omnidirectional forces

[Geosphere]

Omnitic.

Force simultaneously in all perpendicular directions.

[alkaline]

i'm not quite sure what you mean here - it sounds like you are suggesting the name "omnitic force", and then saying that it acts simultaneously in all perpendicular directions. This isn't possible - force is like motion, it only has a single direction. It can't act in multiple directions at once: that is multiple forces.

[Geosphere]

Stop thinking so realmic.

Of course force can be omnidirectional! Think pressure! Go to the bottom of the sea or pop a balloon. But in tetra space it would be a simultaneous equal force (which really doesn't apply well in realmspace).

Just in the concept of hypercubes being a simultaneous rotation of a cube in all perpendicular angles (out and in, or whatever phrase makes you happy), I was picturing the force also existing in such a direction.

Omnitism and omnitic forces.

[alkaline]

Ok here's the deal with pressure. Pressure is exerted by water or air molecules constantly impacting the surface of some object. Since these impacts are all random directions, they average out to be perpendicular to the surface of the object at any particular point. Thus, the force *does* have a single direction at each point, and is not omnidirectional.

A simultaneous equal force means a cancelled force and thus no force at all. Since forces act in one direction, and we have three dimensions to work with in realmspace, it makes sense to me that we would have observed omnidirectional forces already if such a thing was possible.

[Geosphere]

What if in tetra space it doesnt cancel?

[alkaline]

What if in tetra space it doesnt cancel?

It would cancel, just based on simple vector concepts. Let's boil this down to a single atom. This is going to be an n-dimensional argument, not tied down to any particular dimension.

Let's say this atom has an omnidirectional force on it. Let's also say this atom can't be pulled apart. Where does this atom go? Which one of the infinite number of directions that this force is pulling the atom does the atom follow? There are only two logical possibilities: It doesn't move, or it goes in a *random* direction out into n-dimensional space.

Step two: scale up. We now have millions of atoms. The omnidirectional force is acting on all of them. Let's assume the first hypothesis, that the each atom doesn't move. Then, none of the atoms are moving, so the force hasn't affected the object at all. Next, let's assume the second hypothesis, that an atom moves in a random direction when the omnidirectional force is applied. Where does the sum of these atoms go? Nowhere. Each atom moves in a random direction and collides with its neighbor atom, trying to go in a different direction. Utter chaos. The sum of the random directions is no movement. All you have accomplished was to energize the individual atoms, and you warmed up the object. The only thing this accomplishes is "warming" - no movement results.

[RQ]

Actually, alkaline, I would not be so sure as to your hypothesis/theory that there couldn't be an omnidirectional force. When we draw a cube with all its edges visible on a piece of paper it would have two directions pointing at:

_______
/l /l
/_l_____/ l Doesn't this cube point in two directions at once?
l l l l
l l l l
l /_____l /

[alkaline]

that doesn't make any sense, cubes don't "point" anywhere. Only its edges do, and each edge only has a single direction that it points.

[RQ]

no, im saying that you have two different perspectives of the same cube at the same time, one that is the regular image that you would see in reality, and the other, its mirror image, if you outline all everyday objects you would see the same, and that questions its position and the way it points, since its mirror image is exactly the opposite, so whether an external force acts on the object, or an internal object is acting from within the object (such as pressure), it would in these two perspectives have two different directions at the same time without its vectors adding up in a single direction as it would happen if they were two different forces.

[alkaline]

that makes no sense to me - how can you have two perspectives at the same time? try not using run-on sentences, they are hard to parse - your post is a single giant sentence.

If you're talking about something like a cube, where there is internal air pressure pressing outward and external air pressure pressing inward, they you *do* have vector cancellation and the cube stays the same size. If the vectors didn't cancel, you'd either have an expanding cube or a shrinking cube (based on which pressure was greater). Everything works towards equilibrium and vector cancellation.

[RQ]

Well let's say that we only have pressure from the cube. Then a hollow cube drawn on a piece of paper at angle, so that for example it would look like we are looking at it from below. This cube would also have to be able to be seen as if we were above it, and therefore we might say that it is pointing at two directions at once. So its pressure (let's say that it is coming from the side like a filled up bottle with a hole) would be point both above us and below us.

PS. sorry about the r-ons, now I see why I got a D in English

[alkaline]

the fact that a drawing is ambiguous as to what perspective it is says nothing about pressure on that object. The perspectives are distinct from each other - pressure is one direction in one perspective, a different direction in a different perspective, meaning only one direction at once. Saying that it is two directions at once is like having a force act on an object in opposite directions at *different* times then combining those two times together into a single time and they saying that there are now two forces going in opposite directions. It just doesn't make sense.

[RQ]

But the thing is that they aren't different at different times, but at the same time, because once they are drawn, they aren't changed at all and the perspective is still both pointing below us and above. The perspective may be ambiguous, which means that to different observers it will seem to point in different directions which means its pressure would have to have an omnidirectional force.

[alkaline]

you are trying to prove physics through an abstract drawing that represents an abstract concept that doesn't actually exist! It makes no sense! Just because you can draw something doesn't make it true!

[RQ]

All I'm saying is that a hollow cube drawn on a 2D piece of paper would have two different perspectives at the same time. This would make it omnidirectional. In reality, (3D world) this wouldn't be true, but drawn in a 2D universe it can be extended in either direction and so as an object would have an omnidirectional force.

[alkaline]

this is an n-dimensional concept. It doesn't matter what dimension a drawing is in, it doesn't define the physics of any dimension. You're still converting drawings into physics, just in 2d instead of 3d. The drawing is omnidirectional, real physical forces are not, no matter what the dimension.

[Geosphere]

a hollow cube drawn on a 2D piece of paper would have two different perspectives at the same time

No. What 2 are you possibly thinking?

This would make it omnidirectional.

No. That would be bidirectional.

drawn in a 2D universe it can be extended in either direction

How?

as an object would have an omnidirectional force.

Only to the point that all objects in the universe must exert and omniforce to be stable.

[RQ]

Yes, in fact alkaline, you're right. In reality in any dimension it would not be omnidirectional. Just the 2D drawing but of 3D or whichever perspective but it would be omnidirectional only because 2D is seen from the 3D dimension. Perhaps this is another proof that higher dimensions could not exist within lower ones and that we can't observe lower dimensions by themselves since they would have this obviously ridiculous property.