[Guille]

Quantum 0+(1/2*2*7)

What do you mean that you don't agree all dimensiosn are curved by gravity? do you say that space is curved but time isn't?

I will really take in mind your words of not accepting the rules and forms that have already been established. I always/will always question everything.

The first thing I do in the morning is question my name. The last thing I do in th morning is tru to solve zeno's paradox in a different way to everybody's one (you can travelel infinite space in finite time) bECAUSE I wonder how can I even get to my bed.

I will keep it in mind,

Guille

Quantum07,

I don't want you to hesitate, but my family is full of longevite people. I will have 444 children in honour to the exact 444 years difference bwteeen Leibniz's birth and mine's. Although if she can't take care of herselve, how is Pamela going to be in chrage of 444 children?

Refering to dimensions, I think we should define time lastly, if not this discussion would be meaningless. What I want to do with time isn't changing the concept but the descrition and definition.

Antonio,
aren't the above formulas the same as the two equations in the paper you gave me? which were:
a=b/(1+b)
b=a/(1-a)

Originally Posted by quanta07

If parallel universes exist,
connected by 'threads' of orthagonal time between singularities,
WHICH universe am I really in?

You are not a singularity, thus you are unless you are in a black hole wright now, you are in this inverse. If you were to go into a singularity, survive (impossible) and stop the pocess that converts you in anti-matter, you would be able of going to a paralell universe and even be half here and helf their.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE

aren't the above formulas the same as the two equations in the paper you gave me?

They are the same. But the ones in this post are associated by the physical dimensional units of time and needed to be expressed in snap notations.

[Guille]

Anti-matter has been created in accelerators with crashes of particles: they live for very little time (nanoseconds).

I guess we can't asure if you can be in both universes: have you ever tried to by going into a black hole?

This universe (I think) still doesn't have a name given other than universe because we are not sure and there is no type of prove that leads to think there are other universes: the only "prove" is that ussually there are more than 1 of each thing. But also there is no veruification that there are NOT other universes.

Maybe there is one in which magnificent George Lucas decides to do the third trilogy of Star Wars, not leading his/star wars fans down, and really achieving something that would take probably 50 or more years to overthrow, with his brilliant films.-out-of-theme-paragraph-

About post 35:

That is my problem: I'm looking for a way to describe time that has it as a dimension but not as a property of other dimensions.

I don't have any theory apart from my photogravitational process. What I'm trying to do is my own explenation of time, and out of that get my theories: which I think is a better method.

Originally Posted by quanta07

Hello Guille,

I detect by your post, that you have already accepted a VERY,VERY BAD supposition. A 'label' applied to an observation that is COMPLETELY misunderstood....

I don't know why you have accepted this, maybe you TRUSTED the source of this information.
It is regretable that there is such a large amount of misconceptions and misinformation that has BEEN ACCEPTED through-out science, not just by yourself, but by most all of us.....IT IS PURE SUPPOSITION....JUST LIKE THE POST on Parallel Universes......

PURE SUPPOSTION........no anti-matter......BAD label for unexplained, improperly analyzed, misunderstood observations........

happy thoughts........q7
----------------------------------------------------------

AND Guille,
About the 'Parallel Universes' post.....

The process posted there shows an example,
of how initial SUPPOSITIONs,
'pushed' through rational valid functions,
produces most 'theories' in science today.....

It is a 'bogus' theory, based in supposition,(as stated in post),
posted as a demonstration of IMPROPER ANALYSIS....

(Yes, Sometimes we get lucky....sometimes)

SUPPOSITONS and VALID RATIONAL FUNCTIONS yield ONLY SUPPOSITION.....NOT VALIDITY......

Hundreds of years of SUPPOSITION, and this thought process, is still continuing, today....

Do you agree with the use of SUPPOSITIONS???

Don't you see how SUPPOSITIONS have been mislead mankind.....

Mankind used to view 'fire' as a some god,...led arround by 'priests'
Now its 'antimatter', 'strings', many conceptions based on pure initial SUPPOSITION.......are we are being lead around by 'scientists' now?
----------------------------------------------------------

All I can say to so many thinks you say is one very important which I wish it gives my position/thoughts about this theme and makes it clear.

Everything we know are supositions made by our intuition.

To post 40 of Q7,

I try to define time not for my theory, again I say, but to create a theory from that.

I think yes, it would be best to define time from what nature/the universe tells me about it. Although it would be as subjective as my own definition. But, who tells me that I will not mis-interpret nature's definition of time? I know that this will happen because it has happened with all the theories.

[Guille]

Q7,

I am gloryfied by being given this "position" or "level". I think that there is amoment for everybody where from your logic, they become scientists. WIth this I mean that every body has a moment in his life where they end up understanding that everything we know are suppositions made by our intuition. I think, at least.

I still have to think much about all these impulse, acceleration and your "nature's family tree" wich I'm still to come to the understanding of it.

Dimensions are the theme here so lets stay with it as theme,

ps: from now on my ending sentence will be "may the force be with you".

May the force be with you.,-.,-.,-.,-.,-.,-.,-.,-.,-.,-.,-.,-Guille

[force5]

Q7, I,m glad to see someone has the time to enlighten the young folks. I am very impressed with your overall perception of everything. The only thing I can see we differ on is maybe methodology. Your understanding of many misconceptions is an area I prefer to avoid and focus more on my own personal interest dealing more with how the past got us to where we're at and where the future is going to take us.

I do have a couple of questions pertaining to your thoughts on the current expansion.

1. What event in the past initiated the current expansion? If your answer is the big bang, then what initiated the BB and why?

2. What is the eventual fate of the current expansion and why?

Do you think these questions should be answered in a complete TOE?

P.S.

Sorry it took me so long to get back to this forum, but, it couldn't be helped.

Hope to become more active from here on out.

John

[Guille]

I just thought this:

dimensions is a word that seems to be di (2)-men (people)-sion(what does sion mean?)

Anybody knows where the word originally comes from and it's meaning?

I think the di-2 could mean the two available directions in each men-sion. Thus, di-mension.

[AntonioLao]

GUILLE,

the "di" in dimension means two given points. When these points are connected, the result is a line. It is a straight line in Euclidean geometry. It is a geodesic in other non-Euclidean geometries. Each geometry can define its own geodesics.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

GUILLE,

the "di" in dimension means two given points. When these points are connected, the result is a line. It is a straight line in Euclidean geometry. It is a geodesic in other non-Euclidean geometries. Each geometry can define its own geodesics.

Antonio,

What I interpret from here is that any two dots I get in space-time, no matter what direction or positions they are, if I make a line between them this line will be a new dimension. It doesn't seem logical.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE

It doesn't seem logical.

It doesn't seem logical either to define a field as composed of infinite number of points.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

It doesn't seem logical either to define a field as composed of infinite number of points.

true. This is why I don't agree with that. Neither I agree with matter (4d) to be made up of 1d (string theory), or even worse, 0d (standart model) fundamental particles.