From:
Bill Marsh <bmarsh54@zzzzzzzzzzz>
Date:
Fri, 06 May 2005 16:36:50 -0400
Subject:
tesseract
Norman Watts wrote:
Quoted text begins.Bill,
the whole 3D cube goes into the next dimension, so it makes no
sense to ask "which [perpendicular] direction is that". Its all around
the original cube so to speak. The common cube is just one 3D section
of the 4D one.
End of quote.
I suppose to a mathmetician, multi-dimensional space makes perfect
sense. Being mostly visual, if I can't picture it, it remains
imaginary, except as a philosophical question.
The 4D perpendicular idea came from some Scientific American article I
read years ago. A math whizz was trying to explain the 4th D as being
perpendicular to the apparent XYZ frame of reference of "normal" space.
If you think of XY and Z as all being perpendicular to each other,
which direction (the 4th D) would be perpendicular to all of those?
Some place imperceptible to us mere 3D beings. You're right it makes
no sense.
Perhaps it only exists in an idea space.
Bill M
- Follow-ups
- message 00222: tesseract - Simon Brown (06 May 2005)
- References
- message 00215: tesseract - Norman Watts (06 May 2005)
- Previous by Thread: message 00219: tesseract - Norman Watts (06 May 2005)
- Next by Thread: message 00222: tesseract - Simon Brown (06 May 2005)
- Previous by Date: message 00220: Deja vu - Bill Marsh (06 May 2005)
- Next by Date: message 00222: tesseract - Simon Brown (06 May 2005)
