Can YOU imagine the Tenth Dimension? Stupid people need not click here

Originally Posted by Dark Nation

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.

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by FallDragon

I have a question about this. The one visual it uses during the description of a 2d man shows the cross-section of a human going by, as if a 2d man will see each layer of a person as if that person is cut in half from head to toe an infinite number of times. My question is why wouldn't the 2d man simply see a human as if I would close one of my eyes to look at it? If you're looking at at a human in 2d, wouldn't the skin still be what is being observed? What causes the 2d eye to look past the outside surface of the object and see it in cross sections?

Closing one eye would not render everything in 2D, rather it takes 3D objects and put them into a plane of projection, thus giving it the "flat" appearance.

"Flatlanders" can see projections, but, in the case of 3D objects as they cross through the 2D world, only a slice is visible. However if the 3D object were to stand outside of the 2D world and have a light shine through it, then we have a projection and an effect of 2D on 3D objects, much like how movies appear on screen.

There's nowhere I can't reach.