Comments on: Explains > The 10th Dimension

By: itjobs55

itjobs55 — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:02:11 +0000

well work done.
For more jobs visit http://www.staffingpower.com

By: jay golod

jay golod — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 04:41:30 +0000

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

By: googleyes

googleyes — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 04:37:24 +0000

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.

By: Andres

Andres — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 15:35:39 +0000

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

By: conglom

conglom — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 02:45:02 +0000

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.

By: Tobro88

Tobro88 — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 02:11:18 +0000

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

By: Tobro

Tobro — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 02:05:49 +0000

Dudes, lay of the shrooms! Geez!

By: Graham

Graham — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:07:22 +0000

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.

By: Pook

Pook — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 12:38:22 +0000

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 :)

By: Dughall

Dughall — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 12:10:15 +0000

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

By: Guest

Guest — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:12:07 +0000

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

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

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 10:04:12 +0000

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.

By: Confused

Confused — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 22:56:15 +0000

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.

By: Kristian Bak

Kristian Bak — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 21:14:26 +0000

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.

By: democracymmmk

democracymmmk — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 15:16:36 +0000

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

By: fenderflip

fenderflip — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:42:04 +0000

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…

By: Hari

Hari — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 11:20:43 +0000

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.

By: Realit

Realit — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 13:18:57 +0000

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?

By: wook666

wook666 — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:12:33 +0000

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!!!

By: oraclex

oraclex — Mon, 21 May 2007 13:00:16 +0000

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/ …..