Is it possible the universe is composed of four spatial dimensions instead of three spatial and one time dimension as is presently assumed by most of today’s leading physicists? Does the Shadows model found at http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/shadows.htm accurately define the forces and physical laws of nature in terms of four spatial dimensions?
Jeff
There are many alternate explanations of the universe that have been propounded by scientists, including some that have two time dimensions instead of one. None of these have yet gained wide acceptance because they simply don’t explain what we see as well as Einstein’s formulation.
As for the Shadows model… Well, I have to say that any model that starts out with a piece of idiocy like saying that Columbus proved that the world was round* is not likely to be right in anything else.
And just for your information: scientific models are written in math, not in words.
*Every educated person in his time and for thousands of years into the past knew that the world was round. Columbus merely thought that its diameter was less than it proved to really be.
If you review the following quote from the introduction to Shadows you will find that it was never stated or even implied that Columbus proved the world was round as you stated in your article.
“Common sense sometimes gives a false indication of reality. As a result, “Shadows” of other worlds go unnoticed. Many people of the fifteenth century believed the earth was flat when they could see “Shadows” of another world such as the shadow of the earth moving across the moon during a lunar eclipse. Columbus, however, realized this showed that the earth might be spherical. He trusted both his intellect and senses more than the conventional wisdom of the time and sailed to a new world of knowledge and understanding. Similarly many Shadows in twentieth century world knowledge have gone unnoticed. The following pages are an attempt to bring these Shadows into a sharper focus.”
You cannot deny that he did open up a new world of knowledge and understanding to not only the uneducated who may have thought the earth was flat but also to many of the educated by demonstrating to them that the diameter of the earth may be less than they had originally thought.
If you comment on a work please read it first.
Jeff
Jeff,
First, welcome to the Board.
Second, I believe that string theory posits other dimensions, up to 12, that are sort of rolled up too small to notice on a macroscopic level (that reminds me, I still need to go out and buy a macroscope). However, there are many denizens of the board far more qualified than I to discuss it.
Third, you are more likely to attract interest and answers if you entitle your post in such a way as to give the subject you are asking about. Unfortunately many people will not even open a post with a generic subject as this one has.
Fourth, Cecil has been know on very rare occasion to respond to posts on this board but don’t hold your breath.
Firstly Thank you for your welcome
Secondly save your money because you don’t need a “microscope” to understand Shadows Loading... . It geometrically defines the physical nature of the four spatial dimension in every day creditable terms. By creditable I mean it defines the physical existence of the fourth spatial dimension in a manner which can be experimentally observed without the need of a “macroscopic”. And don’t sell yourself short. If you haven’t already spent time in the Shadows please do and make comments. I believe one of the difficulties I have had in presenting Shadows to many of the residents of the scientific community is that many of them may feel it devalues their education if the ideas it presents are correct. Therefore they may have a vested interest in ignoring the concepts it presents.
However your comments would be greatly appreciated. It may help many to realize that it enhances not devalues their educational experiences. Because it verifies the relativistic nature of quantum mechanics and gravity with respect to the space-time concepts develop by Albert Einstein in terms of their educational experiences.
Thirdly. I will try to give more specific subjects in the future. Please be on the lookout for the dreaded “Quantum Space” thread. 
Fourthly I hope that do get a chance to meet the honorable Cecil. It would be the collimation of my rather long message-boarding career.
Hope to be hearing from you again.
Thanks again
Jeff
That’s exactly the contrary : he had to admit that the diameter of the earth was more than he believed, exactly like the educated people he disagreed with thought. He just proven them right.
He opened a new physical world for european expansion, but didn’t open any new world of knowledge (apart from expanding the knowledge of geography, obviously).
And he didn’t even “experimentally” proved that the world was actually round, anyway, since the world could still have been flat with the americas somewhere in the west. That would be the job of the survivors of Magellan’s expedition, who were the first to actually verify that, yes, one can reach the orient by sailing west…
The intended meaning of the metaphor given in the introduction to Shadows was to demonstrate the potential for discovery when someone takes a different approach to solving a problem. It may not be historical accurate however it does demonstrate the how one idea can open “a new world of knowledge and understanding” to civilization. This is what Shadows is attempting to accomplish. By demonstration the possible existence of the four spatial dimensions it may generate interest in discovering and verifying its existence. Granted Columbus may not have proved the earth was round by acting on his idea that it may be possible to reach the Far East by sailing west. However he did generate the interest in others to prove it and contributed to our overall understanding of the world in which we live.
The Subject of this thread specifically asked for the answers to the following two questions.
Is it possible the universe is composed of four spatial dimensions instead of three spatial and one time dimension as is presently assumed by most of today’s leading physicists? Does the Shadows model found at Loading... accurately define the forces and physical laws of nature in terms of four spatial dimensions?
Therefore inthe future I’d appreciate it if you could try to relate the subject matter of your post to those specific questions. 
Thank you
Jeff
Hey Jeff. That page of yours is pretty long. I see that you’re the primary author on it. Do you think you could summarize what it says there, or at least where it’s coming from? Don’t worry about putting the URL in again; four times in one thread is enough for me to find it.
You might think they’re ignoring you because it threatens their security, but I think otherwise. There are thousands of kooks out there with their own pet theories about the universe, and they all want to show it to real physicists. The physicists are bombarded with this kind of kookiness and learn to ignore it. The kooks think it’s because the physicists have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
Your manifesto starts out by stating the the “conventional wisdom” was that the Earth was flat, and that Columbus was right and overturned this. The truth is that the conventional wisdom was right and Columbus was wrong. It’s not a good analogy to introduce your ideas, because 1) such a glaring factual error will turn most people away, and 2) the true story would have the opposite effect from what you want.
Jeff, do you understand that such statements are flashing, strobing, neon-light-lit fireworks indicators of the crackpot literature?
Here’s a fun site: The CRACKPOT Index
I bet you rate over 100 points on it.
If you want to be taken seriously, write up your work in formal mathematical physics so it can be evaluated in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. As I said earlier, many other alternate schemes have been published there, proof that scientists do not shy away from new concepts. But nobody, absolutely nobody, will pay serious attention to a treatise. Writing out physics in words is another guaranteed sign of crackpot literature. It is you who needs to understand what real world physics consists of and present your arguments in that format.
I give it a try. “Shadows” attempts to define the physical laws and forces of nature in terms of four spatial dimensions instead of the three spatial dimensions and the one time dimension of relativistic physics. In doing so it allows one to understand the physical mechanisms responsible for the quantum nature of energy in relativistic terms.
Quantum mechanics defines the forces and physical laws of the microscopic universe in terms of momentum and position while Relativity defines the forces and physical laws of the macroscopic universe in terms of velocity and time. By geometrically transposing the Relativistic concepts of space-time in terms of four spatial dimensions allows them to be viewed in the same terms as the momentum and position as Quantum mechanics. This gives one the opportunity to understand the physical relationship between Relativity and Quantum mechanics.
The quantum relativistic approach that ” Shadows” is postulating allows for the development of a quantum theory of gravity based on the principles of relativity. It also allows one to define the mechanism responsible for the physical volume of the quantum unit of space and energy in terms of the relativistic energy equation of E=mc^2.
That is the shadows model in a nutshell.
Unfortunately it is a rather long paper because it very tightly interconnects all of the physical disciplines in terms of a common mechanism. Therefore I felt it was necessary to include the explanations of how this mechanism was related to all physical disciplines. Some would have dismissed the “Shadows” concept if the explanations of one discipline have been left out because they would think that it did not have an explanation for it. This also means that to understand one aspect “Shadows” requires the understanding of other aspects of the paper. Therefore for the convince of the reader I repeated sections that were related to the present discussion in the discussion instead of requiring him to scroll the document in order to find them. This may be one of the contributing factors to its excessive length.
However I’d like to suggest that instead of attempting to read the entire paper you review only areas of Shadows that interest you. Each Chapter web site deals with a specific topic, which is linked to the Shadows home page or table of contents.
Thanks for your efforts.
Jeff
I believe that modern physicists rely too much on mathematical “proofs” and not enough on defining the physical nature and realty of the geometric mechanisms responsible for the forces and physical laws of nature.
If one only had four apples and wanted to describe mathematically that they were on a table one could say that there were two plus two apples. One could also correctly mathematically describe it as six apples minus two apples. Both of these methods result in accurately explaining the experimentally observed results of four apples. However, only one of these solutions the correctly defines the reality of the physical mechanism by which you obtained the correct answer of four apples. One cannot subtract two apples from six if you never had six apples to begin with. To determine which one of these solutions is correct one could physically observed or look at the mechanism responsible for the number of apples on the table. Then one would realize that the solution involving six apples was based on two imaginary apples that never existed.
Modern physicists have devised very precise analytical equations that very accurately predict experimental observations however they fail to predict the physical geometry of the mechanism responsible for the observed experimental observations. The mathematical equations of Quantum mechanics are a prime example. They give extremely accurately numerical predictions however not even Neil Bore who first discovered them could understand or explain why they do. Can we be sure that these equations define the physical reality of Quantum mechanics if we cannot understand the physical foundations of the mechanisms that are responsible for them? Just as the two imaginary apples in the above example provide one with the mathematical foundation to get accurate numerical solution, the equation of quantum mechanics may also be based on an imaginary foundation.
“Shadows” on the other hand provides a very logical and detailed description of the common geometric mechanism responsible for the all of the physical laws and forces of nature in terms of the physical mechanics and “reality” of the macroscopic universe that we are all familiar with. These geometric mechanisms are defined in enough detail to allow for the development of the mathematical equations required to verify their validity by those who have the ability. And unlike the present equations that define Quantum mechanics these equations will have a more secure foundation in reality because they will be based and derived the observable physical geometry and “reality” of the macroscopic universe.
Jeff
Avoiding accuracy? Neil Bore, wasn’t he the guy who discovered the core?
Yalel, is that you?