KHinfcube22 Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 Ok, be warned. Little of what I talk about is about the big bang, but is actualy evidence to prove my theory, (or some others theory. I haven't really read much into the subject. If what I put in here was thought of by someone else, will someone give me a reference.) And also, just as an added note, I don't believe one can go back in time by surpassing light speed... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ O-Cube Theory Say one was in a 3-D world, excluding time as a dimesnsion, and one has a perfect 2-D square, (S1). Then say one has an exact duplicate of S1, (S2). Then, if one put S2 "on top" of S1, one would have a 2-D square that is twice as thick, (S3). Technically a 2-D object only has length and width, but no thickness. Therefore, S3 is the exact size as S1 and S2. S1 and S2 would still be both there, one could still easily tell them apart, but they would only take up the space of one square. Which means, any amount of 2-D squares were to overlap in this fashion, one would find out that one could an inf. amount of squares taking up the space of only one square, but still have an inf. amount of squares still there. This same thing can be done to lines, 1-D objects, in 2-d world. According to the above, which can easily be proven on any good artist computer program, then one should be just as easily to be able to "overlap" a 3-D cube in any 4-D space, assuming time isn't or excluding time as the 4th dimension. Therefore one could have an inf. amount of 3-D space inside an inf. small area, as long as the original point in which the 3-D space is in is in a 4-D area. My main question is, what is the fourth dimension, assuming time isn't, or excluding time as the 4th dimension. I know this may seem unreasonable, but it is perfectly logical. Think, would one of the 2-D actualy know of, or be able to concieve of, the third dimension? One in a 2-D world would never know of the 3-D because it would never look for somethings depth, and could never imagine a world of 3 dimensions. The only way a 2-D sentient being would ever know of thhe third dimension would be to create a body of itself in 3-D form, (or actualy have an already 3-D being create one for it.) Unfortunatley, the best way to understand something is personal expirence. You may notice, most my anologies are refering to the second and third dimensions. But every thing I mention can also be showed using the first and second dimensions. Now lets take a look at the big bang. It perfect explains everything abouve. All matter in the Universe piled into a small space the size of a molecule. Then the 4-D crashes, (or goes away somehow,) and you have the big bang. Now just staking even the smallest amount of space in a dimension that it is not part of, and taking away that dimension, would cause an explosion of extreme measure. Thats most likely why our Universe is so large. Also, an explosion with a magnitude of such caliber would cause rips and tears of space and time, (balck holes, worm holes...) Now black holes themselves are further proof of this theory. Gigatons of mass, all in an inf. small amount of space. Worm holes are also proof. Worm holes show us that space can be bent in a way not imagined by something of a 3-D world. The worm hole idea though can also be telling us that we are still in a 4th dimensional area. The big bang could actualy have been the 4-D space in a 5-D are that "went away." The movie Cube2: Hypercube is a perfect example. In the film, 8 people are in a cube that I believe is using the fourth dimension to keep all the space in a small area. There are specialized doors on all 6 walls in the cube-like rooms. For some reason, every time a door is opened, there is a diffrent room on the other side. Now, because all the cube-like rooms are theoreticaly "in the same place," it would be a pure random shot at which room would be there when you open the door. In the movie, the people also see future, and past,beings of themselves in the other rooms. Now I believe time is infact,not a dimension,but a co-existence to the spacial dimensions. It would perfectly explain what happens in the movie. If time is a co-existent, then when space is bent in a way it doesn't have, wouldn't time also bend? If you actualy think about, time may be a whole nother set of dimensions. There could be a set of spacial dimensions, and a set of time dimensions intertwined, and when a dimension is bent, so would its parallel if they were touching. Like when you take twined string, doesn't one bend when you bend the other? If one would like to contact me, either E-Mail me at Killerstarman2@yahoo.com, or if you want me to reply quicker, e-mail at AugShadow822@aol.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 Originally posted by KHinfcube22 Say one was in a 3-D world, excluding time as a dimesnsion, and one has a perfect 2-D square, (S1). Then say one has an exact duplicate of S1, (S2). Then, if one put S2 "on top" of S1, one would have a 2-D square that is twice as thick, (S3). assuming this scenario could exist, and assuming the two squares exist to one another (in that they are not self contained realities incapable of influencing one another) then you also have to assume that something like tha Pauli Exclusion principle does not occur, and then having taken these things into account, there is no differnece between 2 squares each containing n amounts of stuff, and one square containing 2n amounts of stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHinfcube22 Posted April 17, 2003 Author Share Posted April 17, 2003 Whats the Pauli Exclusion? I haven't really studied into this stuff yet. I just came up with it while waching Cube2:Hypercube. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 No two electrons in an atom can have the same four quantum numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 Originally posted by KHinfcube22 Whats the Pauli Exclusion? I haven't really studied into this stuff yet. I just came up with it while waching Cube2:Hypercube. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pauli.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHinfcube22 Posted April 19, 2003 Author Share Posted April 19, 2003 this is annoying! What exists for one may not exist for another in the eyes of the beholder. I don't know if this has anything to do with this subject, but it still sounds cool. and thanks for the link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHinfcube22 Posted July 13, 2003 Author Share Posted July 13, 2003 Ok, the big bang is still perfect proof that the fourth spacial dimension can hold an inf amount of third dimensional space.... Thus this would be exluding the Pauli Exclussion, seeing how I haven't found any proof that his theory was correct.... Oh well.... Well, seeing how if yu put , lets say 30, or stack really, squares in one spot...... They wouldn't neccesaryily be in the exact same spot, using the exact same space, for there is 3-D space in between them......It would just be inf. small amount of space between them......And then if you remove the 3-D space between the two 2-D objects, and they all weren't the exact same size and shape, then an Explosion would happen.....It would make a perfect tetra-bomb......I won't show the mathmatics I used because, well, I don't have the time or patients to type it all down......I think Fafalone said something along those lines before....Can't find the post though.....Oh well.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHinfcube22 Posted July 13, 2003 Author Share Posted July 13, 2003 Oh, I found the post....It was in the Absolute High Tempurature thread.... Originally posted by fafalone It's pointless to explain things like that because you need alot of formal education to understand the reasoning behind it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted July 13, 2003 Share Posted July 13, 2003 Originally posted by KHinfcube22 Thus this would be exluding the Pauli Exclussion, seeing how I haven't found any proof that his theory was correct.... electrons are a very very good proof that his theory is correct, if he was wrong, then there would not be electron shells in atoms. This is but one example. To be honest I doubt you even know enough about quantum mechanics and the Dirac equation to even make a judgement in this matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 13, 2003 Share Posted July 13, 2003 Originally posted by Radical Edward electrons are a very very good proof that his theory is correct, if he was wrong, then there would not be electron shells in atoms. This is but one example. To be honest I doubt you even know enough about quantum mechanics and the Dirac equation to even make a judgement in this matter. I like the pauli exclusion principle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHinfcube22 Posted July 13, 2003 Author Share Posted July 13, 2003 Ok then...but even wth the Pauli Exclusion precent....One can still do this....The 2-D objects are not at all in the same space, for there is 3-D space inbetween them......So they Pauli Exclusion does not matter in this......They are not in th same space until you take away the third dimension........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now