h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: The Dimensions and Space Time - A2014840
Author: Graham - U516634

Thought this should be in the Hitchhiker's guide - a detailed explanation of the dimensions and space time. Don't you?

Interesting explanation, Graham, but obviously your own work, because it completely contradicts what is normally meant by the four dimensions of Space-Time, in which the first three are spatial and the fourth is time.

I don't this should go into the Guide until you've revised it a bit to more reflect what other people think about this subject.

This is my own work. If it wasn't I would have given credit. I am aware of the common idea that the fourth dimension is time, but here I present an alternative, and back up my assumptions. I will add a section about popular opinion. I will also say that there are many people who have contributed and made suggestions for this entry, and who on the most part totaly concur with this view of the dimensions.

On second thought, no. I feel that the introduction summs up the idea that I am presenting an alternitive point of view. I explain why time is not the fourth dimension in the article.

I don't know how many times I've quoted this, but here we go again:
"Important Note: Peer Review is not the place for entries that are unfinished, works in progress, rants, fiction, one-liners, jokes or *personal theories that have no accepted basis in the 'real' world *(whatever that means). But if you've written something that you feel is finished and want to see what everyone else thinks, then Peer Review might well be the right place for you. If not, please wait until the entry is complete or you have more time to finish it. " (my asterisks)

Now, please go back and read the rest of the guidelines as well.

I have to agree with Felonious: your title here is "researcher" not "theorist". A theory more well-grounded in the work of established cosmologists might be appropriate. Plus you completely neglected to mention either string theory or hologram theory.
-MotDoc

Do you folks enjoy this power hike? You can destroy in one second what takes a lifetime to build. Do you have to be so totally dismissive of people's effort.

Ever thought your guidelines just might be dodgy, or heaven above your own precious standards just a little skewed?

We are not dimissing the effort of creating a new cosmological theory...this is simply not the place to air it. Our "standards" are not personal but are a preference toward established scientific theory. Change the minds of those who actually have spent their life studying the subject and we will gladly support this entry.
-MotDoc

Quite: I could go rambling on here about my own personal hypotheses regarding various aspects of science, but I'm not going to. One of the characteristic features of scientific hypotheses is that they can be *tested* and falsified if needs be. One of the many steps in the testing process is peer review by people who know the subject in and out. We're most generalists when we're here in Peer Review, and unlikely to be able to judge the merits of anyone's particular pet theory. And anyhow, if the subject matter is contentious it ought to go through a more established route.

And one of characteristics of good critique is balanced feedback.
Not anihilation or constipated sophistic rhetoric!

Oetzi, this is isn't a question of balanced feedback. If this entry had been submit to a Vegetarian Food magazine, it would have got a similar reception. It's been put in the wrong place - the Edited Guide is not the place for personally held theories which don't gel with conventional thinking. There are other places within h2g2 for that sort of entry.

Some unbalanced but totally justified feedback:

Any physics or mathematics journal will print an article if they think it has sufficient merit and it stands up to scrutiny by experts. Einstein was a patent clerk when he got his most important work published. So why has the author not gone that route if he thinks his work is sufficiently rigorous to pass that kind of peer review?

I've personally lost count of the number of times I've read articles on pet theories posted to h2g2 PR. The reason why this has become a favoured channel for peddling this sort of stuff is because the people who submit it do so in the full knowledge that it either has failed to or will fail to pass the more conventional scientific PR route, being unfounded, not novel or just plain wrong and would probably end up being filed in the large round 'filing bin' that most journal editors keep by the side for their desk for just such submissions.

However, don't be discouraged. Everyone gets their first few theories in the circular file before they come up with the wowbanger (the infinitely prolonged).
-MotDoc

If you intend to keep this, even as a personal entry, here are a couple things that I hope will help, or maybe start a rethink on some bits.

'... but for not assume that they are scattered randomly.'
you probably mean ' ... but for now assume ... '

A 'Zeroth' dimension cannot be a set pair of points, in a three dimensional space. its location would be described by a set of three points. And then, you have to decide if you place it solidly at a point in time, or allow it to follow the flow.

If their are nine, eleven, twenty-eight or more dimensions, you will need more descriptive values accordingly.

The 'First Dimension' may be a line, as described; but, wouldn't it still be a first dimension if it were not extending infinitely? If it were a finite length, would it no longer be a dimension? If we describe our three dimensions as infinite, we could not have a finite universe. I don't believe the univerese has been proven to be, or not be, infinite.

And, once again, you have to decide if you want to restrict time to being infinite.

Sorry if this clouds things up a bit.

Yes the commercial world would be tough, in that sense, I understand the rigour.

But some of the self righteous pomposity disgusts me, and, I would guess, a few other folks as well.

Couldn't give a damn about what disgusts people, to be honest. I've been around here for ages and had to wade through so much of this stuff. And it's always the same story: people failing to read the writing guidelines before they submit anything. That's pretty irritating too, as it happens. Tends to make you a bit brutal after a while.

I'm never brutal!

I thought that the commonly held view was that counting started at one. Oh I know that there was something discovered that was more important that the fundamentals and was named the zeroth, however as far as I know, normal counting starts at one.

Normal counting does start at one. I chose to start at zero to provide an usefull neumonic.

I completely understand your concerns as this seems to be a personal theory. I would like to point out that it is not, rather, it is another way, an alternitive way, of thinking. The theory presented in the article is not just something that I thought up one day, it is based on many people's contributions and ideas, including the theory of reletivity. I would also like to point out that I am not submiting this to peer review in leu of another magazine or something which would turn it down. I resect the h2g2 site, and it is the first place I have submitted this article.

Monk if you could not give a damn then why continue.