Go back
Dimension Theory

Dimension Theory

Science

Vote Up
Vote Down

I got to thinking that the universe must really be conceivably empty but provably is not. So I got the idea that each dimension cannot contain it's own number. e.g. zero zero's in the zero'th etch.

Any Mathematicians/Physicists that can confirm this please?

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

This gave rise to the notion that each dimension is itself empty and instead defined by it's surrounding dimensions. e.g 3 is a combination of 2nd and 4th.
A bit like seeing the image of a whale in an underwater slipstream.

What do you think?

edit. So trying to see a 3 in the third dimension would be a bit like trying to see the whole of a swimming pool that you're stood in. You'd need to get out the pool to see the pool in it's entirety.

Vote Up
1
Vote Down
-1

I can confirm it's nonsense.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
I can confirm it's nonsense.
Is that arrogance talking or do you care to share?

Vote Up
1
Vote Down

That's why Gravity is so very weak..most of it is in another dimension hooked up with our 4..

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by @ogb
That's why Gravity is so very weak..most of it is in another dimension hooked up with our 4..
That makes a lot of sense to me. What about dark matter. Looks like a dirty hack to me. What if that value could vary in a tiny tiny way? Could we halt the universe from a cold death?

2 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down
-1

Originally posted by @christopher-albon
Is that arrogance talking or ...
No, he is a qualified PHYSICIST.
That means if he says it's nonsense, unless you have good reason to believe the contrary, your default assumption should be it probably is.

Vote Up
Vote Down

I'm searching for the default assumption key...








can't find it

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by @christopher-albon
Is that arrogance talking or do you care to share?
1) yes
2) apparently not

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by @christopher-albon
Is that arrogance talking or do you care to share?
If you would like to come up with new theories, you should first understand the current ones. Start with special relativity - grab a book on electrodynamics and have a go.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
If you would like to come up with new theories, you should first understand the current ones. Start with special relativity - grab a book on electrodynamics and have a go.
First rule of science is to check the instruments isn't it? I must be rusty!

Edit. Is that why those probes you fired off are off course, relatively speaking?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by @christopher-albon
Is that arrogance talking ...
In this case the arrogance is valid.

If you want to drag your posts out of the nonsense realm then try expanding on them in understandable language.
What do you mean by your first sentence in the OP?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by @christopher-albon
So I got the idea that each dimension cannot contain it's own number. e.g. zero zero's in the zero'th etch.

Any Mathematicians/Physicists that can confirm this please?
As a mathematician, that make no sense whatsoever.
Dimensions don't contain numbers, nor are they numbered (except by convention).
Do you even know what a dimension is?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Hey, don't shoot the messenger. Just wondering is all.

3 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by @christopher-albon
First rule of science is to check the instruments isn't it?
what has "check the instruments" got to do with understanding the current scientific theories (which you clearly don't and that is just part of your problem) ? -your responses make no sense. You seem to be unable to follow the conversation let alone understanding the current scientific theories.