vincent Posted December 11, 2005 Share Posted December 11, 2005 What is it? :huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Allen Veteran Posted December 11, 2005 Veteran Share Posted December 11, 2005 Not a freaking clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raid517 Posted December 11, 2005 Share Posted December 11, 2005 How about you give us some pointers rigput - some articles and some sources? There are several areas of physics I am aware of that you might be referring to - but then phrases like this are often used by crackpots too, who tend to just pluck neat sounding words out of the air without having any clue at all what they mean. GJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daem0hn Posted December 11, 2005 Share Posted December 11, 2005 could be relating to string theory? the 'theory of everything' strings theory requires close to 20 dimensions to be feasible - i think! define:string theory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buttus Posted December 11, 2005 Share Posted December 11, 2005 sounds pretty complicated... http://www.enterprisemission.com/hyper1.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raid517 Posted December 11, 2005 Share Posted December 11, 2005 (edited) The first one is interesting - although to be clear it refers specifically to a 26 dimentional 'bosonic' version of string theory. There is another version known as 10-dimensional superstring theory discovered by adding 'supersymmetry'. Nowadays, 'string theory' usually refers to the supersymmetric variant - while the earlier version is given its full name of, 'bosonic string theory'. It is useful to make this distinction when talking about string theory at large, as often different people will subscribe to different versions of the theory. (Although superstring theory is the current favorite version among most researchers). The second one is nothing more than utter crank nonsense and should very probably be moved to Area 51. Which were you referring to rigput? GJ Edited December 11, 2005 by raid517 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincent Posted December 11, 2005 Author Share Posted December 11, 2005 I was reffering to the second one, and i seen some sites bringing up a Dr. Hoagland. Also a theory of a 10th planet that once had Mars as it's sattelite but exploded.... :rolleyes: Yea it looks like garbage to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megamanXplosion Posted December 23, 2005 Share Posted December 23, 2005 Any reason why hyperdimensional physics looks like garbage? Or are you simply tossing it to the side without consideration? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raid517 Posted December 23, 2005 Share Posted December 23, 2005 Considered and then tossed. GJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_sphinx_ Posted December 23, 2005 Share Posted December 23, 2005 Einstein's flexible time is a very intresting perception of time as a fourth dimension. Time was suggested to be Riemann?s non-Euclidean ?metric? space or at least an inseparable part of it. Euclidean and phenomenalistic SR needs observers and their time depending on how they are moving, whereas non-Euclidean and realistic GR does not need any observers. Strictly speaking, Einstein?s GR does not describe time but gravity, which has some important implications concerning time. On the one hand, gravity is not a mysterious mechanical force operating at a distance but a warping of space-time by the mass and energy on it. On the other hand, it is an acceleration that depends on the curvature of space-time. So to say, mass tells space-time how to curve, and space-time tells mass how to move. By this standard, we know that if we can somehow step into the time warp we're living in, we can witness a whole new experience that cannot be explained (i.e: Something "Hyper") and therefore, the term "Hyperdimesional"....Some people actually suggest that there are upto 11 dimesions on Earth which may explain many of Nature's unexplainable mysteries...However, HD physics don't really exist. They're just philosophical assumptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raid517 Posted December 23, 2005 Share Posted December 23, 2005 Yes well done sphinx, but this is not quite what this story is about. This is a story is about yet another lone crank no hoper who claims he has uncovered a universal theory to everything, by essentially working from his garage. I know you are a good chap - and I am not certain that you would wish to associate yourself with a story such as this. But of course I could be wrong. GJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_sphinx_ Posted December 24, 2005 Share Posted December 24, 2005 Yes well done sphinx, but this is not quite what this story is about. This is a story is about yet another lone crank no hoper who claims he has uncovered a universal theory to everything, by essentially working from his garage. I know you are a good chap - and I am not certain that you would wish to associate yourself with a story such as this. But of course I could be wrong. GJ well, see I was really intruiged by Einstein's question "What is now?". And the relation of this question to The statement "Space and time are relative". There is no correct definition of time, and therefor no correct definition for the universe since Einstein belived that there's a forth dimension which is time. If we can't define either, then there could be upto 1000 dimensions for all we know. "Metaphysics" is the basis of these questions and since metaphysics are philosophies and there's no "right" philosophy and "wrong" philosophy, then the subject of hyperdimensions is completely debatable. However, I'm only concerned with time being the only Hyperdimension worth talking about. That's why I focused on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts