View Full Version : Sprites are people too!

December 1st, 2003, 12:47 PM
Lets assume for a moment that life and the universe are nothing more than an extremely complex machine. The laws and structure of the universe akin to some type of coding. Technically, that would make all the little people in these games we play just as alive as we are. True, the complexity would be like compairing a blue dot on a piece of paper to a great work of art, but still, it would be basically the same. Just think of all the tiny worlds and little people you've destroyed since your first game =p. If somebody hit the "reset" button on our universe, we wouldn't know what hit us, and everything would just replay over again. Who knows, this could be the 6th, 7th, 9,000th time I've written this. It's kinda fun to think about though. It would definitely put a new spin on the term "god game" (=.

December 1st, 2003, 12:56 PM
Actually, there is no life in the universe Kordesh.
You see, it all comes down to the mathematical laws of averages. There is an infinate amount of space in the universe. There is a finite amount of that space that is inhabited, thus quantifiable. Infinity divided by any quantity is undefined. There cannot possibly be any life in the universe. Ergo anyone you meet is merely a figment of a deranged imagination.

*edit* I am a ghud spelru.*edit*

December 1st, 2003, 01:31 PM
Gurney, your assumption has 2 flaws. First the universe may or may not be infinently big. Secondly, infinity divided by any constant C, is infinity.

December 1st, 2003, 01:32 PM
I'm imagining some pretty ugly people sometimes.....

December 1st, 2003, 01:35 PM
Demmit Satarus, I'm a silly, not a mathmatician.

December 1st, 2003, 01:40 PM
I'm not a mathematician either, i took 2 courses in calculus and I can't even remember the fundamental theorum of calculus.

Filan Fyretracker
December 1st, 2003, 01:47 PM
well life could just be a big ole Holodeck program that were stuck in and have been here so long that people forgot about the starship......

December 1st, 2003, 01:54 PM
If you used your Holodeck for a virtual "affair" would that be cheating on your spouse or would it be considered "using the self service pump?"

December 1st, 2003, 01:55 PM

December 1st, 2003, 02:00 PM

A holodeck affair means you a weirdo who need the company of virtual people in a computer generated fantasy world.....

uh oh...sounds like a gamer......

December 1st, 2003, 02:21 PM
nah, i would imagine it would be the next step after the internet.

December 1st, 2003, 02:21 PM
hmmm..deja vu...

December 1st, 2003, 03:00 PM
Remember .....

There is no spoon!

December 1st, 2003, 06:30 PM
The fundamental theorum of calculus is



"Sir, the holograms on the holocube have come to life again!"

"Uh oh, better go put a stop to that. Last time that happened I ended up with 5 child support payments."

December 1st, 2003, 06:56 PM
so, does that mean im "GOD" if all my little sprite people and their sprite empires come to life?

does that apply to story characters too?

does .99999 infite really equal 1

anyways while were on math, heres my simple division test for dummies!
(fill in the blank)


whats the answer, figure it out, or your a dummy in division!

Iiliani Seadream
December 2nd, 2003, 06:25 AM
The Sims is a good game for playing God. You have to have the free will option turned on though, to have them standing around waiting for you to tell them what to do..... makes them less 'real' somehow.
Real is obviously not the right word for computer people (unless Kordesh's theory is accurate) but I couldn't come up with an alternative word that got my meaning across.

I have not played The Sims Online, nor do I think I will. I prefer it just me and the little people I made.

December 2nd, 2003, 06:31 AM
Are you a god?
Then . . . die!

When someone asks you "if you're a god?" you say, "Yes!"

Sorry I'm stuck on ghostbusters now.

December 2nd, 2003, 06:44 AM
I am the gatekeeper, are you the keymaster? (http://ciarin.com/keys.jpg)

December 2nd, 2003, 07:02 AM
Uhh, no?
*has door shut in face.*

*edit* Some more subtance to a post..

So what if we live in someone else's world? You only live in the now, and if a reset button was hit, you wouldn't know anyway. I don't even know it'd be the 'same' you, or if there really is a you. Either way, it's the only world you know, so it's the best you can have. If I was a Sim, I wouldn't care if people locked me in a small room with no door, a fireplace and a cheap couch. Oh, maybe I would. Oh, well.

As for the theories being thrown around, have you ever just thought about the fact that space goes forever? Mind boggling stuff. Try imagining you're in a space ship, flying through it, trying to reach the end. Brain hurt now. Duhhhrr.

December 2nd, 2003, 08:02 AM

A holodeck affair means you a weirdo who need the company of virtual people in a computer generated fantasy world.....

uh oh...sounds like a gamer......

What if your not the only one in the holodeck? Is it a mmorpg now?

December 2nd, 2003, 08:30 AM
A really good game for playing god is Black and White. Another one, made a long time ago by the same man ( yes I know he didn't do it all by himself ) is Populous. I used to play Populous all the time. It was very cool in like 1989.

If were just computer constructs, and our computer contructs were just computer contructs, but we were all alive, not just computer contructs, who made the first computer that we live in, and what is outside that computer?

December 2nd, 2003, 08:47 AM
Devis, one theory is that space curves back on itself. So theorectically in space, if you set off going in a straight line and kept going that direction without deviation you would eventually pass the same point you started from. This is not provable really, for there are no fixed points in space as all objects are in constant motion.

December 2nd, 2003, 10:10 AM
Exactly, everything's a theory with space and the like, and I think it'll stay the same for a long while yet. Isn't the Universe (or whatever it is as a whole) ever expanding but still spinning around a single point? Any theories as to what is at the middle? :\

Iiliani Seadream
December 2nd, 2003, 10:37 AM
A really good game for playing god is Black and White.

I heard about that and wanted to try it, but it didn't appear that it could run on Windows XP.
Said (can't remember exactly) something like 97/98, not ME or XP.

December 2nd, 2003, 10:45 AM
It does run on an XP system, well I should say, it ran on mine. You should be able to pick it up in the bargain bin too. I bought it when it first came out, and gave it to someone who really liked it.

Then I bought it again about 3 months ago for $14.99

I had heard they were making a Black and White II - it looks really ambitious. The AI for your "Pet" is really good, and they are improving it for the next release.

December 2nd, 2003, 05:28 PM
I ran it on a computer with basically no video card, a Pentium 2 and Windows 2000, which made for basically the slowest computer ever and it still looked decent. I think as long as you have a 'decent' computer, it should run fine. But don't hold me to that.

Rhiamon Fatesealer
December 2nd, 2003, 05:37 PM
You know what I've never understood? Two statements, given as "fact" by college astronomy teacher

1. The universe is infinite

2. The universe is expanding

HOW does infinity expand? If it can expand, that means that it has finite size. It may be really really really really big, but if it has an end, it is finite. And it can't be expanding if there isn't an end. Which means that there is something on the other side of the universe. I've always pictured a blank sheet of notebook paper myself.

December 2nd, 2003, 06:12 PM
actually, infinity can expand... it will make your brain hurt to think about it, but this is used all the time in math... like infinity + 1 = infinity and as said earlier infinity / constant = infinity, and conversely (inversely?) infinity x constant = infinity.
But that aside we know it is expanding cuz things keep getting further apart. Which means at the rate our space program is going we'll NEVER get there :P

Rhiamon Fatesealer
December 2nd, 2003, 06:33 PM
I studied some infinite math in one of my math classes in college. I never really got it then, either. I just fail to comprehend how you can add 1 to infinity. I mean, I aced that part of the class easily because it isn't hard to remember things like infinity + c = infinity... but I honestly never understood the basic concept of adding to infinity.

I did think it was amusing that in my textbook, at the beginning of the chapter on infinte math, there was warning saying that thinking too much about the concepts around infinite math could cause insanity. I wish I still had the book so I could give you the exact wording.

My personal theory is that there is no such thing as infinity, except in the case of numbers. I mean, WHY would the universe be infinite. Our cities are finite. Our states are finite. Our countries, our planet, our solar system, our galaxy, all are finite. Everything in our world that we can see and touch and feel is finite. So why would this ONE thing (the universe) by infinite? Maybe my sense of logic is flawed, but it just isn't logical to me. It's like when people say that the 4th dimension is chaos.. we go dot, circle, sphere... CHAOS? HUGE logical leap there. The whole "the universe is infinite thing" is the same way to me. Seems like a fancy way of saying "holy crap, this thing is big"

December 2nd, 2003, 06:46 PM
one theory is that space curves back on itself. So theorectically in space, if you set off going in a straight line and kept going that direction without deviation you would eventually pass the same point you started from. This is not provable really, for there are no fixed points in space as all objects are in constant motion.

if space curves back on itself....what is outside the curve?

*feels insanity coming on*

damn, why didn't i read the math book!!!

December 2nd, 2003, 06:53 PM
infinity is never ending. there for u cant make something bigger that doesnt end, unless it does curve around or what ever someone said earlier in this post [to lazy to go back and check] then i gues it would be like a circle or a doughnut that gets bigger and bigger. without the sprinkles im afraid

December 2nd, 2003, 06:59 PM
I've always pictured a blank sheet of notebook paper myself.

That is EXCACTLY how i pictured it,.. kinda like a black blurr overtaking a white blurr (or paper which i've tryed many ways of thinking this over) just engulfing it as it expands,..onto this nothingness,..with "space"

December 2nd, 2003, 07:02 PM
I always thought the fourth dimension was time rather than chaos. That if you could somehow manage to construct the fourth dimension, you could make a time machine.

But then again, I never studied infinite math.

December 2nd, 2003, 07:07 PM
i agree w/ Lirren, time is the forth dimension, not chaos because time affects everything in the universe no matter what. chaos does not

December 2nd, 2003, 09:21 PM
Okay, some things to consider on the "expanding infinity" problem.

1. There is an infinate amount of points between the numbers one and two. Even between 1 and 1.2 or 1.2 and 1.22 there exists a set of numbers which is infinate.
2. The ratio of irrational numbers to rational numbers favours the irrational, yet the sets of both rational and irrational numbers are infinate.

So you see, some infinates are larger than others.

December 2nd, 2003, 10:56 PM
Space is nothing, right? It's just nothing, no atoms, no elections, just vaccum, yet it can go on for infinate? Maybe it is finate to a certain level. Just say you flew to the edge of our galaxy and cotinued, maybe it's expanding when it needs to, in the now, as you're flying into it, but that doesn't explaing now 'nothing' can go 'forever'.

Edit: Yeesh, it's hard explaining these things while attempting to stay sane. Oh, and keep in mind, I hate maths and I'll probably never go on with it, so most of the mathematical stuff in here I won't quite understand, but I'm far from stupid.

December 3rd, 2003, 12:50 AM
I've always believed Douglas Adams nailed it on the head.
"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened."
- Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Filan Fyretracker
December 3rd, 2003, 12:52 AM
so, does that mean im "GOD" if all my little sprite people and their sprite empires come to life?

does that apply to story characters too?

hmm if that happened id have to find room for a wizard, a bard, and a druid to sleep. and try to keep the druid from chasing the neighbor's dog.

Catila Amano
December 3rd, 2003, 12:38 PM
"Time is the 4th dimension."

That has always bothered me. The reason it has always bothered me is because time exists regardless of how many dimentions there are. To explain what I mean, let me first explain a bit about dimensions. Let's consider what makes up a cube.

First, you have the 0th dimension. An object in the 0th dimension consists of a singile infintesimal (that is, infinitely small) point. It has no length, width or height.

Next, an object in the first dimention consists of an infinite number of 0-dimensional points to make a one-dimensional line. It has length, but nothing else.

Continuing up the dimensions, a 2-dimentional object is made up of 1-dimensional lines. A 2-dimensional object has only length and width, no height. You can make a square, which has 4 lines of equal length intersecting at right angles to each other.

Then we get to our familiar dimension in which objects are (basically) made up of 2-dimensional objects, having length, width and height. In the 3rd dimension, you can make a cube by placing squares of equal size at right angles to each other.

Now, going into the 4th dimension, you can continue the "building on previous dimensions" analogy here. A 4-dimensional object consists of length, width, height and whatever we want to call the 4th dimension, say, "hyper." So, a "hypercube" would have its sides build from 3-dimensional cubes at right angles to each others. Since we have 3-dimensional minds, it's hard to explain this part, but if you look at the corner of a cube, you can see three squares at right angles to each other. If you look at the corner of a hypercube, you can see 3 cubes at right angles to each other.

Now, back to my problem with the original statement: Do not 0-dimensional points, 1-dimensional lines, 2-dimensional squares, 3-dimensional cubes and 4-dimensional hypercubes all exist within time? What about 5-dimensional? 6-dimensional? 12-dimensional (which is the highest dimension currently belived (proven?) to exist by high-end theoretical physicists)? My problem with time being the 4th dimension is that why would time be stuck in the middle like that? My belief (although I have no scientific evidence or ability to back up my belief) is that time is the most basic dimension, below even the 0th dimension. Either that or it is the highest-most dimension, beyond that which we can comprehend, so that it contains all other dimensions. Recent research into the superstring theory has me rethinking things with regards to time.

Anyways, my point is that I don't belive that time is the "4th dimension" (despite Einsteins proofs that show it is). Time to me is like a super-dimension that affects every other dimension.

Confused, yet? :D

December 3rd, 2003, 01:43 PM
What is time? What is a fourth dimension?
We can percieve time, although we will perhaps never fully comprehend it.

As to the 4th dimension consider a simpler case;

Imagine a two dimensional character drawn onto a three dimensional sheet of paper. He has no perception of height, only length and width. Height is a foriegn concept to him.
Now consider our case: we are three dimensional creatures. If there is a fourth dimension would we be able to detect it?

And another thing: consider that a deaf person cannot hear; he/she simply does not have the senses to detect auditory input, but sound still occurs around him/her despite his/her incapacity to proccess it. For those of us with five senses what else may be going on around us that our senses can not detect?
**Puts pinky to the corner of his mouth.**

December 3rd, 2003, 01:49 PM
Now to make things even more complicated

"time" dosen't really exist unless there is something in which to reference it with. if the universe consisted of nothing but 1 pixel, and never changed, there would be no way, and nobody, to judge the passage of "time" by. Also, our "time" system is a structured set created to try and quantify and recall the passage of existance ie the order of events and their distance from current events.

Rhiamon Fatesealer
December 3rd, 2003, 02:34 PM
Ok, another one of my contrary-to-everything-I've-ever-been-taught theories.

There is ONLY the 3rd dimension.

I understand the concepts of dot, circle, and cube being the representatives of the first, second and third dimension. But this assumes that there are objects that lack width, or height. And I don't think there are. Sure, in theory, a square has no height. But draw me that. The pencil lead you used to draw it, gives it height. Same if you tried to draw me a dot. Or if you showed me a picture of one in a book. The height might be really really really small... but it HAS HEIGHT.

The only example I can think of a truly two dimensional object would be on computer screens. Because the images you see are transmitted electronically. There is no ink to the words on the screen, so there is no height, ergo its a two dimensional object. But that would also mean that there wasn't a first and second dimension until computers came around.

I don't expect anyone to agree with all that, its just ideas I wonder about sometimes :)

December 3rd, 2003, 06:30 PM
Whoa.. my computer is a dimensional portal. Bless me little hobbit feet!

December 3rd, 2003, 06:58 PM
coffee a deaf person can detect sounds, its called virbrations. i beleiev thats how betoveen [sp? i couldnt spell if the universe [haha] depended on it] played the piano.

time has to be the 4th dimension because thats all that makes us different from a doll [im going out in a branch thats about to snap in 2. go with me here]

and humans make machines to be able to detect things that normaly humans could not detect like radiation and radio waves

December 3rd, 2003, 07:05 PM
For the purposes of further posts, is it ok to assume that the definition of a dimension is "a measureable property required for the existence of an object"?

December 3rd, 2003, 07:27 PM
And time affects dolls Stuman.
Anything that can enact a verb or be enacted upon with a verb is affected by time.

Filan Fyretracker
December 4th, 2003, 12:17 AM
ahh but if you could make your sprite a real person which would you pick?

id have to say my wizard /grin

December 4th, 2003, 12:52 AM
Hm, I think that the screens on monitors, even flatscreens, aren't two dimensional, as the on screen display is something like electons reacting with eachother to create different colors/ect, or something to that likeness. Either way, it's not completely thin because whatever is inside that makes it work is still three dimensional and the screen, although thin (maybe as thin as a sheet of paper) still has thickness to it.

I don't think I explain things well online. :\

Catila Amano
December 4th, 2003, 11:39 AM
coffee a deaf person can detect sounds, its called virbrations.Yes, this is true, sometimes.

I have a friend who has been deaf since birth, so she's never actually heard anything, and so does not have a "sound memory." We went to the local RennFaire and watched the horse races. When the horses rumbled by, she told me excitedly that she could hear them.

On another occation, however, I set off my car alarm and asked if she could hear it. I even popped the hood and she put her head near the speaker (close enough to cause a hearing person pain). She couldn't hear anything coming from the speaker, even though to me, the car alarm was MUCH louder than the rumbling of the horses. I'm guessing that she couldn't hear the alarm because it was higher frequency (and so the vibrations were too quick to feel).

As for the 2-dimensional-ness of monitor images, it's not exactly 2D. The phosphor that are excited by electron beams to create the image are three dimensional, even though they are very small. There is still some depth to the image, just like there is with an image on a piece of paper.

Rhiamon Fatesealer
December 4th, 2003, 01:39 PM
So, I was right in my intitial hypothesis? 1d and 2d don't really exist?

Catila Amano
December 4th, 2003, 01:45 PM
No, they do exist, as well as higher dimensions. They can be proven mathematically, but since I'm lousy at math, I can't explain it.

December 4th, 2003, 01:54 PM
There was something on TLC last night about that very subject. Knowing the Discovery-ish channels it will be aired again for anyone who missed it the first time through.

December 4th, 2003, 02:01 PM
Rhiamon, perhaps you mean that the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd dimensions combined are really only one dimension, that of an objects "space"?

Because if you just have the 3rd dimension, depth, it's still a one-dimensional object, which can't be perceived in a three-dimensional world...

Numbering the dimensions is rather pointless, really, since they are all required for an object to exist. None of them are most or least significant.

Rhiamon Fatesealer
December 4th, 2003, 02:21 PM
Yeah, maybe that is closer to what I mean. The way I see it, everything has length, width and height. There is no such thing as as line that only has length, etc. It exists in theory, but that's it.

December 4th, 2003, 02:59 PM
I think I agree with Coffee... I don't think it is possible to understand or even imagine (accurately) a 4th dimension in physical terms while our experience is limited to 3 dimensions. Time may be a 4th dimension as something that is required for an object to exist, but I can't conceive of "4d space".

Filan Fyretracker
December 4th, 2003, 03:55 PM
4th dimension is Subspace, subspace is entered using a warp drive that combines matter and anti-matter with dilithum crystals as a regulator........

December 4th, 2003, 04:37 PM
Flatland (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/048627263X/qid=1070578429//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i0_xgl14/002-1156704-2680032?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

December 4th, 2003, 05:07 PM
Gah, Raven, another to add to my endless list of books that I have to pick up when I've got the money...

The Unforgiving
December 4th, 2003, 06:58 PM
I was explained what the 4th dimension was and actual shown images of a 4 dimensional shape. Its even possible to draw it on a sheet of papper, although it looks more like an etcha-sketch drawing. I also saw a 3 dimensional rendoring of it... its kinda trippy.

From what I understand, a 4 dimensional object can not be measured from a singal 3 dimensional point of view, or something like that. Its ben awhile and I've forgoten most of what I heard...

My take on the 4th Dimension is: The forth is that which is, but, is not, from the third prespective.

ps. I was going to leave an example, but then I dun an gone confuseled myself...

December 4th, 2003, 07:55 PM
I think time is just the advent of man to rationalize movement in a three dimensional world.

December 4th, 2003, 08:16 PM
Here are some links of what a hypercube is and other ideas on the 4th Dimension...

*a 4d object in a ... "3d" space.* in theory.

Good site to look around on ideas

A good thesis.


December 4th, 2003, 08:28 PM
Thanks, Denial, bookmarked those for tomorrow, had to stop myself from reading it now, because I'm supposed to be studying for chem tomorrow. :D

December 4th, 2003, 09:38 PM
good thing we arnt physicist because if we got mad at each other instead ofwishing upon each other curses to the negative exponet of 13 pi, we would sen our own little armies of orcs and trolls that we have some how been able to make since we are physicist against each other and creat World War III aka Warcraft III

that and we wouldnt be able to play computer games much ta all

edit: wow this makes like no since what so ever :oops:

December 4th, 2003, 09:40 PM
cube and cube2: hypercube was so frikkin weird....

And I couldn't stop watching it.

December 5th, 2003, 04:42 PM
Since when was this post about making *sense*?

It's about confusing us the hell over and getting pissed about it, lol


December 5th, 2003, 04:50 PM
yeah, I'm not exactly sure how this went from hypothetical arguments suggesting that digital creations could be considered "real" and "alive" to all this stuff =p. Bad dimensions, bad!

Ok, here is something to hurt your brain. Try to imagine a totally new dimension. =p

December 6th, 2003, 12:20 AM
its called porn. nothin can exist without it becuase men must need it to survive

December 6th, 2003, 12:53 AM
Here are some links of what a hypercube is and other ideas on the 4th Dimension...

*a 4d object in a ... "3d" space.* in theory.

Hey! I remember when I was a kid my dad made one of those, first one out of toothpics and then one out of popsicle sticks!
I'll have to email him that link!

December 7th, 2003, 03:32 AM
My theory, if I may: Part 1

Dimension 0 is time by definition. Nothing material can exist in a dimension with 0 dimensions. Nor can we ever understand a dimension that is not based on the 0 dimension, because it is the ultimate point of reference. Without reference there can be no measurement, and without measurement, there can be no understanding.

For every following dimension observed, it will look to a native of that dimension as the third dimension looks to us. Assuming we are 3-dimensional, 2 dimensional images seem flat; a 2-dimensionsal person would see a 1-dimensional image as flat, but a two-dimensional image as fully, “dimensioned.” A 2-dimensional creature could never fully comprehend a 3-dimensional object, he could only theorize it’s existence with mathematics, due to the fact he / she is unfamiliar with the missing dimension.

So for a 4-dimensional being, objects from the third dimension would look flat, and from the fifth dimension, 3-dimensions seem just a point (as we would see a 1-dimensional object).

These are my assumed axioms.

Now here comes the cool part.

While 2 dimensional objects cannot truly exist on their own in our reality, we can represent them. But the possibility exists that our 3-dimension is in fact made up of infinite 2-dimensional objects, which are in turn made up of infinite 1-dimensional objects, which all originate from 0. We cannot separate our 3-dimensional objects into 2-dimensional objects, because we are ourselves 3-dimensional, but we can comprehend the concept, because we are a dimension above 2 (we think).

December 7th, 2003, 03:33 AM
My theory, if I may: Part 2
Now here it gets sketchy.

What if laws from the higher dimensions up, ‘leak,’ into the lower dimensions? It would take a mind capable of comprehending and solving paradoxes to even theorize about it.

Now I’ve been defining dimensions as space, but you can also describe the 3-dimensions as Time, Space, and Energy, upon which all of our sciences are based. In this model, there is no 0-dimension, only real numbers, or 0-dimension becomes mind (If you believe in God, he may be regarded as the 0-dimension, from which all reality is based). If this is the case, space may affect time, but someone living in time alone could never conceive of the definition of space without understanding the paradox, and could only measure time.

Either way I believe that the next dimension up from ours is where gravity originates. Because it originates from another dimension, it affects our dimension, but we can only measure its effects because the origin is one dimension up. We can’t even perceive laws from the fifth dimension, and from the fifth dimension our entire reality is defined as a single infinitesimally small point.

December 7th, 2003, 03:35 AM
My theory, if I may: Part 3

From the point of the fifth dimension, the theory that everything in the third dimension is connected to every other point is an observed fact, just as we observe that every 1-dimensional point in a line connects with two other 1-dimensional points in an infinity string that creates the line. From just 2 dimensions up all our most painfully complex theories are painfully easy concepts of fact, because they are easy to observe.

So my own theory is if we try to imagine observing our theories from a 5th-dimensional aspect, the theories become easier to understand, and prove / disprove. Because spatially speaking dimension 0 is time, we can rationalize on what we would consider to be the fifth dimension. If we consider the alternate definition of dimensions, we can reference the fifth dimension in mind only, but from that point we can perceive our 3-dimensional home for what it truly is.

Catila Amano
December 8th, 2003, 10:43 AM
There was an intereseting 3-part episode of NOVA (on PBS) a few weeks ago about the String Theory and how it may lead to the Unified Theory of "life, the universe and everything."

The String Theory states that the universe is made up not of particles but of strings of energy vibrating at different frequencies. The freqency at which the string vibrates determines its property, whether that be gravity, elecromagnatism, strong force, weak force, etc. These strings are a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of the size of the smallest sub-atomic particle we know.

One "problem" with this theory is that it requires 12 dimensions to work, but one physicist figured out how (other physicists thought it required 11, but with only 11, they had 5 different theories, all of which worked mathematically -- the 12th gave a new perspective which unified the 5 different theories).

Another problem with the theory is that it's impossible to prove (with current technology) because the strings are so inconceivably small that there is no way to observe them.

Trying to conceive of 12 dimensions is difficult for 3-dimensional beings, but the host of the show (a physicist from Columbia University) showed how it was possible. His example was of a wire supporting a streetlight. Think of the light as having only one dimension, length. From the perspective of an ant on the wire, they can not only go up and down the length of the wire, but also around it (along the twists of the wire).

So each of the three dimensions we know also have the twisting dimension, which then gives us six dimensions. Then to find the other dimensions, we have to look at every single point in space, and on each of these points, there is a loop in each of the primary three dimensions, which gives us nine dimensions. I don't remember where the other three dimensions are, though.

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around these concepts, which is why I didn't mention it before, but it kind of fits in with what Grey_Bishop was saying. :)

December 11th, 2003, 05:41 AM
Man, I just love this dunno why, hehe, but I do.

I had heard a while back that there were 10 dimensions 9 spatial and one temporal, but that only 4 of those dimensions lasted long after the big bang, I had never even heard of a possibility of there being 12 dimensions, although it sounds very interesting, maybe I should catch up on my reading.

Oh and regarding the initial post, check this out, it's an article from the Onion: http://www.theonion.com/onion3726/video_game_character.html

December 11th, 2003, 08:23 AM
Just because I only read to page two and got lazy from there...

Time does not exist. It is simply a unit of measurement. You can easily prove me wrong by showing me a unit of time.

Thank you.

Catila Amano
December 11th, 2003, 11:06 AM
You may not be able to *see* time, but it and its effects can definitely be measured. I can show you a unit of time by pointing to a clock as it ticked off one second. That second is one unit of time (arbitrarily defined by us as human beings, but so are all units of measure, whether they be for size, weight, or volume).

Anyways, time *is* a fundamental dimension, whether it be the 0th, 1st or infinity-th. To find a point in time-space, you need 4 dimensions: length, width, height, and time.

Think of it as having a meeting at a certain time. Using New York City as an example (since it has a roughly grid-like layout), say you have an invitation to a meeting in the Empire State Building. What information do you need to get to the meeting on time? You need the address and the time.

The Empire State Building is on E 33rd St. and 5th Ave. Ok, so now you have the X (left/right) and Y (forward/backwad) coordinates (so to speak). That's not enough information to get to the meeting. The invitation says that the meeting is in room 2300, which is on the 23rd floor. So now you also have the Z (up/down) coordinate. But you still need one more piece of information to get to the meeting meeting.

That last piece of information is time. You need to know when the meeting is being held so you arrive in time for the meeting. Now that you have the X, Y, Z, and Time coordinates in time/space to attend the meeting.

Now, my original theory that time is the 0th dimension can fit into this example as well. You can eliminate one or even two of the coordinates from the meeting invitation, but you still need time to get there during the meeting. You can have a meeting at E 33rd St. and 5th Ave., or you can just have the meeting at a certain address along E 33rd St. But in order to meet the other party, you need to know when to meet them, or you could be waiting a very long time.

That should demonstrate in a simplistic manner that time does indeed exist and is a dimension, and one that exists no matter how many dimensions there are.

December 11th, 2003, 05:03 PM
In high school, I passed my time by alternately playing Final Fantasy II and Street Fighter II on SNES, and discussing astro-physics and subatomic particles with the owner of said SNES.
Time is the 4th dimension, according to our reading material at the time.
Collin's mother, being fairly knowledgable about such things, was the subject of the following question.
"If the fourth dimension is time, what's the fifth dimension"?

Her answer took us a few minutes to understand.

"A singing group."

December 11th, 2003, 05:25 PM

"it's the dawning of the age of aquarius...."

December 11th, 2003, 05:58 PM
I saw a show on time travel a few weeks ago. A physisist is working on one now. It works by deflecting a high energy laser into a spiral and is supposed to duplicate the effect near a black hole but on a much smaller scale. When a subatomic particle is shot through it it'll go back through time. When he turns it on and starts measurements any particles he detects should be from the future. By varying the rate or number of the particles he can code binary messages. It'll only work up to the point when he turns it on though which won't be for a few years yet. It'll be interesting to see if it works or not though.

Catila Amano
December 12th, 2003, 12:15 PM
I saw that, and thought it was pretty interesting.

Ronald Mallet, a professor of Physics at the University of Connecticut, is using a series of lasers set up in a spiral square (squares stacked on top of each other and slightly rotated with respect to the one below it). The energy emitted by the laser is supposed to twist time/space like it is twisted near a black hole, where things are able to travel faster than light (as observed by someone outside that black hole). The lasers create a vortex in space-time that allow the past and the futre to pass each other. Then one can send a particle into that vortex to send it back in time.

Here's (http://www.wonderquest.com/TimeTravel.htm) an article that explains it in more detail. Here's (http://www.advance.uconn.edu/01091012.htm) another one from the University of Connecticut itself.

The catch to this "time machine," however, is that time travel is only possible within the life of the machine. That is, one cannot send the particle(s) back in time to before the machine was operating. Mallet expects that, if it works, when he turns it on, he will immediately start receiving messages from the future, since in the future, it will be known what time the machine will be turned on for the first time.

I'm skeptical about it working, but then I'm not a theoretical physicist like Mallet is, so he probably knows more about this stuff than me. ;)