Why the 4th dimension was created

[Duom02]

So we start with the singularity having lots and lots of mass in it.

Now this is too much mass so it pops open into the 1st dimension so just a lot of mass covering a line. Since there is no concept of time that means all this mass covering the line exists over and over again making and infinite amount of mass so this gets sucked back in. Now since there are an infinite amount of lines one for each part of time what pops out now is an infinite amount of lines (A plane) or the second dimension. This process repeats itself with an infinite amount of planes that get sucked in and pop out as the third dimension... Now why don't we stop here because there is no concept of time so despite all the mass existing like it does today it exists over and over again without time so this gets sucked in and pops out into the 4th dimension.

Does that make sense to anyone besides me?

 

[RSM1000]

Originally posted by Duom02
So we start with the singularity having lots and lots of mass in it.

Now this is too much mass so it pops open into the 1st dimension so just a lot of mass covering a line. Since there is no concept of time that means all this mass covering the line exists over and over again making and infinite amount of mass so this gets sucked back in. Now since there are an infinite amount of lines one for each part of time what pops out now is an infinite amount of lines (A plane) or the second dimension. This process repeats itself with an infinite amount of planes that get sucked in and pop out as the third dimension... Now why don't we stop here because there is no concept of time so despite all the mass existing like it does today it exists over and over again without time so this gets sucked in and pops out into the 4th dimension.

Does that make sense to anyone besides me?

When this singularity "pops open" it pops instantaneously making the 3 spatial dimensions, not making one before the other. Just as a bomb would explode in all available directions, the singularity would move, and thus make all the dimensions at the same time.

The moment the spatial dimensions began, so did time, so you made a bit of a mistake there.

There is a FINITE amount of mass, no infinite.

 

[Duom02]

Its finite except that there is no concept of time so it becomes infinte. The reason a bomb exploads in three dimensions is because there are three in place that has absolutly nothing to do with the expansion of singularity unless its already within the perscribed demension.

 

[RSM1000]

Originally posted by Duom02
Its finite except that there is no concept of time so it becomes infinte. The reason a bomb exploads in three dimensions is because there are three in place that has absolutly nothing to do with the expansion of singularity unless its already within the perscribed demension.

Again, I think you have misunderstood some of the concepts. I would suggest reading some Hawking, he is considered the better layman reader, at least on this subject.

 

[Duom02]

If you must hawking and i don't get along ...

I disagree with some of his theories so that's why mine differs from his. Saying mine is wrong and looking to unproven theories as the explanation helps little in trying to figure things out. Next time find your own reasons to disagree rather than pointing at someone else.

 

[RSM1000]

Originally posted by Duom02
If you must hawking and i don't get along ...

I disagree with some of his theories so that's why mine differs from his. Saying mine is wrong and looking to unproven theories as the explanation helps little in trying to figure things out. Next time find your own reasons to disagree rather than pointing at someone else.

So, you're claiming Stephen Hawking's theories are incorrect?

Hawking has plenty of evidence backing his theories.

And if you're going to state a theory you have here that goes against common knowledge, it's a good idea to let us you're doing so.

So, now that you've let us know, where is your evidence for your theory, I'd like to see it for sure!

Looking to unproven theories? Let's assume I'm looking to unproven theories. I'm only doing so to prove your unproven theory is incorrect.

I pointed out your errors because they go against all known and tested theories, no need to get hostile.

 

[Duom02]

Much of hawkings theories are unproven might i remind you. Many people just take all his stuff for granted.

 

[RSM1000]

Originally posted by Duom02
Much of hawkings theories are unproven might i remind you. Many people just take all his stuff for granted.

Of course some are. However you're questioning "The Big Bang" which is a widely considered event.

In your opening post you didn't say you were proposing your own concept. Therefore it looks to others as you are wrong.

Much like if I said 9*9 = 99

therefore why does (9*9)+1 = 82.

You'd think I made a mistake, but in fact I'm proposing a new answer.

But now that we know it's a new idea, perhaps you should shed some physical data onto it.

 

[chroot]

I would advise that no one of any scientific salt would ever tell anyone else to read Hawking. You will never learn anything from Hawking -- you will just become another cocktail physicist drone with no idea what the hell is really going on, or how science really works.

- Warren