elpenmaster wrote:since in a four dimensional object there is infinite volume, and the 4 dimensional object has finite density, and volume times density equals mass, a 4 dimensional object would have infinite mass.
elpenmaster wrote:but since we are made of infinite layers of 2-d shapes, we would have infinite 2-d mass.
pat wrote:I'd guess it much more likely that a 2-d shape would just be a one-atom-thick 3-d shape.
PWrong wrote:Atoms aren't the most fundamental unit of matter anymore. In string theory, all matter and the four fundamental forces are just infinitely thin strings. If this is true, then matter doesn't have any thickness any way we look at it, so our world is made of the same stuff as Fred's.
The interactions between strings are incredibly complicated, so I think we should assume that if a square could interact with our universe, its strings would immediately untangle themselves and have an unpredictable effect on its surroundings.
elpenmaster wrote:it seems to me that trying to get a probe to look into the 4th dimension would require a black hole.
Geosphere wrote:elpenmaster wrote:it seems to me that trying to get a probe to look into the 4th dimension would require a black hole.
You're taking the popular public stance that a black hole has something to do with the 4th dimension.
It may not.
Geosphere wrote:elpenmaster wrote:it seems to me that trying to get a probe to look into the 4th dimension would require a black hole.
You're taking the popular public stance that a black hole has something to do with the 4th dimension.
It may not.
Rybo wrote:In my mind ... I belive ... It does not seem
Geosphere wrote:Rybo wrote:In my mind ... I belive ... It does not seem
None of this is science. This is speculation, wishes and faith. All of which are inadmissable. Come up with any data or proposition and it will be debatable. Come up with ideas and it is speculative fiction. A fine starting place, but that is all.
Geosphere wrote:Rybo wrote:In my mind ... I belive ... It does not seem
None of this is science. This is speculation, wishes and faith. All of which are inadmissable. Come up with any data or proposition and it will be debatable. Come up with ideas and it is speculative fiction. A fine starting place, but that is all.
Geosphere wrote:Rybo wrote:In my mind ... I belive ... It does not seem
None of this is science. This is speculation, wishes and faith. All of which are inadmissable. Come up with any data or proposition and it will be debatable. Come up with ideas and it is speculative fiction. A fine starting place, but that is all.
Having a broad range of speculators here can be invigorating, albeit sometimes annoying. So let the ideas flow!
I hope I have not misinterpreted your remarks.
Rybo wrote: First there was a comological constant, then there was not, and now it appears again. The Universe was static, then expanding and now accelserated expansion.
Einstein wrote:Imagination is more important than knowledge.
Indeed. Einstein considered it his "biggest blunder". Now we need to quote him:Einstein wrote:Imagination is more important than knowledge.
Geosphere wrote:Stata:
My car is black.
As far as math, you will NEVER see me touch that icky geometry forum we have here. Gives me the creepin willies.
Rybo wrote: If 11 or 27 dimensions eixsts then I think black holes are involved. Why? In my mind a black hole is the most extreme concentrated inside-outing conversion processing of matter to anti-matter and vice-versa. The Universe we witness is mostly matter-- mostly "dark" matter but still matter --. I belive there is a parallel Universe to ours that is mostly anti-matter. It does not seem possible to me that all existent-dimensions can not be involved with a balck hole process that may be the source of all galaxy formation ion both Universes.
Rybo
PWrong wrote:Sorry to break up all the nice philosophy, but black holes aren't involved that much. The 6 extra dimensions are curled up tightly so we can't see them, so there is no need for parallel universes, and black holes don't cause this at all. Black holes are important to theoretical physics because they are heavy enough to be affected by relativity, but small enough to be affected by quantum mechanics. I'm sure the universe could still be pretty much the way it is without them.
elpenmaster wrote:but if the 2-d object by definition had no height, only length and width, then it would have zero mass. mass=density x height x length x width
because volume=height x length x width, and if it had zero height, it would turn the whole equation into zero, so mass=0
since the 2-d object then has 0 mass, couldnt it be accelerated to the speed of light?
Return to Non-Spatial Dimensions
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests