László Hajós Posted October 4, 2018 Author Posted October 4, 2018 Your drawings are wrong. Here is mine. (3D ball would be hard to draw, it is the same as a circle, but with volumes instead of areas and the circle is the cross section) Ath the line: Maximum size: AD=3, Big Bang AD=2, Expansion AD=2.5 (2<=AD<=3) AB+CD=2 every time
László Hajós Posted October 5, 2018 Author Posted October 5, 2018 These numbers above (lenght of 1D straight line, area of 2D flat surface) represent the real volume of space available (what we see in "real "world) without the extra dimonsion. The extra dimension is the total amount of spacetime (which we can not see in real world). The extra dimension in 1D is an other (not straight) line next to the straight line. This 2D world (+ time) in 1D was my mathemathical explanation on wednesday where I called Lad (the extra dimension) (=Lab+Lbc+Lcd) as the lenght of the not straight line. The lenght of Lad or extra dimension was the representation of the total amount of spacetime volume (which is a constant and its always more than the "real world" spacetime which we can see). Peaks(+y) are dark energy, dips(-y) are gravity of masses in Lad. So once again: the volume of the "real world" spacetime is represented by the lenght (or distance) of the straight line between A,B,C, and D (x) in the above drawing In 2D as a surface: the area of the flat surface above in the drawing represents the volume of the "real word" spacetime which we can see. The extra dimension would be an extra 2D surface which wouldn't be flat and the area would be always bigger than the "real world" surface. So in 2D (+time) we have 4D (+time). The dips in the extra dimension would be the gravity of the masses and peaks would be dark energy. The total area (representing volume) of the extra dimension is a constant and is always bigger than the area of the flat surface above. In 3D as volume of the sphere inside in an other sphere would represent the "real world" 3D volume of space (+4th dimension is the time) or what we see. The extra dimension would be also 3D which would be in the "real world" 3D and it would have different "densities". It would be "less dense" at masses as gravity and "more dense" at dark energy as expanding space. Booth "less dense" and "more dense" means more volume as the "real world" volume present at the same spacetime. The total amount of volume of the extra 3D dimension has a constant value and it is bigger at all times than the amount of volume in the "real world" 3D (or in other words the volume of space what we see and experience. So in 3D (+time) the total amount of dimensions would be 3+3=6 (+time)
Ghideon Posted October 5, 2018 Posted October 5, 2018 (edited) 14 hours ago, László Hajós said: You want something which is logically and phisically impossible. No, your idea needs something which is logically and physically impossible. It is the result one gets from analysing your explanations, definitions and drawings. Seems like we agree that your model and explanations has flaws? 12 hours ago, László Hajós said: Your drawings are wrong. I agree and it was intended. It shows that posted explanations and definitions are not very usful when trying to understand your ideas about cosmology. 14 hours ago, László Hajós said: If I would have to draw space as a line like best representation of a 1 universe world, than I would draw a circle. The points of the circle's circumference would be the points of space. ABCD would be on the circumference. The circumference would get longer only by the BC distance getting longer. Then you can reach D from A. The above statements make no sense at all without math and proper definitions. Thanks for the picture, unfortunately I have some trouble to see how your 2D calculations matches the drawings, please provide formulas and distances. I think it is your job to show the calculations but an exception might be ok in this case. I’ll do one case to bring the discussion forward. First, I assume the measurements of AB and CD are constant as you have stated earlier. Therefore I have added distances to make it easier to see. Blue colour are my additions. Let’s start with the middle case, big bang, where area of universe is 0. The diameter of the void=2 so radius of the void is 1. What kind of geometry are you using that allows a circle with radius=1 and an area=2? What is it that you try to show? I dont find it likely that you made a basic mistake in the calculation. I get the answer [math]\pi r^{2} = \pi*1*1 \approx 3.14[/math]. It is possible that you try to describe something else than an area you must provide exact definitions of all things you draw and calculate. Your pictures and calulations fails to show why your ideas is something to seriously consider. Do you understand why it is very hard to understand what you trying to describe? 8 hours ago, László Hajós said: The extra dimension is the total amount of spacetime (which we can not see in real world) Ok! If it is not visible then it does not affect the geometry of the real world,? My conclusion from this: a physical distance measurement in the universe, or in the void, does not show the extra dimensions. The only distance that counts when moving is the distance in x direction in the 1D case. The y direction is a mathematical tool used to explain properties of the nature, it is not a possible to travel along the line in y direction. the above assumptions is one that I have had to make when analysing your drawings and statements about distance, now at least that seems to be confirmed. 8 hours ago, László Hajós said: So in 3D (+time) the total amount of dimensions would be 3+3=6 (+time) Can you please show how a seven-dimension space time is compatible with GR? Edited October 5, 2018 by Ghideon clarity in first sentences. Missing citation.
László Hajós Posted October 5, 2018 Author Posted October 5, 2018 1 hour ago, Ghideon said: Seems like we agree that your model and explanations has flaws? No we do not agree that it has flaws, I told you already many times that the space as a 1D line can not be a real 3D world, only a representation of the volumes (cm^3 or m^3 or km^3) as lenght of line in 1D 1cm=1cm^3 as volume in 3D. 1D and 2D are different than 3D. Only the 3D can represent 1 to 1exactly our 3D (+time +extra 3D) world. 2 hours ago, Ghideon said: First, I assume the measurements of AB and CD are constant as you have stated earlier. Therefore I have added distances to make it easier to see. Blue colour are my additions. The blue color lenght of the line is only correct at the 1D line. The distance is the REPRESENTATION of the VOLUME in 3D. I have alredy wrote this down above in the last post. At the circle I have wrote down that the total AREA of the outer circle is the same. AREA means it would be like cm squared. The blue color what you wrote there are NOT the distances between the points. The AREA of the outer circle is 2 il all cases, so the distances change between AB and BC. The distances are the biggest at the big bang, smaller at expansion after the big bang and the smallest at the maximum size of universe before the big bang. The AREA of the inner circle changes: 1 cm squeared at maximum size, 0 cm^2 at big bang and at expansion 0.5 cm^2 (it will grow ftom 0 cm^2 until 1cm ^2) Total areas (universe + void) are: 3 cm^2 at the maximum size, 2 cm^2 at the big bang and 2,5 cm^2 at the expansion. The total are of the universe + void grows from 2 cm^2 until 3 cm^2 2 hours ago, Ghideon said: If it is not visible then it does not affect the geometry of the real world,? 2 hours ago, Ghideon said: The diameter of the void=2 so radius of the void is 1. What kind of geometry are you using that allows a circle with radius=1 and an area=2? The diameter of the woid is NOT 2. At the line it is NOT a diameter as it is 1 dimensional line. The length of the line is the representation of a 3 fimensional amount volume in 3D. And at the 2D circle they are AREAS and not diameter and the area is the representation of the amount of volume in 3D. 2 hours ago, Ghideon said: If it is not visible then it does not affect the geometry of the real world,? No that is not 100% true. It is different than the physycal volumes and distances present at any time, but it changes the geometry at any time. Example: The extra dimension is -y at masses as gravity. Effect: the massless light travelling trought is distorted, and the force of gravity between objects. The extra dimension is +y at dark energy. Effect: expanding space, the volume and distances get bigger and the light is redshifted trough expansion. 2 hours ago, Ghideon said: My conclusion from this: a physical distance measurement in the universe, or in the void, does not show the extra dimensions. The only distance that counts when moving is the distance in x direction in the 1D case. The y direction is a mathematical tool used to explain properties of the nature, it is not a possible to travel along the line in y direction. the above assumptions is one that I have had to make when analysing your drawings and statements about distance, now at least that seems to be confirmed. I will only talk about our 3 dimensional world in here: (-y and +y are the forces values in the extra 3D dimension corresponding to the same point in the 3D space what we see) The physical distance measured in short distances in lokal scale doesn't show the extra 3D dimension only the present 3D which we are in and distances are the distances what we measure. But in bigger distances the change from the extra 3 dimension can be measured as light goes trough as I mension abowe. At gravity (-y in extra 3D) light is distorted, trough expanding(+y) light is distorted. Forces from the extra 3D can be measured for objects localy as well as gravity (-y). Example: earth has a gravitational pull on us The force from extra 3D as -y is much bigger locally compared to the +y force from extra 3D locally, but where there is less matter and more bigger empty space, the +y forces add up to a big force between big distances 3 hours ago, Ghideon said: Can you please show how a seven-dimension space time is compatible with GR? I can't. Maybe it is not. Lets call my 7 dimensional model universal relativity, or UR
Phi for All Posted October 5, 2018 Posted October 5, 2018 13 minutes ago, László Hajós said: No we do not agree that it has flaws, I told you already many times ! Moderator Note You've told us, but you haven't supported your arguments, and you don't bother to correct the flaws as they're pointed out to you. You're hijacking well-understood terms and giving them different meanings. This is a flawed methodology, my friend. It allows you to make up the perfect misunderstanding of mainstream science, something that will make absolute sense to you, and only you, because you made it up, We've given you many pages to explain your idea so it makes sense to anyone but you, and we encourage you to go back over the thread and reread the excellent objections posed by Ghideon (thanks very much to Ghideon for an extremely civil and positive approach to discussion). Please take this opportunity to see what mainstream science has to say about those points where your idea and current theory are disconnected. I'm closing this thread since it fails to meet the criteria for supporting evidence in the Speculations section. We're a bit more rigorous about this than a lot of science discussion sites, less than others. If you don't find anything further to support your ideas, please don't start any more threads on them. 1
Recommended Posts