Hypercube
Wednesday, March 31, 2004 by gizzimo | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
Yeah i'm a real big nerd + fanatic about higher dimensions? (particularly the 4th). uh this isn't an opinion post about it (although you say whatever you want about it) but mainly a request. Would it be possible for me to ask one of the designers here to create a really cool wallpaper of a Hypercube? (the cube within a cube perspective) and like, use all ur cool..effects to make it look good and illusionegetic etc..? yeah, cool. thanks. seeya.
 |
|
Page 3 of 4 | |
|
|---|
Sput
Reply #42 Monday, April 5, 2004 9:48 AM
Reply #42 Monday, April 5, 2004 9:48 AM
Jafo - not necessarily...if string theory were to be correct, then it would mean there are more than 3 spacial dimensions, but that the higher ones are "wrapped up tightly" such that we don't perceive them....and no, I can't imagine what that means exactly, but that's what Hawkins etc assure us 
BTW - string theory is currenly in a bit of crisis, but even the other challenging theories tend to predict real higher dimensions too.
Personnaly, I think all physists have fallen into a mass psychosis, like all the philosophers of old who spent years trying to work out how manay angels could dance on the head of a pin - I'm waiting for some youngster to come along and really explain it all, like the Emporors New Clothes 
[Message Edited]
BTW - string theory is currenly in a bit of crisis, but even the other challenging theories tend to predict real higher dimensions too.
Personnaly, I think all physists have fallen into a mass psychosis, like all the philosophers of old who spent years trying to work out how manay angels could dance on the head of a pin
- I'm waiting for some youngster to come along and really explain it all, like the Emporors New Clothes 
[Message Edited]
joetheblow
Reply #43 Tuesday, April 6, 2004 8:11 AM
Reply #43 Tuesday, April 6, 2004 8:11 AM
I think we live in all of those dimentions and just don't know about it.
Cool huh?
Cool huh?
gizzimo
Reply #44 Wednesday, April 7, 2004 9:24 PM
Reply #44 Wednesday, April 7, 2004 9:24 PM
Don't mean to brag... but I don't suppose anyone has started on a Hypercube wallpaper yet...?
Latin4567
Reply #45 Wednesday, April 7, 2004 9:45 PM
awww give him a break
this is really facinating stuff here
And he is right
We ARE confined to the 3rd demension
Reply #45 Wednesday, April 7, 2004 9:45 PM
| #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! |
awww give him a break
this is really facinating stuff here
And he is right
We ARE confined to the 3rd demension
crofttk
Reply #46 Wednesday, April 7, 2004 10:14 PM
Don't you mean "nag" ???
[Message Edited]
Reply #46 Wednesday, April 7, 2004 10:14 PM
| #44 by gizzimo - 4/7/2004 9:24:25 PM Don't mean to brag.. |
[Message Edited]
Nullify
Reply #47 Thursday, April 15, 2004 4:54 PM
I'm the Adam that gizzimo is quoting and the above quote was the exact thing I was trying to make him aware of, which he was ignoring. My point was that in a 3D point of view, the second dimension would have no mass. What wasn't made clear was that later on, my point was what was trying to be told to me from Matt. I never disagreed with the concept of a 2D world from inside that world and, despite being called unimaginative, on the grounds that my point wasn't being listened to, it would seem, I could imagine what it would be like in flatland from the moment it was told to me. Since This wouldn't have been made clear by anyone else, I thought I'd do it myself, and remove any thoughts that I'm stupidly unimaginative.
Reply #47 Thursday, April 15, 2004 4:54 PM
| How could there be mass in a 2-d world? Doesn't mass require the 3rd dimension? |
I'm the Adam that gizzimo is quoting and the above quote was the exact thing I was trying to make him aware of, which he was ignoring. My point was that in a 3D point of view, the second dimension would have no mass. What wasn't made clear was that later on, my point was what was trying to be told to me from Matt. I never disagreed with the concept of a 2D world from inside that world and, despite being called unimaginative, on the grounds that my point wasn't being listened to, it would seem, I could imagine what it would be like in flatland from the moment it was told to me. Since This wouldn't have been made clear by anyone else, I thought I'd do it myself, and remove any thoughts that I'm stupidly unimaginative.
DesignCaddy
Reply #48 Thursday, April 15, 2004 8:00 PM
Reply #48 Thursday, April 15, 2004 8:00 PM
i just wanted to say, this is some very cool stuff. i enjoy reading about it.
lCine7ic
Reply #49 Friday, May 28, 2004 1:49 PM
Reply #49 Friday, May 28, 2004 1:49 PM
INDEED THIS IS AN INTERESTING TOPICI CREATED AN ACCOUNT B/C I WANTED TO RESPOND TO THIS POST.
Very interesting. In response, I think gravity is more dependant on mass density than actual dimensions itself. In your excellent example (I could actually visualize the situation on the first pass through the paragraph), science leads us to believe that the mass of the bowling ball is what caused the trampoline to sinknot the actual size or dimension of the bowling ball. What if you had placed an air-filled balloon of the same size on the trampoline (assuming it stayed in place and did not blow away)the trampoline would not sink and the people would not come up with the same conclusion. The mass of an object is the sum of all the smallest building blocks (as far as we know, quarks and leptons at this point) in that objectand a quark has some volume.
BUT, in your defensesingularities... For those who don't know, singularities (in space, the essence of a black hole) is a point with infinate density. One could describe the equation as
density = b/a ,limit (a->0), limit (b->infinity).
We have observed black holes (light and matter being pulled of a black hole / star binary pair) but as far as Hawkings idea bout density going to infinity... I'm not expert but I would be more prone to saying that the matter is going into a 4th diminsion then being packed into a decreasingly small volume.
Interesting as well. I think that for a 2D world and a 3D world to co-exist in the same "space", the unity "height" diminsion of the circle that flatlanders would perceive in the 2D world would seem to me to be defined for all height in the 3D world... from -infinately to positive infinately in the 3rd diminsion this would appear as an infinately long cylindar in the 3D world. This is not intuitive. I ask you to consider that we only can define a 2D circle but in the tangible world, they can only exist in our mind or on screen. Draw a circle on paper. It appears to be 2D, no doubt, but the boundries of the circle are defined by the ink bled into the paper and the paper does have some thickness. So for the circle / dot examplelet the dot actually be a flatlander. in the 2D world he is contained by the circle. for a flatlander to be contained by the circle in the 3D world and him not notice the 3rd diminsion, either the flatlander and the circle is infinately tall (a tube and infinately long flatlander throughout the universe) or the exact oppositethe flatlander and containing circle cease to be in the 3D world.
So what am I saying? I am saying that everything we perceive outside only exists for diminsions of 3 or greater. a straight line, what we would call 1-D, actually is N-D where N is the number of actual existing diminsions, if N is even a static integer. Say the line is measured in length, then the diminsions of the line are the length, L, and one (for unity's sake) for every other diminsion that applies at that particular instant.
I also could argue that all of the measurements, M, of all other diminsions (width, depth, jitch...) could be defined as the limit of M approaching 0.
All this rambling to say that an object with the value of 0 for any of N spacial diminsions would actually imply that object did not exist.
Wow...
| 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. -) |
Very interesting. In response, I think gravity is more dependant on mass density than actual dimensions itself. In your excellent example (I could actually visualize the situation on the first pass through the paragraph), science leads us to believe that the mass of the bowling ball is what caused the trampoline to sinknot the actual size or dimension of the bowling ball. What if you had placed an air-filled balloon of the same size on the trampoline (assuming it stayed in place and did not blow away)the trampoline would not sink and the people would not come up with the same conclusion. The mass of an object is the sum of all the smallest building blocks (as far as we know, quarks and leptons at this point) in that objectand a quark has some volume.
BUT, in your defensesingularities... For those who don't know, singularities (in space, the essence of a black hole) is a point with infinate density. One could describe the equation as
density = b/a ,limit (a->0), limit (b->infinity).
We have observed black holes (light and matter being pulled of a black hole / star binary pair) but as far as Hawkings idea bout density going to infinity... I'm not expert but I would be more prone to saying that the matter is going into a 4th diminsion then being packed into a decreasingly small volume.
| 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 |
Interesting as well. I think that for a 2D world and a 3D world to co-exist in the same "space", the unity "height" diminsion of the circle that flatlanders would perceive in the 2D world would seem to me to be defined for all height in the 3D world... from -infinately to positive infinately in the 3rd diminsion this would appear as an infinately long cylindar in the 3D world. This is not intuitive. I ask you to consider that we only can define a 2D circle but in the tangible world, they can only exist in our mind or on screen. Draw a circle on paper. It appears to be 2D, no doubt, but the boundries of the circle are defined by the ink bled into the paper and the paper does have some thickness. So for the circle / dot examplelet the dot actually be a flatlander. in the 2D world he is contained by the circle. for a flatlander to be contained by the circle in the 3D world and him not notice the 3rd diminsion, either the flatlander and the circle is infinately tall (a tube and infinately long flatlander throughout the universe) or the exact oppositethe flatlander and containing circle cease to be in the 3D world.
So what am I saying? I am saying that everything we perceive outside only exists for diminsions of 3 or greater. a straight line, what we would call 1-D, actually is N-D where N is the number of actual existing diminsions, if N is even a static integer. Say the line is measured in length, then the diminsions of the line are the length, L, and one (for unity's sake) for every other diminsion that applies at that particular instant.
I also could argue that all of the measurements, M, of all other diminsions (width, depth, jitch...) could be defined as the limit of M approaching 0.
All this rambling to say that an object with the value of 0 for any of N spacial diminsions would actually imply that object did not exist.
Wow...
DesignCaddy
Reply #50 Friday, May 28, 2004 2:24 PM
Reply #50 Friday, May 28, 2004 2:24 PM
i think i understand what you're saying.. so we physically see the universe goes on forever because it is really shaped in a dimension that we can not perceive?
Essencay
Reply #51 Friday, May 28, 2004 4:58 PM
Reply #51 Friday, May 28, 2004 4:58 PM
None of it can exist. If there are 4-dimensional creatures, they cannot go willy-nilly in and out of our 3-dimensional existence any more than we can do the same in any other lesser number of dimensions. As soon as you remove the existence of any number of dimensions needed to create that dimension that object becomes invisible in that dimension. What I mean is that as a 3-dimensional being I cannot see a point: 0-dimensional a line: 1-dimensional or a square: 2-dimensional unless the point, line or square is part of a 3-dimensional object. I need the existence of a 3-dimensional object to see the other dimensions.
An empty white room....
If you suspend a black point in an empty white room, no matter where you are standing you cannot see it, because it has no dimensions. Same goes for a black line or a black square. Now some of you will say, okay I see your point on the line and the point, but if I stand perpendicular to the square, I'll see it. You won't, because it has no depth, some infinitely small distance of depth has to exist in order to see it, making it 3-dimensional. Put a black cube in the same room, you can see it no problem. Now start to flatten that cube, no matter how flat you can make it, you cannot flatten it to the point where it is two dimensional, if you did it would simply disappear from your vision.
A block of cheese....
Go in the fridge and get a block of cheese and look at it. The 8 corners where the 6 sides meet are points: 0-dimensional and you can see them. Get out a knife and cut away all the cheese except the 8 points, you can't. The 12 edges where the 6 sides meet are 1-dimensional and you can see them, again try cutting away the cheese until all there is are the 12 edges, you can't. Finally, the 6 2-dimensional sides that make up the block of cheese, try removing just one side, you can't.
An image on your monitor....
2-dimensional, yes, but only because it is projected on the side of a 3-dimensional object...your screen. Get an overhead projector and try viewing it's 2-dimensional projection without having something to project it on, you can't.
As for that Matrix thing showing the existence of a 4th dimension it doesn't. It'll take a while and I'd probably drown in the Atlantic first, but theoritically (Sic) if I step out my front door and head due east, I'll eventually end up standing where I was in the first place.
As for the Adam talking to Max the 4th dimension thing was kinda weird.
As for the universe going on forever, it doesn't, it ends. We cannot see the end because it is a infinitely large number, just like we cannot see the smallest distance, a point, because it is an infinitely small number.
That's my theory on the whole thing.
An empty white room....
If you suspend a black point in an empty white room, no matter where you are standing you cannot see it, because it has no dimensions. Same goes for a black line or a black square. Now some of you will say, okay I see your point on the line and the point, but if I stand perpendicular to the square, I'll see it. You won't, because it has no depth, some infinitely small distance of depth has to exist in order to see it, making it 3-dimensional. Put a black cube in the same room, you can see it no problem. Now start to flatten that cube, no matter how flat you can make it, you cannot flatten it to the point where it is two dimensional, if you did it would simply disappear from your vision.
A block of cheese....
Go in the fridge and get a block of cheese and look at it. The 8 corners where the 6 sides meet are points: 0-dimensional and you can see them. Get out a knife and cut away all the cheese except the 8 points, you can't. The 12 edges where the 6 sides meet are 1-dimensional and you can see them, again try cutting away the cheese until all there is are the 12 edges, you can't. Finally, the 6 2-dimensional sides that make up the block of cheese, try removing just one side, you can't.
An image on your monitor....
2-dimensional, yes, but only because it is projected on the side of a 3-dimensional object...your screen. Get an overhead projector and try viewing it's 2-dimensional projection without having something to project it on, you can't.
As for that Matrix thing showing the existence of a 4th dimension it doesn't. It'll take a while and I'd probably drown in the Atlantic first, but theoritically (Sic) if I step out my front door and head due east, I'll eventually end up standing where I was in the first place.
As for the Adam talking to Max the 4th dimension thing was kinda weird.
As for the universe going on forever, it doesn't, it ends. We cannot see the end because it is a infinitely large number, just like we cannot see the smallest distance, a point, because it is an infinitely small number.
That's my theory on the whole thing.
Weaksid
Reply #52 Saturday, May 29, 2004 3:28 AM
That's just too much info to read in 51posts. I basically skimmed it. You might manage to get close to a true 3D if you can create a graphic that plays with both eyes a certain way that it pops out of the screen. But you need to do a study to see how exactly you can go about to do that. Just a suggestion.
Reply #52 Saturday, May 29, 2004 3:28 AM
That's just too much info to read in 51posts. I basically skimmed it. You might manage to get close to a true 3D if you can create a graphic that plays with both eyes a certain way that it pops out of the screen. But you need to do a study to see how exactly you can go about to do that. Just a suggestion.
gizzimo
Reply #53 Thursday, June 17, 2004 5:31 AM
Reply #53 Thursday, June 17, 2004 5:31 AM
I just want to appologise to Adam for calling him stupid(er). I know it's taken me a while but understand my suffering from having my PC removed for ...certain reasons.
Adam, sorry. I know I should not have made the impression to all these superemely imaginative gentlemen, but I was only asking for help on how to convince you. You're not stupid. on the contrary, I think you're the most creative and intelligent person I have ever met, and every time i come to your house, it's like visiting some inspirationist or modern Einstien. You're not aware of it but I always talk about you to Stacie and Jason... Sometimes I make myself responsible for the such interesting explanations lol (sorry, physics) phlagerism?
Anyways... So yeah, you're not stupid, I just wanted to understand and visualise flatland, i mean it is possible if you simply downgrade the relativity to our own dimension (for example, there is no such thing as 'on top of' which means that they are not living 'on top of' a solid land, so they must be floating in the confinement of their dimension (if we went in to space we'd be floating in OUR confinement of dimensions).
Adam, sorry. I know I should not have made the impression to all these superemely imaginative gentlemen, but I was only asking for help on how to convince you. You're not stupid. on the contrary, I think you're the most creative and intelligent person I have ever met, and every time i come to your house, it's like visiting some inspirationist or modern Einstien. You're not aware of it but I always talk about you to Stacie and Jason... Sometimes I make myself responsible for the such interesting explanations lol (sorry, physics) phlagerism?
Anyways... So yeah, you're not stupid, I just wanted to understand and visualise flatland, i mean it is possible if you simply downgrade the relativity to our own dimension (for example, there is no such thing as 'on top of' which means that they are not living 'on top of' a solid land, so they must be floating in the confinement of their dimension (if we went in to space we'd be floating in OUR confinement of dimensions).
gizzimo
Reply #54 Thursday, June 17, 2004 6:53 AM
Reply #54 Thursday, June 17, 2004 6:53 AM
Oh and one thing that's become interesting. I was trying to find out why most people believe that time is the 4th dimension. Now, they were right that it's time, but not that it was the 4th dimension. Actually, time is eternity, it's now. It will always be the superior. What i mean is, in the 4th spatial dimension, time will be the '5th' dimension, it will always be above.
Here's how i came up with this crappy theory:
It came to me that the 4th dimension is actually a mark, a signature to represent our time code.
It then struck me a question that I still remain incapable of answering...
"is real time in real time?"
Now, real time is a time period that cannot be interrupted and collaborates with the universal theory of relativity (relativity allows us to see physics outside of them, in essence)
But how can we know if real time is IN real time whilst we're INSIDE this time realm? no way of knowing.
For example, you stick, let's say, Final Fantasy 7 on yeah? now, there's a real time clock on there isn't there? when you go to the menu i believe. But this 'real time' clock does not run whilst the game is off (some may realise that 67 hours of game play was quite a shock since most people spend around 400 completing the game - well now you know why)
So, to Cloud, time is in real time. but when we save the game and turn the computer off, he ain't running, he is frozen immaculately. So the next day after school/work we turn the game on and resume it. To Cloud, that moment of frozeness was instantaneous to him, time didn't really stop it all.
So we get what's called Active Time. This time realm is actually a label for what we give to time that can only be truly observed from the OUTSIDE of that time realm.
How do you know we're not in Active Time? The 4th dimension could very well be scrutinizing us.
Another example (which sort of contradicts Paxx's trampoline theory - sorry):
alright, so dimensions are layers connected by their verticies. right? but the thing is, verticies allows not only interaction, but actual light, sound, physical matter and insbustantial matter. So how in the hell could a ball press down on the 2nd dimension from the 3rd without the 2nd dimensional world being connected to the 3rd dimensional? but if Flatland was connected to us, it wouldn't be flat anymore would it? so really, there is no way of interacting with Flatland, visually or physically.
The thing is though, who's theory was it on Space Curvature? was it Eintsien? I don't remember. The point is, that if we did twist Flatland, they wouldn't notice. They cannot, they can only see 2 dimensions.
To imagine this easier, imagine an Orange peel, being flat yeah? now, even if we got hold of it, and twisted it around, to anyone's POV on their it would still be essentially flat right?
So if we bent Flatland, they would see it Flat, they wouldn't notice Jack basically is what i'm saying.
What if our Dimension is being twisted also? possibly.
The thing is though, is that don't they say that the fastest way forward is a straight line?
imagine a circle in your head now, and a person in that circle does 10 laps around it (to him it's a straight line) and he completes 10 laps in 10 minutes alright? exactly 10 minutes.
But if we twisted this circle into some sort of kite circuit with 8 bends for instance, (it still looking like a straight line to his POV) he would still complete 10 laps in 10 minutes. But we've just bended the lines, which means we've made it a longer trip.
So when he completes 10 laps in 10 minutes, to us, he has actually taken longer since we bended the circuit. So to us, he took... 10 minutes and..20 seconds?
This is relative i've checked it out.
So there's your evidence right there, a 20 second time gap, to him 10 minutes, to us 10 mins 20 secs. So his dimension has a completely different time zone to us, making his dimension running in Active Time, and the superior Dimension running in Real Time.
But really, Real Time is only an illusion, because to the 5 dimensioners, 4 dimensional worlds would follow the same result.
So there you go, Time is only an illusion, and it's just like a rainbow, get nearer to it? and it will only move away from you.
Welcome to the realisation of Active Time, you have probably just been interrupted by a 1 million year time elapse and you haven't even noticed it.
Whew.... has uh...anyone done a Hypercube wallpwaper yet?!?!????
Mr. J
Here's how i came up with this crappy theory:
It came to me that the 4th dimension is actually a mark, a signature to represent our time code.
It then struck me a question that I still remain incapable of answering...
"is real time in real time?"
Now, real time is a time period that cannot be interrupted and collaborates with the universal theory of relativity (relativity allows us to see physics outside of them, in essence)
But how can we know if real time is IN real time whilst we're INSIDE this time realm? no way of knowing.
For example, you stick, let's say, Final Fantasy 7 on yeah? now, there's a real time clock on there isn't there? when you go to the menu i believe. But this 'real time' clock does not run whilst the game is off (some may realise that 67 hours of game play was quite a shock since most people spend around 400 completing the game - well now you know why)
So, to Cloud, time is in real time. but when we save the game and turn the computer off, he ain't running, he is frozen immaculately. So the next day after school/work we turn the game on and resume it. To Cloud, that moment of frozeness was instantaneous to him, time didn't really stop it all.
So we get what's called Active Time. This time realm is actually a label for what we give to time that can only be truly observed from the OUTSIDE of that time realm.
How do you know we're not in Active Time? The 4th dimension could very well be scrutinizing us.
Another example (which sort of contradicts Paxx's trampoline theory - sorry):
alright, so dimensions are layers connected by their verticies. right? but the thing is, verticies allows not only interaction, but actual light, sound, physical matter and insbustantial matter. So how in the hell could a ball press down on the 2nd dimension from the 3rd without the 2nd dimensional world being connected to the 3rd dimensional? but if Flatland was connected to us, it wouldn't be flat anymore would it? so really, there is no way of interacting with Flatland, visually or physically.
The thing is though, who's theory was it on Space Curvature? was it Eintsien? I don't remember. The point is, that if we did twist Flatland, they wouldn't notice. They cannot, they can only see 2 dimensions.
To imagine this easier, imagine an Orange peel, being flat yeah? now, even if we got hold of it, and twisted it around, to anyone's POV on their it would still be essentially flat right?
So if we bent Flatland, they would see it Flat, they wouldn't notice Jack basically is what i'm saying.
What if our Dimension is being twisted also? possibly.
The thing is though, is that don't they say that the fastest way forward is a straight line?
imagine a circle in your head now, and a person in that circle does 10 laps around it (to him it's a straight line) and he completes 10 laps in 10 minutes alright? exactly 10 minutes.
But if we twisted this circle into some sort of kite circuit with 8 bends for instance, (it still looking like a straight line to his POV) he would still complete 10 laps in 10 minutes. But we've just bended the lines, which means we've made it a longer trip.
So when he completes 10 laps in 10 minutes, to us, he has actually taken longer since we bended the circuit. So to us, he took... 10 minutes and..20 seconds?
This is relative i've checked it out.
So there's your evidence right there, a 20 second time gap, to him 10 minutes, to us 10 mins 20 secs. So his dimension has a completely different time zone to us, making his dimension running in Active Time, and the superior Dimension running in Real Time.
But really, Real Time is only an illusion, because to the 5 dimensioners, 4 dimensional worlds would follow the same result.
So there you go, Time is only an illusion, and it's just like a rainbow, get nearer to it? and it will only move away from you.
Welcome to the realisation of Active Time, you have probably just been interrupted by a 1 million year time elapse and you haven't even noticed it.
Whew.... has uh...anyone done a Hypercube wallpwaper yet?!?!????
Mr. J
crofttk
Reply #55 Thursday, June 17, 2004 12:18 PM
Reply #55 Thursday, June 17, 2004 12:18 PM
You said you bent it not stretched so its not longer.
gizzimo
Reply #56 Friday, June 18, 2004 6:29 AM
Reply #56 Friday, June 18, 2004 6:29 AM
I didn't say it was longer, I said it would be a longer trip.
I stated that the fastest way froward is a straight line. Alright? But if we bent their dimension so the little man is no longer running in a straight line (to us. the superior), he will not be running as fast (to us) because he is running around a bend. This would be relative to our (superior) motion. Now the 'little man', from his dimensional POV, he will still be running a straight line, taking him 10 mins to do 10 laps. The ultimate time gap will be compensated by a relative, telescopic time zone (EG, each lap adds 2 secs to the time gap). But in that new time zone, they will also be in active time (thinking they are also in real time), this is how I think time grows.
I would bend their dimension (keeping their physics of time, obviously) from our POV since verticies are not connected. So it would be a longer trip (to superior).
I stated that the fastest way froward is a straight line. Alright? But if we bent their dimension so the little man is no longer running in a straight line (to us. the superior), he will not be running as fast (to us) because he is running around a bend. This would be relative to our (superior) motion. Now the 'little man', from his dimensional POV, he will still be running a straight line, taking him 10 mins to do 10 laps. The ultimate time gap will be compensated by a relative, telescopic time zone (EG, each lap adds 2 secs to the time gap). But in that new time zone, they will also be in active time (thinking they are also in real time), this is how I think time grows.
I would bend their dimension (keeping their physics of time, obviously) from our POV since verticies are not connected. So it would be a longer trip (to superior).
_footsie_
Reply #59 Saturday, June 19, 2004 8:51 AM
yeah both concepts are a little strange to each other....it's a GOOD thing though...I mean....the concepts
Reply #59 Saturday, June 19, 2004 8:51 AM
yeah both concepts are a little strange to each other....it's a GOOD thing though...I mean....the concepts
DesignCaddy
Reply #60 Monday, June 21, 2004 7:11 PM
Reply #60 Monday, June 21, 2004 7:11 PM
you know who needs to join this converstation (and start skinning his computer) .. spethen hawking.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 3 of 4 | |
|
|---|
Reply #41 Monday, April 5, 2004 9:43 AM
Most string theories need at least 8 dimensions for the maths to work, but some of them need up to 15. Non of these have been solidly established as yet though, and it's all right at the cutting edge of science so expect the theories to change yet.
I think the more esoteric theories requiring more than 15 dimensions are mostly on the fringe at the moment - but I don't think higher numbers of dimensions are ruled out even by the leading theories. The theories tend to need "at least x dimensions" rather than predicting an exact number.