 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27/07/2013 7:27 PM, Nekar Xenos wrote:
> Come to think of it. If there are other dimensions, not much is
> happenning there because we don't see any effects of more dimensions
But what if we do see effects but don't see that they are effects?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 27 Jul 2013 20:39:07 +0200, Stephen <mca### [at] aol com> wrote:
> On 27/07/2013 7:27 PM, Nekar Xenos wrote:
>> Come to think of it. If there are other dimensions, not much is
>> happenning there because we don't see any effects of more dimensions
>
>
> But what if we do see effects but don't see that they are effects?
>
True.
I read something yesterday. Apparently according to calculations the have
to be at more than 2 more dimensions.
--
-Nekar Xenos-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27/07/2013 7:47 PM, Nekar Xenos wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jul 2013 20:39:07 +0200, Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>
>> On 27/07/2013 7:27 PM, Nekar Xenos wrote:
>>> Come to think of it. If there are other dimensions, not much is
>>> happenning there because we don't see any effects of more dimensions
>>
>>
>> But what if we do see effects but don't see that they are effects?
>>
>
> True.
> I read something yesterday. Apparently according to calculations the
> have to be at more than 2 more dimensions.
>
I think that there may be a little bit of:
"To get these calculations to work, we need at least two more
dimensions." N.B. No smiley. ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/27/2013 11:17 AM, Warp wrote:
>
> But since the question was "why don't we see objects moving the fourth
> dimension", talking about GR was more illustrative because according
> to it, the apparent acceleration caused by gravity is in fact caused by
> movement in the fourth dimension (and the nonlinearity of spacetime.)
>
A fair enough point.
Not really sure that I agree with your characterization of GR, as I
don't see how GR involves more "movement in the 4th dimension" than SR.
For the purposes of the current conversation it's probably not
relevant though.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nekar Xenos <nek### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I imagined it this way:
> Imagine a swimming pool with the water surface as a 2d universe. The
> beings in this universe cannot see anything that is not the water surface.
> When you step into the water they perceive first small circular
> shapes(your toes) merging into a oval shape, etc. The don't see a
> projection of your 3d body, they see a slice.
> So I assume that we (3d beings) would only be able to see a 3d slice of a
> 4d object.
That would require an actual physical volume that cuts our vision. What
would that physical volume be?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 28 Jul 2013 09:27:21 +0200, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Nekar Xenos <nek### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> I imagined it this way:
>> Imagine a swimming pool with the water surface as a 2d universe. The
>> beings in this universe cannot see anything that is not the water
>> surface.
>> When you step into the water they perceive first small circular
>> shapes(your toes) merging into a oval shape, etc. The don't see a
>> projection of your 3d body, they see a slice.
>> So I assume that we (3d beings) would only be able to see a 3d slice of
>> a
>> 4d object.
>
> That would require an actual physical volume that cuts our vision. What
> would that physical volume be?
>
I don't have a clue.
4d water? ;S
--
-Nekar Xenos-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27-7-2013 20:34, Nekar Xenos wrote:
> What if time could have more dimensions? That would be interesting. A
> being in 2-dimensional time could see back and forth in our 1d time.
Just my two cents:
Consider a human being from birth till death. That whole continuum would
be a 4D being, with each observation of it a 3D representation. In fact,
what we observe at each instant of our life.
A 5D observer, if such exists, would see at a glance the 4D human being,
which we are unable to do.
So, no. Time is only one dimension, and to observe it you need a higher one.
Interesting discussion by the way.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Why would they move in the other dimensions, if they are only moved in
>> our three or four?
>> What force would move them?
>
> Why would they *not* move in the other dimensions? Why would all forces
> just happen to be perpendicular to those dimension?
If there was ever any component of any force not wholly constrained
within our 3D "view" then surely this could be used to accelerate a mass
along one of these other dimensions which we would see as mass
disappearing (apart from any 4D GR stuff)?
Or, our idea of "mass" is somehow not telling us the whole story (dark
matter?).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> If there was ever any component of any force not wholly constrained
> within our 3D "view" then surely this could be used to accelerate a mass
> along one of these other dimensions which we would see as mass
> disappearing (apart from any 4D GR stuff)?
Why would it disappear? Where's all this stuff about slicing coming from?
To slice an object you would need something that slices it (visually or
physically). It doesn't become sliced just because.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> If there was ever any component of any force not wholly constrained
>> within our 3D "view" then surely this could be used to accelerate a mass
>> along one of these other dimensions which we would see as mass
>> disappearing (apart from any 4D GR stuff)?
>
> Why would it disappear?
The assumption is that if there are more than 3 spatial dimensions, we
can only view and measure an infinitely "thin" 3D slice of a higher
dimensional world. If mass is conserved in 4D (or higher) space then it
should be possible (or even usual) for mass to change in a 3D slice.
I guess the assumption comes from the analogy with living in a 2D world
where you can't see the 3rd dimension - objects that move in the 3rd
dimension would appear to grow and shrink in your 2D world, leading you
to formulate that mass is not always conserved in your world, it
"disappears" off somewhere you can't measure or see.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
