True, just like in the cube diagram everything is spatially correct. But it's not a cube, it's only a projection of a cube, so it doesn't need extra dimensions.

Someone on Wikipedia has been making tons of those. Username JasonHise if I remember correctly.

Well yeah, they are 3D depictions of 4D objects, so they would be spatially correct. It's just that the donut thing is real hypnotizing.

Why doesn't anyone think my ideas are great?

Ah, I see. It is pretty cool, I'll admit.

@gooey goo: What idea specifically? Goo-D?

The goo world!the physics and structures!the magnificence of goo power!goo-D,3-D meuserments of goo!The great food source that might help us live in a dead world!

Cool! :0

Mmmmyeeeeaah okaaay...
About the 4D, the hypercube or whatever you call it, is actually a 2D representation of a 3D representation of the hypercube. Because the second dimension is one dimension under ours, we can understand the 3D to 2D transition, but I think its pretty much impossible to imagine a hypercube. Though what can be sort of understood is this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Tesseract2.svg
which when folded up would give you a tesseract. In the same way that folding this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Hexahedron_flat.svg
would result in a simple 3D cube. Thats my way of trying to imagine the 4thdimension.

just found something out:
to draw a dimension, start witha dot (0 d) and from each point draw a line to one side and connect them all using the previous dimension (the one line would connect to it self with a 0 d object) do this an and you get a square, or a 2 d object with 2 lines in one direction connected by a 2 d object. do this again and you get a cube, or a 2 d object in which all 4 points are pointed in one direction and connected with a 2d object. and again you get the object AP had, or a cube with all 8 points connected with a cube. again and you go higher and higher. note that each time the number of total points doubles:
0d: 1
1d: 2
2d: 4
3d: 8
4d: 16
5d: 32
and so on)

negative dimensions are the same thing in their universe, but in our world they suck in owr universe to balance nature (black holes) a 3d (not -3d) object in a negative universe would also be a black hole.

also, you can't see a 2d object or lower as it would slip through our reality and be unable to see, and 4d objects are to hard to se (we have to look at right angle of reality)

and there is my epic explaination of reality (and negetive reality)

Buckets of Bilge! The images are what the imprints would look like. Remember Agent Smith Carl Sagan's explanation?

Just had a thought: If a 1D object is a line, what is a point?

I don't know. What IS the point?

0d: the lenght, width, or depth, or time. looks like this:
()
the thing inside the parenthesis.

A point isn't a shape, it's a place defined by all dimensions in the space the point exists in. So it actually has no dimensions.

Technically, though, a point has as many dimensions as the space the point exists in. On a graph, a point is two-dimensional. On a modelling program, a point is three-dimensional. When talking about a line in a 1D universe, a point would be one-dimensional.
Also, the value of all its dimensions would be one over infinity. For example, a point in our universe would have a width, height and depth all with a value of 1/∞ .

That's what I think, anyway.

An I invisible

As gooey goo wants to be moderator one day he starts to talk smart, right gooey goo? By the way I dunno what I need to do by myself to get into moderator when I get older. Can someone tell me?

Well, David will only appoint moderators when we need them. But yes, you did say in the future.

Basically, from my view, you need to be reliable, respected, and basically be able to handle all moderator tasks. You need to follow the rules, be kind to new members, and be helpful overall. Also, you have to be able to be trusted with such responsibilities and David must be sure that you won't mess up the site with the moderator tools.
And, of course, the site must be in need of moderators.

That's what I think, anyway. For specific details you'll have to ask David.

Basically a bunch of responsibilities. No real reason to want to be one.

Good syllogism :
If the universe is all
by the way the universe is nothing that can be contained,
And if the space is really big
Is also Very small because nothing is a comparative to it, even the infinity

if you zoom into a cell, then to a protein, then to a molecule and further and further in, inside the atom, do you find a tniy universe? and what if you zoom out farther andd farther our of the universe? a really big atom?

Or perhaps we're all in The Matrix. Carl Sagan DOES talk like Agent Smith.

oh noes! random guys shooting me! activate slow motion technique!
(while they are bending backwards and waving their arms while slow mo bullets fly straight over them, a guy walks at regular speed and pushes then to the ground.) darn it, a flaw in my plan.

Goo matrix,I wonder...

I doubt the self-contained or just universe containing atoms, IMO, all particles are just quantons (I don't know how its spelled in english).

You mean quarks? If you do, that'd be incorrect, as electrons aren't made up of quarks.

I assume he means "quanta", little bits of energy. The singular is "quantum".

No not quarks, those only compsose nucleotides (again, no idea what its called in english). What I mean is that all particles are waves. According to quantum physics (I think).

Yes, the quanta.

Isn't it that they're waves when they're moving, and particles when they're colliding?

Even the theory of black pits talks about objects that compress and they are transported to another universe because the gravitatory force are infinite

Goo quanta,I wonder...