|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 1:52 am
Technically, this would qualify as an "Extended Discussions" thing. However, given that there are only three of us, I think we can forgive me not wanting to make that extra click, hmm? This is how the universe is simultaneously "finite and unbounded." Whatcha think?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 5:04 am
I've heard that word, tesseract before. I think it was a Wrinkle in Time.
I am not familiar with this mathematical concept, but I have heard of the fourth dimension being referred to as spacetime.
What do you think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:31 am
For some reason my youtube sound is not working so I will comment on it later but it sounds interesting, oh well whatever it is I take comfort knowing the answer to everything will always be 42.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 12:39 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 9:36 pm
Personally, I've always known the fourth dimension to be that of time. However, notice that he said fourth physical dimension -- referring, then, to the physical form of the space concerned, whereas existence over time is another concept altogether.
And yeah, I think A Wrinkle in Time might've mentioned that. I haven't read it in a long time, though, so I'm not sure.
Personally, I just thought it was funny that the apple was so temperamental. And attracted to a square, it seems. Watching it, I really get caught up trying to visualize the tesseract, which is frustrating, given that it's impossible for a being such as I.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2010 12:01 pm
Hm. Can it be argued, then, that there are an infinite number of dimensions? We just don't live in a universe that has them.
It was either the tesseract or the klinneract. No, wait, the klinneract was a different book, nevermind. It was Wrinkle in Time, but I forget the context.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
