[quote]And technically, you would be defining speed of light through meters, which pretty much sets us back to sqaure one. [/quote] Right now, you seem to be trying to claim that because we [i]express[/i] the speed of light in meters, it is [i]defined[/i] in meters. Problem being that we [i]don't[/i] need to define e. It is constant. That's why we've developed our standard measurements - any two people can independantly determine their values to a degree of accuracy limited only by their technology/creativity. If we defined the meter by some other standard incidentally exactly twice as long as our current, then it would take it twice as long to cover 3million, not half as long to get from the Sun to us. ;P [quote]This definition is redundent. It pulls obscure numbers out to support its own claim. It defines a meter as the time it takes for light to travel a meter, so it has proven nothing.[/quote] We are assuming that there is "travelling," which requires "distance," ( unless we are to assume that our perception of any dimension other than "time" is misleading; if so, please explain [i]that[/i] ) . Meters are how we measure this distance; it exists regardless of them. Now, if the definition for a [i]second[/i] involves the length of a meter, [i]then[/i] we've got some circular logic going. Yet even THEN, the point is that we can measure both in time and distance, therefore both time and distance are valid concepts. If I weren't feeling so lazy, I'd go through the SD-linked websites and list the fallacies you're performing, but oh well. Being me ( lazy ) comes before being me ( sounding like me ) .

Quote

And technically, you would be defining speed of light through meters, which pretty much sets us back to sqaure one.

Right now, you seem to be trying to claim that because we express the speed of light in meters, it is defined in meters. Problem being that we don't need to define e. It is constant. That's why we've developed our standard measurements - any two people can independantly determine their values to a degree of accuracy limited only by their technology/creativity.
If we defined the meter by some other standard incidentally exactly twice as long as our current, then it would take it twice as long to cover 3million, not half as long to get from the Sun to us. ;P

Quote

This definition is redundent. It pulls obscure numbers out to support its own claim. It defines a meter as the time it takes for light to travel a meter, so it has proven nothing.

We are assuming that there is "travelling," which requires "distance," ( unless we are to assume that our perception of any dimension other than "time" is misleading; if so, please explain that ) . Meters are how we measure this distance; it exists regardless of them.

Now, if the definition for a second involves the length of a meter, then we've got some circular logic going.
Yet even THEN, the point is that we can measure both in time and distance, therefore both time and distance are valid concepts.

If I weren't feeling so lazy, I'd go through the SD-linked websites and list the fallacies you're performing, but oh well. Being me ( lazy ) comes before being me ( sounding like me ) .

**This ended up being more complex than I originally intended to** ========== I haven't read much of the posts before posting this, so this might have already been said. First let's start by defining how we define speed and length. At first, length was just length. Some scientist said that this amount of distance would be a meter and so the meter was born. We had an "official meter ruler" which is what we defined all other measurements by and many copies of this meter was made. This system proved to have many problems. First is in the field of Probability & Statistics. I've you've studied this, then we know that everything has a probability between 0 and 1. 0 meaning that it is impossible to happen, and 1 that it will surely happen. In the field of Engineering, nothing is 0 or 1. This means that we will never make all of these "official meter ruler" copies exactly the same. Some of these are bound to be incorrect by minimal amounts, and then these create more copies which can create more errors. The second mayor error in such a system was in the field of Thermodynamics. We know that the temperature in a volume is a 3 dimensional gradient which involves many factors. We know that objects expand as they heat up and they contract as they lose heat. Problem is that different parts of this meter will not lose/gain heat at the same rate. So even though we know how to adapt properties of expansion via temperature to this problem, it will never be 100% accurate. These are the two most basic problems to the old definition of a meter, along with others such as varying rotational speed of the Earth and radiation. Our meter wasn't always the same, we needed a way to define a meter to always be the same. In the early 20th century, scientists found out that the speed of light is always constant in a vacuum. We now had something which was 100% constant under certain conditions. We then redefined the meter to be a fraction of the distance the light traveled in one year. (about 3x10^8) Now to define time. Time can or cannot be the 4th dimension. Same goes with a point, lines and volumes. We just define them as the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th dimensions for ease of study, so the question is, can time be a dimension? The answer is simply, it depends. We define the first dimension as a single point in space. (Don't try to imagine this, it is impossible for our minds to see a 1D world) The second dimension is two points and everything that is in between these two points on the straight line that joins them. The same goes for any additional point you may want to place in this universe. The only exception is that you can only have distance and one angle between any two different points. This can be an (X,Y) plane using two perpendicular distances or (r,θ) being the distance and an angle between two points or polar coordinates. The third dimension is any combination of 3 points of more by which the distance between 2 points is defined by either (X,Y,Z) three perpendicular distances, (X,Y,θ) two perpendicular distances and an angle, or cylindrical coordinates and (r,θ,ρ) which is one distance and two angles, or spherical coordinates. Describing the next set of dimensions is very complicated. (We won't assume time is the 4th) You may recall from Calculus III that a point is just a set of numbers. 2-D objects are the following: f(x) = y -> line 3-D objects are the following: f(x,y) = z -> surface f(x,y,z) = w -> closed surface We could then define f(x,y,z,w) = ζ as probably the best function set which we can most easily understand that belongs to the 4th spatial dimension. The spatial dimensions can go on and on, but it is impossible for our brains to picture any dimension that is not 2D or 3D. The numbering of dimensions is just a relation to the number of spatial axis which we are studying. Time being described as the fourth dimension is just to simplify everything to those who have not yet taken advanced studies. As we've seen in all dimensions, they revolve around and axis around a common point, or a variable. For time, we can use two variables like distance and speed to define time. But isn't speed the amount of distance traveled in a set amount of time? Yes. We define F = ma. a = dv/dt F = m dv/dt (F/m)dt = dv ∫(F/m)dt = ∫dv ∫(F/m)dt = v Velocity is the integrand of the amount of force per unit of mass with respect to time. We can measure force and mass at specific time intervals. But another problem, we used time. The problem with time is that we use it for everything, but it's hard to understand. Mathematically it's very simple, but Physically it's a paradox. We use it to explain nearly everything, but in order to explain something you need to use variables which are not itself.

**This ended up being more complex than I originally intended to**


==========
I haven't read much of the posts before posting this, so this might have already been said.

First let's start by defining how we define speed and length. At first, length was just length. Some scientist said that this amount of distance would be a meter and so the meter was born. We had an "official meter ruler" which is what we defined all other measurements by and many copies of this meter was made. This system proved to have many problems. First is in the field of Probability & Statistics. I've you've studied this, then we know that everything has a probability between 0 and 1. 0 meaning that it is impossible to happen, and 1 that it will surely happen. In the field of Engineering, nothing is 0 or 1. This means that we will never make all of these "official meter ruler" copies exactly the same. Some of these are bound to be incorrect by minimal amounts, and then these create more copies which can create more errors. The second mayor error in such a system was in the field of Thermodynamics. We know that the temperature in a volume is a 3 dimensional gradient which involves many factors. We know that objects expand as they heat up and they contract as they lose heat. Problem is that different parts of this meter will not lose/gain heat at the same rate. So even though we know how to adapt properties of expansion via temperature to this problem, it will never be 100% accurate.

These are the two most basic problems to the old definition of a meter, along with others such as varying rotational speed of the Earth and radiation. Our meter wasn't always the same, we needed a way to define a meter to always be the same.

In the early 20th century, scientists found out that the speed of light is always constant in a vacuum. We now had something which was 100% constant under certain conditions. We then redefined the meter to be a fraction of the distance the light traveled in one year. (about 3x10^8)


Now to define time.

Time can or cannot be the 4th dimension. Same goes with a point, lines and volumes. We just define them as the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th dimensions for ease of study, so the question is, can time be a dimension?

The answer is simply, it depends.

We define the first dimension as a single point in space. (Don't try to imagine this, it is impossible for our minds to see a 1D world)

The second dimension is two points and everything that is in between these two points on the straight line that joins them. The same goes for any additional point you may want to place in this universe. The only exception is that you can only have distance and one angle between any two different points. This can be an (X,Y) plane using two perpendicular distances or (r,θ) being the distance and an angle between two points or polar coordinates.

The third dimension is any combination of 3 points of more by which the distance between 2 points is defined by either (X,Y,Z) three perpendicular distances, (X,Y,θ) two perpendicular distances and an angle, or cylindrical coordinates and (r,θ,ρ) which is one distance and two angles, or spherical coordinates.

Describing the next set of dimensions is very complicated. (We won't assume time is the 4th) You may recall from Calculus III that a point is just a set of numbers.

2-D objects are the following:
f(x) = y -> line

3-D objects are the following:
f(x,y) = z -> surface
f(x,y,z) = w -> closed surface

We could then define f(x,y,z,w) = ζ as probably the best function set which we can most easily understand that belongs to the 4th spatial dimension. The spatial dimensions can go on and on, but it is impossible for our brains to picture any dimension that is not 2D or 3D. The numbering of dimensions is just a relation to the number of spatial axis which we are studying.

Time being described as the fourth dimension is just to simplify everything to those who have not yet taken advanced studies. As we've seen in all dimensions, they revolve around and axis around a common point, or a variable. For time, we can use two variables like distance and speed to define time. But isn't speed the amount of distance traveled in a set amount of time? Yes.

We define F = ma. a = dv/dt
F = m dv/dt
(F/m)dt = dv
∫(F/m)dt = ∫dv
∫(F/m)dt = v

Velocity is the integrand of the amount of force per unit of mass with respect to time. We can measure force and mass at specific time intervals. But another problem, we used time. The problem with time is that we use it for everything, but it's hard to understand. Mathematically it's very simple, but Physically it's a paradox. We use it to explain nearly everything, but in order to explain something you need to use variables which are not itself.

[quote]Mathematically it's very simple, but Physically it's a paradox.[/quote] NO WAI!!! Its like I was right or something. [quote]So, 1 pencil squared is equal to 30 seconds, which just doesn't make sense.[/quote]

Quote

Mathematically it's very simple, but Physically it's a paradox.

NO WAI!!! Its like I was right or something.

Quote

So, 1 pencil squared is equal to 30 seconds, which just doesn't make sense.

[quote=name:A_of-s_t][quote]Mathematically it's very simple, but Physically it's a paradox.[/quote] NO WAI!!! Its like I was right or something. [quote]So, 1 pencil squared is equal to 30 seconds, which just doesn't make sense.[/quote][/quote] So you pulling a sentence out of Beer's post and quoted it out of context make your right? You were wrong, as me and EzDay presented, the metre is defined by time, the second is not defined by length.

Quote from A_of-s_t

Quote

Mathematically it's very simple, but Physically it's a paradox.

NO WAI!!! Its like I was right or something.

Quote

So, 1 pencil squared is equal to 30 seconds, which just doesn't make sense.

So you pulling a sentence out of Beer's post and quoted it out of context make your right? You were wrong, as me and EzDay presented, the metre is defined by time, the second is not defined by length.

[quote]We could then define f(x,y,z,w) = ζ as probably the best function set which we can most easily understand that belongs to the 4th spatial dimension.[/quote] mathematically, that makes sense... but appliation shows that a figure with the axis of (x,y,z,w) can be measured with (x,y,z). I know that sounds ridiculous but if you add an axis to a 3 axis figure, it can still be measured with a 3 dimensional graph.... So if it can be measured in 3 dimensions, its not really 4 dimensional is it? you cannot measure a cube with a plain can you? I could be wrong... im not saying that you are, im just looking at the possibilities. >.> [color=#CE091D]>[/color] [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDaKzQNlMFw&feature=related]Great 4-d explination[/url] [color=#CE091D]<[/color]

Quote

We could then define f(x,y,z,w) = ζ as probably the best function set which we can most easily understand that belongs to the 4th spatial dimension.

mathematically, that makes sense... but appliation shows that a figure with the axis of (x,y,z,w) can be measured with (x,y,z). I know that sounds ridiculous but if you add an axis to a 3 axis figure, it can still be measured with a 3 dimensional graph.... So if it can be measured in 3 dimensions, its not really 4 dimensional is it? you cannot measure a cube with a plain can you?

I could be wrong... im not saying that you are, im just looking at the possibilities. >.>

> Great 4-d explination <

[quote=name:Ckol][quote=name:A_of-s_t][quote]Mathematically it's very simple, but Physically it's a paradox.[/quote] NO WAI!!! Its like I was right or something. [quote]So, 1 pencil squared is equal to 30 seconds, which just doesn't make sense.[/quote][/quote] So you pulling a sentence out of Beer's post and quoted it out of context make your right? You were wrong, as me and EzDay presented, the metre is defined by time, the second is not defined by length.[/quote] How is that out of context. Explain.

Quote from Ckol

Quote from A_of-s_t

Quote

Mathematically it's very simple, but Physically it's a paradox.

NO WAI!!! Its like I was right or something.

Quote

So, 1 pencil squared is equal to 30 seconds, which just doesn't make sense.

So you pulling a sentence out of Beer's post and quoted it out of context make your right? You were wrong, as me and EzDay presented, the metre is defined by time, the second is not defined by length.

How is that out of context. Explain.

Let's say I'd like to construct a 3D tesseract, where can I find a model? I'd like to have a hyper-cube in my house :D (I'm serious... how can I build (with wood) the representation of a tesseract?)

Let's say I'd like to construct a 3D tesseract, where can I find a model?
I'd like to have a hyper-cube in my house
(I'm serious... how can I build (with wood) the representation of a tesseract?)

[quote=name:payne]Let's say I'd like to construct a 3D tesseract, where can I find a model?[/quote] [img=http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1292/1287045999_71e39bff19.jpg] [img=http://www.davesbrain.ca/miscpix/blogpix/PF071223tesseractMkii.jpg] [img=http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/d/de/200px-Tesseract.gif]

Quote from payne

Let's say I'd like to construct a 3D tesseract, where can I find a model?

I'm not EVEN going to go through those 11 pages cause well... That's a ton of reading that i'll never have time for. So i'm going to bring up an idea for discussion: Is it not possible that the 4th dimension is in fact the 'spirit realm'? Or the ability to see spirits? I only say this because of how the other three dimensions are... We can see the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, and the 3rd deals with 'real life'... So is it not possible that since we can see the 3rd dimension, that its possible that the 4th is in fact the spirit realm since there have been cases of people (throughout history) seeing 'spirits' and that the dimension of time, is one that we cannot even begin to percieve yet? Possibly the 5th, 6th, etc...?? ...Just a thought.

I'm not EVEN going to go through those 11 pages cause well... That's a ton of reading that i'll never have time for.

So i'm going to bring up an idea for discussion:

Is it not possible that the 4th dimension is in fact the 'spirit realm'? Or the ability to see spirits?

I only say this because of how the other three dimensions are...

We can see the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, and the 3rd deals with 'real life'...

So is it not possible that since we can see the 3rd dimension, that its possible that the 4th is in fact the spirit realm since there have been cases of people (throughout history) seeing 'spirits' and that the dimension of time, is one that we cannot even begin to percieve yet? Possibly the 5th, 6th, etc...??

...Just a thought.

THE 4TH DIMENSION IS GOD. Honestly though, I don't understand what your idea is trying to explain. A dimension is a direction in which measurements could be made that could not be done using a direct other means. So when you say the fourth dimension is "spirits" what does this mean? Do they travel in the fourth dimension where normal three dimensional objects cannot? Light would have a tough time being spirit-like? If so, how is it that people can perceive them? I suppose what I'm asking is for you to explain your post a bit more.

THE 4TH DIMENSION IS GOD.

Honestly though, I don't understand what your idea is trying to explain. A dimension is a direction in which measurements could be made that could not be done using a direct other means. So when you say the fourth dimension is "spirits" what does this mean? Do they travel in the fourth dimension where normal three dimensional objects cannot? Light would have a tough time being spirit-like? If so, how is it that people can perceive them? I suppose what I'm asking is for you to explain your post a bit more.

If you're programming in C, a fourth dimension is actually quite simple. variable[40][2][50][3] OMGOSH! A 4D ARRAY! Otherwise, it's time, and why does it truly matter anyway?

If you're programming in C, a fourth dimension is actually quite simple.

variable[40][2][50][3]

OMGOSH! A 4D ARRAY!

Otherwise, it's time, and why does it truly matter anyway?

[quote=name:Rantent]THE 4TH DIMENSION IS GOD. Honestly though, I don't understand what your idea is trying to explain. A dimension is a direction in which measurements could be made that could not be done using a direct other means. So when you say the fourth dimension is "spirits" what does this mean? Do they travel in the fourth dimension where normal three dimensional objects cannot? Light would have a tough time being spirit-like? If so, how is it that people can perceive them? I suppose what I'm asking is for you to explain your post a bit more.[/quote] Makes sense to me. Light is capable of being both wave and particle at the same time, maybe it can be in both 3d and 4d(assuming 4d is a spirit realm). I like the idea. [edit] that blue inter-folding cube thing, is it constructable?

Quote from Rantent

THE 4TH DIMENSION IS GOD.

Honestly though, I don't understand what your idea is trying to explain. A dimension is a direction in which measurements could be made that could not be done using a direct other means. So when you say the fourth dimension is "spirits" what does this mean? Do they travel in the fourth dimension where normal three dimensional objects cannot? Light would have a tough time being spirit-like? If so, how is it that people can perceive them? I suppose what I'm asking is for you to explain your post a bit more.

Makes sense to me. Light is capable of being both wave and particle at the same time, maybe it can be in both 3d and 4d(assuming 4d is a spirit realm). I like the idea.

[edit] that blue inter-folding cube thing, is it constructable?

But light cannot travel faster than the speed of light, so if there were a dimension that we could not enter, but light could, it would appear to travel at variable speeds, (Travelling through a vacuum and suddenly slowing down or stopping completely, when it encountered a "spirit") as part of the time it would travel through this "4th dimension" Hence there can be no dimension that physical objects cannot enter... This is where I'm confused.

But light cannot travel faster than the speed of light, so if there were a dimension that we could not enter, but light could, it would appear to travel at variable speeds, (Travelling through a vacuum and suddenly slowing down or stopping completely, when it encountered a "spirit") as part of the time it would travel through this "4th dimension" Hence there can be no dimension that physical objects cannot enter... This is where I'm confused.

[quote=name:Rantent]But light cannot travel faster than the speed of light, so if there were a dimension that we could not enter, but light could, it would appear to travel at variable speeds, (Travelling through a vacuum and suddenly slowing down or stopping completely, when it encountered a "spirit") as part of the time it would travel through this "4th dimension" Hence there can be no dimension that physical objects cannot enter... This is where I'm confused.[/quote] Well, it seems in you're imaginative perspective, you have the 4th dimension between the 3rd. Would the 3rd be within the 4th, as the 2nd is within the 3rd. Also, since we aren't sure what what the 4th dimension is(completely), how are we so sure it is bound by laws like the first 3 dimensions?

Quote from Rantent

But light cannot travel faster than the speed of light, so if there were a dimension that we could not enter, but light could, it would appear to travel at variable speeds, (Travelling through a vacuum and suddenly slowing down or stopping completely, when it encountered a "spirit") as part of the time it would travel through this "4th dimension" Hence there can be no dimension that physical objects cannot enter... This is where I'm confused.

Well, it seems in you're imaginative perspective, you have the 4th dimension between the 3rd. Would the 3rd be within the 4th, as the 2nd is within the 3rd. Also, since we aren't sure what what the 4th dimension is(completely), how are we so sure it is bound by laws like the first 3 dimensions?

[quote]THE 4TH DIMENSION IS GOD. Honestly though, I don't understand what your idea is trying to explain. A dimension is a direction in which measurements could be made that could not be done using a direct other means. So when you say the fourth dimension is "spirits" what does this mean? Do they travel in the fourth dimension where normal three dimensional objects cannot? Light would have a tough time being spirit-like? If so, how is it that people can perceive them? I suppose what I'm asking is for you to explain your post a bit more. [/quote] Whoever said that God is such a small dimension within the Universe? What if its possible that God is the 188518th Dimension, and that there are even more dimensions higher than him?? Who said that the 4th dimension is part of 'spacial' dimensions? Every single one of you that believe that time is the 4th dimension, is agreeing to a theory that the fourth dimension [b]MUST BE[/b] part of the 3rd dimension and the 2nd, and 1st.. What if the 4th dimension trancends the spacial aspect of the universe and isn't part of really anything but its own existance? What if Wormholes really exist, but on a different dimensional aspect of planier space? Do they have to be 3 dimensional? 1 dimensional? 2? Hell, they could be the 181985185th dimension for all we know.. The point i'm trying to get across isn't very hard to understand.. I'm simply stating that there is a higher possibility (in my opinion anyways) of the '4th dimension' being linked to the "afterlife/spirit realm" moreso than 'time'.. Because if you honestly think about it, there is no real definition of time except for what Humanity has created for it... Unless you believe that we have created the illusion called "Time" to explain the evolution of our planet/solar system/Universe (which is what I believe :P) I'm just saying, how can you claim time to be a dimension, especially the 4th, when its an illusion created by humanity?? There have been more reports of seeing spirits than there has been reportings of seeing time.. And please. Stay on topic. Don't go off bashing me about how spirits are fake, and all that jazz. Because if they were so fake, why have there been countless reports of them throughout history? ........Haven't really seen any reports of time, except for explaination of our bodies natural evolution... [quote]But light cannot travel faster than the speed of light, so if there were a dimension that we could not enter, but light could, it would appear to travel at variable speeds, (Travelling through a vacuum and suddenly slowing down or stopping completely, when it encountered a "spirit") as part of the time it would travel through this "4th dimension" Hence there can be no dimension that physical objects cannot enter... This is where I'm confused. [/quote] Again, what and who says the 4th dimension has to be part of the spacial plane of existance? What if the 4th dimension is actually a mental plane of existance? Why does everything have to be physical to be a dimension of the Universe? Where does this special rule come into play, except for rules that Humanity have created to explain the mysteries of the Universe? Is there some 'Universal Law' that states that everything must be physical in order to be a dimension of the Universe?? [quote]Well, it seems in you're imaginative perspective, you have the 4th dimension between the 3rd. Would the 3rd be within the 4th, as the 2nd is within the 3rd. Also, since we aren't sure what what the 4th dimension is(completely), how are we so sure it is bound by laws like the first 3 dimensions? [/quote] Exactly.

Quote

THE 4TH DIMENSION IS GOD.

Honestly though, I don't understand what your idea is trying to explain. A dimension is a direction in which measurements could be made that could not be done using a direct other means. So when you say the fourth dimension is "spirits" what does this mean? Do they travel in the fourth dimension where normal three dimensional objects cannot? Light would have a tough time being spirit-like? If so, how is it that people can perceive them? I suppose what I'm asking is for you to explain your post a bit more.

Whoever said that God is such a small dimension within the Universe? What if its possible that God is the 188518th Dimension, and that there are even more dimensions higher than him??

Who said that the 4th dimension is part of 'spacial' dimensions? Every single one of you that believe that time is the 4th dimension, is agreeing to a theory that the fourth dimension MUST BE part of the 3rd dimension and the 2nd, and 1st.. What if the 4th dimension trancends the spacial aspect of the universe and isn't part of really anything but its own existance?

What if Wormholes really exist, but on a different dimensional aspect of planier space? Do they have to be 3 dimensional? 1 dimensional? 2? Hell, they could be the 181985185th dimension for all we know..

The point i'm trying to get across isn't very hard to understand.. I'm simply stating that there is a higher possibility (in my opinion anyways) of the '4th dimension' being linked to the "afterlife/spirit realm" moreso than 'time'.. Because if you honestly think about it, there is no real definition of time except for what Humanity has created for it... Unless you believe that we have created the illusion called "Time" to explain the evolution of our planet/solar system/Universe (which is what I believe )

I'm just saying, how can you claim time to be a dimension, especially the 4th, when its an illusion created by humanity?? There have been more reports of seeing spirits than there has been reportings of seeing time..

And please. Stay on topic. Don't go off bashing me about how spirits are fake, and all that jazz.

Because if they were so fake, why have there been countless reports of them throughout history?

........Haven't really seen any reports of time, except for explaination of our bodies natural evolution...

Quote

But light cannot travel faster than the speed of light, so if there were a dimension that we could not enter, but light could, it would appear to travel at variable speeds, (Travelling through a vacuum and suddenly slowing down or stopping completely, when it encountered a "spirit") as part of the time it would travel through this "4th dimension" Hence there can be no dimension that physical objects cannot enter... This is where I'm confused.

Again, what and who says the 4th dimension has to be part of the spacial plane of existance? What if the 4th dimension is actually a mental plane of existance?

Why does everything have to be physical to be a dimension of the Universe? Where does this special rule come into play, except for rules that Humanity have created to explain the mysteries of the Universe?

Is there some 'Universal Law' that states that everything must be physical in order to be a dimension of the Universe??

Quote

Well, it seems in you're imaginative perspective, you have the 4th dimension between the 3rd. Would the 3rd be within the 4th, as the 2nd is within the 3rd. Also, since we aren't sure what what the 4th dimension is(completely), how are we so sure it is bound by laws like the first 3 dimensions?

Exactly.

So your saying that the 4th dimension is Independent from the 3rd, 2nd, and 1st dimensions? I actually really like that idea. Very metaphysical but I like it. But why are you calling it a dimension then in the first place? I'm not very well experienced in this area, but isn't the idea of dimensions to be built off of the others ones? The 1st dimension being the first spacial aspect of the universe followed by the rest of the dimensions.

So your saying that the 4th dimension is Independent from the 3rd, 2nd, and 1st dimensions?
I actually really like that idea. Very metaphysical but I like it.

But why are you calling it a dimension then in the first place? I'm not very well experienced in this area, but isn't the idea of dimensions to be built off of the others ones? The 1st dimension being the first spacial aspect of the universe followed by the rest of the dimensions.

[quote]So your saying that the 4th dimension is Independent from the 3rd, 2nd, and 1st dimensions? I actually really like that idea. Very metaphysical but I like it. But why are you calling it a dimension then in the first place? I'm not very well experienced in this area, but isn't the idea of dimensions to be built off of the others ones? The 1st dimension being the first spacial aspect of the universe followed by the rest of the dimensions. [/quote] If you follow the standards that humanity has created in their explaination of their theory, then yes. But I do not agree with their theory, so I do not think in ways such as that. If you wish for me to change the wordings, lets change them to Planier and Mental Aspects of the Universe. The '3rd' Dimension could be the "Third aspect of the Planier existance of the Universe" Which is why I just called them dimensions ;-P

Quote

So your saying that the 4th dimension is Independent from the 3rd, 2nd, and 1st dimensions?
I actually really like that idea. Very metaphysical but I like it.

But why are you calling it a dimension then in the first place? I'm not very well experienced in this area, but isn't the idea of dimensions to be built off of the others ones? The 1st dimension being the first spacial aspect of the universe followed by the rest of the dimensions.

If you follow the standards that humanity has created in their explaination of their theory, then yes.

But I do not agree with their theory, so I do not think in ways such as that.

If you wish for me to change the wordings, lets change them to Planier and Mental Aspects of the Universe.

The '3rd' Dimension could be the "Third aspect of the Planier existance of the Universe"

Which is why I just called them dimensions ;-P

I wouldn't say that... 4th is linked to 3rd, 2nd and 1st dimension just like 3rd, 2nd and 1st dimension are linked as well to the 4th dimension. Have anyone seen the video in the link that has been posted in this topic? I find it very explicit and clear!

I wouldn't say that...
4th is linked to 3rd, 2nd and 1st dimension just like 3rd, 2nd and 1st dimension are linked as well to the 4th dimension.
Have anyone seen the video in the link that has been posted in this topic? I find it very explicit and clear!

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider]Explaination[/url].

Explaination.

[quote=name:Vi3t-X][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider]Explaination[/url].[/quote] That's not an explanation, its an experiment to a hypothesis. Which has yet to officially start from what is being reported so far.

Quote from [Vi3t-X]:]

Explaination.

That's not an explanation, its an experiment to a hypothesis.
Which has yet to officially start from what is being reported so far.