Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 38

Thread: 4th dimension

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,074

    4th dimension

    Are we (humans) four dimensional or three dimensional?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,181
    What is the fourth dimension?

    How does it relate to humans?

    Or reality in general?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    14
    What's the difference between "dimensional" and "density"

    That could be an interesting question

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,074
    How'd whales get there?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    7,985
    As far as I understand it (probably wide of the mark)

    All physical objects in our universe have three dimensions of space and one of time; there is no freedom of movement in the temporal dimension,
    but physical objects exist as a progression of events through this temporal dimension.

    On top of that the three spatial dimensions are described as being curved by gravity, and sometimes are considered to be multiply connected into loops or hyperspheres and so on; this curvature doesn't happen in a spatial dimension but a nonphysical one apparently, but that is too weird even for me.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    9,088
    ...What is the fourth dimension?---freddo
    Early '70's graffiti spotted thruout San Francisco's Mission District:
    "Gravity is the 4th dimension"

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    7,636
    Quote Originally Posted by Yojimbo
    What's the difference between "dimensional" and "density"

    That could be an interesting question
    According to the woowoo sites (like godlike) densities are the spiritual equivalents of physical dimensions, with most people now striving for the 4th density in which love, peace and happiness and understanding will govern the world, (isn't that like the same as bush's compassionat conservatism? oops off topic [-X ). Just do a google search on fourth density and you will get all the info (if you need it).
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  8. #8
    Glom's Avatar
    Glom is offline Insert awesome title here
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    10,689
    We're in eleven dimensions actually.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,074
    Please explain.

  10. #10
    Glom's Avatar
    Glom is offline Insert awesome title here
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    10,689
    Three dimensions of space.
    One dimension of time.
    Seven quantum dimensions.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    4,716
    Quote Originally Posted by Glom
    Three dimensions of space.
    One dimension of time.
    Seven quantum dimensions.
    Well, maybe. String theory, which does show a good deal of promise in being able to explain a lot of things, has this tiny little hitch that it only works if there are the extra dimensions Glom referred to. The reason proposed for why we don't notice them is that they might be really, really small ("compactified" is the term used). There is an effort to actually detect these directly (for example, looking for deviations from the inverse square law of gravity at very short ranges), but so far there's been no confirmation. So I'd personally leave the eleven-dimensional universe in the category of "promising theory" rather than consider it well established fact.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    227
    Can velocity/energy be counted as a form of an extra dimension?

    Id like to see 3rd dimension objects exist without it.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,074
    Could anyone link to an explanation of what 'dimensions' are exactly?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    227
    Open to inetrpretation?

    I interept it as a state of physical being. Or levels of existance but I could be completely wrong
    Thats ok cause ill just blame de wife since she takes credit for my successes she can take the blame for my faults too

    eg: 3 dimemsions creates an inanimate world space object while a 4th dimension consisting of time allows it to animate (or the opposite is time prevents everything happening at once)

  15. #15
    Glom's Avatar
    Glom is offline Insert awesome title here
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    10,689
    Technically, any property is considered a dimension, whether that be spatial displacement, velocity, mass, temperature.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    7,816
    Actually, string theory "only" requires 10 dimensions. Brane theory is the one that requires 11.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Kebsis
    Could anyone link to an explanation of what 'dimensions' are exactly?
    A dimension is an independent variable of state. In classical physics, it takes four variables to describe an event. The seven quantum dimensions are essentially zero for anything larger than an atom.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    11

    [color=red] [size=24]The anthropormophic experience of 4-D [

    Informally polled, noted & voted consistently the most abbreviated and comprehensive - non-mathematical - explanation for the 4-D quality and meaning of all physical material consisting of the fundamental building blocks - neutrons, protons and electrons (mu mesons, et al). This certainly includes humans.

    http://einstein.periphery.cc/
    :roll:
    CAVEAT:
    Word is that there is a hazard of the devoted reader who simply absorbs the 54 page condensation of a 637 page edition of this unprecedented approach to explaining Einstein's Special, General & Unified Fields (of relaativity) - that upon completion of the abbreviated quick and easy read, many people's socks have been reported to inexplicably roll up and down for as long as six weeks to as many years.
    [-X

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    11
    :-?
    Quote Originally Posted by freddo
    What is the fourth dimension?

    How does it relate to humans?

    Or reality in general?
    Hey Freddo:
    Aren't you the same fellow who posted something like 'In the early '70's the Mission District in San Francisco was abundant with graffiti that says:

    GRAVITY IS THE 4TH DIMENSION.
    :roll:

    Well. Some people say that the 4th D is time; whereas that's what Einstein says also, however, identifying it as the 4th D doesn't exclude it's inherent bond with time, but rather expands on it (in more ways than one).
    There's a guy calling himself 'JediKnight Tane (oeis) YadaYada', who has sent me an email (12/3/04) saying that because you posted that observation about the 4-D graffiti in San Francisco, I must not have authored it. Don't understand the man's reasoning. Anyway I did write, publish and copyright - have done so eight times, in two hard copy essays and six hard cover small press books, distributed all over the United States and Europe via the WHOLE EARTH CATALOGUE (Portola Institute), and sold out in 41 bookstores all over California, especially in Berkeley, San Francisco and L.A.

    I think the guy can't get over the bruhaugh he's beating his own system with on my site - Albert - 'The Axe' - Einstein', at Delphiforums.com.
    His latest gambit is that the 'Gravity is the 4-d' graffiti in S.F. Mission District since the early '70's means I didn't write the book of the same title. Check this, please, yer in it and it's interesting what this YadaYada fellow divined from it. (Any suggestions. Advise? Questions? Do you know how to reach the guy? So far he hasn't responded to me anywhere but in email and my Delphi Forums site but always on another frequency of some kind. Other than AM or FM? Maybe he just doesn't want to know?

    Email message received 12/3/04 from the same guy who’s already vanquished himself on the Delphi ‘Albert -‘The Axe’ - Einstein forum. He apparently isn’t through augering in yet - seems to think he’s got a point or points against this record - in and out of the S.F. Mission District in the early ‘70's - ‘graffiti all over that neighborhood’.

    Guess we’ll have to explain that we climbed the Golden Gate Bridge in August ‘71, and made page 2 of the CHRONICLE on 8 August, along with page 5 of the EXAMINER on page 5, 8/7/ ‘71, and that this low budget publicity tactic made all channels of local TV that night, and the CHRONICLE and EXAMINER the next morning.

    This record lived in San Francisco’s Haight Street and Mission District, from ‘68 to ‘80, whereas the graffiti all over the Mission District has been and continues to be witnessed by literally millions of people, all over the San Francisco Peninsula, as well as on the subway walls of New York City, for the past 34 years.
    No way did I spray all the tags, that's illegal you know. Whereas it seems several of the overzealous readers of my obscurely known but widely distributed, sold out and modestly applauded work, condensed from 627 to 54 pages. accessible at ...


    http://einstein.periphery.cc/

    (I misplaced my epic spectacles, while making one of my website URL?)

    ....are doing a little low budget coast to coast advertising. I think, therefore I think I think...

    Far beyond the venerable parameters of the S.F. Mission District.
    (The JediKnight Tane oesis YadaYada reprobate insists on sieging tilted windmills - keeps making points against himself in the name of out-scoring truly yours... [-X

    Sounds like Bkparque’s <google famous> HALF VAST UNIVERSE is definitely on another endless Easter egg- roll... Mr. Brian Kirk Parquette - the most original source of 2nd hand information on the net, also has some enchanting posts about truly yours, 'all over the net', also. Enter Kent Benjamin Robertson in google and behold the works of some of my more affectionate and sensitive - if severely brain damaged, desperately covetous, premiere prevaricating groupies... <I've trid not to let fame spoil me?>) #-o

    * Below is the message he emailed me, 2 December, 04. I think he thinks he's smoked my credibility in my 'impersonation' of the author of Gravity Is The 4th Dimension... He's apparently a young enough JediKnight to think that neither myself or any of my seven books and twelve essays even existed, that long ago. 8)

    The first asterisked statement was the title of the email he sent, before I opened it. Then you go through several paragraphs of alphabet soup to encounter his quote of your quote, out of the Bad Astronomy forum, which I happen to have discovered, exclusively due to Mr. Yada's apparently unending disdain for and resentment of me (I can't possibly be who I am?). 8)

    I happen to like BAD ASTRONOMY forum very much. It's truly not bad at all. Edifying is a better if fancier word. I have Mr. Yada to thank for knowing you exist also, apparently having done so in the past, in and around the S.F. Mission District it seems... Thanks for the P.R., though I never thought anyone would take it so acerbically - attempt to hold it against me as proof that it's not my title or my six sold out editions of a very well received small press book.

    Of course all of this blurb is promotionally motivated, but then, I have been fortunate enough to find something more fun and interesting to tout than most issues or persons. Anyway, modesty, as you may already have gathered, is one of my stronger and more charming suits. Meanwhile, check this (Yer getting famous - we're both unexpectedly blessed with an apparently powerfully motivated promoter....

    1. * Sender
    Subject Date Size YadaYada:
    HERE is your 4th Dimension [147:1:149] Thu
    12/02 2k
    .................................................. .........

    This message is flagged. [ 1. Remove Flag -
    Mark as Unread ]
    Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 17:13:50 -0500
    To: (Kraziequus@yahoo.com)
    Subject: HERE is your 4th Dimension [147:1:149]
    From: "YadaYada" (JediKnight Tage (Oesis)<mcgucken@jollyroger.com> "TYPE=PICT;ALT=ViewContactDetails"View Contact Details


    This message was sent from: Theoretical Physics.
    <http://killdevilhill.com/phorum/read.php?f=147&i=149&t=1>
    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    http://killdevilhill.com/astronomych...p;t=24&a=2
    http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...l=ensarongsong
    Bad Grad


    Joined: 12 Nov 2002
    Posts: 686

    Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2003 8:52 am Post subject:

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (Drum roll: HERE YOU ARE! a man who needs no introduction.)

    Quote:
    ...What is the fourth dimension?---freddo

    Early '70's graffiti spotted thruout San Francisco's Mission District:
    "Gravity is the 4th dimension"


    Anyway. I hope Mr Yada feels better soon.
    (Will you let me know if you hear from or about him?)

    Sincerely

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    11

    This Post has become controversial on the net. Check it out.

    Quote Originally Posted by sarongsong
    ...What is the fourth dimension?---freddo
    Early '70's graffiti spotted thruout San Francisco's Mission District:
    "Gravity is the 4th dimension"
    This entry has become a pivot in a series of divots,
    by a would be JediKnight Tage (Oesis) YadaYada
    (Who refuses to be fooled again?) 8-[

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,872
    Quote Originally Posted by eburacum45
    On top of that the three spatial dimensions are described as being curved by gravity,
    The four dimensions of spacetime are curved by gravity, in the sense of general relativity.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    11

    HOPEFULLY GRIDLOCK DISSOLVING RESOLUTION ON DIMENSIONS.

    THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY

    IS CONTRADICTED BY THE SPECIAL THEORY

    by Adershir Mehta

    ardeshirmehta@mywself.com

    July 2001
    The General Theory of Relativity is based upon Einstein’s Principle of Equivalence.

    Imagine, says Einstein, a person being accelerated upwards in a completely enclosed elevator at a rate of 9.80665 m/s2. This being exactly equal to the acceleration due to the earth’s gravity, which is to say 1-g, the person would never know -- or so argued Einstein -- by any experiment performed purely inside the elevator, whether the elevator was stationary on earth, or was being accelerated upward in empty space.

    And so, argued Einstein further, if a tiny hole were made in one wall of the elevator which is being accelerated upward, and a beam of light introduced thereby into the elevator in a horizontal direction, the beam of light would appear to bend downward a bit, and hit the opposite wall at a spot a little lower than the hole. That’s because in the brief time it would take the light to go from the hole in the wall to the opposite wall, the elevator which is being accelerated upward would have travelled upward at an increasing velocity.

    And since there is no way to tell whether an elevator is being accelerated upward in empty space or standing stationary on the earth, this must be the case -- argued Einstein -- whether the elevator is being accelerated upward in empty space, or is stationary in the earth’s gravitational field. And this would prove that light is affected by gravity.

    After that the way was open for Einstein to suggest that light is attracted by gravity because space itself is curved, and time too, and all the rest with the Minkowski world-lines and light-cones and what-not. In other words, the General Theory of Relativity was developed from this simple argument.

    However, the Special Theory of Relativity blatantly and shamelessly contradicts the Principle of Equivalence. If an elevator were being accelerated upward at an acceleration of 9.80665 m/s2, within a few months it would attain a speed very close to the speed of light, and in a few decades it would have attained a speed of 99.999 ... 9 % that of light -- the number of 9’s in the above figure being limited only by the number of decades. Check out the mathematics yourself -- use the formula v=at.

    And according to the Special Theory of Relativity, any elevator -- and any person in it -- travelling at speeds approaching that of light would increase in mass, the increase being given by the Lorentz <gamma> factor, namely (1-v2/c2)-0.5.

    So if v is, let’s say, 99.999999999999 % of the speed of light, the <gamma> factor would be 7,073,895 -- in other words, a little over seven million! Work it out: it’s a simple formula.

    So what the Special Theory of Relativity predicts is, that a man in the elevator having a rest mass of, say, 100 kg would eventually have a mass of more than 700 million kg, or more than 700,000 tonnes -- and his mass would be growing daily! And because of the elevator’s 1-g acceleration, he would weigh that much too.

    (This, of course, provided that there was enough life support stuff for him in the elevator. Let’s just assume that there is, without wondering exactly how that would be accomplished. Hey: even Einstein didn’t explain how the elevator was supposed to be accelerated.)

    In other words, such a man -- or his descendants -- in a well-stocked elevator accelerating at 1-g in empty space would eventually be squooshed flatter than a pancake, due to his/their having increased in weight far too much. Indeed they should all turn into black holes eventually, and be swallowed up by themselves!

    But if the elevator were stationary on the earth, the Special Theory of Relativity predicts -- and common sense also confirms -- that the man and his descendants could live out their lives very comfortably unto the umpteenth, and even the umpteen-plus-oneth, generation, putting on weight only if they ate too much, or had some glandular or hormonal problem in that regard. (And even then they couldn’t possibly put on that much weight.)

    So the Special Theory of Relativity predicts that the man would eventually know, even without conducting an experiment, whether he was being accelerated upward at 1-g or whether he was stationary in a 1-g gravitational field -- directly contradicting the Principle of Equivalence, which argues that there would be no way for him to know that. 8-[

    (Now let me ask you: what sort of genius doesn’t see this elementary contradiction between two of his own theories -- a contradiction that even ordinary guys like you and me can see? Was Israel lucky, or what, that Einstein declined David Ben-Gurion’s offer to make him the first President of the Jewish State. It would have been the laughing-stock of the world, had he accepted!) :roll:

    Comments? E-mail me.
    ardeshirmehta@myself.com

    *************************

    +From K. B. Robertson to *Ardeshir Mehta
    (+Amplified response)

    *via URL http://ardeshirmehta@myself.com

    *( http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/education.html )

    Dear Sir, Mr Mehta: :-?

    Referencing the unprecedented, documentary non-mathematical identification of the 4-D space-time continuum, and its consequences ('the <previously unrecognized cause of what Einstein called the>'gravitational curvature of space') in the theoretical physics file on the menu at http://einstein.periphery.cc/ - resolves an ensemble of previous dissolute, misunderstood issues, certainly including your conclusion that 'The General Theory is Contradicted by The Special Theory', due to - what you conclude - would be a crushing ('Squooshing'/'pancake flattening') of any passenger(s) against the ever ascending, ever increasing speed - accleration - of the floor on Einstein's proffered, accelerating elevator(s).

    This would indeed be the fate of the subjected passengers, were it not for the over-all 4-Dimensional uniform enlargement - accelerating expansion - of the entire frame of reference (the entire physical universe, certainly including the passenger<s>), as Einstein proved it to be: ubiquitously 4-Dimensional (i.e.. moving ar right angles - growing ever larger - from and out of the recognized 3-D universe of matter and space).

    Your notably astute but incorrrect conclusion: altogether excludes the universal 4-D space-time continuum and the consequent fact that the issued passengers along with the entire universal frame of reference are acclerating - 4-Dimensionally expanding, along with the issued accelerating - ever-increasing speed - of the subjected, ever-ascending and accelerating floor of the elevator...
    A perusal of the 4-D gravitational issues proffered on the menu at http://einstein.periphery.cc/ dilates and clarifies the otherwise characteristically missed, all important issue at point, here - a physically, as well as spatially - expanding universe; within which:

    One square mile in the present, is much larger than it was yesterday, and much smaller than it will be, tomorrow. While at any given moment in the constantly accelerating, uniform enlargement of universal matter (space-time) an observer attributes the curved parabola of a thrown baseball, stone or football to the 'curve' of the trajectoried test object ' toward earth', rather than perceiving the entire frame of reference as rising - ever faster; accelerating - up to meet the straight line (geodesically) moving object...
    Moreover, in the described 4-Dimensionally ever-enlarging physically (as well as spatially) expanding universe: 60 mph yesterday (earlier Moment 'A'), is not as fast, when compared with 60 mph today (present Moment 'B'); neither is 60 mph today, as fast, when compared with 60 of tomorrow's (later Moment 'C') miles per hour.

    "The value of time is determined by the value of space it occurs in."
    - Kent Benjamin Robertson, GRAVITY IS THE 4th DIMENSION

    Moreover, and moving right along...
    The velocity of light was slower yesterday, than it is today, will be faster tomorrow, relative to today, ad infinitum, at any given moment; whereas:


    the velocity of light is constant - at any given moment - relative to the coordinate system (space-time moment) from which it originates in (multi-moment) 4-D space-time.

    The value of time - and velocity - are determined by the earlier, present or future moment in space-time any event occurs in.
    - K.B. Robertson, GRAVITY IS THE 4th DIMENSION.

    Your argument is thoughtful and well presented, but omits the (obscurely recognized) existence, meaning and ongoing consequences of the General Theory’s 4-D space-time continuum - how it nullifies your otherwise well made point.

    The Big Bang Theory (is a self disproven hypothesis) asserts similar equivocations, due also to the exclusion of the ongoing (obscurely recognized) consequences of the 4-D space-time continuum.


    Gravity, Electricity & Magnetism are the 4th, 5th & 6th Dimensions. Einstein's Unified Field reinstated, without mathematics.


    You write well.

    Indeed, I have studied and written of Einstein’‘s works for 49 years and not previously seen or heard of an argument such as that presented by yourself.

    Whereas, in this case, your - +otherwise correct - conclusions regarding what would be an inherent, non-sequiturial contradiction, in situ; +as you astutely describe it :

    whereas: your interpretation of the contradiction between Special & General Theory, omits, rather than contradicts (allegedly ‘acknowledged’, yet functionally unrecognized effects of) the 4th D within the General Theory of Relativity (Gravity Is The 4th Dimension).


    "Limitless are the number of apparently right conclusions that are otherwise based on a false premise." - Anon



    Post script: By standards familiar to most everyone, your *closing statements - *the last four paragraphs of your post - are in self berating contrast to your otherwise outstanding however equivocated - presentation. *Having the potential of making yourself the laughing stock of the world.

    Sincerely,

    - Kent Benjamin Robertson


    http://einstein.periphery.cc/

    Universal gravitation (including time) is the 4th Dimension.


    http://forums.delphiforums.com/ 'Albert "The Axe" - Einstein'
    REPORT FROM VFW - 'Bill Motto'/ 'Wage Peace' - POST 5888
    THE (dang near) EVERYTHING THEORY (KaiduOrkhon's Forums)



    ************************

    Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 23:03:55 -0800 (PST)
    From: "Ben MacColley" <kraziequus@yahoo.com> View Contact Details
    Subject: Defiinitions of dimensions (4- Dimensional Dimentia)
    To: ardeshir@myself.com
    CC: madprof21@optonline.com

    (In self-explanatory response to Mr. Ardeshir Mehta's reply to the above.)

    Dear Mr. Mehta:

    Noteworthy vigilance sir:
    Would have responded earlier but busy as you're likely also to be.
    It's 1.1.2005 0200 hrs. Saturday 2005. May it be a Happy & Prosperous New Year for You & Yours. Proffering Best Regards.
    P.S. Please address any further email to kraziequus@yahoo.com)


    Wish to proceed to hopeful resolution with our progressing debate.
    (Please excuse the delay. It certainly wasn't out of disinterest or indifference.)
    .......................................

    Considered definitions, similarities and differences between Euclidean & Pythagorean, Plane & Solid, Metric & Non-metric geometry (geometries)...
    Firstly presented in my own words; as cogent to our debate; then presented in excerpts from (provided) academic sources
    .........................................

    There is a strong school of thought proclaiming eleven dimensions. Perhaps there are.
    Another plateau of education states there are between 26 and 37 dimensions. Maybe so.
    Yet, no small number of pre and post graduate students in all subjects say the the number of dimensions in the universe is infinite. Stating their case by defining the intersectionof two (acknowledged, non existent, exclusively geometric, location determining) Straight Lines, representing
    a location in space called a 'geometric point', which, of course, really doe not exist... While each such defined Point is numberless (Ten Four.)

    You emphasize the issue of the non existence of a geometric point.

    I agree entirely. A geometric point - A - doesn't exist.

    For this reason and on this premise, you reasonably assert that when non existent geometric point A, moves, it doesn't 'move at right angles to itself' (as I say it does); because it doesn't spatially exist (we agree on that), and therefore cannot be properly described as moving at right angles, 90 dgs, perpendicular) to itself.

    Whereas, Mr. Mehta. This is true of non-metric (as opposed to metric), non functionally spatial (As opposed to functionally spatial), plane (as opposed to solid) geometric expressions, values and definitions...

    Are you not tenaciously adhering to, while excluding, alternative forms of geometry and geometric translations? Employing only non-metric, non-functional, Plane geometry to support your conclusions (by way of exclusions of alternative geometric translations you notably <deliberately or inadvertantly>, digress, divert from and/or ignore?)

    As soon as the non existent 2-D plane (B---->C) moves at right angles from itself (C--->D): generating an existentially real or imaginary impalpable 3-D entity - or image - of whatever shape or size: depending entirely upon whether non-metric or metric, plane or solid, non-functional spatial, or functional spatial alues are applied (to whatever given circumstance and condition).

    Repeat: (In agreement with you, up to but not including the extrapolation from 2 to 3 - and more - dmensiions: in metric, functional, solid geometric defined values...

    Neither a 1-D straight Line (A -->B), nor a 2-D Plane (B---->C), exists.

    Whereas, a 3-D square or rectangle (C----->D) may or not be an existential, functionally manifest entity, depending on whether or not it's qualified as metric or non-metric, plane or solid. Empty (until further notice perfect vaccuum doesn't exist anywhere), or occupied...

    When the right angle progression of dimensions proceeds as an extrapolating sequence of physical dimensions, as I have employed it: you engage a series of other means, translations and alternative definitions for dimensions.

    Those aren't the definitions at issue here.


    The engagement of any number of definitions for dimensions is often employed by well intended critics to gainsay the definitions applied in 'my' (the) employed expression(s) of the geometric point, extrapolating to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th & 6th dimensions..

    Whereas, the reason the better known - of perhaps countless colloquial and scientific examples of Martin Gardner's, RELATIVITY FOR THE MILLION, and P.D. Ouspensky's, A NEW MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - Chapter entitled: The 4th Dimension - employ a 'SuperCube' to express the 4th dimension (of time & motion <the 'two' being synonymous>, all the while previously unrecognized as inherent to and prevailing within the three recognized physical dimensions of functional, metric space):

    ... is because (although I vigorously acknowledge that science is not a 'majority rules' democratic - institution, the findings of which are accurately validated or invalidated by process of 'the polls', etc - without application and passage of requirements, i.e. substantial - repeat, substantial - proof<s>; with or w'out the majority ('We can't all be wrong' lemming, herd, lynch-mob & Inquisitional mentality):

    Notwithstanding...

    ... since 1916. the super-cube' is the applied standard of the right angle progression of a three dimensional entity ( of whatever morphology - the square or rectangular shape being the most popular exemplary models, for clarity, whereas, a Volkswagen or platypus is likewise), projecting itself at right angles to the three recognized dimensions, along with quite all the rest of the '3-D universe'....

    4-D omini-directional motion goes generally unrecognized and undetected ('non-mathematically *Immeasurable, *
    unimaginable, *incomprehensible' - as long as the acclelerating expansion of the entire frame of reference is not recognized as constantly expanding - ever-faster, fulfilling the 'curvature of space-time': * as long as the basketball, baseball, tennis or football player fails to recognize the 4-D space time continuum every time she, he (or the frustrated theoretical physicist at the black board) drops the ball (or chalk).

    This so called 'incomprehensible, imeasurable, unimaginable 4th D is inescapably manifest, measurable, comprehensible; constantly, in all the - 'everyday (ho hum) effects of 'gravity' - the fact that all objects on or near the surface of a major gravitational mass - such as earth, are pinned to - or 'fall' - to the ever expanding, accelerating surface:
    without infringement of the law of Conservation of Mass Energy: wherereas, it's the same amount of energy, distributing itself over and increasingly greater area, in the law of the inverse square: squared :
    A (Past) B (Present) and C (Future)...

    Where the continuous accleration can be diagrammed with a V shape. the converging of the two lines to an 'ending point', representing the infinite past:

    the widest separation representing the macrocosmic future:

    with 'us' - in the Present - 'Eternal Now' - directly between the microcosmic Past and the Macrocosmic Future, at any given moment (of endlessly unfolding, chronologically given, space-time moments...)

    Yesterday's mile - in the prevailing 4-D space time continuum, is (comparatively) smaller and more dense than today's mile. Tomorrow's mile will be (comparatively) larger and less dense than today's mile...

    Moreover (REPEAT): Yesterday's 60 mph, is slower - when compared to - today's 60 mph, and tomorrows will be faster than (when compared to) todays. While, at any given moment, the measured motion at issue here remains steady at 60 mph, since the past (until further notice) cannot be directly compared with the present, or the present, directly compared with the future.

    On the other hand, via recognition and acknowledgement of the 4-D space time continuum (and 'how we can relate to it in our own experience'), we may with assurance know and understand all of this... (It remains to be seen, how much more - and what - will be realized via this knowledge and insight).

    Summarily (REPEAT): Yesterday's speed of light is less than today's, and today's is lesser than tomorrows. Exactly why C (Celeritas Constant) remians unchanging, relative to the source (moment in space-time) from which it originated. The apparent 'enigma', is actually a complementary, reciprocal solution, to what is otherwise generally considered 'mysterious'.
    (Why is the speed of light constant? Is it constant? Can it be surpassed? )

    Those perennial questions are answered in the omnisciently unrecognized, consistently over-looked, denied and rejected resolution(s) - how & why the speed of light is constant: while at the same time, the velocity of light is constantly increasing, relative to the coordinate system - past, present or future, from which it originates.

    The constant accleration of all physical matter (at right angles to itself - neutrons, protons electrons, undulating charges of electricity having no distinct boundaries, becoming increasingly more dense toward their centers, fulfilling the identity of the (ever unfound, unproved: h-y-p--o-t-he-ti-c-a-l 'particle' :

    Newtonian Classical Mechanics-conceptualized 'billiard ball llike particle'; which even Newton questioned the existence of, just as he seriously made a point of qualifying that the concept of a force of 'attraction', as applied to universal gravitation, was not 'The Answer' to F (Force) - universal gravitation -, but rather 'The Guess' - which electrical charge is measured and found constantly and omnidirectionally in a state of accelerating expansion, as all forms of electricity (electromagnietism) are known to behave.

    Asking where it came from is an empty question. It's here and it's proved to be constantly and ominidirectionally growing ever larger, ever faster. On earth, at the rate of 32" per" Per ".

    The so called 'rate of descent' actually being the rate of ascent, of the ever enlarging earth's surface, i.e., the (possibly apocryphal) apple did not fall from A to B, to strike Newton on the head, but rather, Newton's head ascended to strike the apple...

    Newton himself, in his 3 page Preface to the Principia Mathematica, offers that gravity 'may be an impelling or a repelling force', in those - ultimatum haunted - words (the record, truly yours, calls this Newtonian originated qualification: 'the gravitational alternative', and 'the gravitational 'ultimatum').
    Newton carefully qualifies that he does not know the causal identity of gravity; whereas, his work patently establishes it's ubiquitous effects.

    Unnecessary misunderstanding prevail, as long as the spiralling pig-skin, basket & baseball-ball passing - parabolic trajectory is not recognized as a straight line (geodesic); only appearing to be a curved line, relative to the underway, continuous expansion of the entire frame of reference (4-D 'curvature of space' ) - including observers & measuring instruments - surrounding it.

    (FlashBack, DejaVuVu: everyone can see that the sun, moon, and Constellations of the stellar studded celestial vault all rise in the east and set in the west.

    It is clearly apparent that the universe revolves around the earth...

    Post Hoc Ergo Prompter Hoc (After this, therefore, because of this): It is clearly apparent that the entire physical frame of refererence - any portion of same you wish to focus scrutiny upon: is not in a constant state of accelerating expansion.... Same same....

    (Two wrongs don't make a right, but three or more do?)

    Whatever sort of alternative geometry you may be offering, Mr. Mehta - Euclidean, Pythagorean, Plane, Solid, Non-Euclidean, Spatially Functional, metric, Cartesian, Analytic, Riemannean, Algebraic, Spatially Functional, non- metric, Descriptive, Differential, linear transformable affine collineations, or Projective.

    The generally affine geometry (which I do not and never have pretended to understand, along with higher mathematics; has always been perplexing to me, though I highly respect metric mathematics and have some understanding of calculus, algebra, plane and solid geometry) proving the translation of right angle motion from preceding dimensions, is the geometry upon which the 4th, 5th & 6th dimensions of gravity, electricity and magnetism (my unprecedented work, arranged and authenticated by the - previously unrecognized, 'unrelated' works of many others) is based.

    In metric, functionally spatial, solid geometry: although neither geometric point A, nor geometric 1-D Straight Line ( A--->B), nor the geometric 2-D Plane generated by the right angle motion (B----->C), occurs in or generates functional, metric (real, existential), space: whereas, when Plane B------>C moves at right angles to itself, C-->D,
    it generates a three dimensional,. existentially manifest, functional - metric (measurable) space.

    Respectfully remind you, Mr. Mehta, that yourself
    and many others like you: challenge the viability of my statement (which is not 'my statement' at all) - that when a geometric point moves, no matter which way:
    it moves at right angles to itself - commencing a series of right angle extrapolations, progressively generating dimensions - at right angles/ 90 dgs. out of what ever preceding dimension.

    Moreover and at the locus of the ongoing debate:
    Such metric, functionally spatial, solid geometry: begins with a non-existent Geometric Point A:
    that is (also, furthermore) circular
    (- morphologically: round - O - of shape...

    No matter which way Geometric Point A may move, at whatever speed for whatever distance, it moves at right angles from it's self (A------->B) generating a (non existent) geometric Straight Line.

    Repeat: In metric, solid, spatially functional geometry, when the 2-D plane moves at right angles to itself, it generates existential, 3-D spatial reality, occupied or unoccupied by matter.

    When any 3-Dimensionally manifest entity moves at right angles to itself, it is 4- Dimensional.

    Einstein proved everything is 4 Dimensional, and, that the 4th dimension, inherent within 3-Dimensionally manifest entities is closely related to time & motion (are synonymous).

    The afore-reviewed, highly qualified laws of geometry demand therefore, of all three dimensional entitites, a sequential, progressive right angle motion to (arriving upon) all three manifest dimensions: recently proven and 'acknowledged' as inherent to and with the three recognized dimensions of space, having to do with time and motion: causing any and all such 4-Dimensional entities to be, either constantly contracting - fulfilling it's assigned obligation be conform to Einstein's 4th D. Or: to be constantly expanding, fulfilling Einstein's (alleged 'acknowledged') 4-D space-time continuum.

    Since test objects released near and above the earth's surface do not 'fall up', continuous contraction is ruled out as a functional 4-D vector.

    Whereas, test objects released near and above the earth's surface do 'fall down', establishing - in the two possibilities of what this author calls 'the 4-D ultimatum' - that the 4-D quality Einstein proved applicable to universal matter, is one of continuous enlargement, exapanding acceleration.

    Densities remaining uniform at any given moment, while continuously distributing themselves omnidirectionally in the law of the inverse square: squared. There is no infringement on the Law of Conservation of MassEnergy - it's the same amount of energy, distributed over an increasing volume of space, via the Law of the Inverse Square: squared.

    All enlarging 4-D entities remain relatively the same size and density, at any given moment; while having been more dense and smaller in the Past (MOMENT 'A'), relative to the Present. MOMENT 'B' - always at the center of the representative geometry of expansion expressed in the convergence of two straight lines - V - representing infinite Past in time and density (microcosmic infinity - 'strong nuclear binding forces')...

    While the two lines - 'the Arrow of Time' - moving upward and outward from their microcosmically inifinite confluence (which finitely 'ends', only in 3-Dimensions), proceeding as the same amount of energy, increasingly distributed over a greater amount of inverse squared structured macrocosomic space: squared. An ever enlarging universe of space and matter, Without beginning or ending.

    Reinstatement of Bondi, Gold & Hoyle's presently abandoned Steady State Universe. Reinstatement of Einstein's presently abandoned Unified Field Theory.
    Thousands of readers of this work have directly proclaimed or suggested it may result in: non-violent world revolution and a metaphorical 'quantum leap' in generalized, mainstream human consciousness.
    Evolved perceptions not only in all branches of Physical Science, but also of and within Philosophy, the Arts, Architecture and reassuring confirmation of the ability of the average person to comprehend - without mathematics - what was otherwise considered non-mathematically incomprehensible.

    Mr. Mehta (and like minded acolytes):
    If you are not dissuaded from your present course; if you disagree with this qualified geometric definition, sir: you are advised to take your argument to Martin Gardner's (exemplary) RELATIVITY FOR THE MILLIONS, and P. D. Ouspensky's Chapter On The 4th Dimension, in A NEW MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE, as well as every authority (and/or dilletante) on General Relativity's 4th dimension of time & motion - every applied example of the 4-D 'Super-Cube', known or heard of by this record
    .


    The 4th dimension of accelerating expansion of matter constitutes the 'pushing' /'impelling/'/attractive' effects of gravity on or near a major gravitational mass.
    Whereas, the 5th & 6th Dimensions of Electricity & Magnetism <invariably generated by, and constantly emitting from the 4th dimension of matter, re: Maxwell's discovery of the existence and spider-web sgaped, inverse square law structure>: causing 'action-at-a-distance' - terrestrial, aquatic and atmospheric tidal effects, for example.

    Gravity - the 4-D space-time continuum - at earlier, microcosmic moments, is the controversial, enigmatic and equivocationally 'identified': 'strong, nuclear binding force'.

    Gravity at larger, later moments (of chronologically sequential space-time - A, B, C acceleration <from the convergent bottom 'ending' of the considered 'V' shape of expansion; actually shaped more as structural 'dimple' - in the rubber sheet - of Riemannian Geometry, possibly generating what are presently and recently called chrono-spatial 'curls' and 'curlicues' - not unlike thin shavings of wood from a fine plane>, to the ) constituting the same 'weaker' force, at a later, larger moment, relative to observers, who are always exactly in the middle of the V (apple or pizza pie) shaped representation of Past - smaller more dense space-time (re: 'black hole singularities, if they exist).

    That is to say, the microcosms are as infinitely endless as the macrocosms. If Dear Reader finds the points being made here, redundant, this record may only beg pardon, for the characteristically called upon 'adjustment' to these all time prevelant, but previously unrecognized, disconnected composites of reality at large.

    There is no 'ending' of space at the small end of the diagrammatic V representing the ever enlarging arrow of 4-D space-time. Where the V shape formed by two lines, intersect with each other at the 'beginning', represent the '3-Dimensional' 'end' of space-time, whereas, in a 4-D universe - such as that within which we are proven to live and be part of, whether we recognize it or not - smallness (Moment A) - the microcosms - is just as endless and dense, as infinite largeness (Moment C); with 'us' always directly in the (Moment B) center of the eternally V shaped (approximently shaped) diagram of space-time.

    (Perhaps better represented by the characteristic shape of Riemannian Geometry, where the transient structure approximately curves back toward itself - refer the north and south polarities of a given electron, planet or sun, where the electromagnetic field is generated by and projected from the 'upper' - north - pole, to curve back around the physical structure - electron, planet, sun or star - and return to and within the south pole of such electromagnetic field-generating elements, ad infinitum,: complementing the relativistic axiom that mass value increases with velocity; wherein such a bi-polar system may sustain, maintain and enlarge itself: the larger the faster the faster the larger: squared...)

    Orbiting satellites, natural and artificial, do not actually describe circular or elliptical orbits, but rather, spirals - @ .
    Citing the example of a person running around an apparently 3-D circular track, likewise actually describing a 4-D - @ - spiral with each completion of whatever round or ecliptic track being jogged upon or raced over...

    The planet Mercury is astrophysically observed to 'inexplicably' lose 46 seconds of arc per century. Whereas, this 'unexplainable' loss is probably due to the exclusion of calculating it's orbit to be 4 - Diimensionally spiral @ shaped, instead of 3- dimensionally circular or elliptical. All the other planets likewise, 'inexplicably' lose lesser but measurable amounts of seconds of arc per century; probably for the same reason...
    (For further details and information on these issues, please honor this record with a study of - and perhaps a response to - the content and import ofthe theoretical physics file, on the multi-topic menu at http://einstein.periphery.cc/ )

    Sincerely,
    Thanking Mr. Ardeshir Mehta for his straightforward - if wayward - part in the inspiration of this (what started as an) E-mail letter.

    Kent Benjamin Robertson
    1/1/2005 0100 hrs Saturday
    .................................................. .....................................

    To whomever may belatedly assert - "Prove it'" - of the issued theoretical physics discussion herein, and it's expanded presentation at http://einstein.periphery.cc/ )

    It is not for this record to 'prove' any of this work.
    That is (abundantly) done.

    ( Fait accompli. Making near
    that which was distant.
    Making easy,
    that which was difficult. )

    It is for whomever may wish: to gainsay - to disprove it.

    To those who would demand: 'Show me where the 4th Dimension is'.

    The improved question is: 'Show me where it is not'.

    ---------------------------------------------

    The quasi-world renowned 'skunk fight' associated with this work.

    The countlessly colorful social dimensions...

    Anonymous vituperations and curses will only further embroil trespassers.
    Several of whom are cleverly camped out, and conferencing beneath ultraViolet moon - and other - lights:

    on the precipice of (epiphanically) learning, 'Tracers work both ways'.

    Featuring widely flung deluge of pithy one liners. A downpour of hysterically desperate, flop-flipping pages of off-topic, issue-diverting, self-diagnosed 'reversely confessing' volumes of vulgar grotesqueries have already been wretchedly employed - a matter of history, already self-documented, wrung out and hung out to cure, on the WWW internet.

    Where it already has - however helter-skelterly - stationed itself in 'anonymous' fragments, as many (generally indifferent) net cyber surfers are well aware. (Enter 'Kent Benjamin Robertson', and/or <For a good time, call> 'Brian Kirk Parquette' in google.
    Whereas, the issued offal (some of which proclaims to be posted by truly yours, including a remarkably well studied 'death threat' to 'kill you all' (somehow relayed out of Canada, rather than 'tracing back' to this record's IP#) - the record will keep this ongoing fascist behavior updated - much of which neither this record nor anyone else; including benevolent webmasters - and the 'taggers' themselves' - have yet been able - or cared to - remove
    With clarity and perfection, the insatiably adversarial, quicksand treading and tide shoveling element, impeccably speaks for itself:
    behooves, merits and beckons archiving & editing; for the constructive caveat - and education - of whomever may deign to learn, the rest of the <extensively brief, slap-happy, augered-in, smoking & flame-fanning> story...
    Re: work in progress: http://einstein.periphery.cc/machine_1 thru _4 ; which only very recently demanded a sequel - Part II - of it's 4 decade extended originators and notably registered - special circumstance enveloped - new ensemble of (undeniably stunning) confederate recruits.

    A 'faction (fiction based on fact ) story.
    Some of the criminally culpable contributors and accessorial participants in the story are <understandably> taking it personally.

    May have something to do wth the culminating fact that there's no statute of <Arizona - originating> state, or federal <itle 18: conspiracy> limitations on what they're self proved to be individually and collectively responsible for <How they do carry on.
    Presently working diligently to pass accesorial status to a third generation. Re: CHINATOWN: Starring Jack Nicholson and Sharon Stone <Fade Done-Away?>)

    Post Script
    (To Whomever it May - or Not - Concern):
    Are gravity, electricity & magnetism really the 4th, 5th & 6th dimensions?
    Or, has the author only cleverly built his theory around reality, so that - until further notice - no one can tell the difference?):

    P.P.S. Please address any email to
    kraziequus@yahoo.com)
    (The pewter is hiccupping on aol.)

    ***************************

    Excerpts from (referenced) formal discussions on geometric definitions, follow:

    including a commonly misunderstood - quasi anarchistic interpretation of the multiple definitions for 'dimensions', and how they are mal-applied to Einstein's 4th.

    Point (geometry)
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
    A spatial point is an entity with a location in space but no extent (volume, area or length). In geometry, a point therefore captures the notion of location; no further information is captured. Points are used in the basic language of geometry, physics, vector graphics (both 2d and 3d), and many other fields. In mathematics generally, any form of space is considered as made up of points as basic elements.



    Points in Euclidean geometry
    A point in Euclidean geometry has no size, orientation, or any other feature except position. Euclid's axioms or postulates assert in some cases that points exist: for example, they assert that if two lines on a plane are not parallel, there is exactly one point that lies on both of them. Euclid sometimes implicitly assumed facts that did not follow from the axioms (for example about the ordering of points on lines, and occasionally about the existence of points distinct from a finite list of points). Therefore the traditional axiomatization of point was not entirely complete and definitive.



    Points in Cartesian geometry
    Intuitively one can understand a location in 3d space. This location could be described with three real number coordinates: for instance
    P = (2,6,9). But one can also describe points in 1, 2 or more than 3 dimensions. The description of a point is quite similar to the description of a spatial vector, which also can exist in space with dimensions from one to many.

    The conceptual difference between these notions is significant, though: a point indicates a location, while a vector indicates a direction and length. If a distinguished point (the origin) is given, one can describe a location by giving the direction and distance from the origin to that point."

    (*Mr. Mehta, most of the excerpted material here is cogent to our debat,e whereas the following paragraph seems to include several contingent issues in our correspondence and posturing - you seem for example, to object to (my employment of) the application of 'Cartesian Coordinates.

    Moreover, you may agree, an ensemble of contingencies applicable to our debate, emerges in this paragraph (from Wikipedia. The free encyclopedia. via google. To a point <no puns intended> it sounds like your point, and then again: not...)

    Note your quasi- dismissal - w'out substantiation or explanation '- 'how would you describe the 4th dimension in spatial terms?'

    The unprovided answer (apparently presumed to be 'unanswerable') being that the 3 dimensions at issue here are constantly moving at right angles, growing ever larger, ever faster, ever larger, faster, squared - refer the square of Pi r and E-MC. Refer the international recognition and status of the otherwise unrecognized proof<s> of the 'SuperCube'... Indeed:

    A frequently considered issue, including the one you invoked, is:

    "What do we mean - what is meant - by 'Space'?

    'This is really a question about what we mean by "space-time."

    Refer Einstein's 'space-time' (Time being synonymous with motion, and conversely. That is to say: space 'and' time <like electricity and magetism>: are inseparable).

    Mr. Mehta. You will find the above quotes in the below - verbatim - paragraph, from the provided source:

    "One could argue that in this world it makes no sense to say that a point is in a one or two dimensional space, because we experience space in 3 dimensions, where one or two dimensions exists within this space, thus forcing 1d and 2d points to actually be 3d points. This way one could say that the only real spatial points are 3d points. And one could also argue that by giving more than 3 coordinates one starts to describe features which are not related to space (how would you describe the fourth dimension in spatial terms?) This is really a question about what we mean by space."



    Points in Differential Geometry
    Here is where the difference between points and vector becomes obvious; here is where the atomic nature of points becomes clear.

    See also:
    point (topology)

    Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_%28geometry%29"
    Categories: Geometry


    Thank you for reading this acknowledged extensive, hopefully self-explicitly redemptive, problem solving, issue resolving missive.

    Best Regards

    *****************
    KaiduOrkhon. Aka The White Mongol. Mystic Horse

    ^That Rascal Puff

    (Protege of Big 'Ol Aweful Earnie
    & Lion-Dog <Wolverine Totem> Guardians of the Imperial Chinese DragonThrone)

    A Subsidiary Aegis to the Ordu of
    Great Continental EuroAsian Green Grass RiverDragon Productions.

    ^ Kent Benjamin Robertson.
    kraziequus@yahoo.com

    http://einstein.periphery.cc/

    ^ World's #1 Einstein Groupie
    ^ Apprentice of Albert ('The Axe') Einstein:
    THE LAST MAN STANDING
    Vini. Vici. Entiendo.

    ***************************************

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    11

    HOPEFULLY GRIDLOCK DISSOLVING RESOLUTION ON DIMENSIONS.

    THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY

    IS CONTRADICTED BY THE SPECIAL THEORY

    by Adershir Mehta

    ardeshirmehta@mywself.com

    July 2001
    The General Theory of Relativity is based upon Einstein’s Principle of Equivalence.

    Imagine, says Einstein, a person being accelerated upwards in a completely enclosed elevator at a rate of 9.80665 m/s2. This being exactly equal to the acceleration due to the earth’s gravity, which is to say 1-g, the person would never know -- or so argued Einstein -- by any experiment performed purely inside the elevator, whether the elevator was stationary on earth, or was being accelerated upward in empty space.

    And so, argued Einstein further, if a tiny hole were made in one wall of the elevator which is being accelerated upward, and a beam of light introduced thereby into the elevator in a horizontal direction, the beam of light would appear to bend downward a bit, and hit the opposite wall at a spot a little lower than the hole. That’s because in the brief time it would take the light to go from the hole in the wall to the opposite wall, the elevator which is being accelerated upward would have travelled upward at an increasing velocity.

    And since there is no way to tell whether an elevator is being accelerated upward in empty space or standing stationary on the earth, this must be the case -- argued Einstein -- whether the elevator is being accelerated upward in empty space, or is stationary in the earth’s gravitational field. And this would prove that light is affected by gravity.

    After that the way was open for Einstein to suggest that light is attracted by gravity because space itself is curved, and time too, and all the rest with the Minkowski world-lines and light-cones and what-not. In other words, the General Theory of Relativity was developed from this simple argument.

    However, the Special Theory of Relativity blatantly and shamelessly contradicts the Principle of Equivalence. If an elevator were being accelerated upward at an acceleration of 9.80665 m/s2, within a few months it would attain a speed very close to the speed of light, and in a few decades it would have attained a speed of 99.999 ... 9 % that of light -- the number of 9’s in the above figure being limited only by the number of decades. Check out the mathematics yourself -- use the formula v=at.

    And according to the Special Theory of Relativity, any elevator -- and any person in it -- travelling at speeds approaching that of light would increase in mass, the increase being given by the Lorentz <gamma> factor, namely (1-v2/c2)-0.5.

    So if v is, let’s say, 99.999999999999 % of the speed of light, the <gamma> factor would be 7,073,895 -- in other words, a little over seven million! Work it out: it’s a simple formula.

    So what the Special Theory of Relativity predicts is, that a man in the elevator having a rest mass of, say, 100 kg would eventually have a mass of more than 700 million kg, or more than 700,000 tonnes -- and his mass would be growing daily! And because of the elevator’s 1-g acceleration, he would weigh that much too.

    (This, of course, provided that there was enough life support stuff for him in the elevator. Let’s just assume that there is, without wondering exactly how that would be accomplished. Hey: even Einstein didn’t explain how the elevator was supposed to be accelerated.)

    In other words, such a man -- or his descendants -- in a well-stocked elevator accelerating at 1-g in empty space would eventually be squooshed flatter than a pancake, due to his/their having increased in weight far too much. Indeed they should all turn into black holes eventually, and be swallowed up by themselves!

    But if the elevator were stationary on the earth, the Special Theory of Relativity predicts -- and common sense also confirms -- that the man and his descendants could live out their lives very comfortably unto the umpteenth, and even the umpteen-plus-oneth, generation, putting on weight only if they ate too much, or had some glandular or hormonal problem in that regard. (And even then they couldn’t possibly put on that much weight.)

    So the Special Theory of Relativity predicts that the man would eventually know, even without conducting an experiment, whether he was being accelerated upward at 1-g or whether he was stationary in a 1-g gravitational field -- directly contradicting the Principle of Equivalence, which argues that there would be no way for him to know that. 8-[

    (Now let me ask you: what sort of genius doesn’t see this elementary contradiction between two of his own theories -- a contradiction that even ordinary guys like you and me can see? Was Israel lucky, or what, that Einstein declined David Ben-Gurion’s offer to make him the first President of the Jewish State. It would have been the laughing-stock of the world, had he accepted!) :roll:

    Comments? E-mail me.
    ardeshirmehta@myself.com

    *************************

    +From K. B. Robertson to *Ardeshir Mehta
    (+Amplified response)

    *via URL http://ardeshirmehta@myself.com

    *( http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/education.html )

    Dear Sir, Mr Mehta: :-?

    Referencing the unprecedented, documentary non-mathematical identification of the 4-D space-time continuum, and its consequences ('the <previously unrecognized cause of what Einstein called the>'gravitational curvature of space') in the theoretical physics file on the menu at http://einstein.periphery.cc/ - resolves an ensemble of previous dissolute, misunderstood issues, certainly including your conclusion that 'The General Theory is Contradicted by The Special Theory', due to - what you conclude - would be a crushing ('Squooshing'/'pancake flattening') of any passenger(s) against the ever ascending, ever increasing speed - accleration - of the floor on Einstein's proffered, accelerating elevator(s).

    This would indeed be the fate of the subjected passengers, were it not for the over-all 4-Dimensional uniform enlargement - accelerating expansion - of the entire frame of reference (the entire physical universe, certainly including the passenger<s>), as Einstein proved it to be: ubiquitously 4-Dimensional (i.e.. moving ar right angles - growing ever larger - from and out of the recognized 3-D universe of matter and space).

    Your notably astute but incorrrect conclusion: altogether excludes the universal 4-D space-time continuum and the consequent fact that the issued passengers along with the entire universal frame of reference are acclerating - 4-Dimensionally expanding, along with the issued accelerating - ever-increasing speed - of the subjected, ever-ascending and accelerating floor of the elevator...
    A perusal of the 4-D gravitational issues proffered on the menu at http://einstein.periphery.cc/ dilates and clarifies the otherwise characteristically missed, all important issue at point, here - a physically, as well as spatially - expanding universe; within which:

    One square mile in the present, is much larger than it was yesterday, and much smaller than it will be, tomorrow. While at any given moment in the constantly accelerating, uniform enlargement of universal matter (space-time) an observer attributes the curved parabola of a thrown baseball, stone or football to the 'curve' of the trajectoried test object ' toward earth', rather than perceiving the entire frame of reference as rising - ever faster; accelerating - up to meet the straight line (geodesically) moving object...
    Moreover, in the described 4-Dimensionally ever-enlarging physically (as well as spatially) expanding universe: 60 mph yesterday (earlier Moment 'A'), is not as fast, when compared with 60 mph today (present Moment 'B'); neither is 60 mph today, as fast, when compared with 60 of tomorrow's (later Moment 'C') miles per hour.

    "The value of time is determined by the value of space it occurs in."
    - Kent Benjamin Robertson, GRAVITY IS THE 4th DIMENSION

    Moreover, and moving right along...
    The velocity of light was slower yesterday, than it is today, will be faster tomorrow, relative to today, ad infinitum, at any given moment; whereas:


    the velocity of light is constant - at any given moment - relative to the coordinate system (space-time moment) from which it originates in (multi-moment) 4-D space-time.

    The value of time - and velocity - are determined by the earlier, present or future moment in space-time any event occurs in.
    - K.B. Robertson, GRAVITY IS THE 4th DIMENSION.

    Your argument is thoughtful and well presented, but omits the (obscurely recognized) existence, meaning and ongoing consequences of the General Theory’s 4-D space-time continuum - how it nullifies your otherwise well made point.

    The Big Bang Theory (is a self disproven hypothesis) asserts similar equivocations, due also to the exclusion of the ongoing (obscurely recognized) consequences of the 4-D space-time continuum.


    Gravity, Electricity & Magnetism are the 4th, 5th & 6th Dimensions. Einstein's Unified Field reinstated, without mathematics.


    You write well.

    Indeed, I have studied and written of Einstein’‘s works for 49 years and not previously seen or heard of an argument such as that presented by yourself.

    Whereas, in this case, your - +otherwise correct - conclusions regarding what would be an inherent, non-sequiturial contradiction, in situ; +as you astutely describe it :

    whereas: your interpretation of the contradiction between Special & General Theory, omits, rather than contradicts (allegedly ‘acknowledged’, yet functionally unrecognized effects of) the 4th D within the General Theory of Relativity (Gravity Is The 4th Dimension).


    "Limitless are the number of apparently right conclusions that are otherwise based on a false premise." - Anon



    Post script: By standards familiar to most everyone, your *closing statements - *the last four paragraphs of your post - are in self berating contrast to your otherwise outstanding however equivocated - presentation. *Having the potential of making yourself the laughing stock of the world.

    Sincerely,

    - Kent Benjamin Robertson


    http://einstein.periphery.cc/

    Universal gravitation (including time) is the 4th Dimension.


    http://forums.delphiforums.com/ 'Albert "The Axe" - Einstein'
    REPORT FROM VFW - 'Bill Motto'/ 'Wage Peace' - POST 5888
    THE (dang near) EVERYTHING THEORY (KaiduOrkhon's Forums)



    ************************

    Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 23:03:55 -0800 (PST)
    From: "Ben MacColley" <kraziequus@yahoo.com> View Contact Details
    Subject: Defiinitions of dimensions (4- Dimensional Dimentia)
    To: ardeshir@myself.com
    CC: madprof21@optonline.com

    (In self-explanatory response to Mr. Ardeshir Mehta's reply to the above.)

    Dear Mr. Mehta:

    Noteworthy vigilance sir:
    Would have responded earlier but busy as you're likely also to be.
    It's 1.1.2005 0200 hrs. Saturday 2005. May it be a Happy & Prosperous New Year for You & Yours. Proffering Best Regards.
    P.S. Please address any further email to kraziequus@yahoo.com)


    Wish to proceed to hopeful resolution with our progressing debate.
    (Please excuse the delay. It certainly wasn't out of disinterest or indifference.)
    .......................................

    Considered definitions, similarities and differences between Euclidean & Pythagorean, Plane & Solid, Metric & Non-metric geometry (geometries)...
    Firstly presented in my own words; as cogent to our debate; then presented in excerpts from (provided) academic sources
    .........................................

    There is a strong school of thought proclaiming eleven dimensions. Perhaps there are.
    Another plateau of education states there are between 26 and 37 dimensions. Maybe so.
    Yet, no small number of pre and post graduate students in all subjects say the the number of dimensions in the universe is infinite. Stating their case by defining the intersectionof two (acknowledged, non existent, exclusively geometric, location determining) Straight Lines, representing
    a location in space called a 'geometric point', which, of course, really doe not exist... While each such defined Point is numberless (Ten Four.)

    You emphasize the issue of the non existence of a geometric point.

    I agree entirely. A geometric point - A - doesn't exist.

    For this reason and on this premise, you reasonably assert that when non existent geometric point A, moves, it doesn't 'move at right angles to itself' (as I say it does); because it doesn't spatially exist (we agree on that), and therefore cannot be properly described as moving at right angles, 90 dgs, perpendicular) to itself.

    Whereas, Mr. Mehta. This is true of non-metric (as opposed to metric), non functionally spatial (As opposed to functionally spatial), plane (as opposed to solid) geometric expressions, values and definitions...

    Are you not tenaciously adhering to, while excluding, alternative forms of geometry and geometric translations? Employing only non-metric, non-functional, Plane geometry to support your conclusions (by way of exclusions of alternative geometric translations you notably <deliberately or inadvertantly>, digress, divert from and/or ignore?)

    As soon as the non existent 2-D plane (B---->C) moves at right angles from itself (C--->D): generating an existentially real or imaginary impalpable 3-D entity - or image - of whatever shape or size: depending entirely upon whether non-metric or metric, plane or solid, non-functional spatial, or functional spatial alues are applied (to whatever given circumstance and condition).

    Repeat: (In agreement with you, up to but not including the extrapolation from 2 to 3 - and more - dmensiions: in metric, functional, solid geometric defined values...

    Neither a 1-D straight Line (A -->B), nor a 2-D Plane (B---->C), exists.

    Whereas, a 3-D square or rectangle (C----->D) may or not be an existential, functionally manifest entity, depending on whether or not it's qualified as metric or non-metric, plane or solid. Empty (until further notice perfect vaccuum doesn't exist anywhere), or occupied...

    When the right angle progression of dimensions proceeds as an extrapolating sequence of physical dimensions, as I have employed it: you engage a series of other means, translations and alternative definitions for dimensions.

    Those aren't the definitions at issue here.


    The engagement of any number of definitions for dimensions is often employed by well intended critics to gainsay the definitions applied in 'my' (the) employed expression(s) of the geometric point, extrapolating to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th & 6th dimensions..

    Whereas, the reason the better known - of perhaps countless colloquial and scientific examples of Martin Gardner's, RELATIVITY FOR THE MILLION, and P.D. Ouspensky's, A NEW MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - Chapter entitled: The 4th Dimension - employ a 'SuperCube' to express the 4th dimension (of time & motion <the 'two' being synonymous>, all the while previously unrecognized as inherent to and prevailing within the three recognized physical dimensions of functional, metric space):

    ... is because (although I vigorously acknowledge that science is not a 'majority rules' democratic - institution, the findings of which are accurately validated or invalidated by process of 'the polls', etc - without application and passage of requirements, i.e. substantial - repeat, substantial - proof<s>; with or w'out the majority ('We can't all be wrong' lemming, herd, lynch-mob & Inquisitional mentality):

    Notwithstanding...

    ... since 1916. the super-cube' is the applied standard of the right angle progression of a three dimensional entity ( of whatever morphology - the square or rectangular shape being the most popular exemplary models, for clarity, whereas, a Volkswagen or platypus is likewise), projecting itself at right angles to the three recognized dimensions, along with quite all the rest of the '3-D universe'....

    4-D omini-directional motion goes generally unrecognized and undetected ('non-mathematically *Immeasurable, *
    unimaginable, *incomprehensible' - as long as the acclelerating expansion of the entire frame of reference is not recognized as constantly expanding - ever-faster, fulfilling the 'curvature of space-time': * as long as the basketball, baseball, tennis or football player fails to recognize the 4-D space time continuum every time she, he (or the frustrated theoretical physicist at the black board) drops the ball (or chalk).

    This so called 'incomprehensible, imeasurable, unimaginable 4th D is inescapably manifest, measurable, comprehensible; constantly, in all the - 'everyday (ho hum) effects of 'gravity' - the fact that all objects on or near the surface of a major gravitational mass - such as earth, are pinned to - or 'fall' - to the ever expanding, accelerating surface:
    without infringement of the law of Conservation of Mass Energy: wherereas, it's the same amount of energy, distributing itself over and increasingly greater area, in the law of the inverse square: squared :
    A (Past) B (Present) and C (Future)...

    Where the continuous accleration can be diagrammed with a V shape. the converging of the two lines to an 'ending point', representing the infinite past:

    the widest separation representing the macrocosmic future:

    with 'us' - in the Present - 'Eternal Now' - directly between the microcosmic Past and the Macrocosmic Future, at any given moment (of endlessly unfolding, chronologically given, space-time moments...)

    Yesterday's mile - in the prevailing 4-D space time continuum, is (comparatively) smaller and more dense than today's mile. Tomorrow's mile will be (comparatively) larger and less dense than today's mile...

    Moreover (REPEAT): Yesterday's 60 mph, is slower - when compared to - today's 60 mph, and tomorrows will be faster than (when compared to) todays. While, at any given moment, the measured motion at issue here remains steady at 60 mph, since the past (until further notice) cannot be directly compared with the present, or the present, directly compared with the future.

    On the other hand, via recognition and acknowledgement of the 4-D space time continuum (and 'how we can relate to it in our own experience'), we may with assurance know and understand all of this... (It remains to be seen, how much more - and what - will be realized via this knowledge and insight).

    Summarily (REPEAT): Yesterday's speed of light is less than today's, and today's is lesser than tomorrows. Exactly why C (Celeritas Constant) remians unchanging, relative to the source (moment in space-time) from which it originated. The apparent 'enigma', is actually a complementary, reciprocal solution, to what is otherwise generally considered 'mysterious'.
    (Why is the speed of light constant? Is it constant? Can it be surpassed? )

    Those perennial questions are answered in the omnisciently unrecognized, consistently over-looked, denied and rejected resolution(s) - how & why the speed of light is constant: while at the same time, the velocity of light is constantly increasing, relative to the coordinate system - past, present or future, from which it originates.

    The constant accleration of all physical matter (at right angles to itself - neutrons, protons electrons, undulating charges of electricity having no distinct boundaries, becoming increasingly more dense toward their centers, fulfilling the identity of the (ever unfound, unproved: h-y-p--o-t-he-ti-c-a-l 'particle' :

    Newtonian Classical Mechanics-conceptualized 'billiard ball llike particle'; which even Newton questioned the existence of, just as he seriously made a point of qualifying that the concept of a force of 'attraction', as applied to universal gravitation, was not 'The Answer' to F (Force) - universal gravitation -, but rather 'The Guess' - which electrical charge is measured and found constantly and omnidirectionally in a state of accelerating expansion, as all forms of electricity (electromagnietism) are known to behave.

    Asking where it came from is an empty question. It's here and it's proved to be constantly and ominidirectionally growing ever larger, ever faster. On earth, at the rate of 32" per" Per ".

    The so called 'rate of descent' actually being the rate of ascent, of the ever enlarging earth's surface, i.e., the (possibly apocryphal) apple did not fall from A to B, to strike Newton on the head, but rather, Newton's head ascended to strike the apple...

    Newton himself, in his 3 page Preface to the Principia Mathematica, offers that gravity 'may be an impelling or a repelling force', in those - ultimatum haunted - words (the record, truly yours, calls this Newtonian originated qualification: 'the gravitational alternative', and 'the gravitational 'ultimatum').
    Newton carefully qualifies that he does not know the causal identity of gravity; whereas, his work patently establishes it's ubiquitous effects.

    Unnecessary misunderstanding prevail, as long as the spiralling pig-skin, basket & baseball-ball passing - parabolic trajectory is not recognized as a straight line (geodesic); only appearing to be a curved line, relative to the underway, continuous expansion of the entire frame of reference (4-D 'curvature of space' ) - including observers & measuring instruments - surrounding it.

    (FlashBack, DejaVuVu: everyone can see that the sun, moon, and Constellations of the stellar studded celestial vault all rise in the east and set in the west.

    It is clearly apparent that the universe revolves around the earth...

    Post Hoc Ergo Prompter Hoc (After this, therefore, because of this): It is clearly apparent that the entire physical frame of refererence - any portion of same you wish to focus scrutiny upon: is not in a constant state of accelerating expansion.... Same same....

    (Two wrongs don't make a right, but three or more do?)

    Whatever sort of alternative geometry you may be offering, Mr. Mehta - Euclidean, Pythagorean, Plane, Solid, Non-Euclidean, Spatially Functional, metric, Cartesian, Analytic, Riemannean, Algebraic, Spatially Functional, non- metric, Descriptive, Differential, linear transformable affine collineations, or Projective.

    The generally affine geometry (which I do not and never have pretended to understand, along with higher mathematics; has always been perplexing to me, though I highly respect metric mathematics and have some understanding of calculus, algebra, plane and solid geometry) proving the translation of right angle motion from preceding dimensions, is the geometry upon which the 4th, 5th & 6th dimensions of gravity, electricity and magnetism (my unprecedented work, arranged and authenticated by the - previously unrecognized, 'unrelated' works of many others) is based.

    In metric, functionally spatial, solid geometry: although neither geometric point A, nor geometric 1-D Straight Line ( A--->B), nor the geometric 2-D Plane generated by the right angle motion (B----->C), occurs in or generates functional, metric (real, existential), space: whereas, when Plane B------>C moves at right angles to itself, C-->D,
    it generates a three dimensional,. existentially manifest, functional - metric (measurable) space.

    Respectfully remind you, Mr. Mehta, that yourself
    and many others like you: challenge the viability of my statement (which is not 'my statement' at all) - that when a geometric point moves, no matter which way:
    it moves at right angles to itself - commencing a series of right angle extrapolations, progressively generating dimensions - at right angles/ 90 dgs. out of what ever preceding dimension.

    Moreover and at the locus of the ongoing debate:
    Such metric, functionally spatial, solid geometry: begins with a non-existent Geometric Point A:
    that is (also, furthermore) circular
    (- morphologically: round - O - of shape...

    No matter which way Geometric Point A may move, at whatever speed for whatever distance, it moves at right angles from it's self (A------->B) generating a (non existent) geometric Straight Line.

    Repeat: In metric, solid, spatially functional geometry, when the 2-D plane moves at right angles to itself, it generates existential, 3-D spatial reality, occupied or unoccupied by matter.

    When any 3-Dimensionally manifest entity moves at right angles to itself, it is 4- Dimensional.

    Einstein proved everything is 4 Dimensional, and, that the 4th dimension, inherent within 3-Dimensionally manifest entities is closely related to time & motion (are synonymous).

    The afore-reviewed, highly qualified laws of geometry demand therefore, of all three dimensional entitites, a sequential, progressive right angle motion to (arriving upon) all three manifest dimensions: recently proven and 'acknowledged' as inherent to and with the three recognized dimensions of space, having to do with time and motion: causing any and all such 4-Dimensional entities to be, either constantly contracting - fulfilling it's assigned obligation be conform to Einstein's 4th D. Or: to be constantly expanding, fulfilling Einstein's (alleged 'acknowledged') 4-D space-time continuum.

    Since test objects released near and above the earth's surface do not 'fall up', continuous contraction is ruled out as a functional 4-D vector.

    Whereas, test objects released near and above the earth's surface do 'fall down', establishing - in the two possibilities of what this author calls 'the 4-D ultimatum' - that the 4-D quality Einstein proved applicable to universal matter, is one of continuous enlargement, exapanding acceleration.

    Densities remaining uniform at any given moment, while continuously distributing themselves omnidirectionally in the law of the inverse square: squared. There is no infringement on the Law of Conservation of MassEnergy - it's the same amount of energy, distributed over an increasing volume of space, via the Law of the Inverse Square: squared.

    All enlarging 4-D entities remain relatively the same size and density, at any given moment; while having been more dense and smaller in the Past (MOMENT 'A'), relative to the Present. MOMENT 'B' - always at the center of the representative geometry of expansion expressed in the convergence of two straight lines - V - representing infinite Past in time and density (microcosmic infinity - 'strong nuclear binding forces')...

    While the two lines - 'the Arrow of Time' - moving upward and outward from their microcosmically inifinite confluence (which finitely 'ends', only in 3-Dimensions), proceeding as the same amount of energy, increasingly distributed over a greater amount of inverse squared structured macrocosomic space: squared. An ever enlarging universe of space and matter, Without beginning or ending.

    Reinstatement of Bondi, Gold & Hoyle's presently abandoned Steady State Universe. Reinstatement of Einstein's presently abandoned Unified Field Theory.
    Thousands of readers of this work have directly proclaimed or suggested it may result in: non-violent world revolution and a metaphorical 'quantum leap' in generalized, mainstream human consciousness.
    Evolved perceptions not only in all branches of Physical Science, but also of and within Philosophy, the Arts, Architecture and reassuring confirmation of the ability of the average person to comprehend - without mathematics - what was otherwise considered non-mathematically incomprehensible.

    Mr. Mehta (and like minded acolytes):
    If you are not dissuaded from your present course; if you disagree with this qualified geometric definition, sir: you are advised to take your argument to Martin Gardner's (exemplary) RELATIVITY FOR THE MILLIONS, and P. D. Ouspensky's Chapter On The 4th Dimension, in A NEW MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE, as well as every authority (and/or dilletante) on General Relativity's 4th dimension of time & motion - every applied example of the 4-D 'Super-Cube', known or heard of by this record
    .


    The 4th dimension of accelerating expansion of matter constitutes the 'pushing' /'impelling/'/attractive' effects of gravity on or near a major gravitational mass.
    Whereas, the 5th & 6th Dimensions of Electricity & Magnetism <invariably generated by, and constantly emitting from the 4th dimension of matter, re: Maxwell's discovery of the existence and spider-web sgaped, inverse square law structure>: causing 'action-at-a-distance' - terrestrial, aquatic and atmospheric tidal effects, for example.

    Gravity - the 4-D space-time continuum - at earlier, microcosmic moments, is the controversial, enigmatic and equivocationally 'identified': 'strong, nuclear binding force'.

    Gravity at larger, later moments (of chronologically sequential space-time - A, B, C acceleration <from the convergent bottom 'ending' of the considered 'V' shape of expansion; actually shaped more as structural 'dimple' - in the rubber sheet - of Riemannian Geometry, possibly generating what are presently and recently called chrono-spatial 'curls' and 'curlicues' - not unlike thin shavings of wood from a fine plane>, to the ) constituting the same 'weaker' force, at a later, larger moment, relative to observers, who are always exactly in the middle of the V (apple or pizza pie) shaped representation of Past - smaller more dense space-time (re: 'black hole singularities, if they exist).

    That is to say, the microcosms are as infinitely endless as the macrocosms. If Dear Reader finds the points being made here, redundant, this record may only beg pardon, for the characteristically called upon 'adjustment' to these all time prevelant, but previously unrecognized, disconnected composites of reality at large.

    There is no 'ending' of space at the small end of the diagrammatic V representing the ever enlarging arrow of 4-D space-time. Where the V shape formed by two lines, intersect with each other at the 'beginning', represent the '3-Dimensional' 'end' of space-time, whereas, in a 4-D universe - such as that within which we are proven to live and be part of, whether we recognize it or not - smallness (Moment A) - the microcosms - is just as endless and dense, as infinite largeness (Moment C); with 'us' always directly in the (Moment B) center of the eternally V shaped (approximently shaped) diagram of space-time.

    (Perhaps better represented by the characteristic shape of Riemannian Geometry, where the transient structure approximately curves back toward itself - refer the north and south polarities of a given electron, planet or sun, where the electromagnetic field is generated by and projected from the 'upper' - north - pole, to curve back around the physical structure - electron, planet, sun or star - and return to and within the south pole of such electromagnetic field-generating elements, ad infinitum,: complementing the relativistic axiom that mass value increases with velocity; wherein such a bi-polar system may sustain, maintain and enlarge itself: the larger the faster the faster the larger: squared...)

    Orbiting satellites, natural and artificial, do not actually describe circular or elliptical orbits, but rather, spirals - @ .
    Citing the example of a person running around an apparently 3-D circular track, likewise actually describing a 4-D - @ - spiral with each completion of whatever round or ecliptic track being jogged upon or raced over...

    The planet Mercury is astrophysically observed to 'inexplicably' lose 46 seconds of arc per century. Whereas, this 'unexplainable' loss is probably due to the exclusion of calculating it's orbit to be 4 - Diimensionally spiral @ shaped, instead of 3- dimensionally circular or elliptical. All the other planets likewise, 'inexplicably' lose lesser but measurable amounts of seconds of arc per century; probably for the same reason...
    (For further details and information on these issues, please honor this record with a study of - and perhaps a response to - the content and import ofthe theoretical physics file, on the multi-topic menu at http://einstein.periphery.cc/ )

    Sincerely,
    Thanking Mr. Ardeshir Mehta for his straightforward - if wayward - part in the inspiration of this (what started as an) E-mail letter.

    Kent Benjamin Robertson
    1/1/2005 0100 hrs Saturday
    .................................................. .....................................

    To whomever may belatedly assert - "Prove it'" - of the issued theoretical physics discussion herein, and it's expanded presentation at http://einstein.periphery.cc/ )

    It is not for this record to 'prove' any of this work.
    That is (abundantly) done.

    ( Fait accompli. Making near
    that which was distant.
    Making easy,
    that which was difficult. )

    It is for whomever may wish: to gainsay - to disprove it.

    To those who would demand: 'Show me where the 4th Dimension is'.

    The improved question is: 'Show me where it is not'.

    ---------------------------------------------

    The quasi-world renowned 'skunk fight' associated with this work.

    The countlessly colorful social dimensions...

    Anonymous vituperations and curses will only further embroil trespassers.
    Several of whom are cleverly camped out, and conferencing beneath ultraViolet moon - and other - lights:

    on the precipice of (epiphanically) learning, 'Tracers work both ways'.

    Featuring widely flung deluge of pithy one liners. A downpour of hysterically desperate, flop-flipping pages of off-topic, issue-diverting, self-diagnosed 'reversely confessing' volumes of vulgar grotesqueries have already been wretchedly employed - a matter of history, already self-documented, wrung out and hung out to cure, on the WWW internet.

    Where it already has - however helter-skelterly - stationed itself in 'anonymous' fragments, as many (generally indifferent) net cyber surfers are well aware. (Enter 'Kent Benjamin Robertson', and/or <For a good time, call> 'Brian Kirk Parquette' in google.
    Whereas, the issued offal (some of which proclaims to be posted by truly yours, including a remarkably well studied 'death threat' to 'kill you all' (somehow relayed out of Canada, rather than 'tracing back' to this record's IP#) - the record will keep this ongoing fascist behavior updated - much of which neither this record nor anyone else; including benevolent webmasters - and the 'taggers' themselves' - have yet been able - or cared to - remove
    With clarity and perfection, the insatiably adversarial, quicksand treading and tide shoveling element, impeccably speaks for itself:
    behooves, merits and beckons archiving & editing; for the constructive caveat - and education - of whomever may deign to learn, the rest of the <extensively brief, slap-happy, augered-in, smoking & flame-fanning> story...
    Re: work in progress: http://einstein.periphery.cc/machine_1 thru _4 ; which only very recently demanded a sequel - Part II - of it's 4 decade extended originators and notably registered - special circumstance enveloped - new ensemble of (undeniably stunning) confederate recruits.

    A 'faction (fiction based on fact ) story.
    Some of the criminally culpable contributors and accessorial participants in the story are <understandably> taking it personally.

    May have something to do wth the culminating fact that there's no statute of <Arizona - originating> state, or federal <itle 18: conspiracy> limitations on what they're self proved to be individually and collectively responsible for <How they do carry on.
    Presently working diligently to pass accesorial status to a third generation. Re: CHINATOWN: Starring Jack Nicholson and Sharon Stone <Fade Done-Away?>)

    Post Script
    (To Whomever it May - or Not - Concern):
    Are gravity, electricity & magnetism really the 4th, 5th & 6th dimensions?
    Or, has the author only cleverly built his theory around reality, so that - until further notice - no one can tell the difference?):

    P.P.S. Please address any email to
    kraziequus@yahoo.com)
    (The pewter is hiccupping on aol.)

    ***************************

    Excerpts from (referenced) formal discussions on geometric definitions, follow:

    including a commonly misunderstood - quasi anarchistic interpretation of the multiple definitions for 'dimensions', and how they are mal-applied to Einstein's 4th.

    Point (geometry)
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
    A spatial point is an entity with a location in space but no extent (volume, area or length). In geometry, a point therefore captures the notion of location; no further information is captured. Points are used in the basic language of geometry, physics, vector graphics (both 2d and 3d), and many other fields. In mathematics generally, any form of space is considered as made up of points as basic elements.



    Points in Euclidean geometry
    A point in Euclidean geometry has no size, orientation, or any other feature except position. Euclid's axioms or postulates assert in some cases that points exist: for example, they assert that if two lines on a plane are not parallel, there is exactly one point that lies on both of them. Euclid sometimes implicitly assumed facts that did not follow from the axioms (for example about the ordering of points on lines, and occasionally about the existence of points distinct from a finite list of points). Therefore the traditional axiomatization of point was not entirely complete and definitive.



    Points in Cartesian geometry
    Intuitively one can understand a location in 3d space. This location could be described with three real number coordinates: for instance
    P = (2,6,9). But one can also describe points in 1, 2 or more than 3 dimensions. The description of a point is quite similar to the description of a spatial vector, which also can exist in space with dimensions from one to many.

    The conceptual difference between these notions is significant, though: a point indicates a location, while a vector indicates a direction and length. If a distinguished point (the origin) is given, one can describe a location by giving the direction and distance from the origin to that point."

    (*Mr. Mehta, most of the excerpted material here is cogent to our debat,e whereas the following paragraph seems to include several contingent issues in our correspondence and posturing - you seem for example, to object to (my employment of) the application of 'Cartesian Coordinates.

    Moreover, you may agree, an ensemble of contingencies applicable to our debate, emerges in this paragraph (from Wikipedia. The free encyclopedia. via google. To a point <no puns intended> it sounds like your point, and then again: not...)

    Note your quasi- dismissal - w'out substantiation or explanation '- 'how would you describe the 4th dimension in spatial terms?'

    The unprovided answer (apparently presumed to be 'unanswerable') being that the 3 dimensions at issue here are constantly moving at right angles, growing ever larger, ever faster, ever larger, faster, squared - refer the square of Pi r and E-MC. Refer the international recognition and status of the otherwise unrecognized proof<s> of the 'SuperCube'... Indeed:

    A frequently considered issue, including the one you invoked, is:

    "What do we mean - what is meant - by 'Space'?

    'This is really a question about what we mean by "space-time."

    Refer Einstein's 'space-time' (Time being synonymous with motion, and conversely. That is to say: space 'and' time <like electricity and magetism>: are inseparable).

    Mr. Mehta. You will find the above quotes in the below - verbatim - paragraph, from the provided source:

    "One could argue that in this world it makes no sense to say that a point is in a one or two dimensional space, because we experience space in 3 dimensions, where one or two dimensions exists within this space, thus forcing 1d and 2d points to actually be 3d points. This way one could say that the only real spatial points are 3d points. And one could also argue that by giving more than 3 coordinates one starts to describe features which are not related to space (how would you describe the fourth dimension in spatial terms?) This is really a question about what we mean by space."



    Points in Differential Geometry
    Here is where the difference between points and vector becomes obvious; here is where the atomic nature of points becomes clear.

    See also:
    point (topology)

    Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_%28geometry%29"
    Categories: Geometry


    Thank you for reading this acknowledged extensive, hopefully self-explicitly redemptive, problem solving, issue resolving missive.

    Best Regards

    *****************
    KaiduOrkhon. Aka The White Mongol. Mystic Horse

    ^That Rascal Puff

    (Protege of Big 'Ol Aweful Earnie
    & Lion-Dog <Wolverine Totem> Guardians of the Imperial Chinese DragonThrone)

    A Subsidiary Aegis to the Ordu of
    Great Continental EuroAsian Green Grass RiverDragon Productions.

    ^ Kent Benjamin Robertson.
    kraziequus@yahoo.com

    http://einstein.periphery.cc/

    ^ World's #1 Einstein Groupie
    ^ Apprentice of Albert ('The Axe') Einstein:
    THE LAST MAN STANDING
    Vini. Vici. Entiendo.

    *******************************
    Post Script

    (Upon submitting this - acknowledged extensive, but hopefully self redeeming post, on a subject fraught with misunderstandings.

    The first attempt resulted in a message to 'try again'. whereas, had I not had a copy backup of what I'd just submitted, that would have meant abandoning altogether all of the above - hopefully well recieved and helpful efforts, or attempting to re-write the entire - as far as I know, irretrievably 'lost' post, upon seeing it vanish, after pressing the 'Preview' button....
    This is by no means a 'Bad Astronomy' 'idiosyncrisy', I've encountered it before and heard many others speak of the same happenstance occurrring frequently on many forums.

    I am an acknowledged plebe with on-line computer procedure and everything to do with it.... On the other hand, given the remarkable abilities and wide spectrum versatility of computers (their designers and programmers, et al), I do not understand why a 'postponed' ('Please try again') 'Submit', or 'Preview' action, frequently results in the complete loss of whatever information was keboarded to 'Preview', or 'Submit'....

    The 'postponed' message is not secured by the 'Sorry. Try again.' Information. This apparently 'inadvertant', routine procedure, upon due consideration, can be down-right frightening.
    Is the 'Preview' or 'Submit' pressing message sender being deliberately sabotaged by FILL IN HERE (Whoever does or not control such considerations)?
    Are the affiliated big forujm webmasters not able to program such a safety net? Are they sadomasochistically restraining from doing so, without recourse to the loser of whatever often labored over, long thought out, material? Are such 'Ooops a daisy's" selective?
    It is difficult for this plebe to seriously consider two possible explanations:
    A. Perhaps the web forum caretakers, staff and administrators are unaware of this stress inducing quandary.
    B. There is no way to prevent it from happening. When for whatever reason a message cannot be posted - in that present, or for that matter at any other time: is it not an easy possibility to secure that suspended or rejected message, and make it possible for it's sender to retrieve?

    Or, is it a matter of learning by the (ruthless) school of hard knocks, that you either copy your message just before you send it, or you lose it and that's the way the mop flops...?

    Often, the same syndrome appears in establishing and posting a forum, where prepared questions or instructions to be filled in, do not preinform the applicant that there is a limit of 225, or 250, or 70,000 characters, until after the application is submitted.
    Is this some sort of universal webmaster-forum contempt for subscribers or cost free contributors, or is there some - hopefully much more reasonable - explanation for it.

    In this case, I pressed 'Preview' button about a half hour ago. Screen message came up. 'You cannot submit another message so soon after your preceding post. Please wait a short while.' (Paraphrased)

    I know not that my previous effort to 'Preview', resulted in anything but a notice to the effect of 'Sorry, please try again'.... I know nothing of any 'post' I submitted, in this case, solidly because I didn't press 'Submit', I pressed 'Preview'... The computer disappeared the information anyway. I happened to have copied it before I attempted to 'Preview' it and have it tantamountly stolen from me.
    Should one take this personally, or is it just a shoulder shrugging matter of 'that's the way it goes' (Indeed), and/or 'That's life'.

    Is not 'life' fraught with enough of Murphy's 1st Law (If it can possibly go wrong, it will), or are there sentient beings - computer controllers (not categorized 'hackers' or 'trolls', mind you, but upper echelon www.net forum administrators and stafffers) who are inexplicably rewarded with the failure or refusal lto allow such 'safety nets'?
    Granted, this is 'off topic' from the above, compoundly diverse and markedly diverse and confused question and answer topic about dimensions. Whereas, on the other hand, how 'off topic' is it, when it addresses an apparently endemic - trans www.net - anomalie, that (often deeply) impacts everyone (not only depriving writers of posting their work, but likewise depriving readers of reading it.... Whatever it - Good, Bad, Oogly or mundaned - it may be...
    In my limited experience on the net, I have yet to see a discussion - 'topic', addressed to this at least serious, if not occasionally solemn, issue.

    Thank you (ahead of time?) for allowing this extensive communication, which I do believe redeems its duration...
    (If indeed it is allowed to be posted, which remains to be - or not to be - seen... Next time I submit it, I'll try to do so under the auspices of a 'change of Topic'.
    - K. B. R. 2/9/05 Wednesday


    ***************************************

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    14,547

    Re: HOPEFULLY GRIDLOCK DISSOLVING RESOLUTION ON DIMENSIONS.

    Quote Originally Posted by That Rascal Puff
    THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY [...87 kbytes of stuff...] I'll try to do so under the auspices of a 'change of Topic'.
    - K. B. R. 2/9/05 Wednesday
    Could you summarize? Thanks.
    0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    3,134
    Quote Originally Posted by That Rascal Puff
    In other words, such a man -- or his descendants -- in a well-stocked elevator accelerating at 1-g in empty space would eventually be squooshed flatter than a pancake, due to his/their having increased in weight far too much. Indeed they should all turn into black holes eventually, and be swallowed up by themselves!
    This is not what SR says at all. If the guy in the elevator at 1G reached a sufficient velocity relative to us then from our point of view he (and all his particles - and his elevator) may be lorentz contracted to be flatter than a particle, but from his point of view we would be equally lorentz contracted. He would feel the same wieght throughout because he feels a 1G acceleration throughout - he would only be massive from our point of view - we would be equally massive from his, that he is rocketing off at near c wouldn't cause us to collapse into black holes now would it.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    8,831

    Re: 4th dimension

    Quote Originally Posted by Kebsis
    Are we (humans) four dimensional or three dimensional?
    Remember a Michael Jacko (or was it Jackson 5?) video clip of late 70´s [Blame it on the boogie], where he leaves a trail of Jacksons as he dances? Well, that´s a good image to illustrate our fourth dimensionality.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    11

    THE SEQUENCING HERE REPEATS (AN UNLISTED) CORRECTED MISTAKE

    Subject:
    THE SEQUENCING HERE REPEATS (AN UNLISTED) CORRECTED MISTAKE
    ************************
    Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2005 12:51 pm Post subject: Re: 4th dimension
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ARGOS Posted the below quote by Kebsis:

    Kebsis wrote:
    Are we (humans) four dimensional or three dimensional?
    ________________________________________________
    Then ARGOS quasi-fecitiously responded to Kebsis' question:
    Remember a Michael Jacko (or was it Jackson 5?) video clip of late 70´s [Blame it on the boogie], where he leaves a trail of Jacksons as he dances? Well, that´s a good image to illustrate our fourth dimensionality.
    _______________________________________

    (*That Rascal Puff adds: Some folks may not realize that what Argos refers to here (as far as can be told from what he writes), that the images of whatever or whoever is moving, appears in multi-moment images, such as those seen under a strobe light in an otherwise darkened concert hall or what have you... ARGO's comparative description is partially adequate, while on the other hand, it does not include the 4-D phenomenology of ever increasing enlargement - right angle motion - of whatever multi-moment moving, strobe lighted subject.
    After consulting with several people about this - ARGO's - post (in response to kebsis), the question of the term 'Michael Jacko' arose... Then the word play on 'Jack's on'...

    Yes, Michael Jack's-on TV, of course, formerly of 'The Jackson 5', who went on his own, to pioneer the since normalized and routinely practiced entertainment industrialized art of playing with your Johnson, on network TV, in an auditorium filled with screamingly approving fans. Helping to create a New Age World Order of spanking yer monkey through your crotch fly, in public.

    Since then 'Michael Jacko' is heavily rumored to be leaving a trail of yllauxes abused children wherever he dances in his sleep.
    Kinda strange how ARGO excluded ('Maybe he forgot') that most recent sensational 'Michael Jacko' feature... Which isn't - after all - such 'a good image to illustrate our 4th dimensionality'...
    __________________________________________________ _______

    WORZEL Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2005 12:02 pm Post subject:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    That Rascal Puff wrote:
    In other words, such a man -- or his descendants -- in a well-stocked elevator accelerating at 1-g in empty space would eventually be squooshed flatter than a pancake, due to his/their having increased in weight far too much. Indeed they should all turn into black holes eventually, and be swallowed up by themselves!
    _______________________________________________

    That Rascal Puff: did not write the above quote.

    A forumite named Ardeshir Mehta did; to whom That Rascal Puff conveyed the error of Ardeshir Mehta's ways. Which correction has been omitted or transferred out of sequence, to make it appear as though Puff wrote what a forumite who identified himself as 'worzel', 'Bad Grad', with some 500+ posts, saying he's from London: says That Rascal Puff wrote...

    Worzel goes on to correct Ardeshir Mehta's above quote (falsely attributed and addresed to That Rascal Puff):
    ___________________________________

    "This is not what SR says at all. If the guy in the elevator at 1G reached a sufficient velocity relative to us then from our point of view he (and all his particles - and his elevator) may be lorentz contracted to be flatter than a particle, but from his point of view we would be equally lorentz contracted. He would feel the same wieght throughout because he feels a 1G acceleration throughout - he would only be massive from our point of view - we would be equally massive from his, that he is rocketing off at near c wouldn't cause us to collapse into black holes now would it."
    ________________________________

    That Rascal Puff posted a dissenting response to this blaming of someone else's mistakes, on himself (That Rascal Puff) by 'worzel', 'of London'. So far the original sequence and correction has not appeared; it was written and posted about three hours ago, time actual, at the writing of this protest. 2/10/05 2005, Thursday evening
    _____________________________________

    The 'mistakes' holding That Rascal Puff responsible for the mistakes of others, continues. Although a forumite who identifies self as '01101001'
    did post the kindly message of interrogatory, as presented in the below post, from there, once again, the sequence of responses from That Rascal Puff has been altered, omitted, falsely sequenced, to effect an entirely different message, and meaning, to Puff's posts....
    (Just because you think the paranoids are after you, doesn't mean the paranoids are not after you...)
    .................................................. ........................................

    01101001 Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:52 am Post subject: Re: HOPEFULLY GRIDLOCK DISSOLVING RESOLUTION ON DIMENSIONS.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    That Rascal Puff wrote:
    THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY [...87 kbytes of stuff...] I'll try to do so under the auspices of a 'change of Topic'.
    - K. B. R. 2/9/05 Wednesday
    Could you summarize? Thanks.


    That Rascal Puff Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2005 2:54 am Post subject: HOPEFULLY GRIDLOCK DISSOLVING RESOLUTION ON DIMENSIONS.
    ________________________________________________

    From this point on, the forumite posts by Ardeshir Mehta and Rascal Puff, are out of sequence, denigrating the well made, documentary proved points of Rascal Puff... Who does have an archive of how the original posts were self-explicitly sequenced. Puff is also archiving this series of apparently contrived, unrestrained, uncorrected deprecations and misrepresentations of his posts.
    (Looks like more of an accumulating, yet unpublished 'Part II' of http://einstein.periphery.cc/machine_1 thru _4

    "Failing in framing, blaming and painting him;
    they settled for hanging their pictures of him." - Anon

    "The verdict is guilty, and they're working on the charges."
    - Kent Benjamin Robertson

    If these described 'errors' are not corrected, BAD ASTRONOMY administrators and staffers, and several of its forumites (previously venerated by this record) will take their places in what is culminating as PART II, of the material - ROBERTSON FAMILY CONSPIRACY - at http://einstein.periphery.cc/machine_1 thru 4

    My properly sequenced postings will be tried again in the near future if they don't show up somewhere in this forum in their proper sequence, without 'worzel' blaming 'Rascal Puff' for Ardeshir Mehta's mistakes, etc.

    Some may consider this a trivial matter, and it would be, more or less, were it not for the social dynamics accounted for at http://einstein.periphery.cc/machine_1 thru_4.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    11
    [b] PLEASE READ THIS WITH CAREFUL VIGILANCE
    (It is a redress of the two preceding posts, addressing the two - duped - posts, preceding the two preceding posts... If you're reasonably patient, the record will explain with every goal toward efficiency and clarity... The management promises it's well worth the Relativistically brief journey. Thank you. - Truly Yours. )[/b]

    Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:52 am Post subject: Re: HOPEFULLY GRIDLOCK DISSOLVING RESOLUTION ON DIMENSIONS (by That Rascal Puff).. As subjectively reviewed by ' 01101001' - 'Bad Grad', Joined 15 March 2004. Posts 939

    (*The immediate above and immediate *below quotes were in fact written by truly yours - That Rascal Puff: With the qualification that the *below heading - "THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY CONTRADICTS THE SPECIAL THEORY" - is the verbatim UPPER CASE title of the issued message posted and authored by Ardeshir Mehta, just prior to That Rascal Puff's - hopefully - self-redemptive, constructive response to it...

    That is to specify: the below 'quote', beginning with *"THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY [...87 kbytes of stuff..]", was +written - as the title of his - Ardeshir Mehta's - ensuing, equivocational *'correction' of Einstein's Special & General Theories, by Ardeshir Mehta, who That Rascal Puff subsequently and correctively responded to.

    Whereas, the cordially correcting critic and/or staffer/ webmaster, 01101001, replied. Firstly with the title authored by Ardeshir Mehta ('THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY IS CONTRADICTED BY THE SPECIAL THEORY'), to which That Rascal Puff responded (in what proved to be two consecutive, nearly identical posts, the consecutive duplication of which is explained at the - added - closing of the second of the two nearly identical posts...
    <If the Reader finds those directions confusing, simply read on, because the subjected 'off topic' statement - which I believe to be of importance to literally everyone who uses the net - will be reiterated in forthcoming text; perhaps someone may answer the otherwise remaining, so far unanswered question[s]...>)
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    01101001 posted a reply, firstly referencing *That Rascal Puff's 'quote', the only portion of which was actually authored by *TRP (*Kent Benjamin Robertson) is, "I'll try to do so under the auspices of a 'change of Topic'. The objective - evocation - of this statement will be explained with the progression of this post.

    Whereas, 'THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY...' was (is) TRP's reference to (the beginning of) Ardeshir Mehta's title, of his (Ardeshir Mehta's) incorrect critique of Einstein's Gen & Spec Rel., and, "[...87 kbytes of stuff...]" is 01101001's correct observation that there was a heck of a lot of characters/words/material in TRP's (twice repeated) post, in correctional response to Ardeshir Mehta's interesting and very perceptive, but equivocal proclamation, 'THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY IS CONTRADICTED BY THE SPECIAL THEORY'
    ________________________________________________

    01101001 posted the following 'quote':
    That Rascal Puff wrote:
    THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY [...87 kbytes of stuff...] I'll try to do so under the auspices of a 'change of Topic'.
    - K. B. R. 2/9/05 Wednesday

    ________________________________________________
    To which 01101001...
    (Bad Grad
    Joined: 15 March 2004
    Posts: 939)

    ...mildly and tolerantly replied:
    "Could you summarize? Thanks."

    8)
    _________________
    01101001100101101001011001101001100101100110100101 10100110010110...
    (It certainly does look like 01101001's - however binary fixated - signature?)
    .................................................. ...............................
    TO: 01101001

    In reciprocally mild and tolerant response to 01101001:

    FROM: That Rascal Puff

    As you are undoubtedly aware, the 'topic' of this entire file of posts is a series of responses to pro and con questions, proclamations, definitions, descriptions, applications, and/or answers, regarding 'Dimensions'...

    An altogether worthy and 'timely' if diversely misunderstood issue - where a valid definition of one kind of dimension is often wrongly applied to displace an excluded, appropriately applicable category of dimension; because there are indeed, many dimensional categories (as I make a point of listing herein, from formal information resources), all of them correct, as long as they are not transposed from their intended contexts; too often - perhaps endemically, if not anarchistically - superimposed to displace or forsake ingenuous dimensional definition; as applicable to specific conditions and circumstance(s).

    If you will bear with me, sir (or Madam), it can be seen by the exemplary series of responses from the beginning of the above column of responses to this topic on 'dimensions', that there are many proffered questions and answers, right, wrong, and/or partial answers to and a - generally characteristic - number of misunderstandings, regarding the issue of 'Dimensions'.
    Which not infrequently departs altogether, formally and academically established objective terminology, with subjective usage - sometimes aesthetically brandishing 'artist's license'...

    ('Where are the dimensions and where are they not? Boundless of music and thought. But countless dimensions of space there are not. Dimensions of beauty and wine and of thee, occcur in spatial dimensions of which there are three.' - Excerpt from Gravity Is The 4th Dimension, by K. B .Robertson. )

    Neither is this by any means the only such 'topic' as it appears in various forums throughout the www.net, where the issue of defining dimensions doesn't seem to be recognized or acknowledged as formally and academically standardized.

    Instead, often the practitioners of the word 'dimension' come to loggerheads, only because each is using the same word, sometimes correctly - but in non corroborative contexts... (There are different settings, calling for different definitions - of which there are many - of dimensions...)
    The record - That Rascal Puff - sincerely thanks Ms or Mr. 01101001, for her or his courtesy, while in consideration of the request:
    "Could you summarize? Thanks."

    This record is not sure if you ask that the (acknowledged, extensive) correction of Mr. Mehta be summarized, or the additional message at the close of the last 'off topic' issue of the two duplications - the ('Post Script') statement at the closure of the second of the two identical posts, may be best explained by what it says...

    It fairly spontaneously subjects and explains, among other issues, how this record's Post subject, began: Re: HOPEFULLY GRIDLOCK DISSOLVING RESOLUTION ON DIMENSIONS, by That Rascal Puff.
    (It does allude to an important discussion this internet-unseasoned record has never before seen addresssed - or resolved - on and about the www.net's 'forums', or anywhere ellse.)

    "Post Script
    Upon submitting this - acknowledged extensive, but hopefully self redeeming post, on a subject fraught with misunderstandings.

    The first attempt resulted in a message to 'try again'. whereas, had I not had a copy backup of what I'd just submitted, that would have meant abandoning altogether all of the above - hopefully well recieved and helpful efforts, or attempting to re-write the entire - as far as I know, irretrievably 'lost' post, upon seeing it vanish, after pressing the 'Preview' button....

    This is by no means a 'Bad Astronomy' 'idiosyncrisy', I've encountered it before and heard many others speak of the same happenstance occurrring frequently on many forums.

    I am an acknowledged plebe with on-line computer procedure and everything to do with it.... On the other hand, given the remarkable abilities and wide spectrum versatility of computers (their designers and programmers, et al), I do not understand why a 'postponed' ('Please try again') 'Submit', or 'Preview' action, frequently results in the complete loss of whatever information was keboarded to 'Preview', or 'Submit'....

    The 'postponed'?/'suspended'?/'lost?' message is not secured by the 'Sorry. Try again.' Information. This apparently 'inadvertant', routine procedure, upon due consideration, can be down-right frightening.
    Is the 'Preview' or 'Submit' pressing message sender being deliberately sabotaged by FILL IN HERE (Whoever does or not control such considerations)?

    Are the affiliated big forujm webmasters not able to program such a safety net? Are they indulgent in restraining from doing so, without recourse to the loser of whatever often labored over, long thought out, material? Are such 'Ooops a daisy's" selective?

    It is disturbing for this plebe to seriously consider two possible explanations:
    A. Perhaps the web forum caretakers, staff and administrators are unaware of this stress inducing quandary.
    B. There is no way to prevent it from happening. When for whatever reason a message cannot be posted - in that present, or for that matter at any other time: is it not an easy (or 'doable') possibility to secure that suspended or rejected message, and make it possible for it's sender to retrieve?
    Or, is it a matter of learning by the (ruthless) school of hard knocks, that you either copy your message just before you send it, or you lose it and that's the way the mop flops...?

    Often, the same syndrome appears in establishing and posting a forum, where prepared questions or instructions to be filled in, do not preinform the applicant that there is a limit of 225, or 250, or 70,000 characters, until after the application is submitted.

    Is this some sort of universal webmaster-forum resentment for subscribers or cost free contributors/particpants/message posters, or, is there some - hopefully much more reasonable - explanation for it.
    In this case, I pressed 'Preview' button about a half hour ago. Screen message came up.
    "You cannot submit another message so soon after your preceding post. Please wait a short while.' (Paraphrased)

    I know not that my previous effort to 'Preview', resulted in anything but a notice to the effect of 'Sorry, please try again'.... I know nothing of any 'post' I submitted, in this case, because I didn't press 'Submit', I pressed 'Preview'... The computer disappeared the information anyway. I happened to have copied it before I attempted to 'Preview' it and have it tantamountly stolen from me.

    Should one take this personally, or is it just a shoulder shrugging matter of 'that's the way it goes' (Indeed), and/or 'That's life'?

    Is not 'life' sprinkled with enough of Murphy's 1st Law (If it can possibly go wrong, it will), or are there sentient beings - computer controllers (not categorized 'hackers' or 'trolls', mind you, but upper echelon www.net forum administrators and stafffers) who are inexplicably rewarded with the failure or refusal to allow for - create - such 'safety nets'?

    A THOUSAND CONTINUOUS PARDONS?
    Granted, this is 'off topic' from the above, compound and markedly diverse and confused Question & Answer topic about dimensions.

    How 'off topic' is it, when it addresses an apparently endemic - trans www.net - anomaly, that (often deeply) impacts everyone (not only depriving writers of posting their work, but likewise depriving readers of reading it.... Whatever it - Good, Bad, Oogly or however mundane - it may be...?
    In my limited experience on the net, I have yet to see a discussion - 'topic', addressed to reduce or rectify - if not altogether avoid - this at least serious, time and thought consuming, if not occasionally solemnly equivocated, issue.

    Begging the Reader's leave: regarding the definitions and standardizations of 'DIMENSIONS' and contingent subjects; of which there are (at least) sixteen (16) categories [b](Euclidean, Pythagorean, Plane, Solid, Non-Euclidean, Spatially Functional, metric, Cartesian, Analytic, Riemannean, Algebraic, Spatially Functional, non- metric, Descriptive, Differential, linear transformable affine collineations, or Projective). [/b]

    Thank you (ahead of time?) for allowing this extensive communication, which I do believe redeems its duration...
    (If indeed it is allowed to be posted, which remains to be - or not to be - seen... Next time I submit it, I'll try to do so under the auspices of a 'change of Topic'.
    - K. B. R. 2/9/05 Wednesday

    .................................................. .............................................

    As Dear Reader may presciently anticipate, when truly yours pointed & clicked the 'Preview' button: nothing (apparent) happened, exept 'Sorry. Try again' (on a 'Preview'?)...
    Yours Truly, having happened to have highlighted and made a copy of what was 'lost' - with the message 'Sorry. Try again'. (paraphrased)... Upon the second attempt, I did not point 'n click the 'Preview' button, but rather the 'Submit' option. Still nothing, that I knew of at that time, resulted from either of these attempts... In some forums, the entry and recording of the Submitted message is conveyed to the messenger, in others, not...
    Some time later I received notices in my e-mail, that there was a response to one or both of my recent posts, at the BAD ASTRONOMY forum. I made two such discoveries in my email and realised that both the 'Preview', and the 'Submit' had in fact been posted on the forum, unbenownst to this on-line greenhorn, in the described earlier moments...

    Incidentally, several people I know of, including myself, consider the (so called) BAD ASTRONOMY forum, among the better, high quality, wide spectrum, high tolerance (less speciously aggressive staffed) science forums on the net. Myself - and many others - may only be thankful; hopefully reciprocating BAD ASTRONOMY's administrative qualities, with quality (if redundant or extensive?) material.

    With regard to 01101001's (understandable, and notably polite) request:
    "Could you summarize? Thanks."

    This record may only hope that its readers may understand that the issues broght to the fore, by Mr. Ardeshir Mehta's post - THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY CONTRADICTS THE SPECIAL THEORY - entail fairly complex (if easily resolved) premeses (plural of premisis).

    Although I do not think there is any comprehensive substitute 'abbreviation' (summarization) of Mr. Mehta's - notably well informed and (perhaps ironical) intelligently produced - equivocation (mistake - we all make them, no? Whereas, some of us make more reasonable mistakes than others...<Mr. Worzel, of London, is flapping and clicking his mandibles, in the wings?>).

    Mr 01101001's call for a 'summarization' is not unreasonable.

    Any who read my critique of Mr. Mehta's essay (a few posts above this one), I think, will agree that it could indeed be abbreviated (somehow, if less comprehensively and lacking a lot of otherwise, new and cogent information).
    I agree, it could indeed get it's central point (of qualified disagreement) across, without any number of additional informations contingent to and supplicating the discussion at hand....

    With that submission, I ask the reader to consider that this record often sees an opportunity to cast more ingenuous light in a wider beam, when such issues emerge. Always hopeful that contingent, often unprecedented additional information will be interesting and useful to the Reader, while having long ago learned that many Readers may consider my dissertation(s) overly expansive (no puns intended).

    Yours Truly supposes much of what he espouses could be more abbreviated... But then, until further notice, truly yours is *the only person in the world, who knows the original humility - and, en isolato burden of responsibility - of non-mathematically comprehending Einstein's Special, General and Unified Field Theories of Relativity; attempting to share it with mixed categories of 'audience'.....

    *No small number of whom tempermentally vary from mild irritation, unveiled resentment and active ridicule, to *vituperations so *pernicious as not to be issued in the presently ongoing 'topic', however widely cast that - of itself - may presently be.
    ( * Re:http://einstein.periphery.cc/machine_1 thru _4)

    In the course of forty six years - since age 17 - having authored 12 small press published, distributed and sold out essays (mostly having to do with 'ethology' - research of causes, effects and possible remedies for domestic violence and international warfare), and six sold out, internationally distributed editions of small press hard copy books, uniquely translating Einstein's greatest achievements in Field Physics:
    While recalling many blessings and much simple kindness from many people, I have become accustomed to not infrequently - in the process of being talked about, or told - that I am who and what I am not, and, that I am not and cannot be, who and what I am. :-?

    (* Any who may take offense to or otherwise disagree with the above proclamation are obliged to prove their contentions - not merely and however indignantly, humorously and/or or condescendingly - disagree. <Anyone may agree, or disagree, with any person, idea or thing, at any time, for any reason, or lack of it. That is to say: Make your relavant points, or sit on them.>. Buona Fortuna.) 8-[

    Lending increasing sway to the often denied cliche that,
    ' " No good deed goes unpunished".
    - Author unknown
    "Lots of people know (*and cravenly covet) a good thing,
    after the other fellow sees it first."
    - Job Hedges
    *****************************************

    AND NOW THIS:

    *worzel
    *Bad Grad
    Joined: 17 Mar 2004
    Posts: 655
    Location: London
    Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2005 12:02 pm Post subject:
    _________
    _______________________________________

    Worzel - Bad Grad, of London, wrote - stated the below proclamations:

    That Rascal Puff wrote:
    In other words, such a man -- or his descendants -- in a well-stocked elevator accelerating at 1-g in empty space would eventually be squooshed flatter than a pancake, due to his/their having increased in weight far too much. Indeed they should all turn into black holes eventually, and be swallowed up by themselves!

    ________________________________________________

    Having purported the above quote to be written by 'That Rascal Puff',
    'worzel - Bad Grad', of London, proceeds to altogether correctly take issue with the above quote, impressively proslytizing:

    [b ] "This is not what SR (*Special Relativity) says at all. If the guy in the elevator at 1G reached a sufficient velocity relative to us then from our point of view he (and all his particles - and his elevator) may be lorentz contracted to be flatter than a particle, but from his point of view we would be equally lorentz contracted. He would feel the same wieght throughout because he feels a 1G acceleration throughout - he would only be massive from our point of view - we would be equally massive from his, that he is rocketing off at near c wouldn't cause us to collapse into black holes now would it"
    _________________

    (*worzel Bad Gra makes his departure with
    "There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those waiting for a bus." . ops:
    .................................................. ............................

    That Rascal Puff responds:
    The latter statement - about ' those who understand tenary...' appears at the closure of Mr. Worzel's matchless message, it may only be speculated that it's his 'signature', as a closure to perhaps all his posts...

    There are modestly, far less than ten - all mere technical - corrections 'That Rascal Puff' tasks to tidy up Mr. Worzel's keenly polished and masterfully rectified correction(s):

    The surname of H.A. Lorentz is spelled with an upper case (Capital) 'L'. Mr. Worzel (Perhaps in his haste to make a much more important score?) dropped the chalk (or ball?) twice, on that lower cased note.

    Moreover, there is no room for doubt that Mr. Worzel is fully cognizant of the proper spelling of 'weight', and his manifest application of 'wieght', is irreproachably a simple and certainly unimportant 'typo'; causing no real pause or delay - or otherwise be confused - for Foucault's pendulously swinging wait.

    Moving right along...

    With the exception of a coupla-few other other technical glitches, such as the absence of a question mark at the end of Mr worzel Bad Grad's last sentence 'in response to That Rascal Puff' ('that he is rocketing off at near c wouldn't cause us to collapse into black holes now would it.' ) Mr. Worzel is (truly) a world class student of Einstein's Relativity Theories (Not to mention Rick Griffin's inimitable MAN FROM UTOPIA?). :^o

    Whereas, Mr. Worzel's well spoken - if antithetically misplaced - correction is duly noted; so be it: as undeniably applied to a verbatim statement extracted from Ardeshir Mehta's - likewise eruditely spoken but flawed - essay, 'THE GENERAL OF RELATIVITY THEORY CONTRADICTS THE SPECIAL THEORY'. Wherein Mr. Mehta parts ways with reality in a less personal and tell-tailing way than the gran mal arrival - and smug departure of Mr. Worzel, who is either inexplicably disoriented, or deliberately blaming That Rascal Puff, for Mr. Mehta's (unfortunate) error(s). 8-[
    As a lofty Brit, Mr Worzel may not be familiar with 'wrong way Corrigan' - an outstanding American Yankee football player who became famous for smoothly intercepting and running the ball through a series of difficult obstacles, who turned out to be his own team members, attempting to stop him from carrying the ball over his own goal line, chalking up a touch-down against his own team. #-o
    (That wouldn't be cricket
    with the home team - or its fans - now, would it?)


    This record does not know if Wrong Way Corrigan became the laughing stock of the world, or if Ardeshir Mehta destined himself to be what he projected on (the unforgettably Jewish?) Einstein.

    As for Mr. - 655 posts, Bad Grad - Worzel, the record is out with the mediators and jury on that barrel-roll - whether he's simply dog-paddling against the (originallly Celtic, then Roman and finally - pre 1066 A.D. - AngloSaxon) Thane's ever changing, rising and falling tidal currents, or, whether he's feigning an error (a noteworthy case of willful 'mistaken identity') which is actually a deliberate framing and blaming of this (http://einstein.periphery.cc/machine_1 thru _4) authoring record...

    In any case (as it were), Mr. Worzel bowed out with what appears to be his standard signatorial closing: :^o
    [b] "There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those waiting for a bus " ."[/b] :roll:

    The record - Truly Yours, That Rascal Puff, KaiduOrkhon, Mystic Horse, Kent Benjamin Robertson - was, of course - on Mr. Worzel's (muted) door slamming note, obliged to consult the English dictionary on the meaning of the word 'ternary'.
    (*parenthesized statements, marked with an asterisk - * - are the editorial narrative of the record, Truly Yours.)

    For the uninitiated, 'ternary' reads:

    1. Made up of three parts. Three fold. Triple.
    2. Third. #-o
    3. In math - involving three variables. Having three as a base.
    4. In metallurgy, of an alloy of three metals. ternary form or quantic
    in mathematics, a form of quantic having three variables.

    (*Always one coordinate shy of a 'tensor'
    is tense - and nearly close-calling - enuff?)

    'ternary', continued:

    in music, triple time.
    A group or set of three (*Re: codified Druid trees). A triad."

    .................................................. ......................

    Whatever may have behooved or otherwise moved Mr. DeathSpeak Worzel (War's-hell?) to triangulate (trine) himself with that (Dealy Plaza? Grassy Knoll?) geometrically 180 dg (Pythagorean) slogan, it also calls up and hauls out one of several closing signatures occasionally affixed by this record.

    Previous cyber-paper beaten path buffs may already be familiar with the blazed trails, and the fact that - particularly now, for this word-smithing occasion - it's certainly worth quaquaversal repetition (sans shovel) in the numerologically key of (hi) C note(s):

    Q. What are the Oxymoron, the non-sequitur and the prevarication in (ternately rare) - consensus agreement on...?

    ... Time'sZup...

    A. Two wrongs don't make a right, but three do. .
    :roll:
    (Thanx fer axing. Che tres coincidensias.
    You may restrain your applause.)

    Always having been poor at math (and popcorn?), yet, the record fathoms Mr. Worzel's (bi-polar?) ternary signatorial closure, to a depth of three obsessive inches of manic depressively flaunted TripleSec (distilled orange - ZerO-range), a geometrographically struck - azimith & sextant bereft - triangle, connecting Phoenix to Denver to Minneapolis-St. Paul (- The Twin - fodder, mudder & holy smokes - Mississippi RiBBer divided Cities).

    Although I have signed out with the above - artlessly elegant, mystery dissipating - hyperbolic 'riddle' ('2 wrongs don't make a right, but 3 or more, do'), the occasion presented by Mr. Worzel, of the U.K's Capital City, inspires this keyboard (Molly Keyboard MacColley: the most formidable counter offensive weapon in el mundo) to 'sign out in suspensory closure'. which should be of no difficulty for Mr. Twister Worzel to decypher, since he is - or says he is - after all, an Extreme (insult to all venerable) Englishman. [-X

    [b] "There are only two pairs of five kinds of people in the world.....
    Those who understand iambic pentametric philogistic evolution, those who don't (including those who affectatiously pretend to), and those who miss every beat, sonnet, and antiquated 5th-wheel trolley-estated bus(t) they're (interminablyl) waiting (on the corner) for...
    ."[/b]
    .................................................. ..

    - Kiitos Palia

    Best Regards
    (Thumper loves Crayon Azul Vanilla Jitana Flower)

    *****************

    KaiduOrkhon. Aka The White Mongol. Mystic Horse

    ^That Rascal Puff

    (Protege of Big 'Ol Aweful Earnie
    & Lion-Dog <Wolverine Totem> Guardians of the Imperial Chinese DragonThrone. NieveAkacitaMinneconjouAlgonquinBlancaChin)

    A Subsidiary Aegis to the Ordu of
    Great Continental EuroAsian Green Grass RiverDragon Productions.

    ^ Kent Benjamin Robertson.
    kraziequus@yahoo.com

    http://einstein.periphery.cc/
    http://einstein.periphery.cc/machine_1 thru _4

    forums.delphiforums/kaiduOrkhon
    'Albert - "The Axe" - Einstein'
    Green Grass RiverDragon
    REPORT FROM VFW - 'Bill Motto' / 'Wage Peace' - POST 5888
    THE (dang near) EVERYTHING ('cept 'Final') THEORY.

    ^ World's #1 Einstein Groupie
    ^ Apprentice to Albert ('The Axe') Einstein:
    THE LAST MAN STANDING 8)

    Vini. Vici. Entiendo.

    ************************

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    3,134

    Re: THE SEQUENCING HERE REPEATS (AN UNLISTED) CORRECTED MIST

    Quote Originally Posted by That Rascal Puff
    __________________________________________________ _______

    WORZEL Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2005 12:02 pm Post subject:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    That Rascal Puff wrote:
    In other words, such a man -- or his descendants -- in a well-stocked elevator accelerating at 1-g in empty space would eventually be squooshed flatter than a pancake, due to his/their having increased in weight far too much. Indeed they should all turn into black holes eventually, and be swallowed up by themselves!
    _______________________________________________

    That Rascal Puff: did not write the above quote.

    A forumite named Ardeshir Mehta did; to whom That Rascal Puff conveyed the error of Ardeshir Mehta's ways. Which correction has been omitted or transferred out of sequence, to make it appear as though Puff wrote what a forumite who identified himself as 'worzel', 'Bad Grad', with some 500+ posts, saying he's from London: says That Rascal Puff wrote...

    Worzel goes on to correct Ardeshir Mehta's above quote (falsely attributed and addresed to That Rascal Puff):
    ___________________________________

    "This is not what SR says at all. If the guy in the elevator at 1G reached a sufficient velocity relative to us then from our point of view he (and all his particles - and his elevator) may be lorentz contracted to be flatter than a particle, but from his point of view we would be equally lorentz contracted. He would feel the same wieght throughout because he feels a 1G acceleration throughout - he would only be massive from our point of view - we would be equally massive from his, that he is rocketing off at near c wouldn't cause us to collapse into black holes now would it."
    ________________________________

    That Rascal Puff posted a dissenting response to this blaming of someone else's mistakes, on himself (That Rascal Puff) by 'worzel', 'of London'. So far the original sequence and correction has not appeared; it was written and posted about three hours ago, time actual, at the writing of this protest. 2/10/05 2005, Thursday evening
    _____________________________________
    Oops! sorry TRP do you agree with my reply then?

    Double oops! I think That Rascal Puff has broken my scrolllwheel

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    3,134
    Quote Originally Posted by That Rascal Puff
    I do not understand why a 'postponed' ('Please try again') 'Submit', or 'Preview' action, frequently results in the complete loss of whatever information was keboarded to 'Preview', or 'Submit'....
    An input buffer overrun perhaps? Try clicking on the "back" button.

Similar Threads

  1. What is a dimension?
    By niin in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 115
    Last Post: 2008-May-20, 02:43 PM
  2. 4th Dimension
    By momojeffers in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 2007-May-15, 04:59 PM
  3. Is there a 4th dimension
    By magma in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2007-Feb-18, 02:02 AM
  4. What is a Dimension?
    By Maddad in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 2006-Feb-24, 05:42 PM
  5. God and the forth dimension.
    By Menikmati in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2003-Nov-03, 05:56 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: