PDA

View Full Version : How would gravity react in increasing dimensions



tommac
2009-Jan-01, 04:15 PM
OK ... as some of this is based on my ATM New years hangover thinking ... :doh:


Lets look at a 2d object in a 3d world. Lets say the 3d world has gravity ( like ours ) ( 3d meaning 3 spacial dimensions ... lets ignore time for now ).

How would the gravity appear to the 2d object?

Where I am going with this ... is could it be possible for a 4d universe with gravity be projected onto a 3d universe.


What I am kind of envisioning is a piece of paper that contains a full universe on it ( in 2d ) ... being blown around by our wind. The paper universe is obviously macroscopically effected by gravity. But what would be the effect of gravity on the elements inside the paper.

I know I am in kind of imagination mode right now ... but what I would like to understand if gravity could be projected on a universe that had less or more dimensions. Does this make any sense?

Durakken
2009-Jan-01, 05:48 PM
it would seem to me that a 2D structure would have to feel the same gravity a 3D structure would simply because it is interacting in the same way...

It also seems to me that 2 dimensional and 1 dimensional aren't real in terms of practical thought since a 1 dimensional object would be a point that exists within no less than 5 dimensions...it just that it would only exist in 1 particular spot which means if it exists we would never detect it nor would it have any relevant existence...

let's say we have a 1D object. That exists at one point in all of time and space. As soon as time passes it no longer exists in our relative perspective, but it does, if we traveled back in time and some how stayed at that point in time. Could you move it? no. It doesn't have time property, nor does it have any other other property other than that it exists. Hypothetically you could pick it up, if you have level of technology to stop time around a singular point, and place it somewhere else, but it doesn't "move" it could percieve that it moved.

What if it could perceive if it moved? Well, the simple answer is that an object that isn't at least 5 dimensional cannot perceive or exist in a relevant manor to us for long periods of time...why? because there is no time to them.

Realistically to say 2D or 3D it doesn't matter because a 2D object has no more relevance than a 2D one. Without the 5th Dimension no interactions happen because no movement happens...

So it occurs to me that there is no such thing as a 1D, 2D, 3D, or 4D object in our current perceivable universe. Just objects that are more bound as one or another.

As a matter of thought further I would think that an object that maintains a bound 3D form and moves freely in 5 dimensions would generate a large amount of gravity regardless of it's 3D size simply because it would have to do what matter normally does but too a much more extreme extent...

So...my conclusion, what gravity would a 2D object feel...none...but a 3D and 4D object would feel none as well.

nauthiz
2009-Jan-01, 06:02 PM
I'd go a step further and say that a 2D object in a 3D world is an impossibility. It's something that happens in mathematics, but in nature an object must have some extent in every dimension, even if it's infinitesimally small.

Conversely, if it has no extent in one dimension then it also has no extent in any other dimensions. An object with no thickness can't have any length or width because it's got no thick to be long or wide with.

tommac
2009-Jan-01, 07:30 PM
I'd go a step further and say that a 2D object in a 3D world is an impossibility. It's something that happens in mathematics, but in nature an object must have some extent in every dimension, even if it's infinitesimally small.

Conversely, if it has no extent in one dimension then it also has no extent in any other dimensions. An object with no thickness can't have any length or width because it's got no thick to be long or wide with.

To get around this ... lets say that it has 2 meaningful dimensions and n-number of rolled up super microscopic dimensions.


Lets say that everything had n-dimensions ... some worlds have different number of meaningful detectable dimensions. In our case a world with 2 spacial dimensions that exists within another world that has 3 meaningful spacial dimensions ... ( also same case with 3 meaningful spacial dimensions vs 4 meaningful spacial dimensions )


I guess where i am going with this is say you stood the paper up then you would have gravity pulling everything to the bottom of the paper. if you turned it upside down you would have everything going to the other side of the paper.

Now lets roll the paper up into unique shapes. say a funnel shape. gravity would pull things toward a certain point coming from both sides.

lets say we manipulated it into a sphere and spun it ... etc ...

for the people that are just able to detect their two dimensions much of this would seem very strange

So now in a 3d ( dsd (detectable spacial dimension )) within a 4d (dsd)

Could an external force be acting from the 4d world to have strange effects on the 3d space ... provide the localized appearance of pulling everything apart?

Durakken
2009-Jan-01, 07:58 PM
hrmmm your trying to figure out how my explanation of gravity...and the common one works through my analogy of a 2D world and using the wrong part of the analogy...

A 2D world like that would imply a whole different set of physics outside of known parameters.

But the more important part is that your trying to ask how is it that a higher dimension has an effect on a lower dimension.

The first thing you have to understand is that gravity occurs because there are at least 5 dimensions.

The more I think about it the more it seems just like a program to me, which could be meaningless to you but let's try anyhow with this analogy.

You have all of space and in space exists more or less complex objects. Likewise in programming there are objects that are more or less complex. The more complex the object is the more time/work it takes to render it.

If you just have a black screen it will render the screen fast, but if you have a image of something it will take slightly more time. The difference between a program today and the universe is that the universe has processors for every point in the universe so they continue ahead while others lag behind...while in a computer today the entire this is processed before it is displayed.

This rendering lag from one point to another is what causes gravity and the time dilation.

Things that have their perception bound inside of this 4D object (the entire universe) experiences gravity. Those things that are not perceptually bound to 4D would experience gravity but not from that but rather from higher dimensions. Those things that exist where their perception is bound to the 9th, 10, and 11 dimension as ours is to the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, would experience no gravity in any form 8th-10th, might not either because it necessary to have 2 dimensions above your 3 dimension perceptual binding.

This sounds crazy...but it sounds logical too. Maybe someone with more knowledge or math skills could back it up.

tommac
2009-Jan-01, 08:11 PM
hrmmm your trying to figure out how my explanation of gravity...and the common one works through my analogy of a 2D world and using the wrong part of the analogy.

No I am not. I am merely trying to understand how gravity would transcend dimensions. This really ties in to my ATM which shows that gravity could be responsible for universal expansion. I am not sure if I even read your explanation of gravity.

tommac
2009-Jan-01, 08:12 PM
The first thing you have to understand is that gravity occurs because there are at least 5 dimensions.

Please show references of this and are these 5 dimensions 5 spacial dimensions?

tommac
2009-Jan-01, 08:16 PM
Can you please start your own thread in ATM with this crap? You seem to be hijacking my thread here.


hrmmm your trying to figure out how my explanation of gravity...and the common one works through my analogy of a 2D world and using the wrong part of the analogy...

A 2D world like that would imply a whole different set of physics outside of known parameters.

But the more important part is that your trying to ask how is it that a higher dimension has an effect on a lower dimension.

The first thing you have to understand is that gravity occurs because there are at least 5 dimensions.

The more I think about it the more it seems just like a program to me, which could be meaningless to you but let's try anyhow with this analogy.

You have all of space and in space exists more or less complex objects. Likewise in programming there are objects that are more or less complex. The more complex the object is the more time/work it takes to render it.

If you just have a black screen it will render the screen fast, but if you have a image of something it will take slightly more time. The difference between a program today and the universe is that the universe has processors for every point in the universe so they continue ahead while others lag behind...while in a computer today the entire this is processed before it is displayed.

This rendering lag from one point to another is what causes gravity and the time dilation.

Things that have their perception bound inside of this 4D object (the entire universe) experiences gravity. Those things that are not perceptually bound to 4D would experience gravity but not from that but rather from higher dimensions. Those things that exist where their perception is bound to the 9th, 10, and 11 dimension as ours is to the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, would experience no gravity in any form 8th-10th, might not either because it necessary to have 2 dimensions above your 3 dimension perceptual binding.

This sounds crazy...but it sounds logical too. Maybe someone with more knowledge or math skills could back it up.

Durakken
2009-Jan-01, 08:25 PM
respond to 1st reply: Even though you're the one that i directly responded too?
respond to 2nd reply: This is how gravity works...according to common physics...
respond to 3rd reply: Nothing exists that does not have 5 dimensions. It is necessary to have the 4th and 5th dimension to understand the way gravity is thought of today.
respond to 4th reply: Sorry, I thought you wanted an answer to your question which has no answer because what you are asking is either just not in any realm of reality or a misunderstanding and your question in the top is about higher dimensions but then you ask about lower dimensions. Your rationality seems to be the problem.

pzkpfw
2009-Jan-01, 09:07 PM
Please let's ALL keep it polite here, and let's ALL keep ATM out of here.

Durakken, could you expand on "This is how gravity works...according to common physics..."; your answer does not provide the clarification that tommac requires, it simply re-states the comment.

Durakken
2009-Jan-01, 09:24 PM
"How would the gravity appear to the 2d object?"

it wouldn't appear because there is no such thing possible... that is the easiest I can make it.

Why?

That is because gravity only happens because of 5 dimensionality

How would it work in a world if that was not the case?

No clue. A true 2D environment would be something like Super Mario Bro.s and other video game platformers of the same ilk. Animation is not a true 2D environment. There is nothing we could test or anything that would allow us to figure out how gravity would work within a world where our physics are completely different like that.

It would be a completely different force than the force that we call gravity within our understanding of what gravity is.

tommac
2009-Jan-02, 03:48 PM
Can we please split this thread?



"How would the gravity appear to the 2d object?"

it wouldn't appear because there is no such thing possible... that is the easiest I can make it.

Why?

That is because gravity only happens because of 5 dimensionality

How would it work in a world if that was not the case?

No clue. A true 2D environment would be something like Super Mario Bro.s and other video game platformers of the same ilk. Animation is not a true 2D environment. There is nothing we could test or anything that would allow us to figure out how gravity would work within a world where our physics are completely different like that.

It would be a completely different force than the force that we call gravity within our understanding of what gravity is.

NEOWatcher
2009-Jan-05, 01:35 PM
Can we please split this thread?
I feel that is a valid discussion about your question.

For Mr. 2D, there would be no such thing as weight because there is no "down". There is no down, because there are no reference points in his world to relate the changes in force. In our world, we have always had down.

Mr. 2D would determine his speed differently along different areas of his path, but would have absolutely nothing in his world that he could measure this against consistently. There would be nothing in that world to base the science off of.

In other words:

It would be a completely different force than the force that we call gravity within our understanding of what gravity is.

Now; you might argue that everything would accumulate in the gravitational wells of the 2D world, and Mr. 2D would think that it would somehow relate to the pockets of "stuff".

The problem is, that if he moved some of that stuff from one pocket to another, this mysterious force would not change. Therefore; there is still no basis to make any conclusion.

tommac
2009-Jan-05, 04:42 PM
I feel that is a valid discussion about your question.

For Mr. 2D, there would be no such thing as weight because there is no "down". There is no down, because there are no reference points in his world to relate the changes in force. In our world, we have always had down.



Really? is it down or is it in the direction of a gravitational source. If I stand the paper up so that its dimensions are parallel with gravity then down is to the bottom of the paper.

If I tilt the paper ... then they would only get a percentage of gravity based on the angle their universe is based on.

NEOWatcher
2009-Jan-05, 05:40 PM
Really? is it down or is it in the direction of a gravitational source.
Exactly; It isn't anywhere. To Mr. 2D, it's a random effect. (And stable if the paper's not moving)

tommac
2009-Jan-05, 05:46 PM
Exactly; It isn't anywhere. To Mr. 2D, it's a random effect. (And stable if the paper's not moving)

Not really a random effect. It is gravity. If the paper is up and down the gravity would perfectly translate. If not it would loose some force.

Now ... not sure if this gets moved to ATM at this point but ... I will throw it out there.

Would you be able to manipulate the paper to produce the effect of an expanding universe for the 2d? Basically a series of circles on the 2d paper that would all move away from each other, by manipulating the paper, either by rotating it ... or making it into a different shape ( bending etc ) .... letting it fall ... not really sure but could that be done?

NEOWatcher
2009-Jan-05, 05:58 PM
Not really a random effect. It is gravity...
If it's not random, than what does Mr 2D measure it against?
For all practicality to 2D, it is random.

If the paper is up and down the gravity would perfectly translate. If not it would loose some force.
One special case... you can pick any orientation or shape, and make the same comment.

gzhpcu
2009-Jan-05, 06:07 PM
That is because gravity only happens because of 5 dimensionality

You keep bringing up 4 spatial dimensions. Are you basing yourself on the Kaluza Klein theory?

tommac
2009-Jan-05, 06:07 PM
If it's not random, than what does Mr 2D measure it against?
For all practicality to 2D, it is random.

One special case... you can pick any orientation or shape, and make the same comment.

Well I guess in a similar way to us looking at the expansion of the universe as random.

tommac
2009-Jan-05, 06:07 PM
You keep bringing up 4 spatial dimensions. Are you basing yourself on the Kaluza Klein theory?

what is that ?

NEOWatcher
2009-Jan-05, 06:13 PM
Well I guess in a similar way to us looking at the expansion of the universe as random.
I can see where you might be going, but I don't see it much as similar, because we have objects at the same ages and distances all behaving in the same way and being able to be measured against themselves in the same local space and time.

In other words, we can base the gravitational attraction measured against objects in that spacetime, and see how it relates to various masses of objects in that space time.

In Mr 2D's world, a massX object behaves the same as a mass10X object.

tommac
2009-Jan-05, 06:16 PM
In Mr 2D's world, a massX object behaves the same as a mass10X object.

Why? lets say they have mass and their own gravity? So that the 10x circle actually pulls more against the other circles than the 1x circle ?

gzhpcu
2009-Jan-05, 06:19 PM
what is that ?

Look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza%E2%80%93Klein_theory



In physics, Kaluza–Klein theory (or KK theory, for short) is a model that seeks to unify the two fundamental of gravitation and electromagnetism . The theory was first published in 1921 and was proposed by the mathematician Theodor Kaluza who extended general relativity to a five-dimensional spacetime.

NEOWatcher
2009-Jan-05, 06:22 PM
Why? lets say they have mass and their own gravity? So that the 10x circle actually pulls more against the other circles than the 1x circle ?
Not if you have a 10x circle somewhere else, or move that 10x circle. All you are doing is just setting up a set of coincidences. I find it very hard to fathom that Mr 2D is looking at millions of identical 10x circles among millions of identical 1x circles all exhibiting a pull of exactly the same amount, and a difference that is exactly corresponding to a 4.5x circle that is half way in between.

(btw, I'm only using mass as an example knowing very well that there may be other mysterious magical forces at play in the 2D textbook)

tommac
2009-Jan-05, 06:42 PM
Not if you have a 10x circle somewhere else, or move that 10x circle. All you are doing is just setting up a set of coincidences. I find it very hard to fathom that Mr 2D is looking at millions of identical 10x circles among millions of identical 1x circles all exhibiting a pull of exactly the same amount, and a difference that is exactly corresponding to a 4.5x circle that is half way in between.

(btw, I'm only using mass as an example knowing very well that there may be other mysterious magical forces at play in the 2D textbook)

I am not following.

Lets draw about 20 circles on a sheet of paper or maybe make a game of asteroids on our hand held computer game. We use the technology that is in the wii to determine which way is our gravity pulling and then create a video game force pulling those objects in that direction in the exact amount based on the angle the screen is to gravity.

Then in the asteroid game ... we calculate each of the asteroids having a mass that is constant to its size.

Basically we have the gravitational force exerted on the asteroids from each other asteroid and then we have an additional force exerted on all of the asteroids from the "real world" gravity ... This could be done using todays technology.

My question is ... could we manipulate the asteroids screen, the amount of gravitational force exerted by the asteroid mass, and the gravitational force exerted by our "real world" gravity to create a scenerio where all asteroids would move away from each other?

NEOWatcher
2009-Jan-05, 06:59 PM
I am not following.
Probably because you are straying away from the condition of an outside force (3d gravity) affecting a 2d world.

You have now strayed into 2D world objects defining this 2D force of attracting circles using the imaginary 2D physics text.

tommac
2009-Jan-05, 07:05 PM
Probably because you are straying away from the condition of an outside force (3d gravity) affecting a 2d world.

You have now strayed into 2D world objects defining this 2D force of attracting circles using the imaginary 2D physics text.


Yes there are 2 forces at work in the 2D world. 2D gravity and 3D gravity.

NEOWatcher
2009-Jan-05, 07:32 PM
Yes there are 2 forces at work in the 2D world. 2D gravity and 3D gravity.
Ok; but your original assumption was that the gravity was defined in the extra dimension and "feelable" in the lower dimension world.

You are changing the conditions to meet your assumptions. Nothing wrong with a mind exercise, but it demonstrates the fact that we are discussing an imaginary world where any concoction imaginable is possible.

tommac
2009-Jan-05, 07:41 PM
Ok; but your original assumption was that the gravity was defined in the extra dimension and "feelable" in the lower dimension world.

You are changing the conditions to meet your assumptions. Nothing wrong with a mind exercise, but it demonstrates the fact that we are discussing an imaginary world where any concoction imaginable is possible.


I dont think I backed down from that thought. Just simplifying it for demonstration.

You know where I am going with it ... and where I am going there is no distinction between the OP and where it currently is.

The OP is basically asking if in any scenerio can we project multidimensional gravity to a lesser dimension universe.

The easiest projection for us would be 3d to 2d as 4d is too difficult for us to comprehend ...

So I chose a 2d object with gravity + the projection of a 3d gravity on that universe.

NEOWatcher
2009-Jan-05, 08:51 PM
I dont think I backed down from that thought. Just simplifying it for demonstration.
I can see that, but only to a point. The simplifactions you are presenting are wreaking havoc with the analogy.

For the analogy to work, we would have to use you last idea of circles on a paper, but we would need to add the constraint that any effects of gravity on Mr 2D are in direct proportion to those circles. That constraint would have to apply whether it was 2D or 3D gravity. So no matter where the circles are, or what relationship they are, the proportions have to hold.

In other words, our gravity is in direct proportion to objects of mass in our 3D world. That does not mean that there's not some magical 4th dimension involved in our world. It only means that in our world of experience, those objects and that effect are directly proportional, and that no matter where they are, or what relationship they are, the proportions hold.


The OP is basically asking if in any scenerio can we project multidimensional gravity to a lesser dimension universe.
Why not? The problem is how would we measure, and how would we know? That's the real trick. You can dream up the analogies all you want, but until you have a way to apply it, it means nothing.

tommac
2009-Jan-05, 10:02 PM
I can see that, but only to a point. The simplifactions you are presenting are wreaking havoc with the analogy.

For the analogy to work, we would have to use you last idea of circles on a paper, but we would need to add the constraint that any effects of gravity on Mr 2D are in direct proportion to those circles. That constraint would have to apply whether it was 2D or 3D gravity. So no matter where the circles are, or what relationship they are, the proportions have to hold.

In other words, our gravity is in direct proportion to objects of mass in our 3D world. That does not mean that there's not some magical 4th dimension involved in our world. It only means that in our world of experience, those objects and that effect are directly proportional, and that no matter where they are, or what relationship they are, the proportions hold.


Why not? The problem is how would we measure, and how would we know? That's the real trick. You can dream up the analogies all you want, but until you have a way to apply it, it means nothing.


Look I am not that smart. All I am saying is draw something on a piece of paper ... pretend that it has gravity and pulls all other things you drew towards it ... you can make up values if you want or whatever ... the point is that these circles attract the other circles. Now on top of that the 3d gravity comes into play. How much relative to the stuff you drew on the 2d paper ... pick an arbitrary amount ... I dont think it matters ...

I am just giving a solid analogy of how there can be ndimensional layers of gravity.

clint
2009-Jan-06, 01:14 AM
let's say we have a 1D object. That exists at one point in all of time and space.

Wouldn't a point be a 0-D object?
IIRC, 1-D would be more like a line (you can move forward and backwards but not sideways nor up & down)

steve000
2009-Jan-06, 01:27 AM
Wouldn't a point be a 0-D object?

Could that be considered an object?

NEOWatcher
2009-Jan-06, 01:17 PM
Look I am not that smart.
You left yourself wide open on that one. :lol:

All I am saying is draw something on a piece of paper ... pretend that it has gravity and pulls all other things you drew towards it ... you can make up values if you want or whatever ... the point is that these circles attract the other circles.
Yes; I completely understand what you are saying, but...

Now on top of that the 3d gravity comes into play.
...that is the point that throws the wrench in to it. The 3d will throw off any proportionality between the circles and the cumulative effect that Mr 3D experiences.


I am just giving a solid analogy of how there can be ndimensional layers of gravity.
I'll accept that statement if you get rid of the word "solid", or if you qualify that the statement does not apply to observations in our world.

Let me try to illustrate where I am getting caught...
Let's say there is a 4D gravity (for lack of a better word) that explains the expansion rates of the universe. This could account for the difference at different distances or times. What I see at issue* is that when you compare the gravititational attraction of two objects that are some distance from us, yet near each other, the effect can be measured with the same proportions as they are locally.

*My issue: I don't know if it's true, but that's how I understand it, and would greatly appreciate others' clarification on this. And, I also ask you how your analogy can account for this.

NEOWatcher
2009-Jan-06, 01:22 PM
Wouldn't a point be a 0-D object?
IIRC, 1-D would be more like a line (you can move forward and backwards but not sideways nor up & down)
That's my take given that 2D is a plane.


Could that be considered an object?
Without the proper adjective, maybe not. My dictionary says it's "a material thing". So, maybe theoretical object might work.

tommac
2009-Jan-06, 04:15 PM
Wouldn't a point be a 0-D object?
IIRC, 1-D would be more like a line (you can move forward and backwards but not sideways nor up & down)

Time is the 1d 0 spacial + 1 time ... is being referenced.

I ignored time in my OP. and a 1d object would be a line in my example.

tommac
2009-Jan-06, 04:21 PM
...that is the point that throws the wrench in to it. The 3d will throw off any proportionality between the circles and the cumulative effect that Mr 3D experiences.

Why ... the 2D world would also effect the 3d world. in the exact proportion. As the 2d world pulls on the 3d world. It is almost easier to see that. The force is in the exact but opposite direction of the 2d world.

NEOWatcher
2009-Jan-06, 04:27 PM
Why ... the 2D world would also effect the 3d world. in the exact proportion. As the 2d world pulls on the 3d world. It is almost easier to see that. The force is in the exact but opposite direction of the 2d world.
I can see that you don't understand what I'm trying to get at. It's that direct proportion that gets me. Sure; we can build a case where two different independent effects combine to be indistinguishable from each other and proportional to the observable world. But; like I said before, there is no way that this can be helpful without a way to detect it which means that differences are required.

So; I see your analogy and have seen it all along. I just don't see what it does other than speculate about something that is unproveable.

Durakken
2009-Jan-06, 04:56 PM
2D is just a slice of 3D. If you take a slice from a universe all things on that slice act the same as they would in 3D. It's just their perception of it is confined to the 2D.

Your paper analogy is asking if we had another universe that was solely 2D and could manipulate it in a 3D framework, what would happen? The answer is noone knows because 2D doesn't quite work and without what I just said and even if it were just a slice from this universe we still don't know because the physics are different for each universe as I understand it.

And further Gravity would have no interaction with this object. If we could manipulate it it is on a whole other level of technology that we don't even have the possibility to fathom right now. But if we could create it, as far as we know, none of our forces would have any effect on it whatsoever.

tommac
2009-Jan-06, 06:07 PM
I can see that you don't understand what I'm trying to get at. It's that direct proportion that gets me. Sure; we can build a case where two different independent effects combine to be indistinguishable from each other and proportional to the observable world. But; like I said before, there is no way that this can be helpful without a way to detect it which means that differences are required.

So; I see your analogy and have seen it all along. I just don't see what it does other than speculate about something that is unproveable.

Unprovable? Why is it unprovable? What I am asking is could gravity be mathmatically commuted to a different dimensional universe?

Are you saying that this discussion has no merit and/or that it is not interesting in at least for conversation?

NEOWatcher
2009-Jan-06, 06:17 PM
Unprovable? Why is it unprovable?
Because you haven't presented a way to test it.

What I am asking is could gravity be mathmatically commuted to a different dimensional universe?
I have no clue... you're the one with the proposal...

Are you saying that this discussion has no merit and/or that it is not interesting in at least for conversation?
In a way; yes. It may be very interesting as a way to explain something in relation to science fiction, because it does sound very interesting and "sciency", but in a scientific point of view, we need some evidence, or applicable theory, or some other testable method to go along with it.

tommac
2009-Jan-06, 07:28 PM
Because you haven't presented a way to test it.


I think we did test it. Firstly we showed that at least in theory a force from a 3d world could interact in a 2d world and vice versa.

Even if it does not have any true merit to go on to prove me ATM this could be interesting discussion for multi-dimension conversation and possibly for something like string theory ... although I couldnt tell you how.

There is a science about maps. Something like building the mathmatical proof as to why you only need 5 colors to draw a map. Maybe not all that useful but pretty interesting and I am sure there ends up being some applications of it.





In a way; yes. It may be very interesting as a way to explain something in relation to science fiction, because it does sound very interesting and "sciency", but in a scientific point of view, we need some evidence, or applicable theory, or some other testable method to go along with it.

The next step still has not been answered. It is really a mathmatical proof of sorts. Can the paper be manipulated in a way where all objects on the paper move away from every other one on the paper. That is the OP

NEOWatcher
2009-Jan-06, 07:58 PM
I think we did test it. Firstly we showed that at least in theory a force from a 3d world could interact in a 2d world and vice versa.
No; that is a concept, not a theory. Conceptually, it can be done. Now, show us how we can test it. The test doesn't actually need to be technically possible at the moment, but it does need to be testable.

And; the unknown is how the world of 2D can interpret the 3D. You have explained to me how it can work, but you haven't shown how the 2D people can measure or test it. We can, but they can't. The effects are both directions, but the science of it exists in only one.


Even if it does not have any true merit to go on to prove me ATM this could be interesting discussion for multi-dimension conversation and possibly for something like string theory ... although I couldnt tell you how.
You hit the nail on the head, a thought expiriment has nothing to do with mainstream or not. Until we use those thoughts to go somewhere, it's only an interesting discussion.
By definition an analogy needs to be analogous to something, so what is it that your analogy is an analog of?


There is a science about maps. Something like building the mathmatical proof as to why you only need 5 colors to draw a map.
Mathematically, I can't do it, but it was an algorithm exercise in IT, and it was 4 colors.


The next step still has not been answered. It is really a mathmatical proof of sorts. Can the paper be manipulated in a way where all objects on the paper move away from every other one on the paper. That is the OP
x=tx and y=ty.
In other words, the paper stretches.

I fear you are looking for a problem to fit your solution. That's not how science works.

tommac
2009-Jan-06, 09:30 PM
No; that is a concept, not a theory. Conceptually, it can be done. Now, show us how we can test it. The test doesn't actually need to be technically possible at the moment, but it does need to be testable.


Just use the same tests that they use for multiple universes.



And; the unknown is how the world of 2D can interpret the 3D. You have explained to me how it can work, but you haven't shown how the 2D people can measure or test it. We can, but they can't. The effects are both directions, but the science of it exists in only one.


They cant test it ... They can just theorize about why there is a mysterious force acting on their universe that they cant understand. They could come up with a mathmatical model to show that their universe has less dimensions than one containing a gravitational force. If they could build a gravity detector they could detect a background gravitational detector and see that there is gravity and gravitational effects that they can not account for except from a hypothetical point of view.



You hit the nail on the head, a thought expiriment has nothing to do with mainstream or not. Until we use those thoughts to go somewhere, it's only an interesting discussion.
By definition an analogy needs to be analogous to something, so what is it that your analogy is an analog of?


Mathematically, I can't do it, but it was an algorithm exercise in IT, and it was 4 colors.


x=tx and y=ty.
In other words, the paper stretches.

I fear you are looking for a problem to fit your solution. That's not how science works.

No it is not. And yes it is ... there are two approaches to science
1) look at the data and formulate a theory that fits it
2) formulate a theory and manipulate the theory to the data.

It is kind of like the old newtonian approximation ... take a guess, get disproved, take a better guess, get disproved ... until by default the theory kind of works.

I think you think that I am looking for some kinds of great answer and solving some great mystery. All I am doing is thinking about something interesting and imagining ways it could fit into nature.

tommac
2009-Jan-06, 09:32 PM
x=tx and y=ty.
In other words, the paper stretches.


OK ... lets take the piece of paper and put in near a black hole. the paper elongates/ spaghettifies

NEOWatcher
2009-Jan-06, 09:39 PM
Just use the same tests that they use for multiple universes. Which is what?


They cant test it ... They can just theorize about why there is a mysterious force acting on their universe that they cant understand.
Yes; and we can't do the same to the 4th dimension.


No it is not. And yes it is ... there are two approaches to science
1) look at the data and formulate a theory that fits it
2) formulate a theory and manipulate the theory to the data.

Good, now what is our data and how do we check if it fits the theory?


I think you think that I am looking for some kinds of great answer and solving some great mystery. All I am doing is thinking about something interesting and imagining ways it could fit into nature.
I can accept that, and I actually applaud you for doing it. My only issue is that you seem to want increase the complexity of the science to fit your explaination so it works, rather than understand how they do it now and expand on it.

tommac
2009-Jan-06, 09:44 PM
I can accept that, and I actually applaud you for doing it. My only issue is that you seem to want increase the complexity of the science to fit your explaination so it works, rather than understand how they do it now and expand on it.

I can see where you are going with this ... but I believe that I do actually the opposite ... I create complex work arounds to understand why the mainstream science is less complicated than any other possible work around.

I learn a ton from these extrapolations of my imagination. I believe there is much to gain to look at alternative ( even whacky ) workarounds to mainstream to either A) get a good understanding why mainstream is so accepted B) Get lucky and figure something out that hasnt been seen before or C) apply your new pattern of thoughts that were created from these extrapolation experiments to apply to mainstream

NEOWatcher
2009-Jan-06, 09:51 PM
I can accept A)
I really doubt B) because every time you do this, there is some finer point in the topic that you seem to want to gloss over where many scientists have spent years studying.
And C) I can see how an un-corrupted mind can bring new insights into a complex situation. But; at the same time, you need plenty of the basics, and I really haven't seen any indication that you have enough of that. In fact; I have actually seen (and pointed out) some of the intuition that you are missing that is learned from higher math.

tommac
2009-Jan-07, 02:59 PM
OK ... thanks for the detour Neo ... back to the questions.

OK so we have discussed 2d/3d gravitational interactions.
So now to the real question. How would this work for 3d/4d?

We could see an unexplainable shifting degree of force being exerted on our 3d universe. this would depend on the angle of our 3d universe as projected in an 4d universe. Right?

NEOWatcher
2009-Jan-07, 03:25 PM
OK so we have discussed 2d/3d gravitational interactions.
Yes, and we have repeatedly not been able to come up with what a 2D scientist knows about the 3D world other than speculation. so...

How would this work for 3d/4d?
... can not be interpolated for a 3D scientist in a 4D world.


We could see an unexplainable shifting degree of force being exerted on our 3d universe. this would depend on the angle of our 3d universe as projected in an 4d universe. Right?
Right; and in our world we would have to extend that in all places in all angles. It could be trillions of invisible elves exhaling...
So; do you have any tests that we can be devised to extend that thinking?
Please... I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying, I'm just wondering where this is going and how it can be used.

tommac
2009-Jan-07, 05:48 PM
OK so we have discussed 2d/3d gravitational interactions.
So now to the real question. How would this work for 3d/4d?

We could see an unexplainable shifting degree of force being exerted on our 3d universe. this would depend on the angle of our 3d universe as projected in an 4d universe. Right?

NEOWatcher
2009-Jan-07, 06:04 PM
OK so we have discussed 2d/3d gravitational interactions.
So now to the real question. How would this work for 3d/4d?
Stop asking me that. I told you that there are undefineds in the 2D world that are equivelent to undefineds in the 3D world. The result is that I have no answer to the question.


We could see an unexplainable shifting degree of force being exerted on our 3d universe. this would depend on the angle of our 3d universe as projected in an 4d universe. Right?
Word salad. The same phrase can apply to any n+1 multidimensional statement when discussing forces.

What are the tests? I have asked repeatedly and you have not answered me. And don't give me some vague answer like "we can measure the effect". That's not a test because it doesn't explain how.