- 03 Dec '03 15:45since chess is the chosen game for intellects, what better place to pose a question and invoke an interesting conversation. one is familiar with the concept of dimensions. the 1st dim. is length and the 2nd dim. is length + bredth. the 3rd dim. is length+bredth+height. you notice that every new dimension has all the previous elements in addition to the new one. now the 4th dim. as you know is time- they say we all live in the 3rd dim. yet we all experience time therefore would it not be safe to say that we do in fact live in the 4th and not the 3rd dimension.
- 03 Dec '03 16:59

Well, you should make a difference in time-dimensions and space-dimensions. When you describe the world we live in, you talk about space-dimensions. Time, is a first dimension. We can only move forward or backward in time (backward as in history lessons). We cannot move sideways in time.*Originally posted by philogean***since chess is the chosen game for intellects, what better place to pose a question and invoke an interesting conversation. one is familiar with the concept of dimensions. the 1st dim. is length and the 2nd dim. is length + bredth. the 3rd dim. is length+bredth+height. you notice that every new dimension has all the previous elements in addition to the new ...[text shortened]... refore would it not be safe to say that we do in fact live in the 4th and not the 3rd dimension.**

What i like to see as a fourth dimension as a universal coordinate. Say we live in one universe, and that there are infinitely many parrallel universes. The coordinate indicating in wich universe we are in would be the fourth. Just a thought though.

I often find myself trying to imagine a hypercube (4D cube).

You can more or less draw one the following way.

0D, a point

1D, make a second point, and connect the two, you get a line.

2D, make a second line, and connect the similar ends (you can use a mirror to create a second line, and then you connect each end with it's reflection). You get a square.

3D, In the same way, make a second square, and connect each corner with it's refelction, you get a cube.

4D, Make a second cube, and connect each of the corners with their "reflections". You now have a hypercube.

There are more ways to do something alike. One is to calculate how many lower dimensional objects you have in a object. (eg 6 squares in a cube, 4 lines in a square, two points in a line. Reasoning that way, you'd get 8 cubes in a hypercube...

I gave two ways for a hypercube to be drawn, i am curious to see what others think about it...

Ton - 03 Dec '03 17:17

The problem with time is that you can only move forward. Driving throug time is the same as driving throug h a one way street. Where you have been, you can't go anymore. never. Would it then be reasonable to say that the space you've gone throug is the same as goning from left to right. You can make that move over and over again without breaking any rules. There is also no acceleration in the 'direction' of time. So time is completely different then the directions. A better 4th dimension would be temperature.*Originally posted by philogean***since chess is the chosen game for intellects, what better place to pose a question and invoke an interesting conversation. one is familiar with the concept of dimensions. the 1st dim. is length and the 2nd dim. is length + bredth. the 3rd dim. is length+bredth+height. you notice that every new dimension has all the previous elements in addition to the new ...[text shortened]... refore would it not be safe to say that we do in fact live in the 4th and not the 3rd dimension.** - 03 Dec '03 21:58

I don't think we need a physical quantity to be modeled by dimension. They are all spatial, and all that n-dimensional space needs to be is the set of all ordered n-tuples of real numbers.*Originally posted by Fiathahel***The problem with time is that you can only move forward. Driving throug time is the same as driving throug h a one way street. Where you have been, you can't go anymore. never. Would it then be reasonable to say that the space you've gone throug is the same as goning from left to right. You can make that move over and over again without breaking any rule ...[text shortened]... o time is completely different then the directions. A better 4th dimension would be temperature.** - 04 Dec '03 17:13hypercubes, an interesting concept - tho difficult to catch on to. i feel that the theory itself moves away from the topic, but only bcus i have never encountered a hypercube before. it brings light to the fourth dim. tho it doesn't actually explain it. possibly bcus we cannot percieve it or perhaps we have not thought of a way to discribe it or at least in terms of a hypercube. but i go back to the time theory bcus as one of you mentioned, time is in fact directional and therefore another element added to the dimensionl model. making a lot more sense(in my opinion) than creating objects(the cube as one example) simply passing thru our dimension to give us a glimpse of the next
- 04 Dec '03 18:56

Read a discussion in another post. The theory of Relativity, and some deep space missions, have already proved that there in fact IS an accelleration in time...if we couldn't look back in time, there would be no history btw...*Originally posted by Fiathahel***The problem with time is that you can only move forward. Driving throug time is the same as driving throug h a one way street. Where you have been, you can't go anymore. never. Would it then be reasonable to say that the space you've gone throug is the same as goning from left to right. You can make that move over and over again without breaking any rule ...[text shortened]... o time is completely different then the directions. A better 4th dimension would be temperature.**

I return to the time itself; I have always felt that time is something we humans invented to keep appointments. We defined our time as a interval between two events. I find it hard to see time as another dimension, as the three we already have...

In theory, there is no limit to the amount of dimensions that can be treated. As someone already mentioned. (a, b, c, d) is a vector in a 4-dimensional space. In that way we can descibe arbitraily large dimensional spaces. These are all space coordinates. Time isn't one of those space-coordinates, and i propose we do keep time as a seperate dimension, namely a time-dimension.

I'd like to mention another discussion, wich somehow connects with this one; how can we know there aren't more universes like ours? Ours is a huge bubble, containing alot of stuff. Maybe there are more of those bubbles, and then a coordinate indicating in wich bubble you are is the fourth spacial dimension? - 04 Dec '03 19:51You are right when we say that we live in the 4th dimension. At least that is the way we feel it. Happens that there are some theories that state that, for the universe to be stable, there must be 11 (eleven) dimensions. This is that kind of thing as hard to understand as the paradox of the speed of light and the explanation of inertia, I mean, I once read that the tendency of an object to stay put if it is put or mantain it's movement if it is moving is caused by virtual particles created in the process of moving or changing the movement.

What about that? - 06 Dec '03 04:00

check out*Originally posted by milkwayman***You are right when we say that we live in the 4th dimension. At least that is the way we feel it. Happens that there are some theories that state that, for the universe to be stable, there must be 11 (eleven) dimensions. This is that kind of thing as hard to understand as the paradox of the speed of light and the explanation of inertia, I mean, I once rea ...[text shortened]... y virtual particles created in the process of moving or changing the movement.**

What about that?

http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/jhs/strings/ for info on this. - 06 Dec '03 16:25i may not know sh1t on politics, but you all su(k at extra dimensions.

first, let go of the concept of free will.

a hypercube is a cube that, from our preception, appears fully formed instantaniously, remains in existance for a peirod of time equal to its lenght, then dissapears istnatly. a hyper sphear is a sphear that grows from nothing at a varying rate for a peirod of time equal to its radius, then shrinks at an inverly varying rate untill it dissapears. a ball standing still, viwed from the fith deminsion so that one could see four at once, would appear as a straight piller. a sphear accelerating a a set rate, as in freefall, would look like a parabola.

anyone not get it? - 06 Dec '03 22:03

Just your spelling.*Originally posted by fearlessleader***i may not know sh1t on politics, but you all su(k at extra dimensions.**

first, let go of the concept of free will.

a hypercube is a cube that, from our preception, appears fully formed instantaniously, remains in existance for a peirod of time equal to its lenght, then dissapears istnatly. a hyper sphear is a sphear that grows from nothing at a v ...[text shortened]... ear accelerating a a set rate, as in freefall, would look like a parabola.

anyone not get it? - 08 Dec '03 09:20 / 1 edit

Agreed. I've never heard of anyone considering adding a second time dimension - in fact I don't even know what that would mean. Time seems quite different from space.*Originally posted by TheMaster37***Read a discussion in another post. The theory of Relativity, and some deep space missions, have already proved that there in fact IS an accelleration in time...if we couldn't look back in time, there would be no history btw...**

I ret ...[text shortened]... indicating in wich bubble you are is the fourth spacial dimension? - 08 Dec '03 15:30firstly regarding time accelaration - time, itself, does not accelarate, it is just merely our perception of time along our own timeline relative that of everything else. regarding the bubbles as you call it - there is a theory about something the call the multi-verse where alternate universe runs parralel to ours and along the same time line - which gives rise to explanations for strange occurances. as for you fearlessleader your explanation merely discribes(theoretically) how we, as 3D beings, would percieve objects from other dimensions. it does not explain further regarding extra 3D dimensions. palomine - nice one on the spelling dude
- 10 Dec '03 19:34 / 1 edit

a fifth deminsion, a second time demension, would be the timeline of how the first time line changed as things (usualy subatomic particules) moved back and fourth within it. this solves the killing you parents parodox.*Originally posted by iamatiger***Agreed. I've never heard of anyone considering adding a second time dimension - in fact I don't even know what that would mean. Time seems quite different from space.**