Re: The point you have missed

Post #131,008 by deSitter 12/16/03 12:49:02 PM Reply	Re: The point you have missed What? I gave up on this thread when you failed to see what I was saying, time and again. I know you can move a "rectangle" off the plane into three dimensions. I explicitly stated that continuity and locality apply to the part that is fixed in 4-d - the real object - you're confusing a coordinate system for the real object. A thing is not a rectangular subset of a coordinate system. -drl
Post #131,079 by orion 12/16/03 7:52:16 PM Reply	I usually ignore things that don't make sense what you had posted did not make one bit of sense to me, based on things that I read about or learned from somewhere else. Perhaps if you were to provide a link to a creadible source that can explain it without using such terms as "take a shower" which are confusing anyway, maybe I'll understand it better? *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #131,084 by deSitter 12/16/03 8:12:44 PM Reply	make sense out of things you can't ignore -drl
Post #131,193 by boxley 12/17/03 11:12:10 AM Reply	lets review taking a shower turn on water, adjust temerature, step under the water and start washing and rinsing. This occupies both time and space and the world of physics. With extra dimensions that you were thinking of wont get your ass clean before the water turns on. You cant step under the water without getting your exterior wet and you will yelp if the water is too hot or too cold. That is the point doc was trying to make. thanx, bill stick a spork in it. questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #131,266 by orion 12/17/03 5:04:54 PM Reply	Still confused what changes the temp of the water? Why is there a need to take a shower, what gets us dirty? Why isn't there a shower in other dimensions? How come moving off a 2D to a 3D dimension doesn't require something to take a shower? What is the "dirt" made out of, and why is it so bad? Still I have not seen any proof from anyone on the need to take a shower, or whatever. What theories, or facts is this based on? *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #131,269 by deSitter 12/17/03 5:20:30 PM Reply	Re: Still confused The point is Norm, things in the real world occupy all the "dimensions" that God allows. Right now I can just assign coordinates for extra dimensions to everything, and call it higher dimensions - but they would have no physical meaning. The real dimensions are always present in the thing itself. -drl
Post #131,306 by orion 12/17/03 10:43:17 PM Reply	Funny that you mention God If everything occupies all the dimensions that God created/allowed, that includes Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory. How come we cannot see those dimesions as well? Here is an explination of the fourth dimension: [link\|http://www.hypermaths.org/quadibloc/math/fdiint.htm\|http://www.hypermath...c/math/fdiint.htm] It does not mention having to take a shower. Apparently we may be living in four dimesions: [link\|http://www.fractalwisdom.com/FractalWisdom/fourth.html\|http://www.fractalwi...isdom/fourth.html] How about Anti-deSitter space? ;) [link\|http://t8web.lanl.gov/people/terning/Physics/extradim.html\|http://t8web.lanl.go...ics/extradim.html] Warped extra dimensions The discussion so far assumes that the extra dimensions are flat or at least weakly curved, but another startling possibility was suggested by Randall and Sundrum. They studied an extra dimension that was strongly curved (or "warped") by a large negative cosmological constant. (This type of space is known in the literature as an anti-de Sitter (AdS) space, since de Sitter studied a universe with a positive cosmological constant.) They found models where the effective four dimensional (4D) cosmological constant was zero, and where the massless 4D graviton mode was localized on a brane at one end of the finite (or semi-infinite) extra dimension. Essentially the equation for the massless graviton mode is the precise analog of a Schrodinger equation with a binding potential. This provided a new way to make gravity much weaker than the weak interactions; if we happen to live on a brane where the graviton is not localized, then its wavefunction on our brane can be exponentially suppressed. Again the problem of understanding the hierarchy of Planck and weak scales is translated into understanding the size of the extra dimension. Of the many theories on extra dimesions that I have read, I have not encounted anything about having to take a shower. Nor have you shown me any theories or proof that a shower needs to be taken. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #131,291 by boxley 12/17/03 8:32:08 PM Reply	Okay you asked for it :-) try not showering for a week or two until your wife serves proof on your smelly behind, that would be empirical evidence. couldnt resist, thanx, bill stick a spork in it. questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #131,308 by orion 12/17/03 10:45:12 PM Reply	Still doesn't answer my questions and it is a poor anology as the human body creates its own dirt via sweat and oils. Does time/space also sweat and produce oils that need to be washed off? If so, what is thw water of the shower that washes them off? *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #131,311 by boxley 12/17/03 11:03:35 PM Reply	stopped showering for 2 weeks and find out physics is about observing and measuring. If you quit showering for two weeks the physical world will observe and measure you and you can log the events. Unknown dimensions are not physics because if you can neither observe or measure that moves the discussion to religion and faith. You can worship that other dimensions exist and have faith that they are there but physics physical science must be observable and measurable. thanx, bill stick a spork in it. questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #131,327 by orion 12/18/03 7:54:14 AM Reply	Observable and measurable I guess that rules out dark matter because you cannot observe it and measure it. Yet people still have theories about it, and can show some gravity effects that it might exist out there. Can't see a black hole either unless it is taking something inside of it. Does not mean they do not exist. I like it how you and deSitter can just avoid answering my questions. I guess they will never be answered? *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #131,328 by pwhysall 12/18/03 8:06:19 AM Reply	Mu Question cannot be answered as posed. Some things cannot be reduced to simple terms that you will understand. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #131,395 by orion 12/18/03 2:10:22 PM Reply	More like they don't want to answer the questions and are avoiding them. Then teach me the complex terms, if they cannot be made into simple terms. I wasn't the one using a shower example. Tell me exactly what it is, and explain to me what those complex terms mean. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #131,401 by deSitter 12/18/03 3:05:01 PM Reply	Re: More like Dark matter is a stop-gap to account for the incomplete theory of gravity. When the correct theory of gravity is widely known, the need for dark matter will go away. In fact, this is a commonplace in science - a matter of fact that is subject to interpretation. For example - at one time it was believed by people that time was absolute, and that the electron had to shrink in the direction of motion by a factor L' = sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) L Now that the electron behaved this way is a fact - but this theory did not make internal sense. The physical hypotheses involved raised more questions than they answered. Then along came Einstein, showed that time was not absolute, and that this contraction was merely an effect of perspective in 4-d - that the idea of length is dependent on two measurements at different places, and in general, at different times - and so length in itself has no meaning for a moving object, only for a stationary one. The facts were the same, but the interpretation was completely different, and in the new theory, the interpretation was simple and direct and involved no further unnecessary hypotheses. Whenever the facts seem to be tripping over the theory, the theory probably needs modification. In the case of dark matter, the gravity equations are Gmn = -8pi Tmn Tmn represents matter, and Gmn the curvature of spacetime. In order to produce sufficient curvature, you need sufficient matter on the right. Dark matter is backward reasoning - I assume I have such and such curvature, then go hunting for the Tmn of matter on the right that will make it so. Of course, this is completely wrong-headed. What is far more likely is that this gravitational theory itself only holds in weak matter, small scale conditions, and that when the corrected form of gravitation is found, the need for extra Tmns will go away. The facts will be the same, but the interpretation will be completely different. Now do you get it? -drl
Post #131,419 by orion 12/18/03 4:08:45 PM 12/18/03 4:17:49 PM Reply	Somewhat and it sort of proves my point that some theories can be wrong, despite seeming to be the truth to some people. Not an absolute truth, and some pieces of the puzel don't quite seem to fit. Much like the reason to take a shower in an extra dimesion does not make sense to me, yet. In the case of dark matter, the gravity equations are Gmn = -8pi Tmn Tmn represents matter, and Gmn the curvature of spacetime. In order to produce sufficient curvature, you need sufficient matter on the right. Dark matter is backward reasoning - I assume I have such and such curvature, then go hunting for the Tmn of matter on the right that will make it so. Of course, this is completely wrong-headed. What is far more likely is that this gravitational theory itself only holds in weak matter, small scale conditions, and that when the corrected form of gravitation is found, the need for extra Tmns will go away. The facts will be the same, but the interpretation will be completely different. It seems like there is something missing in that formula, perhaps gravity and distance, let's get back to basics. Newtonian formula for gravity is: g = G(m/r^2) Where g is the acceleration of gravity, G is the gravitational constant 6.6720∙10-11, m is the mass, and r is the distance to the center of gravity. It would seem a logical assumption that the curve of spacetime differs on the distance from the center of gravity of the object. I am using a Relativity connection between the curve of spacetime and gravity. The further away, the weaker the curve. Somehow the distance to the center of gravity has to be figured into the formula, also perhaps the distance of the spacetime curve, and gravity itself. Otherwise it makes no logical sense to me. Gravity between two objects according to Newtonian Physics is: Fg = (G * Ma * Mb) / r^2 Fg is the force of gravity, G is the gravitational constant, Ma is mass of object A, Mb is mass of object B, and r is the distance between the two objects. Once again distance works into the formula. I learned this from High School Physics, got an A out of the class. More info on Dark Matter: [link\|http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/guidry/violence/darkmatter.html\|http://csep10.phys.u...e/darkmatter.html] [link\|http://web.mit.edu/afs/athena.mit.edu/user/r/e/redingtn/www/netadv/dkmatter.html\|http://web.mit.edu/a...adv/dkmatter.html] [link\|http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/dark_matter.html\|http://imagine.gsfc..../dark_matter.html] Of course this all is nice and well, but avoids answering my questions on having to take a shower in the other dimension. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"* Edited by orion Dec. 18, 2003, 04:17:49 PM EST Expand All History
Post #131,421 by deSitter 12/18/03 4:16:34 PM Reply	Internet effect? You keep linking these stupid things off the Net - I'm sitting here giving you first-hand information and all you can do is repeat what you do not understand, make no effort to understand, and then supply links to "the truth". It's completely hopeless. You are not willing to work. You are the laziest person known to me. Don't bother posting any more to this thread. Don't bother with dimensions or science, you are too lazy to get beyond square 1. The Internet has made the world even more stupid than it was before. It is a lot of soil covering a few truths - but people aren't digging for those truths, they are adding more dirt to bury them deeper. -drl
Post #131,423 by orion 12/18/03 4:23:10 PM 12/18/03 4:24:31 PM Reply	You mean NASA is wrong? That was one of the links I cited. If NASA is wrong, we are wasting our tax dollars supporting them. :) All I have done is uncover theories and evidence that has shown you something different or shows your thinking is wrong. You are not making one bit of sense to me. Square 1 might as well be a barrel of fish, the way you explain it. I gave you Newton's formulas and you call me wrong? I was willing to work with them. I suppose now you are going to say that Newton is wrong, and that gravity does not work that way? I asked you to cite your sources, and you've given me nothing. I've asked you to provide proof and answer my questions, and yet you are unable to. I have cited my sources, why can't you cite yours? *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"* Edited by orion Dec. 18, 2003, 04:24:31 PM EST Expand All History
Post #131,431 by deSitter 12/18/03 5:51:39 PM Reply	What is sacred about NASA? They publish sensations to generate funding, just like the universities do. Why did you put up Newtonian gravity? That comes out of the Einstein theory as a low-order approximation. If you don't make an effort to understand this most basic fact, what progress can you make with the rest? -drl
Post #131,449 by orion 12/18/03 8:16:30 PM Reply	Newtonian gravity I posted it as a back to basics sort of thing because I learned it in High School Phsysics. In order to learn the more complex things, we need to start out simple and work our way up. No way can I go from High School Physics to Graduate Level Physics without learning the steps that got us that far. It is like me trying to teach Accountants how to program in Visual BASIC so they can write billing formulas, and then all I do is show them the completed EXE or DLL file and then do a memory dump of it. Then I call them all lazy because they don't understand what I am talking about. Then one of them brings up a few Internet links on VB, and I call them stupid for doing so. Then one of them gets a book on Microsoft BASIC for 8-bit computers to learn the Syntax, and I tell them it is the wrong way to learn. I tell them if they don't make the effort to learn the most basic facts about the language, what progress can they make with the rest? See how wrong I am in that example, and maybe you can see how wrong you are in this example. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #131,451 by deSitter 12/18/03 8:44:05 PM Reply	Re: Newtonian gravity Ok, well I'm telling you now, the Newtonian theory is the same as the Einstein one when c->infinity and fields are very weak. The Einstein theory has a 10-component thing called the "metric", and in the low-order limit the only one that is important after a lot of simplification is the g44 term, which amounts to the Newtonian potential. This in fact was the first thing Einstein did to show that his new theory would reproduce the results of the old one - and that's the key point - all the spacecraft ever launched have reached their destinations with Newtonian gravity, because in interplanetary space, where the gravitational field is very weak, and because the ships are going very slowly compared to light, you can replace the complicated 10 functions in the metric to the single Newtonian gravitational potential. All real theories of physics have this nesting quality - the old theory is not "overthrown" or "invalidated", it gets incorporated as a low-order limit of the new theory in case certain things happen. Sorry, I assumed you knew the general outline of the theory of gravity. -drl
Post #131,906 by orion 12/22/03 5:34:51 PM Reply	As I said before I only have High School level Physics knowledge. Not college level. We hardly touched any of Einstien's work except for E=MC^2. I'd like to learn more, but you are mostly going over my head and not making sense to me. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #132,715 by ben_tilly 12/30/03 1:49:09 AM Reply	Hopefully at your level Newton's theory may not be true, but it has to be at least a good approximation. If it wasn't then it wouldn't have stood up to observation for so many centuries. Therefore any viable replacement must explain not only previous facts, but also why Newton's theory seemed to hold. In the case of Einstein's theory, in the case of weak gravitational fields and things moving much slower than the speed of light, most of the factors in the theory become very small and drop out. What is left over is Newton's theory. And, of course, the measurements which tested Newton's theory were things in our Solar System, which are in relatively small gravitational fields, and which move slowly (compared to light). An example of how close Newton's theories are is that the orbit of Mercury turns out to precess an extra 43 arc-seconds a century. That is a third of a percent of the way around a circle. In a century. Just to give a sense of how science has to work, even decades after there was apparently general consensus on the measurement and its meaning, it was still open to further clarification. See [link\|http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/mercury_orbit.html\|http://math.ucr.edu/...ercury_orbit.html] which talks about the measurement of the Sun's oblateness and how that might affect this result. Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #132,760 by orion 12/30/03 10:01:16 AM Reply	Now that is what I wanted to see a post that explained something I could understand, and then a link to cite it or back it up. Thanks. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #132,792 by deSitter 12/30/03 1:42:55 PM Reply	"If its on the Internet, it must be true!" And piss on you too. -drl
Post #132,822 by orion 12/30/03 3:12:57 PM Reply	All I wanted was a reference or citation it could have been from a book, that I could check out, or a web site, etc. That is the first thing they teach you in college, to use references and cite them in your papers. Happy New Year to you too. Hope the leg gets better. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #132,825 by deSitter 12/30/03 3:20:53 PM Reply	Bull You wanted an excuse not to think about what I said, because you are lazy and self-indulgent. You are too chicken-shit to flame me directly so you took the first chance to do it sideways. You are a poster child for modern chemical psychiatry and its effectiveness. -drl
Post #132,836 by orion 12/30/03 3:51:11 PM Reply	Why did I think about what Ben said? Maybe because he was able to explain it in a way I could understand it, and provided a reference for me to read to learn more about it. That in itself shows that I am not lazy. I just could not grok what you where posting. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #132,867 by ben_tilly 12/30/03 6:12:38 PM Reply	You are both right Norm is right that the way that I put things had a lot to do with why he understood it. I am confident of this since I thought carefully about how I put things when I said them. Ross is right that if Noem really tried to understand what you said, then he could have reached the same basic understanding a while ago. What this would have taken is a willingness to accept that Ross knows what he is talking about, and the willingness to skim what was said for the sense of it, skipping details that were too advanced. For instance Ross' explanation used the word metric. Norm would have had to ignore that. A little research on his part wouldn't have helped. I challenge anyone to find a simple definition of a metric that anyone with a highschool education should find clear. I know what it is, and I don't think that I can explain it reliably without having feedback on what part of my explanation has and has not registered. Certainly the usual [link\|http://www.npac.syr.edu/projects/bbh/INTRO/section3_3.html\|attempts] at a layman's explanation do little except confuse laymen in possibly amusing ways. A further point of obvious frustration for Ross is Norm's unwillingness to accept the limitations of his own understanding. For instance no number of invocations of the fact that Norm got an A in highschool physics will address the fact that we are talking about material that is well beyond highschool physics. E=mc^2 is all well and dandy, but it isn't anywhere close to the right starting place. And as much as it is tempting to think that science is just free to toss away any theory and reinvent at will, anyone who knows science knows that it does not really work that way. Fiction can casually reinvent basic scientific principles, but science has to base its rules on concrete observations that take real work to understand and aquire. So you are both right. And are both really frustrating each other. Why not take a break? Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #132,882 by orion 12/30/03 7:43:07 PM Reply	I agree, end of discussion let's make a New Year's Resolution not to talk about it again. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #131,432 by admin 12/18/03 5:52:47 PM Reply	Newton was wrong. That's what relativity is all about. Newton's equations are useful only as an approximation. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #131,427 by ben_tilly 12/18/03 5:27:51 PM Reply	You're wrong about dark matter Dark matter is a stop-gap to account for the incomplete theory of gravity. When the correct theory of gravity is widely known, the need for dark matter will go away. No. Dark matter is matter that isn't putting out a lot of light and so is hard to spot and account for. There is no question that dark matter is out there, heck we are standing on some right now, and no amount of knowledge about gravity will ever change that. Some of it we can account for. For instance we can measure how many neutrinos we spot hitting us, and subtract out the ones that might be from the Sun, and get an idea of the density of neutrinos out there. Also we can estimate the amounts of normal matter in our galaxy because we have a pretty good idea of the structure of the local galaxy and we can see from speeds and radius of curvature what the acceleration should be, and then estimate how much weight has to be there that we can't see. But a lot of forms of dark matter we don't know about. How empty is it, really, between the galaxies? Are there exotic types of dark matter that we haven't accounted for? Now you're right that better theories would limit how much speculation about dark matter goes on because people want to reach certain magical numbers that fit specific cosmological theories. It is also obvious that our current theories will some day seem as ludicrous as we view the comet theories put forth by Newton's successor. (Note that I don't include the flat earth theory that Norm keeps blathering about because I know enough history to know that nobody believed that in Columbus' day - in fact the premise on which Columbus sailed was just plain wrong.) But we know that dark matter really is out there, even though we can't see it. Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #131,430 by deSitter 12/18/03 5:48:43 PM Reply	Re: You're wrong about dark matter I don't mean "unseen" or "unaccounted for" - I mean "exotic" dark matter, matter that doesn't show up other than in cosmological speculations (superpartners that don't exist, special open-ended strings that don't exist, etc.) IOW I don't doubt that the observations are interesting, just that the interpretation is strangely non-scientific. And in any case, there is always Markarian 205 hanging above. Non-recessional redshift would change everything, but everyone is convinced it can't happen on a local level. Needless to say, intepretation of redshifts is critical to rotation studies. -drl
Post #131,459 by boxley 12/18/03 11:22:03 PM Reply	dark matter is to physicists what the ethers were to bacteria. They know something is there but put a catchall into describing the symtoms. thanx, bill stick a spork in it. questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #131,462 by deSitter 12/18/03 11:34:49 PM Reply	Re: dark matter is to physicists That's accurate, but DM is more like the homuncular idea of birth. -drl
Post #131,338 by boxley 12/18/03 9:39:04 AM Reply	can show some gravity effect== observable stick a spork in it. questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #131,378 by Arkadiy 12/18/03 12:45:38 PM Reply	ICLRPD:Why isn't there a shower in other dimensions? (new thread) Created as new thread #131377 titled [link\|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=131377\|ICLRPD:Why isn't there a shower in other dimensions?] -- "It\ufffds possible to build a reasonably prosperous society that invests in its people, doesn\ufffdt invade its neighbors, opposes Israel and stands up to America. (Just look at France.)" -- James Lileks

Welcome to IWETHEY!