New look at dimensions:

[Turtle]

___I have some observations, in spite of my inadequate understanding of the nuances of physics.

___First, inspite of what loarevalo said, I understand the theorists say it is possible to travel back in time.

___In regard to Erasmus00 saying up is the same as down, it is simply not true. Left is not right either.

___In respect to Fuller's physics, unless youv'e read it, you have no grounds to discount it. I have read enough in Synergetics to know the "degrees' of freedom" idea isn't picked out of the air; Fuller establishes it explicitly. He also shows geometrically why your "something squared", is better modeled by "something triangled" (my words).

[Erasmus00]

___I have some observations, in spite of my inadequate understanding of the nuances of physics.

___First, inspite of what loarevalo said, I understand the theorists say it is possible to travel back in time.

___In regard to Erasmus00 saying up is the same as down, it is simply not true. Left is not right either.

___In respect to Fuller's physics, unless youv'e read it, you have no grounds to discount it. I have read enough in Synergetics to know the "degrees' of freedom" idea isn't picked out of the air; Fuller establishes it explicitly. He also shows geometrically why your "something squared", is better modeled by "something triangled" (my words).

 

Yes, some theorists claim you could travel backward in time. These time travel scenarios are all GR based, and most require some form of exotic matter (i.e. negative mass).

 

Now, I don't wish to argue against Fuller's physics, as I have not read all of it. My comment was on the original document posted in this thread. I was simply pointing out that in physics, degrees of freedom means something specific. Movement on the x axis is 1 degree of freedom, regardless of the direction of travel. Momvement on the y and z is another. Rotational motions introduce new degrees of freedom. The reason up and down can be thought of as the same degree of freedom is that a particle traveling up can also be thought of as traveling down with a negative speed. If you wish to make up and down seperate, you have to restrict yourself to positive velocities.

-Will

[Turtle]

___Again, Fuller justifies the degrees of freedom & sets it clearly against what you claim. He does so geometrically, & if you don't read it all then how do you logically associate it it with your view & then discount it? Did you know how high a regard Einstein held for Bucky? To paraphrase what he once said to him "I only wish I ever did something usefull". Here's another Einstein quote in general that indirectly refers to Fuller:

"After a certain high level of technical skill is achieved, science and art tend to coalesce in esthetics, plasticity, and form. The greatest scientists are always artists as well."

Albert Einstein

___Search this site for "time travel" & find they have the capacity to make exotic material & yes you can travel back in time.

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050716/fob7.asp

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050711/full/050711-4.html

I only know a few things, but I know them well.

[Guest loarevalo]

Rotational motions introduce new degrees of freedom.

I don't wish to argue this. I don't know much of physics to argue. But, could you explain how rotation introduces degrees of freedom?

 

I am assuming that for rotational movement to be independent from time-space dimensions (and thus a true degree of freedom), then we must be talking about rotational movement of a point. That is, a point particle. If we refer to normal rotation of objects, we can see how this rotation isn't a degree of freedom because the object is composed of mass that moves in directions of space-time, so v is a four-valued vector. If we talk about rotation as a degree of freedom then, it is rotation not just about a point, but of the point. Then we must accept the existence of this point-particles (dimensionless mass).

 

How fair is this treatment of rotation as degrees of freedom?

 

If we accept rotation as degrees of freedom, aren't the rotational movements somewhat dependent on how many time-space dimensions there are? If rotational movements are independent of space-time dimensions, why only define 4 rotational degrees of freedom, and not 5,6 or 1000?

 

Illuminate me as to this:

If we consider up and down as two degrees of freedom, shouldn't we count counter-clockwise and clockwise as also two degrees of freedom?

 

What is the ultimate count of degrees of freedom. I count:

X: 2

Y: 2

Z: 2

T: 2

XY rot.: 2

XZ rot.: 2 (or XY and YZ: 4, or whatever combination of XYZ)

ZT rot.: 2 (or XT or whatever with T)

TOTAL: 12

[Erasmus00]

___Again, Fuller justifies the degrees of freedom & sets it clearly against what you claim. He does so geometrically, & if you don't read it all then how do you logically associate it it with your view & then discount it? Did you know how high a regard Einstein held for Bucky? To paraphrase what he once said to him "I only wish I ever did something usefull". Here's another Einstein quote in general that indirectly refers to Fuller:

"After a certain high level of technical skill is achieved, science and art tend to coalesce in esthetics, plasticity, and form. The greatest scientists are always artists as well."

Albert Einstein

 

Again, I have not read all of Fuller, I don't know the meaning he associates with degree of freedom. I am presenting the viewpoint of mainstream statistical mechanics. (when you say the specific heat of an object, for instance, is f/2 nkT, where f is the number of degrees of freedom, n is the number of molecules, k is boltzman's constant, and T is the temp). In physics, when we say degree of freedom, we mean a specific thing.

-Will

[Turtle]

___Fuller early on shows the mistake in using "points" as a foundation. Rotationally you may go clockwise or counterclockwise; 2 degrees of freedom. Why do you make something this simple seem contradictory?

___Learn how Fuller counts & then try & refute it in any specific. Further discussion otherwise is vacuous.

[infamous]

___

___Learn how Fuller counts & then try & refute it in any specific. .

Here are two more quotes from Buckminster Fuller:

 

With each event in the Universe, there are always 12 unique degrees of freedom.

 

This is to say that with each high frequency of recurring turns to play of each and all systems there are 6 moves that can be made in 12 optional directions.

[Turtle]

___Reading Fuller further :lol: , he does differenciate dimensions & degrees of freedom & sums the two.

 

"000.127 Nature is inherently eight-dimensional, and the first four of these dimensions are the four planes of symmetry of the minimum structure of Universe-the omnitriangulated, equi-vector-edge tetrahedron. In respect to the conceptual pre-time-size tetrahedron's volume taken as unity 1, with its six unit-vector-edge structure, the always conceptual-independent-of-size family of primitive, pre-time-size, least complex polyhedra have the following exact volumes-the vector-triangulated cube 3, the octahedron 4, the rhombic triacontahedron 5, and the rhombic dodecahedron 6. When the size information is introduced, it occurs only as frequency of modular subdivision of each unit vector structuring of the primitive family's respective 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, 5-, and 6-tetravolumes. Frequency to the third power, F3 , values then multiply the primitive, already-four-dimensional volumetric values. In physically realized time-size each has therefore 4 + 3 = 7 dimensions, but since each system is inherently independent in Universe and therefore has spinnability, one more dimensional factor is required, making a total of eight dimensions in all for experientially evidencing physical reality.

 

000.1271 To define the everywhere-and-everywhen-transforming cosmic environment of each and every system requires several more intercovarying system dimensions-planetary, solar, galactic, intergalactic. Because of the six positive and six negative degrees of freedom governing systems-within-systems intertransforming, we have 8 + 6 = 14 dimensional systems in cosmic relationship governance."

[infamous]

As one reads Buckminster Fuller, they continually run into the number 6.

 

I was talking with a friend just recently when he informed me that the number 6 is also the first perfect number. I'm not an expert in number theory so I can't expound upon this fact but I find it interesting that this number keeps popping up in significent places.

 

Buckminster also makes this following statement:

 

"There are 6 basic motions in the Universe."

#1.......Spin

#2.......Orbit

#3.......Inside-out

#4.......Expansion-constraction

#5.......Torque

#6.......Precession

 

While I was searching out these facts I also became aware of the following formual:

 

The volume of a sphere can be calculated ............. radius^3*(4/3)*pi = volume

I later discovered this new formula............................ dia^3*pi/6 = volume

 

The dimensionless ratio: (6/pi) is equal to (dia^3/volume) for values of a sphere

 

(6/pi) is therefore a constant of nature defining the ratio of the (dia of a sphere cubed divided by the volume of said sphere)

 

This figure (6/pi) has a significent place within the figures I have presented at the beginning of this thread. I believe these facts are more than coincidental.

[infamous]

Buckminster makes these next observations about the six vector nature of the (proton, electron, and anti neutrino) and the (neutron, positron, and neutrino).

 

One set of three-vector groups corresponds to the proton (with its electron and anti neutrino), and the other set of three-vector groups corresponds to the neutron (with its positron and neutrino). Each of these three vector teams is identified by nuclear physics as:

 

one-half Plank's constant, or

one-half spin, or

one-half quantum

 

When we bring togeather these two sets of three vectors each, they integrate as six vectors and coincidentally also make one tetrahedron (of six vector edges). The tetrahedron is the veritably conceptualizable unit of one energy quantum.

[infamous]

Another peculiar instance where the number 6 comes to our attention is:

 

 

There are 6 natural Leptons:

 

#1.....The electron

#2.....The muon

#3.....The tau

all of the above are charged

#4.....The electron neutrino

#5.....The muon neutrino

#6.....The tau neutrino

and these have no charge

 

There are also 6 natural quarks:

 

#1.....The up quark

#2.....The down quark

#3.....The charm quark

#4.....The strange quark

#5.....The top quark

#6.....The bottom quark

 

There also exists an anit particles for every one of the afore mentioned particles, 6 anti Leptons and, 6 anti quarks.

[Erasmus00]

But each quark comes in three different colors, so really there are 18 quarks (36 if you count the anti-quarks). Also, the fact that 6/pi fits the relation with a sphere you quoted simply goes back to the deffinition of pi (the ratio of circumference of a circle to diameter) and shouldn't be surprising at all.

-Will

[infamous]

But each quark comes in three different colors, so really there are 18 quarks (36 if you count the anti-quarks). Also, the fact that 6/pi fits the relation with a sphere you quoted simply goes back to the deffinition of pi (the ratio of circumference of a circle to diameter) and shouldn't be surprising at all.

-Will

True, but what is surprising is that this dimensionless constant (6/pi) used in calculations at the beginning of this thread wll generate the values for:

 

The radius of the electron

The elemental charge

Planks constant h/2pi

The mass of the electron

 

All in cgs/esu units

[infamous]

For any of you folks that would like to do the math, here are some interesting figures:

 

Let 2^n..... = 2^n.....

Let pi^n.... = 3.14159265359^n....

Let A = (6/pi)^.25

Let B = (10)^(1/3)

Let C = the speed of light in a vacuum

 

(radius of the electron) = (A) * (B^25) * (C^-2) = re

(mass of the electron ^2) = (2^-2) * (pi) * (A) * (B^-225) * (C^2) =me^2

(elemental charge ^4) = (2^-2) * (pi) * (A^3)* (B^-175) * (C^2) = e^4

((Planks constant/2pi)^4) = (2^6) * (pi^-1) * (A) * (B^-265) * (C^-2) =hbar^4

 

All figures in cgs/esu units

To figure in SI units, all that needs done is plug C in as SI unit

[infamous]

What the previous calculations lead me to was a formula for determining the relationship between known constants of nature and the gravitational constant:

(hbar*re)^10 * (hbar*c/(a*pi))^27 = G^111

If your calculator won't deal with these high powers, move the decimal:

(hbar*re)^.1 * (hbar*c/(a*pi))^.27 = G^1.11

G= 6.67285177806 E-8 in cgs units

[Guest loarevalo]

Sorry for saying this:

 

So?

 

What do these caculations show? Is General Relativity and Quantum Theory reconcilable? Is this a great discovery, why isn't in the headlines across the world?

[infamous]

Sorry for saying this:

Don't be sorry

 

So?

Do the math

 

What do these caculations show? Is General Relativity and Quantum Theory reconcilable? Is this a great discovery, why isn't in the headlines across the world?

Your a smart guy, you draw your own conclusions after you do the math.