[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 1.73 MB, 400x225, 1319286426072.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3938729 No.3938729 [Reply] [Original]

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY_ZgAvXsuw

>my face when I just learned all about the ten dimentions in a single video

Sci, blow and enrich my mind further

>> No.3938742

No, you learned about a silly pop culture phenomenon.

>> No.3938743

>>3938742
explain

>> No.3938754

high school philosophy thread

>> No.3938758

That doesn't explain dimensions, if you can't evaluate tensors you don't understand more than 3 spatial dimensions.

>> No.3938760

>>3938743
Not much to explain. If you think all that stuff about alternate timelines follows logically from considering more than 4 dimensions, then you need to be a little more skeptical about what you watch.

>> No.3938765

>>3938760
This.

Oh god did you see the comments? Hilarious! The shit people think is "science" continuously astounds me.

>> No.3938773
File: 58 KB, 720x540, 1317350784789.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3938773

Alright, explain to me why this is wrong, and how would you explain it better?

>> No.3938774
File: 28 KB, 1400x1040, kb.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3938774

>>3938758
bullshit
If you don't know what this picture is you don't know shit about dimensions

>> No.3938779

>>3938758
There's quite a bit of special relativity you can do using 4-vectors without invoking tensors (other than rank 0 or 1). That said, it's true that most people would learn about tensors before or shortly after learning about 4-vectors.

>> No.3938781

>>3938758
>if you can't evaluate tensors you don't understand more than 2 spatial dimensions.

Fixed, because it's how things actually work. The human brain has a hard time working in 3D.

>> No.3938791

>>3938765
>My philosopher teacher showed us this, and no one was really understanding or enjoying it, but I was sitting there, like, "I need to read a book about this." nerd4life.

>> No.3938804

>>3938773
You don't understand math. You can't just spout nonsense in math and then demand people prove you wrong. Everything has to follow from the axioms you start out with.

In science, such as physics, you go out and try to prove your theories wrong, but even in physics, you start with a small number of principles from which you deduce predictions about the real world. You don't just make up stuff that sounds cool.

Dimensions are math (although they have physics applications).

>> No.3938828

>>3938804
I'm not a fucking scientist, bud, I just thought this video gave me a good understanding of dimentions. Its not my own theory, so why should i go out of my way to disproove it when i dont know shit about the subject? I'm asking you guys why this is fundamentally wrong, or better yet, how would you explain dimentions differently than this video.

>> No.3938840

what a load of shit

>> No.3938869

>>3938828
The first thing you should ask is whether time really is a dimension. And whether "timelines" can be considered a dimension. And so on.

All that shit sounds cool, but none of it can be proven -> it's useless.

>> No.3938900

>>3938869
What is a dimension? A level of reality? wouldnt time fall under a level of reality?

>> No.3938908

Mostly seems like overly speculative nonsense.

>> No.3938912

>>3938900

take a linear algebra or topology course

dimension is boring math shit

>> No.3938913

If you want to learn what dimensions are, learn the mathematics behind them. Not retarded yourtube videos of people spouting off what they think other dimensions are.

>> No.3938981

>>3938781
>The human brain has a hard time working in 3D
Then how come plotting parabolic arcs (i.e. catching/hitting something) is quite straight forward?

Also, i dislike the flatland analogy for 2D space as the 'slices' they talk about OP's video still have thickness, which would make them 3D objects.

>> No.3938991

>>3938981
That's actually two dimensions by one dimension. You can measure the depth easily, and separately measure the two dimension viewing-plane easily. That's how our brain processes those things.

To "See" in three dimensions would imply being able to see our object from all spatial references-- infront, behind, from the inside and outside all at once.

>> No.3938998

>>3938981
we don't plot arcs when we catch anymore than we calculate torque and angular momentum when we ride a bike

its all muscle memory

>> No.3939010

>>3938991
Aren't the start point and the end point, the throwers arm and your catching hands, enough of a reference to work out if its gone forwards/backwards, up/down and left or right?

>> No.3939063

>>3938998
I don't get what you mean.
The brain isn't a muscle. And muscle memory is developed by repeating an activity.
Closing your hands around the ball at the end maybe muscle memory but working out where the ball will land is done with a fresh calculation each time, though it does use past experience.


>>3938991
I also don't understand what you mean by "2 dimensions by 1 dimension". Isn't that the definition of 3D? X and Y, by Z?

>> No.3939078

>>3939063

There's another word for what I really mean, I just forgot it and decided to use an analogous word. The analysis done when catching a ball isn't a calculation, it's a comparison of past experiences with the current experience.

>> No.3939079

>>3939063
muscle memory is a colloquial term, it just means having the "in-the-moment response-reaction experience"

When you're used to responding to where the ball is, and you're placed in the situation, your brain knows how to respond based on the perceptual environment moreso than calculations. Rarely, in activity, does your brain do any calculations.

In Robert Musil's "The Man Without Qualities", the MC Ulrich sums this up pretty well when some thugs jump him on the street, and the brain never acknowledges or responds properly to what's going on, because the pace is too fast to make judgment reactions. Every movement you make in a fight is based off of a projection of what should be done based on intuition

>> No.3939083

>>3938804

oh no, you totally make up stuff that sounds cool.

see: string theory.

>> No.3939105

>>3939063
Consider, on a two-dimension plot, two lines intersecting. Now compare that to a square. There is an appreciable difference between the two, though they are both two dimensional objects, though I'm not sure I could articulate why. The square seems to be more than just two separate one-dimensional spaces, where as two lines do not.

Then compare it to catching a ball-- consider a cube. Now consider instead, a square (or a flat plane) which is intersected orthogonally by a one-dimensional line, and the plane of height and width moves forward and backward along that line, like a giant screen that moves closer or further from you.

If we truly saw in three dimensions, we would be able to see the surface of the cube (on each side of the cube) and the internal information of the cube simultaneously. We can only see the surface of the cube from one direction, and we cannot see inside the cube simultaneously. We can see two dimensions, but we can change the perspective of those two dimensions through a limited third dimension.

>> No.3939108

>>3939083

String theory has the purpose of unifying general relativity with QED. A great deal of physics in the 20th century came about by people fucking around with mathematics and finding interesting relationships in existing theory, then testing those relationships in experiment.

>> No.3939122

>>3938729
>no one has ever experienced the 10th dimension
>expects someone to know about it
>

>> No.3939324

Lol this gay shit was like inception, it was crap.