[RascalPuff]

Is there a 5th perpendicular relative to Einstein's 4-D matter? Doesn't electricity invariably move at right angles out of all matter and does that not fulfill and find the definition for electricity as in fact being the 5th dimension?






"The biggest obstacle to learning was my education." - Albert - 'The Axe' - Einstein

[RascalPuff]

Does Not Magnetism Invariably Move At Right Angles to Electricity? - Today, 07:20 AM



Is there a 6th perpendicular relative to the 5th dimension of electricity? Doesn't magnetism invariably move at right angles to all 5-D electricity emanating from 4-D matter and does that not fulfill and find the definition for magnetism as in fact being the 6th dimension?

[MJA]

Ok, I'll try your new definition for electricity as "the fifth dimension" in this sentence:

A man was found guilty and sentenced to death by way of a fifth dimension chair.

Sorry, but I don't think it works at all.

As far as your logic regarding the science of physics, complexity only takes you further from the simple truth. Definitions as well as measure are only probable at best. Beyond probable is absolute truth. Einstein was so close.

MJA

[mkirkpatrick]

The answer is no,if you accept five dimensions,then why not go the "wholehog" and have
five hundred and fifty five dimensions?

Whether it moves at right angles,left angles,or quadratic angles,is I feel irrelevent!



regards michael.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by RascalPuff Does Not Magnetism Invariably Move At Right Angles to Electricity? - Today, 07:20 AM Is there a 6th perpendicular relative to the 5th dimension of electricity? Doesn't magnetism invariably move at right angles to all 5-D electricity emanating from 4-D matter and does that not fulfill and find the definition for magnetism as in fact being the 6th dimension?

Simply put,no it does not.



regards michael.

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by MJA Ok, I'll try your new definition for electricity as "the fifth dimension" in this sentence: A man was found guilty and sentenced to death by way of a fifth dimension chair. Sorry, but I don't think it works at all. As far as your logic regarding the science of physics, complexity only takes you further from the simple truth. Definitions as well as measure are only probable at best. Beyond probable is absolute truth. Einstein was so close. MJA

_____________________________

Dear MJA: I'll try a parallel for your new definition of the instrumentation of capital punishment imposed upon: a man who was found guilty and sentenced to death by way of an E=MC2 chair. I don't think that works any better than what you're sorry for.

As far as your logic regarding the science of physics, aversion from detailed method leading to the simple truth - and what may be the most concise summarisation of a Theory of Everything - is: 'Everything is energy'. It abandons a lot of comprehensive details and maroons understanding to the confines of three words. An even more abbreviated Theory of Everything is how close Einstein was with E=MC2 There is no apparent heuristic evidence of algorithm in your quasi hyperbolic parody. It does not sit well with the panel on brevity and keeping it reasonably simple.
The entire internet might shut down along with all manner of communication if everyone definably and measurably adhered to the stringent Eastern maxim that a wise man says nothing. In which case you may be close to and approach the sagacity of a wise man. I don't find your response any kind of functional contribution. Please excuse the fact that my response is slightly more extensive - and less energetically efficient and presciently meaningful - than yours.

[RascalPuff]

Dear Mr. Mkirkpatrick, and whomever else it may concern:
Please consider this:

Literature Network H. G. Wells The Time Machine

Chapter I
The Time Traveller (for so it will be convenient to speak of him) was expounding a recondite matter to us. His grey eyes shone and twinkled, and his usually pale face was flushed and animated. The fire burned brightly, and the soft radiance of the incandescent lights in the lilies of silver caught the bubbles that flashed and passed in our glasses. Our chairs, being his patents, embraced and caressed us rather than submitted to be sat upon, and there was that luxurious after-dinner atmosphere when thought roams gracefully free of the trammels of precision. And he put it to us in this way - marking the points with a lean forefinger - as we sat and lazily admired his earnestness over this new paradox (as we thought it:) and his fecundity.

'You must follow me carefully. I shall have to controvert one or two ideas that are almost universally accepted. The geometry, for instance, they taught you at school is founded on a misconception.'

'Is not that rather a large thing to expect us to begin upon?' said Filby, an argumentative person with red hair.

'I do not mean to ask you to accept anything without reasonable ground for it. You will soon admit as much as I need from you. You know of course that a mathematical line, a line of thickness nil, has no real existence. They taught you that? Neither has a mathematical plane. These things are mere abstractions.'

'That is all right,' said the Psychologist.

'Nor, having only length, breadth, and thickness, can a cube have a real existence.'

'There I object,' said Filby. 'Of course a solid body may exist. All real things - '

'So most people think. But wait a moment. Can an instantaneous cube exist?'

'Don't follow you,' said Filby.

'Can a cube that does not last for any time at all, have a real existence?'

Filby became pensive. 'Clearly,' the Time Traveller proceeded, 'any real body must have extension in four directions: it must have Length, Breadth, Thickness, and - Duration. But through a natural infirmity of the flesh, which I will explain to you in a moment, we incline to overlook this fact. There are really four dimensions, three which we call the three planes of Space, and a fourth, Time. There is, however, a tendency to draw an unreal distinction between the former three dimensions and the latter, because it happens that our consciousness moves intermittently in one direction along the latter from the beginning to the end of our lives.'

'That,' said a very young man, making spasmodic efforts to relight his cigar over the lamp; 'that . . . very clear indeed.'

'Now, it is very remarkable that this is so extensively overlooked,' continued the Time Traveller, with a slight accession of cheerfulness. 'Really this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some people who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it. It is only another way of looking at Time. There is no diffirence between time and any of the three dimensions of space except that our consciousness moves along it. But some foolish people have got hold of the wrong side of that idea. You have all heard what they have to say about this Fourth Dimension?'

'I have not,' said the Provincial Mayor.

'It is simply this. That Space, as our mathematicians have it, is spoken of as having three dimensions, which one may call Length, Breadth, and Thickness, and is always definable by reference to three planes, each at right angles to the others. But some philosophical people have been asking why three dimensions particularly - why not another direction at right angles to the other three? - and have even tried to construct a Four-Dimension geometry. Professor Simon Newcomb was expounding this to the New York Mathematical Society only a month or so ago. You know how on a flat surface, which has only two dimensions, we can represent a figure of a three-dimensional solid, and similarly they think that by models of thee dimensions they could represent one of four - if they could master the perspective of the thing. See?'

'I think so,' murmured the Provincial Mayor; and, knitting his brows, he lapsed into an introspective state, his lips moving as one who repeats mystic words. 'Yes, I think I see it now,' he said after some time, brightening in a quite transitory manner.

'Well, I do not mind telling you I have been at work upon this geometry of Four Dimensions for some time. Some of my results are curious. For instance, here is a portrait of a man at eight years old, another at fifteen, another at seventeen, another at twenty-three, and so on. All these are evidently sections, as it were, Three-Dimensional representations of his Four-Dimensioned being, which is a fixed and unalterable thing.'

'Scientific people,' proceeded the Time Traveller, after the pause required for the proper assimilation of this, 'know very well that Time is only a kind of Space. Here is a popular scientific diagram, a weather record. This line I trace with my finger shows the movement of the barometer. Yesterday it was so high, yesterday night it fell, then this morning it rose again, and so gently upward to here. Surely the mercury did not trace this line in any of the dimensions of Space generally recognized? But certainly it traced such a line, and that line, therefore, we must conclude was along the Time-Dimension.'

'But,' said the Medical Man, staring hard at a coal in the fire, 'if Time is really only a fourth dimension of Space, why is it, and why has it always been, regarded as something different? And why cannot we move in Time as we move about in the other dimensions of Space?'

The Time Traveller smiled. 'Are you sure we can move freely in Space? Right and left we can go, backward and forward freely enough, and men always have done so. I admit we move freely in two dimensions. But how about up and down? Gravitation limits us there.'

'Not exactly,' said the Medical Man. 'There are balloons.'

'But before the balloons, save for spasmodic jumping and the inequalities of the surface, man had no freedom of vertical movement.' 'Still they could move a little up and down,' said the Medical Man.

'Easier, far easier down than up.'

'And you cannot move at all in Time, you cannot get away from the present moment.'

'My dear sir, that is just where you are wrong. That is just where the whole world has gone wrong. We are always getting away from the present movement. Our mental existences, which are immaterial and have no dimensions, are passing along the Time-Dimension with a uniform velocity from the cradle to the grave. Just as we should travel down if we began our existence fifty miles above the earth's surface.'

'But the great difficulty is this,' interrupted the Psychologist. 'You can move about in all directions of Space, but you cannot move about in Time.'

'That is the germ of my great discovery. But you are wrong to say that we cannot move about in Time. For instance, if I am recalling an incident very vividly I go back to the instant of its occurrence: I become absent-minded, as you say. I jump back for a moment. Of course we have no means of staying back for any length of Time, any more than a savage or an animal has of staying six feet above the ground. But a civilized man is better off than the savage in this respect. He can go up against gravitation in a balloon, and why should he not hope that ultimately he may be able to stop or accelerate his drift along the Time-Dimension, or even turn about and travel the other way?'

'Oh, this,' began Filby, 'is all - '

'Why not?' said the Time Traveller.

'It's against reason,' said Filby.

'What reason?' said the Time Traveller.

'You can show black is white by argument,' said Filby, 'but you will never convince me.'

'Possibly not,' said the Time Traveller. 'But now you begin to see the object of my investigations into the geometry of Four Dimensions.
_________________

No sir, Mr. mkirkpatrick, this is not the beginning of a discussion about H.G. Well's Time Machine. Whereas, it is one of several platforms to which I will refer in future communications

(To be continued.)

[austintorn@aol.com]

THE ENERGY

Our Energy, which art the cosmos,
elemental be thy name,
granting awareness be thy game.
Thou can neither be created nor destroyed,
although transformed by M=E/CC,
and must, therefore, be eternal and omnipresent,
at least on this side of our substantial reality,
the All and the One, the Eternal Substance—
made only of Thyself,
the One which forever was and ever always will be,
the Ground of all Existence,
upon which the composition of all gods, persons,
and superior creatures must depend,
’though thou art none of the above,
since, by thy own definition,
thou cannot be composite,
and, so, must ever remain simple and fundamental,
but, we, nevertheless, can adore thee
as what does the knowing that grants us our being
so that we may observe our doings—
the ground as to the figure, the essence of existence,
the universal subject,
the awareness of being for that which does,
being the sea in which we see, oh, thou soul—
the Ground of all Determination!

[RascalPuff]

Dear Mr. Mkirkpatrick and whomever else it may concern:

Please consider this particular missive a gesture, by way of introduction.

What is time?
What is motion?
What is space?
What is gravity?
What's the difference between Newton's space and Einstein's space-time? What's the difference between temperature and heat?
What's the difference between absolute space and non absolute space? What's the difference between absolute time and non-absolute time?
And so on.
And so forth.
The What? How? Where? When?, Why? and Who? Are usually fairly easy to sincerely or flippantly ask, and not always so easy to responsibly answer.
Asking usually requires a lot less time and space than answering.
There seems a popular trend of interrogatives of the above general categories; when responded to - the response time and space - of an 'answer' - usually requiring more than the time and space required to ask whatever question.
The (especially internet forumite) interrogators too often lean heavily toward quasi-demanding and impatiently expecting correct answers in about the same amount of time and space occupied by the questions. ('If your answer is more information than I can jot down on my thumbnail then it isn't worth consideration; is a waste of time; cannot redeem itself'; etceteras - there's a shovel full of this forever scattered...). End of communication.

Gridlock. (The social status quo on a lot of diversely - unecessarily and time consuming - 'misunderstood' issues; often involving public endangerment, personal - physical and psychological - security and/or life and death...)

Whereas, speaking in general terms to which there are acknowledged exceptions, however more improved 'simpler is better' may be, often it isn't tenable, with regard to what amount of time, space and information is necessary to fullfill a correct and comprehensive answer to a reasonably submitted question (Consider the duration of Newton's PRINCIPIA <Or Homer's Odyssey>, for example, and a class full of students demanding indignantly that the author 'keep it simple, stupid', for them...)
I think this rudimentary observation is fairly easy for anyone reading it to more or less align themselves with. Often agreements are arrived upon, in one or more fairly few exchanges. But those are not the kinds of communications at issue here. Presently the issue(s) are the rifely raging phenomena regarding the arts of missing the points...
Then there are the unnecessary attachments that not infrequently accompany the ping & pong (Cheech & Chong) of ('Who's on 1st?') questions and answers ('I don't know is playing 2nd base?'.). Some are cordial ('Today is playing the outfield'), some are testy, some provocative, and some are just plain impertinent departures from the written and unwritten (Tomorrow is pitching) rules of simple respect ('Yesterday is at bat'.) for others, regarding debate and argument ('I don't give a damn is playing shortstop').
Enter the ad hominem disagreement - 'Your shoelaces are untied'. 'Why do you part your hair in the middle or on this or that side?', 'When is the last time you took a bath?' - shifting from the formerly agreed objective in whatever discussion about whatever subject, to issues not relevant to the initially - written or unwritten - objective of sincere communication. Transmitting and receiving with equal responsiblity.

Yes. This is rudimentary stuff here and that's what the record is presently underscoring: willfull (artfully well honed and tactically practiced) departure, diversion, delay and displacement of original subjects at issue are commonplace.
Another example from a bushel of popularly practiced samples is the pretension that what is clarified by the answerer and understood by the questioner is not understood by the questioner.
('What?', 'I can't/didn't hear or understand you'; on occasions where the questioner does hear and understand the answerer: or conversely - when the answerer falsely purports not to understand whatever question.)

This occurs on one or both sides of a given dialogue when neither or both or however many other participating persons are deliberately avoiding any resolution, which, of course, is the (prerequisitely established) written or unwritten objective of Q. & A.

If the answer fullfills the question, the questioner may feel 'inferior', 'outdone', 'embarassed', 'offended', etceteras, and consequently engage and perpetuate indefinitely a departure not only from understanding the answer, but, punitively 'retaliating' against the source of the provided answer in any number of innovative ways. The same principle may apply to the asked person (the format designated source of answer) feigning a misunderstanding or non-reception of the asked question. And so it often goes. Squared...

Truly yours authored an essay entitled, THE ART OF MISSING THE POINT: When You Can't Afford To Catch On, due to the above described, altogether too familiar form of communications gridlock - the deliberate, often highly skilled and versatile practice of sabotaging what might otherwise be symbiotically beneficial, reciprocal communication - on the transmitting and/or receiving side of whatever interaction.
To this record's way of thinking, one of the more progressive modes of proving authority and gracefully allowing others to recognise it, is to tell them what they already knew, but had not previously heard or read - a vocabulary for. Then, they aren't obliged to 'take your word for it'. Then, it isn't altogether 'new'.


It is a fact that the general human response to anything new is an aversion from - if not a hostility toward it (whatever, not counting the magnetism of the word 'new<!>', regarding marketing saleable items, in which case the word 'New', draws people to - rather than averts them from - it. Whatever is being sold, traded, bargained or brokered).

Having said that and moving right along.

The internet is a fairly direct parody of the social world, with or without any example or record of what happens - how people relate to one another; including elaborate, aversive, diversive, retreat or attack methods of (millinnea aged, recently *vocabularized), responsibly or irresponsibly, morally or immorally practiced *'verbal judo', et al, on - and, with a much more extended and practiced history, off - the internet.
(Open the - or your - doors to the world, and, be not surprised when it individually and collectively walks, crawls, limps, runs, drives, flies or stampedes in'. - TRP <That Rascal Puff>)
Reconsidering the consequently inspired title: THE ART OF MISSING THE POINT: When You (Don't think you can, or) Can't Afford To Catch On.
Sorta like A MOVEABLE VIETNAM: A Continental Misunderstanding. (More about that, later.)

But you and I, sir, we've been through that, and hopefully that is not our fate. So let us not fail to communicate now, the hour is getting late... (paraphrased).

To be continued.

Best regards, K. B. Robertson