Horhay's Comments
that makes more sense. but i just started geomentry (im in seventh grade, ppls) so idk wat delta is yet so i cant reply. just so long as it isn't velocity, it makes much more sense.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
oh, and there would be time in a two-dimensional world, wouldn't there? yet no third dimension whatsoever. how does that alone not prove it? you can't skip a dimension!
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
i don't get how it makes any sense for there to be two different fourth dimensions. the spacial fourth dimension makes plently of sense to me, following the pattern of the dimensions, but I don't get how time has any relevence. following the mathematical pattern, x^4 (spacially) would have to equal x^4 (time-wise), which means than space would have to equal time, although they are measured in entirely different systems. if there was a way to measure time AND space seprately (as in not velocity) using the same system of measurement, this would make more sense, other than the fact that once the universe has something going (like the pattern of the first three dimensions), it usually doesnt stop. ever.
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.
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.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Z_$--
mass can bend space, gravity, and maybe time (idk, i 4got) because of this:
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?
mass can bend space, gravity, and maybe time (idk, i 4got) because of this:
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?
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
the only reason that people have explained otherwise is because they need an explanation for the inexplainable.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
hey! i was an angry sixth grader last year. and by the fact that we can percieve moving through time, it is NOT the fourth dimension. using a second dimension living "shape" as perspective point, (for all those who have seen flatland) it is impossible to imagine the third dimension for them. it would be impossible to imagine our world multiplying by itself in a matter of spacial properties for our inferior eyes and mind. as you might have realized (by the math aspect of dimensions) 1 dimension is x, 2 is x*x, and so on. so if the fourth dimension would equal a space of x^4, this rules out time, as it would increase the space infinetly.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Oh, I'm sorry, is time physical now? It's not, therefore it cannot be the fourth dimension. Technically speaking, the fourth dimension could never be correctly imagined by humans, therefore, we could never know what the fourth dimension is unless we went into the fourth dimension and our vision was replaced or evolved somehow so we could see in four dimensions. Imagine if you lived in two dimensions-- you would have no concept of up; so we cannot have any concept of whatever directional equivalent the fourth dimension is. So ha, Sam Dios.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
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.