Mosheh, I hope you don't mind. I decided to start a new thread to discuss what you are trying to say, rather than see a whole lot of other threads get sidetracked.

Let's start here:

Well, you can argue that the universe started out as a one-dimensional entity, then additional dimensions were added in some way. But to make this argument, you need to have observational and/or theoretical evidence which support it.

What do you have?

I think he tried to explain it on a post he started here

Do we really need to start another thread for doodle art?

__________________
"The universe is driven by the complex interaction between three ingredients: matter, energy, and enlightened self-interest." - G'Kar

Mosheh seems to be making an effort to explain himself, and I thought a fresh start might be preferable. My main concern was to stop a lot of other threads from going off topic.

Mosheh, feel free to use this thread or the old one.

Brilliant move JohnW! =D> Right on!Mosheh, please use only this thread to discuss your ideas.

{My €0.02's opinion}

This will last all of five minutes. Moseh seems unable to respond to other threads without pointing to his... well... "papers."

__________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
Philip K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
Mark Twain

Avatar courtesy of Bunny.

What the heck IS he trying to explain anyway? All I see are doodles and squiggles

__________________
here we go, the world is spinning
when it stops, it's just beginning

sun comes up, we laugh and we cry
sun goes down, and then we all die

Touched by his noodly appendage

But if they're OT, why is the continued behaviour not censured?

Because this in not UT and you are not a moderator here so stop trying to police this site.....just kidding Nereid. But, you guys could cut him some slack and try to point him in the right direction (nereid, as you did me at UT). Obviously, this person has a passion for cosmology and need some tools to help express his conceptualizations.

I just urge caution when dealing with people with great minds but without the tools to express their thoughts. Cosmology needs all of the friends it can get....And wouldn't it be boring (and devastating) if everyone accepted the "standard model"..... If time travel were possible, I would be willing to bet that in 100yrs. the "Standard Model" would be unreconizable to someone from today....

Regarding the 1D progression: other than in mathematics, what sense in the real world does 1D or two 2D have? For an object to be real, you need at least 3 dimensions. Real, in the sense of physical.

What does 1D or 2D mean in a real sense? Well, in a real practical sense, how are we to imagine a universe packed into a singularity? Not to mention superstrings and branes and all the other arcane stuff expanding around. None of it is a hold it in your hand and look at it sort of thing. Abstractions abound.

while i am not at all angry... i am dismayed. did i spell that right? ha.

anyway...

John w:
its a simple idea.. and i don't know why its a problem.
either the universe began with the energy in the singularity.(like big bang)
or..
the energy was applied.

thus along these lines we follow.. its that simple.

starting with a simple point of logic.. if we removed energy from a 3D spatial enviorment... would it simply shrink into a zero point, or would it possibly drop down in dimensional quality.. into a 2D space.. which then collapses into a 1D.. which itself reduces to a zero level.
zero being anything but zero.. and simply means zero energy on the stuff of space, the ether.. whatever it maybe. which i propose is "A Transindental fluid which condesend to obey surtain natural laws"
-Thats a quote from Tesla... the Ether.

now if any of this is so, then we can imagine the reverse process.
a rise from zero energy... ground level..
upto 1D extention, then 2D, then 3D.. until we have our 3D space.

from this we instantly recognise that a pattern or rate or scale of transtion must exist within in each dimensional rise, incuding its transition into the next level.
which is where i propose a timing scale pattern as part of what we can imagine as the quality of the applied energy.

the ether then, is like clay in that it molds to the wishes of the applier of energy.. but in the case of the ether, it does so by manifesting changes... changes from 0D to 1D... being a transformation of the indentity of the ether.
these changes then would be dictated by nothing other than the specific qualities of the applied energy.

a number of these qualities are readily apperant.. for as we all know, we live in a 3D spacial emviorment, where a circle ... is.. a circle.

these physical ratios of reality, are constant.. and fundamental, and i propose that they are so, as by design, designated by the specific quality.

now, i have oftten used Pi.. or PIE.. as a reference to this.. so understand that i cannot fully explain pi, other than to point and say it must be the most fundamental quality of all, for it designated the working relationship of our spatial dimesnsions.. 1,2,3.. ie.. pi, was fundamental to the forming of space, from the frist moment of apllication.. it had to be.

and that when we consider the progression of space up threw these first 4 dimensional levels.. we recognise the timeing scale pattern, setting the transition rates of each dimension to the next. as the following illustrates.



and..



mind you.. this is only a discussion of the progression, and possible qualities of the applied energy.

but... if you all will allow me to continue, i believe the logic will be made clear, in the following circle rises.. i.e.. 4D-7D and 8D- 11D.. where the idea for a timing scale pattern comes from .. observing the heavens.

-MT

When such people show up on the BABB, I'm sure they will be dealt with in an appropriate and cautionary manner.

That's the great thing about science. The "Standard Model" is always being challenged. What's important though is that the challenges that produce meaningful changes in the "Standard Model" are mounted by scientists using the scientific method, not by non-scientists using word puzzles and doodles.

Meanwhile that "hummm" hasn't gone away. Perhaps it's a grounding problem resulting in an infinite feedback loop. You know, sort of like that algorithm that's supposed to find the last digit of "pie". It repeats over and over but never has anything to show for its efforts.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

...except the blueberry stains on its shirt. :wink:

Did that last post make sense or what???

are you following me?

Do you get the idea of a natural dimensional progressive pattern?

if not.. please be specific.


also.. a small jump forward.. if.. hypotheitcally speaking, you had a super massive black hole for example.. which i would propose is not a hole, but just really dense.
if you had one.. what would you need to do to it to cause it to say break down into a galaxie??????

what kind of, and how would you apply energy to make that happen?

thinking of this.. we can ask the same of super clusters and planetary systems.

this qualitive emergy we need apply, would be representative of the possible energy applied in creation.

I.e.. the study of the heavens and the motions nessasary to make superclusters, galaxies and stars are the source from which we can make proposals for the timing scale patterns i suggested, and other qualities of the applied energy.

does that make sense?

-MT

Logic? Give me one example of a concrete object which is detectable and exists in less than 3 dimensions. 2D, 1D space and zero point are only mathematical constructs. So, no it does not make sense to me.

Not really. :-?

Why would it necessarily do either? What evidence do you have that a spatial environment ever "drops down" in dimension?

We don't have to discuss this here, but I can't resist at least responding. Can you give me an example of any elementary object (that is, one which doesn't consist of smaller parts, at least as far as we know) which demonstrably has three dimensions, rather than possibly being a point or string?

Well, as I started this thread and ran off (not easy posting to a BB while on a bike ride), I feel I should respond, Mosheh:

No.

No.

I understand the concepts of 1, 2, 3... n dimensions in mathematics, yes. The way you're using them: No.

OK. Let's work through your last post:


Yes, you did. Doing OK so far.

I asked for evidence, not more hand waving. If you have a new idea about how the Universe formed, you need to show how it explains what we observe. In fact it has to explain what we observe at least as well as the currently accepted theory. Ideally, it should provide a better expnantion than the current theory, and/or explain phenomena which the current theory has problems with. Otherwise what you're doing just isn't science.

Just saying (over and over again...) how simple it is does not constitute explanation.

No, it wouldn't do either of these things. You'd just have a three-dimensional space with less energy. Do you think the centre of the Sun has more dimensions than interstellar space?

"Zero being anything but zero"? I have no idea what this means.

Regarding the ether, have you heard of Michelson & Morley? How about Einstein?

But none of this is so, therefore imagining the reverse process fulfils no purpose.

And this is all more of the same. You're trying to build a tall elaborate building, but your foundation sank into the swamp before you started. Plus you're introducing more vague if not meaningless concepts now. How does energy have "quality"?

But they're not. A circle is a pure-mathematical concept, not a physical object.

"It had to be"? That's your evidence?

As I've said to you several times before, Mosheh, pi is a pure-mathematics concept, and would be the same in a 1-, 2- or 37-dimensional universe. Pi is not a physical object and is a mathematical constant (like e or 0), not a physical one (like the speed of light).

Pie, on the other hand, is a physical object, but not a constant. In fact the amount of pie in the universe is going to decrease as soon as I get off this here computer.

The only thing I learn from this is that you have a pen and some paper.Not only is your logic not made clear so far, but it's based on some initial postulates which are flat-out wrong. So there's no point in you going any further. It will be just as wrong.

Was that specific enough?