1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.


Discussion in 'Nerd Out Zone' started by PsychoticLeprechaun, May 24, 2016.


    TYHENDER Industrial Re-revolutionist

    Guys, i know that i`m not native english,so it can hard to write in English for me,but HOW DO YOU EVEN READ THIS?
    Oh and yeah,if you could, move everything you wrote here in an audio file,please.
  2. PsychoticLeprechaun

    PsychoticLeprechaun Designer & Web Developer

    • Dev Member
    Speculation is definitely fun - the ideas I talked about are certainly just that. The problem for me with this sort of speculation, though, is that it really is, as far as physics stands, impossible to prove. I'm also not a big fan of the fast-and-loose use of dimensions and spaces.
    NeonSturm likes this.
  3. NeonSturm

    NeonSturm Back Into Space

    • Member
    Actually, it's quite easy to imagine 5 dimensions.

    In visuals: Width, Height, Depth, Colour, Brightness/Transparency, … And again, you can add rotation of lines and curves in these lines or colour-transitions to increase the number of dimensions.
    In music: Frequency, Volume, Swing (distortions in frequency), … And then you can attack perpendicular extra dimensions with instruments OR with coherent tracks.

    – Example A: 2 instruments play the same at a different octave (frequency). Then they divert into 2 tracks, bound together by the original coherence and multiplying dimensions.
    – Example B: The context is "Living Beings or Animals" and you play an exiting music to symbolize "Life". You can stop it instantly to symbolize "An Accident" or fade it out with a soft break to symbolize "Dying to Old Age". You can also add a second track of exiting music, add disharmony to it to symbolize "Sickness" which grows instantly more exiting on "That Accident" to symbolize "Murder".
    – Example C: You could use frequency for nearby/far, Track#1 for left/right, Track#2 for up/down and even use a different frequency on the second track to add colour or brightness or density.

    But it's more difficult to come up with a coherent convention on which dimension means what and how they interact.

    Have you thought about "cause and effect" – that an effect might also be a cause in another parallel universe?
    If "Dark Matter" contains for example Earth2, Earth3 and Earth4, radioactive particles might be in 4-dimensional space and be hit by alpha/beta/gamma particles we can't see.

    If gravitational forces are 4-dimensional, anti-gravity could work similar to surfers (we falling downward) and a reverse current below (or aside).

    If energy cannot be created or vanish, the very same might be true on a topological level. Killing an animal might reduce the pressure of a type of thought which then appears elsewhere like a chemical reaction might put pressure on an inverse chemical reaction elsewhere, perhaps even up to the point that exotherm and endotherm are inversed.
    This reminds me of magic where all that matters is: "Will, Power, Focus". Physical reactions might be a balancing reaction to imbalance caused by magic elsewhere. If physical reactions remain consistent, the imbalance must be severe or the cause of it must be stable.

    I added above to provide a point to disprove. If it is or would be impossible to disprove something, we know that we don't know enough.
  4. PsychoticLeprechaun

    PsychoticLeprechaun Designer & Web Developer

    • Dev Member
    If a theory can not possibly be proven, it is completely useless as theories go. Scientific proof of something is not as rigorous as a mathematical proof, but certainly is the cut off after which anything lesser is a not a proof. I could make a theory that there exists a parallel universe that has no effects on our own universe and has unicorns inside it, this theory is completely unprovable as it simply produces no predictions to mark it against. There is a harsher, and (for many) equally valid, requirement on theories, which is that if it predicts the same (verified) behaviour in reality as another theory then the theory we go forward with is the simpler one. Why? Because science doesn't care about anything but the axioms and the results of a theory. We do, however, care that humans can understand and implement the theory we have. Philosophy can come in and bemoan, "but we don't really know which is true reality", but this really doesn't matter - we can not know which is right so we go with the most convenient to use.

    So, to get to your proposed point: we have really good mappings of where dark matter exists and there are two more likely explanations for it than "shadow Earths". For a start it is on a much larger scale than Earth - there is no (or tremendously little) dark matter directly in/around Earth. Dark matter specifically exists at the galactic scale (not any scale smaller, and not scales larger), why? If it is matter, I don't know for sure but I can imagine a few possibilities. It looks like a component of dark matter may be ordinary matter too given a recent possible detection - in the form of primordial black holes. The second explanation (and my favourite if not logically the one I think is most likely) is called Conformal Gravity, which is a very interesting extension of General Relativity for a variety of reasons; including that the Alcubierre metric would no longer require negative energy if the shape of the warp bubble is chosen carefully (not to say warping would be possible, the only shaping function I've seen proven to work is unphysical).

    Your proposal of particles passing into a fourth dimension of space has been proposed in some sense before; the Kaluza-Klein theory coming to mind. Though these such theories involve a condition that the extra spatial dimensions are "rolled up" so that a particle moving in that axis returns to where it started (possible if the dimension is "rolled up" on a scale smaller than that of any particle). Ultimately your particular idea of an extra dimension of space is simply not possible: particles would just randomly disappear if other particles (alpha particles e.g.) could interact through the dimension. Further,we would see spontaneous excitement of particles with no interaction involved - we do not see this.

    Specific to your discussion of gravitational forces: a five dimensional treatment of general relativity was done (the Kaluza-Klein theory) and while early results make it seem less likely that "rolled up" dimensions exist, we await the results from the higher energy experiments at the LHC to see evidence for or against this theory. Not quite what you describe, but remember that any new theories must always in the special case reduce down to the theory it extends (hence effects of the fourth spatial dimension must be zero on the resulting field equations in this case).

    Given thoughts can be expressed purely materialistically on the scale of simpler organisms (worms up to very small amounts of rat brain so far), there is no reason to think that this does not hold true for more complex organisms such as ourselves. Same way that just because a chemical reaction occurs in one place its reverse does not have to be occurring elsewhere (for a start this would violate the laws of thermodynamics). Also, we know that in topology net change does not need to be zero, a fold can be made in one direction only for example!
  5. NeonSturm

    NeonSturm Back Into Space

    • Member
    Not all chemicals react with each other and not all matter or particles might have an effect on shadow Earths, but it wasn't a too serious thought.
    I haven't heard anything about the distribution of dark matter, it was just a closest-to thought.
    I also played with thinking about gravity as some sort of Aerodynamic effect – velocities of electrons and quantum particles making this space-field thinner and the pressure pushes particles in.

    But all this goes astray.
    Consciousness for me is mainly math with words, symbols, patterns. Subconsciousness is a different matter.
  6. joppiesaus

    joppiesaus Infamous Space-Octopus

    • Member
    I still can't believe why I haven't completed this read this yet.
    I want to say that I really enjoyed the game SOMA which is about consciousness. I have learned a lot from it. It also haunts me. I really enjoyed it. It leaves me with many questions.
    I'm not sure if this is on topic, but it has to do with consciousness!

    In the game you transfer bodies/minds. I do not understand why sometimes the target body is the next one, and the other time it isn't. Obviously both live on - it's rather a copy, not a transfer. Catherine talks about a "coinflip". I do not understand it. Can somebody explain this to me?
    joppiesaus, Jul 24, 2016
    Last edited by joppiesaus; at Jul 24, 2016
  7. Potatocat

    Potatocat Back Into Space

    • Member
    Today I like to think about the idea of modifying the very data of the very atoms that make us up to change their literal position in space without modifying their bonds... whooh that would be crazy complex.

    As far as the rest goes, my take on it now is that my copy definitely knows where it came from beyond formal memory, so that even a copy of a potato or iron ingot would have sympathy with its original.

Share This Page