EXPLANATION OF MANY DIMENSIONS

[awsomebleachfan]

my head hurts lol XDD

[matzoball101]

Well 0-D isn't actually a "thing"

A point only represents a fixed area it doesn't actually exist

[onedollarwill]

Carl Sagan explains the "tesseract cube" and the interactiveness of an existence of 2 dimensional flatland beings with 3 dimensional beings.

[BearWindAppleyard]

I would say that 0d, the point, indicates nothing, it is when we go from 0d to 1d we get something.

[yakumin]

imagine this:

if you shone a 2d light on a 2d object in a 2d world you end up with a 1d shadow. shining a 3d light on a 3d object in our world gives u a 2d shadow. Does this mean that in a 4d world if u shine a 4d lite onto a 4d object you get a 3d shadow?

btw you can now get 4d light bulbs at beacon lighting for $19.95

[howzoo2008]

umm your 0d and 1d were both technically 2d because they both had height and width

(dot= small circle 2d)

(line= rectangle also2d)

(you should put that on your in your in your movie)

also im pretty sure time is the 4th demension

[allisonisdead]

You can have a 4th spatial dimension.

[Soder96]

Aren't you so smart :3

[bbryant0620]

Yeah, a true 0-D object would have exactly 0 Height, 0 Width and 0 Length and therefore be nothing.

Time is a dimension but not for measuring distances such as height, length etc...

Space and Time, for the purposes of geometrically analyzing dimensionality, should be treated as one, hence Space-time.

There is a fourth dimension that can only be viewed by a 4-D being.

[phantomisle]

I read somewhere that there are actually 11 dimensions of our reality. I am not saying there is less or more it is just what I think. Technically, I think that some scientists believe that our universe is a fourth dimensional balloon or was it flat, I forgot.

[CK297]

wow, we need to live in a four dimensional world to really see our 3d world!

[BearWindAppleyard]

@CK297 True, we would be able to see the insides of eachother, and inside of houses and stuff. And also see an object from more than one angle at a time, maybe all angles, depending on the size. A bit like watching the 2nd dimension as a 2d picture.

[buttcrack2000]

yeah but if you were to put that dot or a tiny square up under a microscope, you would see length and width, no matter how small you make a dot, marking on paper, there will always be length and width, therefore 0-D doesn't truly exist in my theory. if something were 0-D, you wouldn't be able to see it.

[ImTheHaloGod]

totally true if it doesn,t have a dimension it cannot exist because the universe is constructed of dimensions, no dimension, no existence...

[allisonisdead]

particles might have 0 dimensions

[HavazikFerric]

@allisonisdead Incorrect, the smallest particle is I believe the Neutralino. It's a theoretical particle defined by supersymmetry.

[itsAndrogyn]

that "if we look from its side then it looks liek the prewiopus diemndion idea is good,none mentioned earyer

[Averilli1]

Well I supose all you would have to say is if anything was -1 dimensional it would be nothing but then again thats another question do we actually live in two dimensions because the fact that we have all these quarks and air particles floating around means theres something in between? Nothing as you say -1D however Im not sure how you can presume that it would probably be nothing but then I ask you if -1D is nothing whats -100D going to be like is -3D what they call a paralell dimension?

[jubjub444]

well thats way too complex for our eyes, we can never see the 4th dimension its impossible, just like if some living thing lived in the 2nd dimension we would see it but they wouldnt see us so the 4th dimension could see us but we couldnt see them and if you lived in the 1st dimension all you would see would be a point.

[JusticeLeague9]

BTW, don't let anyone stop you from thinking. Remember, the biggest idiots are those who the most sure of the stupidity they spew. You think well.

[Powerpoint12321]

A dot has slim amounts of height and width (2D).

[Wolfie123123]

But they are surely too insugnifcant to be considered, this isn't a bad video, but the one explaining a 3d object in one world and a 4d object in many was better.

[timbo4bimbo]

something cant have no width as it has to be made out of something whether we can see it or not.

[Tomahawk1505]

'if you look at a 2d shape it looks like a line'

looking at a 2d object side on u woudn't see anything as it is impossibly thin, it has no depth, therfore, ur theory at the end is false

[jubjub444]

you would see a dot

[werandomnize]

@jubjub444 nope, it has no depth and therefore no value in these dimensions. That would only work in a 2D dimension, which we aren't in. We wouldn't see a dot, OR a line. We would see nothing.

[HomeFry10566]

it's all so wrong lol

[jubjub444]

true true

[deloreanflux88]

well, you can't see a 1-d or a 0-d object since there is no thickness...

But what you are talking about is perception. We see in 2-d but we perceive the 3-d. (that's why its called depth-perception).

A point is just a location, it's not really an object made out of something...so you can't really see it anyways.