Multidimensional Bostik
John Jones
for example, I don't get lots of points on top of each other, rather
than neatly arranged in a straight line?
We are told that dimensions are related and continuous, but how can they
be related and continuous if I don't know what the dimensional glue is
and how to apply it? - just HOW do I glue my two-dimensions to turn into
a seamless three dimensions?
Unless I can answer this question then I can't talk about an
Einsteinian, or string theory, four-dimensional space-time made up from
three-dimensional space and one-dimensional time. I think that the
inventors of these ideas are asking us to take too much for granted,
don't you?
ZerkonXXXX
Could you be more specific?
Start with a XYZ graph then describe your problem if you would please.
Isn't zero or 0,0,0 the 'glue'?
David C. Ullrich
No, I think you're babbling nonsense as usual. It's like saying that
those silly mathematians are taking too much for granted because
they overlook the question of how to prevent a multi-dimensional
space from catching swine flu and then using the virus to make
airplanes fall from the sky.
The fact that you can make up a bunch of silly words and
post them on usenet doesn't imply that there's any actual
problem anywhere.
David C. Ullrich
"Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."
(John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads."
in sci.logic.)
Sir Frederick
Perhaps ignorance is one of your many strong points.
If you wish to understand strongly enough, you will confabulate
a satisfying understanding.
David Bernier
> How, in mathematics and physics, do I apply dimensional glue so that,
> for example, I don't get lots of points on top of each other, rather
> than neatly arranged in a straight line?
What is _dimensional_glue_ ?
David Bernier
Smiler
> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 10:24:55 +0100, John Jones
> <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> How, in mathematics and physics, do I apply dimensional glue so that,
>> for example, I don't get lots of points on top of each other, rather
>> than neatly arranged in a straight line?
>>
>> We are told that dimensions are related and continuous, but how can
>> they be related and continuous if I don't know what the dimensional
>> glue is and how to apply it? - just HOW do I glue my two-dimensions
>> to turn into a seamless three dimensions?
>>
>> Unless I can answer this question then I can't talk about an
>> Einsteinian, or string theory, four-dimensional space-time made up
>> from three-dimensional space and one-dimensional time. I think that
>> the inventors of these ideas are asking us to take too much for
>> granted, don't you?
>
> No, I think you're babbling nonsense as usual. It's like saying that
> those silly mathematians are taking too much for granted because
> they overlook the question of how to prevent a multi-dimensional
> space from catching swine flu and then using the virus to make
> airplanes fall from the sky.
>
> The fact that you can make up a bunch of silly words and
> post them on usenet doesn't imply that there's any actual
> problem anywhere.
>
>
But it does. It implies that there is an actual problem in his 'thinking'.
( I use the term 'thinking' loosely, in his case)
--
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all individually tailor
made to perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer.
John Jones
0,0,0 is the assumption of three dimensional space. It is not a
directive for creating it.
John Jones
> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 10:24:55 +0100, John Jones
> <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> How, in mathematics and physics, do I apply dimensional glue so that,
>> for example, I don't get lots of points on top of each other, rather
>> than neatly arranged in a straight line?
>>
>> We are told that dimensions are related and continuous, but how can they
>> be related and continuous if I don't know what the dimensional glue is
>> and how to apply it? - just HOW do I glue my two-dimensions to turn into
>> a seamless three dimensions?
>>
>> Unless I can answer this question then I can't talk about an
>> Einsteinian, or string theory, four-dimensional space-time made up from
>> three-dimensional space and one-dimensional time. I think that the
>> inventors of these ideas are asking us to take too much for granted,
>> don't you?
>
> No, I think you're babbling nonsense as usual.
Good. That's sorted.
> It's like saying that
It always was like saying that.
> those silly mathematians are taking too much for granted because
> they overlook the question of how to prevent a multi-dimensional
> space from catching swine flu and then using the virus to make
> airplanes fall from the sky.
Have you told them? I mean, do you think they should know?
> The fact that you can make up a bunch of silly words and
> post them on usenet doesn't imply that there's any actual
> problem anywhere.
That's alright then.
John Stafford
> How, in mathematics and physics, do I apply dimensional glue so that,
> for example, I don't get lots of points on top of each other, rather
> than neatly arranged in a straight line?
The universe is multidimensional. You don't need anything like
metaphorical glue to make it understandable. Look, how is it that you
can walk across the street from your sitting room to the market without
being confounded by the impossibility of describing every event that
makes the walk possible - it is that simple.
> We are told that dimensions are related and continuous
You were taught nonsense. The explanation of the universe is not
possible in the vernacular you foster, except perhaps, through poetry
which is humble enough to not pretend to philosophy or science.
John Jones
There must be another source of facts then. Facts that have no relevance
to facts.
John Jones
> John Jones wrote:
>> How, in mathematics and physics, do I apply dimensional glue so that,
>> for example, I don't get lots of points on top of each other, rather
>> than neatly arranged in a straight line?
>
> What is _dimensional_glue_ ?
>
> David Bernier
I knew there would be someone crying foul over metaphor.
Alan Ford
>> How, in mathematics and physics, do I apply dimensional glue so that,
>> for example, I don't get lots of points on top of each other, rather
>> than neatly arranged in a straight line?
>
> What is _dimensional_glue_ ?
Obviously, the shit Jones keeps sniffing while he carpetbombs these
newsgroups with his pseudo-intellectual drivel.
--
If you don't beat your meat
You can't have any pudding
How can you have any pudding
If you don't beat your meat?
John Stafford
> David Bernier wrote:
>
>>> How, in mathematics and physics, do I apply dimensional glue so that,
>>> for example, I don't get lots of points on top of each other, rather
>>> than neatly arranged in a straight line?
>>
>> What is _dimensional_glue_ ?
>
>
> Obviously, the shit Jones keeps sniffing while he carpetbombs these
> newsgroups with his pseudo-intellectual drivel.
We can only guess, but I have the sense that Mr. Jones builds his stuff
by staring at a word possibly while stoned out of his senses. He tunnels
into the word, imagining that it exists in its own special universe.
This is his Object. Then stream-of-impressionism takes over and he
writes. At some point he imagines that some kind of logical operation
takes place when his comprehension wave collapses. He puts a dot at that
point and calls it a sentence. Then he posts it here.
I suggest to Mr. Jones to begin a structured effort to put his
philosophy into some cogent system rather than as brain farts.
I don't mean to be tough, although I have been called the only surviving
heart donor.
Ross A. Finlayson
Euclidean geometry starts with points and lines, without bothering
defining lines in terms of points. With some prototypical development
of points in a technical philosophy towards mathematically logical
ways of expressing truisms about "points", one way to consider that is
to have points define a space, then to go about determing how they
could be lines. That is where the points might naturally seem to
generate a totally spiral space-filling curve, along the lines (no pun
intended) of that the points would have two properties, that of
distinguishing each other from themselves (or themselves from each
other) in maximizing "distance", and leaving the most space for all
the other points in minimizing "distance".
Then where this spiral space-filling curve would go through all the
dimensions before there were three in a line, with a point at the
origin, then before any initial segments of sequences (where lines are
contiguous sequences of points) are beyind the first two points, each
of the vector bases up through all the (space-like, in the sense of
the hypercomplex algebra re Cartan) bases that define N-dimensional
space, would then lead to considerations about Sagnac-like notions as
to whether the next shell of the kernel about the origin sees the
first points not of the origin at (e_1, e_2, ...) then the next shell
(e_1, e_2, ...), or whether instead the outer shells' indices trail
the inner shells' (in demurral to the light-like dimensions about the
origin).
Then as to how to extract from that substrate the lines of a plane,
here still origin-centric, and then correspondingly n-planes that
partition (n+1)-planes, one notion is that of determining a circle in
the plane to then use two points (the origin and a point on the
circle) to define lines, those same lines that are defined in their
initial segment by three points' matching indices of the prototypical
space-filling curve or corpus of points.
Then from that, calling the origin zero and seeing that first
infinity's worth of points along a line comprising a unit interval
along e_1 (or equivalently e_1 the vector basis), sees that again the
natural integers as primitives in definition of the points has a
number-theoretic definition of geometric objects.
Ross
Errol
I don't think the dimensions can be attached to each other like paper
on paper (even conceptually).
Each dimension is fully enclosed within the next higher dimension.
I.O.Ws all points of a single dimension universe are accessible from a
2 D universe and so onto a 3 D one as well. This is slightly different
in concept from gluing your dimensions together I think it's
fallacial to try logically seperating these dimensions and even more
so to imagine that we can create a 3D universe by chucking 3 seperate
dimensions into a shopping cart and then somehow fuse them together
afterwards
I do know that a 2 D universe can be completely described in 1
dimension.
Two dimensions can be described with a single axis by using a spiral,
with the numbers of the next point curling outward from the centre of
the spiral). An object moving through such a spiral seemingly jumps
from one random dumber to the next, whereas using two axes the
transition is smooth A, 0 to B, 1 to C, 2
and a 3 D universe can be described by a 2 D one
As in the case of holograms and entropy at black holes.
but something is always lost in translation when doing so.
.
John Jones
> On Jul 11, 2:24 am, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> How, in mathematics and physics, do I apply dimensional glue so that,
>> for example, I don't get lots of points on top of each other, rather
>> than neatly arranged in a straight line?
>>
>> We are told that dimensions are related and continuous, but how can they
>> be related and continuous if I don't know what the dimensional glue is
>> and how to apply it? - just HOW do I glue my two-dimensions to turn into
>> a seamless three dimensions?
>>
>> Unless I can answer this question then I can't talk about an
>> Einsteinian, or string theory, four-dimensional space-time made up from
>> three-dimensional space and one-dimensional time. I think that the
>> inventors of these ideas are asking us to take too much for granted,
>> don't you?
>
> Euclidean geometry starts with points and lines, without bothering
> defining lines in terms of points. With some prototypical development
> of points in a technical philosophy towards mathematically logical
> ways of expressing truisms about "points", one way to consider that is
> to have points define a space, then to go about determing how they
> could be lines.
Points would set the limits for a space but they wouldn't, of course,
describe it.
> That is where the points might naturally seem to
> generate a totally spiral space-filling curve, along the lines (no pun
> intended) of that the points would have two properties, that of
> distinguishing each other from themselves (or themselves from each
> other) in maximizing "distance", and leaving the most space for all
> the other points in minimizing "distance".
It's strange in one way. Points can be used to set the limits of space
and can describe curves, but only if we already assume space and the curve.
I still can't see how the leap is made from a point to a line. We must
assume a line. A point doesn't do it for us.
John Jones
see new post