What is time??
- Thread starter Shadow1
- Start date
. . . .maybe has something to do with 1-D pulsing (somewhat like variable 'intensity'?) field strength (of perhaps strings?) . . .???
Er, by taking away the third dimension.
As per your example.
If you have a 3D object and somehow (magically) remove the third dimension then, by extremely difficult mathematics we get 3-1 = 2. Et voila!, as the French say...
One last time, are you going to answer my questions or would you rather stick to ill-informed and unfounded[sup]1[/sup] speculation while avoiding supporting your own arguments?
What is the substance of length?
If there were only two dimensions and you made a square HOW could you extend it into a cube?
Or do you somehow think that if you could construct a 21D object (how would you go about it? Which ways would it extend?) you would automatically bring about the creation of 18 other spacial dimensions?
1. As opposed to ignorant. I'm in a good mood tonight, so I'll be generous.
. . .projecting . . . visualize a tetrahedal form moving (translating coordinates thru time) . . . . now project from the time dimension . . . you get a tetrahedal form that is static with respect to time . . . now project this static (in time) configuration from one apex of the tetrahedron (3-D) and you will generate a triangluar form that is static in time . . .now project from one corner of the static triangular configuration (2-D planar) and you will generate a line (1-D) that is static with respect to time . . . now project from one end of the static line . . .and you will get a zero-dimensional "point" that is static with respect to time . . . hope this helps with visualizing the projection technique . . .
Last edited:
Your point being?
No you haven't.You've avoided, skirted and, finally, come up with a description of the material of the object. NOT the substance of length.
Wrong: it's the start of you understanding what a dimension is.
Huh?
We experience at least 4. And, as has been pointed out, it's likely there are other dimensions. That, by definition, is multi-dimensional.
You have implied, if not outright claimed, that constructing an object in N dimensions creates those dimensions.
I'm trying to found how and why you think so.
Ooh, trick question for you: how do we describe, meaningfully, physical reality?
. . . .it CAN be made mathematical (i.e., quantifiable) . . .but the 'technique' is simply a mental and graphical visualization methodology that is commonly used in depicting multiple and mutually dependent variables. It is kind of like depicting multiple-dimensional (greater than 3 dimensional) 'arrays' in computer programming data applications. . . .can you visualize what an 11-dimensional data array (h-m-m-m-reminds me of Calibri-Yau 'space'!) looks like in a computer program?
You're still not getting it are you?
YOU brought up the non-physical with your "experiment":
How does one physically "take away [completely] length"?
How about the standard definition.
A dimension is a direction of movement. This has already been explained several times.
. . . sorry I 'cluttered' (mpc755 and mpc7555's term) this thread with my illustrative ruminating regarding 'projection and multidimensional visualizations' . . . just thought some folks might be interested in how to use one's creative intellect to see a little deeper into the nature of the universe! . . .thanks for 'listening' . . going to bed now . . . .