# Imagining the tenth dimension



## Draco_2k (Jul 17, 2008)

Has anyone seen this?
Note: Facts and hypotheses presented in the video may or may not be particularly scientific or correspond with reality of the matter.

We all know our world as a 3-dimensional space. With an ever-present 4th dimension we call "Time". But do you know how this whole "dimension" thing actually works?

Well, I sure as fuck don't. Not fully anyway, as the presented video serves to both confuse and elaborate on the matter. Still, interesting stuff, at least where it makes sense.


----------



## Aden (Jul 17, 2008)

Yeah, I saw that a while ago. Come back to it after a few days without sleep and see what it does to your poor brain then.


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 17, 2008)

Aden said:


> Yeah, I saw that a while ago. Come back to it after a few days without sleep and see what it does to your poor brain then.


You dare mock me? I already watched it three times and I didn't have any sleep for two days.

Apparently this also means I understand it perfectly now. Huh.

Well, except for that "Waves of probability" thing and the branching conclusions, which doesn't sound too grounded in reality or plain logic. And the infinite folding capacity is also a bit too much.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Jul 18, 2008)

I don't think I'll watch this, because people always tend to take quantum mechanics way too far.  Dimension means what you think it means; height, width, depth, time, and maybe some other stuff that goes off in a direction we can't perceive directly.  There's nothing 'parallel universe' about it.


> Well, except for that "Waves of probability" thing and the branching conclusions, which doesn't sound too grounded in reality or plain logic


Probability functionals actually are grounded in physics, and have to be taken into account for practical applications (like the iPod, for example).  Silicon chips in data-storage equipment and the like occasional glitch out because of the tunneling effect, which is a direct result of those waves of probability, so modern electrical engineers have to correct for this if they want a functioning piece of equipment.  The branching conclusions thing, I'm assuming, is an extrapolation of this: people suppose that since everything is probabilistic, each one of those probabilities has a chance to come into being.  And then they think that that must mean that each of those probabilities DOES come into being, thus creating an infinite number of new universes every femto-second, which is something that can't exactly be proven anyhow.
So this junk is grounded in fact, but no one has reason yet to believe any of it.

PS: Am I right about the subject matter?  It seemed an easy guess what this was about.


----------



## GatodeCafe (Jul 18, 2008)

I can only understand up to the sixth dimension, frankly. The fourth dimension, the one we exist in, has three dimensions of space, and one dimension of time, i.e. time is completely linear and one-dimensional. Fifth dimensional thinking means that the time line is squared, offering time to flow in two dimensions. There are some that say this is similar to certain shamanic trances, in which the person sees both all time that is past, all time that is to come, as well as all time which may be or could've happened, from one vantage point in time. Sixth-dimensional thinking is just the logical last step. After that, the seventh dimension, things get crazy as fuck.


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 18, 2008)

M. Le Renard said:


> Am I right about the subject matter?  It seemed an easy guess what this was about.


Pretty much.



M. Le Renard said:


> There's nothing 'parallel universe' about it.


It's an interesting bit, because video does not address parallel dimensions - just non-parallel ones.

Kinda like you can have two parallel lines in two-dimensional "world" just fine, works for geometry, but drawn on paper in our common world they won't be so parallel. So to say.

If I understand correctly.



M. Le Renard said:


> Probability functionals actually are grounded in physics, and have to be taken into account for practical applications (like the iPod, for example).  Silicon chips in data-storage equipment and the like occasional glitch out because of the tunneling effect, which is a direct result of those waves of probability, so modern electrical engineers have to correct for this if they want a functioning piece of equipment.


I'm pretty sure that's called "statistical probability"? Just a subdivision of chaos manifest, since it's just too much effort to predict some things.



M. Le Renard said:


> The branching conclusions thing, I'm assuming, is an extrapolation of this: people suppose that since everything is probabilistic, each one of those probabilities has a chance to come into being.  And then they think that that must mean that each of those probabilities DOES come into being, thus creating an infinite number of new universes every femto-second, which is something that can't exactly be proven anyhow.


They do jump to conclusions on that without explaining - just assume everything has infinite "folding" capacity, which is a bit weird.



GatodeCafe said:


> I can only understand up to the sixth dimension, frankly. The fourth dimension, the one we exist in, has three dimensions of space, and one dimension of time, i.e. time is completely linear and one-dimensional.


I believe the video addresses that (somewhere) - time looks like a straight line to us, but that's might be just because we don't perceive higher dimensions where time would be just of the underlying ones.

Kind of like you can't tell a cube from a flat plane if it's facing you with just one side.

Also, technically, we only perceive three dimensions, and a bit of the fourth one thanks to our memory.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Jul 19, 2008)

> I'm pretty sure that's called "statistical probability"? Just a subdivision of chaos manifest, since it's just too much effort to predict some things.


No... though I'm sure that's necessary too.  I'm talking about probability functionals for subatomic particles.  The electron cloud concept, as well as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and Schroedinger's equations.  Everything at its most basic level can be described as a wave, and the square of that wave is that object's probability functional, which is to say the probability that it could be somewhere at some given time.  Tunneling occurs when, say, an electron just seems to magically transport itself to the other side of a potential barrier, because it's possible that it could be there.  Technically, next Tuesday you could appear in the Andromeda galaxy for no real reason other than that your wave function describes a small chance that you are there.
You can see how people would make that jump to multiple universes, I guess.  But it is a jump.  But in any case, this is all basic quantum mechanics; not statistics.


----------



## Adelio Altomar (Jul 19, 2008)

*rubs eyes*
 I need Anacin...

It's interesting to consider reality much bigger than we could ever comprehend but it hurts to give it some thought...


----------



## Lobar (Jul 19, 2008)

I've been told that this vid isn't really accurate at all in describing the ten dimensions involved in string theory, but string theory really isn't something I've studied so I couldn't tell you why.  Just an interesting bit of pseudoscience.

edit: It apparently has its own disclaimer stating such at the end too, since I just watched it again for the hell of it...so I guess there's really not much point to this post.


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 19, 2008)

M. Le Renard said:


> No... though I'm sure that's necessary too. I'm talking about probability functionals for subatomic particles. The electron cloud concept, as well as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and Schroedinger's equations. Everything at its most basic level can be described as a wave, and the square of that wave is that object's probability functional, which is to say the probability that it could be somewhere at some given time. Tunneling occurs when, say, an electron just seems to magically transport itself to the other side of a potential barrier, because it's possible that it could be there. Technically, next Tuesday you could appear in the Andromeda galaxy for no real reason other than that your wave function describes a small chance that you are there.
> You can see how people would make that jump to multiple universes, I guess. But it is a jump. But in any case, this is all basic quantum mechanics; not statistics.


And I thought I knew something about the subject.

Ahem... But approximation like this surely refers to statistical or something-alike function? I understand it's impossible to know the exact position of electron at any given time as this would require measurement of the starting position...



Adelio Altomar said:


> *rubs eyes*
> I need Anacin...
> 
> It's interesting to consider reality much bigger than we could ever comprehend but it hurts to give it some thought...


 Quite so.



Lobar said:


> I've been told that this vid isn't really accurate at all in describing the ten dimensions involved in string theory, but string theory really isn't something I've studied so I couldn't tell you why. Just an interesting bit of pseudoscience.
> 
> edit: It apparently has its own disclaimer stating such at the end too, since I just watched it again for the hell of it...so I guess there's really not much point to this post.


  Well, I said so in the OP too. (fineprint)

I still find it interesting, despite seemingly imploding upon itself in a few place, but that's just me.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Jul 20, 2008)

> But approximation like this surely refers to statistical or something-alike function?


Ehhh... it's not really an approximation, and it's not really statistical in the normal sense.  If I really wanted to explain it in detail, I'd have to go through the proof of Schrodinger's equations and try to understand it, which I don't really feel like doing.  The conclusion is just that subatomic particles are also waves, and thus aren't concrete things with a specific location in space-time, and yet they're also particles, meaning they exhibit particle behavior (like usually bouncing off of barriers).  It's an actual physical property with experimental backing, even if it's totally weird and doesn't make any fekking sense.  I'm pretty sure quantum physicists are still trying to get this to be logical, and String Theory is one of those tries, but you can't test String Theory and so it remains conjecture, like some of the stuff in this video.
In any case, we live in a strange world.


----------



## ADF (Jul 20, 2008)

Heh only watched the first few seconds so far (buffering) and they are using the flat land scenario.

I remembered a rather simplistic and young audience orientated explanation of the same scenario here.


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 20, 2008)

M. Le Renard said:


> Ehhh... it's not really an approximation, and it's not really statistical in the normal sense. If I really wanted to explain it in detail, I'd have to go through the proof of Schrodinger's equations and try to understand it, which I don't really feel like doing. The conclusion is just that subatomic particles are also waves, and thus aren't concrete things with a specific location in space-time, and yet they're also particles, meaning they exhibit particle behavior (like usually bouncing off of barriers). It's an actual physical property with experimental backing, even if it's totally weird and doesn't make any fekking sense. I'm pretty sure quantum physicists are still trying to get this to be logical, and String Theory is one of those tries, but you can't test String Theory and so it remains conjecture, like some of the stuff in this video.
> In any case, we live in a strange world.


Sigh. I really was supposed to go through this stuff back at school, but it made even less sense back then.

I'm sure E=MC*2 equation has to imply something about all matter being a mix of uh... Matter and Energy anyway. If I even got that right.



ADF said:


> Heh only watched the first few seconds so far (buffering) and they are using the flat land scenario.
> 
> I remembered a rather simplistic and young audience orientated explanation of the same scenario here.


 Dear god.

Also thanks.


----------



## ADF (Jul 20, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> Dear god.
> 
> Also thanks.


I watched through the whole documentary, it got on the nerves of some  people for not being entirely accurate. Plus I swear the whole thing is designed to get scientifically thinking people softened up to new age spirituality, it was actually funny in that it pissed off both sides; scientific people for supposedly being inaccurate and religious people for suggesting spirituality without a god.


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 20, 2008)

ADF said:


> I watched through the whole documentary, it got on the nerves of some people for not being entirely accurate. Plus I swear the whole thing is designed to get scientifically thinking people softened up to new age spirituality, it was actually funny in that it pissed off both sides; scientific people for supposedly being inaccurate and religious people for suggesting spirituality without a god.


That's what you get for trying to please everyone at once.

Yes, it is a bit... Cryptic, for both sides. Rather amusing though.


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 20, 2008)

Oh wow. I can see what you meant about that documentary now...


----------



## CAThulu (Jul 20, 2008)

Okay...so let me get this straight.  

Our world is made up of an infinity of possibilities, which, if reduced to a point, is the seventh dimension.

Now, lets say that a movie or a book is another reality, with it's own timeline and therefore it's own infinity of possibilities, that would be another seventh dimension.  Choosing to go to a particular 'book' (say, the dune saga) would make it the eigth dimension.  

Travelling through the 'fold' to get from our reality to get to 'Dune's' reality would make that 'wormhole' we're travelling the ninth dimension.

All the tales and realities that live in those stories, from time beginning to time end contained and condensed in a singe area, make up the tenth dimension.

So, in essense, we already 'live' in the tenth dimension in our own minds...but it's artists and gods that can tap into it.

Did i get it?


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 20, 2008)

Almost. Tenth dimensions exists (hypothetically) indefinitely, we just don't perceive it - just like we don't perceive fourth dimension all at one, but rather a split second of it at a time. Then there is no guarantee that "Dune" reality even exists, and there are no guarantees that "folding" between it and our reality is even possible. All that only if the underlying hypothesis presented is correct.

As I understand. I'm also kinda sleepy.


----------



## CAThulu (Jul 20, 2008)

I think it's rather like trying to perceive God.

To understand this is to first accept everything as fact.  Going on my original analogy of stories being their own 'alternate realities', reading a book would be like reading a historical account of another dimension.  One has to do away with words like  hypothesis and theory and replace them with the word fact.  

It is true that our brains cannot percieve the entirety of infinity.  We'd overload and go mad.  But even accepting it as truth gives us a glimpse of it.

This is going from my experience with going to church from birth through the first 20 years I was alive (am no longer christian).  Doctrine was fact.  Christ is simultaneously Himself and His Father, and the world was created in Seven Days.  I think if you can believe this, you can believe in a Tenth Dimension.

I also believe in ghosts, faeries, and the awesome power of a fresh cup of coffee in the morning.


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 20, 2008)

I, personally, always thought that not questioning studies is a bad idea.

For example, I can understand most of what video poses, and how it works under assumption that underlying data is correct, but I can also see a few glaring gaps that would seem to prevent it from doing so.


----------



## CAThulu (Jul 20, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> I, personally, always thought that not questioning studies is a bad idea.
> 
> For example, I can understand most of what video poses, and how it works under assumption that underlying data is correct, but I can also see a few glaring gaps that would seem to prevent it from doing so.



Totally agree with you there.  I question ideas.  It's why I'm no longer a Christian.  But I believe that sometimes to understand an idea you have to surrender to it.  Kind of like walking a mile in a theory's moccasins.

That's not to say I'm about to walk around downtown in a robe carrying a sign 'The Tenth Dimension Is Here!"  And your right, it has holes.  it totally dismisses the idea of the time paradox if you zip back and give your child self the means to make an invention.  You may inadvertently blow up the planet that way .


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 20, 2008)

CAThulu said:


> Totally agree with you there. I question ideas. It's why I'm no longer a Christian. But I believe that sometimes to understand an idea you have to surrender to it. Kind of like walking a mile in a theory's moccasins.


Doing so without being swayed by emotional bias takes a strong will, however. Comparing ideas against established standards is what most of us are accustomed to...



CAThulu said:


> That's not to say I'm about to walk around downtown in a robe carrying a sign 'The Tenth Dimension Is Here!" And your right, it has holes. it totally dismisses the idea of the time paradox if you zip back and give your child self the means to make an invention. You may inadvertently blow up the planet that way .


Technically it doesn't. Even if you killed yourself when you were a kid, for example, your other body would still stay in place - but there would be none of your "second" self. If it's just matter "transportation", why would the universe even care?

Another thing, however, is that making such a "fold" as to transport every inch of your body to a precise point in time and space might not even be possible - just like some origami pieces: you can only fold the paper so far (well, a far-fetched comparison, but, anyway).

I think. I'm kinda sleepy, I probably missed something, too.


----------



## CAThulu (Jul 20, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> Doing so without being swayed by emotional bias takes a strong will, however. Comparing ideas against established standards is what most of us are accustomed to...



I feel as an artist it is my job to not compare the ideas against the established standards.  You have to know the standards first, then throw them away.  I don't think I'd be a Liberal-Bi-Pagan-Fur otherwise 



Draco_2k said:


> Technically it doesn't. Even if you killed yourself when you were a kid, for example, your other body would still stay in place - but there would be none of your "second" self. If it's just matter "transportation", why would the universe even care?



Which is what Back to the Future totally missed when Marty started to fade.  He'd still be there, but the life of his second self would be gone.



Draco_2k said:


> Another thing, however, is that making such a "fold" as to transport every inch of your body to a precise point in time and space might not even be possible - just like some origami pieces: you can only fold the paper so far (well, a far-fetched comparison, but, anyway).



That is true.  You could be ripped apart atomically.  I think I heard of this theory that if you hit a black hole at a precise entry point it would be possible for your body not to fly apart.  But then time would stop for us because of the massive gravitational pull behind the event horizon.

I need to brush up on my Hawking.  I should really reread A Brief History of Time.



Draco_2k said:


> I think. I'm kinda sleepy, I probably missed something, too.



Same here.  I am full of meatloaf.


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 20, 2008)

CAThulu said:


> I feel as an artist it is my job to not compare the ideas against the established standards.  You have to know the standards first, then throw them away.  I don't think I'd be a Liberal-Bi-Pagan-Fur otherwise


You lost me. 



CAThulu said:


> Which is what Back to the Future totally missed when Marty started to fade.  He'd still be there, but the life of his second self would be gone.


Hah. Quite correct.

Also, just remembered, there's that thing about "Entanglement" but uh... Oh fuck this, I'm too sleepy.



CAThulu said:


> I think I heard of this theory that if you hit a black hole at a precise entry point it would be possible for your body not to fly apart.  But then time would stop for us because of the massive gravitational pull behind the event horizon.
> 
> I need to brush up on my Hawking.  I should really reread A Brief History of Time.


Pretty sure tidal forces would prevent that...


----------



## CAThulu (Jul 20, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> You lost me.



I started off as a conservative-straight-xtian-nonfur, felt out of place, questioned what I knew, found some answers and ended up the opposite.  Just meant that this was the result of me questioning structural norms.  maybe not such a good thing in the end.  Sorry to confuse you there.



Draco_2k said:


> Hah. Quite correct.
> 
> Also, just remembered, there's that thing about "Entanglement" but uh... Oh fuck this, I'm too sleepy.



It's waaay to late to discuss quantum physics.  Especially after meatloaf.  Let's put this debate to bed, shall we?




Draco_2k said:


> Pretty sure tidal forces would prevent that...



Okay, now I'm lost.  I'm thinking what does the moon's gravitational pull on our oceans have to do with black holes.  See above paragraph from me.


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 20, 2008)

CAThulu said:


> I started off as a conservative-straight-xtian-nonfur, felt out of place, questioned what I knew, found some answers and ended up the opposite.  Just meant that this was the result of me questioning structural norms.  maybe not such a good thing in the end.  Sorry to confuse you there.


Ah, my wording betrays me once again.

"Established standards" can be both that of the others and that of your own, right? 



CAThulu said:


> It's waaay to late to discuss quantum physics.  Especially after meatloaf.  Let's put this debate to bed, shall we?


It's a deal.



CAThulu said:


> Okay, now I'm lost.  I'm thinking what does the moon's gravitational pull on our oceans have to do with black holes.  See above paragraph from me.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force

There we go. Just don't read it before you go to bed.

No, actually, you can do that - it's known to make learning a lot more effective. Not sure about sleep itself though.


----------



## Furry? (Jul 20, 2008)

Draco, God one by one vote


----------



## CAThulu (Jul 20, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force
> 
> There we go. Just don't read it before you go to bed.
> 
> No, actually, you can do that - it's known to make learning a lot more effective. Not sure about sleep itself though.



You know, I was fine before I got to the mathematical equations.  Then I heard a muffled boom inside my head as my brain exploded.

No sleep for me tonight *S*


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 20, 2008)

Furry? said:


> Draco, God one by one vote


 wat



CAThulu said:


> You know, I was fine before I got to the mathematical equations. Then I heard a muffled boom inside my head as my brain exploded.
> 
> No sleep for me tonight *S*


Jeez, I didn't mean read *all* of it...

But, I guess, if you're really interested, as you said.


----------



## SmoothPorcupine (Jul 21, 2008)

The way the movie describes it, moving in the 10th dimension would pull apart logic itself.

However, I deem them incorrect at the 4t dimension for 2 reasons:
 * Time is not a spacial dimension, you cannot move back and forth in it like you can in the native 3 dimensions.
 * You would not see yourself stretched out if you saw your 4 dimensional body, but a rendering of it in lower dimensions might look like that.

Okay, to start to imagine the 4th _spacial_ dimension, I use 3 basic shapes:
 * A diamond.
 * A cube.
 * And a sphere.

In 1 dimension, they are all two points: (-1) and (1).
In 2 dimensions,
a diamond is the square (1,0), (0,1), (-1,0), (0,-1).
a cube is the square (1,1), (-1,1), (-1,-1), (1,-1).
and a sphere is a circle of radius 1.
In 3 dimensions,
a diamond is defined by the points (1,0,0), (0,1,0), (0,0,1), (-1,0,0), (0,-1,0), and (0,0,-1).
a cube is defined by the points (1,1,1), (1,1,-1), (1,-1,1), (1,-1,-1), (-1,1,1), (-1,1,-1), (-1,-1,1), and (-1,-1,-1).
and a sphere is a sphere of radius 1.
In 4 dimensions, you can extrapolate the points.

Let say we were moving through the 4th dimension and we were observing a diamond.
First (-1 as our location in the 4th dimension) we would see a point, then as moved to 0 in the 4th dimension, we would see this point gradually get bigger and bigger until it looked exactly like it does in 3 dimensions. As we moved to 1 in the 4th dimension, we would see it gradually get smaller and become a point again.

You can see the same thing for a 2D creature moving in 3 dimensions.
Starts as a point, gets bigger and bigger until it becomes the diamond of 2D space, then gets smaller to be a point.

If you still follow what I'm saying, then maybe some other time I can boggle your mind with rotations and angles in 4 spacial dimensions.


----------



## pheonix (Jul 21, 2008)

I don't think I'll ever understand from the 5th dimension  to the tenth it's to much for my brain to comprehend at my age.


----------



## CAThulu (Jul 21, 2008)

SmoothPorcupine said:


> The way the movie describes it, moving in the 10th dimension would pull apart logic itself.
> 
> However, I deem them incorrect at the 4t dimension for 2 reasons:
> * Time is not a spacial dimension, you cannot move back and forth in it like you can in the native 3 dimensions.
> ...



Are those _vectors?_  I haven't seen those since highschool! 

Yup...totally get you there.  it's why we always say we live in a 3D universe.  We're used to spatial concepts.  Unofficially we live in a 4D universe: 3 spatial dimentions + Time.  You couldn't figure out how far a star was from the earth without that last dimension.  So while i know we cannot move backwards and forwards through time, we are in the _now_, and that is enough for me to make this a 4D universe.  

Plus if I'm late for work I can't say that we live in a 3D spacial world, therefore time does not exist, and therefore I'm not late for work.  Although I would love to use that one someday


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 21, 2008)

CAThulu said:


> Yup...totally get you there.


Clever. I didn't get any of that. Extra spacial dimensions... Sounds good until you try to imagine it.

Might be why I don't quite comprehend the difference between space-time and space-plus-x-dimension.


----------



## CAThulu (Jul 21, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> Clever. I didn't get any of that. Extra spacial dimensions... Sounds good until you try to imagine it.
> 
> Might be why I don't quite comprehend the difference between space-time and space-plus-x-dimension.



What really helped me was reading Stephen Hawking's Illustrated 'A Brief History of Time'.  Highly recommend that one.  The diagrams really make the concepts understandable, and it covers everything from black holes, the dopplar effect, string theory, and the time-travel theory.  Brilliant read, whether you agree with the guy or not.


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 21, 2008)

CAThulu said:


> What really helped me was reading Stephen Hawking's Illustrated 'A Brief History of Time'. Highly recommend that one. The diagrams really make the concepts understandable, and it covers everything from black holes, the dopplar effect, string theory, and the time-travel theory. Brilliant read, whether you agree with the guy or not.


Thanks!

Checking with Wiki, it appears he actually released an updated version of it, too. FYI.


----------



## CAThulu (Jul 21, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> Thanks!
> 
> Checking with Wiki, it appears he actually re-released an updated version of it, too. FYI.



Yeah, I have it!   It has the 'Universe in a Nutshell' with it (the follow-up), plus BHOT was expanded and updated.  

And I got it on sale in paperback form for ten bucks.  sweeeet.

Seriously, you want to get a handle on the basics of astrophysics but suck at math, read the book. *nodnod*


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 21, 2008)

CAThulu said:


> Yeah, I have it!   It has the 'Universe in a Nutshell' with it (the follow-up), plus BHOT was expanded and updated.
> 
> And I got it on sale in paperback form for ten bucks.  sweeeet.
> 
> Seriously, you want to get a handle on the basics of astrophysics but suck at math, read the book. *nodnod*


Must be one interesting book. I'll make sure to heed the advice if I can get hold of a copy of it here.


----------



## CAThulu (Jul 21, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> Must be one interesting book. I'll make sure to heed the advice if I can get hold of a copy of it here.



Only if you find that sort of thing interesting.  Some parts are a bit dry, but it's fascinating.


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 21, 2008)

CAThulu said:


> Only if you find that sort of thing interesting.  Some parts are a bit dry, but it's fascinating.


If I can get to understand every single scientific term ever mentioned in Half-Life games, I can get through that.


----------



## CAThulu (Jul 21, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> If I can get to understand every single scientific term ever mentioned in Half-Life games, I can get through that.



*L*  No kidding.  I just got the orange box for my birthday, and I'm still working through HL2.   I love the game, but the working title must have been 'white man can't jump' because wow...he really can't


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 21, 2008)

CAThulu said:


> *L* No kidding. I just got the orange box for my birthday, and I'm still working through HL2. I love the game, but the working title must have been 'white man can't jump' because wow...he really can't


 I beg to differ.

I hope you did get past the first teleporter scene by now, less it'll spoil it a bit.


----------



## CAThulu (Jul 21, 2008)

Okay.  I"m woman enough to admit my timing sucks then *L*. 

And yup...waaaay past that now.  I'm in Nova Prospect facing off against the combine soldiers. *S*


----------

