04 Debunking 4D spacetime
72
Is there a difference between a dimension and a coordinate, between width and latitude? If so, the mathematicians are unware of it. Of course, it is no wonder that they conclude that you live within a four-dimensional sphere.
_________________
It is entirely inexplicable that in the last 10,000 years the mathematicians have not realized that there is a difference between a dimension, a coordinate, and a vector. The three dimensions are known as length, width, and height and have to do with architecture and orientation. The three coordinates are known as longitude, latitude, and altitude and have to do with location. Dimensions point outward from an object. Coordinates point inward toward an object. The three vectors are known as depth, breadth, and elevation. They describe the mutually orthogonal directions in which an object may move. No rational person would confuse length (orientation) with longitude (location) or with depth (motion)!
One could argue that the mathematicians simply have a different definition of the word dimension: "the number of coordinates." But then, this definition leads them to amusing conclusions that by far surpass the centuries-old supernatural explanations proposed by traditional religions. Relativists claim that, according to the mathematical definition of dimension, the Universe is four-dimensional.
How is this possible if we cannot even imagine such a monster?
The mathematicians claim that in addition to length, width and height (dimensions) we need an extra 'dimension' known as time to specify an object's LOCATION in space!
There are so many conceptual errors in this breathtaking statement that one doesn't know where to begin. Are the mathematicians talking about locating an object on the surface of another object? If so, why do they use dimensions and not coordinates? (Oh, I forgot. A mathematician doesn't understand the difference between a dimension and a coordinate. Scratch that!) Is time a dimension? If so, in what ways is time similar to height?
To make a long story short, it turns out that the mathematicians are NOT talking about dimensions, coordinates, or vectors. Mathematics has no use for such qualitative concepts. A mathematician deals exclusively with number lines. The mathematicians simply got into the bad habit of calling their number lines dimensions, coordinates, and vectors.
Number lines have at least one important property that dimensions, coordinates, and vectors lack: magnitude. Dimensions, coordinates, and vectors have at least two properties that number lines don't have: direction and orthogonality. In what direction does a series of numbers point, anyway? To what does a set of numbers run perpendicular?
Therefore, when relativists propose that we live within an unimaginable 4D sphere, the D in '4D' does not allude to dimensions, but to number lines. The 11 and 26 'dimensional' worlds talked about in String Theory are no different.
However, the spherical '4D' universe of relativity suffers from an even more fundamental fatal problem. What contours and gives shape to the sphere?
Relativists have three irreconcilable answers to this question, take your pick:
1. It is an invalid question like asking what's north of the North Pole.
2. It is an unscientific question because we have no way to test the hypothesis. The question is philosophical
3. It is not expanding into anything. The closed space is all there is.
The correct answer is that relativists don't understand the Scientific Method. In Science, it is the responsibility of the presenter to propose a rational hypothesis that makes or breaks his or her theory, not for the philosophers at the other side of campus to figure it out.
_________________
"i think that an object has leght"
.
Hopefully, an object has length irrespective of whether you think it does or not. An object has length by definition (of the word length).
.
.
"the series of numbers marked on a ruler is the mathematical model of this thing called leght"
.
A very common error! Especially among mathematicians! Not a single disciple of Pythagoras in the last million years has ever figured out what those numbers mean (or what the members of the guild are really doing). The mathematicians call a series of these numbers 'a dimension' (e.g. length).
.
What the idiots of the Mathematical Establishment have been doing for the last few centuries is stare at a NUMBER LINE which they inexplicably call a 'dimension'. However, the word dimension belongs exclusively to Physics. There are no such notions as dimensions in Math. Math has no use for such concepts.
.
In Math, there can ONLY be number lines. For instance, the idiots of Math all around the world have been brainwashed to repeat like parrots that time is a dimension. They call it the 4th 'dimension'.
.
Actually, time is just another number line. Unlike dimensions, a number line has magnitude and lacks direction. A dimension, on the other hand, has no magnitude, no units, but has direction and orthogonality.
.
What the idiots of Math never figured out is that there are no STATIC concepts in their beloved field. Math ONLY deals with DYNAMIC concepts. Math does not deal with adjectives at all. Math is exclusively a language of ADVERBS!!! (Specifically, quantitative adverbs.) Math deals ONLY with HOW things move.
.
What the mathematicians did when they created the first ruler is establish a standard (e.g., meter, inch, yard, etc.). They placed these units on a stick we call ruler.
.
But how did they determine the yard or the meter in the first place?
.
From a conceptual point of view, they ROLLED the tip of a measuring tape from A to B. A measurement is NECESSARILY a dynamic activity. The famous 'length' of Math (which has NOTHING to do with the length of Phyz and, therefore, has NOTHING to do with the real world) is the distance-TRAVELLED by the tip of a measuring tape!
.
Hence, whereas in Physics, length is a QUALITATIVE, STATIC concept, in Math, length is a QUANTITATIVE, DYNAMIC one. In Physics, length is the name given to one of the three dimensions that real objects have. A dimension has only two properties: direction and orthogonality. Length points or faces perpendicular to BOTH: width and height.
.
In Math, length means that you WALKED so many paces from one tree to another and established 'how much' you TRAVELLED in terms of a pre-established standard. Length is a QUANTITY. Therefore, it is specified in terms of pre-established units each of which was determined through some activity.
.
So, the ruler is NOT a mathematical model of length. Math has no use for length any more than it has any use for distance. In Math, there is ONLY distance-TRAVELLED!!!
.
http://youstupidrelativist.com/01Math/03Dist/01Len
.
.
"with the numbers we can squeez them as we like"
.
That's why a number line has NOTHING to do with Physics or with the real world. The stupid idiotic morons of Math will tell you that you can fit as many points as they want within a line measuring 1 meter in length. At that precise moment, they are no longer talking about the dot that they pointed to at the beginning of their presentation and called 'point'. Now the famous GEOMETRIC 'point' -- the FIGURE -- has morphed into an abstract number or location.
.
Of course, neither a number or a location has length. They are concepts. And it is axiomatic that you can fit as many concepts as you want on my living room table! The idiots of Math are talking nonsense! Perhaps they can fit countless numbers or locations on a ruler, but not GEOMETRIC dots. They just have to tell the crowd whether a point is a geometric FIGURE, a number, or a location.
.
Billgaede, your reply comment was worth a new Hub. just kidding.
When we say; 'the billard balls are colliding on top of the table' and; 'the billiard balls are colliding at six o clock', a physisist should differentiate that which is on top of the table from that which is at six o clock. The balls always are on the table and can never be 'in' six o clock and the collition can never be on the table but is always at six o clock.To say that we need time to describe the positions of objects is to make no distinction between states of objects and objects themselvs. There is a difference between the moon and it being wherever it is. It is when we want to describe the states of objects do we use four number lines. Not when we are describing their positions. Three number lines to describe the position of moon and time to describe it being or not being there.
"To say that we need time to describe the positions of objects is to make no distinction between states of objects and objects themselvs."
.
The problem arises because Mathematics is not interested in the objects themselves. A mathematician has been brainwashed to accept that architecture is a 'philosophical' issue.
.
Unlike the researchers of old, people like Huygens, Young, Fresnel and Hertz, who attempted to discover the architecture of light, the contemporary mathematician believes that it is a trivial pursuit. It is thanks to two of the greatest idiots to walk the Earth -- Bohr and Heisenberg -- that the mathematicians have resolved that this is no longer a question of Physics. A mathematician is not concerned about WHAT a photon IS. He is concerned about WHERE 'it' can be located.
I think what lead physicists to confuse space and time is disrigard on static concept. They say there is no instance that apply everywhere. But that the sun and the earth is not separated by time is something to conceive and not to find out. It only does so if some object was to move to the sun. But then it will be the object being on earth and the same object being on the sun that will be seperated by time but not the earth and the sun. So they say the earth is eight minutes away from the sun! This is because they were taught to say: change in y/change in x on a static graph. So they see velocities in static scenarios! They say to ask; what happened before big bang is like to ask; what is on the north of north pole. So 6 o clock is a portion on a surface and events are objects placed on that mythical surface! So 6 o clock and 7 o clock exist at the same time! So when do they exist? I can understand why you 'whip' relativist Bill.
"they say the earth is eight minutes away from the sun!"
.
Actually, they say that light takes 8 minutes to get here. No problem. The problem is when the mathematicians claim that if the Sun were to disappear, it would take 8 minutes for the Earth to fly away. They are saying that if the lead mountaineer cuts the rope of his trailing buddy, the poor fellow will take a few seconds -- the time it takes for the signal to reach him along the rope -- before he starts falling.
But then in their graph of sacetime, the sun is drawn yes, 8 minutes away from the earth.
You asked; in what way is height similar to time? And I have been pondering about this for a while. Should we say even if we were to grant relativists that the mythical fourth dimension is rational, time still absolutely cannot qualify as the candidate?
"if... the mythical fourth dimension is rational, time still absolutely cannot qualify as the candidate?"
.
Time is conceptually dynamic. Length, width and height are conceptually static. Time does not run perpendicular to LW or H. And unlike dimensions, time has no direction. The idiots of relativity like to say that time runs in the 'forward' direction, but there is no direction called 'forward'. Forward is not a direction.
.
So that does it for relativity's proposal that time is a dimension.
Very good Bill, if I travel north, south, east, west, up or down, I move forward or backwards! So forward or backwards does not reffer to any particular direction. I am telling you the truth, not many out there can think any more! U say we travel to or away from an object. Yes, and the concept of location, i think, is a static concept in that I can conceive of all objects at different locations all at once. So i thought that for time to be similar to space, monday, theusday etc all must exist at the same time bringing in another time. You see, they are saying that saturday is an object we can move to!
"So forward or backwards does not reffer to any particular direction"
Correct.
.
.
"the concept of location, i think, is a static concept in that I can conceive of all objects at different locations all at once"
.
The objects ARE at different locations all at once! Remove the observer!
.
In Mother Nature's world there is no such thing as time. Every atom just has location. It is MEMORY which records the previous location of atoms. Without memory, there is no time. Mother Nature has no memory. Her mind is always at the cutting edge of universal events: location.
Now, I saw that somewhere, you put it verywell that there is a concept of location which is supposed to be treated differently from the portion. (do you regard a portion as an object or as a concept)
this is very important. I conceive space to be all the locations and your notion of object all all the entire portions. Yes, because a different portion of an object is necesarily at different location, it is tempting to confuse portion with location. After all we identify both by the same point. So for instance, am i pointing at where the moon is or at the moon itself while uttering; this is moon? I have thought of it and found that this is exactly what they seem to do!
There is the question; where are you located? Of which we usually answer the 'where' question with a 'what' answere in ordinary speech. We state the objects or portions that form our background like say i am at Cairo instead of; i am near Cairo, or where Cairo is located.
When the above carelessness is perfected, mathematicians form a 'mathematical space' which is infact a collection of 'whats' instead of 'wheres!' otherwise idiotic notions such as A space are thus legitimised. We have 'a Riemannian space' 'a Euclidian space' and the like.
But i wish to point to you to an analogous behavior when it comes to time. Locating things on a surface, (a mathematical space) can be compared with identifiend moments with events or infinitesmall sections of a whole process. For instance, when manufacturing a car, there is when the wheels are fitted, when windscreen is fitted etc. Guess what? I found out that almost everyone confuse the act/event of fitting the wheel with the moment of the event! We have a 'mathematical time' which is conceived by very many people as some invisible process called passage of time or change in time. (they don't fully realise that this is what they are infact doing).
Bill, from ever since i was born till now, there was never any thing evolving such as 'change in time' even in my brain, the proper term is, changes in characteristic of brain. Just as from the earth to the moon, there is not such a static object as 'space' the right term is 'some medium' which might be there.
If you are kin, you will see that the proper concept of time has no physical marks called 'moments' just as space has no marks called location. So space and time is useless to a mathematician. What he need is a ruller and a clock. What give them 'marks' for moments, which are on themselves entirely unobservable are events, real or imaginary. Now this was supposed to be a good art but they sinned by equating the 'marks' with the moments. Casting the real meaning of space and time to obselence just because they could not 'measure' or observe it. You see? They demanded the irrational, the existence of concepts in order for them to have meaning!
'marks' for moments"
That's exactly what happened! Locations have morphed into seconds.
Will water(water as in glass full of water, not a molecule) be taken as an object or as a concept?
Does water, any portion of it in the Universe, have shape? If an astronaut explodes a balloon full of water while outside of his capsule in space, will the resulting blob that begins to spread have shape?
Has shape, therefore an object. Correct?
"Has shape"
.
Yes. More or less. Before we can even discuss whether God exists, we have to determine whether God is an object or a concept. WHAT do the idiots of Christianity and Islam worship? An object that looks more or less like a man? Or do they pray to a concept (e.g., love, intelligence, justice, 'the spirit').
.
If a concept, God is summarily excluded from existence. If an object God may be said to exist IFF IN ADDITION God has location. Without shape, God is more than irrelevant. God is irrational.
.
From what I've learned from your hubs and others, we have:
* 2d "abstract" objects (surfaces)
* 3d objects (hypothesized)
* 3d objects with location (which exist; real; physical)
No, Dude. An object is 'that which has shape'. Therefore, any word in the dictionary that alludes to or designates that which has shape qualifies under the category 'objects'. All other words are listed under concepts. For the purposes of Science, there are only two categories: objects and concepts. Physics deals with objects and causes. Philosophy deals with concepts and reasons. These are the two branches of Science.
.
An object can either be 2D (square, triangle, tribar, line, etc.) or 3D (cube, leprechaun, God, table, chair, rock, tree, Moon, etc.) Only 3D objects may be said to exist, but not all 3D objects exist (e.g., cube, sphere, cylinder, leprechaun, angel... cannot be said to exist). Only those objects which have location exist.
.
The Q is whether God is a concept or an object. The God of the Old Testament is an object (talks, hears, uses 'His' hands, sees, flaming bush). The God of the New Testament is a concept (Love, the 'Spirit', Grace, Intelligence). If God is proposed as a concept, God cannot exist. The proponent has summarily rendered his God inexistent. If the proponent presents God as an object, that God exists ONLY if in addition God has location. We should be able to establish a separation between this chair and God's chest. Otherwise, God cannot be said to exist.
.
So the ball is in the proponent's court if he wants his God to be an object or a concept and if he wants his God to exist.
Surely that's what I was saying? I mean, if something posseses at least two dimensions it must already have shape?! (Shape being a pre-requisite for all objects). A concept has no dimensionality because it has no shape; there are only three dimensions; and so on...
I can't imagine a 2d or 3d object without shape. All I ws doing was breaking down the types of objects (abstract/2d; hypothetical/visualized; real/existent).
Okay. I just want to clarify that 3D is an insufficient criterion for existence.
.
A cube is 3D yet it doesn't exist. A leprechaun is 3D yet it doesn't exist. People who propose God need to tell the crowd whether God is an object or a concept for the purposes of THEIR presentations. If the proponent tells the crowd that God is a concept, that this is what he prays to, he has summarily rendered his version of God inexistent.
.
For instance, this idiot swami Deepak Chopra claims that God is Intelligence. Firstly, that's not what the books of HIS religion say. So he is in contradiction with his root religion. Secondly, if God is a concept, God cannot be said to exist. Deepak is praying to the wind (and preying on the Hollywood suckers who come to him for his supernatural powers.)
.
Conversely, if the proponent alleges that God is a 3D object (e.g., man-like form, burning bush), then that is still not enough for existence. So far God is no different than the leprechaun. If the proponent is going to explain how God made the U, for example, he must in addition hypothesize that God has location. There must be a distance between your chest and God's.
Right, I think I get you. So, we can hypothesize objects, but must also hypothesize their location as well. Otherwise they can't be used in a rational discourse because they can't be said to exist ("have existed").
![Einstein, Pythagorean, E=MC Squared, and the String Theory of Everything [66]\ title=](http://s4.hubimg.com/u/5342991_50.jpg)
Kirui 18 months ago
Now i think that an object has leght but physics has no problem when they awknowledge this property in objects by illustrating objects with different sizes. Now the series of numbers marked on a ruler is the mathematical model of this thing called leght in the real world. The problem comes when you ask a mathematician the meaning of leght and he answers ;as shown on a ruller ie pointing to conventional model instead of the real thing. You see with the numbers we can squeez them as we like.