A Smartass Education

Curiosity prompts me to ask which children’s book you are referring to…perhaps A Wrinkle In Time? Also, I’d like to know where dimensions seven through ten ended up since this explanation only mentions six.

there, i fixed it so you can see the rest of the dimensions, the book is in my room. it’s called The Boy Who Reversed Himself

I just watched the video animation describing the 10 dimensions.
Whoever put that together was pretty creative. I can see their train of
thought in imagining what the assumed to exist, but imperceptible,
additional dimensions would be like. I completely disagree with all of
the descriptions of dimensions after the first 4. All of the last 6
dimensions are just different perspectives of the original 4. The
description they gave for the 4th dimension was only partially accurate
as well. The 4th dimension is not simply time. The 4th dimension is a
combination of time and space, usually referred to as spacetime. Under
Special Relativity as Einstein proposed, space and time are homogeneous.

Do you want to know what a 5th dimension is? Gravity is the 5th
dimension, but to understand what that means is not an easy task. Like
the 2nd dimension is an “add on” to the first dimension and the third is
an add on to the 2nd, the 4th is an add on to the third. Logic would
dictate that a 5th dimension, should there be one, would be an add on to
the 4th dimension. Logic would be right. Here is how you can visualize
it…

Imagine a cube of completely empty spacetime. Consider that a property
of spacetime is that mass “curves” it, shapes it if you will. Go back
to your imaginary cube of empty spacetime and assume that no mass is
curving it currently. Visualize the x,y, and z parameters of the cube,
consider a grid inside of the cube with all the lines being absolutely
straight. Store that image for a couple seconds in your mind. Next,
visualize a sphere of mass. Know that because spacetime is affected by
mass, mass is also affected by spacetime. Know that physics is merely
understanding how systems work. Systems are simply two actions that are
interdependent. If something affects something else, that something else
has just affected the something also. The first 4 dimensions are all
interdependent of each other. Take your imaginary and unaffected sphere
of mass and place it inside your imaginary cube of unaffected
spacetime. The geometry of the sphere changes and so does the geometry
of the cube of spacetime. Apart from each other they have one geometry,
but when in the presence of each other that geometry changes relative to
each other. You can no longer describe the event using 4 dimensions.
The 5th dimension would be the actual change in geometry that occurs.
It is this interdependence of systems that IS gravity. Mass acted on
spacetime, and consequently spacetime acted upon the mass.

Guess what happens when this is realized? All of physics changes.
Spacetime is currently viewed as a nothing, as in not being mass or
energy. Einstein suggested that mass is energy, so spacetime would be
said to not be mass. It is this view that is in error. Energy is the
property of something that is DOING something, as in performing some
sort of work. I just stated that because spacetime is being affected by
mass, then consequently mass is being affected by spacetime. Nothing
cannot do something. Consequently, spacetime just became something.
Does that make sense? If spacetime exerts energy, then it must be
mass. Next, you need to consider how much work spacetime does. I
immediately can tell you that gravity itself represents an incredible
amount of energy. How much do you ask? Good question! Gravity does
all work that has ever gotten done. Gravity and energy (this includes
photoelectric and kinetic energy, which are really the same thing
anyway.) are synonymous.

The fourth dimension - space time was percieved by relativity of light (light is a photon particle which has no mass) in space, ie: the speed it travels. Gravity is one of the issues that effects the speed / and thus is part of the dimension of space-time. As well as all properties that a 3 dimensional object has relative to space and time - electromagnetic radiation.
Even objects / particles that have no mass or gravity as such - photons, and objects / particles that cannot be percieved - dark matter, are part of the spacetime and object(3dimensions) relationship / relativity.
It is highly debated within the concept of this unperception of dark objects and black holes etc in space, that a completely new dimension is at hand after all a black hole is the result of extreme gravity and electromagnetic radiation which are all part of the 4 dimensions already.

edit error on my last post:
space time was percieved by relativity of light in space, ie: the speed it travels. Gravity is one of the issues that effects an object in space/ …..

But the real question is. If one was to fold ones self back in time, made some changes and returned. Upon returning to his/her initial spacetime would the rushing flood of changes in memories and reality cause uncontrollable seizures and nosebleeds. And then in a horribly painful contortion would ones shape and appearance not come to resemble ashton kuture therefor causing ones family and friends to no longer recognize one but instead to swoon and ask repeatedly for ones autograph?? i think this is what we all would like to know. Because if that is the case, and if people do start this time folding business, we could all be living in a world full of ashton look alikes!! i truly think we all would like to stay away from that reality don’t you!!!

Dimension 12 is the reversal ofone thru 11. the decomposed stringlet start at a single point of infinity of all dimensions. It is to have reversal in everything to make to forward motion of all. A repeating infinity without repeating itself. di 12?

Objects in space are attracted by gravity. Stars collapse themselves due to gravity. So it looks gravity is inherent property of large celestial objects, unlike what we have here on earth, the smaller objects (objects however, big in our view).

Then why describe gravity to be a 5th dimension? Well, but that can be an argument until it is proved experimentally to be otherwise.

And as for this presentation is considered. Everything is treated as a point. If a two dimensional flat body would break if it is to be imagined to have a similar kind of setup like ours in a 2-D; But practically that would be totally different. A 2-D life would have evolved a different mechanism to keep it going.

As for as I am concerned there is this limitation on us human beings. We can not visualize a 4-D or higher dimensions. As our picture is limited to a 3-D and we know not what is this space except for the theory of relativity.

I’m sorry. I’m just not convinced that there are any dimensions after the seventh one. I mean, why did they even try to pull it PAST infinity? Isn’t that a little oxymoronic of them? I mean, they say that the “other” infinities have nothing to do with the first infinity. But infinity is ALL ENCOMPASSING. Meaning that there is nothing other than. All the possible outcomes and all probabilities would be included in the first infinity that they come to. I think it’s kinda dumb. Sorry…

Past infinity?

What they are doing is creating a variable to help describe an endless set. There can be multiple endless sets. Count by odds 1 through infinity. Count by evens 0 through infinity. Do not these two groups have as many values for each? Are they not infinite each unto themselves? Add them together and you get an infinite set of odds and evens 0 through infinity. But this new set still has the same (that is infinite) number of values. See, it’s easy to put infinity into infinity, and it’s just as easy to pull infinity out of infinity so that there are multiple infinities.

Now the tricky part: Adding all positive even integers would never arrive at any finite number. It would seem infinitely large. Now take a step back and group into your set of evens and odds another infinite set of even and odd negative numbers. You still have an infinite number of values. But if one were to add all the values in this new set together the sum would be zero. Infinity equals zero then? Infinity is nothing?

Or does it equal both? Some infinite sets describe one infinitely large number while other infinite sets describe one infinitely small number.

Contained within a single point is both everything and nothing. It is a singularity. A black hole. The animation started with a single point and ended with a single point. Because that is all there is. This entire universe is an infinite set of permutations of an infinite energy contained and confined within an infinite space. Everything and nothing happening simultaneously.

WTF

Somehow i find it difficult to accept, that other universes should not be contained within the th dimensen, thus ending the rambling there. I cant accept this as anything but a theory of logical brilliance, but actual unimportance.

I can’t claim to understand this in any expert degree, but my very basic understanding of what 11 dimensional string theory is about doesn’t really gel with most of the comments above. Everything I know about it is just from reading a few books, so either the people above know a lot more than me (more than possible) or maybe they haven’t read as many books.

As I understand it, string theory suggests there are 10 dimensions of space and 1 of time. All but 3 of the spacial dimensions are tightly curled up so that to us humans it seems like we’re not even moving through them - like an ant on a very very very tighly rolled up newspaper. The only reason time is singled out as different is that it seems constrained to flow in one direction, depsite there being no reason in physics for it to do so.

The examples above seem to create dimensions that are ‘made’ of more complicated stuff than space or time. The idea of multiple infinities sounds more like something from a Douglas Adams novel than physics. I don’t think there’s any reason to complicate additional dimensions in this way.

Please can someone point out what I’m missing here , thanks.

How does he only encompass the apparent “big bang” to the apparent “end of the universe” in infinite. True infinite would be everything that could possibly occur in this and any other universe that existed or may have existed, thereby nullifying everything he said after the 6th dimension.

This only intellectualizes a story, an idea. It’s garbage.

Give a monkey a brain and he’ll swear he’s got it covered.

This video elucidates is a very old idea. I suggest you read ‘Flatland’ by Edwin Abbott, written over 100 years ago.

This is meant to be an *excercise* in thinking in 10 dimensions, not a scientifially valid explanation. Use this to expand your thinking powers, don’t use it to build a time machine in your basement :)

The whole “infinity” debate in these comments is due to poor definition in the video. “An infinity” as the video uses the term is clearly a misnomer if you are using the common definition of something all-encompassing. This video uses “an infinity” to refer to an instance of “all possible variations on the state of a universe for all points in time for the entire duration of said universe”. Using this definition, as long as there are multiple universes, there can be multiple “infinities” and therefore multiple points in the seventh dimension.

I say this merely to clarify the debate on infinty above in the comments - I’ve heard so many different versions of what the different dimensions represent that I don’t really know what to think.

Dudes, lay of the shrooms! Geez!

Dudes, I will say it again, get off the shrooms! Geez!

Well, all I have to say is that I’m disappointed that you lot of random people on the Internet haven’t been able to agree on the nature of the universe. If I can’t trust the Internet, what can I trust?

Ahh screw it I’m going to go chop up some Wikipedia entries.

So some of us are measuring biosystems in multi dimensional space.
I can not define in what dimension it is, because in our work is it not point. General reason is body, plants and animals (biosystems) analyzing and researching.

Andres

First you have to realize that these ten dimensions express a different perspective of space than our classical approach. The dimensions don’t assume a block of space in which time occurs, rather it considers single directions in space, and builds from one direction to others. This is actually a very genius approach if you think about it. A basic mistake of human thought is to assume things about reality. We assume there is this three dimensional world around us when all that we experience is our own passage through time (which can be seen as a direction in space). The famous Richard Feynman recognized time as a direction in space. Bryanton’s single spatial direction spans outward and becomes a larger space, but it doesn’t become a full block of space until the last dimension. This is actually accurate of an expanding universe moving away from the big bang, expanding and moving increasingly nearer to becoming empty space. It is hard for people to get out of a classical perspective, especially when they think their perspective is science based, but actually people rarely have a correct conception of, for example, what Einstein’s Relativity tells us about space and time. Actually this is true even among scientists. For example, Einstein and a few other scientists in his day recognized that the key conclusion one should draw from GR was that there is no real separation between past, present and future. Very few physicists today appreciate this fact. This video provides a timeless view of all times and all universes, and any such view should be taken very seriously.

This just deleted my message. HOw about a note saying “turn on your javascript.