Definition of Dimensions

[RascalPuff]

Due to controversy on this issue, the following resource is available.

http://www.google.com/search?source=...+of+dimensions

Best regards,
- RP

[Profpat]

Due to controversy on this issue, the following resource is available.

http://www.google.com/search?source=...+of+dimensions

Best regards,
- RP

Hi RP;

I like the physics definition and the one I used for my Idea.

5. Physics A physical property, such as mass, length, time, or a combination thereof, regarded as a fundamental measure or as one of a set of fundamental measures of a physical quantity: Velocity has the dimensions of length divided by time.


Best to you,

Pat

[cvengali]

I was immediatly reminded of a conversation with a flat mate who was arguing against the viability of object oriented programming. He argued that color for example is an attribute of an object and thus not the thing itself, not real. As follows then perception is an attribute of a particular dimension and not viable. Space, time and thier measures although seemingly the fabric of dimension can be reduced to tools of understanding and one has only to ask what is not a tool? to explore new dimensions.

If physics is the science of the dimensional world then meta-physics is the art of the abstract. It is here between the two that common references to dimension loose thier value but not thier significance.

Thanks for letting me take a stab at this.

[everymansmedium]

A dimension number is described by the number of measurements that must be made to completely describe the directional limits of the geometry of the object.

A dimension number is an objects freedom of movement times 2.

To increase a dimension number to its next complete geometry is the objects exponent plus 1

A dimension number is typically its exponent.

The freedom of movements are indicated in simple terms relative to the personal body. forward and back is relative to the direction that you are facing. right and left is relative to your sides as you continue to face forward. Up and down is relative to the direction indicated by the head up and feet down. The before and after is relative to time.

A point = dimension number = 0 freedom of movement = 0 exponent = 0

A line = dimension number = 1, freedom of movements = 2 - forward and back the exponent = 1

a plane = dimension number = 2 freedom of movements 4 -
forward and back, and right and left exponent = 2

a volume = dimension number = 3 freedom of movements = 6 - forward and back, right and left, up an down. exponent = 3

an existence medium = dimension number = 4
freedom of movements = 8 geometrical logical 7 real.
forward and back, right and left, up and down, before and after. Note the concept of before has no relation to NOW. It only has relation to the linear placement of objects in past time. exponent = 4

To increase to the next dimension you add one to the exponent.

When you do this, you indicate an infinite increase in the previous dimensions possible locations.

If the dimension is a dynamic dimension it continues to infinitely increase the possible locations of the previous dimension.

John

[everymansmedium]

Hi RP:
I am sorry if my responce brings your thread to a screaming halt.

Some people believe that silence can negate truth.

John

[Mohan.C]

Dimension is a unit to measure space and time.

[dleviwing]

The meaning of “dimensions”, as used in science is: “any quantitative measurements”. Yes John, you’re absolutely right, we use numbers to count how many dimensions are required to define the physical properties of objects.

BTW: it’s not silence you’re experiencing, it’s being ignored.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Dimensions:

-1.For making up dimensions with no point for measuring the imaginary. (The twilight zone)

0. The point of exisence.
1. Going to great lengths.
2. Plane to see.
3. Eyes’ cube.
4. Time or gravity
5. Electricity
6. Magnetism
7. Heat
8. All possible universes
9. Heaven
10.Beyond Heaven
…
16. 7th Heaven

[everymansmedium]

The meaning of “dimensions”, as used in science is: “any quantitative measurements”. Yes John, you’re absolutely right, we use numbers to count how many dimensions are required to define the physical properties of objects.

BTW: it’s not silence you’re experiencing, it’s being ignored.

Hello Dave:
I am aware how the current system defines many things that I do not agree with. Most of these things fall into the category of increasing the complexity so as to reduce the following, there by reducing the competition. In simplicity is good engineering, but not in a capital driven system.
Much of the existing doctrine is a smoke screen. A well devised smoke screen. But still as such. the object is to hide what is obvious and to define what is seen as illusion.

Here is a pearl that was given to me from my imagination. (if it is that) It was in return to a question that I asked myself in my own imagination. My question was, “What is the process of aging?”
The answer that I got immediately was.
“Aging is relative to the amount of shit that accumulates in untouchable areas.”
If you think about that you will recognize the aging process of all things in life.
This is what is wrong with the entity that is created as a result of our sciences. (It is aging.)
Our government, The accumulation of laws that were written for special interest that can not be changed. They each take a piece of the economy as there own and leave NOT ENOUGH FOR OUR SYSTEM TO SURVIVE. This is the problem with global economy.
This is also the aging process of us as living things as we increase the amount of contamination that accumulates in the body to eventually be our undoing.


I believe in WYSIWYG. My faith in the existing system is no more. It is time to stand alone and recalculate reality using the initial laws of science. I know that there are many ways to result with an understanding of all situations including the observation / witnessing of events including the taking of measurements and interpretation of results. There may be ways that work well in practice for many measurement sequences, Yet in time there will be one or more than one that does not fit into the existing documented system of understandings.
We have too many of these measurements that do not fall into a system of understanding. You know this as well as I. Yet we continue to verify what has been our undoing. I function of a level of the greatest simplicity that is possible for any situation because I have found in the past that most times this ends up to be the real situation. I do not disagree with what I do not understand. I strive to understand so that I do not find myself disagreeing with the WYSIWYG of the environment that I live within.
John.

[Max™]

I always liked "degree of freedom", myself.