A different type of 4th dimension?

Discussion of theories involving time as a dimension, time travel, relativity, branes, and so on, usually applying to the "real" universe which we live in.

A different type of 4th dimension?

Postby Cosine » Tue Apr 04, 2006 6:38 pm

Okay i was recently thinking about 4d and sort of came across this idea. So the 4th dimension is time right? And time is relative to the speed of the object which is pulling you towards is gravitational mass ( in our case the earth's core).

What i thought was, what if the 4th dimension was supplying the lower dimensions with a magnetic force. This force has infinite length, height and width the same as the universe. It has a north and a south the same as any magnet. Because it's magnetic it only affects metallic materials and because every planet has some type of metallic material in it's 'makeup' it will be affected by the magnetic force. Our Earth's core is made up of mostly iron and nickel which are both metals and both react with magnetism. Our planet has a 24hr day but if you were to live on the moon the time would be much slower. Time is relative to the speed a planet or moon rotates on it's own axis and around the gravitational axis supplied by the mass which is nearest (for the moon it's the Earth, for the Earth it's the sun). If a magnetic force was controlling the speed of rotation and speed of movement around the nearest gravitational mass per 24hrs, which it would because each planet and moon has a certain amount of metal in it's core, it would mean that the more metal you had in your planet's core the faster your planet would rotate, thus causing to time to be faster. On the Earth it just so happens that we have the perfect amount of iron and nickel in our core that we have the perfect amount of sunlight a day (not taking weather into consideration). But on the moon time would be much slower, mainly because the planet doesn't have the same percentage of metals in it's core.

This would suggest the 4th dimension being a force, rather than a new direction of motion. What do you think?
Cosine
Nullonian
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 6:12 pm

Postby Nick » Tue Apr 04, 2006 8:40 pm

That's a very interesting thought. One problem though:
Cosine wrote:So the 4th dimension is time right?

On this forum we are discussing the fourth dimension as a spatial dimension, not as time.

But assuming time is a dimension, then the theory seems solid to me.
Nick
Tetronian
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

Postby Cosine » Wed Apr 05, 2006 5:33 am

irockyou wrote:That's a very interesting thought. One problem though:
Cosine wrote:So the 4th dimension is time right?

On this forum we are discussing the fourth dimension as a spatial dimension, not as time.

But assuming time is a dimension, then the theory seems solid to me.


Ah sorry i thought you were discussing it as a whole topic :roll:
Cosine
Nullonian
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 6:12 pm

Postby wendy » Wed Apr 05, 2006 9:03 am

The trouble is that the fourth dimension is not "time", but a different across dimension. See for example, my polygloss pages at

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

Follow the hyperspace thread, it deals with different models of what 4d space is.

W
The dream you dream alone is only a dream
the dream we dream together is reality.

\ ( \(\LaTeX\ \) \ ) [no spaces] at https://greasyfork.org/en/users/188714-wendy-krieger
User avatar
wendy
Pentonian
 
Posts: 2014
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 12:42 pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Postby PWrong » Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:53 am

It doesn't matter that we don't call time the fourth dimension here, it's a nice idea anyway.

Our planet has a 24hr day but if you were to live on the moon the time would be much slower. Time is relative to the speed a planet or moon rotates on it's own axis and around the gravitational axis supplied by the mass which is nearest (for the moon it's the Earth, for the Earth it's the sun).

I assume you're talking about a relativistic effect. It's true that time is slower on the moon, but it's not a big difference (about 10^-10 percent). And if you were on the moon, then the Earth's clocks would be slower than yours.

This would suggest the 4th dimension being a force, rather than a new direction of motion. What do you think?

Well, usually a dimension is just a variable you need to describe an object. So the dimensions, including time, are (x, y, z, t). Force is defined by F = ma, so it doesn't really look like a dimension. On the other hand, in general relativity, gravity is caused by the curvature of spacetime. So gravity isn't actually an extra dimension, but they are closely related.
User avatar
PWrong
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Postby Keiji » Fri Apr 07, 2006 6:42 pm

Topic moved - discussions of time as a dimension belong in the R&TT forum.
User avatar
Keiji
Administrator
 
Posts: 1984
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: Torquay, England

Postby 4D guy » Sun Apr 16, 2006 12:03 pm

I have had the same thoughts (4d is gravity).

Reason:
Let's imagine 2D as a towel in the 3rd dimension. we've attached some thin ropes to the cornors and attached them to four poles, so the towel doesn't fall on the ground. then we place a disc on top of the towel to illustrate a 2D planet. the weight of the disc will pull down the towels middle, so its shape should look like a funnel (without the hole of course). If we place any object on the towel it will go to the planet (gravity). Then of course this could only happen in a 3D room with its own gravity, so it has be affected by the fourth dimension, which has to be affected by the fifth, sixth, seventh eighth...and so on. so it is infinite. but that doesn't mean impossible :D .
Last edited by 4D guy on Tue Apr 18, 2006 12:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
4D guy
Mononian
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 11:39 am

Postby jinydu » Sun Apr 16, 2006 8:02 pm

I guess you've read popular science articles about General Relativity, where it is claimed that gravity is analogous to placing a ball on a trampoline net (which represents spacetime). The weight of the ball bends the trampoline net so that the motion of smaller ball rolling along the net gets curved.

However, this analogy is somewhat misleading because it seems to imply that spacetime requires a higher-dimensional space to curve into. In fact, this is incorrect. General Relativity describes curved spacetime by changing the formula for spacetime distance in the prescence of nearby energy. When no energy is present, the formula for spacetime distance is 1/c * sqrt((ct)^2 - x^2 - y^2 - z^2). This formula is modified in the prescence of matter or energy. That is what is meant by "curved spacetime". This is no need for any reference to a higher-dimensional space to curve into.

Moral of the story: Don't think that you really understand a physics theory until you're sure that you understand the mathematics behind it. And here I'll admit that I don't fully understand General Relativity; but I've learned enough to know that this post is more correct than the popular science descriptions.
jinydu
Tetronian
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:31 am

Postby houserichichi » Mon Apr 17, 2006 6:08 am

Cosine wrote:what if the 4th dimension was supplying the lower dimensions with a magnetic force.


Dimensions aren't physical things that can affect other physical things. When you say what you did in the quote above I would throw in "something in" so that it reads

what if something in the 4th dimension was supplying the lower dimensions with a magnetic force.


In this case that "something" would be the photon however it is not necessary as photons work just fine in 3D.
houserichichi
Tetronian
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 1:03 am
Location: Canada


Return to Non-Spatial Dimensions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests