- Joined
- 12 Jul 17
- Moves
- 1824
22 Jul 17
1 edit
This gave rise to the notion that each dimension is itself empty and instead defined by it's surrounding dimensions. e.g 3 is a combination of 2nd and 4th.
A bit like seeing the image of a whale in an underwater slipstream.
What do you think?
edit. So trying to see a 3 in the third dimension would be a bit like trying to see the whole of a swimming pool that you're stood in. You'd need to get out the pool to see the pool in it's entirety.
- Joined
- 12 Jul 17
- Moves
- 1824
22 Jul 17
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraIs that arrogance talking or do you care to share?
I can confirm it's nonsense.
- Joined
- 12 Jul 17
- Moves
- 1824
23 Jul 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @ogbThat makes a lot of sense to me. What about dark matter. Looks like a dirty hack to me. What if that value could vary in a tiny tiny way? Could we halt the universe from a cold death?
That's why Gravity is so very weak..most of it is in another dimension hooked up with our 4..
Originally posted by @christopher-albonNo, he is a qualified PHYSICIST.
Is that arrogance talking or ...
That means if he says it's nonsense, unless you have good reason to believe the contrary, your default assumption should be it probably is.
23 Jul 17
Originally posted by @christopher-albon1) yes
Is that arrogance talking or do you care to share?
2) apparently not
23 Jul 17
Originally posted by @christopher-albonIf you would like to come up with new theories, you should first understand the current ones. Start with special relativity - grab a book on electrodynamics and have a go.
Is that arrogance talking or do you care to share?
- Joined
- 12 Jul 17
- Moves
- 1824
23 Jul 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraFirst rule of science is to check the instruments isn't it? I must be rusty!
If you would like to come up with new theories, you should first understand the current ones. Start with special relativity - grab a book on electrodynamics and have a go.
Edit. Is that why those probes you fired off are off course, relatively speaking?
23 Jul 17
Originally posted by @christopher-albonIn this case the arrogance is valid.
Is that arrogance talking ...
If you want to drag your posts out of the nonsense realm then try expanding on them in understandable language.
What do you mean by your first sentence in the OP?
23 Jul 17
Originally posted by @christopher-albonAs a mathematician, that make no sense whatsoever.
So I got the idea that each dimension cannot contain it's own number. e.g. zero zero's in the zero'th etch.
Any Mathematicians/Physicists that can confirm this please?
Dimensions don't contain numbers, nor are they numbered (except by convention).
Do you even know what a dimension is?
23 Jul 17
3 edits
Originally posted by @christopher-albonwhat has "check the instruments" got to do with understanding the current scientific theories (which you clearly don't and that is just part of your problem) ? -your responses make no sense. You seem to be unable to follow the conversation let alone understanding the current scientific theories.
First rule of science is to check the instruments isn't it?