Size? It is a dimension?

Size - does it matter?

How small can you get until there is no matter?
How big can you get until it doesn't matter?

So, if you are the size of an bacteria, 1 meter seems a long way to go?
If you are the size of a man, 1 lightyear is a long way to go?
If you are the size of a galaxy, one mega-light-year is a long way to go?
If you are the size of the universe... hope you catch my drift here.
... does that mean taking one step forward, will violate the speed of light ?

Imho yes. The inside of the universe will never experience that, because they are inside of the leg moving, but everything seems steady from the inside.

So does size matter? Not really.
So can you use size as a mathematical dimension? Yes! ?
Apparently at the ultra small and microscopic, quantum theory tells us extraordinary events that is not explained well by Physics, nor mathematics. Take the double-slit experiment for one
Double-slit experiment

Does that mean there is another law of mathematics/physics that governs that world? Extend that the the ultra-big. Clearly there are another set of mathematics that governs the huge? We had to put in extra gravitational numbers to get galaxies spinning the way they do, and we call it dark energy, dark matter, because its the only mathematical way to make sense of it. The real answer is, we don't know.

So could it be possible that we need a new kind of mathematics to relate to the ultra-tiny, and the ultra big? Size is a dimension?

I also believe there is no limit as the speed of light, also due to those reasons. Everything being infinite.
Perhaps certain materials are that limited before they split up, but that does not limit movement speed.

Before anything starts I want everyone to be aware that there are at least 2 definitions of dimension.

-The math measurement of being able to give a position by numbers, as in x, y, z or even details such as x, y, item number
-Another invisible dimension (one) is also called dimension. If you had infinite of those you could measure it as a mathematical dimension, yet infinity is not a requirement to use this math model. It is also how the computers 1 dimensional data is usually aligned by humans to other shapes. From one line to a line every 5 data pieces, using it as 2D. Leaving out infinite detail.

a reply to: oneoneone

Thank you for the information. But wouldn't you need a 4th dimension, time. Its not enough to make a rendezvous at some place in xyz, without knowing the time to appear.

So we got 4 as of now? xyz=makes a place, T makes the time.

S makes the Size ? You won't be meeting anyone if they are tiny, and you are huge... ?

a reply to: kloejen

Relativity = size? Try replacing them i dont know see if that works.

originally posted by: kloejen
a reply to: oneoneone

Thank you for the information. But wouldn't you need a 4th dimension, time. Its not enough to make a rendezvous at some place in xyz, without knowing the time to appear.

So we got 4 as of now? xyz=makes a place, T makes the time.

S makes the Size ? You won't be meeting anyone if they are tiny, and you are huge... ?

You could define many things as dimension, such as time, yes. Size is less likely to be defined as one in relevancy and perhaps just a detail of the 3 position measurements.

It is very hard to imagine why things can be measurable in these 3 position measurements indeed. I wonder if anyone has a perfect answer in mind. My mind no longer has power for such things.
Time rather seems logical to me no matter what would be. 3D is more logical than any other locational dimension numbers, yet not fully clear to me. Perhaps this is just the only choice in the first place, but math washed this out of me.

op I had the exact theory a couple years back and believe it can go together. Have a read from this thread I made four years ago about fourth dimension being scale/size, maybe you have the additional info needed. Let me know, maybe if you can get really big then shrink back to size you can teleport... www.abovetopsecret.com...

Don't know how relevant this is, but I was trying to get my head around the fourth dimension. Seen the cube within a cube etc, but still couldn't quite get it. I then started to look at dimensions as "directions"? I can "walk" left and right, one direction, or "dimension", back and forward, 2nd dimension and up and down, third dimension. Now if I could "walk" bigger and smaller, that would be the fourth dimension? So a "dimension" is like a "direction"? North/South, East/West, up/down, bigger/smaller?

You could also believe in temperature being a dimension or the invisible we encounter as another one, different worlds.
But when you conclude things such as the invisible simply being faster - like when you heat up ice it becomes almost invisible and you heat it up more it's even more invisible...

Locational dimensions just say there could be something in that place x,y,z and next to it something else which also deludes people into believing in material A and B.
But now there is first nothing. Consider there being random movements in this nothingness or anything with infinite detail. A pressure wave or light expand in all directions. They are not a ray going like a line. They spread. In order for this computer to show you those exact numbers it has to fight all these forces heavily. There are so many measures correcting the influence of everyone onto one another in this world into A or B, 0 or 1.

Let's say there are some beings who got dominated by unwise ones who just attack until things work to use the environment without understanding it (including exploiting their fellow beings, not even considering they could be one mechanism with them). Then you get math, because it simply works. It's being modified and it works again.

a reply to: maxwellinfinity

Thanks for the info, and glad im not the only one thinking in those terms. Looking forward to read the thread.

The thing is that according to the Big Bang theory, everything was packed very closely together in a microscopic pin point, then suddenly everything came to be. So if that is true, that means imho size/scale is a dimension.

So maybe we are living in the immerse of a big bag, we are so tiny, that the stars around us seems so far away, but they are just within a hairs reach in front of you. But we won't see that, coz we are extremely tiny... ?

Sidenote: I heard some joker say that the universe isn't holographic - its pornographic - after all it was created in a big bang

Size....

a reply to: odaeio

Check this out as an idea

a reply to: roadgravel

Nice one! Thanks.

But wouldn't doubling the amount of vertices amount to a logarithmic scale of dimensions? Problem is the representation... we can not comprehend it as a multidimensional object. Since we humans are only aware of the 3, 4th with some logic, how do we comprehend 5 ? or six? This is string theory, or am i wrong?

This is not where im getting at, my postulation was that size is a dimension. If you are the size of a galaxy, and i am the size of an atom, how can we communicate? Let alone the time difference between the microscopic and the huge, according to Einsteins relativity theory, time works at different intervals, but still defined as their speed. So if a bacteria moves 1 cm a year, and the universe moves 1 "universe" a year, does that make a difference in time too ? Speed, Mass, Time ?

How would you be able to hear me, or how am i able to hear you ? If we used radio frequencies, the time difference would still be so prolonged to me, that i would never ever understand you, and vica-versa ?

I've long considered the dimension of scale to be a valid dimension. Others have too, here's a wiki link: en.wikiversity.org...

In my own work in studying dimensions mathematically I consider the unit circle to be the scalar dimension's axis. Outside of it you're counting outwards (1, 2, 3, etc.) while inside of it you count inwards (1, 1/2, 1/3, etc.) towards the singularity/0-point. In nature you might consider the schwarzschild radius or event horizon to be a natural scalar axis as it relates to time scaling (gravitational time dilation).

a reply to: kloejen

It was for the person mentioning envisioning dimensions.

I wouldn't think of size as a dimension. We already see variance in size in our three.

.... If you are the size of a galaxy, and i am the size of an atom, how can we communicate? ...

Electromagnetic radiation is the same regardless of size and allows for communication.

a reply to: roadgravel

How do you know that? There is no proof that is real. Only in our dimension of size.

And even if it was true, try this thought-experiment:
I am as tiny as a microbe, you are the size of the galaxy. You say "Hi there". In order for that Electromagnetic radiation to reach me would take ages, let alone decipher it.

Its like when your dog is one year, its actually 7 years! And you missed its birthday 6 years in a row!

Time at those scales are different. If i yelled "Hi buddy!", all you would hear would be a nanosecond of "noise", you would have to downspeed it to understand, but then again, how many samples were you taking per second, 44100 16 bit mono?, was it enough to make sense of what i said?`You would need to sample at a stupendous frequency to make anything out of the message.

In my tiny world it would take thousands of years, until your said "there". Then i had to resample the 4000 year long message in my ears, where you are saying "hi there", down to my speed. Who is sampling at a 4000 year frequency ?

Unless the real gods are the bacterias? You cannot eradicate them. They made the dinosaurs, and us... Maybe "god" is very tiny?

a reply to: kloejen

Ok heres another one...

"Does size matter?"

Try this,

"Does context matter?"

For instance, what context does size not matter in?

Response?

How do you know that? There is no proof that is real. Only in our dimension of size.

You are claiming an unproven thing and speculating light isn't there. Light could just as well exist there.

edit:

It also sounds as though you are saying light isn't real.

a reply to: onequestion

In short love/hate - both universal wondered, both never measured. Leaving you at the question...which was first?

a reply to: kloejen

How can you have a size without first having something to compare it to, which is...

con·text
ˈkäntekst/
noun
noun: context; plural noun: contexts

the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.

Context.

So does context matter?

i think this is one of the fundamental flaws of modern science. Well have to start from scratch eventually.

a reply to: roadgravel

How did i claim that light does not exist? You mean electromagnetism which is one of the things we suspect light is? So what is light? Is it a wave of electromagnetism, or is it a wave of particles ?
going back to the double slit experiment...

If i was a microbe, the way i perceive light would be alot different than a human being, because of size.

If i live for a second in your time, and you live to be 60+ trips around the sun, wouldn't it be safe to assume we see light differently ?