Re: Imaginary Space
- From: "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" <tttpppggg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 07:58:10 -0800 (PST)
On Jan 25, 2:11 am, "Thomas Heger" <hba...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The unidirectional nature of time goes ignored by your model and by
existing physics.
When we represent space with real values we are inherently using a
bidirectional basis.
This usage of a real valued coordinate does not have correspondence
with time. If we get rid of one side of the real line then we've
gotten closer to time. There is a dimensional consequence to this
since it is no longer a one dimensional system. By the polysign method
this unidirectional ray is zero dimensional. Hence the importance of
the word 'now' coincides with the unidirectional behavior. Algebra can
be performed yet the rendering of that algebra graphically will be
zero dimensional.
http://www.BandTechnology.com/PolySigned
-Tim
I have heard about polysigned numbers. But as far as I can see, they are
equivalent to complex numbers, so I'm happy with complex numbers. The
Err... P3 (the three-signed numbers) are the complex numbers but P1 is
much more like time.
The complex numbers are two dimensional so we are going in different
directions away from the real numbers which are P2 and are one-
dimensional. Each of these number systems P1,P2, and P3 are members of
a family called polysign numbers. P1 represents an intuitive conundrum
that has been overlooked by traditional mathematics. It happens that
the one-signed numbers exactly match the paradoxes time presents to
the human who exists in spacetime.
Under a polysign spacetime interpretation the structure
P1 P2 P3
proposes that physical space does contain complex mathematics built in
and I suppose that electromagnetic behaviors are supportive of this
idea. Your thread title is somewhat inline with this interpretation.
difference is of interest for some mathmaticians.
The direction of time is not a problem, since you cannot move in that
direction as you like. In time direction you are moved, together with
anything else.
I guess here is a good point to challenge your process. How does the
two dimensional nature of complex math allow for this time description
above? Shouldn't the math which represents time be inherently
unidirectional? At best the complex numbers are three directional(P3)
while according to traditional Cartesian math they are four
directional.
Also your statement beneath here is somewhat a 4D relativistic
interpretation. To what degree are you proposing a 5D system? I think
Klein spent some time on that didn't he? I don't mean to discourage
your endeavor; there are lots of theories flying about including
attempts at 2D gravity theories and I do seem to remember some others
who like 2D time but I can't recall any names to point you to.
Certainly you are not alone. In that time is merely one portion of the
problem it may be that the adoption of spacetime alleviates some of
the specific concern over time. So I think a complete discussion
should address the 3D space portion of the problem (assuming that you
do adopt spacetime as a valid conglomeration).
- Tim
In space you can move, but pretty slow (compared to lightspeed in time
direction).
Thomas Heger
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Imaginary Space
- From: Thomas Heger
- Re: Imaginary Space
- References:
- Imaginary Space
- From: Thomas Heger
- Re: Imaginary Space
- From: Uncle Al
- Re: Imaginary Space
- From: Thomas Heger
- Re: Imaginary Space
- From: wugi
- Re: Imaginary Space
- From: Thomas Heger
- Re: Imaginary Space
- From: Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
- Re: Imaginary Space
- From: Thomas Heger
- Imaginary Space
- Prev by Date: Re: What if water did not freeze?
- Next by Date: Re: Curing Einstein's Disease (is Copyrighted)
- Previous by thread: Re: Imaginary Space
- Next by thread: Re: Imaginary Space
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|