[N0B0DY]

I think we might have to connect the dots, Pat. Any point along the line essentially must be zero-dimensional to allow for an incremental measurement from that point on the line. Though if infinity is invoked, any such points would then have to be considered infinitesimal 3-d point masses; the center of which could not exist, which is what t=0 is representative of.

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

I think we might have to connect the dots, Pat. Any point along the line essentially must be zero-dimensional to allow for an incremental measurement from that point on the line. Though if infinity is invoked, any such points would then have to be considered infinitesimal 3-d point masses; the center of which could not exist, which is what t=0 is representative of.

Thanks for your reponse Nobody.

I agree you could have an infinite number of points on a line segment even if it is Planck length. However once you invoke 3d point masses, you skipped a couple of dimensions to get there. Namely 1st and 2nd dimensions, whether these little spheres or point masses are void inside or not.

You still have to get from the 0 dimension to the 1st dimension and unless there is a 1/2 dimension out there that I'm not familiar with it would have to go from the 0 dimension to the 1st dimension. Again nothing in between that I'm aware of.

Best,

Pat

[N0B0DY]

I think the "void" is the equivalent of the "one" absolute solid, Pat, so the infinite number of points, strings, membranes, etc. are relative extractions subtracted from the fullness of space.

Mathematically, the void by-default can only be divided by zero - 0/0 - to render the infinite number of zero-dimensional points. Once we have this abstract basis for individual reference frames, there can be lines, membranes and spheres created according to the infinite number of velocities and densities that are also created. The spatial "folds" created through motional frames are the equivalent of masses.

The question I ask though, is where exactly are these alleged masses if the absolute universe must be absolutely full of point masses? At this point references to shape, size, direction cease to remain prevalent.

[Profpat]

I'm sorry Nobody but I have no idea what you are talking about in the above post, except to come up with a new definition for void.

In my math class there was a 0 dimension ( point ) 1st dimension ( line ) 2nd dimension ( area ) 3rd dimension ( volume ) 4th dimension ( hypervolume )

Now if you could explain to me what comes between these dimensions I'd love to hear it.

Please dumb down your response so a stupid idiot like myself can understand.

Thanks and best to you Nobody,

Pat

[N0B0DY]

We're all equally stupid and wise under the god I'm awaiting Drifter to clarify, Pat.

Perhaps a new kind of simplified thinking and math is required to correct old habits, and keeping track of what is depicted in your diagram (which imo explains everything quite nicely) I am equating the void with any and all other dimensions by way of 0/0 which can equal 0, 1, 2, 3, infinity, absolute, etc.. It is the means of extending the single time dimension omni-directionally.

The way I interpret your idea is that from zero we get one then two then three then the myriad things, similar to the Tao Te Ching depiction, and working backwards it implies that a 3-d brane consists of 2-d branes which in turn consist of 1-d branes which in turn consist of 0-d branes. The "skip" you referred to is merely another equation following the above implications where the 3-d object must also consist of 0-d branes. So the 0-d brane is the most fundamental and carries throughout the entirety of existence, which is how equate the absolute one (solidity/matter) and absolute zero (vacuity/space).

It's the best I can do in how I express myself, Pat.

[Profpat]

Thanks Nobody;

Still not quite dumb down enough for me to totally grasp it, but better.

While it gives me a headache to try to follow, this is good because it means I'm getting oxygen to that part of the brain that I haven't utilized. As I tell my students as you get physical pain from exercising your body you can get brain pain from exercising your mind.

So thank you for your patience and response.
I'll have to ponder further and deeper than I'm use to.

Best to you Nobody,

Pat

[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

I'm sure you're aware of the theoretical basis for constants, but the point is they are renormalized. So I would revert to: "I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation, because this so called good theory does involve neglecting infinities which appear in its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way. This is just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves neglecting a quantity when it turns out to be small - not neglecting it just because it is infinitely great and you do not want it!" (Paul Dirac: On Quantum Mechanics and Mathematics)

Paul Dirac was quite correct but was unable to take the step that would have solved the problem. My view of the universe is based on a background (the gravitational field) in which we exist. This has granularity which can be measured at the order of the Planck constants. Renormalization is not, therefore necessary as a mathematical description would not involve infinities.

[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by Profpat

[size=2]If point particles are 0 dimension and strings are a 1 dimensional entity, what could possibly be between the two. In math it goes from the point to the line, nothing in between.

Back to reality - who said particles have no dimensions? String is one dimensional, consisting of elementary 'stuff' (the basic building block connected end to end). It exists in three dimensions in order to combine with other strings to form what we call 'particles'. Such formations, which are the basic concept of quarks combining to form matter, are not possible in two dimensions. Your dimensional concept is sound so don't let anyone interfere with it.

[Profpat]

Thanks Felix, I won't.

Best to you,

Pat

[N0B0DY]

Originally Posted by Felix Schrodinger

Paul Dirac was quite correct but was unable to take the step that would have solved the problem. My view of the universe is based on a background (the gravitational field) in which we exist. This has granularity which can be measured at the order of the Planck constants. Renormalization is not, therefore necessary as a mathematical description would not involve infinities.

Felix, my universe consists solely of a gravitational time field as well, but my constant is zero and therefore planck is zero, not one. The quantified (quantum) gravity is a negative scalar of any magnitude and the light propagates through the grains as forward time from t=0.

If shrinking a loop to a point is too difficult to imagine, understandably, perhaps thinking in terms of a measured 1-d string can help. If we can call it a 1-d string, measured x from end to end, where x is planck=1 and t=1, what would have to exist at either side of that measurement is planck=0 and t=0. Since we can theoretically make the measurement between any two zero-dimensional points (not lengths) along the "string," the whole 1-d string can be rendered non-arbitrarily as 0-d.