Extra Dimensions

**Original Poster** · 01-08-2012 02:56 AM

Believe me I'm having enough trouble understanding it myself.

Let's start with the example of a 2 dimensional world with a 2 dimensional person in it. Given that this person's head is flat, they can only look in four directions and only perceive lines of different sizes. For a 2 dimensional being to infer a square they must rotate their perception or the object in such a way as to observe all sides of the square.

Now let's look at someone in 3 dimensional space such as ourselves, they cannot see a cube but with rotation they can observe its multiple squares in order to infer a cube.

Use this chart to understand

dimension...view..........axis of rotation
1st............point(0D)....*no rotation*
2nd...........line(1D).......point(0D)
3rd........... plane(2D)....line(1D)
4th............realm(3D)....plane(2D)

Go back to imagining the 2 dimensional habitat, and picture a misshapen object such as the letter b. Imagine a 3 dimensional observer of this habitat were to grab the edge of the b and flip it along a 2 dimensional axis. It now becomes a d. Now imagine the 2 dimensional observer attempts to recreate the experiment. They attempt to turn it upside-down upon a 1 dimensional axis and can only succeed in going from d to p and back to d, they cannot recreate the original b, that requires a 2 dimensional axis of rotation.

I'm still more or less struggling with the concept but at least now I understand what you mean when you said one could traverse through a 3 dimensional cube without going through the cube using 4 dimensional space.

**Wayfaerer** · 01-08-2012 03:13 AM

You've beaten the horse well enough Omnis, I think it's time to move on. *puts arm around shoulder and slowly guides away*

**Original Poster** · 01-08-2012 03:16 AM

I'm just getting warmed up. There's no dead horse here, unless you don't care to attempt to understand the 4th dimension and if that's the case why do you reply to the thread?

I mean if you were to read the last few posts, you'd see there's actually been a lot of progress. At least in regard to my understanding which is the only understanding I can concern myself with at the present moment.

**Wayfaerer** · 01-08-2012 03:28 AM

Yeah, I'm not here to discuss DMT and geometric modals. I'm interested in how nature really is and if those geometric modals are the best analogies to how it's structured. You seem to take the dimension modals as reality and have no problem adding more, I'm just more skeptical.

**Original Poster** · 01-08-2012 03:31 AM

One mention of DMT and that's all you care about. DMT is just my experiential evidence that multiple axes exist and can be perceived. I have no interest in what your interests are, it's just my way of saying I don't care what you deny exists because I've seen it.

Now I'm just trying to rationalize it back inside my 3 dimensional habitat.

And by the way, I've observed this more often with OBEs and WILDs than I have with drugs.

If you're quite finished, I'd prefer this thread remain focused on the actual understanding of the 4th dimension and not on off-topic discussion such as whether it's even worth it to try.

**greenhavoc** · 01-08-2012 03:37 AM

unless you don't care to attempt understand the 4th dimension

our brain doesn't have the necessary receptors to perceive the 4th dimension, so why even bother?

this is neat, i was just talking about this on utube yesterday:

i lack the sensory receptors to experience the 4th dimension, so of what use is even thinking about this? if an intelligence were to try and make contact with me from this dimension, it would have to manifest itself in a form i could recognize, say something like a random post on a random social board, but even then i couldn't learn anything from it outside of my own 3 dimensional understanding, so why bother?

Understanding 4th Dimension

**Original Poster** · 01-08-2012 03:40 AM

I am not going to give up on something just because it seems challenging.

**Xei** · 01-08-2012 04:10 PM

This just in: Omnis frequently throws himself onto the ground in public spaces in an attempt to fly.

**Original Poster** · 01-08-2012 07:21 PM

Xei, when I attempt to fly, I start from the ground. Come on, be logical.

Anyways, there's a whole forum dedicated to this so I'll be leaving this thread alone and continuing my studies there. Anyone who finds these concepts interesting should join me.

Take a look http://www.teamikaria.com/hddb/forum/

**greenhavoc** · 01-09-2012 03:09 AM

not many people on that site, i'm still looking it over though

**Original Poster** · 01-09-2012 03:22 AM

It appears to have declined in popularity over time but the posts that are there are pretty solid. I see a debate among mathematicians, geometry experts and programmers, not New-Agers.

**Xei** · 01-09-2012 03:32 AM

You're right, they have some good discussions over there. They're not related at all to this thread, as they seem keen to emphasise:

Originally Posted by Random member

Have you read the FAQ yet? A four-dimensional vector space is defined not be some vague idea such as "consciousness and movement" but as a set with two operations that obeys the vector space axioms and whose bases contain four elements.

**Original Poster** · 01-09-2012 04:07 AM

>Assumes that my suggested possibilities were the core purpose of this thread

**really** · 01-10-2012 05:39 PM

Originally Posted by Xei

...my question was clearly an answer to yours. It's patently clear to me that there are no such implications, there's no philosophical difference between '11' and '12'. It's just a scientific model. And I'm demonstrating this by asking you to try to conceive of a difference: you can't.

I asked you to expand on what you mean by that phrase "philosophical difference" if the thread isn't satisfying. Of course, dimensions are predominantly scientifically modelled. It may be all well and good to point out that there's no philosophical difference, but what relevance does it bear? The thread title is called "Extra dimensions", which I believe shares the significance enough. The theory that there is 11 and not 12 or 12 and not 11 means nothing unless either one is discussed.

Maybe we should ask, can there be 3 of the 4 dimensions in no particular order? E.g. Time, depth and width.

**greenhavoc** · 01-11-2012 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by really

Maybe we should ask, can there be 3 of the 4 dimensions in no particular order? E.g. Time, depth and width.

that doesn't make sense to me

**Original Poster** · 01-11-2012 08:41 PM

What is the 3rd dimension? What is the 2nd dimension? Which one is time? They usually throw time in there around 4 or 5 but time would exist for a flat worlder, as well. This means time doesn't fit into the order. Because it's not a spatial dimension, there is no particular level which is time.

**DrunkenArse** · 01-11-2012 09:45 PM

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

What is the 3rd dimension? What is the 2nd dimension? Which one is time? They usually throw time in there around 4 or 5 but time would exist for a flat worlder, as well. This means time doesn't fit into the order. Because it's not a spatial dimension, there is no particular level which is time.

No, no no no.

Think about this. If I'm facing north and you are facing east then my depth is your width. How could you assign an order to that? So again, you fail to even consider the meanings of the words you are using.

Please pick up a good book on linear algebra. I recommend Valenza's book. You are not thinking about these things at all clearly. How do you possibly expect your idle speculations to bear any fruit if you don't even understand the basic terms of the discussion? Seriously dude.

**Original Poster** · 01-11-2012 09:55 PM

I already know that. What about my post makes it appear as though I don't understand this concept? If someone lived in a flat world, and we observed him from our 3 dimensional world, we could observe the flat world from particular angles so that the width of their world would become depth, to us. But that doesn't change the flat-worlder's perspective on the situation. They can still only see various lines of different lengths because they can't move their head outside the frame to see the new angle. We use words like width, length, depth and trength for this purpose, not because one particular measurement of an object can be solely applied to one dimensional measurement, but because there's no need to include more words when there's only a limited number of dimensions to perceive.

Depth is the 3rd dimension because there's no need to even know that word in a 2 dimensional world. Except for when the flatworlder's are trying to philosophically understand something beyond their perspective.

**DrunkenArse** · 01-11-2012 09:58 PM

Whooooooosh.

**Original Poster** · 01-11-2012 10:15 PM

I recommend you read the book Flatland

http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Abbott/TOC.html

**DrunkenArse** · 01-11-2012 10:20 PM

Sorry Omnis. You're seriously confused if you think you're going to be telling me about math. Read a book. Work some problems. Learn a little bit. Go ahead and try it. Thinking doesn't hurt, I promise. Again, Valenza's book is probably the one to look at. Just go ahead and ignore the problems that depend on calculus in chapter one. He's just setting it up to show that the derivative is a linear function. There's actually no calculus backround required to understand linear algebra.

**Wayfaerer** · 01-11-2012 10:25 PM

Do it, it's fun

**Original Poster** · 01-11-2012 11:09 PM

I'm just curious as to what exactly led you to think I don't understand the basic math of the concept. What did I say that sounded so ignorant?

**DrunkenArse** · 01-12-2012 12:23 AM

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I'm just curious as to what exactly led you to think I don't understand the basic math of the concept. What did I say that sounded so ignorant?

I already explained it. Here's an analogy.

me: You know you left your car lights on, right?
you: That's ok because the neighbors dog is eating the cat's honey.

See what I'm saying? How did you infer that dimension has anything to do with tesseracts? What's a tesseract within a tesseract and what does it have to do with anything? Why do you think that seeing a plane from three dimensions has anything to do with the problem of intrinsically ordering dimensions? Why do you ask what the "second" dimension is? Why do you assert that depth is "the third" dimension? Why couldn't I just order my axes depth, width, height? Then would "height" be "the third" dimension? What if I choose three other axes? What do you mean by "because time is not a spatial dimension, there is no particular level which is time?" What's a level? How does it differ from a dimension? Why is time a dimension but not a level?" What's the difference between time and spatial dimensions?

So, you have not said one thing on this thread which indicates that you have the slightest idea what a spatial dimension is. You have not listened to anyone trying to tell you. You have simply let that vague notion that you already know persuade you that you understand. Please say something sensible fast!

**Original Poster** · 01-12-2012 05:46 AM

Right sounds like you should read Flatland to me. A tesseract is a hypothetical shape with 4 dimensions, which are now more commonly being referred to as height, width, depth and trength. There's no real reason to order them that way except that you wouldn't even need the word trength without 4 dimensions. Likewise, you don't need the word depth with only 2 dimensions. Which actual measurement is which is arbitrary but only because we can know of these measurements do we call them that. The order of dimensions is the result of shapes taking on new measurements and requiring terminology to describe them.

Can you at least agree that 3 dimensions is more than 2, and thus can be ordered after?