questione

denrix · Post by **denrix** » Sat Feb 07, 2004 2:06 am

who is Ally? how come I've never seen her around? has she abandoned the forums? can I have her number? random question to make the previous question less noticeable?

Thunderdog · Post by **Thunderdog** » Sat Feb 07, 2004 9:28 am

Ally made her first Appearance on the HTML board, when she couldnt get past the 1st Duke nukem level. She was a Moderator on the Ikonboard forums, and this one.

http://www.dosgames.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=183 <- See this topic.

Post by **Dogbreath** » Sat Feb 07, 2004 12:51 pm

who is Ally?

She showed up around March (?) 2002, and after 4 months or so became a mod on our new IBB boards along with me and JTA. As far as who she is noone knows much-she lives in Australia and her real name isn't Ally... apart from that not much is known. She should be 14-15 now.

how come I've never seen her around? has she abandoned the forums?

She said she was "leaving for a short while" (I assumed maybe a month or so) and promptly fell off the face of the planet. I've tried to e-mail her but they never even reach her inbox so I presume her address is either fake or no longer in service. She still has full moderator access to the forum just in case she ever decides to come back.

can I have her number?

I doubt it.

random question to make the previous question less noticeable?

Ok, imagine an "ocean world" of sorts. One made entirely of water, but is a 3d sphere. Imagine the 2-dimensional inhabitants of it, and the surface of the world seeming to be a 2-dimensional plane that extends to all eternity(at least to them), because their technology can't take them "around" it in a reasonable amount of lifetimes, and the world itself is so vast. Technically, the 3-curvature of the surface would be near-negligable on the scales I'm talking about. Now imagine this: The 2-d inhabitants aren't actually "flat", but they have a 3d component to them. Their actual 2-space actually does have an infitesemally small 3-thickness, but they don't notice it. Now, suppose this: Their 3-dimension is much larger than the thickness of their layer. Ignore buoyancy for this, it's just an example. The faster they move along the surface, the farther up the 3-space components of them "rise" relative to the 2-plane. Suppose their "atoms" or whatever were spherical in shape, and typically they have only a small component of them reaching above the surface, because everything on the surface is rotating at the same fast rate. Now, move faster relative to everything else and one of two things happens: 1) You are actually moving faster relative to the center of the sphere and therefore "raise" up in orbit, moving a larger cross-section of the spherical atoms into the small 3-d area that's "visible", and therefore "Measurable". This results in an increase in measurable mass. Or, 2) You are actually moving slower relative to the center, and therefore you "drop", reducing the measurable mass. To yourself, your mass hasn't changed, because your 3-layer has changed and you are always on your "own layer". So, this means that relative to YOU, everything else changes mass in one direction or the other.

Ok, take this example into the 4th dimension. The universe as we know it is the extremely large(but not infinite) surface of a 4-sphere(or hypersphere), just as the surface of the 3-sphere was a plane to the denizens of the 2-space. The 4-curvature is there, but the universe is so large that it's not noticable. Now, I've already said that the weakening of 4-gravity has resulted in the expansion of the universe, either that or the fact that all the "stuff" on the surface of the sphere was going fast enough to "break orbit". Ok, here's where some of einstein's stuff comes in.

All matter is "four dimensional" in nature. That is to say, it has a 4-component. We exist in a 3-dimensional space, but due to the 4-curvature a slight amount of 4-space is "visible" to us, therefore we can actually interact with things. By the same reasoning, every object exists on a certain 3-space "plane" that's relative to the 4-sphere. As things approach the speed of light(not necessarily relative to everything else, but at least relative to the 4-gravity center) they rise up relative to the sphere in their attempt to "break orbit". The hyperspheres(or similar objects) that make up the atoms and everything else are very close to infinitely large. As something approaches the speed of light, the "centers" of these 4-spheres will rise into the 3-space-surface that everything can "see". This leads to the "things approach infinite mass as they approach the speed of light". Now I've already mentioned that by going slower one can drop down and then "cut across" the center of the 4-sphere, but this has limitations. Our 4-location can be changed merely by altering speed relative to the center. However, without a source of 4-thrust(i.e. being able to point something "towards" or "away" from the center), any attempts to "move" through the middle area will just result in "returning" to the surface of the 4-sphere.

Now, why isn't it possible to "continue" above the surface of the sphere? I think it's something to do with the expansion rate of the 4-sphere.

At the time of the "big bang" the universe was also the surface of a 4-sphere, in fact the same one, but a lot smaller. The smaller scale of everything meant everything was smaller, but everything was smaller. This meaning, c(speed of light) was smaller, but so was a "meter" and a "gram" and whatever.

To that same point, "time" scales remained the same throughout, otherwise the C would have been divided "twice" because of meters and seconds both being divided. But the speed of light always remains the same relative to the size of the 4-sphere.

In addition, just as there are 3-dimensional spheres(planets, stars, whatever) within our 4-sphere, the 4-sphere could just be one small object on the surface of a hyper-hyper sphere(5-sphere), and so on up, leaving the possibilities open for an infinite number of dimensions. However, the thought of going into that gives me a headache, so I'm going to stay away from that for today.

(Who's to say that you *weren't* talking about the 4-D string theory in those "random questions", eh?

)

lakerzz8 · Post by **lakerzz8** » Sat Feb 07, 2004 1:39 pm

OH YEAH! I remember Ally, she was really nice...but she never came back...

denrix · Post by **denrix** » Sun Feb 08, 2004 12:55 am

dogbreath, you're sick man. you need proffesional treatment.

Core_12 · Post by **Core_12** » Sun Feb 08, 2004 8:18 am

I think that was funny, though a bit confusing...

Post by **Dogbreath** » Sun Feb 08, 2004 9:32 am

Read "Flatworld" (I forget author) it'll help you understand some...