[dleviwing]

Dimensions and Entities:

Dimensions are parameters and terms that are derived from quantitative measurements.

Why do so many SiFi movies embrace the idea of dimensions as a way to add mystery and awe to their scripts and create suspenseful plots? Could it be that we have been lead to believe that existence is entwined with other dimensional realms of reality that coexist with the one we call our own universe? Our scientific notions for some, seem to be wandering into the stomping grounds reserved for our religious faiths.

The true concept and meaning of dimensions infers a parameter or term that is the result of a quantitative measurement. Length, width, and depth are dimensions that allow us to depict distances; together they depict volume. Time is a measured quantity and thus is a dimension. Mass is a measured quantity and thus is a dimension. Energy is a measured quantity and thus it too is a dimension. Of course many dimensions are determined indirectly by knowing the values of other dimension. Knowing the quantity of energy allows us to determine the quantity of mass and visa versa.

There are only two types of entities of existence; physical entities and nonphysical entities.

Unfortunately we often view our mathematics as if the term on the left side of the equation is representing an entity. This often leads to an abstract concept such that energy, force, time and so on, are independent entities of the universe. There are only two types of entities; physical entities that are objects of a fundamental physical substance, and nonphysical entities that are attributes of the fundamental physical substance or the void partially occupied by our universe.

When interpreting the meaning of our abstract mathematical gauge theories an their terms, it is extremely important to question: "Are we interpreting an entity or a dimension?" If we apply this philosophy to all our science terminology, we find that our science is virtually solely comprised of terms that depict only dimensions and seldom any real entities. This makes perfect sense since our science is base on the process of measurement. Thus the interpretations of these measurements should have a paradigm that describes the entities of substance and attributes rather than proclaiming dimensions as entities.

[Graybeard]

Sub... my post was not very clear ....

1. correct, the speed of light is considered to be the universal speed limit 2. no, the limit does not apply to mass or acceleration, it only pretains to speed 3. correct, nothing can exceed C 4. no, the only thing which travels at C is light 5. basically you've got it sort of backwards. More speed is more mass, not less mass,

1.. The Universe has a speed limit (acceleration may be the better word here?) 2.. The 'speed limit' is a mixture of mass & acceleration. (matter & motion ??) 3.. Nothing that started at less than or equal to this speed can exceed it. 4.. All things defined in point 3 travel at this speed limit .. only the 'mixture' varies 4.. for 'Light' (a photon) this speed limit is reached by (Mass = 0) x (300,000klm/sec) 5.. for 'Me' (a human) this speed limit is reached by (Mass > 0) x (speed < 300,000/sec)

1.. i agree
2.. i am not referring to 300,000klm/sec or 186,000miles/sec .. i think you have made an incorrect assumption here
3.. Space can expand faster .... much faster
4.. What i am talking about here is a 'constant' .... not 'c'
5.. i am referring to an imaginary scale ... one end .. total mass, no speed and at the other total speed, no mass .... in this context we are both saying the same thing ... therefore, anywhere on the scale would be represented as more mass/ less speed and vice a versa

Sub ... Dave was explaining that the universe consists of matter in motion .... my query was, if thats so, then is space-time a constant

ie: we all travel thru space-time/ including light, at the SAME "SPEEEED" ... not to be confused with 'c'
but we all have a different 'fuel mix' ... light has no mass but a huge amount of acceleration .... I have 'more mass' and a lot less acceleration .. hence 'more mass, less speed and vice a versa ... but the total of every mix is always the same!!

have i made it even more complex now ?? LOL cheers GREG

[Graybeard]

Dave ..... did you say a mouthful ...... Sub had me on the ropes ... I knew he had interpreted me incorrectly... but i couldn't find enough different words for 'Speed' to explain this.

I posted a long winded explanation that even i was not happy with ... but you said it clearly.

In any case Dave, i read all your replies and, even if you don't realise it, the terms 'matter' and 'motion' have sunk in .... i wasn't that far away, believe it or not... there is a lot more depth in my thoughts than my posts.

Cheers ... GREG

[dleviwing]

Greg;
I appreciate your kind words. I am happy you found something of value in my comments.
We still have differences in how we perceive motion and the universe but that is only to be expected.
If you review some of my older posts, it may give you better insight into my way of thinking.
Good luck;
Dave

[subversion]

Actually, Greg, I don't think I misinterpreted you. Let me see if I know what you mean. You're saying that mass times speed for any object is constant. That's simply not true.

The universe DOES NOT distinguish between relativistic mass and rest mass. Therefore as you accelerate, your speed is increasing AND your mass is increasing. This is the opposite of what you claim, that mass should decrease as speed increases.

so there is no universal limit for acceleration or mass, only for speed. As you reach this speed limit, mass becomes infinite and acceleration becomes zero. DO not confuse acceleration with speed, acceleration is the derivative of speed.

True, space can expand faster than light, it is the one exception. You listed two #4's in your original post so I'm getting confused as to which one you're referring to. Light does have mass, based on it's speed, or it can be interpreted as energy, but either way it should be considered mass because it has gravitational effects. Light does not have acceleration, it travels at constant speed. The only way it accelerates is by changing direction, bending around massive objects. I know what I'm saying.

[dleviwing]

Sub;
Excellent; I see you have an understanding of Hubble's constant and the concept of expansion.

I only have issue with your comment that light has mass. To clarify this it is "relative mass" and applies to the concept of the measured quantum unit of the photon. (Planck's constant) When combined with the gravitational constant "G" we have Planck's mass. The photon however, only represents a specific quantitative part of the total EM wave.
I have made many comments in other threads on the view of a universal speed limit and the constant nature of the speed of light.

To keep with the theme of this thread, ask if these terms are dimensions or entities?

Also I would like to clarify that my view is that the "Quantity of Motion of any physical system is constant". This cannot be translated to speed unless this quantity is totally linear uniform motion. This is the speed that produces a true infinite mass; not the speed of light. Infinite mass at "c" is a consequence of the math and our ability to measure.

You stated that expansion was an exception.
There are no exceptions to the true laws of physics. This exception tells us there is something wrong with our paradigm.


YES; I agree; You know what you are saying.

[subversion]

Hubble's constant, the great un-constant constant of the 21st century.

I understand your clarification of relativistic mass; this reminds me of an argument we had in another thread recently. I asgree that a photon only has "relativistic" mass, as they say, but my conjecture is that the universe does not distinguish between what is "relativistic" mass and what is "rest" mass. Only humans make a distinguishment. For all intents and purposes the universe treats relativistic mass just as it would rest mass. Therefore mass being relativistic or otherwise is purely a semantical argument. Gravity tells us what is mass and what is not, and I will repeat, you should not second guess gravity. Despite my saying it would be foolish, you did just that, you went and second guessed gravity and told me I was false. No matter what, gravity will decide, gravity will have the last say in what is or is not mass. It's not like relativistic mass is different from some sort of true mass.

And as for your question about whether something is a dimension or an entity, I think that sounds like a purely semantical argument as well.

[infinity]

Dleviwing,
There is no doubt that the teaching of physics has become convoluted. I'm sure our founding fathers of physics would be as disgruntled as the rest of us. While the meanings of the terms like dimension, mass and energy may change, physicists must be careful not to redefine them just so their theories are perceived as being more logical.

In books, I find mass or matter as being defined as "frozen energy". To me this implies that energy must be wavelike. How can we use a probabilistic interpretation of physics and not make the the conclusion that these wavelike properties are not real. In my opinion, this is where physics took a wrong turn. But the problem goes back even further to Maxwell when the electromagnetic field became mathematical rather than physical. In Maxwell's famous minus sign mistake he actually makes the correct assumption that the magnetic field oscillates in the reverse or opposite direction to the electric field. However, once he commited to describing both the electric and the magnetic field as moving in the same direction the physical nature of the wave was lost.

Extra dimensions are simply the direct result of not allowing Nature to perform these wavelike motions on a physical level. When I read books by Machio Kaku on how Einstein was looking to describe matter as "knots" in spacetime I know that it must be related to physical nature wavelike motion. These "knots" are really just the nodal points created in space by energy (ether if you like). Matter can only be defined at these "nodal" points in space since this is the only place where energy would behave as though it were really "frozen". This is why ideas like discrete space (twistor space, spinors, loop-space theory) are needed as the basic construct of space. If spacetime is simply just a giant lattice of strings connected end-to-end then a more physical interpretation of quantum mechanics will be required. And that my friends spells REVOLUTION!!

infinity~David Labay

[Graybeard]

Sub ..... Try it this way .... no problems if i am wrong

If i had said, instead of, more mass, less speed .... more mass, less 'rate-of-change' of the 'rate-of-change'. in other words ... the more mass increases the more acceleration decreases ??? [of course your speed is going up all the time]

would you agree with this ... i'm only looking for analogys to picture dave's 'matter & motion'

Let me see if I know what you mean. You're saying that mass times speed for any object is constant. That's simply not true.

your right, this is not true ... Now, let me see if I know what I mean ...

As you say, the speed of light is the constant ...... the ruler & clock we measure it with is unique to each person ....... but, even though its unique to each person, it always gives the measurer the exact same answer ... 1.07136 billion kph.

What good is a ruler & clock that always measure the same .... no matter where and when you measure the light.

Einstein said it still tells us something ... if the answer is the same regardless of the input parameters ... the baseline of time & and the baseline of space must vary to suit each individuals situation in space & time.

This is the constant i am referring to.. and so are you ... i just didn't put it as well as you.

Hope this clears up everything. !!

[Graybeard]

Dave ...

If you review some of my older posts, it may give you better insight into my way of thinking.

i had already got this far thanks

However .. I will be back to discuss this

We still have differences in how we perceive motion and the universe but that is only to be expected

Cheers