It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# The 4th Dimension physical or meta physics?

page: 3
8
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 02:31 PM

Originally posted by tdrowe2010

no this has'nt got anything to do with time. as scale i mean if you scaled something down by say 100:1 basically shrinking and expanding or size

we could draw a dot and we cant stand inside it but if we shrunk ourself down it would be a whole other universe

But that wouldn't be another dimension, it would just be smaller.

How is the miniaturization of something making it go into another dimension????

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 02:34 PM

Originally posted by midicon

Whatever size or shape the bug is it is still not two dimensional.

Nor is it useful as an analogy...in any real sense.

You just enjoy being difficult, dont you?

Flatland is an excelent story for illustrating how to view things in a manner we as three dimensional beings usually do not view things. Let me make this easy for you, since you fail to understand the basic concept or even really read the article i supplied.

It is the story about a two dimensional being who cannot grasp how anything could exist in more than two physical dimensions. When he meets a sphere, or to make it easy for you, a three dimensional being, it literally "lifts" him up and out of his two dimensional world and introduces him to something completely new, height or elevation. Until he "sees" this third dimension, he cannot grasp how it is possible. Once he learns it in fact is, he begins to envision even higher dimensions, perhaps a forth or fifth spacial dimension.

If this is not a useful analogy to you, then im sorry, i cannot help you, nor will the story. Physics teachers often recommend this story to students to help them visualize beyond our three spacial dimensions. So, if i am wrong and this story is as you say useless, then i suppose people much more intelligent than you or I are wrong too. Better start contacting universities and tell them to remove this book from their shelves!

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 02:37 PM

edit on 16-2-2012 by tdrowe2010 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 02:39 PM
i find it hard to explain myself , besides saying a cube shrunk down to exact proportian, so what im sayin is that when you shrink something that is a direction in its own right

like the letter X

try and imagine a 3d X
catch my drift/?
there comes a point when the x meets? but it goes indefinatly inside like inwards and indefinately outwards
edit on 16-2-2012 by tdrowe2010 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 02:59 PM
If were able to see all of time (past and future) together as a single image, it may indeed be defined as a radial dimension unlike the traditional xyz vectors used to define our 3 spatial dimensions.

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 03:12 PM

Interesting thoughts, me thinks you might be onto something

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 03:16 PM

OK, all dimensions are really like directions that you can measure things in.

On a 3D graph, we have three axes, normally called X, Y & Z axes. This allows us to indicate the position of any point in 3D space, by measuring offsets along each axis, from any known point.

Time is generally described as the fourth dimension, because we can only resolve/see four dimensions.

Measurements along the time axis are unusual in that we can only see the specific point we are at. We can't look ahead, or behind. We can, however define these other points mathematically and we can retrieve past locations from our memory, which verify the mathematical assumptions.

Because of the limitation of the speed of light, we also know that one second is equal to 299,792,458 meters along the axis of time. This allows us to perform mathematical functions on this 4 dimensional space-time (Minkowski Space), because we can use the same measure in all dimensions. Things like velocity and acceleration can then be redefined as an offset, or change in offset along the axis of space-time, extending our mathematical description of the world.

It is theorized that the reason we can't see any higher dimensions is that they are "rolled-up" at a radius too small for our instruments to resolve. Please note that this is theoretical and there may be other reasons we cannot see higher dimensions, probably related to the reason we can only see an instant along the axis of time.

These higher dimensions, even though they cannot be seen, still exist mathematically. Also, when we explore some of the "holes" that we know of in our understanding of physics, it appears that there may be actions that are occurring via these unseen dimensions. This is why string theorists are fairly convinced that there are more than 10 dimensions required to make what we know of in physics, fit the mathematical models we have.

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 03:26 PM

wow that made my brain hurt, dont fully understand what you mean i have heard about there being up to 11 dimensions and similar theorys to yours but cant understand how they came to that conclusion.

mathmatical equations predict these dimensions you say?

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 03:53 PM

Part of the confusion is that people have misconstrued the meaning of the word 'dimension'.

When you 'dimension' an engineering drawing, you add the measurements to the drawing.

A dimension is more like a direction that you could make a measurement in. It is not 'another world'.

Our world is multidimensional. Other worlds/alternate realities would also be multidimensional. Chemistry as we know it cannot exist in a uni-dimensional world and neither can many physical actions.

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 04:01 PM
so answer me this when you reach a brick wall you stop right? you cant continue in that direction

well what if you look at a brick wall with a micro scope that can see for infinite what direction is that?

is inside not a direction as in imploding type of movement

i really want to get my point across to somebody so they can understand it.

please somebody take this burden of my shoulders

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 04:11 PM

I did read the story and I did get the idea.
Perhaps I am being difficult...a difficult child!

It is a little bit like a story for children...and I don't think it's so bad.
Do you really think you...as you are...can lift yourself up to some higher dimension?
Or indeed that some higher dimensional 'spherical' will show you the way?

You might say 'well It gives you an idea of what it is' or something...
But it really gives you nothing...and leads nowhere.

Peace.

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 04:18 PM

Then there is nothing i can say to make you understand.

I do, and many others have come to understand through this novella. Your refusal to understand or see how it could be a useful tool in visualizing is your shortcoming, not mine or the novellas.

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 04:23 PM

Originally posted by midicon
Do you really think you...as you are...can lift yourself up to some higher dimension?
Or indeed that some higher dimensional 'spherical' will show you the way?

Neither of those points you make were my intention, nor do i believe that a "sphere" will lift me up and out. In the OPs very first sentence, he states he is having a difficult time visualizing extra dimensions.

Now, follow closely, this is where i know you have a problem, and i dont blame you, you are probably very young and still learning to use abstract reasoning and ideas.

The protagonist in this story lives in a 2 dimensional world. He himself cannot possibly visualize any more than those two dimensions until he is shown them. Then, not only does he understand, but he envisions dimensions BEYOND the three he can now comprehend.

The really funny thing is, while you brush aside my attempts you offer none of your own that make any more sense than mine.

Again, physics teachers often use this book to explain to their students. Do you honestly think your smarter than a physics teacher? Your proving to be quite the opposite with your lack of comprehension.

edit on 16-2-2012 by nightbringr because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 04:37 PM
There is no 4th dimension, theres only physical and non physical dimension. And various sub-levels inbetween.

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 04:37 PM

Inside outside...same difference.

How far can a microscope or a telescope go?

Let's see...sub atomic particles...edge of the universe?

Not quite there yet.

But would that be 'out' enough...or 'in' enough for you?

Or does it have to be infinity and beyond?

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 04:44 PM

You miss my point completely...perhaps deliberately.
But it's no big deal...and I am as old as you.

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 04:50 PM
Fair play if you can do this, my state of mind at the mo won't let me comprehend this, will read through it some more soon though.

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 05:13 PM
i find it hard to comprehend it but when you say
sub atomic particles...edge of the universe

i mean that in a way, im trying to describe a object say a cone starts of the size of atoms then gets progresively bigger till its the size of the edge of the universe
would it be everywhere and nowhere at the same time

sorry if i not making it easier to understand, because the human mind can not comprehend this
at some point the cone disapears from sight is that the same with both small and large
and where does it go is it some type of portal?

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 05:22 PM

God, just realise what i said, it doesn't really make sense, few too many beers. Good theory.

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 05:26 PM

All things in existence are natural based on your perspective of what is natural so I would have to disagree with "unnatural structures disappearing" hypothesis.

I spent some time reading through everybodies replies from the parable style explanation to the mathematical to the various concepts on time and movement. This took me some time however this is an interesting subject matter to me.

I have done meditation on 4 dimensional computer animations to get my mind comfortable this the artists concept. For me it was a struggle however I can accept the movement now as a principle of thought.

With all the reality perspectives consciousness creates we try to determine and define new ideas based on agreed upon thought constructs that explain simpler and abstract thought conclusions and points of reference.

When I look at 4th dimensional imaginings in the concept and umbrella that it is a part of a whole or a 1 state of being it gives me a starting point from which to extrapolate my baseline understanding of the 4 dimensional concept. The qualities and textures relevant to my own experience are what I require next to absorb an understanding into my reality matrix.
While a mathematical model can describe the concept logically even universally the texture and reference frame does nothing for my current form of reference outlook which is to experience the 4th dimension using the senses and make sense of the 4th dimension.

I have determined or gleaned a measure of what I consider to be an attribute of 4th dimensional movement and it seems to have an effect of teleportation as documented in the Chinese journal of Nature and the ability to move an object through space without interfering with light patterns essentially making an object sliding through this quality of 4th dimension to appear invisible or to 3 dimensional light based vision.

edit on 16-2-2012 by Shirak because: spelling

top topics

8