Re: No true relativist!

Am Dienstag000012, 12.11.2024 um 18:53 schrieb LaurenceClarkCrossen:

Thomas Heger: There simply are no other dimensions. To think so is to
make the elementary logical error called the reification fallacy. You
may describe anything you like as a metaphorical dimension. That does
not make it a spatial dimension. Time is not a spatial dimension. It is
only a metaphorical dimension. Spaces have no higher dimensions, and
these have never been empirically verified, as anyone can understand a
priori by elementary logic. "Such a space" could not be built. Space can
only be cut up into dimensions and not created. One can divide space
into six dimensions by encompassing it in a dodecahedron. That creates
no more space. Your mathematical imaginings are weak-minded nonsense.
You might try again to construct something that looks like a valid
universe because assuming the spacetime of GR is an unwarranted
assumption and pure nonsense. Ignorant nonsense.

Actually 'space' in the sense of 'outer space' or 'universe' is not real.
What we see in the night sky is 'stacked in time' and the further away the longer ago.
So: what you call 'space' does not exist in the first place, because what we see is a picture from the past.
This is commonly called 'past light cone' and that is based on our current position and us as human observers.
Now what we see must belong to something, which is also kind of space, but in most parts invisible.
Since 'our space' is obviously a subspace of some other space, which is mostly invisible, and our space has three dimensions, that superspace could have more than three dimensons, from we have access to only three.
Now we need to find a hypothetical superspace, to which our observable space could be a subset.
This is in fact possible and with some sort of mathematical precision, if we take spacetime of GR as real, but with slightly different features and a different type of math.
This type of math is already known.
I had assumed it would be a clifford algebra called CL_3, where pointlike elements behave like bi-quaternions.
(But now I'm considering a slightly different type called 'dual-quaternions'.)
That is, of course, just a guess.
But guesses are actually the only way we could possibly find out, how such a superset could function, because we have access only to the subset, that you called 'space'.
TH