EPT
I was mind fucked
| Blogs > nerium |
|
nerium
Philippines512 Posts
| ||
|
Slayer91
Ireland23335 Posts
| ||
|
Adeeler
United Kingdom764 Posts
| ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
| ||
|
Flavalanche
United States164 Posts
Higher spacial dimensions, are an entirely different thing, that are controllable and such. | ||
|
anatem
Romania1369 Posts
| ||
|
barth
Ireland1272 Posts
I suppose not really the same concept of other dimensions but I found it even more fascinating. Carl Sagan is amazing. | ||
|
gongryong
Korea (South)1430 Posts
| ||
|
DwmC_Foefen
Belgium2186 Posts
On January 31 2011 02:01 barth wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnURElCzGc0 I suppose not really the same concept of other dimensions but I found it even more fascinating. Carl Sagan is amazing. He didn't show the goddamn shadow of the tesserect. FFS! :p | ||
|
Aukai
United States1183 Posts
| ||
|
Slayer91
Ireland23335 Posts
On January 31 2011 01:37 Adeeler wrote: Its not that its a mind rape its that its twisting theories with word play and logical falsehoods to connect theories about physical constructs together which only exist in there own theories. Enjoy all 4 of your dimensions hater. | ||
|
searcher
277 Posts
Well Adeeler is actually right. | ||
|
QuixoticO
Netherlands810 Posts
On January 31 2011 03:10 DwmC_Foefen wrote: He didn't show the goddamn shadow of the tesserect. FFS! :p The tesserect cube is the shadow we can't preceive the real tesserect because we live in 3 dimensions. | ||
|
Dance.
United States389 Posts
| ||
|
Seam
United States1093 Posts
On January 31 2011 01:37 Half wrote: That was actually the least mind raping description of string theory I've ever seen. Everything actually makes some degree of sense lol. Indeed, made plenty of sense to me, honestly =s | ||
|
viletomato
Canada277 Posts
My question is, what is usually accepted as the more correct view of dimensions, spatial or time type dimensions. I remember reading the book and watching the Nova program about The Elegant Universe which claims that one of more popular versions of string theory is the 11 dimension theory. 3 Spatial, 1 time, 6 curled up and 1 upper dimensional (multiverse) for a total 11. Some one care to explain what the 6 "curled" up dimensions are? It really is different from that video of 10 dims posted in the OP. And since The Elegant Universe includes the leading Physicists of today like Ed Witten, Green and such, I tend to believe their concepts of dimensions than the crap that the OP video is talking about. | ||
|
DwmC_Foefen
Belgium2186 Posts
On January 31 2011 03:38 Nyxs wrote: The tesserect cube is the shadow we can't preceive the real tesserect because we live in 3 dimensions. Oh. Ooooooooh. Feeling pretty stupid now. :p | ||
|
vnlegend
United States1389 Posts
On January 31 2011 03:10 DwmC_Foefen wrote: He didn't show the goddamn shadow of the tesserect. FFS! :p The 3d tesserect cube IS the shadow of the 4th dimensional tesserect in 3d space. The 2nd cube is the shadow. | ||
|
redeux
United States148 Posts
| ||
|
~ava
Canada379 Posts
| ||
|
LittLeD
Sweden7973 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + Shadow of a Rotating Tesseract I think we're talking about two kinds of higher dimensions here. The spatial dimensions and the 10-dimension theory that Rob shows in the first video. I find both to be perfectly reasonable and understandable but I like to think about spartial dimensions more. Its funny imagining higher spartial dimensions, I've read quite a lot of articles about it and even tried drawing (Yeah drawing shadows of tesseracts is really fun :D) but to summarize the point, try thinking about us in the 3d world being 4d objects and flat papers being the 3D world (Like Sagan does) and continue from there on. If you think about it long enough, your brain will litterally hurt. You might come to such conclusions that there might exist 4 dimensional creaturs that we just can never come in contact with, or other 3d worlds that crosses in 4-dimensional space right next to us (Like how two 2d-worlds, papers, lying on top of each other never can contact one another) that we can never contact because we're stuck in 3D. And then we havnt even begun on 5D and 6D and so on. Amazing stuff | ||
|
SpoR
United States1542 Posts
On January 31 2011 05:39 vnlegend wrote: The 3d tesserect cube IS the shadow of the 4th dimensional tesserect in 3d space. The 2nd cube is the shadow. yea but the shadow of the shadow in our 3d world is pretty mind fucking too | ||
|
Vain
Netherlands1115 Posts
| ||
|
Rinrun
Canada3509 Posts
EDIT: Youtube is broken, its giving me Ke$ha's "we r who we r" as a recommended video... because I watched P2 of the vids. o.o | ||
|
[Eternal]Phoenix
United States333 Posts
I suggest everyone read up on m-theory and spacial geometry if you want to learn how this stuff actually works. For now I'll just say that there's a definite and precise geometry to spacetime in 10 dimensions that consists of 4 infinite dimensions of spacetime and 6 finite dimensions of space curled up with our familiar 4 dimensions in a 10 dimensional manifold. The model in that video depicts no geometry to 10 dimensional spacetime and has no meaning in string theory, where the geometry of space determines the types of particles which can form. It's a cute model but it's horrifically wrong. It makes sense which is why it appeals to people. It doesn't however hold any mathematical basis or significance. | ||
|
viletomato
Canada277 Posts
On January 31 2011 08:20 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote: I was going to go into a massive explanation of why this is incorrect, but it's pretty hard to explain the basics of m-theory without writing a book on it. I suggest everyone read up on m-theory and spacial geometry if you want to learn how this stuff actually works. For now I'll just say that there's a definite and precise geometry to spacetime in 10 dimensions that consists of 4 infinite dimensions of spacetime and 6 finite dimensions of space curled up with our familiar 4 dimensions in a 10 dimensional manifold. The model in that video depicts no geometry to 10 dimensional spacetime and has no meaning in string theory, where the geometry of space determines the types of particles which can form. It's a cute model but it's horrifically wrong. It makes sense which is why it appeals to people. It doesn't however hold any mathematical basis or significance. I concur, people tend to accept things they don't understand. | ||
|
SushilS
2115 Posts
 | ||
|
GenesisX
Canada4267 Posts
 | ||
|
bongjwa
United States199 Posts
| ||
|
nerium
Philippines512 Posts
| ||
| ||
