Proof there is a God.

[EDmanwalking]

Wow, I just had this deep philosophical question with some friends over MSN about the different dimensions.

The four dimensions are up and down-left and right-forward and back-and time.

Think about it, we can't measure anything but these dimesions. You gain weight, your body has increased in measurement over time.

Hear me out here, this may be long.

First I'll explain 2D. Imagine a piece of paper with a square and a circle on it. Mr. Square and can't see around Mrs. Circle, because the 2 dimension restricts his movement. If we look at the paper we can see around both the square and the circle with 3D vision. Therefore if we belong to a higher dimension, we can oversee and manipulate the dimensions below us.

Now it would seem that we are in the 3rd dimension, in that there is left, right, up, down, forward, back. But also you must consider time. Time is the fourth dimension, measured just like everything else. We don't live on a 3d world, nor are we 3D beings. Everything is affected by time, everything on this planet grows. Metal rusts, paper goes brown.

Therfore we are 4Dimensional, affected by time. We can see the dimensions below as and affect them ourselves. For example artists draw 2D comics.

Now because 2Dimensional beings like Mr. Square couldn't comprehend another dimension higher than their own, in the same way we reject the idea of God, as something infinitely impossible. But if you think about it, if we are affected by the fourth dimension of time, then the being in the fifth dimension must be a being that can manipulate time.

The fifth dimension is beyond our comprehension just as the 4th dimension is beyond Mr. Square's comprehension. My friend made the suggestion that there could be a 5d dog that could touch time. And that's where I thought that maybe it's God that's above our dimension, that can manipulate time and the other dimensions. God is the 5D being.

Sorry if I went on a bit, or if it's been brought up before, but that really made me think. I'll try to answer any queries you guys have with this theory.

[Michael P]

That's not really a proof, since a dimension can exist without sentient life occupying it.

In any case, there's no proof outside of old Superman comics that there even is a 5th dimension of any substance; string theory surmises that all the dimensions beyond the 4th don't follow the pattern.

[EDmanwalking]

Lol, maybe I shouldn't have put "proof". Theory would have done it..

[Shellhead]

It's arbitrary to declare that time is the fourth dimension, or any dimension at all. Why not say that the fourth dimension is color? If something is forest green, that is it's fourth dimensional "location", which would be near kelly green but distant from brick red.

[EDmanwalking]

That's not really a proof, since a dimension can exist without sentient life occupying it.

I didn't say that the 2d dimension had sentient life, just used Mr. Square and Mrs. Circle as an example.

In any case, there's no proof outside of old Superman comics that there even is a 5th dimension of any substance; string theory surmises that all the dimensions beyond the 4th don't follow the pattern.

Well that's it, it's the unknown. We question the idea of a 5th dimension, although I though this theory made some sort of logical sense if it followed the pattern, it would explain there is a God. That's if there is, as you say, a pattern. If there is, then this is the most obvious one.

[Dreadstar]

One of the fun things that was always pointed out with that 2D to 3D to 4D = god model was the fact that if all that's required of our uber-being is the ability to both see and manipulate the 4th dimension ( the 5D being in EDman's nomenclature) then god might be a dog in 5D standards.

After all, can my Border Collie not eat Mr. Square and Mrs. Circle?

[EDmanwalking]

It's arbitrary to declare that time is the fourth dimension, or any dimension at all. Why not say that the fourth dimension is color? If something is forest green, that is it's fourth dimensional "location", which would be near kelly green but distant from brick red.

Can you measure colour?

[Dreadstar]

It's arbitrary to declare that time is the fourth dimension, or any dimension at all. Why not say that the fourth dimension is color? If something is forest green, that is it's fourth dimensional "location", which would be near kelly green but distant from brick red.

I'm pretty sure that physics-wise, color is considered part of our three dimensional state of existence.

[Ed Cunard]

Can you measure colour?

Ask a super-intelligent hue of the color blue.

[Shellhead]

Can you measure colour?

Me, personally, no. Scientists can measure color, I believe, by measuring the wavelength of light reflected from an object.

[Shellhead]

I'm pretty sure that physics-wise, color is considered part of our three dimensional state of existence.

Would that be length, width, or height?

[Nate C.]

Ask a super-intelligent hue of the color blue.

He'll just tell you 42. (ryhmed for free)

[EDmanwalking]

Me, personally, no. Scientists can measure color, I believe, by measuring the wavelength of light reflected from an object.

But then I guess that would involve the speed of light, which is a measurement of time.

[Trulyures]

Wow, I just had this deep philosophical question with some friends over MSN about the different dimensions.

The four dimensions are up and down-left and right-forward and back-and time.

Think about it, we can't measure anything but these dimesions. You gain weight, your body has increased in measurement over time.

Hear me out here, this may be long.

First I'll explain 2D. Imagine a piece of paper with a square and a circle on it. Mr. Square and can't see around Mrs. Circle, because the 2 dimension restricts his movement. If we look at the paper we can see around both the square and the circle with 3D vision. Therefore if we belong to a higher dimension, we can oversee and manipulate the dimensions below us.

Now it would seem that we are in the 3rd dimension, in that there is left, right, up, down, forward, back. But also you must consider time. Time is the fourth dimension, measured just like everything else. We don't live on a 3d world, nor are we 3D beings. Everything is affected by time, everything on this planet grows. Metal rusts, paper goes brown.

Therfore we are 4Dimensional, affected by time. We can see the dimensions below as and affect them ourselves. For example artists draw 2D comics.

Now because 2Dimensional beings like Mr. Square couldn't comprehend another dimension higher than their own, in the same way we reject the idea of God, as something infinitely impossible. But if you think about it, if we are affected by the fourth dimension of time, then the being in the fifth dimension must be a being that can manipulate time.

The fifth dimension is beyond our comprehension just as the 4th dimension is beyond Mr. Square's comprehension. My friend made the suggestion that there could be a 5d dog that could touch time. And that's where I thought that maybe it's God that's above our dimension, that can manipulate time and the other dimensions. God is the 5D being.

Sorry if I went on a bit, or if it's been brought up before, but that really made me think. I'll try to answer any queries you guys have with this theory.
have you discovered this now or have you always known this, but now you want to be more specific that there is a God?

[EDmanwalking]

have you discovered this now or have you always known this, but now you want to be more specific that there is a God?

I've sorta always thought there must be a higher being, but this does kinda help make it clearer I guess.

[Shellhead]

But then I guess that would involve the speed of light, which is a measurement of time.

I don't think so. The speed of light is a constant, right? So the color of an object is not determined by the speed of light.

[Dreadstar]

Would that be length, width, or height?


All three.

The particle is three dimensional, even though it's width is dwarfed by the length and height of the waveform.

[EDmanwalking]

I don't think so. The speed of light is a constant, right? So the color of an object is not determined by the speed of light.

The colour of an object is the property of that object, you're right. It is it's own object. But we as "objects", if I may, have our separate and unique properties that just move in the 3 dimensions and time.

Another example of a 5th Dimension is when there is prayer for a broken bone and that bone heals. Time has been manipulated, the time taken for a bone to heal has gone by. A 5D being has played with time.

[Dreadstar]

I'm tellin' ya. That omnipotent 5D being is a dog.

Don't believe me? Spell dog backward.

See?

[EDmanwalking]

I'm tellin' ya. That omnipotent 5D being is a dog.

Don't believe me? Spell dog backward.

See?

I think you're onto something...

But if you want the serious answer, our world would have been one squishy chew toy by now. A dog in command of us all? How humiliating would that be to find out when we die.

[StoneGold]

Besides, everyone knows that Spitty Slurpy is the proof that there's a god.

[Dreadstar]

I think you're onto something...

But if you want the serious answer, our world would have been one squishy chew toy by now. A dog in command of us all? How humiliating would that be to find out when we die.

Well there's the thing.

Who said you'd ever find out?

[EDmanwalking]

I'm sorry StoneGold, God theories must be at least four paragraphs long. One sentence void of evidence ain't gonna back up nothing. I want an insightful essay on my desk by Monday.

[Slam_Bradley]

I'm tellin' ya. That omnipotent 5D being is a dog.

Don't believe me? Spell dog backward.

See?



I have found the dyslexic philosopher.

[EDmanwalking]

Well there's the thing.

Who said you'd ever find out?

Remember that Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episode where Homer enters another dimension round the back of the closet? Right there.

Try running into a wall of couple times and you'll get it.

Try running even harder and there's a concussion on it's way. You may visit another dimension during your unconsciousness.

If by some feat you manage to kill yourself with that amount of blow to the head (no immature jokes, please), then you're in the fifth dimension for sure.

If you believe in the fifth dimension, maybe you go there..who knows? We don't understand it, just like if we were in the second dimension we couldn't begin to think about a 3rd or 4th dimension. Which is why we're having such a difficult time figuring out what the 5th dimension is all about. C'mon look how much progress we've made, we currently think our saviour is a dog.

[Dreadstar]

C'mon look how much progress we've made, we currently think our saviour is a dog.
No, we have a theory that we may be a dog's chewtoy.

And that Matt Groenig is the prophet.

We can go from there.

[EDmanwalking]

This dog must be huge, all the different levels on the earth, the mountains and such, are his teeth dent marks. The sea and rivers are his saliva covering certain areas. Ah, and gravity, that be his stinky dog breath keeping eveerything right where it is. And of course the dog's only been chewing so it can get through to the warm, chewy centre.

[Nitmo]

maybe when we die, we lose the time dimension. Ever had a ghost experience?

[cosmoboy]

First I have to nitpick. If an artist draws a picture and we are in a 4d world, wouldn't that make the picture 3d because it must exist in time also. right? I wish I could remember the authors name but there is a book called Hyperspace and the author talks about the 10 dimension theory. It seems that mathematically 10 dimensions are the simplest most elegant way to unite alll the forces. anyway at some point he says that at 10 dimensions the likelyhood of superior beings (not necessarily God.) becomes probable. Read the book posters it's great!

[Pól Rua]

If by some feat you manage to kill yourself with that amount of blow to the head ... then you're in the fifth dimension for sure.

"klytpzyxm"

[Roquefort Raider]

Here's the proof that there IS a 5th dimension!

Plus, God is indeed blue, as demonstrated in the picture.

And to make even the Scientologists happy, his name is Xemu!!!
(or should that be Xenu?)

Just to show that comics are the answer to everything.

http://www.comics.org/graphics/covers/1482/400/1482_4_0158.jpg

[Night]

Ok, the change of a dimension is not another dimension. Not something may leave a position in our space-time “plane” go to another space-time travel backwards in time reappear in our plane and leave a prophesy. Just as I running a simulated world on my computer roll back time (assuming I can do this) and see moves I did back then. However, then you get into the telling the simulated world about the future changing the future of the sim-world.

Oh, color is not a dimension either, it is a single value at a point in space-time and not a infinite set of values. Now color has been used to measure topography of something to tell how high say a mountain is… but that’s a single value… i.e. you can’t tell about caves on a topographical map, because that would require more than one value. Temperature is like color that it’s a single value.

[SteelTownr]

Super Bowl XXX proves that there is no God.

Mark B.

[KameTen]

The only God we must worship is the God of Porn. For only porn and porn related accessories will guide us to paradise :D

[howyadoin]

Can you measure colour?Anybody involved in graphic design or the print indutry will say yes to that.

[tricksterpup]

Gosh, I think there is a God, every time i look at my kids.
http://rosswarner.com/4479b.jpg

[Mike Smash!]

Gosh, I think there is a God, every time i look at my kids.
http://rosswarner.com/4479b.jpgSome dad.

Your kids living in a hole in the ground...

[Mike Smash!]

So if "God" is from the 5th Dimension, can I make him go away if I trick him into saying "Dog"?

[Sanagi]

It's arbitrary to declare that time is the fourth dimension, or any dimension at all. Why not say that the fourth dimension is color? If something is forest green, that is it's fourth dimensional "location", which would be near kelly green but distant from brick red.
Color exists within the three spatial dimensions that we're familiar with. I suppose it might exist in other dimensions, too.

Time, on the other hand, can be thought of as a direction. Just as you can move forwards/backwards, left/right, and up/down, time moves forward. For any more specific info on this you'd need a physicist... I understand the idea but I don't know what proof there is that it really works that way, or why we only go forward in time. Maybe we're falling in that dimension. Skydiving in time. Hmm. *adds that to list of song titles*

"klytpzyxm"
That's "kltpzyxm." Only one Y.

.... Damn!

You devious son of a-

*disappears*

[JadeDragon]

Wow, I just had this deep philosophical question with some friends over MSN about the different dimensions.

The fifth dimension is beyond our comprehension just as the 4th dimension is beyond Mr. Square's comprehension. My friend made the suggestion that there could be a 5d dog that could touch time. And that's where I thought that maybe it's God that's above our dimension, that can manipulate time and the other dimensions. God is the 5D being.


Good conversation, Edman. I agree with a lot of what you are saying. In fact I talked a little more in depth about it fairly recently
HERE (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=66831&page=1&pp=15).

Been meaning to add more recently, but have had quite an amazing last week or so...been pretty sidetracked.

Cheers!~~~JadeDragon

[Tom]

I'm tellin' ya. That omnipotent 5D being is a dog.

Don't believe me? Spell dog backward.

See?
I always wanted to get a dog and name it "Hewhay."

[PatrickG]

There are mathematically more than 5 verifiable dimensions.

But, heh, if God was 5th dimensional...

Would that make Mxyzptlk the new testament incarnation and Mxyztplk the old testament version?

(Obscure pre-Crisis gag. Hopefully Mark Waid's off somewhere chuckling.)

[Rabid Trekkie]

It's arbitrary to declare that time is the fourth dimension, or any dimension at all. Why not say that the fourth dimension is color? If something is forest green, that is it's fourth dimensional "location", which would be near kelly green but distant from brick red.

I remember when I was reading the childrens version of The Time Machine oh so many years ago that it said that time was the fourth dimension. That might be where he gets it from. As for his 2d example, it reminds me of a book I've heard about that had sentient 2d shapes. It was called Flat something or other.

[PatrickG]

First I have to nitpick. If an artist draws a picture and we are in a 4d world, wouldn't that make the picture 3d because it must exist in time also. right? I wish I could remember the authors name but there is a book called Hyperspace and the author talks about the 10 dimension theory. It seems that mathematically 10 dimensions are the simplest most elegant way to unite alll the forces. anyway at some point he says that at 10 dimensions the likelyhood of superior beings (not necessarily God.) becomes probable. Read the book posters it's great!

The drawing would be 4D. As is eveything.

Pictures that we typically call 2D are 3D in that paper and ink and paint all exist in three dimensions. The idea is 2D but the representation is 3D and because it ages it is 4D.

However, because the drawing does not move (and change) like the 4D thing it represents and it lacks the depth of the thing it depicts, we CALL it 2D.

Even though nothing we have ever observed is anything BUT 4D.

The existance of anything that is not 4D relies on theoretical math and implications made from observation.

[Shellhead]

Ok, the change of a dimension is not another dimension. Not something may leave a position in our space-time “plane” go to another space-time travel backwards in time reappear in our plane and leave a prophesy. Just as I running a simulated world on my computer roll back time (assuming I can do this) and see moves I did back then. However, then you get into the telling the simulated world about the future changing the future of the sim-world.

Oh, color is not a dimension either, it is a single value at a point in space-time and not a infinite set of values. Now color has been used to measure topography of something to tell how high say a mountain is… but that’s a single value… i.e. you can’t tell about caves on a topographical map, because that would require more than one value. Temperature is like color that it’s a single value.

I'm not seriously advocating that color be declared the fourth dimension, just trying to point out the absurdity of calling time the fourth dimension. Since there is absolutely no proof at all that anybody can go back in time, that cripples the dimension concept right from the start. Sure, there's theoretical tricks that could be done involving travelling faster than the speed of light, but we haven't proven that's possible either.

[Dreadstar]

I'm not seriously advocating that color be declared the fourth dimension, just trying to point out the absurdity of calling time the fourth dimension. Since there is absolutely no proof at all that anybody can go back in time, that cripples the dimension concept right from the start. Sure, there's theoretical tricks that could be done involving travelling faster than the speed of light, but we haven't proven that's possible either.


Er, you miss the point. If we take the hypothetical 2D being and rewrite your paragraph from his standpoint, we get:

"... just trying to point out the absurdity of calling width the fourth dimension. Since there is absolutely no proof at all that anybody can go left or right, that cripples the dimension concept right from the start. Sure, there's theoretical tricks that could be done involving bending the plane of existence, but we haven't proven that's possible either."

The whole point is that if there is someone or something living at a dimensional step above us, hypothetically they might be able to manipulate the 4th dimension.

As to the true nature of the 4th dimension being time?

I'll let Sridhar Narayanan author of Geometry in Space speak to that one (a good book for laymen, actually).

CurvedSpace.
Einstein's General Theory of Relativity can be understood as saying that:

1. Matter and energy distort space, and
2. The distortions of space affect the motions of matter and energy.

Many present-day cosmologists feel that, we live in a three dimensional universe that is curved into the 4th dimension. No one can point to the 4th dimension, yet it is all around us. The 4th dimension is a direction different from all the normal directions. It is neither up nor down, left nor right, in nor out.

Some people say that Time is the 4th dimension. This is, in a sense, true. However, time is not the "different direction" of which I was speaking. If we want to count time as a dimension, then we should say that we live in a four dimensional space-time that is curved into the 5th dimension! So where is this "different direction"?

The answer is of course that we don't really know. There are a lot of people that point to the eveidence of alternate dimensions via the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle as the true "different direction."

Basically, it's merely conceptual. And of course being a concept, "curved space," there's plenty of room for theorizing. Sol why not theorize that time is the 4th dimension? It fits the model so well in many ways, and in many ways it doesn't.

I mean, at least it's a direction of a sort.

[Corsair]

I remember when I was reading the childrens version of The Time Machine oh so many years ago that it said that time was the fourth dimension. That might be where he gets it from. As for his 2d example, it reminds me of a book I've heard about that had sentient 2d shapes. It was called Flat something or other.
Flatland, by Edwin A. Abbot. I wondered how long it'd be before someone mentioned that. First thing I thought of when I saw this thread. Google pulls up a stack of websites that have the text online (published in 1880, so I assume the copyright is long expired). Interesting reading.

[TinMan]

Cool topic. But first and foremost I would like to point out that there are about 27 dimensions technically. They have been identified through physics and other sciences though only 1 thru 4 are absolutely 100% existant. The other 23 are based upon observation, mathematics and physical properties.

Now this fact itself to me really denotes that there is a higher being. Take it this way, our reality is so utterly complex that there is no way it could come by chance. We've all heard the theory of the big bang or whatever, but take that a step back further in time and literally look at the physics of it all. There have to be physical laws that would not only bind, but create atoms that would later form larger objects that would be capable of causing a "big bang". So without some kind of high intelligence, where did all of the laws of physics come from? Protons, neutrons, and electrons make up atoms, but where did those building blocks come from? Even if a single electron existed it would not create any form of matter without protons or neutrons. You can't honestly tell me that in the literal void of nothing all of a sudden the very first electron appeared and later the first proton and neutron. Its a technical impossibility, how can something form out of pure nothingness? Simple, it can't. There has to be something established to have something else come into existance, but if there was nothing at all some kind of sentient being would have to literally create it.

Now this is my theory on what God truly is. God is reality itself, everything thing that exists as well as the laws and energy that ties it together. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it only takes different forms, which means that any given object is truly related to every other object existing in this universe at any given point in time. So consider this: what if that energy was conscious? In the vast void of nothingness all it would take would be an infinite amount of energy and intelligence, and anything could be created or destroyed. But also consider that without an intelligence from the beginning, that energy would never change form at all, because there would be no catalyst to cause it. Why? Because all there would be is pure energy, and without sentience to focus it, it would be impossible to cause a spontaneous reaction that would ultimately create everything we see today.

I'll go even further with this for you now, consider that every major religion in the world tells that "God is within us all, but also without". Considering my explanation of God being living sentient energy, doesn't that statement make more sense now? Also consider all of the similarities in all of the religions of the world, they speak of many of the same things when it comes to existance and what God truly is, so there has to be an underlying connection and truth to all of those religions, but the hard part is dicerning which one is the ultimate truth and the "way to the light" so to speak. 96% (no matter what kinda crap people really try to tell you) of the human population believe in a higher power, whether it be from experience, or a gut level feeling that something more powerful than them exists, so how could it possibly be that 96% of humanity is chasing dreams? By the simple laws of probability, they can't be wrong.

So to finish, in essence God is everything, the original, unseen, living, sentient energy that binds everything in the universe together.

[Dreadstar]

Cool topic. But first and foremost I would like to point out that there are about 27 dimensions technically.

27? Where did you pull that number from?

I'd be interested in reading it.

Feel free to annotate when you make reference.

EDIT: BTW that's a pretty interesting theory you have. It makes a few assumptions, but then, so do most theories.

[TinMan]

27? Where did you pull that number from?

I'd be interested in reading it.

Feel free to annotate when you make reference.

its actually been awhile, but i learned that in my geometry class my sophmore year in highschool. so finding a reference to that particular book would be hard, but I imagine if you do some searching on the web you should be able to find some articals on it. (I'm at work at the moment otherwise I would search it up and post links) but like I said, only the first four dimensions (height, width, depth, and time) are garunteed existant, the others are theories that are constantly being tested, and like every theory in science it must be tested thousands upon thousands of times and be accurate without fail everytime for it to be named a law, or in this case dimension.

Edit: outta curiousity, what assumptions do you refer to? maybe I can help explain why I believe them.

[Dreadstar]

OK, without your giving me references, I have to assume that you actually meant 26, and that means you're referencing bosonic string theory. This is a theory that's been around since the 60s, and is really a much more "mathematical" version of more modern superstring theories. It suffered from lack of symetry, I believe. Since then, superstring theories have come to a different theoretical conclusion, that of 10 dimensions. Even THAT theory has been modified (I hesitate to use the term "updated," because it infers "corrected", and since we're talking about a theory on a theory, that's not exactly a correct term) into the M-theory of superstrings, which is the one that's currently holding a lot of sway in physics circles.

Me? I'm more of an old school guy, and still cling a bit to Ouspensky's theory of the six dimensions, since it was my introduction to the idea of that "different direction." But alas, it's probably wrong, or at least not enough to explain phenomena that's already been observed, so I'm a dinosaur, or a pre-Galilean flat-earther in terms of physics.

The thing I'm trying to point out here is that you should be very careful about throwing out numbers or theories without at least giving your reader a little something to reference. Especially when there's a possibilty that someone in your audience might have a degree in the field your discussing.

In reference for what I said above, for example, I'm going to direct you to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page), a decent enough layman's referen ce for these physics concepts, without having to get all heavy in the technical stuff. Just type in "bosonic string theory" "superstring theory" and "M-theory" in the searches, that'll be good to start.

[Sam]

Here's the proof that there IS a 5th dimension!

Plus, God is indeed blue, as demonstrated in the picture.

And to make even the Scientologists happy, his name is Xemu!!!

Heresy! There is but one true God!

http://www.threerivertechreview.com/Galactus.jpg

[Dreadstar]

Edit: outta curiousity, what assumptions do you refer to? maybe I can help explain why I believe them.

Assumptions:

1. Time is definitely the 4th dimension. Careful. I happen to agree with you, but many people who've done a lot with Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle do not.

2. That physical laws would not exist without the help of a "higher intelligence."

3. The there was literally nothing at all (matter-wise), or a void prior to the "big bang," and the only thing that existed then was energy. (which in itself is a bit of a conundrum, how do you have energy without matter?)

4. That given the pervious 2 statements are true then sentience is required to "focus" or change the form of energy into matter.

Again, I wouldn't ever say "you're wrong" about these, because personally I don't know. But then again, (unless you can show me some referenced evidence to the contrary) I don't believe you do either.

In which case, they become assumptions on which you're basing your theory.

[TinMan]

Assumptions:

1. Time is definitely the 4th dimension. Careful. I happen to agree with you, but many people who've done a lot with Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle do not.

2. That physical laws would not exist without the help of a "higher intelligence."

3. The there was literally nothing at all (matter-wise), or a void prior to the "big bang," and the only thing that existed then was energy. (which in itself is a bit of a conundrum, how do you have energy without matter?)

4. That given the pereious 2 statements are true then sentience is required to "focus" or change the form of energy into matter.

Again, I wouldn't ever say "you're wrong" about these, because personally I don't know. But then again, (unless you can show me some referenced evidence to the contrary) I don't believe you do either.

In which case, they become assumptions on which you're basing your theory.

1. Considering you agree with me, its kind of a non point for us to debate this. so i'll leave it at that.

2. In an endless void, there is no matter or energy, therefore there would be no laws of physics that would control anything. So without something to initially create matter there would be no physical laws, the laws would come with the existance of matter itself. So under this context the moment matter was originally created there would have to be laws instituted that would govern exactly how matter functions.

3. This relates to the above question/statement also. Matter is energy. Simply put (and I know this is basic) electrons have a negative electric charge, protons positive, and neutrons no charge. Through different combinations of these they create different forms of energy (atoms), and are the most basic building blocks of matter. So when adhesion occurs between two different atoms and they interact that energy forms a molecule of matter, whether its gasseous, liquid, or solid. So in essence everything IS energy because its basic components are energy, without energy matter would not exist, not the other way around. As a reference to the above statement (2) if all that existed was energy, physical laws would not truly exist or have to exist, because there would be nothing to govern, so the physical laws would have to be created by a sentient force before any matter could possibly exist, because it would have to be bound by something.

4. Ok, once again, think about the concept of an infinite void, nothing begets nothing. Now the only possible way anything would be able to come into existance is if there was energy, but energy isn't just going to spontaneously appear out of nothing, therefore it had exist in some form or another (and this is where the plot thickens even further lol). A void has nothing in it though, so how could energy truly be in the void? It wasn't, this part also relates to things that all religions teach, the energy itself came from the spiritual plain that exists outside of the physical. Think about it, the ultimate question we're trying to answer here is how did the universe come into existance, now just how did WE get here, so in a vast nothingness, there is no way that the universe could have randomly appeared because there was nothing there to cause it. But if like our human religions speak that "God always has been and always will be" but also "exists on the spiritual plain apart from our physical plain" it tells us that the energy used to create everything was elsewhere and wasn't technically in the Void. But because of the capability of that energy, everything we know as the universe was possible by literally creating the physical plain as well as all of the physical laws that would govern it. And from that basic energy our atoms, molecules, cells, organs, organ systems, and ultimately our bodies were created. Which broken down to the smallest point is energy itself. But this also raises other questions, such as "where did God come from?", and that is a question that, other than my explanation before as God being a sentient reality (IE he is existance), I don't really have an answer to. Is it possible that everything we know as our universe is actually in a petridish in some other lifeforms labratory? Yep, its possible. But those answers are one day gonna be answered as far as I'm concerned.

As for references, most of this is based on simple physics that everyone has learned, so I hope its not necassary to dig to deep for references. But as for the spiritual side of my theories, the only thing I can use to back that obviously is the world religious teachings, but considering the physical evidence and pure logic involved it does help to reinforce those teachings.

EDIT: I had to walk away from this before I finished, so I lost some of my train of thought in there, so if some parts jump around thats why.

[Dreadstar]

1. Considering you agree with me, its kind of a non point for us to debate this. so i'll leave it at that.

Agreement doesn't make it less of an assuption, you do realize that?

2. In an endless void, there is no matter or energy, therefore there would be no laws of physics that would control anything. So without something to initially create matter there would be no physical laws, the laws would come with the existance of matter itself. So under this context the moment matter was originally created there would have to be laws instituted that would govern exactly how matter functions.

The assumption is that those laws came about from a "higher intelligence."

3. ...so the physical laws would have to be created by a sentient force before any matter could possibly exist, because it would have to be bound by something.

Assumption.

And I'm still fuzzy on how energy exists without matter. Perhaps you could point me to some useful reference on the subject?

further, neither of those are even relevant to the original assuption that I stated, that assuption being that prior to the big bang there was nothing but a void.

This is an assumption.

4. Ok, once again, think about the concept of an infinite void, nothing begets nothing. (followed by various metaphysical etc, etc, so forths...)

It still assums that "in the beginning there was *nothing*." A void.

Assumption.

As for references, most of this is based on simple physics that everyone has learned, so I hope its not necassary to dig to deep for references.

Actually: yes, yes you do. Because I'm pretty sure that this *isn't* something I've learned. I think you may have some of your "theories" and "facts" mixed up.

Which is what I was trying to point out.

[TinMan]

Agreement doesn't make it less of an assuption, you do realize that?



The assumption is that those laws came about from a "higher intelligence."



Assumption.

And I'm still fuzzy on how energy exists without matter. Perhaps you could point me to some useful reference on the subject?

further, neither of those are even relevant to the original assuption that I stated, that assuption being that prior to the big bang there was nothing but a void.

This is an assumption.



It still assums that "in the beginning there was *nothing*." A void.

Assumption.



Actually: yes, yes you do. Because I'm pretty sure that this *isn't* something I've learned. I think you may have some of your "theories" and "facts" mixed up.

Which is what I was trying to point out.

The whole thing i'm trying to substantiate is this: the big bang theory is whats thought of as how our solar system and such got here, not the universe itself. its basically predescribed that there was existing matter before our solar system (under the theory of the big bang and evolution) and reactions between the previous matter caused the "big bang" (aka a gigantic explosion) that created our sun and galaxy, etc. after this time its thought that big chunks of space matter (the nine planets in our solar system) got caught in the suns gravitational pull and because they had momentum from the "big bang" they began to circle the sun, and yadda yadda yadda time goes on. But the overall point I'm gettin at is that NOTHING can exist without something before it, so if previous space matter caused the big bang, where did that space matter come from? And if all that was created by a big bang, then where did the matter before that come from? All that is happening is a reacurring question, but at some point in the very distant past, the original matter that has "supposedly" caused our life to start had to come from somewhere, and there is absolutely no possiblity that all of a sudden the very first rock in space appeared out of nowhere just by chance and without something pre-existing to cause it. The basic point is everything has to start somewhere, and it has to have a catalyst, so what was the catalyst for the universe and where did the energy/matter come from that originally caused it to appear.

I understand that this stuff can be kinda confusing, its taken me a long time to piece it together for myself and I may not be explaining it in the best way possible.

This whole paragraph may sound jumpy and not exactly coherent cause I'm in a big hurry, I'm under some pressure at work to get some things done so I don't have a lot of time. So I will come back when I have some more time and find some references for you on the physics of atoms/energy and all that good junk.

[Dreadstar]

The whole thing i'm trying to substantiate is this: the big bang theory is whats thought of as how our solar system and such got here, not the universe itself.

Categorically wrong.

its basically predescribed that there was existing matter before our solar system[ed's note: Universe] (under the theory of the big bang and evolution) and reactions between the previous matter caused the "big bang" (aka a gigantic explosion) that created our sun and galaxy, etc.[ed's note: i.e. universe] after this time its thought that big chunks of space matter (the nine planets in our solar system) got caught in the suns gravitational pull and because they had momentum from the "big bang" they began to circle the sun, and yadda yadda yadda time goes on.

Er, that's not exactly how the various theories of solar system and galaxial formation go, but...

But the overall point I'm gettin at is that NOTHING can exist without something before it, so if previous space matter caused the big bang, where did that space matter come from?

I don't know.

And if all that was created by a big bang, then where did the matter before that come from?

Assumption:

You're making the assumption that the big bang "created" matter, rather than expand on existing infinitely packed matter. Basically, all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation.

i.e. assumption.

Hell, even the big bang is an assumption, really.

I understand that this stuff can be kinda confusing, its taken me a long time to piece it together for myself and I may not be explaining it in the best way possible.

Are you saying that I might not understand what you've come to understand yourself? Is that about right?

Look, I've had a lot of physics classes over the years. Plenty of math, too. What I'm getting from reading your stuff is a lot of conjecture, and hasty conclusions based on incomplete science. How much of a educational background do you have in this area?

[Rabid Trekkie]

The whole thing i'm trying to substantiate is this: the big bang theory is whats thought of as how our solar system and such got here, not the universe itself. its basically predescribed that there was existing matter before our solar system (under the theory of the big bang and evolution) and reactions between the previous matter caused the "big bang" (aka a gigantic explosion) that created our sun and galaxy, etc. after this time its thought that big chunks of space matter (the nine planets in our solar system) got caught in the suns gravitational pull and because they had momentum from the "big bang" they began to circle the sun, and yadda yadda yadda time goes on. But the overall point I'm gettin at is that NOTHING can exist without something before it, so if previous space matter caused the big bang, where did that space matter come from? And if all that was created by a big bang, then where did the matter before that come from? All that is happening is a reacurring question, but at some point in the very distant past, the original matter that has "supposedly" caused our life to start had to come from somewhere, and there is absolutely no possiblity that all of a sudden the very first rock in space appeared out of nowhere just by chance and without something pre-existing to cause it. The basic point is everything has to start somewhere, and it has to have a catalyst, so what was the catalyst for the universe and where did the energy/matter come from that originally caused it to appear.

I understand that this stuff can be kinda confusing, its taken me a long time to piece it together for myself and I may not be explaining it in the best way possible.

This whole paragraph may sound jumpy and not exactly coherent cause I'm in a big hurry, I'm under some pressure at work to get some things done so I don't have a lot of time. So I will come back when I have some more time and find some references for you on the physics of atoms/energy and all that good junk.

How is it that I went to church school almost my whole life, taught creationism from the time I could listen, and I know this guy is wrong?

Big Bang is what scientists (is it all of them now?) say started the universe. Possibly caused by two dimensions colliding. As matter shared between the two planes the matter shot all over the place. I then coalesed into the galaxies and other spactial bodies we got now.

Well if you believe that sort of thing.

[TinMan]

[/b]

Categorically wrong.



Er, that's not exactly how the various theories of solar system and galaxial formation go, but...



I don't know.



Assumption:

You're making the assumption that the big bang "created" matter, rather than expand on existing infinitely packed matter. Basically, all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation.

i.e. assumption.

Hell, even the big bang is an assumption, really.



Are you saying that I might not understand what you've come to understand yourself? Is that about right?

Look, I've had a lot of physics classes over the years. Plenty of math, too. What I'm getting from reading your stuff is a lot of conjecture, and hasty conclusions based on incomplete science. How much of a educational background do you have in this area?


look, nevermind I even brought this up because its becoming completely fruitless. Half of the stuff you've retorted has been a misinterpretion of what i said simply because of the words i chose to describe it. And I don't know what you've learned but I have taken multiple college physics and mathematics courses and I'm a 4.0 GPA student, so obviously my professors must have been wrong in what they were teaching if what I am saying is incorrect. I withdraw from the conversation.

[Dreadstar]

look, nevermind I even brought this up because its becoming completely fruitless.

Inclined to agree.

Half of the stuff you've retorted has been a misinterpretion of what i said simply because of the words i chose to describe it.

So, choose different words (the *right* ones) to get across what you're trying to say, if that's true. Personally, I think I got what you're trying to say, but even so, you HAVE to recognize that the vast majority of it is based on unproven and unprovable *assumptions*. Which was what I was saying from the get-go.

And I don't know what you've learned

Bachelor's, major mathematics, minor physics.

but I have taken multiple college physics and mathematics courses and I'm a 4.0 GPA student, so obviously my professors must have been wrong in what they were teaching if what I am saying is incorrect.

Don't be quite so defensive.

If you've taken college level physics, then you should know that what I've told you about these things is true. They are theoretical, and therefore using them as a basis for a logical proof is starting the proof with assumptions. Therefore the conclusion itself is conditional. It's an "IF ---> THEN" proposition.

Man, that's like basic entry level logic theory, right there.

[TinMan]

Inclined to agree.



So, choose different words (the *right* ones) to get across what you're trying to say, if that's true. Personally, I think I got what you're trying to say, but even so, you HAVE to recognize that the vast majority of it is based on unproven and unprovable *assumptions*. Which was what I was saying from the get-go.



Bachelor's, major mathematics, minor physics.



Don't be quite so defensive.

If you've taken college level physics, then you should know that what I've told you about these things is true. They are theoretical, and therefore using them as a basis for a logical proof is starting the proof with assumptions. Therefore the conclusion itself is conditional. It's an "IF ---> THEN" proposition.

Man, that's like basic entry level logic theory, right there.


Ok, you have more knowledge of physics and math than me, I'll admit it, and thats fine, I honestly don't care. But the fact of the matter is that the whole time I was just giving you a THEORY of MINE based upon what I have learned and believe in, IE God. And I was using the theory of the "big bang" as a completely scientific AND secular contrast, while using what I know of physics to support my beliefs. But all in all I think the biggest problem here is the fact that the whole conversation is taking place over the internet, its much easier to discuss something vocally than it is to type back and forth. Vocalization also makes things faster, and when theres a misunderstanding of terms its much easier to explain differently. So frankly, I have very little patience when it comes to debating/conversating over the net. But anyway, like I said, forget that I even brought it up, its not worth my or your time.

[Blind Lawyer]

Although the problems with the theoretical Mr.Square example have already been touched on, there are a couple of other points that make me slightly uncomfortable with the OP's theory.
My first concern is that of the later example of a being from a 5th dimension manipulating time to heal a broken bone. Although I'm not presenting a counter argument, I'd just like that explained. Why does the being necessarily have to be from a fifth dimension? I'm not sure as it's a great example either as it's entirely imaginary. It's still very interesting.
Anyway, on to the point I really wanted to make:
My main concern is with the idea God resides in a fifth dimension which is "unknowable" to man. I'm fine with this idea, or the idea of unknowable properties in other dimensions but if it is the case that there are unknowable entities in our dimension, then it is feasible that there exist unknowable elements in God's dimension which would mean our God is not omniscient. This is similar to the problem posed when people ask where God came from (many would argue God is eternal, but some people ask what created God). This could mean we have an infinte regression of dimensions above our own.

[Night]

I'm not seriously advocating that color be declared the fourth dimension, just trying to point out the absurdity of calling time the fourth dimension. Since there is absolutely no proof at all that anybody can go back in time, that cripples the dimension concept right from the start. Sure, there's theoretical tricks that could be done involving travelling faster than the speed of light, but we haven't proven that's possible either. Not absurd at all. If you go into calculus, you’ll find that many functions can be a function of time and can be derivated and integrated based on time. If I were to film a movie of a bouncing ball I could run the film backwards and forward in time and give predations of where the ball would be on any given moment. Humans can’t break our path through time (as far as science tells us) but that doesn’t make the idea of it being a dimension absurd.

Oh someone said that the speed of light is constant… but it’s only constant in a vacuum. Most people leave that part out.

[Gumbo Maximillian]

As Blind Lawyer said "Who created God"?

In the end; the same statements you make inregards to the universe, can be made inregards to "God" as well.

It then becomes an arbitrary measure of depending where you stop the questioning.

Basically once you accept that something like "God" could exist on its own you have to accept the concession that something like the "Universe" could exist on its own as well.

After all if God could just exist without a creator than its hypothetically possible the universe could exist without a creator.

Also; a 2D person might hypothethize that one of us a "4-D" person would be the supreme being in much the same manner you are thinking about a "5-D" being.

Or in other words; just because we exist and can do things that "they" can't even imagine, doesn't mean we created the lower dimensions.

Or that there is only one supreme being; might be infinite supreme beings out there in one of those realms, or each new dimension might add another level of being, adding another supreme being and there might be an infinite amount of dimensions.

Or in other words; "God" as we know it would have a "God" and that "God" would have a "God" and so on unto infinite.

[Paradox]

Shellhead must just not get it:

I'm not seriously advocating that color be declared the fourth dimension, just trying to point out the absurdity of calling time the fourth dimension. Since there is absolutely no proof at all that anybody can go back in time, that cripples the dimension concept right from the start. Sure, there's theoretical tricks that could be done involving travelling faster than the speed of light, but we haven't proven that's possible either.

It's neither absurd nor arbitrary, you're just not understanding the concept. Nothing you mention in the latter half of that paragraph has anything to do with it. "Time" is thought of as the fourth dimension because for something to exist in our physical reality, it must have height, width, depth and DURATION. It must continue from one moment to the next, no matter for how infinitismal a time.

Dimensions = consistant requirements for existence in our reality has relatively little to do with Dimensions = other realities.

As for color, that's just an "agreement" between our brain, our optic nerves and reflected light. Nothing intrinsic about that at all.

[Shellhead]

It's neither absurd nor arbitrary, you're just not understanding the concept. Nothing you mention in the latter half of that paragraph has anything to do with it. "Time" is thought of as the fourth dimension because for something to exist in our physical reality, it must have height, width, depth and DURATION. It must continue from one moment to the next, no matter for how infinitismal a time.

Dimensions = consistant requirements for existence in our reality has relatively little to do with Dimensions = other realities.

As for color, that's just an "agreement" between our brain, our optic nerves and reflected light. Nothing intrinsic about that at all.

And I still say bullshit. For something to count as a dimension, as far I can see, it must be a measurement of space. You can travel a distance through dimensions of length, width, and height, by climbing, walking, jumping, etc. You can't travel through time, except in a metaphorical sense, as we all get older and eventually die. Metaphors can seem to create all kinds of "dimensions"... you could say that U.S. Senator Norm Coleman travelled across the political spectrum when he switched from the Democratic party to the Republican party while he was mayor of St. Paul. Somebody can talk about the moral dimensions of right-to-life and right-to-die, but again, that's metaphor, and you can't truly move within those dimensions. It's wordplay.

[Dreadstar]

And I still say bullshit. For something to count as a dimension, as far I can see, it must be a measurement of space. You can travel a distance through dimensions of length, width, and height, by climbing, walking, jumping, etc. You can't travel through time, except in a metaphorical sense, as we all get older and eventually die.

I'm not quite sure how to put this delicately, but I'm afraid 'Dox is right in this case.

Shellhead, you're traveling through time right at this very moment. Time is a linear progression, made up of points. Some points were "then". Some points are "next". The ephemeral point on the time-progression line where you're standing is "now"... OOOPS! there it goes, now it's a "then" point.

OK, let try this. You're sitting at your computer, stock still, doing nothing. Yet you are traveling through 3 dimensions. The Earth is rotating, moving you about a central spherical axis. That axis is circling a star, moving you around it. That star is circulating through a galaxy, which is moving at a phenomenal rate of speed away from an origin point. So even if you can't SEE your movement through those 3 dimensions, you're still MOVING.

Hmmmmm.... I can see that that's probably not going to work either. But honestly, even if the 4th dimension were a form of "curved space" (think "wormhole") it still wouldn't negate the fact that "time" or "duration" would still be considered yet another dimension in that model. Relegating yourself to thinking of movement as purely spatial would obviously hinder your acceptance of the fact that everything (that we can observe, that is) is traveling down the path of linear time.


EDIT: As I said earlier, the above is does *not* necessarily imply that time is the 4th dimension. The 4th dimension may very well be some other thing. I tend to agree with Eintein, that if you're going by spatial observation models, you have to use time as the 4th dimension simple for measurement and description's sake.

HOWEVER! even if the 4th dimension were descriptions of infinite similar realities overlapping the same space we exist in, only untouchable and unobservable, time would very likely still be considered a "dimension."

Even the wildly popular M-theory postualtes that there are 10 "spatial" dimensions and an additional 11th: time.

So is time the 4th dimension? As far as we can observe, yes, I suppose it is. Might it not be the 6th, or 10th or 11th or even 26th? It very well might be. We just don't know for sure.

But its position in the physical scheme of thing does not negate the enormous evidence that it is *still* a dimension.

We call it the 4th simply because it's one of the 4 we can observe.

[Shellhead]

I'm not quite sure how to put this delicately, but I'm afraid 'Dox is right in this case.

Shellhead, you're traveling through time right at this very moment. Time is a linear progression, made up of points. Some points were "then". Some points are "next". The ephemeral point on the time-progression line where you're standing is "now"... OOOPS! there it goes, now it's a "then" point.

OK, let try this. You're sitting at your computer, stock still, doing nothing. Yet you are traveling through 3 dimensions. The Earth is rotating, moving you about a central spherical axis. That axis is circling a star, moving you around it. That star is circulating through a galaxy, which is moving at a phenomenal rate of speed away from an origin point. So even if you can't SEE your movement through those 3 dimensions, you're still MOVING.

Hmmmmm.... I can see that that's probably not going to work either. But honestly, even if the 4th dimension were a form of "curved space" (think "wormhole") it still wouldn't negate the fact that "time" or "duration" would still be considered yet another dimension in that model. Relegating yourself to thinking of movement as purely spatial would obviously hinder your acceptance of the fact that everything (that we can observe, that is) is traveling down the path of linear time.

I will readily admit the concept of time, and that it can be measured with scientific instruments. To say that I am "moving" through time is wordplay, a distortion of both the word "moving" and the word "time." One could also say that a dramatic scene in a movie is "moving", transporting me metaphorically to a different emotional state. But that doesn't make emotion a dimension, it just indicates use of a metaphor.

Look, I understand that some serious scientists have dedicated their careers to this, and that I lack the background to debate them on this. But science has sometimes gone off in some peculiar directions, only to return to normalcy after a particular intellectual fad has worn off. You can talk all day about quantum theory and Schroedinger's cat, and I'm still going to say that ignorance about whether a cat is dead or not does not magically create alternate realities. Intellectual uncertainty is not a vast alternative source of power that can create or sustain such gigantic objects as alternate realities. It's wordplay.

[Dreadstar]

I will readily admit the concept of time, and that it can be measured with scientific instruments. To say that I am "moving" through time is wordplay, a distortion of both the word "moving" and the word "time." One could also say that a dramatic scene in a movie is "moving", transporting me metaphorically to a different emotional state. But that doesn't make emotion a dimension, it just indicates use of a metaphor.

Look, I understand that some serious scientists have dedicated their careers to this, and that I lack the background to debate them on this. But science has sometimes gone off in some peculiar directions, only to return to normalcy after a particular intellectual fad has worn off. You can talk all day about quantum theory and Schroedinger's cat, and I'm still going to say that ignorance about whether a cat is dead or not does not magically create alternate realities. Intellectual uncertainty is not a vast alternative source of power that can create or sustain such gigantic objects as alternate realities. It's wordplay.

I can't give you the benefit of 5 years of education on a comics message board. If you can't grasp the concept of all 3D space moving along a linear timeline, anything I can say beyond that would fail to be enlightening, and I have to admit an impasse. This isn't intended as a slam, mind you. Merely that understanding of certain concepts often require understanding of previous foundation concepts.

Really, shell, it's not "wordplay." Mathematical and physical concepts often require the use of words originally intended for something else to be used in a manner similar to the original definition. This doesn't mean that the usage is incorrect, per se. Merely that one needs to understand the agreed upon context of that usage.

If one can't agree upon the definitions, one isn't likely to understand the explanation.

[Shellhead]

I can't give you the benefit of 5 years of education on a comics message board. If you can't grasp the concept of all 3D space moving along a linear timeline, anything I can say beyond that would fail to be enlightening, and I have to admit an impasse. This isn't intended as a slam, mind you. Merely that understanding of certain concepts often require understanding of previous foundation concepts.

Really, shell, it's not "wordplay." Mathematical and physical concepts often require the use of words originally intended for something else to be used in a manner similar to the original definition. This doesn't mean that the usage is incorrect, per se. Merely that one needs to understand the agreed upon context of that usage.

If one can't agree upon the definitions, one isn't likely to understand the explanation.

This explanation does make sense to me, but I'm still wary of the idea of treating time as a dimension. I think that it's fair to say that it's a theory that hasn't been proven yet, but may be a very sound theory. Odds are, I'm the flat-earth guy in this situation, but there is still a possiblity that subsequent discoveries may discredit the concept of time as a dimension.

[tricksterpup]

Look, I understand that some serious scientists have dedicated their careers to this, and that I lack the background to debate them on this. But science has sometimes gone off in some peculiar directions, only to return to normalcy after a particular intellectual fad has worn off. You can talk all day about quantum theory and Schroedinger's cat, and I'm still going to say that ignorance about whether a cat is dead or not does not magically create alternate realities. Intellectual uncertainty is not a vast alternative source of power that can create or sustain such gigantic objects as alternate realities. It's wordplay.


Ok.. folks here is some news for you.. the cat is alive.
http://www.koalie.net/Emu/20010528_cardboard_box/dsc20010528214614-med.jpg

[Dreadstar]

A query for shellhead:

If time is not a dimension, then what is it?

[Dreadstar]

Ok.. folks here is some news for you.. the cat is alive.


Weird, mine was dead.


Damn defective box.

[Shellhead]

A query for shellhead:

If time is not a dimension, then what is it?

Time is time, there is nothing else in reality like it.

[Shades0077]

Weird, mine was dead.


Damn defective box.
A dead cat? I fail to see how the box is defective then.

[Dreadstar]

The quality of being difficult to define does not negate the possibilty of definition.

Well, I have to concede that you're not alone in your belief that time might not be a dimension. Just as (using your previous example) I have to concede that there are more than one person in the world who might be believe in the flat Earth theory.

Once again, though, it comes down to agreed upon terms. We describe our observable universe in 4 separate co-ordinates. 3 of those co-ordinates are spatial, and we both agree that they are dimensions. The fourth co-ordinate is time, and the only way to deny the 4th co-ordinate's existence tends to be the denial of time itself. Now you seem to at least believe that time exists, and that it is indeed measurable, even in respect to say, an object's lifespan.

I see nothing unreasonable about using the term "dimension" when referring to that 4th co-ordinate. Certainly, much smarter men than I speak of time in this manner, and I'm unlikely to gainsay them on the matter. Hell, much smarter men than I have theorized that time itself doesn't exist, and I'm not smart enough to gainsay them, either.

Personally, I always liked Hawking's description that time-space isn't a 4 dimensional model it's a 3 1/2 dimensional model. Since we can only move one direction in time (and that's forward) we're only using 'half' of that dimension.

I'm betting that after that post though, I can count on Paul McEnery coming in here and going postal all over me in defiance of cartesian geometry.

[Dreadstar]

Is it wrong that this thread has made me consider re-doing some Physics and math classes at OSU?

Ah, hell, I forgot that I even get re-imbursed by my employer for X amount of dollars of college classes...

...

What the hell? Why not?

Wonder if I can still get in for fall quarter?