|
Post by SilentWaves on Dec 28, 2008 23:21:20 GMT -5
4 d is the fabric of time and placement
|
|
|
Post by shandyman on Dec 29, 2008 12:21:18 GMT -5
I don't think that 4D is time... 'time' can be measured, but not changed or reshaped. time isn't a 'fabric', it's a.....it's not anything. time is an illusion. 'time' is a creation of man originally from the motions of the sun. (or the motions of the earth around the sun...which ever you prefer) today, we have a formation of springs and gears to 'measure' 'time' for us. we can measure 'time', yes. but we can't change it or manipulate it in any way. if the 4th dimension has anything to do with time, then it's the time it takes to perform an action in the first 3 dimensions. (or the first 4 dimensions if you want to include points)
|
|
|
Post by Sandmaster on Dec 29, 2008 12:29:57 GMT -5
Don't be ignorant. 4D is an upper level of space, as is 5D
If a cube is an infinite amount of squares (as squares have infinitesimal volume, therefore a cube with even .1 inches or whatever thick is still infinity times thicker than a square), than a tesseract is an object containing an ifninite amount of cubes!
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Dec 29, 2008 12:36:55 GMT -5
EDIT: Darn, you posted before I did.What exactly is time? Well, I think that time can be defined as the rate of change. If nothing changes, then there is no time, unless everything changed, everything ceased to change, and began changing again, in which case whether or not something was changing would have changed momentarily, which means that there still was time. It would be impossible to correctly say "For insert duration of time time ceased to exist," according to what I stated above. Are there any other spatial (non-temporal) dimensions we can controllably interact with, or are we limited to our four spatial dimensions and our single, unmodifiable temporal "dimension"? If a cube is an infinite amount of squares (as squares have infinitesimal volume, therefore a cube with even .1 inches or whatever thick is still infinity times thicker than a square), than a tesseract is an object containing an ifninite amount of cubes! That nearly sounds like integral calculus, in which an infinite number of lines of varying length (and zero width) in the xy-plane can be used to perfectly measure the area of a 2D region bounded by any function and any other function...
|
|
|
Post by Sandmaster on Dec 29, 2008 12:44:06 GMT -5
Technically, yes. Space isn't the only variable. Time's variable is probably 'side to side,' from one SITUATION of change (decision whether to go right or left splits off universe kinda thing).
Also, there are probably other variables as well that we cannot comprehend.
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Dec 29, 2008 12:46:45 GMT -5
Indeed, which is why I sometimes loathe being a member of Homo sapiens.
|
|
|
Post by Sandmaster on Dec 29, 2008 13:01:47 GMT -5
Isn't it a pain that such is true?
|
|
|
Post by SilentWaves on Dec 29, 2008 22:10:08 GMT -5
time is not mans creation man only wrote down what events are in time such as the ending of the years time itself however stilll exists like the time in between this post and the next or how time is much slower in a black hole. and if you realy want to know the answer to everything think really hard about 42 and what it can go into it really explains some freaky stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Sandmaster on Dec 31, 2008 0:28:14 GMT -5
I agreed until you said "time is slower in a black hole"
That's total bull.
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Dec 31, 2008 0:43:47 GMT -5
I agree with Sandmaster for the black hole theory. The theory (which is only such) is that entities travelling at faster velocities will pass time faster than entities which do not travel as fast. If one allows a black hole to propel you correctly, then one can travel at such velocities as to make large units of time pass by: black holes themselves do not slow down time. Black holes are only extremely dense former stars (see my earlier post on 3 rd page). Click above link (the date in the quote) to go to post.
|
|
|
Post by theultamate on Dec 31, 2008 10:06:14 GMT -5
very confusing this,
|
|
|
Post by Sandmaster on Dec 31, 2008 11:52:48 GMT -5
that theory has been disproved. for several reasons:
A: What scale is there? Are you saying that if one man is constantly in motion, exactly 1 mile an hour, and another at 2, then one man will live twice as long?
B: Time is stationary. You can't go faster or slower in it, only your consciousness can THINK faster or slower, making it seem like you are frozen in time. That's a bodily function. It has nothing to do with time itself.
C: Space is stationary and is not connected with time. Black holes are also not 'holes'. I've heard many people say they are. It's total crap.
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Jan 1, 2009 3:29:38 GMT -5
What does part C have to do with the time travel relativity theory?
Are we ready for a new topic, or is there still something that we need to finish here with "higher spatial dimensions" or "Einstein's space-time connection" or black holes not being hyper-dense former stars formerly +50x larger than our Sun?
|
|
|
Post by theultamate on Jan 1, 2009 4:50:28 GMT -5
ok do you think that bigfoot exists?
its a theory i think he does
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Jan 1, 2009 5:23:21 GMT -5
I'm not quite sure what to say about that...
What exactly is big foot? There is usually some generally accepted "truths" about it/him/her, but we never are quite sure how to define him. (Replace "we never are" with "I never am" if we is too general.) For example, does it have one foot larger than the other, is it mammalian in nature, are there several, is it a mutated, primitive human?
One thing I will state is that if there is only one big foot and it does not reproduce asexually, then I DEFINITELY do not believe in big foot. Other than that, see my first sentence in this post.
|
|
|
Post by theultamate on Jan 1, 2009 5:28:38 GMT -5
okaaaaaaay so wut do we talk about now?
|
|
|
Post by shandyman on Jan 1, 2009 13:17:31 GMT -5
hmm... (<- Copyright QwertyuiopthePie) New Topic! - Perpetual Motion Do you think that the Laws of Thermodynamics are right? Do you think that perpetual motion is possible despite these laws etc. Laws of Thermodynamics - www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae280.cfm
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Jan 1, 2009 14:18:41 GMT -5
In a vacuum and in the absence of other forces, perpetual motion would be possible for a simple entity (entity only composed of one part, such as the smallest building block of an atom). Otherwise, no.
The reason why Congress will instantly decline patents to those who declare perpetual motion is because most applications will not take place with a single entity in a vacuum in the absence of other forces.
|
|
|
Post by shandyman on Jan 1, 2009 14:38:03 GMT -5
yeah, I read somewhere that the patent office wouldn't accept any more perpetual motion machines unless it could run without maintenance for 1 year in the office itself. But despite all that, I do think that it is possible without an absence of all matter.(which is impossible) If you think about all the stuff with anti-matter and the rest, you may be able to come up with something. but if your someone like SM (no offense) who doesn't think anti-matter exists, then yes, it is impossible.
|
|
|
Post by theultamate on Jan 1, 2009 15:19:24 GMT -5
indeed....
|
|