[QUOTE=Handsome Matt;42280530]nah I'll stick to The Big Bang Theory, i love that show[/QUOTE]
[thumb]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3865654/Files/sheldon%204d.jpg[/thumb]
[QUOTE=Conspirator;42280305]I thought time was the fourth dimension.[/QUOTE]
You better be trolling :v
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42280374]time isn't a "spatial dimension". when someone says "4d", they mean an object that occupies 4 spatial dimensions. according to m-theory, an offshoot of string theory, there are 11 spatial dimensions(or membranes) that strings can vibrate in. gravity is actually thought to come from one of those extra dimensions(hence why gravity is so weak in the dimensions we can perceive). time is often thought of as a "4th dimension", but time is not the 4th dimension of "spacetime".
[editline]23rd September 2013[/editline]
at least that's my layman's understanding[/QUOTE]
No, M-theory has 10 spatial dimensions and 1 temporal dimension. Also, time IS the fourth dimension of spacetime. That's why it's called spacetime. It is 4 dimensional and one of those dimensions is time.
[QUOTE=Irockz;42283196][IMG]http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110411103002/adventuretimewithfinnandjake/images/6/6c/4dmns.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
I was going to make a sweet bro and hella jeff "jelly on this hot god" joke but the fact the URL seems to pertain to adventure time has me more confused
[QUOTE=butre;42280489]according to one science fiction writer over a hundred years ago, yeah. Actual scientists says that time is not a dimension.[/QUOTE]
This is very wrong.
[editline]23rd September 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;42280550]Yes it does. It automatically means that.
Time [B]can[/B] be "a" dimension [I]in a sense[/I], but 1-2-3 dimensions refers to a space that can support a line, a plane, and a cube, respectively; the fourth dimension continues that sequence of spacial dimensions. There's no ambiguity here, time is not the fourth dimension and referring to it as such is incorrect.[/QUOTE]
Not really. Time is a dimension just like the rest. The only difference is a minus sign. Obviously in context the article meant 4 spatial dimensions but especially when talking about cosmology you should be prepared to clarify whether you mean all spatial dimensions or spatial + temporal because if I say, Our universe is a 4D manifold," I am including time and anyone who knows a little general relativity is going to recognize that.
[QUOTE=ViralHatred;42281131][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-dimensional_space[/url]
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/Clifford-torus.gif[/img]
It's both simple and not at the same time. It still irks me a bit.[/QUOTE]
That literally makes no god damn sense to me.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;42281337]So its a star that blew up so hard, it affected another [I]dimension?[/I]
Christ, what did they do to it?[/QUOTE]yog-sothoth played basketball
[QUOTE=daijitsu;42283671]I was going to make a sweet bro and hella jeff "jelly on this hot god" joke but the fact the URL seems to pertain to adventure time has me more confused[/QUOTE]
[url]http://adventuretime.wikia.com/wiki/The_Real_You[/url]
Maybe there is a heaven and hell. So if we're good when we die we get into heaven and get to know all of the universes' secrets. Although if we watch porn and smoke weed we get condemned to a lake of fire for eternity.
[QUOTE=Del91;42290802]That literally makes no god damn sense to me.[/QUOTE]
That happens when you're seeing a 2D projection of a 3D projection of a 4D object
so how the fuck was that star made, absolute mind fuck trying to figure out how you make something out of nothing. Does it work for money?
does this mean that there are 2D universes on the event horizon brane things of our 3D black holes
[QUOTE=Eltro102;42296051]does this mean that there are 2D universes on the event horizon brane things of our 3D black holes[/QUOTE]
wait if there is 2d universes inside 3d black holes I wonder if theres 2d black holes inside 2d universes and then inside those there is 1d universes oh my god but then what about the black holes inside the 1d universes what are they llike 0d? what does that even what
[editline]24th September 2013[/editline]
I wonder how the first universe began I wonder where the materials to make the first star came from maybe it was like a massive organic plant that grew or something but then a philosophers stone was made somehow and transmuted it into iron copper and metals and stuff thats how our universe was made probably yeah and the first star
[editline]24th September 2013[/editline]
does this mean time travel is possible? i wonder if you could space travel really fast faster than the universe is expanding I wonder what the edge would look like? and what if you passed through it would you die or maybe you would escape the black hole that we are in into a 4 dimensional universe
[URL=http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Q_Civil_War]God damnit Q![/url]
[QUOTE=daijitsu;42283159]what is it about science threads that make people try [i]aggressively[/i] to be deep about it[/QUOTE]
Because people are dumb.
[QUOTE=daijitsu;42283159]what is it about science threads that make people try [i]aggressively[/i] to be deep about it[/QUOTE]
because science is cool and my life is boring and we have no impact on it anyway so why not be deep, it's fun.
I think this should to be places in the OP
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0WjV6MmCyM[/media]
So, the first formula in the article is the DGP model of gravity. I'm not really familiar with a lot of the notation though -
Why are 'bulk' and 'brane' written at the bottom of the integral signs? Is a brane a contour or something like that?
What's with the superscripts on 'dx'? Is it just indicating that it's over 5 or 4 dimensions instead of writing out that many integral signs? If it's a functional, why is it integrating with respect to a spatial dimension?
The last variable in the formula is L sub matter. What is that?
What is the output of the formula - from what I can see you plug in a brane (what is a brane?) and a bulk (?) and it returns a number of some sort - does it give the force of gravity being exerted on an object or its velocity when at a given point or what?
Why are there several models of gravity? Are any models mutually exclusive?
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;42298018]I think this should to be places in the OP
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0WjV6MmCyM[/media][/QUOTE]
What the fuck. :(
[quote] This video contains content from eOne, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Krinkels;42298417]So, the first formula in the article is the DGP model of gravity. I'm not really familiar with a lot of the notation though -
Why are 'bulk' and 'brane' written at the bottom of the integral signs? Is a brane a contour or something like that?
What's with the superscripts on 'dx'? Is it just indicating that it's over 5 or 4 dimensions instead of writing out that many integral signs? If it's a functional, why is it integrating with respect to a spatial dimension?
The last variable in the formula is L sub matter. What is that?
What is the output of the formula - from what I can see you plug in a brane (what is a brane?) and a bulk (?) and it returns a number of some sort - does it give the force of gravity being exerted on an object or its velocity when at a given point or what?
Why are there several models of gravity? Are any models mutually exclusive?[/QUOTE]
A brane is just a manifold, I'm betting. It's a membrane, essentially just a smooth surface. I don't know what a bulk is. Yes, the superscripts on dx just denote that it's over several dimensions. L sub matter is the matter Lagrange density.
It's actually not returning a number, or at least that's not the point. It's an action: an integral over the lagrange density and the intent it that you can use the calculus of variations (specifically functional derivatives) inside the integral to derive the equations of motion. You can also use the Euler-Lagrange equations but I think that's only if the action is just an integral over the Lagrange density so you'd need to use functional differentiation in this case, but that action is a little out of my depth as far as physics and the calculus of variations are concerned.
Things like these make me wish my interest in science like physics, astrophysics and cosmology had come earlier than at age 17... or rather I wish school and society hadn't killed it for me :v:
Seriously, if a teached had showed me Cosmos: A Personal Voyage in school or explained to me how math is the language of the Universe I think I'd not only be smarter but so much happier these days. Something needs to be done about the way society looks at science as a boring thing for smart but uncreative people. Because in my experience science teachers don't even know the importance of or have the passion for these things.
[editline]25th September 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Del91;42299491]What the fuck. :([/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFYKe2Tk4vA[/media]
0:22:52 if that video works for you.
Everyone who haven't should go watch the whole series.
Does this mean that when a star from our universe collapses (Ala an 3d star) it creates a new 2d universe and so on?
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;42299919]Things like these make me wish my interest in science like physics, astrophysics and cosmology had come earlier than at age 17... or rather I wish school and society hadn't killed it for me :v:
Seriously, if a teached had showed me Cosmos: A Personal Voyage in school or explained to me how math is the language of the Universe I think I'd not only be smarter but so much happier these days. Something needs to be done about the way society looks at science as a boring thing for smart but uncreative people. Because in my experience science teachers don't even know the importance of or have the passion for these things.
[editline]25th September 2013[/editline]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFYKe2Tk4vA[/media]
0:22:52 if that video works for you.
Everyone who haven't should go watch the whole series.[/QUOTE]
I fucking love Cosmos, but that video is blocked too.
I was hoping this was about the show, but sadly, its not.
[QUOTE=Del91;42300294]I fucking love Cosmos, but that video is blocked too.[/QUOTE]
Well its Carl Sagan explaining the fourth dimension. If you've seen cosmos you've seen it already. Strange that the video is blocked in your country... Maybe the government is trying to keep you from educating yourself heh
I've watched it on TV, I don't understand why it would be blocked in America. :\
[editline]24th September 2013[/editline]
I used to have the whole series recorded on my DVR, but I think the next day the HDD in my DVR let go.
But what created the 4-dimensional star?
To me thats crazy to think about
well, I guess you could assume, if the 4 dimensional universe does exist, it would form in a similar way stars do in our 3 dimensional universe.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;42280454]that's why its wrong as all hell[/QUOTE]
Lol, because you always know better.
Why do people keep making shit up?
It was creation....
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.