|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
||||
|
Quote:
There is a book called "Flatland" that does a real good job of explaining 1,2,3&4D space. Try here. It is a very interesting read. ![]()
__________________
It's just one of those damn things of which there are many few. -- Dan Blocker |
|
|||
|
cyrek reply
PR quote Would a 3-D spatial universe and a 4-D spatial universe have a different geometry? reply IMHO, I would say no. Both spaces would be 3D, but 4D would add motion with the introduction of time. Time would be a 'variable point' added to the 3D dimentions.
__________________
aka Michael Cyrek |
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
http://members.elirion.net/~maddad There are 10 kinds of people. Those who understand binary, and those who do not. |
|
|||
|
But the problem with the whole inverse cube law thing is that they got the inverse cube law just by adding an additional dimension but applying the same geometry as before, wouldnt you have to do more than that? because 3D geometry and 4D geometry are different from each other
life not being possible in 4D+ universe is just a sad sad thought |
|
|||
|
A piece of paper is a valid representation of a 2-D universe (ignore the thickness). Take a pencil and try drawing a line ABOVE the paper.
Try a balloon for a closed universe.
__________________
Does earth plug a hole in Heaven or Heaven plug a hole in Earth? -Peter Gabriel |
|
|||
|
Quote:
Historical quote about 4-D space:“When we either apply such fancies as these, or others not less inconsistent with our innate conceptions, to space relations, we are naturally led to a geometry unlike that dealt with by common-sense geometricians. We may call the geometry to which we are thus led non-Euclidean, and it may please the fanciful to find in the cumbrous term something suggestive of scientific profundity. If we called these imaginary relations “dream -geometry,” we should be somewhat nearer the truth, for it is only in dreams that men can fancy things are and are not, at one and the same time.” Richard Proctor, 1884 |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|