X-Message-Number: 19167 From: Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 20:02:13 EDT Subject: coiled dimensions again --part1_173.8f18bc1.2a257485_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A couple of kind people tried to straighten me out on coiled dimensions, but here is just a bit more to make my problem clearer: The early universe may have been small, but that is not the same as saying that dimensions themselves were small then. Yes, they say space itself expanded, but I don't agree that is the same as saying that "dimensions" became bigger. "Length" is a dimension--or one way of describing one of the rectangular coordinates--but "length" doesn't have length. It is just a way of describing direction and size. (For that matter, some of the avante garde speculate that space does not even exist.) If you use spherical coordinates you can talk about azimuth, altitude, and radius, and at least the first two are limited or cyclical, but that only emphasizes the traps inherent in equating coordinates with dimensions. One can claim that space is curved in the same sense that the surface of the earth is curved, or the circumference of a circle; and one can claim that the circumferential size of a given circle is limited, but that does not seem to me the same as saying that a "dimension" is curved or has size. "Curvature" itself implies at least one extra dimension, or else it implies that your "dimension" is illusory. If you are limited to the circumference of a circle, you can locate yourself with a single coordinate and you may perceive only one dimension, but the "dimension" you perceive is only a point of view and not a true dimension. Naturally I recognize that the statements I have criticized were made by people much more knowledgeable than I, but I am unconvinced. --part1_173.8f18bc1.2a257485_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" [ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=19167