if you believe that time is the 4th dimension or not this is still a video to watch. Everything is a dot.

Time has no limits! It is impossible to multiply by something, i. e. x^4, because it would just turn into x^3 * infinity (basically, infinity)

I am not arguing that it is not a valid part of the space-time continuum and that they are not related in some way- but time is NOT a physical thing. It cannot be multiplied by anything!

Has anyone here seen ‘Flatland’? It’s some really racially and sexually insensitive video we had to watch for math. It’s about a two-dimensional world introduced to a three-dimensional world. It puts into perspective how impossible it is to imagine another dimension. Tesseracts help, but can anyone really imagine themselves in a fourth dimensional world? It is virtually impossible without a three-dimensional screen of sorts projecting this simulation of a fourth dimensional world, much as the glare on an sphere on a computer screen can make it look three-dimensional. However, we are only able to recognize this if we have seen this dimension before, so we can refer to it. Impossible!

Now: can you imagine time travel? OF COURSE!

Δx² + Δy² + Δz² – c²Δt² = s²

δx² + δy² + δz² – c²δt² = s²

i still don’t understand, though, how the speed of light has any relation to the dimensions, or prove it in any way. im sure that the idea has something to do with the fact that light is the fastest thing in the universe (i think), which i guess could make some sort of a vague connection, yet proving nothing significant about the dimensions…

whatever. school’s started, and i have hw now. also, i really dont care about whatever the fourth dimension is. let it be light in ur opinion, but my opinion is still unswayed.

Let’s say that I moved from my computer chair to the couch. The change in distance is about 5 feet, so I could say that my delta x is 5 feet. Sometimes you’ll hear people talk about delta-v, which is the change in velocity.

(?x)^2 + (?y)^2 + (?z)^2 – (c^2)((?t)^2) = s^2

where x, y, and z are defined in meters.
where t is defined in seconds.
where c is the speed of light in meters/second
where s is a constant defined in meters

and if you were measuring the velocity along the time axis and the physical axixes (idk), the velocity along both axies (still idk) would need to include both time and physical measurement, thus comparing, thus being useless; as all would be the same, and come out with an equal or useless answer. also, what velocity is even being measured to acheive the speed of light? if it’s light, that’s just stupid and redundant. if its something else, please share! the only other relevant thing would be the time of the world itself and the natural course of things, which could not be accurately measured in physical space, velocity or not, or in time, because any measurement would be useless. time has no business in the dimensions! the only thing that concerns it is the speed of light, of which together have many affiliations which don’t have a thing to do with the dimensions and space.

If I recall correctly, there is a spacetime equality that goes something like this:
x^2 + y^2 + z^2 – t^2 = c^2
where t is the velocity along the time axis, c is the speed of light, and x, y, and z are velocity along the axes for 3-D space.

Thus, as you go faster in physical space (x, y, and z), your speed along the time axis slows down. If you could somehow achieve the speed of light in 3-D space, time would literally stand still.

imagine space as a rubber sheet. of course, this is two dimensional (again with the dimensions; stick with me). everything in space (planets, asteriods, stars, ETC.) is an object on that stretched rubber sheet. denser or heavier objects will weigh it down, creating a funnel-type thing bringing it down. since small, dense objects (like a heavy marble) would bring it down more steeply, it would suck everything in (a black hole) in comparison to, say, a tennis ball, which probably has the same if not greater weight, but it is distributed. it would still bring stuff down, but since it is a more gentle slope, thing would go into more of an “orbit” around it (like our solar system). this depression in the rubber sheet is gravity. since the two dimensional sheet is bending down into the third dimension, three-dimensional objects would rely on gravity in the fourth dimension (whoop-dee-doo). and, supporting my comments before, GRAVITY IS NOT A RESULT OF TIME. it is a result of fourth-dimensional depressions in a three-dimensional world. remember, if you were a two-dimensional shape on this rubber sheet, you wouldn’t be aware of the depression at all except for the gravity increase. make any sense?

You made me do it Lord Jereth.

My gawd! An actual, intellectual debate in a comments section on the internet? That’s unheard of! What is this world coming to?

No flames? No “ghey” bashing? No devolved commentary about lineage or racial slurs? No “FIRST” posts, lolcats references, bot spam or l33t sp34k??

You mean there’s actually people on the internet in possession of a brain who can calmly and quietly discuss an issue without instantly sounding like a bunch of angry sixth graders, hiding behind the anonymity of their parent’s computers to attack the world with their brand of sandbox “wit” and “wisdom”?

I’m shocked and appalled! Has the universe suddenly gone mad … again? Where have you all been hiding for the last ten years?

Well done! I think I actually learned something from the comments! Will wonders never cease!

LJ

There may or may not be other spatial dimensions in addition to the three we can perceive. This is something physics has explored for a very long time, and the existence of additional dimensions would explain some of the more puzzling aspects of quantum physics and String Theory, as well as others.

Before quantum physics came along, three dimensions of space were all that was known to exist. Einstein’s equations, which often dealt with gravitational or relativistic distortions in both space AND time, show that (mathematically at least) time can be factored into such equations as if it were another dimension of space. This does not mean that time is made of matter as we understand it — but it turns out that a powerful, space-bending gravitational field also “bends” time. Later, quantum physics treated time as if it could be pared down into quanta, and the term “tachyon,” popularized in time-travel episodes of “Star Trek: TNG,” was coined.

So, while there may also be a 4th spatial dimension, we tend to regard time as a 4th dimension too.

It’s also been proposed that time itself may have more than one “dimension” to it.

The fourth dimension as time

Main article: Spacetime

Usually, when a reference is made to four-dimensional coordinates, it is the temporal interpretation which is meant. In this case, the four coordinates are understood to represent 3 dimensions of space plus 1 dimension of time. Such a space is called a Poincaré space, Minkowski space, or “(3 + 1)-space”,[1] and is the space used in Einstein’s theories of special relativity and general relativity.

I like the one about the bullet making the woman pregnant. It’s so absurd it’s funny.

Some of these hoaxes are so far fetched, it’s hard to believe people fell for them. I guess that’s why the Nigerian spammers are still in business. Gullability is timeless.

Source: museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/Hoaxipedia/Butterflies_of_Linnaeus/

“The three butterflies shown to the right were part of the collection of the great eighteenth-century naturalist Carl Linnaeus. In 1763 he named and described all three of them in the twelfth edition of his Systema Naturae. However, only one of them was a real butterfly.

Linnaeus named the middle butterfly Papilio rhamni. It is a common butterfly in Europe, where it is better known as the Brimstone.

Linnaeus wrote that the other two butterflies were examples of a North American species, Papilio ecclipsis. In fact, all three butterflies are European brimstones. The top and bottom insects have simply had patches carefully painted on their wings. In other words, the Papilio ecclipsis is a hoax species.

This deception was uncovered in the nineteenth century by John Curtis, the author of many books about insects. It is not known who painted the patches on the wings of the butterflies. “

actually WWN is no longer published.