Dimensions Linear Thread

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Dimensions Linear Thread

Unread postby junglelord » Sun May 04, 2008 4:31 pm

I would like to dedicate this thread to linear diaolgue and information of Dimesions. It is in honour of its own merit. Please help me to build it up.

How can we construct them. What definitons can we apply? Are four dimension enough? What different models have been ventured in various TOE's? We can use comparative mythology in a linear way to examine these different non liner TOE models here and questions as they relate to their specific TOE threads that came to members minds when they reviewed said models interpetation of dimensions. I would like to see String Theory, Wilbert Smith, APM, Standard Model and any other dimensional theories that members may have knowledge of and have dedicated threads too or have links too debated here. Thanks so much. This leaves the TOE threads clean and concise.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Dimensions Linear Thread

Unread postby pln2bz » Sun May 04, 2008 7:35 pm

I support your approach here. It lends inherent structure and specificity to web retrieval, and the general plan of action that I was somewhat independently already thinking. I would support the transfer of any posts of my own that don't relate to your non-linear threads into this area.
pln2bz
 
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:20 pm

Re: Dimensions Linear Thread

Unread postby junglelord » Sun May 04, 2008 7:40 pm

Standard 4 Dimensional Model
Three Dimensions comprised of Length, Area, Volume
One Dimension of Space/Time

Strenghts
It is the Standard Model
The first three dimensions are common to every other model I have ever seen.

Weakness
How do the Forces of the Standard Model magically fill the empty space? Why is matter in the empty space?

Do four dimensions fullfill a complete fabric of reality?

Can more dimensions make the fabric of reality more clear or less focused?

Can we define dimensions with a dictionary approach that would be concise enough to set logical limits, yet flexible enough to cover all dimensions models of varying context? Can we even do that? Or do dimension definitions have to have so much flexibility as to be only explained within different contexts and a english dictionary solution is not valid as the universe and dimensions are too complex and the universe does not speak english anyway?
;)
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Dimensions Linear Thread

Unread postby junglelord » Sun May 04, 2008 7:49 pm

Dimension produce the fields and forces. Wilbert Smith builds his New Science Model with Cause and Effect, Structure and Function both implicit and explicit in his theory. 12 Dimensions of ever increasing order that weaves consciousness into the model. A true stroke of genius.

junglelord wrote:Wilbert Smith was a Canadian Radio Engineer, his research was in Radio Wave Propagation, Aurora, Cosmic Radiation, Atmosphereic Radio Activity and Geo Magnatism. He was the Superintendent of Radio Engineering with the Department of Transportation. In his essay The New Science, Wilbert advances a unified concept governing our awareness of reality, explains the generation of this reality, and describes the factors which mold it into the numerous forms in which we find it. His approach is unique … in bringing into play not only those factors which are usually considered as physical and material, but also the more subtle yet no less important influence of the mental and spiritual. As shown in Table 1, reality is structured in The New Science on the basis of 12 orthogonal principle dimensions organized into four “fabrics”, each having three parameters. Each parameter is said to include all of the parameters that precede it.

Table 1.
The 12 Dimensions of the New Science Four Fabric Parameter
Space Fabric: Length, Area, Volume
Field Fabric: Gradient, Divergence, Curl
Control Fabric: Randomness, Free Will, Sequence
Percipitation Fabric: Form, Multiplicity, Aggregation

The Space and Field fabrics are obvious principles for describing physical reality as we know it. The Length, Area, and Volume parameters of the Space fabric specify the 3-dimensional nature of our reality. The Gradient parameter of the Tempic Field fabric is a scalar that specifies the property of change, and is the basis for our experience of time. Divergence is a vector parameter that is the basis for electric fields, which spread out everywhere from points of reference. Curl is another vector parameter that, with the Divergence parameter, forms the basis for oriented magnetic fields.

The Control fabric deals with the role that free will plays in creation. The Randomness parameter is the basis for the unrestricted orientation that objects defined by the Space and Field fabrics can have. The existence of orientation introduces an asymmetry not present in operations on previous parameters. That is, not all orientations are equivalent. The parameter of Free Will addresses the need to make a choice to resolve the asymmetry. The Sequence parameter, which includes the previous element of free will, is the basis for order or specific arrangement in reality.

The Percipitation fabric contains the principles that permit the creation of matter. The Form parameter is the basis for the existence of boundaries in reality. The Multiplicity parameter permits the creation of more than one form, and enables the various elements of matter and energy to come into existence. The Aggregation parameter permits the assembly of these elements into purposeful structures, both animate and inanimate.

The set of principles takes on new meaning when it is recognized as a recipe for creating rather than merely describing reality. If we are to take an active role in creating the fundamentals of a complex reality, then inclusion of the Free Will parameter is essential.

Recall that each parameter includes all of the parameters that precede it. For example, the concept of volume includes the concepts of length and area. But note that Volume is placed before the principle of Free Will. From this, we can infer that volume is not subject to some decision in order to be a property of reality. Therefore, the concept of volume does not exist at the pleasure of some consciousness having free will. The placement of the Length, Area, Volume, Gradient, Divergence, Curl, and Randomness principles before Free Will means that these basic attributes of the universe are not altered by choice. The remaining principles of Sequence, Form, Multiplicity, and Aggregation are, however, all subject to free will. Physical entities such as atomic particles and biological organisms depend on these principles for their existence and, therefore, are subject to manipulation by consciousness.
Last edited by junglelord on Sun May 04, 2008 8:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Dimensions Linear Thread

Unread postby junglelord » Sun May 04, 2008 7:50 pm

APM builds Dimensions that produce their products. Nothing magical happens in APM. Structure and Function are embedded in his model. It follows Wilbert Smith in its methodology of construct in this respect. 5 Dimensions or 11 depending on how you count it. Dimension produce the fields and forces. Dave Thomson builds his APM with Cause and Effect, Structure and Function both implicit and explicit in his theory. It is the quantum structure model to explain the QM function model.


junglelord wrote:Here is a run down of the basic Dimensions before we get too deep into Units as thats putting the cart before the horse but I wanted to make some points clear about definitions and the position of APM. In short this is a synopsis of APM up to Chapter Five/Dimensions. I am just reading Chapter Six/Units. I basicly gathered material and quoted specific passages from chapter one to five and made this condensed several paragraph synopsis. Therefore I am hopefully representing the book properly. It explains fully the reverse time domain. It is a component of the fifth dimension of angular momentum. Being a 2 spin total, half is forward time, half is back time, we see electrons as 1/2 spin, or only 1/4 of the total angular momentum dimension.

In APM Constants appear instead of Variables. That is because the APM distinguishes between units of measurement and units of dimensions. The quantum measurments and quantum units can also serve as quantum constants. Two common quantum constants already in wide use are quantum velocity and quantum angular momentum. The quantum velocity is the speed of light. The quantum angular momentum is the Planck constant and notates as h. Units of dimensions build forth quantum measurements. Energy is a Unit and not a Dimension in APM and therefore it is not valid to say E=Mc squared.

According to APM, the Dimensions of discrete natural units (quanta) are Length, Frequency, Mass, Charge and Spherical Geometry. Dimension is the fundamental attribute of measurment, but is not itself measureable. Absolute dimension is a quality or reality. When quantity is associated with dimension, then the two together form a measurement. There are four commonly known fundamental dimensions in the MKS system of measurement. Length, Frequency, Mass, Charge.

In the macroframe we speak of the reciprocal of frequency which is time.

Also there is a Linear and a Distributed aspect to Dimensions. Length can be linear (a line) and distributed (a surface). Quantum Matter has only two dimensions of length, that is Length and Area, it only has surface characteristics. There is no solid quantum matter. Distance between surfaces provides the third dimension of length (Volume) resulting in the appearence of "solid matter" as we perceive it at the macrolevel. Linear Frequency is what we perceive as clock time (its reciprocal). Distributed Frequency is seen as the reciprocal of resonance. Just as length has two Dimensions and a implied third, so does Frequency. Static Frequency is the implied third and is the electostatic charge. Mass is linear and exists only with just one dimension. Matter at the sub atomic level exists as primary angular momentum. Primary angular momentum is a Dimension in its own right. 4 pi appears frequently in the quantum constants and is an essential quanity in quantum physics. 4 Pi is a dimension within the Aether unit and appears when we look at the relationships amoung the constituent constants. 4 Pi appears with permeability, permittivity, inductance, and capacitance units, such when expressing permeability in quantum units.

Charles Columb was not aware of the constant that bears his name when he was discovering the force law for electrostatic charge. The cgs system of measurements developed such that charge espresses entirely in the terms of the dimensions of length, frequency and mass. In the cgs system of measurements, Coulombs constant is equal to 1. When we convert the constants of permeability, permittivity and conductance to cgs units the important of 4 Pi becomes clear. Not only is the Aether a function of spherical geometry and the speed of light, but the fact that charge expresses entirely in terms of mass, length, and frequency dimensions shows that charge is indeed a derived dimension.. The observation of derived strong charge supports the APM concept that strong charge is equal to the angular momentum times Aether conductance.

Distributed Spherical Constant
the distributed spherical constant 16 Pi squared appears in the quantum Aether unit of rotating magnetic field (rmfd)
4 Pi X 4 Pi = 16 Pi squared
rmfd = 16 Pi squared X k

The full, two spin rotating magnetic field is not just a single magnetic field spinning in one direction. In the five diemensional perspective, it is a bi-directional tubular loxodrome shaped electromagnetic charge tracing first time in one direction, and then in the opposite time direction. In the four dimensional perspective, the rotating magnetic field would appear as a spinning tubular toroidal, or cardioidal, shaped electromagnetic charge spinning in one time direction (forward time), as we cound not see the backward time direction. Our inablity to see the backward time direction does not negate its effect or presence.

There are three manifestations of the rotating magnetic field. There is the two spin manifestation, which is the full Aether unit with the geometrical constant of 16 Pi Squared. There is the half spin manifestation of a single onn (electron). There is the one spin manifestation of rotating magnetic field, which applies when two onta bind together. One spin rotating magnetic field has a geometrical surface constant equal to the toroidal onn (4 Pi Squared) times 2, because there are two onta spinning oppositely in a binding.

Dimensions of APM Quantified
1 Length
This Dimension is comprised of three and is both Linear and Distributed
(three dimensions comprised of Length, Area, Volume)
2 Frequency
This Dimension is comprised of two and is both Linear and Distributed
(two dimensions comprised of Linear Frequency {clock time} and Distributed Frequency which is the Unit of Resonance )
3 Mass
This Dimension is comprised of one and is Linear only
4 Charge
This Dimensions is comprised of four and is Distributed only
(two electrostatic, two magnet)
5 Angular Momentum
This Dimension expresses Distributed Spherical Constant, 16 Pi Squared, with both a forward time domain and a backward time domain.
(2 spin QSU)
http://www.quantumaetherdynamics.com/index.html
Last edited by junglelord on Sun May 04, 2008 8:07 pm, edited 3 times in total.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Dimensions Linear Thread

Unread postby junglelord » Sun May 04, 2008 7:58 pm

A man I very much admire, Ed Whitten.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Witten
I often like to point out that what often appears as five distinct items was five ways of looking at one thing as Ed Whitten pointed out. I often use this when discussing Non Linear TOE Generality and Linear Reduction Generalites. It is the nature of the universe to not see all that it offers. So we see many conceptual symmetrys appear yet from different perspectives due to this inherit nature of reality and the human perspective.

Certainly where QM is the function searching for the structure, String and M Theory try to "unravel" that structure. Dave Thomson of APM says that the only basic difference in his onta and strings is strings are one dimensional, his quantum structure onta are two dimensional structures. This to me is a Ed Whitten stroke of genius. This would give credence to more dimensions and the structure of its matter and sub atomic parts.

M Theory.
[edit] Prior to 1995
Prior to 1995 there were five (known) consistent superstring theories (here on referred to as string theories), which were given the names Type I string theory, Type IIA string theory, Type IIB string theory, heterotic SO(32) (the HO string) theory, and heterotic E8×E8 (the HE string) theory. The five theories all share essential features that relate them to the name of string theory. Each theory is fundamentally comprised of vibrating, one dimensional strings at approximately the length of the Planck length. Calculations have also shown that each theory requires more than the normal four spacetime dimensions (although all extra dimensions are in fact spatial.) However, when the theories are analyzed in detail, significant differences appear.


[edit] Type I string theory and others
The Type I string theory has vibrating strings like the rest of the string theories. These strings vibrate both in closed loops, so that the strings have no ends, and as open strings with two loose ends. The open loose strings are what separates the Type I string theory from the other four string theories. This was a feature that the other string theories did not contain (The Type IIA and Type IIB string theories also contain open strings, however these strings are bound to D-branes, that is to say, they are not loose).


[edit] String vibrational patterns
Furthermore, calculations show that the list of string vibrational patterns and the way each pattern interacts and influences others vary from one theory to another. These and other differences hindered the development of the string theory as being the theory that united quantum mechanics and general relativity successfully. Attempts by the physics community to eliminate four of the theories, leaving only one string theory, have not been successful.


[edit] M-theory
M-theory attempts to unify the five string theories by examining certain identifications and dualities. Thus each of the five string theories becomes a special case of M-theory.

As the names suggest, some of these string theories were thought to be related to each other. In the early 1990s, string theorists discovered that some relations were so strong that they could be thought of as an identification.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory
Last edited by junglelord on Sun May 04, 2008 8:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Dimensions Linear Thread

Unread postby junglelord » Sun May 04, 2008 8:50 pm

Zome, Sacred Geometry, the Golden Mean Ratio, Atomic and Molecular models, Dimensions, Embedded and Explicit Functions. How to view more dimensions and less dimensons with shadows and form all in a unique yet accurate childrens toy. Loved by physicist made for children. Discover Zome. To Infinity and Beyond.
Zome 2,3,5, Infinity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37DwuvIneIE
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Dimensions Linear Thread

Unread postby junglelord » Sun May 04, 2008 9:16 pm

I see that Ed Whittens wife Chiara Nappi has several two dimensional string models. She is explaining black holes with them. That would be an object of review here for sure. Does her work in any way discredit string, two D string? We may be wrong on black holes, but I doubt it. Still we must always reserve judgement (at least in my mind). She also has a feather in her cap for cosmology. One of the major contributions of Nappi to modern astrophysics was the use of the Yang-Mills theory’s Yang symmetry to D=4. Is five brane five dimensions? Are Branes and Dimensions equal?
:?:
Chiara Nappi was originally interested in constructive quantum field theory and rigorous statistical mechanics. Her research interest soon moved to skyrmion description of nucleons, interface of particle physics and nuclear physics, and string theory. In string theory, she focussed particularly on low-energy effective actions and their solutions. In her studies, she investigated the consequences of boundaries and higher loop corrections on the string effective actions through deriving Born-Infeld and Fierz-Pauli lagrangians from string theory. Later on, she worked on finding black hole solutions especially in two dimensional string theory. Currently Dr. Nappi is looking for connections between black hole solutions in two and higher dimensions and their apparent relation with AdS/CFT correspondence.

Chiara Nappi is married to Edward Witten, a famous mathematical physicist, Fields medallist, professor at the Institute for Advanced Study and founder of M-theory.

One of the major contributions of Nappi to modern astrophysics was the use of the Yang-Mills theory’s Yang symmetry to D=4.

Nappi was deeply involved in finding a relation between approaches to integrability in the Superconformal Yang-Mills theory.

Her contribution to the five-brane analysis has also been of remarkable importance. In massless states of matter, Dr. Nappi analysed and developed gauged and ungauged WZW models (the WZW models being on a non semisimple group).

Concerning duality, Nappi carried out studies on marginal perturbations and gauging.

Nappi’s contribution, through key academic papers, to the analysis of the two-dimensional black hole thermodynamics, should also be mentioned. She has also carried out research on charged black holes in two-dimensional string theory.

Together with her husband, Prof. Ed Witten et al., Dr. Nappi used the string theory on the closed, expanding universe model. In her studies, Dr. Nappi applied closed string equations of motion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiara_Nappi
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Dimensions Linear Thread

Unread postby junglelord » Mon May 05, 2008 5:57 pm

Well I thought it over today and decided for the last time that Black Holes do not exist...dispite what Chiara Nappi can do on paper with 2 D Strings and Black Holes, so I have a question!
:twisted:
Why is it that almost everyone in the math world of Black Holes does not know anything about the Black Hole Paper by Stephen J. Crothers? After all we need to show proof that indeed Black Holes even from the initial concept were based on an inaccurate account of the Schwarzschild Radius Paper. It appears that either Crothers is right and everyone else is playing fancy math/bad math, or Crothers was inaccurate. Its nice to see where we may have been steered wrong. but seriously how many of us can do the math on either side? Be that as it may for us mear mortals, How can it be that Chiara Nappi, the wife of Ed Whitten and all the others are actually playing with a false or unmathematical premsis in the first place? I am confused as to how this can go on so long if Crothers is correct. I mean if Ed Whitten is the smartest man in math in the world, as it would appear to be true, how come he would not have seen that incorrect beginnings? How could he or his wife have never looked at the original paper by Schwarzschild and only worked their whole life with the inaccurate conclusions that were spread about the Schwarzschild Radius, especially with Einstein being public about his disdain for Black Holes? I am confused as to why no one knows this if Crothers can point it out with positive math proof? Seems very odd since math, even that does not relate to real world systems, is still supposed to be based on logic, not mistakes.
:?

I am curious as to if I can learn the math? Anyone that smart out there? Steven O our resident EE?

Seems like one huge mistake and how could everyone miss that? I need to learn more math. I need to be able to walk the walk of Whitten or Crothers. I think that is my last goal in life. Not just know the truth but express it in math like APM. Now that math I get. That is like electronic college stuff, that I get no problem. Maybe the fancy math is too hard to understand because it has no real world expression, just the world of numbers. I do believe that numbers are a real implicit part of the fabric of reality, but they can also weave fantasy...very weird.
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -05-10.PDF
http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblo ... mology.htm
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Dimensions Linear Thread

Unread postby junglelord » Tue May 06, 2008 5:48 am

from the "problem of spin thread, between junglelord and stevenO, I am asking the questions, stevenO is replying

What do you think of APM having Angular Momentum as a Dimension?

Sorry, I don't know anything about APM and have no ambition to learn about it. Since dimensions are human concepts we are free to choose them, but we should pick them wisely. In that sense I don't think it is wise to select Angular Momentum.

Have you tried to rebuild the universe with Dimensions that produce the product? I refer to Wilbert Smith and Dave Thomsons work. They both reconfigure the universe from basic dimensions that are the construct for all the products and units. That is fundamentally more sound then 4 D space having Fields and Forces just magically appear to fill that empty space. I wonder if Mead went back far enough? I wonder what he would think of a new dimensional construct. APM has found universal constants instead of variables. I am hoping to have some insight from your experience and your personal journey on these difficult subjects.

I can't see why 12 dimensions would be easier than 4. For me,the Wilbert Smith work is just gibberish and unfortunatley I don't know anything about Dave Thomson.
Thanks so much for turning me on...:D

You're welcome :D I just think electricity is fascinating.



Hi Steven.
:D

I had a question and an observation. Mead never claimed to have created the total answer. He also states that comparmentalization is a closet with too many rooms. He did tear down a lot of walls, still in the end it only serves the industry he is focused on, like you, electricty.

He was not looking for a TOE, nor trying to construct one. I think to make a TOE we need to recognize the work of Mead but we also need to take it further. Since you nor he is looking for a TOE, but rather more correct electrical theory, I wonder dispite you huge talents and insight about Mead, Maxwells work, knowledge of EE, are we not missing the point and staying to specialized with his concept?

Can we leave the universe with only 4D? You say dimensions are a human construct. Everything we do is a human construct, from Maxwell to Mead. Be that at it may I hope we can pull a Feynman insight to the topic especially the way the work of Mead does bring resolution to the problem of QM and Maxwell. That is a way towards the TOE, it must be.

I am more driven to find a reasonalbe TOE of some level. I fail to see how we can constuct the universe without dimensions, so I think saying they are a human construct is not entirely valid. However I do appricate your response and insight. I am glad to see you say Smith is nonsense. I wonder why though? You never said. What about a universal construct over 4D is not commendable in your mind, if anything? How come his Right Angle Rule construct is not interesting to you? Is it just to simplistic?

I wanted to start with a PM, just so I can touch base with you on the TOE journey. But then figured there was too much too learn and lets keep the debate public. Your very much a important member and one person I can ask fundamental questions to and hopefully you can steer me in the right direction. I am very much still in love with electronic and electricity but I seem to be most enamoured with TOE's....oh no its a fetish.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Dimensions Linear Thread

Unread postby StevenO » Wed May 07, 2008 4:36 am

Hi Dean,

Please don't put any weight to my answers outside EE applications since that's my real experience. For sure a TOE is a nice thought, but I would think any philosopher could show you that assuming the whole universe follows from a single theory would be illogical by definition (and I'm not a philosopher). We look for regular patterns and try to express that in physics laws, aided by the creative language of mathematics (though I think geometric descriptions would be better, see http://www.blazelabs.com/f-p-solids.asp). My experience is that the things you fully understand can be explained in everyday language to a non-expert and that's what I use as a criterion to see if I really understand something.

I also did study TOE and aether theories for a few years but found that most, if not all of them are without any merit. The things that still make sense to me are the sites I regulary link to, starting with the Mead book and most of the BlazeLabs and some of the Gabriel Lafreniere website. I found that once one can understand the Mead book, people are better able to judge other theories for their value and misinterpretations. From that I hope to contribute some of my experience to the discussions, so other people don't waste their time on these many theories that sprawl on the web...

For the thread about Dimensions I think these websites have some value:

Xavier Borg demonstrates that dimensional analysis is a very valuable tool in physics:
(sorry, lost that link)
He also defines what would be the most appropriate constants in physics definitions:
http://www.blazelabs.com/f-u-suconv.asp
http://www.blazelabs.com/f-u-allconstants.asp
and that the universe must ultimately be a higer dimensional fractal:
http://www.blazelabs.com/f-p-hds.asp
http://www.blazelabs.com/f-p-frc.asp
(BTW. He also has a Unified Theory, especially for Dean :D : http://www.blazelabs.com/f-u-dual.asp)

My fellow countryman Rob van Linden shows how things that look like a fundamental particle or field or constant in one dimension look like something different in another dimension and like Xavier, how the universe can be regarded as a multi-dimensional fractal:
http://www.euclideanrelativity.com/idea/index.htm

Steven
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.
User avatar
StevenO
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Dimensions Linear Thread

Unread postby junglelord » Wed May 07, 2008 7:14 am

Your a man after my own heart StevenO. Your experince can and does save alot of wasted time. I am forever grateful to your experinece and insight into these complex matters. I truly imagine that our combined talents as a forum will come to some fruitfull conclusions. I never really started to understand Electronics till Dec1/07, your apperance on this forum is a godsend to me in particular. I am now finally learning what I always wondered about in electronics. Your a great teacher and Fenyman and Mead would be very proud of your efforts here. Your ability to understand complex items and the math they carry is a true force we need on this forum. I am very happy to see your post on fractal dimesions and I have a whole day of study ahead thanks to those links. Much kudos to our resident EE from his ET who both work in the EU Lab.
:D
LOL I'm an ET, I aways thought I was different...by the way that stands for
(Electronic Technologist)
Dean

I feel like Beeker from the Muppet Labs and StevenO is Dr Benson Honeydew...
:D :lol:
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Dimensions Linear Thread

Unread postby junglelord » Fri May 09, 2008 7:52 am

Plasmatic wrote:I have no problem with tweeking certain insights and ideas . But for me Causality and no creation ex nihilio is inviolable. Ill certainly look more into mead but if he says theres no causality on the micro, i say theres only one reality. Also as far as I can tell "time" doesnt exist outside of our heads so that a bit problematic for Mead.

So time is not a dimension?
Time is not real?
I would like to discuss that in what is real please and or in the dimensions thread.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Dimensions Linear Thread

Unread postby junglelord » Fri May 09, 2008 2:38 pm

My bucket has taken a kicking of late.
:lol:
I think I'm going to limit myself to what is real.
Most people are having trouble between the nonmaterial dimensions and the material bucket we cannot fill.

Let's start again!
What can you not put into a Zome cube?
This will fundamentally change the question to be an accurate representation of the structural challenges facing us.
:D

I do not think that anybody in the world of physics, and I've certainly never read a TOE that did not start with the fundamental premise of 3-D space. Since this nonmaterial dimension has a material construct, and since it is known and understood that 3-D space is governed by the law of quadrature, and because even little children can understand this concept, due to boxes and blocks, no one doubts the validity of the nonmaterial structure of 3-D space.

It is also with the first dimensional constructs of 3-D space from a nonmaterial dimension (the nonmaterial cube) into a material reality ((e-, p+, n, *Zome model cube), that we recognize the validity of nonmaterial dimensions and their structural counter part in the material world.

Linear concepts and distributed concepts as they apply to dimensions and the structural implications also become evident in the first and second dimension. Length is linear, Area is distributed. No one disputes this. Certainly we can introduce the concept of the golden mean ratio, phi, with the first dimension linear length.

I believe we can use this organizing principle to unify the rest of the nonmaterial dimensions within the structural framework.
;)

Certainly anyone who has worked with an oscilloscope can realize that frequency has a structure.
:D

One never works with a oscilloscope, unless one understands the value of pi.

So in essence the first 4 dimensions of the Standard Model and APM and every other TOE agree. We see a structure on the oscilloscope, we see linear frquency AC complex (pi) or even straight line DC (phi) we see that clocks are round (pi). Linear time and orbital (distributed) time, a electonic technologist waiting for lunch...LOL

A good drummer understands linear time vs orbital time. Freddy Gruper, teacher of the great drummers, as retold by Neil Peart of Rush, There are no straight lines in nature.
Orbital time, Linear time, two different creatures.
To me that is much like linear and distributed frequency.

I think at this point, we can clarify and make a simple yet profound definition of the word dimension.

Dimension: a nonmaterial existance with structural laws that produce a function.

There is no dimension, that does not have a structure.

Forum members may remember that I came up with the universal law, about two months ago. Double Layers always produce Spiral Vortex structures, in every instance. One will notice that Meyl and Thomson begin with the vortex/charge.

One will also notice that the most basic subatomic particle, the electron, is an entity composed of two separate charges, 2 spiral vortex's in each model.

Have you ever notice that a capacitor in the electronic circuit schematic and also in classical physical form (before IC) is for all intensive purposes, a double layer? And what did I say would always form from a double layer? Charge/vortex!
What does a capacitor do? It stores charge!

Can you see what I'm saying here? The nonmaterial dimension of charge (APM Theory) does have a valid structure, the vortex, and follows pre-ordained laws, one being that it is always found between double layers. If you want to make a material structure to manipulate the nonmaterial structure, You must duplicate the structure and laws that govern them! Take a look at the Tesla Impulse Magnifying Transmitter schematic and actual physical structure. We see a spiral coil! This is a structural vortex in the material world to gather the structural vortex of the nonmaterial dimension. What does a scalar longitudinal vortex look like? It is a whirlpool in the bathtub, It is a spiral.

What does the Impulse Magnifying Transmitter do? It propagates longitudinal current. why? Because it is made from a longitudinal structure.

If we take a look at the standard inductor, a coiled copper wire in the linear shape, as opposed to a distributed one like the Tesla spiral coil, we can see that a rotating magnetic field has a structure that can be contained within a material rotating structure. The copper wire coil inductor is not moving yet its structure does effect the the motion of EM and will cause a phase shift of 90 degrees between voltage and current. Capacitors do the opposite phase shift.
ELI the ICE man.
Voltage leads current in an inductor by 90 degrees.
Current leads voltage in a capacitor by 90 degrees.

The first circuit we built and learned in electronics college was the harmonic resonace tank circuit, a inductor and capacitor in parallel. We were able to manipulate the frequency dimension...

Semiconductors, always have a sandwich layer, another double layer. This one has no volume between it, unlike a capacitor! This particular structure, when created by two opposite doped materials, allows quantum functions to occur within the classical mechanics size structure of a diode or transistor. This again validates that we need a structural basis to organize a function. You cannot separate structure from function at any level. Non-material dimensions, by definition (at least my new one), must have a underlying structure that produces its fundamental function. This organizing principle will allow us to create a physics model that properly and correctly weaves a thread of reality from nonmaterial to material based on a single law. You cannot separate structure from function.

Function without structure is effect without cause! This is never valid at any time at any level! Material or nonmaterial! This also allows a model to be built, which explains why material structure can come from nonmaterial dimensions. The inherent shape of the structures themselves can be used in the material world to manipulate the nonmaterial dimensions. Based on their structure, this is what electronics is all about.

For the first time in my life I actually understand physics and electronics! I can explain it in simple terms so that even a child can understand. And I can prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. In fact, I believe I just did!
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Dimensions Linear Thread

Unread postby webolife » Fri May 09, 2008 3:26 pm

Be careful of claiming too much, Dean. I am a [pretty smart] child who respects much, but still only understands about half, of what you say...
"Dimensions" is still an english word [using your preference for the lowercase] and some of your flow-of-consciousness posts make my head spin in at least three languages, including that of mathematics. Can we distinguish between the terms dimensions and fundamental attributes or are these the same idea for this thread? Also, when referring to structure, are we allowing both non-material structure and material structure, or is there a difference? Do words like multiplicity, from Wilbur Smith, mean the same thing as redundancy or fractal, and are these dimensions, fundamental attributes, or just observed patterns? Connectivity is a fundamental attribute of any TOE, but does that make it a dimension? I don't mean to throw you off your thread here, I just need very much for truly clear language to prevail, if at all possible.
Last edited by webolife on Fri May 09, 2008 3:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2535
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Next

Return to The Future of Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests