Can we imagine something new which is completely different ?
- Thread starter art_dex
- Start date
So dark matter is the side of the galaxy that we cannot see...? 
Cause you know what? As far as I understand, the 4th dimension is based on the speed of light, right? So when you are dealing with a very large object such as a galaxy, then you would have much more 4th dimension to deal with in comparison to a small object like a soccer ball, which has only a neglegible amount to deal with. Then there are planets. And that's how Einstein managed to correct the data on Mercury. He was able to correct the data because he now had more data to deal with- that is, the 4th dimension.
Cause you know what? As far as I understand, the 4th dimension is based on the speed of light, right? So when you are dealing with a very large object such as a galaxy, then you would have much more 4th dimension to deal with in comparison to a small object like a soccer ball, which has only a neglegible amount to deal with. Then there are planets. And that's how Einstein managed to correct the data on Mercury. He was able to correct the data because he now had more data to deal with- that is, the 4th dimension.
Truthseeker:
"Cause you know what? As far as I understand, the 4th dimension is based on the speed of light, right? "
No. The 4th dimension is based on a perpendicular line to all the angles of the third dimension. It has nothing to do with the speed of light. It has nothing to do with the calculation of Mercury's orbit.
Kaiduorkhon:
"Incidentally, all of a glass sphere can and is being seen - observed - in three and four dimensions."
Technically speaking, any shape can be used to illustrate dimensions. Cubes, spheres, pyramids. It is just that a cube is generally easier to keep the analogy the best. But no, the idea that geometry is founded on a three-dimensional sphere as a point is incorrect, in so much as really, no mathematician can qualify the shape of a zeroth dimension object. In fact, it is a pretty silly idea, really. A point with no extension lengthwise, widthwise, or in depth.
"Cause you know what? As far as I understand, the 4th dimension is based on the speed of light, right? "
No. The 4th dimension is based on a perpendicular line to all the angles of the third dimension. It has nothing to do with the speed of light. It has nothing to do with the calculation of Mercury's orbit.
Kaiduorkhon:
"Incidentally, all of a glass sphere can and is being seen - observed - in three and four dimensions."
Technically speaking, any shape can be used to illustrate dimensions. Cubes, spheres, pyramids. It is just that a cube is generally easier to keep the analogy the best. But no, the idea that geometry is founded on a three-dimensional sphere as a point is incorrect, in so much as really, no mathematician can qualify the shape of a zeroth dimension object. In fact, it is a pretty silly idea, really. A point with no extension lengthwise, widthwise, or in depth.
Prince_James said:
TruthSeeker said:
No, I am talking about spatial dimensions. If you want to talk about time/light/whatever being the 4D dimension, then talk to someone else about it. I am talking about moving up/down, left/right, forward/backward, and x/y where x and y are whatever words used to describe movement. They are degrees of freedom. Time is not really a degree of freedom. It moves in one direction.
I suppose you could argue that one could go back in time and forward in time (much like one can move forward and backward). However, according to Einstein you need to move really fast in the other dimensions to do so. With spatial dimensions, I can move forward and backward without having to move up/down or left/right. Time, you got to move spatially to "change your direction in time."
Whichever variable you would like.
Einstein talking about time being a fourth dimension.
Well whatever he said. I don't care. I am talking about a physical dimension. One that would make it appear as if I just "disappeared" from the room. Magic. However, I am still there. I am just "looking down" on the room. We are all in the same time frame. I am still "in the room" but I am also "not there."
Get it?
Get it?
I understand what you said. What I questioned is if we could use that principle with Einstein's theories.
Sorry oh great genious master!
Your imagination!