Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Just wondering, have you or anybody seen: Cube²: Hypercube, movie?
 

I have. I liked Cube better. I didn't know there were more.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> I have. I liked Cube better. I didn't know there were more.

I liked Cube²:Hypercube better because of the wonderful weirdness of 
waking up inside a 3d Cube which was part of a 4D cube, all the 
fascinating theories and convoluted plot and the non-sense ending was 
just classy for me, I only wish I had know more Math and understand was 
was the cylinder that psychiatrists brought back, but for me was the 
best anyway :-)

Ironically Cube 0, was the fourth movie and explain how the first Cube 
was build, is very interesting and creepy like the res of them. The 
first one was: Man in a Cube, literally; was a UK idea originally at the 
seems, there was a German version of Man in a Cube too, I don't 
understand much German so I didn't saw it completely.

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga wrote:
> I find it to be the most frustrating and fascinating thing ever. I did a 
> search for its objects: 
> http://search.viewpoint.com/pl/websearch?vb=2&tn=&type=ONE&k=4th+dimension+objects 
> 
> I don't know if some day would be possible but would be great to visit a 
> 4D world and meet 4D people :-D

It's good to know that some people are taking the idea of a fourth 
spatial dimension seriously. A lot of people argue that time is the 
"true" 4th dimension, but that idea just doesn't sit well with me, even 
though I don't have a lot of knowledge in this area.

> I was thinking and maybe this is where you go when you die and ghosts 
> are just what we can see from a 4D person. 4D makes my head go thinking 
> pretty bizarre stuff, don't you?

Yeah. I think maybe with our 3D minds we could travel through the fourth 
dimension, yet not be able to witness it directly as we do the 3rd. More 
speculation, I know. It might have been inspired by something...

Sam

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> You seem to know an awful amount of Math, you have a Degree on it or 
>> something related to it?
> 
> I have an Internet connection and too much free time. ;-)
> 
> Actually, I have an honors degree in Computer Science, which is closely 
> related to mathematics. (However, this is only what it says on the sheet 
> of paper; it was "really" a degree in Information Technology, which is 
> quite different...)
> 
> When I did my maths GCSE, I only got a C. But that was back when I 
> thought "maths" just meant doing endless runs of pen and paper 
> calculations...

Oh I see, well even I like Math there is a point where get really 
complex, so unless you devote your life to it you won't get an A from a 
teacher I think or you are some kind of genius. I have been the victim 
of those intellectually wain teachers that won't let you get more grade 
than they think you deserve even when I have proven them wrong according 
to a particular Math concept that they taught us to begin with, so I 
wouldn't worry much about a grade, you know what you know and life will 
grade you more fairly when the grade don't depend on biased humans.

Post a reply to this message

stbenge wrote:
> It's good to know that some people are taking the idea of a fourth 
> spatial dimension seriously. A lot of people argue that time is the 
> "true" 4th dimension, but that idea just doesn't sit well with me, even 
> though I don't have a lot of knowledge in this area.

I agree that it seems sort of like cheating to call time the fourth 
dimension, but there are some extremely good reasons for doing so. 
Foremost among these is that, due to special relativity, time and space 
can't be cleanly pulled apart like they can under a more classical model 
of physics.

In the "common sense" viewpoint we have a three-dimensional universe 
which is changing over time, so that at each time the entire 3d universe 
has some "state".  If you wanted to look at this is a four-dimensional 
space, you'd just stack these 3d universe-states together along a single 
other dimension representing time.  This gives you a 4d space, but under 
this view it's perfectly possible to the time dimension as somehow 
"fake".  The key point here, however, is that the common sense view is 
possible because these 3d "slices" of things happening at the same time 
are always parallel (and thus never intersect).

Under special relativity, unfortunately, this model is no longer the 
most natural.  The reason is that there is no longer a well-defined 
meaning to "things happening at the same time" as there was before. 
Instead, this meaning is dependent on your velocity (or rather the 
relative velocities of objects to you).

If we go back to the 4d model of the universe we'd built up for the 
common sense viewpoint, the interpretation now is that the *angle* of 
the 3d slice corresponding to everything "happening at the same time" 
changes with your velocity.  Thus it's not possible to pull the space 
apart into a bunch of well-defined 3d universe-states anymore, but 
instead you need to keep time in there are a proper fourth dimension.

It is worth nothing, however, that the time dimension is *not* identical 
to the space dimensions (one would hope not!) and distances are measured 
differently in time than in space.  Nevertheless this doesn't prevent it 
from being a proper dimension, it just means that the space has a 
different geometry than you'd get from treating time just like another 
spatial dimension.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Assuming our hypothetical 4D world has 4D atoms and 4D gravity, I 
> imagine your 0-thickness body would slip between the microscopic gaps 
> between atoms...

Since clearly the electromagnetic forces would remain three dimensional? 
  I'm not sure it's possible to talk about what it would actually mean 
to superimpose a three and four spatial-dimensional laws of physics in 
this way in a coherent manner, and at the very least doing so would 
require a significant amount of analysis to make sure you've correctly 
coupled the two.

Post a reply to this message

stbenge wrote:
> It's good to know that some people are taking the idea of a fourth 
> spatial dimension seriously. A lot of people argue that time is the 
> "true" 4th dimension, but that idea just doesn't sit well with me, even 
> though I don't have a lot of knowledge in this area.

I have found that there are 2 theories (Wikipedia), spacial 4D and the 
one assuming the 4th dimension is time, I think both concepts are not 
compatible, are two different assumtions.

> Yeah. I think maybe with our 3D minds we could travel through the fourth 
> dimension, yet not be able to witness it directly as we do the 3rd. More 
> speculation, I know. It might have been inspired by something...

Or maybe you leave your 3D body and become a 4D spirit that then will 
incarnate a 4D being and so on...

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> I have. I liked Cube better. I didn't know there were more.
> 
> I liked Cube²:Hypercube better because of the wonderful weirdness 
of 
> waking up inside a 3d Cube which was part of a 4D cube,

OK, maybe i'm remembering the wrong movie. The second Cube movie I saw wa
s 
shown from the POV of the operators of the first Cube.

Maybe we're talking about entirely different series of movies. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga wrote:
> stbenge wrote:
> Or maybe you leave your 3D body and become a 4D spirit that then will 
> incarnate a 4D being and so on...

But if so, how could you possible remember and/or integrate the 
experience with a 3D mind? Maybe you could remember that *something* 
happened, with a gained benefit of a new spiritual perspective...

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> I have. I liked Cube better. I didn't know there were more.
>>
>> I liked Cube²:Hypercube better because of the wonderful weirdness of 
>> waking up inside a 3d Cube which was part of a 4D cube,
> 
> OK, maybe i'm remembering the wrong movie. The second Cube movie I saw 
> was shown from the POV of the operators of the first Cube.
> 
> Maybe we're talking about entirely different series of movies. :-)
> 
No no, the second movie you saw is 'Cube Zero: the beginning' or 
something like that, which is the fourth and latest of the series, to my 
knowledge.

Post a reply to this message