Heh, I don't know what a Langolier is. These are just two variants of the same species I made up, one version is 2D and totally flat, the other is 3D and thinks they're stupid for thinking a higher dimension is time.
The problem with that, I've since realized, is that I've been told that it has been mathematically proven that the fourth dimension is time, and that my interpretation was wrong; meaning the big 3D dude looks rather silly as well if he believes too differently from the flatlanders below.

Oh man, this reminds me of how much I hate discussing physics/math with people on the internet.

Once I saw this dude claim that a tesseract (four-dimensional cube) was a cube growing as time passed. All those people thinking time is the fourth dimension make me mad. They don’t understand time isn’t a spatial dimension, so it can’t be the fourth, fifth, or one-hundredth. It doesn’t even make sense to number dimensions to begin with. How can one tell which dimension is the first, or the third?

Wow. You're as passionate about this as I used to be. I had the same opinion while making this comic.

Then one day, I was talking with Friend #1 about it on Skype, and he said that time being dimension #4 is mathematically proven.
"In physics and mathematics, the dimension of a space or object is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it."
Which was pretty annoying. That really destroyed my way of thinking.

I still want to think about number four being another physical point of reference through which genocidal tesseracts roam, but I can't think of a counterargument anymore and I don't have the strength to fight. At this point I just can't bother with the debate any more.

But yeah, the logic in this comic does still stand, kinda, even if I wish I'd drawn a few things different.

It's good to get new comments. Thanks for stopping by, Pilgrimbro.

(Somehow, I didn’t see that you had replied to my comment.)

There is one model in which time is the fourth dimension, and I don’t believe for a second that model is right, as it assumes there are exactly four dimensions and can’t possibly be more.

In every other model, time is separate from the spatial dimensions. In four-dimensional space, for instance, we have four dimensions, none of which is time. In String Theory, there are 26 dimensions. In neither of those time is "the fourth dimension".

I recommend you this little video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9sbdrPVfOQ. The guy who made it is a physicist, so I guess he knows what he is talking about.

Also, you can actually specify any point within a 2D object with only one coordinate, and I’m certain it can be done for 3D objects too, so that definition of spatial dimensions is flawed. (If you are interested in a detailed explanation, let me know, though I don’t think I’m very good at explaining things. Actually scratch that. The same guy who made the video above has a video on this too: www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJJhHknEDPY)

MadJak9110.6.2015 edit delete replyHindbodes10.6.2015 edit delete replyThe problem with that, I've since realized, is that I've been told that it has been mathematically proven that the fourth dimension

istime, and that my interpretation was wrong; meaning the big 3D dude looks rather silly as well if he believes too differently from the flatlanders below.MadJak9110.6.2015 edit delete replyAnd I like the added irony of the 2D representation of 3D objects in drawings.

QuotePilgrim17.10.2015 edit delete replyOnce I saw this dude claim that a tesseract (four-dimensional cube) was a cube growing as time passed. All those people thinking time is the fourth dimension make me mad. They don’t understand time isn’t a spatial dimension, so it can’t be the fourth, fifth, or one-hundredth. It doesn’t even make sense to number dimensions to begin with. How can one tell which dimension is the first, or the third?

Hindbodes17.10.2015 edit delete replyThen one day, I was talking with Friend #1 about it on Skype, and he said that time being dimension #4 is mathematically proven.

"In physics and mathematics, the dimension of a space or object is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it."

Which was pretty annoying. That really destroyed my way of thinking.

I still want to think about number four being another physical point of reference through which genocidal tesseracts roam, but I can't think of a counterargument anymore and I don't have the strength to fight. At this point I just can't bother with the debate any more.

But yeah, the logic in this comic does still stand, kinda, even if I wish I'd drawn a few things different.

It's good to get new comments. Thanks for stopping by, Pilgrimbro.

QuotePilgrim26.10.2015 edit delete replyThere is

onemodel in which time is the fourth dimension, and I don’t believe for a second that model is right, as it assumes there are exactly four dimensions and can’t possibly be more.In every other model, time is separate from the spatial dimensions. In four-dimensional space, for instance, we have four dimensions, none of which is time. In String Theory, there are 26 dimensions. In neither of those time is "the fourth dimension".

I recommend you this little video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9sbdrPVfOQ. The guy who made it is a physicist, so I guess he knows what he is talking about.

Also, you can actually specify any point within a 2D object with only one coordinate, and I’m certain it can be done for 3D objects too, so that definition of spatial dimensions is flawed. (

~~If you are interested in a detailed explanation, let me know, though I don’t think I’m very good at explaining things~~. Actually scratch that. The same guy who made the video above has a video on this too: www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJJhHknEDPY)