VendingMenace Posted November 23, 2003 Posted November 23, 2003 Infinite means never ending, and if they never end how could you get there? Well, in the theory of limits (and really just series exansions) we find that infinite series converge on finite numbers. But perhaps this is a bit abstract... Ok, infinite means never ending...sure. But in the example above, how long did it take the person to count up the infinite steps? Four seconds. So we see that in the case given above we can add up an infinite series in only four seconds. This is becuase the time it takes for each step decreases with each step. It decreases so fast that when we have added everything up it has only taken us 4 sec. I know this seems wierd, but it is true. Thus, even though we may have to take an infinite amount of steps, it will take us only a finite amount of time to accouplish this task. It's true, i promise. And in this way we find that movement is possible. My whole point is that sometimes math conflicts with reality. Well, i agree with you here. In fact, it has been proven (by Godel) that if math is sufficienty powerful to be useful it, in fact, must give us contradictory results. So in essense you are correct, however, your choice of examples is not the best. Specifically, movement is not a mathmatic impossibility.
alt_f13 Posted January 13, 2004 Posted January 13, 2004 VendingMenace said in post #76 : ...movement is not a mathmatic impossibility. What is? Bumble-bees?
JaKiri Posted January 13, 2004 Posted January 13, 2004 Muffin said in post #75 :It says it right in there. "And once I've covered all the infinitely small sub-distances..." Infinite means never ending, and if they never end how could you get there? Lets say we couldn't move, or we lived in a world without movement (yeah, it's zany but bear with me). Some scientist might proclaim movement impossible, never having seen it. My whole point is that sometimes math conflicts with reality. We can ignore all these rather idiotic arguments by mentioning that there is a miniumum length, beyond which nothing has any meaning.
JaKiri Posted January 13, 2004 Posted January 13, 2004 Muffin said in post #71 :Wow, this subject is so mind boggling, I wonder if I've made any sence at all...lol Just because you can't understand something, doesn't mean that it's a paradox or similar duder.
424319 Posted March 24, 2004 Posted March 24, 2004 According to a new theory of time-space, time is an expression of distance or curvature. Time is space. Space is time. Two things are same. It is unnecessary to postulate that time is the forth dimension. For example, time-space of the earth system, sun system and atom, and so on, is spherical. The rectilinear motion in plane coordinates or three dimensions in classical physics occurs in spherical time-space and must be influenced by it. This is reason why time-space is a four dimensions. Reference book: THING AND ITS LAW (ISBN 1-58939-525-5)
Tesseract Posted April 27, 2004 Posted April 27, 2004 The only way it will be possible to see a 4d objet is if we are able to move in the fourth dimension.Now humans are only capable of moving 3 dimensions.Up,down,left,right,and forward and backward.Until we figure out another way to move we can only speculate about the fourth dimension.(as being spatial)
Sayonara Posted April 28, 2004 Posted April 28, 2004 We can already represent 4-dimensional objects in 3 or even 2 dimensions. Not the same as 'seeing' them, I know - but it's a lot less effort.
Tesseract Posted April 28, 2004 Posted April 28, 2004 Still its only possible to theorize the form a 4d object would have. But in all probability it is probably like the ones representable in 3d or 2d planes.Such as the hypercube,simplex, or glomerate.
Nirav Posted August 11, 2004 Posted August 11, 2004 It is Universally accepted that time is the manifestation of the fourth dimension. Even so Have you ever seen a 4-dimensional figure? Can a 3-dimensional figure move without time? Can a 2-dimensional figure move without time? I am proposing that time is not the fourth dimension' date=' but a binding law that all dimensions must obey. Tell me what you think.[/quote'] well .. according to the latest developments in quantum physics, it states that time IS 4th dimnension. or else or the maths including tensor calculus and diffetential geometry which supports general theory of relativity wud break down.
Duke Posted August 11, 2004 Posted August 11, 2004 "The only way it will be possible to see a 4d objet is if we are able to move in the fourth dimension." Is it possible to move in the fourth dimention? Can it be proven to exist, it might not... exist
424319 Posted August 12, 2004 Posted August 12, 2004 Mr. Duke: All thing or its individual always move in 4 dimensions time -space, for example, in the Sun's time-space. It's track is a double centers wave. In the 4 dimension time-space, there is not a real circle or rectilinear. In a big dimension time-space, for example, in the Sun's time-space. a observer may feel that all object in small dimension time-space is or moves in 3 dimensions time-space. 424319 Please read Reference: Xiaozhong Zhai, Thing and Its Law, Chapter 2: the Active and Passive Motion of Time-Space and Chapter 5: the Duality of Time-Space and Energy (Vitualbookworm.com Publishing Inc, college station, 2003).
5614 Posted August 12, 2004 Posted August 12, 2004 i think that my view on this is plain, and straight forward, athough this thread isnt!!! we live in the 4th dimension, we move WITH it. therefore, everything we see, is in the 4th dimension, time, but we can only be in it at a certain speed, the speed of, one second per second! think of it like this, if you traveled at the speed of sound, and said something, that sound would travel alongside you, you would never either never hear it, as it would always be a fraction infront of you, as you speak forward, of, as it would be around you, you would constantly hear it, it is a theoretical thing, i cannot say which is true, but the sound waves, would be travelling with you! never changing their distance from, as you are all traveling at the same speed. in this way, we travel with time, we cannot slow down or speed up our progress in this 4th dimension, like we can in the 3rd, if we changed our speed in the 4th dimension, it would be time travel, but movement in the 3rd, is what humans call, moving! it is this ability to be in several dimensions at once, and have different abilities in each one, that i think has made this thread sooooo long, but as i have not read all of it, im not to know for sure, i just saw the subject, and knew what i was going to post!
Duke Posted August 12, 2004 Posted August 12, 2004 how do we know a fourth dimention actually exists?
Aeschylus Posted August 12, 2004 Posted August 12, 2004 We are not actually saying that time is the fourth spatial diemnsion, if we were I'm sure spacetime would be Euclidean or at least have the same signature as a 4-D Euclidean metric. Spacetime has a Lorentzian metric and for any observer the spatial diemsniosn and the temporal dimenions are clearly distinguished. To argue that time is not the fourth dimension (infact whether we call it the fourth, first, second or third dimension is really just a matter of semantics, spacetime has four dimensions ) of spacetime is circular, because we define spacetime as the combination of our 3 normal sopatial dimensions with the temporal dimension.
5614 Posted August 12, 2004 Posted August 12, 2004 how do we know a fourth dimention actually exists? humans live, as in, have control of the 3rd dimension, but that does not mean other dimensions arent there! just because we cannot control the 4th, and you cannot see the fourth, doesnt mean it isnt there infact, the 4th dimension is all around, just moving perfectly in parallel with us, thus we cannot see it, and changing this parallel-ness about it, is time travel, something, which as of yet, is scientifically impossible! bceause of this impossibility, it is impossible to show in physical terms, the 4th dimension, but then, you cant show the 3rd either, how do you know the 3rd dimension is there? you dont, but you know it is. as you learn physics, you learn there is a 4th dimension, time, you cant physicaly see it, but its there, along side you! i promise! but as i said, its hard to prove, due to the fact that cannot control it, or move around in it, you move with it, along side it, parallel to it, IT IS THERE! edit: not independantly of it!
paganinio Posted August 20, 2004 Posted August 20, 2004 Even so Have you ever seen a 4-dimensional figure? Can a 3-dimensional figure move without time? Can a 2-dimensional figure move without time? maybe for 2-D figure, time is 3-D, for 3-D figure, time is 4-D, and for 4-D figure, time is 5-D we live in 3-D world so that time is 4-D, therefore we can't see 4-D figure
Guest sirbobalot Posted August 22, 2004 Posted August 22, 2004 HI i believe that if there is another dimension, and there is such thing as time travel and wormholes, then woulden't future people be traveling back to our dimension (or earth now)???
Guest sirbobalot Posted August 22, 2004 Posted August 22, 2004 if time travel exits, then people in the future will be Zapped back into our dimention!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thales Posted August 22, 2004 Posted August 22, 2004 There is a theory of time-travel that eliminates this paradox. It is, that at each point in history, there is a branching of the space time continuim such that each possibilty is actuated, but in a different 'dimension'. However seeing as this would require an infinite amount of energy and an infinite amount of dimensions, the idea doesn't sit well with me. Reminds me of the 'many paths' section of QM though. There is also the theory that Time travel may be possible but people cannot travel back any further through time than the point where the machine is 'switched on'. This sounds a bit more reasonable to me, although it makes you wonder what sort of crazy crap would fly out of it the second you turn it on.
Sayonara Posted August 22, 2004 Posted August 22, 2004 HI i believe that if there is another dimension' date=' and there is such thing as time travel and wormholes, then woulden't future people be traveling back to our dimension (or earth now)???[/quote'] How do you know they aren't? They would hardly be strolling around shouting "yoohoo, we're trying to destabilise our time period by changing yours! Go causality!"
Guest Kiwi Posted August 26, 2004 Posted August 26, 2004 I've never liked the idea of time being the fourth dimension. I've never agreed with it. Dimension is defined as "A measure of spatial extent", while time it says is "A nonspatial continuum". QED I really like the idea of Klein Bottles, though I'm still trying to fully grok the concept. I've also begun toying with the idea that there is no such thing as time. Everything just is, and time is something we percieve and we came up with because we'd go crazy without any concept of the passing of time. But suppose there is no such thing. That there is nothing to travel through that would make time travel be even vaguely plausible.
NickSmith Posted January 3, 2006 Posted January 3, 2006 You've all been watching "Cube 2 - Hypercube" wayyyyyy too much. A piece of paper is 3D. The cube drawn it is a representation of something 3D. A square drawn on it is of something 2D. Seeing that we can't interpret the fourth dimension (apart from the concept of time), there's no point in talking about it because it has no use to us.
Sayonara Posted January 3, 2006 Posted January 3, 2006 You've all been watching "Cube 2 - Hypercube" wayyyyyy too much. Way too much to do what? The hypercube concept was conceived, explored, and found to be useful a long time before either Cube film was written. A piece of paper is 3D. The cube drawn it is a representation of something 3D.A square drawn on it is of something 2D. Nobody is disputing that (well, nobody who knows what they're talking a about - a few crackpots were active in this thread as you can probably tell). Be careful not to confuse the issue by introducing the latent but misleading similarity between a piece of paper, and a plane (which we consider mathematically to be of infinitely small depth). Seeing that we can't interpret the fourth dimension (apart from the concept of time), there's no point in talking about it because it has no use to us. We can interpret it after a fashion (see above, or hit Wikipedia for speedy results), and it does have uses.
swansont Posted January 3, 2006 Posted January 3, 2006 Seeing that we can't interpret the fourth dimension (apart from the concept of time), there's no point in talking about it because it has no use to us. "Interpret" is not the same as "physically represent." One can interpret many, many dimensions, in various geometries. And they have plenty of uses.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now