Just some mind food

[Jason Rainville]

Enjoy (http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php)

[Rhynome]

I haven't finished watching it yet, up to 7.

I understood 4, that time isn't linear and all that jazz, that we just see it as cross-sections, and somewhat had a grasp of 5 as a way of folding it... but when they started to get onto 6 I swear they were just making stuff up. It seemed more like a way of manipulating 4, so more like 5 than a dimension beyond. I don't think 6 was well explained enough/defined enough from 4 and 5 in order for it to make sense in that video... silly mathematicians.

Onto 7 now, which seems to be making more sense... though 6 still evades me; it seems more like number-play than something actually comprehensive. I'll review it afterwards and see what I think then.

That's a really good video, boiled it down to a nice simple level, but now I just want to see the reasoning behind 6, it seems as though they skimmed over it a little too much.

[kovah]

i got to 5 before my brain exploaded...

[Brendan N]

Didn't think it was that mind boggling. He - try learning deconstructionism - which is best defined by what it is not rather than what it is haha. :P

[Jason Rainville]

Yeah, sometimes they don't describe the dimension so much as describe how the lower dimension fits into it. Think of the 5th dimension as the same as the 2nd. It's flat in that there is length (the line of the fourth dimension) and width (the varying paths of the 5th) The sixth is to the 5th as the 3rd is to the 2nd. It's simply a higher dimension that allows a folding to occur, much like how the folding can occur between the 2nd to the 3rd. The main reason it's hard to actually picture the sixth, is that instead of matter being the descriptor (as it is here in the third) it's time and variables that make up the dimension.

[Rhynome]

Well, I understand that the sixth is the fold, but the 4th to the 3rd is easy to understand. Later on in the video (I can't quite remember where) they ignore the 6th when explaining something else and they either mention I think the 5th or the 7th or something, without bringing the 6th in relation to it.

I understand the effect of the 6th, I just don't understand the function, what it's made of. All the others seem fine to me.
Which is why I'll look over it again; I probably zoned out or something (when I do watch it again I'll look out for that bit where I think the script ignored the 6th, as though the script-writer didn't quite know it him/herself).

[Jason Rainville]

Yeah, there's a skip from 6 to 7. The 6th is a fold of the 5th dimension, then infinity is a point in the 7th. Defenite miss on the relation of 6 and 7. Though again, I think it's hard to picture the 6th because it's made up of time :O

EDIT: and just remember, the thoughts here aren't really widely accepted (at least yet) by the scientific community, but it's still interesting to watch.

[plundh]

EDIT: and just remember, the thoughts here aren't really widely accepted (at least yet) by the scientific community, but it's still interesting to watch.That's an understatement. It's complete nonsense with no scientifical grounding. The author is a musician with no experience in physics.

If stuff like this really interests you, I will instead recommend "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Green for a great read.

[Rhynome]

...but when they started to get onto 6 I swear they were just making stuff up.
EDIT: and just remember, the thoughts here aren't really widely accepted (at least yet) by the scientific community, but it's still interesting to watch.
That's an understatement. It's complete nonsense with no scientifical grounding. The author is a musician with no experience in physics.

Oh my, thank heavens for that. I still wanna keep a watch on it though. Also I kinda just half wanted an excuse to use multi-quote.

But maybe they were making stuff up... then again, maybe he does have a point. As I said, I would like to see the maths or evidence, etc. behind these claims.

[Swift (BM)]

I would like to believe it because I like stuff like that.
Before I saw that I thought scientists were stuck defining the 4th.

[plundh]

I would like to believe it because I like stuff like that.
Before I saw that I thought scientists were stuck defining the 4th.M-theory (string theory) works with 11 dimensions, though nothing like the ones Rob Bryanton describes.