Yes it is—somehow.

Thought is something not many people comprehend one bit. I'm one of those people.

I believe "thought" is MORE than just random biological processes in your brain. If you compare a living human to an intact brain that you fire electrical pulses through, I'm sure you'll admit that there's a VAST difference. The brain cannot think, even though electrical signals are going through it (just like in the living person's brain.) I believe it is part of our "soul", for lack of a better term. It's part of being ALIVE.

Thought cannot be fourth dimensional unless we are talking about time as the fourth dimension. If we are talking about another spacial dimension then no, thought is not. We are only three dimensional beings on a three dimensional plane. Our minds are three dimensional so all that they produce must be three dimensional, even thought.

thought is obviously the result of chemicals and electrics in the mind and nothing else.

Thought in my opinion, could lie in the fourth dimension. What thought is though is pretty complicated. I think that thinking is a very special thing we can do which is the act of logic. Thinking about this is giving me a headache.

friction - the resistance of the relative motion(sliding or rolling) of surfaces of bodies in contact. if space is composed of something(s), through which everything is moving, and which exhibit friction, these things have no effects we have observed. now, according to our best observations, an object can still, theoretically, exist at any place in space. so these "particles" which supposedly make up space, and generate friction, must in fact be infinite in number and density. if this were true the friction they exhibit would also be infinite, and objects would have difficulty moving. perhaps "friction" isn't quite the right direction to be looking from...

I'll have to agree with Tim and Stephan this time. "Space" is the closest thing to a vacuum that exists in the universe. Except for a few microscopic and sub-microscopic molecules out there, space is EMPTY and thus has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO CAUSE FRICTION. And I also don't believe that space "itself" (whatever that may be. The mysterious "ether" that scientists once believed in?) has friction. And this is actually a GOOD thing. If space had friction, the Apollo missions to the moon would have needed A LOT more fuel to combat this. And the Voyager probes that were launced through the solar system and out into space would have needed a lot of fuel to overcome this friction as well. Instead, however, they started with a large burst of energy to get them started and COASTED through the rest of space, except for minor course corrections (and being pulled by gravity of objects out there). If space had friction, it would have slowed down the Voyager probes and they would eventually STOP. And the Apollo missions would have met more resistance going to the moon. And since Voyager hasn't even slowed down, and the Apollo missions didn't meet any kind of resistance going to the moon, (and these are just a FEW examples) "space" must NOT have any friction of its own.

They always say that if you let something fly through space it will continue moving forever at its constant velocity because there's no friction to slow it down. This assumes space is totally empty. But there is energy left over from the big bang that permeates space. There is atleast 3K of energy at any point in space. If there is any way that that energy would change the speed of object, then maybe that could be called friction of some sort.

Yes, space has friction. We, and any Matter - are a product of that friction. That friction exists in a shape of a vortex in any goven coordinate of Space/Time. The greater the friction - the greater the density of Matter. Matter and Anti-Matter "rub" against (through) each other, thus creating a swirl of energy in which particles of physical relaity form. Out of these particles come Particluar Forms. We are such forms and upon our dissolution matter spiritual gets separated from the matter physical directly proportional to our spiritual makeup. Matter and Spirit are two main forces in the Universe. We are lucky to be conscious of both. What we need to do is figure out how to use our own spirit to perpetuate our own reality according to the laws of the Universe.

No. Only matter will cause friction. Space itself cannot. The matter in it can.

I think that space CAN'T exhibit friction, because there are no molecules for things to rub against, thus no friction is possible. There is nothing else to cause friction other than molecules, so things move very freely.

Space itself cannot exert friction, space is not a material object, space just is. Same thing with time. The only way in which it can exert friction is with the tiny amount of gasses that inhabit every cubic centimetre of space (I spell it that way because that's how they spell it in Europe, and they invented it. so there. =P~~), and gas still isn't space.

Yes, I think it does. I think this is the cause for objects to want to stay at the constant velocities and being at rest. If we image Einsteins demonstration with the flat rubber sheet to demonstrate space gravity, you would realize that if you realesed the ball, it would have static friction and not move until a infintesimally small amount of time.

Yep. The thing is, you don't see yourself looking at you from behind right now, right? So what if you went back in time and went to look at yourself from behind? You would notice you, and you wouldn't remember noticing you, and you (Both you's!) would have a paradox that, I think, would totally destroy the universe. BUWHAHAHA!!! Seriously, I think that you would remember noticing you and that if you went back in time and said something to you, you would go back in time in the same way, go back and say the same thing to the now past you with _EXACTLY_ the same timing, down to the femtosecond (1 trillionth of a second, maybe even less), go back to your time module in EXACTLY the same way, etc. There's no stopping it. You WILL do it. And the weird part will be, you will still have a free will as we know it. If you wave your arm in the process, you will remember having waved your arm when you were the past "you". In fact, you will have done it. This is all too confusing, but that's the point. =). You see, I believe that everything can be explained as the interaction of your various molecules. When we discover the formula describing every interaction possible in the universe, the only thing stopping us from predicting everything that will happen between now and whenever will be the enourmous amount of atoms in the universe, and the fact that we will have to know the exact position and velocity of every particle in the universe in order to get the prediction right. And knowing both the position and velocity of a particle at the same time is impossible under the Heisenburg Principle of Uncertainty. So since the reaction is so complicated, we can still say that we do have a free will in some form or another, and we can still punish people for their crimes because they "chose to do it". Besides, if we punish them, they're less likely to do it again etc. This is getting pretty long, so I'll end it right here. You know my email address in case of disagreement.

Personally, I don't believe time travel is even POSSIBLE, and I don't think time is the Fourth Dimension either, but that's another topic all together. But I think IF time travel was possible, it could cause MAJOR problems. Here's how I see it. I believe in what some call "Chaos Theory" -- a butterfly flaping its wings in California could affect the environment enough to send a hurricane off the coast of Africa off course. Or basically ANYTHING and EVERYTHING effects EVERYTHING ELSE. If anything had been a LITTLE different, things would not happen quite the same. Some changes are "minor", thus the study of science and being able to repeat experiments generally works. But some things could cause MAJOR changes. So ANY journey back in time, whether you DO anything or not, would affect everything that happens. Even if you were just standing there, your eyes are absorbing some light rays, some sound waves are entering your ears, you're breathing the air and your body is displacing some air just by being there. If the wind's blowing, you're blocking some of that, and you're blocking sunlight from the ground and anything (bugs or whatever) that may be there. And your weight is affecting the ground, whether you are crushing the grass or causing wear on asphalt. And that's only if no one is there. If someone SEES you, then that will affect things as well. And if you "interact" with people or events, it could affect things rather DRASTICALLY. And here's where "Chaos Theory " comes in. Even if these things you affect are "minor" (like the wear on the asphalt), you never know WHAT it will affect. Who knows? It could cause a spot in the road to wear out a few seconds sooner, which could cause a car to wreck, killing or injuring whoever was in there. Granted, that's rather DRASTIC, but all I'm saying is it COULD happen and what's more -- we don't know WHAT would be changed or whether it's something "minor" or not! But being there has the potential to affect EVERYTHING. (Sorry if this didn't make any sense. It's kinda hard to explain.)

No, it would not. Time is merely another dimension. Travelling back in it would no more destroy the universe than taking two steps backwards could. I think that all events cause "splits" in the universe. Any act will be played out with all of its choices being made within multiple universes. If time travel happens in one it will only affect that one. It cannot affect the other branches of the universe in any way. They are different situations. If this made any sense to anyone then it would have been a miracle.

Artling

I think that time travel would only damage the universe if it was misused in some way, like doing too much at one time, or performing all time travel from a specific point, and then only if there was a lot of time travel going on at that point. Fortunately, time travel is possible without seriously damaging the universe at all.

No because if it can happen at all than it probably already has happened and is happening so therefore its not going to do any "damage" in any apocalyptic sense it's just a natural process that happens in the universe, not damaging it.

There was a really neat Twilight Zone about just this question. This guy went back in time to stop this hideous tragedy that occured in his home town before he was born. But no matter what he tried, he couldn't manage to do anything that would prevent the accident. And in the end, one of the things he tried _caused_ the accident. I think the point was that he couldn't change the past because it had already happened.

I like that theory because it's comforting to think that history won't get rewritten if someone discovers time travel. Of course, there are at least a dozen completely different theories I like just as much, not because they're comforting, but because they are _interesting_ (in the sense of the Chinese curse).

This question, although I thought of it, caught me by surprise. I really don't knonw what would happen. I would think that it very well could be world ending or could be nothing more than feelings of deja vu.

This is really late but I had to respond to this. There was a topic proposed on the 21 of February that asked if there was a fourth dimension and, if so, how do we know of it. The answer is this: Yes, there is a fourth spacial dimension and, for the brave of thought, a second time dimension. That's right, I am saying that there are at least 4 space and 2 time dimensions. This should be obvious to anyone who knows Einstein's Special Relativity. I feel that any answer that gives us either "imaginary" time or mass is proof of the existance of more dimensions. In Hawking's "Breif Histroy" there is a reference to GUTs. Inthere it says that they must meet certaint standards. One is the Fienman Quatum Feild. This idea uses "imaginary" time, time measured with imagiary numbers, to explain quatum events. These imaginary values gives time more dimensions. I feel that this is proof enough for at lest one more time dimension. The fourth space dimension is proven by ! gravity. If it is truely space curvature the what is space curving into. IT cannot curve in 3-space. It has to be hyperspace.

I believe the fourth dimension DOES exist, and all you need to prove it is the assumption that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant. Of course, some people would debate this, but that's another question all together . . . For now, we will assume that the speed of light in space (a near vacuum) is constant. If this is the case, then space must be CURVED. light rays traveling around the sun (or any other massive object) "slow down" or "bend". This could be seen during the solar eclipse not too long ago. Light rays from stars near the sun were "bent", and the light rays "slowed down". But if the speed of light is constant, then there must be some other explanation. The only way to make it "slow down" would be to make the path LONGER. So space is "stretched" or "curved" around massive stellar bodies. So which way is space "curved"? It's not curved in any of our current three dimensions. The sun doesn't make space LONGER or WIDER or HIGHER. Its gravity stretches space into the FOURTH dimension, something we haven't quite figured out yet. We can't quite get a grasp on it because it is "beyond" our 3-D lives. But it IS real. Curved space shows it! This was probably confusing. If so, I'm sorry. If you have any questions or want me to clarify anything, let me know. Ricky Duval

Yes it does, but not as the time as we usually think of it being. Time is not an actual, physical dimension but something treated as a dimension for conveniency's sake. The real 4th dimension is "imaginary time," which, if you want to illustrate it next to time, is at right angles to it (time). It is in this "imaginary time" in which space is curved to form gravity, as last week's topic discussed. Also in imaginary time is a different kind of curvature a curvature which makes a straight line in our 3d space a big circle in the dimension of imaginary time. This means that we could head out in our space ship and after several million years of travel (the universe is pretty big) we would start noticing that things were looking familiar- say! that's earth! Yes, that's right, you could go all the way around the universe, much in the same way that people already fly around the world while at the same time reducing their life spans by several hours with every bite of airplane food =! ). Carcinogenic plane-food aside, the universe is a hypersphere and we live on it's "surface." Not much more I can say.

The fourth dimension does occur. It's actually kind of easy to think of. Take the first dimension. If you had a straight line and put it on a two dimensional area, the line would still be one dimensional. Move it up and down the y-axis and it is still one dimensional. Every spot on that line is exactly on the same spot in the y-axis. Now if a square were to be put onto a three dimensional area (volume), it would still be two dimensional. Move it up and down the z-axis and every z-cooridinate will be exactly the same on every point of the square. Now if you take a three dimensional object. Or even a three dimensional space, such as the universe, and put it on a four dimensional "area" every point in the three dimensional space would exist at the exact same coordinate on the "w"-axis or whatever you want to call it. Now what can we not really visualize, but we always no that pretty much no matter where we go, we will always be on the same four dimensional co! ordinate? Its Time. We all exist and move along the same point in time. No matter where we go time still goes on. Just a theory though.

Of course! That is why I made this page! But... My evidence is not conclusive. We know that there are 0 to 3 dimensions already. My question is why would this trend stop? Also, What about time. I has to flow somewhere and we have to move. If there is no more dimensions than the 3rd, then we could not move because our past bodies would be in the way of where our future bodies wanted to go.

Sorry this is a bit late, Wasn't here last week and had a hectic schoolweek. Yes, I very much believe in space's curvedness, if I may call it that. In fact, I have made a computer program to demonstrate it (okay, it plays Tic Tac Toe, but I wanted to publicize it =). Anyway, Einstein taught us that gravity is like this: We all have "Light-bubbles" (I'll call them LB's from now on) emitting from us at all times. These aren't physical, bubbles of light, but more like concepts. Anyway, an LB is basically where a bubble of light would've expanded to a certain amount of time after you flash a strobe light or something like that. It expands outward at our trusty speed of light. Now, light, having no mass, (IMHO) would not be affected by the traditional Newtonian Gravity (In which gravity is some kind of mysterious force, much like the electromagnetic force of atoms). But in Einstein's line of thought, space was curved around massive objects (abbreviated MO's) and light was simply "trying" to follow the straightest line possible in our curved space. Our light bubble is just as affected by the curving of space as other MO's are. A little more explaination of light near MO's:

Light always travels at the same speed, regardless of anything, and time is based on the speed of light and will adjust it's rate to keep light always moving at the same speed. So time always travels the same speed, right? Wrong! Near our MO, space gets "steeper." Light will travel the same speed when viewed from "above" (imagine you're in your car going down a hill, always keeping at 45 mph as viewed by an overhead helecopter). We travel through space looking at the curve from the hill, and we travel at the same speed going down that hill (Now imagine going down the hill at 45mph as judged by your speedometer). From where we are, light appears to get faster as it gets closer to the MO. Time near that MO will be slowed down as a result to make the light travel the same distance in more time, balancing out the difference (And they have proven this time slowing by taking two atomic clocks, synchronizing them, and taking one up in an airplane for a while, they were off 50 nanosec! onds or so, an unheard of innaccuracy with atomic clocks in such short periods of time.)

So anyway, near an MO, our light bubble will be "biased" toward that MO due to the curvature of space. The light going to will speed up, the light going away will unspeed up. Since you cannot go faster than light, it will be more probable that you will travel to that MO. Thus, the "laziest" thing you can do will be to head on over to the MO. it's gravity!!!

So why do you accelerate as you go down? now imagine, you're falling and you're entering gradually slower time levels (like the layers of an onion). Since you must keep the same amount of energy at all times (Law of conservation of energy) you will go faster as judged by you. An observer in space would see you always travelling the same speed, keeping up the kinetic energy.

This is all the way I see it. If you see that I got something wrong (and have something to prove it) don't hesitate to email me.

I don't think gravity IS curved space, I think gravity is the THE THING THAT CURVES SPACE. Instead of us perceiving curved space as gravity, I believe gravity is a force of nature that curves the space around it. And this curving IS in the Fourth-Dimension.

Let me use the example of a two-dimensional world as an analogy. (It doesn't work EXACTLY right, but it's good enouogh to make the point.) Imagine a flat sheet of rubber being a two-dimensional world. If you put a golf ball (a THREE-dimensional object) on this sheet, it curves the TWO-dimensional world. This curving ISN'T gravity, it's CAUSED by gravity. (Literally, the weight of the ball). So the 2-D world is in essence "curved" by gravity.

The same is true for our THREE-dimensional world. Gravity CURVES it into the FOURTH DIMENSION. (Instead of this curving being perceived as gravity. There's really only a subtle difference between the two, but I think a distinction needs to be made.)

Yes. It is curved space in the fourth dimension, Kind of like a depression in space-time. But as to what causes this or things to be clumped is presented. I still think space is curved!

I don't think that this question can be answered in absolut terms. There are numerous human pursuits and almost every one can be described in scientific terms. Any field of human knowledge lends itself to a numerical representation, even if indirectly. My thinking is that, regadless of the field, there must be a unique relationship between all branches of science. I know that it sounds strange, but I don't really see any difference between Nuclear Physics, for example, and psychology. If we consider what is involved in formation of matter on the sub-atomic level (subject of Nuclear Physics) and the fact that humans and the Universe are, essentially, matter, then any and every phenomena in our reality, including that of our consciousness, can be viewed from the Nuclear Physics standpoint as yet another manifestation or transformation of matter. Out of which follows that for every event or phenomena there exists a corresponding representation of it in all known branches of! science. One could relate Dr. Bohm theories in quantum physics to archaelogical discoveries of hidden quarters underneath the Sphynx - for they both are related to the same thing, namely, the way humans perceive the Universe. Presently vs. in the past. And what is interesting that in the past civilizations seemed to know a lot more about the workings of the Universe than us with all our scientific ammunition.

Some obvious examples

1) Holistic medicine (called "alternative" in the West) - aged at least 5000 years. 2) Bio-Resonance Therapy vs. Chi Kung/T'ai Chi - known for at least 5000 years 3) Zero-Point-Energy vs. Tao (essentially the same thing, except Tao is much deaper in its view of the universe) 4) Mythology vs. the documenting of the actual events by the ancient civilizations 5) Congintive archeology

I am sure that this list can go on and on. But to address the topic - I wish that there was a formula denoting the principal relationship between all the sciences in terms of energy. For all it is, is just a different resonating frequencies of the basic components of matter, the fabric of space itself resonating six octaves higher than the frequency of the electron. Which means that if we can resonate close to that frequency, we can affect the matter of space and time itself.

http://www.newphys.se/elektromagnum/physics/

Well, I may be a bit biased, what with being an electrical engineer and all, but I'm going to have to say Faraday's Law. For anyone lucky enough to have avoided studying e-mag, Faraday's Law says that if you put a loop of conductive material in a magnetic field so that the field is perpendicular to the plane of the loop and you vary the field, you get an electromotive force tangent to the curve of the loop. If that doesn't sound all that exciting, consider that the practical upshot of it is that if you take a big magnet and spin it inside a big coil of wire, you get your local electric company.

I would have to say tht Newtons second law fits many situation and it is simple and has been transformed into many other forms. In my physics class, it is what I put down for any answer that I am unsure of. IT'S EVERYWHERE!~

I think the Chicken came first giving birth to the egg. An egg can't hatch itself. God made the animal: CHICKEN