What is the 6th Dimension?

[thinking]

“ then there is something about being in one position in space that allows one nucleii to decay before the other
regardless of there relative positions ”

Facile baseless assumption.
Unsupported by any evidence.

yet the evidence is supplied by you

you said that one nucleii decays before the other ( assuming both nucleii are of the same matter )

therefore one can only conclude that one position in space is more conducive to the decay of one nucleii in space than is another in a different position in space

 

[Dywyddyr]

yet the evidence is supplied by you

You don't know what "evidence" means then, or how to read/ comprehend?

you said that one nucleii decays before the other ( assuming both nucleii are of the same matter )
therefore one can only conclude that one position in space is more conducive to the decay of one nucleii in space than is another in a different position in space

Not all.
I said nothing about position being "conducive" to decay.
It's a random process.
Should the sample be rotated after the first pair of decays to bring new nucleii close to the original positions will NOT mean that the nucleus closer to the position of first decay will decay before the one closer to the position of the second.
Your conclusion is either ridiculously sloppy or simply facetious.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

So, then, these coordinates would be moving in an invisible direction...

If you're talking about a theory of physics, yes. However, its possible to discuss systems which a great many dimensions either in the realms of abstract mathematics (which even allows for infinite dimensions) or you can talk about non-physical dimensions.

For instance, suppose you consider an object moving through 3 dimensional space. The space has 3 dimensions, 3 directions. However, the 'phase space' of the object is twice that, because to specify the system you need to give the location and velocity of the object, position is 3 parameters, velocity is another 3, total of 6. So if you're talking about n objects in d dimensional space then the phase space is of dimension 2*d*n dimensions.

How do we know these are dimensions...what shapes are we describing...

It's possible, if they exist, to measure/detect extra dimensions which are curled up very small by their effect on high energy particle collisions or deviations in the behaviour of gravity. The particular shape of these dimensions (ie what shape they curl up into) is a matter of horrifically complicated mathematics and they have no simple explaination to people who haven't done a fair amount of differential geometry.

No one has ever proven the 4th dimension is time. According to the descriptions AlphaNumeric uses, having infinite vectors, this would be inconsistent with the 4th dimensional time model. These inconsistencies lend credence further to the fact we don't have any solid proof anywhere at all what the 4th dimension is.

I didn't say we use infinite dimensional descriptions of space-time, I was pointing out that mathematicians and physicists are very familiar with the concept of extra dimensions, a great many mathematical systems involve infinite dimensional systems. Even something as simple as polynomials is an example. Think of all the kinds of polynomials you can make by adding together $$1,x,x^{2},x^{3},x^{4}$$, such as $$3x^{4}+2x^{3}-6x^{2}+x-1$$. That's a 5 dimensional vector space because you've got 5 different things you add together.

No one has ever proven the 4th dimension is time. According to the descriptions AlphaNumeric uses, having infinite vectors, this would be inconsistent with the 4th dimensional time model. These inconsistencies lend credence further to the fact we don't have any solid proof anywhere at all what the 4th dimension is.

It was blood pumping in the brain work! Day after day I could fell it pumping. I work very fast when I want to. And, to further clarify, I said convert, which means I took a pre-existing set of plans and modified all of their dimensions to suit German standards. And, because the plans where often incomplete and never included truss systems, I designed them on the spot...which is rather easy. Also, if your familiar with the basic Architectural needs of a home, for example the minimum requirements for a bathroom, and don't need to refer to manuals so often, it is just a matter of exerting your mind.

That's not the same kind of 'dimensions'. You're referring to simply changing from one unit of measurement to another. You aren't doing anything fundamental there, just converting from one choice of length to another. A physicist wouldn't call that anything to do with 'dimensions' or 'altering dimensions'.

I agree, the Scientific Communities do not all give consistent descriptions of what the 4th dimension is. :shrug:

I don't think you have any grasp of what it means when a physicist says 'dimension'. You think that we mean changing imperial units to metric units, things of that kind. Not at all. For instance, I work in research related to how generalised extensions of electromagnetism affect the topology of 6 dimensional compact spaces with SU(3) structure. That is working with extra dimensions and I say nothing about units of measurement, I work to see how having 6 extremely small extra dimensions of a particular configuration can be made energetically stable so as to explain the particle families we see in nature. The issue of "metric or imperial?" is mute.

If you don't know any vector calculus and you don't understand vector spaces then I don't think you're in a very good position to be whining about how physicists don't pin down what 'the fourth dimension is', you don't even understand basic terminology. Time is a dimension, since you require both the place and time of events to uniquely define them. Newtonian viewpoints had time as a dimension too, it's just it didn't get altered by space or vice versa as it does in relativity. Such things as string theory then extended that, though the notion of Kaluza-Klein reduction is as old as relativity and the mathematical notion of how to describe multi-dimensional systems is hundreds of years old.

I really don't understand how you lot wax lyrical about multi-dimensional things and whine about how physicists/mathematicians are unclear when it's pretty obvious you'd made no attempt to understand what we say. I don't complain I can't speak French to French people. Why? Because I never learnt it. Or am I missing something? :shrug:

 

[thinking]

“ you said that one nucleii decays before the other ( assuming both nucleii are of the same matter )
therefore one can only conclude that one position in space is more conducive to the decay of one nucleii in space than is another in a different position in space ”

Not all.
I said nothing about position being "conducive" to decay.
It's a random process.

no you didn't

but what I was going by is what you implied , by the difference of position in space , decay between the two objects and the difference in decay rates

Should the sample be rotated after the first pair of decays to bring new nucleii close to the original positions will NOT mean that the nucleus closer to the position of first decay will decay before the one closer to the position of the second.

why?

since obviously one nucleii decay's faster than another

 

[Dywyddyr]

no you didn't
but what I was going by is what you implied , by the difference of position in space , decay between the two objects and the difference in decay rates

Nope, I didn't imply that, but you obviously inferred it.
Presumably based on your lack of actual knowledge.

why?
since obviously one nucleii decay's faster than another

And as stated: it's a random process NOT position-based.
Nothing to do with space at all, simply the passage of time.

 

[thinking]

“ Originally Posted by thinking
no you didn't
but what I was going by is what you implied , by the difference of position in space , decay between the two objects and the difference in decay rates ”

Nope, I didn't imply that, but you obviously inferred it.
Presumably based on your lack of actual knowledge.

or your inability to explain clearly what your getting at

 

[thinking]

“ why?
since obviously one nucleii decay's faster than another ”

And as stated: it's a random process NOT position-based.
Nothing to do with space at all, simply the passage of time.

wrong

regardless of whether there is randomness or not , the decay rates have nothing to do with time

but all to do with the Nature of the objects themselves

 

[Dywyddyr]

wrong
regardless of whether there is randomness or not , the decay rates have nothing to do with time
but all to do with the Nature of the objects themselves

Pure (uninformed) supposition on your part.
The decay rates are time-based.

 

[thinking]

“ Originally Posted by thinking
wrong
regardless of whether there is randomness or not , the decay rates have nothing to do with time
but all to do with the Nature of the objects themselves ”

Pure (uninformed) supposition on your part.
The decay rates are time-based.

sure " rates " are time based

but the bottom line is this

the reason you can measure any " rate " is based on the object(s) physical dynamic Natural behaviour , which comes first before any " rate " can be measured

 

[Dywyddyr]

sure " rates " are time based

Which indicates that time actually is a real dimension then...

but the bottom line is this
the reason you can measure any " rate " is based on the object(s) physical dynamic Natural behaviour

Nope.
The reason the decay occurs is based on the physical structure, but the decay wouldn't eventuate at all if there were no time for it occur in.

 

[thinking]

“ Originally Posted by thinking
sure " rates " are time based ”

Which indicates that time actually is a real dimension then...

mathematically only

but not as a part of any phycical dynamic of object(s) themselves

 

[Dywyddyr]

mathematically only
but not as a part of any phycical dynamic of object(s) themselves

Wrong again.
Is "yesterday" a mathematical abstract?
Two hours ago?
Tomorrow?

 

[thinking]

“ but the bottom line is this
the reason you can measure any " rate " is based on the object(s) physical dynamic Natural behaviour ”

Nope.
The reason the decay occurs is based on the physical structure,

and dynamics

but the decay wouldn't eventuate at all if there were no time for it occur in.

of course it would

there is no " in time "

your thinking to mathematical

think outside mathematical thinking

think more in terms of the physical dynamics in space of objects

thats all that matters to the object(s) themselves , really

 

[Dywyddyr]

and dynamics

Crap.
Without time there are no dynamics.

of course it would
there is no " in time "
your thinking to mathematical

Wrong: I'm thinking practical, experimental, evidential.

think outside mathematical thinking

Woo woo claims.

think more in terms of the physical dynamics in space of objects

Dynamics requires time.

thats all that matters to the object(s) themselves , really

Wrong.

 

[thinking]

“ Originally Posted by thinking
and dynamics ”

Crap.
Without time there are no dynamics.

your wrong

your again making time a force , which influences dynamics

whether you like it or not

you are telling me that any physical dynamics is based on time

bottom line

 

[Dywyddyr]

your wrong

So you still don't have anything to support your view?

your again making time a force , which influences dynamics

You really really can't see it can you?
Time is NOT a force, any more than length is.
Time is the dimension in which movement (dynamics) takes place,

you are telling me that any physical dynamics is based on time

I see, so you're also deluded as to what I mean when it's me that's saying it.
Dynamics involves motion: for motion to occur there must be the time dimension.

 

[thinking]

“ you are telling me that any physical dynamics is based on time ”

I see, so you're also deluded as to what I mean when it's me that's saying it.
Dynamics involves motion: for motion to occur there must be the time dimension.

mathematically , sure motion creates a time dimension but this does not make time a " real " dimension , in the sense that without time no physical dynamics will happen without time , which is what you implied

you said that without time there is no dynamics post # 294

which is false

time is the consequence of the physical dynamics of things and there movement

 

[Dywyddyr]

mathematically , sure motion creates a time dimension but this does not make time a " real " dimension

Wrong: it's as real as length.

which is what you implied

Wrong: I stated it, I didn't "imply".

you said that without time there is no dynamics post # 294
which is false
time is the consequence of the physical dynamics of things and there movement

Uh, no.
Movement is the consequence of a time dimension.
Without time there is no movement.
Now: here.
Later: there
Later still: somewhere else.

 

[thinking]

“ you said that without time there is no dynamics post # 294
which is false
time is the consequence of the physical dynamics of things and there movement ”

Uh, no.
Movement is the consequence of a time dimension.
Without time there is no movement.
Now: here.
Later: there
Later still: somewhere else.

okay

so then if I apply time , and time alone , would speed up or slow down any physical dynamic then

show an example of where this actually happens

show where " time " and time alone controls any physical dynamic of any object(s)

 

[Dywyddyr]

okay
so then if I apply time , and time alone , would speed up or slow down any physical dynamic then
show an example of where this actually happens
show where " time " and time alone controls any physical dynamic of any object(s)

You're still throwing specious strawmen into the "discussion".
Time can't be isolated and "applied" to a physical process any more than pure "length" can.