PDA

View Full Version : Tenth Dimension Theory.

Nestersan
January 29, 2007, 03:14 PM
Ok noobies...

Get out ya brain relaxants and your migraine medicine.

There are 10 dimensions...

Proof?

Come back and tell me what you think !

CGPGroup
January 29, 2007, 04:06 PM
I get what he is trying to say but it appears recursive, what if the theory is wrong that the recursion stops at the 10th dimension? then there could be a 15th dimension or a 20th or a 25th....

Nestersan
January 29, 2007, 05:20 PM
explain..you are being too vague!

Utech22
January 29, 2007, 06:29 PM
great scientific data, but this is quite vague.

CGPGroup
January 30, 2007, 05:01 AM
explain..you are being too vague!

0 dimension = a single point.
1 dimension = two points connected by a single line, you can only move back and forth
2 dimension = a flat surface, eg a table top.
3 dimension = a 3D space, eg inside a hollow cube.
4 dimension = all the joined instances of the 3rd dimension (imagine if you could see yourself move through time).

This is where the recursion starts, and the screwiness begins.

5 dimension = all the possible time-lines(4Ds) seen as a single point.

then everthing else above with the 5th dimension being the starting point.

.....this is what I got from it... anybody else got this?

Nestersan
January 30, 2007, 06:13 AM
This is where the recursion starts, and the screwiness begins.

Remember for the flatlander existing only in two dimensions, time would be too amazing a concept for most people to even grasp. A flatlander Einstein/Steven Hawking would have to formulate a theory. lol

Yes, but all the dimensions above 5th are more encompassing than a timeline. Remember according to the example, you fold through the fifth to visit linear (or collapsed moments on the 4th).

In other words, supposing you are at the end of your linear 4th dim life, you can fold through 5th to visit all events that took place, since they are all collapsed into the linear 4th that we percieve.

But if you wanted to get a kiss from Halle Berry which did not happen in that linear 4th, you can't visit it.

To get the kiss, you would fold through the 6th (all possible variations of the 5th).

The 7th is therefore all possible variariations of those variations = infinity.

Remember that that particular infinity (infinity NES for eg.) is now a point.

Since we know we can fold dimensions, there must be another infinity (Infinity CGPGoup) which is different. Light might be equal to = 3.142 m per hour instead of 186,323 miles per second there. So to travel from Infinity NES to Infinity CGPGroup we have to have a linear path. Variations of that variation would be the eighth dimension. So to travel from one variation to the other we have to fold using the dimension above = 9th Dimension.

So we have the 10th being all variations of possible variations of all variations. There is nothing left....just a point.

No where to go...

RachieBabie
January 30, 2007, 07:54 AM
:eusa_eh: :icon_conf :eusa_wall :eusa_thin ....

um...ok (scratches head)... i get it

CGPGroup
January 30, 2007, 07:59 AM
Remember for the flatlander existing only in two dimensions, time would be too amazing a concept for most people to even grasp. A flatlander Einstein/Steven Hawking would have to formulate a theory. lol

clipped for brevity

according to that theory yes.... According to my theory only 4 Dimensions exist..... maybe the 5th. everything else just seems like a streatch of the imagination or an attempt to sell books. lol

dont you think?

time travel would simply be folding the 4th dimension so one touches the other and parallell universes would be simply touching two different time lines in the 5th dimension.

personally I think the 6th and above seem kinda far-fetch

Nestersan
January 30, 2007, 01:44 PM
you can't fold a linear path along it self, without being outside it !!

The key point to remember as was stated and is provable using 0-3D points, is that to jump along a particular dimensions linear path, you have to use the dimension above it.

So a you can't time travel (4th dimension jumping around) without going into the 5th.

So 5th is all variations of 4th, but you can't make those touch without using the dimensions above (6th). So 7th which is infinity, is all possible variations of our physical universe.

recursion
January 30, 2007, 01:56 PM
It's elementary my dear, elementary....:icon_eek: :eusa_doh:

MasterSnake
January 30, 2007, 02:43 PM
Have u ppl ever heard of sex???..lol

RachieBabie
January 30, 2007, 03:01 PM
i kinda got the 10th dimension thing.... but whts this sex thing of which u speak??

Nestersan
January 30, 2007, 03:06 PM
Have u ppl ever heard of sex???..lol

10th Dimensional lovin is where i'm at Sir !! :eusa_naug :eusa_danc

None of your boring 3rd dimensional stuff for me! :thumbsdown:

BTW, HOW SO MUCH PEOPLE VIEW AND ONLY A HANDFULL OF VOTES ??

(it's anonymous)

selasieye
January 31, 2007, 11:39 AM
@nester This been loading for the pass 30 minutes and i am at work on a 1.5 MB DIA, just wait.....anyways I finished.....and it interesting....

My problem starts where he tries to introduce the fifth dimension and the sixth dimensions. He rallies back on the point that we should view the 4th dimensions as just a straight line (only way this can go further is to accept that there are variations of this line), after accepting that theory it appears that we have reduced the concept to that of the 2nd dimension again and therefore bing the concept of the 3third dimension and apply it to the 5th so we get the infinite variations and tthen take the concept of folding to get the sixth which would allow us to get to all possible variation of the fifth, so full time travel is only possible by jumping through the sixth dimension, then introduced the 7th as a point encompassing all time variations.(following up to this part was easy, not that I agreed anyways)…but when he introduced infinity variations, and then says there should be another infinity is where it started to sound like a student just trying to bull **** his professor. He uses the start of the event as basis for saying that in the 8th and 9th different start environment will yield different variations. This recursion he starts at the 8th and 9th would mean that there will be more than ten, all I have to do is find something different and say that I can create a entirely new universe (not entirely new start as he proposed) but new universe, which would have as much variations as before, and this cycle will never end. Like CGPgroup said the second he introduced recursion, not because he can't imagine where it stop, means it actually stops at the tenth. His reason for stopping at the tenth was that he can't fathom anything else, so just as how Hawkins said there was the 4th dimension and stopped there, who is to say someone else won't come later and more dimensions

The mere fact he reduced infinity to a point is where I think his theory is a bit flawed.
He basically builds a complex concept 4th dimension (point --> line --> variations --> folding) then reduces it back to a simple concept (a point) to introduce his recursion which I don’t really like, That’s just recursion and since we are all computer science people, there is no check to see when this stops, and no set number of cycles so this is really and infinite loop. but based on other reading, it seems this tenth dimension is accepted for now.....like when everyone thought the earth was flat.

I like the way he brought across the fact that which ever dimension you are in will affect the way you perceive your self and the possibility of higher dimensions, we see our self as a cross-section in the fourth. But in my opinion to prove his theory he better start folding time. And that will only prove up to the 6th dimension
And if we can fold time to see the past, we must be able to fold time to see the future as well ...I would have to read his book some more.

Nestersan
January 31, 2007, 12:26 PM
Yup I agree with you up to the 6th part. I agree too that if you can fold to see the past, you can fold to see the future.

Well you are right, all variations of all variations of all variations is the tenth. but I think why the theory stops there is that, there are no more ways to go. all possibilities are covered.

I think his assumptions start because at the start (dim 0), anything can happen, cause nothing has happened yet, so everything is possible.

It is very hard to wrap your head around, as a matter of fact if you think about it too hard the concept slips you.

HOWEVER, I do agree that all possibilities aside, If we exist and can concieve of a 4th to tenth. A 8th dimensional entity would be able to concieve of more than ten.

Remember he said a 2d entity cant have a digestive system like ours because they would fall apart. But they would have some mechanisim to digest food.

Makes you wonder what a 6th dimensionional entity would look like... ?

Well remember it is all theory, sometime it is good to read stuff just to give yourself a brain exercise, encourages you to think outside the box, and makes you a better thinker.

eg. Since God can see past, present and future, he would exist in at least the fourth. Since he can manipulate alternate timelinelines he would have to exist in the sixth. Also since God knows all possibilties of all possibilities he would at least occupy the 8th (since you have to be at least the dimension above to maniplate the ones below.)

Question is does God's control stop at our physical universe (7th/infinity), which would mean there are other Gods' who occupy the 8th, since there are at least ten dimensions. Or is God the Sole occupant of the tenth ?

selasieye
January 31, 2007, 12:56 PM
Lol, I like the whole religious spin to it....but if you think about it, if you reach high enough it has to stop, so If God does exist in the 10th dimension, he would be the only being, because if more beings exist then that would mean that their are variations in the tenth, each being could create a universe seperate and apart from the other, hence we would have to create more dimensions to account for the line we could draw between the two points created by each entity...... I love the theory up to the 7th..its a nice brain teaser.

Nestersan
January 31, 2007, 03:31 PM
Remember i said God would be the only entity existing on the tenth.

Since that encompases all variations of causality that could possibly happen after the begining of everthing which is a point (dimension 0) to another point the end of everything possibly possible. (dimension 10).

CyberCat
February 1, 2007, 01:53 PM
Firstly, no object can exist in only one dimension, it would be invisible, and it alone would exist in that dimension.

Next it can't exist in only two dimensions either. In such arrangement, one object can't possibly pass over or under the other, nor through each other - a 3rd dimension is needed to do that.

A two-dimensional object simlpy cannot be seen in a three-dimensional world. No height = total transparency = no visibility, therefore, no object from any level of dimensions can be seen in a higher level of dimensions.

Then, you simply cannot move dimensions. You can only move or bend objects.

This whole theory is crap. The guy jumps off about fifth and sixth dimensions etc. without explaining how he arrived at those.

Then time is no dimension like length, width and height, since one cannot move back and forth in time as in the others.

February 1, 2007, 02:46 PM
Firstly, no object can exist in only one dimension, it would be invisible, and it alone would exist in that dimension.

Next it can't exist in only two dimensions either. In such arrangement, one object can't possibly pass over or under the other, nor through each other - a 3rd dimension is needed to do that.
...
...
Then time is no dimension like length, width and height, since one cannot move back and forth in time as in the others.

Exactly!!!!!!! I would shake your hand for noticing the facts.

If he uses dimensions like 2nd and 3rd with the explanation of the LxWxH he would have to give us the explanations for the 4th and the 5th etc.

When he describes the 5th dimension as what we all know as Destiny and Probability he's going into a whole different ball game.

Theres is no way in the world that someone can fold their destiny unless they had a vision or some paranormal crap blah blah which is known to happen.

I was first puzzled by this but everything should be logically explained, to some effect where as others are some paranormal blah blah etc.:icon_lol:

BlackCryptoKnight
February 1, 2007, 06:03 PM
:icon_eek:

I get it. Deep. :icon_cool

8But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
2 Peter 3:8 KJV

I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.
Revelation 1:8

That presentation sheds some more light on statements like the ones above.

Nestersan
February 1, 2007, 06:11 PM
Firstly, no object can exist in only one dimension, it would be invisible, and it alone would exist in that dimension.

Next it can't exist in only two dimensions either. In such arrangement, one object can't possibly pass over or under the other, nor through each other - a 3rd dimension is needed to do that.

clipped for brevity

Read up on string theory and come back youngin...

Exactly!!!!!!! I would shake your hand for noticing the facts.

If he uses dimensions like 2nd and 3rd with the explanation of the LxWxH he would have to give us the explanations for the 4th and the 5th etc.

clipped for brevity

So you describe it as "paranormal crap" but then continue in the same breath to say " which is known to hapen"

Make up ur mind fella.

Btw, this is theory, it's all in fun and thinking, just something to as I stated exercise ur brain...

CyberCat
February 2, 2007, 02:46 PM
Read up on string theory and come back youngin...

String theory, String theory, String theory, blah blah blah.

The question I pose still remains: How can anyone see an object/string/particle if it exists in only one or two dimensions? Only one abject can exist in one dimension (think about it). In two dimensions, movenent is only posible along or towards another object (think about it).

From Wikipedia:

No experimental verification or falsification of the theory has yet been possible

As far as I am concerned, a lot of these "scientific" theories are just a lot of complicated mathematical equations that remain as 'facts' only because nobody has been able to proove them wrong.

Nestersan
February 2, 2007, 06:09 PM
That's why science is not exact, and your beliefs should be flexible enough to allow for radical changes as new data comes to forefront..

eg. Earth is flat, and Sun revolves around Earth were accepted as fact, not even theory, now proven wrong.

Open your mind, as I said it is brain training....

gangstanerd
February 2, 2007, 11:40 PM
Hmm, this is covered in part under the "no such number as 2" theory... as in once u bring recursion into play then u can take an infinite amount of recursions and use them as the starting point for another recursion effectively infinity+1. which mathematically is infinity..

And thats enuf nerd out of me for the year....

edit: oh crap it just clicked, wow, this is deep....props for posting this man... its even explained in the "no such number as 2" theory... WOW, if uv imagined all possibilities and then represent all of these as a point, then you cannot introduce another point, because all poossibilities are covered under that point, meaning there is only 1...hence "no such number as 2"...WOW

Nestersan
February 3, 2007, 12:46 AM
As far as I am concerned, a lot of these "scientific" theories are just a lot of complicated mathematical equations that remain as 'facts' only because nobody has been able to proove them wrong.

Stop complainin' and be the first then.. ;)

Btw, Did u know they made sound go FTL, arriving at a starting point before the sound was generated ....:icon_eek:

CyberCat
February 3, 2007, 04:30 PM
Btw, Did u know they made sound go FTL, arriving at a starting point before the sound was generated ....:icon_eek:

Oh really? Where did you find that out?

icymint3
February 3, 2007, 06:08 PM
Firstly, no object can exist in only one dimension, it would be invisible, and it alone would exist in that dimension.

visibility does not imply or refute existence. just because it cannot be conceptualized by human beings whose vision make us aware of 3 dimensions does not mean the object does not exist.

further more all things seen are created from things unseen... you can find that in the bible or any suitably large physics book.

Next it can't exist in only two dimensions either. In such arrangement, one object can't possibly pass over or under the other, nor through each other - a 3rd dimension is needed to do that.

if you think about objects in 2 dimension on the xy plane then they cannot go over or under. however think about them in the xz plan (where z goes up), and suddenly 2d objects can go over and under each other.

and besides that, 2d objects would be able to be moved over and under each other by higher dimensional bodies, like we flip paper every day.

2d objects would be able to go through each other. just that they would be severed in the process. but they can be rejoined like amoeba. think of the cross section of a knife cutting an orange.

A two-dimensional object simlpy cannot be seen in a three-dimensional world. No height = total transparency = no visibility, therefore, no object from any level of dimensions can be seen in a higher level of dimensions.

just as before, we humans might not be able to conceptualize it. that doesnt mean they would not exist, or be able to be sensed. bats do sense the presence of things not using light, sight and vision... but they detect proximity of nearby objects that would have been obviously invisible to us in pitch black darkness.

This whole theory is crap. The guy jumps off about fifth and sixth dimensions etc. without explaining how he arrived at those.

Then time is no dimension like length, width and height, since one cannot move back and forth in time as in the others.

agreed, time is no dimension like length/width/height... for us humans. we lack the sensory organs to conceptualize it like the other three we're used to, and we lack the knowledge, technique and machinery to move through it at this time. maybe traversing that time dimension is possible by a Higher Being.

the point is that the book trying to prove the existence of everything as we know it is in 10 dimensions. all the other n dimesions are concepts to aid understanding so that a pea brain like me can vote It's almost understandable!. (are the votes supposed to be private, i just made an open vote)

i guess somebody is out there looking and laughing at (silly) us. hopefully its not the person who wrote the book.

selasieye
February 3, 2007, 07:23 PM
icy I rate your reasoning still........I said this quite early, not because we cannot fathom how its occurs doesn't stop the theory from being possible. I love reading theories, they stimulate your mind.

I just have one thing to say to cyber, I haven't read of many innovative ideas that were initially accepted. What people don't understand that true learning doesn't stop at school, true achievers challenge what they are taught because WE DON"T KNOW IT ALL............

Nestersan
February 3, 2007, 09:07 PM
Which was point of thread, watch video, think on it a bit and say what you think, even if you agree or disagree.

Discuss, think of things a certain way, then think on them another....

btw. The reason the video is done that way is that the narrator as selasieye said is simply trying to get you to conceptualise what he is trying to say.

eg...

How many people get this:

There was a young lady named Bright
whose speed was much faster than light.
She set out one day,
in a relative way,
and returned on the previous night

I first read that poem/limmerick when I was about 7 or younger..
It is not until I understood physics that I "got it"

gangstanerd
February 4, 2007, 12:19 PM
Nestersan, give us more info into that whole "made sound go FTL and arrived before it was generated" thing, cuz if my tingling ears are correct...thats time travel...the sound came from the future, and if it did could u hear the sound...then switch off the machine, so as to generate no sound..then where would the sound u just heard come from? :-0

recursion
February 4, 2007, 01:34 PM
Nestersan, give us more info into that whole "made sound go FTL and arrived before it was generated" thing, cuz if my tingling ears are correct...thats time travel...the sound came from the future, and if it did could u hear the sound...then switch off the machine, so as to generate no sound..then where would the sound u just heard come from? :-0

Again this is all elementary, the sound is stored in the 5th dimension. Open your minds, learn some math and it will all be revealed. musah

gangstanerd
February 4, 2007, 01:47 PM
this is elementary...basic time travel works and ur calling it elementary....sorry my friend, the gods ave not visited me yet...share your knowledge please. Cuz i also proposed a situation that u ddnt answer..if i set up the requisite machinery, get ready to generate the sound, HEAR the sound BEFORE I GENERATE IT, and immediatly switch off the machine SO NO SOUND IS GENERATED, where would that sound that i heard come from?

recursion
February 4, 2007, 02:00 PM
Oops, see the thing is I knew the answer before but then the person who had told me changed "his" mind in the past because I was about to reveal it to beings who are incapable of handling such information. Thus I am now unable to share my knowledge and am just a mere mortal. I'm sorry ......hehehe

Don't worry my youth, I'm just as interested as you to hear what the great Nesto has to say. This thread sounds like the crap I ramble about that has my friends worried about my well being. That icy reply sounds eerily close to what I would have said if I wasn't such a lazy being. I wonder if he's me from another dimension:eusa_eh:

But of course you do understand that you being able to turn off the device after the sound is generated would require that you go FTL as well. So when you're able to do this maybe everything else will fall into place.

selasieye
February 4, 2007, 07:32 PM
Oops, see the thing is I knew the answer before but then the person who had told me changed "his" mind in the past because I was about to reveal it to beings who are incapable of handling such information. Thus I am now unable to share my knowledge and am just a mere mortal. I'm sorry ......hehehe

Don't worry my youth, I'm just as interested as you to hear what the great Nesto has to say. This thread sounds like the crap I ramble about that has my friends worried about my well being. That icy reply sounds eerily close to what I would have said if I wasn't such a lazy being. I wonder if he's me from another dimension:eusa_eh:

But of course you do understand that you being able to turn off the device after the sound is generated would require that you go FTL as well. So when you're able to do this maybe everything else will fall into place.

ROTL........comedian in the house

Nestersan
February 4, 2007, 11:11 PM
ROTFL.....

I forget which journal I saw article, but the crux of it was this.

They measured the sound coming out of a device right...
Simple, like you would stand in front of a speaker and measure Decibels/Wavelength, blah,blah etc...

They did something to the sound ( too physicsy for me to pretend to remember):eusa_whis

The start of the sound wave was then found to be coming out the device before the tail end of itself was coming out. :eusa_eh:

The sound caught up to, and passed itself being generated...:icon_eek:

I was just like WTF...:eusa_thin

Plus they have teleported the odd particle or two. Real Star Trek type teleportation (Just not far enough to be usefull on any level.)

CyberCat
February 5, 2007, 02:58 PM
if you think about objects in 2 dimension on the xy plane then they cannot go over or under. however think about them in the xz plan (where z goes up), and suddenly 2d objects can go over and under each other.

then 'over and under becomes relative to the plane.

and besides that, 2d objects would be able to be moved over and under each other by higher dimensional bodies, like we flip paper every day.

Paper is not two dimensional, and it needs its three dimensions in order to be moved by 'higher dimension' bodies.

ROTFL.....
They did something to the sound ( too physicsy for me to pretend to remember):eusa_whis

Ok, say, they somehow (not inconcievably) caused the start of the sound to slow down so that it was overtaken by the end (or vice versa).

The start of the sound wave was then found to be coming out the device before the tail end of itself was coming out.

That happesn all the time I think.

The sound caught up to, and passed itself being generated...
Now that sounds like sci-fi crap. Even if they made it go aroung in a circle, the start of the sound had already been generated, so it could not be heard before it was generated. Once a sound has started being generated, it can be considered to be gererated.

recursion
February 5, 2007, 03:08 PM
Paper is not two dimensional, and it needs its three dimensions in order to be moved by 'higher dimension' bodies.

True enough paper is NOT two dimensional, but IF two dimensional objects did exist what proof do you have that it WOULD require its three dimensions to be moved by higher dimensional bodies. We have become too closely attached to that which we feel, but we are defined by far more than that [recursion, 2007]

Nestersan
February 5, 2007, 04:02 PM
Now that sounds like sci-fi crap. Even if they made it go aroung in a circle, the start of the sound had already been generated, so it could not be heard before it was generated. Once a sound has started being generated, it can be considered to be gererated.

Dude, I will search for the article, cause they explained it better.

Hey remember things like Dimensions and the labels we apply (time, depth etc), are simply words that we use to define concepts to each other so we know we speak of the same things when having lively discussion (like now)

icymint3
February 5, 2007, 04:08 PM
then 'over and under becomes relative to the plane..

yes, to put it simply. wish we could reason about the other dimension in pairs like this... the x-time plane

Paper is not two dimensional, and it needs its three dimensions in order to be moved by 'higher dimension' bodies.
wasnt necessarily saying paper is 2-d, just that higher objects manipulate other objects in ways that that object would not notice.

CyberCat
February 6, 2007, 02:30 PM
True enough paper is NOT two dimensional, but IF two dimensional objects did exist what proof do you have that it WOULD require its three dimensions to be moved by higher dimensional bodies. We have become too closely attached to that which we feel, but we are defined by far more than that [recursion, 2007]

But the proof is right here. We can only manipilate 3-d objects. Unless you know somebody who can manipulate 2-d objects?

P.S.
I am seriously loving this discussion guys.

Blunty Killer
February 6, 2007, 04:40 PM
Nestersan, give us more info into that whole "made sound go FTL and arrived before it was generated" thing, cuz if my tingling ears are correct...thats time travel...the sound came from the future, and if it did could u hear the sound...then switch off the machine, so as to generate no sound..then where would the sound u just heard come from? :-0
Scientists observe sound travelling faster than the speed of light. (http://www.physorg.com/news88249076.html)

recursion
February 6, 2007, 05:04 PM
But the proof is right here. We can only manipilate 3-d objects. Unless you know somebody who can manipulate 2-d objects?

P.S.
I am seriously loving this discussion guys.

That's your proof, the fact that no-one has done it. Has anyone ever tried doing it. Most of the greatest inventions would have never made it into existence if we had this mentality. We can only stay on the earth. Unless you know somebody who's been to the moon. Ok Lance, Mr. Lightyear, sit down we've just proven you cannot go to the moon.

26 years and two months down the road, some of y'all are gonna be like. Dang they really did it. I thought that was impossible:icon_eek: :sold:

Nestersan
February 6, 2007, 05:06 PM
Good find...

Needless to say, 1% of them actualy going to read it...

I am gonna put my bank account and CC numbers in an article like that.

Say the peak of the output pulse exits the filter at exactly the same time as the input pulse reaches the beginning. In this less dramatic case, the transit time is zero and the speed (distance divided by zero) is infinite. So we were beyond infinite!

From the article..

yes, to put it simply. wish we could reason about the other dimension in pairs like this... the x-time plane

Why not ?

Time is simply something we cannot yet manipulate, because it is relative to the observer.

We can all see the cup, we can all move the cup. We can spend X time looking at said cup. But if you ask ten of us how far we have all travelled through the fourth dimension since cup viewing started, we would all have a different observation.

williamdw40
February 7, 2007, 10:46 AM
Scientists devise test for string theory

PORTLAND, Ore. — Researchers at the University of Wisconsin at Madison claim that they have found a way to test string theory. String theory is a leading candidate in the search to identify a single principle that guides all other forces of nature in the universe—weak and strong nuclear forces as well as electromagnetic and gravitational forces. But until now no one had devised an experiment to test it.

Nestersan
February 7, 2007, 11:06 AM
Wh00t...

Don't blow us up please dudes...

recursion
February 7, 2007, 11:21 AM
I propose we start teaching this stuff in basic schools. Then this universe can get to where it should be...., The truth is out there.

selasieye
February 7, 2007, 11:44 AM
well i like the star trek way, you are 10 and learning quantum physics, but then with society, the more advance we become the earlier we start teaching the more difficult concepts, could you imagine teaching programming in high school 50 years ago.........much less the string theory............i still trying to wrap my mind around that one though

Nestersan
February 7, 2007, 01:18 PM
Bear in mind that the reason why in Star Trek they teach Quantum Physics to 10 yr olds is that in that future, that stuff is elementary and provable, like 2+2.

Without a PC being a common everyday object, it would as it was 50 YRs ago be the stuff of conjecture among old greybeard professors.