Can you completely destory one of the three dimensions of breadth,lenght and depth?

Please give me a complete breakdown of exactly and precisely what a "dimension" actually is please

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not settled

Do not agree volume as being a 4th dimension

Also disagree with imagination able to construct a mental image of anything in 2D or 1D

Planck scale still 3D

Very very tiny weeny mini mico below say elephant size

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

but still 3D

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Webster:

There is a bunch more definitions, but do not pertain to physics.
As to Planck scale; Wiki: Planck length 1.616229(38)×10−35

As I understand it CDT (causal dynamical triangulation) goes down even further to 1.616229(38)×10−51

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I was just teasing, I am thoroughly aware of the catch 22 that we refer to as dimension lol........I think that our reality isn't really segmented in such a way as dimensions or time intervals, because I think that there are infinitely smaller spaces than even planck's constant can even represent.

 

According to Renate Loll, 1.616229(38)×10−51 (much smaller than Planck) is the smallest scale, which actually is the scale at which spacetime itself is created.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation

 

dimension

dɪˈmɛnʃ(ə)n,dʌɪˈmɛnʃ(ə)n/

noun

1.

a measurable extent of a particular kind, such as length, breadth, depth, or height.

"the final dimensions of the pond were 14 ft x 8 ft"

synonyms

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

roportions, measurements,
extent, size

More

Google

There is more if you wish to check but the above covers enough as far as I am concerned

So I contend only 3 dimensions are in play

Please don't try to explain science says there can be 13 or whatever as when I looked at explanations it appears to me they are somehow counting dimensions as curled up somethings which exist WITHIN the 3 dimensions

My brain says they don't count sorry

To sum up

A dimension is a arbitrary measurement system which makes measurements in 3 directions to produce a arbitrary volume which may contain a arbitrary item which can be compared with other arbitrary items

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

LOL, I specifically respected your request not to consider 4 dimensions. Therefore I did not say anything about 4D; I posited that volume is 3D, created by four points, not 4 dimensions.

 

That's only three dimensions . Note your quoted definition states; a measurable extent of a particular kind, such as length, breadth, depth, or height. Only three of those are required to construct a 3D volume.

 

My bad

Here's my note which states lack of coffee the cause

But I would say you need 8 points for volume

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Naaah..a triangle with one additional connected point creates a volume. A Tetrahedron.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Eight points would create an Octahedron.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Do watch this:

 

Conceded

Note to self

Make coffee stronger

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

One interesting thing I found out is that tetrahedron actually means 4 sided, but we call it a three sided pyramid. But if we add the base, it becomes a four sided hedron.

But then, a quadrahedron also means 4 sided , but has 5 faces. One face (the base) is four sided. The remaining 4 faces are triangular. It is commonly envisioned as a four sided pyramid, but IMO, logically it should be called a pentahedron.

The kicker is that both words "tetra" and "quadra" both mean four, except one is a Greek word and the other is a Latin word.

Very confusing .

 

A line has only length. It has no height, width or depth.

The representation of a line has width and height. The line itself does not. A model of a line can be as wide or as high as you like but it is only a model, not a line.

 

Not sure how a representative of a line differs from a line itself

Seems like when you look at a model of a car at a exhibition the show girl tells you

This is only a model of a car. The real one does not have a motor or tyres

This model has a V8 motor and 12 inch wide slicks but it's only a model not a car

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Now that I really looked, it becomes even more confusing .

Actually an Octahedron is a 3D object with a volume, consisting of 6 connected points, which create 8 planes.

OTOH, a cube is a 3D object with a volume, consisting of 8 connected points, producing 6 planes.

 

How does an elephant differ from a picture of an elephant?

When you "draw a line" you're drawing a picture of a line.

 

C'mon Michael, you're just being difficult now. You keep talking about physical reality.

Can you think of a line? When you mentally construct a line, does it have any real physical properties, except as an imaginary distance between two points. If I watched you mentally visualizing a line, would I see how thick or wide or deep you visualized that line ?
I wouldn't even know how long you were visualizing that line. Because in your mind it is just an abstraction, not physical reality.

A point has no dimension at all, it is a coordinate. Therefore, in theory, a distance between two coordinates produces a 1D line. It is a mathematical construct.

This is the problem between physics and mathematics. If you keep viewing things from a physical perspective, you are neglecting the theoretical mathematics.

As Antonsen so clearly demonstrated, you need to look at things from different perspectives. In this case a mathematical, not physical, perspective.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

A distinction without a difference

A real elephant has more mass than a picture of a elephant but they both have in common 3 dimensions

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

If you insist on addressing the physical attributes of an elephant or a picture of an elephant in the same terms, then you must also address the abstract attribute of Time, the fourth dimensionless dimension. Neither could exist without time. There is elephant time (elephanting) and picture time (picturing). Without time neither would exist at all.

You want it both ways, but that's not how it works. If you want to draw a physical line, you'll have to include the time for drawing the line.

Thus your original question of defining a physical thing without including the fourth abstract dimension of Time becomes meaningless.

Physically, nothing can exist without time.
Mathematically, all dimensions can be separated by their own fundamental abstractions.

 

Unless there is no time. Like if everything is one congruent action