Dimensions Linear Thread

[junglelord]

Sorry if it rambled. Basic point.
Dimensions have structure (geometric reality), every one understand 3-D geometry.
No one doubts the existance of 3-D space or the 3-D Dimensions.
We hold these facts as truths.

I therefore can take the first law, Structure and Function cannot be seperated, and will use that unifying principle to further examine higher dimensional structures and functions.

What my revelation is and what I am trying to help people bridge the gap is that electronics is a example of how material structure and nonmaterial structure marry.

Electonics uses this non material structural geometric reality to create function with the same structural geometry from material.

Dimensions use structure to create function. The same structure in the non material that makes the non material function will work the same in the material.

I now hold this truth to be self evident.

I never understood electronics. I now do, and I now no why I did not before.

I had no structure to marry to the function. I had no truths that were self evident.

The question of charge as a dimension is a valid question, and a valid possibility, due to the fact that charge, the vortex, is a longitudinal structure, that was the means to make the Magnifying Transmitter function as a longitudinal generator with a vortex spiral inductor. Non material structure into material structure to control function.

Hint, you will never make a longitudinal device without a spiral. Both Tesla and Meyl will tell you this.
Dave Thomson and Meyl and Tesla also tell us why in varying degrees of truth and insight, why this is so.
The physical structure that is the same as the nonmaterial structure can allow us to manipulate dimensonal functions.
This the only way to do this. This is why all longitudinal transmitters or any longitudnal device will always need a spiral.
This is because the non material dimensional structure of charge is a vortex.

[webolife]

Let me throw one more at you then. I think it is possible to begin our description of the universe with the 2 dimensions of our basic perception. This allows us to more simply describe, for example circular fields/spin, ray/vectors, and hexagonal ratios. That these apply in extended form to 3 dimensions will follow. Base relationships apply to the full volume. This simplification, however, is only possible with the acknowledgement of instantaneous action at a distance.

[junglelord]

I am going to be busy with study of my APM book for a week.
I am now convinced it is correct.

I myself have still misrepresented even yesterday by saying that spin/angular momentum was the fifth dimension.
APM says nothing of the thing, that was a mistake on my part, due to the learning curve.

I now understand my misrepresentation.

I will state for the record that APM has five dimensions, each named and qualified. Spin is a unit, not dimension.

For the record the problem with string theory in any form, is not one single person names and gives attributes to the multiple dimensions they speak of, they just say there are 10, 11, or 12.


yeah maybe in their math, but to the real world, name the aspects of those....they never do it.
Thats because it is mearly a math construct.
Take a look, never once do they list the aspects of each dimension...I think they do not know what they are talking about.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/05/09/phys ... index.html

I have been guilty of that.


I will be busy for a week...have a great time forum.

[StefanR]

Just flashed my mind, long time ago I read this fun little book:

Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions
is an 1884 novella by Edwin A. Abbott, still popular among mathematics and computer science students, and considered useful reading for people studying topics such as the concept of other dimensions. As a piece of literature, Flatland is respected for its satire on the social hierarchy of Victorian society. Isaac Asimov, in a foreword to one of the many publications of the novella, wrote that it is "The best introduction one can find into the manner of perceiving dimensions."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland

Also the follow-up books, stated in above link, are quite fun.

And while searching it seemed last year they made a movie out of it

http://www.flatlandthemovie.com/

[bboyer]

Just flashed my mind, long time ago I read this fun little book:

<snip>

Likewise. A great, thought-provoking little book.

[webolife]

JL brought an interesting point we all have to deal with regarding "math constructs". As a math teacher I respect the orderliness and discipline of the subject, but recognize full well that just because something is expressible mathematically does not determine its validity in the physical universe. Theories dependent upon or allowing the use of math constructs like imaginary numbers, for example, don't make for a credible world. Likewise fudge factors such as Lorentz transformation[s] make the "impossible" math of relativity "work", but make no physical sense (in my UFT). Many philosophical constructs have the same problem... they may sometimes make for an internally consistent worldview, but are they viewing the real [extrernal] world? Along with a final theory needing to be comprehensible to common folk, the math describing it must also be accessible. This is where Newton, Pascal and Maxwell [et.al.] succeeded, and to this day, Einstein's relativity and QM have failed. All the more reason why we need to carefully define terms, what we are calling dimensions, or units, constants, etc.

[junglelord]

Dimension, fundamental attribute, building blocks, same thing.
Structure, geometry, non material, material, same thing.

I should point out in a above post I named primary angular momentum as the 5th dimension. That is incorrect. It is a dimensional unit. The fifth dimension is spherical geometry.

[Antone]

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

Do four dimensions fullfill a complete fabric of reality?

It seems to me that the most appropriate way to understand these "dimensions" may be to think of
[Length], [Area], and [Volume] as the plural aspect of the singular aspect [space/time].

By way of analogy, the set {1, 2, 3} is but a single set, yet it contains three elements. These are reciprocal aspects.
Similarly, [space/time] is a dimension with two reciprocal aspects. The plural aspect is   which is defined by the independent elements [Length], [Area], and [Volume]. The reciprocal perspective is to think of [time] as a singular aspect, with but a single, holistic and thus indivisible element.

These are not two different things--but rather two different ways of looking at the same thing. Thus, [Time] is not a fourth dimension. It is the three dimensions percieved as a single dimension.

As Dirac said,

In atomic theory we have fields and we have particles. The fields and the particles are not two different things. They are two ways of describing the same thing--two different points of view.

Similarly, Einstein said,

...it is a delusion to think of the electrons and the fields as two physically different, independent entities. Since neigher can exist without the other, there is only one reality to be described, which happens to have two different aspects....

In much the same way, I suspect that the [forth dimension of time] is not an independent entity, it is only the reciprocal way of looking at the first three.

[junglelord]

Actually frequency would be an independent dimension, and would be two domains. Two dimensions of frequency, linear spacetime and distributed space-resonance. A direct result of this 5-D space-resonace is the elemental charge, Electrostatic Charge, which by its very nature is distributed and is notated as e^2. Therefore all subatomic units have the same value of Electrostatic Charge, which has distributed spherical geometry. Charge in the standard model is one dimensional....a point, that is not logical, or mathematical.

In APM space and time are united in such a way that the two are inseparable, producing a single unit called double cardioid (dcrd). We need a coordinate system that includes both space and time. The perception of space time through our bodies, gives us the appearance of just one dimension of linear time, just one linear time is an illusion. In reality, the time dimensions of aether are actually frequency dimensions, and there are two of them. Together these two dimensions of frequency produce a spherical unit of resonance. In reality, the quantum universe has the qualities of space-resonance, we perceive the physical, macro universe with the qualities of space-time. Space and resonance integrate through a shared geometry. In other words, space and resonance are the same entity, but viewed from two perspectives, which are orthogonal to each other.
APM Secrets of the Aether, page 34-35, Chapter 2 Ontological Foundation

[StevenO]

These are not two different things--but rather two different ways of looking at the same thing. Thus, [Time] is not a fourth dimension. It is the three dimensions percieved as a single dimension.

You are quite right.

Movement in the three space dimensions has time as a scalar value. However, the opposite can also be true, movement in the three time dimensions has space as a scalar value. Effects that align in the space dimensions show "resonance" or "coherent" behaviour, a world that physics is only just starting to explore...

[junglelord]

Effects that align in the space dimensions show "resonance" or "coherent" behaviour

APM calls that space-resonace and quantifies it as such.
Indeed Mead names four games with four sets of rules.
Quantum devices have coherent sets and are charged.
The EU as itself or with the understanding of APM is a quantum system and therefore has those rules to play by.
It may not look like a superconductor, but it plays by the same rules, entangles, coherent, charged, forward and reverse time.




The Aether has a dipole of two spheres, which arise as the oscillation of forward and backward time. Each subatomic particle must take a very specific spin position, which determines its mass and direction of spin. The electrons and protons have clockwise spin and the anti-particles have counter-clockwise spin. In this image we see a 5-dimensional representation, with distributed frequency (resulting in the spheres) being the fourth and fifth dimensions.

[junglelord]

Fractal Dimensions.
http://library.thinkquest.org/26242/ful ... l/ch4.html

[altonhare]

Definition: Restriction placed on the usage of a word.

Just as a game with no rules has no meaning, so does a word without a definition.

Dimension: A direction in which an object points or faces that is mutually perpendicular to any other direction it points in or faces simultaneously.

There, now we may discuss "dimension" or others may pose a definition of this word to discuss it.

[StevenO]

Definition: Restriction placed on the usage of a word.

Just as a game with no rules has no meaning, so does a word without a definition.

Dimension: A direction in which an object points or faces that is mutually perpendicular to any other direction it points in or faces simultaneously.

There, now we may discuss "dimension" or others may pose a definition of this word to discuss it.

I'm sorry, but I think dimension is just a range of numbers used to describe a degree of freedom.