Random Philosophy/Physics 4

[Zylo]

Ok, to revitalize the topic with some new thing to debate: humans can only see a tiny fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum as visible light/color. What if we could see more? Would our eyes percieve gamma, X, UV, infared, micro, radio, etc. waves as completely different colors? Are there more colors that are simply beyond human comprehension because we can't see them? Discuss.

[Tavis]

DraganFox.. I think that would be even better in a new thread.. May I upgrade it to a thread opener?

[Zylo]

Why not?

[norsenerd]

The other parts fo the spectrum don't realy matter much on earht. In one direction we would se hardly anythign and we would see to much in the other direction.

[Burning Sheep Productions]

I agree, our eyes have evolved to what it needs to be.

[Henohenomoheji]

in that case, in order to find out, we need to set the earth to a point when we'll need to evolve these skills in order to survive... of course, that could take a few million years <!--emo&:P--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo-->.<br><br>....wait a minute...

[Tavis]

Actually, iyestorm, the reason our eyes will not evolve to see that stuff is because people already can see it using the devices other people make. If seeing a certain wavelength was vital to our survival, someone will simply make goggles or sunglasses that will light up that "color" with something we can see.

[Foxchild]

*falls backwards with shock*<br><span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'>WHOA!!!!</span><br>*hits ground*<br><br>I was just trying to come up with a new Randon P/P discussion. I had almost posted that somewhere, but i can't remember if i did or didn't. in any case, this thought had occured to me years ago around the time when i wondered if everyone see's colors in the same "light", as it were. I'll post a little more when i'm not doing school work along this and can devote a bit more brain power to it.

[erikbarrett]

In all likelyhood, infrared would appear "redder" and ultraviolet would look "violetter" than anything we are capable of seeing. It's kind of hard to understand how something could be "redder than red," but that simply states that we would have facilities to see more colors that the red-violet spectrum.<br><br>It would be like asking the question "what would the world look like if we had three eyes?" It wouldn't look any different, we would just have a new way of looking at things. While infrared would actually be a different color, it would go past red on the color spectrum, thus my calling it "redder than red."

[norsenerd]

It aprears that our world (localy) is three dimensional. A third eye wouldn't add anythign if it looked at teh same things the other two eyes looked at. If however it looked at somethign else (like bckwards) then we would see a two dimensonal image of whatever it looked at. Our brains would make sence of this soemhow.<br><br>If the world local had more then three spacial dimensions then we would see a three dimensional projection of whatever we were lookign at. Ever seen a three dimensional projection of a hyper cube? It basicly looks like a cube within a cube. I'll draw a two dimesnional projection of a three cube when I find time and post it.

[Tavis]

Wait.. I almost remember a site that was showing off such a projection.. Now I gotta go look it up.<br><br>EDIT: Found it!<br><!--QuoteBegin-William Heaton+ re: ticalc.org topic "Poincar Conjecture Proven", Apr 16 2003, 06:02 GMT--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (William Heaton @ re: ticalc.org topic "Poincar Conjecture Proven", Apr 16 2003, 06:02 GMT)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> http://pweb.netcom.com/~hjsmith/WireFra ... ml<br>here is a 4 dimensional cube. it bothers me. i dont want to begin to think of what a 3-sphere looks like. i would shoot my self.(ohh, and on this page is the sourse code for the program that draws it, someone definately needs to make it in to a calc program)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd-->

[norsenerd]

Thats a two dimensonal projection of a 4 cube. Atached is a two dimensonal projection of a 3 cube so peopel can see what I'm talking about.

[Tavis]

Sorry.. I was misreading.. got tripped up in too much n-dimensional space. No problem.. Just rotate the additional axis so that the hypercube can degenerate into a cube and rotate that in the 2D projection. Using CTRL or SHIFT when you drag your mouse will make it rotate in those other axes.<br><br>EDIT: The linked demo would look a little more confusing if the demo included perspective like your drawing did. By the way, nice work on it.

[norsenerd]

You can't degenerate a four cube into a three cube in that pojection you have. That's a sign of quality actuly. I didn't do anything. I jsut drwe a squre inside another square and conected the two. It took me at most 3 minuets and most of that time was using paint and then ataching it instead fo drawling it.<br><br>To imagine a four cube in three dimensions magane a large cube and a smaler cube completly contained in that cube. Then conectet the verticies similarly. Of course here are some stats abotu varisous n-cubes<br><br><br>Cube.....0...1....2....3.....4.....5<br>Points....1...2....4....8....16....32<br>Lines.....0....1...4...12....32....80<br>2-Faces..0....0...1....6....24....80<br>3-Faces..0....0...0....1.....8....40<br>4-Faces..0....0....0...0.....1....10<br><br><br>So a four cube has 8 three cubes within it and a five cube has 80 squares in it.<br><br>There is actluy quite a simple algarithim for fidnign these. It would be borign to explain but I will if poeple are itnerested.

[Zylo]

Multi-dimensional mathematics...never studied them. Extremely interesting, though. Theoretical stuff like this is always fun. I often hear the 4-cube referred to at the "hypercube." I'm too tired to really devote much energy to this thought process right now, so I'll stop before I short out my brain.