We have shown throughout “The Imagineer’s Chronicles” and its companion book “The Reality of the Fourth *Spatial* Dimension” observations of our environment suggest the universe may be composed of four *spatial* dimensions instead of four-dimensional space-time.
The observation that the energy contained in systems is related to distance not time is one of them.
For example, the kinetic energy of a moving object is dependent on its velocity and the potential energy per unit volume of water in a dam is related to the distance separating the surface of the water from the bottom of the dam.
However, the energy in all systems appears to be independent of time because the energy of the water in a dam and the velocity or distance an object travels per unit of time remains constant no matter how much time has passed unless it is acted upon by some outside force.
Granted the power an energy source can generate is determined by the rate or time required for the dissipation its energy however, the total quantity of energy in a closed system is never observed to be effected by the passage of time.
This suggests the energy contained in all systems is related to a spatial not a time property of a dimension.
We also observe the kinetic energy of an orbiting satellite is oppositely directed form the gravitational potential energy stored within the mass it is orbiting.
These observations support the assumption made in the article “The Reality of the Fourth Spatial Dimension” that all forms energy is caused by a curvature or displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
As that article showed the gravitational potential energy stored within mass can be derived in terms of a displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension while one can define the kinetic energy associated with its motion in terms of an oppositely directed one.
This demonstrates one of the advantages of defining energy in terms of four *spatial* dimensions instead of four dimensional space-time because it gives one the ability to understand the asymmetricality between potential and kinetic energy by defining them in terms of oppositely directed movements or displacements in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension. This is because observations of our three-dimensional environment tell jus that one can move asymmetricality in two directions upward or downwards in a *spatial* dimension.
This cannot be done in terms of four dimensional space time because time or a space-time dimension is only observed to move in one direction forward and therefore cannot support the bidirectional movement required to support the asymmetry between kinetic and potential energy.
Therefore, one can understand the asymmetry between kinetic and potential energy in terms of oppositely directed displacements in that surface of three dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
This shows why it would be more consistent observations to define space and derive potential and kinetic energy in terms of the existence of four *spatial* dimensions instead of four-dimensional space-time.
Copyright 2007 Jeffrey O’Callaghan