Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights
From: Peter Webb on 18 Feb 2010 10:22

I don't hold that alternate dimensions are a real possibility, so of
course I don't accept that theories that employ them are credible.

____________________________

Well, firstly that is because you have no real idea of what a dimension is
in physics.

Also, you are not used to the mathematical representation of surfaces of
different dimensions being equivalent to equations, so you don't easily
"see" how dimensions pop out of Special Relativity as rotations - lets be
frank here, your knowledge of rotation matrices is pretty slim I'm guessing.
So you can't "see" whats going on because you are not sufficiently
mathematically sophisticated.

Secondly, SR does not postulate any additional dimensions - just the four
normal one of three in space and on in time that probably even you have
noticed, its just that you think you have an orthogonal view; you don't,
your view is tilted by the speed you are going ... a fact quite easily
demonstrated by SR and proved a thousand times a day.

If you are having trouble understanding the concepts of different
dimensions, read Flatland by Edwin Abbott. You will be relieved to hear that
it contains almost no mathematics in the sense you probably understand it,
but a great deal in a sense you don't.




From: Simple Simon on 18 Feb 2010 10:56
PD wrote:
>
> The rest length of the rod is unchanged. Since this rest length is the
> length measured in only one frame (the rest frame), I'm reticent to
> call it an intrinsic property.
>

Of two rods, the one with the greater rest length is "larger". Or, iif you
prefer, the set of possible lengths of the rod with greater rest length is
greater (and its supremum is its rest length).


From: PD on 18 Feb 2010 11:08
On Feb 18, 9:56 am, "Simple Simon" <pi.r.cubed-nos...(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> PD wrote:
>
> > The rest length of the rod is unchanged. Since this rest length is the
> > length measured in only one frame (the rest frame), I'm reticent to
> > call it an intrinsic property.
>
> Of two rods, the one with the greater rest length is "larger". Or, iif you
> prefer, the set of possible lengths of the rod with greater rest length is
> greater (and its supremum is its rest length).

I like this operational definition.
From: PD on 18 Feb 2010 11:18
On Feb 18, 9:22 am, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> I don't hold that alternate dimensions are a real possibility, so of
> course I don't accept that theories that employ them are credible.
>
> ____________________________
>
> Well, firstly that is because you have no real idea of what a dimension is
> in physics.

Well, I don't know whether that's the case with Ste or not. What does
seem to be true is that, whatever the meaning of dimension is, he
would like to be able to *relate* that meaning to the meaning conveyed
by the "everyday" usage of the word. This is what's full of peril.

The example I've been using is "mammal" when the "ordinary man" might
typify mammals with cows, dogs, apes, bears, giraffes. Such a mental
concept becomes ensnarled with the features or context of land-
dwelling creatures with four limbs. Then when whales are brought up,
it becomes difficult to connect the word "mammal" with whales
precisely because of the dissonance with land-dwelling, tetrapod
creatures. This points out two problems. First of all, what makes a
mammal a mammal is not clearly understood, since other extraneous
baggage is being dragged in and is obscuring the essence of being
mammalian. Secondly, it reveals the inherent unreliability of the
mental strategy of trying to relate a general meaning to an "everyday"
meaning, attractive though that might be.

>
> Also, you are not used to the mathematical representation of surfaces of
> different dimensions being equivalent to equations, so you don't easily
> "see" how dimensions pop out of Special Relativity as rotations - lets be
> frank here, your knowledge of rotation matrices is pretty slim I'm guessing.
> So you can't "see" whats going on because you are not sufficiently
> mathematically sophisticated.
>
> Secondly, SR does not postulate any additional dimensions - just the four
> normal one of three in space and on in time that probably even you have
> noticed, its just that you think you have an orthogonal view; you don't,
> your view is tilted by the speed you are going ... a fact quite easily
> demonstrated by SR and proved a thousand times a day.
>
> If you are having trouble understanding the concepts of different
> dimensions, read Flatland by Edwin Abbott. You will be relieved to hear that
> it contains almost no mathematics in the sense you probably understand it,
> but a great deal in a sense you don't.

From: mpalenik on 18 Feb 2010 11:32
On Feb 18, 9:32 am, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 18 Feb, 11:08, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 2:14 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 17 Feb, 18:04, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 17, 12:51 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 17 Feb, 16:07, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 17, 10:04 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > As we discussed earlier, it may be that we are only AWARE of four
> > > > > > > > dimensions. It may well be that there are more. Then the way to
> > > > > > > > entertain this notion is to ask the question, how would something that
> > > > > > > > is only AWARE of two dimensions become convinced that there is a third
> > > > > > > > dimension? This turns out to be very answerable.
>
> > > > > > > I'm afraid that was not my conclusion. As I've said, these
> > > > > > > possibilities only seem credible to those who already hold them to be
> > > > > > > credible.
>
> > > > > > Well, how could they seem credible to people who don't hold them
> > > > > > credible?
>
> > > > > I fear the answer follows naturally from the question: they don't seem
> > > > > credible, to people who don't hold them to be credible.
>
> > > > That is true by definition
>
> > > I know, which makes one wonder why you asked the question in the first
> > > place.
>
> > I was trying to find out why you even made the statement in the first
> > place.  You might as well have said "the only people who are tall are
> > the ones who aren't short."- Dölj citerad text -
>
> > - Visa citerad text -
>
> At least he do not use tall meters and short meters like you. Length
> units can not be shorter and longer.
>
> Just as their can be no mutual timedilation time units can not be
> shorter and longer because of their state of motion, the units remain
> the same although there can be effects on the measuring equipment.
>
> JT
>
> JT

The only reason I'm using tall meters today is because I ran out of my
short meter sticks and the supplier couldn't send any new ones before
I needed to measure something. But to convert tall meters to short
meters you just divide by 1.5 anyway. It's when you use the super
short meters that you run into trouble because nobody even knows where
to buy the damn meter sticks to go with them, so the best you can
really do it give it a guess.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights