Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #584619 > unrolled thread

Why We're All Trapped In 3-D

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Why We're All Trapped In 3-D Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-06-12 18:54 -0500
    Why We're All Trapped In 3-D john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-12 16:59 -0700
      Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-12 20:37 -0500
    Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-12 20:36 -0500
    Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D emptypost@hotmail.com - 2016-06-12 20:53 -0700
    Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-06-13 14:16 +0200
      Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D trudi.schwander@gmail.com - 2016-06-13 09:07 -0700
        Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-13 10:15 -0700
          Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-13 12:50 -0500
            Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-13 11:13 -0700
              Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-13 21:47 -0400
      Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-06-13 12:20 -0700
        Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 21:45 -0700
          Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-15 07:05 -0400
      Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-06-13 14:13 -0700
      Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-13 20:44 -0400
        Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-13 17:59 -0700
          Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-13 21:31 -0400
            Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-13 18:45 -0700
            Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-06-14 13:29 +0200
              Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 05:07 -0700
                Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-14 09:37 -0400
                Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-06-14 15:43 +0200
                  Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 07:14 -0700
                    Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-06-14 16:31 +0200
                      Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 08:23 -0700
                        Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-06-14 17:31 +0200
                          Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 08:39 -0700
                            Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-06-14 18:44 +0200
                              Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 10:41 -0700
                                Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 11:19 -0700
                                Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-06-14 21:59 +0200
                  Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 07:16 -0700
                    Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 07:20 -0700
              Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 13:05 -0700
        Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-06-14 13:22 +0200
          Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-14 18:58 -0500
      Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-06-14 08:06 -0400
        Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-14 08:56 -0400
          Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-06-14 16:07 +0200
            Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-06-14 14:58 -0400
              Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-06-14 21:49 +0200
            Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-15 07:42 -0400
              Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-06-15 15:06 +0200
                Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-15 09:38 -0400
                  Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 06:43 -0700
                  Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-06-15 17:20 +0200
                    dimensional glasses (polarized e.g noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 16:11 -0700
                    Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-15 23:00 -0400
                      Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-06-16 12:08 -0700
          Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-06-14 14:43 -0400
    Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-06-13 12:51 -0700
    Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-06-13 12:52 -0700
    Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D xxein1@att.net - 2016-06-14 16:54 -0700
    Re: Why We're All Trapped In 3-D Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-06-16 16:06 -0400

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#584898

On 14/06/2016 10:07 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Wally W.  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 08:06:41 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>>> […] Sam only spams this newsgroup with his global warming
>
> Obviously incorrect.
>
>>> […], but this stuff is actually physics related.
>
> If you cared to notice, my objection was not to the OP in particular.
>
>>> Nobody appointed you moderator, so go moderate yourself and disappear!
>
> First of all, obviously you have no idea how moderation works on Usenet.
> A newsgroup moderator *never* posts their comments to the newsgroup; they do
> not approve and do not forward e-mails they get to the newsgroup instead.

On the contrary, I have actually created some newsgroups in the past, 
inside the alt.* hierarchy. I came to a very intimate knowledge of how 
newsgroups work, including how moderated ones work.

In a moderated newsgroup, such as sci.physics.relativity for example, 
all of the postings to a newsgroup get forwarded to a moderator's email 
before it ever shows up on the group. The moderator reviews the posting, 
and either releases it, or rejects it. That's why it could be days 
before an article or a reply shows up on those groups, depending on how 
busy the moderator is, and how busy the newsgroup is. This has to be 
done on newsgroups because of a lack of effective "Cancel" procedure for 
news articles. In web-based forums, there are ways of deleted messages 
after they have been sent out, but not in Usenet.

> Second, if I find a newsgroup unusable because one individual floods it with
> irrelevant postings, it is my right to point out that this behavior is very
> likely of disadvantage to all other users, and to warn that if this
> continues, those postings will be filtered out by default with the devices
> *I* use to access the newsgroup.  It is also my right to send complaints to
> providers for network abuse by others, and to warn them about that.
> (Whether those take effect depends on the provider.)

You went well beyond expressing displeasure at bad behaviour, and 
instead created your own form of trolling behaviour.

If you thought that Sam could post his articles in a better way, by 
using the "[News]" prefix in the subject line, among other things, then 
you should've just expressed that and give him a suggestion, rather than 
threaten to report him to some newsgroups authority or his ISP. None of 
the rest of what you said made anyone want to listen to you after that.

	Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#584909

Yousuf Khan wrote:

> On 14/06/2016 10:07 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Wally W.  wrote:
>>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 08:06:41 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>>>> Nobody appointed you moderator, so go moderate yourself and disappear!
>> First of all, obviously you have no idea how moderation works on Usenet.
>> A newsgroup moderator *never* posts their comments to the newsgroup; they
>> do not approve and do not forward e-mails they get to the newsgroup
>> instead.
> 
> On the contrary, I have actually created some newsgroups in the past,
> inside the alt.* hierarchy.

That is not much of a feat as alt.ALL is anarchy.  Anyone can create and 
delete a newsgroup there.

> I came to a very intimate knowledge of how
> newsgroups work, including how moderated ones work.

Then why have you implied that moderation in Usenet works differently than 
it actually does?

> In a moderated newsgroup, such as sci.physics.relativity for example,

sci.physics.relativity is _not_ moderated; in sci.physics.ALL, only 
.foundations, .plasma, .research, and .strings are moderated.  Whoever told 
you differently has lied to you.

> all of the postings to a newsgroup get forwarded to a moderator's email 
> […]

Why are you repeating what I just said?

>> Second, if I find a newsgroup unusable because one individual floods it
>> with irrelevant postings, it is my right to point out that this behavior
>> is very likely of disadvantage to all other users, and to warn that if
>> this continues, those postings will be filtered out by default with the
>> devices
>> *I* use to access the newsgroup.  It is also my right to send complaints
>> to providers for network abuse by others, and to warn them about that.
>> (Whether those take effect depends on the provider.)
> 
> You went well beyond expressing displeasure at bad behaviour, and
> instead created your own form of trolling behaviour. […]

Takes one to know one.
 
-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#584987

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 16:07:28 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>Wally W.  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 08:06:41 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>>> […] Sam only spams this newsgroup with his global warming
>
>Obviously incorrect.

For as uppity as you are, it seems lazy to use a reply to my post for
multiple replies to someone I quoted.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#584990

Wally W.  wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 16:07:28 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Wally W.  wrote:
>>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 08:06:41 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>>>> […] Sam only spams this newsgroup with his global warming
>> Obviously incorrect.
> 
> For as uppity as you are, it seems lazy to use a reply to my post for
> multiple replies to someone I quoted.

Yes, that only seems to be so because you are uppity enough that you have 
not read to the end of my posting.

(Thanks for adding “uppity” to my vocabulary.  Score adjusted.)

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#584993

On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 15:06:45 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>Wally W.  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 16:07:28 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Wally W.  wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 08:06:41 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>>>>> [?] Sam only spams this newsgroup with his global warming
>>> Obviously incorrect.
>> 
>> For as uppity as you are, it seems lazy to use a reply to my post for
>> multiple replies to someone I quoted.
>
>Yes, that only seems to be so because you are uppity enough that you have 
>not read to the end of my posting.

That you replied to me later in the post doesn't change the fact that
you replied to someone I quoted.

>(Thanks for adding “uppity” to my vocabulary.  Score adjusted.)

You didn't use it correctly in the sentence above, but your English is
way better than my German.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#584994

Yes, Thomas
Your English is very good

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#585001

Wally W.  wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 15:06:45 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Wally W.  wrote:
>>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 16:07:28 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> Wally W.  wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 08:06:41 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>>>>>> [?] Sam only spams this newsgroup with his global warming
>>>> Obviously incorrect.
>>> For as uppity as you are, it seems lazy to use a reply to my post for
>>> multiple replies to someone I quoted.
>> Yes, that only seems to be so because you are uppity enough that you have
>> not read to the end of my posting.
> 
> That you replied to me later in the post doesn't change the fact that
> you replied to someone I quoted.

One does not reply to a single person in Network News, a 1:n (or m:n) 
communications medium; one addresses quoted parts of postings to be read by 
all subscribers of the newsgroup.

It is possible and appropriate to address quoted parts of different postings 
in one follow-up to avoid cluttering up the (sub)thread.  When in the same 
subthread, the attribution lines and associated quotation marks show the 
quotation levels, i.e. who has made the statement that is being addressed in 
the follow-up.
 
>>(Thanks for adding “uppity” to my vocabulary.  Score adjusted.)
> 
> You didn't use it correctly in the sentence above, but your English is
> way better than my German.

I think I have used it correctly, at least as correctly as you have.

BTW, claiming arrogance (“uppity”) of someone whom you disagree with is so 
common a fallacy that it has become a “Usenet Law” in the German-speaking 
part of Usenet, called “Roesen’s Law”: <http://www.bruhaha.de/laws.html>

HTH, F'up2 poster, EOD here.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#585059 — dimensional glasses (polarized e.g

Minkowski did so many things, before he died at 43, but
he is only known fo the foolishness of a mere phase-space,
timennspacenn; well,
we've got glasses for you to catch up to nowsville

> BTW, claiming arrogance (“uppity”) of someone whom you disagree with is so 
> common a fallacy that it has become a “Usenet Law” in the German-speaking 
> part of Usenet, called “Roesen’s Law”: <http://www.bruhaha.de/laws.html>
> 
> HTH, F'up2 poster, EOD here.
> 
> -- 
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#585091

On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 17:20:08 +0200, in sci.physics you wrote:

>Wally W.  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 15:06:45 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Wally W.  wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 16:07:28 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>> Wally W.  wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 08:06:41 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>>>>>>> [?] Sam only spams this newsgroup with his global warming
>>>>> Obviously incorrect.
>>>> For as uppity as you are, it seems lazy to use a reply to my post for
>>>> multiple replies to someone I quoted.
>>> Yes, that only seems to be so because you are uppity enough that you have
>>> not read to the end of my posting.
>> 
>> That you replied to me later in the post doesn't change the fact that
>> you replied to someone I quoted.
>
>One does not reply to a single person in Network News, a 1:n (or m:n) 
>communications medium; one addresses quoted parts of postings to be read by 
>all subscribers of the newsgroup.

If someone buries their reply to me in a reply to someone else's post,
there could be a good chance that I will never see it.

>It is possible 

Of course it is.

>and appropriate to address quoted parts of different postings 
>in one follow-up to avoid cluttering up the (sub)thread.  

I think it could get quite messy in a three-way exchange over just two
posts.


>When in the same 
>subthread, the attribution lines and associated quotation marks show the 
>quotation levels, i.e. who has made the statement that is being addressed in 
>the follow-up.

Yes, the do. But that doesn't mean I am going to read all posts to
seach for a reply to mine.

 
>>>(Thanks for adding ?uppity? to my vocabulary.  Score adjusted.)
>> 
>> You didn't use it correctly in the sentence above, but your English is
>> way better than my German.
>
>I think I have used it correctly, at least as correctly as you have.
>
>BTW, claiming arrogance (“uppity”) of someone whom you disagree with is so 
>common a fallacy that it has become a “Usenet Law” in the German-speaking 
>part of Usenet, called “Roesen’s Law”: <http://www.bruhaha.de/laws.html>

Disagreeing with content and being put off by attitude are different
things.

>HTH, F'up2 poster, EOD here.

... he said unilaterally.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#585167

time is the awareness of dimensionalities,
wuch as the three orthoganal (linear or planar ones of space, or
the four equiangular ones of space

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#584897

On 14/06/2016 8:56 AM, Wally W. wrote:
> Where was Sam's "discussion" in his post?

He's starting a discussion by posting the news, he doesn't have to post 
his own opinions of article posted, it's upto us to read it and come up 
with discussions, if we feel like it. If we don't, we can ignore it.

> Why did *this* shiny thing catch his attention today?
>
> What did he say about why he thought anyone else should be interested?
>
> Where did he explains "Why We're All Trapped In 3-D"?
>
> Do we not experience the 4th dimension neglected because it is only
> one way?
>
> Sam trolls with crap like this.

He didn't have to explain any of that stuff, he linked to a publicly 
accessible article, which had those explanations in it. There is 
absolutely no fixed format for how to start a thread on Usenet. Anyone 
can start any kind of discussion, anyway they like, including off-topic 
stuff if this isn't a moderated newsgroup. But this was nowhere near 
off-topic. It's topics like this that keep the newsgroup interesting.

	Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#584752

On Sunday, June 12, 2016 at 4:54:14 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Why We're All Trapped In 3-D
> > http://www.npr.org/2016/06/07/481137385/why-were-all-trapped-in-3-d
> 
> 
> > We are all trapped in space — the space of three dimensions. NPR
> > blogger and astrophysicist Adam Frank takes us to the next
> > dimension.
> 
> > It was Einstein who showed us that time can be thought of as a fourth
> > dimension. Just like you can drive from west to east along Interstate
> > 80, all of us are constantly traveling from the past to the future
> > through time. Of course the weird thing about time as a dimension is
> > you can only travel one way.
> >
> > These days, a lot of physicists are going beyond Einstein and think
> > there might be extra dimensions of space that we just don't
> > experience. If we found them, suddenly there'd be extra directions to
> > travel in and more space to fill. But for now we're all just stuck in
> > 3D.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

For now,but class III lot different than now.TreBert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#584754

On Sunday, June 12, 2016 at 4:54:14 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Why We're All Trapped In 3-D
> > http://www.npr.org/2016/06/07/481137385/why-were-all-trapped-in-3-d
> 
> 
> > We are all trapped in space — the space of three dimensions. NPR
> > blogger and astrophysicist Adam Frank takes us to the next
> > dimension.
> 
> > It was Einstein who showed us that time can be thought of as a fourth
> > dimension. Just like you can drive from west to east along Interstate
> > 80, all of us are constantly traveling from the past to the future
> > through time. Of course the weird thing about time as a dimension is
> > you can only travel one way.
> >
> > These days, a lot of physicists are going beyond Einstein and think
> > there might be extra dimensions of space that we just don't
> > experience. If we found them, suddenly there'd be extra directions to
> > travel in and more space to fill. But for now we're all just stuck in
> > 3D.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

Time gives the way to met.TreBert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#584939

On Sunday, June 12, 2016 at 7:54:14 PM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Why We're All Trapped In 3-D
> > http://www.npr.org/2016/06/07/481137385/why-were-all-trapped-in-3-d
> 
> 
> > We are all trapped in space — the space of three dimensions. NPR
> > blogger and astrophysicist Adam Frank takes us to the next
> > dimension.
> 
> > It was Einstein who showed us that time can be thought of as a fourth
> > dimension. Just like you can drive from west to east along Interstate
> > 80, all of us are constantly traveling from the past to the future
> > through time. Of course the weird thing about time as a dimension is
> > you can only travel one way.
> >
> > These days, a lot of physicists are going beyond Einstein and think
> > there might be extra dimensions of space that we just don't
> > experience. If we found them, suddenly there'd be extra directions to
> > travel in and more space to fill. But for now we're all just stuck in
> > 3D.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

xxein:  Well if your 'admirers' are done corrupting your "news" post maybe I can comment.

Don't you think 'dimension' needs a more explicit explanation?  I mean categorized with adjectives, at least?  3-D + time can be realized as 4-D but what is the 5th dimension or the 11th?  Spin should be an attribute - not a dimension, don't you think?  But if spin is part of an array (mathematical), isn't it a dimension of a different class, at least?  Just some thoughts, at least.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#585180

On 12/06/2016 7:54 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Why We're All Trapped In 3-D
>> http://www.npr.org/2016/06/07/481137385/why-were-all-trapped-in-3-d
>
>
>> We are all trapped in space — the space of three dimensions. NPR
>> blogger and astrophysicist Adam Frank takes us to the next
>> dimension.
>
>> It was Einstein who showed us that time can be thought of as a fourth
>> dimension. Just like you can drive from west to east along Interstate
>> 80, all of us are constantly traveling from the past to the future
>> through time. Of course the weird thing about time as a dimension is
>> you can only travel one way.
>>
>> These days, a lot of physicists are going beyond Einstein and think
>> there might be extra dimensions of space that we just don't
>> experience. If we found them, suddenly there'd be extra directions to
>> travel in and more space to fill. But for now we're all just stuck in
>> 3D.

I've been toying with the idea that our universe is stuck on the surface 
of a high gravity source.

Let's consider what it would be like to live on a neutron star. For all 
intents and purposes we'd be 2D objects on it. We'd only have degrees of 
freedom in the forward-backward and side-to-side directions, but no 
freedom in the up and down directions, as the gravity would be so high 
that we can't move up or down, or even look up and down for that matter. 
We'd be squashed to the height of a single atom on top of the neutron star.

Perhaps something like that *is* happening to us, but except we're stuck 
to a higher dimensional object and its gravity is preventing us from 
accessing the 5th dimension?

	Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web