What is the 4TH dimension (in Off-topic)
October 7 2006 9:12 PM EDT
come on u crazy people out there give me and the other CB players your definition of the 4th dimension. Any explanation will do.
The 4th dimension is time, that is widely known by a lot of people, especially mathematicians.
October 7 2006 9:24 PM EDT
The 4th Dimension is a barbershop quartet. They are registered with The Boise Valley Chordsmen
Zoglog, _physicists_ think of the 4th dimension as being time. We mathematicians don't limit ourselves to thinking in such narrow terms.
October 7 2006 9:31 PM EDT
Height, width, length, depth, breadth, gumpth.
The question isn't what's the 4th dimension, but which is the 4th, the 5th, and the 6th?
I as a general mathematician have gone through life with the perception that it is time since there is no longer a physical boundary to the dimension, and all that rubbish about psychic people is apparently the 6th and 7th dimensions, which is why it is called the 6th sense in general :)
Carnage Blender is the fourth dimension. Maybe a new theming engine would be the fifth ;)
It is where the Cheshire cat lives and those pets that left home when I was a kid.I think the fifth dimension is where the single socks go to mate.The sixth is ruled by Elvis and his round table of eight BBQ'ed reindeer.I'd tell you of them all but humanity is not yet ready!
October 7 2006 9:44 PM EDT
I'm not entirely human so I can take it, Slash.(and the information too) :P
October 7 2006 9:49 PM EDT
A chain (or line) where each point is 3-dimensional.
Or you can just go with what Einstein thought -- that it was time. Einstein might have been on the right track, but he forgot to define what time was.
It's not too hard to visualize the 4th, 5th or 20th dimension. The problem is no one can understand past the 4th dimension.
Unless the 5th dimension is like an x-axis and a y-axis and you can graph the 4th dimension "time" (as Einstein called it) on it? Whatever -- I'll let people 2,000 years from now figure it out completely, because alternate universes are just way ahead of us. We just don't know enough to even begin to understand it. We don't even understand our own universe yet, which would be a starting point.
Who knows, maybe 20-40 years from now I'll be a super genius and I'll figure it all out. But for now I'll focus on graduating from high school first and then I'll solve the problem of how the universe works.
The seventh dimension is where the duckbilled platypus came from to begin with and where they go when they want to feel normal.P.S. don't let anyone else know Scrapyard.
October 8 2006 3:00 AM EDT
Kind of nifty.
October 8 2006 3:58 AM EDT
Wow lol thats a crazy book and i think a little pee came out when i read Slashundhack first post
October 8 2006 4:46 AM EDT
Slash is a genius of comedy. In the 4th Dimension.
I prefer Robert Heinlein's "And He Built a Crooked House" definition of the 4th dimension.
The describes a tesseract is this short story that is WELL worth reading.
October 8 2006 5:07 AM EDT
4th Dimension is where banished multis now live.
"which is why it is called the 6th sense in general :)"
LOL! It's called the sixth sense as we already have 5... Sight, Hearing, Taste, Smell and Touch. :P
I could never get to grips with Time being dimension, I think of time as more of a label we use to seperate events.
But then again I could never understand relativities 'two candles on a train' example.
October 8 2006 6:45 AM EDT
Two candles on a train is ok, but four candles in a shop (as per the two Ronnies) just cracks me up. :D
October 8 2006 6:54 AM EDT
go watch the Cube trilogy and you will know :)
October 8 2006 6:57 AM EDT
already has this subject covered. It even goes a bit further
Kaku wrote a great book called Hyperspace, which separates spatial from temporal dimensions in terms of counting. Thus, the 4th spatial dimension, and the 5th dimension in total, would be light.
Shade, there's a third? Cube was good, but the sequel sucked.. >_<
October 8 2006 10:50 AM EDT
not so much as a sequel, but a prequel where a lot of the what and why will be explained.
*has the 4 dvd box, bought for cheap* very entertaining :)
October 8 2006 12:08 PM EDT
Indeed, Cube Zero gets back to basics and is far better than Hypercube. The original is still far and away my favorite, I think...
October 8 2006 12:09 PM EDT
True 'CUBE' is by far the best, but the questions you get from the end of cube 1 and 2 (hypercube) are mostly explained in cube 0 imo.
October 8 2006 12:16 PM EDT
Yes, I meant CUBE. I said, "the original". *smile*
Actually, time is the fourth dimension.
Why would time be the fourth spatial dimension? How would that interact with the relationship between distance and speed? Would speed become it's own dimension?
Uh, time measures distance. I don't know where you're getting speed from exactly. And I believe it's common knowledge that time is the fourth dimension. It's what separates us from video games that are 3D? :/
October 9 2006 4:29 AM EDT
speed is distance in a period of time, so having time as another dimension would make things go wrong...
Time is the 4th dimension. Speed is a function of Time, not a dimension itself.
As Wikipedia explains:
If time is added as a 3rd or 4th dimension (to a 2D or 3D space, respectively), then ... "speed" may be calculated from a comparison between the times associated with any two positions. For common uses, simply using "speed" (as a dimension) is a useful way of condensing (or translating) the more abstract time dimension, even if "speed" is not a dimension, but rather a calculation based on two dimensions.
Wiki first, folks! That's my motto.
Bast, conversley as speed, distance and time are related, why can't we add speed as the fourth dimension and then calculate 'time' from it?
the speed of light is calculated as a time.
for instance its takes the suns rays 8.31 minutes at the speed of light to get here.
"Time is currently one of the few fundamental quantities. These are quantities which cannot be defined via other quantities because there is nothing more fundamental than what is presently known. Thus, similar to definition of other fundamental quantities (like space and mass) ...."
October 9 2006 6:24 AM EDT
Speed is obtained by differentiating distance over time. To construct time out of distance and speed, you would have to integrate instead. Which does not make sense.
Integrating which leaves an unknown constant therefore being an innacurate or at least incomplete conversion.
Please say I at least got one thing right in this thread ;P
October 9 2006 8:12 AM EDT
Let's imagine GentlemanLoser on a Saturday night.
x, his position, lies on the axis between the pub (hereby defined as origin) and his house. x is a vector, and to keep things manageable for GL, we assume it's a 2D vector, not 3D.
t, time, lies between t=0 (shortly after closing time of the pub) and (early in) the morning.
If at regular intervals his position at the then current time is recorded, we can reliability (well, let's ignore Heisenberg and his Quantum Physics) determine his velocity v, defined as v = dx / dt.
If instead of recording position and time, his speed and position were recorded, we cannot determine the current time, as there is no reference time to compare against. All we know is a time difference.
October 9 2006 8:16 AM EDT
Bart, you do realise that axis between his house and the pub would assume a similar shape to the line drawn on a seismometer during a particularly bad earthquake; it certainly wouldn't be a straight line... ;)
Oh I've had journeys like that before. ;)
Bart, consider your example of GL. We can track his progress with coordinates, both spatially and temporally. For example,
(0.5, 0.25, 30) could mean 1/2 a km north, 0.25 km east, and 30 minutes after close. This would completely determine GL's progress. In this way, the time and space coords are essentially indistinguishable, especially with the correct choice of units. Hence "space-time", which is the physicists' interpretation of 4-D.
Mathematicians, however, are perfectly happy to have 4,6, or 31 spatial dimensions, and embed n-manifolds therein, but I digress...
There are distinct differences between temporal dimensions and spatial dimensions.
Base quantifiable units do not necessairly equal new dimensions (current is not a dimension, for instance).
Light is quite readily a spatial dimension, measured past the first three spatial quantities. It is the 5th dimension in total, but spatially separate from temporal measurements.
This universe is limited past light. The remaining 6 spatial dimensions reside in the parallel shrinking universe.
October 15 2006 3:23 PM EDT
sorry that a schoolboy has to intervene, but there are four dimensions, three spatial, and the fourth of time, as in Einstein's space-time universe...string theory says there are ten, and that the others are folded and mighty tiny...recent news says some of the brightest minds in science in the past 30 years have been wasted by pursuing the mirage of string theory...meaning there is no such reality as string theory...hold on to your four dimensions for now...
You might want to study more. Einstein's theories are not as you describe.
Second, research Kaku. He's continuing Einstein's work, right where he left off. And so far, he's pretty accurate.
October 15 2006 6:18 PM EDT
I googled Kaku, and read the Amazon ToC of two of his books, yep, he's into String theory big time.
Here's the latest chatter on String theory, so you can do a rethink on Kaku.
This thread is closed to new posts.
However, you are welcome to reference it
from a new thread; link this with the html
<a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001vGy">What is the 4TH dimension</a>