A four dimensional space manifold?

If you don't know where to post something, put it here and an administrator or moderator will move it to the right place.

A four dimensional space manifold?

Postby jeffocal » Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:55 pm

Is it possible that EM radiation is a result of a matterenergy wave “moving” on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension as our paper at http://home.comcast.net/~jeffocal/shadows.htm suggests.

We would be interested in discussion the pros and cons of our ideas with members of the community.

Thank you

Jeff
The universe’s most powerful enabling tool
is not knowledge or understanding
but imagination.
http://theimagineershome.com/blog/
jeffocal
Mononian
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:40 pm

Postby Hugh » Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:40 am

Hi Jeff, welcome to the forum. I remember reading about this Shadows theory a few years back when I became interested in learning more about the possible existence of a fourth spatial dimension. Recently, I asked houserichichi on another forum to have a look at your theory. It sounds interesting.

I tracked down a couple of other threads that you started on other forums. I hope you don't mind if I post the links to them so that others can get a feel of what others have commented on, with your answers to them. This may get the discussion rolling here...

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=2325

and

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=13330&page=1&pp=20 (scroll down a bit to see the start of the thread)
User avatar
Hugh
Tetronian
 
Posts: 636
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:44 pm

Postby wendy » Tue Oct 03, 2006 8:26 am

It's really interesting, i suppose.

One can create an experiment, where one has two parallel long wires, placed at a distance of one foot apart. In the first instance, one charges the wires individually to x verber per feet. This produces a force on the wire of z pdl per feet.

In the second experiment, one has y verber per second. This produces also, z pdl per feet. The measure of y/x has the dimensions of ft/s, in the value of a constant 983574900 ft/s.

Maxwell showed that electromagnetic waves propagate from a rotating source at the speed of the EM velocity, "y/x", and noting that there was little difference between the calculated value of the EM velocity (as measured by Weber et al), and the speed of light, speculated that light travels in the same ether as the EM waves.

Heinrich Hertz showed that EM waves (produced by a rotating magnet) has the same properties as light (ie one can defract, reflect them).

Einstein supposed that we could travel beside an EM wave, (because in Newtonian relativity, we should be doing this), and thus we should see a standing EM wave. Since we don't see standing EM waves, it must be because relative to all observers EM waves travel at the same velocity.

The model of light is that one supposes that it is massless particles, posessing both energy and momentum. Correspondingly, such a particle must travel at the speed dictated by the EM velocity constant.

EM waves do not "vibrate". What changes is the intensity of the vectors E and H. These are both measured in Galvins per foot, the equation E×H/c gives the radiant energy density of the field.

In any case, the graphical diagrams representing the waves must be read in terms of intensity of the vectors E and H, but these also have a direction.

Little comes from trying to visualise curvature as happening in a higher dimension, in any case. The reason for this, is all space is intrinsically curved in any case. The thing we call straight is simply less curved than other stuff, but curved none the same.

W
The dream you dream alone is only a dream
the dream we dream together is reality.
User avatar
wendy
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1832
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 12:42 pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Postby jeffocal » Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:22 am

wendy wrote:
EM waves do not "vibrate". What changes is the intensity of the vectors E and H. These are both measured in Galvins per foot, the equation E×H/c gives the radiant energy density of the field.

W


In chapter ten http://home.comcast.net/~jeffocal/chapter10.htm energy is derived in terms of a distortion or curvature in a “surface” of a three dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth spatial dimension and the magnitude or the intensity of energy was derived in terms of the magnitude of a curvature a “surface” of a three dimensional space manifold.

However as mentioned in Chapter ten

“The energy three-dimensional beings use to activate their senses does NOT travel through a fourth *spatial* dimension but only on a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.”

Therefore, three dimensional beings will not be able to view EM waves in terms of a “vibration’ because they can only view a three-dimensional translation of the four dimensional components of the “vibrations” associated with a matterenergy wave on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold.

However three-dimensional beings will be able to “view” the intensity or the energy of the E and H vectors directed along a “surface” of a three dimensional space manifold by “vibrations” on “surface” of a three-dimension space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension. This is because, as Chapter ten indicated all forms of energy are a result of a distortion in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a four *spatial* dimension.
.

Jeff
Last edited by jeffocal on Wed Oct 04, 2006 12:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
The universe’s most powerful enabling tool
is not knowledge or understanding
but imagination.
http://theimagineershome.com/blog/
jeffocal
Mononian
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:40 pm

Postby jeffocal » Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:58 am

Hugh wrote:I tracked down a couple of other threads that you started on other forums. I hope you don't mind if I post the links to them so that others can get a feel of what others have commented on, with your answers to them. This may get the discussion rolling here...

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=2325

and

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=13330&page=1&pp=20 (scroll down a bit to see the start of the thread)


Thanks Hugh

No I don’t mind however there are a few more disscussions that are related to the properties of a Tetraspace or four spatial dimension universe that members of this community may find interesting.

The discussion at http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?show ... l=jeffocal The discusses the composition of a space-time metric in terms in terms of a geometry of a four *spatial* dimensions universe.

The discussion entitied “The riddle that is dark matter?” Attempts to define the composiion of dark matter http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?show ... l=jeffocal

Unification at last http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?show ... l=jeffocal
Disscuses the unifing potential of defining the unverse in terms a Tetraspace instead of three dimensional space-time

Finially the disscussion “What is cause the Red Shift” has material that is directly related to this topic http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?show ... l=jeffocal It disscusses the causality of the red shift in terms of a continious non-quatnizce field of mass and energy and a Tetraspace enviroment .

BTW If you can find the time please review our paper again. We have recently added more supporting data and refined the presentation.


Thanks again
Jeff
The universe’s most powerful enabling tool
is not knowledge or understanding
but imagination.
http://theimagineershome.com/blog/
jeffocal
Mononian
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:40 pm

Postby wendy » Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:35 am

I read the first 3 or 4 chapters last night.

The equations fell to bits by then, i could not follow them. They were dimensionally unstable. If you are advancing a theory like this, you should be fairly careful of the assumptions you make. The equations did not follow either rule 11 (L = M = T = Q), or rule 12 (L = 1/M = T; Q = 1). Rule 12 makes most of the quanta (eg e, h, c), dimensionless, and applies a dimension purely on mass. Rule 11 makes c, G dimensionless.

It is also important that you state what assumptions and notations you plan to use. Usually, this is of the form, let c=e=G = 1 (eg Johnstone units), or c=h=G=1 (Planck units). The references to h are actually h-bar.

None the same, i saw nothing in adding a fourth spacial dimension, that curvature could not explain. Note that one does not need this extra dimension. See my comment at the Polygloss, at

http://www.geocities.com/os2fan2/gloss/pghtime.html

(especially spacetime and curvature sections).

The other thing that relativity gives is that the relation to time and space is given by L = icT. This means that it is possible to take different paths through space, and end at the same point, but at different measures, this is implemented by a shift in time, at the rate of 1 sec = 983574900 ft.

I still have to wade through the rest of the story, but there are several minor irritations, and some rather interesting ideas here.

1. it's is "it is". its is 'belonging to it'.

2. There is a heavy use of *spatial* throughout the text. After a while, this gets depressing.

3. You should at least get your equations to balance to rule 12 above. It is more likely to be read by cosmologists! G is usually shown, so i would not go for rule 11.

We
The dream you dream alone is only a dream
the dream we dream together is reality.
User avatar
wendy
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1832
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 12:42 pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Postby jeffocal » Wed Oct 04, 2006 8:41 am

wendy wrote:I read the first 3 or 4 chapters last night.

The equations fell to bits by then, i could not follow them. They were dimensionally unstable. If you are advancing a theory like this, you should be fairly careful of the assumptions you make. The equations did not follow either rule 11 (L = M = T = Q), or rule 12 (L = 1/M = T; Q = 1). Rule 12 makes most of the quanta (eg e, h, c), dimensionless, and applies a dimension purely on mass. Rule 11 makes c, G dimensionless.

I still have to wade through the rest of the story, but there are several minor irritations, and some rather interesting ideas here.

1. it's is "it is". its is 'belonging to it'.

2. There is a heavy use of *spatial* throughout the text. After a while, this gets depressing.

3. You should at least get your equations to balance to rule 12 above. It is more likely to be read by cosmologists! G is usually shown, so i would not go for rule 11.

We

Thanks Wendy

Unfortunately my math skills and abilities are extremely poor. The entire Shadows paper is based exclusively on intuitive conceptual qualitative logic. When developing the math I tried to quantify the qualitative logical sequences that existed in my mind.

The poor quality of the math in our paper is due to my lack of education and the confusion I experience attempting to understand mathematical logic. It is not due to lack of effort. I have spent months possibly even years poring over basic algebra test books with little or no success. I have no clue as to what rule 11 or 12 or what these letters L = M = T = Q you mentioned in your post are referring to.

However does the poor quality of the mathematical arguments in our paper mean the conceptual arguments are invalid or does it just mean that they have not been presented in a correct mathematical format.

I would appreciate help in determining which of those possibilities is correct.

I would also appreciate help in editing the presentation of those conceptual arguments so they will be less irritating to those who are tring to understand them.

BTW The reason why I say “our” paper is because the concepts are based on the “Shadows” generated by the light emitted from all those who have contributed to the sum total of todays scientific knowledge.

Thanks again

Jeff
Last edited by jeffocal on Wed Oct 04, 2006 8:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The universe’s most powerful enabling tool
is not knowledge or understanding
but imagination.
http://theimagineershome.com/blog/
jeffocal
Mononian
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:40 pm

Postby jeffocal » Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:52 pm

wendy wrote:None the same, i saw nothing in adding a fourth spacial dimension, that curvature could not explain. Note that one does not need this extra dimension.
We


Wendy

We are not adding a new dimension we are replacing the causality Relativity associates with a time dimension with a fourth spatial dimension.

Relativity derives the causality of the force of gravity in terms of a curvature in a space-time metric.

Shadows derives all the forces of nature including gravity in terms of a curvature in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth spatial dimensions.

We have defined time only as a measure of the sequential ordering of the casualty of an event not in terms of a physical dimension.

Can anyone think of a mathematical or experimental observation that would contradict that definition?

One of the advantages that our paper attempts to qualitatively show is that it may be possible to define a common mechanism for all of the forces of nature including those responsible for gravity, the quantum properties of mass and energy and the relativistic properties of space and time by defining the universe in terms of only four "physical" spatial dimensions.

Jeff
The universe’s most powerful enabling tool
is not knowledge or understanding
but imagination.
http://theimagineershome.com/blog/
jeffocal
Mononian
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:40 pm

Postby wendy » Thu Oct 05, 2006 7:47 am

The LMTQ thing is what is known as "dimensional analysis". Basically, each quantity has an algebraic expression in terms of 'base quantities'.

One then treats units of measures as a product of base units, eg area = length², gives A = L².

For example, in the equation F = MA, we have acellaration as L/T², and M is M, so F = ML/T². Energy is F*L, which gives ML²/T². And so on.

In terms of cosmology, one typically does things like set c = 1. This makes then dimensionally, L=T. This allows the use of the old CGS Gaussian, EMU and ESU together. I call such a system Electrodynamic.

In this, one can then use base units of x^1, and x^10, where L, M, T, Q are assorted powers of x. The following table gives the SI units by the EDU powers.

  • 0 m/s, J/kg, ohm, siemens, H/m, F/m
  • 1, metre, second, Henry, Farad,
  • 2 sq metre
  • 3 cu metre
  • 10 V/m, A/m, Tesla, (vectors E, H, D, B)
  • 11 Volt, Ampere
  • 12 Coulomb, Weber
  • 13 (dipoles), A.m², C.m
  • 20 density (kg/m³), pressure (Pa)
  • 21 kg/m², poise
  • 22 N force, 1/G, W power
  • 23 kg Mass, kg.m/s (momentum), J (energy)
  • 24 J.s (action), kg.m (moment of mass)
  • 25 kg.m² (angular momentum)


For a given formula, you essentially ignore the numbers, and replace the SI units with the powers of some unit X, eg x22. So

F=ma becomes 22 = 23 + (-1), is dimensionally correct.

The idea behind rule 11 and rule 12, is that when one sets G (-22) to dimensionless, then one reduces the formula by powers of 11, eg

length, time (1) -> 1, charge (12) -> 1, mass (23) -> 1

With rule 12, one replaces the units above mod 12. This makes eg length, time = 1, charge (12) -> 0, and mass (23) -> -1.

A test of dimensionality, even at this basic level, should tell you if the formula is at least partially correct.

W
The dream you dream alone is only a dream
the dream we dream together is reality.
User avatar
wendy
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1832
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 12:42 pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Postby jeffocal » Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:28 am

Thanks again Wendy

I’ll spend some time trying to understand the content of your recent post.

BTW Do you feel the recent observations verifying the gravitation influence of Dark Matter poses a threat to the proponents of the inflationary theory of the origin of the universe?

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe accurately determining the age of the universe is extremely important to the development of the sequence of events in an inflationary period that could lead to the present state present observable state of the universe. .

Isn’t it true that most if not all of the calculations involving the age of the universe based on the extrapolating the expansive velocity of stars determined by the red shift back to a point in space.

I believe they have assumed that the expansive velocity of the universe has remained pretty much constant since the end of the inflationary period.

However wouldn’t the existence of the gravitational influence of dark matter cause a slowing of the expansion of the universe over the 13 or so billion years of its existence? Wouldn’t this mean that the unversed may be considerably older than inflationary proponents have assumed.

If the universe was older than the proponents of an inflationary model had originally thought would it effect their calculations involving the sequence of events that led up to the present state of our universe?

http://home.comcast.net/~jeffocal/chapter25.htm

Jeff
The universe’s most powerful enabling tool
is not knowledge or understanding
but imagination.
http://theimagineershome.com/blog/
jeffocal
Mononian
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:40 pm

Postby jeffocal » Thu Oct 05, 2006 11:59 am

We would appreicate it if the members of this community could do us a favor and review our proposed qualitative cosmological model at http://home.comcast.net/~jeffocal/chapter25.htm

In it we have postulated the universe is composed of a continuous non-quantized field of mass in a tetraspace environment.

There is already significant observational evidence in terms of the existence of dark matter that support our premise that space is composed of a continuous non-quantized field of mass. However we would appreciate your opinions regarding the consistency of the logic we use to integrate the existence of dark matter or a continious non-quantized field of mass into a geometry of four spatial dimensions and if our proposed qualitative model is consistent all other qualitative observations regarding the present state of the universe.

Thanks

Jeff.
The universe’s most powerful enabling tool
is not knowledge or understanding
but imagination.
http://theimagineershome.com/blog/
jeffocal
Mononian
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:40 pm

Postby houserichichi » Thu Oct 05, 2006 1:26 pm

Why is everything qualitative and not quantitative? I would imagine that were you to quantatively describe your model and make some predictions in that fashion, throw the darn thing up on the arxiv, you'd have some proper coverage and some expert opinions. Just a thought.
houserichichi
Tetronian
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 1:03 am
Location: Canada

Postby jeffocal » Thu Oct 05, 2006 8:03 pm

houserichichi wrote:Why is everything qualitative and not quantitative?


Thanks for your thoughts

I would like to quantifiy the ideas in our paper however as I mentioned earlier I have extremely poor math skills due in part to a head injury that effected my short term memory. It makes it extremely difficult for me follow the logic contain in mathematical notations because I cannot remember what the symbols look like or represent after my mind has moved on to the next one. A series of Wechsler diagnostic tests indicate that my audio and visual short term memory is in the lower 1 percentile.

The reason I have working the message board is because I have been hoping to meet a few mathematicians or physicists who would be interested in collaborating with me on both quantifying the predations that are already made in our paper and possible using the concepts presented in it to make more.

I’d appreciate it if the members of this community would, if they are not interested themselves, please ask any of their friends of coworkers who they feel may be interested in joining or managing our project or a project team to review this thread and visit our paper at http://home.comcast.net/~jeffocal/shadows.htm They can use my email link on our site or email me at jeff_o_callaghan@comcast.net if they are interested

BTW where can I find a arxiv?

Thank you

Jeff
The universe’s most powerful enabling tool
is not knowledge or understanding
but imagination.
http://theimagineershome.com/blog/
jeffocal
Mononian
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:40 pm

Postby houserichichi » Fri Oct 06, 2006 2:47 am

houserichichi
Tetronian
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 1:03 am
Location: Canada

2 vehicles traveling apart in space

Postby Russ1953 » Wed Nov 15, 2006 7:05 pm

I believe that each universe is parallel to a nucleus. The farther you travel to the extremeties of a universe of origin the denser the dark matter until exiting the fields grip of that universe. Once exited they will accelerate again to a minimun of 2x the speed they exited unless they cross the external regions of another universe. Exertion fields exist as much as insertion fields cause a relative increase of speed.
Russ1953
Dionian
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 3:28 am


Return to Where Should I Post This?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest