|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 19, 2020 15:28:52 GMT
If there were parallel dimensions how would we know about that? Timely their (other dimensions) histories (i.e. timelines filled with events) should have been crossed with our, they should have similar sight or other forms of contacts, plus any both dimensions which are supposed to be communicated must have links to travel through some barriers to be able to watch and contact with the other one. Surely, it might be that a contract would have one-way side communication. There's another way of contact us supposed to be, and this method is to use super-hyper-links. Just like using links while (wandering the Internet), but this time landing and sharing the Universe, we have to use the special gaps that the other dimensions might have. The Universe must have routes for communication, I insist it must have. Else, there's no possible to take the Universe as the Universe. Super-hyperlinks are probably hidden within the script codes of the Universe. Yeah, it doesn't necessary mean the Universe was written by a programmer, but it has to be obvious it can be viewed as such a project. That's why to encode it is the main task of all our Earth's researches. I am also sure that such hyperlinks do exist even now, and it's high likely that we might push them during our lives. Such super hyperlinks could be even events or our daily actions. Really, we think we live our usual daily boring life, however (in real) we are just being engaged in encoding practice – to encode the secret of the Universe. In that case each of our activity may be taken as a step toward the final encryption, and to getting the access to superhuperlinks, and in turn to other dimensions. And if we had reached them, we would have known that we did some steps correctly.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Sept 20, 2020 16:36:36 GMT
Laws of physics whose expansion/radiation is confined to 3D space follow the inverse of the square law. (Gravity & light are examples).
Any similar type of process that follows the inverse of the cube law would be radiating into 4D hyperspace.
There are some inverse cube laws which are 3D, like the tidal force. Plenty more to say, but I do not want to over-express so much detail until we are on the same page.
Are you in agreement about this so far?
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 20, 2020 17:28:07 GMT
Laws of physics whose expansion/radiation is confined to 3D space follow the inverse of the square law. (Gravity & light are examples). Any similar type of process that follows the inverse of the cube law would be radiating into 4D hyperspace. There are some inverse cube laws which are 3D, like the tidal force. Plenty more to say, but I do not want to over-express so much detail until we are on the same page. Are you in agreement about this so far? Thank you for commenting, but I can't say I am much into it since I am an ignorant in Physics, geometrically interpreted. I've heard about tesseract's properties and have heard about dimensional transfers, yet quite small amount of info. I know you have a cite where many cosmological things are deteiled explained. I think I should read it before. My main thesis is that the universe with different dimensions has to be isomorphed. If it's not that how can we rely on traveling them (if it would be possible)? So, if they are linked functionally somehow, they must have access or transfer points. These points can be called superhyperlinks. What impact the 4d cube universe has on traveling and Physics in general?
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Sept 23, 2020 20:08:37 GMT
Laws of physics whose expansion/radiation is confined to 3D space follow the inverse of the square law. (Gravity & light are examples). Any similar type of process that follows the inverse of the cube law would be radiating into 4D hyperspace. There are some inverse cube laws which are 3D, like the tidal force. Plenty more to say, but I do not want to over-express so much detail until we are on the same page. Are you in agreement about this so far? Thank you for commenting, but I can't say I am much into it since I am an ignorant in Physics, geometrically interpreted. I've heard about tesseract's properties and have heard about dimensional transfers, yet quite small amount of info. I know you have a cite where many cosmological things are deteiled explained. I think I should read it before. My main thesis is that the universe with different dimensions has to be isomorphed. If it's not that how can we rely on traveling them (if it would be possible)? So, if they are linked functionally somehow, they must have access or transfer points. These points can be called superhyperlinks. What impact the 4d cube universe has on traveling and Physics in general? i don't see how you can appreciate physics or (especially) extra dimensions without being clear on the geometry.
can you see how this image...
... shows that if you triple the distance then the light or gravity gets weaker by 9 times?
and this one ...
... doubles the distance but it gets weaker by four times
thus we should be able to easily envision just WHY the inverse of the square law is rigid to 3D space
? hmm ?
|
|
|
Post by karl on Sept 23, 2020 20:38:28 GMT
In 2-dimensional space you can have parallel lines, in 3-dimensinal space you can have parallel planes, in 4-dimensional space you can have parallel cubes, and so on. One seems to use the term "parallel dimension" to mean a parallel world.
Dimensions are mathematical abstractions, and they're perpendicular, not parallel to each other.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 23, 2020 20:59:41 GMT
Thank you for commenting, but I can't say I am much into it since I am an ignorant in Physics, geometrically interpreted. I've heard about tesseract's properties and have heard about dimensional transfers, yet quite small amount of info. I know you have a cite where many cosmological things are deteiled explained. I think I should read it before. My main thesis is that the universe with different dimensions has to be isomorphed. If it's not that how can we rely on traveling them (if it would be possible)? So, if they are linked functionally somehow, they must have access or transfer points. These points can be called superhyperlinks. What impact the 4d cube universe has on traveling and Physics in general? i don't see how you can appreciate physics or (especially) extra dimensions without being clear on the geometry.
can you see how this image...
... shows that if you triple the distance then the light or gravity gets weaker by 9 times?
and this one ...
... doubles the distance but it gets weaker by four times
thus we should be able to easily envision just WHY the inverse of the square law is rigid to 3D space
? hmm ?
As a perspective.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 23, 2020 21:07:21 GMT
In 2-dimensional space you can have parallel lines, in 3-dimensinal space you can have parallel planes, in 4-dimensional space you can have parallel cubes, and so on. One seems to use the term "parallel dimension" to mean a parallel world. Dimensions are mathematical abstractions, and they're perpendicular, not parallel to each other. Orthogonal. Yes. I don't understand how two cubes can be parallel each other without thinking that in 4d a point can appear in any place, just it takes time. I'll explain my thought. In 1d a point has two limits or barriers; 2d – if a point is circled (it is inwardly a circle or a free lassoed area), it can't go out of the circle; 3d – a sphere or any closed cover... or, as a life example: if a prisoner wants to escape a jail – the cube, a sphere, whatever – he must break the jail (cubes, spheres...). If it would be 4d, a prisoner could leap into another area without breaking walls, but it should take time. Something like this.
|
|
|
Post by karl on Sept 23, 2020 21:51:11 GMT
In 2-dimensional space you can have parallel lines, in 3-dimensinal space you can have parallel planes, in 4-dimensional space you can have parallel cubes, and so on. One seems to use the term "parallel dimension" to mean a parallel world. Dimensions are mathematical abstractions, and they're perpendicular, not parallel to each other. Orthogonal. Yes. I don't understand how two cubes can be parallel each other without thinking that in 4d a point can appear in any place, just it takes time. I'll explain my thought. In 1d a point has two limits or barriers; 2d – if a point is circled (it is inwardly a circle or a free lassoed area), it can't go out of the circle; 3d – a sphere or any closed cover... or, as a life example: if a prisoner wants to escape a jail – the cube, a sphere, whatever – he must break the jail (cubes, spheres...). If it would be 4d, a prisoner could leap into another area without breaking walls, but it should take time. Something like this.
More dimensions means more positional freedom. Imagine you draw a circle inside a square, with a diameter equal to the length of the square. That will create four separate spaces. Then imagine an equivalent sphere inside a cube. There all the space between the sphere and the cube is connected. With three dimensions there is too much positional freedom for the sphere to create separate spaces inside the cube. If you keep increasing the number of dimensions for this thought scenario, you will eventually have a hyper sphere that is not even contained by the hyper cube. Even though its diameter is still the same as the length of the cube, there will be so many degrees of freedom that the sphere will reach the outside of the cube.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 23, 2020 22:46:22 GMT
Orthogonal. Yes. I don't understand how two cubes can be parallel each other without thinking that in 4d a point can appear in any place, just it takes time. I'll explain my thought. In 1d a point has two limits or barriers; 2d – if a point is circled (it is inwardly a circle or a free lassoed area), it can't go out of the circle; 3d – a sphere or any closed cover... or, as a life example: if a prisoner wants to escape a jail – the cube, a sphere, whatever – he must break the jail (cubes, spheres...). If it would be 4d, a prisoner could leap into another area without breaking walls, but it should take time. Something like this.
More dimensions means more positional freedom. Imagine you draw a circle inside a square, with a diameter equal to the length of the square. That will create four separate spaces. Then imagine an equivalent sphere inside a cube. There all the space between the sphere and the cube is connected. With three dimensions there is too much positional freedom for the sphere to create separate spaces inside the cube. If you keep increasing the number of dimensions for this thought scenario, you will eventually have a hyper sphere that is not even contained by the hyper cube. Even though its diameter is still the same as the length of the cube, there will be so many degrees of freedom that the sphere will reach the outside of the cube.
I really appreciate your explanation. (Usually your explanations are very helpful; they allow me to imagine what I'd like to get.) There's something that I'm not sure I understand: if instead of cubes we take octahedrons or dodecahedrons, etc (is that the right direction to think N-dim?); so, the more verges it has, the less equal it will have, and thus the less freedom (there'll be), won't it? If we take the biggest cube with a sphere within, it (rest equals at the corners) will have the same parameters as a smaller, according to cube's proportions. I mean what the difference between bigger or smaller cubes, except for their sizes? Why to use the circled or sphered cubes? Isn't it about time, i.r. what slows or fasts geometry itself?
|
|
|
Post by karl on Sept 24, 2020 6:41:02 GMT
More dimensions means more positional freedom. Imagine you draw a circle inside a square, with a diameter equal to the length of the square. That will create four separate spaces. Then imagine an equivalent sphere inside a cube. There all the space between the sphere and the cube is connected. With three dimensions there is too much positional freedom for the sphere to create separate spaces inside the cube. If you keep increasing the number of dimensions for this thought scenario, you will eventually have a hyper sphere that is not even contained by the hyper cube. Even though its diameter is still the same as the length of the cube, there will be so many degrees of freedom that the sphere will reach the outside of the cube.
I really appreciate your explanation. (Usually your explanations are very helpful; they allow me to imagine what I'd like to get.) There's something that I'm not sure I understand: if instead of cubes we take octahedrons or dodecahedrons, etc (is that the right direction to think N-dim?); so, the more verges it has, the less equal it will have, and thus the less freedom (there'll be), won't it? If we take the biggest cube with a sphere within, it (rest equals at the corners) will have the same parameters as a smaller, according to cube's proportions. I mean what the difference between bigger or smaller cubes, except for their sizes? Why to use the circled or sphered cubes? Isn't it about time, i.r. what slows or fasts geometry itself?
Octahedrons and dodecahedrons have no more dimensions than a cube.
The example of circle and square, sphere and cube, was just to demonstrate how more dimensions gives more degrees of freedom. -To explain why you don't need to imagine movement in time to understand how two cubes can be parallel to each other.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 24, 2020 8:10:37 GMT
karlWell, I see. Isn't "parallel" is what as each two points, or more precisely – each two next ordered elements in two sets...: A: <x, y, z...> B: <p, q, r...> So, x and p, y and q, etc. (Let's say A may represent a line or a flat.) ...have to share common points from the third row...: C: <a, b, c...> ...in such a way that: x//p//a y//q//b ... So, in those circled squares and ronded cubes do these conditions (sets, points) perform? In other words, is it true that two cubes can be parallel in such description, or the parallelness is something different to what I've presented?
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 24, 2020 8:11:30 GMT
karl...B can represent a line or a flat, and C can represent the same.
|
|
|
Post by karl on Sept 25, 2020 5:27:06 GMT
karl Well, I see. Isn't "parallel" is what as each two points, or more precisely – each two next ordered elements in two sets...: A: <x, y, z...> B: <p, q, r...> So, x and p, y and q, etc. (Let's say A may represent a line or a flat.) ...have to share common points from the third row...: C: <a, b, c...> ...in such a way that: x//p//a y//q//b ... So, in those circled squares and ronded cubes do these conditions (sets, points) perform? In other words, is it true that two cubes can be parallel in such description, or the parallelness is something different to what I've presented?
Imagine two different coordinate systems (cs). One with three dimensions: X,Y,Z, and one with four dimensions: X,Y,Z,F
We define a function Z(x,y) for the first cs on X ranging from 0 to 1 (including all values in between), which we will write as: X=(0-1). Y=(0-1). The function: Z(x,y)=0, will define a 1x1 square with origo as it's bottom left corner. If we wish to define a parallel square, we can choose: Z(x,y)=1. -Or replace 1 with any constant we wish.
Then we move on to the four dimensional co-ordinate system. And we define a 1x1x1 cube as follows:
X=(0-1), Y=(0-1), Z=(0-1)
F(x,y,z)=0
Then a parallel cube can be defined as:
F(x,y,z)=1
-Or any constant one wishes.
This can be done with any 3-dimensional shape one wishes, whether it's a sphere, octahedron, or dodecahedron.
And if you want to, you can let F=T for time. In which case, you're describing the object moving in time.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 25, 2020 16:08:18 GMT
karlSo, parallelness can be represented functionally. Does ranging in 0...1 means that a cube in 4d is a changing thing? It changes (always) saving it the most featured properties like equal size diagonal equaled in crossing, etc? I mean as a cube the geometrical figure can be described using functions, thus if the functions is saved in 4d it's still the cube, right? F(x,y,z)=0 or 1 is just coordinates, right? Doesn't it mean a cube at Fxyz=0 or 1?
|
|
|
Post by karl on Sept 25, 2020 22:20:15 GMT
karl So, parallelness can be represented functionally. Does ranging in 0...1 means that a cube in 4d is a changing thing? It changes (always) saving it the most featured properties like equal size diagonal equaled in crossing, etc? I mean as a cube the geometrical figure can be described using functions, thus if the functions is saved in 4d it's still the cube, right? F(x,y,z)=0 or 1 is just coordinates, right? Doesn't it mean a cube at Fxyz=0 or 1?
F(x,y,z) is a function, and given the how the range of x,y,z was defined, it describes a 1x1x1 cube with bottom left corner at origin.
It's similar to how F(x)=1, were x=0-1, would describe a line going from (0,1) and (1,1).
|
|