| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"D NoMail@NoSpam" |
| Date: |
28 Jan 2005 03:41:28 PM |
| Object: |
New dimensions? |
Hello a while back I watched the public television
series on the "String Theory" and enjoyed it, but
I can not figure why they are calling this another
"dimension". Since high school algebra we've known
that something can always be smaller than the present
(or larger for that matter) all the way to infinity. You
can always divide anything by 1/2.
So I can "see" that there are "worlds" so small they
are beyond our sight and awareness, but why are
these new dimensions? Aren't they just smaller areas
of the same old 3 dimensions?
.
|
|
| User: "CWatters" |
|
| Title: Re: New dimensions? |
28 Jan 2005 05:02:37 PM |
|
|
"D" <NoMail@NoSpam> wrote in message news:ctebi70m1f@news3.newsguy.com...
So I can "see" that there are "worlds" so small they
are beyond our sight and awareness, but why are
these new dimensions?
No it's the other way around. String theory predicts that extra dimensions
exist. They must really small or we would notice them and their effects.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ošin" |
|
| Title: Re: New dimensions? |
28 Jan 2005 05:57:47 PM |
|
|
Hello a while back I watched the public television
series on the "String Theory" and enjoyed it, but
I can not figure why they are calling this another
"dimension". Since high school algebra we've known
that something can always be smaller than the present
(or larger for that matter) all the way to infinity. You
can always divide anything by 1/2.
So I can "see" that there are "worlds" so small they
are beyond our sight and awareness, but why are
these new dimensions? Aren't they just smaller areas
of the same old 3 dimensions?
OK... by analogy... can you desribe how you could represent the equivalent
of 3D space in 2D space? Same problem with trying to take the 11D math od M
theory and represent it in our familiar 3D space.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brett Aubrey" |
|
| Title: Re: New dimensions? |
28 Jan 2005 06:34:12 PM |
|
|
"ošin" <ošin@ragnarok.com> wrote in message
news:CK-dnZgT1sToTGfcRVn-tQ@whidbeytel.com...
Hello a while back I watched the public television
series on the "String Theory" and enjoyed it, but
I can not figure why they are calling this another
"dimension". Since high school algebra we've known
that something can always be smaller than the present
(or larger for that matter) all the way to infinity. You
can always divide anything by 1/2.
So I can "see" that there are "worlds" so small they
are beyond our sight and awareness, but why are
these new dimensions? Aren't they just smaller areas
of the same old 3 dimensions?
OK... by analogy... can you desribe how you could represent the equivalent
of 3D space in 2D space? Same problem with trying to take the 11D math od
M
theory and represent it in our familiar 3D space.
Bad analogy, methinks, since we do this with ease all the time on paper,
computer sceens, movies and TVs, etc., etc., etc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ošin" |
|
| Title: Re: New dimensions? |
28 Jan 2005 06:44:07 PM |
|
|
OK... by analogy... can you desribe how you could represent the
equivalent
of 3D space in 2D space? Same problem with trying to take the 11D math od
M
theory and represent it in our familiar 3D space.
Bad analogy, methinks, since we do this with ease all the time on paper,
computer sceens, movies and TVs, etc., etc., etc.
:)
Yes... it is a projection... But my point is that you loose in the process.
Indeed our 3D experiance is 3D because we are living in a projection. But
try doing 3D geometry in 2D.... Not easy.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: New dimensions? |
28 Jan 2005 04:27:09 PM |
|
|
D wrote:
Hello a while back I watched the public television
series on the "String Theory" and enjoyed it, but
I can not figure why they are calling this another
"dimension". Since high school algebra we've known
that something can always be smaller than the present
(or larger for that matter) all the way to infinity. You
can always divide anything by 1/2.
So I can "see" that there are "worlds" so small they
are beyond our sight and awareness, but why are
these new dimensions? Aren't they just smaller areas
of the same old 3 dimensions?
Dimension are orthogonal to each other... String theory
currently need 11 dimensions, 7 beyond those measurable
to us.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Dimension.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: New dimensions? |
28 Jan 2005 06:04:31 PM |
|
|
Here's Sam hiding in a corner.
Why don't you and Uncle AL answer the question ??
" It's because your stupid "
TELL is Sam How gravity makes things move .
Do it corect I will respect you .
You not going anywhere .
YOUR as low as moron max.
never back your ***** up , make a one line joke ad run without ever an
ounce of content.
be a man and answer the fucking question.
I answer the question and made it undeniable
a fact you can't find falt with.
I've conected the math between mass gained and mass moved.
Up is a gain in mass proportional to its mass.
YOUR sorry ***** wount disscuss gravity because you don't know *****.
You don't even understand gravity.
YOU and Uncle Dumbass don't have a clue or you would post the facts
and shut me up.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,=
,,
THIS IS HOW GRAVITY MOVES MASS
Re: Gravityphysics combines SR with GR
Group: sci.physics Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2005, 12:05pm From:
GravityPhysics@webtv.net (tj=A0Frazir)
Tell us all Uncle Dumbass how gravity moves anything. 1 ,,is its a pull
of attraction ?? if so idnetifie it. PROVE IT DUMBASS.
=A0=A0TELL us HOW GRAVITY MOVES THINGS .
=A0=A0=A0=A0YOUR moron max styal ***** wount work. The crap you just
wrote is NULL of any facts. DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT FACTS ARE Uncle
dumbass ???
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0No you don't or you would post it.
=A0IF you new you would post it.
=A0=A0=A0=A0HERE DUMBASS ...Ill post it.
=A0=A0I wrote
Gravityphysics combines SR with GR
Group: sci.physics Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2005, 10:23am From:
GravityPhysics@webtv.net (tj=A0Frazir)
=A0=A0Up is a gain in mass .
=A0Down is less mass.
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0The center of evry atom is where its parts fall too.
=A0 Atoms change mass at C.
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0The UP 1/2 of the atom has more mass falling twards
its center than the other 1/2 .
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0No pull or attraction , 1/2 evry atom is pushing
its other 1/2 twards less mass. The center of the atom is where all its
parts are falling. But atoms change mass at C. =A0=A0one side of the
atom has more mass than the other side , falling twards its center and
1/2 the atom is pushing the other half. =A0=A0=A0 =A0=A0=A0=A0In an
energy slope the atom pushes it's self. 1/2 of evry atom pushes the
other 1/2 down the energy slope. =A0 Gravity is a push to less energy .
UP is a gain in mass and atoms change mass at C.
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Gravity is push to less mass ... .......
As a mass is pushed up , it gains mass. Pushed up in an energy slope .
=A0=A0 =A0 1/2 of evry atom has more mass than the other half of evry
atom in the field of low.
=A0=A0=A0=A0More mass of evry atom is falling twards it"s own pit at the
center of the atom then the other.
=A0=A0Evry atom has the same energy diferance in the field. evry 1/2
atom pushes its other half as there is more mass on one side than the
other.
=A0=A0=A0=A0There is no pull. Its a push to LESS MASS =A0 How one atom
falls ..1/2 the atom has more mass and pushes it that way.
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 our turns SAM and AL.
=A0=A0tell all us dumbasses how gravity works.. Al and Sam are hiding
from me.
=A0=A0=A0=A0The subject of gravity is not one they like to deal with
because they have no clue.
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0As the universe expands a low forms around mass.
=A0 Gravity is a push to less .
=A0=A0Not a pull No attraction.
=A0The atom pushes its self.
=A0=A01/2 of evry atom is pushing its other 1/2. =A0 Its undeniable.
=A0=A0Bacause if you might notice the mass gain of evry atom and the
mass loss side of evry atom
is proportional and te driferance is F and F--MA yet V is allways the
same.
=A0 =A0 Evry gain is the same proportion of mass gain and mass to push.
=A0 IF you use just the mass gain as F you will find F pushes more M and
V allways works out the same.
=A0=A0I have combined GR and SR.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: New dimensions? |
28 Jan 2005 07:10:49 PM |
|
|
D wrote:
Hello a while back I watched the public television
series on the "String Theory" and enjoyed it, but
I can not figure why they are calling this another
"dimension". Since high school algebra we've known
that something can always be smaller than the present
(or larger for that matter) all the way to infinity. You
can always divide anything by 1/2.
So I can "see" that there are "worlds" so small they
are beyond our sight and awareness, but why are
these new dimensions? Aren't they just smaller areas
of the same old 3 dimensions?
No. Current theory holds that the universe was once microscopic in
size along its 3 spatial dimensions, but expanded with time.
Superstring theory holds that the universe has more than 3 spatial
dimensions, but that it only expanded along 3 of them, and as a result,
we con't notice the extra dimensions unless we look closely.
If you want an analogy, imagine a microscopic sphere that expanded
along 2 of its dimensions until they were macroscopic in size. You
would end up with what looked like a finite 2-dimensional space, but
when you got down to the microscopic level, you would discover that
there was really a 3rd dimension that you hadn't been able to see
before because it was too small.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ošin" |
|
| Title: Re: New dimensions? |
28 Jan 2005 07:51:26 PM |
|
|
If you want an analogy, imagine a microscopic sphere that expanded
along 2 of its dimensions until they were macroscopic in size. You
would end up with what looked like a finite 2-dimensional space, but
when you got down to the microscopic level, you would discover that
there was really a 3rd dimension that you hadn't been able to see
before because it was too small.
What made the familiar three grow so much faster?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nicholas Sherlock" |
|
| Title: Re: New dimensions? |
29 Jan 2005 03:39:46 AM |
|
|
ošin wrote:
If you want an analogy, imagine a microscopic sphere that expanded
along 2 of its dimensions until they were macroscopic in size. You
would end up with what looked like a finite 2-dimensional space, but
when you got down to the microscopic level, you would discover that
there was really a 3rd dimension that you hadn't been able to see
before because it was too small.
What made the familiar three grow so much faster?
And did they grow to end up as the same size today? Or does my question
make no sense?
Cheers,
Nicholas Sherlock
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
New dimensions in education
Aether v. Moving Dimensions Theory v. Einstein? (Was: Simply put, MOVING DIMENSIONS THEORY is THE NEW MODEL: http://physicsmathforums.com)
On the Advancement of Physics, The Nature of New Ideas, The Corruption of Bureaucracy, and Moving Dimensions Theory
On the Advancement of Physics, The Nature of New Ideas, The Corruption of Bureaucracy, and Moving Dimensions Theory
Simply put, MOVING DIMENSIONS THEORY is THE NEW MODEL: http://physicsmathforums.com
Re: Simply put, MOVING DIMENSIONS THEORY is THE NEW MODEL: http://physicsmathforums.com
Moving Dimensions Theory--A Physical Grand Unification: MDT Explains Length Contraction and Entanglement With a New Model, thusly unifiying Relativity & QM
Simply put, MOVING DIMENSIONS THEORY is THE NEW MODEL: http://physicsmathforums.com
| Re: Simply put, MOVING DIMENSIONS THEORY is THE NEW MODEL: http://physicsmathforums.com
Moving Dimensions Theory--A Physical Grand Unification: MDT Explains Length Contraction and Entanglement With a New Model, thusly unifiying Relativity & QM
Moving Dimensions Theory--A Physical Grand Unification: MDT Explains Length Contraction and Entanglement With a New Model, thusly unifiying Relativity & QM
Moving Dimensions Theory--The New Paradigm that Unifies Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and Statistical Mechanics; while underlying ST & LQG
Moving Dimensions Theory Explains Length Contraction and Entanglement With a New Model, thusly unifiying Relativity & QM
New Conception of Time: Moving Dimensions Theory
New Theories: Time Vector & Time as a Moving Dimension, Expanding Relative to Spatial Dimensions
|
|
|
