# What Is Mass?

mass

140 replies to this topic

Questioning

• Banned
• 207 posts

Posted 10 September 2017 - 03:02 AM

You claim to be here to learn something - if you continue to believe that nonsense, I'm out of here.

Do you know anything about dimensions? (In terms of M,L,T and Q)

.
How many "dimensions" are there?

I place the word within quotes as I do not know your definition of that word.

### #138 antoine

antoine

• Members
• 92 posts

Posted 10 September 2017 - 07:06 AM

.
How many "dimensions" are there?

I place the word within quotes as I do not know your definition of that word.

I know you did not ask me, but you will be lucky if anyone else answers you in my thread. There is in reality a one dimensional whole and the thing that we call dimensions , XYZt are imaginable lines in space and not of space.

Questioning

• Banned
• 207 posts

Posted 10 September 2017 - 02:27 PM

I know you did not ask me, but you will be lucky if anyone else answers you in my thread. There is in reality a one dimensional whole and the thing that we call dimensions , XYZt are imaginable lines in space and not of space.

.
I agree completely, though I would suggest the need for all of us to re-think the use of the word "dimension" in this context, given it is all-or-nothing with respect to existence as we know it. We have devised the convention of width, height and depth for practical purposes. Thank you for relieving me of typing an explication.

In my opinion, any understanding of the referents in the common usage, in any discussion of 1, 2, 3 dimensions (ignoring any additional for the moment) leads to an "all or nothing" or "all in one" conclusion. It is inescapable in my view.

Thanks for your reply. I can tell you that I've not met anyone who knows "the answer is 1."

Are you aware I'm on the verge of being banned, probably by "Buffy", as I type? In that eventuality, it's been a delight to meet you.

Edited by scherado, 10 September 2017 - 02:29 PM.

### #140 antoine

antoine

• Members
• 92 posts

Posted 10 September 2017 - 03:59 PM

.
I agree completely, though I would suggest the need for all of us to re-think the use of the word "dimension" in this context, given it is all-or-nothing with respect to existence as we know it. We have devised the convention of width, height and depth for practical purposes. Thank you for relieving me of typing an explication.

In my opinion, any understanding of the referents in the common usage, in any discussion of 1, 2, 3 dimensions (ignoring any additional for the moment) leads to an "all or nothing" or "all in one" conclusion. It is inescapable in my view.

Thanks for your reply. I can tell you that I've not met anyone who knows "the answer is 1."

Are you aware I'm on the verge of being banned, probably by "Buffy", as I type? In that eventuality, it's been a delight to meet you.

I get banned all the time from all over the internet.  Sometimes ''they'' just don't like what a person has to say.  In short , the 1 dimension of our visual universe is described by Minkowski interwoven space-time. xyz and time being relative ''components'' of the 1 ''dimension'' within that ''dimension''.  However an outer observer will only observe 2 dimensions, i.e like the Sun looks flat.

Questioning

• Banned
• 207 posts

Posted 11 September 2017 - 02:36 AM

I get banned all the time from all over the internet. Sometimes ''they'' just don't like what a person has to say. In short , the 1 dimension of our visual universe is described by Minkowski interwoven space-time. xyz and time being relative ''components'' of the 1 ''dimension'' within that ''dimension''. However an outer observer will only observe 2 dimensions, i.e like the Sun looks flat.

.
Well, I don't get banned all the time all over, though it has happened on some noteworthy sites since I've been most active on the internet, 1999 to present.

I have no knowledge of Minkowski: my idea about the nature of existence came to me while debating our concept of 'Time', it being a "physical process"--something I heard while I paused in front of a television a few decades ago and it be being within quotes as I've yet to define what I mean by the phrase. I attribute getting the idea from what I call "referent analysis", which is, I suppose, a type of critical analysis. I coined the term for myself in order convey my method while discussing such subjects as are explored of sites such as ours.