Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Fourth dimension=time?


  • Please log in to reply
104 replies to this topic

#35 Qfwfq

Qfwfq

    Exhausted Gondolier

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6241 posts

Posted 23 May 2009 - 11:28 AM

Science needs a new paradigm to break through this brick wall of its own construction.

No cosmologist believes in the existence of such a brick wall.

#36 arkain101

arkain101

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1931 posts

Posted 23 May 2009 - 04:28 PM

Yes I agree here with Qfwfq.

For example, just take a read of the text on this wiki here

Schrödinger equation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The depth science has gone even as far as 100 years ago, is still way way beyond the common level of education in the population.

I found this read particularly interesting because of the history it covered, and how these moments were when so many views and theories had reached the peak of their potential and this work, really seemed to play a part in paving new road to go ahead and make more progess on.

I think if we take a few moments to jump into something we may have NO CLUE about, we may get a sense of how complex science really is. I think we would acquire a much different perspective of what we know and what we believe science is.

There is so much essence missing from the stuff we see and hear on tv, that is dumbed down so much that all it communicates is familiar ideas and puzzles, and just barely gets beyond the entertainment level.

#37 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1571 posts

Posted 24 May 2009 - 03:05 AM

Hi Q, all,

No cosmologist believes in the existence of such a brick wall.


Philosophers deal with things that can't be measured and Scientists deal with things that can be measured.

And cosmologists think that this brick wall is 13.7 billion LY away too.

Can a cosmologist tell me what these 2 images have in common?

One is a Riemann Sphere the other one is a screen capture of an optical feedback loop with 1 mirror.

With respect, cosmologists should pull their imaginary fingers out of their imaginary backsides and really start thinking because the second image is comprised of the outside being pulled into the inside by the amount of spin in the loop.

Any cosmologist worth their salt should read the ancient greek play by Aristophanes called 'the clouds' to see what belief in the 'vortex god' meant for the Academy 2400 years ago or so.

Aristophanes could never really finish his play to get the right solution to prevent the Academy from being burned because the ancient greeks didn't have any real concept of rape.

Lets hope we get the right solution this time.

Attached Thumbnails

  • 175px-Riemann_Sphere.jpg
  • Riemann_Sphere02.JPG


#38 arkain101

arkain101

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1931 posts

Posted 24 May 2009 - 06:40 PM

Edited


Let's say we agree for sake of argument-

This is argument is to express what is being discussed in this topic. That is, the most basic expression of Dimension, both space and time.

-that any single elemental (position, thing, item, entity, location) is expressed as [math]n[/math] and that it can be only defined by other [math]n[/math], so that it is fully expressed as [math]n(n) = n[/math]. Where n represents a value. Showing values of existence are unknown and potential.

The word Existence is, any meaning (produced in relationship), which is expressed as [math]e(e_n)[/math] ,-where n represents which individual is being dealt with in the relationship, and e is the value of the meaning of that specific individual(part)- that is thought of as, under examination for the sake of expressing the meaning that a relationship of meaning can produce. Such that.

The system being analyzed is:

[math]e(e_n) = [ n(n), n(n) ]n[/math]


And the system being produced is

[math]e(e_n) = [ e(n), e(n) ]n[/math]




Okay. So I am not very advanced with the use of mathematics. However, in words, what I am essentially trying to express is that the ontological universe is only a potential value, that has the potential to be defined by a potential value
[math]n(n)[/math]

So if we are to define a potential we must produce at least a pair relationship (minimum of two. The observer, and observed)

Lets say we begin to create a fundamental expression of meaning. Because I've claimed nothing has specific value in the ontological respect, that even when we insert the use of dimension, we produce a value for [math]n[/math]

Therefore, this claims that direction of motion of an observer is [math]n[/math], potential, and not defined. When it is defined, at its most minimal expression it only requires two frames, and the direction only requires one space dimension. That is, we ALWAYS start with a source frame which must be thought of as observer. It initially is [math]n[/math].

Observer can be thought of as traveling in [math]z[/math] dimension direction [math]n_{z1}[/math], while object [math]n_{z2}[/math]. Under this investigation the universe has been defined as 1 dimension spacially, changing it from its natural [math]n[/math] state, by the action of the observer.

So lets visualize an observer, in an undefined white universe, observing an object move. Each object can be considered, the one in motion, or the one at rest, they still contain potential, because choice exists, and the relationship is uncertain, a true form can not be determined.

If we do not include, a time dimension, then, we can express this relationship as though motion has ceased. As such everything resorts back to [math]n[/math], because they can no longer be considered to have a relationship. They are one entity. Although space may exist between them, the meaning here is that, the object is part of the observer, and vice versa.

So we must produce a time dimension, which we can call, storage. That is, while it is true that [math]n_{z1}[/math] and [math]n_{z2}[/math] can be considered separate entities in motion relative to each other, it is also true, valid, at the same time, that they are the same object [math]n_n = n[/math]. In the storage, there is a collection of states [math]n_n = n[/math]. The time dimension is then not spacial, in the way how we think of spacial, in the distance, it is a storage volume, of a different form of space, spacial of memory.

And all of this produces meaning, or in other words, existence. It transforms potential into potential meaning, and has more than one valid truth.

[math]e(e_n) = [ n(n_n), n(n_n) ]n = n(n_n), n(n_n) = (n_n, n_n) [/math]


We could say e is a velocity, or a direction, or an energy.

However, each object, observer and source, is valid to accept those values.

We can determine two or more types of meaning.

1)[math]e(e_a) = (e_a) = [ n(n_a), n(n_B) ]n = n(n_a), n(n_B) = (n_a, n_B)[/math]

2)[math]e(e_B) = (e_B) = [ n(n_B), n(n_a) ]n = n(n_B), n(n_a) = (n_b, n_a)[/math]

And then calculate a meaning. This meaning has a task.

[math]e(e_{final,n}) = (e_{final,n}) =[ n(e_a), n(e_B) ]n = n(e_a), n(e_B) = (e_a, e_B)[/math]

[math]\downarrow[/math]

[math]{final,n} = e_f = (e_a, e_B)[/math]

That is, the prior relationship of potential, forms elemental meaning, that is potential meaning and the secondary meaning is relationship of meaning, that produces, certain meaning, which equates, work done.

That is, the observer defines what the meaning is. Such as, if object A is pushed 10meters by a moving object B, the job is done, work is done. The job was not to stop object B, so object B stops, and is excluded, it does not continue as a part of the work.

This unites the [math]n[/math] relationship and is said to produce the familiar space-time coordinate system, where both objects are considered inside the same dimensional system, for work meaning.



Maybe someone can help me express this correctly, if you follow what I am saying.

#39 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1571 posts

Posted 26 May 2009 - 09:04 AM

Note: post really by Qfwfq, user accidentally changed.

And cosmologists think that this brick wall is 13.7 billion LY away too.

In old Irish folklore, if you can reach right where a rainbow meets the ground, you will find a pot of gold because every leprechaun has one and he keeps it there.

Why?

Leprechauns are smart, aren't they? :eek2:

#40 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1571 posts

Posted 28 May 2009 - 03:47 AM

Hi Q, Arkain101,

In old Irish folklore, if you can reach right where a rainbow meets the ground, you will find a pot of gold because every leprechaun has one and he keeps it there.

Why?

Leprechauns are smart, aren't they? :(


Anybody can Wiki the size of our universe and get a finite distance.

Achilles and the Tortise is a similar form of paradox that is used to calculate backwards from a point, such as seconds from a BB, the size of our universe is based on n(infinity)-1 = a finite number (not quite). While this may be a good model for atomic theory it really isn't any good for universal proportions i.e. what is our planet, what is our sun related to on the atomic scale considering their density and distance from each other.

The Leprechauns are smart because they plot back from the pot of gold at the finish and don't follow silly paradoxical optical illusions. lol :).

Arkain101, if your model can represent both the observer and source as having fixed locations as their initial start points then these can be used as points to anchor calculations based on their direction and velocity to plot their relative locations with regards to a time dimension.

The real test of such a model would be to be able to formulate a method for plotting a missing source. A massive grid type computer could process the raw data to identify suitable candidates that, as the observer in this problem is considered stationary at the point of observation, could come from any direction. This raw data would come from a series of zooming scan observations (360 degree, no spin), with objects that don't already exist in a reference DB becoming initial candidates (another grid could do this task). A 3 zoom loop should be able to determine suitable candidates for the missing pot of gold in a reasonable repeating time span.

If youre pot of gold is being masked by another object you will have problems identifying its location.

BTW, the easiest way is to catch a Leprachaun and get them to identify where their pot of gold is hidden. Some scientists are working on this as we speak.

BTW, thanks for the edit Q.

I'm on mobile broadband and due to recent weather conditions, we received half of our annual rainfall in 1 day, it keeps on changing my IP. The bloody exchange thinks that I'm moving when it is really the moisture between us that is moving. Hmmm.

#41 Qfwfq

Qfwfq

    Exhausted Gondolier

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6241 posts

Posted 28 May 2009 - 05:27 AM

How many time does that change your IP during a single http request, without simply making the connection drop? :(

The Leprechauns are smart because they plot back from the pot of gold at the finish and don't follow silly paradoxical optical illusions

So, you're telling me that you plot back from the brick wall?

The real test of such a model would be to be able to formulate a method for plotting a missing source.

Gosh, you write your posts by translating from the Gaelic! Now I get it, you're a leprechaun yourself! :)

BTW, the easiest way is to catch a Leprachaun and get them to identify where their pot of gold is hidden. Some scientists are working on this as we speak.

Well that proves it, trying to throw me off with self-contradictory advice, and what could I expect from one of the leprechauns.

Scientists know darn well that "where the rainbow meets the ground" already does identify where their pot of gold is hidden. They also know that only leprechauns can reach said location (just as much as only they could ever plot back from it). They also know that it's impossible to "get them to" cooperate in any manner with a plunderer (and why should they anyway)?

Now, we simply don't fall for that, any more than for your denial of the brick wall's existence by challenging us to reach it.

#42 arkain101

arkain101

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1931 posts

Posted 28 May 2009 - 10:22 AM

Arkain101, if your model can represent both the observer and source as having fixed locations as their initial start points then these can be used as points to anchor calculations based on their direction and velocity to plot their relative locations with regards to a time dimension.


I think I follow what you are saying. If I do, understand you correctly, then it suggest that my explanation did not communicate effective understanding.

There already is physics that: "represent both the observer and source as having fixed locations as their initial start points then these can be used as points to anchor calculations based on their direction and velocity to plot their relative locations with regards to a time dimension."

The values produced by the physics that already exist, provide a value for [math]n[/math], that is otherwise unequivocally unknown.

What I am communicating is not a observer specific formula for physics, it is a superseding expression, one that overlays physics that already exist. A mother 'theory', pregnant with physics that determined by a confined observer.


It acknowledges that meaning is contrived from a relationship, while accepting, that meaning is not unique or universally recognized. And that when relationship has been excluded the remainder is the unknown [math]n[/math]

Let me demonstrate as best as possible that I can an example.

In this case [math]n[/math] is representing [math]\gamma[/math] in a Lorentz transformation.


[math]\gamma = \frac{1}{ \sqrt{1 - { \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}} = n[/math]

[math]\downarrow[/math]

[math]e(e_{final,n}) = (e_{final,n}) =[ n(e_a), n(e_B) ]n = n(e_a), n(e_B) = (e_a, e_B)[/math]

[math]\downarrow[/math]

[math]e_f = (e_a, e_B)[/math]

[math]\downarrow[/math]

[math]e_f = \left(\frac{1}{ \sqrt{1 - { \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}}\right), \left(\frac{1}{ \sqrt{1 - { \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}}\right)[/math]


Which simply reduces to:

[math]\downarrow[/math]

[math]e_f = (a_\gamma), (b_\gamma)[/math]

Where [math]e_f[/math] is meaning (in finalized form, where a finalized observation has been performed, where work is done). It describes that meaning is produced and realized in its finalized form, when one (of the minimum "two") part of the relationship has become observer of focus. This particular meaning specifically would be "Lorentz Factor"

Let me explain more simply.

If I take a rock and let it roll down a hill, and smash into a car, and the car slides 1meter. The rock has done work.

But why has it done work when there is two equally valid parts in this relationship. It is because we gave focus to one observer, and provided a "JOB" for the rock. But if we think of this in a unified manner, the car also did work, it stopped the rock over a distance of two meters, in other words the car applied force over a certain distance. But in the way we define work, this would be useless work, because work is usually not applied in the stopping of things, applied to the moving of things.

In the unified view (this model if you will) both events occur, and both events = meaning, but there is no final meaning untill the observer creates it. And the observer only creates it because he has demanded it.

In otherwords this is a similar but crude conception of Doctor Dicks fundamental equation (if my guess serves me correct).

#43 Pyrotex

Pyrotex

    Slaying Bad Memes

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5702 posts

Posted 28 May 2009 - 04:02 PM

Listen guys.
There's an easier way around this.
We just pass a law that says that NOTHING bigger than the nucleas of an atom is allowed to go faster than 100 km per second. That's it! All this relativity stuff goes totally away. Except for those wierdos at CERN, but who cares a **** what they think?

#44 arkain101

arkain101

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1931 posts

Posted 28 May 2009 - 09:09 PM

That does not seem like a way around, that seems like a u turn. :eek_big:

#45 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1571 posts

Posted 29 May 2009 - 03:59 AM

Hi Q,

How many time does that change your IP during a single http request, without simply making the connection drop?


My webmail usually tells me that my IP has changed during the session and asks me to log in again, a bit difficult when I'm trying to log out. If I edit a post and then add an image and then try to save my IP can change 3 times (at least). If I try to edit a post it loses the plot entirely, an endless loop.

So, you're telling me that you plot back from the brick wall?


Leprechauns and seconds from the BB people do, how do you think they find their paradoxical pot o gold at the end of the rainbow, I don't believe in the brick wall. So you do agree that Cosmologists think that there is a brick wall?

Scientists know darn well that "where the rainbow meets the ground" already does identify where their pot of gold is hidden. They also know that only leprechauns can reach said location (just as much as only they could ever plot back from it). They also know that it's impossible to "get them to" cooperate in any manner with a plunderer (and why should they anyway)?


So you know that Leprechauns and Cosmologists have several things in common, is that your point? it was mine. Apparently they also do tricky things like letting you tie a piece of string where their pot o gold is hidden, when you come back with the shovel they've tied bloody strings everywhere. Some scientists have an interesting theory for this. :ideamaybenot:

Now, we simply don't fall for that, any more than for your denial of the brick wall's existence by challenging us to reach it.


If you read my original post I say that the brick wall doesn't exist and that things that cannot be measured are in the realm of philosophy not science.

BTW, do you know the real story about the Leprechauns, the little people?

They were actually the people that were there before the celtic wave of invaders (Tuatha du Dannan, people of the goddess Danu, even though there were other people before them etc). They lived in and built the stone ring forts that dot the countryside in Ireland and were supposed to have gone underground when they were defeated by the (spanish) celts. Many of these forts had underground storage areas and drains that were used, apart from their obvious purpose, to sneak up behind beseigers and surprise them.

My ancestors came from an area in Ireland where there were plenty of ring forts and incidentally, the only norse runestone not in norse territory. The little people is a modern misnomer because the archaelolgical evidence points to a race that was around 6 foot in height, much taller than the romans and celts of the time.

What I find most interesting about the people that you call Leprechauns is that they build at least 2 sets of 4 ringforts in straight lines in County Clare, well before venus was used as an observational aid in the relatively recent survey of India from sea level to the top of mount everest. But somehow I don't think they were plotting venus as the ones on the Arran Islands line up with the setting sun and also a large open cut silver deposit on the side of a mountain. I'd say that these 'Leprechauns' were plotting incoming objects.

#46 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1571 posts

Posted 29 May 2009 - 04:10 AM

Good one Pyro,

Listen guys.
There's an easier way around this.
We just pass a law that says that NOTHING bigger than the nucleas of an atom is allowed to go faster than 100 km per second. That's it! All this relativity stuff goes totally away. Except for those wierdos at CERN, but who cares a **** what they think?


Have we got anything that travels faster than 360,000 km per hour, apart from the speed of thought? (that 'thought' was from a norse saga not a Leprechaun story).

#47 Qfwfq

Qfwfq

    Exhausted Gondolier

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6241 posts

Posted 29 May 2009 - 05:07 AM

So I guessed right! You really are a leprechaun!

So you do agree that Cosmologists think that there is a brick wall?

No, they only believe in the Yellow Brick Road. Especially the Australian cosmologists. I believe in the brick wall every bit as much as in the pot of gold. I wasn't talking about cosmologists yesterday when I said that we don't fall for your denial of it.

Don't you think that's enough now, Laurie? :ideamaybenot:

#48 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1571 posts

Posted 29 May 2009 - 06:01 AM

Hi Q,

I believe in the brick wall every bit as much as in the pot of gold. I wasn't talking about cosmologists yesterday when I said that we don't fall for your denial of it.


I gather that you don't believe in the pot of gold or the brick wall, like me, because you don't explicitly state that you do, I would if I did, but I don't quite understand the second bit, you cannot have it both ways?

If you thought that you had your Leprechaun cornered along with the location of the desired pot of gold, and the bloody Leprechaun jumps out of a hole in the ground behind you and shoves a sharp spear up your date, would you still believe in Leprechauns if you didn't see anything?

#49 freeztar

freeztar

    Pondering

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8445 posts

Posted 29 May 2009 - 03:52 PM

If you thought that you had your Leprechaun cornered along with the location of the desired pot of gold, and the bloody Leprechaun jumps out of a hole in the ground behind you and shoves a sharp spear up your date, would you still believe in Leprechauns if you didn't see anything?


Can we lose the leprechaun metaphor? It's way off-topic.
As a reminder, the topic is *not* "Cosmologists are no better than Leprechauns".
The topic is "Fourth dimension=time".

#50 modest

modest

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4959 posts

Posted 29 May 2009 - 07:03 PM

And cosmologists think that this brick wall is 13.7 billion LY away too.


The Hubble length is not 13.7 lightyears (which I assume you found by multiplying c by the age of the universe) although it is surprisingly close—it is larger. And,, the particle horizon is even further. Neither are considered a physical boundary by any competent cosmologist.

~modest

*** EDIT ****

The topic is "Fourth dimension=time".


Sorry, I missed your post. You are correct, my bad.

#51 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1571 posts

Posted 29 May 2009 - 10:03 PM

Hi Freeztar,

Can we lose the leprechaun metaphor? It's way off-topic.
As a reminder, the topic is *not* "Cosmologists are no better than Leprechauns".
The topic is "Fourth dimension=time".


No problems, I didn't introduce the metaphor and I certainly didn't use it for personal attacks or racial stereotyping. But I do reserve the right to respond in kind if others use metaphors in a bullying, demeaning and derogatory manner.

Before we were side tracked I was trying to explain that paradoxes aren't the best models for a real world representation of our universe.

As Modest has explained (and I hilighted earlier), if you wiki it, the size of the universe is not the purported distance to the theorised BB. In this case using time as the forth dimension will cause problems due to this absolute barrier.

That's why I stated that scientists need a new paradigm, because it's the BB theory that causes the barrier not the time dimension.