Can you completely destory one of the three dimensions of breadth,lenght and depth?

A point by definition is dimensionless. It has no dimension in 3D.

May be at the time of BigBang or before that, there was no dimensions or no spacetime.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Disagree

And Not possible .

The three fundamental dimensions of physical manifestations are NOT a subjective concept , they are in fact real physical necessary properties in order to exist .

For example ;

Take away the dimension of breadth , the expansion of both depth and length .

Do this , then neither depth and length of any object can manifest .

Why ? Because they can not , expand .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am nor sure if this applies to the question, but is there not an expression "symmetry breaking"?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What's to prevent us from describing a physical object in more than three dimensions that are not orthogonal? Suppose we have the traditional x and y dimensions but instead of z we use v and w which rise up out of the x-y plane at some angle other than 90 degrees. Would it not be possible to describe any physical object in terms of v, w, x and y just as we traditionally describe it in terms of x, y and z?

 

One describes the continued existence of an object, the other describes only the object itself ?

 

I don't see any distinction there.

 

Well, an object can exist timelessly in the abstract (such as a perfect 2D circle or a perfect 3D sphere), whereas all objects in reality have a relative life-span before they convert (are destroyed) into something else.........difference!

 

In terms of measurement, no difference.

Lets take a real, timely object like a sugar cube, which will exist long enough for us to observe and measure it. We would normally measure it along the x, y and z axis but what's to prevent us from using four or five axes? Two of them will necessarily be in the same plane but they don't have to be orthogonal - and the remaining axes don't have to be orthogonal either. It should be possible, if inconvenient, to describe a real object in any kind of bizarre coordinate system.

 

I agree, Antonsen calls that viewing an object from different perspectives.

A rectangle consisting of three rows of four equal square centimeters always yields a diagonal measurement of 5 centimeters.

 

Yes

But the three dimensional object is not confined to degrees .

No matter the degree defined , 90 , 45 , 22.5 , etc ., all three qualities of breadth , length and depth remain .

Destroy one you destroy them all .

 

Who said anything about degrees? I'm talking about describing a "three-dimensional" object with more than three quantities. I would say that three dimensions are the minimum required to describe a solid object but it is not the only way to describe it.

I don't see how you can "destroy" any of them. As I mentioned earlier, you can hide a dimension - e.g. in a 2-dimensional view - but what does the concept of "destroying" a dimension even mean?

 

Does Time exist? Does Time not exist. Is it Dimensional, Non-dimensional?

Does time exist in the future? As far as I know it does not. Therefore can we not make a logical argument that time is an emergent property along with the duration of existence of anything?

Space is an enduring dimension and thus we have named it spacetime, but one might also say my old car has endured for 20 years, by extension my car has cartime.

Question; Why can time not be an emergent by-product of duration of an event? It seems to me this would solve all pending speculations.

 

only with bad math

 

Can anybody produce a one dimensional object?

Can anybody produce a two dimensional object?

Anybody produce a three dimensional object?

OK thanks for all the 3 dimensional objects enough already

Since we don't have any one or two dimensional objects I think the answer to the original post should be NO

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Two points (a line)?

Three points (a plane)?

Four points (a volume)?

How about theoretically?

 

Are you saying a point and / or a line produced by a lead pencil does not have

Height? Width? Depth?

Theoretically? I would contend still NO

You can imagine a non existent unicorn but only in 3D mode

Take away one of the dimensions, example height, by shaving of one imaginary 1 atom layer at a time until all gone

What have you got left to imagine after the last imaginary level has gone?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

i agree, if you take away height, width, or depth, you have dissolved all dimensions at once. Even if it's only one atom depth it's still depth, take it away completely and you have zero dimensions. But, according to the theory of infinity you can never quite dissolve any of them completely.

 

No, I did not say that. I was speaking theoretically.

So you are saying that a perfect circle cannot theoretically exist, even if there is no perfect circle in physical reality?

 

Big big humungous goal post moved

Imagining anything has nothing to do with destroying a dimension

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

OK, that's settled then.

Theoretically:
four points = 3D volume
take away one point = 2D plane
take away one more point = 1D line.
take away one more point = dimensionless coordinate.

Forget pencil, paper, unicorns when we talk theoretical models.

In RW physical terms, of course I agree with you.

But then, what if we go down to Planck scale? How many dimensions even exist at that scale?