Skip to comments.
Scientists Predict How To Detect A Fourth Dimension Of Space
Science Daily ^
| May 25, 2006
| Unattributed (Duke University)
Posted on 05/25/2006 1:35:30 PM PDT by Ben Mugged
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160, 161-164 next last
To: taxed2death
"
If a being existed in the 4th dimension and were able to come back into our dimension it would appear as if this being had supernatural powers....walking through walls, fire, rock...etc...."
Sorry for the double post - I boo boo'ed.
EXACTLY.
121
posted on
05/26/2006 5:13:48 AM PDT
by
azhenfud
(He who always is looking up seldom finds others' lost change.)
To: RightWhale
Its predictions are wildly implausible, except where they have tuned the thing to agree with some already known. I don't expect it to pan out.
But there is something wrong with our present theory of gravity on large spatial scales. Too many epicycle corrections are piling up, when any lesser theory would just have been rejected by now as falsified by observation. (DM, DE, galactic rotation curves, etc).
122
posted on
05/26/2006 5:22:50 AM PDT
by
JasonC
To: Huck
"
For as the pomegranate, with the rind containing it, has within it many cells and compartments which are separated by tissues, and has also many seeds dwelling in it, so the whole creation is contained by the spirit of God, and the containing spirit is along with the creation contained by the hand of God. As, therefore, the seed of the pomegranate, dwelling inside, cannot see what is outside the rind, itself being within; so neither can man, who along with the whole creation is enclosed by the hand of God, behold God."
From Book 1, Theophilous of Antioch
Infinity is holding a mirror in front of a mirror and seeing the reflection of a reflection of a reflection of a reflection of a reflection of a reflection of a reflection of a reflection......
123
posted on
05/26/2006 5:56:42 AM PDT
by
azhenfud
(He who always is looking up seldom finds others' lost change.)
To: muir_redwoods
Where'd you get that explanation? I really like that one because it allows me to'see' the idea.
124
posted on
05/26/2006 5:59:03 AM PDT
by
MHGinTN
(If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
To: Ben Mugged
There are only three physical dimensions; God does not **** with our heads. The only place you will ever see more than three dimensions is in linear programming applications and the like.
125
posted on
05/26/2006 5:59:17 AM PDT
by
tomzz
To: avacado
I intended this -in our existence/in reality- to limit the realm of my expression. Math is not reality but it 'speaks' of reality.
126
posted on
05/26/2006 6:03:16 AM PDT
by
MHGinTN
(If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
To: Doctor Stochastic
According to physics (I think), there should be measurable differences between the two models. (I don't know what these would be.) Most everything you said looked right to me, except you used z in place of t in the c2 term (I assume that's a typo) - and the metrics you use all describe flat spacial geometries. Different geometries emerge when non-diagonal components appear in the metric tensor/matrix in the presence of a gravitational field (things start getting complicated then) - Einstein's gravitational equation dictates how this occurs. Assuming that this 4th spacial dimension has a localized geometry, I'm making an educated guess that the measurable effects would be that gravity becomes much stronger at super-short distances. (What distance, I don't know - experiment rules out anything greater than a cm or so, I think.)
For those interested, see things like quadratic forms or metric spaces, etc.
Most people will be deterred once they actually find out what goes into basic general relativity physics - not because it's too difficult in principle, but because it's, well, boring. Riemannian geometry is what it's all about, and unless you have a vested interest in learning it, it's all a lot of tedious algebra.
WALOGIMBAT
Now this has me confused!
127
posted on
05/26/2006 7:01:02 AM PDT
by
Quark2005
(Confidence follows from consilience.)
To: azhenfud
128
posted on
05/26/2006 7:20:18 AM PDT
by
Huck
(Hey look, I'm still here.)
To: Quark2005
THere is a difference in gravity with
other dimensions. I also think that inverse square laws do not lead to stable orbits in other than three spatial dimensions. (I'm not sure if compactification matters here.)
129
posted on
05/26/2006 7:37:37 AM PDT
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: Quark2005
Without
Any
Loss
Of
Generality
It
May
Be
Assumed
That
130
posted on
05/26/2006 7:38:33 AM PDT
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: tomzz
There are four according to the text: length, width, depth, and height.
131
posted on
05/26/2006 7:41:17 AM PDT
by
RightWhale
(Off touch and out of base)
To: Paradox
See! I told you... us scientists are sexy!
Er, most of us... okay some of us... a few of us...
Okay... Just Lisa Randall is sexy.
132
posted on
05/26/2006 7:42:43 AM PDT
by
AmericanRepublican
(There are fools on both sides. Only the true Americans will prevail.)
To: Ben Mugged
Interesting but Michael McCollum predicted this in one of his first books Antares Dawn
133
posted on
05/26/2006 7:44:50 AM PDT
by
Centurion2000
(The social contract is breaking down.)
To: Centurion2000
Its not like the idea is brand new, and Antares Dawn was written only 10 years ago or so.
134
posted on
05/26/2006 7:54:22 AM PDT
by
Paradox
(Removing all Doubt since 1998!)
To: Paradox
Actually I read Antares Dawn in high school and graduated in 89.
135
posted on
05/26/2006 8:03:46 AM PDT
by
Centurion2000
(The social contract is breaking down.)
To: AmericanRepublican; RadioAstronomer
There are some FR folks who think Radio Astronomer is sexy ... I cannot say, personally, since I've never met him. But such notions are logical since Astronomy deals with the big and that leaves lots of room for imagination.
136
posted on
05/26/2006 8:05:28 AM PDT
by
MHGinTN
(If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
To: Centurion2000
I had seen the second copyright date. It was copywritten originally in 1986. 20 years ago, this guy must have some physicist friends. Wait, just looked him up, the guy is a real Rocket Scientist!
137
posted on
05/26/2006 8:12:18 AM PDT
by
Paradox
(Removing all Doubt since 1998!)
To: Centurion2000; Physicist; RadioAstronomer
Did you ever read James Hogan's The Genesis Machine? (sorry Phyzz and Rades, for asking about your reading habits so much this morning!)
138
posted on
05/26/2006 8:16:21 AM PDT
by
RightWingAtheist
(Creationism is to conservatism what Howard Dean is to liberalism)
To: OB1kNOb
Man, that Marilyn McCoo was (and is) one foxy lady.
139
posted on
05/26/2006 8:18:27 AM PDT
by
B-Chan
(Catholic. Monarchist. Texan Any questions?)
To: Paradox
It turns the ladies have a brane theorist of their own to drool over. Here's Arlie Petters:
140
posted on
05/26/2006 8:20:48 AM PDT
by
RightWingAtheist
(Creationism is to conservatism what Howard Dean is to liberalism)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160, 161-164 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson