Thread: Imagining The Tenth Dimension

Now i did some more research into it starting with rob bryaton the person who produced this rubbish. He a string theorist which i predicted earlier which i dont consider science it has no evidence and it cant be tested it the equaliant of intelligent design but with physics. This may seem like a harsh statement but in his book chapter six the autrophic prinicple, the crappy prinicple is basically this that god did it. What a cop out this to me make it religious rubbish trying to branded as physics. So unless you believe in god stay away from this idiot.

stop one moment.

time is just our perception. he said you could call the 4th dim time, but he didn't say it nessesserally was

"One word for it could be duration"

what makes time such a bad idea, anyway? Do you honestly think time is a straght line?

stop one moment.

time is just our perception. he said you could call the 4th dim time, but he didn't say it nessesserally was

"One word for it could be duration"

what makes time such a bad idea, anyway? Do you honestly think time is a straght line?[/b]

Ok here the problem with calling time the fourth dimension. Now

The fourth dimension is often identified with time, and as such is used to explain space-time in Einstein's theories of special relativity and general relativity. In this case, the concept of an additional spatial dimension would be referred to as the fifth dimension. In this article, however, we discuss the implications of considering the fourth dimension as another spatial dimension.[/b]

See as it say up their time is another dimension it not a spatial dimension, that the soul problen on how he is wrong because he treat spartial and time as the same which is clearly wrong. If time is another spatial dimensions you could make up four dimensional object using spacetime but you cant because time isnt a spatial dimension.

What do you call time then?

What do you call time then?[/b]

Well you call time a refrence dimension, Also the other three dimensions our spartle dimension.
Spartle is movement and refrences is change i.e. in a spartle dimension you need time to move because movement is change in position. See that why you get 3:1 signature for spacetime because one dimension is off time which is a refrences dimension, if time was a spartle dimensions their would be a 4 signature of space which makes no sense at all plus it wouldnt work. I can give you the anwser of why a 4d spacetime is not a 4d space but it complicated.

yet we are moving through time as we speak.

if you could give me the example, I am sure it will clear things up for me

yet we are moving through time as we speak.

if you could give me the example, I am sure it will clear things up for me[/b]

Ok i give you an example. Let say were in a box it 3d and i can move in all 3d directions. Now say i want to move from one end to the box to the other. Now i will just walk across. Let anaylise this with more detail, well to walk you need time and you need to have spartle movement i.e. dimensions of movement more then a point. Now when moving across the box i will reach the other end and this will take some time. Now we dont move in time however we move in space. Put it this way time is the change of position of the man walking, time itself can not move it can only show change. A good example would be to reach the end and then go through a worm hole back to the bit to you just started walking and kill your younger self this would cause a paradox which doesnt happen in the other 3 spartle dimension theirfore they must be seperate.

Does that explain it, i can give you another example.

I just thought of a better example. Well let say we get a flatlander they most live in a 3d world because by your logic time is a dimension of space. So they need two to move and another one to move called time so they can move. Now if we get a three dimensional object like a vase and ignorane time so that it frozen. Now their a obvious difference between a 3d vase and a flatlander world. Keeper think about it. Well just to be sure because your not brimming with brain cells, now a 3d vase is static and a flatlander world moves but by the logic that 3d means space and time why is the vase static i.e. it xyz is a constant however in a flat lander world x and y our not static but z is.

perhaps you are looking at it the wrong way... what if we looked at time as both a property of the 2nd and 3rd dimensions, while time is also a dimension in it's own right? in this string theory explanation thing, it left open the possibility of other dimensions influencing the one you are in at the time, but you not being to precieve it in it's entirety (such as the flatlander viewing a 3d object) it's all about perspective.

I think I see what you are saying, but bare in mind a 3d vase is also a 2d flatlander moving through a dimention of time

perhaps you are looking at it the wrong way... what if we looked at time as both a property of the 2nd and 3rd dimensions, while time is also a dimension in it's own right? in this string theory explanation thing, it left open the possibility of other dimensions influencing the one you are in at the time, but you not being to precieve it in it's entirety (such as the flatlander viewing a 3d object) it's all about perspective.[/b]

This is getting more stupid. Ok now let me get it your perspective. Well then say we got a 1 dimensional creature or a point now okay that fine. So what about time well that would be the 2 dimension. You could reason that it moves across the second dimension or a line into the future and that it doesnt move anywhere in the first dimension. Now let say you swap the dimensions around time becomes static however the spartle movement can move along the point. However then this would be static because their no time and chang so you make another time dimension up so now we have 3dimensions. Now the flat lander can move up and down the point. Now let swap them again so time becomes a static dimension and that spartle dimensions is the 3rd dimension. Well this would have all the degree of movement of a line again so we have to have another dimension of time.
The point is this time allows movement space doesnt i.e. time is the change and space is co-ordinate or freedom of movement. See it would be silly to say a vase with only 3d of space can change and move without time and is like a flatlander world.
Also you cant construct a 3d object in a flat lander world even thought you taking space and time as the same thing.

To really make it clearer it like this in a flat lander world their our 2 dimensions of space xy and one of time t so if they were the same you would be able to make a 3d object. Now this is impossible because xyt=0 because to make a bullon their need to be change in t to get the whole shape. Now in a 3d world if we did this with a piece of paper rubbed it out draw a bullon and then made it smaller e.t.c. so it would appear as the flat lander see it. Now would we have constructed a 3d object no. Theirfore it most not be perspective

You misinterpret. I considered the possibility of time as a property throughout all the dimensions... at the same time, noting the fourth dimension as a physical manifestation of the property... the "interface" so to speak. We, the three-dimensional humans that we are, have no access to this interface. understand?

You misinterpret. I considered the possibility of time as a property throughout all the dimensions... at the same time, noting the fourth dimension as a physical manifestation of the property... the "interface" so to speak. We, the three-dimensional humans that we are, have no access to this interface. understand?
[/b]

As said earlier you cant construct a three dimension object out of the flat landers world even if you take time into consideration i.e. if a person looks at the flat landers attempt to do so it would not make the piece of paper that they live on 3d to the 3d person who viewing it. Our you saying that time is different from all the other dimension which is the correct Einstienian view and Euclid view.

I'm saying that it's different in that the fourth dimension's properties permeate through all the dimensions, while itself having a domain of it's own.

I'm saying that it's different in that the fourth dimension's properties permeate through all the dimensions, while itself having a domain of it's own.[/b]

So do you call the forth dimension a space or time

I really don't know what to call it.

I really don't know what to call it.[/b]

as i thought

Well go and read the link in my topic higher dimensions it will clear up your ideas. Also it a time dimension because of einstein physics signature of 3:1 i.e. one time dimension and three dimension. Put it this way if the fourth dimension was is like the other dimension we wouldnt exsist quote

Privileged character of 3+1 spacetime
Dimensions are of two kinds: spatial and temporal. That spacetime, ignoring any undetectable compactified dimensions, consists of 3+1 dimensions (ie three spatial (bidirectional) and one temporal (unidirectional)), is often explained by appeal to the mathematical and physical effects of differing numbers of dimensions. Most often this takes the form of an anthropic argument.[/b]

See time is a temporal dimension.

actually, I didn't know what to call it because I imagined it as a mix of both.

actually, I didn't know what to call it because I imagined it as a mix of both.[/b]

Well then that means either you or einstein is wrong. Well at least you know now.

--_-- then I concede. who would argue with the man who made possible the atomic bomb? only a comparable scientist, and that I am not.

There may actually be a 4d spatial dimensions - infinite in size compared to our 3d spatial dimensions, so don't count them out. (and I assume this because our 3d spatial dimesions are infinite in size compared to 2d spatial dimensions - that is we cannot discover 2d flatlanders, because the flatland, having 0 depth in our dimension, takes up 0 volume)

I view time as an uncontrollable dimension of movement.

We have control over the other three, but time, we are constantly being forced forward. Maybe time is the 4th spatial dimension. If you take all of time that ever existed, it is infinite in size compared to our "now" point in time. By spatial movement, it's hard to describe, but you'd sort of be phasing in and out of different points in time, and as time changes, the space you occupy changes as well (with respect to time).

There may actually be a 4d spatial dimensions - infinite in size compared to our 3d spatial dimensions, so don't count them out. (and I assume this because our 3d spatial dimesions are infinite in size compared to 2d spatial dimensions - that is we cannot discover 2d flatlanders, because the flatland, having 0 depth in our dimension, takes up 0 volume)

I view time as an uncontrollable dimension of movement.

We have control over the other three, but time, we are constantly being forced forward. Maybe time is the 4th spatial dimension. If you take all of time that ever existed, it is infinite in size compared to our "now" point in time. By spatial movement, it's hard to describe, but you'd sort of be phasing in and out of different points in time, and as time changes, the space you occupy changes as well (with respect to time).
[/b]

Well no

Penrose's singularity theorem
In his book The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, scientist Sir Roger Penrose explained his singularity theorem. It asserts that all theories that attribute more than three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension to the world of experience are unstable. The instabilities that exist in systems of such extra dimensions would result in their rapid collapse into a singularity. For that reason, Penrose wrote, the unification of gravitation with other forces through extra dimensions cannot occur.
[/b]

Time is a temporal dimension and is seperate hence einstein physics

Privileged character of 3+1 spacetime
Dimensions are of two kinds: spatial and temporal. That spacetime, ignoring any undetectable compactified dimensions, consists of 3+1 dimensions (ie three spatial (bidirectional) and one temporal (unidirectional)), is often explained by appeal to the mathematical and physical effects of differing numbers of dimensions. Most often this takes the form of an anthropic argument.[/b]

If time was what you said all of einstein physics would break down.

The psychological arrow of time is thought to be reducible to the thermodynamic arrow: it has deep connections with Maxwell's demon and the physics of information; In fact, it is easy to understand its link to the Second Law of Thermodynamics if we view memory as correlation between brain cells (or computer bits) and the outer world. Since the Second Law of Thermodynamics is equivalent to the growth with time of such correlations, then it states that memory will be created as we move towards the future (rather than towards the past).[/b]

Time is a temperal dimension and it appears to go forward because of the second law of thermodynamics, put it this way if time was actually going backward how would we know.

As i saying over again time is not a spartle dimension it a temporal if it was a spartle dimension then the whole of einsteinian physics would be thrown out of the window.