Okay… um, can you guys start over from the middle, and repeat the beginning, too? Translation: I didn’t understand any of that. It sounds like you guys are talking about a forth triforce, a tetra force( By the way, did you know a tetra is a certain fish?), something about infinite triangles, and I thought I caught something about Winnie-the-Pooh in there. Could you pretty please explain it in, um, un-scientific terms? By the way, what is four distention?
Well, hmm, I understood a part of what kram talks about yet. I’ll try to explain.
First, four distensions is something totaly unknown to me. Didn’t you mean “four dimensions”?
So, first we were talking about the Sierpinsky triangle that is a triangle with a triangle whole in the middle (it actualy looks like the whole Triforce), and every triangle that compose this triangle have a triangle hole in their middle. So, they are also composed of three triangles, and each of them also have a triangle hole in the middle…and this continues to the eternity.
But now, we’re talking about the Simplices that are shapes in which…eh, well…shapes that have the same number of points than the number of lines…or something like that (kram could explain more).
Anyway, it seems like the first simplex (the 1) is a monodimensional object : a line
Then the Simplex 2 is a bidimensional object : a triangle.
Then the Simplex 3 is a tridimensional object : a tetrahedron
Then, your brain neither the mine can imagine what the other Simplices would look like.
The things I don’t get are :
- Why the Simplex 1 has TWO points but ONE line (isn’t it supposed to be n+1 ?)
- What the Simplices after the tetrahedron consist of?
- …(sorry for this one, it could be vexing) What is the use of these in real life?
Well…
tetra is also the ancient greek word for four.
tri is of the same roots and means three (d’uh)
a regular triangle has three important properties:
It’s made of three points of equal distance
It’s made of three lines of equal lenght
It’s made of three angles (that’s where the name tri-angle comes from) of equal… er… number of degrees?
Three triangles can be arranged into a bigger triangle - That’s the shape of the Triforce.
The Triforce symbol is an object that can fully life in a 2D world, consisting of three flat triangles.
Now if you try to find an object with similar properties but with four, rather than three equal points, sides or angles, you wont find any, as long as you stay in 2D.
In 3D, it’s no problem at all:
The tetraedron.
It has four vertices and four faces of equal area and the sides are connected with edges of equal lenght. the four corner angles are equal aswell.
Tetraedron means litterally FourSides.
Similar to the Triforce-Shape, made of three Triforces, you can create a Tetraforce shape, made of four Tetraedra.
If you now search for a possible object to make up a Pentaforce, you’ll fail. There is no such thing in 3 or less dimensions.
TEdoc:
Question one:
Question two:
It’s all the same:
vertices, edges, faces and volume. However, for each dimension, you get one more step, which is called hypervolume, cell, hypercell or something alike.
Question three:
Of course, that’s abstract and mathematical and doesn’t really matter much for real life.
However, if you ask of the use for a not regular simplex: The simplex algorithm works quite nice. It’s made for finding zero-points of multivariant systems.
That is, functions which have more than one variable.
While that still seems rather abstract, there are a lot of problems, where something like that is needed and some of them may involve examples of reallife physics and such… Or computer programs. 
i can see that the Tetraforce and geometry are the main subjects here…but I’ve been gone a while, so I’ll go and read before continuing this post
edit: wow, there’s a lot of stuff to answer…
@Servant - well, they say that the 4th dimension is Time… but they also say there are more than 4 dimensions, possibly 11, 7 of which would be much too small for us to see.
this is predicted by M-Theory (previously known as String Theory) - it also predicts multiple universes, which could explain the apparent weakness of gravity when compared to Electromagnetism or any of the other sub-atomic forces…
i love that kind of stuff, in case that wasn’t obvious. 
haha
@T.Edoc - wow, you’re actually MELTING DOWN metals?!?! woah!
…though be very careful not to handle the lead-crystal too long, or work with lead without some protection against it. it’s VERY harmful
@kram - that mega-pyramid is interesting…
btw, has anyone ever heard of a tesseract?
Of course I have, d’uh and also of any other hypercube there is
And @ so small - they’re invisible: Newer thoughts actually end up with thinking so BIG, they are invisible. It’s basically how they explain the weakness of Gravity compared to other forces. (A simple magnet can pull a needle in the opposite direction of a Gravityfield: Up)
It’s because Gravity affects ALL dimensions and thus gets weakened on its way. The other forces somehow reside in our 3+1D world, making them way more “dense” and thus stronger
And infinitely large dimensions are those, which expanded faster than the speed of light and kept expanding. In those directions, no solid matter could ever be created. Thus, nothing actually is there…
So, there is really no need to see it anyway for living things. Usually…
The curiousity of human beings is stronger than any natural abillity, right?
Okay, I think I understand. So, second dimensional stuff is like a flat cartoon. But 3D stuff is what we live in, and 4D stuff… it’s… time, you say, but how can the way an object is seen be time? A Tetrahedron is either a shape with four sides, or a shape like a fish…( Just kidding, I get that part:D) By the way, thanks for the explanation, but could you elaborate on the 4th dimension?
Edit: By the way, I read a book once about a tesseract… I can’t remember what it was, could you explain that, too?
ok, um… well, I don’t think I can explain more on the 4thD…maybe kram can though 
about the book, could it be “A Wrinkle in Time”, by any chance? :eyebrowlift2: it’s a novel, but it’s how I learned about the tesseract - which would be the 5th dimension, as explained in that book, or a cubed cube…
anyway, the tesseract is what they use to travel trough space so fast, they use “shortcuts”…just a sec
googling
hopefully that helps…I’m gonna read it myself, I’ve gotten curious again 
The world we live in is 3+1D. Time isn’t really “the fourth” dimension but rather an extra dimension.
However, you can use time as a fourth dimension:
just imagine, you slice through a cube. What you get is one slice of cube being somewhat like a distorted square or hexagon (depending on how you cut trough the cube). Now, if you move that plane through time, your slice will change.
The same thing works for 4D objects. A 4D object that flies through our 3D world will look like a 3D object that changes shape:
Ok, so, what we life in is a 3+1D world. Or that’s what we perceive.
What scientists now believe is, that there are actually 10+1-or-so dimensions but only 3 of them (not counting time here) are able to hold life.
So, the other ones are either too small (not expanding at all) or too big (expanding too fast).
The problem with understanding the 4th dimension in this case is quite simple : we are talking about two different 4th dimensions.
The first is the space dimension to modelise abstract and impossible objects that comes just after the 3td dimension and just before the 5th dimension. It’s mathematical. I’m sure you couldn’t never find a 4 or more dimensional object in the world…apart in the computer software and math books.
The second one is the lone dimension that they added to the 3 space dimensions of our actual world. They say the 4th dimension of our world (here, dimensions meaning : “environment in which we can evolve”) is the time.
I belive the “time” is a missunderstanding of the phenomenaes of our brain memory.
Though, I will not talk about it more execpt if somebody asks because it’s not the main topic.
EDIT : Sorry kram, I posted at the same time than you. 
About gravity, I can’t figure out how the gravity would lose of its power and weaken just because it affects several dimensions at the same time.
The gravity - as we commonly accepted it - is that the mass of every object (every object that has a mass, of course…) distort the space-time around itself. More the mass is important, more the space-time is distorted.
Even if the environment of the object is composed of several dimensions. why would the object’s gravity of the object weaken just for that?
Anyway, this theory doesn’t include that maybe time doesn’t exist, neither that the gravity could be a magnetic mecanism.
no, not just dimensions, but the multiple universes too
that also depends on if they can find Gravity particles (gravitons, i think), and see them escaping into other universes and dimensions…
edit: @kram1032 - haha, that video makes me think of Red Blood cells… 
I know, I know. I meant “dimensions” as “spheres of the world” or “multiple Universes” or whatever is the good term to say it. Sorry for the confusion, “dimension” is a word that has TOO MUCH uses.
But all this weakened gravity theory is based on the belief that gravity is an exchange of gravity particles (the bosons known as “gravitons”) between the object and…the other objects? Or is the object just loosing gravitons in the void for nothing?
Anyway, what stimulates this exchange; why do the gravitons go, and where do they come from?
My theory, as you read my work on it, says that the gravity is a electromagnetic system.
It explains - among others - why :
- the rings and the moons of the planet have the same angle
- the planets orbits have the same angle
- photons are attracted by gravity
Well… the gravitons are not yet actually found particles which are supposed to be the “transmitter” particles for gravity.
It’s more or less proven, that for instance electrons are transmitters of the weak interaction, one type of quarcks, I think, transmitts strong interaction and photons transmit electromagnetism.
It’s like this:
If you’re sitting in a boat on the open sea and have no paddles or anything else to move, what could you do?
You have exactly two things:
A coconut and an other person right next to you in the same situation.
There is exactly one way to do this (without using your arms or legs or whatever to paddle. that’s against the rules for this quiz^^)
So again:
Two persons on two small boats and one coconut. what could you do, to move on?
Actualy, the transmition bosons (the particles that are the transmitters of the forces) are :
GRAVITY : gravitons
ELETROMAGNETISM : photons
STRONG : gluons
WEAK : particles Z and W
And as you said, it’s not proven yet, and it’s just a theory.
I like the String (M) theory on many points, but to me, this bosons part doesn’t fit (apart maybe the photons).
To move, I’d say we could fart in the opposite direction of the one we want to move in, and if we can’t fart right now, then we could throw the coconut away because it’s heavy and try to rock the boat. And when we’ll get tired and wouldn’t have moved at all, we’ll be like :
“Oh, I’m thirsty and hungry! If only we hadn’t throw the coconut away!”
Then we would see it floating on the top of the water.
No actualy, I would take my shirt and apply what I learned in WW.
And if there’s no wind, I know a song for that…
Homemade hookshot topic :
I think I’ve found the proper pieces to build it :
- a compressed air pomp (preferably homemade or we’ll have to buy the grapnel gun that is more than 18 000 €)
- a big nail
- a relatively thin solid plastic string
- a unbrella handle (cranck) to reel the string in
OK, I kinda understand. By the way, a homemade hookshot? I’ve got an idea for the string. You might be able to find some really strong fishing wire, perhaps. Oh, say, are there mosquitoes where you guyses are? Hang on half a minute… did I just say… guyses? Oh, well. Anyways, there were about fifty mosquitoes today, and that’s just the beginning!
T Edoc:
You know, a Theory actually is something pretty solid, already. All theoretical physics are purely theory.
The word that should be used instead of the common but wrong use of “theory” is “hypothesis” - that’s the young form of a theory. It’s the first idea, so to say. A theory already stabilized somewhat and managed to proof itself in many difficult situations
That’s not an actual proof but at least everything fits in. And no matter what you do at those small scales, as you can’t observe them directly, by the rules of those scales (uncertainity and stuff), it’s impossible to get a 100% fact. However, a theory is at least 80% there. Also, good theories allow for forecasts and if THEY then are fullfilled aswell, it’s pretty sure, that the theory is thought out well.
What you do to move is simply Newton: You throw the coconut to the other guy, he throws it back. Everytime you move a tiny bit. Of course, you’ll have to toss stronger to keep the effect the same over far distances and the toss has to be pretty accurate.
The accuracy problem isn’t there anymore at quantum scales: It’s all everywhere at the same time with certain probabillities. However the needed energy for distance part is there. That’s why the forces get weaker over distance.
So, that’s how it works: Photons start to reflect a million times per second between two protons or two electrons and causes them to gain distance over time.
That’s Electromagnetism: Same poles go away from each other.
I’m not sure, how to explain the attraction that way but you could say that everything happens just with an inverted sign, then.
Inside the core, neutrons keep bursing into protons and electrons. An other proton catches the electron and becomes a neutron. The electrons cause the protons to stay together inside the core. It’s kind of remarkable that only half as many electrons are needed for inside the core as protons to keep it stable. In fact, a little more or less electrons would cause instabilities. (the case, where there are more or less neutrons than protons can also be considered as there are more or less than half as many electrons as protons inside the core)
the other type of interaction happens via some sort of quarks. If I remember correctly, they’re WAY smaller than electrons but as heavy as silver atoms. And silver isn’t quite the lightest material
Well, I used “theory” as “unproven but believed heap of ideas” even if it’s supposed to mean “un-totaly-proven truth”, because “hypothesis” is more “I had ONE idea…dunno if it fits whatever…”. I know, I exaggerate, but there’s kinda no word that means the middle situation (the middle being “unproven but believed heap of ideas”…and meaning that it’s not everybody who believes it, of course)
Anyway, even if a theory explains and fits, that doesn’t mean it’s true. They believed the Earth was flat and the sky was a close sphere, and that perfectly fit their knowledge of the world for centuries…until they discover that something didn’t work.
Now, we know the truth : Earth is round. I’m happy to live in an age where we know the truth at last. And it’s sure they will never discover that finaly it’s not round…will they?..
By the way, I’m sorry I don’t get the gravity weakening over distance. What distance? Gravity is a coconut-ball?
And I don’t get either how a proton becomes a neutron after catching an electron.
Neither that how the electrons keeps the kernel unified. Actualy, what I’ve learned was that the Strong Interaction kept the protons together with the neutrons in the core.
You can actualy find lots of lone cores in the Universe. There’s no electron around, but the core is still solid!
…or I didn’t understand what you said again. (that could be too…:D)
I don’t get either how a quark could be as heavy as an an atom, whatever atom it is (and iron is quite heavy…). Is that some kind of quark we can’t find anywhere, or does it really compose our common atoms?
@Servant : Yes, mosquitos. Actualy, this week-end I was in the country-side and “black flies” as well as “roe deer flies” (also called “horse flies”) where flying around me all the time. The more annoying thing is that they use to tear your skin to take your blood. Quite unpleasant. But, in a way, less annoying than those never-want-to-stop-stinging mosquito bites. Put some earth on the bites, it will stop faster.
For the hookshot, I think a cool rope would be something like the car belts or the backpack belts. Easy to reel in, and very strong.
By the way, my less-than-one-inch thick home-made flax rope is strong enough so I can pull me off the ground. I used it to hoist myself to a tree after attaching it on my belt. Less heavy - and less hurting - than just climbing the rope.
Oh c’mon! Do you seriously think, the earth is round?
Just look at mountains then. Where are they round?
The coconut was a metapher and doesn’t quite work perfectly for attraction but you can imagine it to be the inverted case.
It explains the weakening over distance of any force.
The more distant the two boats are from each other, the stronger you’ll have to throw the coconut to get it to the other side. The push motion is exactly the thing that gets you forward. Away from the other boat. Now, electrons can’t have aribitary energy levels. After a while, the distance you can drive at best is reached. If you try to throw again, the coconut will land inside the water and nobody can move.
Same goes for any other such particle force except some of them give you attraction, rather than repulsion. I think, there is no every day life sized analogy to that…
However, basically, that’s how it’s supposed to work.
And of course it doesn’t mean that something is true. After all, current phyiscs only uses models. A model is considered true if it agrees well with meassured data. Basically, at the size of atoms and below, shapes vanish either way due to uncertainity. So, geometric descriptions of that (like spheres, colliding, causing other spheres to collide and stuff) don’t quite apply anyway… (Of course, they don’t actually use spheres but wave packages, which interfere with each other. Makes things way more complicated…)
Neutrons are highly unstable structures, composed of a proton and an electron.
They’re formed spontaneously inside the core when a proton and an electron collide. Protons attract electrons due to their inverted charge. (The electron goes to the proton and not the other way round. Obviously it’s the size difference that causes this)
For some reason, that is not stable. The electron shoots away at high velocity after a while but, as the core still has other protons, quickly merges with the next one.
Just imagine: If protons and neutrons both where totally stable (protons actually are), why should some neutral stuff cause force electromagnetic force of the same sign (positively charged protons), not to repulse each other?
They don’t. It’s the electrons which keep the core together.
Stable cores consist of as many protons as electrons. Half of the electrons are in the electron hull, the other half are found inside the core, interacting with the protons to change half of them into neutrons and work as some sort of glue.
I think, the instabillity of neutrons is explained by protons being leptons and electrons being bosons (or the other way round, can’t recall), which don’t really like each other that much. The inverted charge lets them attract each other but they can’t have a long relationship… I.e. when they marry, you already know, it wont take long until they divorce again
Ok, scratch that. Just read your wiki article… Electrons aren’t the carrier particles. In that case, it’s actually the gluons, which glue together the core - I think, the mechanism is still kind of the same, though…
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Particle_overview.svg
That chart says it all
But I didn’t tell you total nonsense: See? Photons carry the electromagnetic force
AFAIK, Gluons and W&Z-Bosons are already found. It’s just the mysterious graviton that ceases to be found.
Three things make gravity problematic to study:
- It’s so terribly weak: The WHOLE PLANET pulls on you but it’s not really hard for you to climb a latter. It also pulls on that iron needle over there. A simple tiny kitchen magnet is able to pull it up.
- It’s unshieldable. - You can’t isolate a room without gravity. A lot of gravity research is (planed to be) done in those space stations like the ISS as the gravity there is somewhat weaker (due to the distance) but that’s still way more than for electromagnetism that’s pretty much perfectly shieldable.
- There is no propper source for gravity. You can’t control it in any way. Electricity and magnetism are easily changed.
Actually, I don’t know how they did all the research on stong and weak interaction… But they are at least isolated inside cores or between a few atoms and thus way easier to research than the always and everywhere present gravity…
Weight is all about density. A diamont of the same size as a volume of air will have WAY more mass.
A silver atom isn’t quite on of the lighter atoms around. However, the core only needs a tiny fraction of the radius of the whole atom. I guess you know such analogies like (I think, it was) a cherry in the middle of a soccer stadium. The cherry compares to the core as the whole atom to the outer edge of the stadium.
Now, if you press all the mass into the core, you’re left with a cherry-sized thing that has the same mass as the whole thing.
In fact, the smallest particle possible actually has an incredible mass of a single… corn, grain, piece, what ever… of dust. Doesn’t sound like much but consider: You can easily make out dust particles while they wander through light. You will have a VERY hard time to make out atoms or protons or electrons. Still, that particle is SEVERAL orders of magnitude smaller than an electron. But as heavy as a dust particle.
Basically, it’s also the tiniest possible black hole. Black holes have the highest possible density, which is the same density as that one tiniest possible particle.
Already curious how your hookshot will work out
OKAY HOLD EVERYTHING!!! Now, I only just recalled something about this thread… What was it again? Oh, yes. No offense, but could you guys stop with the un-zelda stuff? I mean, it is a Zelda thread. No offense. Okay, what kind of Zelda stuff can we talk about now? Hm… What about the presence of the king in Spirit Tracks. Like, how he isn’t there. Anyone know why?
Yeah, well, I just typed a long speech, then I read kram scratching what he said, then I read Servant wanting to bring us back to…well, Zelda. So, that’s okay, I won’t put that uninterresting (again) speech in here, especially that it is related to things that ABSOLUTELY DON’T MATTER IN MY LIFE!!! (After all, even if I don’t know or study how my particles work, they will work that way anyway, won’t they? )
I don’t know why the King is kinda never there, but we should make a list of the games in which he isn’t (or a list of the games in which he is, that would take less time).
Legend of Zelda : dunno
Adventure of Link : dunno either
Link to the Past : not there
Link’s Awakening : I’m sure he’s not there
Ocarina of Time : not there
Majora’s Mask : I’m sure he’s not there
Oracles : I’m sure he’s not there
WindWaker : He’s there
Four Swords Adventures : dunno
Four Swords : dunno
Minish Cap : He’s there
Phantom Hourglass : dunno
Twilight Princess : He’s not there
Spirit Tracks : He’s not there
Zelda Wii : if you say you know, I won’t believe you.
Well, the hookshot I might build would fire a nail-hook, and then we sould either climb the rope or reel it in with a crank. I’m sure there’s no way I can find a portable system than can reel the rope plus the weight of a body…apart our arm(s), of course.
EDIT : It’s just that trying to fire a rope (with a granel, a rock or any other thing attached to the extremity) on a natural object (like a tree) is not easy because the rope almost always get stuk or get stopped by something (like a branch).
A “hookshot” would fire it in a line direction and the force would project the hook and the rope so strongly that it wouldn’t get stuck.
I actualy do what Link does with its grappling hook and rope in WindWaker but it works only with horizontal lone rods. …and as you can probably guess, this kind of rods are kinda hard to find.