What will be the changes if we move from 3rd dimension level to 4rth dimension level

[TeleMad]

Truth: ... spacetime isnt literally curved dumb dumbs the path of an object is curved or in other words a falling effect.

 

Wrong. Spacetime is literally curved (curved, wapred, deformed, etc. by mass), and when an object falls, it is following the local geometry of that warped spacetime. It is moving in the straightest possible line through spacetime: a geodesic. Mass warps spacetime; warped spacetime alters the path of matter.

[GAHD]

Originally posted by: Truth

You all probably hate George Bush because that is the prevailing thought.A war?

No, I hate bush for a variaty of reasons, many of which can be seen voiced by myself and by others in the philosophy and humanities forum, in the thread president bush!. But again this isn't on topic. If you like to talk bush, I'd suggest you do it in that thread. If you want to talk about 'weak minds' start a thread in the watercooler, and you'll see just how 'weak' we get when not trying to stay relatively on topic and when we arn't taking apart the general concepts being spouted without any form of proof(or even taking apart the proof to find if the data can be seen in different ways).

 

 

Im just too smart for the (gang).You slow learners do know that they have proven that the universe is( flat) gentlemen not open or closed.

Post this proof. If it is on the 'net there are tools here for anyone with half a brain to post an image or link, if it's in book form post the author and/or title and you'll be surprised just how many will buy it or find it at the library to read it and understand just what you are prattling at.

If its your own idea, and you need something to show it "think outside the box' and DRAW an example, or you could even take some exery day item and explain how this 'amaising new theory' works better at determinig what will happen to it if you do something to it than the current theory 'x' does.

 

Saying something exists without applicable references is like me telling you that hippopotamus milk is pink(it is man, I DARE you to check) without providing reference.

 

Now what do you think they mean when they say flat?

I don't know, the universe appears to be an infinate expance of energetic particles intereacting (to my senses), how can it be 'flat'? I can see definate shapes that are not flat, such as planets, stars, and trees, so how can everything be flat?

Are you referring to the idea that an object in motion will stay in motion on it's personal axis untill something else acts upon it? This isn't 'flat', it is simply 3 dimensional intereactions of objects and their relative lines of motion. This is where geomitry should not be used; shapes, and descriptions of shapes(ie; flat), are incapable of properly defining motion or other forces.

 

 

This is not real science...(random words of excriment deleted)...Question was asked what is gravity?

Unknown at the moment, but it is thought of to be an example of a 4 dimensional particle interacting with our 3 dimensional universe; using 'brane theory(described above) gravty can be given an idea akin to spoon; it has much greater force on the air and liquid above and below the 'brane because it has only limited contact with the brain. This would be an example of why gravity is a 'weak' force; my arm is strong enough to counteract the force of gravity eminating from the entire planet because that gravity escaped the 3 dimensions of our universe along a 4th dimensional path. Not my idea, but an extrapolation of an idea currently being used to explain the universe(something sience does) through a forum for sharing ideas(particularly Scientific American, either february, march or april of 2004 I beleive).

 

Instead of sticking to the subject, time dilation was mentioned and a bunch of other tangents.

I think you were the one to do that with your posts, your last 3 havn't done any explaining, only a mixture of emotional banter(whichjust comes across as nonsence) and some half formed ideas.

 

 

And the reason for that is because you dont understand the concepts behind gravity.Fir

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Truth

Make valid support for claims just like you guys.Majority of your ideas are other people ideas not your own... The information is somebody elses theories gentlemen... The point I am making here is the conversation here is very limited,its only einstein ideas when the subject of physics is discussed,einstein isnt the only person who has( theories) out there,... .Proofs gentleman takes time and in most cases even years... People who are searching for trurth will respond to it(truth) when mentioned...

OK "TRUTH", here's your chance to show you actual have conscious thought (still in question at this point). You keep ragging about us wasting your time by using peer reviewed, accredited scientists and established scientific theories, rather than our own random neuron firings. So here it is "TRUTH". Please provide YOUR PERSONAL explanation of how gravity works. No using ANY outside references. It must all be YOUR "valid support for claims just like (us) guys" which you have developed, "Proofs (which) takes time and in most cases even years".

 

Formulas, diagrams, specific details addressing dimensional time/space curvature which allows the same degree of accurate predictablity given by existing theories for all time/space/gravitational events. And NONE of it can be from ANY OTHER SOURCE than yourself.

 

Or are you just truly as ignorant as your posts make you out to be?

[Uncle Martin]

Firstly, YOU GO GAHD

 

Great post!!

 

Secondly, Truth, this thread is now 4 pages long and it contains nothing but members asking you to answer their questions and explain your assertions. You have yet to answer one question, I'm anxiously awaiting your telling us all how everything really works. I know we're all just a bunch of idiots compared to you, but if you go veeeeery sloooowwwllly, maybe we won't get too lost.

[alexander]

Ok, first and foremost i really enjoyed reading the all the replies, i really enjoy smart battles and can only wish to be a part of the group (not including Truth, truly), i was glad to enjoy such an adrenalin-filled state of my body, really you guys are great...

Truth, your theories are really floccinaucinihilipilificated (since you like the dictionary play, truth), and it seems to me (a pretty much outside reader) that since you could provide no proof of what you said before, you figured that you can just convict everyone of being stupid. Dude I don't know where you have been all this time, but in a real world you need to prove what you say is right, and all these guys can sue you for big bucks and actually get the money (if you would like more info please post). Truth, in a real world, before saying something, you need to think about it, consider whether it is true or not and whether you can prove that it is, and then maybe say it.

I was perplexed as to where he got his, what at first seemed beludicrous idea about flat universe... (i respect Einstein) but i found a scource so here is the link if anyone needs it, it is a news article that seems rather unconvincing actually:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/727073.stm

And finally, guys are can you recommend a good book or site that will provide me with adequate information on gravity, i am rather fascinated with it, but can't find any decent info.

Thanks!

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: alexander

And finally, guys are can you recommend a good book or site that will provide me with adequate information on gravity, i am rather fascinated with it, but can't find any decent info.

Einstien is what Gravity is all about. Or is it the other way around?

 

I don't know what level you are looking for, but for something that is fairly accessable to anyone with a serious interest, and has the exceptional added value of actually being able to "hear" how Einstien himself explains it, I would strongly reccomend

 

Relativity

The Special and General Theory

(A clear explanation that anyone can understand)

Albert Einstiein

 

He provides simple graphical "thought experiments" to help explain how the whole interaction works. And remember, this is how HE undeerstood it, how HE worked it out for himself. In HIS hand.

 

Almost sounds like worship, sorry.

 

But this book we KNOW the author existed and this was actual transcribed from his own personal writings.

 

You will get a very compete understanding of gravity and how it interacts with space.

 

The elevator example, I believe Telemad used, is from his works. It is explained in detail in this book. And many more.

 

Glad you have enjoyed reading the posts.

 

Hope this helps.

[GAHD]

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

Firstly, YOU GO GAHD

Great post!!

yeah though the intricasies of it are probably lost; look at question number 4

I think enough time has gone by that 'Truth' can be assumed to have gone running with his proverbial tail between his legs, so I don't need to keep this little tidbit under wraps.

I was really hoping he could come up with something....cohesive. I actually wanted him to show me what he thought so I could compare it's strengths and weaknesses to my own theorum(s). The idea of gravity as a 4 dimensional particle had been something I had given a great deal of thought to, though 'brane theory snapped everything into perspective when I was exposed to it.

 

I'm still trying to dertermine how photons fit into the scheme of things; I tend to think of electricity and magnetic fields/pulses as liquid rather than solid constructs. So far a 2 dimensional system seems to work best with electromagnetic particles in my brain, but there are too many unknowns for me to take a definate stance. The idea that the 2 dimensional particle could produce a 3 dimensional field when it interacts with a 3 dimensional 'manifold' is key to this thought process, but lacks any means for myself to put it into a thought experiment. Where by gravity as a 4 dimensional particle can be slapped into several thought excercises with relative ease.

Also how gravity as a 4 dimensional construct/particle could interact with a 2 dimensional photon confounds my attempts to place it in perspective(though it may be akin to the 'suction' effect seen behind the moving spoon...)

Ahhh! C'est la vie....

[Uncle Martin]

The only thing I know for certain about gravity is that I have more of it every year. If you want proof, I'll take a picture of my scale now and again next year. Come to think of it, I also have proof of length contraction. The slower my velocity relative to everyone else, the shorter my belt seems to get.

[GAHD]

lol, riight.

Damnit, won't anybody argue longer than 2 days? A challenge to all you lurkers! Make yourselves and you views known!

[Uncle Martin]

GAHD,

 

You're right, we should delve deeply into a subject. Your above post touches on several topics that I'll have to research in order to keep up, but if you pick one I'll do my best to not disappoint. And yes, LURKERS MAKE YOUR VIEWS KNOWN.

[GAHD]

Gladly accepted Unc. though I'm not quite shure where to begin. Pehapse if you (or maby alexander, TeleMad, Freethinker, Sanctus, IrisEyes, Bo, Tim_Lou, Randomlurker#4, etc...) brought up something in the above posts you don't understand, aren't quite shure about, or flat out disagree with we could take it from there.

[Uncle Martin]

Originally posted by: GAHD

.... The 4th dimension, if there is one would most likely be the dimension on the other side of our 'membrane'.To further explain I will define 'membrane'; think of a cup of coffie, or a bowl of soup. Think of the residue that coagulates on the surface of those liquids when they are left for extended periods of time. This 'floating stuff' forms a membrane. now take this membrain idea and consider that the membrane is relatively flat, in space the membrane would cover a spherical ball of the liquid however so this is a better example. What you have envisioned is a 3 dimensional model of a 4 dimensional universe. Taking this to a further level you could conceive of the air above the coffie&cup as a 5th dimension.....

 

This looks like a good pot to stir, won't even have to move it to a different thread.

 

The generally accepted theory is that time is the 4th dimension. True, this is counter-intuitive, as I can't imagine existing in time ONLY. However, I can't envision being in space ONLY, either. I think they are codependent to the extent that they cannot exist independently. Hence the term space/time. To me, it is as difficult to wrap my mind around a 2 or even 1 dimensional universe as it is to that of time as a dimension. Or 4 spatial dimensions for that matter. Not all dimensions are created equal however, according to string theory.

 

When you bring up "membranes", are you referring to the branes in string theory? Although it has been called mathematically eloquent, to me, calling it a theory is a bit premature. With string theory we have many dimensions, the number depending on the math, most of them curled up into infinitely small "spaces." It is the hottest area of theoretical physics right now, and many "experts" have high hopes for it, for me the jury is still out.

 

Your description of a membrane as the 4th dimension seems more like a barrier or container of our universe. And why would there be 5 dimensions on the other side of a membrane? Even with this membrane, I think 3 spatial dimensions and 1 of time is all that is necessary. I have not seen any data, other than mathematical models, that would support the existence of more than our 4 space/time dimensional universe. I think all of the higher dimensions discussed are pure speculation. I do encourage speculation however, as long as it is noted as such.

[GAHD]

I'll go more indepth tomorrow on this, I'm a little pressed for time today. But I do have to make a few corrections:

3 dimentions of space are the "membrane" or 'brane for short. the 4th dimension and 5th dimension are each on other sides of the 'brane. You could say the 'brane is wrapped around both of them, or rather seperating the two depending on how you want to visualise it. Consider the 2 dimensional 'brane seperating water from air that allows you to fill a cup of water past the point of it's rim due to surface tension; you will likely get a better idea of what I'm trying to say, though I'm referring to a 3 dimensional 'brane wrapped around 2 different single dimensions(#4, possibly #5) at the same time.

Viewing time itself as a dimension seems rediculous to me; you can move in 2 directions on a 1 dimensional path, back and forward(or side to side, or up and down...). Time is so far showing to be less than that; only one direction for progression.

I would say that Time is more a result of matter; 'space' doen't show any of the signs of the passage of time.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

The only thing I know for certain about gravity is that I have more of it every year. If you want proof, I'll take a picture of my scale now and again next year. Come to think of it, I also have proof of length contraction.

 

http://www.cialis.com/anon/index.jsp

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: GAHD

lol, riight.

 

Damnit, won't anybody argue longer than 2 days? A challenge to all you lurkers! Make yourselves and you views known!

 

I don;t think it is not because of lack of desire. It is probably fear of them knowing they will find out how empty their stance is once they actually have to stand behind it.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: GAHD

Viewing time itself as a dimension seems rediculous to me; you can move in 2 directions on a 1 dimensional path, back and forward(or side to side, or up and down...). Time is so far showing to be less than that; only one direction for progression.

 

In GR time is bidirectional. It is a dimension to the exact same extent as X,Y or Z. and this is where Unc makes an error. Unc, you suggest that there is space and there is time (that you can not imagine living in only one or the other). That is Special Relativity. While in GM it would be more accurate to call it spacetime than space/time In QM a particle moving forward in time is the same as an anti-particle moving backwards in time. It would almost seem that in QM, with uncertaintiy, that TIME is more "concrete" or "existant" than SPACE. e.g. we can not know WHERE an electron is. Only a probablity based on a specific time.

 

It seems OUR existence in time is one of the only ones restricted to forward only. As Stephen Hawking said regarding time direction bias of humans, "We do not remember the future".

[Uncle Martin]

Freethinker,

 

Are you suggesting that we CAN exist in time or space separately? I think you may have misunderstood my wording. To clarify, I don't think it is likely that we could exist in time only or space only, I believe we can only exist in both simultaneously. Sorry if I was unclear, or maybe we do disagree on this.