How can a dimension 'expand' without time?

[bji]

Hi. I have read a bit about the Moving Dimensions Theory just out of personal curiousity. I am not a physicist, and I have some difficulty understanding the finer points of MDT - specifically, all of the ways in which it explains the results of existing theories (such as time dilation, the equivalence of matter and energy, etc).

However, just from a fundamental common sense standpoint, there is something I don't understand: how can our perception of time be a manifestation of the expanding fourth (non-spatial, non-time) dimension, if the concept of 'expansion' is itself dependent upon a time dimension?

By which I mean, for every conceivable definition of 'expansion' that i can think of, it is defined as an increase in the size of something over a period of time. So to say that a fourth dimension is 'expanding' with respect to the three spatial dimensions, requires that there exist a concept of time independent of any of these dimensions, such that expansion can occur.

Just to give an illustration of what I mean, let's reduce ourselves to two spatial dimensions and one expanding dimension (I'm just eliminating one spatial dimension from MDT here). We can imagine what this would look like if the expanding third dimension were represented by one of our spatial dimensions. So we have something like a flat plane with geometric shapes on it (you might think of the famous 'flatland' here), with the plane continuously expanding out into a third dimension, which we see from our three dimensional viewpoint as the plane stretching out via the third dimension into space. Points and shapes on the plane might remain stationary from the perspective of observers who can only 'see' in the 2d plane, but as three dimensional beings we can observe that these points and shapes are actually moving in the third dimension.

The above is, I think, a reasonable explanation of a reduction of MDT to two spatial dimensions and a third expanding dimension, simply by eliminating one of the three spatial dimensions, and with a visualization of the 2 spatial dimension + 1 expanding dimension system using three spatial dimensions.

Now the relevent feature of this system is that we can imagine the third dimension expanding as being like the plane stretching out in the third dimension continuously; it's almost like placing a wire loop (which represents a flat plane) in a soap bubble solution and pulling upwards, and watching the plane of the loop expand into a three-dimensional bubble as we pull upwards.

This conceptualizes the expanding third dimension (which is analogous to the expanding fourth dimension in MDT).

Here's what I don't understand: in this visualization of an expanding dimension, we necessarily must use an external dimension of time in order to perceive the expansion. If at time A I am looking at a snapshot of the bubble being extruded and it's 5 cm long, and at time B I am looking at the next snapshot, an instant later, and the bubble has been extruded to 6 cm ... there is implicitly a concept of time flowing forward that allows the expansion to occur. If there was no independent dimension of time in which the expansion could occur, then there could be no expansion, and my extruding bubble would just sit there as a flat plane forever, unable to get to the 'next instant' when the plane is just starting to move out into three dimensions.

So, if MDT is explaining our perception of time just as a perceptual aspect of the fourth expanding dimension, then ... how are we supposed to visualize this expansion occuring, if we're not allowed to suppose an external and definite time dimension in which this fourth dimension could expand?

I suppose as a non-physicist this to some degree goes to the same question that one might have about the concept of 'spacetime', which is a four-dimensional construct where three of the dimensions are spatial and the fourth is temporal. That also is a concept that I can't wrap my head around because to 'move' through this four-dimensional 'space' would require time, since by definition 'movement' is a change in position *over time*.

Any insight on this issue would be greatly appreciated.

[Epsilon=One]

I am not a physicist, and I have some difficulty understanding the finer points of MDT - specifically, all of the ways in which it explains the results of existing theories (such as time dilation, the equivalence of matter and energy, etc).You are not alone. I have the same difficulty; and, have been unable, for years, to get any explanation that has been of any rational assistance. MDT is the creation of a theoretical physicist. Theoretical physicists manipulate metaphysically defined concepts that are usually forces (in this case a dimension) with fundamentally unproven mathematics to arrive at solid conclusions concerning the non-biological environment.

...just from a fundamental common sense standpoint, there is something I don't understand: how can our perception of time be a manifestation of the expanding fourth (non-spatial, non-time) dimension, if the concept of 'expansion' is itself dependent upon a time dimension?What is the expanding fourth dimension (X4D)? Its very label is a conundrum; dimensions can't expand. "Things" are located/measured by dimensions. It is the "things" that expand not the dimensions.

When considering Moving Dimension Theory's (MDT), concept of a fourth dimension (which is apparently not meant to be time), and one substitutes the concept of a Pulsoid, as in Pulsoid Theory (PT), then there is a very small amount of rationale.

By which I mean, for every conceivable definition of 'expansion' that i can think of, it is defined as an increase in the size of something over a period of time.I do agree. And, of course, the difficulty for a theoretical physicist is that they can neither define what “something” or “time” is.


So to say that a fourth dimension is 'expanding' with respect to the three spatial dimensions, requires that there exist a concept of time independent of any of these dimensions, such that expansion can occur.Time is clearly a different concept than the orthogonal dimensions as “time” requires a “clock.”

Just to give an illustration…

This conceptualizes the expanding third dimension (which is analogous to the expanding fourth dimension in MDT).

Here's what I don't understand: in this visualization of an expanding dimension, we necessarily must use an external dimension of time in order to perceive the expansion. If at time A I am looking at a snapshot of the bubble being extruded and it's 5 cm long, and at time B I am looking at the next snapshot, an instant later, and the bubble has been extruded to 6 cm ... there is implicitly a concept of time flowing forward that allows the expansion to occur. If there was no independent dimension of time in which the expansion could occur, then there could be no expansion, and my extruding bubble would just sit there as a flat plane forever, unable to get to the 'next instant' when the plane is just starting to move out into three dimensions.

So, if MDT is explaining our perception of time just as a perceptual aspect of the fourth expanding dimension, then ... how are we supposed to visualize this expansion occurring, if we're not allowed to suppose an external and definite time dimension in which this fourth dimension could expand?Your logic is reasonable; however, reasonable logic applied to an unreasonable concept cannot be expected to produce reason.

I suppose as a non-physicist this to some degree goes to the same question that one might have about the concept of 'spacetime', which is a four-dimensional construct where three of the dimensions are spatial and the fourth is temporal. That also is a concept that I can't wrap my head around because to 'move' through this four-dimensional 'space' would require time, since by definition 'movement' is a change in position *over time*.You certainly don’t seem to have much respect for the conventions of theoretical physics. Neither do I; as, I consider ‘spacetime’ and its “warping” as an outright hoax.

Any insight on this issue would be greatly appreciated.I agree; but am not holding my breath until such an event occurs. If possible, the insight of an academic, theoretical physicist in non-obfuscating calculese would be interesting.

[astro]

Einstein's GR already showed that dimensions can move.

They can warp, twist, and bend.

MDT simply states that the fourth dimension is in a constant state of flux.

The fourth dimension is expanding at the rate of c relative to the three spatial dimensions.

The rate of c is defined by the velocity of light, which is measured by distance/time--the distance being some marked distance in the lab, and time being that which is measured on your wristwatch. The time measured on your wristwatch is an emergent phenomena, arising because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, carrying the photons in the watch's spring or quartz crystal at the rate of c.

The fourth dimension is not time. The fourth dimension is what carries photons at the rate of c as it expands.

Proof of this follows:

The only way for an object to stay stationary in the three spatial dimensions is to move at the rate of c relative to the fourth dimension. Ergo the fourth dimension is expanding at the rate of c relative to the three spatial dimensions.

The only way for an object to stay stationary in the fourth dimensions is to move at the rate of c relative to the three spatial dimensions. Ergo the fourth dimension is expanding at the rate of c relative to the three spatial dimensions.

Let's consider a 2D plane and a tiny sphere representing a third expanding dimension.

On the 2D plane, the sphere would appear to be an expanding cirlce.

Every point on the surface of the expanding circle would define the exact same place in the third dimension, as the sphere expanded--thusly accounting for nonlocality.

A piece of matter rotated into the third expanding dimension would move at the rate of c relative to the three stationary dimensions, and we would get E=mc^2--the equivalence of mass and energy.

Time's arrow, or entropy, happens because two photons emitted at a common origin have equal probability of being found anywhere on the surfce of the circle. They have a probability of being found farther apart over time, as does every piece of mass or matter that interacts with photons.

The radiatitive arrow of time--the fact that we see retarded but not advanced waves--the fact tata rocktossed inthe pool sends waves outward in a circularly-symmetric manner, can all be acounted for by this fundamental expansion of the fourth dimension relative to the three spatial dimenions.

Time stops at the speed of light, as light stays in the exact same place in the expanding dimension (relativity), thusly also accounting for nonlocality (quantum mechanics).

All movement is always accompanied by a forshortening in the direction of the movement, as all movement is acompanied by a rotation into the expanding dimension.

The maximum velocity is c, because that is the speed of the moving dimension which is responsible for all motion; and c is only achived when an object's length becomes zero in the spatial dimensions, thusly showin that the object exists entirely in the expanding dimension--we call these opjects photons.

MDT accounts for relativistic phenonema, quantum mechanical phenomena, and entropy/times' arrows.

MDT agress with Einstein, Bohr, and Feynmans sum over many paths, which represents the sum total of all the tiny expansions of the fourth dimension that is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

[Epsilon=One]

Einstein's GR already showed that dimensions can move.

They can warp, twist, and bend.This is wrong. Einstein would never have believed that dimensions were capable of moving. What Einstein was referring to was “space-time” a well-accepted, mythical fantasy that was never conceived as a dimension . . . more like a “fabric.”

MDT simply states that the fourth dimension is in a constant state of flux.Stating so, does not make it so. Is said “flux” pulsating with acceleration?

The fourth dimension is expanding at the rate of c relative to the three spatial dimensions.This mantra means nothing without defining all its terms.

The rate of c is defined by the velocity of light, which is measured by distance/time--the distance being some marked distance in the lab, and time being that which is measured on your wristwatch. The time measured on your wristwatch is an emergent phenomena, arising because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, carrying the photons in the watch's spring or quartz crystal at the rate of c.Not so. The velocity of light is a relative, natural phenomenon that has nothing to do with a “lab” or “wristwatch.” Where does the “emergent phenomena” (sic.) emerge from?

The fourth dimension is not time. The fourth dimension is what carries photons at the rate of c as it expands.Dimensions can’t carry “things”; only “things” can carry “things.” If not the forth, what dimension is time?

Proof of this follows:

The only way for an object to stay stationary in the three spatial dimensions is to move at the rate of c relative to the fourth dimension. Ergo the fourth dimension is expanding at the rate of c relative to the three spatial dimensions.There is nothing that exists that is “stationary.” Existence depends upon motion . . . that is never constant.

Let's consider a 2D plane and a tiny sphere representing a third expanding dimension.

On the 2D plane, the sphere would appear to be an expanding cirlce.

Every point on the surface of the expanding circle would define the exact same place in the third dimension, as the sphere expanded--thusly accounting for nonlocality.Nonsense.

A piece of matter rotated into the third expanding dimension would move at the rate of c relative to the three stationary dimensions, and we would get E=mc^2--the equivalence of mass and energy.Nonsense.

Time's arrow, or entropy, happens because two photons emitted at a common origin have equal probability of being found anywhere on the surfce of the circle. They have a probability of being found farther apart over time, as does every piece of mass or matter that interacts with photons.”Time’s arrow” (whatever that may be) and entropy do not require the emittance of photons. Photons evolved well after the concept of entropy.

The radiatitive arrow of time--the fact that we see retarded but not advanced waves--the fact tata rocktossed inthe pool sends waves outward in a circularly-symmetric manner, can all be acounted for by this fundamental expansion of the fourth dimension relative to the three spatial dimenions.Matter can move regardless of the change in tools (dimensions) that are used to measure said movement.

Time stops at the speed of light, as light stays in the exact same place in the expanding dimension (relativity), thusly also accounting for nonlocality (quantum mechanics).Time never stops as long as there is existence. When light stops, only the photon ceases to exist.

All movement is always accompanied by a forshortening in the direction of the movement, as all movement is acompanied by a rotation into the expanding dimension.”Things” rotating into descriptors is nonsense. “Things” rotate into “things.”

MDT agress with Einstein, Bohr, and Feynmans sum over many paths, which represents the sum total of all the tiny expansions of the fourth dimension that is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.What is it with Einstein and Bohr that MDT agrees. Such agreement is interesting because Einstein and Bohr seldom agreed with one another. And Feynman’s diagrams, though hand tools, certainly explain little of the observed enigmatic phenomena. If MDT agrees with Einstein, Bohr, and Feynman’s diagrams; then MDT must be mightily confused.

[bji]

You are not alone. I have the same difficulty; and, have been unable, for years, to get any explanation that has been of any rational assistance. MDT is the creation of a theoretical physicist. Theoretical physicists manipulate metaphysically defined concepts that are usually forces (in this case a dimension) with fundamentally unproven mathematics to arrive at solid conclusions concerning the non-biological environment.

Thanks very much for your reply. I was hoping that someone might be able to explain in some way that was meaningful to me what theoretical physicists mean when they talk about 'expanding dimensions', and 'spacetime', and '11 dimensions of string theory', and other things which don't make any kind of intuitive sense to me at all.

The most disturbing aspect of these theories is that they mix concepts which are familiar and sensible to me (dimensions, movement, time, etc) in ways that don't seem to logically follow or make any intuitive sense at all (i.e., physical objects can expand, therefore dimensions can expand; or, there are three physical dimensions in our experience of space, therefore there can be up to 11 physical dimensions). Theoretical physicists seem to be to be very liberal in the ways that they 'mix metaphors' when coming up with the fundamental basis for their theories.

astro's answer didn't really address my question in a way that clarified anything for me; he or she seems to me to simply assume that you accept apparent absurdities like expanding non-space, non-time dimensions, without any proposed justification or explanation, as a basic premise for the theory. I would still like to get a direct answer from him or her to my basic question: what does the term 'expansion' mean when applied to a metaphysical concept like a 'dimension'? How is 'expansion', which in its most basic sense means the increase in size of an entity over time, applied to a non-physical concept like a 'dimension', and without an external reality called 'time'?

At this point, Epsilon=One is looking alot more convincing to me than astro with regards to the fundamental nonsensicality of MDT; but perhaps astro can provide some insight that changes my mind?

[astro]

Hello BJI,

Let me try to anser your question. Thansk for your skepticism.

Let's begin with this--do you believe that dimensions can curve and bend as was theorized by Einstein in general relativity, and then shown to be true via the bending of star light during an eclipse, as well as the precession of Mercury?

Do you believe that dimensions can curve and bend around massive objects as was theorized by Einstein in general relativity?

[bji]

Hello BJI,

Let me try to anser your question. Thansk for your skepticism.

Let's begin with this--do you believe that dimensions can curve and bend as was theorized by Einstein in general relativity, and then shown to be true via the bending of star light during an eclipse, as well as the precession of Mercury?

Do you believe that dimensions can curve and bend around massive objects as was theorized by Einstein in general relativity?

Actually, I do not - but I could be convinced given sufficiently clear and logical explanation. I have never had these things explained to me, I have only been able to try to understand them given the literature I have read, and it has not been convincing.

I *do* believe that as a mental model, curved spacetime could be illustrative in describing forces like gravity. But I am not as convinced that there is actually such a 'thing' as curved spacetime, just like I am not convinced that there is such a thing as a cute little bundle of spheres called an 'atomic nucleus'. But I certainly believe that the latter is a nice mental model which can help one to understand the underlying physical processes involved in atoms.

One problem I have with the concept of the curving of spacetime, is that curves are, as far as I know, defined mathematically with reference to a fixed and regular co-ordinate system. And similarly, curves in my perceptual experience are always framed against 'normal' space - meaning, any physical curve I see (the circle of a wheel, the arc of a doorway, etc) is always in what appears to me to be a regular, 'non-curved' three dimensions of space. I can't comprehend what it would mean for the space itself to curve, since the only curve I could visualize as 'curved space' would then have to be framed in 'non-curved space' in order to make sense as a curve.

Another way to put it, that I think Epsilon=One would agree with, is that 'things' curve, not dimensions.

Perhaps I would be willing to take the leap of faith and simply accept that a dimension could somehow 'expand' relative to the normal three physical dimensions, *if* the expanding dimension were simply a shorthand way of saying that all objects within the three dimensions are expanding. So that rather than saying that the dimension is expanding at the rate of the speed of light, one would say that every existing object is expanding at the rate of the speed of light in this non-physical dimension.

Even then, I'd have to accept the concept of a non-physical, non-temporal dimension, which I would have trouble doing.

In fact, I have trouble even with the concept of calling time the 'fourth dimension'. I can understand how the term 'dimension' can apply to up/down/left/right/forward/backward direction pairs. But then to try to represent time via the same exact concept doesn't make any sense because:

* I can move in physical dimensions by the process of conscious action, but I can't 'move' in time (time goes forward whether I try to 'move' through it or not)

* I can move in either 'direction' for each physical dimension (up/down, left/right, forward/backward), but time only seems to move events around me in one direction at a fixed rate

* I can look around myself in all three physical dimensions, and thus perceive them as existing independent of my thought processes; but I cannot 'look' through time.

Anyway, this is all getting somewhat far afield. As you can see, I have some difficulties accepting some of the basic premises of modern theoretical physics, but I am trying to keep an open mind and would accept them if I could be shown some way to view these concepts that makes sense to me.

One thing I do believe for certain, is that the models that modern theoretical physics use, almost certainly accurately depict some facets of reality, because objective observation of predicted phenomena confirm them.

I would love to hear about phenomena that MDT predicts that have been or could be verified experimentally, because then even if I had a hard time accepting the rationality of some of the basic premises of the theory, I could simply chalk it up to being a model that doesn't have to make sense in all aspects, since it is only a model.

[astro]

Hello there,

To begin with, MDT agrees with Einstein's experimentally-verified theory of general relativity, which states that dimensions bend and stretch.

Yes--I agree--we tend to overlook this.

Dimensions can move and warp--String Theory completely dismissed this.

This is what Einstein theorized. GR predicted and accounted for the precession of Mercury. GR predicted the bending of light by massive objects.

So can we at least begin by acknowledging that GR is a valid theory?

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

[astro]

Time is not the fourth dimension.

Time is an emergent phenomena of a fourth dimension expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

[bji]

Hello there,

To begin with, MDT agrees with Einstein's experimentally-verified theory of general relativity, which states that dimensions bend and stretch.

But that does not imply that MDT predicts any experimentally-verifiable measurements. Saying that MDT agrees with Einstein's theory just means that MDT encompasses already-known measurements from other theories. What does MDT predict that is new and thus is a strong indicator that MDT is more than just a re-explanation shaped to fit the already-tested predictions of already-existing theories?

Furthermore, exactly what part of general relativity does MDT agree with? Can you explain a sequence of thought experiments by which a premise of MDT result in the explanation of an as-of-yet-unexplained phenomenon?


Dimensions can move and warp--String Theory completely dismissed this.

This is what Einstein theorized. GR predicted and accounted for the precession of Mercury. GR predicted the bending of light by massive objects.

So can we at least begin by acknowledging that GR is a valid theory?



From my reading, GR doesn't say that dimensions can warp, it says that spacetime can be curved; I assume that you are saying that these two concepts are equivalent. I wonder though - does the concept of 'curving space time' in GR just describe the math, or is there a physical reality behind the concept of curving space time?

At any rate, for the sake of argument I will give you GR's curving spacetime. Now how exactly does a non-physical, non-temporal fourth dimension expand, especially given that you say that there is no such thing as 'time'? When you say that the 4th dimension is expanding in units of the Planck constant at the rate of the speed of light in a vacuum, how exactly is the speed of light determined, since speed is a change in position for a given change in time? Keep in mind that c is stated in units like kilometers per second; what exactly are the units of c in this equation:

d(4x)/dt = c

if there is no such thing as time? And for that matter, what does 'dt' mean in a universe with no real time?

[astro]

Time is not the fourth dimension.

Look at your watch. tic. tic. tic. The seconds tic on. That is t. t is not a dimension.

dx4/dt = ic

t are the seconds ticking on your watch. We created t. t arises because of the propagation of photons, be it in a watch spring or a quartz crystal.

The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

This statement is perfectly logical. Time is not the fourth dimension. Time is what you measure on your watch--t. Count the seconds. Each second a local point in the fourth dimension is becoming a sphere with a raidus of 186,000 miles--which describes exactly the probabilistic wavefront of the photon. Phtons are matter surfing the fourth expanding dimension. that's how E = mc^2. the fourth expanding dimension is the source of the vast energy.

Here is a simple proof:

The only way to stay stationary in the three spatial dimensions is to move at the rate of c through the fourth dimension.

The only way to stay stationary in the fourth dimension, as a photon does, is to move at the rate of c through the three spatail dimensions.

Another proof is this: any rotation or boost into the fourth dimension is always accompanied by increased motion. Ergo the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

Also, the rate of entanglement in quantum mechanics is c. Two interacting photons travel apart. The measurement of one immediately influences the state of the otherm b matter how far they are separated. This is because they are yet in the same place in the fourth expanding dimension.

E=mc^2 is explained by the fact that matter, when rotated into the fourth expanding dimension, moves at the speed of c which is the rate at which the fourth dimension is expanding.

[Epsilon=One]

...do you believe that dimensions can curve and bend as was theorized by Einstein in general relativity, and then shown to be true via the bending of star light during an eclipse, as well as the precession of Mercury?No. Such is only theory and never decisively proven; if Einstein knew what he was theorizing, then, today, we would understand gravity, Cosmic Inertia, why galaxies recede at an accelerating rate; and, theoretical physicists would be able to define time and dimensions; as well as, understand the origin of the Inverse Square Law and mathematics.

Einstein merely made some educated guesses from the results of mixing erroneous and unproven mathematical manipulations with his genius for understanding relativity. Garbage in; garbage out.

Do you believe that dimensions can curve and bend around massive objects as was theorized by Einstein in general relativity?No. How can one believe a nearly hundred year-old theory of curving and bending dimensions when, today, no academic, theoretical physicists can define dimensions other than circularly in terms of one another; or, in the case of time, not at all.

To theorize, and then believing such theory, concerning such concepts, as: 1.) Bending which requires an outside force that is undefined (in fact no force has been defined that is other than metaphysical); 2.) Dimensions before defining them; 3.) Massive objects without knowing what is mass; would seem to be an exercise in madness.

As yet, no one has been able to explain why a massless photon should respond to any gravitational-like force. "Gravitational lensing" is phenomena other than conventionally theorized.

Such, when obfuscated with calculese, is the way of academic, theoretical physicists.

[Epsilon=One]

...I have trouble even with the concept of calling time the 'fourth dimension'. I can understand how the term 'dimension' can apply to up/down/left/right/forward/backward direction pairs. But then to try to represent time via the same exact concept doesn't make any sense because:

* I can move in physical dimensions by the process of conscious action, but I can't 'move' in time (time goes forward whether I try to 'move' through it or not)

* I can move in either 'direction' for each physical dimension (up/down, left/right, forward/backward), but time only seems to move events around me in one direction at a fixed rate

* I can look around myself in all three physical dimensions, and thus perceive them as existing independent of my thought processes; but I cannot 'look' through time.Thanks to the confused use of the term "dimension" by theoretical physicists your confusion results from mixing concepts.

Your difficulty is that you are considering dimensions as "something"; maybe like a box that you observe from a distance or an "apparatus" that you step into.

Dimensions are not "things"; dimensions are conceptual tools to locate and describe the motion of "something" relative to "something" or "somethings" else . . . which "something" often can be an observer. To an observer, observing two or more objects (and all objects, to exist, must always be in motion) objects will be in the past and the future, as observed from one another from one moment to another. (Nothing is motionless, therefore, the present is infinitesimal and does not exist . . . only the past and future, as relatively noted, exists.)

With dimensions thus defined, to define a location in the Universe, time is a required dimension, as is rotation, axial alignment, galactic and super galactic group location, etc., etc.; including, of course, some 3-dimensional system of co-ordinates within each containing system. I will leave the reason for 3-dimensional co-ordinates for another discussion. The reason is quite subtle; and, I am unaware of any physicist that has ever addressed it. (I may seem hard on physicists; however, I have the greatest respect and admiration for the research physicist . . . even the ones in academia.)

…I have some difficulties accepting some of the basic premises of modern theoretical physics…Who wouldn’t. A house-of-cards built on metaphysical forces and unproven, obfuscating mathematics can not long stand.

…I am trying to keep an open mind and would accept them if I could be shown some way to view these concepts that makes sense to me.For that you must start with an explanation that clarifies the locus of the Universe and the geometry of the fundamental motion (its harmonics and resonances) that manifests as the fundamental quanta that comprises all the “things” of existence.

Theoretical physicists work backwards toward simplicity; this is like trying to understand a bird’s chirping from a broken egg. They must start with a singularity and proceed to complexity.

One thing I do believe for certain, is that the models that modern theoretical physics use, almost certainly accurately depict some facets of reality, because objective observation of predicted phenomena confirm them.You and I see the half-full drinking glass differently. I note from observation that NOTHING within “the models of modern theoretical physics” is accurate when depicting any “facets of reality” when logically extended.

I would love to hear about phenomena that MDT predicts that have been or could be verified experimentally, because then even if I had a hard time accepting the rationality of some of the basic premises of the theory, I could simply chalk it up to being a model that doesn't have to make sense in all aspects, since it is only a model.If MDT is considered a model for diversion or exercising the mind, like, maybe, crossword puzzles, I have no argument. My concern is that MDT is being promoted as science; just like black holes and the Big Bang that only exist as mathematical manipulations of misunderstood data in the minds of theoreticians.

[Epsilon=One]

t is not a dimension.Time is a dimension by any logical definition of the term: dimension . . . which definition, I grant, is currently lacking in academia. If you consider that time is not a dimension, then, there is a great discrepancy between your connotation and that of most all other persons.

What is your definition of a dimension?

We created t.No "we" did not. “We” are not necessary for the “passing” of time; time existed before “we” did.

t arises because of the propagation of photons, be it in a watch spring or a quartz crystal.No. There was “time,” and its “clock,” before there was ever a photon released from a fundamental quantum.

The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.This mantra is without meaning. It is a string of undefined words with conflicting connotations.

This statement is perfectly logical.Possibly within a Lewis Carroll fantasy.

Time is not the fourth dimension.Who’s counting? I like to consider orthogonality as the first dimension, time as the second, direction of pulse as the third, etc., etc.

Time is what you measure on your watch--t.What is it that you are measuring on your watch that is not an aspect of the spin of the earth, which is ultimately dependent upon, derived from, the intrinsic pulse of a fundamental quantum . . . as is the "tic" of the watch.

Count the seconds. Each second a local point in the fourth dimension is becoming a sphere with a raidus of 186,000 miles--which describes exactly the probabilistic wavefront of the photon. Phtons are matter surfing the fourth expanding dimension. that's how E = mc^2. the fourth expanding dimension is the source of the vast energy.You are badly mixing your units, which would be apparent if you would parse the terms . . . possibly with mathematical logic and symbolism.

Here is a simple proof:No real “proof” can be simple at the anthropoidal scale.

The only way to stay stationary in the three spatial dimensions is to move at the rate of c through the fourth dimension.There is no way to stay stationary anywhere under any conditions . . . even relatively.

The only way to stay stationary in the fourth dimension, as a photon does, is to move at the rate of c through the three spatail dimensions.I have yet to find a coherent definition of MDT's “fourth dimension” beyond that it is not "time." What is this dimension comprised of? Quarks maybe? Pure motion without a vector, possibly?

Another proof is this: any rotation or boost into the fourth dimension is always accompanied by increased motion. Ergo the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.Why is motion increased. Everything I can find within explanations of MDT addresses a constant motion . . . which in accordance with logic must be fictional; as, all motion is converted to the acceleration and deceleration of a pulse when orthogonality is first evolved.

Also, the rate of entanglement in quantum mechanics is c. Two interacting photons travel apart. The measurement of one immediately influences the state of the otherm b matter how far they are separated. This is because they are yet in the same place in the fourth expanding dimension.If “the rate of entanglement in quantum mechanics is c,” then this is one more error of quantum mechanics (QM). It should be obvious that the rate of entanglement, whether at the quantum or Cosmic scale, is at a speed that approaches either the infinite or infinitesimal. Otherwise, the “clock-work” motion of the Cosmos would appear as the motion of colliding billiard balls. And, quantum harmony would be chaos.

E=mc^2 is explained by the fact that matter, when rotated into the fourth expanding dimension, moves at the speed of c which is the rate at which the fourth dimension is expanding.How does matter reach this speed, gradually or instantly? Why does the “fourth dimension” pick an arbitrary speed? What is the mechanism that controls this speed?

[astro]

MDT agrees with Einstein's well-verified Relativity--both the special and general theory.

[bpj1138]

MDT agrees with Einstein's well-verified Relativity--both the special and general theory.

GR has been proven at the very least inaccurate by the necessity to invent dark matter (the GR fudge factor) in order to compensate for the higher than allowed spin of the outer regions of a galaxy.

--Bart

[astro]

MDT agrees with Einstein's well-verified Relativity--both the special and general theory.

If you have a better theory which MDT should agree with, please let me know.

Newtonian mechanics has also proven to be inaccurate, but can't we use F=ma?

I'm not sure what your point is.

MDT agrees with Einstein's well-verified Relativity--both the special and general theory. MDT also agrees with the physics set forth by Newton, Bohr, and
Feynman.

MDT does not agree with the not even wrong theories set forth by Peter Woit, Garret Lisi, Ed Witten, and Brian Green.

I would love to answer questions regarding MDT.

I realize I owe everyone a lot on MDT, and I will be sharing some more thoughts/papers soon.

Thanks for your time and interest--I do appreciate it. I will do my best in the upcoming papers to explain and elaborate on how MDT offers and underlying model for our physical reality.

If you have a specific question regarding MDT, I'd be happy to answer it.

Perhaps that would be the best way to procede--with specific questions.

[bpj1138]

If you have a better theory which MDT should agree with, please let me know.


Why? Do you have an obsessive need to agree with someone? Your theory can't stand on its own?


Newtonian mechanics has also proven to be inaccurate, but can't we use F=ma?


Not if your goal is to improve on these as you yourself say "inaccurate" theories. If your goal is to simply agree with 400 year old theories, then you've succeeded.


I'm not sure what your point is.


My point was that if GR is inaccurate then by stating that MDT agrees with GR then MDT is also inaccurate. I didn't think I needed to spell out every logical induction.


I would love to answer questions regarding MDT.


Sorry, but what you've said thus far is enough. I disregard any theories that start by introducing a new dimension (an ad-hoc invention) and then ill define it by saying it is "moving", then proceed to explain everything as a circular argument resting on this "movement".


Thanks for your time and interest--I do appreciate it. I will do my best in the upcoming papers to explain and elaborate on how MDT offers and underlying model for our physical reality.


Congratulations! You've just reached a new level of arrogance.


If you have a specific question regarding MDT, I'd be happy to answer it.


How about you start by answering all of Epsilon's arguments whom you obviously ignore in order not to show your ignorance. In my book, this is conceding by default. In fact, it's not only Epsilon. Your pattern seems to be either to change the subject, ignore it all together, or as you've done here, try to equate your theory to those created by others (mostly dead) people, which is only your own opinion, Sir.


Perhaps that would be the best way to procede--with specific questions.

What's the point?

--Bart

[astro]

Thanks Bart,

Let's please start with a specific question regarding MDT.

I agree with a lot of the things Epsilon = One has to say.

I'll be happy to answer any specific questions.

A lot of what Epsilon = One says derives from the fact that it is difficult to pin down exactly what a dimension in. GR states that dimensions move and bend, implying a physical reality. I agree with this physical reality of dimensions.

I'll be happy to answer any specific questions.

[astro]

Bart--Newton said that he saw further because he stood upon the shoulders of giants, as did Einstein.

MDT stands upon relativity, quantum mechanics, and statistical mechanics.

I think it would be impossible to propose a new theory that stood on its own in a perfect vacuum.

What is your background in physics?

[Epsilon=One]

Newton said that he saw further because he stood upon the shoulders of giants, as did Einstein.That does not assure that Newton, Einstein or the "giants" were correct. Current observation certainly indicates they were not correct. Newton and Einstein well understood that their theories did not explain the "why" of reality.

MDT stands upon relativity, quantum mechanics, and statistical mechanics.Nothing could more indicate the weakness of MDT.

I think it would be impossible to propose a new theory that stood on its own in a perfect vacuum.I assume that you use the term "in a pure vacuum" rhetorically. A correct theory of physics must start apart from any currently accepted, academic theory. Not one of them is based upon other than metaphysical forces and unproven mathematics. As for proposing such a theory, I have done just that . . . it, unlike all other theories of physics, has been unchallenged for over 50 years.

What is your background in physics?What an arrogant, irrelevant question that you pose. The merit of one's argument is the argument, not the person. Those with backgrounds in theoretical physics have been perpetrating some of the most powerful frauds in history . . . akin to religion.

[astro]

Thanks--just curious about Bart's background--not in a condescening way.

I understand that QM, GR, and statistical mechanics aren't complete, but at least they offer starting points.

You are right that we should be humble in our approach to physics.

I hope I did not offend anyone by asking about their background--just curious.

Thanks.

I'll try as best as possible to answer questions pertaining to MDT.

Also, how does Pulsoid Theory specifically improve on relativity, QM, and stat-mech.? Thanks.

[bji]

A correct theory of physics must start apart from any currently accepted, academic theory. Not one of them is based upon other than metaphysical forces and unproven mathematics. As for proposing such a theory, I have done just that . . . it, unlike all other theories of physics, has been unchallenged for over 50 years.

I've been waiting for formulate my next post while I digest all that's been written, but I have to respond to this right away. Not to take this too far off topic (this is in the MDT forum, not the Pulsoid Theory forum), but:


How do you justify saying that a correct theory of physics *must* start apart from any currently accepted theory? Do you really believe that there is nothing of value in existing theories? That seems a bit heavy-handed to me ...
This theory that has been unchallenged for 50 years ... can you give an example of an observable prediction that it has made that has validated the theory? Not something that has already been measured and explained by existing theories, I'm talking about something new, something that is unique to your theory, that demonstrates its predictive powers?



What an arrogant, irrelevant question that you pose. The merit of one's argument is the argument, not the person. Those with backgrounds in theoretical physics have been perpetrating some of the most powerful frauds in history . . . akin to religion.

Honestly I think the tone that is being used here is inappropriate. 'astro' has not been insulting to anyone in the least, but he/she seems to be on the receiving end of some unnecessary and unprovoked abuse. It would be more helpful to me, certainly, to not have this kind of thing clutter up this already fairly scatterbrained discussion. Thanks.

[bji]

Why? Do you have an obsessive need to agree with someone? Your theory can't stand on its own?

It seems to be that you are being needlessly argumentative here. Do you really think it's unreasonable to emphasize that a new theory agrees in its predictions with existing theories? Does saying so really indicate an 'obsessive need'?

Sorry, but what you've said thus far is enough. I disregard any theories that start by introducing a new dimension (an ad-hoc invention) and then ill define it by saying it is "moving", then proceed to explain everything as a circular argument resting on this "movement".

I agree with the sentiment expressed here. A couple of minor points: MDT claims that the new dimension is 'expanding', not 'moving' - probably not relevent to the point you are making, but just to be clear, that's what MDT claims. Also, it's not circular reasoning to draw conclusions from an argument's basic assumptions. If astro were to claim that the expansion is being caused by the effects of the expansion (which include photos and other observable phenomenon in my understanding of MDT), then that would be circular reasoning. But as far as I can tell, the basic premise of MDT is that there is a fourth 'expanding dimension' and that everything follows from that, so no circular arguments are involved.

That being said, I agree that there needs to be much more and better explanation of this expanding fourth dimension for this theory to be worth studying further. If there were some way in which this expanding fourth dimension could be tested for via experimentation; perhaps some unique physical property of matter or energy that MDT predicts that other theories do not, then it might be worth trying to come up with a better understanding of what a fourth dimension is and how it can expand. But since my previous question asking for such a prediction of the theory went unanswered, and other similar questions that I can find in the history of this forum have similarly gone unanswered, I can only assume that MDT really has no predictive power and thus is no better than string theory (except to say that MDT seems alot simpler than string theory, but then again, it also seems quite a bit less rigorous and comprehensive than string theory).

Congratulations! You've just reached a new level of arrogance.

Ad-hominem attacks are not necessary or appreciated.

How about you start by answering all of Epsilon's arguments whom you obviously ignore in order not to show your ignorance. In my book, this is conceding by default. In fact, it's not only Epsilon. Your pattern seems to be either to change the subject, ignore it all together, or as you've done here, try to equate your theory to those created by others (mostly dead) people, which is only your own opinion, Sir.

I agree with this as well. astro - you need to provide more comprehensive answers to the questions which have been posed over and over again in these forums. It seems that much of the time you just copy and paste the same statements that don't really elucidate anything. Surely you must understand that defending your theory means making it clearer, easier to understand, and backed up by more numerous and more compelling arguments than you have thus far provided.

[Tangled Motion]

Now, now, can't we just all get along? :)

Astro is the moderator...but I'll moderate this discussion :P

It's best to leave the ego out of this. You are all searching for the same thing...maybe you'll all work together and come to a new conclusion that was otherwise impossible.
Something like 'Moving Pulsoid Sheilding Dimensions Theory'

[astro]

It seems to be that you are being needlessly argumentative here. Do you really think it's unreasonable to emphasize that a new theory agrees in its predictions with existing theories? Does saying so really indicate an 'obsessive need'?



I agree with the sentiment expressed here. A couple of minor points: MDT claims that the new dimension is 'expanding', not 'moving' - probably not relevent to the point you are making, but just to be clear, that's what MDT claims. Also, it's not circular reasoning to draw conclusions from an argument's basic assumptions. If astro were to claim that the expansion is being caused by the effects of the expansion (which include photos and other observable phenomenon in my understanding of MDT), then that would be circular reasoning. But as far as I can tell, the basic premise of MDT is that there is a fourth 'expanding dimension' and that everything follows from that, so no circular arguments are involved.

That being said, I agree that there needs to be much more and better explanation of this expanding fourth dimension for this theory to be worth studying further. If there were some way in which this expanding fourth dimension could be tested for via experimentation; perhaps some unique physical property of matter or energy that MDT predicts that other theories do not, then it might be worth trying to come up with a better understanding of what a fourth dimension is and how it can expand. But since my previous question asking for such a prediction of the theory went unanswered, and other similar questions that I can find in the history of this forum have similarly gone unanswered, I can only assume that MDT really has no predictive power and thus is no better than string theory (except to say that MDT seems alot simpler than string theory, but then again, it also seems quite a bit less rigorous and comprehensive than string theory).



Ad-hominem attacks are not necessary or appreciated.



I agree with this as well. astro - you need to provide more comprehensive answers to the questions which have been posed over and over again in these forums. It seems that much of the time you just copy and paste the same statements that don't really elucidate anything. Surely you must understand that defending your theory means making it clearer, easier to understand, and backed up by more numerous and more compelling arguments than you have thus far provided.

Hello all,

Thanks for the words.

I owe everyone more regarding the theory.

What new phenonema does the theory predict? I'm thinking about that. . .

Right now MDT's strength is that its simple premise offers an underlying physical model for various phenomena in relativity, quantum mechanics, and statistical mechanics.

I am preparing some PDFs on it, which I hope to share in the next few weeks. Happy Holidays!

MDT has a simple postulate and equation:

The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.
dx4/dt=ic

I believe that this implies Einstein's two postulates of relativity, thusly predicting everything relativity predicts, while 1) offering a simpler premise for Einstein's relativity and 2) offering a physical model from where relativity and time istelf emerge.

That's what the upcoming paper will concentrate on.

Thanks to everyone for hanging out here.

The atmosphere is far more laid back here than elsewhere. :) We're all a lot more humble here--that all the great questions are yet to be answered.

MDT just keeps me up at nights....

[Tangled Motion]

Astro,
I know little about physics but with the help of Epsilon=One and this site, I'm on the verge..of what, nothing...anyhow, when I was in high school I had a crude theory that the spatial and the non-spatial had a relationship that gave us our speed, or environment.
I thought the non-spatial imparted motion to the spatial, the more the contact the spatial 'object' had with the non-spatial, the faster it went and the smaller the Universe was. The less the 'contact' the slower we were and the more environment we had. This gave the Universe a single source and reality a multiple of ones, like the Pulsiod Theory does (only his is actually defined and more complete).

In other words, the Universe had no limits, no edge and no shape. I could keep going, I had more...but...

Anyhow, is this kind of what you are saying? I'm trying to figure it out and that's where I keep ending up. Thanks.

[bji]

What new phenonema does the theory predict? I'm thinking about that. . .

That's good to know. It's also good to know that you acknowledge that you don't as of yet have any predictive quantities to verify via experiment, and agree that something along these lines is needed.

I am not a physicist but I imagine that it would be very difficult to come up with a testable quantity without a very thorough knowledge of physics; that is to say, unless you understand very well what is currently 'known' about physical laws, and also what the currently unanswered questions are, then it will be difficult, or perhaps impossible, to design an experiment to verify your theory. I don't know if you have this background, but if you don't ... then I think you need to find someone who does!

Additionally, I think you need to know quite a bit of math; you need to be able to write up your theory using the advanced mathematical terminology that scientists in the field are used to using. I imagine that even if the basis of your theory is simple, the mathematics behind writing up the rules of the 'emergent behaviors' that come out of your theory, will be quite complex.

Just some things to think about ...

MDT just keeps me up at nights....

This might not be a good thing. Remember that your theory might be wrong (as any theory might), so don't devote too much of your life to it! Always keep some perspective ...

[bji]

By the way, I have discovered that essentially my exact same question has already been asked on the amazon.com forums:

" E. S. Uys says:
Dear Dr McCoy
I believe I follow your response. Thank you for taking the trouble. Regarding your reading list how do I get to an account of MDT?
My question concerning time actually has a rider: From your explanation>>Time is an emergent property of a fourth dimension that is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. All time, be it the unwinding of a clock spring, ..... is rooted fundamentally in the propagation of photons. Photons surf the expanding fourth dimension. Hence time inherits properites of the fourth dimension, but it is not the fourth dimension.<< one could argue that there is logical circularity in that time is revealed by the properties of the 4th dimension which is expanding. For a dimension to expand there has to be a rate of expansion (measured using a time instrument). I presume the oscillations of a crystal could be used as a practical reference to measure time? Perhaps I don't properly understand this issue? BTW.doing Math in many dimensions, even infinite dimensions is not a problem for me as my speciality is Functional Analysis. "

This question went unanswered, which does not surprise me, as my fundamental question has gone unanswered here as well.

Quite simply, it is meaningless to say that a dimension expands at the rate of c, since just using the term "rate" implies the use of an objective time measurement, which MDT refutes.

[astro]

Please follow me here.

MDT states that the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c.

What rules have I broken?

What have I done that is not logically consistent?

Suppose I write

dx(4)/dt = ic

What rules have I broken?

What have I done that is not logically consistent?

Time is not the fourth dimension.

Time is a parameter created by man that emerges because the fourth dimension is expanding at the rate of c relative to the three spatial dimensions.

The seconds clicking on your watch are not a dimension. They are but a manifestation of photons that are surfing teh expanding fourth dimension.

Time inherits properties of the fourth expanding dimension, due to the manner in which relativity was developed, but it is not the fourth expanding dimension.

In order to test that the fourth dimension is moving relative tyo the three spatial dimensions, do the following.

Rotate a ruler into the fourth dimension.

If the fourth dimension is moving, the ruler will gain velocity.

This is exactly what happens in Einstein's relativity.

The more the ruler is roated into the fourth expanding dimension, the shorter it appears in the three spatial dimensions.

Consider matter when it has zero length in the three spatial dimensions and exists entirely in the fourth dimension. This matter would appear as a photon. Hence the equivalence of matter and energy: E=mc^2 . Hence all matter that exists purely in the fourth dimension expands at the rate of c relative to the three spatial dimensions. Hence the spherical wavefront of the photon, which propagates at c.

Time's arrow, action-at-a-distance, nonlocality, wave/particle duality, time/space duality, enegery/mass duality, length contraction, double slit interference, entropy, and time itself--MDT offers a physical model for all of these.

[bji]

OK, I'll make one more attempt to get a straight answer to my question, and if this doesn't work, I'm done. Also - please don't copy-paste a bunch of text in each post. It really clutters up the disussion.

Please follow me here.

MDT states that the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c.

What rules have I broken?

What have I done that is not logically consistent?


The rule you have broken is the rule of logic which says that the premises for your theory need to be sound and well-formed. In this case, the concept of expansion, which inherently is a spatial concept, cannot apply to a dimension, which is a mathematical construct serving to provide a framework for mathematical systems.

You have not very well explained exactly what this fourth dimension is or what its properties are, except via references to other parts of your theory. Let's forget about all other parts of your theory for the moment, and not make any references to them. Let's just talk about this expanding fourth dimension. Without reference to other parts of your theory, can you give some insight into how one should visualize this expanding dimension? How can one visualize expansion except within the framework of a spatial dimension? For example, on a plane, a circle can expand; its radius can increase continuously, producing larger and larger concentric circles. But this concept of expansion presumes that there is a spatial plane on which the circle is defined, the plane itself already constituting a two dimension space in which the circle is defined and in which the concept of expansion makes sense. If there were no two dimensional plane defined, expansion would make no sense. So for your expanding fourth dimension - what is it expanding relative to? And if the fourth dimension is not spatial, how can it 'expand' at all, when expansion is, as I have just pointed out, inherently a spatial concept?


Suppose I write

dx(4)/dt = ic

What rules have I broken?

What have I done that is not logically consistent?


The rule you have broken is once again the rule of valid premises. And the logical inconsistency is once again related to your inability to assign valid meaning to the values you have written into your equation. More specifically:

You claim that there is no objective reality called 'time', that time is just an artifact of our experience in the 'expanding fourth dimension'. And yet, the equation you write to describe the relationship between the speed of light (c), the value "i" (which I think you intend to refer to the Planck length?), and the change in the fourth dimension over time, implicitly requires an objective measurement of time outside of the system you have defined.

This is because you write "d(4x)/dt", which means "the change in the fourth dimension over time". Notice the words "over time" - they are what "dt" means. What is the time you are referring to here? You claim that time does not exist. So you don't get the luxury of using "dt" if you claim there is no such thing as "t".

Furthermore, the 'c' on the right side of the equation is the speed of light in a vacuum. 'speed' requires time, since speed is the change in position over time. Once again, you don't allow the fourth dimension's expansion to have a 'speed' because you deny objective time, so how can an equation which tries to describe the speed of the change in the fourth dimension make any sense, when there is no objective time to use in defining that speed? And for that matter, there is no spatial dimension that can be used to define the "change in position" component of the speed either, since you are measuring the expansion of a non-spatial dimension, and thus in the "direction" of its expansion (where even the term "direction" doesn't make any sense, since it's a non-spatial dimension), there are no spatial 'positions' to use in the definition of the speed either.

Furthermore, what does the term "d(4x)" mean? In English it would mean "the change in the fourth dimension". But the change in *what* exactly? What aspect of the fourth dimension is changing here? Its 'length'? But it has no length - it's not spatial! Its 'size'? But it has no size! It's 'size relative to the three spatial dimensions'? But it has no size and cannot be related to the three spatial dimensions!

Every single term of your equation has logical inconsistencies which you have thus far provided no compelling evidence to overcome.

This is your last chance to write something meaningful on these topics. Please consider my points very carefully and respond to each one with logical argument that do not just reference other parts of your theory. Forget about photons, time dilation, gravity, quantum mechanics, etc, etc. Let's just talk about the expanding fourth dimension and the equation you have written.


Time is a parameter created by man that emerges because the fourth dimension is expanding at the rate of c relative to the three spatial dimensions.


But once again - 'expansion' is a concept created by man which REQUIRES TIME to exist as the means by which the expansion occurs. You cannot have expansion if you don't have time! What is your answer to this logical inconsistency?!?

[Epsilon=One]

But once again - 'expansion' is a concept created by man which REQUIRES TIME to exist as the means by which the expansion occurs. You cannot have expansion if you don't have time! What is your answer to this logical inconsistency?!?No matter how you slice and dice it, MDT, and any other theory of physics, is dead in the water, beyond temporal approximation and interpolation at an anthropidal scale, unless the source of time, orthogonality, motion, and mathematics is defined from a first postulate.

Such a concept has never been achieved, and seldom ever discussed, within any academic discipline.

[Epsilon=One]

I would like to add that I concur with "bji"'s logic; and very much appreciate the time applied on this thread.

It would be interesting, and I hope that said logic and time might be applied to more important matters than MDT. Matters such as: academia's versions of special and general relativity (SR & GR), quantum theory (QT), string theory (ST), loop quantum gravity (LQG), and a few other fundamentally ungrounded, theoretical fantasies.

[Tangled Motion]

Astro,

How does something without mass 'surf' through something? How can the non-spatial pass through, penetrate or get inside something, wouldn't this imply contact?
What separates these dimensions or are they mixed?

[astro]

OK, I'll make one more attempt to get a straight answer to my question, and if this doesn't work, I'm done. Also - please don't copy-paste a bunch of text in each post. It really clutters up the disussion.



The rule you have broken is the rule of logic which says that the premises for your theory need to be sound and well-formed. In this case, the concept of expansion, which inherently is a spatial concept, cannot apply to a dimension, which is a mathematical construct serving to provide a framework for mathematical systems.

You have not very well explained exactly what this fourth dimension is or what its properties are, except via references to other parts of your theory. Let's forget about all other parts of your theory for the moment, and not make any references to them. Let's just talk about this expanding fourth dimension. Without reference to other parts of your theory, can you give some insight into how one should visualize this expanding dimension? How can one visualize expansion except within the framework of a spatial dimension? For example, on a plane, a circle can expand; its radius can increase continuously, producing larger and larger concentric circles. But this concept of expansion presumes that there is a spatial plane on which the circle is defined, the plane itself already constituting a two dimension space in which the circle is defined and in which the concept of expansion makes sense. If there were no two dimensional plane defined, expansion would make no sense. So for your expanding fourth dimension - what is it expanding relative to? And if the fourth dimension is not spatial, how can it 'expand' at all, when expansion is, as I have just pointed out, inherently a spatial concept?



The rule you have broken is once again the rule of valid premises. And the logical inconsistency is once again related to your inability to assign valid meaning to the values you have written into your equation. More specifically:

You claim that there is no objective reality called 'time', that time is just an artifact of our experience in the 'expanding fourth dimension'. And yet, the equation you write to describe the relationship between the speed of light (c), the value "i" (which I think you intend to refer to the Planck length?), and the change in the fourth dimension over time, implicitly requires an objective measurement of time outside of the system you have defined.

This is because you write "d(4x)/dt", which means "the change in the fourth dimension over time". Notice the words "over time" - they are what "dt" means. What is the time you are referring to here? You claim that time does not exist. So you don't get the luxury of using "dt" if you claim there is no such thing as "t".

Furthermore, the 'c' on the right side of the equation is the speed of light in a vacuum. 'speed' requires time, since speed is the change in position over time. Once again, you don't allow the fourth dimension's expansion to have a 'speed' because you deny objective time, so how can an equation which tries to describe the speed of the change in the fourth dimension make any sense, when there is no objective time to use in defining that speed? And for that matter, there is no spatial dimension that can be used to define the "change in position" component of the speed either, since you are measuring the expansion of a non-spatial dimension, and thus in the "direction" of its expansion (where even the term "direction" doesn't make any sense, since it's a non-spatial dimension), there are no spatial 'positions' to use in the definition of the speed either.

Furthermore, what does the term "d(4x)" mean? In English it would mean "the change in the fourth dimension". But the change in *what* exactly? What aspect of the fourth dimension is changing here? Its 'length'? But it has no length - it's not spatial! Its 'size'? But it has no size! It's 'size relative to the three spatial dimensions'? But it has no size and cannot be related to the three spatial dimensions!

Every single term of your equation has logical inconsistencies which you have thus far provided no compelling evidence to overcome.

This is your last chance to write something meaningful on these topics. Please consider my points very carefully and respond to each one with logical argument that do not just reference other parts of your theory. Forget about photons, time dilation, gravity, quantum mechanics, etc, etc. Let's just talk about the expanding fourth dimension and the equation you have written.



But once again - 'expansion' is a concept created by man which REQUIRES TIME to exist as the means by which the expansion occurs. You cannot have expansion if you don't have time! What is your answer to this logical inconsistency?!?

Einstein's theory of GR demonstartes that the fourth dimension can move.

It can stretch in the vicinity of a moving mass.

Dimensions can move/stretch--this is a feature of GR.

dx(4)/dt = ic
The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

Time is not the fourth dimension in Einstein's relativity.

u = x4 = ict ---> straight from his manuscript--Einstein uses u for x4.

thus

dx4/dt = ic

Might you be able to get your hands on this:
http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Manuscript-Special-Theory-Relativity/dp/0807615323/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196821060&sr=8-1

Wish I could buy everone for the Holidays. :)

I don't see the logical inconsistencies that you see in MDT, even though I have tried to.

Please order the book from amazon.com--I think you would enjoy it!

Will share more soon!

[Epsilon=One]

Einstein's theory of GR demonstartes that the fourth dimension can move.How can you support any reasonable theory with one that does not reflect observation in the quantum world or reconcile with the Cosmic world beyond some simple two-body mathematics that does not have a structural force with an effect that is equal and opposite to gravity, which gravity it cannot define? Logic states that MDT so supported, can be no better than GR. Einstein understood GR's limitations why can't today's theoretical physicists?

It can stretch in the vicinity of a moving mass.

Dimensions can move/stretch--this is a feature of GR.Yes, it is. And, as should be most obvious to any physicist, it is a metaphysical aspect of GR that is useful for little more than heuristic fantasies . . . such as warped spacetime, the Big Bang and black holes.

dx(4)/dt = ic
The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

Time is not the fourth dimension in Einstein's relativity.

u = x4 = ict ---> straight from his manuscript--Einstein uses u for x4.

thus

dx4/dt = icWhy would MDT depend upon GR, Einstein did not correctly understand these concepts almost one hundred years ago; and, nobody today can still reconcile them with observation or logic?

MDT, using GR as a foundation for its fundamental premises is built upon meaningless simplification that is without fundamental definitions of first causes.

Might you be able to get your hands on this:
www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Manuscript-Special-Theory-Relativity/dp/0807615323/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196821060&sr=8-1Einstein incorrectly states in these manuscripts that the speed of light is constant; and none of his equations reconcile with an expanding Universe much less one with accelerating expansion. Einstein, perpetuates the myth of light being a force while theorizing that light is massless and without acceleration. Einstein was never able, as was Newton, to recognize Cosmic Inertia as a force.

Yet, Einstein speculated that massless photons could be "gravitationally attracted"; as if a force works at a distance; and, then . . . on "something" without mass. Can this, possibly, be believable within the realm of philosophical logic?

Feynman understood that he did not understand gravity; Einstein was bewildered by Cosmic entanglement and later Cosmic expansion (think if he could have known about accelerating expansion); Newton conceded that he explained nothing about why or how gravity works. And, MDT, a theory that seems to resolve everything, does not address gravity other than relying on the mystics of GR.

Before a theory incorporates concepts of SR and GR it must resolve the inconsistencies of SR and GR to be of any logical merit beyond what is now accepted, and irreconcilable, Standard Model theory.

I don't see the logical inconsistencies that you see in MDT, even though I have tried to.Can you see the logical inconsistencies in SR and GR?

Please order the book from amazon.com--I think you would enjoy it!I agree with you, I do enjoy reading Einstein; I also enjoy reading Lewis Carroll.

[astro]

How can you support any reasonable theory with one that does not reflect observation in the quantum world or reconcile with the Cosmic world beyond some simple two-body mathematics that does not have a structural force with an effect that is equal and opposite to gravity, which gravity it cannot define? Logic states that MDT so supported, can be no better than GR. Einstein understood GR's limitations why can't today's theoretical physicists?

Yes, it is. And, as should be most obvious to any physicist, it is a metaphysical aspect of GR that is useful for little more than heuristic fantasies . . . such as warped spacetime, the Big Bang and black holes.

Why would MDT depend upon GR, Einstein did not correctly understand these concepts almost one hundred years ago; and, nobody today can still reconcile them with observation or logic?

MDT, using GR as a foundation for its fundamental premises is built upon meaningless simplification that is without fundamental definitions of first causes.

Einstein incorrectly states in these manuscripts that the speed of light is constant; and none of his equations reconcile with an expanding Universe much less one with accelerating expansion. Einstein, perpetuates the myth of light being a force while theorizing that light is massless and without acceleration. Einstein was never able, as was Newton, to recognize Cosmic Inertia as a force.

Yet, Einstein speculated that massless photons could be "gravitationally attracted"; as if a force works at a distance; and, then . . . on "something" without mass. Can this, possibly, be believable within the realm of philosophical logic?

Feynman understood that he did not understand gravity; Einstein was bewildered by Cosmic entanglement and later Cosmic expansion (think if he could have known about accelerating expansion); Newton conceded that he explained nothing about why or how gravity works. And, MDT, a theory that seems to resolve everything, does not address gravity other than relying on the mystics of GR.

Before a theory incorporates concepts of SR and GR it must resolve the inconsistencies of SR and GR to be of any logical merit beyond what is now accepted, and irreconcilable, Standard Model theory.

Can you see the logical inconsistencies in SR and GR?

I agree with you, I do enjoy reading Einstein; I also enjoy reading Lewis Carroll.

Where does Einstein say that phtons can be gravitationally attracted to one-another? I've been trying to find that. Thanks!

[Epsilon=One]

Where does Einstein say that phtons can be gravitationally attracted to one-another? I've been trying to find that. Thanks!Sorry, I wasn't very clear. The attraction was not between photons.

The statement should have read: Einstein speculated that massless photons could be "gravitationally attracted" to large bodies of mass as with gravitational lensing...

I will edit the post for clarification as time allows.

[astro]

Sorry, I wasn't very clear. The attraction was not between photons.

The statement should have read: Einstein speculated that massless photons could be "gravitationally attracted" to large bodies of mass as with gravitational lensing...

I will edit the post for clarification as time allows.

I remember from undergrad that someone said that two photons heading out in parallel beams would be attracted to one-another.

[Epsilon=One]

To begin with, MDT agrees with Einstein's experimentally-verified theory of general relativity, which states that dimensions bend and stretch.There is much of general relativity (GR) that is not verifiable; and further, the theory agrees with almost nothing that is observable. GR is merely a manipulation of symbolism and mathematics; GR is not logic that explains fundamental first causes. GR does not even attempt to explain how a force can manifest as "attraction-at-a-distance." I believe Einstein mentioned something about "voodoo."

For these reason, and many others, any theory that incorporates the salient mathematics of GR is dead on arrival.

Said GR premises can only lead to fantasies such as a space continuum, space-time, black holes, the Big Bang, and other conclusions that are derived from the illogic of the constant speed of time. Einstein detested the Big Bang; and I'm certain he would have chuckled over black holes . . . worm or massive.

Dimensions can move and warp--String Theory completely dismissed this.Such dismissal is certainly to the credit of string theory (ST). Of the entire popular, academic, theories concerning physics, ST is far and away the best theory for explaining first causes; and, the only one that has a chance at reconciling the sub-atomic and macro environment . . . if only its proponents would look beyond conventional metaphysics and incorporate a “new” physics that incorporates philosophical logic.

The environment must be rationalized as quantized and the result of complex, oscillating motion that can be heuristically described as “strings” that harmonize and resonate . . . to the tick, that is the one constant, of a “clock” (time) that synchronizes all quanta.

This is what Einstein theorized. GR predicted and accounted for the precession of Mercury. GR predicted the bending of light by massive objects. Yes. However, Ockham would well appreciate that there are much better explanations for the observed phenomena than GR.

So can we at least begin by acknowledging that GR is a valid theory?Nothing would be more of a folly.

[bji]

Yes. However, Ockham would well appreciate that there are much better explanations for the observed phenomena than GR.


Can you demonstrate how Pulsoid Theory can be used to show that the precession of Mercury should be as measured?

Also, I started a new thread in the Pulsoid Theory forum titled 'Questions from another thread'. I am not sure why you are not answering them, but could you please? Thanks.

For what it's worth, I have spent some time trying to understand Pulsoid Theory. I find it very difficult because it uses unique terminology and makes very ambitious claims without very much explanative text or math to show how the conclusions are drawn. When I have more time, I will read about Pulsoid Theory more thoroughly and hopefully come to a better understanding of it.

[Epsilon=One]

Can you demonstrate how Pulsoid Theory can be used to show that the precession of Mercury should be as measured?No.

I did not state that Pulsoid Theory (PT) applies to such a measurement. However, I did imply that there is another explanation that Ockham would better appreciate because it relies upon simpler observed phenomena than unproven mathematical manipulations that are fundamentally based upon metaphysical theory. However, to relate the precession of Mercury to PT, I would suggest the same forces that cause the Pioneer Anomaly are at work on Mercury that account for the precession, which GR only approximates. These forces of deviation from the expected are a result of the Dyosphere (www.CQthus.com/PT/Dyo), which is often referred to as “dark” matter.

Also, I started a new thread in the Pulsoid Theory forum titled 'Questions from another thread'. I am not sure why you are not answering them, but could you please? Thanks.I look forward to and quickly answer, in an ad hoc manner, all questions that I find as time allows. As yet, I have not seen the questions that you are referring to. As a moderator, I am not notified of new posts by e-mail. I will look for them. Currently, my replies are a few posts behind for those that I have found. I usually can average 2 or 3 posts a day.

For what it's worth, I have spent some time trying to understand Pulsoid Theory. I find it very difficult because it uses unique terminology and makes very ambitious claims without very much explanative text or math to show how the conclusions are drawn.Every attempt is made to define terminology, which is necessary because most fundamental concepts are undefined or defined with confusing connotations. If you will ask questions when the terminology is “difficult,” or you cannot follow the logic or math, I will do my best to explain in detail. Without writing volumes beyond the intent of forum postings, I cannot hope to be understood by every level of reader. In most cases, space and time allow for only a sparse structure for the advanced reader; it is expected that others will ask questions. Hopefully, a few questions at a time.

When I have more time, I will read about Pulsoid Theory more thoroughly and hopefully come to a better understanding of it.Better to ask questions as you move along. A good starting point is to study the Elliptical Constant (www.CQthus.com/PT/EC) (EC) until you completely understand the concept.

[bpj1138]

Bart--Newton said that he saw further because he stood upon the shoulders of giants, as did Einstein.


I should have said "status quo". I happen to agree with a 200+ year old theory though I have one major modification, so I do not simply agree with it, and call it a day.

What is your background in physics?

Computational.

--Bart

[eepcat]

The rule you have broken is the rule of logic which says that the premises for your theory need to be sound and well-formed. In this case, the concept of expansion, which inherently is a spatial concept, cannot apply to a dimension, which is a mathematical construct serving to provide a framework for mathematical systems.


It sounds to me like you are walking into your own trap. You are making assumptions here. I don't have a problem with making assumptions as long as it is not the basis for your criticism of anothers' ideas.

If the concept of expansion cannot apply to a dimension (which I disagree with), then what exactly IS expanding in our universe? Whatever label we wish to apply, there appears to be expansion in our universe. Physics does not require that all dimensions/fabrics/ethers expand in the same way.

Einstein's work went a long way to divorcing us from the concept of magical "forces" that moved things. He revealed the physical reality of our universe, metaphorically and mathematically. This theory builds on GR and SR in a purely physical way. This is what makes it so exciting. It sure seems like physics has been spinning its wheels for a couple of decades proposing more and more outrageous theories with incredibly difficult math. The more difficult the math gets, the more you recede from the truth....

my $0.02 ;)

[astro]

It sounds to me like you are walking into your own trap. You are making assumptions here. I don't have a problem with making assumptions as long as it is not the basis for your criticism of anothers' ideas.

If the concept of expansion cannot apply to a dimension (which I disagree with), then what exactly IS expanding in our universe? Whatever label we wish to apply, there appears to be expansion in our universe. Physics does not require that all dimensions/fabrics/ethers expand in the same way.

Einstein's work went a long way to divorcing us from the concept of magical "forces" that moved things. He revealed the physical reality of our universe, metaphorically and mathematically. This theory builds on GR and SR in a purely physical way. This is what makes it so exciting. It sure seems like physics has been spinning its wheels for a couple of decades proposing more and more outrageous theories with incredibly difficult math. The more difficult the math gets, the more you recede from the truth....

my $0.02 ;)

Thanks eepcat,

That is exactly what MDT is strinving for--a physical theory.

A theory that tell us something about our physical reality.

MDT comes with a simple physical postulate represented by an equation with far-reaching consequences:

The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.
d(x4)/dt = ic

All the curious phenonema of relativity, quantum mechanics, and entropy be be traced to this underlying physical reality.

[Epsilon=One]

If the concept of expansion cannot apply to a dimension (which I disagree with), then what exactly IS expanding in our universe? Whatever label we wish to apply, there appears to be expansion in our universe. Physics does not require that all dimensions/fabrics/ethers expand in the same way.You are on to the correct concept when you twice state: “expanding in our universe”; “in” being the operative word.

As, the Universe is the “be all and end all” of that which exists, by definition, it cannot have a finite locus in terms of size or distance. If the Universe were to be finite, you would have to define its “container,” which, of course, would have to be within the Universe.

To consider the Universe to be expanding is as ludicrous as considering that a “dimension” can expand without defining the source of any dimension. The connotations of “dimension” are confusing at best . . . undefined at worst.

An expansion must be defined as expanding relative to “something” which implies a function of “time.” How can anyone have much credibility discussing any expansion without: 1.) Defining the term dimension; 2.) Defining the origin of fundamental, intrinsic “time” (FIT); and, 3.) What the expansion is relative to.

Einstein's work went a long way to divorcing us from the concept of magical "forces" that moved things.Nothing is further from the truth. Both special relativity (SR) and general relativity (GR) rely upon “magical “forces” that move things” (I prefer the term metaphysical forces; many use the term “voodoo” concerning Einstein’s forces.)

The following website discusses some of Einstein’s fantasies contained within SR and GR that are irreconcilable with either logic or observation.

"Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics" (www.CQthus.com/PT/Spacetime)

Any refutation of any of the arguments within NLTASP by an academic, theoretical physicist would be most interesting; and, something that I would look forward to debating.

Einstein could not reconcile SR and GR with logic and observation; Feynman implied the task was beyond human endeavor. Why would any sound theory depend upon the concepts of SR and GR and expect to be acceptable?

He revealed the physical reality of our universe, metaphorically and mathematically.You cannot reveal “physical” reality either “metaphorically” or “mathematically.” Metaphors are symbols that are not literally applicable; mathematics is the manipulation of symbols from axioms that are fundamentally unproven by academia.

This theory builds on GR and SR in a purely physical way. This is what makes it so exciting.Better that the theory is so illogical than “so exciting.” You can not build/achieve logic upon the illogical.

It sure seems like physics has been spinning its wheels for a couple of decades proposing more and more outrageous theories with incredibly difficult math. The more difficult the math gets, the more you recede from the truth....I quite agree. I date the beginning of when the “wheels came off” academic, theoretical physics as the day that Einstein died. (I had been sent to see him that day.)

[Epsilon=One]

That is exactly what MDT is strinving for--a physical theory.How can MDT possibly be considered a "physical theory" when it explains no fundamental physical manifestation; some examples, for instance, such as: 1.) gravitational, attraction-at-a-distance; 2.) half-spin; 3.) accelerating, galactic recession; 4.) the tremendous energy in gamma-ray bursts and quasars; 5.) high-energy, isotropic, background radiation; 6.) how mass converts to light; 7.) the Natural origin of mathematics . . .

A theory that tell us something about our physical reality.The theory (MDT) tells us nothing about "physical reality" until it can explain: how and what is expanding.

MDT comes with a simple physical postulate represented by an equation with far-reaching consequences:

The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.
d(x4)/dt = icThe postulate and equation are not compatible without defining the origin of the stated dimensions, time, and expansion.

All the curious phenonema of relativity, quantum mechanics, and entropy be be traced to this underlying physical reality.Entropy aside, what is the "physical reality"/value of theory that is the source metaphysics?

Is there any force defined by these theories that is philosophically logical and demonstrated by observation at all scales?

Academia has yet to singularly define the concept of force with one equation; rather, there our several with entirely different terms. Is it upon such a metaphysical foundation that MDT and all the academic theories of physics are based. These theories extrapolate data from limited observation that fits fact at only a particular scale; then obfuscate the failures with jargon and obtuse mathematics.

Truth must depend upon precisely defined simplicity that is expressed with geometry and integers; not open-ended fantasy.

[eepcat]

Epsilon=One,
You caught me there a few times using unfortunate choice of terms...thanks - that will hopefully keep me sharper in the future. I usually do these post during my lunch time and tend to rush my responses.
I did not mean to say "in" the universe, but the universe itself is expanding. Now, I use the term "universe" as what we have detected scientifically through astronomy. Astronomical evidence is very clear that there appears to be an expansion - - I don't know how you could conclude that this is absurd. These observations could be skewed, exaggerated or even dead wrong, but it's certainly not absurd given the observational data. Do you argue for a steady state theory?

I tend to get uncomfortable when the terms "infinite" and "finite" are used because we could possibly be observing both. We can agree that the earth is finite, but while walking its surface, I will never reach the "end", therefore it could seem infinite....hey, that came from a Brian Greene book... NOOOOOOO! Could be that distant galaxies will one day interact again at the "other side" of the universe. I try to keep my mind as open as 7-11 on these things until strong evidence argues to the contrary.

I'm glad we agree on the unfortunate state of theoretical physics. I fear that it will take another iconic revolutionary to capture the imagination of the world. No matter how hard Stephen Hawking is pushed onto the pedestal, he's not it. [be thankful I removed my Stephen Hawking rant from here]

I guess it all comes down to my firm (or stubborn) belief that every interaction in the universe has a physical explanation. Just like Quantum Mechanics, there are a lot of things that happen in the universe that seem weird, but it's only because we're looking at it the wrong way. The trick is to find the right perspective (or right prescription glasses :D ). Some day, a future generation will have a strong (though probably never complete) understanding of the universe, and will probably say something like.... "...boring!".

I read earlier in this post about a pulsoid theory? Is this your work? I'd like to read about it, if I could.

I'll will read the criticism of GR and SR that you included. Although I bow to the alter of Einstein, I do not turn down a well-written criticism.

Thanks Epsilon.
Rock on, Astro.
- eep!