View Full Version : Dimensions
08-06-2005, 04:50 PM
There are many dimensions; most of which are quite obvious and "not folded away."
Dimensions are currently not very well defined by the Standard Models of physics, which define dimensions circularly . . . in terms of one another.
A clear definition of dimensions, and where they come from, is one of the first requisites for a clear understanding of the environment that we live within . . . Reality (www.101123.com/R).
Dimensions are a way of describing the location of something. Like your home, the bedroom, and your bed can be considered dimensions if they described where you are when you are sleeping. The "time of day" would be a dimension as it can help locate where your bed is in space with regard to the location of the planet Earth, et cetera.
The problem becomes a bit more complicated when you have to describe, from Earth to an observor on Earth's Moon, the location of a subatomic manifestation, that is spinning, in a galaxy beyond our local supercluster of galaxies.
A partial list of dimensions, that can be considered for locating particular phenomena would be something like the following:
Time: Cyclic, Linear, and many variations thereof, depending upon its source "clock."
Motion, which is usually not very well described as speed which is an amalgum of other dimensions.
The orthogonal frame of three dimensions.
Direction vectors for all known systems of reference that are involved.
Description of Axes.
Description of Spin (retro or forward).
Oscillating crests and troughs of pulses (vibration, slide, and swing).
We quickly have 12, or more, dimensions that are not too esoteric.
The difficulty with the concept of dimensions is that too many theoreticians, in many disciplines, try to make dimensions more esoteric than they are. They are not so complicated, except in understanding where they come from. Just because mathematics can manipulate sets, arrays, algorithms, exponents, et cetera, does not mean that Nature can so manipulate dimensions. The chances are that if a dimension is not clearly understood that it is only a true dimension in the mind of the presenter.©Copyright 2005-2008 by Brunardot. All rights reserved.
Terms: PhysicsMathForums.com, Brunardot, and Pulsoid Theory must be cited.
Sorry! This Thread has not been completed.
Please Bookmark and return to this site often.
If there is an immediate need for information,
please e-mail directly at the below "Click" link.
Please note that any private correspondence
may be edited and anonymously posted unless
Every effort will be made to expedite a reply
with the requested information.Please ask questions. :)With questions it’s possible to know if
comments are logical and convincing;
or whether clarification is required......http://1.g2d.us/e.gifhttp://7.g2d.us/e.jpghttp://2.g2d.us/e.gifhttp://3.g2d.us/e.gifhttp://4.g2d.us/e.gifhttp://5.g2d.us/e.gif
..........If images don’t display, "click" the Refresh Icon.
Can dimensions be explained using the Conceptual Unit? If so, how?
03-23-2007, 08:15 AM
Can dimensions be explained using the Conceptual Unit? If so, how?Yes. When the fundamental vectors establish the Conceptual Unit (CU) a Pulsoid (www.CQthus.com/PT/P) (quanta/quantum field) is created. This quanta is comprised of what is referred to as orthogalness; as the Inverse Square Law (www.CQthus.com/PT/ISL) is established by the vector/Pulse relationship; thus the orthogonal dimensions.
The Conceptual Unit underlies the harmony that resonates as the metronome/"clock" (www.CQthus.com/PT/Metro) of fundamental, intrinsic time (www.CQthus.com/PT/Clock) (FIT). Thus, the first four dimensions and the from Inverse Square Law (www.CQthus.com/PT/ISL) (ISL).
If not defined by speed how else CAN motion be defined/described?
How do you explain vibration, slide, and swing, and how are they related to pulsoids?
04-02-2007, 05:34 PM
If not defined by speed how else CAN motion be defined/described?Seminal motion (www.CQthus.com/PT/SM) is a fundamental/prior concept before there are evolved dimensions (www.CQthus.com/PT/D); thus "speed" that requires an orthogonal dimension and time will not suffice.
Seminal motion (www.CQthus.com/PT/SM) is without labels (though, "pure" might be allowed) it can be "imagined" as a quaquaversal phenomenon (Thus, there is acceleration/deceleration.) of the chaos of Infinity (www.CQthus.com/PT/I) at the congruent locus with Reality (www.CQthus.com/PT/R) where its unending emergence is often referred to as "dark" energy (www.CQthus.com/PT/DE).
When seminal motion's (www.CQthus.com/PT/SM) Emergent Probability Phenomena (www.CQthus.com/PT/EPP) (EPP) is "just so" there is a harmony of its vectors such that a Pulsoid (www.CQthus.com/PT/P)/quanta is formed; voila . . . dimensions.
How do you explain vibration, slide, and swing, and how are they related to pulsoids? Vibration, slide, and swing (SSV) are different forms of oscillations that are the result of pulsation, which is a direct consequence of fundamental, quaquaversal deceleration.
Fundamental, simultaneous, hyper-relativistic SSV occur when the vectors of seminal motion (www.CQthus.com/PT/SM) harmonize when PEP is critical/such that the quaquaversal vectors of seminal motion (www.CQthus.com/PT/SM) are multiples of the Conceptual Unit (www.CQthus.com/PT/CU) (CU). The CU is heuristically described by the Elliptical Constant (www.CQthus.com/PT/EC) (EC).
In fact, nowhere in the Standard Models are dimensions defined other than circularly.
I know of no one in academia that can define "time" that is usually considered as a dimension.
My guess why the dimensions are ill defined is most likely because we find nothing to base these precepts on other than measurements, which naturally require a unit (SI). The direction of time, however, is accounted for by the "arrow" of time, or second law of thermodynamics which states that entropy must increase over time.
With your conceptual unit, the loose ends are supposedly tied up by using nature to define something that is natural. But, what I don't understand is how one "observes", "sees" or "perceives" a conceptual unit. The illustrative heuristic ellipses are just that.. heuristic. Their tendencies may explain natural behavior but they cannot be seen. And, as far as practicality is concerned, if we used something on the microscopic scale.. such as the ma ss of a hydrogen atom.. to measure the weight of an elephant, I don't see much gain at all (except in magnitude).
However, as the locus of the Universe is speed dependent, its size is comprised of an element of time.
Speed of what?
The orthogonal dimensions, an aspect of the Inverse Square Law (ISL), evolve simultaneously. That is to say there is an heuristic Universe before there is the occurance of time.
I don't understand how a spatial dimension evolves, unless to say that the 'container' that the universe resides in increases with time. This would suggest that the universe itself (not referring to galaxies here) is expanding.
04-19-2007, 03:11 AM
My guess why the dimensions are ill defined is most likely because we find nothing to base these precepts on other than measurements, which naturally require a unit (SI). The direction of time, however, is accounted for by the "arrow" of time, or second law of thermodynamics which states that entropy must increase over time.Entropy has nothing to do with the definition of time. In fact, the definition of entropy itself is rather contentious. And just why should an "ancient" theorist be proclaiming "laws of Nature"?
Dimensions are not defined because there is nobody in academia that knows where they come from; that is, how do they evolve.
With your conceptual unit, the loose ends are supposedly tied up by using nature to define something that is natural.Well, yes. But, the Conceptual Unit (www.CQthus.com/PT/CU) (CU) does not belong to me. The CU is Nature; I merely discovered it.
Everything must be fundamentally defined by a Natural definition . . . even consciousness and thought.
...what I don't understand is how one "observes", "sees" or "perceives" a conceptual unit.Much like one "observes", "sees" or "perceives" the Planck units.
One must understand the evolution of the CU. Understanding the Elliptical Constant (www.CQthus.com/PT/EC) is such a beginning. Then, understanding that the ellipsoid heuristically symbolizes the seminal quanta that are inexorably the result of the dynamic separation (www.CQthus.com/PT/DS) (DS) of a dimensionless point within a dimensionless sphere.
The illustrative heuristic ellipses are just that.. heuristic. Their tendencies may explain natural behavior but they cannot be seen.You are confusing the symbolism of "heuristic ellipses" and "natural" behavior; ellipses (the EC) are symbols; the CU is natural.
The explanation or rationalization is all that is required. Much of Standard Model quantum chromodynamics (QCD), super symmetry (SUSY), general relativity (GR), etc. cannot be "seen."
What is important is that the principles of IPSO (www.CQthus.com/PT/IPSO) are upheld. What concept of the CU does not meet the standards of IPSO?
And, as far as practicality is concerned, if we used something on the microscopic scale.. such as the ma ss of a hydrogen atom.. to measure the weight of an elephant, I don't see much gain at all.You must think more as a scientist.
Speed of what?The speed of anything that exists.
I don't understand how a spatial dimension evolves, unless to say that the 'container' that the universe resides in increases with time.The moment the seminal quantum emerges, before there is fundamental, intrinsic time (www.CQthus.com/PT/FIT) (FIT) the quantum is ellipsoidal; thus, the vectors establish the Inverse Square Law (www.CQthus.com/PT/ISL) (ISL) and the orthogonal dimensions are defined.
This would suggest that the universe itself (not referring to galaxies here) is expanding.It may suggest it to you, but such is not so. The locus of the Universe is determined by speed; not by size or distance. This locus is constant at every point within the Universe; between the dualities of Infinity (www.CQthus.com/PT/I).
04-21-2007, 07:21 PM
Truthfully, the Universe is multidimensional, really infinitely multidimensional, since mathematics can have infinite dimensions, which is the Virtual Universe. However, we are talking about the material universe, so we have to limit ourselves to 3 dimensions, if for no reason other than empirical evidence. Moreover, as Epsilon pointed out in the past, time is just a function of change in the three spacial dimensions, so it is not an independent dimension. (Epsilon contradicts himself later with his FIT concept). There is also anecdotal evidence for three dimensions, namely the fact that the cross product only works in 3 dimensions.
Epsilon's math is 2D, but since he himself mentions that the "pulse" originates from oscillations between a point and a sphere (which is 3D), therefore that by itself is a form of 2D parametrization for 3D objects.
I believe that you are thinking of dimensions too much from a mathematical standpoint. Instead, think of a dimension as a particular trait that can help you identify something. Take the tides, for example. If the tide is high, it helps you identify the time of day, or which season it is, in addition to aiding with coastal navigation.
The three dimensions which we are most familiar with are the orthogonal ones, which are defined by the inverse square law. The FIT is not the "time" which we experience, but rather the "master" clock from which all other forms of time evolve. I have yet to deduce how anthropoidal time scales are actually derived from this "master" clock, however.
The ellipses which we see here are 2D, but they are only heuristic representations of something that is more complex.
04-24-2007, 04:19 AM
I have yet to deduce how anthropoidal time scales are actually derived from this "master" clock, however.There are many different "clocks"; such as sun dials, water clocks, spinning planets, orbits around the sun, "ticks" of a watch escapement, etc. If all these "clocks" are carefully analyzed, eventually all of their units revert to fundamental, intrinsic time (FIT). A better example is: the unit of standard time is officially based on subatomic oscillations, which directly relate to FIT.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.