[RascalPuff]

Euclidien school on Standard Geometry.

1. A geometric point (A) doesn't exist, however, it is a point in space which may be represented by the intersection of two equally non-existent straight lines - the point serves to determine a specific location in space.

2. Point (A) moves (in any direction at any speed for any distance) to Point (B); generating a one dimensional Straight Line (A --->B)

3. One dimensional Straight Line (A----->B) moves at right angles to itself (in any direction, at any speed, for any distance); generating a Two Dimensional Plane (B---->C)

4. Two Dimensional Plane (B-----C) moves at right angles to itself (in any direction, at any speed, for any distance) generating a 3-D volume, which may become metric space, if and when it is occupied by anything.

5. 3-D space (3-D volume occupied by matter) moves at right angles to itself (perpendicular from all three of it's simultaneously manifest dimension) generating a 4th dimension of time and motion. The motion may be one of overall contraction of a given three dimensional entity, or, over all contraction....

6. Electricity moves (outward, expanding) at right angles from 4-D matter, identifying itself as the 5th space-time dimension.

7. Magnetism moves (outward, expanding) at right angles to electricity, identifying itself as the 6th space-time dimension

Until if and when a form of energy is found invariably moving at right angles to magnetism, the highest measurable ensemble of dimensions is six.

Geometric point has no dimensions.
One Dimensional Straight line - does not occupy space - is 1st Dimension.
Two Dimensional Plane - does not occupy space - is 2nd Dimension.
Three dimensional volume or solid - occupys void or space - is 3rd Dimension.
Three dimensional solid expands or contracts at right angles from all three of its. dimensions, generates 4th dimension of time (or duration).
Electricity invariably moves at right angles out of 4-D matter, consequently identified as the 5th dimension.
Magnetism invariably moves at right angles to electricity, consequently identified as the 6th dimension.

Heat may be translatable as the 7th dimension, that is speculation.

Question: What is the definitional origin all the 'other' dimensions that so many conversations, conventions and contentions are orbiting around? By what definition are 'other' dimensions determined? All the lonely dimensions - where do they all come from? Some so called string 'theorists' (and others) are talking about eleven (helter) - and more -(skelter) dimensions. Perhaps there's another method of determining dimensions besides those of Euclid? Meanwhile, there are still ongoing arguments about whether or not there's a fourth dimension. Let alone six. Whereas - until further notice - the highest number of academically considerable dimensions is six. Heat may eventually be recognized as moving at right angles to magnetism, allowing the possibility for a seventh, that are knowable.
Summary: Where and how are all the controversied numbered or 'infinite dimensions' defined? What quality constitutes their place(s) as dimension(s)?

Regards
- RP

[mkirkpatrick]

What dimension do you think that life is in? Does it occupy all dimensions? And could you
also call a dimension a "plane of existence"? It seems there are as many questions as
there are possible dimensions (planes).



regards michael.

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick What dimension do you think that life is in? Does it occupy all dimensions? And could you also call a dimension a "plane of existence"? It seems there are as many questions as there are possible dimensions (planes). regards michael.

That seems to be the gist of the confusion, Michael. There's dimensions of music and thought and taste and reading and writing and walking and talking and certainly life itself is a dimension that mustn't be neglected. The rhubarb - and the anarchy - seems to start with a departure from the formal Euclidien definitions.
(Everything may be a dimension is what happens when you step away from the definition. You once asked me, why don't we just go whole hog with the dimensions? It seems that's what many have done... I wouldn't exactly call this science, Michael... Please recall the message String 'Theorists' are sending - when you need anything new to make yer 'theory' work, you just slap it together out of slim pickins and thin air... 'Whatever works' doesn't always work... As long as you fergit the rules you can make yer own... <Whoopee?>)

Regards,
- RP

Regards
-RP

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by RascalPuff That seems to be the gist of the confusion, Michael. There's dimensions of music and thought and taste and reading and writing and walking and talking and certainly life itself is a dimension that mustn't be neglected. The rhubarb - and the anarchy - seems to start with a departure from the formal Euclidien definitions. (Everything may be a dimension is what happens when you step away from the definition. You once asked me, why don't we just go whole hog with the dimensions? It seems that's what many have done... I wouldn't exactly call this science, Michael... Please recall the message String 'Theorists' are sending - when you need anything new to make yer 'theory' work, you just slap it together out of slim pickins and thin air... 'Whatever works' doesn't always work... As long as you fergit the rules you can make yer own... <Whoopee?>) Regards, - RP Regards -RP

I agree RP,when you step away from the de-fine-ation you are at a distance from firm
ground,and thereby prone to subsidence?

regardsmichael.

[bottomlander]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick I agree RP,when you step away from the de-fin-ition you are at a distance from firm ground,and thereby prone to subsidence? regardsmichael.

I agree mkirkpatrick.

Yet what will happen when model developers step away from the definition?
Yes, usually those people not good in following good definitions will be at a distance from firm gound (provided the definition is really fit-to-the-truth).

However, if a key definition is only fit to the appearent truth but actually misguide those knowledge stacking over its appearance, then, better to keep your vision at a distance away from that illusion.

To achieve a TOE, human needs to re-define something we take for granted.
Without suitable re-definitions, human can still dream of a TOE but impossible to theorize it out!

Best Regards. Bottomlander