On Mar 30, 3:57 pm, "wugi" <b...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> <good...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> > It's geometry. You find the point in the center of the lower
> > dimension, and extend outward in a new direction.
> > There is more space in the 4th dimension. This is geometry. 0, 1, 2,
> > and 3 dimensions are geometry, so I do not see why the 4th dimension
> > should not be geometry as well. I see no reason to say the fourth
> > dimension is time. There should be an infinite number of geometric
>
> There are many ways to conceive 4D: with a 4th space axis, with a time
axis,
> with 2 complex variables...
>
> > dimensions. I learned this in part by reading the book Flatland by
> > Edwin A. Abbott. There is also a book called Spaceland by Rudy
> > Rucker. But I myself found the points to figure out exactly where the
>
> See his pagehttp://www.cs.sjsu.edu/faculty/rucker/
>
> > 4th dimension is and should be.
>
> You found a principle, amongst many, not the actual points themselves
:-o)
> It's more fun to think of ways to represent them anyhow graphically, in
2D
> or 3D.
No, I want to see you represent it
in 4D.
Oh, you can't?
That's because there only *are*
3 flipping dimensions, you complete twits.
Flatland is when the Physics community's
brain flatlined.
John
|
