Have you realised yet that if you think four-dimensionally, nothing

File: 1470023135472.jpg (30KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 500x500px

This is now a viper thread.

Thread theme
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyOcZ3l19KY

░████▀▀▒▒▒▒▒░░░░▄▄▄▄▒▒▒▀▀███████░░
░░██▒▒▄▄▒░░░░▒▒▀▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▀▀██▌░
░░█▌▄▀▀▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▄▄▄▄▄▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▌▐▒█▐░
░░▀▌▒▒▒▄▄▄▒▒▒▒▒▀▄▄█▀▒▒░▒▒▒▒▒▐▒▐▒█░
░░░▐▒▄▀██▄▀▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▌▌▒█░
░░░▐▒▒▒▒▒▒▐▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▌▄▀█░
░░░▐▒▒▒▒▒▒▌▒▒▒▒▀▄░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▌▐██░
░░░░▌▒▒▒▒▐▒▒▒▒▄▄▀░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▌▒█░
░░░░▐▒▒▒▒▒▀▀▒▀▒▄▄▄▄░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░███░
░░░░░▌▒▒▒▄█▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀█▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░▀▐██░
░░░░░▐▒▒▒█▒▀████▀▀▒▐▌▒▒▒▒▒░▄▒▒▐░░░
░░░░░░▐▒▒▀▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▐▒▒▒▒▄▒▒▒▄▐░░░
░░░░░░▀▌▒▐▌▐▌▀▌▀▌▀▌▀▌▐▀▀▌▒▐▐▌▌▌▌░░
░░░░░░░█▒▐▒▐▌▒▌▄▌▐▌▄▒▐▌▄▌▒█▌█▒▒▐░░
░░░░░░░▐▌▌▒▐▌▒▌▒▒▐▌▒▄▐▌▀▄▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▀▄
░░░░░░░░▀▒▐▀▀▒▀▒▒▀▀▀▀▒▀▒▀▀▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒
YOU'LL COWARDS DON'T EVEN SMOKE CRACK

going further still, what would be a fifth-dimensional property. if the fourth dimension has the property that the entirety of the universe past, present, and future exists as a single unchanging entity, what then can we say about the one above that? what other properties are inherent to higher dimensions and how can we wrap our heads around them? these are the questions that haunt me.

>>36697
Who?

>>37461
1. X axis
2. XY axes
3. XYZ axes
4. XYZ axes in a time plane
5. Multiple time planes i.e. jumping realities, imagine all of them existing on top of or within each other like a neverending russian doll.

>>37704
mostly what i meant by this isn't the definition of the higher dimensions but the properties they contain. for instance, compare a rubiks cube to a sliding picture puzzle. the cube is several times more complex in construction because of the properties of three dimensional space. we understand these properties and can then manipulate them to fit our needs. what gets me though is thinking about how to manipulate 4d properties in the same manner. what kind of interactions could 4d objects have with each other if even at all.

>>37704
it's more like:
1. a point
2. a plane
3. an infinite number of planes stacked
4. an infinite number of "3" stacked

>>36693
I like to compare the universe to mathematics. We don't “invent” mathematics, mathematics is there all along. At best, we discover mathematics as we go along. We start out exploring in some direction and find whatever it has to offer us.

The enjoyment of mathematics, therefore, is the enjoyment of exploring the intricacies of a structure that exists all along. It is like this that I see the universe - a pre-existing, eternal structure which we can explore in as much detail as we like. If you focus on the moment, the here and now, you can observe all of the intricacies around you.

Don't get lost trying to look at the grand scheme of things, by zooming out until everything becomes homogeneous. Instead, look inwards and focus on all of the elaborate detail that manifests itself in its structure.

Exploring life is like exploring the beauty of a fractal. Forever unchanging and eternal, yet filled with surprises at every turn.

Relish the present.

>>37741
>Exploring life is like exploring the beauty of a fractal. Forever unchanging and eternal, yet filled with surprises at every turn.
>surprises
but dont fractals repeat the same pattern infinitely?

>>37925
Depends on the fractal. Some trivial fractals simply repeat, but more beautiful fractals like the mandelbrot and julia sets never loop - you can recognize patterns, but the details are always different.

>>36693
That is only the case if you consider the 4th dimension to be time, e.g. the 4-dimensional construct of spacetime, and not a 4th spatial dimension.

>>37947
The fact that one dimension is time-like only changes the way you have to apply the laws of physics to calculate the structure

It does not change the fact that you can visualize it from above

>>37967
4th spatial dimension: you can see everything happening at the same time, even if it's enclosed (picture a 2d picture with a guy in a house and a guy outside a house) - essentially x-ray vision with unlimited range.

4th time dimension: you can see everything that has ever happened and will ever happened at a given point.

>>37970
I don't understand the distinction between your two explanations. They sound like they describe the same concept to me.

>>37973
in the spatial one, there is no space limitation
in the time one, there's no time limitation.

Say all matter in the universe is considered Ψ, with x being an element of Ψ
And all time is considered Ω, with y being an element of Ω.

In the spatial fourth dimension, on any given point in time y, you are able to observe all of the matter, Ψ.

In the time fourth dimension, on any given point in space x, you can see all time in THAT space, Ω.

Blick Winkel pls go

>>37988
Not him, but still there is no difference
Don't you realize that the two are essentially the same thing
If I rotate a cube I can see all of its sides, even the hidden ones, but it takes *time*
If I can see the whole timeline at once I can see all sides of the cube at once.

>>37988
Your pseudo-mathematical formulas don't make sense. There's no concept of “seeing” in mathematics.

>>38008
it's not math, it's just quantities.
>>38004
Okay, one last time for you.
Spatial 4th dimension is like being in a 3d world, looking at a 2d representation of something. You can see through walls for example, because they're just a line to you. whether something is left or right of it, you don't care, you can see both.
Now I'm not talking about "stacked 2d", because that is already a primitive representation of 3d, but 'true' 2d, as in, nothing can be in front of anything.
Look into the definition of a tesseract. That explains it quite well imo.


Whereas, if you consider the 4th dimension to be time, it means you can't see through walls for example, but you are seeing the entirety of the timeline all at once BUT JUST ON THAT SPECIFIC SPOT. If you're in a house (let's just presume this house is eternal, it has always been), you don't see outside of that house. You only see what is happening in the house. Going back to the 2d thing, it's like having a 2d 'movie' you can jump around in as much as you want.

>>38012
>Whereas, if you consider the 4th dimension to be time, it means you can't see through walls for example, but you are seeing the entirety of the timeline all at once BUT JUST ON THAT SPECIFIC SPOT.
Please, Anon, stop
You clearly have no idea of what you are talking about, and how dimensions actually work.
None of that even makes sense.
>>38008 is right, there's no "seeing" concept in maths.
>You can see through walls for example, because they're just a line to you.
Hahahaha
Please go study physics instead of going on these pointless ramblings. You're confused.
Also the "4th dimension" can't be one thing or another.
The 4th dimension is time and the distinction between a "spatial" dimension and a temporal one is simply not how you think it is.

>>38012
Back up for a moment. We are not talking about a hypothetical world with 4 spatial dimensions, we are talking about a model of a 3D universe plotted against time on a 4th axis

Such a model is a 4D spatial construct

>>37973
i understand. basically, when you look out with your eyes, you are seeing a 2d representation of a 3d world. the thing closest in the foreground takes up that space in your 2d vision and nothing else can take up that space. the same thing happens over and over again in the direction you are looking until there is no more room on your visual "canvas" if you will.
to see a 4d world you would need to see in 3d. imagine a cube and the closest thing in 4d would fill up that space of the 3d canvas that you can see with. and so on and so forth in the same manner as what was described before.
the difference in spacial and time sight would be whether the 3d space is filled with everything in your line of sight happening at that moment, or everything that happened in the future or past, depending which way you look.

>>38088
also, just to clarify: im no mathematician, i just take the concepts ive seen and tried to implement them to the best of my ability. but i did have the same thought that the fourth dimension might not be time but spacial. but then again, how can i ever know?

>>38088
>the difference in spacial and time sight would be whether the 3d space is filled with everything in your line of sight happening at that moment, or everything that happened in the future or past, depending which way you look.
In a 4D model where one axis is time, your “line of sight” can extend into the future or past.

>>38094
im going to assume you didn't understand my explanation or the subject at hand fully. the debate here is whether the fourth axis is time or direction. assuming one gives you one answer, and assuming the other gives you another answer.

>>38100
>im going to assume you didn't understand my explanation or the subject at hand fully.
Ditto.

>the debate here is whether the fourth axis is time or direction.
No it wasn't, and it never was. That's perfectly clear already: The universe only has three (relevant) spatial dimensions; otherwise it would look very, very different. (For example, orbits only exist in three dimensions)

That minkowski spacetime etc. models a universe with 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension is perfectly clear and unanimously agreed upon. Nobody is trying to contest that, as far as I can tell.

>>38115
We're not talking about our universe. Observable to us, the universe has 3 spatial directions and one temporal direction. Whether there's more spatial directions - we can only prove that if we can prove that our universe loops around, so if, hypothetically, you fly into one direction for a very long time, you'll end up in the same place again at some point.

>>37741
>We don't “invent” mathematics, mathematics is there all along.
That's a matter of some debate.

>>38126
>Whether there's more spatial directions - we can only prove that if we can prove that our universe loops around, so if, hypothetically, you fly into one direction for a very long time, you'll end up in the same place again at some point.
We can prove that all our laws of physics only operate on 3 dimensions.

>>38129
They do - we are living in a 3-dimensional world after all, and we're 3-dimensional beings. But we don't, and probably never will know, if our observable universe is just one of many things in a 4-dimensional space, just as a drawn stickman will never know what's beyond the surface he's drawn on.

>>38164
>But we don't, and probably never will know, if our observable universe is just one of many things in a 4-dimensional space, just as a drawn stickman will never know what's beyond the surface he's drawn on.
Occam's razor dictates that extra dimensions only exist if they have a measurable effect on our world. If they don't, they don't exist.

>>38164
>But we don't, and probably never will know,
Of course we know, do you think physics can only understand the things it sees?
Our universe has 11 dimensions, as predicted by current models.
That only the first 3 dimensions are spatial is evident because if the 4th dimension was spatial or laws of physics would look different
>just as a drawn stickman will never know what's beyond the surface he's drawn on.
Again, no.
Just because we see 3 dimensions it doesn't mean we don't know if there are more
Also yes, the stickman could find out that there's more dimensions than two if he was as smart as we are.

Einstein proposed that something the mathemagicians call 'a' field comes in physical contact with the skin of
the Moon. This so-called gravity well can be likened to a curved bowl of sorts. The Moon rolls around this well
much like the ball rolls around the roulette.
No one since the days of Newton ever
discovered that 'field' is a concept.
Concepts have no power or authority to
affect matter. Yet Einstein uses this
word 'field' as a physical object to
restrain the Moon. No one in the
Mathemagical Establishment ever
questioned such hogwash!

Unfortunately for Einstein and his mathemagical colleagues, a 'field' -- whether gravitational, magnetic or
electric -- is an abstract concept. Does it make sense to say that your dog is tied to the pole because he
is physically bound by love or by information or by energy? A genuine physicist MUST propose a physical
object as a mediator. Otherwise, his explanation is irrational. All causes in Physics had better have a physical
mediator!