[dleviwing]

We should note: "DIMENSION" is a measured quantity, not an entity.
Space is not a dimension, only the parameters of the measurement of space are dimensions. (length, width, and depth)

Motion is not a dimension, only the terms used to perform measurements of motion are dimensions. (Time and distance)

Matter is not a dimension, only the terms used to define its quantity are dimensions. (Mass)

When we combine the dimensions for matter and motion, we create another dimension called "energy". The same is true for all quantities of measurement.

If dimensions are treated as if they are entities of the universe, then those who promote these concepts will continue to prey upon the ignorance of the general public.
Science publications often abuse the scientific terminology to promote sales of their books and not to truly inform the casual science reader.

The complexities of the universe are not natures design, they are man's.

Truth is not relative to IQ and knowledge is not all truths.

[Graybeard]

I think you have made some excellent points here. I need time to think about this and would like the opportunity to reply. For the time being do you agree that spacetime is a true entity ??

regards greg

[Guille]

Originally Posted by dleviwing When we combine the dimensions for matter and motion, we create another dimension called "energy". The same is true for all quantities of measurement.

Matter+Motion=Energy?

It's interesting, but too odd just to give it in a line, can you expand this,a nd explain?

[dleviwing]

Gullie and Graybeard;
The idea of this post is to show that when we look at interpretations of scientific terminology, we must ask ourselves "what is the true entity?" and "what is the term of a measured quantity (dimension) being attributed to that entity?"
Matter is the entity, motion is the property, and Energy is the measurement or mathematical calculation. Though you will not find it in physics books, "mass" is a measure of the potential energy of a system and not the physical quantity of matter in that system. This is why mass and energy are identical.

I have read many posts and books that attempt to depict measurement terminologies as entities with attributes or properties. Using the word "dimension" as if it too were defining an entity rather than just a measure is another common abuse.

Many perceive "space-time" as an entity when it is, in fact, only a mathematical method to express the behavior of space relative to motion. It is in effect describing the behavior of "ETHER" and how it response to structured matter.

Uncertainty and probability are other terms hyped out of proportion to impress the ignorant.

I become annoyed with those who attempt to impress others with superior intellectual skills by discussing such pure nonsense as being a realm of higher learning. This usually indicates nothing more than a high school physics education.

This is why I say that complexity is not natures design.

Gullie, the function of the universe is simple, Don't let anyone convince you otherwise.
The universe is only complex when we try to measure it.

[Guille]

hi dave.

I've taken a time to make this post, so I hope it's worthfull.

Originally Posted by dleviwing The idea of this post is to show that when we look at interpretations of scientific terminology, we must ask ourselves "what is the true entity?" and "what is the term of a measured quantity (dimension) being attributed to that entity?"

It's true that we first should answer these questions before the other things we are tryingt o discuss. But, if you look at everything in that way, in the way of "what should be studied is the basis", then th very first question to do should be: What is an entity? The concept of entity is very wide. So we should first define it's general term, and then go to your questions.

Originally Posted by dleviwing Matter is the entity, motion is the property, and Energy is the measurement or mathematical calculation. Though you will not find it in physics books, "mass" is a measure of the potential energy of a system and not the physical quantity of matter in that system. This is why mass and energy are identical.

But energy (and mass, now I realise) are real, they are properties of matter. Such as motion. Because energy is the ability to do work. The more nergy I have, the more work I can do. And this is clearly physical. Why do you tihnk it's only matheamtical? Actually, motion looks also a bit unreal, because it is just a measurement of something that we don't even know what it is or how to deifne it (dimensions-space).

Originally Posted by dleviwing I have read many posts and books that attempt to depict measurement terminologies as entities with attributes or properties. Using the word "dimension" as if it too were defining an entity rather than just a measure is another common abuse.

True. The terminological differentiation is a big problem in language transmition of theories. We could only solve thsi by using logic as our language, this is, by eliminating enlgish, spanish, chinese and all the other languags, and talking only by logical symbolism. But logic itself is subjective, subjective to the mind using it, subjective to the form of transmition, to the representation, to the meaning in each theme...

Originally Posted by dleviwing Many perceive "space-time" as an entity when it is, in fact, only a mathematical method to express the behavior of space relative to motion. It is in effect describing the behavior of "ETHER" and how it response to structured matter.

So time doesn't exist, it's just the product of space and motion? Then, why would we have ever used it?

Originally Posted by dleviwing This usually indicates nothing more than a high school physics education.

You directed this paragraph to me. I actually don't have yet all high school education, so I'm even under those who you refear to. I also dislike complexity as you, but sometimes something very ocmplex is the simplest thing. If not, how can you measure the complexity of something? By how many new concepts it equeiers to be reliable?

Originally Posted by dleviwing Gullie, the function of the universe is simple, Don't let anyone convince you otherwise. The universe is only complex when we try to measure it.

ok, I won't search for complexity for this. But I will still look for truth, being itself simple or complex.

[Graybeard]

Guille & Dave

You have given me even more to think about before i reply. Especially about the words ENTITY & SPACETIME ....

Originally Posted by dleviwing Though you will not find it in physics books, "mass" is a measure of the potential energy of a system and not the physical quantity of matter in that system. This is why mass and energy are identical.

Actually I have found this in nearly all Physics Books .... here is one examle of many

'In high school physics, an object with a certain mass and a certain velocity is said to have kinetic energy (energy by virtue of motion) Objects have energy also by virtue of where they are. A steel ball on top of the ears Tower has potential energy because someone worked hard to get it there. If you drop it off the tower, it will, in falling trade in its potential energy for kinetic energy .... [The GOD Particle, Leon Lederman, 1993

Leon Lederman was head of Fermilab (i think) and had won a Nobel prize

Please don't think I am contentious, its just that i find i learn more when things are clarified for me... Its hard to communicate complex ideas when you only have a few lines of post.

When you said your definition would not be found in Physics books was this what you meant or have i got it wrong.

Also i am working on my reply to your definition of SpaceTime, please be patient with me

TA! greg

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by <<>> You directed this paragraph to me. I actually don't have yet all high school education, so I'm even under those who you refear to.

Guille;
Actually the statement was not directed at you. I have found your awareness of science well beyond normal high school physics. It was to point out that many people quote text book answers as if they truly comprehended it and apply these false understandings to create new ideas. This only leads to greater complexity and false knowledge.
I have often felt you were falling prey to these promoters of nonsense until I realized you were practicing your courtesy and restraint to keep you out of trouble on the forum.
Your ability to think for yourself is well beyond those who have talked down to you.

[dleviwing]

Guille and Graybeard;
The concepts of mass and energy tend to be confusing due to the generalization use of the words. Even in defined physical definitions they are not truly well understood.
What does it mean to have more energy or less energy?
The answer lies in our understanding of the fundamental property of matter we call motion. Contrary to current concepts, total motion of a system is not a value that we can increase or decrease through interactions; it is a fixed quantity. The distribution of that motion within a system is what defines the nature of the physical substance and its interactions with other states of the substance. The motion of a system is usually a combination of "uniform motion" and "random motion" (wave function). Experiments show that acceleration produces the effect of increasing "mass" and thus we can hypostasize that it is the "uniform motion" component of matter that produces mass. (Think this out for yourselves and I think you will be amazed with your new understanding of mass and energy.)
We can interpret this as saying the conversion of uniform motion (mass) to random motion (radiant energy) is what Einstein's energy equations is actually describing.

So to define the term "entity"; there are only two fundamental entities of existence; fundamental substance of the universe and the eternal void of which it resides. The rest are all natures magic tricks and mankind's arrogance.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Guille; Actually the statement was not directed at you. I have found your awareness of science well beyond normal high school physics. It was to point out that many people quote text book answers as if they truly comprehended it and apply these false understandings to create new ideas. This only leads to greater complexity and false knowledge. I have often felt you were falling prey to these promoters of nonsense until I realized you were practicing your courtesy and restraint to keep you out of trouble on the forum. Your ability to think for yourself is well beyond those who have talked down to you.

Thanks. Actuall I didn't really believe that you were directing the post to me, I din't think you would do so. I never belief what I read in my Physics textbook. And, yes, when it seems that it's not of a typical thing of me to be talking politelly and helfully to a nonsensial member's theory, it is not to get in trouble with toequest or Robert.

[Graybeard]

Dave, in your first post you said that the parameters of space are dimensions

Space is not a dimension, only the parameters of the measurement of space are dimensions. (length, width, and depth)

You also said that time is a dimension of motion, (as well as distance, but isn't this covered in length, width and depth?)

Motion is not a dimension, only the terms used to perform measurements of motion are dimensions. (Time and distance)

as well, Mass is a dimension of Matter

Matter is not a dimension, only the terms used to define its quantity are dimensions. (Mass)

You then combined Matter & Motion to form energy.

When we combine the dimensions for matter and motion, we create another dimension called "energy".

My question is this, if you combine all 3, Space, Matter, and Motion would this lead to a definition of Space-Time.

If so, would this mean that our own perception of the Universe is unique in relation to:

1.. Our perception of where we are in space
2.. Our perception of rate at which time passes
3.. our rate of acceleration in Space-Time (assuming gravity and acceleration are the same)

Ta! Greg