I thought about dimensions 2-3 days and that's what I come up with:

http://free.top.bg/coldfusion/Dimensions.html

It is in flash because I want to be sure that you understand what I mean and don't take my words wrong. I have never read anything about dimensions before so don't bitch at me if a great scientist theorized it in a different way :)

ColdFusion

P.S. That's the first flash site that I've made. :)

Too many pop-ups for me to actually concentrate on the site
itself. I don't usually mind... but when GATOR tries to violate
my anal cavity, I fukn' jet. Oh well...

Sorry about that but that's the only free domain i have right now.

ColdFusion

hmm, these theories are very close to some i thought of not long ago. I came up with that while all objects in our universe (visible to us) are 3d. These make up a 4d universe. And just like infinite layers of 2d shapes make up3d ones and any one who lived in a 2d world would not be able to see past the next layer we cannot do this in our reality, and if we could... well everything would look screwed up. I dont know how i came up with the following but it just happend one day when i smoked too much :m: . but i came up with the idea of our universe (which by my theory is 4d) when represented in 3d form so we can understand it (which means that one of its dimentions would become flat) it would look donut shaped. Which is also why i think that, without travelling in the 4th dimention no matter how far you travel you will always come back to the same point in the end if you go in a straight line

Qiute interesting discription. I don't see how you made certain jumps myself, but I'll keep thinking about. Also, do you mean to assert that there are 4 individual "parts" of the universe, working in tandem, to create our reality?

This is horrible, this thread.

- Warren

chroot:: mind giving a reason?

Binary:: what do you mean with "parts"?

ColdFusion

so you say that time will stop when the universe stops expanding,
or perhaps time will run back-wards when the universe starts contracting?

Hum, i think (IMHO) that you are confusing dimensionality with the scale and direction of time.

All the dimensions are at `right angles`( 90 degrees) to the other dimentions...(10 or 26?) but it`s nothing to do with the length of the direction...

BTW your Site`s ok on my amiga browser...

When the universe stops moveing we'll stop moveing through the 4th dimention. When the universe starts contracting we'll still be moveing in the 4th dimetion, but not backwards.

ColdFusion

Hi Coldfusion,

I like the idea that you put some ideas on the web, but unfortunately the explanation is not correct.

A circle is not two-dimensional for example: you can only draw it in two dimensions, but you need only one parameter to uniquely describe a position on a given circle, i.e. the circle is one-dimensional.

Bye!

Crisp

That's not true you need coordinates for it's centre and the radius.

ColdFusion

Originally posted by ColdFusion
That's not true you need coordinates for it's centre and the radius.
That doesn't mean the surface itself (i.e. the circle itself) is two dimensional. In fact, a circle is just a line with its ends joined together. A line is one-dimensional, and requires only one parameter to describe a position upon it. A circle has the same dimensionality.

- Warren

a filled in circle is usually called a disc, and that is 2 dimensional. circle just means a one dimensional line that is wrapped around on itself. a circle is 1 dimensional

Originally posted by lethe
a filled in circle is usually called a disc, and that is 2 dimensional. circle just means a one dimensional line that is wrapped around on itself. a circle is 1 dimensional

Even so I got it right look at the pictures.

ColdFusion

Originally posted by ColdFusion
Even so I got it right look at the pictures.

ColdFusion

that s why i mentioned it. but if you don t want to get into arguments over semantics with mathematicians on this site, i suggest you change the wording.

Thank you very much I'll change it. I made it in flash so people can see what I mean and argue about the idea and not about that there are pop-ups or that a word is not used exactly like it should do.

ColdFusion

Dimensions are simply the number of variables you have in your system or consideration.
A is one dimension
A, B is two
A, B, C is three
A, B, C, D is four
etc.
What this does is add combinatorial possibilities to you.
If you have 8 bit numbers, then you have 8^d possible configurations (d is the number of dimensions.)
Nothing mystical about it and more interesting.

I don't see anything mystical in my theory?! :confused:
And all dimensions are the same so you have:
A one dimension
A A two dimensions
A A A three dimensions
A A A A four dimensions

There are no combinations.

ColdFusion

A variable is a thing with a name. If it has the same name, it is the same thing. Simplifies things nicely.

Think of the dimensions as input variables to you. If they have numbers of base b, then there are b^d possible input values.
Again, d is the number of dimensions.
Excuse the mystical statement. Sorry.

Originally posted by hlreed
Dimensions are simply the number of variables you have in your system or consideration.
A is one dimension
A, B is two
A, B, C is three
A, B, C, D is four
etc.
What this does is add combinatorial possibilities to you.
If you have 8 bit numbers, then you have 8^d possible configurations (d is the number of dimensions.)
Nothing mystical about it and more interesting.

8 bit variables are not able to represent more than a finite number of real numbers. therefore any space defined by these numbers is zero dimensional. no matter how many variables you use. hlreed, you have let computer terminology completely replace mathematical thinking in your threads. this makes it difficult to discuss mathematical topics with you.

I know what a variable is, I'm a programmer ;)

I mean that A B is the same as D C. Both *worlds* are two dimensional and there is no difference between them.

ColdFusion

P.s. The site is on a new server with no pop-ups and with the correct words used at the right places.

Guys, do I really need to tell you that it's completely pointless to have a discussion with hlreed about anything?

- Warren

Seems to me a one-dimensional thing has 6 or 8 variables:

End 1:
X, Y, Z, and possible Time co-ordinates.

End 2:
X, Y, Z, and possible Time co-ordinates.

Heck, even a single point has: X, Y, Z, and Time.

In other words, the number of variables a thing has is four times the number of points. Although I could, for example, create a cube in a programme and give each point further variables, such as "number of goblins which can here", bendyness, speed compared to other points, or any other damn thing I want. :p

Adam, that's true if you observe a *one-dimensional thing* in a 4 dimensional universe.

ColdFusion

Originally posted by chroot
Guys, do I really need to tell you that it's completely pointless to have a discussion with hlreed about anything?

- Warren

yeah. i m done with this one.

struct point {
int x;
int y;
int z;
int t;
}

struct cube {
point 1;
point 2;
point 3;
point 4;
point 5;
point 6;
};

1.x = -2;
1.y = -2;
1.z = -2;
1.t = 1;

Et cetera...

Here's the funny bit:

while(!kbhit());
{
1.t;
2.t[i--];
3.t[i++];
4.t[i--];
5.t[i++];
6.t[i--];
}

Freaky... :eek:

You know, make it a spining cube, turning over time, but half the points going backwards instead. [i]*shrug* I just thought it might look groovy. Maybe add another variable for each point, for distance from the centre, and have the points pulsating in and out as it turns.

Lethe,
You are correct. I think the computer should change math. I want input-output machines and moving data. I want long variable names and explicit multiplication symbols. (required.)

Numbers do not take up space. Only names take up space.

Perhaps I should stick to building brains.

Coldfusion you seem to be an INTP, if you want to explain it, you might try to work out the details with other INTPs first. Your theory is a bit less developed, but is along the same line as mine. Maybe we could develop a more useful composite one.

Oh, forgot to mention you can get in touch with other ones through some of our group sites. Just punch in INTP type on google search, and several should come up.

I don't have a clue what INTP is, but I'll be happy if we could work together :)

ColdFusion

I'm an ENTP, borderline INTP, and I can convincingly say that both of you are full of shit. I don't think restricting your "work" to other people with similar personalities is going to somehow suck that shit out of you.

- Warren

Well thanks chroot, now I know why your so arogant! And another thing there is no such thing as a "border line" INTP, are qualities are absolute. I t would be nice if you could just work with us instead of trying to debunk everything we say using what other INTPs have said or written. If you know anything of our personality, you should know almost anything we say or assert usaully isn't absolute, not even our applied theories. Cool off will ya, it not like we're superior, just another function in a varied body.

INTP - Intraverted iNtuitive Thinking Perceiving

Binary: what does ColdFusion s personality have to do with his ideas about dimensionality? do all INTP s need mathematical ideas discussed in "plain english"? how did you know what ColdFusion s personality type was just from reading his "plain english" ideas about dimensionality?

Well, we are very distinct. No we don't need it in plain english, but that's how we see it.

@ColdFusion

So you think that in a static universe time does not move?
Or did i pick it up wrong?

I think the hyper balloon analogy to describe the Hubble expansion of the universe is probably right ... But THAT direction/dimension is NOT time!...

I don`t know why we call time the 4th dimension, we should really call it the 10th (or what ever;), it just adds to the confusion...

Time is space just like energy is matter.

So you think that in a static universe time does not move?
Exactly.
I had trouble with time being the 4th dimension and that's what actually brought me to this theory. I'll show you how I've come to the conclusion and why time and the moveing of the universe fit perfectly together.
If the 2D is an infinite number of 1Ds, and the 3D is an infinite number of 2Ds, then the 4D will be an infinite number 3Ds
If a 3D universe is a sphere, then why should we be liveing in a 4D universe?
Because a 3D universe is static and ours is not. If we live in a 4D universe then the 4th dimention is not infinite (because 4D can be infinite only in a 5D), that means that when it reaches it's end (the universe stops expanding) time will stop. But if the universe starts to shrink and the Big Bang is repeated then time will be infinite which means that the universe is 5 dimensional.

ColdFusion

Er , that like saying iF the universe was static there would be no height ( or breadth) to objects...

If the universe contained just two atoms, and the universe was not expanding, you can`t really be serious in saying that time would not have a direction or flow?

The only static universe you describe that could fit the idea of time stopping is the `Now` moment of time ( as in a single frame of a movie), but the universe consists of a flow of `Now`s...

If a static universe has no height ( or breadth) then it would be 2 dimensional. I don't see a problem?

ColdFusion

Originally posted by Binary
there is no such thing as a "border line" INTP
Of course there is, you idiot. Each of the four categories is a continuum. I am almost equal in the introvert/extrovert category (something like 10% E, I believe), and am very much intuitive, thinking, and perceiving (> 80% each).
are qualities are absolute. I t would be nice if you could just work with us instead of trying to debunk everything we say using what other INTPs have said or written.
It has less to do with what someone else has said or written as it has to do with common sense and logic. Most of the crap you say isn't worth listening to.

- Warren

chroot:: Would you mind stop spamming the thread and get on topic if you have to say something.

ColdFusion

ok. so, if our universe were to become static (something like NOW) then suddenly we would lose a dimention?

i think not.
Time is a quanta . there is a physical size to it ( 10 ^-42) and each one would be a moment of time ( as in a single frame in a movie film).



There are 4 big dimentions , but there are also at least 6 others that are curled up small and the dimention of time.

( due to symetry breaking)

As reality is made up of `NOW`s how could we still live in a 3d world?

Well we don't live in a 3D world as I said a numerous times. We live in at least a 4D world.
Every dimension is made of an infinite number of the previous dimension.
So it is logical that the 4th dimension is made of an infinite number of 3 dimensional universes (which are static by default).
Does the movie continue when you are in just one frame of it.
There are no small and big dimensions because every dimension is has the same characteristics.
ColdFusion

A dimension is just a `direction` that is at 90 Degrees to the other directions...

There are not an infinite amount of points on a direction, only in mathematics, The smallest size can only be about 10^-42.( the constraints/reality of our universe)

3D/4D...We probably live in at least a 10 dimensional universe.
And i can imagine a universe with NO time in it , like i can imagine a universe with only two dimentions...

The single frame in the Movie is/cannot move because of the very nature of it. Can you imagine movement without time?
I find it very difficult to, but i can easily imagine a 2 dimensional shape moving (up/down?) through a third dimension.

I can even glimpse a 3d object moving through a 4th dimension, but when i get to the 5th dimension or 6th i can only understand it... It`s nature is beyond my reality.

So you agree with me?
I mean nothing that I've said is controversial to your last post.

ColdFusion

Just understanding! hehe.

The points you make are very hard for me to grasp. You seem to equate an extra 4th dimension (or direction)to `Time`.

A simple way of looking it would be the hyperballoon....
This 4th dimension would be the hyper-balloon,and that our 3d world is on ( the skin)... the balloon is expanding (due to the big bang). :therefore the points on the surface are moving away from each other( hubble expansion), also each point on the surface is moving.

Time is another dimension

You seem to equate an extra 4th dimension (or direction)to `Time`.
Hmm actually I'm not alone on that one... It has been stated long before me. Even my physics teacher said it that way and she is like 100 years old ;) (well not really)

WOW :eek:
I'm astound how this hyper balloon is so similar to my theory I'm only further. Let me explain:

0 dimension - point
1 dimension - line
2 dimension - disc
3 dimension - sphere
And to show the 4th dimension I assume that the 3D is a point in it ( like the 0 dimension). And everything is repeating.
4 dimension - line
5 dimension - disc
6 dimension - sphere
7 dimension - is a point in the 8th dimension and so on...

In the hyperballoon theory they assume that the 3D is a disc that's the surface of a 4th dimension which is a sphere.
Well and I assume it is a point in a line. But both explanations are right because all dimensions are the same, my approach is only better because it's easyer to explain the next dimensions with it (5,6,7, ...).

ColdFusion

Yes i think were both about the same thing...

I just have a block on calling the n th dimension a point/line/sphere...

i just prefer to call it the 4 th dimension.

in fact i can even draw a HyperCube.

all angles are 90 degrees...

See there's no way how you could imagine the next dimension. And with my theory it's much easier.
I'm working on a formula that shows the relation between the different dimensions, from that the previous dimension shows how the boundary of the next dimension looks like.
Something like:
SUn=limSUn+1
that doesn't equate right now, but I'm still working...

ColdFusion

EDIT:
Un - universe with n dimensions
S - surface, boundary

This is basically infinite-dimensional Lie algebras...

I`m talking about the Heterotic string theories (minimum 10 dimensions)
Moduli space of M-theory is perturbative heterotic string with exceptional symmetry.
Various ideas of a 4-dimensional
theory exist (which may describe the world in which we live),
...orbifold compactification,
compactification on Calabi-Yau manifolds and i imagine tensoring of representations of the super-conformal algebra( lie algebras)

On theories of time i follow the Wheeler theory.

Most are usable with the horizon problem and inflation (symmetry breaking) (and of course there are all the particles and their properties to explain).

Well sorry I don't know any of these theories. :o

ColdFusion

I know a bit over the top...


It`s worth doing a search on google for M-theory and wheeler time theory. ( the two big ones!).

You may even come across my site? (no !, BTW) hehe.

What do you think about the formula? How could it be made to equate?

ColdFusion

Like i said, i want to understand what you were saying...
The formula (does it matter?)is just a mathematical model.

1+n!

there are matrix theories that e.g. SU(3) that are similar.
(There are hundreds BTW) but there must be freedoms built into the formula's that allow them to be simplified ( broken) in only a certain way.

What we always have know ( as humans) is that there are 3 dimensions and we are aware of Time.
And with the discovery (in cosmology)of inflation etc, lead to another 6 dimensions (Heterotic string theories) to solve the horizon problem,over abundance of magnetic-monopoles, CP-violation,unification of gauge coupling constants, Mass(?)...we have now 10! maybe 26!

E8 xE8 matrix theory ( perhaps) describes a pre-bigbang universe ( before it is broken down. )

Now i`m not saying that it is right but i think that it`s core thinking is on the right path.