A thought, dimensions vs powers

[Dustin]

A thought, dimensions vs powers.

Primus: quantum field theory is an important development in understanding the manifestation of the universe ie waves are important.

Waves in relation to dimensions: this three dimensional space, in relation to dimensions of space, is described with the words length, width, and height; length of a wave is frequency, height of a wave is amplitude, width is another angle of a wave. I don't know what the width of a wave is but if we imagine multiple waves it becomes easier to imagine, a flashlight illuminates a spot on the wall and a sixty watt bulb lights up the whole room. (energy and force: frequency transmits linear force, amplitude vertical force, quantity/width that kind of force)

I have not yet had the time or a space to review r6r6's powers but a couple years ago he send me a link to the work to Walter Russell which I have found to be very helpful and have contemplated quiet a bit. As far as I understand both the thought areas of dimensions and powers would agree on the just discussed three spacial dimensions. From this point on they well differ.

Powers. In understanding the universe what comes next is a discussion of pressure zones. Walter Russell depicted how energy and gravity interacted with expressed wave properties; he also went on to depict and predict other things such as an understanding of the emergence of the elements based in octaves of waves. The different wave octaves would be the different pressure zones.

Now dimensions – is it possible to talk about the different wave octaves in a simpler way than powers? Length, linear dimension, can be divided into different units of measures: mm, cm, m, …. Are powers units of measure and if so can dimensions come and go? To depict a wave I well use a “w”; to describe what I mean in relation to powers and dimensions I well to this: w, w, w, w, w. The “w's” are different in size or rather in length and height (frequency and amplitude) right. To create the different sizes of “w's” I didn't increase force within a point of the field to change wave frequency and amplitude, what I did was I changed the font size. Font size is a way of imagining this other dimension. There is length, width, height, and differentiation of the same single thing aka going within. Wave length is a measure of energy forward and backward; wave width is a measure of energy side to side, wave height is a measure of energy up and down; all three are simplistic linear scales of the same thing, energy and its resistance in relation to the fabric of spacetime. So to show these simplistic linear scales I'll do this: 1, 2, 3, 4, …. This number line viewed horizontally would be length, if you rotate your computer screen up 90 degrees would be height, and if you put the computer back in its normal position and then turn it perpendicular to your self it would be width/depth. Next the font idea can be understood like this: 1, 2, 3, 4, …; 1, 2, 3, 4, …; 1, 2, 3, 4, …; 1, 2, 3, 4, …; or, 1, 2, 3, 4, …; or, 1, 1, 1, 1, …. So in the final example I used only “1's”, so which one is bigger? Obviously the right side is bigger but what if they could be modeled accurately but understood differently. Font change is not the only way to make them appear different. What if I wrote the number 1 on a paper and took a picture of it at different distances; the further away the picture was taken from, without zooming, the smaller the 1 would appear; so is it possible that powers are units of the dimension of going within in an experience which is multidimensional in more ways than commonly imagined?

[inavalan]

Maybe the wave's with is its phase.

[r6r6]

Vector < Force < Power < Time < Motion

< OUT < PAST < { * i * } < IN < FUTURE <

Dimension of time ---Rod Sterlings Twilight Zone 1960

There is no dimension of time. Observed Time is motion that we can instrumentally quantise{ DING! } or abstractly{ math } quantify.

Most often there exists a fundamental sine-wave pattern/frequency associated with Observed Time.

XYZ { orthogonal/cartesian } dimensions are abstract mathematical dimensions we apply to our Observed Time as an occupied space.

Speed of EMRadiation = mathematical number { speed } associated to a power of radiation. Mass * radiation squared i.e. 2nd powered is abstract math correlated to mass{ localized motion as matter } increasing its speed-of-motion.

6 Primary kinds of motion:

Spin --axial spin
Torque/Twist -- ex axial torque/twist
Inside-outing -- ex turn you glove inside-out
Expand-contract --- ex breath in then out
Orbit -- ex Earth around sun
? I forget this one

There is complementary number and pattern to all Observed Time motion of occupied space.

We cannot have occupied space without some abstract associated set of numbers and pattern/geometry.

We presume gravity ( ) and dark energy )( even tho we our instrumentation has not quantised{ DING! } them nor have we discovered an abstract quantification value for them.

What we do have, via LIGO experiments is that via arrival times of EMRadiation at differrent mirrors, at 90 degrees to each other, we directly detect the resultants of space-time i.e. gravity ( ) contraction-dialation/expansion.

[Dustin]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Vector < Force < Power < Time < Motion

< OUT < PAST < { * i * } < IN < FUTURE <

Dimension of time ---Rod Sterlings Twilight Zone 1960

There is no dimension of time. Observed Time is motion that we can instrumentally quantise{ DING! } or abstractly{ math } quantify.

Most often there exists a fundamental sine-wave pattern/frequency associated with Observed Time.

XYZ { orthogonal/cartesian } dimensions are abstract mathematical dimensions we apply to our Observed Time as an occupied space.

Speed of EMRadiation = mathematical number { speed } associated to a power of radiation. Mass * radiation squared i.e. 2nd powered is abstract math correlated to mass{ localized motion as matter } increasing its speed-of-motion.

6 Primary kinds of motion:

Spin --axial spin
Torque/Twist -- ex axial torque/twist
Inside-outing -- ex turn you glove inside-out
Expand-contract --- ex breath in then out
Orbit -- ex Earth around sun
? I forget this one

There is complementary number and pattern to all Observed Time motion of occupied space.

We cannot have occupied space without some abstract associated set of numbers and pattern/geometry.

We presume gravity ( ) and dark energy )( even tho we our instrumentation has not quantised{ DING! } them nor have we discovered an abstract quantification value for them.

What we do have, via LIGO experiments is that via arrival times of EMRadiation at differrent mirrors, at 90 degrees to each other, we directly detect the resultants of space-time i.e. gravity ( ) contraction-dialation/expansion.

Cool thank you I well put this on my desktop and ponder it for awhile.

[r6r6]

Originally Posted by Dustin

Cool thank you I well put this on my desktop and ponder it for awhile.

Your welcome. XYZ are the only three spatial dimensions to be considerate of.

4D and 5D spatial dimensions are within 3D, volumetric space.

All higher the XYZ spatial dimensions are within 3D.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercube

Time is motion in space and occurs in differrent ways, spin, torque, orbit, precession{ 90 degrees most often --see woble of Earth on axis }, expand-contract

[Dustin]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercube

cool I'll read through that tonight.

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Time is motion in space and occurs in differrent ways, spin, torque, orbit, precession{ 90 degrees most often --see woble of Earth on axis }, expand-contract

do you happen to have a link where I can read info about what your talking about with time. in your last post you mentioned something about there being a specific frequency to time which is something I havn't yet read about, as well as most things; I try to do research but I don't always know where to look, most of my ideas are just arived at through contemplation.

Normally, for the model of reality I am working with, I only use spacetime as inseprable; I normally don't reference space or time in relation to dimensions by its self; all of my dimension of my model are spacetime dimensions. Was wondering what you thought about that? The only reason I, in this tread refered to spacial dimensions is so that is would be a bit simplar for everyone in general to follow what specifically I was talking about.

[Dustin]

Originally Posted by inavalan

Maybe the wave's with is its phase.

Hello. I'm guessing that when you wrote "with" you where referring to what I was calling the dimension of going within?

It's been a while sense I thought about the word phase so I looked up to review what it was again. I'll look more into it later but I would say that in a sense it could be perhaps, but I think in this situation band width would be more appropriate. In what I read about phase there was two definitions, one was that it was a portions of the angle of a singular wave which I don't think is what you ment; and the other was talking about waves being "in phase", "out of phase", and "completly out of phase". Let me know if this was or wasn't the direction that your thought was headed in.

[r6r6]

Dustin--do you happen to have a link where I can read info about what your talking about with time.

A link to any thing regarding Universe/Uni-V-erse or any of its occupied space parts aka Fermions, bosons and any aggregate collection thereof.

in your last post you mentioned something about there being a specific frequency to time which is something I havn't yet read about, as well as most things;

You misunderstand, I spoke frequency generally not specific being direct representative of Observed Time. All EMRadiation has various frequencies ^v^v ergo sine-wave patterns in an electro-magnetic field.



Same goes for most if not all particles, atoms and even 60 carbon atoms in dodecahedral pattern of bucky balls ala Fullerene.


Field { whatever that is } > Sine-wave pattern /\/\/ > particle *





Occupied space Universe, is Observed Time, putting aside;


1} metaphysical-3, occupied space gravity ( ) and,


2} metaphyscial-4, occupied space dark energy )(



Metaphysical-2, non-occupied Space is outside of our finite, occupied space Universe.

Metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concepts are not space, they are concepts of space, God, Universe, dogs, whales, golf balls etc.


LIGO experiements, as designed by Leonard Susskind, directly show/prove resultants of Space i.e. gravitational ( ) Space contraction and expansion{ dilation/?dark energy? }.


Ive shown mechanical scenarios for entanglement aka spooky-action-at-a-distance via 90 degreeness.


Wave-particle is one Ive not considered in a few years.


So what is a field associated with any particle or atom? This is not clear.


The sine-wave associated with a field is well defined.


I have to turn to my view of tori for every particle of Universe that are composed of three key parts;


Gravity geodesic Space ( )


Observed Time ^v^v or as /\/\/ sine-wave patterned frequencies


Dark energy geodesic Space )(


Ergo space (><)(><) space


>< is the inversions from outer surface gravity ( ) and inner surface dark energy of the torus.


Ergo even tho we have the wave ^v^v inside the torus as the body of the torus or a collection of two or more interfering tori, --ergo two or more sine-waves-- we also have to consider the positive ( ) and negative )( curvature of Space.


The thing about particles they exhibit wave interference in the two slit experiment even when it is a single particle going only through one slit.


I believe, that, the Electro-Magnetic Field and all other particle fields are actually metaphysical-3, gravitational ( ) and metaphysical-4, dark energy Space geodesics.


( )( ) is the geodesic field but the field collapses to a sine-wave and collapses as single particle value when it is detected.



In the past, or to this day, when people try and define a field they use as series of dots;
....................
.....................
...................
..................


This is to give the idea that there exists a something micro-infinitely within a given space or even speculate macro-infinite space.


I disagree. I believe gravity-dark energy have micro and macro finite limits of existence.

[Dustin]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

You misunderstand, I spoke frequency generally not specific being direct representative of Observed Time. All EMRadiation has various frequencies ^v^v ergo sine-wave patterns in an electro-magnetic field.

OK that make a lot more sense in relation to things I've learned.

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Occupied space Universe, is Observed Time, putting aside;

1} metaphysical-3, occupied space gravity ( ) and,

2} metaphyscial-4, occupied space dark energy )(

Metaphysical-2, non-occupied Space is outside of our finite, occupied space Universe.

Metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concepts are not space, they are concepts of space, God, Universe, dogs, whales, golf balls etc.

OK I understand what you meant by observed time now, make sense.

Originally Posted by r6r6r

LIGO experiements, as designed by Leonard Susskind, directly show/prove resultants of Space i.e. gravitational ( ) Space contraction and expansion{ dilation/?dark energy? }.

cool I'll have to check that out.

Originally Posted by r6r6r

So what is a field associated with any particle or atom? This is not clear.

The sine-wave associated with a field is well defined.

thanks good to know.

Originally Posted by r6r6r

I have to turn to my view of tori for every particle of Universe that are composed of three key parts;


Gravity geodesic Space ( )


Observed Time ^v^v or as /\/\/ sine-wave patterned frequencies

Dark energy geodesic Space )(


Ergo space (><)(><) space


>< is the inversions from outer surface gravity ( ) and inner surface dark energy of the torus.


Ergo even tho we have the wave ^v^v inside the torus as the body of the torus or a collection of two or more interfering tori, --ergo two or more sine-waves-- we also have to consider the positive ( ) and negative )( curvature of Space.


The thing about particles they exhibit wave interference in the two slit experiment even when it is a single particle going only through one slit.

I believe, that, the Electro-Magnetic Field and all other particle fields are actually metaphysical-3, gravitational ( ) and metaphysical-4, dark energy Space geodesics.

( )( ) is the geodesic field but the field collapses to a sine-wave and collapses as single particle value when it is detected.

In the past, or to this day, when people try and define a field they use as series of dots;
....................
.....................
...................
..................

This is to give the idea that there exists a something micro-infinitely within a given space or even speculate macro-infinite space.

I disagree. I believe gravity-dark energy have micro and macro finite limits of existence.

Thanks for sharing. It sounds like a really interesting concept that would be interesting to learn/think about for awhile. At this point I can't really respond to the thought; first I would need to learn more about it but since you shared your concept I'll pass mine along as well, I think I'll just send you a private message for now, at a later point I well be ready to present it to the forum in general.

[Dustin]

Hey I finally had a day off so that I could formulate a proper response. [this response is in relation to all the other post before today 8/11/18]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Vector < Force < Power < Time < Motion

This first quote I didn't understand at all.

Originally Posted by r6r6r

< OUT < PAST < { * i * } < IN < FUTURE <

This quote made sense to me.

Originally Posted by r6r6r

There is no dimension of time. Observed Time is motion that we can instrumentally quantise{ DING! } or abstractly{ math } quantify.

Originally Posted by r6r6r

XYZ { orthogonal/cartesian } dimensions are abstract mathematical dimensions we apply to our Observed Time as an occupied space.

Originally Posted by r6r6r

We presume gravity ( ) and dark energy )( even tho we our instrumentation has not quantised{ DING! } them nor have we discovered an abstract quantification value for them.

The above three quote are things in my model I would agree with to an extent. [more well be shared in the private message I said I would send.]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

XYZ are the only three spatial dimensions to be considerate of.
4D and 5D spatial dimensions are within 3D, volumetric space.
All higher the XYZ spatial dimensions are within 3D.

Oh that's cool thank you I was unaware that that was the actual case; in all of everything I had taken in from sources beyond my own contemplation of dimensions I had always been a bit confused about what was being presented.

Originally Posted by r6r6r

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercube

The link I tried to copy and paste the information on it so that I could read it at home but the pictures didn't transfer over so it was a bit difficult to comprehend. I look forward to a later point in time when I can read through the concepts covered in the link – thanks.