I need someone to prove me wrong.

[DerekZoolandah]

As most people know, there are first, second, third, etc dimensions. My question is for the first dimension. Theoretically, an example of one dimension would be like such as the letter "l". It's a single straight line. It has one measurement - length. That would mean it has no height or width. If that were so, then wouldn't that mean that there would be NO line at all? No matter how miniscule the width is of the line, that's still a measurement that is more than 0.

 

 

 

So therefore wouldn't that mean that there is no first dimension?

 

 

 

I'm sure I've missed something as it seems that no one would use the first dimension if it was illogical\impossible.

[angryjoe]

would guess that its because its just theoretical?

[killerbeer0]

As most people know, there are first, second, third, etc dimensions. My question is for the first dimension. Theoretically, an example of one dimension would be like such as the letter "l". It's a single straight line. It has one measurement - length. That would mean it has no height or width. If that were so, then wouldn't that mean that there would be NO line at all? No matter how miniscule the width is of the line, that's still a measurement that is more than 0.

 

 

 

So therefore wouldn't that mean that there is no first dimension?

 

 

 

I'm sure I've missed something as it seems that no one would use the first dimension if it was illogical\impossible.

 

 

 

The line still exists in 3 dimensions. A single dimension cannot exist without the others.

[mmmcannibalism]

the first dimension exists, its just that nothing we can comprehend exists solely in it.

[angryjoe]

yeh what they said sound better. my guess seems pretty awful :?

[Laura]

How do we know a second dimension exists? Because we can easily imagine it on a piece of paper. What of third dimensions? Well, we know objects exist in three dimensions. What of fourth dimensions? We can't grasp time because we don't have the absence of time. In this case, we have a line but we cannot picture what a line is without being a line. My thoughts anyways.

[Da_Latios]

How do we know a second dimension exists? Because we can easily imagine it on a piece of paper. What of third dimensions? Well, we know objects exist in three dimensions. What of fourth dimensions? We can't grasp time because we don't have the absence of time. In this case, we have a line but we cannot picture what a line is without being a line. My thoughts anyways.

 

All hail philosolaura.

[anonymous1234]

Quick...Get Reb.

 

 

 

I think that the 3 dimensions obviously exist, but we cannot percieve them, only make three dimensional replicas of the other dimensions. Even the letter "l" on a piece of paper has some height and width, but they are so miniscule we use them as examples of what dimensions may look like.

[DerekZoolandah]

Thanks for explaining guys :thumbup:

[Laura]

How do we know a second dimension exists? Because we can easily imagine it on a piece of paper. What of third dimensions? Well, we know objects exist in three dimensions. What of fourth dimensions? We can't grasp time because we don't have the absence of time. In this case, we have a line but we cannot picture what a line is without being a line. My thoughts anyways.

 

All hail Philosolaura Rex.

 

Sounds better, no?

[anonymous1234]

Errr...Doesn't Rex mean "King?" :lol:

[deathdrow]

Errr...Doesn't Rex mean "King?" :lol:

 

no rex means dino.

[Laura]

Errr...Doesn't Rex mean "King?" :lol:

 

Well, yes that's why I put it there, but it also sounds like a cool dinosaur name. :D

[llamster]

Errr...Doesn't Rex mean "King?" :lol:

 

no rex means dino.

 

 

 

Lol. But yes it does mean king.

[Zonorhc]

How do we know a second dimension exists? Because we can easily imagine it on a piece of paper. What of third dimensions? Well, we know objects exist in three dimensions. What of fourth dimensions? We can't grasp time because we don't have the absence of time. In this case, we have a line but we cannot picture what a line is without being a line. My thoughts anyways.

 

Uh, actually, we have models that help us conceptualise objects in four spatial dimensions.

[Laura]

How do we know a second dimension exists? Because we can easily imagine it on a piece of paper. What of third dimensions? Well, we know objects exist in three dimensions. What of fourth dimensions? We can't grasp time because we don't have the absence of time. In this case, we have a line but we cannot picture what a line is without being a line. My thoughts anyways.

 

Uh, actually, we have models that help us conceptualise objects in four spatial dimensions.

But we can only visualize in 2D, even with depth, the same concept as to why he was asking the question rather than why it does or doesn't exist.

[killerbeer0]

Doing a line may help with the comprehension of the line.

 

 

 

...or it may just leave you coked out.

[ThurinEthir]

How do we know a second dimension exists? Because we can easily imagine it on a piece of paper. What of third dimensions? Well, we know objects exist in three dimensions. What of fourth dimensions? We can't grasp time because we don't have the absence of time. In this case, we have a line but we cannot picture what a line is without being a line. My thoughts anyways.

 

Uh, actually, we have models that help us conceptualise objects in four spatial dimensions.

But we can only visualize in 2D, even with depth, the same concept as to why he was asking the question rather than why it does or doesn't exist.

 

Isn't a shadow 2D? Or does that not count? Or am I wrong?

 

I remember trying to visualize a 1D object when I was reading the sequels to Ender's Game. I think there was something about it in there. Anyway, I failed, of course.

[aquariusman]

As far as I care, the first and second dimensions only truly exist in mathematics. Tip: don't try to understand all the way up to the 11th or 21st dimensions (Those were the dimensions involved with String theory, right?).

[aspokaspofkjsopfkapo]

Carl Sagan had a really good explanation of the dimensions in "The Cosmos". Here's The Cosmos on Hulu if anyone wants to find it.

[Zonorhc]

But we can only visualize in 2D, even with depth, the same concept as to why he was asking the question rather than why it does or doesn't exist.

 

We can visualise in three dimensions. We do it all the time.

 

 

 

Which is really irrelevant, because what he's asking is whether or not the first dimension exists.

 

 

 

You don't need to have it on paper to be able to visualise a line. If it helps, try and think of it this way: the first dimension is the measurement of a straight line without taking into account any possible height or width, rather than the line itself.

[indy500fan]

I'd argue that we can't perceive anything that doesn't have value in the first four dimensions: length, height, width, duration.

[Lateralus]

I'd argue that we can't perceive anything that doesn't have value in the first four dimensions: length, height, width, duration.

 

 

 

The 4th spatial dimension and time as the "forth dimension" are two different concepts.

[Zierro]

Think of the line as a division in space, that doesn't necessarily take up room... like country or state boarders. You are either in USA or you are in Canada.

[i_love_burritos]

Carl Sagan had a really good explanation of the dimensions in "The Cosmos". Here's The Cosmos on Hulu if anyone wants to find it.

 

 

 

Thats a good book. TV series was one of the best of all time. Pity I can't watch it.

 

 

 

This is all getting to abstract for me to comprehend.