The 4th Spatial Dimension

[Purephysics]

 As a person you should never need anything external to validate what basic logic can conclude.

The idea of "validation" IS external scrutiny. Logic is proven, it is not fact just because you believe it to be. That would be religion, not science.  (The two do not mix, no matter what anyone says.)

 

The data I provided is more than enough to scientificlly prove the 4th spatial dimension, I am smart enough to know that.

Because YOU believe (there's that word again) that you have provided enough data for YOU to understand it. Doesn't catagorically mean you have provided enough data atall. It just means you can understand your concept, considering you wrote it, that's pretty much a given. 

 

 ...this is ground breaking and rigorous innovation. 

"rigorous" means mathematical (SiC) and it's relation to physics. Which is a very mathematical science. This is not up for 'interpretation' either, it has been proven over hundreds of years of mathematics and physics. 

 

"Mathematical rigour can refer both to rigorous methods of mathematical proof and to rigorous methods of mathematical practice" (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigour#section_2)

 

So when persons say "i dont see anything special" and "it would be more understandable if..." and "i dont think you should spend anymore time on this" is almost laughable to an above average IQ such as myself. 

Nobody is questioning your intellect, we are only questioning your theory. Which is what happens in science. Science is the questioning of everything in search of fact and how to define it. 

Also be careful about stating your "above average IQ" this doesn't make you look as smart as you claim. 

 

I was in gifted classes since kindergarten so science fairs and regional blue ribbons I am accustomed to. College was too slow for me so I taught myself by reading my friends and family college course books, I took a special liking to philosophy and I reached a plateau of thought which lead to scientific enlightenment.

A 'record of achievement' means exactly dick in this context. This ins'nt a job interview. It also doesn't make a good argument for the proof of your theory, it means nothing in relation to your theory. 

 

You can quote all the practice, degrees, PhD's, and Blue Ribbons you like, if your theory is tested to be wrong, it's wrong. Likewise if it's right, it's right.

 

~~

 

If you wish to form a credible argument, get your theory tested, experiments prove theories. That is the nature of science, ans particularly the nature of physics. Everythif has to be tested, and thus proved right or wrong.

 

Even if you are wrong, at least you tried, at least you had the balls to throw it up for testing, and more than anything else; at least you can learn something from it.

 

 

 

[Xittenn]

Mike Infinity, can you please try again to explain to me what your fourth dimension is? I know it's not love. I know that it doesn't move? What does its magnitude correlate to? How is it observed in a realistic way? What is its relevance in terms of other maths? Does it simplify something? As it stands all I see is added information that has no relevance to any real world problems! I ask because you never know right, there is always that chance that someone is saying something useful and I'm just not getting it. Can anybody explain to me what his fourth dimension is?

[Bignose]

Consider a system with just two particles, 1 and 2. The position vector of these two particles can be represented by r₁ and r₂. To fully describe the state of the system, you can use a single vector with six dimensions. r = <r_1x, r_1y, r_1z, r_2x, r_2y, r_2z>. If you know the probability density of how likely each particle can be in each point in space, you can integrate over the 6 dimensions to calculate the properties of the system. Note that this is exactly how the mathematics of gases are done -- though usually with more than just 2 particles.

 

Not enough dimensions for you? Let each particle not just be described by its position, but also its velocity. Now you have a 12 dimensional system. Need to also add acceleration? 18 dimensional. How about not just assuming that the particles are spherical, but at asymmetrical -- you can introduce an orientation vector to describe how each particle is orientated. Now we're up to 24 dimensions. Now, let's allow that asymmetrical particle to have a rotational velocity and acceleration. That gets us up to 36 dimensions. I could continue, but I think my point is made.

 

So, since it is relatively simple to get up to 36 dimensions, tell me again why a 4th is so special?

[mindless]

These optical illusions do provide a fascinating insight into eye, brain and mind. See:

 

Time and depth: http://newempiricism.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/time-and-depth.html

 

or

 

The Phi phenomenon and the half second gap: http://newempiricism.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/phi-phenomenon-and-half-second-gap.html