Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11  [ show all ]
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Let's understand dimensions
    #11175972 - 10/03/09 04:06 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

I'm really bored, and I work as a computer lab assistant at a college, and I don't really have to do anything besides sit at this computer.  I want to try to put into words a theory I have been working on related to how we understand the dimensions of our universe.  If you have the time, please read and share your thoughts, thanks.


Do you know what dimensions are, as in spatial dimensions?  We hear that our universe is three dimensional, and that time is the fourth dimension, but how many of us actually understand this?  And why do we have trouble understanding higher dimensions?  We put such mystery around the idea of higher dimensions, and the same mystery and lack of understanding of dimensions is expressed in current theoretical physics.  Now, I want to set the record straight on what dimensions are, and how we can understand higher (and lower) dimensions.  Who am I?  Just a random guy who saw a simple pattern.

First off, this pattern is simply a way to visualize dimensions, but it does not make assumptions about what role higher and lower dimensions play, it simply provides a framework for understand them.

When we say 3 dimensional, where is the number 3 coming from?  It really refers to the number of directions there are within a plane. We say things are 3-d because we have the left and right direction, the up and down direction, and the forward and backward direction.  If this is confusing hopefully you will understand the visuals I will provide.

A concept that is crucial to understanding dimensions is the zero-dimension.  In a zero dimensional plane there are no directions.  The best way to visualize this is as an infinitely small point.  Here is a representation of a zero dimensional plane:

              .


If you do not understand or thing I am making stuff up, that's ok because that concept is very hard to explain, but what follows should help.

The N+1 dimension pattern: If we start with an N dimensional plane (where N is the number of dimensions), an N+1 dimensional plane can be created by "stacking" or "lining up" N dimensional planes infinitely in a new direction.  Here are some visuals to help:

Zero dimension:         

    .


One dimensional takes zero dimensional planes and stacks them in one direction (infinitely):

<-...............................->

As you can see, in one dimensional space only left/right exists.

Two dimensional takes one dimensional planes and stacks them in one direction (infinitely):

                  /|\
                  |
<-...............................->
<-...............................->
<-...............................->
<-...............................->
<-...............................->
<-...............................->
<-...............................->
<-...............................->
<-...............................->
<-...............................->
                  |
                  \|/

Now we have left/right, and up/down.

Now the 3rd dimension is trickier.  If you take points and stack them up you get a line (first dimension), if you take lines and stack them up you get a square (second dimension).  Now, if you take squares and stack them up, you get a cube (third dimension).


Ok, here' where a new pattern immerges:

Dimensional packets of three principle: Dimensions exist in sets of three.

Space is three dimensional, because dimensional packets are made up of three dimensions, so space is one dimensional packet.  We say time is the fourth dimension, but we don't always understand this when we say it.

Visualizing this:

The way the dimensional packets of three principle works is that to move into the next packet, the prior packet is thought of as a point, so that the N+1 dimension principle is retained.

For instance, a three dimensional plane lookes like a cube, but we will express that cube as a point to understand the next packet:


    .  = a 3D plane


Ready for the fourth dimension?


<-...............................->

Look like the first dimension?  Well that's because it is the first dimension (of the next dimensional packet).

How can we understand this?  Well, each dot in the line represents one three dimensional plane, so we have infinite three dimensional planes stacked in one direction.  The way I like to think of it is that within each three dimension plane, things are unmoving, in fact, each three dimensional plane respresents a snap shot of the universe at any given moment.  Now, as we progress across the 4th dimensional line, each three dimensional plane is similar to the three dimensional plane before it, accept things have ever so slightly changed.  Think of it like a flip book.  Each page is an unchanging snap shot, but you flip through the pages, creating the illusion or sensation of time.

The universe is a collection of moments, and when we "flip through" these moments, we get time.

Do you see anything wrong with time mearly as the fourth dimension?

What I see is a universe which progresses through time along only one possible path.  Kind of boring.  Sets look at the fifth dimension:


                  /|\
                  |
<-...............................->
<-...............................->
<-...............................->
<-...............................->
<-...............................->
<-...............................->
<-...............................->
<-...............................->
<-...............................->
<-...............................->
                  |
                  \|/

If each dot represents a moment, now we can actually steer our way through multiple possibilities of time.  Instead of time moving in one direction, it now has options.

I said earlier that these patterns I am explaining are simply a way for us to visualize and understand higher dimensions, however, it does make any claim as to what each dimensions role actually is.

We can also look at the fifth dimension as a series of universes that unfold in one way, where each one is slightly different.  In this, each individual universe is completely deterministic, and all these universes exist simultaneously outside of each other.  The way you interpret these higher dimensions has a lot to do with your beliefs, you can look at them as allowing for a multiverse (as in the idea that there are universes out there where things are slightly different), or you can look at it as allowing for free will, where time can move in many directions, and isn't bound to one path. You can also look at it as multiple universes existing simultaneously where free will exists in each one (with dimensions beyond the 5th). Later, I will explain a possible way to understand the higher dimensions outside of free will and determinism, a way that takes all the confusion of trying to figure out how big a role free will plays and if there are mutliple universes.

Ok, so we covered the fifth dimension, the 6th dimension stacks 5 dimensional planes up.  Five dimensional planes look like squares, so the sixth dimension looks like a cube.

We can look at this much like we look at the 5th dimension in terms of free will and determinism, it's just that we add a new direction that either time can move in, or that we can understand separate universes.

In a five dimensional plane where we think of each line representing one individual universe with its own uniqueness, adjacent universes are very similar, but different, and as you progress through the universes, the difference becomes greater and greater.  The thing you have to understand about this idea is that there is some rule to how universes are different relative to each other.  In the sixth dimension, there is simply more room for possibilities, and different variations as there are more rules for how universes can be different.

So going back to the dimensional packets idea, we have now covered the 4th,5th,and 6th dimension packet.  To understand the 7th, the 8th, and the 9th, we go back to representing one 6 dimensional plane as a single dot:

                    .

Now, the 7th dimension would look like a series of 6 dimensional planes extending in one direction:


<-...............................->


How to interpret this?  Well, interpretation is not what I set out to do here, but I want to help you see how we may possibility make interpretations.  If we thing of a 6 dimensional plane as a collection of different universes where time unraveled slightly different in each, the 7th dimension can be a series of these collections of universes from beginning to end.  As we move down the 7th dimension, each 6 dimensional plane perhaps starts differently, or has slightly different laws.  Again, it's up to you to interpret the image.

Now I can keep going to explain higher and higher dimensions, but the point is to show you the pattern.  I'm sure you can now visualize the 8th dimension and 9th dimensions, and if you try, visualize infinite dimensions beyond that.


Are there dimensions before the 1st 2nd and 3rd?  Is space truly the first dimensional packet, or is it a collection of dimensional packets that come before it?  The best way to understand this is to go all the way to the top of this post and look at my diagrams for the 1st and second dimension.  They are comprised of points.  If space is truly an infinite collection of points, than perhaps within each of these points exists a sub universe. 

Here's a way to approach it:  If each point in space is its own universe, what we experience as matter and energy could simply be the totality of what is comprised within the sub universe of each point in space.  You computer monitor is comprised of billions of billions of these minute universes.  The matter that makes up your monitor is merely the contents of each of these sub universes.

Infinite dimensions: 

If each point in space is a sub universe, than within this sub universe, couldn't there be more sub universes?  Just as we could go on forever adding dimensions beyond the 7th, we can go on forever adding dimensions below the 1st.  It comes to a point where if there are infinite dimensions, it becomes meaningless to label each dimension with a number. 

Fractal:  This idea is like a fractal.  It's like an Alex Grey painting, the entire image is made up of smaller images.  Perhaps each sub universe is really just one aspect of the entire universe, and so forth as you move down the dimensions.  Perhaps we exist in every dimension at once.  In order to make quantum predicitions, we would have to understand what's going on within the sub universes that are at each point in space, but then from there we would need to understand each sub universe of the sub universes, and so on.  We could never truly understand it completely because it is infinite.  Perhaps the sub universes are the universe, each point in the universe is a universe that reflects an aspect of the universe that came before.  The universe may be a fractal of itself, and may go on infinitely.  Nothing can ever be predicted ultimately through any means, life is just life, unexplainable and impossible.


--------------------

Edited by Smitington (10/03/09 08:28 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineisaacein
exp(ix) = cosx + isinx

Registered: 05/21/08
Posts: 1,141
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11176134 - 10/03/09 04:41 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

You have a good intuition of what the dimension of Euclidean space is. I didn't read through the whole thing but I noticed a few mistakes such as

Quote:

When we say 3 dimensional, where is the number 3 coming from?  It really refers to the number of directions there are within a plane.




Clearly you meant within space. A plane is two-dimensional.

Mathematically speaking, "dimension" can mean many things. The notion of dimension which you are talking about is the dimension of Formula: 0, considered as a vector space.

Rigorously speaking, the dimension of a vector space V is the number of elements in a basis of V. For instance a basis of Formula: 1 is {(1,0,0), (0,1,0), (0,0,1)}; any point in "3D space" can be uniquely represented by a combination of those three vectors.

There are other bases possible; {(1,1,1), (1,1,0), (1,0,0)} is another possible basis for Formula: 1. The nice thing is that all bases for a given vector space have the same number of elements; the number of elements in a basis of V is thus an invariant of V and is called the dimension of V.

There are also infinite-dimensional vector spaces, such as the space of functions from an interval [a,b] to the real numbers.


--------------------
Formula: 0

Edited by isaacein (10/03/09 04:43 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: isaacein]
    #11176200 - 10/03/09 04:57 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Yea, you aren't rly gonna understand it with all that number knowledge.  Sorry my terminology isn't accurate, plane is just a word I use to descrice a n-dimensional universe or state or place.  I'm not too concerned about how math defines dimensions, I believe my understanding of them is fairly consistent to how they are understood in physics.  We call time the fourth dimension but I am trying to highlight that time may extend into the fifth and sixth dimensions.  I suggest you throw away your mathematics knowledge for a sec cus this has nothing to do with math.  I also agree that I may not have described exactly accurately what a dimension is by saying it is directions, but the thing i was most concerned with getting out there was the pattern I have observed.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11176275 - 10/03/09 05:19 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Physics understands dimensions very much in the same way as math.  In math dimensions are very general and much of it does not have any analog in reality, but physicists do use math to describe dimensions.  Dimensions in physics can generally be described as any measurable quality, like mass or charge.  That is why checking units is often called 'dimensional analysis'.  Spatial dimensions are simply right angles (known as 'orthogonal') to each other, so increasing one does not effect the other.  This holds for many measurable quantities as well, a charge is independent of a mass so they are orthogonal dimensions of sorts.  It also holds for time as you mentioned above, the time dimension is orthogonal to spatial and other measurable quantities.  'Dimension' can have slot of different meanings depending on the context in mathematics, science or mysticism.


Quote:

Yea, you aren't rly gonna understand it with all that number knowledge. ...  I suggest you throw away your mathematics knowledge for a sec cus this has nothing to do with math.




:facepalm:  Your not gonna 'rly' understand dimensions unless you have some mathematical knowledge (which is not simply 'number knowledge').

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineisaacein
exp(ix) = cosx + isinx

Registered: 05/21/08
Posts: 1,141
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11176277 - 10/03/09 05:19 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

The way physics understands dimensions comes from mathematics.

I'm not saying that what you're saying is garbage; quite the opposite in fact. I'm saying that what you're saying agrees with the mathematical notion of dimension, and that what you are saying can be formalized, made rigorous and generalized to extents which are hard to imagine.

For instance, continuous functions are an infinite-dimensional vector space. For example, Fourier realized that a basis for this vector space is given by sinusoidal functions; just like every point in three dimensional space can be broken down into three coordinates, every continuous function can be broken down into sinusoidal waves :



Sometimes different things are really the same thing. Do not think mathematics is dry and only serves to make the world boring. It takes a lot of imagination to be a mathematician.
Fractals are mathematical objects and were first imagined by mathematicians, such as Cantor and Mandelbrot.

There is a famous anecdote with Hiblert : he had realized one of his students stopped coming to class, and he asked another student what had happened to him. The other responded that he had given up mathematics to become a poet. "Good," Hilbert said; "he didn't have enough imagination to become a mathematician."


--------------------
Formula: 0

Edited by isaacein (10/03/09 05:40 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: isaacein]
    #11176318 - 10/03/09 05:28 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

I have nothing against math and I am actually quite good at it.  Read my bio I actually program fractals.  It just seems like you are getting hung up on terminology though.  You said yourself you didn't read the whole thing. 

My example would be does a naturally gifted musician need a music theory class to be good at music?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11176348 - 10/03/09 05:33 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

I'm simply challenging the conventions of what we think dimensions are.  Try to understand my the pattern I have found, they are quite simple and logical.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineisaacein
exp(ix) = cosx + isinx

Registered: 05/21/08
Posts: 1,141
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11176374 - 10/03/09 05:39 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Smitington said:
I'm simply challenging the conventions of what we think dimensions are.  Try to understand my the pattern I have found, they are quite simple and logical.




I agree that you are probably good at mathematics. And of course you don't need to learn the theory to have a good intuition of the underlying ideas, which I think you have.

You're not challenging anything though because much of what you have said, if stated somewhat more rigorously, corresponds to what we know. That's good though - it means you're on the right track.


--------------------
Formula: 0

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: isaacein]
    #11176408 - 10/03/09 05:46 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

meh, it is my understanding that we really have no idea how to describe the fifth dimensions and dimensions beyond, I mean yea people have talked about multiverses before and some people have related the fifth dimension to free will but I am quite sure nobody has put that the observations that I have made that are already known according to you can be used to explain higher dimensions, and lower dimensions.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11176418 - 10/03/09 05:47 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

for instance, show me an accepted theory that explains what each dimension is beyond the 3rd, and below the space dimensions.

Also, what I think I have done is found a way to make understanding higher dimensions very approachable.  Look at my post, there is very minimal technical language, and the visual patterns I have shown make it really easy and I am trying to take the mystery away from dimensions.


--------------------

Edited by Smitington (10/03/09 05:50 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineisaacein
exp(ix) = cosx + isinx

Registered: 05/21/08
Posts: 1,141
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11176520 - 10/03/09 06:06 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Formula: 0 is an n-dimensional space for every non-negative integer Formula: 1.

There is no mystery about high-dimensional spaces. Pick up a book about linear algebra and you'll see that we have no more trouble manipulating things such as thousand-dimensional Euclidean space than we have manipulating its two-dimensional counterpart.

Technical language is not a weakness of science; quite the contrary. It makes ideas precise in a way which everyday language cannot.


--------------------
Formula: 0

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: isaacein]
    #11176561 - 10/03/09 06:12 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

we can perform mathematical functions yes but it doesn't help people picture higher dimensions not as they apply to an abstact concept but as they apply to our actual universe.  Also, I am making the observation that dimensions exist in sets of 3, and there may very well be dimensions below the 1st according to the pattern.  I'm really concerned about how the universe works and what "space" is made of.  Sure, those mathematic formulas will probably help us perform operations, but they do nothing to explain actual physical dimensions.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleChespirito
Stranger
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/13/09
Posts: 3,259
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11176596 - 10/03/09 06:19 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

This is silly.  You say people have trouble visualizing dimensions above three.  And to get around that problem you merely say that dimensions come in groups of 3 so that the 4th dimension looks like a line!  How is that constructive, you are just saying 'oh hey guys yea dont worry about visualizing the 4th dimension Im just going to define the third as a new starting point, isnt that kewl'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Chespirito]
    #11176608 - 10/03/09 06:21 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

not really, it's actually how dimensions work.  Take my flip book example.  Time is made up of 3 dimensional points called moments.  Time is progressing those moments acrossed a line.  I'm sorry you do not understand that.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11176625 - 10/03/09 06:25 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

For instance, each page in a flip book is two dimensional, and when we flip through, we are stacking two dimension states ontop of each other creating a new dimension.

Now imagine that instead of each page being a flat peice of paper, it was some how three dimensional space.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleChespirito
Stranger
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/13/09
Posts: 3,259
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11176708 - 10/03/09 06:44 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Your whole time is the fourth dimension thing is false.  If you are trying to explain spatial dimensions then just treat the 4th as a generic spatial dimension.  Are you trying to just talk about a 4-D manifold spacetime?  I still dont see the point of your post as you just treat every 3rd dimension as a point again so theres no benefit in the end to visualizing the 4th dimension.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleChespirito
Stranger
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/13/09
Posts: 3,259
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11176714 - 10/03/09 06:45 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Smitington said:
For instance, each page in a flip book is two dimensional, and when we flip through, we are stacking two dimension states ontop of each other creating a new dimension.

Now imagine that instead of each page being a flat peice of paper, it was some how three dimensional space.



Yea i get it man, welcome to how dimensions are sometimes defined (and have been for hundreds of years).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Chespirito]
    #11176768 - 10/03/09 06:59 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Yes I am trying to take away the idea of 4-d manifold spacetime. And what is your thing about the fourth dimension?  Why would u treat the fourth dimension as a generic spatial dimension?  That's not real and people cannot picture that.  Space is three dimensional not four dimensional. 

The fourth dimension is like making a flip book out of a collection of three dimensional states.  The problem is this doesn't apply to the universe because time doesn't follow one defined path, visualizing the next 3 dimensions can help illustrate how time can take different paths. 

I am trying to take down the idea that we should think space has a fourth dimension, it is purely just wrong.  We all know space has three dimensions, when you try to say it has four you are stretching what you know to be true.  And Einsteins theories did not prove that space was four dimensional, using a certain type of four dimensional math helped calculate things factoring in relativity.  Look into absolute space and absolute time, these are principles that I am trying to bring back.


--------------------

Edited by Smitington (10/03/09 07:01 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11177249 - 10/03/09 08:37 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Don't get me wrong, Einstien was a brilliant guy, and did wonders for physics.  The problem is, he couldn't get passed relativity.  All of his laws and ideas are based on how we make measurements and perform predictions from different frames of reference.  He said that we must always consider the frame of reference when making these calculations and measurements.  This also lead him to believe that since we can never experience things outside of our frame of reference, that the laws of physics should be based on our frame of reference.  This is what lead him to say that space and time are actually one 4 dimensional thing called spacetime.  Four dimensional mathematics was particularly useful for making calculations that take into account frame of reference.

Now, nearly a century later, we are still trying to understand the fabric of space and time, but we are hung up on relativity, and fail to realize that the universe exists outside of frames of reference.  We need to bring absolute time and absolute space back to the picture.

Point of this post:

Einstien and 4-D space time = how to do calculations and perfom measurements

Absolute Space and Time and my patterns on dimensions = how to understand the fabric of space and time without regard to making measurements from a frame of reference


--------------------

Edited by Smitington (10/03/09 08:45 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleChespirito
Stranger
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/13/09
Posts: 3,259
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11177346 - 10/03/09 08:52 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

I have little idea what you are trying to convey, though from the looks of it, thats A-OK with  me

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemozhual
Amateur Omnologist
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/26/09
Posts: 283
Loc: New England
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11178467 - 10/04/09 12:57 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

So I just read through the entire thread. Disclaimer: My mathematical knowledge is shaky at best. Never-the-less, I found this rather interesting on the whole.

A few things:
You make the assumption that dimensions always have 2 directions of travel and that it is always possible to travel in both directions. It is to my understanding that the "time dimension" has only one direction of flow, hence making it unique.

As far as the composition of "space" is concerned, it is 96% Dark Energy(AND ITS PASSING THROUGH YOUR BODY RIGHT NOW!). Almost completely unobservable or researchable no matter how good your understanding of dimensional space is.

Yes the universe exists out side our frames of reference, but we will never experience it in that way.

You assume that we can't have free will in a deterministic universe. D.C. Dennett has rather ingeniously squashed that idea in his book Freedom Evolves. You should check it out.


--------------------
"Nature is like a sculptor constantly improving upon her work, but to do so she chisels away at living flesh." H.K. Bloom

"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent...
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent...
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god." Epicurus c. 300 BCE

"When I brought up the fact that 'No drug is good or bad, they're all just A drug, what someone does with them determines the postive or negative outcome. Look at medicine, those are drugs' Reponse was that 'well medicine solves problems' well so does LSD." -Learningtofly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineisaacein
exp(ix) = cosx + isinx

Registered: 05/21/08
Posts: 1,141
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11178596 - 10/04/09 02:13 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Smitington said:
Don't get me wrong, Einstien was a brilliant guy, and did wonders for physics.  The problem is, he couldn't get passed relativity.  All of his laws and ideas are based on how we make measurements and perform predictions from different frames of reference.  He said that we must always consider the frame of reference when making these calculations and measurements.  This also lead him to believe that since we can never experience things outside of our frame of reference, that the laws of physics should be based on our frame of reference.  This is what lead him to say that space and time are actually one 4 dimensional thing called spacetime.  Four dimensional mathematics was particularly useful for making calculations that take into account frame of reference.

Now, nearly a century later, we are still trying to understand the fabric of space and time, but we are hung up on relativity, and fail to realize that the universe exists outside of frames of reference.  We need to bring absolute time and absolute space back to the picture.

Point of this post:

Einstien and 4-D space time = how to do calculations and perfom measurements

Absolute Space and Time and my patterns on dimensions = how to understand the fabric of space and time without regard to making measurements from a frame of reference





It pisses me off when when some dude comes along and starts proclaiming that everybody has it wrong, all while being absolutely unclear and unscientific, and having probably never actually studied anything that he's talking about. What is your background in physics and mathematics? Wikipedia? You program fractals? You read some vulgarization books?

Do you realize that people spend their lives working to understand the world? Do you understand that people work together, and that scientists who work today are using hundreds of years of hard work which thousands of people have done before them? I agree that you can learn the music without learning the theory, but the analogy with science does not go very far at all. You will never know what a manifold is if you do not learn it; it took thousands of years for somebody to define it, and it would be surprising if you could say anything that even made sense about it without first working very hard to understand it.

I can tell you that a manifold is a separated, locally Euclidean topological space.

You do not know what a topological space is, even less what a separated one is.

You do not know what "locally" means, nor "Euclidean". I can tell you that a "locally Euclidean topological space" is a topological space in which every point has a neighborhood which is homeomorphic to an open set of Euclidean space. You do not know what an open set is. You do not know what a neighborhood is. You do not know what homeomorphic is; I can tell you that a homeomorphic map between topological spaces is a continuous function whose inverse is also continuous. You do not know what continous is. Etc...

Each of those terms has an extremely precise meaning. There is absolutely no ambiguity at all.


Finally :

I don't know very much about theoretical physics but I know enough to tell that there are many claims in your post which indicate that you don't know anything about what you're talking about.

I do know quite a bit about mathematics because I have spent thousands of hours studying it, testing my knowledge, asking myself questions (without claiming to be able to answer them), and searching for the answers to my questions in the work of other mathematicians. I also go to school, and there, I study science exclusively. I discuss science everyday with many different people who also dedicate their lives to understanding it. I don't claim to know a hundredth of known mathematics, but I know enough to tell you that you will not become a revolutionary figure in the history of science because of any kind of stitched up, metaphorical "theory". You do not seem to have even the slightest idea how science is practiced, and if you had any idea how high the requirements are for anything to be even considered a potential scientific theory, you would not have posted any of this.

If you have any doubt about what I am saying, I suggest you walk to your nearest university and meet with a physics professor to discuss your "theories". I'll bet $100 he won't listen more than two minutes, and during those two minutes he'll be wondering what a polite way to ask you out would be.


--------------------
Formula: 0

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemozhual
Amateur Omnologist
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/26/09
Posts: 283
Loc: New England
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: isaacein]
    #11178691 - 10/04/09 03:22 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHH SNA- erm... I agree, go talk to a university professor. But make sure you bring a camera and post what happend later.


--------------------
"Nature is like a sculptor constantly improving upon her work, but to do so she chisels away at living flesh." H.K. Bloom

"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent...
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent...
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god." Epicurus c. 300 BCE

"When I brought up the fact that 'No drug is good or bad, they're all just A drug, what someone does with them determines the postive or negative outcome. Look at medicine, those are drugs' Reponse was that 'well medicine solves problems' well so does LSD." -Learningtofly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: mozhual]
    #11179424 - 10/04/09 09:32 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

mozhual said:
So I just read through the entire thread. Disclaimer: My mathematical knowledge is shaky at best. Never-the-less, I found this rather interesting on the whole.

A few things:
You make the assumption that dimensions always have 2 directions of travel and that it is always possible to travel in both directions. It is to my understanding that the "time dimension" has only one direction of flow, hence making it unique.

As far as the composition of "space" is concerned, it is 96% Dark Energy(AND ITS PASSING THROUGH YOUR BODY RIGHT NOW!). Almost completely unobservable or researchable no matter how good your understanding of dimensional space is.

Yes the universe exists out side our frames of reference, but we will never experience it in that way.

You assume that we can't have free will in a deterministic universe. D.C. Dennett has rather ingeniously squashed that idea in his book Freedom Evolves. You should check it out.




Time flow:  Time flows in one direction yes, I was never making the claim that time can reverse itself, you just have to imagine time as being a line of moments, across that line you can look to the left and to the right.

Dark energy:  Is what is contained by space, but it is not what space itself actually is.

Frames of reference:  We can never escape them so we must always account for them WHEN performing calculations and measurements and predictions.  They are however not important for understanding what space is.

Free will:  Is not the point of my discussion.  In a universe where everything is casual you can never personaly escape the laws of physics which govern your own body and brain chemistry.  I also stressed over and over that interpretation is not the point of my discussion.  I pointed out how we may interpret higher dimensions, but continually stated that I make no claims as to what role the higher dimensions play.  My view on time as a dimension is like I have been saying over and over, a flip book of moments, therefore all the moments already exist, and it's just a matter of getting to them.  This simple analogy would relate to time only being one dimension however.  I was trying to show that by giving time more dimensions, it would be like we had a flip book, where as you flip the pages, you could steer your direction through a new path of pages every page you flip, thus is not completely linear. 




Quote:

mozhual said:
OHHHHHHHHHHHHHH SNA- erm... I agree, go talk to a university professor. But make sure you bring a camera and post what happend later.




Ok, I agree that if my theory is going to gain any momentum or acclaim, I will need to learn more of what is "known", so I can use all the right terminology and give examples for any case that a person might bring up.  However, you have not squashed me or my theory.  Again, you don't need to know ever word in the human language to be a good writer, it comes from personal insight.  What I have said about einstiens take does not belittle him or the scientific community at all, they are doing great research in that direction of understanding physics.  However, sometimes it takes a fresh approach to continue progress.


--------------------

Edited by Smitington (10/04/09 09:34 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11179501 - 10/04/09 09:49 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Also, I am getting a Bachelors degree in computer science and afterwards hope to study physics, so by posting this on the shroomery I am looking for critism, and I respect it all right now, and I realize that my theory is not at a state to be published to the entire world.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11179883 - 10/04/09 11:26 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

If you want to study physics why are you getting a degree in computer science?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: DieCommie]
    #11179907 - 10/04/09 11:32 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

because computer programming has been a powerful tool in my discovery into mathematics and physics, and I think we can do alot of physics and math research with computers.  I am also very interested in the mystery that is the mandelbrot set.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11179923 - 10/04/09 11:36 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Yea programming is a very useful skill in physics for sure.  There is alot of opportunity in doing computational/theoretical work especially in condensed matter and biological physics.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: DieCommie]
    #11179934 - 10/04/09 11:38 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

yea hopefully that is the kind of job I will get


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineisaacein
exp(ix) = cosx + isinx

Registered: 05/21/08
Posts: 1,141
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11180123 - 10/04/09 12:23 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Smitington said:

Ok, I agree that if my theory is going to gain any momentum or acclaim, I will need to learn more of what is "known", so I can use all the right terminology and give examples for any case that a person might bring up.  However, you have not squashed me or my theory.  Again, you don't need to know ever word in the human language to be a good writer, it comes from personal insight.  What I have said about einstiens take does not belittle him or the scientific community at all, they are doing great research in that direction of understanding physics.  However, sometimes it takes a fresh approach to continue progress.




Nothing that you have said is even close to being admissible as a potential theory. At best, it's a sloppy metaphor for something we already understand perfectly in a scientifically rigorous manner.


"Fresh approach"... :facepalm:

Physicists are not doing "great research in that direction of understanding physics". They are doing physics.


:tinfoil:


Get a book, dude. You are suffering from a serious case of the "misunderstood, self-declared genius" syndrome.


--------------------
Formula: 0

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: isaacein]
    #11180142 - 10/04/09 12:26 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

you are suffering form a serious case of "I can't think outside of the box therefore no body else can" syndrome

It may be sloppy right now be you might not be understanding some of the finer details, and it's probably my fault for not conveying them correctly


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineisaacein
exp(ix) = cosx + isinx

Registered: 05/21/08
Posts: 1,141
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11180256 - 10/04/09 12:46 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)


Quote:

Smitington said:
you are suffering form a serious case of "I can't think outside of the box therefore no body else can" syndrome

It may be sloppy right now be you might not be understanding some of the finer details, and it's probably my fault for not conveying them correctly




If you are talking about the box of the scientific method, then you are right. I can also tell that you're thinking so much outside of that box that it's nowhere in your field of vision.


--------------------
Formula: 0

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: isaacein]
    #11180323 - 10/04/09 01:03 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

lol dude, I admit that I do not understand alot, and thats why I want to study physics after computer science, but you yourself said you do not know much physics either, so I don't really understand how you can fight my idea when your only arguement is my terminology is wrong and that I appear to be questioning modern physics therefore I must be wrong.  You keep telling me that I have said nothing new about dimensions, and that's great, try to apply your understanding of dimensions to the actual universe.  I could expand on my "theory" to show that it has implications in quantum physics, understanding the plank level, and understanding the speed of light, because I believe space is basically made out of points, it's like your computer screen is a whole image made out of pixels, space is "pixeled".  I am sorry that no physicist have realized this yet. 

You seem to have a good understanding of math, let me try to illustrate a concept to you.  If we have a location called point A, and a location called point B, and they are 10 meters apart, how does something move from point A to point B?  Sounds simple, but when you think about it, it's math, the position starts at zero, and has to add it's way up to 10, but in order to get to ten, it must visit every single number between zero and ten.  There are an infinite number of numbers between zero in ten, therefore in order to get from zero to ten you need to skip certain numbers by an increment.  What I am saying is that in space, if something moves from point A to point B, it must visit every single position in space between A and B, but if there were an infinite number of possible positions between A and B, the object could never get there because it would take infinitely long to visit an infinite number of positions.  For the object to move from point A to point B in a finite amount of time, it must essentially skip positions in space.  This is what lead me to believe that space is comprised of very tiny points.  Quantum theory is about understanding that things in physics are made of a quanta, my ideas are the first that lead to a concept of a quanta for space and time.


--------------------

Edited by Smitington (10/04/09 01:10 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11180374 - 10/04/09 01:14 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

...my ideas are the first that lead to a concept of a quanta for space and time.




uhh... no they are not.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: DieCommie]
    #11180393 - 10/04/09 01:17 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

I'm sorry, you are right, but no theory about such quanta really is accepted right now, I guess I ment to say it is a competing theory about quantum space and time, but it's approach to the quanta of space and time is entirely unique and is alot simplier than others.

I'm interested to hear what you guys think of the example I jsut gave about an object moving from point A to point B.


--------------------

Edited by Smitington (10/04/09 01:18 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineisaacein
exp(ix) = cosx + isinx

Registered: 05/21/08
Posts: 1,141
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11180475 - 10/04/09 01:31 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Smitington said:
What I am saying is that in space, if something moves from point A to point B, it must visit every single position in space between A and B, but if there were an infinite number of possible positions between A and B, the object could never get there because it would take infinitely long to visit an infinite number of positions.




This is absolutely incorrect. Zeno formulated this "paradox" a couple of thousand years ago, by saying that an arrow could never travel between two points because it would have to first travel half of the distance between the two points, and then half of the remaining distance, and then half of the remaining distance, etc., to infinity. He came to a different conclusion (that the arrow is in fact motionless), but his conclusion is no more erroneous than yours and follows from the same (false) argument.  What Zeno did not realize is that

Formula: 0

There are infinitely many terms in the sum on the left side, but the sum is finite and is equal to 1. The arrow does visit infinitely many points, all while reaching its destination. If you do not see why the sum is equal to 1, I can prove it to you, if you would like. The proof is easy.


--------------------
Formula: 0

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: isaacein]
    #11180499 - 10/04/09 01:35 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

dude i figured out that formula in my note book in 6th grade cus i am a "misunderstood, self-declared genius".  You seem to be missing the fact that if an arrow visits an infinite number of points it would take an infinite number of moments to reach its destination, space doesn't perform infinite series calculations so that it can move objects.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleChespirito
Stranger
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/13/09
Posts: 3,259
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: isaacein]
    #11180521 - 10/04/09 01:38 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Well you can't travel an infinite amount of times so that sum does not work.  As the point of the paradox is to point out that you cannot ever reach somewhere if you travel like that, of course if you had infinite time then you could indeed complete that sum.  Actually in physics what you can say is that position has an uncertainty to it and therefore when you get close enough you are in fact there.

And actually the Greeks knew that summation before Zeno's time I believe

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11180530 - 10/04/09 01:40 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

That arguement is also not similar to mine because it claims that an arrow can move 1/2 of the way in the first place.  Objects do not move like that. They do not skip space, then skip half as much space, then a quarter of as much space.. that example isn't realistic, it's a mathematical thing, not a physics thing.


--------------------

Edited by Smitington (10/04/09 01:43 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11180541 - 10/04/09 01:41 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

It looks to me like a confusion between a mathematical construct (the number line) and reality (space).  Sure there are an infinite number of numbers on a number line, and that is true in math.  But math is not reality, its a language we (sometimes) use to describe reality.  There is no reason to expect all mathematical constructs to have an analog in reality - in fact much mathematics does not not describe reality at all.  Math is an idealization we (scientists) use to model/approximate reality.  Of course mathematicians aren't bound by modeling reality like scientists are so they can create and investigate as they please without such a restriction.

In other words, so what if the number line has that characteristic?  We dont move around on number lines (bet we can, sometimes, approximate our movements with them).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: DieCommie]
    #11180557 - 10/04/09 01:46 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Because the number line can be related to the number of positions between two positions in space.  An object must encounter every position between two position to move.  This is why I am saying that the number line doesn't model space, because in space there are a finite number of positions between any two positions, hence the quanta of space, hence the lower dimensions in my original theory.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineChuangTzu
starvingphysicist
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: DieCommie]
    #11180558 - 10/04/09 01:46 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Why should it seem unreasonable for something to pass an infinite number of points in a finite time?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: ChuangTzu]
    #11180572 - 10/04/09 01:48 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

ChuangTzu said:
Why should it seem unreasonable for something to pass an infinite number of points in a finite time?




Because it must "be" at each position for some non zero length of time.  If you add an infinite numbner of non zero lenghts of time, the total time = infinity.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11180576 - 10/04/09 01:49 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Smitington said:
If you add an infinite numbner of non zero lenghts of time, the total time = infinity.




Thats not true, as they already showed you - some infinite sums converge.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineChuangTzu
starvingphysicist
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11180582 - 10/04/09 01:51 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:


Because it must "be" at each position for some non zero length of time.  If you add an infinite numbner of non zero lenghts of time, the total time = infinity.




Why must it be at each position for a non-zero time?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: ChuangTzu]
    #11180598 - 10/04/09 01:54 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Quote:

Smitington said:
If you add an infinite numbner of non zero lenghts of time, the total time = infinity.




Thats not true, as they already showed you - some infinite sums converge.




Because there is also a quanta of time.  If there was not a quanta of time, there would also be an infinite number of moments between any two moments, which is again impossible.  The two go together.


Quote:

ChuangTzu said:
Quote:


Because it must "be" at each position for some non zero length of time.  If you add an infinite numbner of non zero lenghts of time, the total time = infinity.




Why must it be at each position for a non-zero time?




Because without understanding space and time as quantized, we have no idea how it works what so ever and have no way of understanding it without the sense of nonunderstandability that you are possibly elluding too.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineisaacein
exp(ix) = cosx + isinx

Registered: 05/21/08
Posts: 1,141
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: DieCommie]
    #11180602 - 10/04/09 01:56 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

I did not mean to say that this is how things happen in the physical world. I meant to say that there is no contradiction whatsoever in the idea of an infinite number of very short events happening within a finite amount of time. There is no more contradiction in that idea than there is in the idea of an infinite number of very short segments lying on a finite segment of a line.


--------------------
Formula: 0

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineisaacein
exp(ix) = cosx + isinx

Registered: 05/21/08
Posts: 1,141
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11180610 - 10/04/09 01:57 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Smitington said:
If there was not a quanta of time, there would also be an infinite number of moments between any two moments, which is again impossible.




Prove this.


--------------------
Formula: 0

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: isaacein]
    #11180612 - 10/04/09 01:58 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Yea, I think we all agree on that (well, almost all :tongue:)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineisaacein
exp(ix) = cosx + isinx

Registered: 05/21/08
Posts: 1,141
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: ChuangTzu]
    #11180619 - 10/04/09 01:59 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:


Because it must "be" at each position for some non zero length of time.  If you add an infinite numbner of non zero lenghts of time, the total time = infinity.




No; the above geometric series shows that this is false. Add 1/2 of a second to 1/4 of a second to 1/8 of a second, etc., to infinity. None of these quantities is zero, there are infinitely many of them, and yet they sum to 1.


--------------------
Formula: 0

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineChuangTzu
starvingphysicist
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11180659 - 10/04/09 02:07 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Smitington said:
Because there is also a quanta of time. 




Is there?

Quote:

If there was not a quanta of time, there would also be an infinite number of moments between any two moments





How does that follow?  If a moment has no "spread" in time, and is infinitesimally short, there are an infinite number of them within any interval.  By the way, the singular of quanta is "quantum"...

Quote:


Because without understanding space and time as quantized, we have no idea how it works what so ever and have no way of understanding it without the sense of nonunderstandability that you are possibly elluding too.




So how does adding in quantized space and time improve on any currently widely used model (none of which incorporate quantized space or time)?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: isaacein]
    #11180783 - 10/04/09 02:28 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Isaac, the problem with the arrow example is that objects do not skip space by some fraction of the total distance, they move through positions that are equally spaced.  If there were an infinite number of positions to be be visited, than each position must be infinitely small.  There is just no way that there are an infinite number of positions because you would have to define the amount of time the object takes to move from one infinitely small position to the next, that time length would also be infinitely small.  Velocity is the distance an object moves divided by the time it took to make that move.  If there were an infinite number of positions between any two points, than all distances would be equal, they would all be infinite.  We can put a number on distance and time because there are not an infinite number of positions and moments.  You get what I am saying?  If distance A = 10m and distance B = 20m, and they both have infinite number of positions between them, then they both have the same number of positions between them, so they are equal, which is wrong.

It is good you are questioning me because it is challenging me alot, please keep it coming.

Chuang, time is quantized for the same reason that for an object to move from point A to point B it must visit every point inbetween, and it cannot visit an infinite number of points.  Time is the same as this, for time to move from time A to time B, it must go through all the moments between those times, if there were an infinite number of moments, time would never go anywhere.

Adding quantized space and time helps our current physical models because it explains plank values and the speed of light.  This is how I believe it works.  Say there is an object that inhabits one space quantum.  If the object moves, it moves into another space quantum. Objects have the opportunity to move every quantum moment.  Therefore an object can never move more than one quantum space length away in one quantum moment, which means there is a universal speed limit of an object moving one quantum lenght per one quantum moment = the speed of light.


--------------------

Edited by Smitington (10/04/09 02:29 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineisaacein
exp(ix) = cosx + isinx

Registered: 05/21/08
Posts: 1,141
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11180901 - 10/04/09 02:54 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Smitington said:
  If there were an infinite number of positions between any two points, than all distances would be equal, they would all be infinite.




No. Mathematically, this is false, and there is no reason to think that it would hold physically. There are infinitely many numbers between 0 and 1, yet the distance between 0 and 1 is finite. In fact there are as many points between 0 and 1 as there are on any other interval, or even on the whole real line, but that doesn't mean any two distances are equal.

You clearly do not know what you are talking about. You are making the beginner's mistakes, exactly because you refuse to learn what is already known. Do you even know what you mean by "distance"? Your "intuition" is fooling you.

Quote:


  We can put a number on distance and time because there are not an infinite number of positions and moments.





Oh yes? How do you explain that there are infinitely many fractions between 0 and 1, and yet it makes perfect sense to say that the inteval [0,1] has (finite) length 1?

I give up. You are stubborn in your ignorance; good luck convincing anyone not completely ignorant that you have any idea what you are talking about.


--------------------
Formula: 0

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: isaacein]
    #11181086 - 10/04/09 03:34 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Ok isaac, I figured out a good way to explain it to you while i was driving home...

What are numbers?  Numbers come from us counting things, or quantizing things.  They tell us how much of something we have.  Somethings can only be counted in integers, while others can have fractional parts.  You are very concerned with the properties of numbers from an abstract view point, which is great.

My question is, distance (not in terms of number distance but actual physical distance) is a quantity, it is a number, but what is it quantitizing?  What is it counting?


Try to answer that question.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11181107 - 10/04/09 03:38 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Also Chuang, once we see that quantizing space and time explains why the universe has a speed limit, my theory of dimensions goes on to explain what space quanta and time quanta are, and how to understand them.  Current quantum physics is unable to understand things at the quantum level.  My theory of dimensions says that to understand things at the quantum level, you must look at a space quantum as dimensions below our own, and essentially each space quantum is a universe of it's own.  We must understand what is contained within this space quantum universe to understand things at the quantum level.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineisaacein
exp(ix) = cosx + isinx

Registered: 05/21/08
Posts: 1,141
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11181137 - 10/04/09 03:42 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Smitington said:
Ok isaac, I figured out a good way to explain it to you while i was driving home...

What are numbers?  Numbers come from us counting things, or quantizing things.  They tell us how much of something we have.  Somethings can only be counted in integers, while others can have fractional parts.  You are very concerned with the properties of numbers from an abstract view point, which is great.

My question is, distance (not in terms of number distance but actual physical distance) is a quantity, it is a number, but what is it quantitizing?  What is it counting?


Try to answer that question.




Sure, yeah. I'll try that. :facepalm:


--------------------
Formula: 0

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleChespirito
Stranger
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/13/09
Posts: 3,259
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11181140 - 10/04/09 03:42 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Smitington said:
Current quantum physics is unable to understand things at the quantum level. 



Ha must be a pretty poorly named theory then

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineisaacein
exp(ix) = cosx + isinx

Registered: 05/21/08
Posts: 1,141
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11181167 - 10/04/09 03:47 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Oh, by the way : Wikipedia has a good introductory article about dimension. I suggest you check it out.

Dimension - Wikipedia

If you are interested in science I can also suggest many good books to you.


--------------------
Formula: 0

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Chespirito]
    #11181175 - 10/04/09 03:48 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

So isaac you are resigning to the question then?  You are unable to answer it? 

I will answer it for you.

Space distance quantized how many positions are between two points.  With out quantizing space, distance when applied to physics really doesn't quantize anything and doesn't make any sense as a number.

Chespirito:

If you do not believe me look into it for yourself.  I keep on bringing up plank constants.  Quantum physics says that at a certain level (below the plank level), our current understanding of physics breaks down. 

It is quite possible that Plank has discovered the sizes of space and time quanta without realizing that space and time have a quantum.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11181183 - 10/04/09 03:48 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

isaac is mad


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineisaacein
exp(ix) = cosx + isinx

Registered: 05/21/08
Posts: 1,141
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11181213 - 10/04/09 03:53 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Smitington said:
isaac is mad




No, I'm just jealous of your obvious technical superiority. :smirk:


--------------------
Formula: 0

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: isaacein]
    #11181226 - 10/04/09 03:55 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Isaac, I asked you to answer what physical distance quantized, and you said you couldn't answer it.


Get back on topic.  I answered the question for you.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleChespirito
Stranger
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/13/09
Posts: 3,259
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11181749 - 10/04/09 05:17 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Smitington said:
If you do not believe me look into it for yourself.  I keep on bringing up plank constants.  Quantum physics says that at a certain level (below the plank level), our current understanding of physics breaks down. 




Ha Ive looked into the Planck scale and quantum in general.  Your point is just that you believe certain things to be true, but so the fuck what?  The Planck scale is more complicated than you realize

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Chespirito]
    #11181928 - 10/04/09 05:42 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

So you point is what exactly?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemozhual
Amateur Omnologist
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/26/09
Posts: 283
Loc: New England
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11181937 - 10/04/09 05:43 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Lets do a simple color experiment to try and understand your reasoning. White "supposedly" contains all the visable colors of the EMS. You can create a seeming infinite amount of colors(I pretty sure there is a finite number, but for arguement's sake lets say it is infinite).
However, no matter how many colors you mix in however many combinations or quantities, you will never get back to the color white. You are saying that the way people currently understand dimensions can't possibly be reality because, like the mixed colors, the amounts discussed are infinite. So therefore everything we know about white being a representation of all colors together must be flawed and a new theory must be proposed to account for the fact that red through violet can't add up to white. And there must be smaller sub-colors (like your sub dimensions) in every pigment of color that allow us to achieve a mixture of color we would otherwise not be able to experience.

Yes I know this isn't exactly what you are saying, but quite honestly it might as well be. If you are as serious about making this a legitimate train of thought as you show here, you have a long long long way to go.
Oh and I do apologize for incorrectly reading your statements about "Space" before, you wrote one thing and I read something else!


--------------------
"Nature is like a sculptor constantly improving upon her work, but to do so she chisels away at living flesh." H.K. Bloom

"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent...
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent...
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god." Epicurus c. 300 BCE

"When I brought up the fact that 'No drug is good or bad, they're all just A drug, what someone does with them determines the postive or negative outcome. Look at medicine, those are drugs' Reponse was that 'well medicine solves problems' well so does LSD." -Learningtofly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: mozhual]
    #11181979 - 10/04/09 05:50 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Actually, there are not an infinite amount of colors as your arguement is based on.  Electromagnetic radiation wavelength is quantized just like anything else in physics.


--------------------

Edited by Smitington (10/04/09 05:52 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTedwilto
Veni, vidi, vici
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/08/08
Posts: 5,158
Loc: Sunny Afternoon in
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11181988 - 10/04/09 05:51 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

I am in my first year of engineering physics and i can already confidently :facepalm: your ideas.

Try talking to someone with a phd see how they react. :facepalm:


--------------------

Song of the week, click Huey:



Song of the week list in journal.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Tedwilto]
    #11182016 - 10/04/09 05:55 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

You guys are all confused to fu to the ppl smacking me.

It just so happens that my ideas may not have been presented correctly and I have alot to learn before publishing a formal theory, but they explain why the universe has a maximum speed called c, they explain why planck constants exists, they explain how to understand thing at the quantum level, and they explain how to answer a question like what does distance when applied to space quantize.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Tedwilto]
    #11182019 - 10/04/09 05:55 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

:facepalm: indeed.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11182030 - 10/04/09 05:57 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Smitington said:
It just so happens that my ideas may not have been presented correctly and I have alot to learn before publishing a formal theory, but they explain why the universe has a maximum speed called c, they explain why planck constants exists, they explain how to understand thing at the quantum level, and they explain how to answer a question like what does distance when applied to space quantize.





Is it just some strange coincidence that my theory can explain these things?  Smack all you want but until you address this I have no respect for your arguements.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemozhual
Amateur Omnologist
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/26/09
Posts: 283
Loc: New England
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11182066 - 10/04/09 06:03 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

(I pretty sure there is a finite number, but for arguement's sake lets say it is infinite).




Stop deflecting... I was quite clear in my post that it was a hypothetical argument vaguely mirroring the one you are proposing. And I meant it to convey what you your self are already suspecting, that at best your ideas are not presented correctly and at worse you are doing exactly what Isac is describing.

You need to relax, go read a lot more and then come back and wow us, but stop with this for now... it just looks like pseudo-science.


--------------------
"Nature is like a sculptor constantly improving upon her work, but to do so she chisels away at living flesh." H.K. Bloom

"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent...
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent...
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god." Epicurus c. 300 BCE

"When I brought up the fact that 'No drug is good or bad, they're all just A drug, what someone does with them determines the postive or negative outcome. Look at medicine, those are drugs' Reponse was that 'well medicine solves problems' well so does LSD." -Learningtofly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: mozhual]
    #11182079 - 10/04/09 06:05 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”  -Albert Einstein


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemozhual
Amateur Omnologist
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/26/09
Posts: 283
Loc: New England
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11182103 - 10/04/09 06:09 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

You act like that means you can just imagine things that kinda fit and call them scientific fact. That is exactly what you convey to me by quoting that, and to probably everyone else in this thread too. Rethink your methods.


--------------------
"Nature is like a sculptor constantly improving upon her work, but to do so she chisels away at living flesh." H.K. Bloom

"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent...
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent...
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god." Epicurus c. 300 BCE

"When I brought up the fact that 'No drug is good or bad, they're all just A drug, what someone does with them determines the postive or negative outcome. Look at medicine, those are drugs' Reponse was that 'well medicine solves problems' well so does LSD." -Learningtofly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: mozhual]
    #11182153 - 10/04/09 06:19 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

I bring this quote up to remind all of you with vast knowledge that imagination is what is most important, and that sometimes we get caught in the box of our knowledge.  I also would like to remind you that I have stated several times that I do need alot more knowledge before my theory is completely developed.


Also, I thank all of you for challenging me, it helps me understand the best way to present my ideas.


--------------------

Edited by Smitington (10/04/09 06:25 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineisaacein
exp(ix) = cosx + isinx

Registered: 05/21/08
Posts: 1,141
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11182318 - 10/04/09 06:42 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Smitington said:
Also, I thank all of you for challenging me, it helps me understand the best way to present my ideas.




Rest assured, you are nowhere near having to worry about presentation.


--------------------
Formula: 0

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleChespirito
Stranger
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/13/09
Posts: 3,259
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11182419 - 10/04/09 06:54 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Smitington said:
Quote:

Smitington said:
It just so happens that my ideas may not have been presented correctly and I have alot to learn before publishing a formal theory, but they explain why the universe has a maximum speed called c, they explain why planck constants exists, they explain how to understand thing at the quantum level, and they explain how to answer a question like what does distance when applied to space quantize.





Is it just some strange coincidence that my theory can explain these things?  Smack all you want but until you address this I have no respect for your arguements.



What are you talking about?  What theory?  You mean the few sentences you wrote?  Thats your fucking theory?  How does it explain a maximum speed of c?  Show me the derivation?  I had a roommate exactly like you.  He'd go on and on using physics words like 'fluid dynamics' while having no idea how to apply fluid dynamics to what he was rambling about, eventually I couldn't take it anymore and Ill leave out what happened as its irrelevant.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleChespirito
Stranger
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/13/09
Posts: 3,259
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Chespirito]
    #11182429 - 10/04/09 06:55 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Shit I bet you are my old roommate, I swear you must follow my ass around.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Chespirito]
    #11182552 - 10/04/09 07:10 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

"They all laughed at Galileo!! :crankey: "

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineisaacein
exp(ix) = cosx + isinx


Registered: 05/21/08
Posts: 1,141
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Chespirito]
    #11182581 - 10/04/09 07:14 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

This whole thread reminds me of some guy named Don Blazys who lurks around science forums claiming to have proven various famous unsolved problems, such as the Beal conjecture or the ABC conjecture. He is at best wrong, and most of the time incomprehensible. If you guys want to have a good laugh I suggest taking a look at his posts on half a dozen different science forums. He even has his own website; on the first page he says

Quote:

There are many spirited debates on my proof in many science and math forums.
Most of them you can find by “Google searching” (Don Blazys Beal Conjecture).
They are fun, contain some interesting information,
and you can decide for yourself who won.




:facepalm:


--------------------
Formula: 0

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineisaacein
exp(ix) = cosx + isinx


Registered: 05/21/08
Posts: 1,141
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: DieCommie]
    #11182594 - 10/04/09 07:15 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
"They all laughed at Galileo!! :crankey: "




:ilold:


--------------------
Formula: 0

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Chespirito]
    #11182691 - 10/04/09 07:25 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

isaacein said:
Quote:

Smitington said:
Also, I thank all of you for challenging me, it helps me understand the best way to present my ideas.




Rest assured, you are nowhere near having to worry about presentation.




Isaac, plz watch the movie IQ with Meg Ryan.  In that movie you are Meg Ryan, who is a brilliant mathematician but has no idea how Einstien does what he does because she thinks too much within the box, while Einstien continues to tell her that he is not a mathematician and that she needs to be creative and stuff. 


Quote:

Chespirito said:
Quote:

Smitington said:
Quote:

Smitington said:
It just so happens that my ideas may not have been presented correctly and I have alot to learn before publishing a formal theory, but they explain why the universe has a maximum speed called c, they explain why planck constants exists, they explain how to understand thing at the quantum level, and they explain how to answer a question like what does distance when applied to space quantize.





Is it just some strange coincidence that my theory can explain these things?  Smack all you want but until you address this I have no respect for your arguements.



What are you talking about?  What theory?  You mean the few sentences you wrote?  Thats your fucking theory?  How does it explain a maximum speed of c?  Show me the derivation?  I had a roommate exactly like you.  He'd go on and on using physics words like 'fluid dynamics' while having no idea how to apply fluid dynamics to what he was rambling about, eventually I couldn't take it anymore and Ill leave out what happened as its irrelevant.




How does it explain c?  I'll try to explain this again.  If space is quantized, that is comprised of a set of points, all matter and energy within space exists within these points, nothing can be between them.  If time is also quantized, there are not an infinite number of moments between any two points in time.  This means that there is some minimum value by which time clicks, and combined with space quanta there is some minimal length by which an object can move in one of these clicks of time quantum.  Now, in order for an object to move, it must pass through ever point in space between it's source position and destination, it cannot skip over any point in space.  What this entails is that the fastest an object can ever move is one space quantum per one time quantum.  This places a limit on how fast objects can move in the universe, which corresponds to what we have observed, that there is indeed a limit to how fast things can move.  For things to move slower than the maximum allowed speed, they do not move by one space quantum every tick of the time quantum.  Instead, they might stay within one space quantum for 3 time quanta, then move to the next space quantum and stay there for another 3 time quanta.  This relates to how natural units can express the speed of light.  If you understand that, then you might think then that there is no speed between 1/2 c and c, but there is, there are several ways to explain it but I am still trying to understand how space quanta store information, how they are arranged, and how they pass information on.  I view the space quantum as almost being like a mind, and matter and energy is the "knowledge" that mind stores, and what each space quanta does it communicates its knowledge to sourrounding space quanta, as well as recieve knowledge from them.


--------------------

Edited by Smitington (10/04/09 07:26 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleChespirito
Stranger
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/13/09
Posts: 3,259
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11182776 - 10/04/09 07:34 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

And how far apart are these space quanta? And how did you derive that without merely filling that data to suit your theory

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleChespirito
Stranger
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/13/09
Posts: 3,259
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Chespirito]
    #11182849 - 10/04/09 07:41 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

See the problem here is that you are referring to the Planck length.  And then you say, well if I divide the Planck length by the Planck time I get the speed of light.  But what you don't understand is that the Planck time is defined as the amount of time it takes 'light' to go the Planck length.  So you basically have one formula and you are trying to extrapolate multiple meanings from it which is not logical

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineisaacein
exp(ix) = cosx + isinx


Registered: 05/21/08
Posts: 1,141
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11183317 - 10/04/09 08:39 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Smitington said:
Isaac, plz watch the movie IQ with Meg Ryan.  In that movie you are Meg Ryan, who is a brilliant mathematician but has no idea how Einstien does what he does because she thinks too much within the box, while Einstien continues to tell her that he is not a mathematician and that she needs to be creative and stuff. 





To push the analogy a little farther, I suppose that you are Einstein. :lol:

Be careful, you are starting to uncover the sources of your knowledge... what's that movie called again?


--------------------
Formula: 0

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineChuangTzu
starvingphysicist
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11183448 - 10/04/09 08:56 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Smitington said:
How does it explain c?  I'll try to explain this again.  If space is quantized, that is comprised of a set of points, all matter and energy within space exists within these points, nothing can be between them.  If time is also quantized, there are not an infinite number of moments between any two points in time.  This means that there is some minimum value by which time clicks, and combined with space quanta there is some minimal length by which an object can move in one of these clicks of time quantum.  Now, in order for an object to move, it must pass through ever point in space between it's source position and destination, it cannot skip over any point in space.  What this entails is that the fastest an object can ever move is one space quantum per one time quantum.  This places a limit on how fast objects can move in the universe, which corresponds to what we have observed, that there is indeed a limit to how fast things can move.  For things to move slower than the maximum allowed speed, they do not move by one space quantum every tick of the time quantum.  Instead, they might stay within one space quantum for 3 time quanta, then move to the next space quantum and stay there for another 3 time quanta.  This relates to how natural units can express the speed of light. 




I'm curious how your "theory" deals with time dilation and length contraction...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: ChuangTzu]
    #11183589 - 10/04/09 09:19 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Chespirito said:
See the problem here is that you are referring to the Planck length.  And then you say, well if I divide the Planck length by the Planck time I get the speed of light.  But what you don't understand is that the Planck time is defined as the amount of time it takes 'light' to go the Planck length.  So you basically have one formula and you are trying to extrapolate multiple meanings from it which is not logical




I am not basing my theory on plancks stuff at all.  My theory is independent.  I am mearly making the observation that quantum space and quantum time can explain planck stuff.


Quote:

ChuangTzu said:
Quote:

Smitington said:
How does it explain c?  I'll try to explain this again.  If space is quantized, that is comprised of a set of points, all matter and energy within space exists within these points, nothing can be between them.  If time is also quantized, there are not an infinite number of moments between any two points in time.  This means that there is some minimum value by which time clicks, and combined with space quanta there is some minimal length by which an object can move in one of these clicks of time quantum.  Now, in order for an object to move, it must pass through ever point in space between it's source position and destination, it cannot skip over any point in space.  What this entails is that the fastest an object can ever move is one space quantum per one time quantum.  This places a limit on how fast objects can move in the universe, which corresponds to what we have observed, that there is indeed a limit to how fast things can move.  For things to move slower than the maximum allowed speed, they do not move by one space quantum every tick of the time quantum.  Instead, they might stay within one space quantum for 3 time quanta, then move to the next space quantum and stay there for another 3 time quanta.  This relates to how natural units can express the speed of light. 




I'm curious how your "theory" deals with time dilation and length contraction...




They are mearly observations that occur due to the speed of light being finite.  If light traveled infinitely fast, we would not observe either phenomenon.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineisaacein
exp(ix) = cosx + isinx


Registered: 05/21/08
Posts: 1,141
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11183726 - 10/04/09 09:44 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Smitington, I suggest you register on a physics forum and post your "theory" there. This forum would be a good place to start.

You'll see how people react.

Do you know what a Fourier transform is, Smitington? Do you know what a probability density function is? If not then you cannot possibly have any understanding of quantum physics.


--------------------
Formula: 0

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: isaacein]
    #11183753 - 10/04/09 09:48 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

I'd wager he doesn't know the limit definition of a derivative.  At least, not until he looks it up real quick after reading this...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineisaacein
exp(ix) = cosx + isinx


Registered: 05/21/08
Posts: 1,141
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: DieCommie]
    #11183794 - 10/04/09 09:58 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
I'd wager he doesn't know the limit definition of a derivative.  At least, not until he looks it up real quick after reading this...




How did that stop Matt Damon from playing the role of a brilliant, misunderstood mathematician in that movie? :grin:


--------------------
Formula: 0

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleChespirito
Stranger
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/13/09
Posts: 3,259
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: isaacein]
    #11183800 - 10/04/09 10:00 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

In all fairness the character Matt played was extremely well read

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineisaacein
exp(ix) = cosx + isinx


Registered: 05/21/08
Posts: 1,141
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Chespirito]
    #11183803 - 10/04/09 10:01 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Chespirito said:
In all fairness the character Matt played was extremely well read




That is true. But I'm talking about Matt Damon, not the character he played :lol:


--------------------
Formula: 0

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleChespirito
Stranger
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/13/09
Posts: 3,259
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Chespirito]
    #11183805 - 10/04/09 10:01 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

I always liked the line in that movie where Matt is talking to the Prof and the Prof says something about how he hates knowing that Matt is well beyond his abilities.  Only a few people in the world can recognize the difference between them he says but among that crowd Matt is eons past him.  I thought that was a decent comment on scientists in general.  To the average person if you go around talking about Euler-Lagrange equations or something they will assume you are smart.  However there are many dumb people in science.  I guess theres no point to this ramble

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Chespirito]
    #11183825 - 10/04/09 10:05 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

To the average person if you go around talking about Euler-Lagrange equations or something they will assume you are smart.  However there are many dumb people in science.




Yea that is me...  :crazy:  I was dong some Euler-Lagrange/variational problems just an hour ago.  :lol:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleChespirito
Stranger
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/13/09
Posts: 3,259
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: DieCommie]
    #11183826 - 10/04/09 10:06 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

God I hate classical mechanics, the whole subject.  I like the math behind variational calculus though

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineflangenips
Batshitinsanse
 User Gallery


Registered: 01/20/08
Posts: 1,520
Loc: aotearoa Flag
Last seen: 8 years, 7 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Chespirito]
    #11183875 - 10/04/09 10:18 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

note - sorry bout long post, this is as much (probably more) for my own development as it is for contributing to the discussion.

Time, as seen from our frame, behaves oddly when talking in terms of purely spatial ideas.
I'll try my best to explain what i mean.

My understanding of OP:

The idea there is infinite points is merely trivial. So i'm not sure how the OP proposes to support his arguments quotin infinite space...

A line can have infinite points - its still a line until one point (where the current line > 2 points) moves into another spatial dimension making a:

plane can have infinite lines and points - its still a plane until one line (Where the current plane > 3 lines\3points) or one point moves into another spatial dimension making a:

object can have infinite planes, lines and points - it is still an object until...
hold on this is getting beyond elementary geometric scope.
where can we move a point, line, or plane of this object?
We can't seriously a single point or line of an object through time, because how could two pieces of the same object be in two different times at the same time - thats counter-intuitive.

Unless of course we view the 3rd dimension as a whole as an infinite series of points on the 4th dimension of time - its shape changes in 3d space, but upon a 4d line such that two identical points of 3d space (i.e same place) cannot occur at the same time and still be considered a temporal relation - 
just as we cannot built a line out of two points (0d) o
occuring at the same place at the same time. hmm....

it seems fit that 0d, 1d, 2d also may occur infinitely as points of reference along the 4th dimension, keeping in mind the dimensional infinite->finite heirarchy.


My own self-educated lay-mans understanding:

Along the above lines, we come to a understanding of grouped (super-dimension if you will), that we can understand as being space/time... oh shit, really. Whats new here - absolutely nothing.

But surely relativity shows us we cannot explain spatio-temporal relations like this. Time dialation and length contraction are obvious problems.

In terms of the above.. Two different spatio-temporal objects,(i.e two constituents of the third dimension) can be seen to initially occur a the same point on the 4d 'line'(i.e think of two babies born at the same time),
but these two objects can end up (With infinite points between) at different points on the 4d line if their speed differs when moving spatially. If 4d point is a snapshot of a 3d object - tracking and taking snapshots of the two objects mentioned becomes a confusing task.
(though i'm sure someone could mathematically show me an equation to compare the two objects at their relative points)


You see where i'm going with this.

Time is more complex than an all governing line, it seems to me subjective, the 2nd law shows us its direction and math can show us its rates and relative rates.

If only everything travelled at c, things would be alot easier, no? or if we could get an object, supply it with infinite energy as it reaches infinite mass and get it to c then observe it... um no? damn it, looks like i'm back to square one....

No matter how i look at it, i cannot see how dimensions could be described as Smitington suggests. I'm also a compsci person, not physics, but i think i've shown i don't need much physics knowledge to think this is quite flawed.

like Multi-dimensional arrays in programming, theories like these can be as complex or as simple as the math you decide put into them (or ommit...) to calculate the values and show the relationships.


--------------------
All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusions is called a philosopher. - Ambrose Bierce

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineisaacein
exp(ix) = cosx + isinx


Registered: 05/21/08
Posts: 1,141
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: DieCommie]
    #11183907 - 10/04/09 10:24 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

I like mechanics but I'm not very good at it. I'm not much of a problem solver. However, I enjoy understanding the general principles.

Right now I'm learning about Lie groups, it's quite a blast. Last week I gave a lecture at my science club about the introductory stuff. I think it was the best lecture I ever gave. The subject is just fascinating. Although I talked for over an hour and never even made it to the definition of a Lie group... :awesome: Maybe in two lectures.


--------------------
Formula: 0

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: isaacein]
    #11183945 - 10/04/09 10:29 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

I like mechanics too.  Its one of the few sub fields of science that you can really see and feel in day to day life.  I like all subjects in science though - even if Im not good at them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineChuangTzu
starvingphysicist
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11184047 - 10/04/09 10:45 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Smitington said:
They are mearly observations that occur due to the speed of light being finite.  If light traveled infinitely fast, we would not observe either phenomenon.




They are not merely observations, they are well characterized observations which current theories handle with ease.  How does your "theory" deal with them?  Starting with your assumptions, show how these effects arise naturally from the framework (if you can call it that) that you created.

Then, I expect you'll explain how the minimum length unit remains the same even when an object undergoes length contraction and how the minimum time unit remains the same even when time dilates.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecortex
[ H ] ψ = [ E ] ψ
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 15,171
Loc: Gedankenexperiment
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11184315 - 10/04/09 11:53 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

How original is this?  Why is your posting style completely different than the OP?  Also there is this site which is vaguely familiar...

http://www.tenthdimension.com/flash2.php


--------------------

Signature (up to 750 characters).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: ChuangTzu]
    #11185970 - 10/05/09 10:16 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

ChuangTzu said:
Quote:

Smitington said:
They are mearly observations that occur due to the speed of light being finite.  If light traveled infinitely fast, we would not observe either phenomenon.




They are not merely observations, they are well characterized observations which current theories handle with ease.  How does your "theory" deal with them?  Starting with your assumptions, show how these effects arise naturally from the framework (if you can call it that) that you created.

Then, I expect you'll explain how the minimum length unit remains the same even when an object undergoes length contraction and how the minimum time unit remains the same even when time dilates.




Chill man, you are right, they have already calculated how to explain it.  My theory doesn't change anything about it.  The way length conraction works is that when we observe an object like an airplane moving across the sky there is a difference in time that the light from the front end of the plane takes to reach our eyes than the time the light from rear of the plane takes to reach our eyes.  If the plane is to the left of us, and moving in the leftward direction relateve to us, then the rear of the planes light reaches our eyes faster than the light at the front of the plane.  This means that the light we see as the front of the airplane is actually "older" than the light that we see from the back of the airplane, so we see the front of the airplane as it existed at a time before the rear of the airplane that we see existed, this naturally leads to an illusion the the length is compressing in the direction of it's motion.  There is nothing about this that leads to space being 4 dimensional and all that nonsense, like I keep saying it is mearly the result that light takes a finite amount of time to reach our eyes, and that what we see is always what things were in the past because it takes time for the light to reach our eyes.


--------------------

Edited by Smitington (10/05/09 10:24 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11186019 - 10/05/09 10:27 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Also, keep talking guys, but none of you have been able to answer my question.

Quote:

Smitington said:
Ok isaac, I figured out a good way to explain it to you while i was driving home...

What are numbers?  Numbers come from us counting things, or quantizing things.  They tell us how much of something we have.  Some things can only be counted in integers, while others can have fractional parts.  You are very concerned with the properties of numbers from an abstract view point, which is great.

My question is, distance (not in terms of number distance but actual physical distance) is a quantity, it is a number, but what is it quantitizing?  What is it counting?


Try to answer that question.




--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11186703 - 10/05/09 12:30 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Smitington said:

Chill man, you are right, they have already calculated how to explain it.  My theory doesn't change anything about it.  The way length conraction works is that when we observe an object like an airplane moving across the sky there is a difference in time that the light from the front end of the plane takes to reach our eyes than the time the light from rear of the plane takes to reach our eyes.  If the plane is to the left of us, and moving in the leftward direction relateve to us, then the rear of the planes light reaches our eyes faster than the light at the front of the plane.  This means that the light we see as the front of the airplane is actually "older" than the light that we see from the back of the airplane, so we see the front of the airplane as it existed at a time before the rear of the airplane that we see existed, this naturally leads to an illusion the the length is compressing in the direction of it's motion.  There is nothing about this that leads to space being 4 dimensional and all that nonsense, like I keep saying it is mearly the result that light takes a finite amount of time to reach our eyes, and that what we see is always what things were in the past because it takes time for the light to reach our eyes.




You're wrong.  Thats not how length contraction works at all.  Its not just an illusion from the finite time light takes to reach us.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: DieCommie]
    #11186788 - 10/05/09 12:42 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

yes it is, if you do not think so, explain why, and try to answer my prior question aswell


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleChespirito
Stranger
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/13/09
Posts: 3,259
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11187052 - 10/05/09 01:21 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Ouch, you've dug yourself into a hole now

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Chespirito]
    #11187171 - 10/05/09 01:49 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

No I haven't, time dilation and length contraction can both be explained with the finite speed of light.  Still nobody has answered my question.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11187801 - 10/05/09 03:39 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Dude, you're just being foolish.  I dont have time to teach you basic relativity, especially considering your attitude is one of combativeness rather than open minded learning.

Try this and click on 'relativity':
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/HFrame.html

and of course this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTedwilto
Veni, vidi, vici
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/08/08
Posts: 5,158
Loc: Sunny Afternoon in
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: DieCommie]
    #11187820 - 10/05/09 03:42 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

:popcorn:

Im enjoying this thread. :laugh:


--------------------

Song of the week, click Huey:



Song of the week list in journal.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecortex
[ H ] ψ = [ E ] ψ
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 15,171
Loc: Gedankenexperiment
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Tedwilto]
    #11189057 - 10/05/09 06:26 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

I just glossed over most of it, but I sense a meltdown on the horizon.  We don't get too many of those over here in these parts (S&T)  :hillbilly:


--------------------

Signature (up to 750 characters).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemozhual
Amateur Omnologist
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/26/09
Posts: 283
Loc: New England
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11189494 - 10/05/09 07:27 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

From another thread I had to post this in over in Philosophy& ETC.

Quote:

Fallacies and non arguments:
A fallacy is an invalid argument that appears valid, or a valid argument with disguised assumptions. First the premises and the conclusion must be statements, capable of being true and false. Secondly it must be asserted that the conclusion follows from the premises. In English the words therefore, so, because and hence typically separate the premises from the conclusion of an argument, but this is not necessarily so. Thus: 'Socrates is a man, all men are mortal, therefore Socrates is mortal' is clearly an argument (a valid one at that), because it is clear it is asserted that that 'Socrates is mortal' follows from the preceding statements. However 'I was thirsty and therefore I drank' is NOT an argument, despite its appearance. It is not being claimed that I drank is logically entailed by I was thirsty. The therefore in this sentence indicates for that reason not it follows that.
Often an argument is invalid because there is a missing premise the supply of which would make it valid. Speakers and writers will often leave out a strictly necessary premise in their reasonings if it is widely accepted and the writer does not wish to state the blindingly obvious. Example: All metals expand when heated, therefore iron will expand when heated. (Missing premise: iron is a metal). On the other hand a seemingly valid argument may be found to lack a premise – a ‘hidden assumption’ – which if highlighted can show a fault in reasoning. Example: A witness reasoned: Nobody came out the front door except the milkman therefore the murderer must have left by the back door. (Hidden assumption- the milkman was not the murderer).




Some of this has been funny, some irksome, but now its just getting redundant.

EDIT: I take that back, it was redundant 3 pages ago.


--------------------
"Nature is like a sculptor constantly improving upon her work, but to do so she chisels away at living flesh." H.K. Bloom

"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent...
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent...
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god." Epicurus c. 300 BCE

"When I brought up the fact that 'No drug is good or bad, they're all just A drug, what someone does with them determines the postive or negative outcome. Look at medicine, those are drugs' Reponse was that 'well medicine solves problems' well so does LSD." -Learningtofly

Edited by mozhual (10/05/09 07:32 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemaggotz


Registered: 06/24/06
Posts: 7,539
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: mozhual]
    #11189604 - 10/05/09 07:45 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

haha i love threads like this. :awesome:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11191831 - 10/06/09 05:11 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Smitington said:
Also, keep talking guys, but none of you have been able to answer my question.

Quote:

Smitington said:
Ok isaac, I figured out a good way to explain it to you while i was driving home...

What are numbers?  Numbers come from us counting things, or quantizing things.  They tell us how much of something we have.  Some things can only be counted in integers, while others can have fractional parts.  You are very concerned with the properties of numbers from an abstract view point, which is great.

My question is, distance (not in terms of number distance but actual physical distance) is a quantity, it is a number, but what is it quantitizing?  What is it counting?


Try to answer that question.







--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineisaacein
exp(ix) = cosx + isinx


Registered: 05/21/08
Posts: 1,141
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11192412 - 10/06/09 09:09 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Smitington said:
Isaac, I asked you to answer what physical distance quantized, and you said you couldn't answer it.


Get back on topic.  I answered the question for you.





Quote:

Smitington said:
So isaac you are resigning to the question then?  You are unable to answer it? 

I will answer it for you.

Space distance quantized how many positions are between two points.  With out quantizing space, distance when applied to physics really doesn't quantize anything and doesn't make any sense as a number.


Chespirito:

If you do not believe me look into it for yourself.  I keep on bringing up plank constants.  Quantum physics says that at a certain level (below the plank level), our current understanding of physics breaks down. 

It is quite possible that Plank has discovered the sizes of space and time quanta without realizing that space and time have a quantum.




--------------------
Formula: 0

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemozhual
Amateur Omnologist
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/26/09
Posts: 283
Loc: New England
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11192484 - 10/06/09 09:26 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

:grin::grin::grin: I suddenly find these pictures very relevant:





--------------------
"Nature is like a sculptor constantly improving upon her work, but to do so she chisels away at living flesh." H.K. Bloom

"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent...
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent...
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god." Epicurus c. 300 BCE

"When I brought up the fact that 'No drug is good or bad, they're all just A drug, what someone does with them determines the postive or negative outcome. Look at medicine, those are drugs' Reponse was that 'well medicine solves problems' well so does LSD." -Learningtofly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineisaacein
exp(ix) = cosx + isinx


Registered: 05/21/08
Posts: 1,141
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: mozhual]
    #11192589 - 10/06/09 09:54 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

mozhual said:






:lol:


--------------------
Formula: 0

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTedwilto
Veni, vidi, vici
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/08/08
Posts: 5,158
Loc: Sunny Afternoon in
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: isaacein]
    #11192701 - 10/06/09 10:22 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Maybe he will understand this one more becuase he programs fractals?



--------------------

Song of the week, click Huey:



Song of the week list in journal.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: isaacein]
    #11192837 - 10/06/09 10:48 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

isaacein said:
Quote:

Smitington said:
Isaac, I asked you to answer what physical distance quantized, and you said you couldn't answer it.


Get back on topic.  I answered the question for you.





Quote:

Smitington said:
So isaac you are resigning to the question then?  You are unable to answer it? 

I will answer it for you.

Space distance quantized how many positions are between two points.  With out quantizing space, distance when applied to physics really doesn't quantize anything and doesn't make any sense as a number.


Chespirito:

If you do not believe me look into it for yourself.  I keep on bringing up plank constants.  Quantum physics says that at a certain level (below the plank level), our current understanding of physics breaks down. 

It is quite possible that Plank has discovered the sizes of space and time quanta without realizing that space and time have a quantum.







So what you are saying isaac is that I then answered the question?  IF nobody is debating my on my answer that must mean you all agree that space is quantized?

I am glad you guys are having fun but lets take the focus off of me for a sec, if you guys agree with my answer to the question then that adds more substance to my theory.  If you do not, please explain why and answer the question yourself.

Also, please explain why I am wrong in my explaination of time dilation and length contraction.

One more thing, why is there a universal speed limit c?  Don't tell me that as things approach c their mass becomes infinite and all that, photons are theoretically massless, but they still cannot travel faster c.  Please indicate an accepted theory that explains why c exists in the first place.  Again, it is my observation that it is more than a coincidence that my idea of quantum space and quantum time can explain c (as well as planck constants).

Edited by Smitington (10/06/09 11:45 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11193036 - 10/06/09 11:22 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

One more thing, why is there a universal speed limit c?




Thats a question for some other discipline, maybe philosophy.  Nobody knows why anything is the way it is, why is an electron charged, why is there mass, why anything - who knows.  What science can do is show that there is a limit on the speed of information at c.  Maxwell's equations were the first clue because they showed that light travels at the same speed no matter what your reference frame (no matter how you are traveling you always see light traveling at c).  Einstein accepted this and then showed that for causality to hold that no information can travel faster than c, as well as the approaching infinite mass concept that you dont want to hear about.

Quote:

...protons are theoretically massless...




No they're not.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemozhual
Amateur Omnologist
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/26/09
Posts: 283
Loc: New England
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Tedwilto]
    #11193081 - 10/06/09 11:32 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

:thumbup::thumbup:

EDIT: lol though he said photons.... but protons??? no mass, really? lmao.....................


--------------------
"Nature is like a sculptor constantly improving upon her work, but to do so she chisels away at living flesh." H.K. Bloom

"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent...
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent...
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god." Epicurus c. 300 BCE

"When I brought up the fact that 'No drug is good or bad, they're all just A drug, what someone does with them determines the postive or negative outcome. Look at medicine, those are drugs' Reponse was that 'well medicine solves problems' well so does LSD." -Learningtofly

Edited by mozhual (10/06/09 11:40 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: mozhual]
    #11193162 - 10/06/09 11:45 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

oops ment photons, sorry about that, please re examine the question knowing that I meant photons.  Also, commie, your answer to my question why c exists is rather non scientific, the idea is that we can and should be able to understand scientific reasons for for alot of things, especially simple things like velocity of objects.  Philosophy is for questions like "if a tree falls and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?"... hopefully you get my point


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemozhual
Amateur Omnologist
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/26/09
Posts: 283
Loc: New England
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11193195 - 10/06/09 11:49 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

I give up for all of us, we agree, now go find a professor and see what he can critic about your theory


--------------------
"Nature is like a sculptor constantly improving upon her work, but to do so she chisels away at living flesh." H.K. Bloom

"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent...
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent...
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god." Epicurus c. 300 BCE

"When I brought up the fact that 'No drug is good or bad, they're all just A drug, what someone does with them determines the postive or negative outcome. Look at medicine, those are drugs' Reponse was that 'well medicine solves problems' well so does LSD." -Learningtofly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: mozhual]
    #11193217 - 10/06/09 11:53 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Sorry, but for you guys to take so many jabs at me you better be able to provide some substance.  We have already been over the fact that my terminology may not have been accurate and that I may not have presented the information in the right way, but now that everything is cleared up all of are saying that you really don't have any basis to reject my ideas besides "It doesn't seem right and you are suggesting revitalizing physics and we do no believe you can do that."


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemozhual
Amateur Omnologist
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/26/09
Posts: 283
Loc: New England
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11193230 - 10/06/09 11:55 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

I smell a troll.


--------------------
"Nature is like a sculptor constantly improving upon her work, but to do so she chisels away at living flesh." H.K. Bloom

"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent...
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent...
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god." Epicurus c. 300 BCE

"When I brought up the fact that 'No drug is good or bad, they're all just A drug, what someone does with them determines the postive or negative outcome. Look at medicine, those are drugs' Reponse was that 'well medicine solves problems' well so does LSD." -Learningtofly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: mozhual]
    #11193241 - 10/06/09 11:57 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

go take a shower


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemozhual
Amateur Omnologist
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/26/09
Posts: 283
Loc: New England
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11193249 - 10/06/09 11:59 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

"You gota pay the troll toll, to get into that boys-oul"


--------------------
"Nature is like a sculptor constantly improving upon her work, but to do so she chisels away at living flesh." H.K. Bloom

"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent...
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent...
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god." Epicurus c. 300 BCE

"When I brought up the fact that 'No drug is good or bad, they're all just A drug, what someone does with them determines the postive or negative outcome. Look at medicine, those are drugs' Reponse was that 'well medicine solves problems' well so does LSD." -Learningtofly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: mozhual]
    #11193254 - 10/06/09 12:00 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

I'm glad you guys have substance to your arguements

The fact is Mozhual, you are ignoring my questions, why?


--------------------

Edited by Smitington (10/06/09 12:03 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11193277 - 10/06/09 12:06 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Smitington said:
I'm glad you guys have substance to your arguements





Just trying to set a good example for you to look up to.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemozhual
Amateur Omnologist
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/26/09
Posts: 283
Loc: New England
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11193283 - 10/06/09 12:07 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Nice quick edit.
I am not and have never been in any place to properly rebuke them, as I have clearly stated twice. What I comment on was the things I could rebuke. And yet you still feel the need to single me out as not answering your questions, that in the first place weren't even for me. That is my evidence of you trolling, prove me wrong.


--------------------
"Nature is like a sculptor constantly improving upon her work, but to do so she chisels away at living flesh." H.K. Bloom

"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent...
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent...
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god." Epicurus c. 300 BCE

"When I brought up the fact that 'No drug is good or bad, they're all just A drug, what someone does with them determines the postive or negative outcome. Look at medicine, those are drugs' Reponse was that 'well medicine solves problems' well so does LSD." -Learningtofly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: mozhual]
    #11193300 - 10/06/09 12:10 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

mozhual said:
Nice quick edit.
I am not and have never been in any place to properly rebuke them, as I have clearly stated twice. What I comment on was the things I could rebuke. And yet you still feel the need to single me out as not answering your questions, that in the first place weren't even for me. That is my evidence of you trolling, prove me wrong.




You are the one making posts on a thread which you are not qualified to discuss.  Please review your last idk 10 posts and decide whether you were making them to add substance to the discussion or just to personally attack me.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11193318 - 10/06/09 12:13 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

If you look back you see we started with substance, but then you went off the deep end so the attacks ensued (with great hilarity).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11193348 - 10/06/09 12:19 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Not really, after I asked the question to isaac what does distance quantized was when you guys personally gave up and turned this into an attack on me.  Before that we were discussing a way to explain quantum space, and all of your arguements were great, until I found a better way to defend my stance, with that question.

I was then asked how my theory deals with length contraction and time dilation, and I have provided answers which nobody has been able to debate with any substance.  Also, I presented a couple more questions that nobody has been able to answer, and the easy thing for you guys to do is continue your attack.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemozhual
Amateur Omnologist
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/26/09
Posts: 283
Loc: New England
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11193378 - 10/06/09 12:23 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Did you not read what I just said? I contested what I was qualified to contest already and then I only asked you to stop contesting what you WEREN'T qualified to contest(with the addition of pics for flavor). Then you asked me to answer a question that was not originally directed at me simply because I pointed out you said protons have no mass and laughed. So I called you out on trolling for that and because you repeatedly refused to take this discussion, which obviously has no where left to go on this forum, some where else(quite literally the last 4-5 pages are just you guys telling each other your interpretations/definitions are wrong). *Notice me not actually taking sides on the substance of the theory?*


--------------------
"Nature is like a sculptor constantly improving upon her work, but to do so she chisels away at living flesh." H.K. Bloom

"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent...
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent...
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god." Epicurus c. 300 BCE

"When I brought up the fact that 'No drug is good or bad, they're all just A drug, what someone does with them determines the postive or negative outcome. Look at medicine, those are drugs' Reponse was that 'well medicine solves problems' well so does LSD." -Learningtofly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: mozhual]
    #11193496 - 10/06/09 12:40 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Also, I presented a couple more questions that nobody has been able to answer...




Thats because they are poorly stated nonsensical gibberish.  Sorry, but it true.  You have had some of the smartest math and science members on this forum attempt to help you but your retorts are just meaningless collages of scientific sounding words.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: mozhual]
    #11193502 - 10/06/09 12:41 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Moz, I did not redirect a question at you, please re read.  Please further leave yourself out of this discussion until it comes to a point that you have something substantial to add.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11193506 - 10/06/09 12:42 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

That's fine and I can tell you guys are very intelligent, but if you cannot answer the questions let your ego go for a minute and admit it, and that after some of the initial stuff was cleared up, you do not have that much going for your arguement that my theory is wrong, just in need of work.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11193565 - 10/06/09 12:51 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

You dont have a theory or even a scientific hypothesis.  You have a collection of ramblings that in part are already known and in part nonsensical.  You have offered no new quantitative or qualitative, predictive or descriptive ability.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTedwilto
Veni, vidi, vici
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/08/08
Posts: 5,158
Loc: Sunny Afternoon in
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11193610 - 10/06/09 01:00 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

I dont think youve shown a scrap of math to back up any of these wild assumptions either.


--------------------

Song of the week, click Huey:



Song of the week list in journal.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Tedwilto]
    #11193623 - 10/06/09 01:03 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

It's because it is not math.  Relativity is not math either. Einstien in his head realize the implications relativity had, which led him to develop his theory.  What I have here is the non mathematical beginnings of a theory, just like how relativity started.  I agree that I need to do alot with this theory before it is finished, and that I will need to show mathematical models which describe it.  Thanks for helping me.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemozhual
Amateur Omnologist
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/26/09
Posts: 283
Loc: New England
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11193773 - 10/06/09 01:24 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

oh my god...


--------------------
"Nature is like a sculptor constantly improving upon her work, but to do so she chisels away at living flesh." H.K. Bloom

"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent...
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent...
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god." Epicurus c. 300 BCE

"When I brought up the fact that 'No drug is good or bad, they're all just A drug, what someone does with them determines the postive or negative outcome. Look at medicine, those are drugs' Reponse was that 'well medicine solves problems' well so does LSD." -Learningtofly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecortex
[ H ] ψ = [ E ] ψ
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 15,171
Loc: Gedankenexperiment
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11193809 - 10/06/09 01:29 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

What you have isn't even very original:

http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php


--------------------

Signature (up to 750 characters).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: cortex]
    #11193841 - 10/06/09 01:34 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Thank's for that link.  I am familiar with it.  Hopefully you understand the differences between what I am saying and what Imagining the tenth dimension is about.  If you do not, I hope you will when I publish my refined theory.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecortex
[ H ] ψ = [ E ] ψ
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 15,171
Loc: Gedankenexperiment
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11193866 - 10/06/09 01:37 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Yeah to be honest, I only skimmed over your OP, and thought it looked pretty similar.

Take what some of these people say seriously, though, man, DieCommie, Tedwillo, isaacein, Chespirito, these are some of the smartest people on the boards (as far as science and math go), and they know what they are talking about.


--------------------

Signature (up to 750 characters).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: cortex]
    #11193905 - 10/06/09 01:44 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

I thank all of them for challenging me and ultimately helping me.  We have brought this discussion to the place where I should have began the original thread, talking about why does c exist, what does distance and time measure, why do planck numbers exist, and bring those points into discussing how quantum time and quantum space can provide some answers, how time dilation and lenght contraction can be explained without 4-d spacetime manifold, and from their explain my view on how dimensions may play a role in these quanta of space and time, which I would describe with much better vocabulary.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleChespirito
Stranger
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/13/09
Posts: 3,259
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11193951 - 10/06/09 01:51 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Einstein knew math and thought in math.  Hell before special relativity the man was an accomplished journal writer.  Look up his 1905 papers which I think include special relativity to see how fucking smart that guy was. 

Now ultimately to be frank I haven't really been considering your theory because a.) Ive heard similar things before and b.) theres nothing to really back it up.  If you want me to put any thought into it please describe how it explains things like SR, and GR or just for kicks how does it explain GPS?  In GPS the time on the satellite needs to be altered due to relativistic effects, how does your theory explain that?  In QED light actually does not always go at the same speed of 'C' however it always averages out to C.  In a really small enclosure however the different speeds of C become important for effects, not that you can necessarily measure it being different from C but the effect is noticeable.  In a fixed quanta distance scheme how are you going to account for this?

And if you do have a minimum distance, then how do you define that distance between those two quanta?  Do you use what is effectively a ruler scheme?  If so then thats how we measure distance normally without this quanta scheme and so your distance question is answered.  If you dont consider that a viable option than your solution is no better because there is still measurable space between your two points otherwise they would be continuous.

And let me say that honestly its been about a year (well few months less) since Ive seriously studied any hard sciences, barring my own inane investigations into textbooks to pass the time, so I could be wrong on various things.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11193994 - 10/06/09 01:58 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Smitington said:
... when I publish my refined theory.





Ha!  Ok, I do think this guy is joking now.  It can be hard to tell sometimes around here, some people really believe the shit they post.  With the usual threads on perpetual energy and over unity devices I always oscillate between thinking the guy is trolling and thinking he is serious.  Same thing is happening here...  :tongue:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemozhual
Amateur Omnologist
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/26/09
Posts: 283
Loc: New England
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: DieCommie]
    #11194038 - 10/06/09 02:05 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Finally someone agrees!!


--------------------
"Nature is like a sculptor constantly improving upon her work, but to do so she chisels away at living flesh." H.K. Bloom

"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent...
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent...
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god." Epicurus c. 300 BCE

"When I brought up the fact that 'No drug is good or bad, they're all just A drug, what someone does with them determines the postive or negative outcome. Look at medicine, those are drugs' Reponse was that 'well medicine solves problems' well so does LSD." -Learningtofly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineisaacein
exp(ix) = cosx + isinx


Registered: 05/21/08
Posts: 1,141
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: mozhual]
    #11194067 - 10/06/09 02:08 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

mozhual said:
Finally someone agrees!!




Yeah, I agree as well. What gives it away the most is

Quote:

Smitington said:
It's because it is not math.  Relativity is not math either. Einstien in his head realize the implications relativity had, which led him to develop his theory.  What I have here is the non mathematical beginnings of a theory, just like how relativity started.  I agree that I need to do alot with this theory before it is finished, and that I will need to show mathematical models which describe it.  Thanks for helping me.




--------------------
Formula: 0

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecortex
[ H ] ψ = [ E ] ψ
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 15,171
Loc: Gedankenexperiment
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11194122 - 10/06/09 02:19 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Smitington said:
...talking about why does c exist, what does distance and time measure, why do planck numbers exist...




I don't really believe any of those are even valid scientific questions, let alone physics.  Physics is concerned with (and really only able to determine) how things work the way they do, and measure those effects.  Why is a question better left to the philosophers.  If you can't prove your idea with mathematics, that going to seriously hurt it's credibility, if you can't prove it with experiment, it is simply not science.  It's philosophy.  There is nothing wrong with that, just don't get them confused.

"Physics," as it was put by Eugine Wigner, "does not even try to give us complete information about the events around us--it gives us information about the correlations between those events."


--------------------

Signature (up to 750 characters).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Chespirito]
    #11194158 - 10/06/09 02:24 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Chespirito said:
Einstein knew math and thought in math.  Hell before special relativity the man was an accomplished journal writer.  Look up his 1905 papers which I think include special relativity to see how fucking smart that guy was. 

Now ultimately to be frank I haven't really been considering your theory because a.) Ive heard similar things before and b.) theres nothing to really back it up.  If you want me to put any thought into it please describe how it explains things like SR, and GR or just for kicks how does it explain GPS?  In GPS the time on the satellite needs to be altered due to relativistic effects, how does your theory explain that?  In QED light actually does not always go at the same speed of 'C' however it always averages out to C.  In a really small enclosure however the different speeds of C become important for effects, not that you can necessarily measure it being different from C but the effect is noticeable.  In a fixed quanta distance scheme how are you going to account for this?

And if you do have a minimum distance, then how do you define that distance between those two quanta?  Do you use what is effectively a ruler scheme?  If so then thats how we measure distance normally without this quanta scheme and so your distance question is answered.  If you dont consider that a viable option than your solution is no better because there is still measurable space between your two points otherwise they would be continuous.

And let me say that honestly its been about a year (well few months less) since Ive seriously studied any hard sciences, barring my own inane investigations into textbooks to pass the time, so I could be wrong on various things.





I would say that light never ultimately achieves the ultimate speed limit or one space quanta per one time quanta, but comes very very close to it.  I am quite sure that different light has been observed to travel at slightly different velocities, all extremely close to "c". 

I still have more to learn about SR and GR, although I have read alot, and I can explain most effects away simply with this is how you do math with relativity in mind, and, the finite speed that information and light travels accounts for all these wierd observations GR makes.  I said it earlier, I believe space to be 3 dimensional, and I do not think SR or GR has disproven this, rather, they have defined space in a way that incorpotates relativity, thus leading to it being four dimensional.  I am a believer in absolute space, a concept that has been abandonded because back when it was used, physicist didn't account for relativity.  With the advent of relativity, four dimensional mathematics became useful for performing calculations with relativity in mind.  It is really a matter of how we define space.  Modern physics wants to define it as relative, while I want to define it as absolute but remembering that it is important to keep relativity effects in mind.  I do not believe anything in relativity to be magical, it is all logical implications of (repeating myself alot here) the finite speed information and light travels.

Also, Einstien pointed out that gravity was unlike other forces because using the formula f=ma, the mass of the object in question would cancel out, and thus mass was not related to the acceleration.  I don't view this as seperating gravity from other forces, it is mearly a consequence of the fact that the gravitational force orginates in mass... Also, I believe in gravitational waves as a way to explain gravity.  The electromagnetic force uses electromagnetic radiation as its messanger particles, I believe that it is quite possible that very very faint electromagnetic radiation comprises the messanger particles for gravitation (photons), or that indeed gravitons do exist.

My idea on space quanta is that they act like a mind, and they store information, and decide, very conciously, what to do with that information.  All forces can be explained simply as decisions which the space quanta have made.  I view forces and decisions to be the same thing.  When we see a twenty dollar bill on the ground, we are attracted to it, and pick it up, therefore I view there being a force which pulled us to the 20 dollar bill.  When space quanta which holds matter recieves gravitational waves which indicate that another space quanta out there also holds matter, that space quanta, judging by how many gravitational quanta it recieves, accelerates its matter, that is, it passes it on to neighboring space quanta, choosing the direction based upon which direction the gravitional quanta came from.


--------------------

Edited by Smitington (10/06/09 02:25 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineisaacein
exp(ix) = cosx + isinx


Registered: 05/21/08
Posts: 1,141
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Chespirito]
    #11194173 - 10/06/09 02:26 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Chespirito said:
Einstein knew math and thought in math.  Hell before special relativity the man was an accomplished journal writer.  Look up his 1905 papers which I think include special relativity to see how fucking smart that guy was. 





That would be hard for him to judge. We concluded a few pages back that he probably does not even know the definition of a differential. :smirk:


--------------------
Formula: 0

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: isaacein]
    #11194205 - 10/06/09 02:31 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Isaac you are smart but you're weakness is in how you judge others.  I understand math much better than you would think.  I have not taken the highest classes yet, I am taking calculus 2 next semester, however I am extremely intuitive with math and quite gifted in it.

My point remains about relativity, it was an idea, which he proved with math.  I have an idea here, that's all it ever was.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleChespirito
Stranger
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/13/09
Posts: 3,259
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11194226 - 10/06/09 02:37 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Smitington said:
I would say that light never ultimately achieves the ultimate speed limit or one space quanta per one time quanta, but comes very very close to it.  I am quite sure that different light has been observed to travel at slightly different velocities, all extremely close to "c".




If that is true then how does your theory account for c being different?  And like I said in QED light can go faster, how does your theory account for this?  Like I said it averages out to C but in short distances this effect is there. 


Quote:

Smitington said:
I still have more to learn about SR and GR, although I have read alot, and I can explain most effects away simply with this is how you do math with relativity in mind, and, the finite speed that information and light travels accounts for all these wierd observations GR makes.  I said it earlier, I believe space to be 3 dimensional, and I do not think SR or GR has disproven this, rather, they have defined space in a way that incorpotates relativity, thus leading to it being four dimensional.  I am a believer in absolute space, a concept that has been abandonded because back when it was used, physicist didn't account for relativity.  With the advent of relativity, four dimensional mathematics became useful for performing calculations with relativity in mind.  It is really a matter of how we define space.  Modern physics wants to define it as relative, while I want to define it as absolute but remembering that it is important to keep relativity effects in mind.  I do not believe anything in relativity to be magical, it is all logical implications of (repeating myself alot here) the finite speed information and light travels.

Also, Einstien pointed out that gravity was unlike other forces because using the formula f=ma, the mass of the object in question would cancel out, and thus mass was not related to the acceleration.  I don't view this as seperating gravity from other forces, it is mearly a consequence of the fact that the gravitational force orginates in mass... Also, I believe in gravitational waves as a way to explain gravity.  The electromagnetic force uses electromagnetic radiation as its messanger particles, I believe that it is quite possible that very very faint electromagnetic radiation comprises the messanger particles for gravitation (photons), or that indeed gravitons do exist.

My idea on space quanta is that they act like a mind, and they store information, and decide, very conciously, what to do with that information.  All forces can be explained simply as decisions which the space quanta have made.  I view forces and decisions to be the same thing.  When we see a twenty dollar bill on the ground, we are attracted to it, and pick it up, therefore I view there being a force which pulled us to the 20 dollar bill.  When space quanta which holds matter recieves gravitational waves which indicate that another space quanta out there also holds matter, that space quanta, judging by how many gravitational quanta it recieves, accelerates its matter, that is, it passes it on to neighboring space quanta, choosing the direction based upon which direction the gravitional quanta came from.



I guess this is just rambling about things that werent related to my post

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineisaacein
exp(ix) = cosx + isinx


Registered: 05/21/08
Posts: 1,141
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11194250 - 10/06/09 02:41 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Smitington said:

I would say that light never ultimately achieves the ultimate speed limit or one space quanta per one time quanta, but comes very very close to it. 






You would say that huh?


Quote:


I am quite sure that different light has been observed to travel at slightly different velocities





:eek:

Different light huh? Different in what respect?

"Quite sure"? It's unbelievable how little you know about what you think you are talking about.

Quote:


I still have more to learn about SR and GR





Apparently you still have to learn all of it, except perhaps the vocabulary.


Quote:

Modern physics wants to define it as relative, while I want to define it as absolute but remembering that it is important to keep relativity effects in mind.




Right; you mean those "relativity effects" due to space being relative?


Quote:

Also, Einstien pointed out that gravity was unlike other forces because using the formula f=ma, the mass of the object in question would cancel out, and thus mass was not related to the acceleration.




What? What do you mean the mass "cancels out"? It seems you cannot even interpret a linear function properly. Moreover, this relation is valid for any force, not just gravitational forces.

What this relation says is that the acceleration on an object is proportional to the total force exerted on it, with the proportion being given by the mass of the object. Gravitational forces have nothing in perticular to do with this relation.


Quote:

Also, I believe in gravitational waves as a way to explain gravity.




Believe as in "have faith"?

Quote:


My idea on space quanta is that they act like a mind, and they store information, and decide, very conciously, what to do with that information.  All forces can be explained simply as decisions which the space quanta have made.  I view forces and decisions to be the same thing.  When we see a twenty dollar bill on the ground, we are attracted to it, and pick it up, therefore I view there being a force which pulled us to the 20 dollar bill.  When space quanta which holds matter recieves gravitational waves which indicate that another space quanta out there also holds matter, that space quanta, judging by how many gravitational quanta it recieves, accelerates its matter, that is, it passes it on to neighboring space quanta, choosing the direction based upon which direction the gravitional quanta came from.




I imagined reading this from a textbook and I shot milk out of my nose. The above paragraph is a tribute to all past, present and future trolls of the Internets.


--------------------
Formula: 0

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleChespirito
Stranger
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/13/09
Posts: 3,259
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Chespirito]
    #11194256 - 10/06/09 02:43 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Smitington said:
I do not believe anything in relativity to be magical, it is all logical implications of (repeating myself alot here) the finite speed information and light travels.




I would agree that this is exactly what SR is, welcome to the Lorentz transformation

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Chespirito]
    #11194266 - 10/06/09 02:44 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Welcome to the 1890s.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineisaacein
exp(ix) = cosx + isinx


Registered: 05/21/08
Posts: 1,141
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11194269 - 10/06/09 02:44 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Smitington said:
Isaac you are smart but you're weakness is in how you judge others.




I'm not judging you. I have not insulted you. I am judging your pseudo-scientific, delusional babble. Believe me, it would be much worse if you tried talking to a professor.


--------------------
Formula: 0

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineisaacein
exp(ix) = cosx + isinx


Registered: 05/21/08
Posts: 1,141
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: DieCommie]
    #11194276 - 10/06/09 02:47 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Welcome to the 1890s.




Not even close. I'd have respect for this guy's babble if it contained a thousandth of what Archimedes knew.


--------------------
Formula: 0

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineflangenips
Batshitinsanse
 User Gallery


Registered: 01/20/08
Posts: 1,520
Loc: aotearoa Flag
Last seen: 8 years, 7 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: cortex]
    #11194277 - 10/06/09 02:47 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

I agree.
His questions seem more on the lines of Philosophy of speech and semantics... than they do scientific ones.
However, philosophy and science are interlocked - in that without evidence or logic(/math) its easy to be sceptical of a philosophy too.

Logic is a field in philosophy that i consider highly linked to science - and it was my favourite at uni. And we studied (as mentioned in this thread) xenos paradox.
However - just because a trajectory has infinite points, it doesn't actually mean it cannot reach a point and is unable to be quanitified.
The paradox (like most) is a paradox of thought process and language - not practical science. Quantifying is something we do in order to compare and contrast - helps us with standards and controls in practical sciences. Paradoxes are a weak way of say something is impractical and wrong.

If you can show mathematically whats wrong with measuring distance between quanta then maybe you've got our attention.
If you can back that up with an experiment, then maybe we'll believe you.


--------------------
All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusions is called a philosopher. - Ambrose Bierce

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Chespirito]
    #11194303 - 10/06/09 02:51 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Chespirito said:
Quote:

Smitington said:
I would say that light never ultimately achieves the ultimate speed limit or one space quanta per one time quanta, but comes very very close to it.  I am quite sure that different light has been observed to travel at slightly different velocities, all extremely close to "c".




If that is true then how does your theory account for c being different?  And like I said in QED light can go faster, how does your theory account for this?  Like I said it averages out to C but in short distances this effect is there. 


Quote:

Smitington said:
I still have more to learn about SR and GR, although I have read alot, and I can explain most effects away simply with this is how you do math with relativity in mind, and, the finite speed that information and light travels accounts for all these wierd observations GR makes.  I said it earlier, I believe space to be 3 dimensional, and I do not think SR or GR has disproven this, rather, they have defined space in a way that incorpotates relativity, thus leading to it being four dimensional.  I am a believer in absolute space, a concept that has been abandonded because back when it was used, physicist didn't account for relativity.  With the advent of relativity, four dimensional mathematics became useful for performing calculations with relativity in mind.  It is really a matter of how we define space.  Modern physics wants to define it as relative, while I want to define it as absolute but remembering that it is important to keep relativity effects in mind.  I do not believe anything in relativity to be magical, it is all logical implications of (repeating myself alot here) the finite speed information and light travels.

Also, Einstien pointed out that gravity was unlike other forces because using the formula f=ma, the mass of the object in question would cancel out, and thus mass was not related to the acceleration.  I don't view this as seperating gravity from other forces, it is mearly a consequence of the fact that the gravitational force orginates in mass... Also, I believe in gravitational waves as a way to explain gravity.  The electromagnetic force uses electromagnetic radiation as its messanger particles, I believe that it is quite possible that very very faint electromagnetic radiation comprises the messanger particles for gravitation (photons), or that indeed gravitons do exist.

My idea on space quanta is that they act like a mind, and they store information, and decide, very conciously, what to do with that information.  All forces can be explained simply as decisions which the space quanta have made.  I view forces and decisions to be the same thing.  When we see a twenty dollar bill on the ground, we are attracted to it, and pick it up, therefore I view there being a force which pulled us to the 20 dollar bill.  When space quanta which holds matter recieves gravitational waves which indicate that another space quanta out there also holds matter, that space quanta, judging by how many gravitational quanta it recieves, accelerates its matter, that is, it passes it on to neighboring space quanta, choosing the direction based upon which direction the gravitional quanta came from.



I guess this is just rambling about things that werent related to my post




Not really, SR is all about gravitation, plus you wanted me to explain my stance on GR.

I explained a while ago that I am still trying to determine how space quanta move and handle information exactly.  I will definitely look into QED more to understand how it relates to space quanta.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecortex
[ H ] ψ = [ E ] ψ
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 15,171
Loc: Gedankenexperiment
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: isaacein]
    #11194306 - 10/06/09 02:52 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

isaacein said:
Believe as in "have faith"?





This seems like a fitting place to quote Michael Polanyi: "Any account of of science which does not explicitly describe it as something we believe is essentially incomplete and a false pretense.  It amounts to a claim that science is essentially different from and superior to all human beliefs that are not scientific statements--and this is untrue."

Weather or not I agree with this, I'm not sure, but it is one of my favorite quotes of his :smirk:


--------------------

Signature (up to 750 characters).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecortex
[ H ] ψ = [ E ] ψ
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 15,171
Loc: Gedankenexperiment
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: flangenips]
    #11194317 - 10/06/09 02:54 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

flangenips said:
If you can back that up with an experiment, then maybe we'll believe you.




Otherwise, at least get your math down, and then go stand in line with the string theorists.


--------------------

Signature (up to 750 characters).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTedwilto
Veni, vidi, vici
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/08/08
Posts: 5,158
Loc: Sunny Afternoon in
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11194319 - 10/06/09 02:54 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

I think that if you replace the words "space quanta" in every one of your sentences with "chicken giblets" your theory actually makes more sense.


--------------------

Song of the week, click Huey:



Song of the week list in journal.


Edited by Tedwilto (10/06/09 02:56 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecortex
[ H ] ψ = [ E ] ψ
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 15,171
Loc: Gedankenexperiment
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Tedwilto]
    #11194326 - 10/06/09 02:55 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

:rofl:


--------------------

Signature (up to 750 characters).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecortex
[ H ] ψ = [ E ] ψ
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 15,171
Loc: Gedankenexperiment
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11194335 - 10/06/09 02:57 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Oh yeah, smitty, while I am on a quote tangent, let me add one from one my favorite scientists, Niels Bohr:

"Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think."


--------------------

Signature (up to 750 characters).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: isaacein]
    #11194370 - 10/06/09 03:01 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

isaacein said:
Quote:

Smitington said:

I would say that light never ultimately achieves the ultimate speed limit or one space quanta per one time quanta, but comes very very close to it. 






You would say that huh?


Quote:


I am quite sure that different light has been observed to travel at slightly different velocities





:eek:

Different light huh? Different in what respect?

"Quite sure"? It's unbelievable how little you know about what you think you are talking about.

Quote:


I still have more to learn about SR and GR





Apparently you still have to learn all of it, except perhaps the vocabulary.


Quote:

Modern physics wants to define it as relative, while I want to define it as absolute but remembering that it is important to keep relativity effects in mind.




Right; you mean those "relativity effects" due to space being relative?


Quote:

Also, Einstien pointed out that gravity was unlike other forces because using the formula f=ma, the mass of the object in question would cancel out, and thus mass was not related to the acceleration.




What? What do you mean the mass "cancels out"? It seems you cannot even interpret a linear function properly. Moreover, this relation is valid for any force, not just gravitational forces.

What this relation says is that the acceleration on an object is proportional to the total force exerted on it, with the proportion being given by the mass of the object. Gravitational forces have nothing in perticular to do with this relation.


Quote:

Also, I believe in gravitational waves as a way to explain gravity.




Believe as in "have faith"?

Quote:


My idea on space quanta is that they act like a mind, and they store information, and decide, very conciously, what to do with that information.  All forces can be explained simply as decisions which the space quanta have made.  I view forces and decisions to be the same thing.  When we see a twenty dollar bill on the ground, we are attracted to it, and pick it up, therefore I view there being a force which pulled us to the 20 dollar bill.  When space quanta which holds matter recieves gravitational waves which indicate that another space quanta out there also holds matter, that space quanta, judging by how many gravitational quanta it recieves, accelerates its matter, that is, it passes it on to neighboring space quanta, choosing the direction based upon which direction the gravitional quanta came from.




I imagined reading this from a textbook and I shot milk out of my nose. The above paragraph is a tribute to all past, present and future trolls of the Internets.




I'm sorry I am not as well versed as you, but I have read that light travels at different speeds, I am sorry that I am not more able to explain where I have heard this and how it works, your the text book, you tell me.

the F=MA example was a simple example that was not even my own, but yes, using the classic gravitational force model, the mass of the object you are determining the acceleration for would cancel out, I have read this be something that Einstien has pointed out.

About relativity, you don't really seem to understand my view point.  Yes space is relative.......from our point of view.  Escape this mind trap you are in.

I am again sorry that I do not have all the knowledge you do, and I have admitted it several times, and that I want to study physics.  None of your points however have taken anything away from my theory.  You guys keep tripping over the semantics of everything.  The best critism to my theory was that in QED light travels faster than c sometimes, other than that you guys have absolutely no evidence that space quanta and time quanta do not exist.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineisaacein
exp(ix) = cosx + isinx


Registered: 05/21/08
Posts: 1,141
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11194377 - 10/06/09 03:03 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Smitington said:
Not really, SR is all about gravitation, plus you wanted me to explain my stance on GR.





So far, the only thing you have convinced anyone of is that you do not know anything about what you are talking about.

I challenge you to give a brief description of the most basic principles of special relativity, since you know all that it's about. Be precise, and do not just state results; explain your claims and do not refer to your own "theory". Explain how the results of special relativity affect theoretical physics in general, and explain how we know that special relativity is a good model (give examples of experiments).

To be fair, I will not comment at all on your description. I will let other readers judge for themselves.

At this point, if you refuse, I'm quite sure that everybody will interpret your refusal as definite proof of your utmost incompetence. If you succeed, then you will have regained some credibility and perhaps people will pay more attention.


--------------------
Formula: 0

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: flangenips]
    #11194390 - 10/06/09 03:05 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

flangenips said:
I agree.
His questions seem more on the lines of Philosophy of speech and semantics... than they do scientific ones.
However, philosophy and science are interlocked - in that without evidence or logic(/math) its easy to be sceptical of a philosophy too.

Logic is a field in philosophy that i consider highly linked to science - and it was my favourite at uni. And we studied (as mentioned in this thread) xenos paradox.
However - just because a trajectory has infinite points, it doesn't actually mean it cannot reach a point and is unable to be quanitified.
The paradox (like most) is a paradox of thought process and language - not practical science. Quantifying is something we do in order to compare and contrast - helps us with standards and controls in practical sciences. Paradoxes are a weak way of say something is impractical and wrong.

If you can show mathematically whats wrong with measuring distance between quanta then maybe you've got our attention.
If you can back that up with an experiment, then maybe we'll believe you.




I have tried several times to end this thread with "thank you for challenging me and I have alot of work to do"


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: isaacein]
    #11194394 - 10/06/09 03:05 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

isaacein said:
Quote:

Smitington said:
Not really, SR is all about gravitation, plus you wanted me to explain my stance on GR.





So far, the only thing you have convinced anyone of is that you do not know anything about what you are talking about.

I challenge you to give a brief description of the most basic principles of special relativity, since you know all that it's about. Be precise, and do not just state results; explain your claims and do not refer to your own "theory". Explain how the results of special relativity affect theoretical physics in general, and explain how we know that special relativity is a good model (give examples of experiments).

To be fair, I will not comment at all on your description. I will let other readers judge for themselves.

At this point, if you refuse, I'm quite sure that everybody will interpret your refusal as definite proof of your utmost incompetence. If you succeed, then you will have regained some credibility and perhaps people will pay more attention.




Sry, I had GR and SR confused.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineisaacein
exp(ix) = cosx + isinx


Registered: 05/21/08
Posts: 1,141
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11194484 - 10/06/09 03:20 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

General Relativity will do, if you prefer. I promise I won't even laugh at the fact you had the two confused.


--------------------
Formula: 0

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: isaacein]
    #11194567 - 10/06/09 03:30 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

I don't care if you laugh, it is what you want to do anyways so it's all good, we all know what you expect when I explain it.


I'm not gonna pretend I know more about it than I do, and I'm not gonna wiki it up to explain it better.  The best I can do right now is say that in GR a flat surface is likened to space, and an object is ontop of this flat surface, which causes it to bend in, like if you had a rubber sheet stretched out, being held tightly at each end, if you were to place a bowling ball in the middle, the ball would stretch the sheet down.  Now, if you set a marble on this rubber sheet, towards the end of it, it would roll down until it hit the bowling ball, this is because of the dip the bowling ball made.  This is a metaphor for gravitation.  The rubber sheet is the fabric of spacetime, and a massive object actually bends spacetime, and it is this bend of spacetime that causes objects to move toward each other.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineisaacein
exp(ix) = cosx + isinx


Registered: 05/21/08
Posts: 1,141
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11194664 - 10/06/09 03:42 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Smitington said:
I don't care if you laugh, it is what you want to do anyways so it's all good, we all know what you expect when I explain it.


I'm not gonna pretend I know more about it than I do, and I'm not gonna wiki it up to explain it better.  The best I can do right now is say that in GR a flat surface is likened to space, and an object is ontop of this flat surface, which causes it to bend in, like if you had a rubber sheet stretched out, being held tightly at each end, if you were to place a bowling ball in the middle, the ball would stretch the sheet down.  Now, if you set a marble on this rubber sheet, towards the end of it, it would roll down until it hit the bowling ball, this is because of the dip the bowling ball made.  This is a metaphor for gravitation.  The rubber sheet is the fabric of spacetime, and a massive object actually bends spacetime, and it is this bend of spacetime that causes objects to move toward each other.




Oh I see; so you know what physics is all about, but in metaphors.


--------------------
Formula: 0

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: isaacein]
    #11194729 - 10/06/09 03:49 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

I see math as the stuff that follows an idea, which is why I say for einstien, relativity was an idea, he did not invent his theories because mathematics led him to discover them, his ideas led him to discover them, and he used math to explain them


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleChespirito
Stranger
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/13/09
Posts: 3,259
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11194771 - 10/06/09 03:55 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

True but his theories were thought up in a mind more well versed in physics than many physicists at the time.  He was a genius the likes of which is rarely seen in humanity.  His theories weren't a forceful attempt to put his viewpoint on physicality.  He had a deep understanding of physics and thus could see errors in physical thinking at that time.  You have no such thing

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTedwilto
Veni, vidi, vici
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/08/08
Posts: 5,158
Loc: Sunny Afternoon in
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11194786 - 10/06/09 03:58 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

And yet that is i think the 5th time you have compared yourself to einstein.


--------------------

Song of the week, click Huey:



Song of the week list in journal.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecortex
[ H ] ψ = [ E ] ψ
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 15,171
Loc: Gedankenexperiment
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Tedwilto]
    #11194804 - 10/06/09 04:01 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Tedwilto said:
And yet that is i think the 5th time you have compared yourself to einstein.




wow


--------------------

Signature (up to 750 characters).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Tedwilto]
    #11195021 - 10/06/09 04:33 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Chespirito said:
True but his theories were thought up in a mind more well versed in physics than many physicists at the time.  He was a genius the likes of which is rarely seen in humanity.  His theories weren't a forceful attempt to put his viewpoint on physicality.  He had a deep understanding of physics and thus could see errors in physical thinking at that time.  You have no such thing





I am a genius, I have been told this my whole life, and I am not afraid to admit it, it is just a word.  I know my flaws, I am quite flawed, and I don't see myself as being better than anybody else, but I have my own very unique gifts which aren't always easy for others to pick up on.  You brought up that you think I am not a genius, and I am not afraid to defend myself, so let it go, if you think I'm not, fine, feel free to express it, I don't care, it's not gonna change anything, and it will only be for the sake of expressing yourself so that you feel better about yourself.

In Einstiens time, physics was alot simpler.  Over the past century it has blossomed into craziness, very few people understand all of it, and much of it is radical theories.  I view modern physics as a result of countless derivitave theories from other derivitave theories where the base theory isn't exactly correct.  It's like a person who has a repressed traumatic event in their life, you can treat the person by giving them medication, using behavioral techniques, teaching them cognative techniques to over come some problem, but I'm the kind of guy where instead of constantly trying to treat the symptoms of the problem, I'm going to dive into what is at the core causing the problem, the traumatic repressed event.  I am not so concerned with learning all the medicational treatments, cognative treatments, and behavioral treatments.  To relate that to physics, modern physics knows alot of how to treat the symptoms of phyics, but has no idea what space actually is, what time actually is, and what matter and energy actually are.  I'm very interested in what these things are, we need to understand them more for physics to progress.

Think of me what you will, I am not better than anything, and I have alot to learn before I turn this IDEA (hint hint) into a full fledged ready to be published theory.


Quote:

Tedwilto said:
And yet that is i think the 5th time you have compared yourself to einstein.




No, it is maybe the 4th time I have had to reuse that example because people did not understand it.  Me bringing that example up initially counts as one compare to einstien, the fact that I have had to reuse the example because you guys didn't get it until now doesn't add to my compares to einstien.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineisaacein
exp(ix) = cosx + isinx


Registered: 05/21/08
Posts: 1,141
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11195072 - 10/06/09 04:41 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

I thought we had reached the high point five pages ago, but oh boy I was wrong.

A mod needs to lock this thread before he calls himself Jesus. Although I have a feeling the mods are reading this thread and getting a good kick out of it. Visits from the "Paranormal & Mysticism" subforum are rare and we should enjoy them. Send my regards their way, genius.



--------------------
Formula: 0

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleChespirito
Stranger
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/13/09
Posts: 3,259
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11195073 - 10/06/09 04:41 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

If you were serious about physics youd be learning it :shrug:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Chespirito]
    #11195103 - 10/06/09 04:47 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

I plan to study physics, but as I indicated earlier I want a degree in computer science because I believe computers will be a great tool in researching physics, plus it's easier to get a job in computers than it is in physics, physics is my hobby, among other things, I have come to the realization that I should just get a job that I will be happy with and pays the bills because I have so many interests that it's best to just explore them outside of work for the most part.

PLus, I'm not pushing myself to put this "theory" out, it has been something my mind has been working on for probably 8 years now, and there is no need to rush it, every once in a while I get insight to progress it, so I really just look at it like an on going thing that may or may not lead somewhere big.


--------------------

Edited by Smitington (10/06/09 04:51 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleChespirito
Stranger
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/13/09
Posts: 3,259
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11195146 - 10/06/09 04:53 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

I was an EE major and I took plenty of physics courses I didn't need to.  I also sat in on courses and talked to profesors whose classes I wasnt taking.  If you really wanted to do something serious with physics you could make it happen.  Starting in CS and moving to physics grad school is possible but difficult, you better make damn sure you have good grades in all your physics classes, then do CS research relevant to physics.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleChespirito
Stranger
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/13/09
Posts: 3,259
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11195151 - 10/06/09 04:54 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Just answer me this, did you used to live in Socal?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Chespirito]
    #11195187 - 10/06/09 04:59 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

lol, no


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecortex
[ H ] ψ = [ E ] ψ
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 15,171
Loc: Gedankenexperiment
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11195478 - 10/06/09 05:41 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

hey man, at least you aren't being discouraged by all the jokes.

go get your education, take a bunch of physics and math classes, and maybe you can really make this into something.

it may be flawed now, but keep working at it, and good luck.


--------------------

Signature (up to 750 characters).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineChuangTzu
starvingphysicist
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11195521 - 10/06/09 05:45 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

I can't believe this thread is still going.  And that I'm still laughing...

:rofl:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecortex
[ H ] ψ = [ E ] ψ
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 15,171
Loc: Gedankenexperiment
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: ChuangTzu]
    #11195536 - 10/06/09 05:47 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

<--- check out my new Halloween avatar!


--------------------

Signature (up to 750 characters).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: cortex]
    #11195543 - 10/06/09 05:48 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

thanks guys, like the avatar :thumbup:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineChuangTzu
starvingphysicist
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11195654 - 10/06/09 06:08 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Smitington said:
I am a genius




Being a genius doesn't give you a blanket license to completely make stuff up with no basis in reality, to communicate your ideas poorly, or to be excused from presenting evidence in support of your arguments.  We don't care if you're a genius or not, it has absolutely no bearing at all.  Thanks.

Quote:

Think of me what you will, I am not better than anything, and I have alot to learn before I turn this IDEA (hint hint) into a full fledged ready to be published theory.





We can tell you're going about this the wrong way because you haven't even admitted yet the possibility that once (if?) you do figure out what you're doing, you will realize that your "theory" doesn't make any sense. 

I'll leave you with the following:
Quote:

So we really ought to look  into theories that don't work,  and science
that isn't science.
    I  think  the  educational and  psychological studies I  mentioned  are
examples of what I would like to call cargo cult science.  In the South Seas
there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land with
lots  of good materials, and  they  want  the same thing to happen  now.  So
they've  arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the  sides
of  the runways, to make a wooden hut  for a man to  sit in, with two wooden
pieces  on  his head  like headphones  and  bars of bamboo sticking out like
antennas -- he's the controller -- and they wait for the airplanes  to land.
They're doing everything  right.  The form is perfect. It looks exactly  the
way it looked  before.  But it  doesn't work. No airplanes land. So  I  call
these  things cargo cult  science,  because  they  follow  all the  apparent
precepts  and  forms  of  scientific  investigation,  but  they're  missing
something essential, because the planes don't land.
    Now it behooves me, of course, to tell you what they're missing. But it
would be just about as  difficult to explain to the  South Sea Islanders how
they have to arrange things so that they get some wealth in their system. It
is not something simple like telling them how to improve  the  shapes of the
earphones. But there  is one feature  I notice  that is generally missing in
cargo cult science. That is the  idea that we all  hope you have  learned in
studying science in school -- we never explicitly say what this is, but just
hope that  you catch on by all  the examples of scientific investigation. It
is interesting, therefore, to bring  it out now and speak of  it explicitly.
It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of  scientific thought that
corresponds to a kind of utter honesty -- a  kind of leaning over backwards.
For  example, if you're  doing  an experiment,  you should report everything
that you  think might  make it invalid -- not  only what  you think is right
about  it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things
you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they
worked -- to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
    Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if
you know them. You must do the best you can -- if you know anything  at  all
wrong, or possibly wrong  --  to  explain it.  If  you  make  a theory,  for
example,  and advertise it, or  put it out,  then you must also put down all
the facts that disagree  with it, as well as those that agree with it. There
is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of  ideas together to
make an elaborate  theory, you  want to  make  sure, when explaining what it
fits, that those things  it fits are not just  the things that  gave you the
idea for the theory; but that the  finished theory makes something else come
out right, in addition.
    In summary, the idea is  to try to give all of  the information to help
others to judge the value  of  your contribution;  not just  the information
that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.





From: "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" (last chapter, "Cargo Cult Science")

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: ChuangTzu]
    #11195717 - 10/06/09 06:18 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

ChuangTzu said:
Quote:

Smitington said:
How does it explain c?  I'll try to explain this again.  If space is quantized, that is comprised of a set of points, all matter and energy within space exists within these points, nothing can be between them.  If time is also quantized, there are not an infinite number of moments between any two points in time.  This means that there is some minimum value by which time clicks, and combined with space quanta there is some minimal length by which an object can move in one of these clicks of time quantum.  Now, in order for an object to move, it must pass through ever point in space between it's source position and destination, it cannot skip over any point in space.  What this entails is that the fastest an object can ever move is one space quantum per one time quantum.  This places a limit on how fast objects can move in the universe, which corresponds to what we have observed, that there is indeed a limit to how fast things can move.  For things to move slower than the maximum allowed speed, they do not move by one space quantum every tick of the time quantum.  Instead, they might stay within one space quantum for 3 time quanta, then move to the next space quantum and stay there for another 3 time quanta.  This relates to how natural units can express the speed of light. 




I'm curious how your "theory" deals with time dilation and length contraction...




Hey man, I answered your question a while back, you never said anything about it.

Quote:

ChuangTzu said:
Being a genius doesn't give you a blanket license to completely make stuff up with no basis in reality, to communicate your ideas poorly, or to be excused from presenting evidence in support of your arguments.  We don't care if you're a genius or not, it has absolutely no bearing at all.  Thanks.




First, recognize the difference between me defending myself from a personal attack on my intelligence, and me saying I am a genius just so you guys will think my theories are better, or as a reason that they are good.  I have stressed over and over how I am not presenting my ideas well and that you guys are helping me realize the best way to present them.  I have also stated over and over that I want to learn more, need to learn more, but I have also stated my opinion of modern physics.  As far as evidence, I have provided as much of it as I could a while back, haven't seen you rebute any of it.  I thought this thread was over but if you would like we can get back into it.  Do you need me to remind you of the implications of quantum time and space?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTedwilto
Veni, vidi, vici
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/08/08
Posts: 5,158
Loc: Sunny Afternoon in
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: ChuangTzu]
    #11195728 - 10/06/09 06:20 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Thank you very much Chuang. Im gonna read that book once i finish up with the one im working on :vaped:


--------------------

Song of the week, click Huey:



Song of the week list in journal.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTedwilto
Veni, vidi, vici
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/08/08
Posts: 5,158
Loc: Sunny Afternoon in
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Tedwilto]
    #11195815 - 10/06/09 06:35 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

oh an cortez whats the formula goin on inside that pumpkin?


--------------------

Song of the week, click Huey:



Song of the week list in journal.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecortex
[ H ] ψ = [ E ] ψ
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 15,171
Loc: Gedankenexperiment
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: ChuangTzu]
    #11195822 - 10/06/09 06:36 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

ChuangTzu said:
I'll leave you with the following:
Quote:

So we really ought to look  into theories that don't work,  and science
that isn't science.
    I  think  the  educational and  psychological studies I  mentioned  are
examples of what I would like to call cargo cult science.  In the South Seas
there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land with
lots  of good materials, and  they  want  the same thing to happen  now.  So
they've  arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the  sides
of  the runways, to make a wooden hut  for a man to  sit in, with two wooden
pieces  on  his head  like headphones  and  bars of bamboo sticking out like
antennas -- he's the controller -- and they wait for the airplanes  to land.
They're doing everything  right.  The form is perfect. It looks exactly  the
way it looked  before.  But it  doesn't work. No airplanes land. So  I  call
these  things cargo cult  science,  because  they  follow  all the  apparent
precepts  and  forms  of  scientific  investigation,  but  they're  missing
something essential, because the planes don't land.
    Now it behooves me, of course, to tell you what they're missing. But it
would be just about as  difficult to explain to the  South Sea Islanders how
they have to arrange things so that they get some wealth in their system. It
is not something simple like telling them how to improve  the  shapes of the
earphones. But there  is one feature  I notice  that is generally missing in
cargo cult science. That is the  idea that we all  hope you have  learned in
studying science in school -- we never explicitly say what this is, but just
hope that  you catch on by all  the examples of scientific investigation. It
is interesting, therefore, to bring  it out now and speak of  it explicitly.
It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of  scientific thought that
corresponds to a kind of utter honesty -- a  kind of leaning over backwards.
For  example, if you're  doing  an experiment,  you should report everything
that you  think might  make it invalid -- not  only what  you think is right
about  it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things
you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they
worked -- to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
    Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if
you know them. You must do the best you can -- if you know anything  at  all
wrong, or possibly wrong  --  to  explain it.  If  you  make  a theory,  for
example,  and advertise it, or  put it out,  then you must also put down all
the facts that disagree  with it, as well as those that agree with it. There
is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of  ideas together to
make an elaborate  theory, you  want to  make  sure, when explaining what it
fits, that those things  it fits are not just  the things that  gave you the
idea for the theory; but that the  finished theory makes something else come
out right, in addition.
    In summary, the idea is  to try to give all of  the information to help
others to judge the value  of  your contribution;  not just  the information
that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.





From: "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" (last chapter, "Cargo Cult Science")




Feynman! :bowdown:

His chess game analogy is one of my favorites.


--------------------

Signature (up to 750 characters).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecortex
[ H ] ψ = [ E ] ψ
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 15,171
Loc: Gedankenexperiment
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Tedwilto]
    #11195833 - 10/06/09 06:37 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Tedwilto said:
oh an cortez whats the formula goin on inside that pumpkin?




IDK!  Maybe someone can tell me, I am in first year calc.  All I can say is it looks like some kind of integral...


--------------------

Signature (up to 750 characters).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTedwilto
Veni, vidi, vici
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/08/08
Posts: 5,158
Loc: Sunny Afternoon in
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: cortex]
    #11195864 - 10/06/09 06:41 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

haha alright. Yeah all i could get from that was that it was smoe sort of integral. Im also in first year calc. :rockon:


--------------------

Song of the week, click Huey:



Song of the week list in journal.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleChespirito
Stranger
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/13/09
Posts: 3,259
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Tedwilto]
    #11195869 - 10/06/09 06:41 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Its amusing at times, but most of the book is about how great and witty he thinks he is.  Hes a brilliant man no doubt and one of the most important physicists however hes not quite as witty as he believes himself to be

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTedwilto
Veni, vidi, vici
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/08/08
Posts: 5,158
Loc: Sunny Afternoon in
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Chespirito]
    #11195876 - 10/06/09 06:42 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Haha. I just read the introduction and it seems like a good read.


EDIT: guhh im 6 poasts away from 3000. I spend too much time on here. especially when ishould be doing linear algebras.


--------------------

Song of the week, click Huey:



Song of the week list in journal.


Edited by Tedwilto (10/06/09 06:46 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Tedwilto]
    #11195944 - 10/06/09 06:55 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

ChuangTzu, :whoo: for finding that quote.  The fact is as soon as I answered your question about time dilation and length contraction, you avoided the fact, and only resurfaced when the masses had apparently proclaimed victory over this thread.  You, and everybody else on here, fails to realize that as soon as people couldn't prove me wrong any more, this thread turned into people getting mad and calling names.  The thread was initially clearing up what I meant by dimensions and what I was trying to get acrossed, when it was cleared up, and quantum space and time were seen to be the point of my thread, a few questions were asked about it, some debate, until I provided an answer to how I would treat length contraction and time dilation, which no body has been able to debate.  Also, I provided an example for why quantizing space makes sense by asking the question if distance is a quantity, what is it quantizing.  Nobody was able to answer this question.  This is when the thread turned more and more into personal attacks on me and testing how much other physics and math I know, but the questions and answers I raised before you guys gave up are still up in the air and there is nothing any of you can do to try to repress the fact that you couldn't debate them.  So, ChuangTzu, as you would like to keep this thread going, I say we get back on topic, and continue where we left off.  You asked me a question, I gave you my answer. Explain how my answer is wrong.


--------------------

Edited by Smitington (10/06/09 07:02 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleChespirito
Stranger
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/13/09
Posts: 3,259
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11196678 - 10/06/09 08:51 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Your theory has no theory to it.  You claim you explain things but all you did was offer up a few sentences and claim you're done.  How are we supposed to take that seriously?  And furthermore in your theory you can always claim that the smallest distance changes.  For instance at the moment you might claim the smallest distance is X, then in the future if we are able to show we can deal with distances smaller than X you will say 'oh wait I meant the smallest was X/4'.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineisaacein
exp(ix) = cosx + isinx


Registered: 05/21/08
Posts: 1,141
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11196990 - 10/06/09 09:34 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Smitington said:
ChuangTzu, :whoo: for finding that quote.  The fact is as soon as I answered your question about time dilation and length contraction, you avoided the fact, and only resurfaced when the masses had apparently proclaimed victory over this thread.  You, and everybody else on here, fails to realize that as soon as people couldn't prove me wrong any more, this thread turned into people getting mad and calling names.





The only reasons we "can't prove you wrong anymore" is because

1) most of your claims are nonsensical, and no knowledgable person could possibly know where to begin your education;

2) the few claims which you've made that had some sort of sense to them were balantly false, yet although having been given many explanations each time, you refused systematically to acknowledge either the basic truth or your ignorance in the matter;

3) your attitude is displeasing : you act as though you know what you are talking about when in fact it is obvious you don't, and you tell people who do know what they are talking about that it is them who are ignorant.

Quote:

which no body has been able to debate.




I don't "debate" science. When I know something, for instance in mathematics, it is because I am able to supply a proof. With a proof, there is no "debate". What you have been calling a "theory" is not even close to that; at best, if you took out the parts that made no sense, you'd have one or two ambiguous claims with no evidence at all to back them.

 
Quote:

Also, I provided an example for why quantizing space makes sense by asking the question if distance is a quantity, what is it quantizing.  Nobody was able to answer this question.




I do not understand what the question means, and don't bother "explaining" what it means to me.

 
Quote:

This is when the thread turned more and more into personal attacks on me and testing how much other physics and math I know, but the questions and answers I raised before you guys gave up are still up in the air and there is nothing any of you can do to try to repress the fact that you couldn't debate them.




None of your questions had a precise meaning. If you ask me what "length" is, I will tell you to learn about the Lebesgue measure. If you ask me "If distance is a quantity, what is it quantizing?", I'll just stare at you in a weird way. I'm not even sure how the part of the question before the coma relates to the one afterwards. You might as well have asked "If the number of sheep in a pack of sheep is a number, what is counting?"

 
Quote:

I gave you my answer. Explain how my answer is wrong.




I'd be more interested in knowing why you think the question is relevant.


--------------------
Formula: 0

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTedwilto
Veni, vidi, vici
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/08/08
Posts: 5,158
Loc: Sunny Afternoon in
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: isaacein]
    #11197152 - 10/06/09 09:57 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

isaacein said:

If you ask me "If distance is a quantity, what is it quantizing?", I'll just stare at you in a weird way. I'm not even sure how the part of the question before the coma relates to the one afterwards. You might as well have asked "If the number of sheep in a pack of sheep is a number, what is counting?"






:rofl:

That made me laugh out loud. My roomate did not find it as amusing.

Im using that as a quote in my sig.


--------------------

Song of the week, click Huey:



Song of the week list in journal.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecortex
[ H ] ψ = [ E ] ψ
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 15,171
Loc: Gedankenexperiment
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Tedwilto]
    #11197168 - 10/06/09 09:59 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

that was good


--------------------

Signature (up to 750 characters).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineisaacein
exp(ix) = cosx + isinx


Registered: 05/21/08
Posts: 1,141
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Tedwilto]
    #11197591 - 10/06/09 11:00 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Tedwilto said:
Quote:

isaacein said:

If you ask me "If distance is a quantity, what is it quantizing?", I'll just stare at you in a weird way. I'm not even sure how the part of the question before the coma relates to the one afterwards. You might as well have asked "If the number of sheep in a pack of sheep is a number, what is counting?"






:rofl:

That made me laugh out loud. My roomate did not find it as amusing.

Im using that as a quote in my sig.




Haha! Thanks.




Tell your roomate he sucks. I'm a genius okay? :grin:


--------------------
Formula: 0

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineflangenips
Batshitinsanse
 User Gallery


Registered: 01/20/08
Posts: 1,520
Loc: aotearoa Flag
Last seen: 8 years, 7 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11198225 - 10/07/09 12:50 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Smitington said:
ChuangTzu, :whoo: for finding that quote.  The fact is as soon as I answered your question about time dilation and length contraction, you avoided the fact, and only resurfaced when the masses had apparently proclaimed victory over this thread.  You, and everybody else on here, fails to realize that as soon as people couldn't prove me wrong any more, this thread turned into people getting mad and calling names.  The thread was initially clearing up what I meant by dimensions and what I was trying to get acrossed, when it was cleared up, and quantum space and time were seen to be the point of my thread, a few questions were asked about it, some debate, until I provided an answer to how I would treat length contraction and time dilation, which no body has been able to debate.  Also, I provided an example for why quantizing space makes sense by asking the question if distance is a quantity, what is it quantizing.  Nobody was able to answer this question.  This is when the thread turned more and more into personal attacks on me and testing how much other physics and math I know, but the questions and answers I raised before you guys gave up are still up in the air and there is nothing any of you can do to try to repress the fact that you couldn't debate them.  So, ChuangTzu, as you would like to keep this thread going, I say we get back on topic, and continue where we left off.  You asked me a question, I gave you my answer. Explain how my answer is wrong.




Who was getting mad and calling you names?
If you can't tell the difference between attacks on your theory and personal attacks, then that is your problem, still personal attacks... meh... don't whine about it.

I see little correlation between your first post and most of what was said afterwards.

I think you are still working it out for yourself, making a lot up as you go - well... that just how it seems anywho.
which means aside from backing yourself up, you do have a lot of work to do to merely develop a theory.

And yes i realise, Smitington, that have said you would and may consider publishing. But hell, don't be discouraged... even if you come up with a theory remotely cohesive and show its wrong, its a good start - thats science - keep on keeping on, even failures can be seen as a success (unless you're wasting time with pseudo-tits that cannot be shown/tested through any mathmeatical or experimental means - leave that to our ethics philosophers)


--------------------
All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusions is called a philosopher. - Ambrose Bierce

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: flangenips]
    #11198898 - 10/07/09 07:07 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

You guys asked how I would treat length contraction and time dilation and none of have been able to prove it wrong  I don't need to whip out my dick aka a formula to illustrate what I am saying.  I have made my point clear and nobody has been able to prove it wrong.

And isaac the fact that you don't understand that question is not a thing to be proud of.  Your sheep analogy is sadly unrelated.  I'm glad that you are able to use humor to hide the fact that you are afraid of admitting that you do not understand it.


--------------------

Edited by Smitington (10/07/09 07:33 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: flangenips]
    #11198976 - 10/07/09 07:43 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

flangenips said:
Quote:

Smitington said:
ChuangTzu, :whoo: for finding that quote.  The fact is as soon as I answered your question about time dilation and length contraction, you avoided the fact, and only resurfaced when the masses had apparently proclaimed victory over this thread.  You, and everybody else on here, fails to realize that as soon as people couldn't prove me wrong any more, this thread turned into people getting mad and calling names.  The thread was initially clearing up what I meant by dimensions and what I was trying to get acrossed, when it was cleared up, and quantum space and time were seen to be the point of my thread, a few questions were asked about it, some debate, until I provided an answer to how I would treat length contraction and time dilation, which no body has been able to debate.  Also, I provided an example for why quantizing space makes sense by asking the question if distance is a quantity, what is it quantizing.  Nobody was able to answer this question.  This is when the thread turned more and more into personal attacks on me and testing how much other physics and math I know, but the questions and answers I raised before you guys gave up are still up in the air and there is nothing any of you can do to try to repress the fact that you couldn't debate them.  So, ChuangTzu, as you would like to keep this thread going, I say we get back on topic, and continue where we left off.  You asked me a question, I gave you my answer. Explain how my answer is wrong.




Who was getting mad and calling you names?
If you can't tell the difference between attacks on your theory and personal attacks, then that is your problem, still personal attacks... meh... don't whine about it.

I see little correlation between your first post and most of what was said afterwards.

I think you are still working it out for yourself, making a lot up as you go - well... that just how it seems anywho.
which means aside from backing yourself up, you do have a lot of work to do to merely develop a theory.

And yes i realise, Smitington, that have said you would and may consider publishing. But hell, don't be discouraged... even if you come up with a theory remotely cohesive and show its wrong, its a good start - thats science - keep on keeping on, even failures can be seen as a success (unless you're wasting time with pseudo-tits that cannot be shown/tested through any mathmeatical or experimental means - leave that to our ethics philosophers)




Check my ratings to see who was getting mad.  You guys have it in your head that I should have had my theory completely figured out before bringing it to the shroomery, but all it was was a collection of ideas I wanted feed back on.  Nobody has been able to prove any of the ideas wrong, and I admit that I need to do alot more work to show that my theory can be proven.  Chespirito in my mind is one of the smartest physics minded people on this forum because he is the only one who has been able to debate the existence of space quanta, everybody else just kinda gave up and started uses shit like "you are pseudo scientist", and making personal attacks on my intelligence, and saying stuff like my examples are just garbage, even though a logical minded person can understand them, and science can be explained without posting alot of formulas that go over peoples head.  I use clear examples to discribe what I mean, I am still convinced that isaac doesn't even know what we mean by space quanta, and how the speed c can be explained as one space quanta per one time quanta, because he needs somebody who knows more formulas than him to tell him it is right before he "understands it".  I'll repeat myself, this thread was only here to discuss the posibility of quantum space and time, nothing more, you guys expect it to be some grand theory with all the implications realized.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineisaacein
exp(ix) = cosx + isinx


Registered: 05/21/08
Posts: 1,141
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11199044 - 10/07/09 08:09 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Smitington said:
I have made my point clear and nobody has been able to prove it wrong.





You certainly haven't been able to prove it right.



:crymeariver:


--------------------
Formula: 0

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTedwilto
Veni, vidi, vici
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/08/08
Posts: 5,158
Loc: Sunny Afternoon in
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11199101 - 10/07/09 08:26 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Smitington said:
Chespirito in my mind is one of the smartest physics minded people on this forum because he is the only one who has been able to debate the existence of Chicken Giblets, everybody else just kinda gave up and started uses shit like "you are pseudo scientist", and making personal attacks on my intelligence, and saying stuff like my examples are just garbage, even though a logical minded person can understand them, and science can be explained without posting alot of formulas that go over peoples head.




fixt.


--------------------

Song of the week, click Huey:



Song of the week list in journal.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmitington
Unidentified Flying Object
Male

Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 1,408
Loc: Mushroom Kingdom
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Tedwilto]
    #11199280 - 10/07/09 09:03 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

gratz, and I agree that I haven't been able to prove it right, what we have here is an idea that therefore could explain a lot or just might not explain anything, I tend to think it could explain a lot as there is already evidence for it with the existence of a physical speed limit (c), and the existence of planck units.  The idea of quantum space (which we agree right now cannot be proven or disproven), can answer a lot of questions that we have, and trying to understand the space quanta could have huge implications in quantum physics if it did indeed exist.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Tedwilto]
    #11199553 - 10/07/09 10:08 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Tedwilto said:
Quote:

Smitington said:
Chespirito in my mind is one of the smartest physics minded people on this forum because he is the only one who has been able to debate the existence of Chicken Giblets, everybody else just kinda gave up and started uses shit like "you are pseudo scientist", and making personal attacks on my intelligence, and saying stuff like my examples are just garbage, even though a logical minded person can understand them, and science can be explained without posting alot of formulas that go over peoples head.




fixt.





Ahhh, yes.  That makes more sense now, thx.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineflangenips
Batshitinsanse
 User Gallery


Registered: 01/20/08
Posts: 1,520
Loc: aotearoa Flag
Last seen: 8 years, 7 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11202128 - 10/07/09 05:29 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Smitington said:
Quote:

flangenips said:
Quote:

Smitington said:
ChuangTzu, :whoo: for finding that quote.  The fact is as soon as I answered your question about time dilation and length contraction, you avoided the fact, and only resurfaced when the masses had apparently proclaimed victory over this thread.  You, and everybody else on here, fails to realize that as soon as people couldn't prove me wrong any more, this thread turned into people getting mad and calling names.  The thread was initially clearing up what I meant by dimensions and what I was trying to get acrossed, when it was cleared up, and quantum space and time were seen to be the point of my thread, a few questions were asked about it, some debate, until I provided an answer to how I would treat length contraction and time dilation, which no body has been able to debate.  Also, I provided an example for why quantizing space makes sense by asking the question if distance is a quantity, what is it quantizing.  Nobody was able to answer this question.  This is when the thread turned more and more into personal attacks on me and testing how much other physics and math I know, but the questions and answers I raised before you guys gave up are still up in the air and there is nothing any of you can do to try to repress the fact that you couldn't debate them.  So, ChuangTzu, as you would like to keep this thread going, I say we get back on topic, and continue where we left off.  You asked me a question, I gave you my answer. Explain how my answer is wrong.




Who was getting mad and calling you names?
If you can't tell the difference between attacks on your theory and personal attacks, then that is your problem, still personal attacks... meh... don't whine about it.

I see little correlation between your first post and most of what was said afterwards.

I think you are still working it out for yourself, making a lot up as you go - well... that just how it seems anywho.
which means aside from backing yourself up, you do have a lot of work to do to merely develop a theory.

And yes i realise, Smitington, that have said you would and may consider publishing. But hell, don't be discouraged... even if you come up with a theory remotely cohesive and show its wrong, its a good start - thats science - keep on keeping on, even failures can be seen as a success (unless you're wasting time with pseudo-tits that cannot be shown/tested through any mathmeatical or experimental means - leave that to our ethics philosophers)




Check my ratings to see who was getting mad.  You guys have it in your head that I should have had my theory completely figured out before bringing it to the shroomery, but all it was was a collection of ideas I wanted feed back on.  Nobody has been able to prove any of the ideas wrong, and I admit that I need to do alot more work to show that my theory can be proven.  Chespirito in my mind is one of the smartest physics minded people on this forum because he is the only one who has been able to debate the existence of space quanta, everybody else just kinda gave up and started uses shit like "you are pseudo scientist", and making personal attacks on my intelligence, and saying stuff like my examples are just garbage, even though a logical minded person can understand them, and science can be explained without posting alot of formulas that go over peoples head.  I use clear examples to discribe what I mean, I am still convinced that isaac doesn't even know what we mean by space quanta, and how the speed c can be explained as one space quanta per one time quanta, because he needs somebody who knows more formulas than him to tell him it is right before he "understands it".  I'll repeat myself, this thread was only here to discuss the posibility of quantum space and time, nothing more, you guys expect it to be some grand theory with all the implications realized.





Meh, nevermind the ratings, though i don't really see that as them getting mad.

You're theories are logically understood only as a ends of "what if this were true." Which really counts for nothing more than a philosophic exercise without math to support it - that is at least what the string theorists have i think.

I've always thought of pseudo-science being something that claims to be scientific, without proof for or against (yes that is probably also acknowledged by those who call you out) - which is what your theory falls under. If there was proof against, it wouldn't be pseudoscience, but instead a myth claiming to be true in nature - i.e a faith.

While i agree with you science can be explained in lay-mans terms , to a fairly good degree (in a lot of cases not perfectly mind you) ... This is usually done with the forumlaic and mathematical knowledge behind it - so that it can indeed be claimed as scientific, not speculation.


--------------------
All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusions is called a philosopher. - Ambrose Bierce

Edited by flangenips (10/07/09 11:19 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDisoRDeR
motional
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/29/02
Posts: 1,158
Loc: nonsensistan
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: Smitington]
    #11207064 - 10/08/09 11:07 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

For what it's worth, I appreciate you starting this discussion as it turned out to be the wind that blew the dust off of the cluttered cogitation of theoretical physics in my mind, reminding me how much I love rummaging through that rabbit hole. 

I believe someone already posted a link to the 'Visualizing the 10th dimension' video, but I thought I'd bring attention to the fact that the man who produced that video has a blog site in which he explores the fringes of current scientific theories as well as postulating his own. 

The link:  http://imaginingthetenthdimension.blogspot.com/

A quote from a poll on the site that may interest you...

Quote:

Quantum entanglement's instantaneous effects prove that our "now" exists one planck frame after another not within 4D spacetime, but in the 5th dimension where distant points can be directly connected together without violating the speed of light limit.




:cheers:  to creativity walking hand in hand with humility!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineflangenips
Batshitinsanse
 User Gallery


Registered: 01/20/08
Posts: 1,520
Loc: aotearoa Flag
Last seen: 8 years, 7 months
Re: Let's understand dimensions [Re: DisoRDeR]
    #11208886 - 10/08/09 03:47 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

registered 02 and only 19 posts! Thats some serious lurking, welcome!


--------------------
All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusions is called a philosopher. - Ambrose Bierce

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11  [ show all ]

Shop: Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The digital creation of TREG parallel dimensions Tag_Number 935 14 11/30/04 06:44 PM
by Catalysis
* Imagining the Tenth Dimension (Flash)
( 1 2 all )
ivi 3,298 38 08/12/06 12:51 PM
by barfightlard
* Jussst got a New computer and want to setup my old Dell Dimension 8100 only to run PROTOOLS? PsillyNilly 819 9 02/03/05 09:01 PM
by PsillyNilly
* Anyone who claims they understand quantum physics.......
( 1 2 all )
bit_slice 5,454 30 02/05/09 05:10 PM
by Annom
* A Team of Astrophysicists Claims to Have Identified Evidence that Space is Six-Dimensional
( 1 2 all )
ivi 3,325 32 08/15/06 09:05 AM
by RuNE
* I want a better understanding of Chemistry...
( 1 2 all )
PDU 4,626 23 10/16/03 02:47 PM
by doktor_alternate
* The Inequality Taboo lonestar2004 721 2 10/13/05 11:02 AM
by Annapurna1
* Global Warming.
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Madtowntripper 6,293 81 06/24/08 06:42 PM
by ScavengerType

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: trendal, automan, Northerner
7,324 topic views. 0 members, 1 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.088 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 14 queries.