Well, I mean, there's nothing *left* in my mind ;p It's every combination of everything that could, will, or has happened in universes, each with infinitely differing details. In one, the gravity of Earth could be -10,000m/s, -.1m/s in another. Then you get into the ridiculous amount of variations of one planet to another in each combination, and you also have examples where the speed of light, sound, or vibrations (p & s waves in Geophysics) could differ.

Could be something, but cripes-on-toast. I can't imagine it ;_; If there is something, you could explain it in math but putting it into a practical example or mindset for folks to follow might be more than difficult.

Oh, no. I can't imagine anything else either. But after watching the flash vid, I started wondering... If they were able to go that far, why not go farther? [further?]

Bullshit. I even doubt time is the "4th dimension", since you can't move forth and back in time like you can do in space.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but time typically is the tying note to make something fourth-dimensional.

Otherwise, all practical thought processes would render it rather hard to imagine. Technically, through the fourth dimension viewing, you could see all six faces of a cube from looking straight at one. It gets into messy vectors which most folks don't fancy.

0 dimension is a point/position
1 dimension is a line (adds length)
2 dimension is a body (adds height)
3 dimension is a full body (adds width)

"Marty, Marty. You aren't thinking Fourth Dimensionally!"
"Yeah, I know. I'm told I have a problem with that..."
~Back to the Future

That was a pretty neat flash. Certainly made the subject more enjoyable and digestable than it normally would've been. I found it interesting how the dimensions started to sort of repeat themselves going into the cycle of point, line, branch, fold and back to a point again.

I enjoyed the flash, but at the same time being the nerd I am, I wouldn't mind seeing some mathematical backing to these ideals. I delved a little into multiple dimensions thanks to my vector/multivariable calculus class, and the whole 2D people in the flash reminded me of countour lines.

But my prof lost me when he described 4D as "think about 3D contour lines." Seriously... how? Of course, time is the base of how most people judge the fourth dimension but to visually comprehend it is only through 3D contour plots.

Although it has hard to visually see dimensions larger than 3, I have seen some strange, very strange, plots of up to 27 dimensions, using colors, textures, volumes, shapes, etc. In a sense, each dimension can be visualized by a different variable, such as a through z.

The flash didn't really give anything mathy for my liking, but it's still very intriguing to think of the tenth dimension as the "everything" dimension.

Is a three-dimensional object possible? Not really. A three dimensional cube would have width, depth, and height, but no duration. It wouldn't exist for any lenght of time. All objects need to have a measurable extension along the fourth dimension in order to exist for more than zero time.

That's how I think of it, anyway. Just because humans don't have the ability to freely move along the fourth dimension doesn't mean that nothing does. I once read an article that explained how tachyons have been observed to move in a non-linear fashion along the fourth dimension.

It's just a skill that we don't have.

Nice find. This is like a simplified version of Michio Kaku's 'Hyperspace'. If this Flash intersted you, I would highly recommend Hyperspace: A scientific odyssey through parallel universes, Time Warps, and the 10th dimension. Physics is fun!


I know something that wasn't included in the 10 dimensions: Nothingness/Oblivion. The only thing outside all possibility of all things that exist is that which does not exist. Data: "Could lack of dimension be a dimension in itself?"

To me, nothingness is a point, that is indeed outside the 10-dimensional reality-sphere we live in. It cannot be comprised of different times, dimensions, it has no length etc., so it's an imaginative {0}, which is the opposite of everything that really does exist.

Think of it like how {x=2} is the "counter" of {x is not 2}. This is how I think of it, anyway.

Nice video, though.

The flash made it REALLY straightforward and easy to comprehend. I liked it.

So pretty much, every single possible thing than human beings can possibly comprehend... things within our wildest dreams and imagination. I guess that falls within the dimensions of connecting our universe to other universes. Now, in the tenth dimension... in there lies the shit that's actually beyond our comprehension. Hah, I guess that's where GOD lives.

I disprove this through religion. Wait, no I dont.

Personally, I thought it was very enlightning and the flash presentation was very entertaining considering the material it was working with.

Please explain what tachyons are. I've never heard of them.

Hmm interesting flash. Though I'm with Dee on this, I want more math involved! Crude 2D examples can only show so much after the 4th dimension.
Still, this flash is a great way to introduce a non-physics person to the idea of 10 dimensions.

Tachyons is a made up subatomic particle that always moves faster than the speed of light.
*Doesn't anyone watch Star Trek anymore?*

Very interesting flash.
But more interesting than imagining the 10th dimension is "Hearing the 10th Dimension"... If it's so hard to imagine it's shape, how would it sound? 0_o;

Definitely a manageable bit of info for someone not totally familiar with a lot of concepts. I get the idea that it's really at most an overview, and far from technical, but still gives me an insane amount of info to think about at the same time.

I'm definitely considering locating this book, as it sounds like something that would be very intriguing to me.

Honestly, I'm not sure that I can. I'm not a physicist, or even close. I didn't entirely understand the article that I read, and everything else I wrote in that post could easily be a missaprehension.

I agree with you as well on the whole "more mathematics" thing. The only probably though is they'll never show us what "other" mathematical concepts they've used to prove certain ideas. This may not sound like a big thing to most, but I think it would give us a firm idea, from the ground up, how certain things were conceived.

That means nothing.

Since time can't be measured in the same unit than space, it cannot be a dimension, since any comparison done is inconsistent.
I see time as "a continuum where 3 dimensional objects exist".

But some sciencists (and pseudosciencists) overcomplicate things with theories that try to explain what they actually don't understand well. Then, those theories get "established"...so they hinder "thinking outside the box" around another ideas.

Think, for example, about the good old explaination of orbits by Ptolemy (which prevailed until Copernicus' days), based on complicated "epicycles" where the Moon and Mars' orbits were monkeying in a funny way around the Earth - complexity that was gone when Copernicus realized that it was the center was the Sun, not the Earth...

According to my understanding, Einstein disagrees. However, I'll not press the point, since I am by no means sure of my grounds.

Wow, that was... something.

A stipend though:
- The Flash describes Time as a line in which we go along a set path of growing from birth till death, but then has the 5th dimension as branches of different futures. If we are all moving along a linear path in time, then how does the relationship between different particles (People, things, etc.,) affect each particle's linear path.
In other words: Are our relationships (Interactions/observations?) of other objects ('Particles', to be nitpicky) going to affect our own time-line? Or is this covered in the 5th/6th dimension when it comes to different outcomes?

The flash really was quite interesting, and perhaps I may even get the book. As for my above question, I was thinking that maybe the 4th 5th and maybe 6th dimensions all operate at the same time together, as does 3D space, since an object, such as a box, will always have width depth and height, and it won't magically just become flat or a dot.

If strings vibrate in the 10th dimension as described (every possible outcome for every possible universe), but the 10th dimension is only one point (the same), then what are the strings made of? or is it a way of saying that the point of the 10th dimension itself is vibrating somehow?

I like explanations like this guy's. There's nothing better than someone talking about something he's both very enthusiastic and very knowlegeable about.

On the first point: according to the book (as understood from the flash), this sort of thing is best observed in the 5th dimension where you'll see the timelines bend and kink and branch off as they take on differing alternatives based on relationships between individuals.

On the second point: it depends on your perspective. Here, a box is a box because we understand things in 3-D space, but in 4-D space, that box is but an entity, a point that travels through time. It may not be a physical point in 3-D space, but from the perspective of 4-D space, the fact that it is a 3-D box is not important, it merely exists as an object in time.

Overall I enjoyed the interpretation, although the author seems to follow Ockham's Razor religiously trying to parse everything to the least components (as he should anyway) possible. Though this is an elegant and simple way of presenting how to encompass everything there is to consider in the universe and beyond, I'll admit. What I really like best is the way point of view is employed to simplify everything as either a point, a line, or a 2-D figure. It makes figuring out things in higher dimesions less taxing on the mind trying to compound other dimensions on the existing 3-D framework and simply work from a different perspective. I understand the idea from my experience reading diagrams that deal with more than 4 variables (like 10 chemical components in rocks) where certain aspects are assumed constant and the resulting chart is "projected" from that variable to create a more legible diagram.

Hmm... So would I be correct in saying that it is kind of like a subatomic particle that changes by mearly being observed: that mearly because we exist and that we move through time, that our future selves are always changing due to what we decide to do in the present?

Here's a bugger of a follow-up question: How would one go about seeing someone's 4D time-line?

Its about dammed time that someone followed that principle. There seems to be a great and very steep learning curve when it comes to these complex mathamtical theories, and having a simplified version explain the basics of something like Higher Dimensional Visualization, is a welcome one.

Err, what he said. Occam's razor should be used when introducing students & interested company to complex theories and overall information.

Yeah, seems we agree about having an easy way to look at these things. One thing I was a bit disapoinnted about was that there was no visualization of a higher set of physical properties.

Since
O = Point
1 = Line
2 = Length
3 = Width

and
4 = Time

I would have expected 5, 6, and 7 to be additional unseen physical parameters (Which, technically they ARE, but in a subdued and different form) instead of universes and possible outcomes, which is getting into the realm of probability and not physics.

The best thing about this flash is: while it is still a theory, it does give to light an explanation of so many sci-fi schema, such as Time Travel, Seeing into the Future, Parallel Dimensions, etc.,.

As such, I'd like to see a story/movie/tv show? that uses a (somewhat) realistic explanation as to why Johnny Lightspeed can warp to the gamma sector in under 12 parsecs, instead of just 'Warp Drive' or 'Tachyon Particles' as the given explanation. This flash has given a way for them to explain it somewhat (Although the actual methods for acheving warp drive, or time travel is still unexplanable at this point, so I'll allow for artisitic legroom :p ).

Well I was just using a well known example of technobabble to show my point. Yes I know that a parsec is a unit of distance and not time, but whatever! :p