can you imagine 10 dimensions? see if you can follow...my head exploded after 5 & 6

Re: can you imagine 10 dimensions? see if you can follow...my head exploded after 5


Now Mathematically are you saying it's possible for something i.e "light on crack" to be so fast that it travels for point a to point b in literally "no time"? What would happen? and is this what we're referring to as the physical law of nature(physics) would be broken? Would it be like, say the sound barrier i.e the "sonic boom", would their be a "time/speed light" equivalent? "Time/speed of light" feverishly trying to catch up? Weird i know, but interesting!




Time is treated as the 4th dimension. Nobel prize committee here comes the BGOL laureates:lol:

Man I think it would be something like a sonic boom!! This is something that I couldn't even fathom. Imagine the possibilities
 
Re: can you imagine 10 dimensions? see if you can follow...my head exploded after 5

iight selfsci you actually seem interested in a dialogue and not a debate so amma try to get a little deep .... just throwin out ideas here ... some not 100% developed yet:



which I understand is simply gravity ... gravity is iirc just a fancy way to say electromagnetism ... which is in itself energy radiation ...

so in theory there are two qualities of energy emitting from matter: gravitational which pulls energy and matter toward the source ....

....and 'light energy" which can escape this pull (when matter also escapes this may be the phenomenon of radioactive particles but I digress)

Imagine if the gravity in a black hole is a 10 on a scale of 1 to 10 ... what happens as we slowly go to 9 then 8 ....7 ....6 all the way to 1? Light starts to escape right?

Isn't it possible that at '1' the black hole starts literally radiating light energy...much like a star or a sun?

Yes I think this is quit possible. When considering how most phenomena in the universe rotates I can consider a black hole like strong vortex (tornado or vorticity) of gravity that sucks everything in. But the strongest part of the back whole would be 10 but as a particle travels through the hole an inverse effect should decrease the strength of the vortex (less gravitational pull) where light will be able to escape with the same properties as it entered. If light can not escape a black hole then there has to be something extraordinary going on.

At the same time Black holes are taking everything in it surroundings so there should be some property changes while passing through. Maybe some fusion processes.
 
Re: can you imagine 10 dimensions? see if you can follow...my head exploded after 5

Yes I think this is quit possible. When considering how most phenomena in the universe rotates I can consider a black hole like strong vortex (tornado or vorticity) of gravity that sucks everything in. But the strongest part of the back whole would be 10 but as a particle travels through the hole an inverse effect should decrease the strength of the vortex (less gravitational pull) where light will be able to escape with the same properties as it entered. If light can not escape a black hole then there has to be something extraordinary going on.

At the same time Black holes are taking everything in it surroundings so there should be some property changes while passing through. Maybe some fusion processes.

Okay I think I get your theory are you saying that the mouth of the vortex is the most powerful?

I actually think that the black hole is a super-concentrated mass that sits at the 'bottom' of the black hole and the vortex itself is just the pattern or affect that is observed from this mass's pullin on the fabric of space itself ...

technically the 'hole' would be a sphere ... which would just be a bunch of vortexes/'tornadoes' (event horizons) connected 360 degrees ... if that makes sense
 
Re: can you imagine 10 dimensions? see if you can follow...my head exploded after 5

Okay I think I get your theory are you saying that the mouth of the vortex is the most powerful?

I actually think that the black hole is a super-concentrated mass that sits at the 'bottom' of the black hole and the vortex itself is just the pattern or affect that is observed from this mass's pullin on the fabric of space itself ...

technically the 'hole' would be a sphere ... which would just be a bunch of vortexes/'tornadoes' (event horizons) connected 360 degrees ... if that makes sense

Yes I am saying the mouth of the vortex is the strongest. Are you saying that the vortex takes in everything which is a large concentration of mass (a ball). effect = Big Bang 'like' or Birth of a star?
 
Re: can you imagine 10 dimensions? see if you can follow...my head exploded after 5

Yes I am saying the mouth of the vortex is the strongest. Are you saying that the vortex takes in everything which is a large concentration of mass (a ball). effect = Big Bang 'like' or Birth of a star?

I am saying the axis is strongest due to the super-mass ... kind of like a draining sink I guess ... imagine if there were 360 degrees of drains or vortexes ... so you are right it would be a ball with the mass in the middle ...

I am still trying to think about the big bang/birth of a star ... if my model is correct and a 'big bang' is just an expansion then stars and black holes are like inhales and exhales in this system constantly contracting and expanding ... I haven't worked out the nature of the forces itself ... I am not an expert tho

this may be what all the super collider or LHC or whatever is trying to uncover ... iirc brian greene gave a ted talk about this theoretical force that may explain why the universe (as far as we know) behaves how it does
 
Re: can you imagine 10 dimensions? see if you can follow...my head exploded after 5

I am no Egg-head, and all this math will explode my brain. Lets approach this from a known situation...

Justice-League-Crisis-on-Tw.jpg


This made me remember the 'Justice League - Crisis on two Earths'. The portal used to travel from our universe to the universe where Lex is a good guy would be a ninth (or 7th/8th? Is it instantenous? Was there a fold that allowed a portal to be a fold between a 6th/7th dimension to another 6th/7th dimension?) So the bad Batman of the other world wanted to create a bomb so as to blow up the earth of origin, from which different 3rd dimension choices created multiple universes (Here comes the dilemma, were these multiple universes of 8th or 9th dimension? Or would that be determined by one of the multiple big-bangs that created the earth of origin?)

By blowing up the world of origin, up to what level of dimensions was he going to obliterate?

I do beleive if I get the answers to these questions, I shall then have an almost 'egghead' understanding of this theory.
 
Re: can you imagine 10 dimensions? see if you can follow...my head exploded after 5

Yeah. I was just trying to understand his argument. I wasnt agreeing or disagreeing with it but just trying to put it into different terms. The concept of time actually having a velocity is still a bit murky to me. I can get the argument but it still doesnt make sense to me if you know what I mean.
This keeps on coming up, What speed would this be "speed of light + 1". How the hell does time have/generate a velocity? last time i check it was not mechanical or shared any electromagnetic properties...the only two things to my knowledge that can generate some sort of "velocity" What am i missing here?
Yep. I have the same question.
And this is exctly what I was talking about when I said:
But what does "the speed" of a dimension mean? this is my issue with muddling definitions which invariably muddle and conflate completely different concepts. my main issue with mathematics, actually mathematical physics, transforming non-physical models into physical structures. To me that's no different from, say, transubstantiation in Catholicism.
Math deals with dynamic concepts and only models the dynamics of physical objects or systems. Science deals with physical objects. Science often uses math to help understand the dynamics of these objects and systems.
If you think i'm lying, then here's an example to illustrate this.
An object is on a table. What is it?

Science: it's a steel bar.

Math: it's πr^2h.
Cool. That's a formula for a cylinder that could be made of anything, but what is it? The physical material, steel, is composed of iron and some carbon. What's the mathematically description of carbon and iron? Anyone? Schroedinger equation accounting for all the electrons in the system? well, that's an equation that describes dynamics.

OK, back to the "speed of dimension" issue.

In science, dimensions specify shape (structure and orientation). The 3 spatial dimensions are length, width and height. To be scientific, they must always be used consistently. I've already said this in this thread by the way: here and here.

The mathematicians that come up with these multi-D's have described D in terms of coordinates. Here's one of the standard definitions: "the least number of independent coordinates required to specify uniquely the location of an object in a space."
If it's 3 coordinates, it's 3D space--the one we experience. If it's 4 coordinates, it's 4D space. But what's the 4th coordinate? Time. And this is where the issues begin. They use time to specify an additional uniqueness or like Tical says, "exactness keeper". This. Is. Wrong.

See, when u start muddling terms and their uses, confusion and issues are bound to arise later. Like the confusion we're having right now with "speed" as a property of a dimension. The speed of a thing is the displacement of that thing over a duration we calibrate using time. So where's the thing? What's being displaced? The dimension? Which one? The spatial ones or the time one? Time is being displaced over a duration of time? ... :confused:
And this is why it's not a trivial issue to use these terms loosely.

Dimensions and coordinates are conceptually static. It's vectors that are dynamic. And that's why I asked SelfScience the question about the 4-vector by the way.

Another issue is mutual orthogonality (forming right angles w.r.t each other). 3 is the limit we can experience in real life. That's why the 4th dimension or whatever is in placed in an "imaginary space" and they use complex numbers, like SelfScience alluded too. So you've taken two separate concepts; one that describes real physical static and one that's imaginary, and merged them into one concept and expect it to describe real static things. But it can't and it doesn't. It models dynamic systems of things. And even then the issues are still there.

I got no beef with math models. Just to put physical things in imaginary spaces. Religion already has the patent on that.



Further my understand of Time, was solely as a "Reference keeper" or "exactness keeper" as i called it. Because space is always moving, "Time" is the only reference that independent.

Example: your on earth, thats orbiting the sun, thats rotating around the galaxy, thats rotating around god knows what, constantly! Thus to say my car is located at so and so, is not correct because that location in reference to things outside itself is always changing. Now with "time" as a reference all "space-motion" can be pin-pointed to an exact-coordinated system(my car is located at so and so at THIS TIME)...either-way for some reason sean69, didn't agree with it, i'm waiting for him to point out why.
Explained it above. And also elsewhere in this thread, here.
Time is an effect. Motion is the cause. The motion of space causes time. Or rather, our non-physical experience or cognitive perception of time. How our brains do it? I don't know. But i bet there are folks out there studying this (as neuroSCIENCE). So u have it backwards. And u actually alluded to this when u said above: "Because space is always moving ...". Let me explain.

Your argument is that the regular 3 spatial coordinates are insufficient to "exactly" specify the unique state of an object (they only specify location) plus the object is referenced against things "outside itself" that are always changing (aka, moving). So time gives a uniqueness. Ok. Fair enough. You say ur car is at so and so location at say, 4:30PM. How do u know it's 4;30PM? Because a clock tells u.

Question: How does the clock tell u?
 
Last edited:
Re: can you imagine 10 dimensions? see if you can follow...my head exploded after 5

The mathematicians that come up with these multi-D's have described D in terms of coordinates. Here's one of the standard definitions: "the least number of independent coordinates required to specify uniquely the location of an object in a space."
If it's 3 coordinates, it's 3D space--the one we experience. If it's 4 coordinates, it's 4D space. But what's the 4th coordinate? Time. And this is where the issues begin. They use time to specify an additional uniqueness or like Tical says, "exactness keeper". This. Is. Wrong.

See, when u start muddling terms and their uses, confusion and issues are bound to arise later. Like the confusion we're having right now with "speed" as a property of a dimension. The speed of a thing is the displacement of that thing over a duration we calibrate using time. So where's the thing? What's being displaced? The dimension? Which one? The spatial ones or the time one? Time is being displaced over a duration of time? ... :confused:
And this is why it's not a trivial issue to use these terms loosely.

Dimensions and coordinates are conceptually static. It's vectors that are dynamic. And that's why I asked SelfScience the question about the 4-vector by the way.

Another issue is mutual orthogonality (forming right angles w.r.t each other). 3 is the limit we can experience in real life. That's why the 4th dimension or whatever is in placed in an "imaginary space" and they use complex numbers, like SelfScience alluded too. So you've taken two separate concepts; one that describes real physical static and one that's imaginary, and merged them into one concept and expect it to describe real static things. But it can't and it doesn't. It models dynamic systems of things. And even then the issues are still there.

Here's a thought experiment, whatever that other dimension/dimensions are/is, isn't it an essential criterion that everything we are, our existence, technologies etc etc shouldn't be able to interact, be able to perceive that dimension?Sort of like a Flat organism(LxW) having no clue about height, From its viewpoint there's nothing else.Now here's the kicker/Bridge to all of this.... because we can "perceive"/"create" models whether mathematical or not of "other dimension" doesn't automatically mean they can't be right, because we can "guess" as to what they maybe?



Explained it above. And also elsewhere in this thread, here.
Time is an effect. Motion is the cause. The motion of space causes time. Or rather, our non-physical experience or cognitive perception of time. How our brains do it? I don't know. But i bet there are folks out there studying this (as neuroSCIENCE). So u have it backwards. And u actually alluded to this when u said above: "Because space is always moving ...". Let me explain.

Your argument is that the regular 3 spatial coordinates are insufficient to "exactly" specify the unique state of an object (they only specify location) plus the object is referenced against things "outside itself" that are always changing (aka, moving). So time gives a uniqueness. Ok. Fair enough. You say ur car is at so and so location at say, 4:30PM. How do u know it's 4;30PM? Because a clock tells u.

Question: How does the clock tell u?



Now of course time and how it measured etc is obviously a product of the human mind.Furthermore it's kept artificially by our technology, i mean that's how the clock tells you it 4:30. Now is it really 4:30 etc, is a foot really 12 inches, does 1000uL really equal 1mL...NOOOO! but it's our reference standard. I'm not sure what your trying to ask me here?
 
Re: can you imagine 10 dimensions? see if you can follow...my head exploded after 5

Here's a thought experiment, whatever that other dimension/dimensions are/is, isn't it an essential criterion that everything we are, our existence, technologies etc etc shouldn't be able to interact, be able to perceive that dimension?Sort of like a Flat organism(LxW) having no clue about height, From its viewpoint there's nothing else.Now here's the kicker/Bridge to all of this.... because we can "perceive"/"create" models whether mathematical or not of "other dimension" doesn't automatically mean they can't be right, because we can "guess" as to what they maybe?
Never said we shouldn't imagine things, models, ideas, concepts whatever. In fact I already said a few posts ago that they can be useful. However, some ideas are stupider than other in the context of what's under inquiry.

I'm just saying that imaginations, imaginary objects, dimension, etc., should stay in the imaginary world. Bringing them into the physical world is what the people we call crazy and insane do. It's also what atheists clown religious people over, right? What ur doing is assuming that other dimensions exist as a given. Just like theists claim god's existence and a given. And then ur working ur reasoning from that point on. I'd probably have no issue with this if we kept it 100.



Now of course time and how it measured etc is obviously a product of the human mind.Furthermore it's kept artificially by our technology, i mean that's how the clock tells you it 4:30. Now is it really 4:30 etc, is a foot really 12 inches, does 1000uL really equal 1mL...NOOOO! but it's our reference standard. I'm not sure what your trying to ask me here?
I'm trying to ask u HOW does the clock tell u it's 4:30PM? Yeah, the human brain takes in sensory information and outputs behavior. That doesn't answer the question. How did we tell time b4 clocks were invented?
 
Last edited:
Re: can you imagine 10 dimensions? see if you can follow...my head exploded after 5

I missed this post. SelfScience ur kinda closing in on what i'm saying...

Anyway, I am relating time with position. You can't have one without the other. There can't be a point and not time to represent it "exactness" (mentioned by a fellow BGOL member). When that point moves the time does as well. There will be an incremental number in that will represent how much time was added. In order for one to calculate the speed of a particle you need to you divide Total Distance over Total Time. This will give you the velocity of the particle. But when you analysis the incremental value(s) of how time was added over the change in distance travel on a graph you see that time slows down when velocity increases. Physically we know that the faster you go the shorter time will be (ex: 0.0000000000000.....infinite zeroes until a number greater than zero is reached). That means in order for velocity to break from time; time would need to equal zero during travel or stopping. This is way i mentioned complex numbers in a previous post because now everything is non real the square root of "i" type stuff.
@ the red highlighted:
you've just alluded to the fact that motion creates the concept of duration we call time. As the point or object moves, incremental displacements are registered as time. When u say, "There will be an incremental number in that will represent how much time was added". What's really being represented is displacement. We then use our modern counting system (numbers) to calibrate and represent each displacement as a unit of time. Time doesn't move cuz it's not an object. Only objects move.

Let's take the speed=d/t equation u brought up and i'll show u very simply how motion creates time.

So, when the object is at rest: s=0, d=0 and t= ?

Well math says t= any number including 0, aka, undefined. (if you wana say it's infinity, be my guest. lol.)
 
Re: can you imagine 10 dimensions? see if you can follow...my head exploded after 5

I missed this post. SelfScience ur kinda closing in on what i'm saying...

@ the red highlighted:
you've just alluded to the fact that motion creates the concept of duration we call time. As the point or object moves, incremental displacements are registered as time. When u say, "There will be an incremental number in that will represent how much time was added". What's really being represented is displacement. We then use our modern counting system (numbers) to calibrate and represent each displacement as a unit of time. Time doesn't move cuz it's not an object. Only objects move.

Let's take the speed=d/t equation u brought up and i'll show u very simply how motion creates time.

So, when the object is at rest: s=0, d=0 and t= ?

Well math says t= any number including 0, aka, undefined. (if you wana say it's infinity, be my guest. lol.)

Hmmmm, our argument is very interesting. because if time=d/v and your velocity is equal to zero that will be undefined as well. Distance is the only thing that will not be undefined (d = t times v). This is why suggested that both time and and motion is both uniform. One doesn't work without the other.

1D - point (may lie on the x,y, or z axis) with no time
2D - 2 points (that can be connect by a line (x,y), (x,z), or (y,z) ), no time associated
3D - 3 points; height included = (x,y,z), no time associated.
4D - (x,y,z) and time, movement between points is allowed. Velocity is created.

or this way

1D - time (before everything)
2D - a point with time
3D - a line between two point that a may be traveled at a velocity
4D - free movement within a volume

The idea is to get to a destination in zero time. (I know, not physically possible?)
 
Last edited:
Re: can you imagine 10 dimensions? see if you can follow...my head exploded after 5

I am saying the axis is strongest due to the super-mass ... kind of like a draining sink I guess ... imagine if there were 360 degrees of drains or vortexes ... so you are right it would be a ball with the mass in the middle ...

I am still trying to think about the big bang/birth of a star ... if my model is correct and a 'big bang' is just an expansion then stars and black holes are like inhales and exhales in this system constantly contracting and expanding ... I haven't worked out the nature of the forces itself ... I am not an expert tho

this may be what all the super collider or LHC or whatever is trying to uncover ... iirc brian greene gave a ted talk about this theoretical force that may explain why the universe (as far as we know) behaves how it does

If there is large ball of mass there could be a lot of chemistry going on. I'm not sure how stars are created, but I think its through thermal nuclear fusion. Hydrogen atoms are being fused together, which creates very hot temps. When a star dies thermal fusion is not being produced anymore so the temps diminish. So if the star is large enough and its gravitational pull is strong enough then the star will collapse on itself creating a black hole. We are not capable (now) of creating this type of energy and force, but it the possibilities are there. Controlling this type of energy could slow down or speed up light. Man that would be amazing!!
 
Re: can you imagine 10 dimensions? see if you can follow...my head exploded after 5

Hmmmm, our argument is very interesting. because if time=d/v and your velocity is equal to zero that will be undefined as well. Distance is the only thing that will not be undefined (d = t times v). This is why suggested that both time and and motion is both uniform. One doesn't work without the other.
yes, if t=d/v and if v=0; this means the no velocity, motion or distance traveled. No displacement. Velocity is just an expression of the rate of displacement. That's all.
Yes, time and motion are connected. I'm just saying motion is more fundamental. Without motion there's no conception of time.


1D - point (may lie on the x,y, or z axis) with no time
2D - 2 points (that can be connect by a line (x,y), (x,z), or (y,z) ), no time associated
3D - 3 points; height included = (x,y,z), no time associated.
4D - (x,y,z) and time, movement between points is allowed. Velocity is created.

or this way

1D - time (before everything)
2D - a point with time
3D - a line between two point that a may be traveled at a velocity
4D - free movement within a volume

The idea is to get to a destination in zero time. (I know, not physically possible?)[/QUOTE]These 2 models u proposed don't make any sense to me. In the first example, are you saying there's no time associated with an object moving in 3D space? Well this would have to be a different version of 3D space and not the 3D space we live in right now. In the second example, ur saying in 1D there's nothing, no object, just time?
What would it be measuring then?

Either way, neither ur proposed models are consistent with the General Relativity model, which is fine. You just have to propose a model that can can actually make predictions of (at the very least) what happens in real life.

The idea is to get to a destination in zero time. (I know, not physically possible?)
This is an example of why thinking of time as an existent thing or even as a dimension is bad. It leads to meaningless and irrational conclusions.

For instance, take the simple d=(t)x(v) equation and u can clearly see that if t=0, consequently v=0, so d=0. In which case, ur not going anywhere. No distance.
Now if u really wana go somewhere in zero time just don't record the time.
 
Re: can you imagine 10 dimensions? see if you can follow...my head exploded after 5

These 2 models u proposed don't make any sense to me. In the first example, are you saying there's no time associated with an object moving in 3D space? Well this would have to be a different version of 3D space and not the 3D space we live in right now. In the second example, ur saying in 1D there's nothing, no object, just time?
What would it be measuring then?

Either way, neither ur proposed models are consistent with the General Relativity model, which is fine. You just have to propose a model that can can actually make predictions of (at the very least) what happens in real life.

This is an example of why thinking of time as an existent thing or even as a dimension is bad. It leads to meaningless and irrational conclusions.

Thatswhatimsayin.

Time is only regarded as the 4th dimension because we are 3d beings that experience our world in 3d and need to time to theoretically describe the closest adjacent dimension.

If time is included in the SPATIAL dimension discussion at all itd prolly be best to refer to it in the Zero (Nill Dimension)?
 
Re: can you imagine 10 dimensions? see if you can follow...my head exploded after 5

Thatswhatimsayin.

Time is only regarded as the 4th dimension because we are 3d beings that experience our world in 3d and need to time to theoretically describe the closest adjacent dimension.

If time is included in the SPATIAL dimension discussion at all itd prolly be best to refer to it in the Zero (Nill Dimension)?
Dimensions describe the SHAPE of OBJECTS. Dimensions are properties of objects NOT space. So the term "Spatial Dimension" is actually a misnomer.

If u insist that dimensions are properties of space let's settle it with a simple thought experiment.
Let's remove all matter from the universe and leave you alone with a ruler in empty space. Now measure the length, width or the height of space.

Clearly dimensions are properties of shapes, why else are triangles, squares, circles, and all other polygons called 2D objects?

Oh, and zero dimension = no shape = no object = nothing. it's an idea, like Black Holes, Spiderman, time machines and Godzilla. Physicsis the study of physical objects.
 
Last edited:
Re: can you imagine 10 dimensions? see if you can follow...my head exploded after 5

not existing in other dimensions. There is no physical way that a human being of today could exist in a dimension higher than 3 or lower.

we only understand 1D and 2D because that are a part of 3D. Once you enter into 4 or higher you are bending the previous planes that existed before hand.

What the fuck are you talking about? You're being dragged unrelentingly through the 4th dimension every second of your life. :rolleyes:
 
Re: can you imagine 10 dimensions? see if you can follow...my head exploded after 5

If there is large ball of mass there could be a lot of chemistry going on. I'm not sure how stars are created, but I think its through thermal nuclear fusion. Hydrogen atoms are being fused together, which creates very hot temps. When a star dies thermal fusion is not being produced anymore so the temps diminish. So if the star is large enough and its gravitational pull is strong enough then the star will collapse on itself creating a black hole. We are not capable (now) of creating this type of energy and force, but it the possibilities are there. Controlling this type of energy could slow down or speed up light. Man that would be amazing!!
But how do u stop yourself from being ripped to molecular shreds by the gravity of the black-hole? this is a constraint that Special Relativity (E=mc^2) placed on bodies that attempt to travel near to or at the speed of light. ironically the same theory that black-holes were conceived from.

the mathematical model of spacetime as a flexible warpable geometric object is useful in describing and maybe predicting the dynamics of matter. nothing more nothing less. there's nothing physical or real about it. when mathematicians say things like "the physical interpretation of this equation is so so and so..." until it's verified by observable physical evidence, it's just as good as saying "the physical interpretation of God or the Holy Spirit is Jesus Christ incarnate." That's why i have issues with taking non-physical mathematical "objects" and having them physically interact with physical real world objects.
 
Re: can you imagine 10 dimensions? see if you can follow...my head exploded after 5

Dimensions describe the SHAPE of OBJECTS. Dimensions are properties of objects NOT space. So the term "Spatial Dimension" is actually a misnomer.

:confused:

Objects not only take up "space" but are measured and classified with respect to the properties and dimension of that space.

If u insist that dimensions are properties of space let's settle it with a simple thought experiment.
Let's remove all matter from the universe and leave you alone with a ruler in empty space. Now measure the length, width or the height of space.

Are you really suggesting that without matter to measure you would have no dimension? Space in your example could be measured if just for the sake of measurement.....provided you had a fixed point (you callin that an object too?). Conversely if you took all the space out of space you wouldnt have a template within which those objects could even exist let alone be measured.

Clearly dimensions are properties of shapes, why else are triangles, squares, circles, and all other polygons called 2D objects?

Clearly flavor is a property of dishware, why else are platters, pots n pans and dishes called food equipment?

Nah.

Oh, and zero dimension = no shape = no object = nothing. it's an idea, like Black Holes, Spiderman, time machines and Godzilla. Physicsis the study of physical objects.

Yea I fell ya. Thats why I confined it to labeling Time as a dimension....it is conceptual without an actual shape/object. But it is interwoven with space at a basic level and thus does affect physical properties. Since time most likely permeates all dimenisons its logical to conclude its a building block of the others.....i.e. of lower dimension than a point or any space at all.

Lower than one is.....well...

Not saying a zero dimension makes sense mind you. I think dude in the video has it right about time being a temporal dimension and not spatial. I say again we only say time is 4d cause 3 is the limits of our perception and we can only describe higher orders by interpolation via TIME.


hypercube.gif
 
Re: can you imagine 10 dimensions? see if you can follow...my head exploded after 5

:confused:

Objects not only take up "space" but are measured and classified with respect to the properties and dimension of that space.
Not quite. According Einstein's General Relativity objects are not "in" space, but rather "spatially extended" and connected by fields: http://open-site.org/Science/Physics/Modern/Special_Relativity

Regardless, why do u think that space itself has dimensions and time is one of them? Why do u believe in this?

Are you really suggesting that without matter to measure you would have no dimension? Space in your example could be measured if just for the sake of measurement.....provided you had a fixed point (you callin that an object too?). Conversely if you took all the space out of space you wouldnt have a template within which those objects could even exist let alone be measured.
So if a "fixed point" isn't an object, u tell me what is it? And WTF is taking space out of space?:confused:

Clearly flavor is a property of dishware, why else are platters, pots n pans and dishes called food equipment?
Nah.
Really? So tell me, what was the flavor of the plate you ate ur dinner on tonight? :confused:

Yea I fell ya. Thats why I confined it to labeling Time as a dimension....it is conceptual without an actual shape/object. But it is interwoven with space at a basic level and thus does affect physical properties. Since time most likely permeates all dimenisons its logical to conclude its a building block of the others.....i.e. of lower dimension than a point or any space at all.
This must be ur own personal theory because this isn't what GR says. GR says time PHYSICALLY affects matter. Ever heard of "Time-Dilation" and "Length-Contraction?" Irrational bullshit stuff imo, but go look it up dude.


Lower than one is.....well...
well...?

Not saying a zero dimension makes sense mind you. I think dude in the video has it right about time being a temporal dimension and not spatial. I say again we only say time is 4d cause 3 is the limits of our perception and we can only describe higher orders by interpolation via TIME.

hypercube.gif
You're right it makes no sense.

Using rigorously defined terms objectively, especially terms that can make or break a theory, is what makes science different from religion. U can't use the term dimension to describe the shape of physical objects, then turn around and use the same term, in the same dissertation, to describe non-physical concept like time. Seriously guys think about this for a minute.
 
Last edited:
Re: can you imagine 10 dimensions? see if you can follow...my head exploded after 5

^^^

Possibly the smartest BGOL poster ever, at least scientifically...
 
Re: can you imagine 10 dimensions? see if you can follow...my head exploded after 5

My nigga sean stayed dropping me facts all night

Def was a cool ass nigga
 
Re: can you imagine 10 dimensions? see if you can follow...my head exploded after 5

Bump.

Boy, the things I have learned in five years. My arguments haven't change much, but my mathematical and physical concepts are 5 years stronger. I still stand by that time has speed and we live in a 4D universe. :cool:

And yes, I still do believe it's possible to travel faster than light.

I reread this thread ever so often because it was one of the best best online discussions I ever had. Incredible minds in this thread.
 
Last edited:
Re: can you imagine 10 dimensions? see if you can follow...my head exploded after 5

Bump,

Peep the genius of Sean69.

R.I.P.
 
Re: can you imagine 10 dimensions? see if you can follow...my head exploded after 5

Utter rubbish.

Seek information from a proper source...:smh:


If you want to "visualize" higher than three dimensions take a course in Linear Algebra and/or tensors :hmm:
 
Re: can you imagine 10 dimensions? see if you can follow...my head exploded after 5

Yeah by far one of the best threats on bgol... I couldn't keep up past the 5th demension
 
Re: can you imagine 10 dimensions? see if you can follow...my head exploded after 5

I'm of the belief that there are at least 5 dimensions.
 
Back
Top