A question about dimentions.

It always intrigued me -> when we multiply line with a line, we get 2-dimentional object - square. When we multiply line with a square, we get a cube, 3 dimentional object (hope i'm right :D).
So, multiplying square with square should give us a tesseract? And, what will happen when we will multiply a ball with a ball? It should give us a 6 dim object (x^3 * x^3)? Or a 8 dim object (x^4[time is the fourth])^2?
And how would it look like? 
Another question is a tesseract. It may be a 4 dim object, but it looks like it can be expressed with usage of only 3 axis (x,y,z).
May somebody explain, what is going on with those dimentions, and how the time is considered as a dimention (weh may describe an object using 3 axis, but to locate it we should know the time).

IT'S CALLED 'DIRECT SUM'. DO YOU UNDERSTAND IT, YOU RETARD?

What does it look like? Well, let me just peer into my alternate reality I keep next to my reality. Yes, I see, it looks a lot like someone making a fool of themself by asking retarded questions.

Also, dimention is not a word. Dimension is. I have never seen someone make this mistake before.

>>3
>>2
Of  course, insulting is very helpful in discussion. Unlike explaining the mistakes, telling what's wrong...

>>1


This doesn't completely answer your question, but its kinda cool none the less; Check out www.tenthdimension.com if you've never heard of it.  Explains it all fairly well.

>>5
Horrible site.

>>1
Time is considered a dimension in a different way to geographical dimensions... sort of. At least, when you're talking about 2 cubes being joined along a 4th dimension to form the tesseract. I can't visualise how, but there should be a 4-D version of a sphere, just as there is with a cube {a 4-D object without "corners"}. My mind gets really messed up when trying to understand geometrical 4D.

www.tenthdimention.com is good at explaining what other dimensions might be, but gets really messed up at around 7.

www.tenthdimension.com feels like it's full of crap and is making huge and wild assumptions. I'd still like to see some physical evidence of a force that acts as time.

>>8

Well, it is string theory.

And where the hell does it say that time is a force? It's a dimension, dumbass.

Chronitron

Time is considered the fourth dimension in the "system" we live in.  When multiplying numbers (and their units) you can achieve things like m^5 or s^-3, which only make sense in the system you are using.  Sometimes they exist only because they have to to make a value make sense (like a reaction constant in chemistry)

>>8
Time is not a force, just like the 3rd dimension is not a force. Think of it as a attribute, or side effect of the 3rd dimension specifically space

Why is it so hard to consider time and progress a dimension when you were given about 8 billion graphs with some random variable OVER TIME in school? Did you complain to your teacher then asking them how the hell you could possibly use time a dimention or what?

"waell haow do i graph teh fourf dimention"
well first take your 3d graph ando do something with the variable, move points around, ask yourself how the fuck anything is ever supposed to make such movements (since this is a 3 dimensional graphing we're assuming the 3 values measured are spacial) without time being present. Place the two 3d graphs next to each other or animate them in sequence, congratulations, you just graphed an (albeit small and discrete) amount of time, now make it so your graph constantly keeps track of volatile values and graphs them *gasp* IN REAL TIME, now you've divided your 3 dimensional graph by zero, now you are the moon master.

you can imagine spacetime like this:

imagine you have an infinite sequence n*n*n cubes each representing a certain moment

i.e. | |, | |, | |,...

then take the volume to infinity and wick rotate

voila SR spacetime!!!

well not quite, since spacetime is indexed by the reals, so they can't be put in such a sequence, but anyway.

So an animation isn't a sequence 2d or 3d space being put over time?

dimension is just the cardinality of the basis of a vector space you noobs.

>>3
it's actually possible to illustrate how a 4 dimensional physical object would look like. our eyes project stuff over a 2 dimensional surface already and adding dimensions is easy.

The problem would come when you want to navigate a 4 or more dimensions room as our brain is evolved for 3 dimensional movements which only gives you a 360*360° availible directions to look in from a single point whereas a 4 dimensional enviroment will add another 360° to that scale, turning it into 360°^3 availible directions.
Which means that whatever you can see around you from your computer chair right now is only 0.3% of what you could see around you from your computer chair if you were sitting in a room with 4 spatial directions.

>>1
I was going to explain it to you, but then you spelled it "dimention". Fail.

>>17
>Which means that whatever you can see around you from your computer chair right now is only 0.3% of what you could see around you from your computer chair if you were sitting in a room with 4 spatial directions.

provide calculation

>>19
Now that you ask for it i realize the numbers are probably wrong(i calculated is as an xyz coordinate system with degrees as units).
the principle should be the same however and the end result ought to only be a small percentage.

If you calculate and compare the surface area of a 3 dimensional and a 4 dimnensional sphere to each other you ought to be able to get the correct difference in possible directions from a single point.

>>18

You were not going to explain it. You were just going to bitch about your hypocrisy and idiocy. Now, please, explain it, if you want to prove that you do have "sum brainz", 'kay?

>>9
www.tenthdimension.com is not talking about string theory at all. string theory is actually talking about 10 spatial dimensions, nothing to do with dimensions of time bs that that website spouts. though it is pretty interesting, time traveling and what not.

tenthdimension.com is science fiction

we're 3 dimentional nothing is 2dimentional apart from a picture which is created with 3 dimentions