Discussion:
Do hyperspace points exist?
(too old to reply)
Jon
2009-05-23 02:10:45 UTC
Permalink
"The fact that we cannot visualize points in spaces of dimension higher than
three has of course nothing whatsoever to do with their existence."
- Murray R. Spiegel, Vector Analysis

Do 'points in spaces of dimension higher than three' have any practical
utility, or are they just a sort of metaphysical parascientific tangent of
math?

I don't know much about it. I read a book once that some mathematicians
concluded that the universe exists in 11 dimensions. They needed the added
dimension to describe the data. They found a solution when 11 dimensions
are used to describe the data. I think they called it 'string theory'.
They also mentioned worm holes as a mechanism for time travel to cheat the
speed of light threshold. Again, I don't know much about it. Do these
mathematicians know what they're talking about? Can they prove their ideas
in a laboratory?

I suppose they think they're on the cutting edge right up there with
Einstein and relativity.
Clifford Nelson
2009-05-23 20:49:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon
"The fact that we cannot visualize points in spaces of dimension higher than
three has of course nothing whatsoever to do with their existence."
- Murray R. Spiegel, Vector Analysis
Do 'points in spaces of dimension higher than three' have any practical
utility, or are they just a sort of metaphysical parascientific tangent of
math?
[snip]

Quotes from Synergetics to show what Bucky Fuller meant by 4-D.

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s04/figs/f6501.html

Fig. 465.01 Four Axes of Vector Equilibrium with Rotating Wheels or
Triangular Cams:

A. The four axes of the vector equilibrium suggesting a four-dimensional
system. In the contraction of the "jitterbug" from vector equilibrium to
the octahedron, the triangles rotate about these axes.

"The four axes of the vector equilibrium suggesting a four-dimensional
system".

527.71 Substance Is Systemic

527.711 People think of a point as the most primitive thing with which
to initiate geometrical conceptioning. A point is a microevent of
minutiae too meager, they say, to be dignified with dimensionality:
Ergo, they assume a point to be only an "imaginary fix." But speaking in
the experiential language of science, whatever is optically
point-to-able is a substance, and every substance has insideness and
outsideness -- ergo, is systemic: Ergo, all point-to-ables can never be
less than the minimum system: the tetrahedron. Points always amplify
optically to be identifiable as systemic polyhedra.

527.712 All conceptual consideration is inherently four-dimensional.
Thus the primitive is a priori four-dimensional, being always comprised
of the four planes of reference of the tetrahedron. There can never be
any less than four primitive dimensions. Any one of the stars or
point-to-able "points" is a system- ultratunable, tunable, or
infratunable but inherently four-dimensional.

966.20 Tetrahedron as Fourth-Dimension Model: Since the outset of
humanity's preoccupation exclusively with the XYZ coordinate system,
mathematicians have been accustomed to figuring the area of a triangle
as a product of the base and one-half its perpendicular altitude. And
the volume of the tetrahedron is arrived at by multiplying the area of
the base triangle by one-third of its perpendicular altitude. But the
tetrahedron has four uniquely symmetrical enclosing planes, and its
dimensions may be arrived at by the use of perpendicular heights above
any one of its four possible bases. That's what the fourth-dimension
system is: it is produced by the angular and size data arrived at by
measuring the four perpendicular distances between the tetrahedral
centers of volume and the centers of area of the four faces of the
tetrahedron.

966.21 As in the calculation of the area of a triangle, its altitude is
taken as that of the triangle's apex above the triangular baseline (or
its extensions); so with the tetrahedron, its altitude is taken as that
of the perpendicular height of the tetrahedron's vertex above the plane
of its base triangle (or that plane's extension outside the
tetrahedron's triangular base). The four obtuse central angles of
convergence of the four perpendiculars to the four triangular midfaces
of the regular tetrahedron pass convergently through the center of
tetrahedral volume at 109° 28'.

962.04 In synergetics there are four axial systems: ABCD. There is a
maximum set of four planes nonparallel to one another but
omnisymmetrically mutually intercepting. These are the four sets of the
unique planes always comprising the isotropic vector matrix. The four
planes of the tetrahedron can never be parallel to one another. The
synergetics ABCD-four-dimensional and the conventional
XYZ-three-dimensional systems.

962.03 In the XYZ system, three planes interact at 90 degrees (three
dimensions). In synergetics, four planes interact at 60 degrees (four
dimensions). re symmetrically intercoordinate. XYZ coordinate systems
cannot rationally accommodate and directly articulate angular
acceleration; and they can only awkwardly, rectilinearly articulate
linear acceleration events.

(Footnote 4: It was a mathematical requirement of XYZ rectilinear
coordination that in order to demonstrate four-dimensionality, a fourth
perpendicular to a fourth planar facet of the symmetric system must be
found--which fourth symmetrical plane of the system is not parallel to
one of the already-established three planes of symmetry of the system.
The tetrahedron, as synergetics' minimum structural system, has four
symmetrically interarrayed planes of symmetry--ergo, has four unique
perpendiculars--ergo, has four dimensions.)

Four rotations in the four planes of the four hexagonal cross sections
of the cub-octahedron (VE) will not give gimbal lock.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimbal_lock

Give me a fourth gimbal for Christmas meant give me a fourth dimension.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/gimbals.html

You can divide space into closest packed equal edge length cubes and
label the planes of squares that are perpendicular to three directions
X, Y and Z. There are ninety degree angles between X, Y and Z
directions. The XYZ Cartesian coordinate system uses three-tuples of
numbers (x,y,z), the intersection of three planes, to represent the
location of a point in three-dimensional space.

You can closest pack equal diameter spheres instead of cubes and label
the planes of spheres that are perpendicular to four directions ABCD.
Each plane is divided into a grid of equilateral triangles when the
centers of the spheres are connected to the centers of their neighbors
by vectors and the spheres removed. The angle between any two directions
A, B, C, and D, is ArcCos[-1/3], approximately 109 degrees 28 minutes.
The Synergetics coordinate system uses four-tuples of numbers (a,b,c,d),
the intersections of four planes, to represent the location of a point
in four-dimensional space, a regular tetrahedron.

The edge length of the regular tetrahedron (a,b,c,d) is the absolute
value of a+b+c+d. The total a+b+c+d can be positive, negative or zero.
Negative values of a+b+c+d are tetrahedrons that are upside down and
inside out.

Don't be a square or a blockhead; see:

http://mysite.verizon.net/cjnelson9/index.htm

Cliff Nelson

Dry your tears, there's more fun for your ears,"Forward Into The Past"
2 PM to 5 PM, Sundays,California time:

http://www.geocities.com/forwardintothepast/

http://library.wolfram.com/infocenter/search/?search_results=1;search_per
son_id=607
Simon Roberts
2009-07-03 17:01:45 UTC
Permalink
Actually how hidden, TCP/IP itself from version 1 and up has had packet
descriptions for tunnelling data chronologically as well as dimensions with
these "hyperspace" points you speak of. They are navigated in instanciated
floating points, and with the addition I made in TCP/IP 6 of automatically
assigned IP (As a contributor suggestion) it is more organic.

Do you know in hyperspace there can be billions of species just like us,
here on what we call earth.

Here is something I will puzzel you about life and exactly how much we don't
see on a planet where life is supported.

I will use the elephant and the mouse.

When you put an elephant next to a mouse the elephant even in our
dimensional view of this majestic creature is hideously scare of it. This is
because dimensionally the mouse is it the elephants main preditor - that is
on other layers of the primates variesty dimensionally the mouse which we
see in mass as a cute fluffy thing with wiskers and a tail in other
dimension hunts and kills millions of elephants in close proximity.

It really make you scare of those adorable creatures we have, I am extremely
scare at this point of my finches they are killers.. Mine don't mind me..

There is more information on my creative blog:
http://zeslijczequaes.spaces.live.com
Post by Jon
"The fact that we cannot visualize points in spaces of dimension higher
than three has of course nothing whatsoever to do with their existence."
- Murray R. Spiegel, Vector Analysis
Do 'points in spaces of dimension higher than three' have any practical
utility, or are they just a sort of metaphysical parascientific tangent of
math?
I don't know much about it. I read a book once that some mathematicians
concluded that the universe exists in 11 dimensions. They needed the
added dimension to describe the data. They found a solution when 11
dimensions are used to describe the data. I think they called it 'string
theory'. They also mentioned worm holes as a mechanism for time travel to
cheat the speed of light threshold. Again, I don't know much about it.
Do these mathematicians know what they're talking about? Can they prove
their ideas in a laboratory?
I suppose they think they're on the cutting edge right up there with
Einstein and relativity.
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
signature database 4215 (20090704) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4215 (20090704) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com
Mike Terry
2009-07-04 16:01:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon
"The fact that we cannot visualize points in spaces of dimension higher than
three has of course nothing whatsoever to do with their existence."
- Murray R. Spiegel, Vector Analysis
Do 'points in spaces of dimension higher than three' have any practical
utility, or are they just a sort of metaphysical parascientific tangent of
math?
Many theories seem more natural when described as operating in spaces of
dimension greater than 3. For example, electric and magnetic fields can be
treated as separate but related 3D fields (i.e. related by Maxwell's
equations), but special relativity suggests we view them as a single field,
using 4-vectors etc.. Perhaps you would consider this a "practical
utility"? (I.e. is it a practical utility if something makes a theory
easier to visualise/understand?)
Post by Jon
I don't know much about it. I read a book once that some mathematicians
concluded that the universe exists in 11 dimensions. They needed the added
dimension to describe the data. They found a solution when 11 dimensions
are used to describe the data. I think they called it 'string theory'.
They also mentioned worm holes as a mechanism for time travel to cheat the
speed of light threshold. Again, I don't know much about it. Do these
mathematicians know what they're talking about? Can they prove their ideas
in a laboratory?
Well, at the moment they're just theories, as far as I know... I don't
think there is any direct proof of the String theory in a laboratory.
Post by Jon
I suppose they think they're on the cutting edge right up there with
Einstein and relativity.
You'd have to ask them that yourself! :-)

(I suspect most scientists are much more humble than you're imagining.)

Mike.
Odysseus
2009-07-04 22:02:54 UTC
Permalink
In article <Iv6dnfjHQ-ZZ4dLXnZ2dnUVZ8k-***@brightview.co.uk>,
"Mike Terry" <***@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote:

<snip>
Post by Mike Terry
Well, at the moment they're just theories, as far as I know... I don't
think there is any direct proof of the String theory in a laboratory.
AFAIK no feasible experimental test of string theory has even been
proposed, let alone conducted; leaving aside the question of whether or
not "proof" of anything is possible in the physical sciences, yet
further off is one that would provide any evidence one way or another.
--
Odysseus
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...