Notices
Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Fourth Dimension?

  1. #1 Fourth Dimension? 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    AN INTERPRETATION OF THE FOURTH DIMENSION
    SOMETHING TO 'THINK' ABOUT

    Let us start out with single units of measurement such as 1^1 that is a straight line of one unit length, 1^2 that is an area of one square unit and 1^3 that is a volume of one cube. When we come to 1^4, then we cannot comprehend what type of space that would pertain to.
    Time is presently looked upon as the fourth dimension but it is a measure of motion and change, not space.

    Now if we think in measurements of two units, such as 2^1, 2^2, 2^3 and 2^4, then it provides us with a little more insight into the meaning of the fourth dimension. 2^1 is a line of two units in length. 2^2 is a square of four units, 2^3 is a cube of eight units. When we come to 2^4, that gives us 16 units of what? If we adhere to cubic units (space), we can have some symmetry of our building pattern by dividing the 16 cubic unit cube into two eight unit cubes to keep the pattern
    going. What does this signify? What we are doing here then, is dividing which is analogous to the biological world of cell division. We have moved into the living or biological realm. Any additional dimensions such as 2^5 and etc, would then simply signify further division and multiplication representing cell growth.
    2^4 can also be interpreted in a slightly different manner. The additional 8 unit cube can be divided into 8 individual units and placed at the corners of the first 8 unit cube. This would be symmetrical and balanced. What does this signify? Itís significance is analogous to a plant or plant growth. The top cubes representing branches and the bottom cubes representing the roots.
    2^5 and etc, would again represent additional growth or an extension of the branches and roots by placing them as additional cubes at each corner at the ends of the other 8 unit cube. Here again, we have symmetry and 2^4 then represents the biological realm of plants by symbolizing plant life and growth.

    In this case, the photons that are 'single' one line dimensional energy sources are actually transformed into work that creates added matter to the plants growth.
    So here we have energy being used by the plants to transform soil, water, and nitrogen into biological matter.

    If we move into 3 unit dimensions such as 3^1, 3^2 , 3^3 and 3^4, we lose our symmetrical or balanced pattern. 3^1 is a 3 unit line, 3^2 is a 9 unit square and 3^3 is a 27 unit cube. 3^4 could then represent 3, 27 unit cubes. Do cells divide into 3 units?

    And, the plant form? If we divide the other cubes into individual units and put them at the corners of the first 27 unit cube, which has only 8 corners, we have lost our symmetry by having some extra units left over creating an imbalance.

    The two unit symmetry mentioned previously seems to be present in other aspects of nature as well. Examples are:
    In matter, the electron and proton are the only basic particles of matter that are stable and can exist in isolation. However, in isolation, they would rapidly disperse and constitute nothing of value.
    Electro-magnetic force is also dual in character. It has the electric and magnetic components and it is the only force we have a thorough understanding of.
    Mathematics has its duality with positive and negative numbers and although the negative numbers are incomprehensible, they do play a small roll in some formulas of mathematics.
    Life as we know it also has its duality being composed of animal and plant forms and they both complement each other.
    We have the physical and spiritual worlds that is another example of duality. The spiritual world could be analogous to the negative numbers because of their difficulty for comprehension.
    Then there is the reproduction of life. This also is a two unit world, since it requires a male and a female to carry on the process. Either one alone can not carry on this function although the females can reproduce themselves in very rare situations.

    There are probably several other examples that may exist.

    Cosmo


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    This is also not really an astronomical topic, is it?

    Maybe, this is related to fractals and self-similarity?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Do cells divide into 3 units?
    Only into 2 or 4 AFAIK.

    Maybe, this is related to fractals and self-similarity?
    I think he is investigating a link between physics, nature and spirituality, which is the basis of his religion. I don't think he'd mind if it was moved to either New Hypothesis or religion.

    What do you think Cosmo?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Do cells divide into 3 units?
    Only into 2 or 4 AFAIK.

    Maybe, this is related to fractals and self-similarity?
    I think he is investigating a link between physics, nature and spirituality, which is the basis of his religion. I don't think he'd mind if it was moved to either New Hypothesis or religion.

    What do you think Cosmo?
    The reason I put this article here is because it deals with space and the 4th dimension as promoted by Einstein.
    Soi when you think about the 4th dimension, the first thought that comes to mind is Einsteins 4th D.
    Besides, it will get better reviews here than in any other thread.
    But if Dish wants to move it, than I hope he will leave a reference on this thread.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    The big bang relies on a four physical dimension expansion. It would help the BB if a fourth physical dimension could be proved to exist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    The big bang relies on a four physical dimension expansion.
    No, its 3 spatial and one temporal. 3 + 1
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    The big bang relies on a four physical dimension expansion.
    No, its 3 spatial and one temporal. 3 + 1

    If expansion just involved 3 dimensions, there would be a centre to the universe, away from which everything is expanding. The whole universe would be a thick shell moving away from that area where everything has expanded past the first, say several billion light years, so a huge void at the centre. Expansion would be away from this point, with the furthest most point from it being maybe over 13 billion light years but under 13.7 billion light years. It cannot piggy-back on areas it has passed without passing light speed.

    The balloon similarity as in a hypersphere allows space to expand while no galaxies in it are moving (not allowing for local movement).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    The big bang relies on a four physical dimension expansion.
    No, its 3 spatial and one temporal. 3 + 1

    If expansion just involved 3 dimensions, there would be a centre to the universe, away from which everything is expanding. The whole universe would be a thick shell moving away from that area where everything has expanded past the first, say several billion light years, so a huge void at the centre. Expansion would be away from this point, with the furthest most point from it being maybe over 13 billion light years but under 13.7 billion light years. It cannot piggy-back on areas it has passed without passing light speed.

    The balloon similarity as in a hypersphere allows space to expand while no galaxies in it are moving (not allowing for local movement).
    No, you are misunderstanding the analogy again. The 3D version of the 2D surface of a balloon would behave in the same way, that is that the galaxies will not move relative to local space, but only to each other. The 4D Hypersphere introduces time so that it can evolve.

    The type of expanding you are describing (with a centre) requires something for the matter to expand into, which simply does not exist in the big bang model. A centre cannot exist while there is nothing for it to expand into. It is mutually exclusive.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,247
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    The big bang relies on a four physical dimension expansion.
    No, its 3 spatial and one temporal. 3 + 1

    If expansion just involved 3 dimensions, there would be a centre to the universe, away from which everything is expanding. The whole universe would be a thick shell moving away from that area where everything has expanded past the first, say several billion light years, so a huge void at the centre. Expansion would be away from this point, with the furthest most point from it being maybe over 13 billion light years but under 13.7 billion light years. It cannot piggy-back on areas it has passed without passing light speed.

    The balloon similarity as in a hypersphere allows space to expand while no galaxies in it are moving (not allowing for local movement).
    No 4th spatial dimension is required, only a 3d space with a non-euclidean geometry. While it is convenient to model non-euclidean geometry by mapping onto a surface curved in a higher dimension, this is a model and not reality.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    KALSTER. A hypersphere is so called because it has four physical dimensions. A sphere with just three physical dimensions is called a sphere. In a 3D expansion, everything moves away from a definite centre. In a 4D expansion, that centre is not detectable by us, being in a 4D direction away from us. The 3D skin of the balloon, while it would look flat to a 4D entity has depth to us 3D entities.

    Time is merely change. To introduce time into the argument is like introducing heat as a dimension. Time here is only necessary if you are looking at or working out how things change.

    Literally nothing existed before the universe, occupying no area because it is not measurable. That is what the universe is expanding into now. What was previously nothing is now occupied by photons, matter, gravity, etc, so it has definition, so we call it space. To claim space itself is actually something, it is first necessary to explain how it can endlessly expand from quantum size to present size and beyond without changing any of it's properties.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Janus. 3D space expands from a centre, leaving the inside empty. Things do not expand towards such a centre but most less fast away from it. Supernovae demonstrate this over time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,247
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    KALSTER. A hypersphere is so called because it has four physical dimensions. A sphere with just three physical dimensions is called a sphere. In a 3D expansion, everything moves away from a definite centre. In a 4D expansion, that centre is not detectable by us, being in a 4D direction away from us. The 3D skin of the balloon, while it would look flat to a 4D entity has depth to us 3D entities.

    The "hypersphere" is still an Euclidean geometry object. It still follows the rules of Euclidean Geometry, it just has an extra dimension. Modeling the Universe as a 3D surface of a 4D object is just that a model. It is a method of visualization.

    Non-Euclidean geometry, OTOH, allows the Universe to behave as if it is mapped into a higher dimension, but without the addition of a physical spatial dimension. IOW, non-Euclidean geometry operates by different rules than the Euclidean geometry we are used to thinking in.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Janus. Has Non-Euclidean geometry been proven in space or is it just a model?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Janus. Has Non-Euclidean geometry been proven in space or is it just a model?
    It is required for the big bang theory AFAIK, for which a lot of evidence exists and for which quite a few predictions have been confirmed.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    If it is required for the BB, it sounds like just a model to me.

    There is also a fair bit of evidence against the big bang too. The biggest problem for me is basic laws of gravity. Matter trillions of times denser than that needed for a black hole just does not expand.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    It is required for general relativity as well AFAIK, i.e. space-time curvature and such.

    Curvature is the only thing that can explain the seperate evidence that suggests a non-heliocentric universe undergoing isotropic expansion. Anyway, that is how I understand it.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    No, you are misunderstanding the analogy again. The 3D version of the 2D surface of a balloon would behave in the same way, that is that the galaxies will not move relative to local space, but only to each other. The 4D Hypersphere introduces time so that it can evolve.
    Now incorporate the '5th' dimension (cause and effect universes) and you'll understand time a lot better. If you want me to explain I will. Please to God let me!
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •