Moving Dimensions Theory Book Due Out in Fall 05--Very Rough Draft: 4th Dimensions Expanding Relative to 3 Spatial Dimensions

[Only registered users see links. ] wrote:

Unless only differential operators with discrete spectrums describe
your theory then then you will find that energy is not generally
quantized.

Dimensions don't move.

Dimensions can and do move.

Philosophical and Physical Barriers to Moving Dimensions

Many trained physicists have a knee-jerk reaction that the time
dimension cannot be moving because "dimensions cannot move." First
off, since the universe is expanding, space-time is also expanding,
demonstrating that dimensions are moving and expanding. Secondly,
general relativity demonstrates that massive objects warp space-time,
meaning that as a massive object moves though space-time, it stretches
space-time, showing again that space-time in one area can move, or
deform, relative to space-time in another area. GR is a sound theory,
backed up with multiple high-profile experiments, including the
demonstration that starlight is bent by the sun and the verification
that orbiting stars radiate energy in the form of gravity waves. Thus
there exist neither philosophical nor physical barriers to the concept
of moving dimensions, but for artificial ones within lazy minds.

A curious sign of the times is that physicists will accept on blind
faith the existence of ten, twenty, or thirty dimensions, dimensions
that are curled up, or too small to measure, and yet they will reel in
shock and horror at a perfectly obvious postulate-the fourth
dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

They are to be forgiven-it has been a long time since a simple
postulate has been offered in the realm of physics, and the foreign
nature of truth's simple beauty is seen as a violent affront to the
String Theorist's convoluted sensibilities.

Please read the original post above or at:

[Only registered users see links. ]

Dear greatbooksclassics:

<[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1121866484.258087.23290@g47g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...

Every attempt I have seen to do so has resulted in your reposting
the same stuff. I don't need to give you yet another excuse.


What thread? Multiple posts of identical content are not "a
thread".


Usenet has rules. You will follow them.

And thank you for not being a spambot, as Ernest Wittke has
turned out to be.

David A. Smith

Hello David A. Smith,

I wish you could offer some feedback on a physical/philosophical level.


What specifically do you find lacking in Moving Dimensions Theory?

The theory is beginning to win some acceptance.

It may take some time, but I look forward to discussing MDT with you.

What specifically do you find lacking in Moving Dimensions Theory?

[Only registered users see links. ]

Snip all the bs:
Just exactly what constitutes ' a towering wave off the outer banks or
north carolina'? BTW I'm real familar with towering waves.

" And because the underlying architecture of the universe is
quantized-because the fourth dimension expands at the rate of c in
units of the Planck length relative to the three spatial dimensions,
quantum mechanics works for the small, while general relativity works
for the large. That is the way it is because that is the way it
is..."

For QM to work for the small and GR to work for the large there is no
requirement for any dimensions to 'expand' at c. And that is the way it
is.

ps-I usually don't do any physics while riding towering waves.

[Elliot wrote]

[EL]
I see that you are reluctant to redefine the word dimension, which
cannot move.
This means that you are contesting an arbitration similar to saying
that we are wrong to arbitrate a name for an abstract concept like
"Food" that represents the abstract concept of what we can eat, and
that since we can eat vegetables then all food must acquire all
characteristics of vegetables, but vegetables are not meat.
Frequency is a derived dimension represented as [1/T] and that
representation is not logically an entity that can move. You are simply
mistaken because I just demonstrated to you that angular velocity
cannot move even though something is rotating or oscillating. You are
simply confusing the variance of the scaled quantities with the
abstract concept of the scale itself, with which it is being measured.


[EL]
Is that your premise!
Then you are wrong again.
It is not "evident" that the universe is expanding because such an
expansion is context sensitive.
You must construct a context in which the definition of the universe is
being the sum of the matter (less the space) that constitutes the
observable extent of existence. Then you must tell us why that
particular definition of the universe makes that universe apparently
expands. The observed red-shift could be caused by several causes, one
of which is to assume that the bright stars of the "outer" galaxies are
all moving away from "us", which puts us at the logical centre of that
matter-universe. If I place my objection by redefining the universe as
all matter energy (including the space) that we observe and that we do
not observe, then the space into which your universe is expanding is
part of my universe that cannot expand because it is infinite and
internally bounded by your universe, which is finite and unbounded.
This means that you do not have a case for building a fact or a fact
for building a case, but rather an assumption founded on an assumption
founded on yet another assumption. This means that your fundamental
premise is frail and that you should have said: "If we assumed that the
observable region of the universe was moving away from earth, we can
assume that all matter is diverging against the law of gravitation".
"This means that a big bang happened right here where earth is and that
earth is not moving but the whole universe is moving relative to
earth". Then we can begin to laugh.


[EL]
That was a non sequitor.
What you can say is that IFF we assume a 4D model in which space is a
function of time, then we must introduce constant motion represented in
a scalar of speed such as _c_ to define a spatial interval by the
displacement made by the propagation of light within a finite interval
of time.
This means that light moved while our clock's arms were moving,
allowing us to arbitrate a measure of the displacement relative to the
motion of our clock and that of light-propagation.

[EL]
What a shallow inductive assertion!
Are you certain that you are a Ph. D. Physics professor under Wheeler,
or are you just bluffing and trolling?

[EL]
Your inductive method is illogical because you are overlooking facts.
The gravitational effect of the sun on the hot gasses is no different
than the gravitational gradient we have on earth within its atmosphere.
That gravitational gradient places the particles of matter distribution
over time in such a statistical manner that creates a gravitational
lens. We all know the effect of a lens on a ray of light emitted by a
distant star and passing by the sun's peripheral.
In other words, whether your fanciful language is yours or Einstein's,
it makes no difference.
If you wish to call the _space_ occupied _now_ by a strip of plastic as
the spacetime of that strip and you bend it, then most certainly the
spacetime of that strip was bent as you have defined your words.
Nevertheless, the only way you can claim that the straight strip is now
bent is by comparing it to the spacetime that is not bent concurrently,
which must make you think about the abstract that contains the variant
as an invariant or else you have nothing for any logical comparison to
take place to claim a change in states from a given state to a new
state over the invariant time scale.
My wild guess, is that you are a pseudoscientist and a pretender with
no credentials at all.
The mass media and the drums and whistles have affected your mind too
badly that you are literally living a virtual reality.
Wake up please.
You are not a scientist.
You are simply fascinated by the hoopla and propaganda that the twisted
physicists love to surround themselves with.
Dimensions do not move.

EL

[Elliot wrote]


[EL]
I see that you are reluctant to redefine the word dimension, which
cannot move.
This means that you are contesting an arbitration similar to saying
that we are wrong to arbitrate a name for an abstract concept like
"Food" that represents the abstract concept of what we can eat, and
that since we can eat vegetables then all food must acquire all
characteristics of vegetables, but vegetables are not meat.
Frequency is a derived dimension represented as [1/T] and that
representation is not logically an entity that can move. You are simply
mistaken because I just demonstrated to you that angular velocity
cannot move even though something is rotating or oscillating. You are
simply confusing the variance of the scaled quantities with the
abstract concept of the scale itself, with which it is being measured.



[EL]
Is that your premise!
Then you are wrong again.
It is not "evident" that the universe is expanding because such an
expansion is context sensitive.
You must construct a context in which the definition of the universe is
being the sum of the matter (less the space) that constitutes the
observable extent of existence. Then you must tell us why that
particular definition of the universe makes that universe apparently
expands. The observed red-shift could be caused by several causes, one
of which is to assume that the bright stars of the "outer" galaxies are
all moving away from "us", which puts us at the logical centre of that
matter-universe. If I place my objection by redefining the universe as
all matter energy (including the space) that we observe and that we do
not observe, then the space into which your universe is expanding is
part of my universe that cannot expand because it is infinite and
internally bounded by your universe, which is finite and unbounded.
This means that you do not have a case for building a fact or a fact
for building a case, but rather an assumption founded on an assumption
founded on yet another assumption. This means that your fundamental
premise is frail and that you should have said: "If we assumed that the
observable region of the universe was moving away from earth, we can
assume that all matter is diverging against the law of gravitation".
"This means that a big bang happened right here where earth is and that
earth is not moving but the whole universe is moving relative to
earth". Then we can begin to laugh.



[EL]
That was a non sequitor.
What you can say is that IFF we assume a 4D model in which space is a
function of time, then we must introduce constant motion represented in
a scalar of speed such as _c_ to define a spatial interval by the
displacement made by the propagation of light within a finite interval
of time.
This means that light moved while our clock's arms were moving,
allowing us to arbitrate a measure of the displacement relative to the
motion of our clock and that of light-propagation.


[EL]
What a shallow inductive assertion!
Are you certain that you are a Ph. D. Physics professor under Wheeler,
or are you just bluffing and trolling?


[EL]
Your inductive method is illogical because you are overlooking facts.
The gravitational effect of the sun on the hot gasses is no different
than the gravitational gradient we have on earth within its atmosphere.
That gravitational gradient places the particles of matter distribution
over time in such a statistical manner that creates a gravitational
lens. We all know the effect of a lens on a ray of light emitted by a
distant star and passing by the sun's peripheral.
In other words, whether your fanciful language is yours or Einstein's,
it makes no difference.
If you wish to call the _space_ occupied _now_ by a strip of plastic as
the spacetime of that strip and you bend it, then most certainly the
spacetime of that strip was bent as you have defined your words.
Nevertheless, the only way you can claim that the straight strip is now
bent is by comparing it to the spacetime that is not bent concurrently,
which must make you think about the abstract that contains the variant
as an invariant or else you have nothing for any logical comparison to
take place to claim a change in states from a given state to a new
state over the invariant time scale.
My wild guess, is that you are a pseudoscientist and a pretender with
no credentials at all.
The mass media and the drums and whistles have affected your mind too
badly that you are literally living a virtual reality.
Wake up please.
You are not a scientist.
You are simply fascinated by the hoopla and propaganda that the twisted
physicists love to surround themselves with.
Dimensions do not move.

EL

That is the way it is!

Should New Ideas be Allowed in Contemporary Physics?

All of physic's greatest hits are contained in simple postulates,
laws, and equations that have stood the test of time and provided a
lever by which we could disturb the universe. For this reason, I am
advocating a return to physics that is expressed in simple postulates,
laws, and equations that can be discussed and tested by experiment.

Postmodern theories such as string theory are dangerous to physics and
physicists alike. Like Narcissus, who fell in the water while staring
at his own reflection, it seems many String Theorists have fallen into
a world of reflection, where they're not looking at physical reality,
but only themselves. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been poured
into String Theory, and yet not one postulate, nor law, nor proof, nor
success.

But the purpose of this paper is not to criticize string theory, but to
light the way to a new day with a simple postulate: the fourth
dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

After Einstein published his two postulates of special relativity and
his foundational paper on quantum mechanics, it was yet many years, and
tens of thousands of man hours, before a nobler physics bore itself
out-the realm of physics that is now known as relativity, that has
stood the tests of time and continues to inspire young physicists. And
so it is that today, Quantum Mechanics and Relativity, which came out
of either side of Einstein's mind, are yet the towering beacons that
inspire young physicists. When one wants to see further, one climbs on
top of the shoulders of giants-Newton, Bohr, Einstein, Dirac,
Shrodinger, and Wheeler. And it was from such a vantage point that I
saw Moving Dimensions Theory.

Contemporary physics, like much of academia, is cluttered with
political factions, charlatans, hypesters, and fund-raisers. Such a
system is self-reinforcing, and as time goes on, truth means less and
less, as politics, hype, and blind-faith land the postdocs, government
grants, and tenure.

Young physicists are bullied by pomo-hipster "the truth does not
exist" String Theorists who tell questioning young physicists that
they cannot question. When the young physicists continue to question
undeterred, the tenured string theorist waves her hands and makes it
personal, projecting their infinite shortcomings, telling the young
physicists that simply cannot comprehend the beauty of the ten, eleven,
twenty-two, or thirty dimensions.

But there are changes afoot, and prominent physicists-Nobel Prize
winners and true leaders-are stepping forth to criticize string
theory:

"If Einstein were alive today, he would be horrified at this state of
affairs. He would upbraid the profession for allowing this mess to
develop and fly into a blind rage over the transformation of his
beautiful creations into ideologies and the resulting proliferation of
logical inconsistencies. Einstein was an artist and a scholar but above
all he was a revolutionary. His approach to physics might be summarized
as hypothesizing minimally. Never arguing with experiment, demanding
total logical consistency, and mistrusting unsubstantiated beliefs. The
unsubstantial belief of his day was ether, or more precisely the naïve
version of ether that preceded relativity. The unsubstantiated belief
of our day is relativity itself. It would be perfectly in character for
him to reexamine the facts, toss them over in his mind, and conclude
that his beloved principle of relativity was not fundamental at all but
emergent-a collective property of the matter constituting space-time
that becomes increasingly exact at long length scales but fails at
short ones. This is a different idea from his original one but
something fully compatible with it logically, and even more exciting
and potentially important. It would mean that the fabric of space-time
was not simply the stage on which life played out but an organizational
phenomenon, and that there might be something beyond." -A Different
Universe, Reinventing Physics From The Bottom Down, Robert B. Laughlin,
Winner of the Nobel Prize in physics for his work on the fractional
quantum Hall effect.

"Despite its having become embedded in the discipline, the idea of
absolute symmetry makes no sense. Symmetries are cause by things, not
he cause of things. If relativity is always true, then there has to be
an underlying reason. Attempts to evade this problem inevitably result
in contradictions. Thus if we try to write down relativistic equations
describing the spectroscopy of a vacuum, we discover that the equations
are mathematical nonsense unless either relativity or guage invariance,
an equally important symmetry, is postulated to fail at extremely short
distances. No workable fix to this problem has ever been discovered.
String theory, originally invented for this purpose, has not succeeded.
In addition to its legendary appetite for higher dimensions, it also
has problems at short length scales, albeit more subtle ones, and has
never been shown to evolve into the standard model at long length
scales, as required for compatibility with experiment." -A
Different Universe, Reinventing Physics From The Bottom Down, Robert B.
Laughlin, Winner of the Nobel Prize in physics for his work on the
fractional quantum Hall effect

"Thus the innocent observation that the vacuum of space is empty is
not innocent at all, but is instead compelling evidence that light and
gravity are linked and probably both collective in nature. Real light,
like real quantum-mechanical sound, differs from its idealized
Newtonian counterpart in containing energy even when it is stone cold.
According to the principle of relativity, this energy should have
generated mass, and this, in turn, should have generated gravity. We
have no idea why it does not, so we deal with the problem the way the
government might, namely by simply declaring empty space not to
gravitate. In chutzpah, this ranks with the famous case of the Indiana
state legislature passing a law declaring Pi to have the value three.
It also demonstrates the severity of the problem, for one does not
resort to such desperate measures when there are reasonable
alternatives. The desire to explain away the gravity paradox
microscopically is also the motivation for the invention of
supersymmetry, a mathematical construction that assigns a special
complementary partner to every known elementary particle. Were a
superpartner ever discovered in nature, the hope for a reductionist
explanation for the emptiness of space might be rekindled, but this has
not happened, at least not yet."

"[String Theory] has no practical utility, however, other than to
sustain the myth of the ultimate theory. There is no experimental
evidence for the existence of strings in nature, nor does the special
mathematics of string theory enable known experimental behavior to be
calculated or predicted more easily. Moreover, the complex
spectroscopic properties of space accessible with today's mighty
accelerators are accountable in only as "low-energy
phenomenology"-a pejorative term for transcendent emergent
properties of matter impossible to calculate from first principles.
String theory is, in fact, a textbook case of Deceitful Turkey, a
beautiful set of ideas that will always remain just barely out of
reach. Far from a wonderful technological hope for a greater tomorrow,
it is instead the tragic consequence of an obsolete belief system-in
which emergence plays no role and dark law does not exist."

-A Different Universe, Reinventing Physics From The Bottom Down,
Robert B. Laughlin, Winner of the Nobel Prize in physics for his work
on the fractional quantum Hall effect.

"The master antitheory of the age is the idea that there is no
fundamental thing left to discover, so that the world we inhabit is
simply a swarm of detail that belongs to no one and thus can be
legitimately handled by business tactics-resource management,
competitive advertising, survival of the fittest, and so forth. A
corollary is that there is no absolute truth, but only products, like
shirts or hamburgers, that one throws away when their usefulness is
exhausted. Antitheories are dangerous ideologies not only because they
impede inquiry but because they lull one into ignoring threats that
one's opponents can exploit to their advantage."

-A Different Universe, Reinventing Physics From The Bottom Down,
Robert B. Laughlin, Winner of the Nobel Prize in physics for his work
on the fractional quantum Hall effect.

[Only registered users see links. ]

EL wrote:







Did you understand?

You never answered my question about the 'outer banks of north
carolina' and you didn't answer odin's question: "Can you set up an
experiment to test this idea?" The results to the experiments mentioned
can be explained with existing theoretal models without postulating
that dimensions move. I find it hard to believe that you studied under
John Wheeler and don't understand what constitutes a dimension in
physics .