Time is an infinate shape.

[steve218]

I just want to know if this has been said. Just in case it wasnt i copyrighted my ideas.

In the fourth dimension every object is infinate. Take a cube and extend it in the direction of the 4th dimension and the cube grows and grows into infinity( the hypercube). According to my theory,since time = the 4th dimension, every extension of the 3D object is an incriment of time(i.e. a second, a milisecond, etc.).
So just as you can show a representation of a 2D design in the 3D world such as a pencil drawing on a sheet of paper. (The drawing is merely a representaion of 2D becuse of the very small depth of the graphite on top of the paper.) The 3D world is represented in the 4th dimension as an infinate shape.
I hope i didnt lose you.

My theory is based on a visual concept. It isnt based on physics and its only based a little in math.

I am open for input.

[jinydu]

Sigh, a rather haphazard collage of different things from different areas of math and physics.

I just want to know if this has been said. Just in case it wasnt i copyrighted my ideas.

Sure it has. What makes you think it hasn't?

In the fourth dimension every object is infinate. Take a cube and extend it in the direction of the 4th dimension and the cube grows and grows into infinity( the hypercube).

Of course not. A hypercube has a finite 4D volume, just as a cube has finite 3D volume.

According to my theory,since time = the 4th dimension, every extension of the 3D object is an incriment of time(i.e. a second, a milisecond, etc.).

By introducing the phrase "time is the 4th dimension", you've just pulled in Einstein's Theory of Relativity. First of all, the phrase "time is the 4th dimension" is itself a rather crude simplification of what Einstein really said: that events in spacetime for any particular observer can be specified using 4 coordinates, three of space and one of time. He then went on to derive many important conclusions, mathematically. Second of all, a hypercube is a geometric object with 4 spatial dimensions. This is totally seperate from Einstein's theory, anyway.

So just as you can show a representation of a 2D design in the 3D world such as a pencil drawing on a sheet of paper. (The drawing is merely a representaion of 2D becuse of the very small depth of the graphite on top of the paper.) The 3D world is represented in the 4th dimension as an infinate shape.
I hope i didnt lose you.

I don't see how the second sentence in that paragraph is related to the first, or how either of them is related to what you wrote before. Perhaps you're trying to say in your second sentence that in a 4D universe, a 3D "plane" is infinite. Of course it is. So what?

My theory is based on a visual concept. It isnt based on physics and its only based a little in math.

I am open for input.

Unfortunately, that's the problem with these "theories". All serious theories in physics rely heavily on mathematics; it is, as Einstein called it, the language of Nature.

To learn about 4D geometry, you could start off by reading alkaline's website. Better yet, you can try deriving results yourself.

For instance, given two points in 4D: (x1, y1, z1, w1) and (x2, y2, z2, w2), what is the distance between them?

[steve218]

Blast! I Knew my theories had holes. I Didnt know it was swiss cheese! Back to the Drawing Board. Oh yeah! I never said i based my theory on any other persons theory. So kiss my asymptote!

[wendy]

I rely a good measure on visuals, too.

The thing to remember about exotic geometries (like hyperbolic, higer dimensions, etc), is you can hardly go out and have a look, and things _look_ different in these dimensions. I invented a new hyperbolic projection by way of polytopes.

In order to appreciate these geometries, one has to have an idea of what goes on, one has to first send out some kind of mathematical feeler, and then feel enough of the model to grasp what's going on.

This is the real secret of "hyperspace". Hyperspace is not so much 4d, but "over-dimensioned" space. Our own space is hyperspace to the 2d world, and we can test our models in part to what happens when a 2d dweller tries the same trick with us!

Have a look at the "hyperspace" thread at my polygloss, and you will see the more common 4d things discussed.

http://www.geocities.com/os2fan2/gloss/index.html

Follow the hyper thread, and mind the thorns [thorn = þ = th].

It covers a lot of what is, and isn't 4d.

Wendy

[steve218]

Thanx wendy for helping in a not-so-arragant way. :wink:

[donovanbrisk]

Sigh, a rather haphazard collage of different things from different areas of math and physics.

I just want to know if this has been said. Just in case it wasnt i copyrighted my ideas.

Sure it has. What makes you think it hasn't?

No Einstein. He said "just in case".

.

In the fourth dimension every object is infinate. Take a cube and extend it in the direction of the 4th dimension and the cube grows and grows into infinity( the hypercube).

Of course not. A hypercube has a finite 4D volume, just as a cube has finite 3D volume.

And what makes you so sure about this? You, just like us can only perceive the 4th dimension using 3 dimensional concepts. What makes you so sure it isn't infinite? Stop acting like you're an expert. You're not. Even the greatest physicists of our time cannot fully comprehend the 4th dimension. Shut up. In fact, I should shut up myself because I shouldn't really be talking like this.

.

According to my theory,since time = the 4th dimension, every extension of the 3D object is an incriment of time(i.e. a second, a milisecond, etc.).

By introducing the phrase "time is the 4th dimension", you've just pulled in Einstein's Theory of Relativity. First of all, the phrase "time is the 4th dimension" is itself a rather crude simplification of what Einstein really said: that events in spacetime for any particular observer can be specified using 4 coordinates, three of space and one of time. He then went on to derive many important conclusions, mathematically. Second of all, a hypercube is a geometric object with 4 spatial dimensions. This is totally seperate from Einstein's theory, anyway.

Get a clue smartass. You're absolutely pathetic aren't you? Einstein's concept of the 4th dimension being time is consistent with the conceptualization of a hypercube or hyperspherical expansion of the universe. Don't you know that Stephen Hawking was one of countless theoretical physicists (including Einstein) who base their ideas on the big bang theory and represent this expansion as the motion of time using an inflated balloon; that this motion of time is directly perpendicular to a "2d universe".

Our 3d universe is represented as a 2d universe by the surface of the balloon. Time on the otherhand (expansion of the balloon -- the inside volume of the balloon), which is to be the 4th Dimension or Hyperspherical expansion, cannot be directly perceived by anyone within 3d space. Why is that you ask? It's because the motion of time is PERPENDICULAR to our universe (think hard on this one and try to think of our universe as the surface of an expanding balloon, whilst time being the expansion itself that is taking place WITHIN the balloon).

.

So just as you can show a representation of a 2D design in the 3D world such as a pencil drawing on a sheet of paper. (The drawing is merely a representaion of 2D becuse of the very small depth of the graphite on top of the paper.) The 3D world is represented in the 4th dimension as an infinate shape.
I hope i didnt lose you.

I don't see how the second sentence in that paragraph is related to the first, or how either of them is related to what you wrote before. Perhaps you're trying to say in your second sentence that in a 4D universe, a 3D "plane" is infinite. Of course it is. So what?

Moron. You just said in an earlier statement that a 4d hypercube is finite just like a 3d cube: "A hypercube has a finite 4D volume, just as a cube has finite 3D volume." Now you shoot yourself on the foot by saying that a 3d object is infinite, contradicting your upper statement. Seems like the only thing finite in this discussion is your intelligence.

.

My theory is based on a visual concept. It isnt based on physics and its only based a little in math.

I am open for input.

Unfortunately, that's the problem with these "theories". All serious theories in physics rely heavily on mathematics; it is, as Einstein called it, the language of Nature.

Unfortunately, you're not intelligent enough to know that "mathematics" is only limited to our 3-dimensional concepts. Now although mathematics itself isn't constricted to only 3-dimensions and since we cannot directly conceptualize any other dimension above our's, then our ability to use mathematics or "the language of nature" is only reliable as our limitations.

In short, mathematics is a language in which we cannot fully utilize because of our limitations that is the 3rd dimension. Hence, trying to understand the 4th dimension using 3-dimensional mathematics can only be incomplete. Steve218 has the right attitude when it comes to exploring the unknown because even though he may not have used sophisticated mathematics at all or at least to an exhaustive extent, he has utilized his imagination to attempt to visualize alternatives that may stimulate and motivate humanity's understanding of mathematics.

You on the otherhand, are nothing but a poster disliked by myself for no apparant reason who came into this thread for only one purpose (to downplay every statement Steve218 introduced). And why did you feel the need to be condescending? Well I'll tell you why. It's because Steve218 is a new poster in these forums and you're a XENOPHOBE: If you don't know what a XENOPHOBE means (and I'm sure you don't because as you have proven, you lack the intellect to think straight), --->click here, you expert wannabe

It's quite clear that your approach is a negative approach to creative concepts, otherwise you would have instead at least attempted to be constructive with your inputs. Because of your attitude, my harsh responses towards you are only fitting. Change your attitude please

[Keiji]

Sigh, a rather haphazard collage of different things from different areas of math and physics.

I just want to know if this has been said. Just in case it wasnt i copyrighted my ideas.

Sure it has. What makes you think it hasn't?

No Einstein. He said "just in case".

He also wanted to know if it was said. Jin answered his question.

.

In the fourth dimension every object is infinate. Take a cube and extend it in the direction of the 4th dimension and the cube grows and grows into infinity( the hypercube).

Of course not. A hypercube has a finite 4D volume, just as a cube has finite 3D volume.

And what makes you so sure about this? You, just like us can only perceive the 4th dimension using 3 dimensional concepts. What makes you so sure it isn't infinite?

Lack of reason for it to be infinite, and sound reasoning for it to be finite.

Stop acting like you're an expert. You're not.

Wrong.

Even the greatest physicists of our time cannot fully comprehend the 4th dimension.

Right.

Shut up. In fact, I should shut up myself because I shouldn't really be talking like this.

*evil grin* I love that edit button...

.

According to my theory,since time = the 4th dimension, every extension of the 3D object is an incriment of time(i.e. a second, a milisecond, etc.).

By introducing the phrase "time is the 4th dimension", you've just pulled in Einstein's Theory of Relativity. First of all, the phrase "time is the 4th dimension" is itself a rather crude simplification of what Einstein really said: that events in spacetime for any particular observer can be specified using 4 coordinates, three of space and one of time. He then went on to derive many important conclusions, mathematically. Second of all, a hypercube is a geometric object with 4 spatial dimensions. This is totally seperate from Einstein's theory, anyway.

Get a clue smartass. You're absolutely pathetic aren't you? Einstein's concept of the 4th dimension being time is consistent with the conceptualization of a hypercube or hyperspherical expansion of the universe. Don't you know that Stephen Hawking was one of countless theoretical physicists (including Einstein) who base their ideas on the big bang theory and represent this expansion as the motion of time using an inflated balloon; that this motion of time is directly perpendicular to a "2d universe".

Whatever you are ranting about, I'm sure it's completely irrelevant.

It's because the motion of time is PERPENDICULAR to our universe (think hard on this one and try to think of our universe as the surface of an expanding balloon, whilst time being the expansion itself that is taking place WITHIN the balloon).

Time is not spatial, so it can't be perpendicular to anything.

.

So just as you can show a representation of a 2D design in the 3D world such as a pencil drawing on a sheet of paper. (The drawing is merely a representaion of 2D becuse of the very small depth of the graphite on top of the paper.) The 3D world is represented in the 4th dimension as an infinate shape.
I hope i didnt lose you.

I don't see how the second sentence in that paragraph is related to the first, or how either of them is related to what you wrote before. Perhaps you're trying to say in your second sentence that in a 4D universe, a 3D "plane" is infinite. Of course it is. So what?

Moron. You just said in an earlier statement that a 4d hypercube is finite just like a 3d cube: "A hypercube has a finite 4D volume, just as a cube has finite 3D volume." Now you shoot yourself on the foot by saying that a 3d object is infinite, contradicting your upper statement. Seems like the only thing finite in this discussion is your intelligence.

I think you'll find that YOU are the moron. Sure, he doesn't know what a 3D plane is called (it's a realm, by the way), but a realm is an infinite object. A realm is not a cube, just as a plane is not a square. And by the way, don't use dark red. It's conventially reserved for the mods.

.

My theory is based on a visual concept. It isnt based on physics and its only based a little in math.

I am open for input.

Unfortunately, that's the problem with these "theories". All serious theories in physics rely heavily on mathematics; it is, as Einstein called it, the language of Nature.

Unfortunately, you're not intelligent enough to know that "mathematics" is only limited to our 3-dimensional concepts. Now although mathematics itself isn't constricted to only 3-dimensions and since we cannot directly conceptualize any other dimension above our's, then our ability to use mathematics or "the language of nature" is only reliable as our limitations.

Unfortunately, you're not intelligent enough to know that "mathematics" is something that is built up from the simplest of assumptions; that we live in realmspace is not one of them, therefore, math is not limited to it.

You on the otherhand, are nothing but a poster disliked by myself for no apparant reason who came into this thread for only one purpose (to downplay every statement Steve218 introduced). And why did you feel the need to be condescending? Well I'll tell you why. It's because Steve218 is a new poster in these forums and you're a XENOPHOBE: If you don't know what a XENOPHOBE means (and I'm sure you don't because as you have proven, you lack the intellect to think straight), --->click here, you expert wannabe

Jin is not being harsh to new posters. And for the record, nor am I. But when someone says something that contradicts our reasoning, we politely inform them they don't seem to have the right idea. Unlike you, who simply takes great pleasure in flaming us purely because we disagree with you.

It's quite clear that your approach is a negative approach to creative concepts, otherwise you would have instead at least attempted to be constructive with your inputs. Because of your attitude, my harsh responses towards you are only fitting. Change your attitude please

Everyone here is constructive. And you're the one who needs to change the attitude. As is often said online, shape up or get out. Your choice. Any more flames like that, and we'll have to consider bans.

[Dil12a]

It's because the motion of time is PERPENDICULAR to our universe (think hard on this one and try to think of our universe as the surface of an expanding balloon, whilst time being the expansion itself that is taking place WITHIN the balloon).

Time is not spatial, so it can't be perpendicular to anything.

I don't understand why people say time this time that. time is nothing. time is what we have called change. how can change be perpendicularly to anything as he said? time is just change. nothing more. that is why i struggle to see how change can be the "5th dimension". wouldn't the "nth dimension" be more appropiate, as every object regardless of the dimension can have change/time applied to it?

[houserichichi]

For example, take for granted that the universe is three dimensional. Treat this three dimensional "thing" as one entity and call it "space". Let's take any old thing in the universe and notice that we'd need three coordinate variables (x,y,z) to describe its position inside space. That much I think we can agree on. If we wish to describe where such a thing is at any given time we would need four coordinates (x,y,z) and t...which we write shorthand as (x,y,z,t). This describes a four dimensional "space" that we now call spacetime.

In mathematics we can work in as many dimensions as we want. If we work in 5 spatial dimensions we'd need to describe an object's position with 5 spatial coordinate variables (x,y,z,u,v) (note, the letters themselves don't matter, I just included x, y, and z so that at least you could tell it's the old three coordinates plus two new ones. Reserve the letter t for time). Now if we wish to describe any old object in our 5-dimensional space at any given time we would need 6 coordinates (x,y,z,u,v) and t which we write shorthand as (x,y,z,u,v,t). This describes a six dimensional "spacetime".

Did that help any or am I telling you things you already knew?

[Dil12a]

If we wish to describe where such a thing is at any given time we would need four coordinates (x,y,z) and t...which we write shorthand as (x,y,z,t). This describes a four dimensional "space" that we now call spacetime.

i get that yea, but i was just pointing out that calling time the "4th dimension" is retarded. its the "nth dimension" as you can plot any object, be it 2d to 26d it still can have an extra dimension time, to show its current state at that point.

[houserichichi]

If I understand what you're saying then yes, you're right. In a three (spatial) dimension universe we would say its spacetime is 4D. In a four (spatial) dimension universe we would say its spacetime is 5D, etc etc etc. In that regard, for any n-dimensional (spatial) space we would say that its spacetime is (n+1)-dimensional and thus are able to refer to time as the (n+1)st dimension. (The "time dimension" is always numerically one higher than the total number of spatial dimensions within the universe.)

Is that what you mean?

If so then for all intents and purposes the reason about 95% of the population refers to time as the 4th dimension is because we take for granted that space has three spatial dimensions, no more, no less. It's all semantics at that point, but technically you're correct in the general case.

[meckano]

If you'd said undefined shape, I'd have voted yes.
We may be getting at same thing though.

I keep trying to write a little something about Fred, Bob, and Emily and always get stumped somewhere.
So I'm working on different properties of each dimension:
1D: Gravity, attraction
2D: Surface tension, interaction
3D: Pressure, density
4D: Movement, location
5D: Longevity, change ................... Edit

In that, each body in space has it's own set of values for each dimension.

Addit:
I keep thinking of comet that was torn apart before hitting jupiter.

[wendy]

The list sounds all over the place.

These things do not live in particular dimensions. Everyone (in any dimension) has them!

More over, there seems no logical rhyme to them.

[Dil12a]

If I understand what you're saying then yes, you're right. In a three (spatial) dimension universe we would say its spacetime is 4D. In a four (spatial) dimension universe we would say its spacetime is 5D, etc etc etc. In that regard, for any n-dimensional (spatial) space we would say that its spacetime is (n+1)-dimensional and thus are able to refer to time as the (n+1)st dimension. (The "time dimension" is always numerically one higher than the total number of spatial dimensions within the universe.)

Is that what you mean?

If so then for all intents and purposes the reason about 95% of the population refers to time as the 4th dimension is because we take for granted that space has three spatial dimensions, no more, no less. It's all semantics at that point, but technically you're correct in the general case.

Yea thats pretty much what i meant. i guess its just one of those things. like it still is alot for most people to realise that light isn't infinantly fast. it has it limits. thats a lot for my head to get round still

[meckano]

The list sounds all over the place.

These things do not live in particular dimensions. Everyone (in any dimension) has them!

More over, there seems no logical rhyme to them.

Very good dear Watson of no input.
if 4D spatial exists then so do the 1D and 2D so
are you saying that 2D, 3D, and 4D would not be riddled with 1D's?
in a cube of 1 ft^3, there is also a vector from each corner to it's opposite, for example.
It is implied that 2D Fred does not know about his parallel next door neighbor, but what about all his intersecting neighbors?
Is he not made-up of and affected by them too?

Addit:
and based on that,
any 1D is riddled with intersecting 1D's, 2D's, 3D's...
any 2D is riddled with...same
any 3D is ... same
meaning, there are other 3D's intersecting us, in all directions at a fraction of a fraction of distance from your face, ear, foot... too. But we don't know the parallel ones. The intersecting ones are part of our 3D, but we only see snipits of them. Like if something unexplainably falls up or left and the proveability of it soon leaves too.

[wendy]

Still makes me no sense.

Sounds like you just grabbed a list of names and tried to marry them up with dimension-numbers. kind of like having read about six-legged cockaroaches, trying to attribute qualities to one, two, three, four, five, seven legged samples.

W

[meckano]

you have to compare it to your own thoughts.
I don't know how to reach you.
all you are doing right now is bashing.
constructive criticism is needed.

and if you don't understand, and want to, just ask.

[houserichichi]

I don't think I understand this either

1D: Gravity, attraction
2D: Surface tension, interaction
3D: Pressure, density
4D: Movement, location
5D: Longevity, change

Try explaining why you attributed each word to the particular integer and maybe we'll be able to meet at a common ground.

[meckano]

and your thoughts on this part?
I keep trying to write a little something about Fred, Bob, and Emily and always get stumped somewhere.
So I'm working on different properties of each dimension:

[Keiji]

I don't think I understand this either

1D: Gravity, attraction
2D: Surface tension, interaction
3D: Pressure, density
4D: Movement, location
5D: Longevity, change

I think I understand (part of) it. In 1D, you can have gravity and attraction, but not surface tension, interaction, or pressure. In 2D, you have gravity and attraction, and then you have surface tension and interaction as well. In 3D you add pressure to the list. But I don't know why he put density in 3D, nor do I have any clue as to what he's talking about in 4D and 5D.

[meckano]

I don't think I understand this either

1D: Gravity, attraction
2D: Surface tension, interaction
3D: Pressure, density
4D: Movement, location
5D: Longevity, change

I think I understand (part of) it. In 1D, you can have gravity and attraction, but not surface tension, interaction, or pressure. In 2D, you have gravity and attraction, and then you have surface tension and interaction as well. In 3D you add pressure to the list. But I don't know why he put density in 3D, nor do I have any clue as to what he's talking about in 4D and 5D.

Yes, and I put density in 3D as matter is what gets dense and feels pressure.
- although I did not think of the density of 1D or 2D. hmmm.
If the 1D of gravity comes from the source, then each body in space is to each it's own 1D, 2D, and 3D. Another body in space would be another 3rd dimension. "The moon, a world of it's own."
If 4D is permeated with 3D, then 4D would be space.
The bodies Move through 4D space, the container for 3D. The Movement.
5D, Longevity, could still be 4D. I had it as such but changed it. Maybe I should not have.
- Almost any change, if not all, is related to longevity aka: life of aka: time.
- any other 3D body attracted to another changes both.
The extreme of that is a black hole.

Addit:
I should add I'm trying to figure out what the 4th D is, if there is one.
I'm not trying to prove one theory over another.
topology over split spatial dimensioning over 3 physical 1 time or spacetime.

Addit 2:
I remember why I split Longevity.
Movement and Time do not have the same dimensioning.
Movement here is distance, not velocity.
Time is percentage of calculated life expectancy.

[meckano]

I just realized that Pi*r^2=yx and not just ...=y
It is a comparison between circles and squares.
I will work on how to deal with that, restriction?

Addit:
To get Twice the Volume of matter as in a 3D cube size x, you would have to double one of the following:
Length, Width, Height, It's mere Existence(displacement), Density(time).
I realize the last one is new special.
ex: Cube of 2*2*2*1*1, to get twice we could have:
1) 4*2*2*1*1 double Length
2) 2*4*2*1*1 double Width
3) 2*2*4*1*1 double Height
4) 2*2*2*2*1 duplicate the whole thing somewhere else
5) 2*2*2*1*2 two times it's density. Gravity does that well.

Another planet like Earth would do #4 ideally.
A planet with twice Earth's gravity would do #5, but not all elements would just compress. Some would interact with other elements more easily.
- The whole aspect of earth would change if every element where doubled; because it's gravity(density) would double.
- But you could have, theorectically, 2 worlds in the same volume.

Sounds like playing with the word time. Not trying to fool anyone with that.

I think I'm agreeing with Einstein using 'my' terms.

[meckano]

Edited:

a dimension as described with non round objects moving in all ways would be one not bound by forces as we know them. Not friction, not gravity.
- I think that best explains my confusion with what I was reading about tetra this and tetra that.

Addit:
I think it is called a non-comporial dimension.
Where entities can manifest(correct word?) themselves in our world.
- I think of 2 things:
1) Holograms
2) Color is not 3 dimensional. It is a property of, as is 2D and 1D, our world.
There may be a level of existence where one can change the appearance of the air, to us, to represent something. Namely, an earthly being.

Addit 2:
That dimension would have to be balled-up in the very atoms that make up this 3rd dimension.

Addit 3:
Looking at:
at some point in 'time', there was no matter, no space. They were one.
Space is seen here as a by-product or left-over of the adhesions leading to today's matter/elements.

[meckano]

Another view of higher dimensions.
Which answered, in harmony with my thinking, alot of questions.

To get a better idea of what I mean, cause it's giving me a clearer picture too, I just got this link given to me:
http://www.geocities.com/xulfrepus/index.html

I'm only on page 2 and I can already see so much, like:
Another way to see density.
- and I'm now seeing that dimensional talk should be clearly stated so as not to confuse with object talk, the 3 dimensional objects we touch each day. Although a simplified form of formula can be used for the 'real' world.
-- just like F=ma, I've read, is far from exact, but close enough. That it's not the defining calculation, but a good head start, or point in the right direction.
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-10/p11.html

[jinydu]

Well, F = ma is in fact a special case of Newton's Second Law. The most general form is:

F = dp/dt
where p represents momentum.

This reduces down to F = ma when the mass of the particle is constant.

[meckano]

Thank you

I'm thinking physics should be split up when taught.
If talking quantum, talk quantum, if talking bricks, talk bricks.
- have a third class to unite the two.
Schools try to jam so much into us at once that it's no wonder I got bogged down trying to understand it all at once, THOROUGHLY, like they want. I used to question my possible idiocy, but now see I was also being taught, untold, their questions at the same time.

Teachers, if ya don't know, say so. If no-one knows, say so. Then you can pratle on about whatever without losing your students. (our futur)

I loved this read, which shows importance of wording and meaning:
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-9/p13.html

Addit:
Or should the word Theory be taken at face value?
Is it all just a bunch of _____-guesses based on education in mathematics and observations?
- I mean, has anyone said that something is concrete now, all on it's own? or is it always followed up with: Based on our observations.
???
If so, no wonder I get verbally attacked in posts on this topic, no one wants to have to study something new. lol

Addit 2:
Something else for the educated who try to explain stuff to non schooling or soon to be schooling people. Quantum physics needs a math of it's own.
Please stop using every day examples to try to explain the micro^k world of strings and/or particles. That just leaves us confused as all heck.
Example: We live in a 3D world. Takes a long time to find that that is just a man-made term to describe something. 10D is so easy to grasp now that I know the true 3D meaning... not a heck of a lot really, plus, it's 4D we live in, plus gravity, plus this and that and the other.

Addit 3:
I've just been reading up on integrals. Woohoo I'm validated again, and I mean from since like BIRTH.
http://www.integralinstitute.org/approach.htm

I am not all over the place, I am not over sensitive, I am not this, that, or the other. What I HAVE been doing is taking an integral approach to life and everything I touch. Yeah, not necessary in some areas, but now I hope the rest of this post is in a light that it can be understood.
- And another 1000 lbs comes off the shoulders. Rock on!!!

[RQ]

.

In the fourth dimension every object is infinate. Take a cube and extend it in the direction of the 4th dimension and the cube grows and grows into infinity( the hypercube).

Of course not. A hypercube has a finite 4D volume, just as a cube has finite 3D volume.

And what makes you so sure about this? You, just like us can only perceive the 4th dimension using 3 dimensional concepts. What makes you so sure it isn't infinite? Stop acting like you're an expert. You're not. Even the greatest physicists of our time cannot fully comprehend the 4th dimension. Shut up. In fact, I should shut up myself because I shouldn't really be talking like this.

Because with respect to itself an object has a finite area/volume/hypervolume.

.

According to my theory,since time = the 4th dimension, every extension of the 3D object is an incriment of time(i.e. a second, a milisecond, etc.).

By introducing the phrase "time is the 4th dimension", you've just pulled in Einstein's Theory of Relativity. First of all, the phrase "time is the 4th dimension" is itself a rather crude simplification of what Einstein really said: that events in spacetime for any particular observer can be specified using 4 coordinates, three of space and one of time. He then went on to derive many important conclusions, mathematically. Second of all, a hypercube is a geometric object with 4 spatial dimensions. This is totally seperate from Einstein's theory, anyway.

Get a clue smartass. You're absolutely pathetic aren't you? Einstein's concept of the 4th dimension being time is consistent with the conceptualization of a hypercube or hyperspherical expansion of the universe. Don't you know that Stephen Hawking was one of countless theoretical physicists (including Einstein) who base their ideas on the big bang theory and represent this expansion as the motion of time using an inflated balloon; that this motion of time is directly perpendicular to a "2d universe".

Stephen Hawking's analogy of the balloon is to show the expansion of a finite space, infinite boundary model, which is curved in the fourth dimension just like a balloon's surface is curved in an ellipsoid but with two more dimensions (height and time). It has nothing to do with four dimensional space definitions and perpendicularity to 2d universes as you seem to have concluded from reading what not sources.

Our 3d universe is represented as a 2d universe by the surface of the balloon. Time on the otherhand (expansion of the balloon -- the inside volume of the balloon), which is to be the 4th Dimension or Hyperspherical expansion, cannot be directly perceived by anyone within 3d space. Why is that you ask? It's because the motion of time is PERPENDICULAR to our universe (think hard on this one and try to think of our universe as the surface of an expanding balloon, whilst time being the expansion itself that is taking place WITHIN the balloon).

Wherever, or whatever version you read that from, Stephen Hawking does not denote the inside of the balloon as time as the two examples are completely irrelevant from each other. First of all even if the universe were curved into the fourth dimension, The hypervolume of the universe is never denoted by physicists as time, nor does it have any connection with what's inside of balloons, by analogy or not.

.

So just as you can show a representation of a 2D design in the 3D world such as a pencil drawing on a sheet of paper. (The drawing is merely a representaion of 2D becuse of the very small depth of the graphite on top of the paper.) The 3D world is represented in the 4th dimension as an infinate shape.
I hope i didnt lose you.

I don't see how the second sentence in that paragraph is related to the first, or how either of them is related to what you wrote before. Perhaps you're trying to say in your second sentence that in a 4D universe, a 3D "plane" is infinite. Of course it is. So what?

Moron. You just said in an earlier statement that a 4d hypercube is finite just like a 3d cube: "A hypercube has a finite 4D volume, just as a cube has finite 3D volume." Now you shoot yourself on the foot by saying that a 3d object is infinite, contradicting your upper statement. Seems like the only thing finite in this discussion is your intelligence.

A hypercube is finite in hypervolume and infinite in volume. That is with respect to the fourth dimension, a four-dimensional object is finite. With respect to a lower dimension, such as the third dimension, it has infinite volume. The analogy of infinite sheets stacked upon each other to make a cube means the cube is infinite in area (not surface area), but finite in volume.

.

My theory is based on a visual concept. It isnt based on physics and its only based a little in math.

I am open for input.

Unfortunately, that's the problem with these "theories". All serious theories in physics rely heavily on mathematics; it is, as Einstein called it, the language of Nature.

Unfortunately, you're not intelligent enough to know that "mathematics" is only limited to our 3-dimensional concepts. Now although mathematics itself isn't constricted to only 3-dimensions and since we cannot directly conceptualize any other dimension above our's, then our ability to use mathematics or "the language of nature" is only reliable as our limitations.

In short, mathematics is a language in which we cannot fully utilize because of our limitations that is the 3rd dimension. Hence, trying to understand the 4th dimension using 3-dimensional mathematics can only be incomplete. Steve218 has the right attitude when it comes to exploring the unknown because even though he may not have used sophisticated mathematics at all or at least to an exhaustive extent, he has utilized his imagination to attempt to visualize alternatives that may stimulate and motivate humanity's understanding of mathematics.

Imagination is more important than knowledge. Two words: Geometry section.

You on the otherhand, are nothing but a poster disliked by myself for no apparant reason who came into this thread for only one purpose (to downplay every statement Steve218 introduced). And why did you feel the need to be condescending? Well I'll tell you why. It's because Steve218 is a new poster in these forums and you're a XENOPHOBE: If you don't know what a XENOPHOBE means (and I'm sure you don't because as you have proven, you lack the intellect to think straight), --->click here, you expert wannabe

If you haven't noticed, jynidu has over 400 posts so unless he was posting 24/7 since steve128 posted his thread, something which you can see for yourself isn't true, he didn't make an account so he can contradict anyone. He's condescending not because he thinks he's a hotshot at 4D math, which he is more or less, but because people would see their flaws/errors and others who had similar ideas could so too. Hopefully even discourage people like you from making pointless posts.

It's quite clear that your approach is a negative approach to creative concepts, otherwise you would have instead at least attempted to be constructive with your inputs. Because of your attitude, my harsh responses towards you are only fitting. Change your attitude please

Actually from all the crap I've written I can very well say he's quite tolerant. Jynidu has nowhere contradicted any imaginative view unless it contradicts something easy to grasp which he simply pointed out.

[meckano]

I too found jinydu to be harsh.
:?

[PWrong]

I can see why new members might think jinydu is a bit harsh, but he's just saying what the rest of us were all thinking. It's not easy to point out all the misconceptions in an idea without offending someone, but someone has to try, and I think jinydu does a great job of it.

I'm sure steve218 came in thinking he had a revolutionary new theory, and I know how disappointing it is when your idea turns out to be wrong. But the only answer is to try again, after reading some more and asking a few questions. As jinydu said, Alkaline's website is a good place to start. It's one of the best ways to learn about the fourth dimension.