Four spatial dimension "Shadows" theory

Multi-linear Algebra & dimension space?

Would it be possible to mathematical define the four spatial dimension geometry presented at http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/chapter10.htm using multi-linear algebra. If not can someone please recommend a mathematical discipline that could or would be more appropriate.


Thanks
Jeff

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Jeff,

Your inane horeshit does not belong in the Physics & Math forum.

Even so, I'll tell you from the start that a four-dimensional space is already a well-defined mathematical construct.

- Warren

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Warren

Chapter ten defines the physical orientation of the “W” axis of the fourth spatial dimension as being parallel and perpendicular simultaneously to all three axis of three-dimensional space. Could you please give us all a reference to well-defined mathematical construct that would apply to this orientation?

Thank you

Jeff

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Parallel and perpendicular simultaneously... riiight. Go away.

- Warren

 

Re: Multi-linear Algebra & dimension space?

Can't say I know any mathematical discipline but I would reccomend a long session with your therapist. Explain to him that you have the scientific equivalent of Napoleon Complex and an uncontrolled urge to repeatedly show everyone how clueless you are.They should be able to help honest.

 

jeffocal,

That's a very interesting theory you have. I see that you've done alot of work on it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I have a theory that's similiar, but in my theory multidimensional matter (matter with more than three spatial dimensions) only exists at the subatomic level. The macro world exists in only three dimensions due to the fact that, for some reason, subatomic particles can only stack themselves in three dimensions.

I would assume that your four-dimensional model doesn't exist in the macro-world either since, for example, we do not see any four dimensional cubes. However, a four dimensional sphere would be indistingushable from a three dimensional sphere.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Anyway, can you give a short summary of your theory so I don't have to read all one million chapters?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Feel free to post it here, or on a new thread if you wish.

Tom

 

Tom

Thanks for taking the time to attempt to review the 26 chapters of shadows. We’ve posted a summary of the Shadows paper in a separate thread with the subject “Four spatial dimensional models ???” We would appreciate if you could post a brief summary of your multidimensional matter theory in that thread.

Thanks again

Jeff

 

Four spatial dimensional models ???

Shadows http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/shadows.htm defines both the both macroscopic and microscopic universe in terms of the geometry of four spatial dimensions. In this model all forms of energy are the result of a curvature in the third spatial dimension with respect to the fourth spatial dimension. This curvature is very similar to the space-time curvature that relativity postulates is the causality of gravitational energy however in the shadows model gravitational along with kinetic and thermal energy is caused by a physical curvature in “surface” of the third spatial dimension with respect to the fourth spatial dimensions.

Shadows also defines the microscopic quantized nature of energy in terms of the dynamic nature of mass and energy components of space defined by the equation E=mc^2 with respect to four spatial dimensions. Shadows postulates the quantized energy associated with photons is the result of the curvature caused by the peaks and valleys of a “matterenergy” wave moving on in the surface of three dimensional space with respect to the fourth spatial dimension. It defines the quantized nature of mass and energy in terms of the resonate properties Shadows associates with these matterenergy waves since

“Relativity defines the equivalence between energy and mass in terms of the equation of E=mc^2. Since the law of conservation of mass / energy implies or states that the sum of the mass and energy components of space in a closed system must remain constant, a dynamic balance exists between the mass and energy components of space in any given system. Later in Chapter three the energy of a photon or the equivalent temperature of a black body will be derived in terms of the frequency or oscillatory patterns of the energy and mass components of space. It is these oscillatory patterns of the matter and energy components of space Shadows associates with the energy of a photon that define the resonate properties and physical structure of the mattercule or quantum unit of space. Chapter three will also show “c” or the velocity of light must be factored out of the equation E=mc^2 when defining the “static” or “non moving” dynamic resonate relationships between mass and energy component of space because the individual mattercules of space are not moving with respect to the speed of light. Therefore, resonate properties of the mass and energy component of space and the physical volume of the mattercule would be defined by the equation E=mc. ”

Essential that is the content of the 26 Chapters of Shadows ”. However the devils in the details.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Now it is your turn.

Can you give a short summary of your multidimensional matter theory? We may find that the portions of the Shadows model may be used to support your concepts of dimensional space.

Jeff

 

Jeff,
You're talking about dimensions and throwing about mathematical and physical terminology, still there is only one equation in the text.: E=mc^2.
And I wonder: is it not completely out of context?

I see you put an awful lot of effort into your work. Maybe you should first try to take up, and invest in, a course in mathematics or theoretical physics.
I know you fear that there you will be brainwashed so as to accept any 'traditional' science and reject any original ideas. BUT remember those who you quote (Einstein and de Broglie) both were well trained in the mentioned fields, and came with very original ideas indeed from inside the traditional sciences!

I know you are desperately chasing your 15 minutes of Warhol. I prefer you take it somewhere else.

 

jeffocal,

OK. I'll read it sometime soon.

I already posted my theory (or some of my ideas) in the thread "The Lego Theory". It is not as grand and as detailed as your theory, but I hope it helps expand peoples minds so that they consider that there may be more than three spatial dimensions.

Tom

 

Jeff,

I summarized my theory in the thread "The Lego Theory" I posted a couple of weeks ago.

I don't understand, please be more specific. Does only the third dimension curve??? To create a curve, don't you need at least two dimensions? You claim that the third dimension "curves with respect to the fourth dimension". However, does the third dimension curve with respect to the first and second dimensions? Why does the third dimension curve in your theory, rather than the fourth, second, or even first? Are you implying that the third dimension curves "into itself" and the fourth dimension masquerades as the third?? How does the third dimension curve: Does it have one curve, or are there numerous curves on the same dimension?? Does this curvature exist only in the subatomic world, or does it extend to the macro world?? Why do we only witness 3 dimensions in the macro world??

You're responses to any of my questions are appreciated.

Tom

 

Tom

Thank you for your interested in our idea. I've attempted to answer most of your questions. Please post if they are not sufficent.

Thanks agian

Jeff

“Does only the third dimension curve???”

No the fourth spatial dimension also curves. Imagine the two-dimensional “surface” of a three dimensional sphere to be analogous to the “spherical surface” of a dimensional sphere with respect to the fourth spatial dimension. The curvature that we are referring to would be equivalent to a deformation in the in the surface of this three dimensional sphere with respect to the fourth spatial dimension which means that the fourth spatial dimension also curves. Remember it is the entire “surface” of three-dimensional space that is curving not just one dimension.

“However, does the third dimension curve with respect to the first and second dimensions”

The curvature in the third spatial dimension curves with respect to all three dimensional axis. This is why gravitation energy can be defined by the equation 1/d^2. Remember Shadows has defined the orientation of the fourth spatial dimension is parallel and perpendicular to simultaneously to all three dimensional axis of three-dimensional space. Therefore only forces that are radiated perpendicular along the axis’s of three dimensional space will effect the magnitude of the surface of three dimensional space with respect to the fourth spatial dimension

“Are you implying that the third dimension curves "into itself" and the fourth dimension masquerades as the third??”

The fourth spatial dimension “Masquerades” as energy. Therefore we do see fourth dimensional cubes in terms of energy. The equation E=Mc^2 demonstrates that all matter causes a curvature in the surface of the third spatial dimension with respect to the fourth spatial dimension because all mass contains energy which shadows has derived to be the result of a curvature in the surface of three-dimensional space. This is would be identical to the curvature in the surface of three-dimensional space with respect to time that Einstein used to derive the force associated with gravitational energy.

“Why do we only witness 3 dimensions in the macro world??”

The reason why we do not see a four-dimensional cube in a spatial sense is because we are three-dimensional beings and therefore we cannot sense the regions of universe “above” the “surface” of three-dimensional space. This would be analogous to what a fish could sense if he was in a dark pool of water. The fish is a being that lives in water and therefore can only sense the regions of space that are in the water were he lives. Therefore due to the dark conditions he would not be aware of the regions of space above the surface of the water because he could not sense anything beyond the surface of the water. . However he could sense the energy associated with the curvature generated by a wave on the surface of the water because the energy of surface waves are transmitted through the water. This is why human beings cannot sense four-dimensional cubes because they cannot sense regions of the universe in which we do not live. However we can sense the energy associated with the energy generated by the curvature generated by wave on the surface of three dimensions space because it is transmitted through three-dimensional space.

 

Why do you feel that the single and only equation of E=mc^2 which shadows http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/shadows.htm uses to explain and predict all of the forces and natural laws of nature is used out of context. The mathematically symmetrical nature of the physical laws and of that equation dictates that if mass can be converted to energy, energy can also be converted to mass. Therefore the basic postulate of shadows, that the quantum nature of mass as energy is based on a dynamic relationship between mass and energy would appear to have a solid foundation in the mathematical and the physical universes.

Jeff

 

Jeff,

Although, I'm still digesting your theory, I can't agree with your comment quoted above.

If there was a four dimensional cube in our universe, we would be able to see it. Just as a three dimensional cube is displayed as a two dimensional object on our retina, a four dimensional object would be displayed as a two dimensional object on our retina as well. Actually, watching a for dimensional cube (hypercube) rotate is one of the weirdest things I've ever seen. Check out this link to see a demonstration:

http://dogfeathers.com/java/hyprcube.html

Since we don't see anything like this in real life, it is logical to assume that our macro-world is only three dimensional.

I attempted to explain, through my theory, that the subatomic world is multidimensional (more than three dimensions) but that subatomic particles can only stack themselves in three dimensions, thereby creating a three dimensional macro world.

Another possibility would be that other dimensions exist, but they have fixed values. A dimension with a fixed value would be invisible to any life form.

A third possiblity, stated by some in the physics community, is that the extra dimensions curl up within themeslves. This is why these dimensions don't exist in the macro world.

Whatever the case, you have to somehow remove macro four-dimensional objects from your theory because everything points to the fact that if there were a macro fourth dimension, that we would see it.

Tom

 

I am sorry I have no clue to what your post means.

 

Perhaps because you are a blithering idiot who can not begin to comprehend the sheer complexity of the real world.

E=Mc^2 only describes the relation between mass and energy. It says nothing about quantum mechanics, nothing about the standard model and nothing about basic super-symmetry required to describe the unification of forces. Any one who knows anything about the standard model, SU(3)U(1), knows that the above equation has little relevance. But as you would not know what a Special Unitary lie group of 3 degrees of freedom is, you won't even know what a fool you are making of yourself. Sad really. For what it's worth, why choose E=Mc^2 and not E^2=p^2c^2 + M^2 c^4.

I look forwards to Prosoothus' critique of your theory. You may have gained a convert.

 

Tom

A very good debunking. Well done! There's hope for you yet

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

As you can seem, Jeff really is a clueless idiot who does not begin to appreciate the idiocy they peddle.

 

Prosoothus

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Sorry, you left me a bit speechless there for a moment.

Great job !

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

- Warren

 

Hmm, strange things happening here: people with their own pet-theories always refusing to learn about traditional science but still wanting to learn about each others... I think that the best way to sell your theories is to predict some stuff differently than the traditional theory. If you theory is right while the traditional theory is not, you gain a whole lot of people believing in your theory. Of course you have to invest some time in the traditional theory to get the good examples.....


Greetings,


Han.