of different dimensions?
212665
That's a difficult question to answer, in that we would have to develop experiments to test if our theories were correct. If we had an idealized 'stasis field' (a container or defined zone in which time could be prevented from passing), we might be able to perform experiments to determine whether the things inside were still subject to entropy or whether they were removed from the general entropy gradient. The current prevailing theories hold that the contents of a stasis field (or container) are unaffected by entropy. This leads to the concept that entropy might be stripped from the events which cause it and transferred from object to object or from place to place, leading to unexpected catastrophes for no apparent cause. Once more, these things are difficult to determine.
503505
Normally you would call the longer side the length and the shorter side the width, but I don't think it really matters.  With furniture, they use height and width (and depth).  So if you buy a tall bookcase, the height is longer than the width, but if you buy a sofa, the width is longer than the height.
566103
Depends, what kinds of containers they are, for eg. a cylindrical container will hold more than a rectangular container with the same base Perimeter and height.  This question is very unclear.  The answer would probably be the cylindrical one.
277089
the sensors we have in our body are only able to detect the 3 dimensions that we see. some physicists think that there are up to...11? dimensions existing, however we are unable to detect them and therefore...its not possible to "go" there. the same as we are not able to "go" into a 2D world...unless someone has figured out a way to become flat
91120
It depends on the object.  You find the area of all the sides and then add them together.
474535
your question is not clear. describe positions of the objects.
508222
Yes, \n1:1 means 1 and by convention, \nthis means 1 to 1 matching i.e.same \nimplying  'same dimensions as the other'\nSimple...Got it?
408682
Mathematically n dimensions can be described but our experience is only 3 dimensions So the properties of fourth dimensonal shapes can be mathematically described and a fourth dimensional quantity that is in units^4 can also be calculated\n\nThis is an argument that the 4th dimension is time. That cannot be the case when one considers the properties in 3d are L, L, and L One would immediately envisage that the 4th, 5th .... nth dimensions would also all be L\n\nA tesseract, the 4 dimensional equivalent to the 2 dimensional square and 3 dimensional cube, is not a time related object at all. Its 3D projection can be build and the objects equivalent of a 2D shadow seen easily. In 4-space it occupies L^4 units^4. Wikepedia has some interesting information and projections of a tesseract
153228
Currently man believes or percieves only 3 spacial dimensions.  Height, length and depth.  String Theory, the unification theory of quantum and relative gravity hypothesizes up to 11 other spacial dimensions.  God resides where man can not comprehend and angels fear to tread.  Remember, the heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing.
526768
pentagon, doesn't matter the length of each side\n5-sided is pentagon
497494
You'll get the same strength(within reason) and the same dimensions using this method.I can't believe noone has answered this question yet.Good luck on the other site!
248419
That question is hard! Nobody has ever been there. Or maybe we all are always there. I don't know. But the different dimensions tell you a position and it is getting more exact with every dimension:\n1D: where x is\n2D: where x and y are\n3D: where x and y and z are\n4D: where x and y and z are and when they are there\n5D: I don't know, but you could think of something that would give a more exact description, such as (this is just an idea that went through my head, not anything from a scientist!):\n5D: where x and y and z are and when they are there and how they are there and then\nDo I make sense? Don't hate me if I don't!
372553
Hi there,\n\nTry looking for "Klein space" (without the 's). You get for instance this page : http://www.mccallie.org/myates/The%20Shape%20of%20Space/Student%20Projects/group10.htm
399807
I would think that the area is proportional to the *square* of their corresponding sides.\n\nIf you had a rectangle that was 3 x 4 and the corresponding rectangle was 6 x 8, the ratio of their sides is 1 : 2.  But their areas are 1 : 4 (2²).
341465
Yes.  Several of both.\n\nBlessed Be
169534
Disagree.  You can have a square that has sides of 8 inches and another with sides of 3 inches.  They are similar because the angles are congruent, and the sides are in proportion, but they are NOT congruent figures.  (Same SIZE and shape).  If two polygons are congruent, then their sides are in a scale factor of 1:1 and their angles are congruent, thus they are similar also.
180611
Let's look at the general case. It turns out that for even dimensional spheres, the ratio of the 'surface area' to the 'volume' of the next lower dimensional sphere is irrational in even dimensions and rational in odd dimensions. Your cases are just special cases of this general result.