how would one go about "opening" the 4th dimension?

>>8169885
Math.

File: insufficient_loom.jpg (396KB, 1570x1536px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 1570x1536px

>>8169885
Have you ever considered the possibility that you don't actually understand the scientific terms you're using? That maybe all of the advanced scientific explanations you've ever heard have just been metaphors, oversimplified to the point of removing all useful information? And that, therefore, you not only lack the knowledge to answer the questions you have, but also to know what questions are even vaguely coherent?

I would strongly recommend looking into this possibility.

you'd die instantly, your guts would be ejected into the 4th dimension

>>8169906
so why are there specifically 3 spatial dimensions

>>8169913
That could be just an approximation on a given scale.

>>8169913
There's only 3 spatial dimensions because the universe has 3 spatial dimensions.

It's that simple.

Theres a paper that studies the stability of spaces with higher dimensions and more than one time dimension and most of them are unstable

Point an arrow in some direction

Find a second direction at a right angle to the first

Find a third direction at a right angle to the first two

Find a fourth direction at right angle to the first three

>>8169991
>more than one time dimension
what does that even mean?

Psilocybin works.

>>8170157
you can look into imaginary time for an explanation. im not sure if you will understand anything though

>>8170065
/thread

>>8170160
Yes, psilocybin is highly recommended for visualization. Lower dosages for conceptual visualization and higher dosages for the actual sensory experience. You will only get lasting benefit if you are already familiar with the mathematics. High dosages can induce forced 4D visualization in anyone.

>>8170947
Nah, that's just babby's first basis.

4 spatial dimensions simply don't exist in our universe

>>8171024
Babby's first basis or some degenerate basis, they still have to bend outwards towards four different axes whether they are orthogonal or not. Otherwise, one would be a linear combination of the other three.

>>8169913
There aren't.
The models we use to predict reality use three dimensions and they're good enough.

>>8169913
>>8171056
You could add to that, if there are more spacial dimensions they must be small enough to have very little effect on dispersion of gas, as we have run experiments on dispersion of gas which corresponds to what we'd expect with three macroscopic spacial dimensions.

The simple version is: if there were four or more dimensions as "big" as the three we see, a popped balloon of gas would thin out more quickly than it does.

>>8171062
Couldn't the hypothetical fourth spatial dimension also be "large" enough to not be noticeable at the scales we consider? Is there a reason why it should be small instead of large on a cosmic scale?

>>8170157
It means instead of just being able to move forward or backward through time you can move left or right.

>>8170157
I suspect there is no useful answer for the same reason that we don't have a great answer why time isn't reversible.

>>8171068
If it's not noticable it might as well not exist.

Kinetic gas theory operates on a molecular level and it's good enough using three dimensions.

>>8169885
Plug your ass with a but plug OP.
It is the only way.

>>8169885
one would not.

>>8169913
>to our immediate awareness
>2d land
>2d people
>they would ask themselves why only 2 dimensions

>>8171630
>implying

Lower dimensional objects can't physically exist in higher dimension spaces.

Flatland doesn't tell the whole story even if it were possible

>>8171023
>High dosages can induce forced 4D visualization in anyone.
Alright that's bullshit, DMT on the other hand could work though