Hyper-dimensional physcis?

[Deamiter]

Okay, I'll bite. What are the basic equations of hyper-dimensional physics? I've looked through the websites John16:2 cited and they too make many claims, but unlike generally accepted theories (and I've got 4 physics textbooks within reach as I type this) I can't find any mathematical basis for anything they're claiming. There's a lot of hand-waving involved, a lot of random pictures of Mars or the Moon with little lines drawn in. However as an amateur astronomer, I do know that I could draw lines any way I like claiming whatever I want.

Back to the question, what are the basic equations of hyper-dimentional physics? I ask as they make a big deal of all these consperacies to cover up the truth, but nowhere do they suggest an alternate model. Further, their proof of Maxwell's intent (as your 'proofs' of your interpretation of the Bible) are based not on Maxwell's published works, but on a very liberal interpretation of two poems he once wrote.

Maxwell's mathematical basis for his triumphant unification of these two great mystery forces of 19th Century physics were "quaternions" -- a term invented (adopted would be a more precise description) in the 1840s by mathematician Sir William Rowan Hamilton, for "an ordered pair of complex numbers" (quaternion = four). Complex numbers themselves, according to Hamilton's clarifications of long-mysterious terms such as "imaginary" and "real" numbers utilized in earlier definitions, were nothing more than "pairs of real numbers which are added or multiplied according to certain formal rules."

According to other observers, Heaviside actually felt that Maxwell's use of quaternions and their description of the "potentials" of space was "... mystical, and should be murdered from the theory ..." which -- by drastically editing Maxwell's original work after the latter's untimely death (from cancer), excising the scalar component of the quaternions and eliminating the hyperspatial characteristics of the directional (vector) components -- Oliver Heaviside effectively accomplished singlehanded.] This means, of course, that the four surviving "classic" Maxwell's Equations -- which appear in every electrical and physics text the world over, as the underpinnings of all 20th Century electrical and electromagnetic engineering, from radio to radar, from television to computer science, if not inclusive of every "hard" science from physics to chemistry to astrophysics that deals with electromagnetic radiative processes -- never appeared in any original Maxwell' paper or treatise!

Quite frankly, this represents a dire misunderstanding of the equations, though I must admit, it's a masterfully sensational (and wrong) account of how physics works! It is not abnormal in the least for the author of a particular equation to never see its final form but they throw it in there as if it's a wild injustice! Einstein had many his proofs done for him by friends as he couldn't (or wouldn't) do them himself. We still use Rutherford models of atoms for their convenience in the periodit table, but his model will never be taught in an advanced class because it's wrong.

Anyway, back to my original question. I can give you Maxwell's equations for energy (which have been proven correct again and again) or Hamilton's operator (in quantum mechanics) or any host of equations that have been mulled over in scores of textbooks and journals for a hundred years. What equations do you propose to replace these and what flaws in the current equations prompts this replacement?

 

[Aeschylus]

It appears at one stage Maxwell did publish his equations using the notataion of quaternions, this is not that suprising though as there was some debate over quaternion vs vector noatation, which the simpler, but more powerful vector notation won. Whilst the mathematical formualtion is different and not all the original equations are known as what are usually called Maxwell's equations these days, the equations mean physically the same thing.

I'm at a loss though to see why this hyperdiemnsionality comes from, my guess is that it is because quareternions form a four-dimensional vector space over the real numbers (see you can't escape those vectors! the simplest defintion of a dimension comes from the theory of vector spaces, though naturally the dimension of the quaternions as a vector space depends on which field they form a vector space over).

But here's an interesting thing, we already do just about all advanced physics in 'spaces' with dimension of four or greater (despite what that rather silly site says a space of more than 3 dimensions can be Euclidean, however, the geometries of the spaces that most advanced phsyics are done in are usually non-Euclidean).

 

[John16:2]

Okay, I'll bite. What are the basic equations of hyper-dimensional physics? I've looked through the websites John16:2 cited and they too make many claims, but unlike generally accepted theories (and I've got 4 physics textbooks within reach as I type this) I can't find any mathematical basis for anything they're claiming. There's a lot of hand-waving involved, a lot of random pictures of Mars or the Moon with little lines drawn in. However as an amateur astronomer, I do know that I could draw lines any way I like claiming whatever I want.

Back to the question, what are the basic equations of hyper-dimentional physics? I ask as they make a big deal of all these consperacies to cover up the truth, but nowhere do they suggest an alternate model. Further, their proof of Maxwell's intent (as your 'proofs' of your interpretation of the Bible) are based not on Maxwell's published works, but on a very liberal interpretation of two poems he once wrote.

Quite frankly, this represents a dire misunderstanding of the equations, though I must admit, it's a masterfully sensational (and wrong) account of how physics works! It is not abnormal in the least for the author of a particular equation to never see its final form but they throw it in there as if it's a wild injustice! Einstein had many his proofs done for him by friends as he couldn't (or wouldn't) do them himself. We still use Rutherford models of atoms for their convenience in the periodit table, but his model will never be taught in an advanced class because it's wrong.

Anyway, back to my original question. I can give you Maxwell's equations for energy (which have been proven correct again and again) or Hamilton's operator (in quantum mechanics) or any host of equations that have been mulled over in scores of textbooks and journals for a hundred years. What equations do you propose to replace these and what flaws in the current equations prompts this replacement?

By your own admission you're not really familiar with the many lecture presentations Dr Hoagland has done, if you think the structural anomalies on mars have anything to do with hyper-dimensional physics. Dr Hoagland is investigating many subjects, and it's less than a scientific assessment to portray hyper-dimensional physics as being about structures on mars. The mathematicians traditionally clash with theories, but I don't see the math figures about hyper-dimensional physics. Look deeper, Dr Hoagland does have math figures in his hyper-dimensional physics. They teach Rutherfords errors on purpose huh? No wonder Hoagland and Dr Van Flandern and the rest are up against resistance without facts. The question should be addressed to Dr Van Flandern at his message board about new equations, for the most scientific reply possible, (metaresearch.org). Let me know what he says, OK?

 

[Deamiter]

They teach Rutherfords errors on purpose huh? No wonder Hoagland and Dr Van Flandern and the rest are up against resistance without facts.

Um... the Rutherford model of the atom isn't taught. It's used as a basis for the periodic table that DOES work, though. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to have the nice, simple table of elements the way we do now. Electron orbits are great for conceptualizing the atoms, but wherever I've seen it taught, it's made clear that the math doesn't work that way. It's just like we still use Newtonian physics in many applications. Everybody knows it no longer works exactly, but it's GREAT for simple calculations!

The mathematicians traditionally clash with theories, but I don't see the math figures about hyper-dimensional physics. Look deeper, Dr Hoagland does have math figures in his hyper-dimensional physics.

I'm a little confused as to what you're saying here. First you say you don't see mathematic figures (I couldn't find them either). Then you say if I look deeper I'll find them. I'll certainly look again when I can find some time, but if YOU (the leading expert on this board) can't find them, what hope do I have?

Finally, you mentioned that:

if you think the structural anomalies on mars have anything to do with hyper-dimensional physics. Dr Hoagland is investigating many subjects, and it's less than a scientific assessment to portray hyper-dimensional physics as being about structures on mars.

On the very top of the enterprisemission.com page about hyperdimensional physics, they have this quote (along with a picture from mars with some geometric figures drawn over it):

Imagine our surprise, when -- as part of our Enterprise Mission effort to verify the existence of intelligently-created ruins at "Cydonia" -- we suddenly realized we might have stumbled across the geometry of this same 19th Century, pre-Relativity "hyperdimensional physics"--

​

But encoded on a completely separate world!

Even more startling: this "lost science" was -- somehow --geometrically memorialized on the same planet ... the planet Mars ... that may have seen its "end" as a direct result of this same physics ...​

Really... what was I SUPPOSED to think about hyperdimensional physics except that mars has "[something] to do with hyper-dimensional physics"? Note that I didn't claim that hyper-dimensional physics was all about mars. It's obviously about mars, the sun, jupiter and the Earth. I'm working again in three hours or so, and that'll give me plenty of time to look for mathematical formulas... but perhaps you don't really know what's being implied (re: implications about mars etc.) in these websites?

​

 

[John16:2]

Um... the Rutherford model of the atom isn't taught. It's used as a basis for the periodic table that DOES work, though. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to have the nice, simple table of elements the way we do now. Electron orbits are great for conceptualizing the atoms, but wherever I've seen it taught, it's made clear that the math doesn't work that way. It's just like we still use Newtonian physics in many applications. Everybody knows it no longer works exactly, but it's GREAT for simple calculations!
I'm a little confused as to what you're saying here. First you say you don't see mathematic figures (I couldn't find them either). Then you say if I look deeper I'll find them. I'll certainly look again when I can find some time, but if YOU (the leading expert on this board) can't find them, what hope do I have?

Finally, you mentioned that: On the very top of the enterprisemission.com page about hyperdimensional physics, they have this quote (along with a picture from mars with some geometric figures drawn over it): Really... what was I SUPPOSED to think about hyperdimensional physics except that mars has "[something] to do with hyper-dimensional physics"? Note that I didn't claim that hyper-dimensional physics was all about mars. It's obviously about mars, the sun, jupiter and the Earth. I'm working again in three hours or so, and that'll give me plenty of time to look for mathematical formulas... but perhaps you don't really know what's being implied (re: implications about mars etc.) in these websites?

[/left]

You should've reviewed his many presentations, like the one to the UN, I'd recommend, which explains the basics. THEN you are at least familiar enough with hyper-dimensional physics to ask Dr Hoagland an educated question, and MAYBE be the guy that shut him up! The Dr is in the website for contact, or various lecture videos, and books. At least know what you're calling false! And Doctor Van Flandern spent 20 years with US Naval Observatory and was Chief of Celestial Mechanics branch, not a looney.

 

[raphael_aa]

My understanding is that people may become loonies at any time.

 

[billwald]

"Sucker born every minute," Phinias T. Barnum.

 

[John16:2]

My understanding is that people may become loonies at any time.

Scientific analysis requires more than calling someone a looney without proof. The 10 flaws in the big bang theory posted by the former chief of Celestial Mechanics Branch of US Naval Observatory aren't dismissed by name calling or blanket denial of all points without explanation in depth. And, wow, you finally got deep enough into Dr Hoagland to admit tetrahedron geometry plays a role in his model of hyper-dimensional physiscs. One of these days you might be able to actually dispute his theories based on something besides name calling and blanket denials.

 

[raphael_aa]

Scientific analysis requires more than calling someone a looney without proof. The 10 flaws in the big bang theory posted by the former chief of Celestial Mechanics Branch of US Naval Observatory aren't dismissed by name calling or blanket denial of all points without explanation in depth. And, wow, you finally got deep enough into Dr Hoagland to admit tetrahedron geometry plays a role in his model of hyper-dimensional physiscs. One of these days you might be able to actually dispute his theories based on something besides name calling and blanket denials.

John

You keep taking my general statements and regarding them as personal attacks. I was merely suggesting that the form of argument called an appeal to authority is flawed because:

1. authorities speaking outside their areas of expertise are not authorities at all

2. Just because someone has had credibility on some issues in the past does not mean they will always do so.

You keep appealing to minority authorities and asking us here to prove them wrong. That simply isn't how it works. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. The onus is on you to state why your authorities are more likely to be right than the vast majority of other scientists in their fiel of expertise. You have demonstrated convincingly that you don't know enough science to validate or disprove these guys. Why do you believe them instead of the mainstream views? You have yet to answer these questions. Instead you continually rely on your argument from authority which is essentially useless just as you believe the authorities I rely on are.

It seems as though you believe anything providing it is weird or strange but refuse to engage with any mainstream science at all. Personally I can't understand it.

What criteria do you use to to judge these guys right?

Simple question. Answer it.

 

[Andy Broadley]

There is a school of thought which states that if anyone ever fully understands the universe, it will immediately disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and complex.


There is another school of thought which states that this has in fact already happened several times.


My own experience is that a good pan galactic gargle blaster is an excellent cure for Hyper dimensional physics