how many dimensions are there in total?
S D Rodrian
wrj...@kudzucountry.com wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2000 13:56:55 GMT, 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).
>
> For something to exist, it has to
> exist for a period of time.
The logical error you are committing there
is when you fundamentally believe that
"existence" literally "does not exist" but is
created/destroyed moment to moment and
instant by instant: That is absolutely NOT so!
Existence is all that exists: Right now!
It is not "things" that have some sort of
"absolutely" independent existence, but merely
that bits/portions of existence take on/take off
different shapes/forms: If "it" does not exist
RIGHT NOW, "it" never existed and never
will exist... as existence is sustained NOT by
the creation and/or destruction of its "things"
but by the simpler, more elegant reality that
its "things change." [i.e. ... bits/portions of
existence are forever becoming other bits
and portions of existence; or, energy cannot
be created/destroyed; or, Newton's laws of
motions; or, "Man's is but a brief and mortal
glimpse of eternity, for him an immortal memory
which he forevermore will hold in his thoughts
until his end, but not until the end;" or, "the
universe is just a jumble of relativistic (independently
recognized) motions, forever some speeding up
while others are slowing down... NOT because
they are beginning/ending, but because those that
are slowing down are doing so as they "conserve"
their energy (their very selves) "into" those motions
which are speeding up." Et cetera. And this is ever
where we came in.]
What I am describing above is, as I've said many
times, the fact that the "forms of matter" are just
that... "forms!" And, in the final analysis, ALL
that exists is MOTION.
There are NO fundamental forms of matter, none
at all [i.e. there are NO indivisible and therefore
"eternal/immortal" "particles" of ANY kind
at ANY level of existence] as our universe simply
can NOT produce them except it does so by sheer
magic--There is NO possible way to physically
give birth to an Immortal: It can only spring from
the forehead of a god... full-grown & armored, as
the ancient Athenians knew "way back when.".
> Therefore time is as necessary
> a dimension as the other three.
Time has as much to do with existence as the inch:
"Nothing exists just because it is an inch, and
nothing cannot exist because it is not an inch."
As the greatest poet of the Twentieth Century
wrote (recently)... "An hour is but an arbitrary
invention of necessity by man just as a liter also
is but our own arbitrary invention of necessity.
The problem is that whereas no one is claiming
that you can't have beer without the liter, far , far
too many of those who have chugged down a "few
too many" themselves ARE claiming that you can't
have MOTION without Time!" But this confusion
will most probably always be with us, since it's much
more a matter of our "human nature" than anything else.
Just you keep in mind that things are NEVER as
confusing as the confused always MAKE them out to be.
And life will most often be a lot easier/pleasant.
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
music.sdrodrian.com
PS All quotations are original with me. And, by the
way: remember that the description of our reality
as "three-dimensional" is only a mere conceit of
convenience: It comes from a mostly arbitrary and
quite artificial "geometrical object" one seldom
finds in nature... the box. Our reality should
more accurately be called NOT "three-dimensional"
but "spherical" since a perfect sphere describes
ALL the dimensions possible in our universe (without
leaving out a single one of them) better than anything
(else) anyone can think up.
> William R. James
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
SDRodrian
Dart...@webtv.net wrote opened the best-seller, "Decorating With
String-Theories For Fun & Profit," closed his eyes, stuck his
index finger into its pages, and read what it pointed to therein :
> There are eleven dimensions.
Maybe, but repeat that seven times
and you have a 7-11
> Three spacial dimensions, the fourth
> dimension is time, and there are seven
Told you you'd end up at the 7-11
--Is that Elvis with those hot-dogs in his
shirt pocket? [... The 12th dimension is the
Dimension of Life, which makes possible...
while the 13th dimension is the Dimension of
Death; the 69th is the Dimension of Sex; the
01th is the Dimension of the True Millennium;
while the Dimension of Pi is that of corpulent
people on a diet... in addition to which:
practically any dimension squared is full of
very dull, conservative people, and, of course,
the 1,000th Dimension is characterized by Roman
gladiators fighting over each other's M-Theory (i.e.
speculating about each other's mommas).
> imploded dimensions that
> hypothetically exist within string thoery
> on a sub atomic level.
How very convenient! In other words, they're so small
that "nothing that exists" can fit into it, and thus
one does not have to bother having to explain how
it is that so many angels can dance on the pinheads.
Although I do admire fools who can with such flair
match their foolishness with their gall. By the by...
I believe Antman has visited those 7-11s. An once he
found in one a four-legged Jamaican hen handing out
"advice of the heart" to two three-feathered bitches;
two of whom were pregnant, and the other one sadly
was complaining to the hen: "We've been going out
for a year now... but I'm not sure he's the one."
"Honey," the Jamaican hen advised the bitch: "What
I do if I was you is... the next time he show up: stick a
nametag on his ass... then you know for sure (one way
or the other) if he's the one (the next time he shows up
after that, of course). But wait a minute: You not sure
he's the one you gonna marry... or you just not sure he's
the same one that's been coming around all this time?"
> All of these dimensions were born
> with the beginning of the universe,
No kidd'n!? Do you know this because they celebrate
their birthdays on the same day every year? Or, have
you been reading the National Inquirer again along with
all those other snooty intellectuals who "want to know?"
> about 15 billion years ago.
Oh! Sure. I understand: If I were over 14 billion years
old... I imagine I too would be a little uncertain now
about the exact day I was born.
> It is imposible to ask what came before the
> universe, because time hadn't been created yet.
So basically, what you're saying is that "back then"
(before the universe)... there wasn't "enough time"
to even so much as ask WHAT CAME?!?! (I suppose
there's no sense speculating whether they asked
back then: "What's coming down!?")
It does make sense, though, because as time goes by
you must remember this: People are working now fewer
and fewer hours per week. So you figure, "like" 15 - 16
billion years ago they must've had you working like...
a hundred thousand hours per week or more, at least!
Yeah, I can dig it.
S D Rodrian
wisdom.findhere.org
sdrodrian.com
web.sdrodrian.com
SDRodrian
"The Obnox" <scr...@multipro.com> wrote:
>
> S D Rodrian <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
> news:93sak7$bsq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <t62c108...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > "The Obnox" <scr...@multipro.com> wrote:
> >
> > Please tell Gary that he needs to know that
> > electrons do not orbit nuclei like planets orbit
> > stars; but, rather, for all practical purposes
> > picture it more like a "wave" of matter/energy
> > that has been "caught" by the atomic nucleus
> > and therefore
>
> Ya, ya...he goes into all that. An electron
> is not really a particle, its
> really a standing wave, or maybe its a
> particle describing a standing wave,
> but no! - it's really a "cloud" of probabilities
> describing a standing
> wave...on and on and on.
>
> But if electrons don't jazz you, there
> are plenty of physicists who
> postulate more than 11 space-time
> dimensions. One article I read over the
> summer postulated 19.
I pustulated about 119 myself, right after
I fell into a poison oak patch while
walking out in the woods.
S D Rodrian
I,JM
<Don_Q...@mindless.com> writes
>
>I pustulated about 119 myself,
Please don't squeeze your spots in alt.sci.time-travel.
I,JM
fzfpqkyivvVqppkpWqppkkivvZpzkkkvi
S D Rodrian
"I,JM" <X-...@magick.de.PANTS.mon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <93tdil$6f2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, SDRodrian
> <Don_Q...@mindless.com> writes
> >
> >I pustulated about 119 myself,
>
> Please don't squeeze your spots in alt.sci.time-travel.
Please note that although you cannot understand
why all these postules are popping up in
alt.sci.time-travel, it will all become clear
in three years (by events which have not yet
happened, but which will depend on each and
every postule that manifests itself here
under your skin). Be patient. Have faith that
there are those of us who have seen the future.
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
wisdom.findhere.org
> I,JM
> fzfpqkyivvVqppkpWqppkkivvZpzkkkvi