...I suspect that Edwin A. Abbott when staring at his coin on a table was doing so with just one eye and squinting

WOW, this stuff is cool to me!

Yeah it is very cool. That's why I've been fascinated by it for years. Check it out though, (I know it sounds pathetic and weird,) I can understand and visualise the 4th dimension so well that I actually feel confined by the 3 dimensions I exist in now. Whew.

Stereo-scopic (or binocular) vision does indeed serve the purpose of visual depth. However there is more to it than that.

Binocular vision is a representational dimension. We have representational dimensions (colour, time, vision etc) and physical dimensions (Length, Height, Depth, katath)

Physical dimensions are dimensiones of our universe indicated by movement, and proportion (each of those words have a slightly altered definition in other dimensional worlds).

Representational dimensions is what allows us to indicate dimensions by vision (and in some cases, sound, but that is easily betrayed because when you go to the cinema, you're already hearing 4 Dimensional sound). Colour and Stereo vision are both representational dimensions.

Colour was longly labelled as a dimension, such as how time was labelled a dimension. these are not spatial dimensions though, they cannot allow organisms to exist by themselves.

Stereoscopic vision is basically where two eyes are both facing the same direction, being 2 1/2 inches away from each other. without stereo vision, you can still see depth, but it is only fixated. the product of stereoscopic vision is "Emphasis" (or Focal Point). you can never tell the effects of stereo vision because it is always working in the background. Hold a penny infront of your vision and focus on it. Here, stereo vision isn't distinguishable, but if you notice in the background of that image, (say for instance you're doing this experiment at your pc right now) your monitor has split into two separate unfocused images. simalarly when you focus on your monitor, the penny will follow the same result.

It is representational dimensions that allow us to tell whether a shape has depth, without it, a sphere may aswell be a circle.

Here's something intersting that whoever may wish to design the wallpaper may want to know, in our 3 dimensional world, there are 56 million colours. there are no more colours than that. In Flatland, only primary colours exist. This is because depth adds in the extra millions of colours that can be filtered through light. Imagine that you are in a hall-like room with various shapes scattered throughout. Also imagine that the only source of light in the room is coming from you (so you're... the light, the sun as it where) you'll notice that all the shapes that have sides facing you, are in primary colour (yellow fo instance) and the sides of the same shapes that are 'not' facing you are in...i don't know..cream. sorry i'm not good with colour, but what i'm trying to say is that the sides not facing you will never emit a primary colour (when the source of the light is coming from your direction).

So in our dimension there are 56 million colours, representing depth. A sphere will obviously utilise many colours (shadings of it's colour I mean). Without representational dimensions, we wouldn't be able to tell it's a sphere unless we use physical dimensions to 'feel' around the shape (which is what A. Square did in the book Flatland).

It's interesting to know that in the 4th dimension, the limit of colours will extend from 56 million, to 224 million colours. that's right, new colours, or..shadings should I say.

It's sometimes quite difficult to explain to someone about the 4th dimension..especially when they're opinionated. Man it turns into an argument everytime I try and do so. But sometimes I can't win, mainly because i'm useless with words and...evidentially, the 4th dimension remains to be a theory, even though it is mathemathically proven. I mean I haven't been there have I? so how the *@%# am I supposed to know?
For instance, I was *trying* to explain to a friend of mine what it would be like in Flatland. Remember that in Flatland, depth isn't removed (as most people think) Height is removed. And he argued that you could not live in a world without height, you couldn't even exist. Well you could, but you'd only have one layer of height. Remember that to have upward depth is simply to have more than ONE layer. one layer of height isn't really height at all. Dimensions have to have a measurement so if you live in Flatland, your will have the same upward depth as your world, and your fellow inhabitants. Meaning that height is indistinguishable. He then argued that Flatland MUST have one some small measurement of a 3rd dimension - no, one slice of a dimension isn't a dimension at all. if you put it like that, then we also have one slice of the 4th dimension. we have one section of 'Upsilon' - but that doesn't mean we live in the 4th dimension, it means that the 3rd dimension is 'contained' in the 4th dimension, just as Flatland is 'contained' in the 3rd dimension.
So there you go ADAM PRESCOTT!

...

Sorry for making this..so long. I'd really appreciate if one of the talented designers on wincustomize rendered a really cool hypercube wallpaper. there isn't really a wallpaper image out there on google. Please. I'd deeply appreciate it and would offer anything in return.

Thanks!

#23 by gizzimo - 4/2/2004 4:10:15 PM Yeah it is very cool. That's why I've been fascinated by it for years. Check it out though, (I know it sounds pathetic and weird,) I can understand and visualise the 4th dimension so well that I actually feel confined by the 3 dimensions I exist in now. Whew.

I don't know about that one buddy!

Oh - My - God! looka this.

Adam says:
and i still disagree with you lol
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
really?
Adam says:
yup
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
not as intelligent then.. Cos the people who argued that you couldn’t live without height understood what I meant, and now agree with me.
Adam says:
so you're basically sayin that im less intelligent than you for not fully agreeing with your side of the argument?
Adam says:
even though i've said to you that i know what you mean?
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
no.. i'm saying that you may not have the correct height of intelligence to acknowledge that height is only a dimension when there are two or more components put ontop of each other. One slice of height is a layer that EVERY dimension has. cos one slice can be built sideways, forwards, whichever.
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
you can't seem to see it. which just means that you do not have as good imagination and interlect.
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
it's not an insult.
Adam says:
well thanks
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
changing your opinion is like changing...you - i'd never do the sort of thing! i'd only change your opinion with a fact, and if you do not agree, then thats as far as i will go. i refuse to MAKE someone agree with me
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
by force.
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
thats not right
Adam says:
just then you've called me unimaginatively stupid.
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
no, stupid is a negative definition. Stupid is below the average threshold, i said that you do not have the equivelant imagintion and interlect as me on that particular topic. this is not malice. I could by implying that i have 5+ intelligence, and you have lower (eg 3+ intelligence) in which case stupid would be a negative degree (-1 or -50) you being lower than me is not you being lower than the
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
threshold. hence, you are not stupid.
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
this is an allegation. nothing more.
Adam says:
but saying you have, on a scale of some sort, an intellect of +5 and i have an intellect of less than +5, by resetting your intelligence to 0, you're saying that i don't meet up to the standards, which makes me stupid compared to you
Adam says:
stupidity is relative
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
no. that example was an individual analogy. the word standard cannot be used in an individual illustration. no where did i say that you are stupid, meaning that you are either making the matter worse than it actually is, or misinterpreting what i meant (which isn't my behalf of the problem). the 4th dimension is a topic that requires an open-mind, high understanding and imagination.
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
You cannot put that comparison at a standard level, or a reset 0 mark, because a standard level would be something that everyone is capable of. You must research into this, and acquire the knowledge at your own approval. I said you are not as intellect (‘as me’ – part of sentence removed for obvious English emphasis) “me” is individual,
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
I am NOT standard, no one is. I am not calling you stupid nor am I implying it. You are simply at a lower degree of intelligence than me on THAT specific topic. Like I said, I’ve acquired the knowledge on that and researched for years, you haven’t. And the people that can/have understand/understood me are those who are willing to
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
blindly acknowledge this fact based on the 2nd hand information I have conveyed to them. You do not wish to accept my information because you, just as I, are also an individual.
Adam says:
not once have i said that i do not wish to accept your information
Adam says:
and i thought the word open-minded would come up somewhere
Adam says:
you seem to think im a close-minded freak
Adam says:
or somethin im sure of it
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
not close-minded, just narrow-minded.
Adam says:
no-one said i didnt WANT to accept your information as factual evidence
Adam says:
the meaning is practically the same
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
no it's not. close-minded is where you do not accept anyone's opinion. narrow-minded means you have trouble accepting someone's opinion.
Adam says:
the opposite of close-minded is open-minded, opposite of narrow-minded is broad-minded the meaning's have become crossed
Adam says:
thats besides the point
Adam says:
im not being either narrow-minded OR close-minded
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
you say that you accept the evidence - why?
Adam says:
no
Adam says:
i dont accept the evidence
Adam says:
i can see what you're saying
Adam says:
and i understand it
Adam says:
but i dont agree with it
Adam says:
which is not to say
Adam says:
in any way
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
how is that different to what you agree with?
Adam says:
that i dont want to accept it
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
Tell me why you don't agree with it. Try and use actual evidence to back up your side, as i have, so that this can become a test of justice. If you don't have any evidence, and you just don't..feel its correct what i have said, then this will prove that you are narrow-minded. i honestly don't believe that you accept what i say if you do not have any information regarding your side of the argument.
Adam says:
i have all of the maths ive been taught to use as evidence
Adam says:
flatland, does it have a height?
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
by all means illustrate them to me.
It does not have height, correct. note that height is upward depth, depth (from the dictionary i have infront of me) The extent, measurement, or dimension that has more than one layer distant from it’s origin.
Adam says:
distant from its origin
Adam says:
which is positive or negative
Adam says:
in the physical world
Adam says:
there is no such thing as a negative measurement
Adam says:
height = depth
Adam says:
there's no difference
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
there is no measurement difference. but they are perpendicular.
Adam says:
and what exactly do you mean by perpendicular
Adam says:
you're saying that height is perpendicular to depth?
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
perpendicular ... That means that any of the directions is its own and not combined of any of the other directions
Adam says:
|
|
|-
Adam says:
those two lines are perpendicular
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
Yes.
Adam says:
you cant have height and depth being perpendicular
Adam says:
when they're the same axis
Adam says:
Z
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
Of course you can. upwards is not the same as sidewards. You can walk forward and not utilise the other 2 dimensions (left/right/updown)
Adam says:
in which case you'd be one dimensional, in your case at least.
Adam says:
does flatland have a height/depth?
Adam says:
yes or no
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
flatland has length (going left or right) and also has depth (going forward or backward) they cannot rise up or fall down from the surface they are on.

See what I mean?! Can someone please help me, since i am bad with words, try and explain that you do not need height to exist. Those of you who know what I mean, help me please.

4th dimension is 'time', without which none of the other 3 can be perceived.

 

True, but time isn't a spatial dimension. despite the fact that you need time and motion to exist in physical dimensions, it is still irrelevant since time and motion are both representational dimensions. but yes I do understand what you mean, and in various ways, you are correct.

Adam says:
then they have height and width
Adam says:
Depth is a third-dimensional axis
Adam says:
Length and width*
Adam says:
You said to me that they have a height/depth in respects to our world, equivalent to the height/depth of a string
Adam says:
Okay, I see where you're comin' from in terms of height and depth being perpendicular.
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
let's try and come to an agreement here because I’m tired and I want to go to bed and I do not want another useless argument, so lets try and work it yeah? Let’s 'combine' your explanation with mine, let's make this an agenda.
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
I'm just going to get this over and done with. Flatland does have height, yes, true, you cannot exist without that dimension. But understand that Flatland has only one surface with 0 height. this makes the dimension 'height' non-existant since height is measured with +5 (i.e. five inches above surface) or -6 (6 inches below surface). do you know what I mean?
Adam says:
but you can’t have a negative measurement
Adam says:
6 inches below the surface of something
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
let me speak, then you answer yeah? make this a pattern, each time I speak, I will 'lean' my explanation to yours, (sort of agreeing with you slightly to "bend" what I mean to what you have in mind) if you do the same with me, then we WILL reach a climax, a one answer ok?
Adam says:
is just 6 inches in the opposite direction beginning from the same place you started when you counted the +5
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
okay. So, in terms of movement, if you were to walk forward, you'd be...executing a positive movement..like 5+ right?
Adam says:
yes.
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
Cool. and...same if you walked backwards..you'd be executing ..say -7...?
Adam says:
no
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
alright, why not?
Adam says:
you'd be walking a measurement of 7, say metres, just in the opposite direction. if you were round and had no forward or backward, like if you couldn’t see or something, then every direction would be a positive movement. you can't have a negative measurement in the physical world negative numbers only exist in the theoretical world
Adam says:
it'd be like trying to travel slower than 0 mph in a car
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
okay, for understanding sakes (since I am useless with words) let's..pretend that when you walk forward, you are pursuing a positive movement, and when you walk backward (in which u remain to face forward - obviously) it is a negative measurement. k?
Adam says:
for the sake of argument
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
thank you.
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
now....say if I walked -6 I’d be moving backwards at 6mph. yeah?
Adam says:
yeah
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
and +6 is where I’d be moving forward at 6mph
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
this is in terms of motion.
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
yeah?
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
so...if I said I ...was pursuing 0.....what do you think I will be doing?
Adam says:
standing still, obviously
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
exactly! ...so, in essence, I’m no longer using the dimension of depth (lengthwise). even though depth IS there, and I can easily use it whenever I want, I am...theoretically oblivious to length now that I am standing still. Right?
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
remember, still talking in terms of motion
Adam says:
but, using the same principles, you could theoretically not exist since you're not taking into account any of the dimensions
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
existing isn't the same as motion, please try and stay focused, we'll deal with existence later.
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
are you on track with what I am saying?
Adam says:
but, even in terms of motion, you're not taking into account the height or width, as well as the depth
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
I don't need to take length in account for when I am not even using it. taking it into account IS logical, because you believe that it's there - but pretend that you are the sort of being that only trusts things when you see it happen, and don't trust things when it's not happening.
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
So if you stopped, and you were suddenly transported (star trek style lol) into a world of length, you wouldn't notice (remember, not in terms of existence, I’m talking in terms of 'motion)
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
sorry I said that wrong lol
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
I meant, a world *without* length
Adam says:
you mean if I stood in a hallway looking down it
Adam says:
and denied the existence of the "length" (depth) of the corridor?
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
you're again taking in terms of existence, motion is a representational dimension (this is the only way I can try and show you what I mean)
Adam says:
that was an analogy
Adam says:
in the analogy if I were taken into a world where depth didn’t exist, I would still be ignorant to the fact that the hallway did or did not possess a "length" (depth)
Adam says:
but I’d still have the width and height of my body
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
...let me give you a better analogy.
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
we need to try and stick with motion, you went into an existence analogy there..
Adam says:
I know that.
Adam says:
but if motion is 0, and motion can't possibly have a width or height, and since it isn’t moving, the depth isn’t there either, so it doesn’t exist
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
just hold on.
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
keep this a pattern.
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
if you distinguished motion by looking down, seeing the floor move past you. and...you decided to stop moving. the floor beneath you has also stopped moving. if you remained looking down - still - and suddenly, without you knowing are being aware of it, you were transported to a world WITHOUT motion, same floor, same texture - everything is the exact same despite the fact that the world you've just
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
been transported to, has no motion
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
- you wouldn't be able to tell the difference
Adam says:
yeah
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
unless you tried to move forward.
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
agreed?
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
just tell me if you agree, don't digress...yet
Adam says:
yes, it makes a lot more sense when you just say it like that, the last one you said didn’t make much sense because of the confusion of the different axis
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
motion is not proportion. yeah? you already know that. Motion is pursuing a direction you are facing, and pushing whatever force you are on (e.g. the floor) in the opposite direction you desire to go into. (obviously you need to exist before you can utilise motion - but that is completely irrelevant on the point I am making, but still had to be mentioned to ensure you are following me)
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
walk forward? and the world goes backwards - perpendicular.
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
I think I told you about that ages ago
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
so far, can you follow me?
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
are you even..
Adam says:
yes I can follow you
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
cool. Now....try and put that analogy, into proportion, so the same example is used, but the topic is no longer motion, it is proportion (the space of universe you take in order to exist) Remember that proportion is like motion, but it is not moving, your body is using length height and depth, but not motionally, you are using it constantly - and non-constantly, at the same time
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
(say now if you have lost me, if not, let me keep talking)
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
so the same analogy. if you distinguished height, by simply 'existing' (by looking down, you have just proven to your brain that your legs, are "beneath" you - hence, height exists in your realm)
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
but let's...just say that you..didn't look down or up, (taking in account that you are looking in a direction where you cannot see above ur eyes, or below urs eyes - oh and also pretend ur in a white room)
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
like how you distinguished motion before, and couldn't once the floor was no longer moving, if you could no longer see above or below you (even things close to ur vision, like ur nose - not just distant things, like ur feet) and you were suddenly transported (Star trek style!!) to a world [[in this case, a white room]] with no height AND you didn't (and from here on, 'couldn't) look up or down,
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
you would not notice the difference
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
do you agree with this?
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
try and imagine...please
Adam says:
I agree with it for the vast majority of it, but the fundamental principle of the no height I don’t agree with
/\/\att: The 4th Dimensi۞n says:
ok. I vow to my motto as I said before, if someone remains to disagree, I will go no further than to try and display evidence of analogies, logic, and math (read flatland, the math is somewhere in there)

Thus, I will go no further. Let's just speak nothing of it from now on... there's no point, right? anyways...I’m sorta tired. You wanna come up to mine this week..?


As you can see, trying to tell an opionated person about the 4th dimesnion is as simple as dressing up a horse and asking it to play Barbie with you.

What a load of esoteric drivel.

All '4' dimensions are mathematical concepts.....physical existence requires all 4 for human perception beyond the hypothetical.

The first 3 are conceptual, but with the fourth you have actuality.

Hum, imagine those 2D people placed on a flexible surface, say a sort of trampoline.  Now, put a very heavy ball in the middle of the trampoline. The ball would cause the trampoline to sink down in its middle, and all the 2D people would slide down towards the ball, pulled by gravity.
Now, what would these people perceive?  They would see a dot, stretching into a line, appearing. Then they wouold feel themselved being pulled towards it.  How would they explain it?  The most scientific among them would probably come up with a theory about how larger objects attract the smaller objects. Objects with a larger mass attract objects with smaller masses... Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Not unlike planets and moons.
What if there IS a 4th spacial dimension and that gravity isn't what we think it is. -)

Wow that's impressive, Paxx. It makes sense doesn't it? For all those that have read much about the 4th dimension and are starting to 'visualise':

Things that suggest the 4th dimension IS there.

- Have you ever considered how a four-dimensional being would appear to you if it suddenly came into your room?
I think they would resemble flesh-coloured balloons constantly changing in size. We would see disconnected blobs of flesh some attached to claws, teeth, lips, eyes, or hair. Let me tell you why.
Think of it this way. Consider a two-dimensional world resembling a sheet of paper. How would you appear to the inhabitants of such a world if you tried to interact with with them? The 2-D creatures would only see cross-sections of you as you intersected their universe. Your finger would look like a flat disc that grew in size as you pushed it through their world. Your five fingers might look like five separate circles. They would just see irregular shapes with skin boundaries as you entered their world. Similarly, a hyperbeing who lived in the fourth dimension would have a cross-section in our space that looked liked a bunch of skin blobs.
A 4-D being would be a god to us. It would see everything in our world. It could even look inside your stomach and remove your breakfast without cutting through your skin, just like you could remove a dot inside a circle by moving it up into the third dimension, perpendicular to the circle, without breaking the circle.

A hyperbeing can effortlessly remove things before your very eyes, giving you the impression that the objects simply disappeared. The hyperbeing can also see inside any 3-D object or life form, and if necessary remove anything from inside. The being can look inside our intestines, or remove a tumor from our brain without ever cutting through the skin. A pair of gloves can be easily transformed into two left or two right gloves. And 3-D knots fall apart in the hands of a hyperbeing, much as a 2-D knot (a loop of string lying on a plane) can easily be undone by a 3-D being simply by lifting the end of the loop up into the third dimension.

Walking though walls... being hidden from... what do you immediately think of when I say what these hyperbeings can do, Ghosts? correct.

I believe ghosts are not dead people, I believe they are hyperbeings, only taking on the form of transparent humans because their 4 dimensional proportion has been sliced off by the 3 dimensional limits.

- Paxx's point about gravity, think about it, why is gravity there? we know what the effects are, but how does it truly work? why? where is the force's origin? why does the mass pull objects toward us?





imagine that the gridline surface is our 3 dimensional space, anything above or below that surface is 4 dimensional space, or tetraspace. the weight of the 4 dimensional sphere is pushing down. This raises the fact that gravity is also existant in the 4th dimension, and the 5th, and the 6th (gravity may well be the key evidence to higher dimensions - what cannot be explained with us may be explained with "them")

- the forces of the 4th dimension can also be responsible for strange things that go on domestically. Ever wondered how a complicated tangle in wires etc happen by themselves? you don't seem to analyse it too much since you decide that maybe you don't remember how it happened.
If you placed 2 bugs on a flat piece of paper (bugs are the closest beings to Flatlanders since they are not familiar with up or down, above or below) and then folded the piece of paper together, and scrunched the paper up, the bugs would not 'see' the effects but could 'feel' the paper coming down on them. they would be feeling the mysterious external forces plunging from the 3rd dimension. Similarly, we cannot see these forces, but would see the effects of them. I believe that tangles are resulting the external forces of the 4th dimension.

This is what makes me truly believe that the 4th dimension exists, and that there are hyperbeings living out their lives. what's more interesting is that since hyperobjects are causing gravitational effects in our dimension, this proves that things in the 4th dimension can/are interact(ing) with our dimension, 4 Dimensional people can interact with us. Or perhaps they have been for millions of years.

Questions like these could be answered.
Is God a 4 dimensional being?
Are aliens from the 4th dimension?
What would a being who could move in the fourth spatial dimension look like to us? Would these beings have teeth? If these beings evolved just like us, how would they look to us? Would they have internal organs like our own?

Would the beings look liked bags of skin or be more exotic?

What are the chances that we could learn to communicate at all with a 4-D extraterrestrial?

As a consequence of their access to a fourth dimension, what powers would seemingly amazing powers would they have? What would their sex acts be like? How might they think and act? How might we search for them?

If we encountered them, we would find they can perform levitation, bloodless surgery, disappear in front of our eyes, walk through walls. Nothing would be hidden from them, no matter how hard we tried to hide. Certainly if such a being was observed in biblical times, He would be considered a God with many characteristics of omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence. How would an encounter today affect our world and religion? What is the religious significance?

Would we be able to hear the speech of a 4-D being inches away in the fourth dimension? How would sound work? What would the being sound like using 4-D vocal cords? What happens to photons in four dimesions? For example, how do 4-D beings see? We don't seem to be "losing" photons into the fourth dimension, so I'm not clear how 4-D creatures would use them to see us or themselves...

Man I really want a hypercube wallpaper

..The most scientific among them would probably come up with a theory about how larger objects attract the smaller objects. Objects with a larger mass attract objects with smaller masses ...

Actually, it works both ways. Both objects attract each other. ANY mass will exert an acceleration on ANY other mass. That force is F = G·m1·m2/r², where G is the universal gravitational constant, the two masses are m1 and m2 and r is the distance between their centers (assuming we're talking about two bodies completely separated from each other).

Of course, the force m1 exerts on m2 is proportional to m1/m2 and therefore much smaller if m1 is much smaller. The acceleration that m1 imposes on m2 can be calculated from Newton's second law of motion, F = m·a. Therefore, F = m2·a = G·m1·m2/r². Dividing both sides of the 2nd equality by m2 results in a = G·m1/r², a being the acceleration m1 imposes on m2.

As for the rest of the discussion, I'm afraid this would have to have been a Friday night, about 20 years ago, after studies were done (and we had "fired up" the "DOOBIE" Brothers, wink-wink, nudge-nudge) before I'd have had much joy with what Jafo so appropriately labeled as esoterica.

I hope you get your wallpaper, Gizzimo.

BTW, last time I checked, most physicists involved in String Theory hypothesized a total of 11 dimensions. I could be out of date on that though. Maybe things have progressed where it's even more...



[Message Edited]
[Message Edited]
[Message Edited]

I will try to understand.

Later.....

this is confusing...

How could there be mass in a 2-d world? Doesn't mass require the 3rd dimension?

The 3d dimensional forces would have effects on a 2-d world. they just wouldn't perceive it as gravity. Then again, this all depends on whether or not dimensions can interact with each other. Gravity, from what we observe, is descendable. Meaning that if it exists in the 4th dimension, then it exists in the 3rd dimension, thus it exists in the 2nd dimension and so on.

5th dimension were good - never heard the other four...

How many dimensions are there? I once read something that said there were only 99 of them I think...


The 4th is confusing enough... maybe come to find out that we live in the 4th dimension and failed to realize it (Time is the fourth dimension???) and we should be trying to figure out the fifth.

What are the rules of saying what a dimension is or isn't? Is it a distance only? Only have to do with space or is Time and other elements components of it as well?

Dimensions are mathematical concepts.....some can be measured [4]...others are brain exercises, nothing more...

The fifth dimension has to do with ... OOWW my head hurts ..