Originally Posted by RascalPuff  Dear Lloyd:
An exerpt from your recent letter...
"Now, if you'd like to discuss the four dimensionality of it, that's up to you, but there is no math possible to describe my model or yours___It's the 4-body problem... Maybe this is why physics just gives up, and stays within the safety zone of its 3-D world...
Lloyd
p.s.
Now, do you see why "gravity is the 4th dimension", is a moot point? It can't be mathematically modeled, due to the 4-body problem. At the time of inception, Poincare' couldn't even solve the 3-body problem, and to this day, it may not be solved___one solution is being tested."
__________________________________________________ _______
RP's response to Lloyd:
Please google 'the three body problem'. It has nothing to do with the 3 and 4-D issues we're dealing with. We are not addressing a triangular or quadrangular issue.
I am not versed in your model and cannot speak for it, but if it parallels or identifies with mine, you will soon see that all the required math for 'my' model was long ago done in the existing ST equations applicable to three and four dimensional matter; by Newton, Einstein and others. Moreover, in the interpretation of electricity and magnetism as being the 5th and 6th dimensions, the work is done there, also; though the identification of electromagnetism as 5 and 6 dimensional is not recognized as included in the accomplished factors. All of the relevant information factors in on matter. It is four dimensional and (invariably) generates electromagnetism - which is a physical extension of matter. All of this is to remindfully highlight that we are not dealing with a three body problem when we address a single consideration of matter, or the fact that it is four dimensional, or the fact that it generates the 5th and 6th dimensions... This does not mean that we are dealing with anything like a 3, 4, 5 and/or 6 body problem. Both you and Dave have cautioned each other and myself not to make any given issue more complicated than it is. I submit that such is the case in this matter of 'a three -and more - body problem'.
_____________________
Regarding any kind of 'prime mover', that must be scientifically accounted for. With no puns intended, I am retired from that field. I cannot account for 'why' 3-D matter is moving perpendicular to itself, becoming ever larger at an accelerating rate of growth and thereby fulfilling the geometric definition for the fourth dimension (duration - time). Indeed, that question, to my way of thinking, is intractable. I can only observe and prove, abundantly (by way of the previously disassociated achievements and observations of many others) that apparently 3-dimensional matter is actually 4-dimensional. Likewise it is not my employment to explain why matter generates electromagnetism. I can and do explain (- regarding any issue of an unlimited amount of energy maintaining the subjected fourth dimension -) as I have said many times before, it is the same amount of energy, constantly distributing itself over an increasing amount of otherwise 'empty' space; squared. 'Why', in my estimation,is ineffable, and, scientifically superfluous. Albeit, an excellent metaphysical and/or philosophical subjection.
___________________________
In the matter of of Doppler effect and Lorentz contraction contributing as evidence that 'solid', 3-D matter, is actually an expanding field... You cite reasons for why such a scenario is untenable: in the 'eternal' continuum of 'now'. Whereas, in a four dimensionally accelerating universe, yesterday's speed of light is not todays, and today's is not tomorrow's, ex parte from the continuum of the eternal now.
It's good to be talking to you, and Dave, of course.
(Hi Michael)
Best regards
- RP |