Notices
Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Big bang in 3-D, or Steady state in 4-D?

  1. #1 Big bang in 3-D, or Steady state in 4-D? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    N.Y.
    Posts
    270
    The Big Bang is categorically founded on a 3-D premise. In what is insisted to be an ‘acknowledged’ 4-D Universe.
    Refer, George Orwell's 1984 *Doublethink & *NewSpeak : *Two mutually conflicting parallel lines to infinity : endless gridlock.

    The Big Bang imposed retroactive progression to the bygone past's intersection of three dimensions to a point of origin (the anticipated end of retroactively expanding space - traced backwards in time) - to an 'inevitable intersection' and consequent point of 'beginning', does not apply to a four dimensional space-time continuum...

    The past of which is progressively smaller, to endless 4-D infinity, when the observed, spatially expanding (Big Bang originated; 3-Dimensionally fixated) universe is traced backwards through past time, from the present.

    Back tracking the observed spatially expanding universe is popularly said by Big Bang advocates, to eventually arrive at an intersection where space ends: in three dimensions.
    There is no open argument against the omniscience of the four dimensional space time continuum here. It is simply and altogether excluded as a solution (refer option/ AKA, ultimatum).

    The Big Bang Theory denies/excludes/ignores altogether here, what its perpetrators say they acknowledge (the 4th dimension)...

    Meanwhile. The Big Bang Theory instantly goes extinct, when it comes in contact with the (Invisible, What? ) four dimensional space-time continuum.

    Whereas, in four dimensions (when space-time is not excluded from the universe, as the Big Bang Theory excludes the 4th dimension altogether), past space goes on ever-smaller, forever; smallness proceeding as endlessly as largeness: with the relativistic center (source of expansion) located everywhere in the occurrence of matter-field 'particles' (without a spatial limitation at the falsely assumed and foreseen intersection of all matter, culminating in the alleged explosive <Big Bang> beginning); in the increasingly distant, ever smaller past to infinity, and growing ever larger forever in the increasingly distant future; to infinity.
    I.e. A Steady State Universe without beginning or end.

    There are other another scientific disagreements with the so called Big Bang theory:

    The Editors, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN,
    415 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10017
    14 May 1976
    "An Accelerating Universe?"
    "...that most reasonable observational data.... fit closely all models to which the expansion is accelerating. "The prediction of accelerating expansion is contrary to expectation... "something must be terribly wrong."..."The net forces between (receding) glaxies really are repulsive (Re: 'Hubble's Law - the more distant a given stellar or galactic light source the faster it's rate of recession from the point of observation". Re: Einstein's Cosmological Constant <repelling force acting parallel to and in the opposite direction as the popular concept of 'Newtonian impelling force>, a force different from others in that its velocity increases - rather than decreases, with distance.) - SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, 'Science and the Citizen', December 1975, James E. Gunn and Beatrice M. Tinsley.

    'I point out this apparent conflict with the understanding that Gunn and Tinsley concluded "...the prediction of accelerating expansion is contrary to expectation... and that something must be terribly wrong." Especially so if "...the net forces between (receding) galaxies... really are repulsive... and if gravitational values really are "equivalent to and synchronous with inertial acceleration values beyond a billionth of a second and the technical ability to measure any difference" (THE NEW GRAVITY <Is The 4th Dimension>, April 1975, Kent Benjamin Robertson).
    'Is it possible we are overlooking a rather obvious consideration, concerning the real nature of 'gravity?'
    Very Truly Yours,
    David F. Sicks, Anchorage, Alaska cc - Mr. Kent Robertson
    (Of course Mr. David F. Sicks received no response whatsoever.)
    _____________

    "The Mt. Wilson astronomer, Carl Sandage, found that stars in a cluster called NGC 188 appeared to be at least 24 billion years old. 'We are in trouble', said Sandage... for the earth could certainly be younger than the universe, but if the universe has been expanding at the present rate for 24 billion years, it would seem that it should be more spread out than it is. So the astronomers have a new problem to resolve." - Isaac Asimov, THE INTELLIGENT PERSON'S GUIDE TO SCIENCE, p. 49-50

    Asimov states in the same discussion on the only recently discovered 'expanding universe':
    "Astronomers have now generally accepted the fact of this expansion, and Einstein's 'field equations' of his General Theory of Relativity can be construed to fit an expanding universe." - Isaac Asimov, THE INTELLIGENT PERSON'S GUIDE TO SCIENCE, p. 49

    Although black holes have yet to be proven, they are nonetheless very controversial and have taken the foreground of discussions in theoretical physics. Their cause - if they exist at all - is not controversial.

    Presently, with the exception of this offering, there are not even any formally submitted guesses as to their cause. If black holes exist, until further notice, they are - ostensibly - the causative result of a contracting four dimensional space-time continuum; that is to say, a four dimensionally contracting material system, becoming ever smaller and more dense: to microcosmic infinity.

    Another perspective of this same 4-D consideration, is concepualizing a ‘black hole singularity of infinite density’ as being 3-D matter, getting relatively ever smaller and more dense, in inverse proportion to the 4-Dimensionally expanding universe surrounding *it (*any given ‘black hole singularity’).
    The four dimensionally expanding steady state universe (universal density) remains always the same relative density; consisting always of the same amount of energy, increasingly distributed over - creatively becoming - an ever enlarging space; from microcosmic infinity, to macrocosmic infinity. Without infringement on the law of conservation of Mass-Energy

    Matter is found to be expanding; regardless of why. 4-D smallness (of past space-time) as infinite as 4-D largeness of future. With the present eternally in the middle of microcosmic Past-smallness and macrocosmic Future largeness.

    "As long as we are considering an individual electron, we could be mislead into thinking that its waves are physical realities. Each electron ('disturbed area') in fact demands a 3-Dimensional Space to itself. This makes it obvious that these waves are merely a mathematical phantom; consequently it is profoundly disconcerting to find that experiment confirms their existence. The apparent congruity between calculation and experiment must be in some sense illusory. It is extremely difficult to avoid the conclusion that the experiments and their results have yet to receive their proper interpretation."
    - JWN Sullivan, THE LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE.

    "Although relativity theory replaces gravity by a geometrical warping of space-time, it leaves many basic questions unanswered. Does this warping take place instantaneously through space or does it propagate like a wave motion? Almost all physicists agree that the warping moves like a wave and that these waves travel with the speed of light. There is also good reason (sic) to believe that gravity waves consist of tiny indivisible particles of energy called "gravitons." In 1969, Joseph Weber, at the University of Maryland, announced that his equipment, consisting of huge aluminum cylinders, had detected gravity radiation. It seemed to be coming from cataclysmic events at the center of the Milky Way. Since then, dozens of attempts have been made to confirm Weber's claim, some by physicists with detecting equipment more sensitive than Weber's. The results have been negative. The present consensus is that Weber misinterpreted his readings, and that gravity waves have not yet been observed. (Have not yet been proven).

    “As for gravitons, no one has any knowledge of what a graviton is like, although many physicists are trying to invent theories that will predict some of its properties. Presumably it contains a tiny bit of space-time curvature, otherwise large numbers of gravitons would be unable to transmit curvature through space. At the moment the graviton, like the particle physicists' quark,' remains a hypothetical beast that physicists hope someday to capture."
    - p. 106, THE RELATIVITY EXPLOSION, by Martin Gardner

    The 4-D space-time continuum continues to be 'acknowledged', while its ongoing effects - concepts of a Steady State, Cosmological Constant governed universe - go unrecognized.

    pages 103 & 104 of THE LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE. Author Scientist J.W.N. Sullivan, summarily endorses and punctuates Thompson's dismissal of the experimental results (2+2 must equal 5).

    How obvious is it? How Obvious It Is:
    "As long as we are considering an individual electron, we could be mislead into thinking that its waves are physical realities. Each electron in fact demands a 3-Dimensional Space to itself. This makes it obvious that these waves are merely a mathematical phantom; consequently it is profoundly disconcerting to find that experiment confirms their existence. The apparent congruity between calculation and experiment must be in some sense illusory. It is extremely difficult to avoid the conclusion that the experiments and their results have yet to receive their proper interpretation."
    - Pages 103 & 104 of THE LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE, by J.W.N. Sullivan (again):
    “These disturbed areas which are discovered to demand 3-Dimensions of Space indicate the position of the electron; yet we cannot state that the disturbed area is the electron. Because any such locality has a tendency to spread, and if the matter of the universe were a number of disturbed areas, by now it would have spread indefinitely."

    (Indeed it has, and so it will continue, maintaining the same relatively uniform density, from one moment to the next, ad infinitum - yesteday's square mile is much smaller and more dense than todays, and todays is much smaller and more dense than tomorrow's; squared; all frames of reference remaining relatively equal; the infinitely small being no less endless and dense than the infinitely large is endlessly tenuous...)

    And so it has, and continues.

    ‘Extremely Difficult To Avoid Unstable Disturbed Areas In The Recent, Profoundly Disconcerting History Of Science, Which Have Yet To Receive Their Proper Interpretation.’
    Continued:

    “It is well known to students of high school algebra that it is permissable to divide both sides of an equation by any quantity, provided that this quantity is not zero. However, in the course of his proof Einstein had divided both sides of one of his intermediate equations by a complicated expression, which in certain circumstances, could become zero (‘at the slightest provocation’)...
    “In the case, however, when this expression becomes equal to zero, Einstein’s proof does not hold, and (mathematician) Friedmann realized that this opened a whole new world of time-dependent universes; expanding, collapsing, and pulsating ones.
    “Thus Einstein’s original gravity equation was correct, and changing it was a mistake. Much later, when I was discussing cosmological problems with Einstein, he remarked that the introduction of the cosmological term was the biggest blunder he ever made in his life. But the ‘blunder’, rejected by Einstein, and the cosm ological constant denoted by the Greek letter /\, rears its ugly head again and again and again.”
    - George Gamow, GRAVITY, p. 270

    The ‘ugly head’ Of The Outlawed Truth (Outlawed and uglified, ‘again, and again, and again’... ):

    “The cosmological constant has now a secure position... Not only does it unify the gravitational and electromagnetic fields, but it renders the theory of gravitation and its relation to space-time measurement so much more illuminating and indeed self evident, that return to the earlier view is unthinkable. I would as soon think of reverting to Newtonian Theory as of dropping the cosmological constant.”
    - Sir Arthur Eddington, THE EXPANDING UNIVERSE, p. 24

    The fact that Einstein was persuaded to abandon his Cosmological Constant - repelling force - dominated Unified Field, calling it the biggest mistake of his life has become a mantra in scientific circles...they aren't talking about how Einstein was back to and working on his abandoned Unified Field; to the time of his death, in May, of '55.

    P.D. Ouspensky, has the same kind of trouble in his
    NEW MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE.
    An entire chapter entitled The 4th Dimension.
    Attired in 4-D raimants and then, timelessly banquets in 3 dimensions, at the 4-D round table.
    P.D. Ouspensky sets an example of being so near and yet so far...
    “It is difficult to describe even approximately the significance which the discovery of the 4th perpendicular in our Universe would have for our knowledge. The conquest of the air. Hearing and seeing at a distance; establishing connections with other planets (How about if we start with establising connections on this planet, in the everyday pedestrian, office space and livingroom environment of our own perpetual experience?) or with other solar systems; all of this is nothing compared with the discovery of a new dimension.”

    (*What about the 4th dimension of space-time-gravity, the 5th of electricity, the 6th of magnetism? How much less are all of those projected ‘nothings’, compared with this ensemble of newly discovered physical dimensions?)

    Ouspensky continues:

    “But so far it ('the discovery of a new dimension') has not been made ."
    (*Alas, the undiscovered 4th dimension is dismissed for 'lack of evidence'; on the grounds of only humanly being too realistic? The 4th dimension has had a psychotic departure from reality?).

    What We Must Do, continued:
    “We must recognize that we are helpless before the riddle of the 4th dimension, and we must try to examine the problem within the limits accessible to us.”
    - P.D. Ouspensky, Chapter: THE 4TH DIMENSION, in the title: A NEW MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE. p. 68

    (*With all due respect, sir: How about a drop in the bucket? All the answers are there, looking up at the observer - ut infra, ut supra - not caring a ripple if the answers therein are recognized or not...)

    “The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible.” - Albert Einstein, IN SCHLIPP (1949) p. 112

    For an even more detailed documentary of the remarkably employed Art Of Missing The 4-Dimensional Point, refer pages 69 thru 97 in P.D. Ouspensky’s A NEW MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE. This is a very well written and illustrated book and chapter (The 4th Dimension), by a deservedly esteemed and dedicated author - well worth reading. Ouspensky exemplifies and dramatizes the standard refusal to recognize what is proven - over-ruling results of objective experiment and mathematics with subjective misunderstandings.

    Commentary, criticism, questions and/or contributions welcome here.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Big bang in 3-D, or Steady state in 4-D? 
    Forum Senior Imaplanck.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    344
    The bigbang catergorically doesn't ignore the fourth dimension. The likes of you merely fail to understand what is meant by time being the fourth D!


    "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Big bang in 3-D or Steady state in 4-D? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    N.Y.
    Posts
    270
    Clear enough, Imaplanck.

    One of us is mistaken.

    Sincere thanks for your decisively comprehensive - if contentious - reply.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: Big bang in 3-D or Steady state in 4-D? 
    Forum Senior Imaplanck.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by That Rascal Puff
    Clear enough, Imaplanck.

    One of us is mistaken.

    Sincere thanks for your decisively comprehensive - if contentious - reply.
    You're quite welcome. Frankly though there's really nothing much to get comprehensive about. Space-time is one of the easiest things to grasp - Space and time are indeed inseperable, but merely in a way as a combined coordinate of a given event. Why is the unification of space and time so hard to grasp by so many?
    "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Big bang in 3-D or Steady state in 4-D? 
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by Imaplanck.
    Frankly though there's really nothing much to get comprehensive about. Space-time is one of the easiest things to grasp - Space and time are indeed inseperable, but merely in a way as a combined coordinate of a given event. Why is the unification of space and time so hard to grasp by so many?
    Actually, I think that the concept of space-time is extremely difficult to grasp, which is why so few people seem to grasp it. Take your definition, for example. Everything past the word "merely" seems like an extremely simplified and narrow recognition of the nature of space-time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: Big bang in 3-D or Steady state in 4-D? 
    Forum Senior Imaplanck.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    Quote Originally Posted by Imaplanck.
    Frankly though there's really nothing much to get comprehensive about. Space-time is one of the easiest things to grasp - Space and time are indeed inseperable, but merely in a way as a combined coordinate of a given event. Why is the unification of space and time so hard to grasp by so many?
    Actually, I think that the concept of space-time is extremely difficult to grasp, which is why so few people seem to grasp it. Take your definition, for example. Everything past the word "merely" seems like an extremely simplified and narrow recognition of the nature of space-time.
    Yes well thats probably why you and puffy are having problems with it. You must be having a science-fiction idea of space-time(certainly not Einsteins idea of it) or something, the only reason I can see guess for your confusion, I dont know maybe you have similar sources to puffy and his ludicrous statement that the bigbang doesn't take into account a relitivistic 4th D.
    "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    i cant either see how it can be so hard. time and space is the same.
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Senior Imaplanck.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    time and space is the same.
    I feel so alone, where's Wallaby?
    "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by Imaplanck.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    time and space is the same.
    I feel so alone, where's Wallaby?
    What do you have against his statement, other than the fact that it is so vague as to be devoid of meaning.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Senior Imaplanck.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    Quote Originally Posted by Imaplanck.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    time and space is the same.
    I feel so alone, where's Wallaby?
    What do you have against his statement, other than the fact that it is so vague as to be devoid of meaning.
    Einnie (for good reason) was adomment that that the 4th D of time was not exactly the same as the 3 spatial...
    "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by Imaplanck.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    Quote Originally Posted by Imaplanck.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    time and space is the same.
    I feel so alone, where's Wallaby?
    What do you have against his statement, other than the fact that it is so vague as to be devoid of meaning.
    Einnie (for good reason) was adomment that that the 4th D of time was not exactly the same as the 3 spatial...

    Time is not exactly the same as space, obviously, unless the context is extremely narrow and specific.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    okey, not exacly the same. my left toe aint the same as my right toe, but they are enough like each other to be each others mirror.
    the biggest differens is that time is one way trip with the speed C
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13 3-D Big Bang or 4-D Steady State 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    N.Y.
    Posts
    270
    3-D Big Bang or 4-D Steady State?

    "The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth, space by itself and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality." - Hermann Minkowski, 80th Assembly of German Natural Scientists & Physicists, 1908.

    "...Descarte was not so far from the truth when he believed he must exclude the existence of an empty space. The notion indeed appears absurd as long as physical reality is seen exclusively in ponderable bodies. It requires the idea of the field as the representative of reality, in combination with the General Principle of Relativity, to show the true kernel of Descarte's idea, 'there exists no space empty of field'." - Einstein, p.p.375 - 6, IDEAS & OPINIONS.


    "Matter and space are seen to be inseperable and interdependent parts of a single whole." - Fritjov Capra, THE TAO OF PHYSICS, p. 208


    "According to the physicist-philosopher Ernst Mach... material objects not only determine the structure of the surrounding space, but are in turn influenced by their environment in an essential way." - Fritjov Capra, THE TAO OF PHYSICS, p. 209

    "In one of the most reckless and sweeping generalisations in the history of thought, Newton filled the entire space of the Universe with interacting forces of attraction, issuing from all particles of matter and acting upon all particles of matter across the boundless abysses of darkness." - Arthur Koestler, THE SLEEPWALKERS

    "Regarding the tenability of gravitation as an impelling force, paralleled by the Cosmological Constant as a repelling force, a natural and complementary occurrence of this apparently incongruous ambiguity exists and prevails in the fact that omnidirectional electric field lines around a positive charge are directed away from the center of the charge; whereas, the field lines around a negative charge move inward, toward the center of the charge. As easy as the oscillating ripples of a drop in the center of a bucket." - K.B. Robertson, p. 521, GRAVITY IS THE 4th DIMENSION, Copyright 1979.


    "I do find gravity an attractive force at times." - K.B.Robertson. Ibid.

    ___________________________

    The Editors, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN,

    415 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10017

    14 May 1976


    "An Accelerating Universe?"

    "...that most reasonable observational data.... fit closely all models to which the expansion is accelerating. "The prediction of accelerating expansion is contrary to expectation... "something must be terribly wrong."..."The net forces between (receding) glaxies really are repulsive (Re: 'Hubble's Law - the more distant a given stellar or galactic light source the faster it's rate of recession from the point of observation". Re: Einstein's Cosmological Constant <repelling force acting parallel to and in the opposite direction as the popular concept of 'Newtonian impelling force>, a force different from others in that its velocity increases - rather than decreases, with distance.) - SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, 'Science and the Citizen', December 1975, James E. Gunn and Beatrice M. Tinsley.


    'I point out this apparent conflict with the understanding that Gunn and Tinsley concluded "...the prediction of accelerating expansion is contrary to expectation... and that something must be terribly wrong." Especially so if "...the net forces between (receding) galaxies... really are repulsive... and if gravitational values really are "equivalent to and synchronous with inertial acceleration values beyond a billionth of a second and the technical ability to measure any difference" (THE NEW GRAVITY <Is The 4th Dimension>, April 1975, Kent Benjamin Robertson).

    'Is it possible we are overlooking a rather obvious consideration, concerning the real nature of 'gravity?'

    Very Truly Yours,


    David F. Sicks, Anchorage, Alaska cc - Mr. Kent Robertson

    (Of course Mr. David F. Sicks received no response whatsoever.)
    ____________________

    "In reality, mathematics can say very little about the 4th dimension. There is nothing in the hypothesis of the 4th dimension that would make it inadmissable from a mathematical point of view, this hypothesis does not contradict any of the accepted axioms and, because of this, does not meet with particular opposition on the part of mathematics. Mathematicians even admit the possibility of establishing the relationship that should exist between 3-D and 4-D space, i.e., certain properties of the 4th Dimension. But they do all this in a very general and indefinite form. No exact definition of the 4th Dimension exists in mathematics (*as opposed to the fact that an exact definition does exist in geometry, and, whereby mathematics is by routine academic-scientific standards, authoritatively based).


    "The basis of the denial of the fourth dimension, which has been supported by the theoretical and fallacious plane and cubical geometry, has been the inability to produce an additional or fourth perpendicular to a cube, as the basis of an additional power multiplication, whereas, poor little plane arithmetic and algebra, without geomentrical reference, being abstract, indicate the perfect ability to do so...


    "Very rightly do they do so, for if the geometrist will go back to his first perpendicular, he will find it perpendicular to a sphere, for did he not assume a dot as his first basis of a geometrical theorem, which if conceded at all, must be spheroidal. Matter, if existent at all (and we cannot fallaciously assume a truth that is not), must be spheroidal. Surely the 'PlaneAndSolid' geometrist does not claim his 'dot' or 'point' to be cubical, for then he would have no further cause for his progressive antics. We see that there is no cubism, and that we can have as many perpendiculars to the inside or outside of the sphere as we may wish. Each power raising, or root taking, is on the basis of spheroidal increase or decrease by that many units of its radial or time dimension. The only 'straight line' then is the radial or time line, demonstrated by spheroidal dissection on its radial axis. There is also much laughter at the 'Plane&Solids'" - R Buckminster Fuller, 4-D TIMELOCK, p. 17



    (Perhaps the most prominent fact of palpably angry contention here, is Mr. Fuller's emphasis that, though a geometric point doesn't exist, it is nonetheless: plane and solid geometry shaped spheroidal; round; not cubicle. Emphasizing that when a given Geometric Point moves, generating a One Dimensional Straight Line, it does so at right angles - 90 o perpendicular - to itself. Commencing the extrapolation of right-angle-ruled dimensions that follow, from the geometric point to the <generally unrecognized - popularly - said to be - 'acknowledged, but yet to be formally and academically recognized and functionally applied> 4th dimension of matter, to the electricity moving at right angles from matter, thereby defining the 5th dimension as electricity, at right angles to which moves magnetism, thereby defining the 6th dimension. There are no precedents for the herein employed standards of identification and recognition of the 4th, 5th & 6th dimensions.)

    Post Script:
    As of 7.8.06 there's a reestablished argument in the 'Psuedoscience' category, cogent to the ongoing, certainly interesting - if not history making - imbroglio at this location.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14 Re: Big bang in 3-D or Steady state in 4-D? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    N.Y.
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by Imaplanck.
    Quote Originally Posted by That Rascal Puff
    Clear enough, Imaplanck.

    One of us is mistaken.

    Sincere thanks for your decisively comprehensive - if contentious - reply.
    You're quite welcome. Frankly though there's really nothing much to get comprehensive about. Space-time is one of the easiest things to grasp - Space and time are indeed inseperable, but merely in a way as a combined coordinate of a given event. Why is the unification of space and time so hard to grasp by so many?
    Search me? Sir.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15 Re: 3-D Big Bang or 4-D Steady State 
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by That Rascal Puff
    [b] 3-D Big Bang or 4-D Steady State?
    Your posts are so long, and they seem to be composed entirely of the words of others. Why not say what you mean, in your own words, in a small post?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16 Re: 3-D Big Bang or 4-D Steady State 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    N.Y.
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    Quote Originally Posted by That Rascal Puff
    [b] 3-D Big Bang or 4-D Steady State?
    Your posts are so long, and they seem to be composed entirely of the words of others. Why not say what you mean, in your own words, in a small post?
    Dear Hermes:
    What I mean to say is that it's all - for the most part - been said by others. I'm just connecting a remarkable quantity of previously unconnected - non re-cognized - dots. Pointing out my (inevitable) anthological reflections does not gainsay their methodologically documented conclusions. Neither is your off topic diversion a contribution to quite any astute Reader.
    As I was saying in response to a previously written information.
    Search me? Sir.

    (Post script: Are you one of those simple minded, smoked salmon, Chardonnay epicureans, also? Anyway, you asked for a menu, and there you have it. Sir. It's true that our soup du jour often does not feature brevity. But a lot of people tell me they sure do sail - and navigate - in it.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17 Re: 3-D Big Bang or 4-D Steady State 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    N.Y.
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    Quote Originally Posted by That Rascal Puff
    [b] 3-D Big Bang or 4-D Steady State?
    Your posts are so long, and they seem to be composed entirely of the words of others. Why not say what you mean, in your own words, in a small post?
    Dear Hermes:
    It's very often a matter of anthologically connecting the dots. A method of listing what's already been written but not entirely recognized. Refer, 'documentation'. (Study history.) May we get back on topic now? Sir.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Why do you think the BB can't address the universe as 4D? It can and does.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    N.Y.
    Posts
    270
    The BB universe has a 'beginning', the 4-D universe is an endless continuum < A, being the intersection of the pie chart - what would be the beginning in 3 dimensions, but which instead is the 4-D space-time continuum backtracking into endless microcosmic infinity, density and heat, the middle, B, being the present - eternal now, and the open end being C - the endless future. There is no contradiction of the law of conservation of mass energy in this 4-D scenario, it's the same amount of energy distributing itself over an increasing volume of space, squared. Thank you for your response. Any questions? May I ask how the BB accomodates the 4th D and still proclaims a 'beginning'?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    I think you are fixating far too much on the "beginning" when you're thinking about the BB theory. It's probably better to consider the BB from the first fraction of a fraction of a second rather than from t=0. At which point our physics are undefined. I addressed this point (how the BB accomodates a 4D view of the universe) in the other BB thread you started, and you didn't seem to respond to my point there so there's no point repeating myself here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    N.Y.
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    I think you are fixating far too much on the "beginning" when you're thinking about the BB theory. It's probably better to consider the BB from the first fraction of a fraction of a second rather than from t=0. At which point our physics are undefined. I addressed this point (how the BB accomodates a 4D view of the universe) in the other BB thread you started, and you didn't seem to respond to my point there so there's no point repeating myself here.
    Neutrino:
    You're probly right about me being fixated on the 'beginning'. On accounta what's beginning to get more definition than previously; namely a Steady State - Cosmological Constant - universe; without beginning or end, on accounta the data favoring a 4-D interpretation does in fact keep accumulating. No common center. An accelerating expansion of space.
    I'm looking for that other thread where you say I didn't seem to respond to your points, because I wish to stay open and try to avoid an unscientific posture (What's it's title?). Obiously, I have my prejudices, but I really do try to stay objective - it's the facts that are more important than anything and all we can do is learn from them regardless of how we'd like things to be. My Steady State 4-D side of it is at http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie. When you get there, it only goes up to Part VII, so click on 'Messages' on the upper bar and you'll get the entire menu. Unfortunately, for some reason, a few of my illustrations recently mistappeared w'out explanation.
    Thank you for your advisory response and best regards.
    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
  •