Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover > Pilot's Lounge

Pilot's Lounge Members meetup

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-20-2012, 05:02 AM
WTE_Galway WTE_Galway is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,207
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by raaaid View Post
for example the universe is defined as a four dimensional manifold

i laughed a lot about this in the science forum and compared it with the emeperors new clothes

who could understand this
Among other things there must be more than three for string theory to work.

The math requires more than 3 dimensions.

If you are not fluent in scientific math-speak you cannot expect to understand the science. The most you will be able to do is watch Discovery channel documentaries where journalists present pretty animated demonstrations of the science which if you are lucky get it maybe half right in a quaint Discovery channel sort of way.

In science given a choice between commonsense and believing the mathematical formalism you must always believe the math no matter how weird the result.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-20-2012, 07:20 AM
MadBlaster MadBlaster is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 666
Default

Wiki says a manifold is a math abstraction that models a point to a local neighborhood to the nth. So,

one dimensional manifold –> point relative to a line or circle

two dimensional manifold –> point relative to a plane or sphere

three dimensional manifold –> point relative to a cube

fourth dimensional manifold –>point relative to space-time

The last one being the famous space-time continuum. This can be confirmed by watching lots of Star Trek.

Going to nth, all day long we can do

Fifth dimensional manifold –> point relative to space-time-thought

Sixth dimensional manifold –> point relative to space-time-thought-RAAAID

Sevnth dimensional manifold –> point relative to space-time-thought-RAAAID-etc...

Then there’s the anti-matter piece. So, I suppose, if assuming that a “point” has mass only in the third dimension (i.e., 3d space at a particle level), you could then do an “inverse” manifold starting at the third dimension. So,

Third anti-dimensional manifold –> an anti-matter cube.

But I’m not really sure how the math guys figure in the matter verses anti-matter. I suppose the anti-matter piece could be part of the same set of infinity instead of a separate “anti-matter” set of infinity. But then again, infinity is probably infinity. So they probably just use one set of infinity to include both the anti-matter piece and the matter piece. So, instead of starting all over again from 1 to n, they probably just slap it in the set of n somewhere. So you could just stick an “anti” in front of it. So where 1<x<n, you would have something like

n-x anti-dimensional manifold –> anti-space-anti-time-anti-thought-anti-RAAAID (oops!)

And somehow CloD fits in nearby where you got your anti-spitfires that climb like 109’s and your anti-109s that climb like spitfires and CloD works like a charm on 32-bit XP and STEAM is dead as a door knob.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.