OK I am really high so bear with me...I've added an interesting diagram and a cool video...btw this thread/post is going to be super random and if you don't like that I suggest you stop reading right about. . . .now. Imagine a like a 3D cone (or sphere) going through 2D space. When the cone initially touches the 2nd dimension, the "observers" in the 2nd dimension see a singularity, a point. As the cone passes through even further the observers will see progressive slices of the cone and it will appear to grow, that is until the cone has completely passed through the 2nd dimension. So apply that concept to the 4th and 3rd dimension, where there is a 4D "cone" or, in our case, the universe which is passing through the 3rd dimension. When the universe started it was a singularity...and we now know it is expanding and getting larger much like a cone would appear to be as it is passing through 2D space. The picture attached evokes a lot of abstract thought for me...what to you gleam from it? Also, I think that pic was posted elsewhere here on GC not sure where though. Here's the video...it's a computer generated 4D hypercube (and other 4D objects) passing through 3D space. Notice how it seems to change shape? It's still the same shape in the 4th dimension, but it appears to be changing in the 3rd. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htb-O1yvv7E]YouTube - Polytopes (Hypercube/Tesseracts)[/ame] And that concludes my MJ fueled random conjecture post. EDIT: In the first part, replace cone with sphere....seems to fit better, as scientists say the universe will collapse back on itself eventually.
so you're saying that the universe is in a 4-d sphere, that is passing through a 3-d feild of length, width and hight, and time is the 4th dimension in the universe the universe is still expanding because the equator of that sphere has yet to pass through that feild of space, and when that equator passes through, the universe will begin to shrink again very interesting, I think I understand what you're saying
Yes EXACTLY! I couldn't have said it better myself...really, I couldn't have. I tried in my OP but it wasn't as clear as you just put it Edit: Also, a very interesting website dealing with all this stuff that I figured is worth mentioning: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/platonic.html
Correct! As a four dimensional object passes through the third dimension it changes shape, i.e. a seed turns into a tree, a plane crashes into the ground and is transformed into wreckage, a child grows up to become an adult, etc. Watch this: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q_GQqUg6Ts]YouTube - Imagining the Tenth Dimension - Rob Bryanton [FULL CLIP].flv[/ame] Now. . . All dimensions exist in the same "plane", yes?
That just killed my brain...very hard to grasp, but I suppose that is the problem with trying to imagine something that is technically impossible to imagine. None-the-less, very interesting... However, to me, the only dimensions that matter are the "physical" ones, 1-4. The rest are probabilities of the preceding dimensions, at least to my understanding...? Assuming I understood that video correctly, then the only dimensions that exist on the same plane would be dimensions 1-4, as they are the only ones that are "physical." The rest would be possible outcomes of the previous dimensions and be therefore just recreations of the previous dimensions but with an infinite amount of possibilities. Not sure if that made sense...but...yeah....
No it isn't, you just smoke too much. . . Marijuana provides a great stepping stone for the brain and is probably one of the greatest temporary releases from the strains of everyday thinking. However, habitually doing so strains the brain and randomly (??????) reshuffles it. Now, if dimensions 5 through ten (AND BEYOND???!?!?!?!??!?!) are probabilities of the first, second, third, and fourth dimensions and therefore recreations of said physical dimensions (in infinite forms) they exhibit the same qualities of which they come from. Therefore if the first four dimensions are physical then the rest are too. But now we run into a myriad of questions. . . What does physical mean? Why do we need to know this? If all dimensions come from the preceding ones, then are they essentially the same? What is the same? Could they be similar, but not equal? Or absolutely equal? Have faith in yourself Kagaos! Don't apologize for being high. Present your ideas as strongly as you can! And let them drift. . .
Yes I realize that...but I will say it is not a concern at this point as daily tokage has ceased for a good while now. But to say that I can't grasp a concept as complex and out of any kind of imaginable reality as the super-4th dimensions all because of daily MJ usage seems a bit off to me. In fact, I find it easier to grasp such concepts when I am as opposed to when I am not. And as of the creation of this thread I have not been Anyways, I didn't mean to say I was clueless as to what they were trying to explain. I simply am having a hard time trying to imagine the super-4th dimensions as they are far beyond anyone's comprehension. For that matter, so is the 4th dimension. I understand the concept, just not the specifics, if you will. I can grasp the 4th dimensional concept quite well because it is easy to compare to the 3rd and 2nd dimension as they are easily within our scope of imagination. But how would one go about using an analogy to explain the super-4th? I don't think it is really possible as you would need to compare, for example, the 4th dimension and the 3rd (like you would the 3rd and 2nd) to be able to grasp the concept of the 5th. And since we can't truly grasp what the 4th dimension is like (literally impossible to try to imagine) we cannot truly grasp what the 5th is like. Yes, questions, questions, questions...I always say it's better to have more questions than answers. All these questions are "relative." But heck, I'll give it a shot. Physical things only exist in the 3rd dimension as all things we know to be physical are observable, and all things observable exist in the 3rd dimension. Therefore, all things physical are all things that exist in the 3rd dimension. But do all things in the 3rd dimension exist in a different form in the 4th? Again...more questions than answers. But I suppose that's irrelevant as if it exists in the 4th it must exist with an extra dimension, thereby making it, technically not the same. We don't need to know this, because anything we know to exist outside of the 3rd dimension would be irrelevant as they do not practically exist. As for your last questions, I'm not quite sure as that was one part of the video that I didn't quite understand. Edit: Seeing as I have designated this thread to be random in the OP I figured it wouldn't be too outlandish to post this unrelated quote that I found quite thought provoking. "The fish trap exists because of the fish. Once you've gotten the fish you can forget the trap. The rabbit snare exists because of the rabbit. Once you've gotten the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words exist because of meaning. Once you've gotten the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can talk with him? ~Chuang Tzu "
You need to stop trying to image the impossible then. Instead stick to what we can comprehend, the concepts, which is what the video is describing. I seriously doubt that the concepts are impossible to comprehend because entire branches of science rely on understanding the concepts of the higher dimensions. Invalid and Unsound. 1. false. Air is physical and unobservable. [See EDIT at bottom of post] What if we define something as being physical if it is made out of atoms? If.. Every physical thing is made out of atoms. And air is made out of atoms. Then, air is a physical thing. If.. We cannot see air And we accept it to be physical (because it is made of atoms) Then, not all physical things are visible. Therefore, statement one is unsound. True. No, not a different form. I will elaborate on this more sometime as I have homework to do, and class to attend This argument is not valid. It consists of only one premises and a conclusion. To this this I post: Clarke's Three Laws of prediction: 1. ) When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. 2. ) The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible. 3. ) Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. EDIT: Correction, I mean to to say that air is visible. In light of this correction, I see now what you mean by observable. But what of dark matter? It is something we cannot observe, but only know of its existence because of how it affects galaxies. Science is still up in the air about this one, however.
I guess this is what I get for trying to argue with a philosophy major ... I'm confused here...I never said that the concepts themselves were impossible to imagine/comprehend, rather, the physical reality of the super 3rd dimensions are impossible to imagine. I do get the basic concepts behind it, it's just I was unable to put the concepts into any kind of meaningful concrete manner the way I can with the 4th dimension. "...but I suppose that is the problem with trying to imagine something that is technically impossible to imagine. None-the-less, very interesting..." I assume you thought I meant the concept was impossible to imagine, while I was actually referring to imagining the physical dimensions themselves. I can somewhat put my head around what the 4th dimension should be like...although it is impossible to actually imagine, the more I think about it the easier it is for me to imagine...hard to explain I guess. Edit: What I'm trying to say in the above is that the first dimension is easy to visualize, it's just two connected points. The 2nd is easy as well because it is just two 1 dimensional lines connected at 90 degree angles to each other. The 3rd, obviously easy, and is just two 2D planes connected and perpendicular to each other through space. The 4th, while hard to imagine, can somewhat be envisioned as X number of 3D space-planes, if you will, connected and perpendicular to one another through time. The 5th, however, should (based on the current trend) be X number of 4th dimensional space-time-planes connected to one another and perpendicular to each X number%2