24th April 2005 - 02:21 AM
YQ: DrB is not applying dimensional projection in a correct fashion. You mostly hit the nail on the head with your question about "how would one isolate it".
Note that I'm not
challenging his intuition
or "gut hunch" - but the words in his description of that gut hunch form complete nonsense. Hopefully the drivel that follows will give him a tool he can use to phrase it in a better way, that more accurately represents his thought.
Given his 12-space, and that we directly perceive 3 - let's keep it simple and use things that are familiar to us. Let's pick 2 of these dimensions that we can trivially perceive, X and Y - and let's use his, G, to form our 3space. While we cannot perceive this as a 3-space, we certainly know how it'll behave in regards to our XY plane.
By definition, G is as orthogonal to the rest as X or Y is. It must be; he said it is a "dimension". (Like I said - if "dimension" isn't what he means, then he wants to use a more appropriate term.)
G being orthogonal means that anything displaced along it has no implied displacement along any other
. In effect, if you draw a 50-mile line anywhere in the direction of G such that it intersects our XY - the resulting volume in XY will be a cartesian singularity
. Extend your line along G to infinite length - nothing changes, both X and Y still perceive a singularity where the line along G intersects.
Right off the bat, YQ, your intuition about "isolate if present everywhere" is shown true. Extending our game to a 4-space model (where XYZ is perceived, and G is no longer in the observer's perception) yields the exact same result - our "line" along G is still perceived as a cartesian singularity. By its very definition, an object existing exclusively in this 12th dimension will have minimum volume
(either 0, or perhaps you could argue a Planck length or identity
) in (N sans G) space. Note well that its region of influence in (N sans G) space should be limited to the domain of that singularity.
Additional critique -
There's also no such thing as inserting something "between" dimensions. There are none "higher", there are none "lower". They have no stacking order
and everyone knows that only 4 are still visible
There are 3 that are visible to us. The others are still very much here, and would be "visible" if we had different "eyeballs". Also, this "4th" that is referred to is the composite of the rest that we do not perceive (or in parlance, are not visible
Like I said, it's not sensible as stated. And like I said - I'm not
challenging his intuition, so hopefully he won't be angry or defensive - but the words that were posted are somewhat silly. I do hope he comes back and posts a better description - use analogies (and fully qualify
them) when words fail, whatever - but if he cannot communicate his (somewhat important, if it turns out to be true) idea, it'll be lost.