How would a 4 dimensional object look in our world. Would we only see a weird cross section or something else?
>>8140638
>>>/x/
>>8140638
Do you understand what dimensions are?
We can't actually visualise a fourth dimensional object.
>>8140649
I never realized it could all hold on such a small square.
>>8140649
Nice spelling of dilation you illiterate dummy
>>8140638
4 dimensional object can't exist in our world, but if it did, we would see a cross section. Any rotation of the object would make it seem like it instantly changes form.
A human is something separate from another human only from the 3d point of of view, because they can be seen only at one time instance.
All humans are part of the same 4d object, a literal family tree.
You can't see a third dimensional shapes. You can only see a flat projection. You need to use your imagination. This is what tesseract should look like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-WyreE9ZkI
>>8140638
Am I the only one that loses my shit at Spurdo?
>>8140638
we live in a 4 dimensional world
>>8140720
I don't think it is true. Originally "dimensio" means "measuring". So we just measure in dimensions, but not live in them.
>>8140638
Try to guess with a 3D-2D analogy.
>>8140718
that's not spurdo fag
>>8140638
Every object is 4 dimensional. You see everything within the frames of 3 spatial and 1 temporal dimension.
It would appear invisible and would be intangible, wouldn't it?
To visualize a 4D being, you'd have to observe its shadow through a mirror.
>>8140729
where do you think we get the ability to measure from?
>>8140849
People always measure things. I didn't bother to question why.
None of this itt is so far correct. We "see" euclidean space because of the way particles interact, refract, reflect. The question first posits a 4th dimension, and if we presume it to exist, it exists just as every other object, and we would see which planes similarly reflect/refract light as every other object. Seeing "into" this "4th dimension", we would see through objects which normally reflect light, but do not reflect whatever particle it is which interacts on that plane.
e live in 3-dimensional space, and you can't put a 4-dimensional object in 3-dimensional space. It's no more possible than putting a cone in a plane, or a rectangle in a line. The space that you're putting something in has to have at least the dimension that you're putting in it.
>>8140677
>>8140638
This^^.
2 dimensional objects would cast a 1 dimensional shadow, when forced onto a 1d plane.
3d objects cast a 2d shadow when forced onto a plane (such as a wall)..
It only makes sense that 4d objects cast 3d shadows when projected into 3d space.
The hypercube is what the shadow would look like of a 4d cube.
Furtermore, if we take a lesson from computer rendering we can say that 3d objects are really just 2d shapes that are being distorted as the 3d object is being rotated.
As such a 4d cube rotating in 4d space would look like a hypercube, which has it's 'faces' distorted. (Stretching and elongating).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5Qh2XpoCsY
Isn't everything in the universe 4-dimensional? The point of the 4th dimension is it's the next plane on which change takes place. The only way I could fathom imagining a 4d object in a 3d image is if you could somehow perceive its position and attributes over the course of 10 seconds ago to 10 seconds in the future all at the same time.
>>8140967
theres a really spooky movie called cube where people are traped in it have u seen it
>>8140948
dimension is only a way of describing reality, we aren't really in 3 dimensions, but it's useful to describe the world like that
Like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8e3Rf9whVY
>>8140967
damn, that's retarded.....
>>8142221
Here's more:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaEuQ4aiaoc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTwJWU3zgro
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaTnPv_UCcA
https://youtu.be/kM_I9g-i9cE?t=10m43s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChN2lSyPrXA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKTdP3ACnPM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-XX0u4mnUg
https://youtu.be/p2E2ifeWWIc?t=1m2s
These are not balloons, if you analyze the videos at all you can clearly see balloons can't do what most of these entities/ufos (read as : unidentified flying object) are doing.
>>8142382
>abstract science is paranormal for some reason
>>8140967
>2 dimensional objects would cast a 1 dimensional shadow, when forced onto a 1d plane.
okay, sure
>3d objects cast a 2d shadow when forced onto a plane (such as a wall)..
alright, sure
>It only makes sense that 4d objects cast 3d shadows when projected into 3d space.
[citation needed]
I'm not sure how you can claim you can logically deduce that 4-d objects make 3-D shadows based on the first two terms in your series.
You're basically saying 1,2,3... = 1,2,3,4,5,6,7... when it could just as easily be 1,2,3,5,7,11,13...
And that's basically why I think the modern interpretation of 4-D is some wacky horseshit.
this game is one kind of visualisation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yW--eQaA2I
>>8140887
I've spent some time thinking about this. We now, arguably, understand that certain particles are given what "we" consider substance, or mass, by the Higgs field?
So if there's a similar field, on a different frequency, does this mean there is a zoo of particles which are given substance, but to us have no substance or mass? Does this mean there can be a complete existence, "right on top of us" with which we never interact, because that particle zoo does not interact with the Higgs field?
Are seemingly 0mass particles evidence of this? Could there be entire stars, planets, galaxies which overlap us but the two will never meet because they're simply on a different frequency? Is this what "string theory" is?
It's an honest question. Don't beat me up too much.
>>8140649
>Antimater
>>>>x
Nigga, there is even positron emission tomography in my shitty Mexican city
>>8142575
Why doesn't anyone want to take a shot at this and tell me I'm some kind of completely wrong? Is this something that comes up often?
>>8142563
I don't think you have any idea how hard it is to fake realistic lighting, nonetheless shitty camera resolution on CGI.
>>8140833
Noice
