"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message news:jz6Qd.38683$Yu.11411@fed1read01...
I ask because, surely there must be a dimension to alter the existing 4.

Surely there is no correlation. If I compress the distance between two
points by 0.0001 m, then the effect is contained in that "axis". Nothing
else "gave up or got" that 0.0001 m.

Yes, something else gave up. In order to change the length (compress it) it
had to occur within the time dimension. This is exactly what Ben was
suggesting. If there is a change in 4 dimensional space-time, it must be
taking place in 5 dimensional space-resonance.

If this was not the case, then wouldn't these dimensions have to remain
unchanged?

No. Spacetime is the product of mass/energy. If mass/energy alters this
relationship, then there is no other agent necessary.

Space-time is the result of half-spin matter existing within two-spin
space-resonance (5D). This is something like what you are saying. The
half-spin matter cannot see the backward direction of distributed frequency
dimensions and gives the illusion of being linear time.

In our macro world we can get along fine without considering the fifth
dimension. But at the quantum realm we must calculate the fifth dimension
in order to fully understand the quantum processes. But you can't quantify
the fifth dimension if you deny the existence of Aether.

Dave




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Bilge" wrote in message
...
Electromagnetic waves cannot be compression waves. Compression waves
are longitudinal. Electromagnetic waves are purely transverse.

I fully agree with you on this one, Bilge. Electromagnetic waves are caused
by photons moving through the Aether. Longitudinal waves are caused by the
Aether itself moving. EM involves radiation, LW do not. This is why Tesla
claimed that there is practically no energy loss in transmitting via
magnetic pulses in the Aether.

Dave




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Ben" wrote in message
om...
(Bilge) wrote in message
...
Electromagnetic waves cannot be compression waves. Compression waves
are longitudinal. Electromagnetic waves are purely transverse.

How would you describe a sound wave in the same respect?

Sound waves can be both. In sound through air the molecules are compressed
as longitudinal waves. In sound waves through a string the molecules are
shifted transverse to the medium. In fact, even EM waves can be generated
at the same frequencies associated with sound. Sound is merely the lower
frequency spectrum of which light is a much higher frequency.

Dave




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Ben:
(Bilge) wrote in message news:

Sound waves are compression waves.


What if the compression only registered as an increase in energy?
Then, what would this wave be?

Since it's a compression wave, it would still be a compression wave.

(Bilge) wrote in message ...
Ben:
(Bilge) wrote in message news:

Sound waves are compression waves.


What if the compression only registered as an increase in energy?
Then, what would this wave be?

Since it's a compression wave, it would still be a compression wave.

But what if you didn't know it was a compression wave in the first place?

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in message news:jz6Qd.38683$Yu.11411@fed1read01...
Dear Ben:

"Ben" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
...
I would be interested to hear your thoughts on my discussion with
PD(although he thinks I'm making the whole theory up).

How about being precise in detialing those ideas?

Would you describe the compression of space-time, by a body such as a
star, to be a separate dimension from the 4 existing dimensions.

Compression by definition is within the discussed dimensions.

I ask
because, surely there must be a dimension to alter the existing 4.

Surely there is no correlation. If I compress the distance between two
points by 0.0001 m, then the effect is contained in that "axis". Nothing
else "gave up or got" that 0.0001 m.

If
this was not the case, then wouldn't these dimensions have to remain
unchanged?

No. Spacetime is the product of mass/energy. If mass/energy alters this
relationship, then there is no other agent necessary.

David A. Smith

This is the equivalent of saying that if you disappear in 2 dimensions
and then reappear somewhere else, there is no need of a 3rd dimension
to account for the tracking of your path. The fact that you reappeared
is enough.

If space-time remains unchanged, then all you need is 4 dimensions.
Alter it and you have to explain this change. Therefore, a dimension
is needed.

Dear Ben:

"Ben" wrote in message
om...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message news:jz6Qd.38683$Yu.11411@fed1read01...
Dear Ben:

"Ben" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
...
I would be interested to hear your thoughts on my discussion with
PD(although he thinks I'm making the whole theory up).

How about being precise in detialing those ideas?

Would you describe the compression of space-time, by a body such as a
star, to be a separate dimension from the 4 existing dimensions.

Compression by definition is within the discussed dimensions.

I ask
because, surely there must be a dimension to alter the existing 4.

Surely there is no correlation. If I compress the distance between two
points by 0.0001 m, then the effect is contained in that "axis".
Nothing
else "gave up or got" that 0.0001 m.

If
this was not the case, then wouldn't these dimensions have to remain
unchanged?

No. Spacetime is the product of mass/energy. If mass/energy alters
this
relationship, then there is no other agent necessary.

This is the equivalent of saying that if you disappear in 2 dimensions
and then reappear somewhere else, there is no need of a 3rd dimension
to account for the tracking of your path. The fact that you reappeared
is enough.

The contractions referred to are a matter of perspective, not "matter
leaving temporarily".

If space-time remains unchanged, then all you need is 4 dimensions.
Alter it and you have to explain this change. Therefore, a dimension
is needed.

No one is talking about unchanged (or even changed) spacetime. They are
talking about measurements. There is no need of an extra dimension, since
both ends are still present (as well as each sequence of points in
between). The argument is about how much distance is attributed to a
measurement from "end to end".

If you place your eye 1/2 kilometer from a tall building, you can place
your thumb so as to appear below the base of the building, and your pointer
finger to appear to be above the top of the building. Where did the rest
of the building go? Surely, it went into the 5th dimension!

I know, don't call you surely...

David A. Smith

Ben:
(Bilge) wrote:
Ben:
(Bilge) wrote in message news:

Sound waves are compression waves.


What if the compression only registered as an increase in energy?
Then, what would this wave be?

Since it's a compression wave, it would still be a compression wave.

But what if you didn't know it was a compression wave in the first place?


Then you wouldn't know it was a compression wave unless you decided to
find out if it was a compression wave.

(Bilge) wrote in message ...
Ben:
(Bilge) wrote:
Ben:
(Bilge) wrote in message news:

Sound waves are compression waves.


What if the compression only registered as an increase in energy?
Then, what would this wave be?

Since it's a compression wave, it would still be a compression wave.

But what if you didn't know it was a compression wave in the first place?


Then you wouldn't know it was a compression wave unless you decided to
find out if it was a compression wave.

But in which circumstances could this wave be viewed as a transverse wave?

Ben:
(Bilge) wrote in message ...
Ben:
(Bilge) wrote:
Ben:
(Bilge) wrote in message news:

Sound waves are compression waves.


What if the compression only registered as an increase in energy?
Then, what would this wave be?

Since it's a compression wave, it would still be a compression wave.

But what if you didn't know it was a compression wave in the first place?


Then you wouldn't know it was a compression wave unless you decided to
find out if it was a compression wave.

But in which circumstances could this wave be viewed as a transverse wave?

None. You said it was a compression wave.