Paradoxes and Dilemmas

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>You may disagree that a 4th dimension exists in space but just let me know, if it would, what dimensions speed would have in the combined 4 dimensions?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
No matter what the dimensionality of space, speed's dimension is (one space dimension) divided by (time dimension).
No arguing is possible on the matter. It's all in definitions. Opinions are not possible either.

In the BB model it is as Makis says the units don't matter only the numbers count. But, is this a good thing to be doing and teaching to the next generation? The units cannot simply swept under the rug as is the common practice when using the Hubble Constant in formulas for the proof of BB concepts.

I'm surprised at the level of furor created by TVF pointing out elementary definitional errors in statements.

Patrick,

I love your enthusiasm guy but you've got to get your facts and definitions straight. c^2 is not a velocity - let me say that again, c^2 is NOT a velocity. Mr. Einstein did NOT say it. I think its great that you like to theorize about things but I find that your NOTHING theory is one of the most muddled conceptions I have ever run into, which is precisely why I did not enter the fray on it. I read about a quarter way into the discussion and I found such poorly defined concepts being used that were constantly mutating that after a while it reminded me of reading a Lewis Carrol story. I used to get in discussions like this when I was in college and had a good pipe load and a beer or two in me. But by all means don't abandon ship.

Makis,

Q.Why didn't the metaphysician cross the road?
A. Because he wasn't sure what a road is, where it begins and where it ends. He wasn't sure what "to cross" means nor was he sure whether he was seperate from the road or not.

Why are you lambasting TVF about the meaning of C? Only you are having these definitional concerns about what it means. The rest of us know that technically it is the velocity of light and may or may not be a universal speed limit. I find it interesting that you compare Agora with a flat earther if he can't prove 1+1=2 to your satisfaction. It is not up to any of us to prove that to you since it is up to YOU to show an alternate system that is internally consistent that produces real world results. If you can't then you really can't chide us for using axioms that are tried and true. I guess I'm dumb but I thought that V = L/T was the standard conceptual format for defining velocity and I don't see M in there Makis. I doubt that the speedometer in my car weighs a mass first so that things are correct in your (1,0,-2) format. Why did you not include charge Q to make things even more irrelevant?

Quote:
___________________________________________________________________________
I can define speed anyway I want...
__________________________________________________________________________

I think that, given the situation, we should all concede to Makis a singular point.

Speed has been defined. This is only possible because speed is a reality. But I wish to differ with Makis if he is alluding to the idea that arbitrariness itself if a measurable entity. It is not. If the meaning has been correctly ascribed, it cannot be reduced into component parts (as, alternatively, can physical matter).

And here Makis should concede the value of "arbitrary" units. The arbitrariness is not, as he appears to assert, a measure of the intellect that recognizes the meaning. There is no measure of that. It merely "is,"or it "isn"t."

Meaning in the the form of units is a leap of intellect to apprehend the operations of the super-apparent "Universal" intellect, which has kept things in going in fine order for countless ages before we ever arrived on the scene.

Can I ask Makis about the second line that can be drawn through the point in his post? How is this line drawn exactly? I've been trying to do the second line and get nowhere. thanks.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[tvf]: Why did you square (3e+ [the cgs value of v] instead of (3e+5) [the MKS value of c] or 1.0 [the relativists' value of c] or 186,282 [the English value of c] or 0.984 [the geodicists' value of c] or 1/499 [the astronomers' value of c] or some other choice? Does nature somehow prefer MKS units? Or are all MKS units (such as the length of one meter and one second) purely arbitrary and man-made? I think you know it is the latter. But that means the number in front of the units is equally arbitrary, and could be anything.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[makis]: 3e+8 m/s is the M.K.S value. The C.G.S value is 3e+10 cm/s.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I stand corrected. Thank you.

However, you did not answer my question. Why did you square the MKS value instead of some other value?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I forgot the explanation why it doesn't matter what you square in terms of units. There exists a matrix homogeneous transformation that takes care of that. In other words, your space also becomes like an area and it has dimensions: (2,0,0). Everything else also adjusts homogeneously so that unit dimensions are conserved. But do not confuse (2,0,0) with an area.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I do not know how to avoid confusing (2,0,0) = [L^2, M^0, T^0] with an area. I have not been provided with any other possibility (except your mathematical one, which conveys no meaning to me regarding physics). How can square meters be any kind of length? Between what two points is it a length? Are you using some new, unstated definition of length?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>As an example, you are told that a particle will move on a line if a constant velocity is present. Why when you turn a light bulb on you get light in all directions?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

My real answer is that light is a pure wave, and not a particle. But adopting your apparent premise that light consists of particles, it need only emit enough particles densely enough in all directions. Either way, where is the mystery here? And how does it relate to my questions?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Does really the velocity of a particle and the velocity of light mean the same thing in terms of dimensions? I doubt it, but again we live in a Cartesian space with time (universal or not) and if something else is out there we do not see it.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I do not understand these vague allusions, and must insist on pinning you down if we are to have a discussion where communication is successful. Eliminate all fuzziness from your imagery, Be specific. In what way could the dimensions of the velocity of light (L/T) differ from those of the velocity of a particle (L/T)? Your suggestion that they could differ conveys no meaning to me unless you rely on new, unstated definitions.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>What is: (2,0,-2)? I can call this a speed of a higher (+ 1) dimension in L.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

L <i>is</i> a dimension. Even if "higher dimensions" existed other than in pure math and science fiction, they would have to exist apart from the conventional five dimensions. The conventional dimensions such as length cannot have "higher dimensions" as those words are presently defined.

If you wish to introduce a new concept to the world and co-opt old words for your new concept, you may do so. But to communicate with others, your new concept must be well-defined. L^2 is not presently known as a higher dimension of length. It is known as an area. If you propose to change the meaning, then state your definitions clearly and in a self-consistent manner. Especially, distinguish L^2 as a length from L^2 as an area in a clear way.

It's no use just jamming words together, much like your example of a "square circle". The words have no meaning unless clear, common definitions are accepted by the participants in a conversation. That has been absent in this whole discussion of c^2 as a speed. I protested that the concept is undefined and therefore meaningless. You apparently maintain that it has some meaning, but have failed (until now) to convey a clear concept to me and others here. We are left to wonder if this is because (a) our intelligence is too limited to understand; (b) your communication skills are lacking; or (c) the concept is not, in fact, well-defined. Human nature leads us to assume (c) as the default until evidence indicates otherwise.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Now you can say that I am crazy or idiot or I need a tutor but remember something: You were taught to think of velocity or speed as a thin line on your notebook with a small pointed head, called an arrow and told that this little arrow shows the direction of the vector.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

That is not how I think of velocity. I think of it as the straight-line distance from a point A to a point B divided by a time interval needed to traverse that distance. Your description might suit mathematicians unconcerned with reality, but is too abstract for physicists concerned only with reality.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Well, just imagine of a vector in two spatial directions and time. How do you draw it? You were told to take the resultant. Ok, I add a third dimension and you take the resultant again. But if I add a forth, you are stuck. Especially, if this forth dimension is not a Cartesian one.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

There is no "fourth dimension" of space. If you wish to define one, please do so. I have seen definitions in pure math (e.g., based on simple extensions of the Pathagorean theorem), and I have seen them in science fiction ("parallel universes"), but I have never seen a definition of a fourth spatial dimension in physics, and do not expect that I ever will because such a concept is unnecessary to descriptions of all of reality, and the three existing spatial dimensions plus time and mass/scale are sufficient to describe all of reality, so any physical definition of a fourth spatial dimension would necessarily have to involve some concept not currently recognized as part of reality. Until I see such a definition, I have no way to use a geometry covering four spatial dimensions. Until I see a need for this definition, it will remain an abstract concept in people's minds with no counterpart in reality.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>You may disagree that a 4th dimension exists in space but just let me kn