The Theory Of Multidimensional Progression

[JKFlyguy]

THE THEORY OF MULTIDIMENSIONAL PROGRESSION

 

by JOSHUA M KELLERMAN, Madison, Wisconsin 2007

 

Time is the NEXT dimension for whatever dimension the universe is being observed from. For US, time is the 4th dimension because we live within the restrictions of a 3 dimensional world. Let us bring our dimensions down a notch. Imagine that we hypothetically live in a 2 dimensional world, where there was no up or down, but only forwards, backwards, left, and right. How would we percieve a 3d object? We can't, because up, a crucial element of 3d, does not exist. But we can see the 3d object in two out of the three dimensions that make up the object, because our vantage point is from our hypothetical 2d world. 2 dimensions are all that exist in this world, because it's all we would be able to see and comprehend. But we could visualize a 3d object in 2d. We would see the IMPRINT of the 3d object as a 2d circle on the 2d plane that progressively expands from nothing to the size of the diameter and then compresses to nothing again in all directions allowed by two directions. In other words, a 3d sphere in 2d would look like an expanding, and then compressing circle on the 2d plane. The only way to describe 3d in 2d is to have the presence of time in order to show that the 3d sphere is not merely a still 2 dimensional circle, because the concept of PROGRESSION needs to exist in order to visualize the next higher dimension. Movement of higher dimensional objects through lower dimensional fields or existences creates a kind of cosmic time signature. A 3d object passing through a 2d plane in the 3rd dimension would create a SUCCESION of images of a circle on the 2d plane that starts at the edge of the ball and expands to the diameter, and then compresses at the other edge of the ball as it is passing through the 2d plane.

 

A 3d sphere passing through a 2d plane would essentially look like this as experienced in 2 dimensions... This progression that we see in order for dimensions to exist within eachother is known as TIME.

- o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o -

 

So let's pull our perspective out a little bit. What if we had an interaction between a 4 dimensional sphere passing through our already-known 3 dimensional plane? We would see something like this again...

 

- o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o -

 

except what was a circle expanding in 2-d is now a 3-d sphere starting from nothing at the point of the edge of the 4-d sphere, expanding to the size of the 4-d sphere's mathematical diameter, and then compressing towards the other edge of the 4-d sphere. Sounds oddly like our universe and the big bang?

 

We would see, basically, a balloon being blown up and then released, dimensionally. Our visualization of 4 dimensional space is comprehended by us as time, or a PROGRESSION. So, in essence, time is the NEXT HIGHER dimension manifesting itself as a progression from the observer's nth dimensional vantage point. One point (0 dimensions) existing in it's next higher dimension, or time (the 1st dimension) would create what we would see as a physical line. One line extended in its next higher spacial dimension, or its time (the 2nd dimension) would create what we would see as a 2d square. a 2d square extended in its next higher dimension, or its "time", would create a cube. And a 3d cube extended in it's fourth dimension, or "time" would make a 4-d cube, or tesseract. But since we live on a 3-d plane, we can only concieve a 4-d cube as a 3-d cube moving in time. TIME is a direction! It is the NEXT direction, wherever you are. Even the word next is used to describe time and its movement. Before and after are actually physical directions! You can exist in the same 3d space merely by sitting still, but you are constantly changing positions in 4d space because time is progressing.

 

Another way to describe this phenomenon is with collision. Objects only collide when they are truly trying to envelope the same space in all dimensions. If they are displaced in any one dimension, collision cannot occur because technically they are in a different space, because, after all, dimensions are just more directions to go. 2 pieces of matter in 2d cannot exist in the same 2d space unless they are removed in the 3rd dimension. So the only way we can have 2 pieces of 3d matter envelope the same 3d space is by moving them forwards or backwards in the fourth dimension. You can exist in the same 3d space as the person in front of u in a line, waiting to go to the bathroom, but you must be displaced in 4d space, or time, in order to do this. The person moves in 4d (time) and then you can envelope the 3d space once they are "gone" in the 4th dimension. Purely 3d space to us without interaction from a rth dimension would look visually like time was standing still. If our minds were built to comprehend 5 dimensions instead of four, geometry would look very weird, for cubes would all have 4 edges to every vertex instead of 3, and the 5th dimension would be our time, or PROGRESSION through 4-D space.

 

3d is 2d time. 4d is 3d time. 5d is 4d time... and so on... It's like a cosmic time signature and it ties into string theory, which basically says that we are all made out of complex chords and arrays of vibrations of sound; music. It would make sense that reality would have a time signature, and that whoever is controlling these vibrations to make a REAL, virtual symphony is, in fact, God.

[Klaynos]

I'd also suggest that you actually make it into a theory by adding some maths and making it predictive.

[JKFlyguy]

It is self-predicting. In fact, it is also self-defining. In order for 3 dimensions to exist, you first need the presence of the 1st and 2nd dimensions, or else the "3rd" dimension would really just become the 1st dimension again. They are additive because length could just as well be width if there's nothing else to compare it to and it is the (n) number of dimensions that defines proportions in our reality. A 3 dimensional cube has 3 edges per vetex, where a 4 dimensional cube has 4 edges per vetex. This is math - it's basic geometry. It's relative because we HAVE a vantage point. The reason that the third dimension would be seen as time to the second dimension is that the 3rd dimension is moving THROUGH the second dimension at an actual, calculated, angular velocity. But in order for the 3rd dimension to move, the dimension requires time, or a NEXT dimension.

 

So, dimensions cannot exist without the ones before it and without the ones after it. In truth, it is self-defining and self-evident so it shouldn't be split up into catagorized dimensions, but all be looked at as one big thing: the Universe.

[GutZ]

In that case your theory is flawless.

[foodchain]

I don’t know about that. I mean you put it in such rigid mathematical terms which is nice, 1+2, and so on. To me though, I don’t think “time” has in the first place an adequate definition really. Far be it from me, but many people with phd’s that spend all their time trying to figure out how to unify physics still have not reached that point, so what I am to guess is that they simply overlooked this? When I was in a psychology class we were asked to create some oddball topic about something, anything really. I put time down as a product of action/reaction really. I only wrote a paragraph but I basically surmised time as being a product of reality simply carrying itself out, and we arbitrarily gave it a name because we could. I then went on to simply highlight that our perception of this can be a great many things, but exactly at what point can you claim a truth on the matter? That was my topic for my project that day.

 

Now many people want to use math, and that is fine, I appreciate such endeavors actually and I am always amazed by the young kid blasting through calc. That aside, there is a definite point of separation between math as a hypothesis, and a working theory of observation, and experimentation. Can you actually test your idea about reality anymore then my psych class topic? If so how? I mean they cant really test string theory yet, and to imagine all of that math actually being force on nature, it really should be the other way around. Case in point is I have gone over pages of the most incredible I could probably live for another hundred years and not understand it math’s on a particular subject for the math to be false, simply put what actually was occurring was a bit different from the math is all.

 

Now this will not be my typically attack the math session, I do hold my reasons for such though. I like to study ecology a lot, I would bold the a lot part but I see not real point in doing such. Now what I have come to find in regards to the math in ecology, for how far I have gone, still a student thanks to life outside of learning which I don’t mind BTW, anyways, that even for say a population of rats in a sewer system, you cant ever really fully explain day to day behavior. All you can really do is know barring some extreme changes in environment that certain actions fitting of a rat and a population of rats will be occurring. Now going from say the molecular in the rat to the population of the rat, how about trying to put that population of cell signaling to each individual into a math equation that will perfectly describe each rats metabolism through a 24 hour period of perfectly described behavior in that particular ecology. I think that’s why most B.S level educations in biology, or ecology really have two math options, one is calc with a lot of stats, or more calc and calc. I think this is why you can also find statistics formed for biology really. Now I know that’s no where near the extent of math’s involvement with biology, that such is in-depth and provides a great deal of understanding and is very complex being you could be modeling the structure of RNA or what not. The point I am trying to make is the math to actually stay real time with a population of rats, or make something that day to day can be used to understand that population in itself is a rather profound task actually. Now past this, you have a theory, that’s not very long, has no real evidence past a basic postulate of human made geometry to explain the entire universe…

 

Do you see where some people, chiefly myself might be a bit less then accepting of this?

 

I mean even Einstein said math has little to say about nature after all.

[JKFlyguy]

Yes but I am not describing the Universe, but the spacial dimensions of the Universe, which can be measured, as proven by a ruler. I am looking at the MEASURABLE Universe. Who knows what exists beyond that? In that sense you're right. The only truth is that we know next to nothing. But Math is the language of science, and for all practical purposes it is the only truth that we know of.

 

We know the volume of the Earth. It is incredible that we can do this.

 

Perhaps that we are constantly getting smaller as we near the edge of the 4d-hypersphere, so we are shrinking and our tools of measurement are relative so we see the spaces between objects as progressively bigger when the objects themselves are just progressively smaller. But I do not believe the concept of dimensions, which have been ATTACHED to numbers in order to conceive, is false, because we have PROOF of three dimensions, or directions, and a progression in what we call TIME through them. I merely noticed that we are TRAVELING in a direction when we are traveling in time. That is the only truth I can conceive from Earth. But then again, we are all limited by Earth, so mathematics is, at least for me, the MOST true thing up to date.

 

I'm not saying that what I'm saying is absolutely true. I'm saying to think about it because it makes geometric sense. And MATH is the language of science.

 

And Einstein was a mathematician. He based his description of physics on mathematics.

 

Dimensions aren't as simple as 1 + 2. I was putting it into those terms so the average person could just scan over my theory and visualize something of what I am saying. Dimensions are exponential, mathematically. To get the area of a 2d object from a 1d measurement, you must square the measurement, which you must square again to get the volume of a 3d object (cubing the original 1st dimension) and then so on for all dimensions to follow. The reason I said 1 + 2 is because without 1 there would be no second dimension: it would merely be the first dimension again because if there's nothing to compare it to then it might as well be. It's the number of dimensions - there isn't just one 3rd dimension, there are 3, and any of the other two might be dimensions one or two.

[maybee]

now we get to it math is the language of science.

so if it cant be explained then it cant be so.