Agent Monkeysee on 6/7/2006 at 19:07

---

No it doesn't, the concept of higher dimensions orthogonal to the three we're familiar with is perfectly sound, it's just not visualizable becuase, well, we're stuck with perceiving three dimensions. Mathematically the idea is perfectly cogent. A fourth spatial dimension, W, is orthogonal to X, Y, and Z. No point on W can be described by a combination of X, Y, and Z. aW + bX + cY + dZ = e. There, I just gave you the generic formula for describing a 4-dimensional slope.

In fact you'd have to redefine dimension to make it absurd that there are only 3. A dimension is simply a variable measurement across a continuum. Depending on what it is you're doing your dimensions may be temperature, luminosity, density, mass, momentum, wavelength, velocity, dilution, growth, consumption, quantity, pants length, or unicorn rainbow mana usage. Which is why it's necessary to specify the higher dimensions proposed by String Theory as spatial dimensions.

I agree that time is weird but it's always the odd one out when discussing coordinate systems. At the same time you can't properly describe a body without it so V:)V.



You're right the flash-thingy was bullshit but not for the reasons you mentioned. It's bullshit because the higher dimensions aren't timeloops or decision branches or whatever. I have no idea where they're pulling that crap from. The higher dimensions are spatial, unless something about String Theory has changed dramatically when I wasn't looking. And they only cover 10 dimensions, which means the 4th wouldn't be time. String Theory (or M-Theory, I can't recall) proposes 10 spatial dimensions and 1 of time, hence 11 dimensions. Since they made time the 4th they're missing a spatial dimension. But since they don't describe them as spatial anyway it doesn't matter because they are stupid :mad:



Yes it does. How can it not? If the Universe is curved in the 3rd dimension then the Universe must have, at least, 3 dimensions by definition. The fact that the inhabitants of the Universe can't perceive or interact directly with that dimension is irrelevant. If you describe a Universe as being curved in the 3rd dimension then it must have a 3rd dimension to be curved in. Or you're just a goddamn liar.



I'm not sure why you think this is an issue. There's no rule that if a Universe is infinite in at least one of its dimensions it must be infinite in all of its dimensions.

However I agree it's a bizarre and probably unlikely topology. The demonstration would be more sensible if they folded the 2 dimensional Universe properly into a toroid. That way a flatlander traveling in both the X and Y axes would find themselves returning to their starting position, as the Universe is curved in the 3rd dimension over its entire shape.

But don't get too hung up on the visual demonstractions because this is a crummy presentation anyway. I mean, their representation of 3 dimensions was some curvy Y-shaped thing. What the fuck was that?!

edit: heh, that should say "demonstrations" but I'm leaving my typo in because it's amusingly appropriate

Mortal Monkey on 6/7/2006 at 22:27

---

Sir Monkeysee, the problem here seems to be that you relate to universes and dimensions in general, while I relate to this universe with these dimensions, just like the book does.
If you can prove that the spatial dimension W is linked with any phenomenon in our universe then I'll have to take my hat off to you. However, constructing imaginary dimensions that nobody can measure is something any L. Ron Hubbard could do.

And besides, even imaginary dimensions beyond the measurable (or indeed, comparable) are simply irrelevant. Now look. I take a universe that has the shape of a single infinite line: |
This is a one-dimensional universe. I twist the centre around a second dimension, and now it looks like this: S
But anything inside the universe is blissfully ignorant of the difference. Assuming there are light-rays in this universe, they always travel in a straight line through the universe. They, like everything else, obviously can't travel through the non-universe, therefore they must follow the S-shape, and therefore everything looks the same. Has it turned into a 2-dimensional universe? What if I twist it again around a different dimension? And again? Has it suddenly turned into a 4-dimensional universe?

My point is, even if you curve that 2-dimensional universe around a 3rd dimension, the volume of the universe is still 0. It's still flat. If the ground you walked on appeared level before, it still does after the universe has been curved. If the road looked to be going straight ahead, it still looks so now. Wether it actually is straight when I draw it here is irrelevant.

Para?noid on 6/7/2006 at 23:41

---

I demand that the moderators change Monkeybutts' name to prepend a Sir in front of it. Unicorn rainbow mana usage? My life is empty without him

descenterace on 7/7/2006 at 06:19

---

In other words, 'just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not true.'

Applying our common-sense knowledge of how things work down here on Earth to the Universe as a whole is stupid. The environment here on Earth is practically unique among planets, as far as we know, and the void between planets is bigger than we can imagine. So don't assume that just because you haven't witnessed something here on Earth that it invalidates a theory that, otherwise, is pretty damn accurate and certainly better than any proposed alternative.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, etc etc

I think we'd better clear up the definition of dimensions and dimensionality, too. A dimension is a location expressed numerically, nothing more, nothing less. The dimensionality of a space is the minimum number of dimensions required to express a location in that space, where each dimension is independant of the others.

This means that a single side of a piece of paper is two-dimensional, since any location can be expressed with two numbers (either in Cartesian or polar coordinates). If you bend the paper, it is still two-dimensional since a location on it can still be expressed with only two numbers. The space it is in, however, must have three dimensions to permit the paper to bend.

Mortal Monkey on 7/7/2006 at 13:55

---

So you're saying that the Earth really is flat, it's just the universe that is bent bent so that you can walk in a straight line and end up where you started? Then why, pray tell, is the ship's lookout boy the first thing you see on the horizon? And why are map makers having such trouble making the world maps proportinally correct? Which century were you living in again?