Math Defines and Explains Four Dimensions of Reality

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Alright, well this is a mathematical thought I just went through now. It has incredibly profound implications. Now, this is 'math,' and if you think you don't like math you might not really ponder what is being said with these equations, perhaps because you will think they are complicated. These are actually very intuitive ideas, expressed using math. If you understand the 'idea,' the math makes perfect sense.

E=hv
THEREFORE E/v=h
THEREFORE v is directly proportional to h
THEREFORE v=E/h
THEREFORE v is inversely proportional to h


E=mc^2
c^2=E/m
THEREFORE E is inversely proportional to m
THEREFORE E is directly proportional to v
CREATE variable t, which is equivalent to E
CREATE variable s, which is equivalent to m
t=v/m

c = speed of light
c is proportional to v^2
THEREFORE
E=mv^2
THEREFORE E is directly proportional to v^2
DUE TO E-t equivalence, t=mv^2
DUE TO t-v equivalence, v=mv^2
DUE TO m-s equivalence, v=sv^2
DUE TO v-c equivalence c=sv^2
c = speed of photon in 'empty' space

We can thus operationally define empty space. Empty space is what exists in a theoretical state of no mass, or physicality. We can say this is equivalent to there being no spatial dimensions, 'space,' hence variable s. Let us then create variable z, representing 'zero' spatial dimensions. Since z represents empty space, we can define a limit of 0 for variable z. 2-dimensionally, on a graph, we can represent this spatial dimension by x. Let us give t, 'time,' the graphical dimension y.

z(as x approaches 0) = xv^2
DUE TO E-v^2 equivalence, z=xE
E=z/x^2
z=Ex^2
DUE TO z = 0x
z = E(x/0x)
DUE TO E-t equivalence
z = t(x/0x)
DUE TO E-t , t-y, and x-z equivalence
LIMIT OF x(as x approaches 0) = y(x/0)
THEREFORE y-x equivalence
THEREFORE LIMIT OF x(as x approaches 0 from either positive or negative numbers) = LIMIT OF y(as y approaches 0 from positive or negative numbers)
ALSO LIMIT OF x(as x approaches infinitely large positive or negative numbers) = LIMIT OF y(as y approaches infinitely large positive or negative numbers)

These limits essentially define the x and y axes. These axes define perfect 90 degree angles, defining a circle. Since these 90 degree angles are themselves perfect, due to the symmetry of the equivalent limits, they are actually unable to be 'perfectly' modeled, due to the assymetry of inversely non-equivalent limits. This inability to perfectly model data is related to chaos math. Due to this perplexing fact of both equivalent and non-equivalent limits approaching 0 and infinity, we can only define a bisecting line by another limit. That limit is 90 degrees, as it approaches itself.
Angle = 45+(90 degrees, serving as its own limit as it approaches itself)

Due to this impossibility of 'perfect' modeling, we cannot say that the graph 100% accurately contains the form of the graph. It is always slightly disturbed by the existence of the limits. Therefore, despite the fact that four 90 degree angles defines the circle which defines a graph, four 'quadrants' cannot be said to ultimately define the reality of this equation. Since 90 degrees is always approaching itself, it can have virtually any value, from negative infinity to positive infinity. Therefore, circles can be defined according to virtually any point, graphically, in 2-dimensional space. In 3-dimensional space, these can be represented by 'balls.'

We can, using this methodology, define the first three dimensions, using the model of angles bisected by lines. The 1st dimension has no line, therefore 360 degree angle. The 2nd dimension has 2 180 degree angles, defined by the end points of 1 line. The previously define equation can therefore be demonstrated to define the third dimension, using a standard infinitely-close-to-perfect 2-dimensional graph.
The x-axis is defined by y approaching 0
The y-axis is defined by x approaching 0
3-Dimensional reality is defined by a perfect 360 degree circle on a 2-dimensional graph

The x-axis defines space, the y-axis time. Therefore, any perfect circle defines the 3rd dimension. Through observing the 3rd dimension as a 'ball,' equivalent to 'shells' in quantum theory, we can see our reality from a 4th dimensional perspective. From this perspective, 3-D reality can be seen as the infinite repetition of a certain pattern. That pattern is the 4th dimension.

The implication is that we can, in 3-Dimensional reality, understand the 'graphical' representation of 3-dimensional reality, from a 4th-dimensional perspective. That would be defined by a perfect 3-dimensional 'ball' that is defined by being perfect in terms of 2 dimensional lines spreading out at every possible angle(approaching infinity).
edit on 27-12-2012 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by TheJourney
 


this not an Epiphany , math is ingrained into everything we do. it even can be used to describe dreams, and flows through us in everything we do, and observe. for instance, we always have an number of electrons(or any other particles) contained within our being that could theoretically be measured(if we had the tech), what ever that number may be, can be plugged into any equation. any situation we experience can be crunched with numbers(probiibilitys, ect,ect,) . its kind of like that scene from the matrix when neo "sees" the matrix, but with crazy math equations most of which we have not discovered or will ever understand. math is an elusive falcon.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheJourney
THEREFORE v=E/h
THEREFORE v is directly proportional to h


That there is new math to me. If v=E/h, v is inversely proportional to h, not directly.

Is that a typo?



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheJourney
E=mc^2
c^2=E/m
THEREFORE E is inversely proportional to m


Uh oh! Wrong again... E is directly proportional to m.

I am seeing a pattern of incorrect mathematical derivations.

Are you sure you thought this through? I'm not going to go through the rest, as there are blatant errors out of the gate.
edit on 27-12-2012 by InTheFlesh1980 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by TheJourney
 


I would suggest the book "Flatland". A more...accessible...representation of the concept you are trying to state.

I enjoy reading your posts as much as you enjoy pontificating about "mathematics." Keep it up.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by InTheFlesh1980

Originally posted by TheJourney
THEREFORE v=E/h
THEREFORE v is directly proportional to h


That there is new math to me. If v=E/h, v is inversely proportional to h, not directly.

Is that a typo?


Yup, typo. Hopefully that didn't me to go mix up letters in the equations anywhere. Looks like just a couple letters. I hope people aren't not reading it all cuz of a letter or two, lol. The logic is perfect, if you follow the logical train.
edit on 27-12-2012 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Also, this would serve as a perfect method for storing information. It can be used to model anything. Perfect for computer programming.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by TheJourney
 



E=hv ... v is inversely proportional to h ... v is directly proportional to h


absolutely not. both of these statements cannot be true.



Due to this perplexing fact of both equivalent and non-equivalent limits approaching 0 and infinity, we can only define a bisecting line by another limit. That limit is 90 degrees, as it approaches itself. Angle = 45+(90 degrees, as it approaches itself)


...if i am following you correctly, this is a roundabout justification for EULER'S FORMULA. the use of the imaginary unit (i), ensures that, mathematically, the two axis (and their limits) are non-referential. this is your "third limit".

but ive gotta be honest. i cannot see the point of using special relativity as a starting point to built what appears to be fairly common mathematical schemes. i can see that you are going somewhere with this, so i will be patient.




The implication is that we can, in 3-Dimensional reality, understand the 'graphical' representation of 3-dimensional reality, from a 4th-dimensional perspective.


i hope this is not your grand coup. what you have described here is the appropriate use of "dimension" as referring to "degrees of freedom". let us say that we have a 2-dimensional surface, such as you have described. if we take measurement on one of the two basis states, the second basis state collapses automatically. therefore, a 2-dimensional surface has only ONE degree of freedom.

similarly, description of a 3-dimensional object (one requiring three degrees of freedom), because the final degree is not "free", requires 4 dimensions in its description.


....i really hope you are going somewhere here. otherwise yer spinnin' yer wheels, bro.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   
I updated the more recent post with a couple things, including obvious 'type-o' fixes, to make it more clear. I also added a bit to the description of the implications.
edit on 27-12-2012 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
0

log in

join