Tea is the elevensies delection.

P

phlogistician

Banned
Banned
What is it with the abuse of the word 'dimension' recently? There are more than three dimensions. Mass, is a dimension, for example. Why do people think that space accounts for three dimensions? Space is just one dimension, that manages to express itself in three orthogonal directions.

"Most physical quantities can be expressed in terms of combinations of five basic dimensions. These are mass (M), length (L), time (T), electrical current (I), and temperature." (http://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/tutorials/dimanaly/)

So, while this is the pseudoscience section, please restrict posts to coming up with new ideas, and stop abusing existing definitions.
 
A dimension is just a quantification of one aspect of a thing.

A one dimensional line requires one number to describe it's length. If it has color, then two dimensions are required - length and color. If it has a smell, then three may be required. If it has a charge, then four, etc.

I can create a valid 23 dimensional array in software. A three dimensional object that takes up space requires three numbers to quantify it spacially.
 
Phlogistician,
Space isn't a dimension. Although you can suggest that Zeropoint energy can be a measurable quanta which in turn gives "dimensions" to space, however if space was void of all energy, it would be unmeasurable and therefore not be a "dimension".

However saying that you could have a box with all quanta removed and state the "Space" to have dimensions, however the dimensions you imply are based upon that of the boxes constraints. Namely you don't measure the inside of the box with space, you measure space with the inside of the box.

Btw Phlog, my reason for commenting and style of writing is never an attack at you, it's just me being Pedantic since such discussion material is far more interesting than some of the other threads (responses as to which threads will probably cause this thread to go awry).

Superluminal,
Matrix Mathematics which is used in both Programming and pure mathematics utilises such arrays and allows the entanglement of multiple dimensional arrays to combine as one single array.

There is occurances when theorists speak of Multiple Dimensions like for instance 7 dimensions (and greater), from my understanding they are talking about two seperate reference of 3 dimensions (Height, Width, Depth) and implying a Fold in Time, which relates to parallels. However I'm not sure how far their(the theorists in question) theories progressed from there.
 
Stryder said:
Phlogistician,
Space isn't a dimension.
Click to expand...

The amount of space something occupies, is measurable, however. And being measurable, IS a dimension. What I was saying, is that space isn't three different dimensions, it's one dimension, length, expressed in three orthogonal directions, plus time, etc.

Stryder, I studied a degree in Physics, so please, if you are going to nit pick, keep Zeropoint energy and the other technobabble out of any serious discussion. I was talking about SI Units, and trying to steer us back towards real science, and you mention ZPE. DOH!
 
i thought it went like this:
a point is the first
area was the second
volume was the third
and time was the fourth
 
leopold99 said:
i thought it went like this:
a point is the first
area was the second
volume was the third
and time was the fourth
Click to expand...

That is the number of dimensions required to define those things, not the number of different dimensions. The first three are l, l^2 and l^3. Mass is a dimension, temperature is a dimension, when talking about dimensional analysis using SI Units. And I am.
 
manmadeflyingsaucer said:
However you guys put it in words, its all human concepts.
Click to expand...
riiiiiight oooooon. and notice no mention of CONSCIOUSNESS...yet agin. jeeez rthat phlo is old hat init?

thing is space is MULTIDIMENSIONAL. and you cant have matter-energy and space witout consciousness

diemnsions of consciousness is the WAY you see/experience reality.
 
duendy, this thread is about NOT abusing scientific terms for mumbo jumbo bullshit. So stop talking bullshit. In every dimensional analysis exercise I have undertaken, I have NEVER had to factor in consciousness. What does that tell you?

That I am a scientist, and you don't understand the first words you use in your technobabble. Invent your own words, and define them. Stop raping ours.
 
phlogistician said:
duendy, this thread is about NOT abusing scientific terms for mumbo jumbo bullshit. So stop talking bullshit. In every dimensional analysis exercise I have undertaken, I have NEVER had to factor in consciousness. What does that tell you?

me)))))that you are an ignoreamous..?

That I am a scientist, and you don't understand the first words you use in your technobabble. Invent your own words, and define them. Stop raping ours.
Click to expand...
pis of. and stop playin 'king-of-my-thread'.
 
phlogistician said:
duendy, this thread is about NOT abusing scientific terms for mumbo jumbo bullshit. So stop talking bullshit. In every dimensional analysis exercise I have undertaken, I have NEVER had to factor in consciousness. What does that tell you?
Click to expand...

This isn't to side with Duendy or of course flaunt something to enrage you further Phlog, however it could be suggested that Consciousness can be perceived a dimension in relationship to "Observer Theory", Where the Observers Consciousness of what they are Observing can be a trace factor to an experiments outcome.

Admittedly it's usually consigned to Chaos Theory, although it's roots are really down to Heisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty.

As for your Suggestion of it being SI Units, If you care to check:

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html

You'll find there is no instance of "Space", The area that Mass occupies in space is measured as a "Volume" based upon the constraints of the mass.

My explaination of ZPE wasn't really too well defined for you, I'm NOT suggesting that ZPE IS a unit of measurement, but instead ZPE can be MEASURED BY UNITS of measurement.

My reasoning for including ZPE was to suggest Space without ZPE can not be measured alone, it either needs something in relationship to measure it with (i.e. mass occupying space) or Energy (ZPE quanta).
 
Styder, measurements of space don't rely on mass. The dimension, 'l' could be how far a photon travels in the dimension 't'. Of course, photons don't have rest mass, but mass is introduced via momentum.

I never suggested 'space' was an SI unit either, I said space could be quantified by SI units. Can't you understand what people post?

As to the rest of your ZPE bullshit, cut it out, it's tiresome drivel. You're also paraphrasing Shroedingers cat, and missing the point entirely. It's nothing to do with a conscious observer.
 
phlogistician said:
Styder, measurements of space don't rely on mass. The dimension, 'l' could be how far a photon travels in the dimension 't'. Of course, photons don't have rest mass, but mass is introduced via momentum.

I never suggested 'space' was an SI unit either, I said space could be quantified by SI units. Can't you understand what people post?

As to the rest of your ZPE bullshit, cut it out, it's tiresome drivel. You're also paraphrasing Shroedingers cat, and missing the point entirely. It's nothing to do with a conscious observer.
Click to expand...
EVERYthing's to do with the conscious observer ignore-amous!
 
duendy said:
EVERYthing's to do with the conscious observer ignore-amous!
Click to expand...

I disagree. Science tries it's hardest to remove the human element so experiments are repeatable. This thread is about science, not your drug fuelled mumbo jumbo.

I can show you dozens of formulae which do not require even a constant for 'consciousness'.

You cannot show me a single one that does.

You lose.
 
phlogistician said:
You're also paraphrasing Shroedingers cat, and missing the point entirely. It's nothing to do with a conscious observer.
Click to expand...

My statement wasn't in regards to Schroedingers Cat (Which I believe was just Schroedingers analogy for expressing why he believed atoms to be made up of waveformations, or at the very least a Particle-Waveform duality).

My assertion was about if a Paradox is observed, it can cause a chain of paradoxes. Admittedly all the analogies are Theoretical, however if you were to receive tomorrows newspaper today, and your Obituary was written in it and suggest you would die, you as a conscious observer would attempt to change what ever you did to attribute to your death.

Which in turn would generate a greater paradox, perhaps knowing of your death attributed to it, perhaps you survive, perhaps you don't etc.

The point here is your reaction in such an instance is measurable by the outcome. Again this isn't measured in SI Units in the Analogy, however other scientific areas that deal with such potential paradoxical dilemmas might well do.

I suppose you could state that any instance is a Factor rather than a dimension, but Factor's are usually just mathematical outcomes of dimensional inputs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top