Re: How many dimensions are there?

On Nov 20, 8:41 am, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
Dear Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com:

"Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" <tttppp...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
in messagenews:5978845d-c1d8-4dab-97d6-e7163d684236@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
... each step is additive to the step before it.
1D - time - resultant of 2nd law of thermo.
2D - path - resultant of conservation of
momentum, each axis fully orthogonal.
3D - interaction between to bodies - resultant
of conservation of momentum, each axis fully
orthogonal.
4D - interactiosn between multiple bodies -
resultant of conservation of momentum, each
axis fully orthogonal.

Hi David. I know that I've seen similar posts to
this from you before so you must have a fairly
strong belief.

Eh.

I get caught with such arguments and their
empirical nature. An empirical proof of three
dimensional space can be done with some
simple tools in a rectangular room. Nothing
more than some framing squares or tape
measures are needed.

You have a 3D space to work with. You aren't creating anything,
merely moving thorugh the space provided.

Upon rising to momentum aren't we dealing
in a concept that is already built upon the
three dimensional space?

No. It can actually be expressed in 1D space plus time.

If this is true than your argument is circular.
In that regard your beliefs may reinforce
the validity of 3D space but they cannot prove it.

We don't do proof in Science. You asked how we get 4D.

Sue has made a similar argument to yours but
relies upon radiation theory, whereby the energy
falls off as the square of the distance for a
constant area sensor. My denial of her evidence
as an explanation for 3D space is the same as
for yours.

Your denial is *your* problem. Sue's argument assumes 1D higher
"devices", to get to 1D higher. But the definition is not
circular.

Momentum as a behavior can be defined in
any number of dimensions. Your pattern
goes to 4D at three or more bodies yet in your
progression there is a severe break in
reasoning. By your own theory's progression
we see for the spatial components the following
mapping:

1D : p

Incorrect. times defines "states", not particles.

2D : p, p
3D : p, p, p
3D : p, p, p, p
3D : p, p, p, p, p
...

Worst of all you are going to hit the three
body problem here and so you are getting
very hazy.

I shaved. Best I can do. Engineers analyze structures with
(now) millions of degrees of freedom. Why do you feel "hazy"
with only three?

Perhaps you will rely upon that in your
defense but I will just return to the more
fundamental problem of empirical evidence.
The principles that you are using to
supposedly derivespacetimeare already
built from aspacetimebasis.

Sorry, no. They were evolved in a time-different-than-space,
intospacetime. You may recall that Newton first proposed
conservation of momentum, without invokingspacetime.

No. From the Definitions of Newton's Principia Mathematica

" SCHOLIUM

Hitherto I have laid down the definitions of such words as are less
known and explained the sense in which I would have them to be
understood in the following discourse. I do not define time, space,
place, and motion, as being well known to all. Only I must observe,
that the common people conceive those quantities under no other
notions but from the relation they bear to sensible objects. And
thence arise certain prejudices, for the removing of which it will be
convenient to distinguish them into absolure and relative, true and
apparent, mathematical and common.
I. Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own
nature, flows equably without relation to anything external, and by
another name is called duration: relative, apparent, and common time,
is some sensible and external(whether accurate or unequable) measure
of duration by the means of motion, which is commonly used instead of
true time; such as an hour, a day, a month, a year.
II. Absolute space in its own nature, without relation to anything
external, remains always similar and immovable. Relative space is some
movable dimension or measure of the absolute spaces; which our senses
determine by its position to bodies; and which is commonly taken for
immovable space; such is the dimension of a subterrabneous, an aerial,
or celestial space, determined by its position in respect of the
earth. Absolute and relative space are the same in figure and
magnitude; but they do not remain always numerically the same. For it
the earth, ...
III. Place is a part of space which a body takes up, and is according
to the space, either absolure or relative. I say, ...
IV. Absolute motion is the translation of a body from one absolute
place into another; and realtive motion, the translation from one
relative place into another. Thus in a ship under sail, ..."


Conservation of momentum can be expressed in a few different
numbers of dimensions (I believe). Entropy has no limitation on
the numbers of dimensions, probably the more the better.

How can momentum be introduced without
having established a coordinate system?

That is probably what Nature thought.

I suppose this is your burden to expand into
but in that you use the word momentum in
its traditional sense

Who's tradition? Yours? You argue that Newton could not have
proposed conservation of momentum in a Universe with only 1D?
Fine, conceded. The mathematics is not constrained to your
belief system. Or mine.

This sounds like miscommunication. You supposedly provided an
explanation of spacetime and why 3D space exists. We each accept that
there are three dimensions of space which Newton seems not to be so
obsessed with. Certainly the simplest object which we will impart
momentum on cannot be one dimensional. A three dimensional object may
demonstrate a one dimensional path yet even the straightness of that
path is unlikely unless the object is constrained to two dimensions
and aligned with the Earth's axis of rotation. We immediately step
back from the empirical and do find a theoretical 1D model for
momentum which is maximally simplistic, but the motivations for the
accuracy of that model are that it is a simplified form of the 3D
actual space. We can still instantiate two object in 1D, one object in
2D, five objects in 3D, one object in 8D, etc. There is not direct
linkage as you suggest. Is this the mathematics you speak of which is
not constrained? If so then your original argument is flawed. The
pattern which you suggest has a breakpoint is nonexistent as far as I
can see.

-Tim


then we already have objects moving in space
and it is the observation that their paths have
a systematic pattern which is momentum. At
least that is my understanding and if you can
correct me then I'll try to be open to your defense.

What is your problem?

David A. Smith

.

Relevant Pages
Loading