Would a 4th dimensional object produce more or less gravity than

I think it still depends on the object mass... I mean, they could have 3D and 4D and still have the same mass, right? So they should produce the same gravity...

>>8721723
Depends on its mass.

>>8721760
Exactly anon

Only the projection would have mass. Mass doesn't translate through dimensions. The object would technically have infinite mass, as a 3D object is massless in the 4th dimension. The projection would weigh as much as any 3D matter.

File: If you are happy and you know it clap your hands.jpg (164KB, 1224x1632px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 1224x1632px

pleb question, but what are elliptical Earth orbits used for? I mean, what kind of satellite would benefit from such an orbit?

if we imagine that it has the analogue of 3D mass in 4 dimensions, then less gravity, as the force would be proportional to distance in -3 power

>>8721773
So the projection of a tesseract would produce the same amount of gravity as a cube? What about in a 4th dimensional setting?

>>8721784
space telescopes

>>8721786
yes

>>8721786
Idk, we aren't aware of any type of matter that operates in the 4th dimension. All of our known particles are 3D or at least 3D projections. We would have to make a new concept of mass specifically for 4D particles.

>>8721795
Superstrings operate in 10 dimensions
Supergravity operates in 11 dimensions
Bosonic superstrings operate in 26 dimensions

>>8721810
But then again, these are theoretical objects,

>>8721810
Not part of our standard model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

>>8721810
The fuck is supergravity?

>>8721828
it's like gravity but better

>>8721831
this

>>8721828
A combination of supersymmetry and general relativity

>>8721872
The fuck is supersymmetry?

>>8721893
symmetry but more

>>8721997
this

>>8721893
Supersymmetry is a type of spacetime symmetry that relates two basic classes of elementary particles: bosons, which have an integer-valued spin, and fermions, which have a half-integer spin.

>>8722000
digits....

>>8721893
like symmetry but better

>>8721893
u know what symmetry is right?

now make it more "super" by increasing its symmetriness.

>>8721723
>4th dimension
La-la land.

>>8722048
If post ends in 9 we should die

>>8721723
The gravitational pull of an object is only dependent on its mass, regardless of how many "dimensions" it is in.

>>8721784
Comms satellites for more polar regions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molniya_orbit

>>8722108
yes

>>8721723
Depends. Are we comparing a 3d object in 3d space to a 4d object in 4d space with equal masses? If so then in the 4d world our inverse square gravitational law becomes an inverse cube law so the 3d object would exert a greater force assuming that G doesn't also change in the 4d world.

>>8722143

If both objects had 1G of gravity at their surface then as you went up the strength of gravity of the object in four spatial dimensions would drop off more quickly. When the gravitational pull of the 3D object reached 0.5G for example, at the same distance the pull from the 4D object would be 0.25G.

>>8722143
>>8722387
Is time dilation only a 3d thing or will it work in 4d?

>>8722387
Your math is a bit off. if the force is of the 3d object is .5G then the force of the 4d would be [math]\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}^3}G=\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}G[/math]

>>8722395
No clue. I believe it would still be present but probably the formulas that are used to calculate it would change. Maybe its just a simple change in exponent maybe something more complicated.

>>8721723
GR in 5D induces a 1/r^2 potential for 1/r^3 gravitational force.

The em force is gravity acting along the 5th dim if you like d=11 supergravity theory