[Guille]

Antonio, I centered this thread to be discussed by you (but everybody can psot if they want to).

I don't like the idea that time is a special dimension. Einstein didn't think time was special or anything, it's just one more dimension. The only thing is that we are not used to consider time a dimension, but we do change of speed in time (when we change in speed in space we do so in time).

What I mean is why is space in one 90º to time, if time is just as the other dimensions?

I don't mean by this that time should be at the same axis as space. What I do mean by this, is that each of the four dimensions (3 of space and one of time) should be at 90 degrees from each other. Imagen there is a total of 360. Then there is this:

UP-DOWN 90º FROM LEFT-RIGHT 90º FROM FRONT-BACK 90º FROM PAST-PRESENT 90º FROM UP-DOWN.....And it all starts again.

What do you think?

[AntonioLao]

In two dimensions, there are two axes. In three dimensions, there are three axes. All these axes can be orthogonal (90º). These orthogonalities are visualizable for only 2 and 3 dimensions. Mathematical abstractions claim to have the capability of describing orthogonality in higher dimensions, for examples, Minkowsky's spacetime orthogonality and quantum mechanics orthogonalities of eigenvectors.

It is obvious that each axis can be split into a positive and a negative axis given a point of origin or a common end point of the two separated axes as the intersection of these axes (positiveness and negativeness do not apply until these axes are 180º and oriented in opposite directions). However, it is only mathematical. Physically, it is very hard to conceptualize the existence of negative length, negative time, negative volume, and negative mass and negative energy. But all these negativities are only concern for the absolute scalar values. It is admissible that all absolute quantities must be positive (absolute values really do not have the attributes of being positive or negative), it is because absolute values have no directional attribute. With directional attributes, a quantity can have positive and negative properties. In regard to axes of symmetry, it is possible to have (+/-) attributes if and only if a directional property is also implied.

[Guille]

What does that post mean? that you believe it could be that each dimension has an axis which is orthogonal to the others, or that space is one and time another?

About the last part of your post, I believe that dimensions don't have a "direction", so that wouldn't work for me.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE I believe that dimensions don't have a "direction",

Dimension loses its directional property when it is bounded by a given Riemannian sphere. So that each concentric Riemannian sphere indicates a particular spacetime dimension. It is hard to imagine what dimensional sphere are we living in? But if we start from the nucleus as a dimensional sphere, then the atom, then the molecule, then the chemistry, then the biology, from these we are living in the fifth dimensional sphere.

Originally Posted by GUILLE What does that post mean? that you believe it could be that each dimension has an axis which is orthogonal to the others, or that space is one and time another?

Yes. Each dimension has an axis. In math, we can cut this axis into a positive and a negative axis by a point of origin or point of intersection. This point loses its identity once the two axes are 180º apart. Please note that these axes can also be 90º apart or any other possible angles (120º, 45º, etc.).

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao Dimension loses its directional property when it is bounded by a given Riemannian sphere. So that each concentric Riemannian sphere indicates a particular spacetime dimension. It is hard to imagine what dimensional sphere are we living in? But if we start from the nucleus as a dimensional sphere, then the atom, then the molecule, then the chemistry, then the biology, from these we are living in the fifth dimensional sphere.

But this is a different concept I believe. What I call direction is what you ussually refer to as "degree of freedom" (DOF). I believe that a dimension has to directions (degrees of freedom), but doesn't "go" one way or another, I mean, how can a dimension "move"? NO, objects move in dimensions, but not dimensions. If dimensions would move, or have a direction, then it would mean that there are dimensions for the dimensions, and this owul dbe very confusing...

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE how can a dimension "move"?

I also agree with you that dimension does not 'move'. What it does is contraint the movement of an object of a lesser dimension at the least by 1. For example, the atoms in your body cannot move out of your body unless you are dead. So, a person as a whole would then have a higher dimension than the sum of all the dimensions of the body parts.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao I also agree with you that dimension does not 'move'. What it does is contraint the movement of an object of a lesser dimension at the least by 1. For example, the atoms in your body cannot move out of your body unless you are dead. So, a person as a whole would then have a higher dimension than the sum of all the dimensions of the body parts.

Do you beleive that dimensions are "mathematically workfull"?

What I mean by the term "mathematically workfull" is that you can add, substract, divide, multiply, integrate, derive, etz, i.e. to do mathematical works with the object in question (in this case, with dimensions).

I beleive that we can't because dimensions are natural and superior in existence level, to us. I mean by this, that humans can do math with things that are euqal to their LOE or lower, and to things they have invented and that are mental, but not with higher LOE objects, such as dimensions.

By the way, what is the LOE of dimensions? Is it infinite?

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE Do you beleive that dimensions are "mathematically workfull"?

A zero dimensional point can be contraint to move in a one dimensional line. A 1D line can be constraint to move in a 2D surface. A 2D surface can be contraint to move in a 3D space. A 3D space can be constraint to move in a 4D space. As you see, motion is always possible at a lower dimension. In other words, a 2D object cannot move in 1 dimension but can move in 3 dimensions.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao A zero dimensional point can be contraint to move in a one dimensional line. A 1D line can be constraint to move in a 2D surface. A 2D surface can be contraint to move in a 3D space. A 3D space can be constraint to move in a 4D space. As you see, motion is always possible at a lower dimension. In other words, a 2D object cannot move in 1 dimension but can move in 3 dimensions.

What would be the force,that was able to move a dimension,and is that in fact possible?

kind regards michael.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick What would be the force...

There are 4 fundamental forces: gravity, electrogametic, strong,and weak. On the other hand, physical reality still is best described by 4 dimensions: 3 spatial and 1 temporal. So it seems that each dimension should be dominated by a force.