Things I Can't Prove, But Believe

Off Topic
81

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

Is it moving because you can’t really show us more than three dimensions without using time?

When I look at it, my mind automatically goes “uuhhhh… shapes don’t move (by themselves anyways)”

My main question - are you yourself capable of mentally visualizing it in four dimensional space? Do you know if anyone is?

I get that a line is in 1 dimension and has 2 points
A square is in 2 dimensions and has 4 points
A cube is in 3 dimensions and has 8 points
A tesseract is in 4 dimensions and so it has 16 points

As I understand, it’s supposed to be pretty much two cubes connected / shifted by a fourth dimension. When I looked up pictures, it pretty much shows a cube within a cube - but they should be the same size… which I guess explains why your moving picture has them looking like they are growing and shrinking. Optical illusion because we are stuck in 3-d?[/quote]

I answered most of this in my response to Pat, but it is actually rotating in my avi, but not in the same way that a 3 dimensional object does. The optics of the human eye is not capable of deciphering the 4th dimension, so we have to rely on optical illusion (similar to drawing a cube on a piece of paper), but our brains are capable of understanding and conceptualizing other dimensions, it just takes a lot of advanced study in order to do so.
[/quote]
Ok then, let me ask this - the two cubes only appear to be changing size because they are moving closer and farther from the observer?
[/quote]

A tesseract is actually 8 distinct cubes arranged in a way that is impossible for the human eye to “see,” which is why we must rely on optical illusions like in my avatar to show them moving. The apparent changes in the size of the sides of the tesseract in my avi is due to the rotation, which is a close approximation of what a rotating tesseract looks like but is not perfect.

82

Rotating can simulate an extra dimension that we are not able to see. We already use a different trick to project a 3d cube to a 2d surface (like a computer monitor) but doing that for 4d to 2d the image doesn’t look like what we are trying to describe.

The opposite way of looking at it is if we were able to see in 4 dimensions, we could see all 6 sides of a Cube without having to rotate it.

83

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

Is it moving because you can’t really show us more than three dimensions without using time?

When I look at it, my mind automatically goes “uuhhhh… shapes don’t move (by themselves anyways)”

My main question - are you yourself capable of mentally visualizing it in four dimensional space? Do you know if anyone is?

I get that a line is in 1 dimension and has 2 points
A square is in 2 dimensions and has 4 points
A cube is in 3 dimensions and has 8 points
A tesseract is in 4 dimensions and so it has 16 points

As I understand, it’s supposed to be pretty much two cubes connected / shifted by a fourth dimension. When I looked up pictures, it pretty much shows a cube within a cube - but they should be the same size… which I guess explains why your moving picture has them looking like they are growing and shrinking. Optical illusion because we are stuck in 3-d?[/quote]

I answered most of this in my response to Pat, but it is actually rotating in my avi, but not in the same way that a 3 dimensional object does. The optics of the human eye is not capable of deciphering the 4th dimension, so we have to rely on optical illusion (similar to drawing a cube on a piece of paper), but our brains are capable of understanding and conceptualizing other dimensions, it just takes a lot of advanced study in order to do so.
[/quote]
Ok then, let me ask this - the two cubes only appear to be changing size because they are moving closer and farther from the observer?
[/quote]

A tesseract is actually 8 distinct cubes arranged in a way that is impossible for the human eye to “see,” which is why we must rely on optical illusions like in my avatar to show them moving. The apparent changes in the size of the sides of the tesseract in my avi is due to the rotation, which is a close approximation of what a rotating tesseract looks like but is not perfect.[/quote]
Thanks!

So to draw it… - and I know we can’t do it on paper or computer screen - but we would take two cubes and separate them by a distance in the 4th dimension. This distance would actually have to be the same length as the sides of our original cubes. We then connect our two cubes at each of their 8 points. Which is also the same thing as connecting each of the six sides of our original two cubes. By connecting these sides - each time we do that, because we separated our original cubes by the correct distance - we are actually creating a new cube.

6 new cubes + 2 original = 8 interconnected cubes, all equal size

My brain is overheating…must.find…freezer…

Was that right?

Also, I wanted to clarify on your response to my earlier question

I know we can understand and conceptualize it - but are the “optics” of our minds eye capable of deciphering the 4th dimension?

It’s extremely easy for me to imagine a “red triangle”, or “yellow square”
tiny bit harder, but still extremely easy for a “blue cube”
But at this point I cannot do “green tesseract” yet

Thanks again Doc

84

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

Thanks!

So to draw it… - and I know we can’t do it on paper or computer screen - but we would take two cubes and separate them by a distance in the 4th dimension. This distance would actually have to be the same length as the sides of our original cubes. We then connect our two cubes at each of their 8 points. Which is also the same thing as connecting each of the six sides of our original two cubes. By connecting these sides - each time we do that, because we separated our original cubes by the correct distance - we are actually creating a new cube.

6 new cubes + 2 original = 8 interconnected cubes, all equal size

My brain is overheating…must.find…freezer…

Was that right? [/quote]

Yes, that will give you a fairly close approximation of what a stationary tesseract for a Euclidian 4th dimension would look like if they existed. And try a slurpee for your head. They were my best friend while I was working on my dissertation

[quote] Also, I wanted to clarify on your response to my earlier question

I know we can understand and conceptualize it - but are the “optics” of our minds eye capable of deciphering the 4th dimension?

It’s extremely easy for me to imagine a “red triangle”, or “yellow square”
tiny bit harder, but still extremely easy for a “blue cube”
But at this point I cannot do “green tesseract” yet

Thanks again Doc[/quote]

Yes, the human brain is fully capable of decoding what we would consider optical signals from other dimensions, the limiting factor is the mechanics of our eyeballs. The main problem people have with understanding other dimensions is that the human mind depends a lot on what our eyes see, and since our eyes are incapable of seeing other dimensions we find it difficult to conceptualize other dimensions, which leads to some funny misconceptions on what other dimensions are. It took me over 10 years of studying physics and advanced mathematics above the undergraduate level until I could really understand other dimensions.

85

[quote]benjamin89 wrote:
I believe since truth is objective and comes from God, and that God cannot contradict himself, he must have one true and objective Church.

I believe that his one true and objective church must include Jesus the Christ, because Jesus the Christ is God incarnate.

I know that there are many Christian denomonations

I know that these Christian Denomonations descended from 1 orginal Christian belief, now called Catholicism

I believe the reason Catholics say that the Eucharist is Jesus’ body and blood is because Jesus explicitly says so.

I believe that one day, all Christian denomonations will be reconciled to Catholicism, and BRING WITH THEM SOME NEW AND VERY USEFUL FRUIT.[/quote]

If you’re serious about this, I believe I will want NOTHING to do with that world and will kill myself before being subjected to that kind of nightmare.

86

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
I believe that the next student who has a research paper with “wikipedia” on the works cited page is going to fail my class for the semester.

I am seriously grading papers for my Intro to Quantum Mechanics class (a senior undergrad class) and out of 23 students, 14 of them have wikipedia as a source.[/quote]

Amateur hour.

Use Wikipedia, but cite the reference Wikipedia cites. Every true slacker knows this.[/quote]

I don’t mind if my students use wikipedia to find sources as long as they are credible (and I do check sources that I am not familiar with), but just putting “wikipedia” as a source is unacceptable. I was easy on them, though, due to the bomb threat thing going on and only dropped them one letter grade for each time they used wikipedia as a source. It is in the course outline that I hand out that I do not allow wikipedia as a source, it is their fault for not reading it.[/quote]

I thought it was common knowledge that directly citing Wikipedia was tacky, but even as a graduate student I see that shit all the time.

Saw some lady last semester slip an Angelfire website into one of her papers, too.[/quote]

Angelfire is still around?

87

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
I believe that the next student who has a research paper with “wikipedia” on the works cited page is going to fail my class for the semester.

I am seriously grading papers for my Intro to Quantum Mechanics class (a senior undergrad class) and out of 23 students, 14 of them have wikipedia as a source.[/quote]

Crush them like the worthless insects that they are.

Dead serious.

[/quote]

Oh, they understand now that laziness in their research methods is not tolerated at the level they are at now. That paper was worth 30% of their final grade, and only two got above a C, and I do not grade on a curve and never will.[/quote]

This is awesome. I think you would be an awesome professor to have, if I was that interested in physics. Why couldn’t you be a history or English professor?

88

[quote]Grneyes wrote:<<< If you’re serious about this, I believe I will want NOTHING to do with that world and will kill myself before being subjected to that kind of nightmare.[/quote]I believe you will never have to worry about that.

89

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
I believe that the next student who has a research paper with “wikipedia” on the works cited page is going to fail my class for the semester.

I am seriously grading papers for my Intro to Quantum Mechanics class (a senior undergrad class) and out of 23 students, 14 of them have wikipedia as a source.[/quote]

Crush them like the worthless insects that they are.

Dead serious.

[/quote]

Oh, they understand now that laziness in their research methods is not tolerated at the level they are at now. That paper was worth 30% of their final grade, and only two got above a C, and I do not grade on a curve and never will.[/quote]

This is awesome. I think you would be an awesome professor to have, if I was that interested in physics. Why couldn’t you be a history or English professor?[/quote]

The simple answer is that I do not like history and when I moved here I could barely speak English :slight_smile: I have been told by former students that they hated my guts while they had me as a professor, but the study and research skills they learned from me put them in the top of the rest of their classes. I do make them learn, whether they want to or not.

90

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:<<< If you’re serious about this, I believe I will want NOTHING to do with that world and will kill myself before being subjected to that kind of nightmare.[/quote]I believe you will never have to worry about that.
[/quote]

I believe x2

91

I believe Bros are better than hoes but bros and hoes over all (not really referring to kinky shit at the moment :l )

I believe sex is a drug and so is food :smiley:

I believe I love everyone if they try their hardest. So stop slaking!

I believe I I cant take anymore quantum physics at the moment

I believe I asked for the thread to be moved to get a life for some more action :!

92

What about the poor people that died just before Jesus came around and they go to hell and they get there and ask why and Satan tells them:
“Because you didn’t believe in Jesus”
They say “Sorry, Who?”
Satan replies “Jesus! He was born the year after you died.”
“Well wait a minute, that’s not exactly fair now is it?”
“Sorry…those are the rules.”
“Well just what is it about this guy Jesus anyway?”
“He was a guy who said we should all be nice to each other.”
“Well shit man that’s OK with me, sign me up or something will ya and get me out of here.”

1 Like
93

[quote]Nards wrote:
What about the poor people that died just before Jesus came around and they go to hell and they get there and ask why and Satan tells them:
“Because you didn’t believe in Jesus”
They say “Sorry, Who?”
Satan replies “Jesus! He was born the year after you died.”
“Well wait a minute, that’s not exactly fair now is it?”
“Sorry…those are the rules.”
“Well just what is it about this guy Jesus anyway?”
“He was a guy who said we should all be nice to each other.”
“Well shit man that’s OK with me, sign me up or something will ya and get me out of here.”
[/quote]
I guess that’s one way to ignore the tradition prior to Jesus and his symbolic existence as a sacrificial lamb moving forward.

94

[quote]okage wrote:
Because I cant write in the Alpha Male thread :open_mouth: I thought this was an amazing idea. Props to LankyMofo for the original idea.

The point of the thread is no scientific facts, you can go wherever you want with it as long as you dont use facts… haha have fun.

1.I have no evidence except that I read the book Lone Survivor and im american, but I believe that the world will be a better place for the next generation because of the “War on Terror.”

Free men fighting tyrants, talibans, terrorists… all that jazz. I dont care much for the talibans blood thirst american hatred… And I dont care whether they had weapons of mass destruction after 9/11, I think that taliban are bad for the human race and for the progress of civil rights. period.

[/quote]

i dislike you intensely

95

[quote]Nards wrote:
What about the poor people that died just before Jesus came around and they go to hell and they get there and ask why and Satan tells them:
“Because you didn’t believe in Jesus”
They say “Sorry, Who?”
Satan replies “Jesus! He was born the year after you died.”
“Well wait a minute, that’s not exactly fair now is it?”
“Sorry…those are the rules.”
“Well just what is it about this guy Jesus anyway?”
“He was a guy who said we should all be nice to each other.”
“Well shit man that’s OK with me, sign me up or something will ya and get me out of here.”
[/quote]

see: 12 tribes of isreal

96

I believe that if religious people truly took every word of their holy books for truth, they would be too scared of sinning and going to hell to leave their confessional booths. God has thought police, right?

97

I believe a three day split, 6 days weekly that focuses on 1 or 2 primary compound lifts followed by assistance and isolation work in a particular order is best for strength, size and definition depending on rep schemes.

The order would be:

Legs and core
Upper body push
Upper body pull

Off

Repeat, with different exercises.

Example with first day followed by second in parenthesis meaning M-W would be non-parenthesis vs. Th- Sat in parenthesis and roll through the week with the rest day following three work days:

Legs:

Deadlifts (squats)
Hamstring curls (straight leg dead lifts)
Leg extensions (leg extensions)
Calf raises (calf raises)
Back extension (back extension)
Crunches (leg raises)
Bridges (bridges)

Upper Push:

Bench press (incline press)
Pec Deck (dumbbell fly)
Over head press (dips)
Lateral raise ( Lateral raise)
Close grip bench ( french press)
Front raise (front raise)
Rope pushdown (some tri machine with a funky angle)

Upper Pull:

Chin ups ( t-bar row)
Dumbell row (cable row)
Nautilus pull over (nautilus pull over)
Face pull ( wide grip machine row)
Shrugs ( reverse fly)
Preacher curls (hammer curls)
Dumbbell curls (reverse grip barbell curls)

98

[quote]Ambugaton wrote:
I believe that if religious people truly took every word of their holy books for truth, they would be too scared of sinning and going to hell to leave their confessional booths. God has thought police, right? [/quote]

I believe you are forgetting the parts where God is also portrayed as a loving God.

99

Things I Can’t Prove, But Believe:

I believe that big foot is real, but I can’t prove it.

I believe that there MUST be life other than us for both scientific and religious reasons, but I can’t prove it.

I believe that existence isn’t just to exist, but to leave this world a little better than how you found it, but I can’t prove it.

100

[quote]okage wrote:
1.I have no evidence except that I read the book Lone Survivor and im american, but I believe that the world will be a better place for the next generation because of the “War on Terror.”

Free men fighting tyrants, talibans, terrorists… all that jazz. I dont care much for the talibans blood thirst american hatred… And I dont care whether they had weapons of mass destruction after 9/11, I think that taliban are bad for the human race and for the progress of civil rights. period.[/quote]

I believe Luttrell is a fraud, which is unfortunate because his story (at least the true part) is pretty incredible. Google Operation Red Wings and read up, his own after action report contradicts part of his story. Not sure why he or his co-writer felt the need to “jazz up” his story even more. Interesting book to read but Luttrell disappoints.