Re: resolve to perpendicular components, because they are independent
- From: "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 30 Jan 2006 09:09:20 -0800
Hero.van.Jindelt@xxxxxx wrote:
> > Hero.van.Jindelt@xxxxxx wrote:
> > > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > > > Hero.van.Jindelt@xxxxxx wrote:
> > > > > Ken S. Tucker wrote about
> > > > > > > > ....an orthogonal 4D....
> > > > > "Can You explain, how a fourth dimension can be orthogonal to the
> > > > > three of space, measured in cm³?,
> > > > 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension, is commonly
> > > > called 4D. An *orthogonal* 4D implies 3 orthogonal spatial
> > > > axes x,y,z, and 1 time axis perpendicular to x,y,z.
> >
> > > Ken, again avoiding "body contact", replacing "orthogonal" by
> > > "perpendicular".
> > > Your are thinking too much coordinate-minded, 3D with a point of
> > > origin. That's how we all are brought up,...........
> >
> > The above meanders much to much for me without focusing on
> > any particular problem.
>
> Nobody is stopping You to hit the focus: tell us, what You think, when
> You talk
> about "... 1 time axis perpendicular to x,y,z."
That's the old Newtonian space & time, and applies
well enough if velocities and g-fields are small.
> ................
> > > Nowadays i go this way:
> > > Going from one point to a different point, gives a point and a
> > > direction (1D=2P=two points)........................
> > >
> > > Now, not to forget about all the 4D-talk, most basic:
> > > 0D, a point. (0D=1P) !!
> > >
> > > In here we all saw lots of 2D pictures of what is named "4D-space" -
> > > but that's not what we are talking about. We both talk about a 3D-space
> > > and we both can proceed to dynamic geometry: ( 3D, time).But time being
> > > "orthogonal" or "perpendicular" to space or something of it ?
> > >
> > > A three-hours-walk can be a distance (with speed known) ....................
> > > > > Please show me "an orthogonal 4D".
> > > >
> > > > Ok, ...
> > > That would be great................
> > > > A term like
> > > > "orthogonal" can be easy to explain but difficult to define.
> > > > Ken
> > > I put my trust in You.
> > Perhaps you could make a succint argument/question,
> Why? Ken, You said "Ok."
> > I think you'll get more replies.
> > Ken
> I'm afraid, we will not get an explanation from You. May be Time is
> different from Space.
Not much in spacetime. In 1983 it was agreed to define
the meter=c*second, I'm fine with that. This means we
can equate spacetime with 4 dimensions.
> If i looked it up correct, then a 'pendiculum' is a balance of weights,
> horizontal to earth-surface.
> And 'perpendicular" thus means vertical, straight through the
> horizontal balance. We can add
> to these two directions, which are at a right angle to each other, the
> axis of the balance, when it
> balances or moves, again at a right angle to the two others.
> No place for time left, unless You show us.It seems You cannot, so i've
> got the impression,
> that You are in connection with these people, who want to revive the
> medivial obscure theory,
> that the earth is not moving, to which we all know the famous reply: "
> ...and yet she moves!"
> One can freeze movements, bring a balance to rest - but times...
> they area achanging. I like this.
> Thanks for Your comments.
Your Welcome.
Ken
PS:It is currently popular to discuss 5D+, however I guess
I'm a bit old fashioned and find the evidentally experential
4D works fine macroscopically.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: resolve to perpendicular components, because they are independent
- From: Hero . van . Jindelt
- Re: resolve to perpendicular components, because they are independent
- References:
- Re: resolve to perpendicular components, because they are independent
- From: Timo Nieminen
- Re: resolve to perpendicular components, because they are independent
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: resolve to perpendicular components, because they are independent
- From: FrediFizzx
- Re: resolve to perpendicular components, because they are independent
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: resolve to perpendicular components, because they are independent
- From: FrediFizzx
- Re: resolve to perpendicular components, because they are independent
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: resolve to perpendicular components, because they are independent
- From: FrediFizzx
- Re: resolve to perpendicular components, because they are independent
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: resolve to perpendicular components, because they are independent
- From: FrediFizzx
- Re: resolve to perpendicular components, because they are independent
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: resolve to perpendicular components, because they are independent
- From: Hero . van . Jindelt
- Re: resolve to perpendicular components, because they are independent
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: resolve to perpendicular components, because they are independent
- From: Hero . van . Jindelt
- Re: resolve to perpendicular components, because they are independent
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: resolve to perpendicular components, because they are independent
- From: Hero . van . Jindelt
- Re: resolve to perpendicular components, because they are independent
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: resolve to perpendicular components, because they are independent
- From: Hero . van . Jindelt
- Re: resolve to perpendicular components, because they are independent
- Prev by Date: Re: Conflicting truths in time dilation aka time dilation debunking 101..
- Next by Date: Re: Conflicting truths in time dilation aka time dilation debunking 101..
- Previous by thread: Re: resolve to perpendicular components, because they are independent
- Next by thread: Re: resolve to perpendicular components, because they are independent
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|