R
RAYTHEON23
Гостин
pa grcite velat komunjarite ne izmislija...da beee. oni se izmislija:pos2::pos2:
Доказ дека времето не постои или е еден вид „паралелна димензија“
- Креатор на темата Ag0rA
- Време на започнување
од оваа теорија и тие пред за времето како посебна димензија испаѓа дека иднината е предодередена од минатото и она што се случува во сегашноста..дали мислите дека иднината е фиксно детерминирана од минатото и сегашноста???
Ag0rA
NEBO666
- Член од
- 29 февруари 2008
- Мислења
- 1.667
- Поени од реакции
- 60
Дали мислиме дека постои „судбината“?
Се разбира дека постои.
Ако неможеме да ги менуваме законите на физиката, неможеме да ја менуваме ни иднината, затоа што сите честички и се` останато во овој универзум, и сите процеси, ќе се одвиваат по законите на физиката...
Ме мрзи да го дообјаснувам ова...
Јасен бев?
ако не, тогаш попосле повеќе ќе објаснам...
Ag0rA
NEBO666
- Член од
- 29 февруари 2008
- Мислења
- 1.667
- Поени од реакции
- 60
Ова е премногу за мојот скромен коефициент на интелигенција...ако сакам да ги сфатам, и ако воопшто можам да ги сфатам, ќе треба подолго да ги гледам и да размислувам за нив...
Ги сфати некој 4 и 5 димензии?
R
RAYTHEON23
Гостин
GUT
GUT agora znaci Gospod na germanski a ako go prevedeme na angliski e great unified theory znaci nema zakon vo fizikata koj gi obedinuva 4-te osnovni sili(elektro-magnetna.gravitacija,jakata i slabata nuklearna energija)znaes imalo eden filozof matematicar Laplas toj go oformil pravecot narecen DETERMINIZAM spored koj moze odnapred se da se presmeta TOTALNO se...arno ama koga po makotrpna rabota ne uspeal se razocaral..inaku seuste ja baraat taa ravenka-naverojatno treba da se inkorporira temnata materija i energija ama i da uspeeme vo toa sigurno ke fali nesto
R
RAYTHEON23
Гостин
he fourth spatial dimension and orthogonality
A right angle is defined as one quarter of a revolution and "orthogonal" (from the Greek) refers to coordinates or functions that are at right angles to each other. Cartesian geometry arbitrarily chooses orthogonal directions through space, which means that they add height. The fourth dimension is therefore the direction in space that is at right angles to these three observable directions.
The fourth spatial dimension can be thought of in terms of vectors, analogous to arrows, fixed from some single place in space which we call the origin, that point to other places. These are called geometric vectors.
A point is a zero-dimensional object. It has no extension in space, and no properties[citation needed]. If one were to think of this point as a geometric vector, like an arrow, it would have no length. This vector is called the zero vector.
A line is a one-dimensional object. If we pick some nonzero vector in some direction, this vector has some definite length. That vector has a head at some point in space and a tail at the origin. If we think of stretching that vector so it is twice as long, three times as long, and so on and even stretching it backwards so it takes all possible lengths it can (even zero length, to get the zero vector), we get a single line with one dimension of length. All the vectors that describe points on this line are said to be parallel to each other. Even though any line we can draw must have some small thickness (so that we can see it), this theoretical line does not.
A plane is a two-dimensional object. It has a finite length and breadth but no thickness — somewhat like a sheet of paper (but paper too has some thickness). Thinking of a plane in terms of vectors can be a little more challenging. If we think of taking one vector and moving it so that its tail is touching the head of the first and forming a vector with its tail at the origin and the head at the head of the repositioned second vector, we have a reasonable way of talking about adding vectors. If we have two vectors that are not parallel, we can talk about all the points we can reach by stretching either of the vectors (or not stretching them), and, adding these vectors together, these points form a plane. We say that the two vectors span the plane.
Space, as we perceive it, is three-dimensional. We can think of putting a line together with a "stack" of planes. These planes are "stuck together" like a sandwich, with the line passing through them like a skewer. To get to some point in space, we can imagine traveling up the line and then moving across the plane to the point. We then have three vectors to think about, one to travel some distance up the line and two to get to some point in space.
The fourth spatial dimension, then, can be described by "sticking together", that is by attaching or merging, several three-dimensional spaces in a row, but in a way that extends into the fourth dimension. To understand this concept, think of putting pieces of paper side by side. The sheets do not extend into the third dimension until one puts them on top of one another (to add height, along with the other two dimensions). So in order to extend into the fourth dimension, it is necessary to add "ana" or "kata." To get to some point in the four-dimensional space, one travels along the three-dimensional spaces, and also across the fourth dimension. The total number of vectors involved is four.
Mathematically, the 4-dimensional spatial equivalent of conventional 3-dimensional geometry is the Euclidean 4-space, a 4-dimensional normed vector space with the Euclidean norm. The "length" of a vector
expressed in the standard basis is given by
which is the natural generalisation of the Pythagorean Theorem to 4 dimensions. This allows for the definition of the angle between two vectors (see Euclidean space for more information).
[edit] Geometry with four spatial dimensions
A 3D projection of a rotating 24-cell. It rotates simultaneously about two orthogonal planes.
In four spatial dimensions, Euclidean geometry provides for a greater variety of shapes to exist than in three dimensions. Just as three-dimensional polyhedrons are spatial enclosures made out of connected two-dimensional faces, the four-dimensional polychorons are enclosures of four-dimensional space made out of three-dimensional cells. Where in three dimensions there are exactly five regular polyhedrons, or Platonic solids, that can exist, six regular polychorons exist in four dimensions. Five of the six can be interpreted as natural extensions of the Platonic solids, just as the cube, itself a Platonic solid, is a natural extension of the two-dimensional square.
The pentachoron is constructed out of 5 tetrahedrons for cells and 10 triangular faces, and is the four-dimensional analogue of the tetrahedron. The tesseract is made out of 8 cubic cells and 24 squares, and is the four-dimensional hypercube. The tesseract's dual, the 16-cell, is the equivalent of the octahedron cross-polytopes.
The 120-cell and 600-cell are duals of each other, and are analogous to the dodecahedron and icosahedron, respectively. The 24-cell is the unique regular polychoron in that it has no three-dimensional equivalent.
There are also a large set of semiregular polychora, called convex uniform polychoron, most of which can be derived from the 6 regular forms above.
Just as the sphere, or 2-sphere, is a curved two-dimensional surface made up of all points equidistant from a given central point in three-dimensional space, the 3-sphere, a kind of hypersphere, is the space containing all points equidistant to a given central point in four-dimensional space. Every three-dimensional cross section of a 3-sphere is a 2-sphere.
[edit] Dimensional analogy
A right angle is defined as one quarter of a revolution and "orthogonal" (from the Greek) refers to coordinates or functions that are at right angles to each other. Cartesian geometry arbitrarily chooses orthogonal directions through space, which means that they add height. The fourth dimension is therefore the direction in space that is at right angles to these three observable directions.
The fourth spatial dimension can be thought of in terms of vectors, analogous to arrows, fixed from some single place in space which we call the origin, that point to other places. These are called geometric vectors.
A point is a zero-dimensional object. It has no extension in space, and no properties[citation needed]. If one were to think of this point as a geometric vector, like an arrow, it would have no length. This vector is called the zero vector.
A line is a one-dimensional object. If we pick some nonzero vector in some direction, this vector has some definite length. That vector has a head at some point in space and a tail at the origin. If we think of stretching that vector so it is twice as long, three times as long, and so on and even stretching it backwards so it takes all possible lengths it can (even zero length, to get the zero vector), we get a single line with one dimension of length. All the vectors that describe points on this line are said to be parallel to each other. Even though any line we can draw must have some small thickness (so that we can see it), this theoretical line does not.
A plane is a two-dimensional object. It has a finite length and breadth but no thickness — somewhat like a sheet of paper (but paper too has some thickness). Thinking of a plane in terms of vectors can be a little more challenging. If we think of taking one vector and moving it so that its tail is touching the head of the first and forming a vector with its tail at the origin and the head at the head of the repositioned second vector, we have a reasonable way of talking about adding vectors. If we have two vectors that are not parallel, we can talk about all the points we can reach by stretching either of the vectors (or not stretching them), and, adding these vectors together, these points form a plane. We say that the two vectors span the plane.
Space, as we perceive it, is three-dimensional. We can think of putting a line together with a "stack" of planes. These planes are "stuck together" like a sandwich, with the line passing through them like a skewer. To get to some point in space, we can imagine traveling up the line and then moving across the plane to the point. We then have three vectors to think about, one to travel some distance up the line and two to get to some point in space.
The fourth spatial dimension, then, can be described by "sticking together", that is by attaching or merging, several three-dimensional spaces in a row, but in a way that extends into the fourth dimension. To understand this concept, think of putting pieces of paper side by side. The sheets do not extend into the third dimension until one puts them on top of one another (to add height, along with the other two dimensions). So in order to extend into the fourth dimension, it is necessary to add "ana" or "kata." To get to some point in the four-dimensional space, one travels along the three-dimensional spaces, and also across the fourth dimension. The total number of vectors involved is four.
Mathematically, the 4-dimensional spatial equivalent of conventional 3-dimensional geometry is the Euclidean 4-space, a 4-dimensional normed vector space with the Euclidean norm. The "length" of a vector
[edit] Geometry with four spatial dimensions
A 3D projection of a rotating 24-cell. It rotates simultaneously about two orthogonal planes.
In four spatial dimensions, Euclidean geometry provides for a greater variety of shapes to exist than in three dimensions. Just as three-dimensional polyhedrons are spatial enclosures made out of connected two-dimensional faces, the four-dimensional polychorons are enclosures of four-dimensional space made out of three-dimensional cells. Where in three dimensions there are exactly five regular polyhedrons, or Platonic solids, that can exist, six regular polychorons exist in four dimensions. Five of the six can be interpreted as natural extensions of the Platonic solids, just as the cube, itself a Platonic solid, is a natural extension of the two-dimensional square.
The pentachoron is constructed out of 5 tetrahedrons for cells and 10 triangular faces, and is the four-dimensional analogue of the tetrahedron. The tesseract is made out of 8 cubic cells and 24 squares, and is the four-dimensional hypercube. The tesseract's dual, the 16-cell, is the equivalent of the octahedron cross-polytopes.
The 120-cell and 600-cell are duals of each other, and are analogous to the dodecahedron and icosahedron, respectively. The 24-cell is the unique regular polychoron in that it has no three-dimensional equivalent.
There are also a large set of semiregular polychora, called convex uniform polychoron, most of which can be derived from the 6 regular forms above.
Just as the sphere, or 2-sphere, is a curved two-dimensional surface made up of all points equidistant from a given central point in three-dimensional space, the 3-sphere, a kind of hypersphere, is the space containing all points equidistant to a given central point in four-dimensional space. Every three-dimensional cross section of a 3-sphere is a 2-sphere.
[edit] Dimensional analogy
R
RAYTHEON23
Гостин
4dimension i hope ke se razjasni
:helou:prodolzenie imase many caracters pa nw mozev da gi stavam site
A net of a tesseract
To make the leap from three spatial dimensions into four, a device called dimensional analogy is commonly employed. Dimensional analogy is studying how (n – 1) dimensions relate to n dimensions, and then inferring how n dimensions would relate to (n + 1) dimensions.
For example, in the book Flatland, Edwin Abbott Abbott writes about a square that lives in a two-dimensional world, like the surface of a piece of paper. A three-dimensional being has seemingly god-like powers from the perspective of this square: such as being able to remove objects from a safe without breaking it open (by moving them across the third dimension), see everything that from the two-dimensional perspective is enclosed behind walls, and remaining completely invisible by standing a few inches away in the third dimension. By applying dimensional analogy, one can infer that a four-dimensional being would be capable of similar feats from our three-dimensional perspective. Rudy Rucker demonstrates this in his novel Spaceland, in which the protagonist encounters four-dimensional beings who demonstrate such powers.
A useful application of dimensional analogy in visualizing the fourth dimension is in projection. A projection is a way for representing an n-dimensional object in n − 1 dimensions. For instance, computer screens are two-dimensional, and all the photographs of three-dimensional people, places and things are represented in two dimensions by removing information about the third dimension. In this case, depth is removed and replaced with indirect information. The retina of the eye is a two-dimensional array of receptors but it can allow the brain to perceive the nature of three-dimensional objects using indirect information (such as shading, foreshortening, binocular vision etc.). Artists use perspective to give three-dimensional depth to two-dimensional pictures.
Similarly, objects in the fourth dimension can be mathematically projected to the familiar 3 dimensions, where they can then be more conveniently examined. In this case, the 'retina' of the four-dimensional eye is a three-dimensional array of receptors. A hypothetical being with such an eye would perceive the nature of four-dimensional objects using indirect information contained in the images it receives in its retina. Perspective projection from four dimensions produces similar effects as in the three-dimensional case, such as foreshortening. This adds four-dimensional depth (depth, of course, being technically incorrect, but no proper word comes to mind) to these three-dimensional pictures.
Dimensional analogy also helps in understanding such projections. For example, two-dimensional objects are bounded by one-dimensional boundaries: a square is bounded by four edges. Three-dimensional objects are bounded by two-dimensional surfaces: a cube is bounded by 6 squares. By applying dimensional analogy, one may infer that a four-dimensional cube, known as a tesseract, is bounded by three-dimensional volumes. And indeed, this is the case mathematically: the tesseract is bounded by 8 cubes. Knowing this is key to understanding how to interpret a three-dimensional projection of the tesseract. The boundaries of the tesseract project to volumes in the image, not merely two-dimensional surfaces. This helps in understanding features of such projections that may otherwise be very puzzling.
Likewise the concept of shadows can help us better understand the theory of four dimensions. If you were to shine a light on a three dimensional object, it would cast a two dimensional shadow. Therefore light on a two-dimensional object would cast a one-dimensional shadow (in a two-dimensional world), and light on a one-dimensional object in a one-dimensional world would cast a zero-dimensional shadow, that is, a point of non-light. This idea can be used in the other direction; light on a four-dimensional object would cast a three-dimensional shadow.
As an example of this, imagine that light is shone down through a wireframe cube onto a flat surface. The shadow that results is that of a square within a square with each of the corners connected. Similarly, if a four-dimensional cube were lit "from above", its shadow would be that of a three-dimensional cube within another three-dimensional cube.
Being three-dimensional we are only able to see the world with our eyes in two dimensions; a four-dimensional being would see the world in three. Thus it would be able, for example, to see all six sides of an opaque box simultaneously. Not only so; it would also be able to see what was inside the box at the same time, just like in Flatland, where the sphere sees objects in the two-dimensional world and everything inside them simultaneously. Analogously, a four-dimensional viewer would see all points in our 3-dimensional space simultaneously, including the inner structure of solid objects and things obscured from our three-dimensional viewpoint.
The dimensions can be determined by counting the basic line patterns on the object. 1 Dimension will only have 1 basic line, 2 dimensions will have 2 (appearing as a right angle), 3 dimensions will appear as the "corner" trick, or a peace sign. 4 dimensions can be represented with an X. The sides of the X are still intact, but our brain will not comprehend the fact that opposite sides of the X are still perpendicular, not collinear.
:helou:prodolzenie imase many caracters pa nw mozev da gi stavam site
A net of a tesseract
To make the leap from three spatial dimensions into four, a device called dimensional analogy is commonly employed. Dimensional analogy is studying how (n – 1) dimensions relate to n dimensions, and then inferring how n dimensions would relate to (n + 1) dimensions.
For example, in the book Flatland, Edwin Abbott Abbott writes about a square that lives in a two-dimensional world, like the surface of a piece of paper. A three-dimensional being has seemingly god-like powers from the perspective of this square: such as being able to remove objects from a safe without breaking it open (by moving them across the third dimension), see everything that from the two-dimensional perspective is enclosed behind walls, and remaining completely invisible by standing a few inches away in the third dimension. By applying dimensional analogy, one can infer that a four-dimensional being would be capable of similar feats from our three-dimensional perspective. Rudy Rucker demonstrates this in his novel Spaceland, in which the protagonist encounters four-dimensional beings who demonstrate such powers.
A useful application of dimensional analogy in visualizing the fourth dimension is in projection. A projection is a way for representing an n-dimensional object in n − 1 dimensions. For instance, computer screens are two-dimensional, and all the photographs of three-dimensional people, places and things are represented in two dimensions by removing information about the third dimension. In this case, depth is removed and replaced with indirect information. The retina of the eye is a two-dimensional array of receptors but it can allow the brain to perceive the nature of three-dimensional objects using indirect information (such as shading, foreshortening, binocular vision etc.). Artists use perspective to give three-dimensional depth to two-dimensional pictures.
Similarly, objects in the fourth dimension can be mathematically projected to the familiar 3 dimensions, where they can then be more conveniently examined. In this case, the 'retina' of the four-dimensional eye is a three-dimensional array of receptors. A hypothetical being with such an eye would perceive the nature of four-dimensional objects using indirect information contained in the images it receives in its retina. Perspective projection from four dimensions produces similar effects as in the three-dimensional case, such as foreshortening. This adds four-dimensional depth (depth, of course, being technically incorrect, but no proper word comes to mind) to these three-dimensional pictures.
Dimensional analogy also helps in understanding such projections. For example, two-dimensional objects are bounded by one-dimensional boundaries: a square is bounded by four edges. Three-dimensional objects are bounded by two-dimensional surfaces: a cube is bounded by 6 squares. By applying dimensional analogy, one may infer that a four-dimensional cube, known as a tesseract, is bounded by three-dimensional volumes. And indeed, this is the case mathematically: the tesseract is bounded by 8 cubes. Knowing this is key to understanding how to interpret a three-dimensional projection of the tesseract. The boundaries of the tesseract project to volumes in the image, not merely two-dimensional surfaces. This helps in understanding features of such projections that may otherwise be very puzzling.
Likewise the concept of shadows can help us better understand the theory of four dimensions. If you were to shine a light on a three dimensional object, it would cast a two dimensional shadow. Therefore light on a two-dimensional object would cast a one-dimensional shadow (in a two-dimensional world), and light on a one-dimensional object in a one-dimensional world would cast a zero-dimensional shadow, that is, a point of non-light. This idea can be used in the other direction; light on a four-dimensional object would cast a three-dimensional shadow.
As an example of this, imagine that light is shone down through a wireframe cube onto a flat surface. The shadow that results is that of a square within a square with each of the corners connected. Similarly, if a four-dimensional cube were lit "from above", its shadow would be that of a three-dimensional cube within another three-dimensional cube.
Being three-dimensional we are only able to see the world with our eyes in two dimensions; a four-dimensional being would see the world in three. Thus it would be able, for example, to see all six sides of an opaque box simultaneously. Not only so; it would also be able to see what was inside the box at the same time, just like in Flatland, where the sphere sees objects in the two-dimensional world and everything inside them simultaneously. Analogously, a four-dimensional viewer would see all points in our 3-dimensional space simultaneously, including the inner structure of solid objects and things obscured from our three-dimensional viewpoint.
The dimensions can be determined by counting the basic line patterns on the object. 1 Dimension will only have 1 basic line, 2 dimensions will have 2 (appearing as a right angle), 3 dimensions will appear as the "corner" trick, or a peace sign. 4 dimensions can be represented with an X. The sides of the X are still intact, but our brain will not comprehend the fact that opposite sides of the X are still perpendicular, not collinear.
Quark
brr,brr...zbrc
- Член од
- 12 март 2008
- Мислења
- 3.489
- Поени од реакции
- 156
Ok, vaka, najdobronamerno imam edno prasanje do tebe, zosto stvarno me zainteresira. KOLKU GODINI IMAS?
Ag0rA
NEBO666
- Член од
- 29 февруари 2008
- Мислења
- 1.667
- Поени од реакции
- 60
kazimi sto mislis, i ke ti kazam?
Си направил добра колекција на постови на годината
Ag0rA
NEBO666
- Член од
- 29 февруари 2008
- Мислења
- 1.667
- Поени од реакции
- 60
Од тоа може само да се види дека неможам накратко да објаснам некои работи...но не и дека немам познавања од областа на физиката...Си направил добра колекција на постови на годината
п.с. Ајнштајн додека бил студент имал најниски оценки...
Quark
brr,brr...zbrc
- Член од
- 12 март 2008
- Мислења
- 3.489
- Поени од реакции
- 156
Iskreno da ti kazam, koga te citav tebe i tvoite postoi mi se vrati filmot nekolku godini unazad, i se setiv na moite tinejdzerski denovi, 14-15 godisen, koga gi citav cickovcite Ajnstajn i Hoking, koga mislev deka zad poimot "postoenje" se krijat astrofizika, kosmologija, kvantna i nuklearna fizika, koga cela vecer ne spiev i se obiduvavav da analiziram se i sesto, i sekoja moja napredna faza vo moite mislenja ja smetav za genijalna, a pri toa zaboravav deka blage veze nemam od matematika a najmnogu sto znam e da resam kvadratni ravenki i cat-pat nekoi poslozeni sistemi i integrali.
Brat, lugeto cel zivot studiraat i istrazuvaat, trosat milijardi dolari, i povtorno ne se sigurni dali dokazale nesto, a ti so nekolku recenici onaka katapultirani od tvojot mozok sakas da ne uveris nas vo nesto, i pri toa toa da go smetas kako dokaz, a istovremeni i da kazuvas smesni bezmislici so koi samo go pokazuvas tvoeto osnovno nepoznavanje na nekoi osnovni stvari vo naukata. Zatoa zemi procitaj sto e dimenzija, sto e edinicina, sto e fizicka velicina, sto e fizicko pole, sto e materija, sto se nukleoni, sto znaci mojot nickname, sto e spin na cestica, sto e funkcija, sto e laplasoviot determinizam i kako hajzenbergovit princip go otfrla nego, resavaj izvodi i integrali, i posle pak pocni da mislis za ovie stvari , no nikogas , ama bas nikogas nemoj da reces deka si DOKAZAL nesto. Smesno e.
Ne ja osporuvam tvojata intelegincija, sepak, realno kazano interesno razmisluvas, sto e najvazno ramisluvas, i mozebi vo nekoi stvari se soglasuvam so tebe, ama ipak vo naukata si postojat onaka dobro definirani i oddeleni etapi, koi sto nuzno e da gi pomines, a promasis edna, ti otide jaban celiot trud.
Fantom
Chikara
- Член од
- 4 јуни 2006
- Мислења
- 11.453
- Поени од реакции
- 812
Најомилената реченица на NEBO666 како изговор за неговата шизофренија.
TheBestTipster
Избраниот
- Член од
- 8 март 2008
- Мислења
- 2.387
- Поени од реакции
- 97
Ag0rA
NEBO666
- Член од
- 29 февруари 2008
- Мислења
- 1.667
- Поени од реакции
- 60
Целта не ми беше да докажам нешто.Барем главната цел не би беше тоа.Целта ми беше да ни биде забавно/интересно на сите.
Се` што пишував на оваа тема, а немаше голема врска со времето, беше она што прво ми падна напамет, и ги напишав без да размислам двапати, затоа што се плашев од главоболка.
Да, и јас сум поминувал низ тие периоди, но многу ми беа интересни.
Инаку....имам 18 години...
Од возвишеното до смештото постои само еден чекот.
Што ќе изгубиме ако малку се посмееме?
Веројатно ништо...