i-research-so-you-dont-have-to

[i-research-so-you-dont-have-to]

Guns and America

(Note: I used a fair amount of data from 2021 because it was the most recent I could find for certain sources and I wanted the information to be consistent across the board.)

Guns are a massive problem in America. As of 2021, we were third in gun-related homicides behind Brazil and Mexico (which does not include suicides or other gun related crimes), as well as the third most populous country, which would line up, except for the fact that the top two most populous countries in 2021, China and India, which both have over 4 times as many people as the U.S., were ranked third from last and ~30 from last, respectively. The U.S. had 11.9 deaths per 100k people compared to India's 1.32 and China's 0.02.

Some may say 'it's my constitutional right; if you don't like guns, just don't own one.' For this, I would like to make two points.

First of all, if your argument is that if it isn't something you want, don't do it, then why isn't that your policy on gay marriage or being transgender? If you don't like gay marriage, then don't marry someone of your gender. If you don't agree with transgender people, then just be okay with not being a transgender person yourself. These things are not hurting anyone. (For those that argue that trans women only want to assault women in bathrooms, there are several sources that show that there have been few to no reports of this ever happening.)

Second of all, the difference between allowing gay people to get married, which affects no one but the people who want to spend the rest of their lives together, and allowing guns to be such a normalized thing in our society that almost no one bats an eye when another school shooting happens, is the fact that guns affect everyone. There were 327 school shootings during the 2021-22 school year. This resulted in 81 deaths and 269 injuries. These were children. They did not deserve that, and yet people send their thoughts and prayers and do nothing to even try to fix the problems.

I have a pro-gun coworker who argues that taking away guns won't fix everything. He argued that they took away guns in the U.K. and now they have acid attacks. However, there were over 15k gun deaths caused by homicide alone in the U.S. in 2021, and 421 acid attacks in the U.K.. The U.K. has extremely limited access to guns, and they had less than 10.

I know that this is only a fraction of the data. In addition, I'm not saying that gun control will fix everything. But we need to do something, try something, in order to fix what is going on. Maybe it isn't the perfect solution, and it will only cause different problems, but if those problems are smaller than what we have now, if we can stop even one person from becoming a victim, then shouldn't we at least try?

Sources under the cut

Gun violence and world population:

World Population by Country in 2021 (World Map) | database.earth

Gun Violence by Country 2025

Transgender women in bathrooms:

Statistics Show Exactly How Many Times Trans People Have Attacked You in Bathrooms

The Real Risks in Public Restrooms—And Who Faces Them • What's On Queer Magazine

Safety and Privacy in Public Restrooms and Other Gendered Facilities - Williams Institute

Pollster Sources - Media Bias/Fact Check (verification for william's institute as an unbiased source since the other two are left leaning)

School shootings:

The latest government data on school shootings | USAFacts

Acid attacks:

Acid attacks increase by 69% in a year in England and Wales, charity warns | UK News | Sky News

Sky News UK - Bias and Credibility - Media Bias/Fact Check

[i-research-so-you-dont-have-to]

Thank you for letting me know, have a great day!

On Four Dimensional Space

While many people think that H.G. Well's time machine was a good representation of something that could move through a fourth dimension, there is a better example: A shrink ray/growth ray.

(Explanation under the cut)

Have you ever seen this shape?

It's often called a 4-D cube, otherwise known as a tesseract, and for the longest time, I didn't understand how a cube inside a cube equaled another dimension. But I finally realized, the cube that appears smaller is actually the outside.

Let me explain. But first, I want you to imagine that you are a 2-D entity. You want to know how a square could possibly have three dimensions. You picture a square, and it looks like this:

Now, as a three dimensional being, we know that in order to make it a cube, each square is extended outward along the square by the length of one side. The problem with that is in 2-D space, you cannot have a cube. But conceptually speaking, we are aware that a cube is simply a square face that has been stretched out by the same amount as the length of one side. Altogether, it looks like this:

So, I want you to try something. Picture a square. It is 4x4. Now, without rotating it in your mind, think about that square becoming a cube. In order to do that, you either push it back by 4 squares, or bring it forward by 4 squares. The back of the cube appears to be smaller, right?

It's the same thing with going to 4-D from 3-D. For us, if you had a 4-D box with one open face, it would seem like space itself was folded into the box. So if you had a 4x4x4x4 inch box, it would appear as a 4x4x4 inch box, but it would be able to hold the same amount of items as a box with a volume of 256 inches. Each cube would have a total of 4 cubes occupying what would appear in our dimension to be the same space, but in a fourth dimension, it would be expanded out.

Now, imagine you have a paper circle and a box. You are looking down into the box, and you are holding the circle towards the top of the box. As you move the circle closer to the bottom of the box, it appears to get smaller because it is further away. The same thing would happen as you moved something through 4-D space. If you took a marble and pushed it away from yourself, it would appear to get smaller, as it would be farther away. To bring an object in a fourth dimension closer, it would appear bigger, as it would be closer. The difference is, since we cannot perceive or interact with the 4th dimension the way we can with the second or third dimension, it would genuinely be bigger or smaller for us.

A good way to demonstrate this was illustrated by Charles Hinton.

"from the perspective of the two-dimensional being, a three- dimensional sphere pushed through a two-dimensional plane would appear as a point when the sphere touched the plane, grow into a circle with the same radius as the sphere, then shrink back into a point."

The same would happen with a 4-D object in 3-D space. A sphere would begin at its smallest possible size and grow to its largest size, then shrink back down to nothing. Thus, if a 3-D object were pushed through 4-D space, the same thing would happen: If it were to be moved 'closer', it would be bigger, and if it were to be moved 'away', it would be smaller.

Sites:

https://analyticphysics.com/Higher%20Dimensions/The%20Visual%20Appearance%20of%20Higher-Dimensional%20Objects.htm

TL;DR: a shrink ray is the closest thing humans have imagined to a device that can move through the 4th dimension

[i-research-so-you-dont-have-to]

Exactly! Sorry if my wording was confusing, is there any way I could clarify it so that I don't confuse anyone else?

On Four Dimensional Space

While many people think that H.G. Well's time machine was a good representation of something that could move through a fourth dimension, there is a better example: A shrink ray/growth ray.

(Explanation under the cut)

Have you ever seen this shape?

It's often called a 4-D cube, otherwise known as a tesseract, and for the longest time, I didn't understand how a cube inside a cube equaled another dimension. But I finally realized, the cube that appears smaller is actually the outside.

Let me explain. But first, I want you to imagine that you are a 2-D entity. You want to know how a square could possibly have three dimensions. You picture a square, and it looks like this:

Now, as a three dimensional being, we know that in order to make it a cube, each square is extended outward along the square by the length of one side. The problem with that is in 2-D space, you cannot have a cube. But conceptually speaking, we are aware that a cube is simply a square face that has been stretched out by the same amount as the length of one side. Altogether, it looks like this:

So, I want you to try something. Picture a square. It is 4x4. Now, without rotating it in your mind, think about that square becoming a cube. In order to do that, you either push it back by 4 squares, or bring it forward by 4 squares. The back of the cube appears to be smaller, right?

It's the same thing with going to 4-D from 3-D. For us, if you had a 4-D box with one open face, it would seem like space itself was folded into the box. So if you had a 4x4x4x4 inch box, it would appear as a 4x4x4 inch box, but it would be able to hold the same amount of items as a box with a volume of 256 inches. Each cube would have a total of 4 cubes occupying what would appear in our dimension to be the same space, but in a fourth dimension, it would be expanded out.

Now, imagine you have a paper circle and a box. You are looking down into the box, and you are holding the circle towards the top of the box. As you move the circle closer to the bottom of the box, it appears to get smaller because it is further away. The same thing would happen as you moved something through 4-D space. If you took a marble and pushed it away from yourself, it would appear to get smaller, as it would be farther away. To bring an object in a fourth dimension closer, it would appear bigger, as it would be closer. The difference is, since we cannot perceive or interact with the 4th dimension the way we can with the second or third dimension, it would genuinely be bigger or smaller for us.

A good way to demonstrate this was illustrated by Charles Hinton.

"from the perspective of the two-dimensional being, a three- dimensional sphere pushed through a two-dimensional plane would appear as a point when the sphere touched the plane, grow into a circle with the same radius as the sphere, then shrink back into a point."

The same would happen with a 4-D object in 3-D space. A sphere would begin at its smallest possible size and grow to its largest size, then shrink back down to nothing. Thus, if a 3-D object were pushed through 4-D space, the same thing would happen: If it were to be moved 'closer', it would be bigger, and if it were to be moved 'away', it would be smaller.

Sites:

https://analyticphysics.com/Higher%20Dimensions/The%20Visual%20Appearance%20of%20Higher-Dimensional%20Objects.htm

TL;DR: a shrink ray is the closest thing humans have imagined to a device that can move through the 4th dimension

[i-research-so-you-dont-have-to]

I cited the primary source which has graphics if you need help. Did you read the whole post? We physically cannot perceive a fourth dimension; only how an object changes over time as it crosses through our dimensions. In addition, the original post was referring specifically to a 3D object moving through a 4th dimension. If you need more help, look up Charles Hinton's explanation, because it seems to me that you are not understanding the post; the tl;dr is intended to oversimplify the entirety in case the premise was interesting but reading it was too time consuming, not explain the entire concept.

On Four Dimensional Space

While many people think that H.G. Well's time machine was a good representation of something that could move through a fourth dimension, there is a better example: A shrink ray/growth ray.

(Explanation under the cut)

Have you ever seen this shape?

It's often called a 4-D cube, otherwise known as a tesseract, and for the longest time, I didn't understand how a cube inside a cube equaled another dimension. But I finally realized, the cube that appears smaller is actually the outside.

Let me explain. But first, I want you to imagine that you are a 2-D entity. You want to know how a square could possibly have three dimensions. You picture a square, and it looks like this:

Now, as a three dimensional being, we know that in order to make it a cube, each square is extended outward along the square by the length of one side. The problem with that is in 2-D space, you cannot have a cube. But conceptually speaking, we are aware that a cube is simply a square face that has been stretched out by the same amount as the length of one side. Altogether, it looks like this:

So, I want you to try something. Picture a square. It is 4x4. Now, without rotating it in your mind, think about that square becoming a cube. In order to do that, you either push it back by 4 squares, or bring it forward by 4 squares. The back of the cube appears to be smaller, right?

It's the same thing with going to 4-D from 3-D. For us, if you had a 4-D box with one open face, it would seem like space itself was folded into the box. So if you had a 4x4x4x4 inch box, it would appear as a 4x4x4 inch box, but it would be able to hold the same amount of items as a box with a volume of 256 inches. Each cube would have a total of 4 cubes occupying what would appear in our dimension to be the same space, but in a fourth dimension, it would be expanded out.

Now, imagine you have a paper circle and a box. You are looking down into the box, and you are holding the circle towards the top of the box. As you move the circle closer to the bottom of the box, it appears to get smaller because it is further away. The same thing would happen as you moved something through 4-D space. If you took a marble and pushed it away from yourself, it would appear to get smaller, as it would be farther away. To bring an object in a fourth dimension closer, it would appear bigger, as it would be closer. The difference is, since we cannot perceive or interact with the 4th dimension the way we can with the second or third dimension, it would genuinely be bigger or smaller for us.

A good way to demonstrate this was illustrated by Charles Hinton.

"from the perspective of the two-dimensional being, a three- dimensional sphere pushed through a two-dimensional plane would appear as a point when the sphere touched the plane, grow into a circle with the same radius as the sphere, then shrink back into a point."

The same would happen with a 4-D object in 3-D space. A sphere would begin at its smallest possible size and grow to its largest size, then shrink back down to nothing. Thus, if a 3-D object were pushed through 4-D space, the same thing would happen: If it were to be moved 'closer', it would be bigger, and if it were to be moved 'away', it would be smaller.

Sites:

https://analyticphysics.com/Higher%20Dimensions/The%20Visual%20Appearance%20of%20Higher-Dimensional%20Objects.htm

TL;DR: a shrink ray is the closest thing humans have imagined to a device that can move through the 4th dimension

[i-research-so-you-dont-have-to]

Correct, but a way we could perceive movement in a fourth dimension could be something getting smaller as it moves away the same way an object gets smaller when you apply the concept of a 3D object going further away to a 2D world; if you draw a box with something at the bottom, the thing at the bottom is smaller than if it were drawn at the top. With 4D to 3D, it is the same concept, but with another dimension added.

On Four Dimensional Space

While many people think that H.G. Well's time machine was a good representation of something that could move through a fourth dimension, there is a better example: A shrink ray/growth ray.

(Explanation under the cut)

Have you ever seen this shape?

It's often called a 4-D cube, otherwise known as a tesseract, and for the longest time, I didn't understand how a cube inside a cube equaled another dimension. But I finally realized, the cube that appears smaller is actually the outside.

Let me explain. But first, I want you to imagine that you are a 2-D entity. You want to know how a square could possibly have three dimensions. You picture a square, and it looks like this:

Now, as a three dimensional being, we know that in order to make it a cube, each square is extended outward along the square by the length of one side. The problem with that is in 2-D space, you cannot have a cube. But conceptually speaking, we are aware that a cube is simply a square face that has been stretched out by the same amount as the length of one side. Altogether, it looks like this:

So, I want you to try something. Picture a square. It is 4x4. Now, without rotating it in your mind, think about that square becoming a cube. In order to do that, you either push it back by 4 squares, or bring it forward by 4 squares. The back of the cube appears to be smaller, right?

It's the same thing with going to 4-D from 3-D. For us, if you had a 4-D box with one open face, it would seem like space itself was folded into the box. So if you had a 4x4x4x4 inch box, it would appear as a 4x4x4 inch box, but it would be able to hold the same amount of items as a box with a volume of 256 inches. Each cube would have a total of 4 cubes occupying what would appear in our dimension to be the same space, but in a fourth dimension, it would be expanded out.

Now, imagine you have a paper circle and a box. You are looking down into the box, and you are holding the circle towards the top of the box. As you move the circle closer to the bottom of the box, it appears to get smaller because it is further away. The same thing would happen as you moved something through 4-D space. If you took a marble and pushed it away from yourself, it would appear to get smaller, as it would be farther away. To bring an object in a fourth dimension closer, it would appear bigger, as it would be closer. The difference is, since we cannot perceive or interact with the 4th dimension the way we can with the second or third dimension, it would genuinely be bigger or smaller for us.

A good way to demonstrate this was illustrated by Charles Hinton.

"from the perspective of the two-dimensional being, a three- dimensional sphere pushed through a two-dimensional plane would appear as a point when the sphere touched the plane, grow into a circle with the same radius as the sphere, then shrink back into a point."

The same would happen with a 4-D object in 3-D space. A sphere would begin at its smallest possible size and grow to its largest size, then shrink back down to nothing. Thus, if a 3-D object were pushed through 4-D space, the same thing would happen: If it were to be moved 'closer', it would be bigger, and if it were to be moved 'away', it would be smaller.

Sites:

https://analyticphysics.com/Higher%20Dimensions/The%20Visual%20Appearance%20of%20Higher-Dimensional%20Objects.htm

TL;DR: a shrink ray is the closest thing humans have imagined to a device that can move through the 4th dimension

[i-research-so-you-dont-have-to]

On Four Dimensional Space

While many people think that H.G. Well's time machine was a good representation of something that could move through a fourth dimension, there is a better example: A shrink ray/growth ray.

(Explanation under the cut)

Have you ever seen this shape?

It's often called a 4-D cube, otherwise known as a tesseract, and for the longest time, I didn't understand how a cube inside a cube equaled another dimension. But I finally realized, the cube that appears smaller is actually the outside.

Let me explain. But first, I want you to imagine that you are a 2-D entity. You want to know how a square could possibly have three dimensions. You picture a square, and it looks like this:

Now, as a three dimensional being, we know that in order to make it a cube, each square is extended outward along the square by the length of one side. The problem with that is in 2-D space, you cannot have a cube. But conceptually speaking, we are aware that a cube is simply a square face that has been stretched out by the same amount as the length of one side. Altogether, it looks like this:

So, I want you to try something. Picture a square. It is 4x4. Now, without rotating it in your mind, think about that square becoming a cube. In order to do that, you either push it back by 4 squares, or bring it forward by 4 squares. The back of the cube appears to be smaller, right?

It's the same thing with going to 4-D from 3-D. For us, if you had a 4-D box with one open face, it would seem like space itself was folded into the box. So if you had a 4x4x4x4 inch box, it would appear as a 4x4x4 inch box, but it would be able to hold the same amount of items as a box with a volume of 256 inches. Each cube would have a total of 4 cubes occupying what would appear in our dimension to be the same space, but in a fourth dimension, it would be expanded out.

Now, imagine you have a paper circle and a box. You are looking down into the box, and you are holding the circle towards the top of the box. As you move the circle closer to the bottom of the box, it appears to get smaller because it is further away. In 2D space, the circle is actually smaller because it cannot exist as further away in that direction, The same thing would happen as you moved something through 4-D space. If you took a marble and pushed it away from yourself, it would appear to get smaller, as it would be farther away. To bring an object in a fourth dimension closer, it would appear bigger, as it would be closer. The difference is, since we cannot perceive or interact with the 4th dimension the way we can with the second or third dimension, it would genuinely be bigger or smaller for us.

A good way to demonstrate this was illustrated by Charles Hinton.

"from the perspective of the two-dimensional being, a three- dimensional sphere pushed through a two-dimensional plane would appear as a point when the sphere touched the plane, grow into a circle with the same radius as the sphere, then shrink back into a point."

The same would happen with a 4-D object in 3-D space. A sphere would begin at its smallest possible size and grow to its largest size, then shrink back down to nothing. Thus, if a 3-D object were pushed through 4-D space, the same thing would happen from the perspective of the 3-D space: If it were to be moved 'closer', it would be bigger, and if it were to be moved 'away', it would be smaller.

Sites:

https://analyticphysics.com/Higher%20Dimensions/The%20Visual%20Appearance%20of%20Higher-Dimensional%20Objects.htm

TL;DR: a shrink ray is the closest thing humans have imagined to a device that can move through the 4th dimension