0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
quote:Originally posted by TitanscapeWe know what the first four are... Linear then two dimensions, the third, volume, the fourth, volume moving in time in a linear time motion. But what is the fifth dimesion physicists suggest exists?Can something move sideways in time?Titanscape
quote:Originally posted by johndiver"Can something move sideways in time?"Can something move sideways along a string?What would one be doing if they could move sideways in time anyhow?
quote:Originally posted by stinkinstudentlamoReasoning behind this would be that it is impossible for a person living in a one dimensioanl land to percieve something living in 2 dimensions and someone living in 2 dimensions to perceive three dimensions etc
quote:Originally posted by Solvay_1927You might not have to have contact with a higher-dimensional object to realise that there are higher dimensions.Consider a flatlander living in a 2-dimensional sheet - but this sheet is (to us 3-D observers) actually a spherical shell (a large spherical shell, with a huge radius, say).Say the flatlander draws a small triangle. They walk around it and work out that its internal angles must add up to (almost exactly) 180 degrees.But then they draw a huge triangle which covers an eighth of the surface of the shell (say, starting at their "north pole" and drawing a line to the "equator", then turn right and go a quarter of the way around the equator, then turn right again and end up back at the north pole). And they realise that the internal angles must add up to 270 degrees! (This triangle contains a right angle at each of its corners.)To explain this the flatlanders might come up with some weird theory about lengths and angles changing the further away they are. But the clever ones among them will realise that their two-dimensional space can just be considered as a curved, closed sheet embedded in a higher (3-D) world.So they realise that there ARE higher dimensions (and they can even come up with ways of measuring how curved their 2-D space is in this 3-D universe), even though they can't see anything outside their 2-D space."Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines."
quote:Originally posted by stinkinstudentlamoCould we not say that for a certain dimension to exist, it follows that their needs to be a higher dimension for that dimension to exist in? There could be an infinite number of dimensions! interesting conceptI refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer. -- Douglas Adams
quote:Are you not confusing the curvature of a surface with an assumption that there are further dimensions.
quote:Originally posted by Solvay_1927quote:Are you not confusing the curvature of a surface with an assumption that there are further dimensions.Yes, admittedly I am. My example wouldn't constitute absolute proof (to the flatlanders) that a higher dimension exists - but they would definitely see it as a simple, plausible explanation of what's going on.I imagine that any "evidence" of a higher dimension could alternatively be explained using some other theories - but the simplest theory would surely be that there are higher dimensions, wouldn't it?"Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines."
quote:Originally posted by Solvay_1927I agree with all your comments, someone & stinkin.But what Iím suggesting is that you canít really PROVE thereís a higher dimension Ė thatís just one of several alternative explanations for such phenomena. The phenomena you mention, someone, could be explained by FTL signalling. And why should FTL be any less plausible than proposing higher dimensions?
quote:Going off at a tangent slightly . . . I've just realised that I don't understand why Einsteinís theories of relativity forbid FTL signalling.Relativity says you canít accelerate an object (which has mass) up to c. But it doesnít mean that objects canít exist which are already travelling at a speed HIGHER than c (or so Iíve read).(Of course, the ones travelling at >c could never be decelerated to c or below, according to the theory.)Is FTL signalling impossible because these two types of objects (>c and <c) could never interact with each other?(The more I learn about relativity, the more I realise I donít understand it. )Solvay."Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines."