|
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 Eugene 2.0 on Sept 26, 2020 13:10:30 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).
I mean the same. Anyway, if I stand it correctly, F(x,y,z...)=1 when a function describes a cube, right? In N-dimention fiels the function describes a cube. Also, CS might be Lobachevsky's or Rhiman's or etc, and anyway F(x,y,z...)=1 describes a cube. Ok, but why a cube parallel to a cube only? Shouldn't it be parallel to any figure for what is possible to be described by the function?
|
|
|
Post by karl on Sept 26, 2020 13:53:16 GMT
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).
I mean the same. Anyway, if I stand it correctly, F(x,y,z...)=1 when a function describes a cube, right? In N-dimention fiels the function describes a cube. Also, CS might be Lobachevsky's or Rhiman's or etc, and anyway F(x,y,z...)=1 describes a cube. Ok, but why a cube parallel to a cube only? Shouldn't it be parallel to any figure for what is possible to be described by the function?
Yes. Like how the area that fills a circle can be parallel to an area that fills a square, a cube can be parallel to a sphere in 4-dimensional space.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 26, 2020 14:01:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Sept 27, 2020 9:39:26 GMT
If there were parallel dimensions how would we know about that?
Because physics laws in 4D would observe inverse to the cube laws.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 27, 2020 10:52:24 GMT
If there were parallel dimensions how would we know about that?
Because physics laws in 4D would observe inverse to the cube laws.
Would you correct me, please: a) a cube's inner diagonals are crossed in 90 o angle, outer diagonals are at the same angle crossed; all its lines has the same size and angle between each two of them is either 90 o or 0 o... b) 4D cubes has different laws like: a 4D cube's inner diagonals are not crossed in 90 o, outer diagonals of them are not crossed at 90 o angle; it's not the case that each two lines of it has the same size, and it's not the case that each of them has 90 o angle or 0 o. Is it right? Because I understand the inversion as something above.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Oct 19, 2020 9:50:14 GMT
Because physics laws in 4D would observe inverse to the cube laws.
Would you correct me, please: a) a cube's inner diagonals are crossed in 90 o angle, outer diagonals are at the same angle crossed; all its lines has the same size and angle between each two of them is either 90 o or 0 o... b) 4D cubes has different laws like: a 4D cube's inner diagonals are not crossed in 90 o, outer diagonals of them are not crossed at 90 o angle; it's not the case that each two lines of it has the same size, and it's not the case that each of them has 90 o angle or 0 o. Is it right? Because I understand the inversion as something above. We are using the terms quite differently.
When I say 4d space follows the inverse of the cube law, it has little to do with an actual cube, neither 3d nor 4d.
g= G m / r^2 ... is the law of gravity that follows an inverse of the square law (r^2 is r-squared)
gravity in 4d space would be:
g= G m / r^3 (r^3 is r-cubed or r-to-the-power-3)
in a cube or square of any dimension, the angles are always 90 degrees.
|
|