You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
What I get of this post is that 2D+ actually combines two dimensions to give the perception of 3D. When you talk of 2D field, are you talking of force / energy fields?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredrick
Dipayankar,
Following your description, everything is 3D. I am not trying to make the point that 3D is incorrect or does not exist; I know the concept quite well like most people, because I grew up with it, too.
However, the dimensions I am referring to belong to a field concept. In the field concept there are two fields (each with a length and a width), and together combined they deliver length, width, and depth.
In case of the electron cloud, it moves in waves which take place in a field of length and height. However, since it is a cloud, it moves through the combination of fields, because there would be depth also. Hence, the electron cloud would be two dimensional fields.
To explain it best, here they are once more, separated:
A/
3D contains three directions of height, width, and depth. In this concept a single direction is considered a dimension. Or...
B/
2D+ contains two fields, each with a height and a width. Attached together, they cover height, width, and depth, just like on only needs two eyes to see the additional depth. In this concept a single field is considered a direction.
They both explain the exact same reality, just like one can say the exact same thing in English and in Chinese.
My point in light of the Theory of Everything is that A is static and is not a natural fit for the toe. Only concept B can deliver the toe.
What I get of this post is that 2D+ actually combines two dimensions to give the perception of 3D. When you talk of 2D field, are you talking of force / energy fields?
At this point, I am only talking about the spatial concept. In 2D+, a single D is a field, and two of them together describe reality.
1D is like a book cover, 2D+ is like opening the book. The book cover may contain a beautiful picture that delivers the perception of a lot of depth, but place your finger on the book and you know there is no depth to the picture. Your finger can go up and down, left and right, but not in (and out) of the picture.
2D+ is the experience with the book open; you can place your finger inside the book and it will feel that it is not flat, but contains some depth. Depending on how far you fold the book open, your finger will experience different outcomes because both fields can be angled together in different ways. This is a contrast with the book cover, because with the book cover your finger will experience just that one field (even when you hold the book cover differently, it will still be just that one same flat field).
Your (or my) fingers can experience the spatial reality in one way only (as belonging to 2D+), but within 2D+ we can have the experience of something flat.
If we place this conceptual delivery next to that of 3D, then we can point to the essential difference. The finger can still experience everything, too, in 3D, and also feel the difference with just the flat 2D experience. Yet there is no 1D for any finger to experience that is in any way different from 2D. If you can already imagine your finger to move 1D then that is still a 2D experience: as in, it is still flat.
The only conclusion available, according to me, is that 3D is a flawed spatial concept (no matter how handy it is in daily use) for 1D either cannot be experienced or if someone considers that it can be experienced then it is in essence not different from the 2D experience.
The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
I think I can fathom it somewhat. However is there anyway we can figure in the extra dimensions required by string theory here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredrick
At this point, I am only talking about the spatial concept. In 2D+, a single D is a field, and two of them together describe reality.
1D is like a book cover, 2D+ is like opening the book. The book cover may contain a beautiful picture that delivers the perception of a lot of depth, but place your finger on the book and you know there is no depth to the picture. Your finger can go up and down, left and right, but not in (and out) of the picture.
2D+ is the experience with the book open; you can place your finger inside the book and it will feel that it is not flat, but contains some depth. Depending on how far you fold the book open, your finger will experience different outcomes because both fields can be angled together in different ways. This is a contrast with the book cover, because with the book cover your finger will experience just that one field (even when you hold the book cover differently, it will still be just that one same flat field).
Your (or my) fingers can experience the spatial reality in one way only (as belonging to 2D+), but within 2D+ we can have the experience of something flat.
If we place this conceptual delivery next to that of 3D, then we can point to the essential difference. The finger can still experience everything, too, in 3D, and also feel the difference with just the flat 2D experience. Yet there is no 1D for any finger to experience that is in any way different from 2D. If you can already imagine your finger to move 1D then that is still a 2D experience: as in, it is still flat.
The only conclusion available, according to me, is that 3D is a flawed spatial concept (no matter how handy it is in daily use) for 1D either cannot be experienced or if someone considers that it can be experienced then it is in essence not different from the 2D experience.
I think I can fathom it somewhat. However is there anyway we can figure in the extra dimensions required by string theory here?
Yes, because the additional dimensions of string theory are nothing but ordinary aspects of our universe. The point in string theory is to see through the trick they are not aware of playing on themselves. What it basically comes down to is that our human brain can create concepts, Dipayankar, and some of them can get quite complicated. String theorists mention they have discovered additional dimensions, but in reality they are only pointing to specific aspects of the normal dimensions already covered. As such, they have real additional aspects, but no additional dimensions.
The only two dimensions I have in the pentaist theory of everything are actually behaving much like two mirrors placed in front of each other. I bet you have seen something similar at a fair. Two mirrors theoretically contain infinity, because one mirror mirroring the other mirror make an infinite numbers of mirrors line up. One could say, that is perfection.
Still, that theoretically possible image does not exist, because we have to have an eye exactly in the center of the picture seeing both mirrors mirroring infinitely. If your eye is not exactly in the mirror's center, the tunnel of mirrors is bent in one direction, blocking the view on the center of the tunnel. The eye can never be in the center of one mirror, and can therefore not see the endless tunnel of mirrored mirrors. If you want you can cut a tiny hole in the middle of one of the mirrors and kind of see the infinite tunnel. But truly in the center of the tunnel you are then looking at the reflection of the little hole and your eye peaking through it.
In the dimensional world of the pentaist theory of everything, all we have are two mirrors; not three, not ten or eleven, not an infinite number of mirrors. Two mirrors plus an eye that can get confused making the distinction between the real two mirrors and the many others it really sees, but that are nothing else but the reflections of the two.
The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
Here is another example of what string theorists, according to me, are doing: it can get quite complex as in the following thought duel:
A/ He knows. B/ I know that he knows. (the basic set up of knowing)
In string theory:
C/ He knows that I know, but he doesn't know that I know that he knows. D/ Or am I the one who doesn't know that he knows that I know that he knows?
In this thought duel about knowing, you can see how easily it is to get confused about who knows what. Still, we can boil this down to two players having thoughts about the other person (though in reality the duel is inside the mind of just a single person, but the other person is a real person, too, of course). Same goes for string theory: while there really is a distinction between him knowing that I know that he knows and him not knowing that I know that he knows, there is no additional level of knowing, it is only a specialization of knowing.
String theory mentions they have additional dimensions, but in reality they are only pointing to specific aspects of the normal dimensions already covered. As such, they have real additional aspects, but no additional dimensions.
Again: there are just two people involved, both busy knowing. Though various levels of knowing can be obtained, there are still just two people knowing (or contemplating knowing).
The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
Fredrick, have the string theorist not proven mathematically that additional dimensions do exist? In the mirror image it is difficult to prove mathematically that infinite images exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredrick
Here is another example of what string theorists, according to me, are doing: it can get quite complex as in the following thought duel:
A/ He knows. B/ I know that he knows. (the basic set up of knowing)
In string theory:
C/ He knows that I know, but he doesn't know that I know that he knows. D/ Or am I the one who doesn't know that he knows that I know that he knows?
In this thought duel about knowing, you can see how easily it is to get confused about who knows what. Still, we can boil this down to two players having thoughts about the other person (though in reality the duel is inside the mind of just a single person, but the other person is a real person, too, of course). Same goes for string theory: while there really is a distinction between him knowing that I know that he knows and him not knowing that I know that he knows, there is no additional level of knowing, it is only a specialization of knowing.
String theory mentions they have additional dimensions, but in reality they are only pointing to specific aspects of the normal dimensions already covered. As such, they have real additional aspects, but no additional dimensions.
Again: there are just two people involved, both busy knowing. Though various levels of knowing can be obtained, there are still just two people knowing (or contemplating knowing).
One of the mirrors could be a see-through from one side, as in the police interrogation rooms. Then what would would we see?
Austin,
You are magic! Of course, the police will have more depth to discover than ordinary citizens. You are quite right! Question I am left with: in how far does this interrogation mirror darken the picture and therefore make for less visibility; but in no way does this undermine the infinite tunnel delivery. Thank you!
The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
Fredrick, have the string theorist not proven mathematically that additional dimensions do exist? In the mirror image it is difficult to prove mathematically that infinite images exist.
No, they have not proven that. Though the correct explanation may possibly be part of why this is all so convoluted. Both math and language are descriptions of reality, they are not the same as reality. As such, they provide us more options than reality provides us. In language, for instance, I can say "I ate my cake five times." That is a perfectly correct sentence, but in reality it doesn't work that way, because I can eat my cake only once (No, Austin, I am not going to have it come out and eat it again, etc).
Austin did provide an example in which the infinite tunnel is visible, though I will claim the properties are diminished due to the specific set-up (but it is nevertheless a visible view of infinity). The ultimate trick up my sleave is that mirrors themselves are not the same as their mirroring property, the mirroring is only a circumstantial aspect to the thin layer of silver (if that is still what they are using nowadays to make mirrors) that causes the reflection. Just like infinity can exist in mathematics to an exquisite amount of numbers behind the comma, in reality most people will have walked away if only 0.004 part of the cake is left and they can only take half a bite out of that, and then a half out of that, and then... Infinity is a mathematical property, but in real life it is often rather insignificant (except as part of the larger set-up of our universe, for we have seemingly an infinite path in time ahead of us - we'll probably run out of us before we run out of time). In the pentaist world of dimensions a distinction is made between the two real mirrors (plus their properties to mirror), and the infinite delivery of just mirroring properties (i.e. not based on the mirrors themselves, but only on the properties of the mirrors).
String theorists are actually describing something really observed, and not fake within the concept of dimensions, but the idea that they are describing something separate and additional to what is covered by good old funny 3D (or in pentaist theory: 2D+) is not correct. What they discovered are not dimensions, but specific aspects of the regular dimensions, and as such this set provides the acknowledgment of itself, much like the 3rd dimension in 3D is encompassed in the whole, but only when starting out with directions (instead of what I call the real dimensions). String theorists looked into the two mirrors and did not see a depth of one level of mirroring, but a depth of two levels and more. In the end, it's still just two mirrors. In 3D, they already go beyond describing the two mirrors, for the third mirror is added as being equal to the two real mirrors instead of seeing it as just the reflection of the real thing. Then, in string theory, comparing one level of mirroring (reflection) as being fundamentally different from a second level of mirroring (reflection of reflections) is incorrect, fascinating as it may be.
The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
Again perception is it Fredrick? Did String Theorists perceive the additional dimensions to the 2D+ dimensions that you described?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredrick
No, they have not proven that. Though the correct explanation may possibly be part of why this is all so convoluted. Both math and language are descriptions of reality, they are not the same as reality. As such, they provide us more options than reality provides us. In language, for instance, I can say "I ate my cake five times." That is a perfectly correct sentence, but in reality it doesn't work that way, because I can eat my cake only once (No, Austin, I am not going to have it come out and eat it again, etc).
Austin did provide an example in which the infinite tunnel is visible, though I will claim the properties are diminished due to the specific set-up (but it is nevertheless a visible view of infinity). The ultimate trick up my sleave is that mirrors themselves are not the same as their mirroring property, the mirroring is only a circumstantial aspect to the thin layer of silver (if that is still what they are using nowadays to make mirrors) that causes the reflection. Just like infinity can exist in mathematics to an exquisite amount of numbers behind the comma, in reality most people will have walked away if only 0.004 part of the cake is left and they can only take half a bite out of that, and then a half out of that, and then... Infinity is a mathematical property, but in real life it is often rather insignificant (except as part of the larger set-up of our universe, for we have seemingly an infinite path in time ahead of us - we'll probably run out of us before we run out of time). In the pentaist world of dimensions a distinction is made between the two real mirrors (plus their properties to mirror), and the infinite delivery of just mirroring properties (i.e. not based on the mirrors themselves, but only on the properties of the mirrors).
String theorists are actually describing something really observed, and not fake within the concept of dimensions, but the idea that they are describing something separate and additional to what is covered by good old funny 3D (or in pentaist theory: 2D+) is not correct. What they discovered are not dimensions, but specific aspects of the regular dimensions, and as such this set provides the acknowledgment of itself, much like the 3rd dimension in 3D is encompassed in the whole, but only when starting out with directions (instead of what I call the real dimensions). String theorists looked into the two mirrors and did not see a depth of one level of mirroring, but a depth of two levels and more. In the end, it's still just two mirrors. In 3D, they already go beyond describing the two mirrors, for the third mirror is added as being equal to the two real mirrors instead of seeing it as just the reflection of the real thing. Then, in string theory, comparing one level of mirroring (reflection) as being fundamentally different from a second level of mirroring (reflection of reflections) is incorrect, fascinating as it may be.
Linear Mode
