how many dimenstions are there in total?
S D Rodrian
swor...@cnde.iastate.edu wrote:
> po...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > for me 3D is good enough
> >
>
> A railroad crossing in my area can be described with three
> spatial dimensions. If I think if the location and in time
> (four dimensions) there are definite combinations I try to
> avoid. The three dimensions x, y, z, and t may be safe right
> now, but a different value for the dimension t may have the
> train hitting me!
>
> The x, y, z location is safe most of the time, but there are
> values of t that it is definitely not safe. I like four
> dimensions better than three.
>
There ane only "three" dimensions:
That is all that's required to permit
existence (and) motion in the universe:
Time is but the human habit of timing
(most/all) such motions (and so time
is a dimension, only a human dimension,
as employed in relativity's space-time
map--i.e. a description/measurement of
motions and NOT something which, like the
"three" dimensions of reality... permits
motions).
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
S D Rodrian
Mark K. <mark_k...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <91t240$3n9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> S D Rodrian <Rod...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
> >
> > There ane only "three" dimensions:
> > That is all that's required to permit
> > existence (and) motion in the universe:
> > Time is but the human habit of timing
> > (most/all) such motions (and so time
> > is a dimension, only a human dimension,
> > as employed in relativity's space-time
> > map--i.e. a description/measurement of
> > motions and NOT something which, like the
> > "three" dimensions of reality... permits
> > motions).
> >
> > S D Rodrian
> > web.sdrodrian.com
> > sdrodrian.com
>
> important dimension,
Sorry, Mark, but tea is not a dimension.
It is a description of what results from
a 3D reality. It's rather simple to
understand (so this is intended only for
those who can actually understand things
as simple as that).
> you can
> dream up as many as you like as long
> as there is a time one.
Well, there are many human dimensions only
which might not qualify in your dictum.
> Your above drivel barely qualifies
> for posting to one NG never mind a
> dozen, grow up SD turdbrain.
> Mark
Now, now, my boy: There's absolutely
no reason for you to be throwing a fit
like that. As you grow up you will find
that you can get more toys by spreading
honey than you can by splashing acid
on your fellow men (and especially on
women... which will come in handy once
you reach puberty).
S D Rodrian
wisdom.findhere.org
S D Rodrian
al...@cgfarm.demon.co.uk (Alex Le F) wrote:
> On 21 Dec 2000 08:55:49 -0500, S D Rodrian
> <Rod...@mad.scientist.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >There are only "three" dimensions:
> >That is all that's required to permit
> >existence (and) motion in the universe:
> >Time is but the human habit of timing
> >(most/all) such motions (and so time
> >is a dimension, only a human dimension,
> >as employed in relativity's space-time
> >map--i.e. a description/measurement of
> >motions and NOT something which, like the
> >"three" dimensions of reality... permits
> >motions).
> >
>
> two events occurring at exactly the
> same position at two different times,
> using only three co-ordinates?
You're asking me how do I draw a map
of such a condition: I would invent
a conceit of convenience (such as...
Oh, I don't know... "Time"), sign my
masterpiece & sell it. However, you
must understand this: In the universe
there is (the universe consists of) ONLY a
jumble of (almost) individual relativistic
motions WHICH never come into existence
nor cease to exist but instead are "conserved"
into other motions--some motions therefore
speeding up while others slow down
according to Newton's famous laws--even
as some motions branch out
into two 50% motions, etc. The net result
is that NO motions ever really STOP
in the universe, let alone PAUSE. And that
is our reality when we think about it...
all there is to our reality. It's just that
our fundamental intellectual job is to
understand our reality... and the way our
brains have evolved to do that is by describing
the forms/shapes we observe as "changing"
(and, as you know, the crucial element in
recognizing a change is to compare before/after
"pictures" of the same effect). And so there
we are: Holding two mental pictures and
"seeing" the amount of "change" from one to
the other. And, if we're not careful, there
are we... mistakenly assuming that change
happens in some sort of step/by/step sequence
of "jumps" that mirrors the way our brains
work.
Keep in mind that in the real world, in reality,
in the universe which doesn't ask us for
our permission before being... there is NEVER
ANYWHERE any position that remains "in the
same position" EVER. This is because IN
the universe every imaginable coordinate
is ONLY/exclusively a relativistic position
and since everything & its dog is ALWAYS
ETERNALLY in motion... it is not possible
for there to be anywhere absolute rest (or
a position which will wait for two bodies
which do not actually EVER meet to be
in the same place at different times).
> You seem quite deluded.
I have that effect on people (you
wouldn't believe the number of'em
who keep asking me for money in the
belief that I don't know they have
no intention repaying me).
> Why pick three?
3D is only a conceit of convenience
(in reality it's just shorthand for
our reality having an infinite number
of possible "directions").
> Can you provide evidence to support
> your assertion that only three
> dimensions "exist"?
Not to you, but you can provide such
evidence to yourself: Try to move in
any direction other than the ones possible
(namely, from any coordinate to a position
other than the one you end up at).
> Oh, and what's your definition of dimension?
For this purpose, simply breadth/depth/width.
> Mathematics can produce figures
> of potentially infinite
> dimensionality. In what sense do these
> figures "not exist"?
In the same sense that movies can
produce infinite figures of impossibles
interacting with the actors: You will NEVER
(directly) observe ANYTHING which is NOT
three-dimensional in this universe (no matter
how many nutty dreams you indulge in).
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
>
> -al
SDRodrian
Skwintz <jackb...@uswest.net> wrote:
> I missed teh begining of this thread
> so forgive me if I'm out of
> line but i would like to share
> my opinion on this topic.
C'mon down!
> I'm pretty sure that 2 dimensions
> would still permit motion.
> although 2 dimensional existance
> may be in question.
You're right there in both cases
(provided the first clause refers only
to theoretical motion, since motions
without something moving is beyond
our materialistic experience of reality).
> But let's for
> the sake of argument assume there is
> 2 dimensional existance. And,
To rid yourself of any doubts, imagine
a sphere ALWAYS as being the thing that
exists: Imagine a box and remove any one
of its three dimensions (mentally) and you
will instantly notice that it falls out of
existence as soon as you look at it from
the perspective of the missing dimension:
Now try to imagine how on earth its other
two remaining dimensions could possibly
connect with each other?!?!?! [i.e. Any
time you think you can go to look at your
two-dimensional box from dimension 1 to
dimension 2 you will absolutely require
a 3rd dimension to make the move, otherwise
dimension 1 will cease to exist as soon as
you try to switch to dimension 2 BECAUSE
you will instantly realize that you could
NEVER have been looking at dimension 1 by
itself (the thing's impossible: you must
have at least 2 dimensions to make it
possible to "see it" even theoretically
... painters from Giotto's time knew this
law as the foundations of perspective).
Remember: If you cannot conceive of a sphere
existing in it... your theoretical dimensions
are impossible in existence. And this includes
the fact that if the only way for a sphere to
exist in your dimensional manifold is by being
a twisted/warped and inside-out/upside-down
"anything but a sphere" ... that theoretical
universe/reality is also ONLY possible within
a very twisted mind indeed!
> for what I'm about to speak of, time
> IS a dimension. When a 2
> dimensional bob moves from one place
> to another (going around
> anything that might be in his way
> since he can't go over) it takes
> a measure of time. Now does the bob
> just skip out on the third
> dimension altogether and go straight
> to the forth (time)?
Time is not a dimension is the sense
of it being required to allow motion
in it: Time is merely the brain's
accounting system (to keep track of
changes, and in more sophisticated
brains... the rate of such changes).
In the universe there is ONLY motion(s).
And eternally un-pausing/un-stopping
MOTION(s)... which will nevermore continue
not until they slow down but until they
run-out (of existence). They no more require
Time for their continuation than they
require the ascertaining of how fast/slowly
they are "moving" in order to move! Once
you have "3" dimensions (where a sphere
can exist) you can "change" your perspective
at any "speed" you wish to... and THAT is
de facto your three-dimensional existence's
permission for you (and everything else in it)
to move: Only a three-dimensional reality
permits motion in ANY direction BECAUSE the
only thing that may move is a 3D object.
> My belief
> is that it would not. A two dimensional being,
> and in fact all two
> dimensional existence would percieve time
> by a steady rising in the
> third dimension. Since the two
> dimensional being has no concept of
> rising or falling they can't go back
> and forth in time, only the
> direction that their entire plain of
> existance goes. That would be
> somewhat the same for us 3D beings.
> We're just slowly going along,
> upwards in the 4th dimension, no
> idea how to change that direction.
It is only in confused minds that any
true 2-dimensional "body" could be
imagined as "moving." Period.
> For more dimensional fun read
> "The hitchikers guide to the galaxy"
> series (6 stories in all now) by douglas adams.
Read it and I agree with the theory in it
that the earth is a 5 billion year old
computer trying to find the meaning of
life--But I suspect that the answer (44?)
would inevitably elicit a recount nowadays.
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
re:
> He throws in the
> 5th dimension of probability, which
> makes sence when you read it
> but not when you try to explain it afterwards.
>
> Anyways
> Later.
> --
> > There are only "three" dimensions:
> > That is all that's required to permit
> > existence (and) motion in the universe:
> > Time is but the human habit of timing
> > (most/all) such motions (and so time
> > is a dimension, only a human dimension,
> > as employed in relativity's space-time
> > map--i.e. a description/measurement of
> > motions and NOT something which, like the
> > "three" dimensions of reality... permits
> > motions).
> >
> > S D Rodrian
> > web.sdrodrian.com
> > sdrodrian.com
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
S D Rodrian
dea...@aol.com (DEAJAVU) wrote:
> i have no idea what the eariler conversation is, but as i see it,
there are at
> LEAST 5 dimensions. how i figure this, i will try to explane.
> 1,2,and 3 we learn about in geometry.
> 4. time
> and
> 5. place
Actually... yours in the best argument
I've ever run across AGAINST the silly
notion of Time a dimension, for you are
quite correct that the space-time map
can only pinpoint where something has been
and not where it "now" is (or, the dimension
of place). Theme from The Twilight Zone.
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
> but thats just how i see it
>
> dea...@aol.com
> Kyna
S D Rodrian
thomas...@aol.com (Thomas Kalbfus) wrote:
> >You're right there in both cases
> >(provided the first clause refers only
> >to theoretical motion, since motions
> >without something moving is beyond
> >our materialistic experience of reality).
> >
> >> But let's for
> >> the sake of argument assume there is
> >> 2 dimensional existance. And,
> >
> >To rid yourself of any doubts, imagine
> >a sphere ALWAYS as being the thing that
> >exists: Imagine a box and remove any one
> >of its three dimensions (mentally) and you
> >will instantly notice that it falls out of
> >existence as soon as you look at it from
> >the perspective of the missing dimension:
>
> object in 3 dimensional space. 2
> dimensional objects cannot exist
> in 3 dimensional space, they can only exist in
> 2 dimensional space where only the X and Y axis exist.
Nothing 2 dimensional can exist
including a 2 dimensional existence:
A painted 2 dimensional stick figure
only exists in your mind's willingness
to pretend it's really 2-dimensional.
> A 2 dimensional light
> ray can bounce off of a 2 dimensional object
> in 2 dimensional space.
A 2 dimensional photon would not be
the sphere we were talking about before.
> In 3
> dimensional space, a 2 dimensional object
> would have zero thickness and
> therefore would not exist at all.
By George, I think he's got it!
> One can represent a 2 dimensional object on a
> sheet of paper, but the lead or ink used to
> make the markings has actual
> thickness in 3 dimensional space and so
> is not a true 2 dimensional object. It
> is also possible to represent 4 spacial
> dimensions using a computer simulation,
> although the computer cannot represent
> 4 dimensional objects on a computer
> screen with 100% fidelity.
It is possible to represent any-numbered
dimensional reality because it only exists
in the mind: Regardless of how we may
choose to put it down on paper, the crucial
point is when we pretend (lie to ourselves)
that it may represent in reality what we
conceive in our minds (dreams). If you're
a good enough liar you can even conceive of
dimensional manifolds so small that they do not
interact with even the smallest bodies that
exist in our 3 dimensional reality (and are
"therefore" "outside" our 3D reality).
> Our universe consists of 3 spacial
> dimensions and a
> 4th dimension that allows room for things
> to change and that is time.
You will have to explain how in a "place"
where "movement" (motion) is possible
there would need to be some other additional
permission for motion to be possible...?!?
Maybe you were in boot camp, I don't know--
> In a 4
> dimensional space we would need to reserve
> the 5th dimension to represent time.
> This condition does not exist in our Universe,
> but perhaps it exists in others.
Well, maybe one of these days we can produce
a camera smaller than any subparticle that
exists and then we can lower it into the
13th Dimension (or some such). Good luck!
> If there are higher dimensions in
> this universe, they are not physically
> connected to our three dimensions so they
> are meaningless to us. In some comic
> books, the term other dimension is really
> a stand in for "other Universe" or
> other reality, this is not the proper use of
> the word dimension. Other
> universes could be "stacked" on top of one
> another along a 4th spacial
> dimension just like other instants are stacked
> on top of each other along the
> dimension of time, and squares can be
> stacked on each other in normal 3
> dimensional space. I think the proper term
> for this would be "polarized" space.
> Polarized space would be a kind of space
> where motion is normally allowed only
> in one spacial dimension less than the number
> of spacial dimensions that
> actually exist in the space. For instance
> if the universe actually has 4
> spacial dimensions, but we can only move
> and perceive things in three, then it
> would seem to us to have only 3 spacial
> dimensions. The 4th spacial dimension
> only becomes evident near large gravity
> wells where space is curved. Perhaps
> under extrodinary circumstances, limited
> movement can occur along the 4th
> spacial dimension, but this is very hard
> and does not happen normally.
Okay. I see we need to stop beat'n about
the bush on this one: "A dimension is NOT
what allows motion IN it: Motion into it
is what defines (creates) a dimension."
PERIOD. Translation: If you can not imagine
"something which exists" moving in it...
it's NOT a dimension. Translation: The only
"things" that exist only exist because they
are three dimensional. Translation: Nothing
of any other dimensionality can exist (and
that's probably why it doesn't exist). Sabe?
Kimo, [translation: 2 + 2 = 4]
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
S D Rodrian
thomas...@aol.com (Thomas Kalbfus) wrote:
S D Rodrian wrote:
> >Okay. I see we need to stop beat'n about
> >the bush on this one: "A dimension is NOT
> >what allows motion IN it: Motion into it
> >is what defines (creates) a dimension."
> >PERIOD. Translation: If you can not imagine
> >"something which exists" moving in it...
> >it's NOT a dimension. Translation: The only
> >"things" that exist only exist because they
> >are three dimensional. Translation: Nothing
> >of any other dimensionality can exist (and
> >that's probably why it doesn't exist). Sabe?
> >
> >Kimo, [translation: 2 + 2 = 4]
> >
> >S D Rodrian
> >web.sdrodrian.com
> >sdrodrian.com
> >music.sdrod
>
> 4 dimensional object in a 4 dimensional
> universe. You have not said why they
> could not exist. You have not given a
> reason.
> Tom Kalbfus
BECAUSE (for the same reason that) an elephant
can't play the piano inside an orange: Now, in
the mind, there is no objection to his doing so.
And, if you've got the time, you can even throw in
a symphony orchestra into the fruit and let him
play a Rachmaninoff concerto (the third, of course).
BUT the minute you take a piano-playing elephant
in one hand, and an orange in the other hand...
you're got a problem (and this doesn't even include
the piano).
AND so you see, the next time you decide to say
casually: "If you've got an orange, why can't you
have an elephant play a piano in it?" You will
please remember that NOTHING that exists (and
the only things that exist are 3 dimensional)
can exist in any dimensionality other than the 3D:
Take the infamous one-dimensional "point(s)" as an
example: Its proponents dub it a "point" so you do
not think of it in clearly "existing" terms (three-
dimensional; or, as, say, a box), and instead "let"
your imagination shrink that sphere to such a tiny
infinitesimal "point" that you are almost forced
to begin believing that it can AND has escaped our
three-dimensional reality... But let's you and I
think of it as a box: And now try to imagine a way
a one-dimensional box could possibly be seen: Look
at any of its sides and "see" are you really looking
at just ONE of its dimensions... or are you not
really looking at both its width & height? [Could you
possibly really look at its width if its width did
not also include its height? Now imagine trying to
"look" at just that "one" --side-- dimensionality
(of the box) if it were only two dimensional (it
only had width & height)... could it still possibly
exist? Can you really imagine being able to "see"
something that had but height/width and no depth?!?]
Do you understand now why the confused would rather
you discussed such "one-dimensionalities" as spheres
(or, points, etc.)...? And why they dare not propose
dimensions larger than "things that exist" can fit
IN them? That way they are never (well, seldom) forced
to explain their "existence in the real-world" (in
real-world terms: three-dimensionally) in terms that
might instantly make it self-evident they are simply
... confused. And always remember: "Things are NEVER
as confusing as the confused MAKE them out to be."
Here's hoping you do,