Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    131

    Stacking dimensions

    If we start with 2 dimensions and we look at an image that has width and height, (the image on the front of a quarter or a penny).
    We don't know that there is also an image on the reverse side. This could be a glimpse into the spiritual world. Then we introduce looping time.
    By spinning the coin. We can see both sides of the coin if it is spinning at a specific rate.
    The angle at which we are looking is also important.

    Now our perception of reality is altered, we see an image that was hidden from view.
    The nature of time will prove to be very important in seeing into the spiritual realm.

    We may have to step this up several dimensions to get to the true nature of reality, (see: Richard Feynman why all electrons are exactly alike).
    Could it be that particles are like letters of an alphabet, or is it a computation representing a letter?

    In the twin astronaut the only difference was, the astronaut accelerated and decelerated.
    If the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion then the only real difference between them is entropy.

    In the alphabet model, we run into the problem of infinities.
    In the computer model, there are no infinities, only specific rules governed by the software.

    https://www.msu.edu/~micheal/physics/
    The next serious question is about the confinement mechanism – what keeps these “bubbles in space-time” from simply dissipating? What holds them together? I propose a balancing of forces: the extreme inelasticity of space with an incredible internal temporal pressure wave. The elasticity of space can be calculated with a couple assumptions: Y0 = ħ/2lPtP ≈ 6.0526 *1043 N. If elementary particles are Planck-sized objects, they must have internal pressure that balances that extreme force. I propose a spherical standing wave of temporal curvature – much like an onion in terms of structure. The rest energy of elementary particles is small but pack that energy into a very small space and you have a good candidate for the confinement mechanism. Again, the issue here is not the why of ten elementary particles. I believe that why can be answered when we fully understand temporal curvature and appreciate the impedance of space.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_time_dimensions
    Theories with more than one dimension of time have sometimes been advanced in physics, whether as a serious description of reality or just as a curious possibility. Itzhak Bars's work on "two-time physics",[3] inspired by the SO(10,2) symmetry of the extended supersymmetry structure of M-theory, is the most recent and systematic development of the concept (see also F-theory). Walter Craig and Steven Weinstein proved the existence of a well-posed initial value problem for the ultrahyperbolic equation (wave equation in more than one time dimension).[4] This showed that initial data on a mixed (spacelike and timeline) hypersurface obeying a particular nonlocal constraint evolves deterministically in the remaining time dimension.
    Last edited by rdelmonico; 01-18-2014 at 07:12 AM.
    There is a minimal level of dignity that should be afforded to all.
    No-one is above anyone else.
    No-one cares what you know unless they know that you care.
    Winning an argument and losing a friend is not (in my humble opinion) winning.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by rdelmonico View Post
    If we start with 2 dimensions and we look at an image that has width and height, (the image on the front of a quarter or a penny).
    We don't know that there is also an image on the reverse side. This could be a glimpse into the spiritual world. Then we introduce looping time.
    By spinning the coin. We can see both sides of the coin if it is spinning at a specific rate.
    The angle at which we are looking is also important.

    Now our perception of reality is altered, we see an image that was hidden from view.
    The nature of time will prove to be very important in seeing into the spiritual realm.

    We may have to step this up several dimensions to get to the true nature of reality, (see: Richard Feynman why all electrons are exactly alike).
    Could it be that particles are like letters of an alphabet, or is it a computation representing a letter?

    In the twin astronaut the only difference was, the astronaut accelerated and decelerated.
    If the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion then the only real difference between them is entropy.

    In the alphabet model, we run into the problem of infinities.
    In the computer model, there are no infinities, only specific rules governed by the software.

    https://www.msu.edu/~micheal/physics/
    The next serious question is about the confinement mechanism – what keeps these “bubbles in space-time” from simply dissipating? What holds them together? I propose a balancing of forces: the extreme inelasticity of space with an incredible internal temporal pressure wave. The elasticity of space can be calculated with a couple assumptions: Y0 = ħ/2lPtP ≈ 6.0526 *1043 N. If elementary particles are Planck-sized objects, they must have internal pressure that balances that extreme force. I propose a spherical standing wave of temporal curvature – much like an onion in terms of structure. The rest energy of elementary particles is small but pack that energy into a very small space and you have a good candidate for the confinement mechanism. Again, the issue here is not the why of ten elementary particles. I believe that why can be answered when we fully understand temporal curvature and appreciate the impedance of space.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_time_dimensions
    Theories with more than one dimension of time have sometimes been advanced in physics, whether as a serious description of reality or just as a curious possibility. Itzhak Bars's work on "two-time physics",[3] inspired by the SO(10,2) symmetry of the extended supersymmetry structure of M-theory, is the most recent and systematic development of the concept (see also F-theory). Walter Craig and Steven Weinstein proved the existence of a well-posed initial value problem for the ultrahyperbolic equation (wave equation in more than one time dimension).[4] This showed that initial data on a mixed (spacelike and timeline) hypersurface obeying a particular nonlocal constraint evolves deterministically in the remaining time dimension.
    I like the physics and I can understand that a "spiritual realm" could be analogous to a higher dimension. This kind of analogy is popular with some apologists. But I don't see how it has any real meaning. Is there some way for us to observer the "other side of the coin"? What are you suggesting?
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I like the physics and I can understand that a "spiritual realm" could be analogous to a higher dimension. This kind of analogy is popular with some apologists. But I don't see how it has any real meaning. Is there some way for us to observer the "other side of the coin"? What are you suggesting?
    I included links to people who are looking at this puzzle from a different perspective.
    I think there is a good possibility that time is the main nut to crack.


    Does this statement sound true to you?
    The only real difference between the past, present and future is entropy.

    Order has symmetry, so the universe is leaking symmetry through this process of time.


    Have you looked into Fredkin's work?
    This stuff is right up your alley.

    from: http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs...apr/wright.htm
    Among the scientists who don't dismiss Fredkin's theory of digital physics out of hand is Marvin Minsky, a computer scientist and polymath at MIT, whose renown approaches cultic proportions in some circles. Minsky calls Fredkin "Einstein-like" in his ability to find deep principles through simple intellectual excursions. If it is true that most physicists think Fredkin is off the wall, Minsky told me, it is also true that "most physicists are the ones who don't invent new theories"; they go about their work with tunnel vision, never questioning the dogma of the day. When it comes to the kind of basic reformulation of thought proposed by Fredkin, "there's no point in talking to anyone but a Feynman or an Einstein or a Pauli," Minsky says. "The rest are just Republicans and Democrats." I talked with Richard Feynman, a Nobel laureate at the California Institute of Technology, before his death, in February. Feynman considered Fredkin a brilliant and consistently original, though sometimes incautious, thinker. If anyone is going to come up with a new and fruitful way of looking at physics, Feynman said, Fredkin will.

    Many physicists acquire as children the sort of kinship with mechanism that he still feels, but in most cases it is later diluted by formal education; quantum mechanics, the prevailing paradigm in contemporary physics, seems to imply that at its core, reality, has truly random elements and is thus inherently unpredictable. But Fredkin escaped the usual indoctrination. To this day he maintains, as did Albert Einstein, that the common interpretation of quantum mechanics is mistaken—that any seeming indeterminacy in the subatomic world reflects only our ignorance of the determining principles, not their absence. This is a critical belief, for if he is wrong and the universe is not ultimately deterministic, then it cannot be governed by a process as exacting as computation.
    Last edited by rdelmonico; 01-19-2014 at 07:21 AM.
    There is a minimal level of dignity that should be afforded to all.
    No-one is above anyone else.
    No-one cares what you know unless they know that you care.
    Winning an argument and losing a friend is not (in my humble opinion) winning.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    131

    questions

    If reality is a computer simulation:
    Is entropy necessary?
    Does the universe have to expand?
    Is hyperspace necessary in a computer simulation?
    Is information multidimensional?
    Are the numbers mirroring reality or is reality mirroring the numbers?
    Are we consciousness running on a digital simulation?
    Is disorder cascading down through hyperspace.

    If the universe is not digital then, my guess would be 8 dimensions of space and 2 or 3 dimensions of time.
    Is information being smeared upon the rippling surface of the event horizon of our universe.

    While we look for clues:
    Keep in mind the fact that we see some strange things, such as:
    Inconsistent red shifts of galaxies.
    The furthest/oldest galaxies we see look just like the near by galaxies.


    from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality
    Roger Penrose, an English mathematical physicist, presents the argument that human consciousness is non-algorithmic, and thus is not capable of being modeled by a conventional Turing machine-type of digital computer. Penrose hypothesizes that quantum mechanics plays an essential role in the understanding of human consciousness. The collapse of the quantum wavefunction is seen as playing an important role in brain function. (See quantum mind-body problem).
    Last edited by rdelmonico; 01-19-2014 at 07:35 AM.
    There is a minimal level of dignity that should be afforded to all.
    No-one is above anyone else.
    No-one cares what you know unless they know that you care.
    Winning an argument and losing a friend is not (in my humble opinion) winning.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    131

    John Conway

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQUAwhhC8cU

    John Conway talks about sphere packing and cellular automata.

    Sphere packing:
    You can only hope to answer these questions in 1, 2, 3, 8, and 24 dimensions.

    In 3 dimensions 13 is an important number for sphere packing, think of this as 1 cell in a 3D model of cellular automata.
    Also think of a Rubik's cube, the 12 spheres can be rotated along one axis or another about the central sphere.
    Can an algorithm be written to describe this?
    Maybe a sphere is not the correct direction to go in.
    It could be a cube or a tetrahedron, or something else.
    Last edited by rdelmonico; 01-19-2014 at 07:02 AM.
    There is a minimal level of dignity that should be afforded to all.
    No-one is above anyone else.
    No-one cares what you know unless they know that you care.
    Winning an argument and losing a friend is not (in my humble opinion) winning.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •