paceetrate (July 25, 2008 at 2:11 pm)

There's actually evidence for x-rays and gamma rays. There's no evidence at all for a "spiritual realm.""Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." So where's yours?

stefanboro (July 24, 2008 at 10:51 pm)

His only conclusion can be that he's gone bonkers.Priceless!

insomniac21976 (July 24, 2008 at 9:09 am)

I disagree with his point when he described the square (flat creature)'s experience when fluttering in 3-space. He says that the square "sees inside closed houses and inside his fellow flat creatures." Well, the flat creature does not know up or down, and therefore cannot look up or down. So, all he sees is a plane which is changing very quickly very dramatically. It would be like an epileptic seizure.

mdma4life (July 24, 2008 at 12:15 am)

@ 0:58 he says:"Now these little cutouts have some little height, but lets ignore that, lets imagine that these are absolutely flat"He's not arguing that his cutouts have no height, he's telling you to disregard that, as the physical properties of the objects he's using to describe dimensionality have absolutely nothing to do with describing dimensionality. If you were engineering a ship out of paper cutouts .. then yes, height would matter, but this is a THOUGHT experiment

mdma4life (July 24, 2008 at 12:10 am)

He is describing a thought experiment. Its easier to start by trying to explain the third dimension from a 2D manifold then to try and explain the fourth dimension from a 3D manifold.His description has nothing to do with the actual physical properties of the 'house' his little 'square' is sitting in, he's asking you to assume the house is 2 dimensional, so that he can explain dimensionality

mdma4life (July 24, 2008 at 12:06 am)

The same principle is true for describing the manifold of spacetime in the context of dimensionality past 4 (eg. 11 dimensions of M-Theory)

mdma4life (July 24, 2008 at 12:06 am)

Its all based on the frame of reference. Imagine looking at an wire running from one telephone pole to the other (we know its 3d, but ..) from our frame of reference, we only see two dimensions. Put an ant on the wire, the ant can run around the wire (in circles), so to the ant, there is an additional dimension (the spiralling around the wire), whereas to us we can't see that, and only interpret two dimensions.

mdma4life (July 24, 2008 at 12:02 am)

Its probably because the 4th dimension of stable reality isnt spatial .. but time ...Thats about the time where linguistics fails to describe reality and math, a universal language, not based on observation is the only way to describe reality

Jeffieboi (July 23, 2008 at 8:44 pm)

I understand why a 2D being can't see a 3D being unless it's horzontally equal, but the 3D not seeing the 4D thing is a little more confusing.

foxygermangirl123 (July 23, 2008 at 3:57 am)

und im not little girl!! im 13, k. Bet du didn't understand it either.