzwords, between people who have interests in the fields
> they discuss. Haven't you noticed that every time you post an equation, 95%
> do run for cover and avoid responding to your post. If you post a numerical
> solution to an equation then remaining 5% will beat it too. Authorities, my
> ass. hahahahahh, "haha haha"
<snip>
> hanson
[EL]
I never had doubt about you and me being brothers, but from which
mothers?
Now I think I know. :):):) <g>
EL
--
"EL's vision:
Within a seriously mighty infinite universe, I become sure to be an
insignificant error, which in turn embeds a universe by its own right.
Thus, between two infinities, I stand corrected to be the boundary of
null and now, through which, all the future must pass to become a past
memory.
EL"
hanson
> "EL's vision:
> Within a seriously mighty infinite universe, I become sure to be an
> insignificant error, which in turn embeds a universe by its own right.
> Thus, between two infinities, I stand corrected to be the boundary of
> null and now, through which, all the future must pass to become a past
> memory.
> EL"
What?
How many infinities do you have?
Gimme one of them! The bigger one.
YBBOB
hanson
EL
The Weierstrass-Bolzano theorem states that every bounded infinite set
has at least one limit point.
You sound like me when I squeezed them into a positive infinity on the
outside of things and an inside infinity on the inside of things.
Finally It was me, EL, who postulated the absolute infinity theorem,
as a generalization for that of the bastards I mentioned above. :)
Cheers.
YBYB
EL
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message news:<nGoF7.15163$S4.14...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
Zagan
> imaginations and in our minds is how our personal universe will appear to
> us. (** see PS)
>
> Jim, take a ride on this long, thin string of Planck size cross-section,
> having the volume of an electron (l ^2 * R_u * = r ^3). Ride it across the
> universe, into and thru black holes down into what they say is Wheeler's
> foam and their wormholes. You see very quickly that their descriptions are
> just phantasms of the real thing. But you'll know that you'll be always
> "right", you'd never have to guess, because your dims and your numbers
> being able to quarrel over whether "his stick is shorter then yours" and
> with great uncertainty at that.......
>
> Follow the same guidelines of "dims and numbers fit" and you'll discover
> that "down there" in Planck's domain you can relate the electron's mass
with
> Planck's mass or the electric charge or the Newton's gravitational
constant
> to happenings in the atomic world by N_A (=N below in eqatuons), very much
> in the same way you can look at a hand full, say 2 moles, of sand grains
at
> the beach and peek into their atomic realm simply by dividing by N_A,
> Avogadros number. The reason why current probings by the professional
> theoreticians go nowhere, is because they are stuck on bending space and
> checking each other out who has the shortest dick. They can't afford to
> become physico-politically incorrect, or it's career adios!. Can't blame
> them.
>
> Here, Jim, are some few repeat equations from previous posts for your trip
> across the "universe divide":.
>
> r_H / l_pl = (N pi * sqrt(3))..... (_pl for
Planck
> m,l & t)
> m_pl / m_e = a * (N pi * sqrt(3))
> Lyman)
> G = (e/m_e)^2 *(N pi * sqrt(3))^-2 *a^-3
> r_e = a m_pl l_pl / m_e
> a * m_e* r_H = m_pl * l_pl
> H = I^2*c /r_e^3 (Hubble)
> e^2 = G a m_pl^2
> G = c^2 * l_pl / m_pl
> G = a^-1 * (e/m_Pl)^2
> G = hc / (2*pi* m_pl^2)
> G = e^2 / (a* m_pl^2) , etc, etc,
>
> Check'em on your url or with codata etc., Jim, and find new ones.
> There's a myriad of such "guide posts" to keep you on the straight and
> narrow, by which you do know that you are "anchored properly", no matter
> what "they" say, because your basis rests on empirically determined and
> measured, more or less fundamental constants, all existing in real
> ponderable 3DT, from the limits of the observable universe (by H, Hubble
> constant) down to Plancks domain, in a measurable universe divided into
> realms, for some reason apparently separated by scales, the size of
> Avogadros Number, N_A .
> A cosmological picture begins to emerge which is based on
> Nothing new under the sun, ..eh!?!?
>
> Perhaps another day I will pontificate on how the numbers tell me why "c"
is
> the way it is and under which and what conditions physics will be able to
> take the next epoch making step. But for now, since all this is only fun
and
> diversion for me, and I obviously can't make a buck of this, I will quit.
> Well, till tomorrow or so. Or until I find some dumbfuck, like Thschols
and
> company recently, which I did wind up so bad that they made parties
because
> of me and really studied my archive.
> I like such 15 seconds of fame. Vanity when shone upon feels good.
>
> > Of course, I may have no idea what I'm talking about. :-)
>
> Hey dude, join the club. At least you and me and a few others do admit to
> that.
> That's why it is fun and so exiting. And it doubles the fun because on can
> fuck with the ones who insist loudly that they actually do know. But we
> dumbshits, who don't know from jack, we are pure like the driven snow at
the
> expense of "them" all knowing cyber brains, who labor so hard to educate
us.
> They deserve a hand, or a finger at least.
>
> But these poor bastards seem to have forgotten that one of the great
> unki-bunkis of the last two millenia said: "Ignorance is bliss", and the
> other one 600 years before him put it even better: "Do not believe what
wise
> men say, or because it is written in a holy book. --- Believe only what
you
>
> But even that I have become to question after they ran me out of town when
> they caught me fucking the minister's pretty wife on the altar in his
> mammories! ----- yep, I was a bad little kid ---- and I loved every second
> of it. --- still am --- still do.
>
> > Best Regards,
> to you too, Jim
>
> hanson
>
> PS: ** Almost by definition, the next truly qualitative step in physics
and
> cosmology will be made when we start to look at the problem far way from
> today's axioms and starting points, yet not leaving out empirically
gathered
> knowledge and our observable 3D reality. A good new beginning would be to
> suppress our current observer fetish and its resulting theories. Then we
> should ask ourselves the under-laying question:
>
> "Why is it that a certain architecture made from seemingly non sentient
> respond ) very remote 3D affairs, deep into +/-T and to synthesize it's
> environment such as to be able to reach physically beyond our solar
system,
> when it itself only occupies the space of a few moles of atoms."?
>
> When embarking onto such an endeavor we should not evoke neither men nor
> God, because each makes the other run around in circles, trying to kill
each
> other off. Especially from this just cited, very obvious situation,
God/man,
>
> But for now; for the knowledge we/I have as of today, for that I am
> grateful.
> It gives me something to bitch at.
[Zagan]
After I sent my last post where I mentioned point particles, I later
realized that perhaps my point was pointless. Unfortunately my news reader
doesn't have an "unpost" command. :-)
In other words, I posted too soon. You've obviously given this a lot of
thought, much more than I have. I will have to retire from this thread and
give myself time to get caught up on string theory and everything else where
I'm weak. Don't know how long that will take with reality and all getting in
the way. :)
hanson
news:7563cb80.01110...@posting.google.com...
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:<nGoF7.15163$S4.14...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> > "EL" <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:7563cb80.01110...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > "EL's vision:
> > > Within a seriously mighty infinite universe, I become sure to be an
> > > insignificant error, which in turn embeds a universe by its own right.
> > > Thus, between two infinities, I stand corrected to be the boundary of
> > > null and now, through which, all the future must pass to become a past
> > > memory.
> > > EL"
> >
> > What?
> > How many infinities do you have?
> > Gimme one of them! The bigger one.
> >
> > YBBOB
> > hanson
> [EL]
> The Weierstrass-Bolzano theorem states that every bounded infinite set
> has at least one limit point.
> You sound like me when I squeezed them into a positive infinity on the
> outside of things and an inside infinity on the inside of things.
> Finally It was me, EL, who postulated the absolute infinity theorem,
> as a generalization for that of the bastards I mentioned above. :)
> Cheers.
> YBYB
> EL
[hanson]
So, happily, EL, you now have rolled us successfully over into the fuzzy and
murky border regions of meso math, meta physics and para geometries. (I
cautioned you about this). Yet, for brotherly peace' sake going along with
you forces us to continue to argue that since, in your words, "Periodic
repetition is TIME DURABLE", your absolute infinity theorem, a
generalization of the Weierstrass-Bolzano theorem, will cause time and
infinity of anything attached to or correlated with it, to ultimately
(especially beyond the scope of absolute infinity) unavoidable and
absolutely lead us inescapably to circular reasoning. No matter what.
Because of periodic repetition, .....and irreversibly so, when applied to
more than 3D.
It is three and not more than three. And not less neither. Actually, 3 only.
Like in "be humble" which is what Golda Meir really meant to say.
Good luck, and remember "it is three where you must be".
YBBBBBOB,
hanson
PS 1: Bolzano trivia. Did you know that Bolzano, a vinyardier and Moche,
came from Guatemala and that his real name was Boldano? He changed it to
Bolzano, because his classmates always called him "bold ano" -- Le Figaro,
Paris, July 1997 (Science History section)
PS 2: If I only knew what I was talking about. Just once. -- Honorez de
Balzac, Sarajevo, 1922.
EL
Here is another hint for my big brother.
The time of observing any single dimension, in which a displacement
vector can take place, is a cycle in the orthogonal plane that does
not interfere with the vector, and existentially virtualizes the axis
on which the vector can materialize. To escalate existence a new axis
could only go in a free "world", which reduces to a plane after the
gyration of the first dimension. The time of the second happens to be
in the plane which can contain the axis of the first to correlate
events. To escalate existence further, the freedom of the last
dimension is to exist on the line of intersection of the planes of
first and second "times".
From absolute freedom to a plane to a line of planes' intersection,
the only logical next reduction of freedom is the point.
A point is dimensionless, thus it is a new universe by its own right
and the cycle of order emergence can begin anew anywhere within the
dimensionless point, and a complete existence can begin to define its
three dimensions until freedom within the infinite reduces to nothing
from the outside, but on the inside of nothing, there is everything.
The triangular relation between the times of the orthogonal dimensions
becomes circular indeed and creates a global time envelop due to the
fact that each plane of time torsion contains the axis of the other
two dimensions in which displacement vectors can occur. Hence, the
relation between the three dimensions and the three time bases become
circular indeed and creates the virtual cycle of cycles, which equates
to the time of observation and consciousness. Dimensions are infinite
and embeddedly are set in sets of three, with each dimension having
its own relativistic time, and the whole set cycles into the time base
that links it across the worlds of embeddedness.
To grasp more than three dimensions is beyond the abilities of the
mind, even if it was watching one in a world and two in yet another
world, the resultant is a set of three, which can fit into our mind.
Did that make it much easier than that layman talk or what? <g>
EL :)
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message news:<fNAF7.16191$S4.15...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
hanson
> To grasp more than three dimensions is beyond the abilities of the
> mind, even if it was watching one in a world and two in yet another
> world, the resultant is a set of three, which can fit into our mind.
> Did that make it much easier than that layman talk or what? <g>
> EL :)
Yes! Absolutely. Especially when viewed thru' the existential Bogosian
corollary:
"Sanitation, when driven to pathological extremes becomes Environmentalism.
just like Duality, which when made pathologically aberrant turns into
Relativity."
Layman talk --- street talk --- yep, that's where it's at, man.
Thank you GGLB, you'se kewl.
YBBBBBOB,
hanson
PS: "If I only knew what I was talking about. Just once." -- Einstein on
his death bed,
18 April 1955.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"EL" <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7563cb80.0111...@posting.google.com...
tj Frazir
Mark Palenik
tj Frazir wrote:
> E mail me for a picure of the universe taken by hubble .
Just when you thought he couildn't get any dumber. . .
--
Make money for surfing the web at
http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=BSF783
(turn cookies on first)
Proud member of The Elite Council of Pointlessness.
Mark Palenik, President of
________
/-------/\
/--------\/\
|--_____ -\/\
|--|++++\--\/|
|--|+++++\-|/|RAKKON Software Productions
|--|+++++|-|/|
|--|+++++|-|//_For company info, go to,
|--|+++++|-/___http://drakkon.excelland.com/
|--\____/-/____http://www.segasonic.simplenet.com/stjr
\--------/
http://drakkon.excelland.com/
http://www.segasonic.simplenet.com/stjr