PDA

View Full Version : Dimensions and God !

04-23-2006, 01:43 AM
Hi everyone,
I am a complete newbie to physics and cosmology but these fields fascinate me and I have been pondering a few questions about dimensions (as in 2D and 3D and 4D).

What I really want to know is what exactly is a dimension, how are they created and destroyed, if they can be, and also how many are there in total.

My thoughts on each of the questions are as follows and I hope that if I am seeing things askew, that someone smarter than I am at this stuff might be able to show me where my thinking is going wrong!

As far as I can see a dimension is a division of an original source. For example, in a multi-level carpark, the dimensions would be huge. Lets look at a single row of cars on any single floor. We can move left and right along that row of cars untile we come to the one we want, thus creating a single dimension, now if we add 2 rows, one in front of the original row and one behind, we can now move forward, backward, left or right, making this a 2 dimensional source, now if we add two more floors or levels of 3 rows of cars, we have added a third dimension. So you can see where this is going, a 4th dimension on this idea would be that the set of three levels each with 3 rows of cars on them would be in fact, a half of a carpark that would have another 3 carparks attached to it of the same size, to make a cube of 6 levels high and 2 rows wide in total by 3 rows long.

My point is that the rule seems to be that to create a dimension in our original source or quantity all we have to do is find a new way to divide the source or quantity by half and then we have a new dimension so long as the division is symettrical.

If this is correct then it is very much like trying to divide a solid line in half. The division never ends until a half of an object can actually equal it's whole again. So does this not imply that dimensions are in fact an impure math that will go on for as long as we can find a way to symmetrically divide a quantity.

If I am wright then dimensions must belong to the realm of God and all other things that just always were and were not created as far as we can concieve!

Epsilon=One
04-23-2006, 04:40 PM
…I have been pondering a few questions about dimensions (as in 2D and 3D and 4D).When using 2D, 3D, etc., it is best to be referring only to the orthogonal dimensions so as not to confuse.

Generally, 4D connotes time as a dimension. Time (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=164) is an entirely different concept than the first three orthogonal dimensions; it does not help understanding to commingle the different “higher” dimensions.

Would using 6D when referring to retro spin make sense? Or, reserving 10D for a particular supercluster of galaxies make any sense?

What I really want to know is what exactly is a dimension, how are they created and destroyed, if they can be, and also how many are there in total.Dimensions are tools of description/location. They are, generally, not considered the object, which can be created or destroyed.

…if I am seeing things askew, that someone smarter than I am at this stuff might be able to show me where my thinking is going wrong!Even giants such as Mach, Sciama, and Einstein had great difficulty with the concept of dimensions; particularly, with . . . time.

As far as I can see a dimension is a division of an original source. For example, in a multi-level carpark…To my understanding, your understanding, to a limited extent, surpasses that of many world-class academicians.

My point is that the rule seems to be that to create a dimension in our original source or quantity all we have to do is find a new way to divide the source or quantity by half and then we have a new dimension so long as the division is symettrical.Not exactly. The division cannot be arbitrary; such as symmetrical. To add a dimension to an object you must describe an additional system to which the object belongs.

If this is correct then it is very much like trying to divide a solid line in half. The division never ends until a half of an object can actually equal it's whole again. So does this not imply that dimensions are in fact an impure math that will go on for as long as we can find a way to symmetrically divide a quantity.The assumption is not correct throughout its extensions. Math is not impure; our interpretation of it may be. And, within Reality, (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=188) there is a limit to the division of a quantity.

If I am wright then dimensions must belong to the realm of God and all other things that just always were and were not created as far as we can concieve!I don’t believe there is anything that exists which we cannot conceive. The “realm of God” has many connotations depending upon your definition of god; however, for most persons it connotes the metaphysical, which has no place in a discussion of dimensions.

See: Pulsoid Theory: Dimensions (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=113).

04-24-2006, 09:38 AM
Thanx Epsilon,

I read your reply Epsilon and I thank you for a few things I had not thought about that have now curved my thought a bit differently. I agree completely on your point that a dimension is a measurement and not a creation and I also see my folly in some of the other points you made......

BUT, and there is always usually a but with these topics,

I disagree that dimensions are not in the realm of metaphysics and one great example is the theory that the Egyptians used sound to harness vibrational frequencies that allowed them to study other dimensions and also this ties in kind of with the Incas ( or was it the Mayans) who supposedly dissappeared into another dimension.

I know, I know, there are a lot of what if's and supposedly's used here but I think I can say it better when I say that before Newton and the others who discovered Gravity, was Gravity a Science or simply metaphysics. In my beleif (and I am probably wrong) I beleive that metaphysics is practically the science that SCIENCE wont or cant touch! But then isn't metaphysics a branch of science in itself, like the question where did we originate and why / when? Isn't this what physics and quantum theory is looking for the answers for?

Anyways that is my opinion and I dont expect everyone to agree with me, but thats what I beleive whether I am the only one or not. And thanx again for the new paradigm. I am a computer programmer and also delve into very technical mathematics but one of my hitches, and the one that I think lead me a little astray here is that I usually see this world and it's mysteries from the viewpoint of "Now, how would I program that?", which I guess can lead to tunnel vision on some things.

I am only just starting to delve into cosmology as an interest and would appreciate any good starting points you may be able to reccommend me.

P.S. One last thought, I am a beleiver of the donut shaped universe!

STRING
05-01-2006, 12:07 AM
Dimensions are only what we can realistically <or unrealistically> perceive (conjure through our imagination). Matter in particulate spaces, the angle suggested to the perceiver, then chemically related to the mind. Remember that fundamentally a dimension is derived from perspective…I would talk to a blind man, one of average intelligence, one who has never seen, and ask him to explain his idea of a dimension. Would it be safe to say he would be unable to “measure”? Perhaps his minds illusion of a dimension is 1000X what you or I can ever dream? What is the most fantastic dimension you can imagine? Do you have the mental capacity to envision a dimension beyond 10D or the supposed Calabi-Yau shift-shape.

Ha ha…try this for fun, spin a quarter on the floor, the illusion at first is a sphere, yet when it looses velocity it divides its own dimension. Are some dimensions all just an illusion such as the quarter’s sphere?

Bye the way…who is this God you speak of, because I think I saw God at the dunk'n donuts sipping coffee reading a newspaper the other day.

Epsilon=One
06-02-2006, 01:42 AM
Dimensions are only what we can realistically <or unrealistically> perceive (conjure through our imagination).

Bye the way…who is this God you speak of, because I think I saw God at the dunk'n donuts sipping coffee reading a newspaper the other day.I like your reply. The "flippancy" is refreshing after "hurting the mind" by trying to contemplate the "dimensions" of String Theory and fanciful mathematicians.

I’m sure that whoever you saw was as likely to be God as not.