Imagining the Tenth Dimension

[Lullaby Chainer]

Imagining the Tenth Dimension - A Book by Rob Bryanton

Watch the flash video. (click on "Imagining the Tenth Dimension") I find it amazing, don't you?

Is it possible to put this knowledge (if true) to use?

Do you think there are more than 10 dimensions?

I really have no idea, but I hope some of you can voice your own opinions on the Super String Theory.

[Kamehameha34]

I personally don't think the string theory is elegant at all.

If I had time, I would share my much simpler theory that I think accounts for gravity. Mine if the one I believe because if I try to understand quantum physical-stuff, my head hurts >_>

[Agnos]

Isn't String Theory on the decline? I read somewhere that Loop Quantum Gravity was the new fad.

[The Architect]

Very interesting, but my head is thumping, had a hard time understanding that but eventually i will get it.

[Agnos]

Just now had the time to give the site a look. Very cool site.

[Nathan Struth]

Wow very cool video. I hated that he stole of of Flatland. This guy didn't even reference this book. The way he wrote this 10th demension book was most likely due to the enlightenment that Flatland brings upon people. I know he read flatland because of the example he talks about with the digestive tracks and people splitting apart. Also the use of a 2 dimensional being, being unaware of the three dimensions he lived in. It's one of my favorite books on how we percieve reality. he definitely read Flatland, and probably sphereland (the sequel to it after). Rest in Peace Edwin A. Abbott. For this is what you've done.

About string theory, I need so see some math on it. If I'm convinced due to the math of it, I'll believe in it. But currently, I view the tenth dimension nothing more than a personal opinion seeing the lack of proof. But I do believe in it. It reminds me of a special editorial I read in a Sciam about parallel universes and all 4 level multiverses. It was allmost exactly like this video; but I viewed the parallel universe editorial to have much more proof behind it (math, microwave background radiation, particle interactions with probability). So I'm going to stick with quantum gravity for the time being.

Rob Bryanton, f'u for not referencing Edwin A. Abbott and Flatland

[WakeTFU]

I disagree with this flash as soon as it says 'we live in the third demension'. No...we only Think we do, we just can't tell. It's the same damn thing. Another way to see what I mean is: what to you see right now? Take a 'screen shot' of it if you will. It's flat right? Like a bitmap on a computer? That kind of explains where god exists (if there is one) he'd be the third demension. Time is our god according to that viewpoint, which, when you get down to it, time is our god, in a way...

[CrochityOldMan]

Quote by: WakeTFU I disagree with this flash as soon as it says 'we live in the third demension'. No...we only Think we do, we just can't tell. It's the same damn thing. Another way to see what I mean is: what to you see right now? Take a 'screen shot' of it if you will. It's flat right? Like a bitmap on a computer? That kind of explains where god exists (if there is one) he'd be the third demension. Time is our god according to that viewpoint, which, when you get down to it, time is our god, in a way...

What you are saying would sugest that we cannot trust our senses that tell us the third dimension exists(moveing, or feeling objects, or seeing what we think is depth) But if this is true why trust our senses that detect 2 dimensions? If you think are senses cannot be trusted so be it, but why do you think that there is a 2nd demision if you cant trust our senses?
obviously when you take a screen shot of something it looks 2 dimensional....because takeing a screen shot is a process that limits things to the second dimension. but if you took pictures from several angles(which would be impossible if there where only 2 dimensions) you can easily see that things change as you go from angle to angle. Your statements are both inconsistent and unfounded.

[CrochityOldMan]

i dont think this video proves there are ten dimensions but it does explain what they are. It is nice to have them explained in a straight forward manner that can be at least somewhat understood by most people. But what does it actully mean to say that you beleive in the tenth dimension? i think it is saying that you beleive that all possible outcomes and all possible begginings in all possible forms exist and occur right now. Basicly there are an infinte number of universes that are occuring with every possible cause and outcome that could exist. I do not think this is true because i dont have any real evidence that it does. however i also can not disprove it. As of yet, i do not beleive there is enough evidence to accept that there are ten dimensions.

[WakeTFU]

Quote by: CrochityOldMan What you are saying would sugest that we cannot trust our senses that tell us the third dimension exists(moveing, or feeling objects, or seeing what we think is depth) But if this is true why trust our senses that detect 2 dimensions? If you think are senses cannot be trusted so be it, but why do you think that there is a 2nd demision if you cant trust our senses? obviously when you take a screen shot of something it looks 2 dimensional....because takeing a screen shot is a process that limits things to the second dimension. but if you took pictures from several angles(which would be impossible if there where only 2 dimensions) you can easily see that things change as you go from angle to angle. Your statements are both inconsistent and unfounded.

"Your statements are both inconsistent and unfounded."
I got what you were trying to say, whether or not you're right is yet to be determined.

"because takeing a screen shot is a process that limits things to the second dimension. but if you took pictures from several angles(which would be impossible if there where only 2 dimensions)"
You don't understand. I'm not talking about our senses as a whole, I refer to sight alone. Have you ever played Myst? That game is simply a series of pictures, when strung together makes you feel like your there.

"What you are saying would sugest that we cannot trust our senses"
Yeah...no. I'm saying our world COULD be 2d and we wouldn't know it... They claim we couldn't have stomachs because they'd fall, I say we experience flatland, not live in it...same thing though...

-Larry Action Olson

(I need job)

[another day]

You don't understand. I'm not talking about our senses as a whole, I refer to sight alone. Have you ever played Myst? That game is simply a series of pictures, when strung together makes you feel like your there.

This makes no sense. Why don't the other senses come into play? The ones that let us feel the 3D environment and analyze it without looking at it. How can it be 2D if we can anylyze it through touch, with our eyes closed? That makes no sense.

[WakeTFU]

Quote by: another day This makes no sense. Why don't the other senses come into play? The ones that let us feel the 3D environment and analyze it without looking at it. How can it be 2D if we can anylyze it through touch, with our eyes closed? That makes no sense.

it works...the Machine is capable of more complex computations than you think...

[CrochityOldMan]

Quote by: WakeTFU it works...the Machine is capable of more complex computations than you think...

i dont think he was saying how does the game seem 3d....his point is that it doesnt make sense to trust all our senses but sight. I agree. However i also agree with you that we could live in two dimensions and not be able to prove it, but i see no reason to conclude this. Why should we doubt our sight? and if we should doubt our sight why shouldnt we doubt our other senses? I think our senses can be doubted but i still accept the world we live in because it makes the most sense, not because i can prove it. So why are you questioning one sense and not the others?

[WakeTFU]

When I said:
"You don't understand. I'm not talking about our senses as a whole, I refer to sight alone."
I meant, trust all your sense as well as you deem them trustable. It's just that seeing and feeling what appears to be three dimensional does not mean that it IS. I can wrap my brain around the concept that I am experienceing a bitmap, or put another way, I'm a floating eye ball staring at a movie screen that I can interact as if I was there...

The whole thing is silly in the end, what does a 'different but moot viewpoint' change? It won't affect any lives or anything...but I for one take comfort in knowing as much about my existence as possible, and if something can simplify or explain something, I usually agree.

(to be honest, I sort of believe bits of dienetics simply because they help me understand my brain better (the 'reactive mind' 'analytical mind' 'memory banks' model seems to help me...)

[Nathan Struth]

the senses and our instruments are the best things we have for analyzing things currently, so don''t disregard them as an invalid way to look at things

[rcne]

If it weren't for photons we would all be blind. What I'm trying to get to is that sight is our primary input by which we build our version of reality.

Quantum gravity and superstring theory each mathematically try to find and predict fundamental particles (or strings) and their properties. Both competing theories have yet to be experimentally tested to the point of accepting one and ruling out the other.

I tend to think the math hasn't been discovered yet that will unite these two competing theories.

So cosmology is examined for hints of the fundamental nature of the universe - and what do we use to interpret these instruments?

Our photon sense organs.

As to the topic of this thread - dimensions are considered to be at the planck scale, 10-33 which exist in all matter.

[WakeTFU]

Ok, so the subject is sight. Sure, our eyes recieve photons...but it's our brain that interprets them...somewhere in our brain is a picture of what we are seeing right? (in a computer it'd be done by the ram on the video card)...

I'm trying to convince you guys that just because our world looks 3d, it's really just 2d.

We have two eyes so it is possible to see objects from two perspectives at the same time. But what if, really, you we're looking at two flat images that, togther, look as if it's the same reality, maybe it's two realities that are conjoined. Really, it doesn't change anything since they're conjoined...but it does allow us to be flatlanders.