Relative Spacial Dimension.
- Thread starter glitch
- Start date
Yeah I do.
So not laziness, some glitch in the posting process
Testing...
030303
0 0 0 0
0o0o0o0 interlaced zeroes and "o"s.
[Edit] Damn, that's strange[EndEdit]
0o0o0o0o
Heh, type face (font) glitch the line above is Antiqua, not Arial and it works...
So not laziness, some glitch in the posting process
Testing...
030303
0 0 0 0
0o0o0o0 interlaced zeroes and "o"s.
[Edit] Damn, that's strange[EndEdit]
0o0o0o0o
Heh, type face (font) glitch the line above is Antiqua, not Arial and it works...
Exactly why zero dimensional points are best used, because so long as they have no definitive quality they are most useful.
I say the relationship between two points expresses a singular finite value which is not definitively quantifiable.
Empty space requires four points placed like an infinite tetrahedron (yet really, being infinite has no shape.) Because space has a form of emptiness and is thereby defined somehow. For a location to exist a fifth point is drawn but it's not a relative location since the first four are infinitely spaced, so a sixth point actually resembles location as a 3D relative.
I'm trying to demonstrate a geometric modular structure and the foundation lies on the first dimension being a singular value that had no definitive quantity, but a constant basis for the model.
I use two gravitationally packed balls as representation.
I hope you understand,
:bugeye:
I say the relationship between two points expresses a singular finite value which is not definitively quantifiable.
Empty space requires four points placed like an infinite tetrahedron (yet really, being infinite has no shape.) Because space has a form of emptiness and is thereby defined somehow. For a location to exist a fifth point is drawn but it's not a relative location since the first four are infinitely spaced, so a sixth point actually resembles location as a 3D relative.
I'm trying to demonstrate a geometric modular structure and the foundation lies on the first dimension being a singular value that had no definitive quantity, but a constant basis for the model.
I use two gravitationally packed balls as representation.
I hope you understand,
:bugeye:
Last edited:
Then you need to get back to school. Space has very real measurable parameters. It's not about perception, but very real qualities.
That is exactly not true, space actually doesn't have any real measurable parameters, only relative definitions.
What I'm saying is that the relationship between two points is expressive of a singular finite value.
If I were to go to school, I'd work in pure conception, and there is pertinance to defining exactly what a constant entails.
A constant is a value which applies equally, like c applies equally to all motion.
c's motion in the universe is the same as the relativity between two points, for that speed or distance is singular, and as I see it there is no reason to deny this value of point seperation has only one quantity, hence can be used as a constant.
You might find acceleration or other aspect viable, but I can assure you, location is not relative as a function of two points.
:shrug:
Last edited:
Permittivity, and permeability.
You'll not the former mentions 'vacuum permittivity', ie, the property of free space. That's nothing, having a very real measurable value.
You may try and cop out saying that S.I. units such as the metre and second are relative values, and therefore this very real number is a nothing more than a relative number, but that only works if you compare space to matter. You should consider it the other way around, and see if it's dismissed so easily.
Ok, I understand the notion, but consider, before the origin is drawn there is no relative object existant, in terms of c, the origin is the only emitter, yet no destination exists.
Speculatively speaking, all that I wish to propose is that, without a constant finite value, like a distance for exsample, dimensions are not possible.
I find it isn't necessary to have distance in particular, and better said two locations exist 'where' is irrelevent, for all we need is a single finite value. No reason to quantify for d=d is equally applicable to respective points, or the singular 'distance'.
And as a basic principle, 0D is dimensionless and 1D is a single finite value.
Last edited:
"Where" are they? Does it matter? The distance is the only one there it is valued 1. It is still 1 because it is a measure of itself.
Or you can call it different, it is itself and all that there is, for if one took a fractal measure a third point need be imposed.
Dimensions are abstract, I don't think you are grasping that.
Yes I am grasping the abstract nature of dimensions, and also drawing fundamental conclusions.
The primary article is a point location devise.
Instead of saying there's a distance, we really only know that 1D consists of a single value.
The value (whatever it is) must be finite, for locations at infinity don't constitute shape.
Hence a finite value is requisite for dimensions.
1D is singular and finite, that's pretty abstract, but geometrically fundamental, and by and other description this principle is true, I would think.
Two points express a single unit and the points mere ends of that unit.
Three points establish a fractal measure, by so saying infinite possible points are there, but I really wish to avoid saying 'infinite possible points'.
If a third point were introduced it is because the is only one possible location for it, because 1D had been validated as a constant, and all three point must be seperated by that exact 1D value.
Actually there are bound infinite possible locations existant using the 1D constant... but you couldn't tell which... the 'shape' is the same.
Usually, if we used a distance, it would be an eq. triangle, but we're only using a constant value, and not assuming 'infinite possible points'.
Nonsense.
2 points define a 1D line, a third point may be placed anywhere on that line, either between the two points or outside of them, extending the projection.
At any distance.