/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7493538]

> We live in a 3 dimensional universe
Are there actually idiots who believe in this ?

[Anonymous No.7493539]

3 spatial and 1 temporal. I thought it was always like this. Did i miss a meeting?

[Anonymous No.7493544]

>>7493538
> Everything is made of yarn
Are there actually idiots who believe in this ?

[Anonymous No.7493556]

>>7493538

Do the other dimensions actually matter to 3 dimensional beings?

[Anonymous No.7493565]

>>7493539
> M-theory
Has no basis. Don't even know why you mentioned it.

[Anonymous No.7493576]

>>7493544
>Not bowing down to our Yam-like overlords

[Anonymous No.7493581]

>>7493538
obligatory: who is this vector erector

I know, i know: the GoT girl with the breasts and vagina

[Anonymous No.7493587]

>>7493576
He said YARN you fucking tard.

[Anonymous No.7493591]

>>7493587
No no, you said yam.

[Anonymous No.7493592]

>>7493565
Sooo, you don't need 3 coordinates to locate any given point in our universe? Umm, okay?

[Anonymous No.7493598]

>>7493592
> confusing directions with dimensions
forgot your meds ?

[Anonymous No.7493601]

>>7493581
She looks so much better without the hair bleached a different color from her eyebrows, and without being in the middle of terrible acting.

[Anonymous No.7493605]

>>7493565
M-Theory is 3 normal spacial dimensions, 1 temporal dimension, and 7 micro spacial dimensions compactified at each point in the other dimensions.

[Anonymous No.7493620]

>>7493598
Enlighten me

[Anonymous No.7493632]

>>7493620

Dimensions only apply in mathematics and computer language. In reality you can't show me any 3 dimensional objects. Or 2 dimensional. Or any numbers of dimensional for that matter. Reality doesn't have vectors or circles or flat 2D planes. Matter does not correspond to the concept of dimension.

Dimensions are imaginary systems just like numbers. We made them up to fit numerical problems so we can solve them easier: We are not made of dimensions.

[Anonymous No.7493638]

>>7493632
Of course were not made of dimensions but were in locations within them. For example if you wanted to find me on earth I would need to give my location typically I'd do that in x and y coordinates such as latitude and longitude. If I was in space you'd need a third dimension since earth you don't use height location that much, not saying in space it'd also be called height in space just an example

[Anonymous No.7493651]

>>7493638
they are directions not dimensions. don't confuse them

[Anonymous No.7493657]

>>7493632
>things don't actually have width, height, or depth
>or mass, or energy, or color, or volume
>there's no such thing as an atom just because some quarks and electrons are around each other
>it's all in our MINDS, man!
You go on smoking that dank kush, the rest of us will be over here discussing science when your high wears off.

[Anonymous No.7493661]

>>7493657
Oh did you just try to mix actual existing atoms with other conceptual terms to appear clever or something ?
Try to make sense next time.

[Anonymous No.7493675]

>>7493538
We call it a 3 dimensional universe because we need a 3 dimensional model to describe it.

[Anonymous No.7493695]

>>7493651
They're coordinates on dimensions

[Anonymous No.7493705]

>>7493661
Dimensions exist. We came up with the math to describe them, not the other way around.

[Anonymous No.7493714]

>>7493632
Looks like someone was too cool for school

[Anonymous No.7493723]

>>7493632
that's like saying chemistry is exactly what happens (well except you know combustion isn't a one step problem, it's a multi step problem with random chances of mutation. thus, this is bullshit.)
IT'S JUST A MODEL!

[Anonymous No.7493750]

>>7493605
Thank you. While M-Theory is, in fact, a theory, the mathematics is intriguingly convincing as the theory matures. Open your minds, folks. Just because we can't perceive something with our senses doesn't mean it is not real or doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.7493776]

>>7493591
you need your glasses fixed

[Anonymous No.7493800]

>>7493776
looks like yam to me faggot

[Anonymous No.7493806]

>>7493776
>>7493800
keming strikes again

[Anonymous No.7493839]

>>7493776
Dude that clearly states yam

[Anonymous No.7493849]

>>7493632
>>>/lit

[Anonymous No.7493851]

>>7493806
i actually googled "keming" lmao

[Anonymous No.7493876]

>>7493638
>>7493657
>>7493714
>>7493723
>>7493849
I'm surprised the guy you're all replying to bothered gracing you with a smidgen of his time to type out his post, considering how irrationally unintellectual this board, not to mention the mob mentality and childish mockery.

>>7493632
It's people like you that give me hope for this place.

[Anonymous No.7493894]

>>7493651
>they are directions not dimensions
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.7493913]

>>7493894
You're retarded. You don't need sources to argue semantics

[Anonymous No.7493918]

>>7493913
>You don't need sources to argue semantics
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.7493932]

>>7493876
What I call a dog you call a puppy. Just because we call it something different doesn't one exists while the other doesn't. Both words represent the same thing.

The anon everyone is replying to is arguing semantics, and doesn't deserve an intellectual response in the slightest because of their attitude.

>>7493918
At least I don't need a citation that you are retarded.

[Anonymous No.7493934]

>>7493932
>At least I don't need a citation that you are retarded.

Yes, you do.

[Anonymous No.7493936]

>>7493932
>The anon everyone is replying to is arguing semantics, and doesn't deserve an intellectual response in the slightest because of their attitude.
[citation needed]
>At least I don't need a citation that you are retarded.
[citation needed]

>>7493934
>Yes, you do.
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.7493944]

>>7493849
>/lit
>not /lit/
go back to reddit

[Anonymous No.7493945]

>>7493944
why

[Anonymous No.7493947]

>>7493936
> [citation needed]
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.7493949]

>>7493947
>> [citation needed]
>[citation needed]
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.7493979]

>>7493539
If you missed a meeting, was it because it was in one of the dimensions you missed?

[Anonymous No.7493983]

>>7493932
>The anon everyone is replying to is arguing semantics
Those are not semantics. He clearly and irrefutably stated and explained how dimensions relate to our perception of the world and not the world itself.

[Anonymous No.7493986]

>>7493983
So does the English language, Anon.

You going to tell me a tree doesn't exist because it is just a word that only relates to our perception of the world and not the world itself?

[Anonymous No.7494001]

>>7493986
Interpretation of an observation does not change the observed object.

The entire point of what was said in relation to OP is that we do not live in a world with dimensions, we use dimensions to describe it.

The most saddening thing is that people like you resort to fallacies so quickly when faced with anything remotely disagreeable with your current view.

[Anonymous No.7494009]

>>7493986
OPE here
The thing we call 'tree's actually exist, they are measurable and observable. I made the point about dimensions so people don't try to fit the universe into the concept of dimensions, but rather understand that dimensions are our invention so we can understand the reality better.

Making a statement such as we live in a 3 dimensional world is simply misleading and giving people the wrong idea.

[Anonymous No.7494042]

>>7494001
>we do not live in a world with dimensions
>we [live in a world where we] use dimensions to describe [the world we live in]
So we both live in a world where dimensions exists as an idea to describe our world, and in a world where dimensions don't actually exist to describe the world we live in. Glad you cleared that up.

>>7494009
Not even going to bother with you. Not worth an intellectual response from me, you haven't managed to engage my attention yet

[Anonymous No.7494044]

>>7494042
> i can't come up with a reply
it's okay

[Anonymous No.7494045]

>>7494044
If that was bait to attempt to engage my attention, it failed.

[Anonymous No.7494049]

>>7494045
Nobody really cares about if you reply or not, I was talking to the people in the thread.

[Anonymous No.7494058]

>>7494049
And no body really cares about your opinions on dimensions. Proof is this thread

(except like this guy >>7493876)

[Anonymous No.7494065]

>>7494058
if you're getting mad just leave the thread instead of shitposting. you switched from logical to /b/ in 2 posts. simply ignore it and move on.

[Anonymous No.7494073]

>>7494065
OP started the shitposting and I've got nothing else to do

[Anonymous No.7494083]

>>7494073
go to the other threads. i'm sure you can find threads that deserve to be awarded by your superior intellectual responses

[Anonymous No.7494086]

>>7494083
But you're the only anon who responds to me :(

plz don't leave

[Anonymous No.7494087]

>>7494086
then stay on topic you cucknipple :v
dimensions donut exist and thats that

[Anonymous No.7494106]

>>7494087
If I define north to be my x dimension, then I start traveling north while tracking my progress with respect to my defined x dimension, then I will record ever changing x values.

This similar to how people define time in seconds, and then track their progress through time (time also being a dimension). The only difference between my defined x dimension and the time dimension, is I can freely travel through my x dimension while I can only travel through my time dimension in one direction

Now if this word donut exist, as you say it donut, then I'd simply replace all occurrences of dimension in that text with whatever word you want. The concept the word represented however, irrefutably remains in reality regardless of what you want or don't want to call it

"I donut believe in dimensions" does not change the fact that the concept is still there. Just like if I stop calling a tree a tree, the tree does not suddenly vanish.

[Anonymous No.7494126]

>>7494106
exactly, just like a unicorn. if the word exists, unicorns exist as well.

[Anonymous No.7494128]

>3 space dimensions
>1 time dimension

this is it
anyone claiming that more exists is a liar

[Anonymous No.7494130]

>>7494126
time does not take up any physical space, yet we can't live without it

Just because you can't hold a dimension, does not mean it does not exist

[Anonymous No.7494143]

>>7494130
>>7494128
>>7494106

So aside from the direction/dimension thing what would be the 5th dimension ?

You can pinpoint a location with 3 dimensions, but that point can move in time. So you need 4th dimension as time to pinpoint it. If this is the case, then I'm guessing 5th dimension would be alternate realities or alternate universes which in some other universe, the point is not in the same place or time, relative to the current universe.

[Anonymous No.7494145]

>>>/lit/7037255

:^)

pls contain your autism better in the future

love /lit/

[Anonymous No.7494147]

>>7494145
I made this thread and someone here decided to make the same thread on /lit/ but damn. that thread is something else entirely. there isn' even something close to a reply

[Anonymous No.7494159]

>>7494143
A 5th dimension could be like an adjacent universe, though there is no evidence such a universe, or dimension, exists.

However, if a point were to move only along the 5th axis, then it's coordinates in the other 4 axis would not change. So same 3d coordinates and same time coordinates, but only a change in the 5th dimension.

However, this doesn't mean that adjacent points between 2 or more universes would look the same. The 4D spaces of adjacent universes do not have to be the same shape. We can take this to mean that they do not need to follow the same set of rules as each other. My coordinates in this universe are Earth in the year 2015. But these same coordinates in the next universe do not need to be on Earth. Earth may not exist at these coordinates at this time in an adjacent universe. Earth may not even exist at all in the next universe. In fact there may not be anything in the next universe at all.

Similar to the way that if I were to graph a cube in 3D, I can pick a point in the graph where there is no cube (like if the cube is within 5 units of the origin in all 3 dimensions, then I can pick a position 6 units from origin in any dimension and there would be no cube). Well if we add a 5th dimension to this one, and I move along it, I may end up at a set of coordinates where there is nothing.

Alternatively, every universe along the 5th dimension may be an exact copy of each other, and never differ no matter what. If this were the case, then it could be possible for us to constantly move between the 5th dimension all the time and not even notice.

Alternatively again, the next universe could be very nearly identical to our own, but only differ in a single aspect. Lets say the charge of an electron is slightly weaker in the next universe. If we were to accidentally travel to this next universe unknowingly, then our body would suddenly become extremely negatively charged and we would most certainly die a very quick and very energetic death.

[Anonymous No.7494182]

>>7493565

He didn't mention M-theory.

[Anonymous No.7494210]

i hate how the people that talk about dimensions and time are just fedoracore armchair physicists who learned everything they know on youtube and don't have a fucking clue what linear algebra or minkowski space even is

i mean come on, the basic stuff like linear algebra is fucking easy and is the actual, proper, formal mathematical way to study things, but instead you retards insist on believing some cockmonger on youtube spouting random baseless bullshit that may or may not be true, but you won't know because either you or cockmonger was too stupid to work out the proof

if you watch the big bang theory you should just fucking kill yourself

[Anonymous No.7494449]

the universe is the holy prism
I/god am being aware of it

god's awareness can perceive reality from the point of view of a three-dimensional pokemon such as a human

there's this musical metaphor that i like: god is similar to silence, yet each musical note is played over this silence (and you cant take the silence from the sound of a note to make the note just the note(without silence "behind" it). this omnipresent silence that you cant spot, because it doesnt sound, is similar to god in the sense that god is just the empty set where reality is "played over".

there's only the moment now that is the moment when reality is perceived by I/god. each frame of second is just experiencing a completly different "angle" of the same Holy Prism.

if a dot is dimension 0; if a line is dimension 1 (infinite dots); if a plane is dimension 2 (infinite lines that are infinite dots) and a cube is the third dimension (infinite planes that are infinite lines that are infinite dots); the fourth dimension has to be infinite cubes: but infinite cubes would still be a third dimension; so the 4th becomes infinite dispositions of the dots lines and planes within the same cube (which is what time is).

with no time and everything happening at the same "time"; so would the possible disposition of the atoms composing animals with brains that create minds: the jetlag of mind's individual framed experiences of reality within the 4th dimension leads god to experience each one of them individually fragmenting its awareness.

when buddhism talks about reencarnation you have to understand that you are encarnating yourself right now. in fact, there's no yourself. there's only infinite dispositions of the atoms in which a self is formed and mind is being "awared".

the universe created itself: it's that necessary Mathematical need for that to happen that is god(creator); also the creation(son) and the experience of the creation by the creator(holy spirit)

dont take my word for it, take acid

[Anonymous No.7494735]

>>7494042
>So we both live in a world where dimensions exists as an idea to describe our world, and in a world where dimensions don't actually exist to describe the world we live in. Glad you cleared that up.
I recommend you take up religion, you already have the right argumentation methods for it.

[Anonymous No.7494751]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmNXKqeUtJM

/thread

[Anonymous No.7494779]

>>7493587
>>7493591
>>7493776
>>7493800
>>7493839
>Highlight "yarn"
>Search google for "yarn"
>Get pictures of YARN

[Anonymous No.7494788]

>>7494779
you probably really like dick

[Anonymous No.7494796]

>>7494751
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmNXKqeUtJM
>"we live in 3 dimensions"
Why do people say this, all it does is confuse simpler people like the OP.

[Anonymous No.7494829]

>>7494788
What gave me away?

[Anonymous No.7494871]

1st dimension is x (forward/backward)
2nd dimension is y (side-to-side)
3rd dimension is z (upward)
4th dimension is t (time)

[Anonymous No.7494889]

>>7493539
Higher dimensional manifolds describe nature more accurately. Dat euclidian shit is out man. You missed the meeting, it was last tuesday.

[Anonymous No.7494892]

>>7494871
And downward.

[Anonymous No.7495271]

>>7493538
lots of idiots (the population)
lots of belief (the believers)
lots of shitposters (you)

[Anonymous No.7495274]

>>7494871
why is the first 3 dimensions relate to the same thing but not time ? This makes no sense

[Anonymous No.7495289]

>>7495274
Everything's related to the identity of a point. An x-dimensional point has x coordinates to represent its identity. Since a single point in x,y,z space can be at different points on a timeline, time can be added as a dimension to pinpoint the... time dimension of the point's identity.

Got it? Good, 'cause I just completely pulled that out of my ass.

[Anonymous No.7495291]

>>7495274
However without it the universe would be static and nothing would occur. Therefore it has definable properties and interacts with the other dimensions.

> Casper knew this.

[Anonymous No.7495301]

>>7493605
>7 micro spacial dimensions compactified at each point in the other dimensions.

So how large are these points, how far apart is each mini-dimension?

Obviously they're not arranged in a neat grid, are they randomly floating around? Is each one attached to a subatomic particle?

[Anonymous No.7495309]

>>7495274
>>7495289

For example, suppose you want to measure, for each day, the locations on where your mother was gangbanged and how many cocks there were during that particular gangbang. You can describe the space of all possible events with a 5-dimensional coordinate system:

(x,y,z) the location of the crime scene
(t) the date
(c) number of cocks that sodomized her

If A is the set of those gangbangs then A is a set of 5-dimensional points.

Remember, the 5th dimension is cocks.

[Anonymous No.7495324]

>>7493581
>vector erector

[Anonymous No.7495337]

>>7493632
do you mean that dimensions only apply to objects in order to describe them? But where's the difference between 3d perfectly applying to an object and the object having 3 dimensions?

If I look at a cube it has length depth and width. Can you elaborate a bit and maybe provide source?

[Anonymous No.7495341]

>>7493538

>We live

Implying you are alive, fagot.

[Anonymous No.7495354]

>>7495341
i am self-aware and i can reproduce
so i am scientifically alive

[Anonymous No.7495363]

>>7495354
Wait... Is being "self-aware" actually in the definition of life?

[Anonymous No.7495364]

>temporal dimension

haha no. Good one, but no.

[Anonymous No.7495367]

>>7495363
If it wasn't in the definition then zombies could be considered alive and we can't have that, can we?

[Anonymous No.7495389]

>>7495363
>>7495367
What?
Then most animals aren't "life". Only humans, apes, dolphins and elephants or so show self-awareness I read.

That's the criteria for life:

Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of something that exhibits all or most of the following traits:[49][52][53]

Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells — the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.[49]
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.[54][55] or "with an error rate below the sustainability threshold."[55]

[Anonymous No.7495391]

>>7495389
The main problem with the definition is that it requires other lifeforms to judge if they are "self-aware" or not. It is not objectively measurable. You can measure reproduction objectively.

[Anonymous No.7495397]

>>7495389
so are dogs, cats, hippos, chickens, snakes, spiders, birds and every other animal out there.

[Anonymous No.7495401]

>>7495391
i'm sure being self-aware has a neurological manifestation that should be measurable or observable somehow.

[Anonymous No.7495407]

>>7495391
Are you talking about the definition of self-awareness? Yeah that might be hard to test sometimes, but for other animals it works quite well. But I don't see self-awareness in the definition of life.

>>7495397
So we know that all animals are self-aware?

[Anonymous No.7495409]

>>7495401
That would be very interesting to read about. Please let me know if you find anything.

[Anonymous No.7495506]

The physical universe is a construct created by my mind to keep me entertained; therefore, it can contain however many dimensions I find amusing.

[Anonymous No.7495513]

Our universe and our consciousness are the 3D projections of 4D beings. And those 4D beings are projected from 5D beings. And so on up to 11D

[Anonymous No.7495523]

I get the feeling that dimension is a useful construct but could eventually fail to help explain the weird shit we discover

[Anonymous No.7495541]

>>7495513
>11D
hot dang those some bigass breasts

[Anonymous No.7495546]

>>7493806

[Anonymous No.7495599]

>>7495513
but where do the 11d beings live

[Violent Simians Guy No.7495661]

>>7493538
>Are there actually idiots who believe in this?

You should be far more worried instead that there are idiots who claim we live in a higher-dimensional space or membrane where you see only 3 dimensions macroscopically, and the other number of spacial dimensions are "rolled up" into what are essentially points, unable to be discerned via any equipment imaginable.

This rolled-up assertion smacks heavily of "we don't know what's going on so let's play with fantastical math regardless of where it leads us".

Claiming the universe is a 10- or 11-dimensional structure that mostly you can't see since the 'extra' dimensions are tucked away well out of sight, clearly suggests the theoretical physicists have gone dotty and are using a mathematical claim to cover up for their singular inabilities to arrive at data-prompted theories that produce predictions that can be tested via experiment, which is how science USED TO BE DONE. (But no longer.)

I claim directly that String 'Theory' is a bunch of hogwash. It's not science. It can't be tested, to falsify or verify claims. It makes no predictions. IT'S A RELIGION.

We need to fire the 1500-or-so theoretical physicists who are 'working' on ST and replace them with soundly trained physicists who know how to do actual SCIENCE.

[Anonymous No.7495863]

>>7495523

We're dealing with map-territory confusion here.

Dimensions are a type of measurement. 3 spatial dimensions + 1 temporal are they way we intuitively understand our world, and is useful for building and navigation.

Saying "we live in x dimensions" causes confusion because it's like claiming they are a physical property of the universe rather a method of measuring and understanding it.

[Anonymous No.7495908]

>>7495661
You just implied so much here that the surface tension of my yau calabi manifold just collapsed back to a single point in a 1 dimensional space. My jimmies got rustled so hard I might have to ask dr. Motl on some sane advice to set all the small orbifolds in your brain straight.

[Anonymous No.7496318]

>>7495513
> consciousness
it has nothing to do with consciousness. if humans didn't exist, all the objects in the universe would still exist in 3 dimensional space and moving through time.

[Anonymous No.7496363]

>>7493538

>trying to turn /sci/ into /phi/

Get a real degree, loser.

[Anonymous No.7496436]

i was reading earlier about how you can't make knots with any more or less than 3 dimensions

i mean we would have to find ourselves in that kind of universe otherwise everything would be completely apeshit

[Anonymous No.7496466]

>>7496436
> you can't make something that is only designed to work in 3 dimensions in less than 3 dimensions.
pseudo-scientific bullshift

[Anonymous No.7496488]

When someone says something like 'we live in x dimensions', what they are saying is 'my model of things describes things with x dimensions', which is to say 'my model is more accurate than y model' which is to say 'my model makes better predictions than y model', which is to say 'my model is more useful than your model faggot'.

[Anonymous No.7496493]

>>7493806
kek

[Anonymous No.7496550]

>>7494145
Oh my god thank you for this gold mine. This is basically a YLYL-thread for /sci/-tards.
I lost to the following:
>Dimensions are imaginary systems just like numbers. We made them up to fit numerical problems so we can solve them easier: We are not made of dimensions. They're not necessarily real.
and > Show me a the number "1," not as a concept, or on a piece of paper, or in a program, but just existing as itself.
and >Correct. You don't literally have "2 feet." Like with dimensions, it's just a system that we've created. You have a foot and another foot.

[Anonymous No.7496553]

>>7496550
also:
> by conventions of our language vaginas are flowers
TOP KEK

[Anonymous No.7496639]

>>7494210
well shit, you said it.

[Anonymous No.7496683]

>>7493632
stupidest thing i've ever read tbh

[/pol/ No.7496704]

>>7495324
TFW not a Vector Inspector

[Anonymous No.7496719]

>>7496683
stay mad

[Anonymous No.7496798]

>>7496683
Yeah, that's pretty fuckin' stupid. Definitely the stupidest thing I've read this week.

[Anonymous No.7496803]

>>7493576
What's the yams?

[Anonymous No.7496818]

>>7496683
>>7496798
he's objectively right tho

[Anonymous No.7496845]

>>7496683

So explain what's so stupid about it. Describe your model.

[Anonymous No.7497414]

>>7496818
> objectively
there's that word again.

[Anonymous No.7497431]

>>7496550

Its all beyond you, go back to designing a better lawn mower or something.

[Anonymous No.7497447]

At the KTH institute in Sweden on Hawking radiation, he stated this:
.... that the quantum information doesn't make it inside the black hole at all. Instead, it's permanently encoded in a 2D hologram at the surface of the black hole's event horizon, or the field surrounding each black hole which represents its point of no return.

Ifone accepts that such vast amounts of quantum information can be stored in a 2d hologram. It is entirely feasable the totality of our reality is a multilayerd hologram
https://www.kth.se/en/aktuellt/nyheter/hawking-offers-new-solution-to-black-hole-mystery-1.586546

[Anonymous No.7497451]

>>7496550
>and > Show me a the number "1," not as a concept, or on a piece of paper, or in a program, but just existing as itself.

Seriously, what's wrong with that statement? It sound correct.

[Anonymous No.7497455]

>>7497447
> more bullshit theories

[Anonymous No.7497603]

>>7497451
you have exactly one nose. I have now shown you the meaning of "1". How is this not satisfactory for you?

[Anonymous No.7497727]

>>7496488
>muh subjectivity
lrn2math
The number of dimensions a space has is the minimum number of relations that you need to express to pin down the position of one object relative to an origin. Coordinate systems can be converted to each other but only if they share the same dimensionality. To convert to a higher dimensional system, you have to assume some relations about the original system, and likewise for the new system in converting to a lower dimensional system.

[Anonymous No.7497731]

>>7497727
> Coordinate systems can be converted to each other
How do you convert an X vector value to a Z vector value and get the same position ?

[Anonymous No.7497808]

>>7497603
we all know the meaning of 1. Thats not what he asked you.

[Anonymous No.7497810]

>>7497603
Fun fact, NASA is very close to a swedish nose which is NÄSA.

[Anonymous No.7497818]

>>7496550
Exactly, if you had a real float nose it would be 1.00000 nose.

[Anonymous No.7497886]

>>7497810
Really hope it is auditory and radio frequency based. I refuse to believe they actually got this advanced electro signal processing to the brain.

[Anonymous No.7497963]

>>7497886
nope

[Anonymous No.7498275]

>>7493632
Dont listen to them

these "scientists" cant stand the idea of themselves overlooking something so obvious

[Anonymous No.7498383]

>>7494779
>Having to do all that shit just to interpret a word

Just take it as yams and move along.

[Anonymous No.7498413]

>aliens exist in the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th dimensions

[Anonymous No.7498628]

>>7498413
the ability to comprehend higher dimensions have to to with increased mental capacity though. wouldn't surprise me if greys can understand 5th or 6th dimension

[Anonymous No.7499796]

>>7497603
>you have exactly one nose.

Correct. One-ness is a concept that we associate with things. It is a mental construct, not a "thing in itself".

[Anonymous No.7501101]

Time isn't a dimension.

It's just the byproduct of the 3rd.

We do live in time, but it's naïve to think of it as a dimension in itself.

[Anonymous No.7501110]

>>7499796
Well that's not true.

Oneness is a physical construct.

There has to be a singular sort of integrity to a can of soda, for instance, before we can even begin to make the mental construction of it being singular.

It's backwards to say that the human mind generates that construct. It only interprets it.

[Anonymous No.7501119]

>>7501101

Why's that? To move through x/y/z requires movement through t. We use t as a measurement of distance in context of c.

[Anonymous No.7501143]

>>7493800
yarn - yam
highlight the letters with your mouse :)

[Anonymous No.7501162]

>>7501119

On top of that, one can move through t without moving through x/y/z, although in reality one is always moving in reference to something else even just the addition of xyz to the cosmos has a ratio of additional t.

[Anonymous No.7501177]

>>7501119
You can describe anything with the mathematical notion of a coordinate.

Doesn't follow that it can be prescribed that way.

[Anonymous No.7501179]

>>7501162
And what happens when one just moves through t?

They literally do nothing.

Blatant red flag that t isn't actually a bona fide dimension.

[Anonymous No.7501206]

>>7493750
>wake up sheeple

[Anonymous No.7501808]

>>7501119
exactly. this is why time is not a dimension, it's the medium that all the coordinates exist.

in that sense, there can be 2 dimensions in total, which is time and space

[Anonymous No.7501826]

>>7493538
Idk

[Anonymous No.7502272]

>>7493538
>OP is not a faggot
Are there actually idiots who believe in this?

[H No.7502322]

>>7495301
>So how large are these points, how far apart is each mini-dimension?
There is one for every point of space. The usual metaphor is of a long, thin cylinder. This looks like a line from a distance, but up close it is clear that it has this extra, small dimension. We can think of this as a small circle attached to every point along a line.
The extra dimensions in compactified theories are like this little circle, but they are attached to every point of the 4D spacetime we perceive. The reason they line up on a grid in your pic is that it would be impossible to draw a picture of them all at all points - it would just look like a thick blob.

[Anonymous No.7502644]

>>7501179

Plenty happens. Every particle of your being has oscillated. I could argue your point that as I sit here I'm actually hurtling through space at incredible velocity, through the rotation of Earth, the orbit of the Sun, the passage of the galaxy. How should I feel?

[Anonymous No.7502657]

>>7493538
>Are there actually idiots who believe in this ?
There are actually idiots who post about such a belief. They are considered "trolls" and their posts are called "bait".

[Violent Simians Guy No.7502779]

>>7495908

I'm not trying to rustle your jimmies, whatever the heck that means. I'm instead criticizing theoretical physics for taking a clear path of ass-covering, by proposing that wholly undetected dimensional rollups are where all these extra dimensions are "hiding". You might as well go back to claiming Maxwell's Demons are valid.

That we continue to commonly call this crap "String THEORY" is really part of the problem of a widespread collapse of practical physics. This isn't ironic when we're talking about theoretical physics, since theorists still have to obey the basic rules of science:

1. Verify the hypothesis via experiment.
2. Falsify the hypothesis via experiment.
3. Once you establish the theory from the above, you make predictions.

String 'Theory' does none of that. So it's not a theory. It's not even a valid hypothesis since it can't advance; you can't verify it, you can't falsify it, and you can't make predictions from it, all by the very design of the hypothesis.

I could just claim there are little demons pushing particles around, which hide in little space caverns where you can't see them. That's equally valid a claim than anything these string guys are claiming.

[Anonymous No.7502951]

>>7502644
That's you moving through space. Not time. Your point is completely invalid.

[Anonymous No.7502964]

>>7493556
The truth always matters

[Anonymous No.7502968]

>>7493538
her eye brows give me an orgasm`

[Anonymous No.7502986]

>>7502951
Time would not be measurable without movement through space. The only reason we know that t2 is different from t1 is because physical change occurs. An atom vibrates, a person talks, a planet orbits, a star explodes, a thought occurs. If none of that ever happened, then everything would be completely static and there would be no evidence time existed.

Time and space are related, and time is a dimension of space because of physics. Energy is conserved. Every instance of time is an unchanging snapshot of the universe; a snapshot of 3 dimensional space. Only when we traverse these snapshots, like a flip book, does time progress. This traversal is the 4th dimension.

A line is an infinite array of points. A plane is an infinite field of lines. Volumetric space is an infinite tower of fields. And time is a movie of the universe; infinite universes all stacked upon each other.

We are just unable to traverse time, the 4th dimension, freely. This does not make time unlike the other dimensions. It just makes our ability to interact with time different from out ability to interact with the other dimensions. Why this is different is a matter of physics, not an issue with a mathematical definition.

[Anonymous No.7503003]

>>7493538
We actually live within 11 dimensions (10 spatial dimentions plus the dimension of time = 11), or infinite dimensions, depending on which current theory you subscribe to. But we can only precieve 3 spatial dimentions. Hieght, width and depth

[Anonymous No.7503067]

>>7502986
That's exactly why time isn't an actual dimension.

It's just a byproduct of space. Not a dimension in itself.

[Anonymous No.7503091]

>>7503067
Space is a byproduct of space. Without points, there'd be no line. Without space, there'd be no time

[Anonymous No.7503216]

>>7503091
That's not valid.

Space is disconnected from itself from the bottom up. Time is exactly not disconnected from itself in either way.

[Anonymous No.7503285]

>>7503216
No, space is not disconnected. Each instance of time is a 3D space. Each picture of 3D space is a 2D plane. Each layer of a 2D plane is a 1D line. And each piece of that line is a 0D point. They are all build from the ground up by the dimension that comes before it. None can stand alone without their predecessor; not time, or equally any of the other dimensions.

The problem you have is with physics, not the mathematics. That's where the separation lies and that's where you fail to make a distinction.

[Anonymous No.7503299]

>>7503003
> 2015
> still clinging to the failed string theory

[Anonymous No.7503313]

>>7503285
Did you read what I said? I wrote that space is disconnected from itself from the bottom up. You did not contradict that point when you explained what you explained. You're thinking of space incorrectly too. It's coordinates. The x, y, and z axes are all disconnected from each other except at the origin. And In terms of coordinates, the origin is irrelevant. The third dimension is not 3D space in its entirety, it is simply the z-axis. That is what you don't understand. You think of the third dimension as the collection of all of the axes, but it's just not. Common misunderstanding. 3D space ≠ the third dimension.

But the t-axis cannot exist without a prior axis. So time can't stand alone either way, and is therefore not an actual dimension.

[Anonymous No.7504076]

>>7503313
Except I did just state that when I said the 3D space is an infinite stack of 2D planes.

Every point in 3D space requires an x, y, and z. If you take all x and y from a single z, you end up with a 2D image. This is exactly like time. If you take all x, y, and z from a single t, you get a static 3D universe.
X,y, and z coordinates are not disconnected from each all. You claim they are only connected at their origin, but you can take any point in 3D space to be the origin. It is all about perspective. Making Mars my origin does not suddenly make all the other coordinates in space disconnected. They cannot be separated, every point in 3D space has an x, y, and z.

Just because we can't freely interact with time as we can with space does not mean time is not a dimension.

[Anonymous No.7504127]

Let's say you're an economist. You want to study the price of pork bellies. So you're looking at the price of pork bellies as a function of the population of pigs in pig farms.

So you draw a nice little curve on a cartesian plane. Number of pigs goes up on the x-axis, the price of porkbellies goes down. It's a two dimension graph. One dimension is number of pigs. The other dimension is price of porkbellies. There's more you can do with this graph than look at the line. You can find the slope at any given point. You can integrate under the curve, etc., etc. There's all sorts of maths you can do and problems you can solve.

But wait, there's more. Let's say, in addition to pig population, our economist also wants to look how the cost of corn feed influences the cost of porkbellies. Cost of feed goes up, farmer has more operating expenses, needs to raise the price on porkbellies, even more so if he's got a large, highly populated farm.

So now the economist graphs a plane instead of a line. He has to do it in 3-space. x, y, and z. There's the porkbelly price, the pig population dimension, and the price of corn dimension. There's lots and lots of math he can do with this now.

But that's it, right? No, of course he can. He can include the number of grocery stores. The number of cases of pig flu outbreaks. The population of kosher and halal customers.

Can he make a graph of all these factors? No, you can only graph things in 3D. But he can still do all the same math that he could with only one or two variables.

So is it correct to say we live in a universe with porkbelly dimensions and corn dimensions? No, that's stupid. We live in a universe with three dimensions. Up/down, left/right, over/yon.
"But Einstein proved time is the 4th dimension." He solved math and physics problems where he treated time as a 4th dimension, the same way our economist solved his porkbelly problem by treating number of grocery stores as a 4th dimension.

[Anonymous No.7504130]

>>7504076
> If you take all x and y from a single z, you end up with a 2D image.
No, you do not. This is what I'm explaining to you.

>Just because we can't freely interact with time as we can with space does not mean time is not a dimension.
Yes it does mean it's not a dimension though. that's precisely what it means. This is what I'm explaining to you. I don't recall which particular physicist it was but he explained time as the backside of a dimension. It's not itself a full dimension, it's the substance in between dimensions, therefore it makes no sense to view it, for example, as a case of 10 dimensions + 1 of time, because 'time' is already implied in any of them.

[Anonymous No.7504139]

>>7496318

Because there's non-human consciousness(es) permeating space and time, yes.

[Anonymous No.7504147]

>>7503003
topkek

[Anonymous No.7504152]

>>7497451

It's easy to deconstruct shit, you can do it all day. Why don't you try and construct something faggot?

[Anonymous No.7504171]

>>7501808

So time is the fundamental dimension. A lot of people are over here trying to say that 4d builds off 3d builds off 2d builds off 1d, but it's incorrect. The one dimensional point includes the point, and the not-point. That would be the end of it, if not for time, which allows some condition of the point to change, and thus also the not-point to change, preventing stasis. The dimensions all have their directions (1d is-is not 2d forward-backward 3d up-down) and the direction of time is was-becomes. Without that, there is stasis, and so no universe.

[Anonymous No.7504189]

>>7493632
>In reality you can't show me any 3 dimensional objects.

[Anonymous No.7504193]

>>7493776
pretty sure it was a joke, spaz

[Anonymous No.7504201]

>>7504189
> posts very funney meme instead of an actual 3d object
go back to /b/

[Anonymous No.7504244]

>tfw /sci/ believes space and time actually exist
>they don't even know Kant already told us that space and time are not properties of the thing itself but of our cognition

[Anonymous No.7504249]

>>7504244
> time wouldn't exist without cognition
are you retarded ?

[Anonymous No.7504252]

>>7504249
nope, just not a materialist
Kant and Schopenhauer, lad

[Anonymous No.7504289]

>>7504252
materials also exist independant to your cognition. they were here before you, before humans and even before earth was here. assuming they are only here because of us is selfish and dumb

[Anonymous No.7504298]

>>7504249
>>7504252
>yfw I tell you that not only I believe that space and time are constructed by our cognition, but I believe that the same applies to causality and matter too

[Anonymous No.7504313]

>>7504289
The point which the idealists make is a bit more subtle than what you think.

And because of that it's not something which can be explained so summarily. You really do have to peruse the entire works themselves to not have that subtlety, and thus the point itself, lost.

That's a bit like the whole trade off with philosophy itself though. It's only true or meaningful or relevant when you actually read and finally understand. Before that it's all irrelevant rubbish, semantics, etc.

Much like how one must first believe in God before he actually for that person exists. You have to view the Bible as true before the actual truth shines through.

[Anonymous No.7504385]

>>7504130
>>>7504076 (You)
>> If you take all x and y from a single z, you end up with a 2D image.
>No, you do not. This is what I'm explaining to you.
Yes, we do, by definition. If you ignore any single coordinate of a 3D space you are left with a 2D image.

As for your 10 dimensional space + 1 time dimension. You are exactly correct. The time dimension is orthogonal to all 10 dimensions all at the same time. This however does not make time different from the other dimensions. The only difference is how objects interact with this time dimension. If we added another dimension on top of the time dimension, then we'd have a graph of all time coordinates all at once. What is, what isn't, what was, and what could be. This would be a single 4D "frame" of a 5th dimensional space, and time would be no different from any of the other dimensions.

[Anonymous No.7504418]

>>7504289

True, but not before cognition. You're making the very poor assumption that only humans are conscious.

[Anonymous No.7504429]

>>7504152
You're a fucking imbecile.
The anti-intellectualism going on here is disgusting.

[Anonymous No.7504432]

>>7504171
>The one dimensional [line] includes the point, and the not-point (points are 0D. They either exist or they don't. A 1D line contains an infinite array of points that either exist or they don't. This 1D line in it's entirely is a static "shape".).
>That would be the end of it, if not for time, which allows some condition of the point to change, and thus also the not-point to change, preventing stasis (As soon as you add time you are no longer dealing with a 1D line but a 2D plane. Which is an infinite array of lines. Each line does not have to remain the same "shape" as adjacent lines. This allows for more complex 2D shapes like a circle. Which would be seen as a circle when viewed from an above 3D space, or as two points moving back and forth if seen from the same 2D space, with the points changing thanks to time. Think of seeing the circle from edge on, and only 1 line at a time).
>The dimensions all have their directions (1d [left-right] (you forgot the 0th dimension, which is a point. 0d is is-not.] 2d forward-backward 3d up-down) and the direction of time is was-becomes. Without that, there is stasis, and so no universe.

These is a universe. A static universe. A 3D shape. As time progresses, that shape can change. This would be an infinite array of universes. The universe can remain static even with time. It also doesn't have to exist at all times. Each instance of time is an entire 3D universe. If seen from an above dimension, we would see all instances of the universe all at once; all possible pasts, the present, and all possible futures. Each point on the timeline would be the entire universe as it was at that time. The universe does not have to change between points in this timeline, and not every point in this timeline has to exist. There can be a before and an after.

It is only when we observe the 4D universe from within a 3D space do we perceive time. Because we can only see a single 3D space at once, instead of the entire 4D space.

[Anonymous No.7504464]

>>7504432

Thank you for correcting my mistakes.

I'm not certain the universe can actually remain static through time. At some level, everything is in motion. I'm not certain if matter and energy can actually exist with zero motion, and since motion requires time to happen in, I'm not sure a universe of matter and energy can exist without time first.

[Anonymous No.7504487]

>>7493632
Interesting proposal, though I see some flaws with it if it's taken to its logical extreme. By saying that I can't produce a 3d object for you, you're saying that you won't be able to map the location of a point in the universe using three numbers and a concept of length. Of course, nothing is made of a dimension, but it's an infinitely accurate representation of the universe we live in. Therefore, I see no problem with the concept of dimensions to describe objects, especially if such a theory has predictive abilities, a la the Gauss-Bonnet theorem.

[Anonymous No.7504535]

>>7504464
I wasn't trying to suggest the universe ever actually does remain static through time, but if it did we would never notice. Photons would never enter our eyes if the universe were static, so we would never see the universe being static. Energy would never be transfered, so we wouldn't even be able to think about why we don't see or hear anything.

There needs to be a separation between the math and physics of this topic. In math, a universe with matter and energy can freely exist without time. But in the physical world, we fortunately can't experience such a thing because space and time already exist

[Anonymous No.7504537]

>>7504171
Good post

[Kike Matheny !!a3mwPG5+1E2 No.7504559]

>>7493576
holy shit i've never laughed at a post on 4chan harder than i've laughed at this one oh my fucking god.

based anon thank you for making my day you glorious retard

[Anonymous No.7504671]

>>7493581
>vector erector

I just learned the definition of vector in physics 1 today.

>tfw I'm 23 years old

[Anonymous No.7504677]

>all this mob mentality attacking and namecalling for the proposal of a different idea
>few actual rebuttals of said idea

/sci/ is literally reddit: the board

[Anonymous No.7504688]

>>7493538
I bet they're the same fucking idiots who believe the world is a sphere LOL

[Anonymous No.7504715]

>post yfw we live on the surface of a 2-D holographic plane.

[Anonymous No.7504724]

time is a meme dimension tbh

[Anonymous No.7506227]

>>7493576
those are yams
those are sweet potatos
this is a yam

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPcaK2wjUes

[Anonymous No.7506620]

>>7493581
she made my dick a normal to the plane that is my body

[Anonymous No.7506622]

>>7493776
its says yam you fucking retardeds not yam

[Anonymous No.7506624]

>>7493576
>the universe is made of yam
wat

[Anonymous No.7506626]

were going to need to summon our based friends and intellectual equals, [s4s] to consolidate this new meme

[Anonymous No.7506630]

>>7506624
Please educate yourself before you post here

This is high-school stuff

[Anonymous No.7506635]

>>7506630
this is 4chan friend

[Anonymous No.7506641]

I have ascended beyond the realm of the 3rd dimension.

[[ s 4 s ] No.7506808]

>non-euclidian geometry
>that was discovered by euclides
haha thanks as if we didn't always know that the relative space-time quanta folds both in and out on itself in infinite directions
we already have time travel
wake up sheeple

[Anonymous No.7506810]

>>7506626
hi, [s4s] here, i am pleased to announce that "everything is made of yam" is a new meme and we will funpost it for days. pic related is what [s4s]-tan thinks

with love and keks, [s4s]

[[ s 4 s ] No.7506816]

>>7506810
2/2 simply 1
all-one-yet-fun
tifl we are kind of like windows, something happened to set us up the bomb which candlejack stole fore an ok tha-

[Anonymous No.7507153]

>>7494210
this basically