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

Groups > sci.physics > #575395 > unrolled thread

Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-05-04 04:08 -0400
    Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 04:43 -0700
      Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 04:49 -0700
        Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 05:29 -0700
          Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 05:35 -0700
          Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 12:24 -0500
            Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 10:31 -0700
              Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 16:57 -0500
                Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 15:12 -0700
                  Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-04 21:49 -0400
                    Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-05 05:37 -0700
                    Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-05 10:58 -0500
                      Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-05 13:50 -0700
              Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-05 05:51 +0200
                Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-05 04:45 -0700
                  Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-05 11:29 -0500
                    Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-06 05:36 -0700
                      Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-06 09:40 -0500
                        Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-06 08:00 -0700
                      Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-06 19:54 +0200
                        Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-07 00:36 -0700
                          Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 09:28 -0500
                            Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 07:53 -0700
                              Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 08:08 -0700
                                Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 12:59 -0700
                                  Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-08 00:21 -0400
                                Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-07 23:50 -0400
                                Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-08 00:01 -0400
                                  Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 08:17 -0700
                                    Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-09 00:48 -0400
                          Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-07 17:13 +0200
                            Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-08 00:56 -0700
                              Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-08 10:04 +0200
                                Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-08 05:19 -0700
                                  Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-08 14:58 +0200
                                    Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-09 00:00 -0700
                                    Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-09 00:35 -0700
                                  Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 22:19 -0700
                    Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-05-06 22:55 -0700
                      Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics A Nony Mouse <abc@cef.ghi> - 2016-05-07 00:02 -0600
                        Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-07 17:59 +0200
            Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-05 14:51 -0700
              Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-05 16:57 -0500
    Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics Parag Mishra <parag.misra2009@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 08:14 -0700
      Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 11:17 -0500
    Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-05-05 01:37 -0700
    Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-05 09:27 -0700
      Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-05-05 10:47 -0700
      Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-05 15:26 -0500
        Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-05-05 14:43 -0700
          Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-05 15:03 -0700
            Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-06 10:12 -0700
          Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-05-05 18:47 -0500
            Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-05-05 21:09 -0700
          Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-05 22:16 -0400
    Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-05-05 15:25 -0700
      Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-05 16:26 -0700
      Re: Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-05-08 00:04 -0400

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#575395 — Why is space three-dimensional? ... Thermodynamics

The scientists propose that space is 3D because of a thermodynamic 
quantity called the Helmholtz free energy density. In a universe filled 
with radiation, this density can be thought of as a kind of pressure on 
all of space, which depends on the universe's temperature and its number 
of spatial dimensions.

http://phys.org/news/2016-05-space-three-dimensional.html

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#575405

Count how many dimensions there are.
If you get more than three, go back
to square one.

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

#575406

john
Count how many dimensions there are. 
If you get more than three, go back 
to square one. 
-----------

Anything that exists, also exists in time. 

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

#575413

Time is time.
Dimensions are dimensions.
Apples are apples.

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

#575418

john
Time is time. 
Dimensions are dimensions. 
Apples are apples. 
----------

All true John.

But to define any position in space, one must factor in time.

Otherwise you'll be lost.

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

#575488

On 5/4/2016 7:29 AM, john wrote:
> Time is time.
> Dimensions are dimensions.
> Apples are apples.
>

Dimensions just count coordinates you need to specify things.

If I told you to meet me at the northwest corner of Elm and First 
Streets, 2nd floor, I would have given you three coordinates (Elm for 
east-west, First for north-south, 2nd floor for up-down). But you would 
naturally object that I had failed to give you another important 
coordinate for the meeting. Do you know what you'd ask me?

Now, John may say "Dimensions count the where, and the when is something 
else that is not dimensions," but that's just his own head talking and 
is not at all what scientists mean by dimensions. As I said, for 
scientists, the number of dimensions is the count of coordinates you 
need to specify events. John may think it is stupid that scientists may 
have a different meaning for a scientific term than what he thinks it 
should mean.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#575506

You can go somewhere anytime you want.
Doesn't change the "where".
No zero volume entities.
No point particles.
No 2D.
No 1D.
Just 3D.
Physical.

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

#575572

On 5/4/2016 12:31 PM, john wrote:
> You can go somewhere anytime you want.
> Doesn't change the "where".
> No zero volume entities.
> No point particles.
> No 2D.
> No 1D.
> Just 3D.
> Physical.
>

What YOU think dimensions should mean is not what scientists think it means.

What YOU think is physical is not aligned with what physicists consider 
physical.

So what do you do with this misalignment, John? Call scientists wrong?

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#575581

On Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at 5:57:28 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 5/4/2016 12:31 PM, john wrote:
> > You can go somewhere anytime you want.
> > Doesn't change the "where".
> > No zero volume entities.
> > No point particles.
> > No 2D.
> > No 1D.
> > Just 3D.
> > Physical.
> 
> What YOU think dimensions should mean is not what scientists think it means.

I'm an Engineer/Scientist/Physicist/... you Odd are just self-absorbed.

> What YOU think is physical is not aligned with what physicists consider 
> physical.

You, Odd BlowsKin, have no idea what real physicists actually do.
 
> So what do you do with this misalignment, John? Call scientists wrong?

How can scientists be wrong? They got the look, the age, the hair, the ...

> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: How can Poetr(y) be wrong? Charles Misner.”

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

#575641

On 05/04/2016 06:12 PM, Mahipal wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at 5:57:28 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 5/4/2016 12:31 PM, john wrote:
>>> You can go somewhere anytime you want.
>>> Doesn't change the "where".
>>> No zero volume entities.
>>> No point particles.
>>> No 2D.
>>> No 1D.
>>> Just 3D.
>>> Physical.
>>
>> What YOU think dimensions should mean is not what scientists think it means.
>
> I'm an Engineer/Scientist/Physicist/... you Odd are just self-absorbed.

But nevertheless he still makes wooden toys and furniture.

>> What YOU think is physical is not aligned with what physicists consider
>> physical.
>
> You, Odd BlowsKin, have no idea what real physicists actually do.

Not even a hint of an idea. We would tell him, but he won't listen. He's 
like HVAC and pretends to know it all already. He thinks it makes him 
look "smart'.

>> So what do you do with this misalignment, John? Call scientists wrong?
>
> How can scientists be wrong? They got the look, the age, the hair, the ...

And in Einstein's case the plentiful hot bimbos! (Eat your heart out, 
Maple Loops)

>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: How can Poetr(y) be wrong? Charles Misner.”
>

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

#575702

On Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at 9:51:57 PM UTC-4, benj wrote:
> On 05/04/2016 06:12 PM, Mahipal wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at 5:57:28 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 5/4/2016 12:31 PM, john wrote:
> >>> You can go somewhere anytime you want.
> >>> Doesn't change the "where".
> >>> No zero volume entities.
> >>> No point particles.
> >>> No 2D.
> >>> No 1D.
> >>> Just 3D.
> >>> Physical.
> >>
> >> What YOU think dimensions should mean is not what scientists think it means.
> >
> > I'm an Engineer/Scientist/Physicist/... you Odd are just self-absorbed.
> 
> But nevertheless he still makes wooden toys and furniture.
> 
> >> What YOU think is physical is not aligned with what physicists consider
> >> physical.
> >
> > You, Odd BlowsKin, have no idea what real physicists actually do.
> 
> Not even a hint of an idea. We would tell him, but he won't listen. He's 
> like HVAC and pretends to know it all already. He thinks it makes him 
> look "smart'.
> 
> >> So what do you do with this misalignment, John? Call scientists wrong?
> >
> > How can scientists be wrong? They got the look, the age, the hair, the ...
> 
> And in Einstein's case the plentiful hot bimbos! (Eat your heart out, 
> Maple Loops)

To preface... why the sudden interest in my eating dietary habits?
meSushiHeart, my favourite. Yummy yumm(y) YUMMY. He he...

Yes, and sure BenjJi I do, I mean I will eat me m(y) own heart out,
for Physics came to a full stop with OneStone's Work/Name. I got time.

Since I attended a few John Archibald Wheeler (JAW) lectures at
Princeton University, and he wrote, for emphasis, JAW hand-wrote, my
meforce equation, praised it for being poetic! 

JAW also introduced/lead me to people like Steven Weinberg after SW's
lecture on Unclear Nuclear Physics, or Freeman Dyson who attended
every weekly seminar... I at times feel only one-degree of freedom
removed away from having walked with Einstein==OneStone. Albert Ein...

https://www.google.com/search?q=john+wheeler+einstein+images
https://mahipal7638.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/jaw_scan0011.jpg

“Surely, as you suggest, a poetic thought. How lucky we are to live in
this exciting time of discovery and have the memory of Charles Darwin’s
modest greatness as inspiration.” -- John Archibald Wheeler (July 22, 1989)

What this postcard proves is ...youKnow: Darwin is not Misner! WhoKnew?!

> >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> > -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: How can Poetr(y) be wrong? Charles Misner.”

Lesson@UMCP: When you've spoken with one Charles, you've known them all?!

-- Mahipal “माहिपाल, pronounced "My Pal" or "Maple" as in S(y)rup, Wood, or Loops.”
                          /\  "If the line between science fiction and
                            /   science fact doesn't drive you crazy,
 /\                         \   then you're just not tr(y)ing!"
 \           /\/\  /  \   \/                    Mahipal Virdy
 /   ==    \  /  \/\/                         The |meforce> Paradox
 \/                            http://mahipal7638.files.wordpress.com/

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

#575775

On 5/4/2016 8:49 PM, benj wrote:
> On 05/04/2016 06:12 PM, Mahipal wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at 5:57:28 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 5/4/2016 12:31 PM, john wrote:
>>>> You can go somewhere anytime you want.
>>>> Doesn't change the "where".
>>>> No zero volume entities.
>>>> No point particles.
>>>> No 2D.
>>>> No 1D.
>>>> Just 3D.
>>>> Physical.
>>>
>>> What YOU think dimensions should mean is not what scientists think it
>>> means.
>>
>> I'm an Engineer/Scientist/Physicist/...

Which of these are you? They're not all the same.

> you Odd are just self-absorbed.
>
> But nevertheless he still makes wooden toys and furniture.

Yes, I do.

>
>>> What YOU think is physical is not aligned with what physicists consider
>>> physical.
>>
>> You, Odd BlowsKin, have no idea what real physicists actually do.

I dispute that.

>
> Not even a hint of an idea. We would tell him, but he won't listen.

Well then, that's one way of avoiding risk at your ideas being looked at 
critically then, isn't it?

> He's
> like HVAC and pretends to know it all already. He thinks it makes him
> look "smart'.
>
>>> So what do you do with this misalignment, John? Call scientists wrong?
>>
>> How can scientists be wrong? They got the look, the age, the hair, the
>> ...
>
> And in Einstein's case the plentiful hot bimbos! (Eat your heart out,
> Maple Loops)
>
>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>
>> -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: How can Poetr(y) be wrong? Charles
>> Misner.”
>>
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#575851

On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 11:58:33 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 5/4/2016 8:49 PM, benj wrote:
> > On 05/04/2016 06:12 PM, Mahipal wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at 5:57:28 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>> On 5/4/2016 12:31 PM, john wrote:
> >>>> You can go somewhere anytime you want.
> >>>> Doesn't change the "where".
> >>>> No zero volume entities.
> >>>> No point particles.
> >>>> No 2D.
> >>>> No 1D.
> >>>> Just 3D.
> >>>> Physical.
> >>>
> >>> What YOU think dimensions should mean is not what scientists think it
> >>> means.
> >>
> >> I'm an Engineer/Scientist/Physicist/...
> 
> Which of these are you? They're not all the same.

I am all three and then some. There's no one that am I.

Perhaps you Odd should stop mentioning how you've killfiled me.
Since you have, I expect you to not get this post either.

Me, who am I, what I am, ... is all written in plain English Words here:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!profile/sci.physics/APn2wQdyZlFA1ox7R4zkaO1G7dJ6jxa_OtNPNbCReAv3mhPGRLvqjaGHJGkvyFgtMUFqP0A6fGYZ

Odd, you do know how to read any Usenet Poster's history?

> > you Odd are just self-absorbed.
> >
> > But nevertheless he still makes wooden toys and furniture.
> 
> Yes, I do.

Does Amazon or eBay help sell your so-called wooden toys, Odd?

I used to play with wooden tennis racquets (Love you Bjorn Borg!).
No, not anymore. By no I mean no to playing with wood racquets. Tennis
racquets technology has changed significantly since then. Roger m(y)
Roger. I still do and always will love Bjorn. My beloved turban
wearing Punjabi grandfather was a carpenter and he made wooden toys
for me right before my three year old's eyes. I played with them as a
kid. Again, I played with the toys, not eyes. Well maybe my eyes too.

> >>> What YOU think is physical is not aligned with what physicists consider
> >>> physical.
> >>
> >> You, Odd BlowsKin, have no idea what real physicists actually do.
> 
> I dispute that.

Be my guest disputing that Odd, but your written history has already spoken.

> > Not even a hint of an idea. We would tell him, but he won't listen.
> 
> Well then, that's one way of avoiding risk at your ideas being looked at 
> critically then, isn't it?

Odd, you have no ideas of your own. It's too late by now also. Like I
said before, I do skim/read most all posts on this NG. Yeah... I know
I don't have a life. Sue me. I code apps, I read Usenet in next window.

> > He's
> > like HVAC and pretends to know it all already. He thinks it makes him
> > look "smart'.
> >
> >>> So what do you do with this misalignment, John? Call scientists wrong?
> >>
> >> How can scientists be wrong? They got the look, the age, the hair, the
> >> ...
> > And in Einstein's case the plentiful hot bimbos! (Eat your heart out,
> > Maple Loops)
> >
> >>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>
> >> -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: How can Poetr(y) be wrong? Charles
> >> Misner.”
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

You anonymous Odd one, you do know who Charles Misner is?  Authored
the book GRAVITATION, along with JAW and Thorne, he did. Ever heard of
John S. Toll Physics Building? The circle where “The Big M at UMCP” at
College Park stands for the “M” in Mahipal?! The “M” is made of ever
changing flowers. Some of my teachers/professors say I'm a Philosopher.
The nerve! To me face. Out-loud. In the crowded echoing hallways. 
I used to play my bamboo flute in those empty corridors, after-hours. 
If you listen to the wind, you can still hear me pla(y). Don't you know...

Lesson: Teachers can be very cruel at times Grasshopper Mahipal Chang?!

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: How can Poetr(y) be write?! Wait, write what?”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slf8M03X1cI Bad Company - Shooting Star
Johnny==Mahipal was a schoolboy
When he heard his first Beatles song
Love Me Do, I think it was
And from there it didn't take him long...

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

#575665

john wrote:

> You can go somewhere anytime you want.

Superficially, it would be nice if it were true, but if you think this 
through you realize that if this were possible then it would break 
causality.

Which locations you can reach from where you are at which point in time is 
obviously limited not only by the directions in which you can go, but also 
by the speeds that you can achieve.  So conceivable spatial obstacles aside, 
as far as we know, the maximum possible speed is the constant, finite speed 
of light in vacuum.

And so it makes sense to consider not only space, but space(-)time where a 
position is an *event*, each of which has (3) spatial coordinates and a (1) 
temporal coordinate.

There are two *light cones* originating from (having their tip at) the 
observer’s position in spacetime (which for simplicity we can define as the 
origin of the coordinate system) that extend into the past, the future and 
in space: you can learn from events that lie on and inside the past light 
cone, you can affect and reach events that lie within the future light cone, 
and you can send (light) signals to arrive at events that lie on the future 
light cone.  (Everything that lies on a light cone travels at the speed of 
light, everything inside travels slower; everything outside would have to 
travel faster than light, which is not possible.)

<http://www.britannica.com/topic/Albert-Einstein-on-Space-Time-1987141>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone>

> Doesn't change the "where".
> No zero volume entities.
> No point particles.

Wishful thinking; *observation* tells us otherwise.

> No 2D.
> No 1D.
> Just 3D.
> Physical.

Time is an essential part of the physical world, so only three (spatial) 
dimensions do not suffice to describe it.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#575698

Thomas Lahn ...
> > Physical.

>Time is an essential part of the physical world, so only three (spatial) dimensions do not suffice to describe it.

I think  Johns point is that time isnt a spacial dimension. So you dont need it to describe an
object in the physical world. For instance, do architectural drawings specify time?

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

#575789

On 5/5/2016 6:45 AM, jay moseley wrote:
> I think  Johns point is that time isnt a spacial dimension.

That's true. But it's a mistake to say that the only dimensions are 
spatial dimensions.

> So you dont need it to describe an
> object in the physical world.

But the physical world is not filled with static objects. It is filled 
with INTERACTING objects, which means that nature is described by 
processes, not just things. And in fact, the better term is the 
physicists' meaning of the word "event". An event is something that 
happens at a particular location and at a particular time. Like the 
impact of a bug right THERE and right THEN on a car windshield. (Note 
that the colloquial meaning of "event", like a wedding reception, does 
not meet muster, because a wedding reception occupies a SPAN of time and 
a SPAN of space. And to specify an event in the physics sense, you need 
four coordinates. Therefore four dimensions.

> For instance, do architectural drawings specify time?

If I wanted to arrange to meet with you and told you to show up on the 
2nd floor of the Barnes and Noble at the corner of Cambridge and Elm 
Streets, would I have given you enough information with those three 
coordinates?


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#575971

Odd Bodkin

>> I think Johns point is that time isnt a spacial dimension.

>That's true. But it's a mistake to say that the only dimensions are spatial dimensions.

In the dictionary 'dimension' is described as a "measureable extent". 
Which includes time, space or about anything you please including 
how many toys you make per week. But that doesnt mean that
your toy output per week is a spatial dimension. Which is Johns
point I believe.
I can give you 3d spatial coordinates. Time doesnt effect them.
They will always be there regardless of the time.

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

#576001

On 5/6/2016 7:36 AM, jay moseley wrote:
> Odd Bodkin
>
>>> I think Johns point is that time isnt a spacial dimension.
>
>> That's true. But it's a mistake to say that the only dimensions are spatial dimensions.
>
> In the dictionary 'dimension' is described as a "measureable extent".
> Which includes time, space or about anything you please including
> how many toys you make per week. But that doesnt mean that
> your toy output per week is a spatial dimension. Which is Johns
> point I believe.

John's point, I believe, is that he says the only dimensions are spatial 
dimensions. This he says be claiming there are three and only three 
dimensions, referring of course to the spatial ones and ignoring all the 
other ones. As you point out, dimension actually means more than that 
and includes more than the spatial dimensions.

> I can give you 3d spatial coordinates. Time doesnt effect them.
> They will always be there regardless of the time.
>

Well, it's not true that time doesn't affect them. That would be like 
saying horizontal dimensions (there are two of them) don't affect the 
vertical dimension, and vice versa. But that depends a little on 
perspective of the observer and how vertical is defined.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#576005

Odd said
"
-Well, it's not true that time doesn't affect them. That would be like 
-saying horizontal dimensions (there are two of them) don't affect the 
-vertical dimension, and vice versa. But that depends a little on 
-perspective of the observer and how vertical is defined. "

I have nothing to add.

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

#576038

jay moseley wrote:

> Odd Bodkin
>>> I think Johns point is that time isnt a spacial dimension.
>> That's true. But it's a mistake to say that the only dimensions are
>> spatial dimensions.
> 
> In the dictionary 'dimension' is described as a "measureable extent".

Use a *scientific* dictionary next time.  In math (geometry), a dimension is 
a degree of freedom in the choice of a coordinate instead.  In physics, this 
definition is employed with regard to position; another definition for 
dimension is employed with regard to quantities.  We have been over this 
recently already.  Read, think, post; in *that* order.

> I can give you 3d spatial coordinates. Time doesnt effect them.
                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> They will always be there regardless of the time.

Not even wrong.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web