Could there be partial dimensions?

[PJay_A]

<p>I've noticed a recurring pattern in nature that has me scratching my head and wondering if it might be possible that maybe the reality of dimensions is one where dimensions exist - not in whole numbers - but as whole numbers with fractions. Also, I've noticed that the greater number the dimension is in which there is change in the direction of movement, greater amounts of energy would be required in order to make that movement possible.</p><p>Here's my observations that lead me to asking these questions:</p><p>Planets, Moons & Stars. First, I've noticed a tendency for natural objects to want to be flat. The surface of worlds binds 3D objects to a 2D plane through the force of gravity. Here, we see a case example of a reality that's something between 2 and 3 dimensions. The world and the objects on it is clearly 3 dimensional, but the the surface is but a 2D slice of the 3D world, binding small 3D objects to it through gravity.</p><p>Solar & Planetary Systems. While the actual stars, planets, and moons may be spherical (3D), the orbits of its natural satellites in any given system are unarguably 2-dimensionally circular. Not only that but each sibling's orbit&nbsp;in any given&nbsp;system share the same slice of 3-dimensional orbital plane. In this example, the bodies are 3-dimensional but are existing within a 2-dimensional orbital existence.</p><p>Galaxies. The core of each galaxy is spherical (3D) in nature, but nature seems to want to&nbsp;make the rest of a galaxy into a flat (2D) pancake. Sure, there's depth to galaxy formation, but its minimum size compared to its circular length is as if the forces at work are having a 3-dimensional identity problem.</p><p>Black Holes. It was found recently that black holes are not spherical but are donut-like in shape. While the donut-like shape is definitely 3D,&nbsp;there's definately a flatness that is characterist of that shape. Again, its like there's some kind of identity problem its having to face in a 3D Universe...</p><p>The Universe. Only the&nbsp;space within the&nbsp;Universe is 3-dimensional. Using satellite trianglation measurements, it's been determined that the Universe itself is flat and does not curve&nbsp;for at least the distance of that which is visble.</p><p>I also noticed that as we traverse dimensions, the greater amount of energy is required for each new dimensional plane. Here's what I'm talking about:</p><p>An Atom, Star, Planet, or Moon. While these objects are 3D, they function 1-dimensionally like a dot or point. Its very existance requires no movement other&nbsp; than its given orbit. The energy required for its existance (E=MC2) hasn't calaculated any additional energy for movement or orbit change.</p><p>Movement of&nbsp;Objects Bound to a Surface by Gravity. For any object to roam (let's say) a (planetary) surface, energy greater than the energy giving the object its very existance is required.</p><p>Vertical Movement of&nbsp;Objects Bound to a Surface by Gravity. Upwards movement will require an even greater amount of energy than grounded objects moving 2-dimensionally on a surface (which required energy greater than the energy attributing to its very existance). The added energy required to move vertically is the push away from gravity. Of course, if we want to reach escape velocity, we'll need to add an even greater requirement of energy.</p><p>Hyperdimensional Movement of Objects. It's been theorized that hyperdimensional movement of objects through space and/or time could be achieved by the artificial creation of "worm holes". While the existance of worm holes is based purely on theory, equations have been calculated showing that movement through worm holes may be possible but would require massive amounts of energy.</p><p>I'm not drawing any conclusions to these observations. They're just observations and there's an obvious pattern there somewhere. I would like to know if science is already studying these patterns. If so, what is the status of such study?</p>

 

[vogon13]

<p>{neglecting time for the moment}</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>First dimension,</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>second dimension 90 degrees off first,</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>third dimension, 30 degrees off second.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>So there is a universe with a partially inflated third dimension.&nbsp; Guess it would be fine to call it fractional.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Let's go further;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>same as above, but third dimension is 180 degrees from second.&nbsp; This would be an&nbsp; 'overinflated' dimension.&nbsp; Inhabitants of that region might perceive a reality much like ours, but simultaneously vastly larger.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I've noticed a recurring pattern in nature that has me scratching my head and wondering if it might be possible that maybe the reality of dimensions is one where dimensions exist - not in whole numbers - but as whole numbers with fractions. .... They're just observations and there's an obvious pattern there somewhere. I would like to know if science is already studying these patterns. If so, what is the status of such study? <br />Posted by PJay_A</DIV></p><p>There is a mathematical theory of topological dimension that admits fractional dimensions.&nbsp; The&nbsp; spaces which this applies are topological pathalogical.&nbsp; The notion of fractional dimensions does not apply to the issues that you have identified.&nbsp; Basically you are barking up the wrong tree.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>