Strange Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 5 hours ago, NumberlineA said: Three dimensions and the inverse square law. The man from the flooring company came over to measure the rooms for carpet. He measured the length and width of all the rooms. I said to him, you didn't measure the height of any of the rooms. You are only considering two dimensions. He said that he's not denying the existence of the ceiling heights. Amusing. But not really relevant. The reason for the inverse square law is that the intensity of light (electric field, gravity) is spread out over the surface of an increasing large sphere with increasing distance. The area of the sphere goes up as the square of the radius, so the intensity follows an inverse square law. You cannot reduce that to two dimensions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NumberlineA Posted October 31, 2018 Author Share Posted October 31, 2018 That's point number 7 in the top post of the Unified Field Theory. Two plus two spacetime is Kepler's ellipses and Coulomb's outer surfaces. Its 2D discs and 2D spheres. The inverse square law is through a spherical surface. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 12 minutes ago, NumberlineA said: That's point number 7 in the top post of the Unified Field Theory. Two plus two spacetime is Kepler's ellipses and Coulomb's outer surfaces. Its 2D discs and 2D spheres. The inverse square law is through a spherical surface. How do you have a spherical surface in two dimensions? Perhaps you could provide a mathematical explanation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NumberlineA Posted October 31, 2018 Author Share Posted October 31, 2018 Gravity is 2D conic sections - parabola, ellipse, hyperbola. The surface of a sphere is two dimensional The earth has latitude and longitude to find any point. Like Maxwell's Laws are the interplay of electro and magnetism so the Unified Field Theory is the interplay of dimensions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 4 minutes ago, NumberlineA said: The surface of a sphere is two dimensional True. But in the inverse square law you also need to consider the radius. (And precession requires 3 dimensions as well.) It seems that all you are saying is that there are some problems that can be reduced to 2 dimensions. But so what? That is not exactly new or interesting. And it doesn't change any known physics. So what is the point of this thread? Do you have an alternative theory to present (with appropriate mathematics and testable predictions)? Or was it just a rather banal observation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 1 hour ago, NumberlineA said: The surface of a sphere is two dimensional The earth has latitude and longitude to find any point. What do you mean by this? The sphere is a surface, it does not possess one, it is not a solid object. Furthermore it is not conformable with the plane(which is truly two dimensional) What, for instance, are the latitude and longitude of the poles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NumberlineA Posted November 1, 2018 Author Share Posted November 1, 2018 One reply says that two plus two spacetime, (t,x) & (y,z), is consistent with all known physics. The other reply says that a sphere is too for real math. Does an electric charge distribution have a magnetic field? Does a circle have a cylinder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted November 1, 2018 Share Posted November 1, 2018 45 minutes ago, NumberlineA said: One reply says that two plus two spacetime, (t,x) & (y,z), is consistent with all known physics. I don’t see anyone saying that. 46 minutes ago, NumberlineA said: The other reply says that a sphere is too for real math. I don’t know what that is supposed to mean. A sphere is too what? 47 minutes ago, NumberlineA said: Does an electric charge distribution have a magnetic field? Your the expert. You tell us. And then tell us what the point of this thread is? 48 minutes ago, NumberlineA said: Does a circle have a cylinder? Does a kangaroo have a biscuit? (Your question makes no sense.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NumberlineA Posted November 2, 2018 Author Share Posted November 2, 2018 Conservation of Linear Momentum In the collision of two non rotating objects all the before and after momentum is in one plane. The two incoming vectors and two out going vectors are all in the one plane. Every freshman physics textbook has Chapter 3, Motion in Two Dimensions. The dimensions are not reduced to two dimensions. No third dimension necessary to do the physics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted November 2, 2018 Share Posted November 2, 2018 32 minutes ago, NumberlineA said: In the collision of two non rotating objects all the before and after momentum is in one plane. But what if they are rotating? And the axes are not aligned? This is also why precession cannot be reduced to 2 dimensions. Neither can accurately modelling planetary orbits. Still not sure what the point of this thread is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NumberlineA Posted November 3, 2018 Author Share Posted November 3, 2018 Does a ideal electric charge distribution have a global magnetic field? No, if there is no motion. Yes, if there is motion. Is a physical experiment in four dimensions? Sometimes yes and sometimes no. Is Quantum Gravity as radical as Quantum Physics is to Newtonian Physics? It just flows to the creator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted November 3, 2018 Share Posted November 3, 2018 ! Moderator Note OK, two pages is enough of this. NumberlineA, especially when the second response poses a major problem you haven't addressed. You haven't been able to explain or support your idea. You aren't considering the several corrections to your science knowledge that have been offered. And please, please note that when someone says they don't understand one of your explanations, pointing them back to the same explanation and claiming you explained it already is NOT helpful in the least. Don't open another thread about this subject until you have the evidence to support and clarify your concepts. This hand-waving, mathless, assertive style isn't as good as asking questions about things you don't know. Please re-read the responses and do some more research. Thread closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts