On May 5, 10:11 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Smooth John schrieb:



Very often physicists with reputation never ask
uncomfortable question, which they dont like.

As is, what property of space, time or matter
makes the universe three dimensionally?

It must be the matter, because time and space
are rather mental construction, I mean, this can
be proved, that these are, and only are, mental
construction. Moreover, matter is considered as
being energy in many groups. Energy again, is
not well posed. What is going on here? Why are
they telling us that we live in three dimensions?

Are we sure we live in a three dimensional manifold,
where 3D relativity holds good in its domain of
applicability? What proofs do we have in hand?

Why are there three dimensions of space?

Maybe you trust me about one dimension of time. That would follow from
causality. Now imagine: what is time to me is space to you. It's the
question of the point of view. I have mine and you have yours, but both
are equivalent.
Now imagine cells in time-like manner arranged, and you have only one
dimension. Then there are neighbors, doing the same. The neighboring
cells are the 'evils' and our own bread are the 'good'. Now you have to
have *any* direction through this arrangement with these features. There
is only one topology that could provide this: the anti commutative ring
of quaternions.
Those quaternions have three spatial neighbors and one temporal. Only
quaternions you can arrange in such a way, that my time is your space.
And those have three spatial and one temporal neighbor

Thomas Heger

quaternions are representation. I asked about what property, matter
likely, because it needs space to move in.

In fact atoms easily may exist in plane. We think it is space, but it
is a
surface where all we detect makes sense. Even time travel now makes
sense.

On May 4, 6:39*am, Smooth John wrote:

As is, *what property of space, time or matter
makes the universe three dimensionally?

None.


It must be the matter,

No, matter is also stuff extended in space and remember, we do not
know what space is yet, so we do not know what matter is.


Are we sure we live in a three dimensional manifold,
where 3D relativity holds good in its domain of
applicability? What proofs do we have in hand?

Ir is probably 1-D with virtual 2-D add on bought from a cheap
hardware store. The younf God did not have enough money with him and
was afraid to ask His parents for they would learn he was trying to
make a silly 3-D world.

The add on malfunctions and people think spacetime curves and loght
speed is constant.

The problem is, momentary replacement will take temporarily out the 2-
D and your little d*ck will get flat along with your head.

Mike

On May 6, 12:28 am, Mike wrote:
On May 4, 6:39 am, Smooth John wrote:

As is, what property of space, time or matter
makes the universe three dimensionally?

None.

It must be the matter,

No, matter is also stuff extended in space and remember, we do not
know what space is yet, so we do not know what matter is.

Are we sure we live in a three dimensional manifold,
where 3D relativity holds good in its domain of
applicability? What proofs do we have in hand?

Ir is probably 1-D with virtual 2-D add on bought from a cheap
hardware store. The younf God did not have enough money with him and
was afraid to ask His parents for they would learn he was trying to
make a silly 3-D world.

The add on malfunctions and people think spacetime curves and loght
speed is constant.

The problem is, momentary replacement will take temporarily out the 2-
D and your little d*ck will get flat along with your head.

Mike

What is d*ck? Something zero point energy you serve yourself
deep through your throat 4-5 pieces before breakfast?

On May 5, 3:18*pm, Smooth John wrote:
On May 5, 9:59 pm, PD wrote:



On May 5, 2:16 pm, Smooth John wrote:

On May 5, 9:06 pm, PD wrote:

On May 5, 1:57 pm, Smooth John wrote:

On May 5, 3:22 pm, Don Stockbauer wrote:

What property of space, time or matter makes the universe three
dimensionally?

*******************************

The fact that it has 3 spacial dimensions.

This is what they say, but I ask again. What property of matter
makes space three dimensional?

It's not matter that forces the issue.

It cant be the atom, because atoms are not three dimensional, they are
not
thick.

What in heavens name makes you think that?

I just said, reread.

When you look at electrons around nuclei, they are not there.

This means that atoms have not thickness as property.

Don't be silly. It means that puffins do not eat breakfast cereal. It
has nothing to do with whether atoms have thickness as a property.

Why insults, have you no arguments?

Because in science some things are settled by empirical evidence, not
by arguments. If you want arguments about things that do not hinge on
empirical evidence, you could try alt.philosophy.


Space and time are not existent, they are mental construction, based
on the 5 senses most of people have.

So you say.


Close your eyes and put your fingers in your ears. Space will
disappear.

OK, close your eyes and put your fingers in your ears and then wait
for a rock to come bonk you on the head, and then tell me the rock
could not have sailed through space to arrive at your head.

You cant walk, because you have no space to walk in. You only have
some
detectors, which is not space. That can be a plane not space.



Look up "monolayer".

Where?


Oh, say, he http://www.google.com/search?q=monolayer&btnG=Search



There must
be something else.

However, you may be the first individual on this planet seeing
electrons
around nuclei.

Have a picture? I mean a photo?

You mean, with light? Using a wavelength that is larger than the size
of the object it's looking at? Got any idea what kind of luck you'll
have with that?

So you have nothing,

No, I have something. Just not a photo. If a photo is the only
"something" you'll accept, then you are indeed limited in your tools
of knowledge acquisition.

But if you'd like, you could also pick up a penny and note that the
penny has definite thickness, even though that thickness is built up
from layers of atoms:
http://www.webelements.com/webelemen...t/Cu/xtal.html
Now, if the atoms were 2-dimensional, then stacking sheets of flat
atoms would also result in a 2-D penny, which is counter to
observation.
Note that empirical evidence generally trumps any argument. At least
in physics. Not in politics or philosophy, but you aren't in those
newsgroups, are you?

I am right and you are wrong. Come back when you
see
an atom which is thick.

Atoms dont need space, they are flat.



Because when you look at electrons, they are not there, they say.
Atoms are not thick.

On May 5, 6:35*pm, Smooth John wrote:
On May 6, 12:28 am, Mike wrote:





On May 4, 6:39 am, Smooth John wrote:

As is, *what property of space, time or matter
makes the universe three dimensionally?

None.

It must be the matter,

No, matter is also stuff extended in space and remember, we do not
know what space is yet, so we do not know what matter is.

Are we sure we live in a three dimensional manifold,
where 3D relativity holds good in its domain of
applicability? What proofs do we have in hand?

Ir is probably 1-D with virtual 2-D add on bought from a cheap
hardware store. The younf God did not have enough money with him and
was afraid to ask His parents for they would learn he was trying to
make a silly 3-D world.

The add on malfunctions and people think spacetime curves and loght
speed is constant.

The problem is, momentary replacement will take temporarily out the 2-
D and your little d*ck will get flat along with your head.

Mike

What is d*ck? Something zero point energy you serve yourself
deep through your throat 4-5 pieces before breakfast?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are familiar with that I guess. But I made a mistake. When the
virtual 2-D card is being replaced, your d*ck will become as thin as a
line drawn in 1-D space. You won't be able to distinguish your d*ck
from your head and your hair, if you got any left.

Mike

On May 6, 4:04 pm, Mike wrote:
On May 5, 6:35 pm, Smooth John wrote:



On May 6, 12:28 am, Mike wrote:

On May 4, 6:39 am, Smooth John wrote:

As is, what property of space, time or matter
makes the universe three dimensionally?

None.

It must be the matter,

No, matter is also stuff extended in space and remember, we do not
know what space is yet, so we do not know what matter is.

Are we sure we live in a three dimensional manifold,
where 3D relativity holds good in its domain of
applicability? What proofs do we have in hand?

Ir is probably 1-D with virtual 2-D add on bought from a cheap
hardware store. The younf God did not have enough money with him and
was afraid to ask His parents for they would learn he was trying to
make a silly 3-D world.

The add on malfunctions and people think spacetime curves and loght
speed is constant.

The problem is, momentary replacement will take temporarily out the 2-
D and your little d*ck will get flat along with your head.

Mike

What is d*ck? Something zero point energy you serve yourself
deep through your throat 4-5 pieces before breakfast?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are familiar with that I guess. But I made a mistake.
Mike


Yes, glad you see that, also your mother sucked your d*ck before
breakfast.

An accident you may say, but heck, **** happens, as they say.

Is still unclear what you mean by "d*ck", please clarify immediately,
hurry up.

On May 6, 3:49 pm, PD wrote:
On May 5, 3:18 pm, Smooth John wrote:



On May 5, 9:59 pm, PD wrote:

On May 5, 2:16 pm, Smooth John wrote:

On May 5, 9:06 pm, PD wrote:

On May 5, 1:57 pm, Smooth John wrote:

On May 5, 3:22 pm, Don Stockbauer wrote:

What property of space, time or matter makes the universe three
dimensionally?

*******************************

The fact that it has 3 spacial dimensions.

This is what they say, but I ask again. What property of matter
makes space three dimensional?

It's not matter that forces the issue.

It cant be the atom, because atoms are not three dimensional, they are
not
thick.

What in heavens name makes you think that?

I just said, reread.

When you look at electrons around nuclei, they are not there.

This means that atoms have not thickness as property.

Don't be silly. It means that puffins do not eat breakfast cereal. It
has nothing to do with whether atoms have thickness as a property.

Why insults, have you no arguments?

Because in science some things are settled by empirical evidence, not
by arguments. If you want arguments about things that do not hinge on
empirical evidence, you could try alt.philosophy.

Philosophy is ten times more complex than relativity. If I understand
a litle
in this group, I understand nothing what they are talking about in
philosophy groups

Therefore I can conclude that the posters in philosophy groups are
more
intelligent than the posters in relativity groups.

Or am I wrong? No?

Then tell me why I dont understand what they are talking about in
philosophy groups?




Space and time are not existent, they are mental construction, based
on the 5 senses most of people have.

So you say.

Are yoo insisting that space and time are not only and only a mental
construction?

Show me your empirical to the contrarily.




Close your eyes and put your fingers in your ears. Space will
disappear.

OK, close your eyes and put your fingers in your ears and then wait
for a rock to come bonk you on the head, and then tell me the rock
could not have sailed through space to arrive at your head

Here we are, you see, you just showed you are confused.

Your brain only will sens an electro-chemical impulse and nothing
else.
That impulse is translated into a pain, but what is pain, really, this
is not jokes. You can never empirically prove pain, at best an electro-
chemical
excitation, thats all.
..

You cant walk, because you have no space to walk in. You only have
some
detectors, which is not space. That can be a plane not space.

Look up "monolayer".

Where?

Oh, say, hehttp://www.google.com/search?q=monolayer&btnG=Search

Why should anyone do that?






There must
be something else.

However, you may be the first individual on this planet seeing
electrons
around nuclei.

Have a picture? I mean a photo?

You mean, with light? Using a wavelength that is larger than the size
of the object it's looking at? Got any idea what kind of luck you'll
have with that?

So you have nothing,

No, I have something. Just not a photo. If a photo is the only
"something" you'll accept, then you are indeed limited in your tools
of knowledge acquisition.

In other words you are complete stupid?


But if you'd like, you could also pick up a penny and note that the
penny has definite thickness, even though that thickness is built up
from layers of atoms:http://www.webelements.com/webelemen...t/Cu/xtal.html
Now, if the atoms were 2-dimensional, then stacking sheets of flat
atoms would also result in a 2-D penny, which is counter to
observation.

This is the point, you still dont understand.

The 3d sensation is an artifact, present nowhere.


Note that empirical evidence generally trumps any argument. At least

Evidence?

What are you, the central evidence authority in this world?


Please reconsider your hostile attitude.

in physics. Not in politics or philosophy, but you aren't in those
newsgroups, are you?

I am right and you are wrong. Come back when you
see
an atom which is thick.

Atoms dont need space, they are flat.

Because when you look at electrons, they are not there, they say.
Atoms are not thick.