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
Romano AMODEO
S D Rodrian <Rod...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
91t262$3o5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
I am not of your same opinion.
If we cut away the <observer> and his valuation, we have an entire 0 (zero).
The reality we see is a virtual entity, which exists only because we exist
and calculate, in this exact way:
N^0 = N*(1/N) = 1.
The fundamental supposition of the author of the <cogito ergo sum> is that
his ESSENCE in different from 0 IN BIGNESS.
It is the fundamental matter, because 0/0 is an indetermination.
On the <supposition>, on the <idea> that "miself" am different from <zero>
is based all the <idea> of bigness of the EXISTENT Universe, which appears
so wide in space and so persistent in time.
The EXISTENCE is <something> that, without time, does not permits anything.
Time is the difference between two conditions in sequence. We can call them
A and B. When we consider them together they become that N/N ratio that I
expressed before. When the first A is space, B does not appear. When B
appears as space, A is <past time>.
The N/N ratio, in this second case, we can distinguish as A/B, in which we
see A on the basis of the inverse and past B, placed in opposition and
permitting to quantify A as unit, and to qualify it as space existing.
We do always so: pose our calculus on antimatter (or past time) and, through
antimatter, we can calculate the opposit direction.
We extract +1 by 0, assuming the debit of +1 (that is the -1 situation).
We are living in a double balance. An expert in commerce is able to count
the positive and the negative in his actual balance.
Nothing objectively exists, but everithing (basing or our representative
virtue) become existing <in appearence>.
And if you do not believe, because you see all to exist, you do as some old
man who believe to be seen by the persons who appear in television. The
speaker, a film appears to be, with persons who speake (of God too), and all
this is only a pure virtual representation.
It is not oneough - because something exist - that this something appears to
exist... it must exist TRULY (not only "really", because the reality is
based on the appearences)
Our world is a pure <program>, which enters in action only when an actor
eneters in scene. Without this actor there is nothing except the pure
program... a pure POWER. A <power> such <essential> that if it is <complete>
it is not appearing, as the energy present in a battery. His <potential
energy> appears only when it enters in action. If it does not... it is like
if it is not.
The <potential energy> is properly this:
N^0 = 1
the power that a calculation may be enacted. And this is the calculation,
because it enacts ALL, the UNIT, the quantity more big (because all the
other quantities are 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 that appear to be little or big only in
the representative virtue to pose, for exemple, them in the situation N/1
(N to 1) or in that contrary 1/N (1 to N, in unitary relation respect N).
The representation 1/N or N/1 does not present <little or big> quantities if
a subject (the observer of the Physics) does not enacts one ore the other of
the both complementar and inverse <suppositions>.
So 1/N becomes <time> because (in a quantiative representation of the unit)
1/N does not appear till N times does not enter in joke, and make 1/N
unitary one, that is the <essential condition> to appear like existent
spaces.
Because N/1 is space.
Afterwards we pose our <conception> in way to consider 10/1 kike the unit
space. 1/10 appears the unit <time> (if its direction go away from the
observer, who perceives this time <like light> having negative charge,
negative as its direction going away from the observer). !/10 appears also
like the unit of the mass (in the case in which the mass appears to move
towards the observer and to invest him... with its mass).
If you open the www.new-is.com you have all this new theory of the
relativity existing (first of everithing) between the subject observing and
the objectivity observed by him.
Happy Christmas from Italy !
Romano AMODEO
, ness
Tom McWilliams
>
> S D Rodrian <Rod...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
> 91t262$3o5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <3A41A03E...@cnde.iastate.edu>,
> > 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:
Not even close.
You've forgotten all the others, such as density, charge, spin, mass,
accuracy, color, scale, etc etc etc...
When you include the fact that any point can be used as a reference, and
that different inertial frames create different measures for the same
phenomena, you end up with the correct "number" of dimensions: Infinte.
CF Hilbert's Hyperverse.
-Tm
--
* . * '^
,.. " . *
,
' Tommy Mac
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:
> >(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
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,
S D Rodrian
Skwintz <jackb...@uswest.net> wrote:
> > Translation: Nothing
> > of any other dimensionality can exist (and
> > that's probably why it doesn't exist).
>
> ever heard. and why do you need to translate for yourself so
> much?
Although you asked the question incorrectly, I often do
translate myself into even simpler terms (but certainly
not for myself).
> you say there can not be any other dimensions because
> there are only three dimensions. That's like saying the wall
> is white because the wall is white (or like your mother
> replying with "because I said so" when you asked why you had
> to be home by dinner. You back up your theory by using the
> theory itself as proof. It's a loop of logic that doesn't say
> much beyond the fact that you're right only because you
> believe your right. which is another thing. perception IS
> reality. When theres a drawing of a cityscape I percive depth
> and distance. I'm willing to bet you see a city as well. and
> not a whole bunch of ink 1 nanometer thick spread across the
> page.
Read again what I wrote: "Nothing of any other dimensionality
can exist (and that's probably why it doesn't exist)." There are
two distinct clauses in that statement: 1) is a conclusion drawn
from the arguments made in the text you snipped; and which
arguments and conclusion I stand by: "It is impossible to
describe ANYTHING as "existing" which is not exclusively three-
dimensional. Period. " This is no different than saying, "Nothing
that does not exist has existence." [The function of the mind is to
come up with answers to questions, and it has been the human
experience that when we cannot find an answer in the world
we simply dream up one and apply that one... thereby yo will
never find a human culture which lacks for answers to just about
any question that has fallen its way, be it real or imagined. And
so I do not doubt anyone's facility to come up with any number of
dimensions they set their minds on coming up with. However, I say
again: Existence in this reality is exclusively three-dimensional;
and no matter how good you may be at imagining two/one/billion-
dimensional "realities" of all sorts/kinds. And, 2) "(and that's
probably why it doesn't exist)" ... is it so unreasonable to reason
that if something simply has no way to exist... it cannot exist?!
I rest my case.
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
re:
> Remember, you're right as long as you believe yourself to be
> right. The moment you doubt yourself is teh moment you become
> wrong.
The former is correct, however the latter should read: "The
moment you doubt yourself is the moment you become
an editor."
> mmmm that was fun and tastey
Ain't it, though~!
S D Rodrian
thomas...@aol.com (Thomas Kalbfus) wrote:
> >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).
>
> an orange,
We've all gotta die of something. The "something"
may change, but the dying always remains the same.
> therefore in
> cannot fit inside to play the piano.
> This is analogous to a 4 dimensional
> object fitting inside a 3 dimensional space
> and it simply can't.
Only 3D objects can exist. What you call the 4th dimension
(God bless Rod Serling) merely describes where an object
has been (however inaccurately, or, relativistically only).
There is no way to describe where an object now is because
there is no way to describe its place relative to Absolute
Rest: This should inform you right away that the notion of
Time does not describe anything fundamental to reality (the
universe) and is simply the equivalent of some guy out there
saying, "There! Over there!" As I have said many times: What
we describe as our three-dimensional reality (really a conceit
of convenience) is ALL that's required for MOTION. Once motion
is permitted, there is NO reason why it is prevented. [i.e. No
further permissions are required--so why would you want to
ask permission of such a silly human waste of time.. as Time?!]
> I'm not saying
> a 4 dimensional object can fit inside of a 3 dimensional
> space, what I'm saying
> is that a 4 dimensional object can fit
> inside of a 4 dimensional space.
And I am telling you that what we define as dimensions in
the real world is the extent to/into which an existing object
can move (and NOT how fast/slow it is moving, which is all
that our ideas of Time are about... e.g. it is not worth it to
think about time without also thinking about its rate/timing).
Our entire universe of matter is exclusively made up of motion
... that is, energy spoken of in such a way as to endow it with
the only concept which our human minds can associate with
existence, namely "materiality" (... and we shall, for the sake
of not getting into quibbles, skip over the fact that our minds
cannot "imagine" motion without some "thing" moving: We shall
therefore merely substitute the word motion for the word energy
here). The universe consists of relativistic motions, which, if
one had the ability to "count them" would probably average out
until, summed up as one single motion, they ("it") would report
itself to be NOT in motion at all (i.e. at something resembling
absolute rest). This would be its highest state of entropy.
In our human experience, here inside the universe of matter,
it is impossible for us to imagine motion without its being
relativistic (motion with respect to some other motion, of
course). But let's try not to think of everything at once, and
let's break this idea down into a more manageable component:
What we are left with is a huge number of discrete relativistic
motions which have "canceled" each other out and become, as
it were, ONE single indivisible MOTION (because energy cannot
be created or destroyed, as far as we know), and so it's not
unreasonable to assume that if the huge number of relativistic
inner motions of the universe are capable of becoming ONE single
absolute MOTION, then such a singular (singularity) of motion [or
energy] holds within itself the potential to once again "break out"
(down) into the chaos of relativistic (vector, because more than
one "thing" exists) inner motions once again... and therefore what
we end up with is a universe which forever moves from the highest
state of entropy down to zero entropy... even as it's moving from
zero entropy up to the highest state of entropy (in an eternal(?)
balancing act of energy/motion conservation): The details (forms
and shapes) which the unimaginable jumble of its relativistic
motions go through in the journey from one extreme to the other
are all of importance only to them (which you can interpret as we
ourselves being only of importance to us)... but the underlying truth
reveals a universe in which Time (as we think of it) forever moves
forwards and backwards at once. And this irrelevancy, this utter
meaningless and effective self-cancellation of its own existence
devolves Time into a mere rate of measurement with meaning only
in/to whatever measurer--or us, in this particular instance: We can,
for our own amusement or other use, forever set and adjust rates
of change all about us... relativistic, all of them, even as to/for the
universe... all these motions (at whatever rates) merely add up to
ONE single MOTIONS which can be described (since it is the only
"thing" that exists) however you wish to describe it, either as the
fastest motion, or the slowest motion, or even as absolute rest.
But it all boils down to the same thing: If that is the only "thing"
in all of existence, then how does one apply the human notions of
Time to it? It is, as I said, Time passing at its greatest "speed"
and/or at its "slowest" speed... or even forever(?) frozen solid.
> It is
> possible to create a 4 dimensional space inside a computer.
It's easier still to do so inside the mind (the computer is
simply a souped-up scratch pad (it's also possible to create
one or two dimensional "people" in the mind, and to paint
3D perspectives on flat paper, stick figures, and the rest, but
if you're smart you'll never lose sight of the fact that the only
way to accept all such impossible dreams is to lie to ourselves
about the truth we are looking at... namely, that stick figures
are really NOT 2D but 3D simulations we but pretend are 2D).
> Firstly a computer
> can simulate a 3 dimensional space by pluging
> in the physics formulas and
> simulating all the motions and interactions
> of elementary particles. Each
> particle has 3 coordinates (x,y,z) and 3
> velocity vector components (i,j,k),
> and 3 force vector components whic
> produce and acceleration (a,b,c) These
> particles have repulsive forces associated
> with each one and each of these
> forces acts on all the other particles
> in the simulated space. These forces
> make the particles solid causing each
> one to rebound off of each other. A 3
> dimestional force like gravity
> or electric charge diminishes with the square of
> the distance to the forces origin. If you
> take it one dimension higher, then
> each particle has 4 coordinates (w,x,y,z),
> 4 velocity vectors
> components(h,i,j,k), 4 force vector
> components (a,b,c,d) and 4 dimensional
> forces diminish with the cube of the
> distance from the forces origin. The
> mathematics works out and you can
> simulate a 4 dimensional space inside a
> computer.
Or, you could simply hire a decently talented
portrait painter to draw you a pix with perspective.
Or you could just snap a photo, and, whamo, you have
the same three-dimensional illusion on a flat surface
only more elegantly and graceful, probably.
> The next step would be to add complexity
> to the laws of physics in
> this 4-space simulation so that 4 dimensional
> atoms and molecules can exist in
> this 4D sim space.
The only thing you're going to be adding is what
we commonly/fondly know as "moving pictures."
Seen any good one lately?
> With the right 4 dimensional interactions you can build
> complex 4 dimensional organisms and simulated
> 4 dimensional life. This 4D life
> could then evolve intelligence,
That I'd like to see! I truly could not tell you
what intelligence is with absolute certainty
that I was right (let alone wisdom)... any so-called
idiot savant can do amazingly "intelligent" (brilliant)
feats of mental skill (with math & memory, of visual
or musical excellence)... and yet remain incapable of
reasoning out even the simplest everyday matters.
It's therefore folly to bandy about the term intelligent
(intelligence), especially about a machine which even
some of the most profoundly "retarded" humans can
out-reason.
> and not simulated intelligence, but real
> intelligence and you could hold a conversation
> with these 4D life forms
> simulated on a computer.
I remember writing a few such programs myself
eons ago--It's never a measure of how brilliant one
can make such programs, but of how spectacularly
superficial our everyday social interactions are. To this
day I still marvel at how easily even "very intelligent"
people were willing to fool themselves into believing
they were really holding an "intelligent" conversation
with what was essentially nothing more than a script
of prepared classes of response to expected classes
of input from the human subjects.
> This 4D sim life would have no trouble visualizing a
> 4D object, but we would.
Yes, but would one of your 4D lifeforms submit to
psychoanalysis to establish whether it was really
seeing a 4D object, or merely seeing things?
> The 4D creature might be puzzled that we can't
> visualize 4D life and there might be a 4D creature
> holding an opinion like
> yourself saying that 3D life is impossible
> because it lacks that extra dimension.
That also applies to Popeye, if I'm not mistaken:
And even Homer Simpson in one episode came out
into our 3D world as was quite shocked by it (albeit
they never did make it clear whether he was sent off
to the booby-hatch for claiming to have come from
the Second Dimension, or whether his ink just dried
off and he vanished from existence)... "Doh! I knew
they were using the cheap ink to draw me!" THEME.
> Tom Kalbfus
S D Rodrian
"Marc" <mph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > 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:
>
> exist in all dimensions there are.
That might explain the bloating and the rumbling
through the pipes, and why I feel so out-of-shape
in the morning.
> Even if there are 23 dimensions
> you exist in all 23 of them.
I know people who seem to live only
in the 13th dimension (the unlucky bastards).
> You can only see 3 spacial dimensions
> because the other dimensions have colapsed down to
> the Planck constant.
> Check out superstring theory.
Been there, done that. Found: Most (if not all)
M-theory/superstring theory exists only in brains
which have collapsed down to the Planck length.
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
wisdom.findhere.org
> Marc
S D Rodrian
"Brian" <zh...@online.no> wrote:
> Rodrian,
> I read a book written by Michio.Kaku were he describes
> the possibility (not in scientific-technical terms as it would
> be meaningless to non-Scientists) of 10 or 26 dimensions.
> Do you anything about this ?
> The book is called "Hyperspace: A Scientific Odessey
> Through Paralell Universes, Time Warps, and the 10th dimension"
> ISBN 0-385-47705-8
Sorry: No. But, just the title alone would be enough
to run screaming from the bookseller.
> Brian
> PS.About the hypothesis that because we can't see more than three
> dimensions, it's an absurd claim.
PS. Brian: The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person
making a positive assertion: "There are 3000 dimensions"
or some such. TO "prove it" mathematically is not allowed
because equations need not reflect reality, all they
need do is to not disagree between (with) themselves. One
must be able to put the living elephant into the thimble
in some "real way" (even merely logically) other than by
mathematical representations whose connections with reality
rest on mere assumptions (it's not unlike constructing
the Eiffel Tower over quicksand and claiming it will stand
"because it itself is so solidly well-built"). If the
assumptions are solid, that's one thing--unfortunately
too much of the proofs that they are as solid as claimed
also comes mostly from mathematical proofs... necessarily
based on other assumptions, ad infinitum).
Again: This doesn't mean that mathematics
is not reliable... as long as all one is trying
to do is to formulate a sound equation. However,
any equation designed to express how you fell
will probably disappoint you as much as any equation
designed to express some universal truth: For example
the famous/infamous E=MC^2 is so popular BECAUSE it's
so interpretable that it can mean many "truths" to
many different interpreters.
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
re:
> "S D Rodrian" <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> skrev i melding
> news:9356f7$13b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > S D Rodrian
> > web.sdrodrian.com
> > sdrodrian.com
> > music.sdrodrian.com
> >
> > re:
> >
> > > Remember, you're right as long as you believe yourself to be
> > > right. The moment you doubt yourself is teh moment you become
> > > wrong.
> >
> > The former is correct, however the latter should read: "The
> > moment you doubt yourself is the moment you become
> > an editor."
> >
> > > mmmm that was fun and tastey
> >
> > Ain't it, though~!
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
S D Rodrian
"Janus" <Ja...@internetconnect.com> wrote:
> "S D Rodrian" <Rod...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
> news:91t24v$3np$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <3A41A03E...@cnde.iastate.edu>,
> > 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.
> > >
> >
> > 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).
>
> the 4 dimetions of space/time have
> some existance other than mathimatical tools
> for describing physical phenomenon.
Nope. The opposite: What I've been saying
all this time is that the existence of Time
is equal to the existence of volume, of width,
length, depth, and every other quality of our
three-dimensional reality: That 3D reality
pre-dates (a priori) all our descriptions of
qualities... so 1) the 3D reality exists
2) along we come, look upon it, and describe it
in terms of volume, width, length, depth, AND
Time... but if you detach your human prejudice
from the argument, you will notice one basic
fact about the distinction: 1) MOTION is ALL
that exists; 2) wherever Motion is possible
it de facto describes a true/real dimension;
3) please note that all objects/bodies that
exist in our universe/reality are fundamentally
resolvable down to motion and only motion (or
energy)... this unequivocally tells you that
where Motion "moves" there is a real dimension
and where there is a real dimension Motion "moves"
--which is the same as saying that where Motion
(remember: the material bodies which have
existence in our universe), where Motion does not
or can not "move" there is no "real" dimension:
ALL possible motions possible in our universe are
possible because of WHERE motion is possible; and
Time is merely our peculiar habit of timing one
or more of these (a priori) motions against one
or more other motions (timing them) to determine
--for no purpose other than to satisfy a need
which only we feel-- how fast one motion is moving
with respect to some other motion(s). It is no
different than determining "whether it's bigger
than a breadbox," because there IS NO Absolute Rest
IN the universe of matter... i.e. there is NO need
or reason for the universe to know that any one
given motion is faster/slower than any other motion(s).
To assign to Time the stature of a dimension is as
senseless as assigning color the stature of a dimension
... claiming that the proof is in the fact that
nothing can exist without having SOME SORT of color
(even grey, black, or white), as, just as with Time,
the human (animal) idea of color exists ONLY in the
human mind (i.e. it only has a use for us, and not
for the non-biological universe).
> You say that "time" as a dimention is
> mearly a result of human perception,
> but the same can be argued for the spatial
> dimentions.
That argument I've heard before from very
confused folks. Too many times, I dare say!
But, as I always have an open mind, I am
willing to sit through your version of it.
> As far as time not permiting "motion"
> that is a rediculous statement,
Actually, what I have said is that Time is
NOT required for motion to occur, only the
so-called three dimensions (depth, width, and
length). I can even go farther, of course,
and say that NOTHING can exist which does not
at least have all three dimensions to it (or
depth, length, and width). And I say again:
Any proposed dimension in which THE ONLY BODIES
(objects) which have existence (all 3D) can
not exist--and nothing which is not three-
dimensional can be described to exist--ANY
proposed dimension in which "real things" can
not exist [de facto] can not exist itself. It
is tautological because it is NECESSARILY true.
> since
> the whole concept of motion is directly
> related to time and position.
The key word there is "concept." In order for
us to understand Motion, we need to use our
concept of time--that is true. But to extend
that to the superstition that the universe
needs to understand its motions before it
permits them... is just too much, as they say.
> Motion is "object WAS [here], NOW its [there].
The universe's motions do not pause or have
proper beginnings/ends (Newton's laws of motion)
... they merely "conserve" themselves into other
motions not unlike the choppy surface of a nervous
sea which, being one singular motion/energy, we may
see as a bubbling of individual discrete motions
(peaks between valleys)... but which, in reality,
are NOT as discrete and individual as we see them:
The qualities we need to assign to them in order
for us to understand/distinguish each peak as one
motion (wave) always "from here to there)... affects
not one whit the sea itself. It is one singular
motion (or a finite quantity of energy) which we,
for our whatever needs, need to understand in terms
of measurements that have no purpose outside our
brains' requirements.
> In other words, "motion" can
> only be descirbed by change in 3 spatial
> and 1 tempral dimention.
True: That is the way we understand the jumble of
purely relativistic motions which "bubbles" inside
our universe... but, again, it's easier to name
a couple of hills Bob and Bill than to ascertain
exactly where one ceases to be itself and becomes
the other one.
> Without
> the measurement of time, "then" and "now"
> positions of particles are two
> seperate systems with no logical connection
> between them.
No different than naming then/now Bob & Bill:
The positions of two peaks in the choppy sea
is always meaningless and relativistic... but
not to us: We NEED to think of them as distinct
and separate from each other (when they really
are merely chance details of the bigger picture).
In other words: The Devil is in the details, and
that's the Mind right there in all its fiery glory.
> BTW: the tempral dimention permits "motion",
> but in only one direction.
The only intelligent way to discuss such a thing
as the "direction" of time can only be done in
terms of the laws of entropy and thermodynamics:
And strictly in those terms, time does not move
in any direction without moving in exactly the
opposite direction: The universe begins as one
(near) singularity of energy which "breaks down"
into relativistic "flows of energy" (motions) and
in that chaos of ever-flowering detains we live
as if in Paradise... given a uniquely privileged
if brief existence by the nature of a universe
which ultimately really never ceases or "begins."
Paul Schlyter
it means it must have either 2 space dimenstions and 1 time dimension
and then it's infinetly "thin" in one space dimension, i.e. it will
appear nonexistent to us. Or else it has 3 space dimensions but no
time dimension, which means it will exist for an infinietly short
period of time, and then it will also appear nonexistent to us.
> What you call the 4th dimension (God bless Rod Serling) merely
> describes where an object has been (however inaccurately, or,
> relativistically only).
no extent in time, it will last for an infinetly short time period,
and to us it will appear non-existing.
Therefore only 4D objects can manifest their existence to us: it
must have 3 space dimensions, plus a time dimension.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at saaf dot se or paul.schlyter at ausys dot se
WWW: http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch http://welcome.to/pausch
Paul Schlyter
> can exist (and that's probably why it doesn't exist)." There are
> two distinct clauses in that statement: 1) is a conclusion drawn
> from the arguments made in the text you snipped; and which
> arguments and conclusion I stand by: "It is impossible to
> describe ANYTHING as "existing" which is not exclusively three-
> dimensional. Period.
it means it must have either 2 space dimenstions and 1 time dimension
and then it's infinetly "thin" in one space dimension, i.e. it will
appear nonexistent to us. Or else it has 3 space dimensions but no
time dimension, which means it will exist for an infinietly short
period of time, and then it will also appear nonexistent to us.
S D Rodrian
pau...@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
> In article <93571e$1l5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> S D Rodrian <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
>
> > Only 3D objects can exist.
>
> Sorry, but you're wrong. If something i
> s exclusively 3-dimensional
> it means it must have either 2 space
> dimenstions and 1 time dimension
> and then it's infinetly "thin" in one
> space dimension, i.e. it will
> appear nonexistent to us. Or else
> it has 3 space dimensions but no
> time dimension, which means it
> will exist for an infinietly short
> period of time, and then it will
> also appear nonexistent to us.
Actually you're rather close to the truth
even if you're a littlebit confused by it:
Fundamentally, the only "thing" that has any
"existence" in our reality is MOTION (or,
energy; only, because it's so hard for the brain
to understand the physical nature of energy, we
must call it "motion" in order to deal with its
materiality... even if it's still hard for us to
imagine motion without also some "thing" or other
necessarily material "moving"). And this means,
at least for/from our human perspective, that
everything that has existence in our reality
indeed exists only "for an infinitely short period
of time" in any given "place." [The space-time "map"
can ONLY pinpoint "where" (the place) some "thing"
hath been in the relativistic chaos/jumble of the
universe's numberless inner motions--again: not
absolutely but only relativistically, which,
basically, is about the equivalent of some guy
saying: "Over there!" in "the infinite spans of
the eternal Cosmos."] --Carl Sagan
> > What you call the 4th dimension
> > (God bless Rod Serling) merely
> > describes where an object has been
> > (however inaccurately, or,
> > relativistically only).
>
> It also describes how long the object will last.
You will have to explain how it can possibly
describe how long an object can "last" which
can NEVER exist in any "place" for ANY measurable
amount of time!!! You would require absolute
knowledge in an absolutely relativistic reality
(here inside the universe of matter). I believe
you had better learn how to use quantum theory as
your preferred research tool "here."
> If the object has
> no extent in time, it will last for
> an infinetly short time period,
> and to us it will appear non-existing.
That is very nearly true: Fortunately, as
many people have been saying for almost a
century now, here inside the universe of
matter... EVERYTHING, including "us," exists
purely relativistically. And this means that
ALL MOTION IS RELATIVE... or, we ourselves
may never be at absolute rest, but the full
extent of the universe about us "moves" (has
existence) "relative to us" as well as relative
to anything/everything else. We "experience"
the nifty illusion that the motions about us
are solid and endowed with a materiality which
they really do not possess: No form of matter
is really fundamental... and when you rest your
finger on ANY surface what is really happening
is that the "moving" electromagnetic fields
between the atoms in your finger are repelling
the "moving" electromagnetic fields between the
atoms of that whatever surface. But, break those
"moving" fields, and all formerly "solid" discrete
material "bodies" would mix "like milk & water."
And this same law applies no matter how far down
into he level of sub/sub/"particles" you go (it's
just that the term "particle" confuses many folk
into the superstition that there IS, at some
mythical Planck length stratum of existence, some
true fundamental and indivisible form of matter
(which no doubt leads such confused folks to "see"
there monopoles and other one-dimensional "stringed"
unicorns and curled dimensions). But that's just
human nature for you: We just love a good Myth
so much that sometimes it seems as if we cannot do
without at least one of them.
> Therefore only 4D objects can manifest
> their existence to us: it
> must have 3 space dimensions,
> plus a time dimension.
The "time dimension" bit (above)... that's
strictly for our human convenience: That, no
less than any other quality the brain "assigns"
to the specifics of the reality it finds itself
IN (color, shape, et al) is merely a uniquely
human (and E.T.) tool for understanding (dealing
with) a reality which otherwise would present
itself as utterly chaotic and devoid of logic
(inner connections). Just keep in mind that it is
WE who "connect the dots." For our convenience,
we arbitrarily assign a (defining) "containing
limit" to items which have neither beginnings
nor ends [or, Newton's laws of motions] and are
merely/purely as if the numberless peaks & valleys
on the surface of an ocean which can never exist
as calmly and featureless as a sheet of glass.
We "name" this "peak" here and that peak "there"
as if every such "peak" were separate & distinct
in & of itself to make them discernible (so we can
work with them) when ultimately they are, all of
them, impossible to separate from each other: Try
to imagine such a "peak" without its "defining"
valleys... or as the only item in all existence.
In a basic (simple) analogy: THAT is a reflection
of the fundamental distinction (WE make) between
the universe of matter and the universe of energy
(speaking in terms of the laws of thermodynamics
and of entropy)... "the eternal sea" goes from a
state of "absolute rest" where its "surface" is
as calm as if it were a sheet of glass... to a
state where its surface is a jumble of "peaks and
valleys" in a chaotic dance of ONLY relativistic
"dance steps" ... and back again to a state in which
it must appear like some cosmically massive state
of/at Absolute Rest. Or, there exist/existed/ever will
exist a primordial singularity of energy (MOTION sans
vectors; therefore, basically One Singular Motion
in all existence)... which the laws of thermodynamics
then turn into the universe of matter: matter/energy,
or vector motions basically churning relativistically
and thereby giving ("us") the impression that they
are separate and discrete individual entities with
concrete and true ends/beginnings... when all they
really are is energy (or, the One Single Motion that
exists, the ONLY "thing" that exists)... ironing out
its inner differences with the laws of thermodynamics
(i.e. forever struggling at the eternally futile task
of becoming a true homogeneous Singularity: Impossible
because obviously self-contradictory... and so the
harder it works at it, the less "singular" it becomes).
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
> Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
> e-mail: pausch at saaf dot se or paul.schlyter at ausys dot se
> WWW: http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch http://welcome.to/pausch
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
S D Rodrian
pau...@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
> In article <9356gs$15g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> S D Rodrian <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
>
> > Read again what I wrote: "Nothing of any other dimensionality
> > can exist (and that's probably why it doesn't exist)." There are
> > two distinct clauses in that statement: 1) is a conclusion drawn
> > from the arguments made in the text you snipped; and which
> > arguments and conclusion I stand by: "It is impossible to
> > describe ANYTHING as "existing" which is not exclusively three-
> > dimensional. Period.
>
> Sorry, but you're wrong. If something is exclusively 3-dimensional
> it means it must have either 2 space dimenstions and 1 time dimension
> and then it's infinetly "thin" in one space dimension, i.e. it will
> appear nonexistent to us. Or else it has 3 space dimensions but no
> time dimension, which means it will exist for an infinietly short
> period of time, and then it will also appear nonexistent to us.
ANSWERED: (you must include the complete URL)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/threadmsg_ct.xp?
AN=712566622&fmt=text
SDR
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Paul Schlyter
amci...@my-deja.com
force of gravity falls of at less than the square of of the distance as
two particles approach each other at atomic distances, this would be an
indication of the number of folded up dimensions. The article further
stated that multi-dimensionality would be the ONLY explanation they
could think of for a fall off in gravitationl force of less than the
square of the distance as two subatomic particles approached each
other. Any possible multi-dimensionality of our universe may soon be
subject to measurement.
In article <936a1m$v88$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
S D Rodrian <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
S D Rodrian
Date: 1/6/2001 8:21:59 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: jos...@mac.com (Joseph Briggs)
To: SDRo...@mad.scientist.com (S D Rodrian)
i'm coming into this thread late,
and as passionate as you sound in this
thread, i hope you can find it in you
to be a little forgiving if i go over
some points that you have already discussed.
I'm forgiving you already.
i am fascinated by how adamant you are
that there are only three dimensions
(that matter), so much so that i feel
i must respond. i am responding
directly to you because i don't know
how to post to the list (if you can
help me on this, i'd be greatly appreciative
- i can't find any faq and i'm
new to this newsgroup thing).
Go to: http://www.deja.com and find a "log in" page.
Sign up for membership. The first time you attempt
to post you will be sent (if you so request) an email
to which you must reply so they can confirm your email
address is real. If you reply properly you will then be
permitted to post through deja.com [Simple as that.]
Eventually you will find out how to navigate Usenet
with Deja.com (if you're older than three and/or not
Mark... the poor boy).
there are (at least) four dimensions
(as far as we currently understand).
physical reality exists in time as
well as space and they are directly
related. you cannot isolate matter
outside of time. and time would not exist
without matter.
I will repeat here a couple of my own points
on that matter. And probably have to repeat them
again and again very much sooner than I really wish to.
try to isolate any object outside of
its time component. i don't think you
can. a chair, a rock, a planet, a star,
our local universe, all of these
things exist because they were created.
creation is a process that happens
over time. the planet would not exist
if it did not first go through its
creation process. you and your wonderful
thoughts would not exist outside of time.
The objection here is as follows: Existence is all
that exists (and it has always existed, always will
exist). Nothing in existence goes out of existence
(ceases to exist) and nothing comes INTO existence
(from nonexistence). The universe is therefore ONLY
a jumble of relativistic motions, some speeding up
and others slowing down at the micro level, while at
the macro level it's only a chaos of ever changing
shapes and forms... NONE OF WHICH ARE REALLY separate
and distinct from each other (even though the only way
our brains can make sense of such a cosmic chaos is to
"fool ourselves" into the pretense that they ARE discrete
and separate motions). To put it crudely (but perhaps
more simply), things change. Period. What we understand
of the universe is all but shapes/forms: We give reality
to those shapes/forms only... and only to those that we
can "recognize" as distinct shapes/forms--through their
persistence, true; but we do this ONLY by sacrificing
the underlying "greater truth" that all such shapes
and forms are but "colonies" (if you will) of motions
at the micro level which are forever "ONLY a jumble of
relativistic motions, some speeding up and others
slowing down... NONE OF WHICH ARE REALLY separate and
distinct from each other (even though the only way
our brains can make sense of such a cosmic chaos is
to "fool ourselves" into the pretense that they ARE
discrete and separate motions)." And if they are [as I
have already said twice: "simply indivisible parts of
the greater singularity" --or, the universe as ONE ITEM
of existence) which we for our own whatever requirements
need to pretend are separate/discrete individual items
of existence].. if these shapes/forms about us, are NOT
and NEVER have been really coming into existence or
ceasing to exist but ONLY, as described in Newton's
laws of motion & enshrined in our religion that energy
(motion) cannot be created or destroyed... then there
REALLY is NO "past" and no "future" as we've been
brought up to understand those concepts... and in the
final analysis all there really is is "ONLY a jumble
of relativistic motions, some speeding up and others
slowing down... NONE OF WHICH ARE REALLY separate and
distinct from each other (even though the only way
our brains can make sense of such a cosmic chaos is
to "fool ourselves" into the pretense that they ARE
discrete and separate motions)." Or, to put it bluntly:
There is really only ONE motion (one finite quantity
of energy) in all of existence... and this singularity
of motion is timeless BECAUSE you can't have Time without
"timing" one motion against some other motion/motions.
This is so uncompromising a truth, that it's even
impossible to speak of that ONE Singular Motion in all
existence as fast/slow, or even as "moving" at all; and
so our only way to understand it in terms of the jumble
of relativistic inner motions of the universe is to just
speak of it as Absolute Rest... which exists and yet is
timeless (so you see, time is NOT required for motion
to exist BECAUSE Time requires that at least two motions
exist... or, "the universe is timeless, only a few watches
in it know what time (it) is"). --SDR
if you do isolate an object outside of
time, then you are doing a mental
exercise, not the other way around (the
mental exercise exists in time
also). describing where an object has been
is a component of its current
state. if it hadn't been where it had
been, how could it be where it is?
Again: Because there is no Absolute Rest IN (among)
the relativistic (vector) motions inside the universe
"places" are all ONLY relativistically "there." And
the best illustration of this would be, say, if you
thought of a bullet travelling through the universe
at the speed of light... and suddenly (by magic, of
course) the entire universe except for that bullet
vanished: Now there you have that "singular" bullet
with nothing about it... and you tell me now whether
it's still travelling at the speed of light, or whether
it's moving at all? Well... everything IN the universe
is, exactly as that bullet, ONLY in relativistic motion
without us ever really being capable of determining not
only its whatever absolute velocity but whether it's
even absolutely moving at all (for as far as we know,
it's merely really only "we observers" who as moving
past the bullet, and not the bullet past us). Who knows!
[Yes, I know... "Let's ask Who!" Been there, done that.]
time is fundamental to reality. time
functions define matter's position in
space, its physical dimensions, and
its mass. the fact that we cannot
describe our exact position relative
to some theoretical and (probably)
nonexistent absolute constant does not
negate the fact that time helps
describe the reality of matter. it simply
demonstrates spacetime's dynamic
nature.
Motion alone is fundamental to reality: And this
dictates an inevitable fact about the true nature of
reality... which is that nowhere in the universe
can there be any "thing" in (a) place: The motion(s)
of the universe of matter NEVER cease, pause, or ever
really begin/end... but [:Newton:] merely "conserve"
themselves into other motions... motions which are
"slowing down" are really only making other motions
"speed up" and motions "speeding up" are making other
motions "slow down." Or, crudely put: There are NO
fundamental/indivisible forms of matter IN the universe
because ALL of them are "made of" motions (or, energy).
And this means that atoms & all subparticles are really
(all of them) complex gravitational mega systems whose
inner structure is made up of less complex gravitational
systems which are themselves less complex gravitational
systems ad infinitum... or, down to the point where
there is no more energy/motion in the form of matter.
This is why our imploding universe will never result in
an accumulation (of "fundamental" matter) at its "center"
but rather... will continue as it has been going until
there is no more energy/motion to sustain its only
seemingly-unchanging forms... all of them shrinking with
such balance that it is barely perceivable at the human
level (though apparent at the level of the Hubble constant
--but that's something which we must comprehend with our
minds rather than merely glimpse with our eyes, unfortunately).
motion is absolutely dependent on time,
whether you describe the universe as
one big motion or innumerable discrete
motions. motion would not *be*
without changing from one position
or state to another. change is time.
If indeed "change is time" then you are agreeing
with me, because, as I said: Existence is all that
exists... it really is "timeless" and these items
IN existence which follow Newton's laws of motion
prove that they are NOT apart from existence (or
things outside existence which join it/depart from
it). You are merely staring upon the surface of a
bouncy sea and seeing "change" (or "time") in the
numberless peaks/valleys dancing the dance of chaos
before your eyes... and creating for yourself the
illusion that what you are looking at is discrete
and individual (separate and distinct) motions where
there is only ONE single MOTION following the laws of
thermodynamics (or perhaps better put: being "broken up"
by those laws). It may seem like a tiny distinction
to you, but it really has profound implications for
us in that it confuses Man into the fallacy that such
a merely/strictly human description of reality as is
the superstition that "Time is required for motion" can
gain credence even amongst those who simply ought to
know better than that.
finally, i have no idea how you come
to the conclusion that, in reducing the
universe to one amalgam motion, time
therefore goes both forward and
backward. time can expand or contract
relatively according to velocity, but
i know of no current theory that states
that any motion of matter above the
subatomic realm can occur in some backwards
progression through time. the
mention of entropy is dubious. if you
mean entropy as it applies to
thermodynamics, no one is certain the
universe is a closed system, not to
mention that changing states of available
energy is a function of time. and
if you mean the universe's state of order
or disorder, then again, you are
speaking in terms of time. the fact that
a system moves from order to chaos
and back again, or from zero energy to
maximum energy and back again, does
not mean that it goes backward in time.
Perhaps you are thinking about the classic
"reversal of time" as depicted in popular fiction:
Things equal to running a film backwards through
the projector. What I'm talking about is more like,
say, an orbit looked upon at such an angle that the
observer only sees the orbiting body as moving back
and forth like a pendulum: Well, that is what the
complete universe is doing... the universe of energy
"breaks down" into the universe of matter... which
then "evaporates" back into the universe of energy
which again "breaks down" into the universe of matter
ad infinitum (as far as we know). And if the ONLY
thing in all of existence is that pendulum forever
swinging back/forth, then, de facto, Time does not
exist where there is motion. To put it simply: The
ONLY "thing" that's required for motion to exist is
only the three dimensions of existence alone. If ever
something that exists (necessarily three-dimensional)
can exist in some greater/lesser number of dimensions
I'd sure like to see that! [But if all you wish to do
is to create mathematical manifold dimensions and
stuff them with mathematical manifold objects... in
your dreams (wakeful or asleep), then God bless you
for I often have had such dreams myself... albeit,
mostly when I've been very soundly asleep--I snore.]
thanks for the fascinating and bewildering subject.
If it made you think (for yourself), then it
mattered not (at least to you) whether I was very
right or wrong: It had a meaning and purpose enough.
Good luck,
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
re:
-
---
Joseph Briggs < jos...@mac.com >
< joseph...@home.com >
> Only 3D objects can exist. What you call the 4th dimension
> (God bless Rod Serling) merely describes where an object
> has been (however inaccurately, or, relativistically only).
>
S D Rodrian
"feyal" <fe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi Rodrian
>
> Is there anyway to access your arguments
> in a less tedious form, such as a
You can visit http://web.sdrodrian.com
There I have expressed my views on the
fundamental differences between the
conventional inflationary theories and
my own "conviction" that the universe
is really imploding (and I use there the
constancy of the speed of light in
identical mediums as supporting me).
All else... flows from that fundamental
fact. And because I have really only been
addressing all that "else" haphazardly,
really as it comes up in these series of
posts... I have added links to relevant
posts by threads at the web site. [Although
I haven't added anything there for a couple
of months now... perhaps within a couple of
weeks I will "assemble" all the additional
"else" which has been cropping up since.]
It simply would take the dedication of a lot
more time to edit the site into a comprehensive
and logical thesis... and that's just time I
don't have "at this time." Sorry. Really, all
I really have time for now is to answer a post
here & there, mostly almost always when I wake
up in the middle of the night and use that
opportunity to kill two birds with one stone...
replying to a post or two, and waiting until
I get drowsy enough to hit the sack again.
Fortunately I don't sleep too well, or much.
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
re:
> web page? It is rather difficult for
> anyone to read all the posts you've
> made due to all the emotional baggage
> in the postings by everyone, which is
> common.
>
> Feyal
>
> "S D Rodrian" <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
> news:9356dq$12s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <3A4853D2...@uswest.net>,
> > Skwintz <jackb...@uswest.net> wrote:
S D Rodrian
nu...@bizniz.net wrote:
> Stop being an idiot by insisting
> that your opinion is fact. If you
Stop being mentally retarded, or absent the
ability to do that, stop having a broken leg.
Or, "One man's facts are another man's biases."
And it's a good thing it's so for the human
condition, because that way the truth is made
democratic instead of by the fiat of the more
willful will.
> want a FACT, then use the recognized
> formulas for determining
> dimensions and dimensional existance.:
The minute you stop describing your mother
as your "mom" and start using the recognized
formulas for determining your maternal descent.
> Dimension N is that dimension that exists
> 90 degrees perpendicular to
> Dimension N-1 and N+1.
Mmmmm... let's see: If we accept that,
and rock around the clock, how many
dimensions are there in (our) reality?...
O my God: Three!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Dimensional observance is obtainable
> ONLY from the perspective of the
> dimension being observed. (You are
> correct that observing 2
> dimensions is in the mind when
> that mind exists in the third
> dimension.)
Well, I'd rather express it this way: The
Homer Simpson reality is observable (real)
only from the perspective of the Homer
Simpson reality. The little problem you are
probably going to run into is that the
Homer Simpson reality DOES NOT REALLY EXIST
(except in the mind of its cartoonist, and
as said cartoonist chooses to illustrate it
so that we may "see" it in our minds as he
sees it in his). Ergo with any other reality
that is not absolutely three-dimensional:
It soooooo easy to imagine them, and it's sooooo
easy for their "cartoonists" to "illustrate"
them in such a way that it becomes possible
for us to "see" it in our minds are "he" CREATED
it in his mind... but, this fact (or, opiniom)
you will have a little problem with: ALL SUCH
non-three-dimensional realities DO NOT REALLY
EXIST... in reality (that is, as I have said:
three-dimensionally).
> Time, no matter how bad we want it to be,
> is NOT the fourth dimension,
> neither is it N+1. All our best
> scientists, theorists, and physicists
> agree that time is a subjective ethereal
> proposition that is allowed
> by us to fit into certain forumula
> we've developed to handle it so
> that we can factor it, but
> it is not in itself, a place.
> EEng
True: Time only exists in the mind, sort of
like the inch, the gallon, and, of course, the hour.
But you are going to be surprised at just how
many people who ought to know better will insist
to you that Time IS a place IN which everything
that exists... exists! Good luck.
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
re:
> On Sat, 06 Jan 2001 15:34:15 GMT, S D Rodrian
> <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <936puf$9vs$1...@merope.saaf.se>,
> >pau...@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
> >> In article <93571e$1l5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> >> S D Rodrian <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Only 3D objects can exist.
> >>
> >> Sorry, but you're wrong. If something i
> >> s exclusively 3-dimensional
> >> it means it must have either 2 space
> >> dimenstions and 1 time dimension
> >> and then it's infinetly "thin" in one
> >> space dimension, i.e. it will
> >> appear nonexistent to us. Or else
> >> it has 3 space dimensions but no
> >> time dimension, which means it
> >> will exist for an infinietly short
> >> period of time, and then it will
> >> also appear nonexistent to us.
> >
> >Actually you're rather close to the truth
> >even if you're a little bit confused by it:
> >Fundamentally, the only "thing" that has any
> >"existence" in our reality is MOTION (or,
> >energy; only, because it's so hard for the brain
> >to understand the physical nature of energy, we
> >must call it "motion" in order to deal with its
> >materiality... even if it's still hard for us to
> >imagine motion without also some "thing" or other
> >necessarily material "moving"). And this means,
> >at least for/from our human perspective, that
> >everything that has existence in our reality
> >indeed exists only "for an infinitely short period
> >of time" in any given "place." [The space-time "map"
> >can ONLY pinpoint "where" (the place) some "thing"
> >hath been in the relativistic chaos/jumble of the
> >universe's numberless inner motions--again: not
> >absolutely but only relativistically, which,
> >basically, is about the equivalent of some guy
> >saying: "Over there!" in "the infinite spans of
> >the eternal Cosmos."] --Carl Sagan
> >
> >> > What you call the 4th dimension
> >> > (God bless Rod Serling) merely
> >> > describes where an object has been
> >> > (however inaccurately, or,
> >> > relativistically only).
> >>
> >> It also describes how long the object will last.
> >
> >You will have to explain how it can possibly
> >describe how long an object can "last" which
> >can NEVER exist in any "place" for ANY measurable
> >amount of time!!! You would require absolute
> >knowledge in an absolutely relativistic reality
> >(here inside the universe of matter). I believe
> >you had better learn how to use quantum theory as
> >your preferred research tool "here."
> >
> >> If the object has
> >> no extent in time, it will last for
> >> an infinetly short time period,
> >> and to us it will appear non-existing.
> >
> >> Therefore only 4D objects can manifest
> >> their existence to us: it
> >> must have 3 space dimensions,
> >> plus a time dimension.
> >
> > S D Rodrian
> > web.sdrodrian.com
> > sdrodrian.com
> > music.sdrodrian.com
> >
> >
> >> Paul Schlyter,
S D Rodrian
"taichi" <tai...@eastwind.net> wrote:
> greetings Janus,
> not only is the concept time a tool
> created by people, so is dimension. we
> have a block (3d) reality that changes
> in a sequence of events, the past is
> going away and the future is ahead of us.
> The present is the only reality.
> The future is a result of the past
> and present activity. The future is an
> opportunity to make changes in reality.
> This is a dynamic system regulated
> to provide meaningful reality. Comments?
> Dave
Sure: "Things" have "meaning" only to us.
In support of your note:
Your "sequence of events" above is such an
infinitesimal segment of the motions of the
universe that it's almost possible to state
that your experience of the sequence is not
sufficient to allow you to decide whether
Time moves in the direction you think it's
moving: The universe is really only a jumble
of interrelated/relativistic motions and the
human experience is confined to such a truly
minuscule number of those motions that we can
never really establish with absolute certainly
whether those few motions which bound our human
existence are, as a whole, peaking or ebbing:
The laws of energy conservation alone would tell
you that as the universe increases in speed it
must decrease in some other area (mass)... thus
the universe of energy gives birth to the
universe of matter which then gives its borrowed
energy back to the universe of energy... a cycle
which must always be occurring (moving) in both
directions at once.
If you understand that our reality is absolutely
deterministic (that there are no uncaused effects)
then you may understand that when you witness a
child grow to a man you are really only witnessing
an unimaginably huge number of motions which have
no choice but to continue as they've been going
(cause and effect)... therefore it is NOT possible
in our literally unstoppable reality for a child
to suddenly stop growing into a man and turn back
the way "he" had been going (and begin growing from
a man back to a child). For one thing, you (observer,
witness to this direction in which all those motions
are moving) are also moving in the same general
direction--Or, in effect, you are simply another
part of the same cause/effect cascade/avalanche. Just
as when you witness a rush of water seeking the lowest
level... you might miss the fact that you are not
merely witnessing this or that drop of water going in
the direction it must continue, but that you are
witnessing every drop of water which makes up the flow
also seeking the lowest level, so that whatever form
the rush of water takes... it's always as if you yourself
were one of the drops in the flow observing some other
drop/drops and imagining them stopping on their track
and turning back up against the flow. It ain't gonna
happen.
Moreover, existence is all that exists (the past
and future exist only as our descriptions of change
and not as descriptions of anything that is either
coming into existence or ceasing to exist). Alexander
The Great did not merely exist once long ago, and
ceased to exist long ago... he exists still. It's
just that he exists now in a form which you'd never
recognize him. As I've said: The universe is a jumble
of relativistic motions, some slowing down while
other speed up. And the hallmark of this reality is
(as Newton knew) that there are NO uncaused effects.
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian
music.sdrodrian.com
re:
> "Janus" <Ja...@internetconnect.com> wrote in message
> news:yFA06.912$qCL5.1...@news.randori.com...
> > You say that "time" as a dimention is mearly a result of human
perception,
> > but the same can be argued for the spatial dimentions.
> > As far as time not permiting "motion" that is a rediculous
statement,
> since
> > the whole concept of motion is directly related to time and
position.
> > Motion is "object WAS [here], NOW its [there]. In other words,
"motion"
> can
> > only be descirbed by change in 3 spatial and 1 tempral dimention.
Without
> > the measurement of time, "then" and "now" positions of particles
are two
> > seperate systems with no logical connection between them.
> > BTW: the tempral dimention permits "motion", but in only one
direction.
> > >
> > > S D Rodrian
> > > web.sdrodrian.com
> > > sdrodrian.com
SDRodrian
funnyguy <funnyg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I really will have to start reading all
> the postings before replying
> quoting newbie guide "A Brief History..." -S.K.
> S.D. makes a very convincing argument.
> I think if he did phrase it in
> such a way that there is no room for error
> more people would accept it.
> S.D, wouldn't you agree that your explanation
> is simply the best answer
> possible at the moment, but not
> neccisarily the truth capital t?
Mine are mere observations. No different than, "If
it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... it's
an elephant" or some such. And it's really up to you
to add, "You were going pretty good there until you
got to the elephant bit."
> If we accept that x,y,z are constant
> and not relative, and that time
> has signifigance only to those who wish
> to use it (it does not exist
> apart from our thoughts perhaps?) then
> everything exists in three
> dimensions. Ignoring something like
> super-string theory which my grade
> 12 education has left me woefully unprepared for,
Consider yourself at least as lucky as those
Dark Ages monks who had to spend their lives
trying to figure out God's Purpose by
reading the Bible over and over and over again.
> I still think that the
> case that time exists only relatively
> could be made stronger. If you
> can, and I suspect that you can,
> for mine and others benefit, please do
> so.
Something stands in the way, unfortunately:
That old pun, "There is no man as blind
as he who WILL not see." You try getting
over that hurdle. And good luck!
> Is time like a litre?
More accurately: An hour is like a liter.
> A unit of measurment only?
Absolutely.
> I can have a litre of
> water, or as most would prefer a litre of beer.
> I don't think "litre"
> exists as anything other than as a way
> of representing another object.
Ah! The beginning of wisdom!
An hour is an arbitrary invention of
necessity by man just as a liter is also
an arbitrary invention of necessity by us.
The problem is that whereas nobody
is claiming that you can't have beer
without the liter, far too many of those
who have chugged down a few too many
ARE claiming that you can't have
MOTION without Time! And there's
no one in this world so blind as he/she
who WILL not see. (Where've heard
this before...?)
> It is an idea, exists solely in our mind.
> Am I getting the gist,
You've got the gist all over your keister
funnyguy. So if you have a beard down
there: Go take a bath on the double!
> or should I go back to my "Super-String
> Theory for Dummies" book?
No such book. The closest title is,
"Super-String Theory by Dummies."
Unfortunately the publishers will soon
be going out of business because
the authors keep insistingthat their book be
sold ONLY to buyers who also accept
the book sellers paying THEM the price of
the book instead of the other way around.
And the darn thing is that the authors have
rejected any suggestion of lowering the price!
O well, so it goes in this tipsy universe of ours!