Wacky theory.. Ty Torn.. "Spatial" Dimensions.. | Sc…
Wacky theory.. Ty Torn.. "Spatial" Dimensions..
    • Dire [2091491]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 100
    • Posts: 5,026
    • Karma: 4,532
    • Last Action: 49 minutes
      • 3
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Thread created on 07:15:11 - 04/12/18 (5 years ago)
    |
    Last replied 19:43:25 - 06/02/19 (5 years ago)
    So i have spent a long old time thinking. Very few distractions and no phone/games/social media besides torn. Only other thing i have done with technology is research and the odd film...

    I am putting this theory out in other places too, but figured i should say something here, Several conversations from torn folk have helped me build on the concept. And torn itself certainly takes some credit for helping me stay sane....

    So, This is my invite to anyone here interested in awkward sciency concepts, Will happily discuss the theory and would like to find some to attempt to refute it. If i am correct about it.... well.... its quite quirky stuff. Here is an outline......

    0D = Singularity
    1D = Line
    2D = Plain
    3D = Object
    4D = Persistence
    5D = Potential/Possibility..... Where it starts to get "tricky"

    I think i can comfortably describe up to 9D, But for now, 6-9th can stay in PMs..... I am very confident up to 5th dimension, Happy to discuss that here. Only had the 6th-9th a few days, a group discussion would be too much for me atm.

    Yeah.... Urrrm, I would like to note that i believe these concepts can be described in terms of perception. i.e things we currently perceive. And though there is some difficulty, i don't think a math/calculus or scientific backing is needed. Just a moderate level of intelligence.

    27 yrs old.... Big Beard.... Wales.... Not on drugs....

    fwUaiQx.png

    • bubajofe [2101172]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 69
    • Posts: 534
    • Karma: 377
    • Last Action: 2 years
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 11:34:20 - 06/12/18 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    0D reaching singularity. What would an example of singularity be? As far as I can perceive the most extreme examples of the torn population have likely met 4D. Maybe 3D
    • Lewri [1762864]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 72
    • Posts: 895
    • Karma: 394
    • Last Action: 1 hour
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 21:44:12 - 13/12/18 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    Regarding your messages on this topic, just popped into my mind that your definitions dont work because infinity times 0 is meaningless (I would say its zero but I hesitate as really we can't define it). An infinite stack of 1D lines is either a 1D line or multiple lines in 2D, not the basis of 2D itself.

    • Dire [2091491]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 100
    • Posts: 5,026
    • Karma: 4,532
    • Last Action: 49 minutes
      • 1
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 13:46:33 - 14/12/18 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Lewri [1762864]

    Regarding your messages on this topic, just popped into my mind that your definitions dont work because infinity times 0 is meaningless (I would say its zero but I hesitate as really we can't define it). An infinite stack of 1D lines is either a 1D line or multiple lines in 2D, not the basis of 2D itself.
    yes, thats very true. but doesn't conflict with the theory.. The transition from 1d to 2d is entirely hypothetical.no amount of imaginary lines makes an imaginary plane. In the same way. no amount of impossibly thin planes equals a 3d object. But the idea of stacked sheets is the easiest way to visualise the hypothetical transition. 

    You can go as far as to say that no amount of 3d objects equates to a 4d state. 0d, 1d, 2d and even 3d can't actually exist. Only in concept. They all fail to have substance. those dimensions only account for shapes and positions :) 
    Last edited by Dire on 13:47:39 - 14/12/18

    fwUaiQx.png

    • Dire [2091491]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 100
    • Posts: 5,026
    • Karma: 4,532
    • Last Action: 49 minutes
      • 1
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 13:49:59 - 14/12/18 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    bubajofe [2101172]

    0D reaching singularity. What would an example of singularity be? As far as I can perceive the most extreme examples of the torn population have likely met 4D. Maybe 3D
    0d is purely a hypothetical point. Impossibly basic. Holds no substance, only has a single property and that is the fact that it is there (hypothetically)....

    So in the torn theme... i would say global chat is the zero dimension.....

    fwUaiQx.png

    • yreew [1989745]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 88
    • Posts: 686
    • Karma: 0
    • Last Action: 11 months
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 10:19:43 - 17/12/18 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Lewri [1762864]

    Regarding your messages on this topic, just popped into my mind that your definitions dont work because infinity times 0 is meaningless (I would say its zero but I hesitate as really we can't define it). An infinite stack of 1D lines is either a 1D line or multiple lines in 2D, not the basis of 2D itself.

    Dire [2091491]

    yes, thats very true. but doesn't conflict with the theory.. The transition from 1d to 2d is entirely hypothetical.no amount of imaginary lines makes an imaginary plane. In the same way. no amount of impossibly thin planes equals a 3d object. But the idea of stacked sheets is the easiest way to visualise the hypothetical transition. 

    You can go as far as to say that no amount of 3d objects equates to a 4d state. 0d, 1d, 2d and even 3d can't actually exist. Only in concept. They all fail to have substance. those dimensions only account for shapes and positions :) 
    "stacked sheets" is wrong, as 2D has no height. height=0. stack it 0+0+0+0...= 0 height. 2D stacked will always be 2D

    this is where "God"'s absolute power does its job. not necesarily God with personality. you can say its "nature" just like what einstein believes
    • Dire [2091491]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 100
    • Posts: 5,026
    • Karma: 4,532
    • Last Action: 49 minutes
      • 1
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 12:54:47 - 17/12/18 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    yreew [1989745]

    "stacked sheets" is wrong, as 2D has no height. height=0. stack it 0+0+0+0...= 0 height. 2D stacked will always be 2D

    this is where "God"'s absolute power does its job. not necesarily God with personality. you can say its "nature" just like what einstein believes
    "Stacked sheets" Is just a means to visualise an impossible transition. You kinda just repeated what i said as if it was a correction. As for including "god" whether a classical version or not... it doesn't remove the validity of the "how" question. 

    If god has absolute power, does he have the ability to remove his own power, thereby proving it to be non-absolute? 

    If you asked God "Are you intelligent enough to explain how you are omniscient?" Does he say yes and explain it... or does he say he can't, thus putting a cap on his omniscience.... 

    My point being, You brought up "absolute power".... to me.... absolute power is seemingly always a flawed concept. It usually just negates its own ability.

    fwUaiQx.png

    • yreew [1989745]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 88
    • Posts: 686
    • Karma: 0
    • Last Action: 11 months
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 16:42:06 - 17/12/18 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    yreew [1989745]

    "stacked sheets" is wrong, as 2D has no height. height=0. stack it 0+0+0+0...= 0 height. 2D stacked will always be 2D

    this is where "God"'s absolute power does its job. not necesarily God with personality. you can say its "nature" just like what einstein believes

    Dire [2091491]

    "Stacked sheets" Is just a means to visualise an impossible transition. You kinda just repeated what i said as if it was a correction. As for including "god" whether a classical version or not... it doesn't remove the validity of the "how" question. 

    If god has absolute power, does he have the ability to remove his own power, thereby proving it to be non-absolute? 

    If you asked God "Are you intelligent enough to explain how you are omniscient?" Does he say yes and explain it... or does he say he can't, thus putting a cap on his omniscience.... 

    My point being, You brought up "absolute power".... to me.... absolute power is seemingly always a flawed concept. It usually just negates its own ability.
    "negates its own ability", or is it our logic thats just too weak to understand? like can you even imagine/visualyze 4D shape/geometry?? our mind is limited. but in fact, "absolute power" does exist in this world, so we cant deny its existence.

    "does he have the ability to remove his own power?" I imagine its like linux users system. at one time you can login as normal user but you can do as su if you want to.

    its all just like infinite number. we dont know exactly how much the number actualy is (we cant, as there will always something higher), but it does exist in reality, and in practical stuffs, it does work in equations and formulas. we just know that its there even if we dont understand them.
    • Viracocha [1772040]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 92
    • Posts: 14,351
    • Karma: 4,724
    • Last Action: 1 year
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 17:09:01 - 17/12/18 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    7D is where God exists if God exists.

    Don't forget to neatly fold.
    Last edited by Viracocha on 17:09:55 - 17/12/18

    Have a Great Day!

    • Tyrion [1967379]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 100
    • Posts: 5,374
    • Karma: 6,127
    • Last Action: 3 hours
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 04:48:38 - 25/01/19 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    To be honest, I don't think that we can comprehend any extra dimensions at this point of time, being born in this human shell, nor are we meant to in fact, as it would distract too much from our current being right here and now.

    There is a certain flow of information though and if you're focussed well and allowed, you might tap into the stream briefly.

    I've learned alot in a short time myself and have been thrown back again.

    We all have our purpose to fullfill here.
    • Sweeney_Todd [27468]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 92
    • Posts: 15,717
    • Karma: 21,093
    • Last Action: 3 hours
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 23:01:30 - 25/01/19 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    Isn't 4d just known as time? Where a 3d object is at any given moment...  [:sick:]

    I will never lie to you. What I say is how I feel...

    • Dire [2091491]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 100
    • Posts: 5,026
    • Karma: 4,532
    • Last Action: 49 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 02:35:48 - 26/01/19 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Sweeney_Todd [27468]

    Isn't 4d just known as time? Where a 3d object is at any given moment...  [:sick:]
    Yes, but most see a distinction with time being separate to the 4th Spatial dimension. I have not put much down in great detail.... but this theory posits that time is the 4th spatial dimension.

    Simplest visualisation for it....

    Paper (2d) 
    Stack of Paper (3d) 

    Stack of paper stacked... (4d)

    But with 3d-4d, the stack is not within the 3 previous dimensions, it is along a fourth dimension. It is stacked in time. So the stack is there, it is there, it is there, it is there. So each individual instant becomes one sheet in a stack. 3d describes its shape in space.... 4d describes its shape in space & sees it persisting along a dimension other than the three, 

    So you can say that the fourth dimension is spatial, We travel through space along that 4d direction. Time is our measurement of that spatial dimension, Like centimetres are to previous directions. 
    Last edited by Dire on 02:36:47 - 26/01/19

    fwUaiQx.png

    • Matchlock [2227514]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 99
    • Posts: 1,298
    • Karma: 1,364
    • Last Action: 2 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 19:04:13 - 26/01/19 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    5
    Last edited by Matchlock on 14:20:13 - 15/01/21
    • Dire [2091491]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 100
    • Posts: 5,026
    • Karma: 4,532
    • Last Action: 49 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 22:37:21 - 26/01/19 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    I would argue, That our math differs from reality by a small margin. That same margin of error leads to a hypercube appearing to our perception as a cube in time. Perception of any dimension requires a greater dimension. Aka, if there is a fourth, there is no 3, 2, 1 or 0. If there is a 5th, then there is no 4th 3rd 2nd.... etc.

    As for math being innacurate. Take an irrational number. It has a distinct value, Our numbers cannot define that value. 

    As for analogue, Its down to how one can visualise it. 2 squared is a plane. 2 Cubed is a cube. 2 to the 4th... Is a cube that has another measurable "length", If we had to assume the next simplest measurement of an object that is 2 to the 4th.... Its time, It may be wrong, there may not be enough to convince ya. But it fits :p . Now i can't equate the amount of time to distance..... not yet, But is it so far fetched to think that there may be a correlation between them.

    As far as i can tell. There is perception of a 3rd spatial dimension, This is proof that there is a fourth spatial dimension. It would no be able to exceed the boundaries of the 3, It would have to be a large number of things identical to 3d objects, And they would have to fit within the boundaries of the 3d object. 3 numbers do not describe time, An object that maintains itself in time.... looks a lot like a  large number of identical to 3d objects, That fit within the boundaries of the 3d object.

    Now i don't have "proof", Not trying to say that this "Is" Just sharing some thoughts. That said..... when ya think about it..... In a set of dimensions, It should be a single series, there should not be any forks..... Time is not one of the three, If its not fourth then which is it, and what is the fourth.

    Thought is not of the 3, But like with time, they are clearly parts of the same sequence.

    I believe.... distance is inversely proportional to time. When using a constant speed....

    Proof would be tough. But then so is argument against the proposition. Find something that fits the label of 4d better? :) I think time fits the math pretty damn well..... Not just as a wild child other 4th dimension... but as THE spatially 4th dimension. 
    Last edited by Dire on 22:38:22 - 26/01/19

    fwUaiQx.png

    • BlnkSugarSocket [2018522]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 77
    • Posts: 1,798
    • Karma: 2,266
    • Last Action: 2 years
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 17:00:39 - 28/01/19 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    For clarification, Time is a rate of change, nothing more. Think: the half-life of elements. Great way to measure time. Time is not a dimension. It is not a constant (though here on Earth's surface, it basically is). I used to make that mistake until I studied more in depth.

    Edit: A point is infinitely small. It works for 0x. Kind of.
    Last edited by BlnkSugarSocket on 17:16:28 - 28/01/19
    • Dire [2091491]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 100
    • Posts: 5,026
    • Karma: 4,532
    • Last Action: 49 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 17:06:01 - 28/01/19 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    BlnkSugarSocket [2018522]

    For clarification, Time is a rate of change, nothing more. Think: the half-life of elements. Great way to measure time. Time is not a dimension. It is not a constant (though here on Earth's surface, it basically is). I used to make that mistake until I studied more in depth.

    Edit: A point is infinitely small. It works for 0x. Kind of.
    Agreed. For sake of ease i would use time and 4d interchangeably... but its more that the fourth dimension is a medium in which change can occur... and what we call time is a measurement of the velocity with which the present moment moves through it.

    Time is to 4d as a tape measure is to 3d :)
    Seconds to 4d are like meters to 3d :/

    So saying time is the fourth dimension is like saying a ruler is the 3rd dimension...... not entirely correct......

     

    fwUaiQx.png

    • Dire [2091491]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 100
    • Posts: 5,026
    • Karma: 4,532
    • Last Action: 49 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 17:10:02 - 28/01/19 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    BlnkSugarSocket [2018522]

    For clarification, Time is a rate of change, nothing more. Think: the half-life of elements. Great way to measure time. Time is not a dimension. It is not a constant (though here on Earth's surface, it basically is). I used to make that mistake until I studied more in depth.

    Edit: A point is infinitely small. It works for 0x. Kind of.
    Further musings for ya :)

    If you remove time and consciousness. You are left with an impossibly small sliver. This tiny snapshot holds all the qualities of a 3d space, and nothing more. Add any aspects to it that it does not have.... and you need more numbers to define a position/state......

    And sooo..... For time to exist.... there must be more than 3 dimensions.... **Spatial dimensions!!!**

    fwUaiQx.png

    • BlnkSugarSocket [2018522]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 77
    • Posts: 1,798
    • Karma: 2,266
    • Last Action: 2 years
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 17:50:36 - 28/01/19 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    I can muse all day every day!

    Well, Saint, that would be roughly the equivalant of "I don't think, therefore I am God." It kind of works, but not really. I mean, that would kind of validate the concept of enlightenment, because those two listed conditions are the prerequisites of most concepts of enlightenment. So, all time exists all the time, and all points influence all other poins in the manner of a feedback loop. To observe and not be conscious means to become one with nature, the state of no-mind.

    If I were to try and conceptualise 4d, it would be processes. I occasionally refer to the "pendulum theory" because I was taught about it in history class on a political issue, but it applies to many other social phenomena, and somehow applies here. I'm not very good at explaining 4-D phenomena, so I look to world religions, which I suspect to be the attempts of the ancients at the same.

    I supposed that would make for a 50-50 ratio (coin-flip) probability as to whether we evolve (heaven) or devolve and/or destroy ourselves (hell). Reason being both need to exist in equal amounts, because positive and negative always exist in an eternal state of balance (because, Taoism!). Apparently the population of worlds like ours is either:

    - Done by 4d beings to raise humans as food/slaves/entertainment or for the purporse of (de-terraforming?)

    -a part of a natural extention of the life cycle, the life cycles of beings, of their extinction or evoluion, their rise and decline, the pulse ever-beating, ever changing, but remaining very much the same. So one planet makes it and evilves, one fails and nukes itself.

    I, of course, prefer the second option. I don't discount the stronger probability of the first.

    When you can see processes and their outcomes before they happen, you see the 4D. From that perspective, this was my favourite song in my early 20's. I also had a crush on Peter Steele. But, come on, who didn't? Edit: 39+ U.S., almost always on drugs (just weed tho)

     

    Last edited by BlnkSugarSocket on 17:58:52 - 28/01/19
    • Lewri [1762864]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 72
    • Posts: 895
    • Karma: 394
    • Last Action: 1 hour
      • 1
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 17:53:12 - 28/01/19 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    I'm sorry but this is still all just babble without any actual meaning. You say that maths differs slightly from reality but the only example you can give is irrational numbers, this argument is invalid because by definition irrational numbers are numbers that can't be represented using fractions of integers however that doesnt make them any less real as we can still represent them in other ways and use them. The use of irrational numbers clearly works otherwise a circle wouldnt be possible but we can describe the maths of these things perfectly and have been doing so for a long time. Whats more we are able to take "abstract" maths ideas such as the Riemann zeta function and apply this to the natural numbers to show an association with them to -1/12 which we are then able to show actually happens in reality!

    "Add any aspects to it that it does not have.... and you need more numbers to define a position/state......

    And sooo..... For time to exist.... there must be more than 3 dimensions.... **Spatial dimensions!!!**" But why? why must these extra numbers you're adding be part of an extra spatial dimension? They may be part of an extra dimension but there is absolutely no reason to believe that its spatial rather than temporal or that the temporal dimension is a result of extra spatial dimensions or anything like that.

    You have still failed to put forward any reasoning whatsoever for your "theory".

    • Nekys [538682]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 35
    • Posts: 416
    • Karma: 220
    • Last Action: 1 month
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 20:57:01 - 28/01/19 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    After reading all that, i will not question the theory at all, just the not on drugs note at the end of it
Reply
Thread Title: