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

[tical]

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

Yeah man... seriously...it was the high-level math that had me like If it was possible to do it all over again, I would have conquered math for the sole reason of conquering physics.

This man, you have no idea! growing up i was condition to fear math like it was some kind of disease. Black people sometimes i swear!

 

[4 Dimensional]

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

Can you expound on this just a bit? I am maybe not understanding two things....a 3D dependent variable relative to a position is no different than the part of my post that you put in bold right? I am assuming yes because you said you were representing that mathematically. If that is correct... I still I am not getting how even mathematically you are putting a velocity on time in that sense and traveling faster than it? For instance, I can understand how one can propose node to node transport in terms of contracting time ... and that is with defininng the velocity of time as the rate of change in the perception of time (the perceptionand not time itself).

So mathematically speaking...how can a particle travel faster than time?

Sure, all I did was support what you said mathematically, but explained in a sense that it may be possible to break the barriers of physical properties being able to travel faster than time. I think in order to achieve speeds faster than light we would need to treat time as a 3D dependent variable exclusively to the 3rd dimension. This mean that we would need to consider an extra variable(s) (x/i t,y/i t,z/i t) [imaginary numbers, non real but mathematically solvable through complex variable/analysis] over TIME as apart of the 4th dimension because I am assuming that time does not exist the same way in the 4th dimension as it does in the 3rd.

I can not give you a definitive on how a particle my travel faster than light. Someone mention the "speed of light +1" in an earlier. This idea is probable, but don't know enough physics to apply this mathematically. Thats why i'm deep in discussion in this thread because you brothers are bringing certain things to light for me.

 

[Spectrum]

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

. I think in order to achieve speeds faster than light we would need to treat time as a 3D dependent variable exclusively to the 3rd dimension. This mean that we would need to consider an extra variable(s) (x/i t,y/i t,z/i t) [imaginary numbers, non real but mathematically solvable through complex variable/analysis] over TIME as apart of the 4th dimension because I am assuming that time does not exist the same way in the 4th dimension as it does in the 3rd.

That is what I needed...I now understand. thanks.

 

[Count23]

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

This man, you have no idea! growing up i was condition to fear math like it was some kind of disease. Black people sometimes i swear!

quoted for emphasis

 

[4 Dimensional]

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

That is what I needed...I now understand. thanks.

No prob cuz. Appreciate the insight. And I'm going to take your word on those books you suggested and check them out

 

[sean69]

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

Hmmm .... Really sean69???? REALLY? If they NEVER EVER have all the answers then why do you start almost every reply with:

Wrong or No

Yall just as delusional as the religious nuts imo ... BUT corner yall about the lack of credibility and yall start doing the Stevie Wonder lol

because it's wrong that why. duh.

someone comes up to me and says: "hey sean, polydimethylsiloxanes are Newtonian fluids."

My response; "No." "Wrong". Not ... "Well, since we don't know everything in the universe ..."

 

[sean69]

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

Here I'll help you... he says science doesn't have all the answers and is using the best information they have ...

However he constantly flat out tells people they are wrong and then in so many words 'this is how it REALLY is' ... do you see ANY contradiction in views there?

dis ninja here. "I constantly flat out tell people..."



So u'd be happier if i did a LesW and typed "imo" and at the beginning and ending of every post i make? I guess that would rule everything in but not out huh? No? yes? Nyes? Would that meet your requirements of maxiumum prudence and minimum impulsiveness?

Nah. I'll call bullshit as I see fit and when i see it. Back up my arguments as best I can. Concede when i'm convinced otherwise or call stale mate or go learn something new. You should try one of those some times. (like in that Puzzles thread...what's the difference between a pair and a ...well, anyhwo... lol)

And ur in here talkin about emotions. Really dude? After milking an apology outta me for typing "dum-dum" in a reply to one of ur posts in that Freeman Dyson thread? Ok. Seriously GTFOH.

I didn't disagree with anything he stated I disagreed with the integrity in light of his posting history. Does this make sense to you?

U disagree with my bgol posting history integrity.



u really just typed that didn't u?

lol ... lemme go read the rest of this this shit. this is fun ...

 

[Lesane Crooks]

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

Sure, all I did was support what you said mathematically, but explained in a sense that it may be possible to break the barriers of physical properties being able to travel faster than time. I think in order to achieve speeds faster than light we would need to treat time as a 3D dependent variable exclusively to the 3rd dimension. This mean that we would need to consider an extra variable(s) (x/i t,y/i t,z/i t) [imaginary numbers, non real but mathematically solvable through complex variable/analysis] over TIME as apart of the 4th dimension because I am assuming that time does not exist the same way in the 4th dimension as it does in the 3rd.

I can not give you a definitive on how a particle my travel faster than light. Someone mention the "speed of light +1" in an earlier. This idea is probable, but don't know enough physics to apply this mathematically. Thats why i'm deep in discussion in this thread because you brothers are bringing certain things to light for me.

Taking it back out from the empirical realm and into the theoretical though why wouldnt it be safe to assume that time behaves the same in all dimensions? If we accept the 1D-2D-3D comparisons and that space (or spacetime as it were) is curved would we really need to travel the speed of light? I suppose breaking one physical law (manipulating space) is as improbable as another (manipulating time) but there are all kind of theories that would yield the same results as 1st person light travel.

 

[sean69]

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

Ah. back to the topic at hand. Nice.

I have been looking at this whole subject mathematically and not physically. This is way my beliefs may vary different from yours. Mathematics do not explains the physical (at least not all the time).

The equations are similar but the meanings are different. This is ways I'm getting stomped in thermal dynamics right now because I can't understand the physics.

Yes. That may be one of the reasons why. I'm a scientist. I fuck with physical things. I'm not a mathematician but i've done enough math to get by advanced physics. As a scientist, I use math to represent and model physical things. I also use it as a tool to help understand and maybe even predict outcomes of experiments. I just can't use it to explain reality. That's not how science works.

Theoretical Physics and Math have an interesting Batman and Robin like relationship. IMO, this is at the center of the sibling rivalry like relationship between theoretical and experimental physicists. Go ask anyone of them u know whatthey feel about the other and they'll explain it better to u. lol.

I once used to believe that math was "the language" of science (and this wasn't too long ago) but recently, not so much anymore. I agree with u that math doesn't explain the physical but i'll take it further and say it simply can't. It's not built for that. When you stop and really scrutinize this you'll start to see it. Math is a field of study that deals mainly with the description of dynamical concepts. It has no authority in describing physical reality. And I believe that I can back up these statements too. (special emphasis on the words i've highlighted)

Side note.
I'm currently in 2 ongoing debates in 2 threads on a Physics message board: one in a math forum and one in a GR/SR forum. One's about Time and dimensions, the other's about math and physical things. It's a pretty interesting mature discussion. If ur really interested in this topic hit me in PM and i'll link u.

It goes back to this argument: in 1D there is a point. If time exist at that point to represent the exact time of that point then it is no longer 1D because time is continuous. If there is two points that create a line between the two, then motion in a 2D environment can not exist without time (V=D/T => T=D/V). Understand where I am coming from? Why associate motion with time then? This is why I believe that all things are uniform with time. Thus time has "speed". Sorry bruh, but this is how it is making sense to me

I see where ur coming from dude and I can understand how it might make sense that way. But it's the other way round and I believe I have a very strong argument for this. Motion supersedes time. Motion is more fundamental.

 

[sean69]

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

I went to school for mathematics (Masters). I think this is way we are looking at this very differently.

Are your a physicist?

Yes but undergrad. physics and chemistry. grad organic and polymer chemistry. in recent years more physics but avoiding as much of the math formalisms I can get away with. but not in school just teaching myself.

 

[sean69]

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

Do you mean in this in terms of the theory of relativity and that you can represent the speed of time as the basis for everything that exists? Thus we get that the speed of time is relative to the observer is dependent upon the speed of the other dimensions to that same observer. The total speed of all the dimensions will be the constant, but the distribution of that overall speed amongst the dimensions is completely frame-dependent.

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.

That is what he is saying.

However, that still missed the very important point.

Traveling beyond the speed of sound does not break any physical laws of science. It is not about imagination. Physical laws of science have always allowed for this occurance. Thus it is not shattering anything. That occurrance is simply a case of exponential returns on applied science. It was merely bound to happen. There are a lot of things that are bound to happen that seem out of reach at this moment. There is an entire industry devoted to it (futurism.. Ray Kurzweil is my favorite)

Traveling beyond the speed of light would not be an even remotely similar occurance.

It completely contradicts the physical laws of science. It is not about imagination or expontential rate of development of applied science.

It would completely shatter the physical laws of science. I am not taking about the laws of physics. I mean the physical laws of science.

It is like proposing the ability to travel BACK in time. It is theoretically impossible.

c/s.
and it's also like disobeying the 2nd law of Thermodynamics which is a central foundation in all of the physics, from the smallest "particles" to the cosmos.

 

[sean69]

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

Explained mathematically:

Mathematically we would represent a total of something with D(x,y,z)/Dt. This would then be broken down locally dx/dt + dy/dt + dz/dt. If time is constant for all dimensions then D(x,y,z)/Dt = 0. This means for all dimensions (x,y,z) time will be 0 (constant), which we both know that t=0 means the beginning. So in order to make time relative for each dimension you would have to integrate each dimension respectively (x,y,z) to achieve position over time.

This would then make time uniform with whatever dimension or variable you choose. Meaning that time has a speed relative to is position.

So in order to achieve speeds faster than time you would have to treat time as a 3D dependent variable relative to position.

Physically not possible, mathematically probable, but who knows...

is this in anyway related to the mathematical concept of the 4-vector in GR?

Can you expound on this just a bit? I am maybe not understanding two things....a 3D dependent variable relative to a position is no different than the part of my post that you put in bold right? I am assuming yes because you said you were representing that mathematically. If that is correct... I still I am not getting how even mathematically you are putting a velocity on time in that sense and traveling faster than it? For instance, I can understand how one can propose node to node transport in terms of contracting time ... and that is with defininng the velocity of time as the rate of change in the perception of time (the perceptionand not time itself).

So mathematically speaking...how can a particle travel faster than time?

can u explain this some more? (@ the highlighted i mean)

Oh good look on those books by Briane Green. I watched his documentary series on PBS: "The Elegant Universe" and dude is a great public science educator. Watched his TED talk a few years ago too. While I still think ST is bullshit i still believe that fashion and imagination is an indispensable part of science! and ST has been very useful in helping us undertsnad things like symmetry and super-symmetry and simply a lot of the "particle" physics math of the Standard Model, the extent of it's utility and applicability to physical reality should be kept in perspective. until it shows otherwise i guess...

(for the record when i use the term bullshit here i don't mean it as completely utterly useless garbage, i mean it like when ur playing hoopz at the park and dude takes mad steps and then double dribbles and does a two handed layup and ur like ... "man, that's some bullshit" )

 

[mike123]

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

i think eewwll and sean missed the point les was tryin to make
unless i'm mistaken he was referring to topics like dark matter, dark energy or how before QM became an accepted part of science it was believed by most science that everything was figured out

 

[sean69]

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

Taking it back out from the empirical realm and into the theoretical though why wouldnt it be safe to assume that time behaves the same in all dimensions? If we accept the 1D-2D-3D comparisons and that space (or spacetime as it were) is curved would we really need to travel the speed of light? I suppose breaking one physical law (manipulating space) is as improbable as another (manipulating time) but there are all kind of theories that would yield the same results as 1st person light travel.

What physical law are u talking about?

 

[Les W]

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

I think I understand what you were saying; that basically let's keep the idea open that some things may be out of the scope of our imagination right now, like the idea of 20 ton steel flyin machines that can go faster than the speed of sound were out of people's imagination some hundreds of years ago. Am i right?

Yeah fam and it wasn't new or revolutionary idea and really nothing to get into an argument about imo

these cats just wanted a debate I guess

 

[sean69]

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

i think eewwll and sean missed the point les was tryin to make
unless i'm mistaken he was referring to topics like dark matter, dark energy or how before QM became an accepted part of science it was believed by most science that everything was figured out

This is incorrect. Maybe Michael Faraday made a boneheaded statement like that at a Gordon Conference at the end of the 19th century (i think it was him im not sure) but nah, "all of science" didn't believe in nothing like that.

Mike, ur making the same mistake. An over generalizing statement that ignores the central point that there are natural laws that are immutable in the sense that they're the foundations of science. This is different from THEORIES or even mathematical models. QM is based on a THEORY. Dark Matter/Energy are concepts...pretty much not every well understood IDEAS.

QM did not supplant Classical Newtonian Mechanics. CM is still a valid and extremely useful theory in physics especially for very large bodies. Space shuttles, satellites, rockets, all designed and built using CM.

 

[Les W]

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

i think eewwll and sean missed the point les was tryin to make
unless i'm mistaken he was referring to topics like dark matter, dark energy or how before QM became an accepted part of science it was believed by most science that everything was figured out

I honestly don't believe in or maybe just understand the logic behind dark matter ... (though I would not be surprised if something like that held the key to faster than light speed travel or other things we see as impossible today)

... but as far as limitations of current understanding you have the spirit of what I was saying ... common sense imo

 

[Les W]

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

Yes but undergrad. physics and chemistry. grad organic and polymer chemistry. in recent years more physics but avoiding as much of the math formalisms I can get away with. but not in school just teaching myself.

Even tho I say no offense I know you'll be offended so ... you being in undergrad explains a LOT sean ....

my badz i thought you were a grown man ... I am kinda relieved tbh ... enjoy yourself man ...

 

[sean69]

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

Even tho I say no offense I know you'll be offended so ... you being in undergrad explains a LOT sean ....

my badz i thought you were a grown man ... I am kinda relieved tbh ... enjoy yourself man ...

ur a funny dude. but sad at the same time but hey, w/e helps u put it all together lol

ight .. back on topic ...

 

[Les W]

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

I can not give you a definitive on how a particle my travel faster than light. Someone mention the "speed of light +1" in an earlier. This idea is probable, but don't know enough physics to apply this mathematically. Thats why i'm deep in discussion in this thread because you brothers are bringing certain things to light for me.

I would guess that since "black holes" (which I don't believe in the model as presented) are supposed to be capable of DIRECTLY slowing the speed of light down to +/- Zero using gravity or electromagnetic waves ... the opposite may hold true

This would actually be a good model for a 'Stargate' or 'Warp Drive' for lack of a better term ...

If you could somehow manipulate the same gravitational force as a black hole and put it ... say at a remote location or at the nose of a ship instead of pulling objects toward the source of the dense gravity with forces greater than the speed of light it would be also pushing them toward it at greater than light speeds as well

Of course you wouldn't need a full blown black hole just a small one

 

[Spectrum]

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

Side note.
I'm currently in 2 ongoing debates in 2 threads on a Physics message board: one in a math forum and one in a GR/SR forum. One's about Time and dimensions, the other's about math and physical things. It's a pretty interesting mature discussion. If ur really interested in this topic hit me in PM and i'll link u.

.[/SIZE][/B]

Hit me with that link.

 

[Spectrum]

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

But what does "the speed" of a dimension mean?

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.

 

[Spectrum]

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

i think eewwll and sean missed the point les was tryin to make
unless i'm mistaken he was referring to topics like dark matter, dark energy or how before QM became an accepted part of science it was believed by most science that everything was figured out

No. We did not miss the point. Dark matter, for instance, does not break an physical laws of science. There are always new discovers that expand the scientific base or even change our perception of some scienfitic phenomenon. However, breaking a physical law of science is a whole other category. Dark matter, dark energy, etc only helped up explain events, etc that we could not explain but all still conformed to the physical laws of science.

Something traveling FASTER than the speed of light would break fundamental physical laws of science( laws...not hypotheses, theories, postulates, principles,etc).

 

[tical]

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

Hit me with that link.

You noticed that too; Perhaps he doesn't feel the rest of us are worthy

 

[Spectrum]

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

You noticed that too; Perhaps he doesn't feel the rest of us are worthy

Im gonna Debo sean69 like... Run that link punk

 

[tical]

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?

 

[Spectrum]

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

. 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.

 

[tical]

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

Yep. I have the same question.

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.

 

[4 Dimensional]

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

Taking it back out from the empirical realm and into the theoretical though why wouldnt it be safe to assume that time behaves the same in all dimensions? If we accept the 1D-2D-3D comparisons and that space (or spacetime as it were) is curved would we really need to travel the speed of light?

You can assume that time is the same in all dimensions. I'm just assuming that its not. Time by it's self could be more powerful than God when you look at it being infinite and even before God.

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.

Ah. back to the topic at hand. Nice.

Yes. That may be one of the reasons why. I'm a scientist. I fuck with physical things. I'm not a mathematician but i've done enough math to get by advanced physics. As a scientist, I use math to represent and model physical things. I also use it as a tool to help understand and maybe even predict outcomes of experiments. I just can't use it to explain reality. That's not how science works.

Theoretical Physics and Math have an interesting Batman and Robin like relationship. IMO, this is at the center of the sibling rivalry like relationship between theoretical and experimental physicists. Go ask anyone of them u know whatthey feel about the other and they'll explain it better to u. lol.

I once used to believe that math was "the language" of science (and this wasn't too long ago) but recently, not so much anymore. I agree with u that math doesn't explain the physical but i'll take it further and say it simply can't. It's not built for that. When you stop and really scrutinize this you'll start to see it. Math is a field of study that deals mainly with the description of dynamical concepts. It has no authority in describing physical reality. And I believe that I can back up these statements too. (special emphasis on the words i've highlighted)

Side note.
I'm currently in 2 ongoing debates in 2 threads on a Physics message board: one in a math forum and one in a GR/SR forum. One's about Time and dimensions, the other's about math and physical things. It's a pretty interesting mature discussion. If ur really interested in this topic hit me in PM and i'll link u.


I see where ur coming from dude and I can understand how it might make sense that way. But it's the other way round and I believe I have a very strong argument for this. Motion supersedes time. Motion is more fundamental.

Math is the language of science, but sciences do not have to adopt everything about mathematics. Physics only adopted what was necessary to explain the physical universe. Math goes beyond that to things that are completely non-real where is make absolutely no sense in the physical universe.

I would guess that since "black holes" (which I don't believe in the model as presented) are supposed to be capable of DIRECTLY slowing the speed of light down to +/- Zero using gravity or electromagnetic waves ... the opposite may hold true

This would actually be a good model for a 'Stargate' or 'Warp Drive' for lack of a better term ...

If you could somehow manipulate the same gravitational force as a black hole and put it ... say at a remote location or at the nose of a ship instead of pulling objects toward the source of the dense gravity with forces greater than the speed of light it would be also pushing them toward it at greater than light speeds as well

Of course you wouldn't need a full blown black hole just a small one

Exactly, this is why I mentioned black holes earlier. That seems to be the only force capable of making light increase a speed or decrease speed.

 

[4 Dimensional]

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

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.

whatever location you point out in the universe is going to have a time. can you point out time in the universe with out location? If your considering time as a reference point then mathematically I'm going to treat it as a dimension (1D), so if it moves values across a plane (increasing for example) then it's going to have a velocity.

 

[4 Dimensional]

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

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?

Why not treat time as a 4th dimension?

1D - point
2D - Line
3D - Volume
4D - Time

or

1D - Time
2D - point
3D - Line
4D - volume

Physically
1D - point and Time
2D - Line
3D - volume

Physically what do you think? Maybe we are in a dimension greater than 3D? I don't know but we just don't know all the possibilities of the physical universe because it's not all explored. That's why math can present the "what if type shit" in equations. The problem is that it would take an extreme genius to solve such a problems.

 

[Spectrum]

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

Physically what do you think? Maybe we are in a dimension greater than 3D? I don't know but we just don't know all the possibilities of the physical universe because it's not all explored. That's why math can present the "what if type shit" in equations. The problem is that it would take an extreme genius to solve such a problems.

Another good book that I mentioned in this thread a few years back
String Field Theory and the Multiverse by Kaku
http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=159145&

 

[tical]

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

.

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.

Curious here, but is time slowing down? Perhaps I'm just lost!

Example:
Lets say Tortoise A races tortoise B and it takes 12 secs and Now
Lets say hare races tortoise A and it takes 4 secs!
Has time "slowed down"? or has velocity simply increased and taken less time?

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!

Why not treat time as a 4th dimension?



Physically what do you think? Maybe we are in a dimension greater than 3D? I don't know but we just don't know all the possibilities of the physical universe because it's not all explored. That's why math can present the "what if type shit" in equations. The problem is that it would take an extreme genius to solve such a problems.

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

 

[4 Dimensional]

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

Curious here, but is time slowing down? Perhaps I'm just lost!

Example:
Lets say Tortoise A races tortoise B and it takes 12 secs and Now
Lets say hare races tortoise A and it takes 4 secs!
Has time "slowed down"? or has velocity simply increased and taken less time?

Now Mathematically are you saying it's possible for something i.e light to be so fast that it travels for point a to point b in literally "no time"? What would happen 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 here comes the BGOL laureates

yes the velocity has simply increased making for less time, but consider the incremental values of that particular time. Tortoise A finish in 12 seconds. The increments of one "time" per second is 12. For tortoise B is would be 4. So if they traveled x meters to finish then ones velocity of "time" would be higher, which is directly related to velocity.

 

[Les W]

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:

Exactly, this is why I mentioned black holes earlier. That seems to be the only force capable of making light increase a speed or decrease speed.

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?