Hi ,
let me explain my question a little bit: -

So my question is
"Can we imagine something new which is completely different from our
previous knowledge ?"

here "Something" means any kind of substance or material which you have
never seen or heard before. for simplification i could say
"Can you imagine a new colour ?" - this new colour should be completely new,
it is not mixture of any previous colour you know ?

You can imagine concepts or events that you have never seen/heard before,that's where fiction comes from. I can't imagine a color that's not a mix of other colors, because that means that there's no way to descibe it. It's just a random thought, like trying to think of nothing.I also can't imagine an end to space.

It is a tautology.

What does new and "completely different" mean if not that you can't imagine it?

--- Ron.

No. It is an impossibility to think of something analogus to a wholey distinct colour which is not a shade of a present one. Without the necessary sense-data, one cannot imagine such a thing. One can also not imagine a different taste, nor a different smell.

how did our inventions come about, it was jsut htinknig abut soemthing differently, nothing even been made out of soemthing new and completly different to my knolage anyway

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=56979

this thread covers same type of thinking, should help

Of course you can. At some point in every ancient tribe, there had to be the first guy that pointed at something and used a unique grunt, trying to signify a correlation for another person. The idea to communicate an idea to another person with an unchanging verbal symbol had no prior example for the people involved. The fact that it might have a genetic impulse (if Stephen Pinker is to be believed) should not discount the fact that it is a brand new thing for that individual.

The reason philosophers love these types of questions is because they are so sematically driven. You can always say that any invention was based off of knowledge of some sort, which they pretend to imply that no new thing can be thought of. Like someone else said, it is a tautology when you hold as your premise that any new thought required the ability to think, which means you hold past experiences, hence nothing is new. That is just silly thinking, in my opinion.

Swivel:

We are not claiming that there are no new thoughts, just that one cannot think of something which one was not exposed to in a general sense in the senses. One could not think of colour - or even sight - and have a clear mental picture of them without sensory preception. This does not mean we cannot recombine sensory input.

....The idea to communicate an idea to another person with an unchanging verbal symbol had no prior example for the people involved.

Did you ever actually attempt to convey the quality of an experience that was totally new to yourself, but not yet known, not at all to the person to convey to?

--- Ron.

Did you ever actually attempt to convey the quality of an experience that was totally new to yourself, but not yet known, not at all to the person to convey to?

--- Ron.
Another way of expressing what Ron just said?
Did you ever actually attempt to convey the quality of an experience that was familiar to everyone but unrecognized by anyone you attempt to explain it to?

Did you ever actually attempt to convey the quality of an experience that was familiar to everyone but unrecognized by anyone you attempt to explain it to?

Such as a cruel truth, for instance?

There is never a shortage of things they'd rather not be reminded of.

--- Ron.

I was thinking of the same problem a few weeks ago, but haven't given it thought since. Many of you don't seem to have understood it properly. One example is, of course what has been said earlier: can a man born blind imagine what sight is? Here's another one:
Can you visualize a fourth spatial dimesnion? I used to think that the brain being three-dimensional meant that we could not. But I don't think that's right. We're merely storing and processing information in our brain. There is nothing standing in the way of storing information about ofur dimensions on a three-dimensional or even two or one dimensional objects. For example, it is possible to contruct figures of any dimensions and store them on the hard disk of a computer. Then is it possible for us to visualize a fourth spatial dimension?

Then is it possible for us to visualize a fourth spatial dimension?

There is actually a fourth dimension, at least, and it is easy enough to visualize.

I refer to chirality.

If you wanted to create an absolutley identical Universe from scratch you'd need to know if it was a right handed universe or a left handed universe, for it is possible to envisage the whole thing as a mirror image of itself, and thus in every spatial dimension, inside out and upside down, so to speak.

--- Ron.

No, that's not really a fourth dimension. It does not contribute a fourth degree of freedom. If everything is viewed in terms of particles, you would need only three dimensions to describe the universe completely.

No, that's not really a fourth dimension. It does not contribute a fourth degree of freedom. If everything is viewed in terms of particles, you would need only three dimensions to describe the universe completely.
Well. Einstein says it's 'time', and time is at least partially comprehensible as the interval between two or more events. There's a lot more detailed comprehensions of the 4th dimension at http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

This is going wonderfully well, because no one here seems to know the least bit of physics or mathematics. I said, <I>spatial</I> dimension. Time is <I>so</I> not a spatial dimension- it's a temporal one. There is no problem in visualizing time (except again in the form of a fourth spatial dimension, like we would have to do if we tried to draw a 4D spacetime graph).

Hi ,
let me explain my question a little bit: -

So my question is
"Can we imagine something new which is completely different from our
previous knowledge ?"

here "Something" means any kind of substance or material which you have
never seen or heard before. for simplification i could say
"Can you imagine a new colour ?" - this new colour should be completely new,
it is not mixture of any previous colour you know ?

Do you mean that this "something" is composed in such a way that no single part of is just a recreation of something already existing? Like a donut and coffee mug seem to be different.. however they are actually topologically the same. So these two don't count.

A new color? No.

The answer to the general question is quite possibily no. As far as I know, everything in reality can be represented in some fashion by mathematics... and as we all know, mathematics is a system setup by a short list of simple rules, called axioms. We just build the complexity off these rules.

Can we form new axioms? Sure... but in all likelyhood these new axioms are just generalizations of other axioms or that these new axioms were just previously unknown, but there.

This is going wonderfully well, because no one here seems to know the least bit of physics or mathematics. I said, <I>spatial</I> dimension. Time is <I>so</I> not a spatial dimension- it's a temporal one. There is no problem in visualizing time (except again in the form of a fourth spatial dimension, like we would have to do if we tried to draw a 4D spacetime graph).
An interval between two or more events is spatial.

A 4-D supercube is a space-time graph. Any 3-D entity moving at right angles from itself is 4-D space-time.

This is going wonderfully well, because no one here seems to know the least bit of physics or mathematics. I said, <I>spatial</I> dimension. Time is <I>so</I> not a spatial dimension- it's a temporal one. There is no problem in visualizing time (except again in the form of a fourth spatial dimension, like we would have to do if we tried to draw a 4D spacetime graph).

Yes. You can view a 4D hypercube in 3D two ways: Time or spatial "reflection." With time, you would see a 3D cube expanded with time. Spatial, you would see basically a cube within a cube, but this is because every vertex must have 4 corners. And plus, in 4D spatial-space you could see the entire 3D object at one time, just like us 3D beings can see an entire 2D object at one time.

Visualization is fun :cool:

Yes. You can view a 4D hypercube in 3D two ways: Time or spatial "reflection." With time, you would see a 3D cube expanded with time. Spatial, you would see basically a cube within a cube, but this is because every vertex must have 4 corners. And plus, in 4D spatial-space you could see the entire 3D object at one time, just like us 3D beings can see an entire 2D object at one time.

Visualization is fun :cool:

According to Einstein, everything we see is 4-dimensional, we haven't gotten around to recognizing it, beyond that fact that it is somehow bonded with time. Re. http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie
Total Field Theory (reinstatement of Steady State universe and abandoned Cosmological Constant)

Uniqueness is one of those myths we like to believe in.

There is never anything completely new.
There are new, unique combinations of what is old and known already.

We can trace back ideas and inventions to previous ideas and inventions.

The sense of newness comes when enough re-combinations of older things have occurred and we can look back far enough into the past where what is and what was are so different that they appear alien to one another.

In truth they are no so different.
The new contains the old within it.

You're great, guys. One talks about projecting a hypercube to three dimensions. Another one goes on about how Einstein says the fourth dimension is time, and how according to Einstein we already see four-dimensionally without recognizing it. Can you think for a moment before answering???

I'm not asking whether there's a fourth dimension. That is irrelevent. I'm not asking whether we can project four-dimensional objects to three dimensions. That is useless.

I'm asking whether you can imagine seeing four-dimensional objects as actual four-dimensional creatures would.

You're great, guys. One talks about projecting a hypercube to three dimensions. Another one goes on about how Einstein says the fourth dimension is time, and how according to Einstein we already see four-dimensionally without recognizing it. Can you think for a moment before answering???

I'm not asking whether there's a fourth dimension. That is irrelevent. I'm not asking whether we can project four-dimensional objects to three dimensions. That is useless.

I'm asking whether you can imagine seeing four-dimensional objects as actual four-dimensional creatures would.

All creatures are four dimensional, including people. We're apparently seeing and otherwise experiencing the 4th dimension without recognizing it.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

That is what i want to ask ,

Rosnet has correctly understood my question ,

so in another term i will ask ,
we know three states of matter solid,liquid and gaseous but if anyone says there is a fourth state of matter can we image that state without forming any relationship with previous knowledge of matter and their states ?

so our this new state is different , as solid is different from liquid ?

We could not, no. It is impossible to envision such things.

OK, try to imagine something completely new... superstrings

Before they were thought of, did they exist?

I'm no physicist, but I'm pretty sure those guys can imagine stuff that is completely new.

Dark matter. There's another. Maybe?
Or I could just be rambling...

Hi ,
let me explain my question a little bit: -

So my question is
"Can we imagine something new which is completely different from our
previous knowledge ?"

here "Something" means any kind of substance or material which you have
never seen or heard before. for simplification i could say
"Can you imagine a new colour ?" - this new colour should be completely new,
it is not mixture of any previous colour you know ?
No. Knowledge is the essence of imagination.

Dexhaven:

Things such as strings, dark matter, et cetera, are new concepts taken from previous experience. No one suggests that one is not capable of imagining circumstances and other such things. But what would be impossible is to think of "red" when one only knows "green", or "sight" when one was blind from birth.

::sput:: ::sput::...

Why the heck is everyone ignoring the examples and why is Kaiduorkhon going on about four dimensional space time? I KNOW THAT SPACETIME IS FOUR DIMENSIONAL, OKAY???
SHUT THE HELL UP!

Read properly before posting something next time. PLEASE..........

I am asking whther it is possible to VISUALIZE a fourth SPATIAL dimension, or in other words can we see, or imagine seeing, like FOUR DIMENSIONAL creatures do?

If yes, how?

If not, why isn't it possible?

art dex:
I thought plasma was the fourth type of matter?

Rosnet:
The closest thing that I can imagine to a fourth spatial dimension is being inside a cube, if you go all the way to the end in one direction, you end up on the other side. Like Earth, only without gravity and moving in a straight line. I can't visualize a fourth dimension, but I can imagine experiencing it. I think that space must be like that. That makes more sense than a sudden endpoint or continuous nothingness.

I didn't mean experiencing it in the manner you described. Yuo are talking abou space curving in on itself. That's still not what I mean, and that is irrelevant to the discussion here. We're not having a discussion on spacetime or hyperspace as such. We're talking about (at least I am) visualizing a fourth spatial dimension.

We're 4-dimensional, and what we see is 4-dimensional.

Rosnet:

No, it is impossible. We have no way to even process such a 4th spatial dimension.

Hi ,
let me explain my question a little bit: -

So my question is
"Can we imagine something new which is completely different from our
previous knowledge ?"

here "Something" means any kind of substance or material which you have
never seen or heard before. for simplification i could say
"Can you imagine a new colour ?" - this new colour should be completely new,
it is not mixture of any previous colour you know ?

I would imagine that in order to imagine something completely different from anything you've imagined so far that first you'd have to find yourself somehow experiencing something you've never experienced before.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie (Work in progress)

Rosnet:

No, it is impossible. We have no way to even process such a 4th spatial dimension.

Why? Information does not have to be four-dimensional. For example, a computer stores information in one-dimensional form, but it is able to process the information to create 3D images. But I guess we're talking about the how our brain works at a very deep level, here.

Rosnet:

The difference is to be in the fact that whereas a computer is meant to simply place data in such and such a format as to facillitate its human user's comprehension, the mind lacks the ability to replicate and/or perceive things beyond its exposure to such things. Theoretically, a person blind at birth, who up until the moment of sightedness would not have been able to imagine sight, would instantly have the capacity to should vision be bestowed upon him. Moreover, when dealing with the 4th dimension, there might also be the fact that we are litterally geared towards not being able to see any 4th dimension. That is to say, we do not have the biological mechanisms to comprehend such things. If such is the case, it is likely due the fact that either there is no 4th dimension, or the 4th dimension does not sufficiently interact with us to warrant our awareness of it.

Also, you should note that technically speaking, a computer never gives any data which is three dimensional. Every visual presentation on the computer is in two dimensions, and ontop of that, not even coherent, but made of hundreds of pixels. It is an opitcal illusion that depth is present. And when it does deal with three dimensional geometry on a math level, this is doing so based on a system imposed upon by its creator, and simply using the algebraic calculations necessary to produce the answer in accordance with the rules it follows.

Also, as a brief note, a 4 dimensional object has indeed have geometries made for it, but has never been displayed as a 4 dimensional object in any form whatsoever. This is because even in the minds of mathematicians using an algebraic system to create answers for 4 dimensional problems, they are not looking at 4 dimensional images in their mind's eye.

That is okay...
Let's leave the fourth dimension alone then. I used that only because that is what I thought about first, and the idead is pretty clear to me. But the real issue i getting sidetracked, so let's just get back to the blind man problem, which is better.

So why can't a blind person (born blind) imagine color?

Rosnet:

Wow, I did not expect a response so soon! Ha ha! But yes...

To put it simply, a born blind person (let's say BBP for short) cannot imagine colour by the fact that he has no references. Thought requires antecedent experience in order to provide a reference for the thought, whatever sensory data is being manipulated in imagination. In the absence of such data, the mind is incapable of imagining such a thing.

If memories could be transfered, it would be interesting to find out if one transfered the memories of a sighted person to a BBP, would the BBP be able to think of sight and colour and such things? I would wager yes, although this is pure speculation and tangential to the main discussion.

I think so too. But would it be possible to invoke possibly inherited memories? Do blind people have dreams?

Rosnet:

I believe they have dreams, but not ones where they can see. That is to say, they dream as they live - in sound, touch, and smell.

Have you asked anyone about it? I would like to know more about this. Guess I'll do web search too. I was thinking. If, like instinct, they inherit some memories also, would it be possible to awaken them so that they can imagine sight?

Rosnet:

Well, the notion of genetic memory, at present, is very controversial. That is to say, few people are willing to go out on the limb and say it is real. But if indeed there are memories which are capable of being experiencd as our own from the past, and these memories are visual in nature, then yes, it is possible that awakening such could give a blind person the ability to imagine sight. It is also possible, however, that such ancestral memories would be interpreted differently, and instead carry an aural or tactile aspect where the sight would be.

But no, I have never asked someone who was blind from birth as to whether they see or not, although I have read it declared that they cannot. But that actually makes me want to call up the blind care centre and see if they could provide me with that information.

In fact, should they be open this morning, I shall give them a ring and see if they might do just that.

No I meant have you asked anyone about dreams?

Okay, think I got the answer for that one. Se here:

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view.php/14836
http://vision.about.com/od/severevisionloss/f/blinddreams.htm

Rosnet:

Extremely intriguing! Thank you for the links.

But no, I never asked anyone about their dreams. I should have to find someone who was blind since a child to do so.

Yes people born blind have dreams, but it's the same as their lives, they don't visualize anything. You can have expeiences without a vision of them, otherwise blind people wouldn't exist. They have experiences intheir dreams, just like in real life.

Yes. You can view a 4D hypercube in 3D two ways: Time or spatial "reflection." With time, you would see a 3D cube expanded with time. Spatial, you would see basically a cube within a cube, but this is because every vertex must have 4 corners. And plus, in 4D spatial-space you could see the entire 3D object at one time, just like us 3D beings can see an entire 2D object at one time.

Visualization is fun :cool:

__________________________________________________ ________

The Editors, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN,

415 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10017

14 May 1976


"An Accelerating Universe?"

"...that most reasonable observational data.... fit closely all models to which the expansion is accelerating. "The prediction of accelerating expansion is contrary to expectation... "something must be terribly wrong."..."The net forces between (receding) glaxies really are repulsive (Re: 'Hubble's Law - the more distant a given stellar or galactic light source the faster it's rate of recession from the point of observation". Re: Einstein's Cosmological Constant <repelling force acting parallel to and in the opposite direction as the popular concept of 'Newtonian impelling force>, a force different from others in that its velocity increases - rather than decreases, with distance.) - SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, 'Science and the Citizen', December 1975, James E. Gunn and Beatrice M. Tinsley.


'I point out this apparent conflict with the understanding that Gunn and Tinsley concluded "...the prediction of accelerating expansion is contrary to expectation... and that something must be terribly wrong." Especially so if "...the net forces between (receding) galaxies... really are repulsive... and if gravitational values really are "equivalent to and synchronous with inertial acceleration values beyond a billionth of a second and the technical ability to measure any difference" (THE NEW GRAVITY <Is The 4th Dimension>, April 1975, Kent Benjamin Robertson).

'Is it possible we are overlooking a rather obvious consideration, concerning the real nature of 'gravity?'

Very Truly Yours,


David F. Sicks, Anchorage, Alaska cc - Mr. Kent Robertson

(Of course Mr. David F. Sicks received no response whatsoever.)

__________________________________________________

Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 4:18 pm Post subject: What is the meaning of Mr. Bucky Fuller's statement, here?

"In reality, mathematics can say very little about the 4th dimension. There is nothing in the hypothesis of the 4th dimension that would make it inadmissable from a mathematical point of view, this hypothesis does not contradict any of the accepted axioms and, because of this, does not meet with particular opposition on the part of mathematics. Mathematicians even admit the possibility of establishing the relationship that should exist between 3-D and 4-D space, i.e., certain properties of the 4th Dimension. But they do all this in a very general and indefinite form. No exact definition of the 4th Dimension exists in mathematics.


"The basis of the denial of the fourth dimension, which has been supported by the theoretical and fallacious plane and cubical geometry, has been the inability to produce an additional or fourth perpendicular to a cube, as the basis of an additional power multiplication, whereas, poor little plane arithmetic and algebra, without geometrical reference, being abstract, indicate the perfect ability to do so...


"Very rightly do they do so, for if the geometrist will go back to his first perpendicular, he will find it perpendicular to a sphere, for did he not assume a dot as his first basis of a geometrical theorem, which if conceded at all, must be spheroidal. Matter, if existent at all (and we cannot fallaciously assume a truth that is not), must be spheroidal. Surely the 'PlaneAndSolid' geometrist does not claim his 'dot' or 'point' to be cubical, for then he would have no further cause for his progressive antics. We see that there is no cubism, and that we can have as many perpendiculars to the inside or outside of the sphere as we may wish. Each power raising, or root taking, is on the basis of spheroidal increase or decrease by that many units of its radial or time dimension. The only 'straight line' then is the radial or time line, demonstrated by spheroidal dissection on its radial axis. There is also much laughter at the 'Plane&Solids'" - R Buckminster Fuller, 4-D TIMELOCK, p. 17

And plus, in 4D spatial-space you could see the entire 3D object at one time, just like us 3D beings can see an entire 2D object at one time.
You cannot see an entire 3D object at one time?

SHUT UP Kaiduorkhon!!! You're not getting the point. And no, TruthSeeker, you cannot see an entire 3D object at the same time. You cannot see the back, you cannot see inside... If you were looking at a 2D figure (from our three dimensions) you would be able to see it entirely, even "inside" a closed figure.

But this is all beside the point. So please stop bringing this up OKAY?

Kaiduorkhon:

If the a mathematical point is a sphere, then it is not the first - or zeroth - dimension. A sphere is a three dimensional object.

And no, TruthSeeker, you cannot see an entire 3D object at the same time. You cannot see the back, you cannot see inside...
Huuumm... I see.

If you were looking at a 2D figure (from our three dimensions) you would be able to see it entirely, even "inside" a closed figure.
So if we could see from the fourth dimension we would be able to see 3D objects entirely?

In keeping with Einstein, I keep being ordered to SHUT UP! Why not direct your surley impatience at the spirit and work of Einstein - he's the one who persuaded the entire world that the entire universe including the world and everything and person on it is four dimensional. It is ostensibly a conditional physical standard that is familiar to everyone, but remains unrecognized.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

I know all that man... I have nothing against it. Only, THAT IS NOT THE POINT OF THIS DISCUSSION. So take it elsewhere!

Namely here:

<A href= "http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=57414">Hyperspace</A>

So if we could see from the fourth dimension we would be able to see 3D objects entirely?
I think we'd be able to see the inside also, is that right?

Go here man: <A href= "http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=57414">Hyperspace</A>.

Kaiduorkhon:

If the a mathematical point is a sphere, then it is not the first - or zeroth - dimension. A sphere is a three dimensional object.

I think that what Buckminster Fuller was qualifying is that, although a geometric point doesn't exist, it is to be mathematically considered as round in shape. He seems to be clarifying that the 'hypercube' finds its geometric origins in a mathematically considered, square shaped geometric point, which he appears to be taking issue with.

Incidentally, all of a glass sphere can and is being seen - observed - in three and four dimensions.

You cannot see an entire 3D object at one time?

Try looking at a solid cube in it's whole with your eyes. You are limited to seeing AT MOST 3 sides.

In 2D, these "beings" can see at MOST 2 sides.

In 1D, these "beings" can see at MOST 1 side.

Without proof, a 4D being can see at MOST 4 sides of a 4D cube. However, each side is a 3D cube.

Just like in 3D, each side is a 2D plane.

In 2D, each side is a 1D line.

In 1D, each side is a 0D point.

And in each dimension, they can see the entire side (if you talk about not seeing the backside of the object, then you are introducing width. We are only talking about "thicknessless" objects).

So if we could see from the fourth dimension we would be able to see 3D objects entirely?

Yes. Just imagine looking at a solid 3D cube in it's whole without having to rotate it.

That's what the side of a 4D cube looks like.

If you want to get a sense of this, play this game: http://www.superliminal.com/cube/cube.htm

It's the 4D version of the 3x3x3 Rubik's Cube. In this case, it's the 3x3x3x3 cube.

It's quite fun. I was actually able to convert my method of solving a 3D Rubik's cube into solving the 4D version.

Whould a galaxy be a 4D object?

Whould a galaxy be a 4D object?

What?

If you are asking what I think... no.

We are talking spatial dimensions.

Hell, maybe it is 4D. However, we can only see 3D because we are just a cross-section of a 4D space.

So dark matter is the side of the galaxy that we cannot see...? ;)

Cause you know what? As far as I understand, the 4th dimension is based on the speed of light, right? So when you are dealing with a very large object such as a galaxy, then you would have much more 4th dimension to deal with in comparison to a small object like a soccer ball, which has only a neglegible amount to deal with. Then there are planets. And that's how Einstein managed to correct the data on Mercury. He was able to correct the data because he now had more data to deal with- that is, the 4th dimension.

Truthseeker:

"Cause you know what? As far as I understand, the 4th dimension is based on the speed of light, right? "

No. The 4th dimension is based on a perpendicular line to all the angles of the third dimension. It has nothing to do with the speed of light. It has nothing to do with the calculation of Mercury's orbit.

Kaiduorkhon:

"Incidentally, all of a glass sphere can and is being seen - observed - in three and four dimensions."

Technically speaking, any shape can be used to illustrate dimensions. Cubes, spheres, pyramids. It is just that a cube is generally easier to keep the analogy the best. But no, the idea that geometry is founded on a three-dimensional sphere as a point is incorrect, in so much as really, no mathematician can qualify the shape of a zeroth dimension object. In fact, it is a pretty silly idea, really. A point with no extension lengthwise, widthwise, or in depth.

No. The 4th dimension is based on a perpendicular line to all the angles of the third dimension. It has nothing to do with the speed of light. It has nothing to do with the calculation of Mercury's orbit.
:rolleyes:

Cause you know what? As far as I understand, the 4th dimension is based on the speed of light, right? So when you are dealing with a very large object such as a galaxy, then you would have much more 4th dimension to deal with in comparison to a small object like a soccer ball, which has only a neglegible amount to deal with. Then there are planets. And that's how Einstein managed to correct the data on Mercury. He was able to correct the data because he now had more data to deal with- that is, the 4th dimension.

No, I am talking about spatial dimensions. If you want to talk about time/light/whatever being the 4D dimension, then talk to someone else about it. I am talking about moving up/down, left/right, forward/backward, and x/y where x and y are whatever words used to describe movement. They are degrees of freedom. Time is not really a degree of freedom. It moves in one direction.

I suppose you could argue that one could go back in time and forward in time (much like one can move forward and backward). However, according to Einstein you need to move really fast in the other dimensions to do so. With spatial dimensions, I can move forward and backward without having to move up/down or left/right. Time, you got to move spatially to "change your direction in time."

:rolleyes:

Graph this and tell me where time fits in:

4w - 6x + y + 10z = 3.

It's 4D. Where is time?

Whichever variable you would like. ;)

Einstein talking about time being a fourth dimension.

Well whatever he said. I don't care. I am talking about a physical dimension. One that would make it appear as if I just "disappeared" from the room. Magic. However, I am still there. I am just "looking down" on the room. We are all in the same time frame. I am still "in the room" but I am also "not there."

Get it?

I understand what you said. What I questioned is if we could use that principle with Einstein's theories.

What the heck is wrong with you people? I told you to go <A href= "http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=57414">here</A> and continue your damned discusison about higher dimensions. What you're too lazy to click on a link?

Sorry oh great genious master! :rolleyes:

:D

What the heck is wrong with you people? I told you to go <A href= "http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=57414">here</A> and continue your damned discusison about higher dimensions. What you're too lazy to click on a link?

Because.

I'm lazy.

And I didn't read your post/thread.

And I don't care. I'm done talking about it.

What's new in the fifth dimension?

Your imagination! :D