[QUOTE=retina;568824]4D: [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0t4aKJuKP0Q[/url][/QUOTE]I hate when people say, "It moved[COLOR="DarkOrange"] into[/COLOR] the [nth] dimension." That is not correct. It moved [COLOR="darkorange"]within[/COLOR] the [nth] dimension. It does not make a difference if that is a time or spatial dimension.

When people say that it is not like nails on a chalkboard, it is more like a cheese grater on finger tips.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;568833]I hate when people say, "It moved[COLOR="DarkOrange"] into[/COLOR] the [nth] dimension." That is not correct. It moved [COLOR="darkorange"]within[/COLOR] the [nth] dimension. It does not make a difference if that is a time or spatial dimension.

When people say that it is not like nails on a chalkboard, it is more like a cheese grater on finger tips.[/QUOTE]:tu:

[QUOTE=xilman;568843]:tu:[/QUOTE]
Yep. Also, nice video. Also, shouldn't it look better with projections instead of sections? Projections always stay in 3d and we can see them, therefore having a better understanding of what 4d objects are doing, how do they look, and if their parents know... Of course, unless the idea was to show objects magically disappearing...:razz:
Most probably the people living in 4d have their version of rubic cube, and when they play with it, we should see little cubes and prisms appearing and disappearing... As I didn't see any, I believe their world is projected into ours, and not sectioned by it :davar55:

[QUOTE=LaurV;569262]... unless the idea was to show objects magically disappearing...[/QUOTE]I think that was the intention.

Maybe when magicians make stuff disappear, they are making it move [i]into[/i] :davar55: the 4th dimension. :razz:

If time is indeed the 4th dimension then all matter is just extruded from the beginning to the end of its existence, and we just see a slice of it at each instant.

[YOUTUBE]8JOpPNra4bw[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]zlm1aajH6gY[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]sD0NjbwqlYw[/YOUTUBE]


Why would we learn anything new about the primes if the Riemann Hypothesis was proved?
It would prove all the theorem based on it, but we already know the consequences of those theorems and most mathematicians expect RH and them to be true already.
Do they expect the proof itself will give the new insight?

Do awsome things.
 

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qwLHlVjRyw[/url]

[QUOTE=chalsall;570290][url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qwLHlVjRyw[/url][/QUOTE]Have you been under a rock for the past month or 2? [SPOILER]Don't answer that, I know.[/SPOILER] That is old news. Tomorrow is attempt 2 to stick the landing.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;570291]Have you been under a rock for the past month or 2?[/QUOTE]

Yes. And no. :chalsall:

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;570291]Have you been under a rock for the past month or 2?[/QUOTE]This board isn't a general news site so I see nothing wrong with highlighting things, regardless of their age. I personally appreciated the short and succinct summary of it.