Science Forums

# What Is Mass?

## Recommended Posts

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.

• Replies 140
• Created

#### Popular Posts

What will get you into trouble is the combination of these three things:     and then:     in conjunction with:   You don't get to claim ignorance to justify demanding others accept your novel theori

If anyone wants a laugh, take a read of the first few pages of this thread from another forum, in which I encountered this guy under the name "theorist-constant", before he was banned: http://www.scif

Good! You can read a dictionary! :cheer:   Unfortunately you've proven quite well that you do not know how to apply definitions to the real world and use-cases thereof. So:   :umno: Properties are n

#### Posted Images

.

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.

##### Share on other sites

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.

##### Share on other sites

.

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.

##### Share on other sites

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.

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.