[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]The fifth dimension contains cubes with more than six faces!xaos
Well, strictly speaking, it's not a cube then :) Rather, it's the fifth dimensional analogue of the three-dimensional object called a cube. No, people there still call it a cube. They're clueless.
I'm guessing most peoples' brains are hurting trying to imagine this. Try watching this: http://www.tenthdimension.com/flash2.phpAndy7546
While interesting, just added to the pain my brain is currently feeling. Recently, I was just getting use to the idea of the so called "4th dimension," and now, supposedly, there are another 6 dimension out there on top of it.
Other than that, as the risk of coming off as simpleton or ignorant person, gotta love how we cannot see any of this stuff beyond the 3rd dimension. With that being said, while obvious, it must be said, where is the potential evidence at? Do they even have any? Or is just purely bunch of guessing and wondering?
Hooray for unobservable dimensions! You can't disprove them.Oleg_Huzwog
With the LHC, we'll be able to prove'em according to current calculations.
Anyways, y'all should read The Fabric of the Cosmos and/or the Elegant Universe, both by Brian Greene; he writes about this stuff in a manner that allows the common man to understand it, without destroying its scientific basis.
[QUOTE="dooly420"][QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="R-Dot-Yung"]making my brain hurt, i know im in a dimension and im just gonna live in it without worrying about other onesDeeJayInphinity
Actually, you are in 4! actually, it's only 3. Four.. The three spatial dimension plus time.. a good analogy.. an apartment's address. You need the x-axis, the y-axis, the z-axis, and the time. The party is at: 123 Some St. apt. #400, starting at 9pm.
[QUOTE="dooly420"][QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="R-Dot-Yung"]making my brain hurt, i know im in a dimension and im just gonna live in it without worrying about other onesxaos
Actually, you are in 4! actually, it's only 3. You are timeless? seeing how you can only go one direction in time, i don't see how you can say you are experiencing the full effects of that dimension. the first dimension is forward and backward. the second dimension is left and right. the third dimension is up and down. we can experience all those at any given moment. but you can only go forward in time, not backwards. if anything you could say it's the 3 1/2 dimension.
[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="dooly420"][QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="R-Dot-Yung"]making my brain hurt, i know im in a dimension and im just gonna live in it without worrying about other onesdooly420
Actually, you are in 4! actually, it's only 3. Four.. The three spatial dimension plus time.. a good analogy.. an apartment's address. You need the x-axis, the y-axis, the z-axis, and the time. The party is at: 123 Some St. apt. #400, starting at 9pm.
[QUOTE="dooly420"][QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="R-Dot-Yung"]making my brain hurt, i know im in a dimension and im just gonna live in it without worrying about other onesxaos
Actually, you are in 4! actually, it's only 3. You are timeless? seeing how you can only go one direction in time, i don't see how you can say you are experiencing the full effects of that dimension. the first dimension is forward and backward. the second dimension is left and right. the third dimension is up and down. we can experience all those at any given moment. but you can only go forward in time, not backwards. if anything you could say it's the 3 1/2 dimension. Just because we perceive time as "moving" forward, the past doesn't cease to exist. We know it was there and causality gives us evidence of it. An inability to navigate freely in a dimension doesn't make it not a dimension, any more than a leaf floating on a river means that upstream for it's current location doesn't exist.
[QUOTE="dooly420"][QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="dooly420"][QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="R-Dot-Yung"]making my brain hurt, i know im in a dimension and im just gonna live in it without worrying about other onesxaos
Actually, you are in 4! actually, it's only 3. Four.. The three spatial dimension plus time.. a good analogy.. an apartment's address. You need the x-axis, the y-axis, the z-axis, and the time. The party is at: 123 Some St. apt. #400, starting at 9pm.
[QUOTE="dooly420"][QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="R-Dot-Yung"]making my brain hurt, i know im in a dimension and im just gonna live in it without worrying about other onesxaos
Actually, you are in 4! actually, it's only 3. You are timeless? seeing how you can only go one direction in time, i don't see how you can say you are experiencing the full effects of that dimension. the first dimension is forward and backward. the second dimension is left and right. the third dimension is up and down. we can experience all those at any given moment. but you can only go forward in time, not backwards. if anything you could say it's the 3 1/2 dimension. Just because we perceive time as "moving" forward, the past doesn't cease to exist. We know it was there and causality gives us evidence of it. An inability to navigate freely in a dimension doesn't make it not a dimension, any more than a leaf floating on a river means that upstream for it's current location doesn't exist. but at no point has time gone backwards. it has never been 11 am and then an hour later it be 10 am. the fact that you can go one direction in time, while being able to go in two in the other dimensions means that we are not experiencing it as a full dimension.
[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="dooly420"][QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="dooly420"][QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="R-Dot-Yung"]making my brain hurt, i know im in a dimension and im just gonna live in it without worrying about other onesdooly420
Actually, you are in 4! actually, it's only 3. Four.. The three spatial dimension plus time.. a good analogy.. an apartment's address. You need the x-axis, the y-axis, the z-axis, and the time. The party is at: 123 Some St. apt. #400, starting at 9pm.
[QUOTE="dooly420"][QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="R-Dot-Yung"]making my brain hurt, i know im in a dimension and im just gonna live in it without worrying about other onesxaos
Actually, you are in 4! actually, it's only 3. You are timeless? seeing how you can only go one direction in time, i don't see how you can say you are experiencing the full effects of that dimension. the first dimension is forward and backward. the second dimension is left and right. the third dimension is up and down. we can experience all those at any given moment. but you can only go forward in time, not backwards. if anything you could say it's the 3 1/2 dimension. Just because we perceive time as "moving" forward, the past doesn't cease to exist. We know it was there and causality gives us evidence of it. An inability to navigate freely in a dimension doesn't make it not a dimension, any more than a leaf floating on a river means that upstream for it's current location doesn't exist. but at no point has time gone backwards. it has never been 11 am and then an hour later it be 10 am. the fact that you can go one direction in time, while being able to go in two in the other dimensions means that we are not experiencing it as a full dimension. You are mistaking our perception of time for the existence of distinct points in time; an hour later from 10A is, by definition, 11A. It's like saying that going ten miles up has never gone 10 miles down and is a tautological impossibility.
[QUOTE="dooly420"][QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="dooly420"][QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="dooly420"][QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="R-Dot-Yung"]making my brain hurt, i know im in a dimension and im just gonna live in it without worrying about other onesxaos
Actually, you are in 4! actually, it's only 3. Four.. The three spatial dimension plus time.. a good analogy.. an apartment's address. You need the x-axis, the y-axis, the z-axis, and the time. The party is at: 123 Some St. apt. #400, starting at 9pm.
[QUOTE="dooly420"][QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="R-Dot-Yung"]making my brain hurt, i know im in a dimension and im just gonna live in it without worrying about other onesxaos
Actually, you are in 4! actually, it's only 3. You are timeless? seeing how you can only go one direction in time, i don't see how you can say you are experiencing the full effects of that dimension. the first dimension is forward and backward. the second dimension is left and right. the third dimension is up and down. we can experience all those at any given moment. but you can only go forward in time, not backwards. if anything you could say it's the 3 1/2 dimension. Just because we perceive time as "moving" forward, the past doesn't cease to exist. We know it was there and causality gives us evidence of it. An inability to navigate freely in a dimension doesn't make it not a dimension, any more than a leaf floating on a river means that upstream for it's current location doesn't exist. but at no point has time gone backwards. it has never been 11 am and then an hour later it be 10 am. the fact that you can go one direction in time, while being able to go in two in the other dimensions means that we are not experiencing it as a full dimension. You are mistaking our perception of time for the existence of distinct points in time; an hour later from 10A is, by definition, 11A. It's like saying that going ten miles up has never gone 10 miles down and is a tautological impossibility. but an hour later from 11 am has never, nor will never, be 10 am. so that makes it an impossibility.
but an hour later from 11 am has never, nor will never, be 10 am. so that makes it an impossibility.dooly420
Right, because that is how 10A and 11A are defined; like my example before, saying 10 miles north will never be 10 miles south because that is how we have labeled the axes.
I received The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene in the mail today. So far this book is really really interesting without an overload of technical information. I definitely recommend it.
[QUOTE="dooly420"]but an hour later from 11 am has never, nor will never, be 10 am. so that makes it an impossibility.xaos
Right, because that is how 10A and 11A are defined; like my example before, saying 10 miles north will never be 10 miles south because that is how we have labeled the axes. you misunderstanding what i said, made me misunderstand what you said. i was using that as an example. i'm not talking about the definitions. i'm talking about the standard measurement for time. not how we defined the words used to express it. you're just arguing semantics now.
[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="dooly420"]but an hour later from 11 am has never, nor will never, be 10 am. so that makes it an impossibility.dooly420
Right, because that is how 10A and 11A are defined; like my example before, saying 10 miles north will never be 10 miles south because that is how we have labeled the axes. you misunderstanding what i said, made me misunderstand what you said. i was using that as an example. i'm not talking about the definitions. i'm talking about the standard measurement for time. not how we defined the words used to express it. you're just arguing semantics now.
Time is a dimension... case in point, relativeity.
[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="dooly420"]but an hour later from 11 am has never, nor will never, be 10 am. so that makes it an impossibility.dooly420
Right, because that is how 10A and 11A are defined; like my example before, saying 10 miles north will never be 10 miles south because that is how we have labeled the axes. you misunderstanding what i said, made me misunderstand what you said. i was using that as an example. i'm not talking about the definitions. i'm talking about the standard measurement for time. not how we defined the words used to express it. you're just arguing semantics now. Semantics are crucial in talking about how things are measured. Let me try a different example; you are in free fall and thus can only move downward, not up. Does that make up and down a half dimension? There is no guarantee of being able to move in both directions, you are still moving linearly from past to future, and that makes a dimension.
[QUOTE="dooly420"][QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="dooly420"]but an hour later from 11 am has never, nor will never, be 10 am. so that makes it an impossibility.xaos
Right, because that is how 10A and 11A are defined; like my example before, saying 10 miles north will never be 10 miles south because that is how we have labeled the axes. you misunderstanding what i said, made me misunderstand what you said. i was using that as an example. i'm not talking about the definitions. i'm talking about the standard measurement for time. not how we defined the words used to express it. you're just arguing semantics now. Semantics are crucial in talking about how things are measured. Let me try a different example; you are in free fall and thus can only move downward, not up. Does that make up and down a half dimension? There is no guarantee of being able to move in both directions, you are still moving linearly from past to future, and that makes a dimension. once you hit the ground you bounce back up. so you will eventually move upward. but at no point will you ever start going into the past.
[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="dooly420"][QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="dooly420"]but an hour later from 11 am has never, nor will never, be 10 am. so that makes it an impossibility.dooly420
Right, because that is how 10A and 11A are defined; like my example before, saying 10 miles north will never be 10 miles south because that is how we have labeled the axes. you misunderstanding what i said, made me misunderstand what you said. i was using that as an example. i'm not talking about the definitions. i'm talking about the standard measurement for time. not how we defined the words used to express it. you're just arguing semantics now. Semantics are crucial in talking about how things are measured. Let me try a different example; you are in free fall and thus can only move downward, not up. Does that make up and down a half dimension? There is no guarantee of being able to move in both directions, you are still moving linearly from past to future, and that makes a dimension. once you hit the ground you bounce back up. so you will eventually move upward. but at no point will you ever start going into the past. ARG; I keep saying and don't know any easier way to say it. You don't have to be able to move in a direction for it to exist. We move from past to present and future; there's a line there and that makes the axis of a dimension. If that doesn't make sense to you, I'll just give up, because I know no way to make it any clearer than that.
[QUOTE="dooly420"][QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="dooly420"][QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="dooly420"]but an hour later from 11 am has never, nor will never, be 10 am. so that makes it an impossibility.xaos
Right, because that is how 10A and 11A are defined; like my example before, saying 10 miles north will never be 10 miles south because that is how we have labeled the axes. you misunderstanding what i said, made me misunderstand what you said. i was using that as an example. i'm not talking about the definitions. i'm talking about the standard measurement for time. not how we defined the words used to express it. you're just arguing semantics now. Semantics are crucial in talking about how things are measured. Let me try a different example; you are in free fall and thus can only move downward, not up. Does that make up and down a half dimension? There is no guarantee of being able to move in both directions, you are still moving linearly from past to future, and that makes a dimension. once you hit the ground you bounce back up. so you will eventually move upward. but at no point will you ever start going into the past. ARG; I keep saying and don't know any easier way to say it. You don't have to be able to move in a direction for it to exist. We move from past to present and future; there's a line there and that makes the axis of a dimension. If that doesn't make sense to you, I'll just give up, because I know no way to make it any clearer than that. i understand what you're saying, but the fact that you can only move in one direction in that line means you don't experience the dimension of time as a whole.
[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="dooly420"][QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="dooly420"][QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="dooly420"]but an hour later from 11 am has never, nor will never, be 10 am. so that makes it an impossibility.dooly420
Right, because that is how 10A and 11A are defined; like my example before, saying 10 miles north will never be 10 miles south because that is how we have labeled the axes. you misunderstanding what i said, made me misunderstand what you said. i was using that as an example. i'm not talking about the definitions. i'm talking about the standard measurement for time. not how we defined the words used to express it. you're just arguing semantics now. Semantics are crucial in talking about how things are measured. Let me try a different example; you are in free fall and thus can only move downward, not up. Does that make up and down a half dimension? There is no guarantee of being able to move in both directions, you are still moving linearly from past to future, and that makes a dimension. once you hit the ground you bounce back up. so you will eventually move upward. but at no point will you ever start going into the past. ARG; I keep saying and don't know any easier way to say it. You don't have to be able to move in a direction for it to exist. We move from past to present and future; there's a line there and that makes the axis of a dimension. If that doesn't make sense to you, I'll just give up, because I know no way to make it any clearer than that. i understand what you're saying, but the fact that you can only move in one direction in that line means you don't experience the dimension of time as a whole. Sure you do, you constantly move through time
[QUOTE="dooly420"][QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="dooly420"][QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="dooly420"][QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="dooly420"]but an hour later from 11 am has never, nor will never, be 10 am. so that makes it an impossibility.xaos
Right, because that is how 10A and 11A are defined; like my example before, saying 10 miles north will never be 10 miles south because that is how we have labeled the axes. you misunderstanding what i said, made me misunderstand what you said. i was using that as an example. i'm not talking about the definitions. i'm talking about the standard measurement for time. not how we defined the words used to express it. you're just arguing semantics now. Semantics are crucial in talking about how things are measured. Let me try a different example; you are in free fall and thus can only move downward, not up. Does that make up and down a half dimension? There is no guarantee of being able to move in both directions, you are still moving linearly from past to future, and that makes a dimension. once you hit the ground you bounce back up. so you will eventually move upward. but at no point will you ever start going into the past. ARG; I keep saying and don't know any easier way to say it. You don't have to be able to move in a direction for it to exist. We move from past to present and future; there's a line there and that makes the axis of a dimension. If that doesn't make sense to you, I'll just give up, because I know no way to make it any clearer than that. i understand what you're saying, but the fact that you can only move in one direction in that line means you don't experience the dimension of time as a whole. Sure you do, you constantly move through time in one direction.
i dont know much about physics and etc-but i just hope that they dont rip a new black hole with that device on earth and it it all..i need to visit scotland before i die,,,
Log in to comment