Jump to content

The 5th dimension


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 614
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Ted Kennedy was beneath animal level. Ask Mary Jo Kopechne.

Maybe this awareness shows up during the teen years. That's why teens have a reputation for being difficult - they are trying to reconcile their past and current lives.

alfa, have you ever written anything in Labview?

Posted Images

QUOTE(Dirk J. @ Jun 27 2007, 05:50 AM)

depending on your religious perspective, it will be probably one of these:

DING DING DING, we have a winner folks, no need to expand on this thread further.

EDIT: I don't know if your I64 indicator can hold infinity, I would recommend using an indicator like this.

InfiniteIndicator.GIF

Here it can also contain the size of God to a decimal place too. But it's murder on your system's memory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE(alfa @ Jun 27 2007, 04:14 AM)

Did somebody calculate the 'size' of God?

I have to confess that I have never pondered this to any great extent and in fact strikes me as question that has no answer.

To calculate the size would (in my minds eye) would be an attempt at define a property of God. When I define things I am generally estalishing a limit of what something is and what it is not. It seems (to me) that the defining goes the other way.

The other thing that makes it hard for me to come to grips with this idea is the nature of the "size of a thing". I think of size as being a displacement between two fixed points within space. Being someone who wants to know the reason for things, I have come to understand space-time as being something that was brought about by God. I think it was Goedel (Sp?) that showed that a system can be proved from within the system. So I do not see God as existing either in space-time or outside space-time because again to be inside or outside would indicate that God was confined to one or the other. As an aside, I have often wondered at that one of the "first" acts ascribed to God as being the creation of light, which we know is a constant that also can be used as a conversion factor between space and time.

So no, I have not concidered the calculation you mentioned.

Ben

Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE(alfa @ Jun 27 2007, 04:14 AM)

Did somebody calculate the 'size' of God?

When I wrote I AM CREATING GOD, I was thinking to calculated; now I very interested about it.

This thread has gone from bizarre to just plain silly. Into the realm of children asking: "Can God create a rock so big the He could not lift it?" :wacko:

Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Ben @ Jun 27 2007, 05:34 AM)

I have to confess that I have never pondered this to any great extent and in fact strikes me as question that has no answer.

To calculate the size would (in my minds eye) would be an attempt at define a property of God. When I define things I am generally estalishing a limit of what something is and what it is not. It seems (to me) that the defining goes the other way.

The other thing that makes it hard for me to come to grips with this idea is the nature of the "size of a thing". I think of size as being a displacement between two fixed points within space. Being someone who wants to know the reason for things, I have come to understand space-time as being something that was brought about by God. I think it was Goedel (Sp?) that showed that a system can be proved from within the system. So I do not see God as existing either in space-time or outside space-time because again to be inside or outside would indicate that God was confined to one or the other. As an aside, I have often wondered at that one of the "first" acts ascribed to God as being the creation of light, which we know is a constant that also can be used as a conversion factor between space and time.

I don't agree that God is inherently resistant to description. Most religions ascribe characteristics to God, establishing what is and is not. Whether these are imposed by man or not is another question. And if God created a system that we are now in, he is not precluded from entering this system. If so, then he can be measured by the system. It would not be a full measurement, but measurement it would be.

As for 'calculating' it, alfa, that is like suggesting you calculate the size of your spouse. You have nothing to base your calculations on, especially if you haven't met them yet. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE(PaulG. @ Jun 28 2007, 12:04 AM)

"Can God create a rock so big the He could not lift it?"

:D I love it! "If a tree falls in the forrest and kills a mime, does anyone care?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it" --Homer Simpson

But seriously not that long ago it was a valid question to ask "How many angels can fit on the head of a pin"

Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE(jpdrolet @ Jun 27 2007, 07:19 PM)

He can but He won't. Why would He break His omnipotence?

Break it, no

Lay it aside voluntarily, yes

Volition > Constriction

As for measurement, sure. If a 3D cylinder projects itself through a 2D plane it shows up as an elipse, which in the domain of the plane (I couldn't resist) can be precisely defined and measured. It can come and go, (move), change shape, (morph) and disappear and reappear in a different portion of the plane and cause all kinds of arguments and discussion and disagreement as to it's nature among the inhabitants of flatland, yet the cylinder never changes it's 3D shape or nature. Even this is a totally inadequate analogy, as are all attempts to explain, measure or define God.

Not that these questions should not be asked, pondered and even painted. But often times I wonder if the best answer to many of them isn't, "Mu..."

Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Mike Ashe @ Jun 27 2007, 09:35 PM)

Break it, no

Lay it aside voluntarily, yes

Volition > Constriction

As for measurement, sure. If a 3D cylinder projects itself through a 2D plane it shows up as an elipse, which in the domain of the plane (I couldn't resist) can be precisely defined and measured. It can come and go, (move), change shape, (morph) and disappear and reappear in a different portion of the plane and cause all kinds of arguments and discussion and disagreement as to it's nature among the inhabitants of flatland, yet the cylinder never changes it's 3D shape or nature. Even this is a totally inadequate analogy, as are all attempts to explain, measure or define God.

Not that these questions should not be asked, pondered and even painted. But often times I wonder if the best answer to many of them isn't, "Mu..."

Excelent thought Mike!

Re: Rock and lifting (a short aside)

Aren't asteroids rocks?

Can an object in space be "lifted"?

If the previous answers are "Y" and "N" then he already did!

Ben

Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Ben @ Jun 28 2007, 09:00 PM)

Can an object in space be "lifted"?

They sure can - to "lift" is really just moving one object away from another (eg: lifting a rock off the earth), so you just need to define what you're lifting the asteroid away from, and then fill in the terms:

u6l3c3.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE(crelf @ Jun 28 2007, 09:01 AM)

... so you just need to define what you're lifting the asteroid away from, and then fill in the terms:

u6l3c3.gif

Cool I get to establish the zero point.

So if I define "what you're lifting the asteroid away from" as being the asteroid itself....

Stoping and taking score:

OK we have Albert and Isaac mentioned in this thread. We still need a mention of Maxwell and Gibbs before we are done here. :P

Ben

Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider also the relativity of what is lifted in relation to what. If I stand on my head & hands (3 point) and then press up on a handstand (wish I could still do that easily :blink: ) then I am "lifting" the earth by the inverse ratio of it's mass to mine, just as surely as I am lifting myself.

Today's bit of totally useless trivia ...

Brought to you by the Makers of ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Mike Ashe @ Jun 28 2007, 06:25 PM)

Today's bit of totally useless trivia ...

Nice, Mike. Now, wrap your head around this:

Just as data flows though wires and nodes in LabVIEW, consider also that the wires and nodes flow around the data. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Jim Kring @ Jun 28 2007, 10:37 PM)

Nice, Mike. Now, wrap your head around this:

Just as data flows though wires and nodes in LabVIEW, consider also that the wires and nodes flow around the data. ;)

Jim,

Your post got me thnking again about a challenge I have been fighting with for a couple of years.

"How to help people make the paradigm shift to data flow?"

I see a lot of code devloped by other people. When looking a LV code developed by "converts form other languages", I can see how they have twisted LV around to fit into the models that worked in "the other languages".

Well your post reminded me of my childhood when I spent a lot of time playing in streams building damns.

When I was attempting to drain the pools downstream of the damn, I could do it in more than one way.

One method was to create a channel from the lowest pool and then proceed to create channles from the lowest other pools to the lowest.

Another method was to create multiple channels for each pool.

So it occured to me that the text based lnaguages tended toward the the single channel method, while LV naturally allows the multiple channel method.

So what's the difference?

Well when the rain comes the single channel approach can backup while the multichannel approach performs better and an obstruction in one channel does not affect the others.

So were am I going with this?

Nowhere other than to get some coffee. :wacko:

Ben

Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Mike Ashe @ Jun 29 2007, 11:25 AM)

...I am "lifting" the earth by the inverse ratio of it's mass to mine, just as surely as I am lifting myself

Just like how cutting down the forrests makes the earth spin faster...

Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Jim Kring @ Jun 28 2007, 10:37 PM)

Nice, Mike Jim. Now, wrap your head around this:

I'll reply to you as I did to my first year EE professor, "with all due respect Sir, only electrons really flow, there is no such thing as 'hole flow' or positive current, protons do not flow, electrons do, and I'll put it down on your test if it will make you happy (and get me a good grade), but I don't have to buy into it, and I don't"

That having been said, the video editor in me is thinking ...

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, 20 pages of useless (albeit somewhat amusing) crap in a single thread. Truly inspiring.

QUOTE(Mike Ashe @ Jun 29 2007, 08:26 PM)

... with all due respect Sir, only electrons really flow, there is no such thing as 'hole flow' or positive current, protons do not flow, electrons do...

You know, Mike, electrical conduction isn't nearly that simple, regardless of whether it's happening in a conductor, semiconductor, plasma, or insulator. It's not like electrons are marbles flowing through a pipe. The process is described by the laws of quantum mechanics, and the modeling of conduction works equally well for holes or electrons. The curious thing is that you need to assign an "effective mass" to either charge carrier, and the fact that it's not the same as the "real" mass of the electron only points to how little we really understand what's going on at the quantum level.

These are the dreams that stuff is made of...

Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Mike Ashe @ Jun 30 2007, 10:26 AM)

...only electrons really flow, there is no such thing as 'hole flow' or positive current, protons do not flow, electrons do...

That, right there, shows the difference between an engineer and a scientist :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Mike Ashe @ Jun 29 2007, 07:26 PM)

I'll reply to you as I did to my first year EE professor, "with all due respect Sir, only electrons really flow, there is no such thing as 'hole flow' or positive current, protons do not flow, electrons do, and I'll put it down on your test if it will make you happy (and get me a good grade), but I don't have to buy into it, and I don't"

Of course, that means that bubbles don't rise, either. Water just flows downward around a hole. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE(crelf @ Jun 30 2007, 06:51 AM)

That, right there, shows the difference between an engineer and a scientist :D

I remember when dynamical, 4D spreadsheets were first coming on line -- some what after RDBMs were deployed in a number of easily accessed containers -- and I had an interesting conversation with an engineer. He was looking at what he called "spreadsheet data" and was bemoaning how others were using RDBMs to model and perform ad hoc querries on the data. In his mind that was REALLY "spreadsheet data" and one NEEDED to use a spreadsheet program to look at it. The idea that other approaches could be used -- just as easily -- and could perhaps yield novel insights was almost an affront to him and his perspective.

So I'm not sure how you're parsing the space in terms of "engineer" vs "scientist" but I do know that alternate models can be very, very helpful -- esp where they seem to violate some sacred cow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Returning to the idea of perfoming unique calcualations and adhering to AE quote;

"The difference between genius and stupidity... is that genius has its limits."

Could the memory density of the human brain (# of meories/ volume of brain) be use to show that memories must be stored in an element smaller than an atom?

I was trying to explain what I understood of string theory to my wife and how it genearally fails to produce a prediction that can be measured. So I suggested if there was an experiment that could be performed it would have to be something that science would scoff at being rediculous. We eventually talked about clairvoiance and as being a possible manifestation of the interaction, possibly at the string level. Evetually the mechanism used to store memories came to mind and then I asked myslef the question above and thought "what better place to post a Q like this than "The 5th dimension".

Of particular interest is those of us that have photographic memories. Depending on the "resolution" of the memories, it would not take long to accumulate more information than there are atoms in our brains.

Ben

Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Ben @ Jul 1 2007, 06:22 AM)

Returning to the idea of perfoming unique calcualations and adhering to AE quote;

"The difference between genius and stupidity... is that genius has its limits."

Could the memory density of the human brain (# of meories/ volume of brain) be use to show that memories must be stored in an element smaller than an atom?

I was trying to explain what I understood of string theory to my wife and how it genearally fails to produce a prediction that can be measured. So I suggested if there was an experiment that could be performed it would have to be something that science would scoff at being rediculous. We eventually talked about clairvoiance and as being a possible manifestation of the interaction, possibly at the string level. Evetually the mechanism used to store memories came to mind and then I asked myslef the question above and thought "what better place to post a Q like this than "The 5th dimension".

Of particular interest is those of us that have photographic memories. Depending on the "resolution" of the memories, it would not take long to accumulate more information than there are atoms in our brains.

Ben

Look at the work of Karl Pribram on the holographic nature of memory and adaptive-gabor based nature of perception.

Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Mike Ashe @ Jun 30 2007, 02:26 AM)

I'll reply to you as I did to my first year EE professor, "with all due respect Sir, only electrons really flow, there is no such thing as 'hole flow' or positive current, protons do not flow, electrons do, and I'll put it down on your test if it will make you happy (and get me a good grade), but I don't have to buy into it, and I don't"

That having been said, the video editor in me is thinking ...

;)

Having developed pH electrodes for a number of years, I'm inclined to disagree once one leaves the realm of standard electronics. Once you enter the world of chemistry (or electrochemistry to be more exact) then Protons do indeed flow. OK, normally in the form of H3O+, but they do "hop off" on the boundary to a solid silica network.

Si-O- + H30+ <-> Si-O-H + H2O

The balance of this equation is defined in part by the pK value of the glass, which in turn more or less determines it's alkali error.......

All in all, not something a EE Professor is really likely to come back with as a snappy response.... Now an Analytical scientist, that's a different box of cats.

Shane.

For non-chemists, H+ is a proton. H (Hydrogen with neutral charge) consists of one proton and one electron. H+, after losing an electron is a proton.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the answer is, it depends on who you ask. Just like when asked what "Pi" is.

Mathematician: Pi is the number expressing the relationship between the circumference of a circle and its diameter.

Physicist: Pi is 3.1415927plus or minus 0.000000005

Engineer: Pi is about 3, but I'd use 4 just to be safe.

Betty Crocker: Pi is what you poke holes in with a fork and then leave on the window sill to cool off.

Business Man: Pi is desert is it not?

Computer Programmer: Pi is 3.141592653589 in double precision.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.