Explain the 11th dimension to me

God or religion should not be involved with any explanations in the dimensions, its irrational. Like Sythe said, mathematical equations and formulas are used to explain each dimension with a new factor coming in every new dimension.

 

... How is it irrational? The 11th dimensional perspective would BE god from what I can tell, and if I'm wrong (which is what I'm asking), what is it?

 

What if it doesn't exist?

And this argument to assert god exists is just stupid, dimensions are defined by parameters, a parameter doesn't define a dimension.

I disagree that we should disregard its possibilities just because the empirical evidence as it stands is lacking. Science is a culmination of theories where the best one will eventually come out on top...

It would be bad practice in science to completely disregard other theories or invest into one single theory (such as string theory) until complete evidence provided, but it's not bad practice to explore different methodologies of explaining the same phenomenon.

 

I am confused as to why they can come up with stuff after the 4th dimension by mentioning time, how can you "fold" time?

It just sounds like "Theorizing in the dark."


EDIT:


If the 10th dimension has all infinities for all possible universes, how can there possibly be an 11th dimension?

If you COULD view the 10th dimension from the 11th dimension, you would in my theory, be looking at you looking into the 10th dimension.

If you tried to fold thw 11th dimension, what the HELL would you get?

If you tried to view the 11th dimension from a 12th dimension, could you be possibly looking at you looking at the 10th dimension?

If the 11th dimension is possible, are not an infinite amounts, seeing as 10 should eb the logical end?
BUT, seeing as there could be an infinite amount, would not the 10th dimension be completely filled with the infinities from every single one?


Discuss.
It is 3AM, be easy, to a time for me to be thinking.


Posted a thread on another site for more discussion.

 

Just because you can't visualize doesn't mean it's impossible, or that scientists (who know much better than you do) are theorizing in the dark. You must also keep in mind that the youtube video posted is a much simplified version of scientific definition.

Yes, we have exceeded the point where our techonology is unable to test every hypothesis, and we therefore only have observational studies to relate to. It's already a well known premise that SPACE and TIME can be bent.

M-theory/Supergravity accounts for a 11th dimension, where I will not pretend to understand wat it means.

 

I'm sorry, but your going to have to point out how the theories are contradictory (or link me to a reference where I can read up on it). I know that the gap between quantam physics and large-scale physics has been a gap that scientists have been trying to bridge for a while, but I'm not sure what else you mean.

As I see it, it's the other way around - String theory makes logical sense, but is perhaps overly complex, and has no testable hypothesis as it stands.

By spacial geometry, do you mean Euclidian geometry? Because we are way beyond that...

I'd also point out that the electric universe theory is:
1. Not flawless.
2. Not neccesarily contradicatary.
3. Not testable (with modern technique).

If anything, we have observed a combination of theories over the years (particle and wave physics) for example, after each hypothesis becomes more and more testable.

 

I don't really see the 4th dimension as time. For a 2d being, time may appear to be the 3rd dimension. We move around in 3d so we can figure out pretty quickly that the 3rd isn't time, so we pushed that to the 4th.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDaKzQNlMFw
^4th spatial dimension

You assume that logic that applies in this universe in 3d terms would apply in other universes or from other-dimensional perspectives. There is no reason to think this would be the case. You're just guessing.

"This isn't science, its more like a mathematical religion."
^I didn't say this just for the record. FreedomFight quoted me.


There is an 11th dimension basically because the math requires it. Read up on how the string theory people found that adding an 11th dimension unified the 5 different theories they had to a single... thing. The super gravity and string theory people both found that there were indeed 11 and not 10. This 11th dimension would be outside of the first 10 and allow for a new perspective, one that looks "down" on the rest of the omniverse. What this perspective would show is TRUE existence, a timeless, infinite portrayal of everything that can EVER possibly be imagined. If you don't want me to call it the god perspective then make up some other term, but that's basically what this would be, no? Nothing would even really ever happen from this perspective. I don't really understand how you can see an infinite number of occurrences as a single object either, but whatever.

 

We have very clear empirical evidence for all of these. In fact, until recently, Stephen Hawking had made a bet that black holes did not exist...then retracted the claim as more advanced technology came up. Neutron stars have been acknowledged for a very long time, we can measure density of a star, and the particles emitted from them. The big bang: leftover radiation, outward expansion from a central point, etc etc.

The problem occurs when the empirical reality makes no sense with the simplest models (occum's razor) and we must therefore postulate additional more complex models.

This example made me chuckle, but is actually fairly accurate for the most part. The part about the "no evidence"... is just untrue. Sometimes evidence is still to be collected, or in the process of being collected. Nearly all theoretical math has it's basis in empirical roots.

I also think you fail to realize where we are today is because scientists 100 years ago were postulating things 100 years ahead of their time. Almost all science theory comes out before real solid evidence can be provided for it, and much of it is disproved in the future. That is to say that the first man to say the earth was round was probably laughed at as a fool, but 500 years later you'd be a fool not to.