[Mr. Scientist]

There are three degrees of freedom. If there where seven, then a full circle would not equal 360 degrees in all. Time is a dimension, but there are many different interpetations.

I give up.......................

The dimensions above

''One dimension forward.
One dimension backward.
One dimension left.
One dimension right.
One dimension up.
One dimension down.
One dimension thru time.

Seven in all.''

Is what we percieve conceptually; just because this is more notion than motion, you need to reconsider why up and down, left right forward and back all indicate the existence of a three dimensionsional realm (see pythogoreans Theorem) It's a proof alone that three dimensions suffice the theory of physics.

Consider the spiral path of a particle. If right and left are the same, how does the particle know which one to take? A right handed spiral and a left handed spiral involve two different dimensions. They cannot be judged as the same, and the path the particle takes, whether left or right spiral, proves there is a difference in geometry. From point of origin, the left handed spiral knows the difference between the right. Therefore, right and left bare a particular distinction one from the other.

The spiral path of a photon? In what path is this relative too?

Plus, when working with zero-dimensional systems you make it harder on yourself to define the terms you use. As a bit of advice, stick to geometrical things... and ask yourself why the gemetry allows the path of matter to take the forms you have persisted, then ask yourself whether the dimensions angles are any different.

For an upcoming answer, i can tell you they will always represent a three-dimensional spatial coordinate without the superfluous need of a physical time coordinate.

[Ethos]

The spiral path of a photon? In what path is this relative too?

And here we have the focus of the point I'm trying to make.

For the observer, we ofcourse view only the three dimensional co-ordinates. A measure of distance between two points in space. However, to understand the reality of our existence, we must view this not as an observer, but as a participant. Let me explain:

When we observe any area of space, we naturally view it in the perspective of height, width, and depth. We therefore reason that three dimensions make up the space we see. However, for the object of our attention, it sees space as a place in which to make decisions. Will I go left, or will I turn right and travel, let's say for arguments sake, 100 feet. We assume from our vantage point of observation that in either case, the object will traverse a dimension of 100 feet which ever way it decides to go. Let's say for an example that the object travels at right angles to us the distance of 100 feet to the left. If it had chosen to travel to the right of us, it would have still traveled 100 feet. Now here is the problem with saying it travled in the same dimension, at least in the small mind of my own. By traveling 100 feet to the left, it did so in an entirely different space. The space, while still being 100 feet in measure can't be regarded as the same dimension. I realize that by using the term "dimension", I may be confusing the issue. Maybe there is another term which would be better suited to explain what I'm trying to say. Right now, I don't know what that term would be.

Now I refer back the photon. Because the photon has no mind and can't make decisions like we humans, when it spirals in one direction or the other, it does so because physical issues demand it. And I believe these physical issues are the geometric dimensions thru which it travels. Left and right spin occupy two different dimensions, they cannot be the same space even though they are measured the same distance. And not only must we segregate right and left, up and down must also be introduced into the equation for the spiral to form.

I realize this is not accepted within popular physics and I may be misunderstanding the reality of things myself. Nevertheless, for me to understand the why and wherefore of particle spin, I cannot limit spatial dimensions to only three.

This idea is very difficult for me to explain, hopefully I have done so this time so that either, someone else will get what I'm saying or someone will help me correct my thinking on the matter.

[Mr. Scientist]

The spiral path of a photon? In what path is this relative too?

And here we have the focus of the point I'm trying to make.

For the observer, we ofcourse view only the three dimensional co-ordinates. A measure of distance between two points in space. However, to understand the reality of our existence, we must view this not as an observer, but as a participant. Let me explain:

When we observe any area of space, we naturally view it in the perspective of height, width, and depth. We therefore reason that three dimensions make up the space we see. However, for the object of our attention, it sees space as a place in which to make decisions. Will I go left, or will I turn right and travel, let's say for arguments sake, 100 feet. We assume from our vantage point of observation that in either case, the object will traverse a dimension of 100 feet which ever way it decides to go. Let's say for an example that the object travels at right angles to us the distance of 100 feet to the left. If it had chosen to travel to the right of us, it would have still traveled 100 feet. Now here is the problem with saying it travled in the same dimension, at least in the small mind of my own. By traveling 100 feet to the left, it did so in an entirely different space. The space, while still being 100 feet in measure can't be regarded as the same dimension. I realize that by using the term "dimension", I may be confusing the issue. Maybe there is another term which would be better suited to explain what I'm trying to say. Right now, I don't know what that term would be.

Now I refer back the photon. Because the photon has no mind and can't make decisions like we humans, when it spirals in one direction or the other, it does so because physical issues demand it. And I believe these physical issues are the geometric dimensions thru which it travels. Left and right spin occupy two different dimensions, they cannot be the same space even though they are measured the same distance. And not only must we segregate right and left, up and down must also be introduced into the equation for the spiral to form.

I realize this is not accepted within popular physics and I may be misunderstanding the reality of things myself. Nevertheless, for me to understand the why and wherefore of particle spin, I cannot limit spatial dimensions to only three.

This idea is very difficult for me to explain, hopefully I have done so this time so that either, someone else will get what I'm saying or someone will help me correct my thinking on the matter.

Bolded by me. This is not a good start. What is visual to us isn't even the real world. You have also neglected the visual percpetion which allows us to experience a new vector of time.

[Ethos]

Bolded by me. This is not a good start. What is visual to us isn't even the real world.

That's my point exactly Mr. Sci.

You have also neglected the visual percpetion which allows us to experience a new vector of time.

Quite true, Mr. Sci. Right now, I'm just trying to understand the why and wherefore of particle spin. My small mind can only take it one step at a time.

[Mr. Scientist]

Bolded by me. This is not a good start. What is visual to us isn't even the real world.

That's my point exactly Mr. Sci.

You have also neglected the visual percpetion which allows us to experience a new vector of time.

Quite true, Mr. Sci. Right now, I'm just trying to understand the why and wherefore of particle spin. My small mind can only take it one step at a time.

Particle spin? How did the angular momentum of particles come into this..? Are you asking the strange nature in which eigenstates (which are observable properties of particles - such as an atom, or even an electron) appear when we are involved?

Is this what you ask?

[Ethos]

Bolded by me. This is not a good start. What is visual to us isn't even the real world.

That's my point exactly Mr. Sci.

You have also neglected the visual percpetion which allows us to experience a new vector of time.

Quite true, Mr. Sci. Right now, I'm just trying to understand the why and wherefore of particle spin. My small mind can only take it one step at a time.

Particle spin? How did the angular momentum of particles come into this..? Are you asking the strange nature in which eigenstates (which are observable properties of particles - such as an atom, or even an electron) appear when we are involved?

Is this what you ask?

In a round-about way, yes. I don't know all the particulars about spin, the 1/2 spins and so on. What I'm confused about is why exactly the particle chooses to spin one way or another. As I said before, the spin must be a result of the physical nature of space itself. The geometry I'm trying to explain with the 6, if I may be allowed to use the term, dimensions. I realize that "dimension" may not be the correct word to use here. Nevertheless, particle spin must involve the geometric character of space itself. If this is true, then the right or left spin is showing us a different character of that space and IMHO, cannot be regarded as the same dimension. I would really like some help here to understand why left and right spin are considered to opporate within the same dimension.

[Ethos]

Maybe I'm just too hung-up on the idea that permittivity and permeability are the physical measures we get from the basic geometry of space. And I seeking to undestand this geometry in a more detailed way.

Hopefully I haven't taken this thread too far off topic. I think I'll leave quietly out the back door and start a new thread..............sorry if I caused any confusion.

[Mr. Scientist]

These are eigenstate values... not necessery on the scale of consciousness. There is a process aslo known as decoherence... if you will... decoherence gave rise to the possibilities we see today... unless consciousness drove the very initial set-up conditions of big bang.

[Ethos]

These are eigenstate values...

Eigen,.........German word for strangeness. Spin is certainly a strange quality. Is the geometry of space the major cause and how do we undestand this geometry?

My major concern is this: I don't think we currently understand the geometry of space correctly.

[Mr. Scientist]

These are eigenstate values...

Eigen,.........German word for strangeness. Spin is certainly a strange quality. Is the geometry of space the major cause and how do we undestand this geometry?

My major concern is this: I don't think we currently understand the geometry of space correctly.

We understand the geometry because of high energy physics which deals with some singular region in the past. The vacuum which was made mostly flat during inflation, is in fact where (we are led to believe) that zero-dimensional particles make a three dimensional world of matter and gas, among different forms of energy.

[Webo]

My friend, how then does a black hole capture light and not let it travel through the massive gravitational pull?
Webo

[Mr. Scientist]

My friend, how then does a black hole capture light and not let it travel through the massive gravitational pull?
Webo

A place in spacetime, where there is all the vacuum sucked into a vortex. A vortex is a little like a wormhole, except it has a spherical structure, or rotating black holes have non-spherical structures due to the centrifugal force.

A photon cannot escape this boundary of this object simply because the vacuum itself is being dragged closer and closer to the speed of light itself as you reach the singular region near the center.

[variationz (OP)]

Gravity has no effect on space. Space can't be bent by gravity... space is empty ness, it doesn't contract or expand, it doesn't occupy something else ( If space can expand and contract - does it imply space occupies something else? ). Light can't escape black holes but X- Rays can, Why? E/M ratio of x-rays is far greater than E/M ratio of light therefore light can't escape black holes and x-rays can. Law of conservation of energy states that ( E is constant ) energy inside a system can't be created or destroyed. Einstein's E=MC˛ states that E/M is constant. The truth is E/MC˛is equal to one and is the only quantity that is constant. E is variable, M ia variable and also C is variable. Therefore E/MC˛ = 1. E/MC˛ is constant.

Good news...
From 8th to 14th December I am going to attend a (    13 Nobel Laureates to attend Science Conclave in Allahabad‎  - http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/allahabad/IIIT-A-to-host-Science-Conclave-from-Dec-8-14/articleshow/5293206.cms [nofollow] )Science Conclave and Nobel Laureates will be present and I hope I present my theory to them with success.

[Vern]

Gravity has no effect on space. Space can't be bent by gravity... space is empty ness, it doesn't contract or expand, it doesn't occupy something else ( If space can expand and contract - does it imply space occupies something else? ).

On this we agree: good luck on trying to convince anyone who has been smitten with Quantumania; they have given up the capability to recognize reality.

It might be useful sometime for us to compare ideas to see where we diverge. I notice that you do have some notions that seem unnecessary to me.  For example, could you accept these two postulates within your concepts. The postulates are at the very heart of the Reality Theory that is developing here on this forum.

Postulate: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.

and

Postulate: Space and time are invariant.

[Mr. Scientist]

Gravity has no effect on space. Space can't be bent by gravity... space is empty ness, it doesn't contract or expand, it doesn't occupy something else ( If space can expand and contract - does it imply space occupies something else? ).

On this we agree: good luck on trying to convince anyone who has been smitten with Quantumania; they have given up the capability to recognize reality.

It might be useful sometime for us to compare ideas to see where we diverge. I notice that you do have some notions that seem unnecessary to me.  For example, could you accept these two postulates within your concepts. The postulates are at the very heart of the Reality Theory that is developing here on this forum.

Postulate: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.

and

Postulate: Space and time are invariant.

A bit harsh vern. I do try to keep an open-mind.

[itisus]

Number 7 I would not agree with. The velocity of light is absolute. We think it is relative because the construct of matter causes our measuring devices to distort with movement.

A good physicist once pointed out to me that if the speed of light suddenly doubled everywhere, we would not notice.  It is so fundamental that all distances would double and there would be no detectable change.

[Mr. Scientist]

Number 7 I would not agree with. The velocity of light is absolute. We think it is relative because the construct of matter causes our measuring devices to distort with movement.

A good physicist once pointed out to me that if the speed of light suddenly doubled everywhere, we would not notice.  It is so fundamental that all distances would double and there would be no detectable change.

Yes... he's right... but in doing so you'd need to expect that somehow the energy density of universe can loose half its Volume/Mass.

[Vern]

A bit harsh vern. I do try to keep an open-mind.

Yes; perhaps it came out a little wrong. Maybe it should be more like: We give up the ability to comprehend Reality Theory when we think of it in terms of Quantum Theory.

And to me Reality Theory is the same as reality. It is just not yet complete.

[variationz (OP)]

Today I met two Nobel Laureates and gave them my theory papers in IIIT Allahabad Second Science Conclave and hopefully they will reply tomorrow. Thanks to all of you for being here.

[variationz (OP)]

Tough luck.