Photographs are 2-dimensional representations of 3-dimensional situations occuring in 4-dimensional spacetime.

My thought for the day...

Okay, I think you're correct, except for the last bit.

What do you mean when you say they occur in four dimensional space-time? :)

Well for one.. I was just trying to use numbers in sequence :)
Second.. well the 3D spatial situations occur in some interval of time (in spacetime). Am I correct?

Originally posted by 4DHyperCubix
Well for one.. I was just trying to use numbers in sequence :)
Second.. well the 3D spatial situations occur in some interval of time (in spacetime). Am I correct?

Well yes they do occur in spacetime but then you could just say that photographs are 2d representations of 4d occurences...eliminating the need to include 3d space because technically that 3d space plus time = 4th dimension (our dimension). So by saying 4th dimension you are already including the 3rd as well since you can't have 4th without the third...or the 1st or 2nd.

Well, like I said... I was trying to use 2, 3, and 4 in order. I thought it was a rather neat thought while showering :p

But are the situations 4D? If time is the 4th dimension then the snippit of life that the picture is capturing does not extend in time. 4DHyperCubix is right.

Originally posted by DarkEyedBeauty
But are the situations 4D? If time is the 4th dimension then the snippit of life that the picture is capturing does not extend in time. 4DHyperCubix is right.

Reread. 4th is a amaglamation of both 1 2 and 3 dimensions and time. The picture did capture a frame of time along with the 3 physical dimensions.

But a 'frame of time' is not time. In fact, time cannot come in frames. Time is never ending. So if you stop it, in anyway, it is no longer time. It loses it's essense, it loses what it is to be time.

I'm not sure 4Dhypercubix. :)

I think 'Earth', or the environment we live in, is considered three dimensional because of how it is viewed in the attachment. Thus any location can be expressed with three sub-locations.

However the environment we live in, and especially here on Earth (where we live on a sphere), must have more di mensions.

I would be interested to know what a 'mension' actually is.

I am aware that a mono poly is one thing that covers (or controls) all (or everything) but I have yet to dis cover how mono 's, di- 's (or bi- 's), tri 's, and quad 's etc's, relate to the environment. :)

Yes you are correct darkeyesbeauty! :)

Reread. 4th is a amaglamation of both 1 2 and 3 dimensions and time. The picture did capture a frame of time along with the 3 physical dimensions. I see what you mean Sargeantlard!

IIRC, we have a forth spacial dimention, not just time, according to String Theory. We just can't see the 4th dimention. Time is something else entirely.

According to Einstein, however, you are completely correct.

Originally posted by DarkEyedBeauty
But a 'frame of time' is not time. In fact, time cannot come in frames. Time is never ending. So if you stop it, in anyway, it is no longer time. It loses it's essense, it loses what it is to be time.

Time is a phyisical activity and it has to be there for our dimension to exist. How can you take a picture in a dimension and exclude the vital part of it. I never said time comes in frame. Well you are a genius for noticing time never ends.....because that info just flew over my head. By taking pictures you aren't stopping time....you are only capturing coordinates of it...you wanna stop time well then travel at the speed of light...that is the only way it'll stop time. The picture captures the essence of the 3 dimensions and time...therefore it isn't doing anything but recording.

no stopping.

IIRC, we have a forth spacial dimention, not just time, according to String Theory. We just can't see the 4th dimention. Time is something else entirely.

Well that's the problem with questions like these. It depends on which theory you favor.......

Originally posted by 4DHyperCubix
Photographs are 2-dimensional representations of 3-dimensional situations occuring in 4-dimensional spacetime.

My thought for the day...

our eyes only see sharp in a really tiny area of our vision. When we therefore look at this 2-dimensional representations of 3-dimensional situations occuring in 4-dimensional spacetime, we mainly see a reconstruction by our brain, which is largely based on memory.

I didn't mean to start a debate... but keep on keepin' on ;)

I wonder how much further we can get though.. this is interesting.

Originally posted by 4DHyperCubix
I didn't mean to start a debate... but keep on keepin' on ;)

I wonder how much further we can get though.. this is interesting.

Yes but this debate is a good one. No one is insulting each other......the only blows being delt are blows of information and reasons to support claims...amazingly enough we haven't resorted to pointless bashing yet.

Originally posted by sargentlard
Time is a phyisical activity and it has to be there for our dimension to exist. How can you take a picture in a dimension and exclude the vital part of it. I never said time comes in frame. Well you are a genius for noticing time never ends.....because that info just flew over my head. By taking pictures you aren't stopping time....you are only capturing coordinates of it...you wanna stop time well then travel at the speed of light...that is the only way it'll stop time. The picture captures the essence of the 3 dimensions and time...therefore it isn't doing anything but recording.

no stopping.

But if you are taking coordinates of time, it's not still time. Since time is never ending...the essence is it's never ending infinity. And coordinates are not infinite, they are finite.

Originally posted by sargentlard No one is insulting each other

Originally posted by sargentlard (Well you are a genius for noticing time never ends)...Oh really?

I was just stating as a known fact, to support my argument.

Originally posted by DarkEyedBeauty
But if you are taking coordinates of time, it's not still time. Since time is never ending...the essence is it's never ending infinity. And coordinates are not infinite, they are finite.



Well then you could say that the the 3 dimensional activity captured in the photo isn't the activity itself but just it's essence..just it's coordinates. Coordinates aren't infinite?.....they aren't anything but markers......

The picture is just a marker of a occurence in the fourth dimension....it captures all that occurs in the fourth dimension

The picture captures a point in the 4th dimension which includes

1st dimension
2nd dimension
3rd dimension
+
time

The picture didn't capture anything physically (i.e holding it physically) It just marks it down in a 2d plane.


....i don't know why you choose to drag on such a simple concept

I'm not talking about dots/markers. I'm talking about combined coordinates. Which is finite, because it is a mapped out section.

No, whatever is captured in the photo isn't the activity itself, it is the essense, it is a point in a group of points that make up the activity.

I am watching a dvd, and there is a woman running across the screen. But I need more soda, so I pause the movie. The woman stops running, does she not? All that she is doing now is looking winded with on leg off of the ground bent. She could perform this action without actually running, she could perform it one time after another and still will not be running. Certainly you could not say that one stone is not a pile. But 30 stones is undeniably.

Originally posted by DarkEyedBeauty
I'm not talking about dots/markers. I'm talking about combined coordinates. Which is finite, because it is a mapped out section.

No, whatever is captured in the photo isn't the activity itself, it is the essense, it is a point in a group of points that make up the activity.

I am watching a dvd, and there is a woman running across the screen. But I need more soda, so I pause the movie. The woman stops running, does she not? All that she is doing now is looking winded with on leg off of the ground bent. She could perform this action without actually running, she could perform it one time after another and still will not be running. Certainly you could not say that one stone is not a pile. But 30 stones is undeniably.

I am sorry but that made no sense at all to me......what stone? what pile?

How does that example relate to this...i think you mistook my point because this argument seems way off of what i had intended to

Sarge....METAPHOR!!!!!!!!!

The moment in time that the woman is caught in is not time itself, just like one stone is not a pile, one of my fingers is not a person, one petal is not a flower, or if you need more consistancy...one cell is not dermis.

Originally posted by DarkEyedBeauty
Sarge....METAPHOR!!!!!!!!!

The moment in time that the woman is caught in is not time itself, just like one stone is not a pile, one of my fingers is not a person, one petal is not a flower, or if you need more consistancy...one cell is not dermis.

I give up due to me being confused.

What is confusing about my metaphor?

im saying that the picture represents a piece of time, and pieces arent the whole...they are parts of it...so they cannot be called by the name of the whole.

A picture, though a piece of time, does not have time as a quality, it represents a moment in time, not time itself.

Better?

Nighthawks (http://www.masterpiece-paintings-gallery.com/hopper-nighthawks.htm)

This is a painting that I love, Nighthawks by Edward Hopper. It depicts a scene that could well have happened, an activity that was real at one point in time and existed in all four base dimensions. But a painting is only a depiction of dimensions three and four, depth and time. This painting is only representative of a scene like a pop shop after hours, same way a photo of the same scene is only a representation of the scene it depicts.

Nude descending staircase (http://pealco.net/nude_no2.php)

Just to show another cool art example, this is a painting by Duchamp that shows a woman in different positions (movement in time). Although it shows a change in time, it is still only a two dimensional piece of canvas.
A photograph is only a portrayal of the third dimension, and the fourth dimension, certain philosophers will say that it's only a state of mind. In reality, time is a relative dimension (Theory of Relativity, QED by Einstein) and a photo is only a picture, not a window into another dimension.

ZERO MASS