Relative Spacial Dimension.

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by glitch, May 27, 2009.

  1. glitch Registered Member

    Messages:
    52
    I think if location is non-existant then space is non existant. In fact I think space is consequential to location and not prior to it.

    If we use 0D points space is not required because 0D does not occupy space.

    Usually, one takes a blank page which represents space and draws the origin thereon, so an origin representing existance is contrasted against a space representing 'nothing'.

    I don't know which scientist rose to godliness and asserted there must be a pre-existing space to expand into, but there is no reason to accept that, I think fresh approaches are just as valid, and moreso in particular applications.

    I invented a model which is congruent to relativity but it goes against what is taught in geometry, and the more set one becomes in academia the more resistant he might be to models that defy current definitions, but if it is cohesive I see no reason to debunk it, try if you like but I worked it out and I'd prefer open enquiry, and I can clarify any query or accept different perspectives.

    I hope someone would like to discuss space being consequential to, and not prior to 'existance' or origin.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2009
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bebelina kospla.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,036
    Do you have a picture of the model?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. ripleofdeath Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,762


    Sure i am happy to.
    i tend to have a rather complex and fluid opinion of space time.
    what i am fairly sure is that space time as we know it is vastly different to what most perceive it to be.

    we are dictated to all our lifes that space time is constant and unchanging and un able to be changed.

    i personally disagree with that philosophy.

    what if a quantum singularity is infact true space ?
    and everything else is the in between bits ?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bebelina kospla.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,036
  8. ripleofdeath Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,762
    hey Bebe

    what if space time was a formulative counter point algorithm to a quantum singularity that created a electrical feild of matter and anti matter ... ?

    thus we could power everything from a simple steam engine concept of mathematical equation.

    time and space would simply be a measurement of positive or negative correlated along a 6 dimensional graph.

    currently i think the human mind can only conceive about 3d roughly speaking some more advanced humans can probably formulate along 4d but i think we need to be able to be free form on 6d to be able to calibrate space time like we currently use a ruler/tape measure.
     
  9. Bebelina kospla.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,036
    Absolutely. Completely wonderful. And why stop at 6?
     
  10. ripleofdeath Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,762

    well "why stop at 6 ?" ....
    we stop at 6 because 6 gives us our location which in turn allows us to plot a coarse to another location.
    note location also means space time location/time.

    thus 3 dimensions gives us a cube perspective to a 6 dimensional reality which must have space and time as 2 extra dimensions put into it.
    the 6th is the measure of the current location.

    like is measurement when we measure something we must use a unit to denote that...
    and in soo doing we denoted measures of times gone by as chains, links, fathoms yards feet etc...
    we had to move to metric to enable us to go past a certain point and so in doing we must define a relative measure that enables us to "realise" that component of reality.

    just think 30 years ago if i had said to the average person on the street...
    "the usa govt will give 1 trillion dollars to private company's for absolutely nothing"
    they would have laughed and said "why don't you make up something else and just say that or continue writing your fictional story book"...etc...

    because of evolution of the mind people can now get their head around the number 1 trillion
     
  11. Bebelina kospla.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,036
    So what you need is a name for that new form of measurement, or does it already exist?
     
  12. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888

    You only need four.
    X, Y and Z for position and time.

    The only "point" we had to move past was commonality of units with Europe.
    There's nothing fundamentally "wrong" or inappropriate about chains, yards, feet etc.
     
  13. glitch Registered Member

    Messages:
    52
    I can't paste the images.
     
  14. glitch Registered Member

    Messages:
    52
    Personally I think all existance is primarily consciousness, and when the observer measures universal phenomena he actually measures an extention of his own consciousness. It isn't a dream though because coherence is bound by the Truth.

    I'm not a new age trippy hippy tree hugger (though the above might indicate that). I'm more technically exacting so in terms of spirituality the truth means more than love by my own perspective, so I like geometry and not new age tripe.

    Anyway - it starts in the mind as we express thought with HONESTY, inspiring the human element of trust.

    I don't know why I'm off on this tangent but I guess purple text indicates a more lateral thinker and a sentimental soul

    More power to ya.

    :bugeye:
     
  15. glitch Registered Member

    Messages:
    52
    An origin, a point defing x axis, apiont defining y axis, a point expressing z axis.

    Four points describe 3D + time as an empty spacial dimension.

    If we discribe negative values then 7 points describe empty space (the xyz and -xyz) points are place as infinity. The axis are defining elements too - add 3 axis. This way a 10D + time empty space is described.

    I think the multi dimensional theories can be expressed in 3D + time, and actually 3D is the apparency so I won't say different.

    I think the current definition of dimension needs to be revised so as cohere to apparancy. I worked on it and I cracked it.

    I'm tired today so I'll get back to you.
     
  16. glitch Registered Member

    Messages:
    52


    Well, the cube is constructed of 8 vertises and 3 relative distances exist, sqrt1, sqrt 2, and sqrt3. Hence a geometric shape that fills space requires 3 different lengths proportional to those above.

    Reality is already apparent but perspective is variant. If I say the Earth is flat I will be scoffed, but if I said the Earth is sperical 1000 years ago I'd be scoffed.

    Therefore apparency is not congruent with perception at astromical or quantum levels.

    I agree with you and I feel that spacial dimensions are reliant a constant value which is only expressed as a ratio.

    How can a Plank volume be geometrically constructed using only one length.

    Any space filling object requires at least 3 relative lengths.

    :bugeye:
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2009
  17. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    Space has measurable parameters. So yes, there are reasons to accept that.
     
  18. ripleofdeath Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,762
    Excellent point Bebe !

    currently we need;

    location = defined by 3 d spacial measurement

    time = defined by linear non comparative lap timing
    - (we do not have an absolute measure of time scale to define an absolute point and only measure in a comparative concept which in turn only gives us a concept equivalent to a lap timing aspect of a runner going in circles yet time is in fact different to a linear measurement defined by a circle measure of repeatability(old world scientific theory).

    space = feild of activity of volume of measure of "thing"/"time"/"person" etc...

    maybe i should name it myself and assert my ego

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    how about

    fluxial poly rhythmic or FPR of just "F".
     
  19. glitch Registered Member

    Messages:
    52
    Space has perceptional parameters that are relative.

    This is all I can accept.

    Perhaps there is a void to expand into, perhaps not. It might entirely depend on perspective, though perhaps not.

    The good thing is geometric coherence with 3D has unbreakable relationships so relative truths can be established, for egsample, one can not have an equalateral shape on a plane unless 3 points are used. Four points require two different distances and 2 points do not constitute a shape, hence a triangle is the only equalateral 2D shape.
     
  20. glitch Registered Member

    Messages:
    52
    I think if location is non-existant then space is non existant. In fact I think space is consequential to location and not prior to it.

    If we use 0D points space is not required because 0D does not occupy space.

    The main problem with expressing origin is we use a blank page to represent space in which the origin point can exist. We end up having two values, 'space' and 'origin' (or nothing/something or is/isn't).

    When the second point is drawn a distance is only apparent because space or 'blank page' was preordained.

    I draw the second point but ignore the prior space or blank page, because the relationship between two points does not define a location and the 'distance' is really just a singular value with no quantifiable relative, because distance can't measure a point and a point can't measure distance. Surely two points only express a single value. The possibility is either point (which are the same) or both points (the same).

    I liken it to a two headed coin either side is heads and both sides are heads and the only possibility is heads.

    "Heads" is the singular value using that metaphor.

    In the classic system, 'space' or 'origin' represent two distinct possibilities, so is not expressive of singularity, duality in fact. My model uses two points but expresses a singular value.

    I am saying 1D is not distance - it is a singular constant like c.
     
  21. Bebelina kospla.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,036
  22. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Shorthand for Zero Dimensions.
     
  23. Bebelina kospla.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,036
    0h.

    Why not write 0 or Z instead?
     

Share This Page