10th Dimension

[dodrudon]

Wondering what you guys think of this....

www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php

It starts at slow, but at the end... BAM!!!!

[requiem]

I have seen this before its pretty cool.

[Grudge]

*goes off to light the hubbly bubbly*

lets see if we can't get this to make sence shall we?

~G

[cathedralmaster]

Is that the same video where you watch it and at the end or in the fine print it says that it's not an accurate depiction?

[johannhowitzer]

Wow. You're not going to believe this... I read the book Flatland by Edwin J. Abbott a number of years ago, and postulated all this out for myself already. The video was nothing new to me! Very cool to see it represented that way, though, thanks. Bookmarked!

[dodrudon]

cathedralmaster said:

Is that the same video where you watch it and at the end or in the fine print it says that it's not an accurate depiction?

No.

[cathedralmaster]

dodrudon said:

cathedralmaster said:

Is that the same video where you watch it and at the end or in the fine print it says that it's not an accurate depiction?

No.

Was refering to this:


Knew there was something about it.

[lala]

Heh but does it take into account the "Heim-Dröscher space" theory.

Heim theorised that we live in a 6-dimensional world (or 8 in the complete work with Dröscher) and this theory is the closest to developing true hyperspace propulsion so far.
Here is a link that mentions an award given for the hyperspace propulsion theory they created.

space.newscientist.com/article/mg18925331.200

Edit:
Oh and what is rather cool the design of it would be very very similar to the film Event Horizon.
1st class ticket to hell anyone?

Have fun reading his work if thats what you like
Cheers
lala

[johannhowitzer]

If anyone's into that kind of thing, I highly recommend the book Flatland. Very thought-provoking... in fact it's more a social commentary novel than it is a work of quantum mechanical theory.

[diemex]

[flynn01]

Their theory breaks down around their concept of the 4th dimension. But their own admission, an event is just a set of probabilities until it is observed (i.e. experienced in our traversing our 'now' in time), so that it cannot be modeled as a snake, as they describe, instead, it would be a line (where we've been) connecting to the tip (now) of a cone (where we could go from here). Once seen that way, the ability to imagine dimensions 5-10 as they describe it break down.

[nohmask]

"Bam" ?

[lala]

flynn01 said:

Their theory breaks down around their concept of the 4th dimension. But their own admission, an event is just a set of probabilities until it is observed (i.e. experienced in our traversing our 'now' in time), so that it cannot be modeled as a snake, as they describe, instead, it would be a line (where we've been) connecting to the tip (now) of a cone (where we could go from here). Once seen that way, the ability to imagine dimensions 5-10 as they describe it break down.

Ah thats why the Heim-Dröscher space is more interesting as it expands upon Einstein's general relativity theory and actually is closest we can get to calculating particle's mass by combining general relativity and quantum theory.

He outlined this work in 1977 in the Max Planck Institute's journal Zeitschrift für Naturforschung, his only peer-reviewed paper. In an abstruse way that few physicists even claim to understand, the formulae work out a particle's mass starting from physical characteristics, such as its charge and angular momentum.

Yet the theorem has proved surprisingly powerful. The standard model of physics, which is generally accepted as the best available theory of elementary particles, is incapable of predicting a particle's mass. Even the accepted means of estimating mass theoretically, known as lattice quantum chromodynamics, only gets to between 1 and 10 per cent of the experimental values.

Gravity reduction
But in 1982, when researchers at the German Electron Synchrotron (DESY) in Hamburg implemented Heim's mass theorem in a computer program, it predicted masses of fundamental particles that matched the measured values to within the accuracy of experimental error. If they are let down by anything, it is the precision to which we know the values of the fundamental constants. Two years after Heim's death in 2001, his long-term collaborator Illobrand von Ludwiger calculated the mass formula using a more accurate gravitational constant. "The masses came out even more precise," he says.

Cheers
Lala

[blackdeath]

i... am so confused.