Mathematically a good place to start is Adventures in Flatlan
The link below takes you to Edwin Abbot and beyond, have fun understanding that scientific theories about this make more sense than mystical mumbo jumbo.
http://www.calormen.com/Flatland/
Enjoy🙂
A very good representation, make your own pocket universe simulation/game here
This is fun 🙂
http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/JCthugha10.html
and this is more factual and;
Pretty Intersting 🙂
Polarities in Symmetry are in the 7th dimension; that means 3 spacial translations (or rectangular length, width and height), 3 rotations each about one of the spatial axes (we call them X,Y and Z) plus an additional temporal frame of Time.
Rotational dimension simply means, that if you point your finger at something, then you can move this finger forwards and backwards, to the left and right and up and down. These are the translations of straight going. But you can also turn your finger whilst you move it along any of those translations and so there are also 3 angular or rotational dimensions to each of the linear ones. But the rotational dimensions are circles with no beginning or end and therefore no linear distance can be measured.
Think of your wristwatch with little and big hands and also of your kitchen clock on the wall. Now at any time, the times are the same (if synchronised), with the angle between the big hand and the little hand being equal (i.e. at six o'clock, the angle would be 180 degrees). So the angular measure is the same, despite the circumference of the kitchen clock being much larger than the one on the wristwatch. This perimeter is really superfluous and unneccessary if one thinks of concentric circles; one circle inside another and centred at the same centrum. One measures the angular size (degrees or radians) and nothing linear at all. So it is easy to see, that the rotational dimensions are not perceivable with five-sensual linear ways of looking at things and especially since the circle around the angle between the two "hands" could be so small (or large) as to be impossible either to measure or to see.
Contemporary science actually proposes an 11-dimensional spacetime in which 7 dimensions are contained or collapsed into subatomic space in the form of Superstrings, which are short straight line-segments curled up into loops or miniature circles.
But after 3 Translations and 3 Rotations with One Timeframe; how can we describe even higher dimensional space?
Let us define our space above 4-D as HYPERSPACE - the SPACE of DIMENSIONAL ROTATION. We have only one more mode of movement, this mode we term QUANTUMSPACE. Quantumspace spans dimensions 8-10 and the mode of variation is expansion or contraction (or inflation/deflation along X,Y,Z or XY,XZ,YZ or xYz).
More simply, think again of your pointed finger. You can move it straight or round for Ordinary Space and Hyperspace; but you can also bend it. Now in Quantumspace, the dimensions are not bent, but they expand or contract.
The only way you can do this with your finger is to consider it over time. As a baby, your finger, when straightened, is not as long as when you are a child or adult. This growth (or imaginary shrinking) is QUANTUMSPACE.
Now the 1Oth dimension is just like the blowing up of a balloon and that's why the scientists now propose an "Inflationary Universe in 4-D".
The technical details of all of that are available from this author (for example how the linear limit of the 4-D universe has a radius of l.693623029x1026 cosmic metres or 17.88960713 Billion cosmic lightyears and many other such things).
Tony Bermanseder
Pacifica Omniscience
17 Bungendore Road
Queanbeyan 2620, NSW
Australia
-Kuntz
The universe is everything, so if there is something outside it, by definition it must be inside it. Anyway, for we to know what is outside it, first we must know what is the universe, so we can know "where" this outside is. If the universe is the whole spacetime with all matter, and energy inside it, then if we find more matter and space outside the universe, its in reality inside it by its own definition. I think that maybe "outside" the universe could mean another dimension, but not space or time. Doens´t matter where do we go spacially, we will always be in the universe.
Originally posted by Atlantis001
The universe is everything, so if there is something outside it, by definition it must be inside it. Anyway, for we to know what is outside it, first we must know what is the universe, so we can know "where" this outside is. If the universe is the whole spacetime with all matter, and energy inside it, then if we find more matter and space outside the universe, its in reality inside it by its own definition. I think that maybe "outside" the universe could mean another dimension, but not space or time. Doens´t matter where do we go spacially, we will always be in the universe.
Wow...I agree with you again....you must be special too.. 😑
I was thinking and there was an example given in a book I've read...
If you look at a holographic picture, Lets say a dog...it changes depending on the angle your looking at it..kinda looks dimensional...now, if you cut that picture in half...you don't have half of the one picture, but have 2 complete whole picture that are only cut in half..If you cut it in half again, the same thing happens, and again and again...until the littlest piece of your original picture is STILL the"whole Picture" of the dog...That is how the universe is set up..I think...and that is how everything is set up...that is how we are set up...we are just "whole" and complete pictures of another whole "Bigger Picture"...kinda like our cells are parts of the whole that we are...We are the smaller in the bigger universe, and our universe could be the smaller in another, and the same could also be said with other things...maybe including what we think god is....and it goes on and on...in a multi dimensional way...
Cool ! The information of a holografic picture, is not local as normal pictures, if you cut the pic. in half, each piece will still have the whole data of the dog. Its like fractals, when you zoom in some types of fractals, they look the same again and you can´t destingish the original picture from the one that you see when you give the zoom. Take a look at this page,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal
the 4x and the 350x images are almost the same, they are just inclined. The first image and the 30x are very similar too. I think the universe could work this way, in the superstring theory when you er... "zoom"( I can´t think of a better term) the universe a lot, in a scale lesser than a constant called Plank´s lenght, it looks the same as bigger scales, like those fractals.
Yes, yes....seems many things in nature are like that...a nature within a nature...or a fractals within fractals.....There was a site that also talked about this kinda thing...had to do with the Divine Number being in everything...had to do with the Number of pi...had pics and everything....this code is found in everything....I'll have to try to remember where I found it.
http://www.championtrees.org/yarrow/phi/phi.htm
http://goldennumber.net/neophite.htm this site is a little better.
Fibonacci numbers.....Like universes within universes
The universe must simply mean the infinity of all being. It is also a matter of what knowledge is. What do and what can we know? I think that all we can really know is that we are part of some form of being. And there isn't anything outside of being - to state that there is would be an ontological and epistemological contradiction.
Originally posted by Wonderer
The universe must simply mean the infinity of all being. It is also a matter of what knowledge is. What do and what can we know? I think that all we can really know is that we are part of some form of being. And there isn't anything outside of being - to state that there is would be an ontological and epistemological contradiction.
I agree. In this perpective the universe being the infinity of all being, in other words "all that is". Outside it would mean nothing, but we can´t even say that "is" nothing, because it looks that this nothing I am talking about is an ontological nothing. So we should just remain silent about what is outside the universe.
Originally posted by Atlantis001
I agree. In this perpective the universe being the infinity of all being, in other words "all that is". Outside it would mean nothing, but we can´t even say that "is" nothing, because it looks that this nothing I am talking about is an ontological nothing. So we should just remain silent about what is outside the universe.
Good job Atlantis001, you have hit on the essence of Buddhism, at least the way I see it. The nothingness is not empty.
Originally posted by Atlantis001
I agree. In this perpective the universe being the infinity of all being, in other words "all that is". Outside it would mean nothing, but we can´t even say that "is" nothing, because it looks that this nothing I am talking about is an ontological nothing. So we should just remain silent about what is outside the universe.
Yes, but whether we 'remain silent' about 'the outside' of the universe or talk about it, when refering to any 'outside of the universe', one is logically contradicting oneself. Nevertheless, this 'totality of being' which we and hundreds of other philosophers have pondered, always presents the paradox of 'can nothing exist?'...also 'what does infinity look like from its 'outside''?............the mind goes around in circles at this point of reasoning.