The mysterious 4th dimension

Imagine we have a 2D plane-what would be the axis of the next,third dimension?Let's draw a line perpendicular to that plane.It's obvious that this line would be also perpendicular to every possible line in that plane,and also It's parallel to the third axis.
Now-wouldn't the axis of the 4th dimension have to be perpendicular to every possible line in 3D space?Is my reasoning correct,/sci/?

fine

sounds good

if  3D is  L x W x H

whats would 4D be   L x W x H x Time?

Of course you realise the third dimension we perceive is an illusionary one. We're really in fundamentally two dimensional space of which there are many parallel surfaces sitting next to each other.

Yes, you've guessed it - we're characters in a comic book.

>>4 so wrong.. it hurts.
>>1 correct.

just think of 4th dimension as time, and as such for any given function f(x1,x2,x3,x4) we get it possibly varying for x4 (time).
refer here for the answers!
www.tenthdimension.com/flash2.php

If time is the 4th dimension,then how fast am I moving sitting at my computer?1 second/second=1?
Oh,and according to Lorentz contraction (or something),If I move faster in the 3 spatial dimensions,i move slower in the 4th-how the hell does that work?if I increase velocity in the z axis,the x and y velocities won't decrease,but w decreases?How the hell would you work with vectors then in this framework?

all of you shut up and go learn how cartesian products work

>>6
Think of a vector in three space.  Time along one axis, and x and y along the other two.  We'll just ignore the third spacial direction so this example is visuable.  Now have the vector's tail at the origin and move the tip around in space keeping the magnitude fixed.  This is how an objects velocity vector acts.  It has a fixed magnitude equal to c.  Most of the time the largest component of that vector is in the time direction.  However, in order to increase the velocity in the x or y direction, we need to rotate the vector, thus minimizing the time component.  As you can see if you're not moving at all through space, then the time component is equal to c.  If you're moving through space with a velocity equal to c, then the time component must be zero.

>>8
I am severely disappointed. When I read the first sentence, I was sure I was heading into a fresh take on the penis-in-eye-socket pasta.

>>8
holy shit-thanks a lot.I thought that it was like an object had a velocity c,and you only add the x,y and z velocity.

>>5
wow

mind = blown

That tenth dimension flash is total bullshit.

>>1
Yes, but there'd be no way of drawing that axis in our 3D space.

>>3
Depends on metric, and what you're interested in.

>>6
4-vectors.  The elements of the 4 velocity all increase (except those that remain 0) as you accelerate.  The 4 velocity maintains a negative unit norm at all times.  It's GR where vectors get really confusing.

Time isn't the 4th spatial dimension.  There are the three distance dimensions that we perceive, x y and z.  Time is not a distance.  The 4th dimension is called w, and due to our existence in 3 dimensions we can't visualize the 4th or higher dimensions.

>>14
But c*t is a distance.  This is a common standard in GR and particle physics (which is also why particle masses are often given in eVs).

>>15
it's ok to spell out "cunt" here

Maybe this will provide some insight: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_dimension
Interesting to read.

Someone told me this a long time ago.. I can't remember who..

But visualize a piece of paper with objects drawn on it, such as squares. And think about them moving and bumping into each other. They live in two space, they wouldn't be able to hop over each other due to the restrictions of the paper being two-dimensional.

Just as they are stuck in 2D, we are stuck in 3D. Might as well not repeat what's been said and just link to >>14

that's pretty scary shit. i drew two overlapping squares.

>>18
Scary? heh