/sci/ - Science & Math

bump for physics

>implying /sci/ can visualize 5 dimensions

Describe what you're suggesting mathematically.

If you can't, it means you don't know what you're talking about.

Interesting idea

>>4369089
I mean gravity is a fictional force coming from accelaration, just like inertia or centrifugal force. But the acceleration must be in other dimensions than our thee, because earth is not expanding.

Psst.

Guies.

Hey, guies.

Carbon doesn't exist, a Christian super-genius proved it by drawing on windows. Don't tell the scientists about this important Christian relavation. Carbon-dating is a lie, and fossils are just rocks.

>>4369089

This. There's too much ambiguity in what you're talking about to have a serious discussion.

It's nice to imagine every once in a while. However, what I imagine when you speak of gravity and alternate dimensions could easily be different from what you're imaging.
Without a common language like mathematics to build ideas from, we're going to end up talking about completely different things.

Diagrams and a little more descriptive language would help us understand you immensely.

>>4369100
This doesn't really make any sense. Take a 2-d example: If something accelerates to the right, does that produce acceleration in the up-down direction?

Please give a better definition of what you're trying to describe, because it sounds like crackpottery to me.


Also, gravity is only a fictitious force in the context of General Relativity. A spin-2 field (read: gravitons) on flat spacetime is equivalent to curved spacetime because they both produce the same predictions.

OP here. I made a picture.

>>4369190
lolwut

>>4369190

...

since when does gravity push out from the earth? And if it's a fictional force then what are the vectors describing? Acceleration?

So you're saying that the entire earth is expanding. And the expansion is what's causing the perceived force of gravity?

And I've got no fucking clue what the 2nd diagram is supposed to me.

You've got good ideas OP. But you've still got a lot to learn about the complex mathematics at work here.

>>4369201
>>4369215
The arrows are acceleration. Only not in 3d (no expansion) but in 5d.

>>4369190
You have no concept of spatial dimensions greater than the third, but, in relativity, acceleration and gravity are the same "force", so...

>>4369230

And I think that's all OP is trying to understand.

>>4369221

that still makes no sense because you haven't adequately described what you mean by "5D".

Go and read Einstein's theories of general and special relativity. If you don't understand the mathematics being used, then you're just getting ahead of yourself.

>>4369240
Where can I read them?

>>4369250

oh come on
that's no question to ask when you've got the entire internet at your fingertips.

You could pick up a book on it at a library. Or just google it and read the wikipedia entry. If you look at the bottom of the wiki there's even a bunch of sources you can follow too.

>>4369250
Here you go old boy:

http://www.alberteinstein.info/gallery/pdf/CP6Doc30_English_pp146-200.pdf

>>4369100
Inertia is not a fictional force; it is a fundamental principle of mass.

>But the acceleration must be in other dimensions than our thee, because earth is not expanding.
And how do you figure a massive change in one dimension without affecting the others?

I hope you aren't using the bad-science-fiction concept of dimension to mean 'some other location, not in our space,' because that's just stupid.

>>4369190
Ah, you're a troll.

Gravity expresses out from a body?

Dimensions are just lines going through a common center?

>>4369452
he's not a troll. just bad at getting his point across.

>>But the acceleration must be in other dimensions than our thee, because earth is not expanding.

Could you elaborate on this? What does acceleration have to do with expansion?

>>4369496
I'm pretty sure he's trying to describe gravity as the earth accelerating upward, in all directions.

>>4369518
By that, do you mean "he's trying to describe gravity as the earth accelerating in the direction defined as positive, in all (5) spatial dimensions"?

ITT: no one can effectively explain a spatial dimension

>>4369550
ITT: people who are not child prodigies and can only imagine 3 dimensions

Here's what this is making me think;
We can only perceive the universe in three spatial dimensions.
Take the example of flatland for comparison; a two-dimensional hypothetical life form would not be able to perceive what an apple moving downwards through the Flatland plane truly looked like - it would seem to appear out of nothingness as a small dot, growing into a large shape, then shrinking again.
Assuming that objects exist in all or most spatial dimensions, movement along a path in an additional unperceivable, but real, spatial dimension could affect the three-dimensional world that we see and affect the movement of objects in relation to each other in ways that we can't easily explain using only the three spatial dimensions that we can perceive and readily understand.

Is this what you're attempting to get at, OP?

>>4369555
/sci/ trolls are awful.

I think op is trying to say that gravity is an acceleration in all directions at once toward the 5th dimension that we cannot perceive. Sort of like a being in 2D wouldn't understand what falling is.

3rd year derp-major here.

you must believe.

>>4369570
I think OP has left some hours ago.

>>4369571
I think he was just making a joke.

>>4369571
/sci/ aspies are worse

>>4369585
Aw shucks.

So objects traveling in a higher dimension can appear to grow to flatlanders. Time is a dimension in special relativity (non phys, haven't read GR), so things that grow in time might just be moving in a higher dimensional space, but what if the movement was oscillatory in nature, like the vibration of a string... what if time doesn't exist but it's just the movement of strings... OMG I can talk crap like OP!

>>4369583
>>gravity is an acceleration in all directions at once toward the 5th dimension

This sentence does not make sense to me. Could you perhaps rephrase it?

Thread is TL;DR but Coulomb and Keppler both think you are wrong.

mind blown.

>>4369527
No, he was describing that it was accelerating in just one dimension, the 5th.

>>4369100
>Force coming from acceleration

This is a big problem with physics education in my opinion. People don't understand the concept of definitions. A force is DEFINED as anything which causes something with mass to accelerate.

Well op, then you have to explain where the acceleration comes from. What is the source of the energy causing this constant acceleration?

>>4370004

>>4370004
And he'd have to explain why it's larger for bigger bodies. Which would probably bring us back to mass and gravitons.

>>4369032

>What if gravity is not a fundamental force