Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sundowner on June 19, 2007, 08:14:01 PM
-
Expand you perspective. :)
Regards,
Sun
http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php
-
i got confused at about the 2nd dimension :eek:
-
Doh! :)
Regards,
Sun
-
Cool.
That's the first time I've heard any dimension beyond the 3rd explained in that way. It was actually understandable.
Thx Sundowner!
-
I think it was Moot that posted a link to that in another thread, sorry if I'm mistaken. Was pretty interesting though I'm not so sure I'd characterize the transition of expanding dimensions as a dimension themselves.
-
I have an 11 year old daughter
Now she is far from dumb. A-B student. Her teacher says among the brightest shes ever had.
Just,
She just doesnt seem to think like he rest of us. Or at least not like anyone I know..
With everything. she thinks in depth. Like 14 steps ahead depth. Its like,
"Ok this answer is here. But what about over......................... .........there?"
Kinda hard to explain. You kinda have to experience it first had to know what Im talking about.
As her teacher said "you could give Kaitlyn the same problem 4 different times. She she will use 4 different ways to arrive at the correct answer.
Shes had the same teacher for two years because he moved up from teaching the 4th grade to the 5th grade.
Both years he kept telling us how he was fascinated at the way she thinks
And rather then try to alter the way she did things more rigidly he encouraged her with some guidance to do things more her own way.
whenever possible
(her grades actually improved in the areas he was able to do this in)
Ok now whats that have to do with this link? Your wondering.
I watched that and it reminded me of my daughter and how she thinks.
So I had her watch it.
She was completely fascinated by it and other then to say "I dont know what that word is" a couple of times she was glued to it.
Even asking her mom to "hush a minute please" when my wife asked her if she was ready to go sleep over her friends house.
Which really took my wife by surprise. But at my prompting. She complied.
So were both there watching her watching this video.
Finally its over and she turns to me and says
"Ok i get it. But they didnt explain how to bend dimensions"
"How do you fold dimensions daddy?"
And Im supposed to know this? LOL
Thing is. when she comes back.
I just know she is going to ask it again.
Why cant she ask easier questions?
Like why is the sky Blue LOL
-
Cool story, Dred.
She sounds like an exceptional young lady. :aok
Here's a link in case she ask's about that sky thing.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/BlueSky/blue_sky.html
Regards,
Sun
-
Interesting video. However, it's entire argument is based solely on the fact that Time is a 4th dimension.
Now I, being a person who is studying engineering, only believe in what I have at hand. After thinking about it, I don't think that time is the 4th dimension.
And therefor, these people who think about this kind of stuff professionally, are all wrong. :D
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Interesting video. However, it's entire argument is based solely on the fact that Time is a 4th dimension.
Now I, being a person who is studying engineering, only believe in what I have at hand. After thinking about it, I don't think that time is the 4th dimension.
And therefor, these people who think about this kind of stuff professionally, are all wrong. :D
Isn't thinking done in time? Don't you progress from a thought to a question to an answer? If you aren't omniscient how can you think without "time"?
-
"Time" has to be taken to mean what it is: the human perception of it. When you deal with (relatively very unknown) unknowns, you ought to take extra care with perceptual bias.. Just like the electromagnetic spectrum was spoken of by different names for all its segments, when it was in fact one and the same real "thing" at different wavelengths.
I mean that words mean what they mean, an ensemble of things that do or don't materialy seem aggregate. A human idea can lot together any number of these things, and whether or not these things are one and the same in "concrete" reality, or really separate things not even corelated, the idea is still valid.
These sorts of subtleties make for words being a pretty imprecise means of communication sometimes. Objectivity for example, is supposed to be the accuracy of what someone perceives, and yet it's pretty sure that whatever it is someone thinks they've perceived, their perception may or may not match the object in question.
It might be only a relatively tiny deviance from reality, but short of omniscience, you can never really be objective. And so, in my opinion anyway, everyone really is perfectly objective about one thing: what it is they think; since they can never say anything else but what they think.
It might sounds like a roundabout nincompoopish thing to say, but really, everyone is affected by this to a certain degree. It's not something you can ignore, and although luckily most people have a good sense of this, it isn't always recognized as significant factor when, in fact, it is.
You can't take the tool that makes the measurement out of the equation.
This sort of clarifies what I meant that McGroin had seemed to find a bit dubious when I mentionned it in another recent thread.
Here's yet another take on it, four spatial dimensions and two for time. (http://www.aip.org/pnu/2007/split/829-1.html)
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Isn't thinking done in time? Don't you progress from a thought to a question to an answer? If you aren't omniscient how can you think without "time"?
Time isn't anything but the present. We can't be in the future, we can't be in the past. I could just as well invent another dimension and prove it by telling you that you can't change it.
-
Originally posted by moot
"Time" has to be taken to mean what it is: the human perception of it. When you deal with (relatively very unknown) unknowns, you ought to take extra care with perceptual bias.. Just like the electromagnetic spectrum was spoken of by different names for all its segments, when it was in fact one and the same real "thing" at different wavelengths.
Here's yet another take on it, four spatial dimensions and two for time. (http://www.aip.org/pnu/2007/split/829-1.html)
I would agree that "time" has no meaning aside from human perception. That's not to say that time doesn't exist apart from our experience, only that we define our perception of causality as time. How must time appear to a being who sees the beginning, the end, and the middle all at once?
-
I tried to clarify the above post a bit :) We're pretty much in agreement again.
Sorry for rambling, I'm in a hurry.
How must time appear to a being who sees the beginning, the end, and the middle all at once?
How should I know? :lol
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Time isn't anything but the present. We can't be in the future, we can't be in the past. I could just as well invent another dimension and prove it by telling you that you can't change it.
I think time is intrinsic to the second and third dimensions and need not be a fourth. Without time there cannot be even two dimensions.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I think time is intrinsic to the second and third dimensions and need not be a fourth. Without time there cannot be even two dimensions.
Without my dimension, there cannot possibly be even two dimensions. I'm naming it the snarfle dimension. because everything flows through the snarfle dimension, not necessarily chronologically, nothing would exist without snarfle.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Without my dimension, there cannot possibly be even two dimensions. I'm naming it the snarfle dimension. because everything flows through the snarfle dimension, not necessarily chronologically, nothing would exist without snarfle.
There may be infinite possibilities, some destined for greatness, others, ignominy. :p
-
I'm just saying, that time is one of those logic loops / circular logic things. I could be wrong about what it's called.
You can't disprove it, you can't prove it. But because you can't disprove it, it therefor must be true (in some people's eyes, or so I see it). That's not to say it isn't true, I just perceive the answer to other dimensions to be different.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Finally its over and she turns to me and says
"Ok i get it. But they didnt explain how to bend dimensions"
"How do you fold dimensions daddy?"
Be afraid. Be very afraid. :)
BTW... if you would rather read it than listen to it... here's the link:
http://www.tenthdimension.com/textonly.php
-
Laser, without some sort of supporting evidence, your idea isn't any more credible than the spaghetti monster & co. It's just a leap of faith like Biggles' levitation intuition.
-
Here is a perspective to understand the fourth dimension.
Like moot said, sometimes our words or our preconception of what a certain word "means" can detract from our ability to understand or describe the phenomena. (At least that was my perception of one of your points, moot. hehe)
Instead of "time" substitute the word "duration".
To "continue" or "to last". (Avoid definitions of duration involving the word "time".)
With this "arrow of time" superimposed or "layered" over the first three spatial dimensions, objects "exist" within these dimensions.
Without "duration", no physical object can be said to have ANY of the attributes or characteristics of the three spatial dimensions.
Drat...work time...gotta run.
Stupid time! Ugh! :D
Regards,
Sun