flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > there are other dimensions!

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
I think he wanted to say physicist Razz

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 29 Sep 2009, 14:26
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8868
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
but why 4th dimension is time??? Is that what current science teach and agreed to?? Unbelievable..
Post 29 Sep 2009, 16:29
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
No sleepsleep, these are only hypotheses, which probably go into philosophy. I think time is just a measure of change in space, not a dimension -- it's an illusion we attribute to stuff changing.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 29 Sep 2009, 17:56
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8868
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
i think 4th dimension is the power (ability) one object got.

then fith diimension is motion based on the 4th dimension power.

well, i just perceive so.
it is not kilometer per hour, but kilometer per how many power that power got. sort of like that...
Post 29 Sep 2009, 18:18
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 29 Sep 2009, 19:11
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
i think 4th dimension is ...

Strictly scientifically speaking, if you can make (mathematical) model that can describe and predict reality, which uses 4th dimension for whatever useful, then you can say "according to my model, 4th dimension is XYZ".

Quote:
but why 4th dimension is time??? Is that what current science teach and agreed to?? Unbelievable..

If someone can make model of reality which uses 4th dimension for time, then yeah, it is right to teach such model. What is it that disturbs you so much about 4th dimension used to denote time?

Quote:
i think 4th dimension is the power (ability) one object got.

What is that "power"? Why is it scalar (one-dimensional)? What observable phenomena does your model predict or explain that classical models don't?

PS: what the hell do you all have against my englisch mystakes? I'd love to see your Slovakish. I quess its very worser. :]
Post 30 Sep 2009, 15:53
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
If someone can make model of reality which uses 4th dimension for time, then yeah, it is right to teach such model. What is it that disturbs you so much about 4th dimension used to denote time?
I'm not sleepsleep but personally, I have a problem with time being a 4th dimension, because "space-time" is a paradox, it implies that time can change, but time is a measure of change.

So it's like saying that change can change. This is ridiculous because whatever we observe as changing we denote as time, whether the clock accelerates (2nd degree) or is linear (as it is normally), it is based on mechanical interactions, not on the 4th dimension.

ALL our devices that measure time are based on SPACE EFFECTS (3D), not magically extract information from the 4th dimension.

There is no reason to believe in a 4th dimension being time. Plus "time-travel" would be a paradox, but in SPACE, you CAN go back, so why couldn't you go back along the 4th axis?

The answer is because there is NO TIME, it's just CHANGE. There is nothing to "go back" except just reversing all the change.

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time

vid wrote:
PS: what the hell do you all have against my englisch mystakes? I'd love to see your Slovakish. I quess its very worser. :]
because it's like the difference between a newbie and a noob: one is honestly a newcomer but tries to improve, the other is a noob forever. What's so hard to type 'g' instead of 'q' for "quess"? Razz

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 30 Sep 2009, 15:57
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
r22



Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Posts: 805
r22
@ 4D = time

You're too hung up on the definition of time.
In the context of 4D "time" merely means the AXIS perpendicular to the previous (XYZ).
Because of this it relates CHANGE in XYZ like all the dimensions before it.

2D Y is the change in X on the X AXIS rotated 90 degrees
3D Z is the change in XY on the XY plane rotated 90 degrees on/about Y AXIS
4D t is the change in XYZ on the ?cube? formed by the perpendiculars of the planes of the cube of XYZ
Post 30 Sep 2009, 19:38
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger Reply with quote
Xorpd!



Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Posts: 161
Xorpd!
r22 wrote:
3D Z is the change in XY on the XY plane rotated 90 degrees on/about Y AXIS
4D t is the change in XYZ on the ?cube? formed by the perpendiculars of the planes of the cube of XYZ


No, a Lorentz boost is way different from a rigid body rotation and the Minkowski metric is way different from the Euclidean metric.
Post 01 Oct 2009, 06:04
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17249
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Xorpd! wrote:
No, a Lorentz boost is way different from a rigid body rotation and the Minkowski metric is way different from the Euclidean metric.
Also, a potato is not the same as a chip. Razz

Buzzwords, buzzwords, buzzwords.

I know that "metric" is related to the metre. And that "Euclidean" is related to Euclid. Does that mean that Euclid is(/was) one metre tall? But I don't see how "Lorentz boosting Minkowski's metric by rotating his rigid body" fits in.
Post 01 Oct 2009, 06:21
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
r22 wrote:
4D t is the change in XYZ on the ?cube? formed by the perpendiculars of the planes of the cube of XYZ
It can't be a "spatial" dimension since you can't go back. And being a "time" dimension is impossible since it means it change can change.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 01 Oct 2009, 14:34
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8868
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
is that our current earth only allow us to see 3 dimensions aka 3D?
and regarding the capabilities of our eyes, does it only able to sees 3D?

and from mathematic pov, since numbers are infinity, why no negative & positive unlimitted dimensions?
Post 01 Oct 2009, 17:10
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8868
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
and why we accept that we need to sleep everday?
like missing 8 hours each day and consider it normal....

10 pm, we start to sleep
6 am, we wake up and start our day.

10 pm to 6 am, each day, where we gone?
any sure way (url, web, youtube) to bring consciousness into sleep, fully aware from 10pm to 6am? i think,if i am scientiest, i want to explore this sleeping event. but i am not, i am a junk.. hahaha
Post 06 Oct 2009, 17:03
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
You can think of sleeping as defragmenting your memories Wink

As for negative dimensions: what would be their purpose? the "number" or "ID" of dimensions is just what we use to classify them, you can call them "afnuinweiufr" for all I care, doesn't change a thing.

If you call them -1,0,1 instead of 0,1,2 or 1,2,3 do you think it makes a difference?

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 06 Oct 2009, 17:05
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MHajduk



Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6034
Location: Poland
MHajduk
sleepsleep wrote:
is that our current earth only allow us to see 3 dimensions aka 3D?
and regarding the capabilities of our eyes, does it only able to sees 3D?
With some dose of the imagination you can see also higher dimensions. Wink For example, this is a 4-dimensional analogue of the cube (hypercube):

Image

Razz
Post 06 Oct 2009, 18:36
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
bitshifter



Joined: 04 Dec 2007
Posts: 764
Location: Massachusetts, USA
bitshifter
ooh, thats mezmorizing
i cant stop staring at it
please help me... to ... look ... away...
Post 06 Oct 2009, 18:50
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4237
Location: 2018
edfed
as we cannot represent 3D in a 1D plane, we cannot represent a 4D in 2D plane.

for me, this is not the hypercube, but a thing.
Post 06 Oct 2009, 18:55
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
LocoDelAssembly
Your code has a bug


Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 4633
Location: Argentina
LocoDelAssembly
Quote:

we cannot represent a 4D in 2D plane.

But it probably faithfully represents how would we see a 4D object if we ever found one. After all, we can't represent 3D in 2D correctly, otherwise we wouldn't be fooled by things like this: http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2005/06/optical_street_art_o.html

PS: More here: http://users.skynet.be/J.Beever/pave.htm
Post 06 Oct 2009, 19:07
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Let's try to remember a fact before we declare how many dimensions there are... The very concept of dimensionality relies on mathematics. In fact, dimensions are merely how we explain forms of measurement in mathematics. Time has often become an accepted forth dimension simply because it was written in a book. We could also assign a dimension number for mass as well, considering that. Who's to say that there even are three dimensions? We just perceive them to be.

I believe that dimensions exist no more than any other mathematical concept like the number two. It's merely a way of representing things that we measure and/or perceive. A dimension is merely a medium through which two or more values can distance themselves with. If i have only two points on a piece of paper, there's no reason for me to declare the distance in two dimensional form, because the only two points can accurately be described with one dimension, so for that object, only that dimension exists.

We seem to be fascinated with math and give it the credit science has. Remember, math and science are both human inventions (supposing aliens aren't out there who invented it first), so those concepts and their results are limited by it's users and creators. Let us not be so vain as to assume that we could ever possibly explain everything when, mathematically speaking, existence is boundless. Those who choose to believe in a deity should not try to use science and math to prove the existence of that deity unless they are prepared to explain how we are to prove that something particularly greater than us is not a fraud, nor should they try to do so until they can explain how a deity who obviously (at this point) doesn't wish to be found, could possibly be found when it is beyond our limits and therefore beyond our concepts. To do such a thing as to prove or disprove a deity's existence, we must become better than that thing which we are to prove or disprove, which would immediately disprove it.

However, we must remember that we are limited, and therefore incapable of proving or disproving anything to an ultimate and finite level. We can only argue points and try to deceive one side of the argument that we really can prove our point. As a Christian, i say that it would be very unchristian of me to lie and say that it's not absolute faith to believe in God. You can try to come up with as many explanations as you can, but to rely on anyone of them to believe in a god makes you a fickle person. If a god (or many) exists He (/She/They) obviously doesn't (/don't) want to be found, so it's futile to try to prove (or try to explain) the existence, just as it would be to prove (or try to explain) the lack of. In many respects, many things which even atheists believe in could technically be called a god.

Ultimately, it's just an excuse to argue. Therefore, it should not be for anyone to decide another's belief or force their belief on them. The idea is to make choices available so someone could choose their own faith. We must have respect for each other, and remember that each individual has certain rights. The real question come to be, who should have rights and who shouldn't, and why it would be such a problem for that particular group to have rights? However, topic for another discussion.
Post 10 Oct 2009, 08:53
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17249
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
A snippet from revolution's dictionary:

Faith, noun - see self delusion.
God, noun - see mythical concepts.
Religion, noun - see group delusion.

Twisted Evil

If you can't prove something either way then ignore it. It was probably just someone making it up as a joke.
Post 10 Oct 2009, 09:11
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.