Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

 JREF Forum D

 Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

 Tags dimension

 8th June 2008, 01:55 PM #1 martu Graduate Poster   Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: London Posts: 1,003 D D =G to the power of D - 2 multiplied by M to the power of D - 1 divided by r to the power of D - 1 Where D = Dimension 0 = G to the power of -2 multiplied by m to the power of -1 divided by r to the power of - 1 1 = G to the power of -1 multiplied by m to the power of 0 divided by r to the power of 0 2 = G to the power of 0 multiplied by m to the power of 1 divided by r to the power of 1 3 = G to the power of 1 multiplied by m to the power of 2 divided by r to the power of 2
 8th June 2008, 02:04 PM #2 X Slide Rulez 4 Life     Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Launching the army, waiting for Hok to commit her forces (then the moles strike...) Posts: 4,082 D = GD - (2*MD-1)/rD-1 Code: `D = GD - (2*MD-1)/rD-1` The point? Edit 1: added code Edit 2 & 3: formula wrong, see below for correction D = GD-2*(MD-1)/(rD-1) Code: `D = GD-2*(MD-1)/(rD-1)` (I think that's right...) __________________ It is sad that this is necessary: Argumentum Ad Hominem: "You are wrong because you are ugly." Not Ad-Hom: "You are wrong and you are ugly." [X's posts are] ...as good as having 24 hours of Justin Bieber piped into your ears! - kmortis Last edited by X; 8th June 2008 at 03:33 PM. Reason: code; formula
 8th June 2008, 02:04 PM #3 Gregory Muse     Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 687 I have no idea what you're saying here. Among other things, you've only defined one of four variables. What are G, M, and r? Last edited by Gregory; 8th June 2008 at 02:05 PM.
 8th June 2008, 07:11 PM #4 AntiTelharsic Critical Thinker   Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 252 Originally Posted by Gregory I have no idea what you're saying here. Among other things, you've only defined one of four variables. What are G, M, and r? The gravitational constant, a mass, and a separation between two bodies having that mass, I'll wager. Not that that makes it even remotely sensible, of course. Edit: It looks like the source of this crackpottery is the "What Gravity Is" thread. Last edited by AntiTelharsic; 8th June 2008 at 07:23 PM.
 8th June 2008, 08:18 PM #5 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,815 Originally Posted by martu D =G to the power of D - 2 multiplied by M to the power of D - 1 divided by r to the power of D - 1 Where D = Dimension 0 = G to the power of -2 multiplied by m to the power of -1 divided by r to the power of - 1 1 = G to the power of -1 multiplied by m to the power of 0 divided by r to the power of 0 2 = G to the power of 0 multiplied by m to the power of 1 divided by r to the power of 1 3 = G to the power of 1 multiplied by m to the power of 2 divided by r to the power of 2 A nice bit of nonsense. Left hand side: D is a dimension and is a number (1, 2, 3, 4, etc.) Right hand side: various powers of G, M and r all with dimensions, e.g. metres for r. First thing learnt in physics classes is dimensional ananlysis, i.e. you cannot put seconds equal to metres. This "equation" tries to make "various powers of G, M and r all with dimensions" equal to just numbers. Thus this is not a real equation __________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2
 8th June 2008, 08:52 PM #6 zosima Muse     Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: xkcd/406 Posts: 536 If you set D = 3 and you replace the D on the left side with F then you get the equation for Newtonian gravity, but....the OP is fooling his/herself if they think that they can arbitrarily translate this equation into other dimensions so easily. The best way to write a general version of the gravitational equation is using the Einstein tensor, the stress-energy tensor and the cosmological constant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations
 8th June 2008, 09:18 PM #7 X Slide Rulez 4 Life     Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Launching the army, waiting for Hok to commit her forces (then the moles strike...) Posts: 4,082 Originally Posted by [X] D = GD - (2*MD-1)/rD-1 Code: `D = GD - (2*MD-1)/rD-1` The point? Edit 1: added code Edit 2 & 3: formula wrong, see below for correction D = GD-2*(MD-1)/(rD-1) Code: `D = GD-2*(MD-1)/(rD-1)` Ha! Got it. (I think that's right...) Dangit! The code tags didn't work. How did I not notice that? Take 4: HTML Code: `D = G[sup]D-2[/sup]*(M[sup]D-1[/sup])/(r[sup]D-1[/sup])` ETA: I'm still wondering what the point of this thread is. __________________ It is sad that this is necessary: Argumentum Ad Hominem: "You are wrong because you are ugly." Not Ad-Hom: "You are wrong and you are ugly." [X's posts are] ...as good as having 24 hours of Justin Bieber piped into your ears! - kmortis Last edited by X; 8th June 2008 at 09:19 PM.
 8th June 2008, 10:07 PM #8 Gregory Muse     Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 687 Originally Posted by zosima The best way to write a general version of the gravitational equation is using the Einstein tensor, the stress-energy tensor and the cosmological constant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations Does the gravitational equation need to be generalized? It works for three dimensions, which is the space we live in.
 8th June 2008, 10:25 PM #9 zosima Muse     Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: xkcd/406 Posts: 536 Originally Posted by Gregory Does the gravitational equation need to be generalized? It works for three dimensions, which is the space we live in. In the tensor form it is generalized with respect to choice of coordinate system, but not with respect to number of dimensions. That is the most general form of the gravitational equation that I'm aware of,though. Maybe string theory does a better job, but I don't really know anything about string theory.
 9th June 2008, 01:27 AM #10 martu Graduate Poster   Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: London Posts: 1,003 There exists a grid of particles such that these particles repel each other equally M can be considered the distance between particles in the horizontal direction, r the distance between particles in the vertical direction In 2D M is the most probable direction an atom will move in In 3D this direction is defined by M squared G is the density of the particles The distance travelled is defined by r in 2D In 3D this distance is defined b r squared This defines Gravity, Gravity can be considered as the most probable direction an atom will move in Time is the movement of the grid The minimum slice of time in 2D is c c is the maximum speed of the gravity particles as defined by the force repelling them In 3D this is defined by c squared Energy is a wave in the grid This wave is defined by m the direction of the wave and a the speed of the wave All else follows Dimensions 0 = nothing exists 1 = Just a gravity particle exists 2 = Just the Grid exists 3 = The Grid and Matter exists 4 = The Grid and Matter exists plus the Grid is expanding Therefore: 0 is self explanatory, nothing exists 1 is just a particle so m and r are undefined 2 is a grid of squares so most probable direction is defined by the ratio of m and r 3 is a grid of cubes containing matter– the most probable direction a piece of matter will move in is defined by m1 multiplied by m2 which defines the area in which the particle can move to. A change in distance r equates to a change in area therefore the ratio is defined by r squared. The sum of things that are influencing the grid is defined by G. 4 Is a grid of cubes that contains matter where the grid is expanding – the relationship between m and r is now a cube relationship as the most probable direction is related to a volume To stop time stop the grid expanding – 3D can be considered a snapshot of the grid in time. Last edited by martu; 9th June 2008 at 02:46 AM. Reason: It was wrong
 9th June 2008, 01:47 AM #11 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,815 Totally wrong as in your other What Gravity Is (not!) __________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2
 9th June 2008, 02:05 AM #12 Lothian Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: https://twitter.com/CV4UK Posts: 10,373 I hope you are not spending too much time on this when that time could be well spent reading up on the subject.
 9th June 2008, 02:17 AM #13 six7s veretic     Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Aotearoa Posts: 8,710 Of all the time I wasted today, the last three minutes were the most wasteful __________________ Evolution and the rest of reality fascinates the be-jeebus out of me!
 9th June 2008, 02:22 AM #14 martu Graduate Poster   Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: London Posts: 1,003 Originally Posted by Reality Check Totally wrong as in your other What Gravity Is (not!) Why?
 9th June 2008, 02:37 AM #15 TrueSceptic Master Poster     Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Northampton, UK Posts: 2,143 Originally Posted by Lothian I hope you are not spending too much time on this when that time could be well spent reading up on the subject. Not to mention giving us a thread title that might give us some clue what it was about. D is about as useless as ?.
 9th June 2008, 04:06 AM #16 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,815 Originally Posted by martu Why? A nice bit of nonsense. Left hand side: D is a dimension and is a number (1, 2, 3, 4, etc.) Right hand side: various powers of G, M and r all with dimensions, e.g. metres for r. First thing learnt in physics classes is dimensional ananlysis, i.e. you cannot put seconds equal to metres. This "equation" tries to make "various powers of G, M and r all with dimensions" equal to just numbers. Thus this is not a real equation P.S. You should read this post in What Gravity is __________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2 Last edited by Reality Check; 9th June 2008 at 04:16 AM.

JREF Forum

 Bookmarks Digg del.icio.us StumbleUpon Google Reddit