05-17-2010, 08:53 PM
hey Sorrun, I actually subscribed to this thread a while back when you created it in the interest of hearing what responses you might get. I don't really understand this sort of thing too well, but since there are no responses as of yet, perhaps you can help me to better understand what you make of this particular Ra quote while I add my own disjointed thoughts.
I read once a long time ago, and I can't remember where, that any motion whatsoever is always considered acceleration. So if you are moving forward but slowing down in that direction you are actually increasing your acceleration in the opposite direction. Perhaps what Don was getting at here was the added acceleration you might be able to attain by traveling very quickly along one axis and somehow adding to that acceleration by moving to the side. I'm not sure if that works out in a sensible way though.
As to what Ra is trying to explain with the correct angle being a portion of a tesseract, I really have no clue. A tesseract has many angles on it, so which portion was implied? Or can you add all of the angles together and average them out somehow? It's worth noting that the tesseract shape is basically a four dimensional object which is 'projected' if you will in to three dimensions. We often consider the "fourth dimension" to be time, which is interesting.
What do you make of it? Can you help this non-scientist make sense of it?
I read once a long time ago, and I can't remember where, that any motion whatsoever is always considered acceleration. So if you are moving forward but slowing down in that direction you are actually increasing your acceleration in the opposite direction. Perhaps what Don was getting at here was the added acceleration you might be able to attain by traveling very quickly along one axis and somehow adding to that acceleration by moving to the side. I'm not sure if that works out in a sensible way though.
As to what Ra is trying to explain with the correct angle being a portion of a tesseract, I really have no clue. A tesseract has many angles on it, so which portion was implied? Or can you add all of the angles together and average them out somehow? It's worth noting that the tesseract shape is basically a four dimensional object which is 'projected' if you will in to three dimensions. We often consider the "fourth dimension" to be time, which is interesting.
What do you make of it? Can you help this non-scientist make sense of it?