5th Dimension

Originally posted by DJA
Is a static universe that you refer to one where entropy has exhausted all expansion and/or contraction of both the universe and the objects in it? Or would movement still exist in a static universe?
Click to expand...

In my opinion, a static universe would be immobile. However, I guess there is a term called static equilibrium, which is "a state where the relative positions of subsystems do not vary over time, or where components and structures are at rest under the action of external forces of equilibrium. When in static equilibrium, the system is either at rest, or moving at constant velocity through its center of mass."

Thanks to Google and Wikipedia for allowing my brain to remain lethargic while providing an answer that sounds reasonable.

So again, in my opinion, a static universe would be immobile, and there would be no measure of time or change. However, if something were "moving at constant velocity", you could still observe change and time.

Originally posted by andbna
My primary point is thus: change is no single dimension, for as you have shown there are many different forms of change.
Click to expand...

So, just to bring up a debatable statement, could this apply to DJA's statement:

Now God is said to be present to all parts of creation as they are present. So God exists apart from any thing or dimension at any point in time. So now draw a cirle around this point of "God" and you see how God is present to all time.
Click to expand...

Substitute the definition of "God" for the definition of "change" and...
I don't know. I thought there was another statement of an "all-encompassing dimension".
 
Substitute the definition of "God" for the definition of "change" and...
I don't know. I thought there was another statement of an "all-encompassing dimension".
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but from what I understnad one could not measure god, and if they could then what they were measuring is not god.
Therefore god could not be a dimension, because a dimension must be measurable (or perhaps rather: only something measurable is a dimension.)

-Andrew
 
Andrew,
Yes, and that's the point -"something measurable is a dimension" . Change is measurable. Something that changes can have is new three dimensions. Or it can have it's intensity change (as in the cas of light energy from a source of light in a distance.
I think you may be returning to a concept that only things having three dimensions can have four. It is why I understand that energy does not have dimentions of length with and heigth, but does have a dimension of time and does show change of intensity and potential as it disperses.
But energy can be measured by it's change. And perhaps this may be the best example of the dimension of change.
Why concepts like God, heaven, good and evil are no applicable because all of these things have no scientific measurement and thus no dimension. Although other dimensions may be imagined, how are these "multiple dimensions" measured. Dimensions are NOT a reality of belief, but a reality based on measurement.
When I say that change has no single dimension, I am referring to th changes that involve the changes in length, width and depth. This is obviously the case with the dehydrating plum. Change does not just happen to one dimension-but to more than one. The plum measurements of length, width and heigth change as dehydration proceeds. Thus over time these three dimension may change from moment to moment. So many changes to dimensions occur during the dehydration of the plum.
God is not part of dimensions. Rather God is separate from all of created, apart from all dimensions which were created also. God is a matter of belief and cannot be scientifically proven.
 
So do you mean to say that change can be shown as a single dimension acting on other dimensions (1 variable), or that change is multiple dimensions acting on other dimensions (a set of variables)?
-Andrew
 
Andrew,
It depends on what the change entails. Sometimes a change happens with just the potintial decreasing as it distances from a source, such as in the case of light energy. Radioactive material decreases as in the half life explaination. An element changes state or becomes a part of a compound. All I am saying is that everything undergoes change. And since that change can be measured in some way it is a dimension of all that exists, save the immaterial things that are products of thought. I do not think that anything can remain static, it must change, even if it is on a quantum level.
But I wonder if part of the static universe postulates that energy no longer exists. As long as energy exists along with matter, it would seem that the dimension of change would also. For energy not to exist, everything that would exist would have to be matter only. Can this really occur? It would seem not, But then again, Dark matter still lacks a great deal of definition. Our understanding of "what lies between and unseen" still has many discoveries to make, don't you agree? DJA
 
I know that I have been slower with my responses since starting this discussion. I apologize for that. Domestic duties have kept me from and pulled me away from the laptop to spend any length of time in head to head conversation for a couple of hours. I hope that has not diminished interest.
I really would like to know what all of you know about Dark Matter?
This may be rambling a bit, but I have always theorized that our "ice ages" were the result of the intensity of the sun's energy being partially blocked by "clouds" of something our planet either passes through or passes through our solar system. It is interesting that some theorize that the changes in our climate come from varying amounts of energy being produced by the sun. But could it be that the varying amount of energy is the result of something unseen acting as a filter between us and the sun and this filter over time has no consistent.....for lack of a better word-viscosity? No, with this hypothesis, I have no proof of evidence. But possibly some theories of dark matter may apply.
To tell you the truth-I was wondering if change would not be classified as a sort of "quality", or (my pardon to Monsignor Joli who was my metaphysics teacher) an accidental, of all that exists. But when I observe that change has a measurable quality, it seems to me to be rather a dimension because it has this quality. Change is not like color or state of matter or luminescance or any other "quality". Length, with heighth and time are not either.
But let me ask this-why isn't "state of matter" considered a dimension? It seems close to change in definition of dimension, but there is no measurement. And there, I guess I answered my own question. Can you think of any other things( for lack of a better word) about things that exist that
are not a dimension, but could be confused with the term dimension. I ask this to see if in citing another example,change could be refuted as a dimension. If I have no defense, then I will "yield my king" so to speak. For if change IS to be considered a dimension, it must be able to be defended as such. Please do not interpret any of this as arrogance. So far, in my mind, I have been able to defend my premise. But to be valid it must stand up to all criticism.
Have a very happy fourth of July. Hope you all get to see some fireworks and celebrate our freedom to express ourselves how we want without threat.
DJA
 
It is no debate that measured change is a dimension. (I showed this with the differentials, which are a mathmatical definition of change)
What I have been attempting to explain is that if I say change I could be talking any one of an infinite different dimensions that dont necissarily have anything in common other than that they have been labled as a 'change.'
Thus of course everything has multiple dimensions of change, however this does not necissarily relate them.

see these links and you will understand my position: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics#Change and Particularly see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative You see they created a whole bunch of mathmatics for change :)

Now to adress some other things:

As for anything truely static (in this universe), that is indeed doubtfull given general relativity (take a diffrent reference frame and the object is moving etc... Heck, even the passage of time isn't constant) and even the least 'reactive' particles, like neutrinos will always be moving relative to something, thus having a change in distance.

But I wonder if part of the static universe postulates that energy no longer exists. As long as energy exists along with matter, it would seem that the dimension of change would also. For energy not to exist, everything that would exist would have to be matter only.
Click to expand...
Given Einstien's equation E=mc^2 making everything matter wont eliminate energy.
However in a different universe the physics would be drasticaly different, and in a static one, there would be no method of measuring energy, so it wouldnt exist for all intents and purposes (I think.)

I really would like to know what all of you know about Dark Matter?
This may be rambling a bit, but I have always theorized that our "ice ages" were the result of the intensity of the sun's energy being partially blocked by "clouds" of something our planet either passes through or passes through our solar system. It is interesting that some theorize that the changes in our climate come from varying amounts of energy being produced by the sun. But could it be that the varying amount of energy is the result of something unseen acting as a filter between us and the sun and this filter over time has no consistent.....for lack of a better word-viscosity? No, with this hypothesis, I have no proof of evidence. But possibly some theories of dark matter may apply.
Click to expand...
Im not too too familliar with iceage/global warming theories, nor dark matter (although I dont think there's much to know at this point) But of what I do know: basicaly, dark matter is matter which has little or no reaction to the electromagnetic force (like neutrinos, though im not sure they are classified as dark matter) so I can tell you that dark matter would have by definition no effect on the sun's energy reaching earth. A dust cloud would of course be visible to us. Basicaly because the EM force does not react with it, it is extremly hard to detect. So, gravity is the only way we could detect it, and it is gravitational anomalies that birthed it's hypothosis.

But let me ask this-why isn't "state of matter" considered a dimension? It seems close to change in definition of dimension, but there is no measurement. And there, I guess I answered my own question. Can you think of any other things( for lack of a better word) about things that exist that
Click to expand...
Yah I guess you did answer your own question :p
Matter has only 4 states, so it's not measured, its definatly one of those 4 no other possibility. The states of matter depend on the dimensions preassure and tempurature sure, so state is more a usefull classification of certain ranges of those dimensions.

OK I hope all that was coherent eanough, I wrote this while doing other things :p
-Andrew
 
Andrew, it looks like our discussion haws dwindled down to just you and me. If you look at rectnt posts under one entititled "Time" it looks like there's a crowd there speking in very similar terms as us. In one post it was said that time is the measurement of change. I suggest that maybe we could blend into that post. How about it? Doug
 
I stopped posting once the subject changed to dark matter, and still there is no clear and concise definition of what the dimension of "indetermination" is supposed to represent, and how it is independent of time. While I don't mind reading detailed and descriptive posts of any length, it seems like much of these later posts are just random ideas being presented...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top