Debate What is fourth dimension?

NaturalPhilosopher

Senior Member
Messages
2,299
Because my theory for quantum based polarized hyper super symmetry dimensional physics not only provides me with a possible scientific explanation for what I call the polarized binary symmetry of energy. But this highly theoretical form of dimensional physics also provides me with a possible scientific explanation for how & why it is that a dimension's right angle structures can act as dimensional based mulitiplers in reference to each other thereby causing and or giving rise to spacial area and or volume. At the same time though because of the way that this works I theorize when an area and or volume of a dimension compress past 0 that area and or volume becomes a (physical context)Sub-dimension/(mathematical context) Sub-division of that dimension.
so you don't believe in negative numbers then.
 

QPN

Junior Member
Messages
59
Pair production usually refers an electron and positron.

The dirac sea is considered the probability that a gamma ray will produce a pair production(electron and positron) anywhere in the universe. However, do the pair particles exist before the gamma ray 'materialize' them? Are they there everywhere but in an unobservable state? Is the dirac sea a real sea? How exactly does a gamma ray turn into an electron and positron? Nobody knows.

Actually I believe the answer to this can be seen in the quantum polarity of zero. It is to my understanding that photons of electromagnetic radiation and or gamma rays have and or carry the polarity of 0. At the same time though it is also to my understanding that there are 2 ways in which an object can have and or carry the polarity of 0. One way is for the object to be completely devoid of polarity and the other way is for the object to be derived of 2 exact opposite polarities all at the exact same time. Which means that any object which has and or carries the polarity of 0 because it is derived of 2 exact opposite polarities must be 1/2 or 50% or 0.5 positive & 1/2 or 50% or 0.5 negative all at the exact same time. So in this way the polarity of 0 isn't a true fundamental polarity rather it is a polarity construct. Or, should I say, a singular polarity which is constructed of 2 exact opposite polarities which come together through the action of union or unseparation and act as 1 polarity. The neat thing here is that because any object inside space should be denoted as a 1 & because the construct polarity of zero should be denoted just like + and - I believe that any object which carries the construct polarity of zero should be denoted like this 01.
 
Last edited:

NaturalPhilosopher

Senior Member
Messages
2,299
Actually I believe the answer to this can be seen in the quantum polarity of zero. It is to my understanding that photons of electromagnetic radiation and or gamma rays have and or carry the polarity of 0. At the same time though it is also to my understanding that there are 2 ways in which an object can have and or carry the polarity of 0. One way is for the object to be completely devoid of polarity and the other way is for the object to be derived of 2 exact opposite polarities all at the exact same time. Which means that any object which has and or carries the polarity of 0 because it is derived of 2 exact opposite polarities must be 1/2 or 50% or 0.5 positive & 1/2 or 50% or 0.5 negative all at the exact same time. So in this way the polarity of 0 isn't a true fundamental polarity rather it is a polarity construct. Or, should I say, a singular polarity which is constructed of 2 exact opposite polarities which come together through the action of union or unseparation and act as 1 polarity. The neat thing here is that because any object inside space should be denoted as a 1 & because the construct polarity of zero should be denoted I believe that any object which carries the construct polarity of zero should be denoted like this 01.
exactly.
this is the greatest mistake in physics
like how space is considered zero but in reality it's a scalar value.
scalar values are still composed of vectors but ones that cancel each other.
carries stress energy(air pressure, hydraulic pressure, etc, pure potential).

hidden scalar vectors
hidden substructure

modern physics claims if these did exist they would be negative numbers. They just need to account for the hidden energy and move their reference point for zero energy lower. Everything is a positive number.

That being said, in our existing math, all this, backwards time travel, backwards 'space' are negative numbers.

symmetry
 

QPN

Junior Member
Messages
59
you need to understand the underlying concepts first.
nothing can move unless acted on by something else. something with only mass cannot move unless acted on and nothing can cause that chain of events as every object needs a cause of movement, yet nothing can move itself. Therefore there is something other then mass which is time that causes movement, time is the measure and the arbiture of movement. what is mass? is an object only itself or a collection of other objects, can an object maintan its shape without those others? the blueprints of what will occur all the possibilities need to be there for anything to occur, for the causes to know what to cause the definer of the causes is something else though I think. and so on.
dimensions do they need to be instantanious to remain the same?
what is a sphere, a curved line, the only way things can "connect" to each other perhaps.
space is defined by time, distance is the amount of space but time is the amount it takes to get to that space. The way to get to that space, the constant value defining the space perhaps. time is not space time is everywhere but nowhere, it gets places but does not have mass pehaps.
@QPN my mental capabilities are not near their temporary best now, might be analysing incorrectly, might only say incorrect things if prolonge the response.

I'm not sure how to explain mass.

is an object only itself or a collection of other objects, can an object maintan its shape without those others? It is to my understanding that if an object is fundamental it is itself. But if the object is elementary or above that then that object is considered to be collection or composite. I don't think a composite can maintain its shape without its building blocks, however i could be wrong here though.

dimensions do they need to be instantanious to remain the same? I'm not sure what you mean by "remain the same?".
 

Top