You are not logged in.
Ok, this was a bit off topic. You may continue analysing dimensions.
Added link to top post. May comment, I loved your views, they were great!
So if you ate special monodirectional D4-capsules, you could travel along it? Sounds very desturbing. Else I am sad to tell you that such a coordinate must have a cause for its non spatialness, else it is spatial.
Space is only 4D, if you compare 3D along a line with 4D. The space particles may be and should be 3D, since elseways it would change over time. All that is needed for space to be 3D, is that there are alot of equally 3D rooms that we travel through. That should ofcourse be "all mass is 4D lines that moves through a 3D room. If room and mass had equal dimensions, then room would be mass. But ofcourse, if you can explain mass as 5D, then there is no reason not to believe that room is 4D. But then we would still only be able to see one dimension as non spatial, since it requires max speed along a such in order for it to be contracted enough, and then we would have 4 room dimensions that were spatial, which is not the case.
What do you get when x = 0?
How about a balloon?
Anyway, seriously... What I meant is that we are like a 4D line through 3D rooms, and since everything with dimensions, can change over other dimensions (dy/dx) so that it becomes less dimensional, that will happen and this means that eventually we will reach the end of the line, and then there will only be room, 3D life. That is, if it will ever end. That is, if our speed through spacetime is compareable to the length of time. The universe is a box, if you get to the end, you'll have to go sideways. But this I know very little of. Enlighten me if you can.
How about big bang?
The same reason that something can go 3D.
Yes, but if the room was about to go 2D, wouldn't it start like that?
And thanks for the neat paper width examination. You have alot of them, don't you?
Yes, that's exactly the analogy i meant to make.
Ok, I posted something new in the last post, I thought I should let you know, Incase you are interested.
Yes, some things dots are still 3D, but if you look at big things, like galaxies, they are flat, aren't they? Relatively speaking...
"A dot is infinitely thin, so 2 dots in a row is also infinitely thin, why there is nothing saying that the multidimensional dot it all began with can't re order the dots internally to create a dot that has less dimensions then the first dot. Infact, even an infinitely slow movement of the dots given from the fact that the highdimensional particle has a free variable of dimensions depending on the dot's positions in them self and the other way around would still cause an imediate effect as a decay of dimensions, in the case that the dots due to this mentioned, moved. Since every dot moves, they would sooner or later form a 3 (or lower) dimensional mess that we can live in. I guess that the final decay would be 0 dimensional. I don't know what will happen then. I guess the dots will dissapear and it will start all over again. Cause the energy and momentum cannot be contained in something 0 dimensional
Right now we've got galaxies and solarsystems that are flat.
It couldn't have started in 4D, cause then there would only be 2 particles.
Yeah, zero's got it figured out and that theory is nice. As for my own, did I break any rules?
Some of the text in the link:
"So let's say that in the beginning there was nothing in form of an infinite dimensioned dot (since nothing has no boundries in any direction, since something infinitely small has no boundries). A such dot is made of smaller, (infinity - n)dimensional dots. 2^n of them, possibly. So if the overdimensional dots leaks underdimensional dots, then we sooner or later have this universe. So this universe is actualy a dot leak, and empty space is infact underdimensional dots/particles. In this theory I call the universe "the dotleak"
So the universe was an infinity dimensional dot that leaks underdimensional dots until there are only zero-dimensional dots left.
"It will take exactly one eternity for the universe to become zero-dimensional dots. (or something like that)" (
What I do understand is that it might certainly leak bakwards from time to time, and you never know if any dot can be called something else then infinity dimensional in itself (what bounds can it have if it is a dot?). In other words it is possible that every dot is a universe, and a universe can repeat sequences etc. "
So if this is true, then space will gradualy become 2dimensional, with 3dimensional photons, just like the universe today is 4(or more)dimensional matter in 3 dimensional space. When the 3dimensional space gradually becomes 2-dimensional, we will probably experience that distance becomes longer, but 2-dimensional. On the other hand, the decay of matter will cause 3d particles that makes matter seemingly gravitational, wouldn't it?
Then I'll add this:
http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=51858#51858
Quote me where I'm wrong.
Not starved in an unnormal way. (how's that?)
Actually, I was wrong, so you looked at me and you got it all wrong, and ever since, everything was wrong and it's not the first time and you should have seen it and spontanious things like this should be checked out and I hope your herbs did not die. But I didn't like antibug spray anyway. You could say it bugs me.
I'm sorry.
Can you first work on a rigorous definition of what a dimension is?
I was talking length.
If a dimensions length is undependent of time, then sooner or later it will get zero length, and that could be at any time since it's time undependent. But if it is time dependent then we know for certain that the size of the dimensions are equally long since one dimension is unseperatable from the other and hence effect eachother with equal manners.
First I will make the statement that any dimension that has length will be equally long since a dimension has no properties besides length. If the length of D1 is a property of D2, then D2 is a property of D1 in the same way, and since there is nothing else for D1 to be property of besides Dn, they will all be equally long.
Given that length increase with time, time increase with length etc.
If you've got more of these, then post them. I will post more as I come up with more.
--by the way, what are you trying to say devante?--
Not scientific in a brainy way.
Not permissive in a logic way
Yes. But you can also make an AI that calculates the number of moves minus one it takes for the opponent to reach a certain square. You then callibrate the number of aditional squares you cover at a certain position with that player and compare them with, and then you simply multiply these numbers with eachother to get the inverse of the relative necessity to move or block or cover, and then you must callibrate if you gain on moving your piece to another position etc.
Not green in an ok way
LQ wrote:Yeah, well if your so interested, why don't you try it?
My rules will still exist on this forum, and knitted caps are as good as expensless and like only used at christmas. When it comes down to it, the only value is credit. And it is mine. And It's not worth patenting. Since it costs 2000$. Not to mention demand cost popularity curve. And my rules are cheaper to buy, cause I decide the price. And I can since I've got copyright. And surely copyright applies to every important part of my text, and there is like no way that you can reformulate that simpler. And the copyright is like appliable to all languages.Apparently you didn't understand it at all. First of all, I'm not that interrested in the game. Second of all, buying your rules wouldn't be cheaper, because I don't even have to. I could just use them, no problem. Copyright applies only to a finished product, not an idea.
Well, it is a finished product and an idea, isn't it?
Not harmful in a radioactive way.