[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by Aresteh

.
Dear Rascalpuff -- Could you make it clearer for us which of these two forms is your understanding.

for the journey -- reza

Dear Reza:

Does this help any:

NEW MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE.
An entire chapter entitled The 4th Dimension.

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?) 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 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
____________________________________

"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.


"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 geometrical 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



Please refer http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

Reza:Please let me know what you think of this.

Regards
- RP