throng Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Space exists between locations. Nothing expands until a new location exists, expansion is the addition of possible locations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Space exists between locations. Nothing expands until a new location exists, expansion is the addition of possible locations. That is your (quite insufficient) subjective interpretation. It's hardly a definition or a proper answer to your own subject... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throng Posted January 29, 2009 Author Share Posted January 29, 2009 That is your (quite insufficient) subjective interpretation. It's hardly a definition or a proper answer to your own subject... I see that if distance between matter increases, volume increases, universe increases. In real terms space increases by increasing distance, which are bound with angles and volume. Electromagnetism is an interaction between matter and as there is no matter outside the universe. EM is bound within the outermost particles, what is c if it doesn't move toward matter? So, there is a great paradox to expansion, it is expanding nowhere. c and distance. without v or t functions, c and d are the singular relative between light and universal motion. A one dimensional phenomena, c being a constant. Distance on its own is a singularity, hence at c matter is infinitely dense by length contraction. I speculate that expansion is a function of additional possible locations. As a three dimensional volume must be encompassed between at least four vertices, tetrahedron, there are proposedly four point localities that create one 'unit' of volume, so 3d vacuum has finite minimum limits. (Planck. 'S as a function of U') Co-incidentally there are 4 spacetime dimenensions, and four geometric relationships, distance, angle, area, volume. Four 'directions' in electromagnetism (+,-,N,S). (simplification.) Don't you find that symetry somewhat remarkable? Is this coherant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 Posts split from original thread in Cosmology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throng Posted February 2, 2009 Author Share Posted February 2, 2009 If any one can explain to me how volume can exist with less than 4 locations by which to outline it, I'd be glad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 volume is DEFINED in three dimensions - height, width, length. No more is needed. As for "locations" -- what do you mean? representing a volume in 2D might require you to draw 4 dots on a 2D page.. that doesn't mean that a volume exists in 4 dimensions. It just means that in order for you to represent 3D (volume) clearly in 2D (piece of paper) you require 4 dots. What do you mean by "4 locations" ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 If any one can explain to me how volume can exist with less than 4 locations by which to outline it, I'd be glad. I really don't think that you requiring an explanation for a proposition which is dubious at best is quite sufficient cause to make claims about a space and existence theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throng Posted February 6, 2009 Author Share Posted February 6, 2009 (edited) There's nothing dubious about it, it is speculation which is founded on geometric logic. By location I mean zero dimensional point, and if people can suggest multiple dimensions credibly, I don't see how 0D, 1D and 2D are far fetched. I just think lenght width and height are a 1D distance with angles. Unless the line is continuous there is no volume. A volume can only rest between 6 distances joined at four locations, so looking for a zero point is not a 3D concept. Edited February 6, 2009 by throng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacques Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 volume is DEFINED in three dimensions - height, width, length. No more is needed. No more dimension is needed but we need one more point: the origin. Four point define the basis vectors for a 3D cartesian frame. (0,0,0)(1,0,0)(0,1,0)(0,0,1) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 It is still three dimensional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throng Posted February 8, 2009 Author Share Posted February 8, 2009 It is still three dimensional. Effectively, there is no way to distinguish a point, because it can’t be defined. The point is a conceptual device, and because there are no relative locations, everywhere, anywhere, somewhere or nowhere are not definitive. Imagine 2 locations. .. Two locations without a location in between. It is a conceptual comparison, though each is presicely the other. A line would consist of locations between points. it is measured by length and angle (of 180 deg), it is actually 2D. Is it really accurate to call a line one dimensional if it has two relative measurements? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 throng, the definition of three dimensional: The three dimensions are commonly called length, width, and depth (or height), although any three mutually perpendicular directions can serve as the three dimensions. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-dimensional_space OR In mathematics, the dimension of a space is roughly defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify every point within it[1][2]. For example: a point on the unit circle in the plane can be specified by two Cartesian coordinates but one can make do with less (the polar coordinate angle), so the circle is 1-dimensional even though it exists in the 2-dimensional plane. This intrinsic notion of dimension is one of the chief ways in which the mathematical notion of dimension differs from its common usages. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension Notice how #2 states, clearly, that it *differs from common usage*. "location" is not something that is well defined in this context, so it's confusing. I can draw a straight line between these 2 locations and then it would be a 2 dimensional "shape", or I can draw a squiggly vector using x,y,z planes, at which case it will be a three dimensional shape. Locations mean nothing in this context. Neither do dots, if you don't define a proper way of linking them. That said, I really don't see what the problem is; both ideas are clearly defined in science and math - one concept speaks of how we relate to the universe (the first quote, check it out) and the other to the mathematical intrinsic definition of how you define the dimension of certain shapes. Where, exactly, is the problem? I don't really get what you're getting at.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throng Posted February 10, 2009 Author Share Posted February 10, 2009 (edited) throng, the definition of three dimensional: Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-dimensional_space OR Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension Notice how #2 states, clearly, that it *differs from common usage*. "location" is not something that is well defined in this context, so it's confusing. I can draw a straight line between these 2 locations and then it would be a 2 dimensional "shape", or I can draw a squiggly vector using x,y,z planes, at which case it will be a three dimensional shape. Locations mean nothing in this context. Neither do dots, if you don't define a proper way of linking them. That said, I really don't see what the problem is; both ideas are clearly defined in science and math - one concept speaks of how we relate to the universe (the first quote, check it out) and the other to the mathematical intrinsic definition of how you define the dimension of certain shapes. Where, exactly, is the problem? I don't really get what you're getting at.. Thanks for that info. I'm working on a weird geometry in three dimensions because I want to intergrate time and space relationships. I worked out a fundamental where only points are needed and dimensional 'shapes' can exist as fundamental theory without area of volume. I am writing it out now. I appreciate everyone tollerating my unformed musings because I feel I got somewhere with what to most people is probably rubbish. When I have it clearly written I'll show it here, it is just a conceptual thing. I used to think you need four points that form vertises of a tetrahedron to create a volume, but now I find I can conceptualise a tetrahedron with no volume. Strange, but true. It is quite interesting really. Anyway thanks again, see ya soon. Edited February 10, 2009 by throng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throng Posted February 15, 2009 Author Share Posted February 15, 2009 (edited) throng, the definition of three dimensional: Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-dimensional_space OR Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension Notice how #2 states, clearly, that it *differs from common usage*. "location" is not something that is well defined in this context, so it's confusing. I can draw a straight line between these 2 locations and then it would be a 2 dimensional "shape", or I can draw a squiggly vector using x,y,z planes, at which case it will be a three dimensional shape. Locations mean nothing in this context. Neither do dots, if you don't define a proper way of linking them. That said, I really don't see what the problem is; both ideas are clearly defined in science and math - one concept speaks of how we relate to the universe (the first quote, check it out) and the other to the mathematical intrinsic definition of how you define the dimension of certain shapes. Where, exactly, is the problem? I don't really get what you're getting at.. My images wouldn't post so I deleted. Edited February 15, 2009 by throng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 You need to upload them to an external site and link them here, otherwise they won't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throng Posted February 23, 2009 Author Share Posted February 23, 2009 You need to upload them to an external site and link them here, otherwise they won't work. Hello again, thanks for all the info you provided, I'm not really proficient with computers so I think I'll just leave it alone for now. I actually need to express two zero dimensional points that are 'touching', so that there is no distance between them, and I have scoured all kinds of geometry, but it seems futile. Say there are 2 points x and y. Or x and y are sets containing one element (R^0) x=y d(x,y) = 0 Is that anything? I can't be sure because my math is not advanced enough. If I could express this, I could express three points in 2D without creating an area because the three points would 'touch' with equalateral triangle representation. Then the same with regular tetrahedron, no volume. If there were no point between points, this would be the case. If five points were used then a relative distance is inevitable and a space is required. Anyway, I will read into Lorentz because the distance between two locations is 0 at c, I think. Are you aware of anything that relates to 0 distance between two points? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throng Posted March 7, 2009 Author Share Posted March 7, 2009 That is your (quite insufficient) subjective interpretation. It's hardly a definition or a proper answer to your own subject... Crikey! Nothing allows me to touch two points together Mooeypoo, there are very complicated ways. 1) Two geometric balls touch leaving a distance of 0 being the thickness of a plane, I've been told, but I don't want the rest of the ball therefore it is no longer a ball and kaput goes the points touching. 2) Lorentz: Just such a difficult explanation, everyone shoots me down. But I just say there are two points without a distance of seperation, it is a line two points long. So what if people don't agree, their imagined theorizing is only imaginary as mine. Why should I stick to the rules? I want to express this silly thing. It means nothing but it is eloquent, I only need two points that touch or have no distance between them and I can explain the very fundamentals of 3D, and the fractal nature of 3D geometric principles. But I'm not allowed to have 0 distance, because math God decreed it so. Why can't I just assert a 0 distance for this particular purpose, it is just a bit of fun, and it's fresh and original. I just make up the rules myself then substantiate them by geometric logic. Why problem? I can just do that don't you think? I have logic! Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 (edited) throng, there are ways to describe what you are saying in mathematics -- you just need a metric space that has a null line or null space in it. That is, a space wherein you define the distance measure so that that distance measure = 0 for points along the null line. See Tensor Calculus by Synge and Schild page 46 for more. (Note that you better have a very strong math background to read this book, it isn't for beginners in any way.) (And please don't take that last comment as being mean, because I'm not trying to be mean, just telling you that unless you have a strong background in calculus and differential equations and geometry, you will not be able to read more than 1 or 2 pages without being completely lost. It is a very advanced text.) Finally, I think that it is also important so say that just because there are mathematics to describe spaces with null lines and the like, doesn't mean that that translates into reality. That is, reality as we know it cannot have two non-equal points that don't have a distance between them. But, we can write the mathematics of such a situation. Edited March 7, 2009 by Bignose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throng Posted March 8, 2009 Author Share Posted March 8, 2009 throng, there are ways to describe what you are saying in mathematics -- you just need a metric space that has a null line or null space in it. That is, a space wherein you define the distance measure so that that distance measure = 0 for points along the null line. See Tensor Calculus by Synge and Schild page 46 for more. (Note that you better have a very strong math background to read this book, it isn't for beginners in any way.) (And please don't take that last comment as being mean, because I'm not trying to be mean, just telling you that unless you have a strong background in calculus and differential equations and geometry, you will not be able to read more than 1 or 2 pages without being completely lost. It is a very advanced text.) Finally, I think that it is also important so say that just because there are mathematics to describe spaces with null lines and the like, doesn't mean that that translates into reality. That is, reality as we know it cannot have two non-equal points that don't have a distance between them. But, we can write the mathematics of such a situation. Thank you kindly, I find what you say very reassuring. This must have been done before, my idea I mean. I'm very basic at math, I'm largely uneducated in general, so I doubt I'd get through the 'couple of pages'. I don't want to deal with reality, though I guess geometric concepts are bound by relationships that are proportionate, so it is true in terms of substance. Even an uneducated person has ideas but they can't express them. In hindsight I wish I studied more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 Even an uneducated person has ideas but they can't express them. In hindsight I wish I studied more. It's never too late to learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throng Posted March 8, 2009 Author Share Posted March 8, 2009 Where does one start geometric study? I think I'll buy a book and work through it for a start. Can you suggest anything for say yr 12 high school level to start? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 Amazingly (or perhaps not?) there is a Geometry for Dummies. My suggestion would be to start with that, which should give you sufficient grounding in the subject to figure out what "proper" books will suit you next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throng Posted March 8, 2009 Author Share Posted March 8, 2009 It's never too late to learn. I appreciate your encouragement, I spent a bit of effort learning to write properly. Now I dabble in fiction, creative writing. It is fun now. I want to learn geometry. I think I might be at a senior high school level stage, I thought I'd buy a geometry book and work through it. Would you please suggest a good text book for that level? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 Look through the Table of Contents on that Geometry for Dummies book. If you know all the stuff in the TOC, then you should find a good algebra, or trigonometry or pre-calculus book. Geometry isn't really just an isolated field, and many of the concepts from geometry are introduced in algebra, trig, and calculus. Otherwise, there are some advanced geometry-specific books. E.g. http://www.amazon.com/College-Geometry-Introduction-Triangle-Mathematics/dp/0486458059/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236533997&sr=8-14 But, I don't think that geometry alone will get you in a place to read about null lines and metrics and such. You will have to go through calculus and differential equations, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throng Posted April 13, 2009 Author Share Posted April 13, 2009 Thanks everyone. I have a bit of a problem - it's a lifelong study. I do other things and have a lifelong work already which I am passionate about because it is a wholesome endeavour. What I really want to express is fundamental so learning everything else will not help me explain why geometry works, besides it is so simple and complex formulations will just drown the beauty in the expression. Im surprised no-one has thought about why geometry works. It just does. Why the universe is 3D. Why space exists. Why time exists. That is what I have made a representation of, but it sounds incredible, so I am not heeded. Mathematitions demand extraordinary complexity and I certainly have zero credibility in the feild, spiritual folk hate logic and philosophers only like debunking. Field unity is required. It is destined to be an unsaid thing I'm afraid. Very sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now