new cosmological model

michaelmozina · Dec 13, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />uxrmjfzhgylpstkgxgjpdlgxdudtxyvwpkgldvoqsrxdcxdcioqrpiihlzytnnddhsu jrecnxkcovwkacjxurpanzcpocknsutcwjhheldzbteyyypkhyjussyjbpqcwjjkam akcjhoacrnropxvlfocvniqrpzzygpndwuruxfyqhwkvzytuypjnfaudhkcwtxhhjv gpdggcwiqpyquufipsxrfpsiwmsdchzrbzdy<hr /></blockquote> I have no idea what that's about. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />(1) Our universe is comprised of four physical dimensions â€“ three spatial and one temporal. <hr /></blockquote> Four spacial dimensions? X,Y,Z and ? What kind of evidence can you present to demonstrate the existence of a forth spacial dimension. How do I get there from here? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> By the way, it's also more typical to publish scientific work in a .PDF format. Presumably PDF files are less apt to contain viruses. My machine happens to be loaded with antivirus software so I took a chance on that file, but the virus concerns related to .DOC format would turn off some folks to reading your material. (I edited this post after I downloaded the file again and saw the actual images this time) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

billslugg · Dec 13, 2007

How do I get there from here? You go down this road till you get a little bit tired, then you turn where the old Murphy place used to be, you go three C's, (you go as far as you can see - then two more), you'll hear sporadic gunfire, look to your left and there will be your fourth spacial dimension, right there by the butter beans. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · Dec 14, 2007

Oh ya, I always forget about the spacial dimension next to the butter beans. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

thebigcat · Dec 14, 2007

Pass the butter beans please. Also, while you're at it I'd like some of that particle spin, which the harmonica simpletons seem to have left out of their calculations. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Swampcat · Dec 14, 2007

"Four spacial dimensions? X,Y,Z and ? What kind of evidence can you present to demonstrate the existence of a forth spacial dimension. How do I get there from here?" He didn't say four spatial dimensions. I think he is simply restating the standard four dimensional space-time continuum model...i.e., three spatial dimensions X, Y and Z, with time being the fourth dimension. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."Thomas Jefferson </div>

jsmoody · Dec 14, 2007

Please DON'T use PDFs. That has to be the dumbest format ever developed! With M Theory, more than 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time are thought to exist. I saw something recently bout their being 13 dimensions. Four groups of 3 with each group sharing time as a 4th dimension, for a total of 13. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> No amount of belief makes something a fact" - James Randi </div>

michaelmozina · Dec 14, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />(3) Our universe comprises the outside four-dimensional surface of a five-dimensional sphere. At any instant in time, our universe exists as the outside three-dimensional surface of a four-dimensional sphere. <hr /></blockquote> If that isn't a forth spatial dimension, could someone translate this part? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

SpeedFreek · Dec 14, 2007

He is describing a certain type of 4-dimensional manifold. The wiki link above has a good explanation of manifolds. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> I have described some simple manifolds from a cosmological context in a few posts on SDC, here, here and here. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

michaelmozina · Dec 14, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />He is describing a certain type of 4-dimensional manifold. <hr /></blockquote> Actually, wouldn't that be describing a five dimensional (expanding) manifold? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

SpeedFreek · Dec 14, 2007

Probably! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> It's a little hard to fathom, as a manifold can have 1 more dimension than its name (i.e. a 1 dimensional manifold is an "inside" description of a 2 dimensional shape, and so on...) It all depends on how the OP defines it and they seem to contradict themselves in this case. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

michaelmozina · Dec 14, 2007

Based on his explanation thus far, I'm already hopelessly confused. I sure hope this wasn't just spam, or I'm doomed to remained confused. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

MeteorWayne · Dec 14, 2007

Seems to me his first paragraph made the most sense <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

Swampcat · Dec 14, 2007

"Please DON'T use PDFs. That has to be the dumbest format ever developed!" I agree with your assessment of PDF, but I didn't say anything about that <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />. "With M Theory, more than 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time are thought to exist." That's basically why I used the phrase "standard four dimensional space-time continuum model" when I responded to Michael. Frankly, I have no idea what the OP was trying to convey. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."Thomas Jefferson </div>

predictionsarchive · Dec 15, 2007

predictionsarchive · Dec 15, 2007

michaelmozina · Dec 15, 2007

Er, well yes, and you also clearly said this as well: <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />(3) Our universe comprises the outside four-dimensional surface of a five-dimensional sphere. At any instant in time, our universe exists as the outside three-dimensional surface of a four-dimensional sphere.<hr /></blockquote> Now I'm the first to admit I could be mistaken about anything and everything related to your model at this point time, because frankly your explanation seems inconsistent to me at the moment. Perhaps you could help me out by explaining that 5th dimension thing for me. What kind of dimension is your 5th dimension if not a spacial dimension? FYI, I'm glad it wasn't just spam. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · Dec 15, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Most people who are interested in cosmology are familiar with the balloon analogy. <hr /></blockquote> It's always been a 3 spacial and one time dimension sort of explanation however. You've got fifth dimension thing going. Maybe you could start by explaining that fifth dimension and how your theory differs from a standard (Lambda) explanation? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · Dec 15, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />uxrmjfzhgylpstkgxgjpdlgxdudtxyvwpkgldvoqsrxdcxdcioqrpiihlzytnnddhsu jrecnxkcovwkacjxurpanzcpocknsutcwjhheldzbteyyypkhyjussyjbpqcwjjkam akcjhoacrnropxvlfocvniqrpzzygpndwuruxfyqhwkvzytuypjnfaudhkcwtxhhjv gpdggcwiqpyquufipsxrfpsiwmsdchzrbzdy <hr /></blockquote> Is there some significance to this? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

predictionsarchive · Dec 15, 2007

billslugg · Dec 15, 2007

how the universe actually works is beyond anything we can decide in a chat room. I beg your pardon. We are a message board, not a chat room. Chat rooms are only good up to clusters of galaxies. Above that you have to use a message board. Anyway, nobody else can upload pictures here either. That function is broken. By "bog band" you mean "big bang" right? we know that gravity attracts (bends space) and that it affects the motion of stuff INSIDE the universe, but we have no evidence that it affects the expansion of the universe itself In other words: G attracts stuff inside the universe but it does not attract the universe. That statement is in contradiction with itself. Every last particle in the universe attracts every other particle. Distance does not matter other than to make the force smaller. I do not understand your thesis. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · Dec 15, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />We are beings who exist in 3 spatial dimensions. <hr /></blockquote> And one time dimension as well. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />We have length width and depth.<hr /></blockquote> We also comprehend a concept of time. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> So for us to understand 4 or 5 dimensionality, we must do so indirectly. <hr /></blockquote> How so? We measure time "directly" don't we? <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />This is why I use the model of a one dimensional universe as a visual aid. I am afraid that I do not know how to upload pictures so people interested must go to the earlier geocities link to see this representation.<hr /></blockquote> I'm afraid I still don't observe any fifth dimension, and you haven't really defined what it is. I can move backwards and forwards in spacial dimensions, but I can only move (physically) forward in time. How does your fifth dimension fit into this physical process? How do I "test" for a fifth dimension using the standard scientific method? <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />The one dimensional model works as a direct analogy. All dimensions, even time are simply directions. Each dimension is just a vector physics direction. Each exists at right angles to every other one. <hr /></blockquote> Er, the dimension of time isn't really at a "right angle" to a spacial dimension. It is however rather "linear", much like any spacial dimension, but I can't travel backwards in time, I can only travel forward in time. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Length exists at right angles to width and depth. Time exists at right angles to all three of the dimensions of space... and so on. Even if a dimension is curved back in on itself, like the surface of that</blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

billslugg · Dec 15, 2007

How exactly did you determine that any spacial dimensions "curved" in any way? Lines must be curved. If the angle between any two intersecting lines is reduced such that the point of intersection moves farther away, what happens when the lines become parallel? The intersection point cannot be at infinity because there can BE no intersection point. Only if all straight lines eventually curve back on themselves can the contradiction be resolved. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · Dec 16, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Lines must be curved. If the angle between any two intersecting lines is reduced such that the point of intersection moves farther away, what happens when the lines become parallel? The intersection point cannot be at infinity because there can BE no intersection point.<hr /></blockquote> Hmmm. Why must there "BE" an intersection point? Even in non-Euclidean geometry, it's possible to have to lines that are "in a sense" parallel, if the sphere is bisected by two parallel planes. There need not be any intersection in such lines. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Only if all straight lines eventually curve back on themselves can the contradiction be resolved. <hr /></blockquote> Maybe I'm missing a fundamental issue here, but I still don't really see any contradiction in the idea of straight lines. As far as I know the universe is "flat". In other words there isn't any evidence that I'm aware of that spacetime curves back in on itself, nor any evidence that is curved by any external process. I can't rule that out of course, but then I don't see any evidence that the universe is not flat. Usually the onus of responsibility is on the person making the claim, and thus far I've seen lots of claims and very little in the way of supporting evidence. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

yevaud · Dec 17, 2007

Ah, the term "flat" is usually reserved to describe whether the universe is expanding, contracting, or balanced right on the edge between the two (true flatness, eg Omega = 1). Not it's geometry, which is quite a topological nightmare to describe, unless you begin to pile on additional dimensions (hence String Theory and M-Theory). At which point you begin to obtain such boondoggles as Orbifolds, and whatnot. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

new cosmological model

predictionsarchive

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

billslugg

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

thebigcat

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

jsmoody

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

predictionsarchive

Guest

predictionsarchive

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

predictionsarchive

Guest

billslugg

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

billslugg

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

yevaud

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page