"Dimensional Analysis" haha, get it? ...nerd...

Oh, man, posting two days in a row, Tim? You are already addicted to blogspot.

Shut up, I do what I want.

I just wanted to put something down as I look out my office window onto the pond at camp. (I should move my desk away from the window soon or I won't get any work done.) It's raining, but not quite storming. The wind however is tremendous. I was just looking out kind of mesmerized by the patterns of the ripples as the wind whips and spirals across the pond, and the wind died down suddenly and the only changes in the surface of the water was the fall of the wind torn rain.

I started thinking, as I watched this two dimensional design shift and morph in front of my eyes, about the things we see that we don't really see. You don't see rain fall. You think you do but you don't. You see the blur of droplets passing too quickly to be considered or admired. Today I got to see, plane-by-plane, the composition of a minute and a half of a quarter-acre (?) of rain. I wish I'd been paying more attention.

I wonder how often what we see in two dimensions are actually representations of three dimensions, with the third being replaced by the fourth. And so, was the image I saw in the pond three-dimensional and not two, time having taken the place of depth?

I've been reading Madeleine L'Engle, which makes me think: If depth is taken away and replaced with time then how would Mrs. Which have made such a silly mistake to take the Murray children to a two dimensional planet. Certainly, using the fifth dimension to tesser would be quite different if you were tessering from four dimensions to three, right? Would it be possible, even consenting a fifth dimension, to tesser from only three dimensions, length, width, and time? If you can't have a second without a first, or a third without a second, how come you can have a fourth without a third? Can you have fifth dimension without a third?

Okay, I give that this has dirfted toward, but not into nonsense. Next time you see something, ask yourself how much of it you really see. What might it look like if you could not just see, but visualize more.




I couldn't stop thinking about it. It took the third dimension of the rain to allow the fourth dimension to take it's place. Just like it takes three dimensions of light moving toward a movie screen to lend the two dimensional image the fourth dimension of time. If a tesseract bypasses space time, I wonder if it would be thought of as somthing similar to my pond bypassing the third dimension to show me the rain.