The 4th dimension - General

you're thread states how the 4th dimension is not time, and you're video explains how the 4th dimension is time.

In Calculus, eventually you get to the point of generalizing out 1, 2, and 3 dimensional systems to any number of dimensions. One dimension is just one variable, in an equation that can have any number. A good example of thinking in this new way is making a car. If you want to calculate the cost, you can sum up each of the individual parts, of which there are hundreds. Each of these parts can vary in their distinct cost, due to the materials they use (each of these variables could also depend in part on a number of -other- variables, such as material or availability). Thus, you could easily have a 100-dimensional equation of cost. This generalization completely loses the chance of visualizing anything, which I suppose is basically a crutch for learning the fundamentals of mathematics. But this is also basically a redefinition of the word "variable," which you may disagree with. Anyhow, 4th dimension being time is common, but not necessarily necessary. That is all.

It's like this: Imagine being able to view everything from any time all at once, everything would be viewed as a continuous snake (well unless it is always stationary) in other words. It would look like a complete mess with the rotation of the earth and such. But yeah, it would be odd.

An excessive concentration of mass pulls objects towards it, what we know as gravity. If you put a heavy object on a trampoline, it will go down, other objects will roll towards it. What if a planet, sun, etc is doing the same thing, only through a fourth dimension of space? Another thing to think about is if you put Gabe Newell on a trampoline (heaviest earth-bound object i could think of) the trampoline will just rip, with everything near it falling through the hole. What if this is what causes black holes, the metaphorical trampoline of the universe ripping?

[QUOTE=neap tide;20095242]you're thread states how the 4th dimension is not time, and you're video explains how the 4th dimension is time.[/QUOTE] It depends how your talking about it.

if only we could create a device that let us bend those upper dimensions.... "Good News Everyone"

... I don't what comprehend nonsense? :crying:

The second moment of area, which measures how rigid something is, is measured in millimeters to the power of 4. Does anyone know why?

The fourth dimension is essentially projecting the third dimension at right angles to length, width, and height or depth. You can't comprehend what this looks like because it's simply impossible for us to understand. But picture this - in the fourth dimension, shadows are three dimensional. Just as in the third dimension, we know that shadows are two dimensional. You could say that our shadows are ourselves in a lower dimension. But does that make us shadows of the fourth dimension, and those shadows of the fifth, and so on? It boggles the mind. :tinfoil:

[QUOTE=Furioso;20098197]The fourth dimension is essentially projecting the third dimension at right angles to length, width, and height or depth. You can't comprehend what this looks like because it's simply impossible for us to understand. But picture this - in the fourth dimension, shadows are three dimensional. Just as in the third dimension, we know that shadows are two dimensional. You could say that our shadows are ourselves in a lower dimension. But does that make us shadows of the fourth dimension, and those shadows of the fifth, and so on? It boggles the mind. :tinfoil:[/QUOTE] Our shadows are not two-dimensional. The shadow extends all the way from the surface to the object blocking the light. Light can't reach it due to the object blocking, therefore it's shadowed. [editline]12:40PM[/editline] [QUOTE=ProWaffle;20096776]An excessive concentration of mass pulls objects towards it, what we know as gravity. If you put a heavy object on a trampoline, it will go down, other objects will roll towards it. What if a planet, sun, etc is doing the same thing, only through a fourth dimension of space? Another thing to think about is if you put Gabe Newell on a trampoline (heaviest earth-bound object i could think of) the trampoline will just rip, with everything near it falling through the hole. What if this is what causes black holes, the metaphorical trampoline of the universe ripping?[/QUOTE] You are trying to explain gravity with gravity

Why settle at the 4th dimension? Why not go on to like, the 10th? :science: By the way, I don't think that time exists in a physical form. But it's a complex matter, so I'm not sure. [editline]12:52PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Waze;20079697][URL="http://www.facepunch.com/#"]View YouTUBE video[/URL] [URL]http://youtube.com/watch?v=UnURElCzGc0[/URL] [/QUOTE] Carl Sagan was bloody badarse.

Scroll down for a nice little Java applet, which allows you to rotate a hypercube. [url]http://www.maa.org/editorial/knot/tesseract.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Raxas;20088816]Ah, found it. [url]http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php[/url] Everything you need to know about Minkowski space. All 10 dimensions. As for Euclidean space, can't help you. I've yet to partially comprehend the math involved there. And even if I did, there's the issue of explaining it...[/QUOTE] That video is bullshit, does not explain or use the word "Minkowski Space" or has anything todo with it. It is an attempt of "making" sense out of dimensions [u]philosophical[/u] which fails as you see in this video. I can easily imagine 100 dimensions: [img]http://math.daggeringcats.com/?\mathbb{R}^{100}[/img]

[QUOTE=Luxo;20094578]This kind of stuff is my counter-argument for mankind being innately stupid. [editline]10:44PM[/editline] However this thread would be a good counter-argument for my counter-argument.[/QUOTE] You are my counter-argument for all goldmembers being ignorant dickwads.

[QUOTE=ThePuska;20079872]I don't quite understand what you mean by that. What's the difference between physically existing and simply existing? I don't know anyone who wouldn't agree that time is.[/QUOTE] Some people believe time is nothing; simply a value, a unit, that we measure with. Then, some believe it's actually something, like it would be in the theory of the space-time continuum.

:aaaaa:

[QUOTE=aVoN;20100370]That video is bullshit, does not explain or use the word "Minkowski Space" or has anything todo with it. It is an attempt of "making" sense out of dimensions [u]philosophical[/u] which fails as you see in this video. I can easily imagine 100 dimensions: [img]http://math.daggeringcats.com/?\mathbb{R}^{100}[/img][/QUOTE] Well, I guess I'll have to take your word, I'm by no means a professional.

I can't believe the entire video made complete sense to me. I've thought similar things myself about the fourth dimension assuming time was one, but this explains it and the higher dimensions in complete mathematical sense and in a kind of depth I could never have thought through myself. Thanks for the informative thread!

[QUOTE=mynames2long;20079582]I can grasp the 4th dimension theoretically, but what really boggles my mind is how it would look.[/QUOTE] If you could look in the fourth dimension you would see light at every point it will be over time in the future according to your observations of it, but since you can't see that way your mind wouldn't be able to understand it and would commit system cell death. Your brain would literally explode. [editline]Edit[/editline] 4th dimension is time. Time is the existence between 2 points in superficial space, the two points are basically the same point and every one of its branches or the first 3 dimensions over a infinite distance. in laymans terms the physical existance of space represented as a point can only be lined with itself the line is a representation of distance- the distance is a representation of time.

[QUOTE=Raxas;20109319]Well, I guess I'll have to take your word, I'm by no means a professional.[/QUOTE] Imagine 100 or more dimensions in expressions of mathematical symbols is easy but realisizing them as in that "imagine the tenth dimension"-movie as space is for sure impossible since we live in 3D space. That's my point why this movie is bullshit - First it uses all 3 dimensions for space and then jumps to "the 4th dimension = time" and moves over to the fith dimension as all timelines etc - while you could easily have 100000000 dimensional [u]spatial[/u] space.

[QUOTE=aVoN;20116040]Imagine 100 or more dimensions in expressions of mathematical symbols is easy but realisizing them as in that "imagine the tenth dimension"-movie as space is for sure impossible since we live in 3D space. That's my point why this movie is bullshit - First it uses all 3 dimensions for space and then jumps to "the 4th dimension = time" and moves over to the fith dimension as all timelines etc - while you could easily have 100000000 dimensional [U]spatial[/U] space.[/QUOTE] What, like 3D except 4 dimensions instead of 3? That is so trippy.

[QUOTE=mynames2long;20079582]I can grasp the 4th dimension theoretically, but what really boggles my mind is how it would look.[/QUOTE] No point pondering it since were three dimensional so theres no need to know what it would "look" like. Infact it would probably hurt for our eyes to see it and our brain to render it as 3d

[QUOTE=aVoN;20116040]Imagine 100 or more dimensions in expressions of mathematical symbols is easy but realisizing them as in that "imagine the tenth dimension"-movie as space is for sure impossible since we live in 3D space. That's my point why this movie is bullshit - First it uses all 3 dimensions for space and then jumps to "the 4th dimension = time" and moves over to the fith dimension as all timelines etc - while you could easily have 100000000 dimensional [u]spatial[/u] space.[/QUOTE] It's simply an alternate interpretation- Maybe wrong, maybe ignored and unaccepted among the professional community, but... Well, I enjoyed it anyway. It was a healthy way to stretch my mind. Also, don't quote me, but I heard somewhere that the concept of time being the 4th dimension was created for Relativity- or one of the interpretations. It's known as Minkowski space, for the German(?) mathematician who did something important which I forget and won't bother to look up now. Again, don't quote me- I get most of my knowledge from television and Wikipedia. [editline]07:35PM[/editline] [QUOTE=bravehat;20120640]No point pondering it since were three dimensional so theres no need to know what it would "look" like. Infact it would probably hurt for our eyes to see it and our brain to render it as 3d[/QUOTE] [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/Tesseract_net.svg/451px-Tesseract_net.svg.png[/img] Left- net of a tesseract, a fourth dimensional cube. Right- the tesseract folded, as best as it can be shown. The net is what you get when you unfold a cube. You know how if you unfold a paper block you get a cross-shape? Well, that's what a net is.

[QUOTE=Raxas;20128083]Also, don't quote me, but I heard somewhere that the concept of time being the 4th dimension was created for Relativity- or one of the interpretations. It's known as Minkowski space, for the German(?) mathematician who did something important which I forget and won't bother to look up now.[/QUOTE] The Minkowski spacetime is a 4-Dimensional Pseudo-Riemannian manifold. Or in words you can understand: It's a construct which has 4 dimensions but does not behave as a 4 dimensional "general space" because one dimension is time - which gives it a "weird" property (Time acts like a negative length - The metric is not positive-definite = all positive). So Minkowski spacetime is not what we can generalize as a 4 dimensional space (that's why it is called spacetime). And that is my point, why the "imagine the 10th dimension"-video is bullshit because it extends Minkowsky spacetime (3 spatial Dimensions + 1 Time) to "5D" (3 Spatial Dimensions + 1 Time + 1 Timelines) etc up to 10 until you fail to imagine it. While with fully spatial dimensions (10 spatial Dimensions) you just have 10 possible directions you can move "forward and backward" in - Sure, you can't visualize this - but imagine (because you don't need such philosophical bullshit like all universes of timelines of times of ...)

[QUOTE=Raxas;20128083]It's simply an alternate interpretation- Maybe wrong, maybe ignored and unaccepted among the professional community, but... Well, I enjoyed it anyway. It was a healthy way to stretch my mind. Also, don't quote me, but I heard somewhere that the concept of time being the 4th dimension was created for Relativity- or one of the interpretations. It's known as Minkowski space, for the German(?) mathematician who did something important which I forget and won't bother to look up now. Again, don't quote me- I get most of my knowledge from television and Wikipedia. [editline]07:35PM[/editline] [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/Tesseract_net.svg/451px-Tesseract_net.svg.png[/IMG] Left- net of a tesseract, a fourth dimensional cube. Right- the tesseract folded, as best as it can be shown. The net is what you get when you unfold a cube. You know how if you unfold a paper block you get a cross-shape? Well, that's what a net is.[/QUOTE] Yes thank you, i know what a net is and i've saw a tesseract before, but it's redundant to visualise it, it's like trying to imagine what a god would look like. Ultimately pointless.

I can't grasp the video at all :saddowns:

[QUOTE=bravehat;20138437]Yes thank you, i know what a net is and i've saw a tesseract before, but it's redundant to visualise it, it's like trying to imagine what a god would look like. Ultimately pointless.[/QUOTE] Why would it be impossible to IMAGINE what a god looks like, exactly? As far as I'm concerned, gods don't even exist, and as such, I can imagine a god as a rock if I want to. But then again, if gods do not exist, is it really a god that I imagined? Does gods exist in some dimension, simply because we imagine gods?

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cube_2:_Hypercube[/url] In Cinema terms I think 4D means that they use effects in the cinema itself; I've been to a few. They're mostly for comic effect than anything, but pretty cool.

I wish I could see in atleast 4D.. It would be awesome. You would never wonder what a woman looked like without clothes on. Or without skin.. Perhaps it is better to not see the fourth dimension. (I know that it wouldn't exactly be without clothes or without skin, but you would be able to ignore some aspects of what you see, I presume. (as in imagine that said 3d object is not there.) Hmm.. A device that records the shadows of a 4d object, is called a camcorder, right? Or did I get something wrong?

[QUOTE=Furioso;20098197] But picture this - in the fourth dimension, shadows are three dimensional. Just as in the third dimension, we know that shadows are two dimensional. You could say that our shadows are ourselves in a lower dimension. But does that make us shadows of the fourth dimension, and those shadows of the fifth, and so on? It boggles the mind. :tinfoil:[/QUOTE] A better, and slightly more comprehendable example, is that if you looked at one of our three-dimensional cubes from the fourth dimension you'd be able to see the outer edges as well as all the material contained within at once. Kind of like how if we colour in a 2D square we can see everything on the inside and outside, while a hypothetical man in the second dimension would only be able to see the outsides.