1. Greetings forum-members,

My question is central to the use of hyperdimensions of space to help explain space-time. Why is reference only made to hyper-dimensions of space? Does this imply that time does not pass in/through/in-conjunction-with these hyperdimensions?

I guess what I am saying is that if time is continuous with hyper-dimensions, why would not these hyper-dimensions be observable, if the current argument for time's universality being that it is an observable feature of change.

2.

3. Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
Greetings forum-members,

My question is central to the use of hyperdimensions of space to help explain space-time. Why is reference only made to hyper-dimensions of space? Does this imply that time does not pass in/through/in-conjunction-with these hyperdimensions?

I guess what I am saying is that if time is continuous with hyper-dimensions, why would not these hyper-dimensions be observable, if the current argument for time's universality being that it is an observable feature of change.
The term hyper-dimensions can be misleading. Generally it simply means dimensions in excess of 4 (including time).

General relatitivity models spacetime as a 4-dimensionsl Lorentzian manifold.

There are some speculative physical theories, notably some string theories that require more than 4 dimensions in order to be mathematically consistent. The addtional dimensions in these theories are space-like and are also realized as compactified manifolds. No one knows if these theories are accurate descriptions of real physics. Yet.

4. Yes. Quite right. But, if it were proven mathematically so that a hyperdimension were valid for whatever set or subset of theories that string together physical laws we know well, how "would" the idea of time be related to those extra dimensions, as per my initial question regarding how we define time based on observable changes in events, ultimately relative to something we can "observe" marking a type of change in process we attribute to the idea of of the passage of time? I guess what I am suggesting is that for hyper-dimensions to be valid, the idea of time would perhaps have to equate itself out to nil, a type of time-symmetry perhaps?

5. Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
Yes. Quite right. But, if it were proven mathematically so that a hyperdimension were valid for whatever set or subset of theories that string together physical laws we know well, how "would" the idea of time be related to those extra dimensions, as per my initial question regarding how we define time based on observable changes in events, ultimately relative to something we can "observe" marking a type of change in process we attribute to the idea of of the passage of time? I guess what I am suggesting is that for hyper-dimensions to be valid, the idea of time would perhaps have to equate itself out to nil, a type of time-symmetry perhaps?
Do you realize that all that you have done here is sting together a bunch of meaningless words.

There is no question here. Indeed there is no clear thought here.

6. if a partical gose back and forth 3 times at time it multiply it self 3 times , and you see 3 dimention of fild , thanks

7. Originally Posted by Water Nosfim
if a partical gose back and forth 3 times at time it multiply it self 3 times , and you see 3 dimention of fild , thanks
If I can maybe quote you more precisely, ""if a particle goes back and forth 3 times at time, it multiplies itself 3 times, and thus you see a three dimensional field....thanks".

Well, that's exactly my point. Is time transferrable to space, to each spatial dimension, and thus is it equally transferable to hyperdimnensions of space as your logic so rightly suggests?

Of course we use time as equally transferrable to our observable three dimensions of space, but does that mean hyperdimensions use the idea of time the same as our three standard dimensions of space? Should we assume it to?

And don't get me wrong here. I am not implying time back and forward represents a spatial dimension. That's your suggestion. I am merely asking if we should consider more strongly how we would apply time to hyper-dimensions. Shoul we assume time operates through hyperdimensions as it does our standard 3-d reality?

8. Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
Originally Posted by Water Nosfim
if a partical gose back and forth 3 times at time it multiply it self 3 times , and you see 3 dimention of fild , thanks
If I can maybe quote you more precisely, ""if a particle goes back and forth 3 times at time, it multiplies itself 3 times, and thus you see a three dimensional field....thanks".

Well, that's exactly my point. Is time transferrable to space, to each spatial dimension, and thus is it equally transferable to hyperdimnensions of space as your logic so rightly suggests?

Of course we use time as equally transferrable to our observable three dimensions of space, but does that mean hyperdimensions use the idea of time the same as our three standard dimensions of space? Should we assume it to?

And don't get me wrong here. I am not implying time back and forward represents a spatial dimension. That's your suggestion. I am merely asking if we should consider more strongly how we would apply time to hyper-dimensions. Shoul we assume time operates through hyperdimensions as it does our standard 3-d reality?
thanks for the corection , i gess there simularity in the hiper (the small world) and it gose small and small as big and big . thanks in general

9. no problem. All the best.

For anyone else, we could take the extreme case of proposing a hyper-dimension where time goes in reverse, FUTURE>PAST. Or can we? Do hyper-dimensions demand they be used according to the way time operates in our standard 3-d world?

10. you can comper superposition to manyworld interpetion ? is it standard ?

11. What do you suggest?

12. Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
What do you suggest?
im still gose with the ida of time gose back and forth but from difrent look .

13. aH, that's right, of course.

How successful have you been with the real world in holding that view?

14. Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
aH, that's right, of course.

How successful have you been with the real world in holding that view?
you can play with the seeing dimention , it sound very successful .

15. Have you been told this by someone, or do you know this?

The seeing dimension has rules. Knowing those rules can liberate a person, because it is assumed that in knowing the rules, the rules will not be broken. Too many people in this world want to break rules. But that's beside the point. One point here is, a question, is "ïs it forbidden to consider time reversal for a hyperdimension?"

16. Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
Have you been told this by someone, or do you know this?
i belive what i saw in my i

17. OK. But I re-iterate, the seeing dimension has rules. Knowing those rules can liberate a person, because it is assumed that in knowing the rules, the rules will not be broken. Too many people in this world want to break rules. But that's beside the point. One point here is, a question, is "ïs it forbidden to consider time reversal for a hyperdimension?"

You said you "believe", and belief is a type of act of faith. Faith usually has rules. Is your faith consistent with how space and time work? (that's another issue beside the point). Back to the point, have you ever heard of anyone referring to time in hyper-dimensions? In school perhaps?

19. school of life

20. Yes, of course, the school of life, how can I forget.

Well done then.

Here though, how should we address the question of the possible "different" use of time for hyper-dimensions? Do you think you could stick with contemporary ideas in physics perhaps, for the here and now, while suggesting plausible possibilities for hyper-dimensions? Otherwise, thank you for your contribution, and I am sure there are other threads more to your thinking.

21. diffrent pepole diffrent experiance

22. Originally Posted by Water Nosfim
diffrent pepole diffrent experiance
you want different partical ?

23. Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
Yes, of course, the school of life, how can I forget.

Well done then.

Here though, how should we address the question of the possible "different" use of time for hyper-dimensions? Do you think you could stick with contemporary ideas in physics perhaps, for the here and now, while suggesting plausible possibilities for hyper-dimensions? Otherwise, thank you for your contribution, and I am sure there are other threads more to your thinking.
This crap does not belong in the Physics forum. It belongs in Pseudoscience at best.

24. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
Yes, of course, the school of life, how can I forget.

Well done then.

Here though, how should we address the question of the possible "different" use of time for hyper-dimensions? Do you think you could stick with contemporary ideas in physics perhaps, for the here and now, while suggesting plausible possibilities for hyper-dimensions? Otherwise, thank you for your contribution, and I am sure there are other threads more to your thinking.
This crap does not belong in the Physics forum. It belongs in Pseudoscience at best.
different pepole different expireant , different belif

25. Doc, I guess your level of criticism is reserved for people like me. But I'd like a moderator to question the idea of whether hyper-dimensions are relevant to physics today, the use of hyper-dimensions without corrupting known 3-d space 1-t laws. Could you explain "ÿourself" Doc? I agree the conversation hasn't been A-1, but I don't think that's been my problem. English is my first language, if you hadn't realised. And if you don't mind, I would like to include myself in topics based on hyper-dimensions. Of course though, this forum could become known as the forum that doesn't consider hyperdimensions a valid research field of physics?

26. It does. Just not your interpretation of them, as the bear already pointed out.

27. Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
It does. Just not your interpretation of them, as the bear already pointed out.

Just for the record, Dr Rocket didn't say that, and not once in this thread did I present a theory on anything. I merely asked a question. This forum is a puppet show, only a few users with many different names. It's pretty obvious.

28. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
Greetings forum-members,

My question is central to the use of hyperdimensions of space to help explain space-time. Why is reference only made to hyper-dimensions of space? Does this imply that time does not pass in/through/in-conjunction-with these hyperdimensions?

I guess what I am saying is that if time is continuous with hyper-dimensions, why would not these hyper-dimensions be observable, if the current argument for time's universality being that it is an observable feature of change.
The term hyper-dimensions can be misleading. Generally it simply means dimensions in excess of 4 (including time).

General relatitivity models spacetime as a 4-dimensionsl Lorentzian manifold.

There are some speculative physical theories, notably some string theories that require more than 4 dimensions in order to be mathematically consistent. The addtional dimensions in these theories are space-like and are also realized as compactified manifolds. No one knows if these theories are accurate descriptions of real physics. Yet.
Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
Yes. Quite right. But, if it were proven mathematically so that a hyperdimension were valid for whatever set or subset of theories that string together physical laws we know well, how "would" the idea of time be related to those extra dimensions, as per my initial question regarding how we define time based on observable changes in events, ultimately relative to something we can "observe" marking a type of change in process we attribute to the idea of of the passage of time? I guess what I am suggesting is that for hyper-dimensions to be valid, the idea of time would perhaps have to equate itself out to nil, a type of time-symmetry perhaps?
Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
Yes, of course, the school of life, how can I forget.

Well done then.

Here though, how should we address the question of the possible "different" use of time for hyper-dimensions? Do you think you could stick with contemporary ideas in physics perhaps, for the here and now, while suggesting plausible possibilities for hyper-dimensions? Otherwise, thank you for your contribution, and I am sure there are other threads more to your thinking.
This crap does not belong in the Physics forum. It belongs in Pseudoscience at best.
looking at all of the quoted text, I'd say we have exited the realm of physics and entered the realm of philosophical bullshit. Since there is no philosophical bullshit forum, this and pseudoscience work.

All you and water nosfim ever post is physics illiterate crap. You make a pisspoor attempt to learn, then re-rationalize everything your told into philosophical bullshit that makes sense only in your mind.

29. Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
It does. Just not your interpretation of them, as the bear already pointed out.

Just for the record, Dr Rocket didn't say that, and not once in this thread did I present a theory on anything. I merely asked a question. This forum is a puppet show, only a few users with many different names. It's pretty obvious.
Time is a dimension among the hyper-dimensions that exist. every dimension above 3 is considered "hyper". It doesn't carry with it this supercilious supernatural notion you give it.

30. Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
It does. Just not your interpretation of them, as the bear already pointed out.

Just for the record, Dr Rocket didn't say that, and not once in this thread did I present a theory on anything. I merely asked a question. This forum is a puppet show, only a few users with many different names. It's pretty obvious.
Time is a dimension among the hyper-dimensions that exist. every dimension above 3 is considered "hyper". It doesn't carry with it this supercilious supernatural notion you give it.
but time dimension can effect the feild dimension if it goes not exactly back and forth in general , for are point if 1 feild dimensin goes 3 time back and forth in time it amit 3 dimension of fild in generaly , just abit of spin or samting and it work

31. Originally Posted by Water Nosfim
Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
It does. Just not your interpretation of them, as the bear already pointed out.

Just for the record, Dr Rocket didn't say that, and not once in this thread did I present a theory on anything. I merely asked a question. This forum is a puppet show, only a few users with many different names. It's pretty obvious.
Time is a dimension among the hyper-dimensions that exist. every dimension above 3 is considered "hyper". It doesn't carry with it this supercilious supernatural notion you give it.
but time dimension can effect the feild dimension if it goes not exactly back and forth in general , for are point if 1 feild dimensin goes 3 time back and forth in time it amit 3 dimension of fild in generaly , just abit of spin or samting and it work
This makes absolutely 0 sense.

32. All you and water nosfim ever post is physics illiterate crap. You make a pisspoor attempt to learn, then re-rationalize everything your told into philosophical bullshit that makes sense only in your mind.
Haha, I see you have met theQuestIsNotOver aka StreamSystems aka a bunch of other names, accusing us of being a puppet show. Classic.

Quest;

Time is a measurement of relative movement. It can be used with any number of space-like dimensions, even the "hyper" ones. You just need one time-like dimension for everything.

33. Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
My question is central to the use of hyperdimensions of space to help explain space-time.
Spacetime is a combination of three space plus one of time dimensions... that means that there are a total of four dimensions for the spacetiem continuum, Einstein explained gravity and other relatavisitc effects attributed to spacetime with his field equations. Therefore there is no need to use hyperdimensions of space to explain spacetime.

Lets just think about that for a second, you wouldn't use the eleven dimensions and plus of string theory to explain the observable dimensions of a jammy dodger would you? There is no need to over complicate things.

Why is reference only made to hyper-dimensions of space? Does this imply that time does not pass in/through/in-conjunction-with these hyperdimensions?
What is a hyper-dimension of space? Who came up with it because I haven't heard it. As for time passing with these 'hyperdimensions' what have they got to do with anything?

I guess what I am saying is that if time is continuous with hyper-dimensions, why would not these hyper-dimensions be observable, if the current argument for time's universality being that it is an observable feature of change.
You guess? You mean you don't know.

The only part of your question I can answer is the last part. We cannot observe the higher dimensions because we are unaffected by them, we are subatomically and to some extent their effects are shown in black holes, but other than that we cannot measure these dimensions. We can only mointor the 4th because we exist in it. As for the 5th, I believe someone had a crack at at once, Kaluza Klein, and I'm not sure what happened to that theory or for what it was used for.

So to sum up, I can see why other members have been a tad scrutinising with you. I wouldn't say its a matter of you being an incoherent lunatic, I'm actually interested in some of your ideas I always have been. Science will move forwards eventually. because like it or not Quatum Physics is a dead end. So I thnk you're on the right path Stream.

Perhaps the best thing is to explain what your intent is first, where you got the ideas of your thought from and what theories you base them upon, slowly building from that.

When creating my theories and ideas, (and I have some pretty wacky ones), I link them to already exisitng problems in physics along side observable theoretical science that can be measure in the future. So if I am wrong, evidence can prove that after experimentation. If I am right, all the better.

For intance, the strong CP problem, time paradoxes, inability to reach zero-point energy, Quantum entanglement, entropy etc.

34. you shold understand that space made form nothing 'and there partical that interact dinamicly , sory for my bad english , thanks

35. Originally Posted by Quantime
Why is reference only made to hyper-dimensions of space? Does this imply that time does not pass in/through/in-conjunction-with these hyperdimensions?
What is a hyper-dimension of space? Who came up with it because I haven't heard it. As for time passing with these 'hyperdimensions' what have they got to do with anything?
A hyper dimension of space would be a dimension beyond the normal 3 recognized spatial dimensions. Brian Greene's book, An Elegant Universe, gives a very nice visualization of "hyper-dimensions."

 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   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement