The horizontal component of the up vector is 0, so the new one would be the same length as the horizontal component of the up-and-right vector. The vertical component of the up vector is added to the vertical component of the up-and-right vector, creating a new vertical component that's even greater.
To add them graphically, you would take the straight up vector and put the tail of the up-and-right vector onto the tip of the up vector. Say we have a vector pointing straight up, and another vector pointing up and rightwards (excluding the specific information and magnitude to make the problem clear). When we put vectors from tip to tail in order to add them, it's like we're separately adding the vertical components and horizontal components, and then condensing that into a new vector. If it's like this, you often can visualize the addition better. Try taking the vectors apart and looking at their components. Once you are at this particular coordinate though (x,y,z,2025), you can only speak of what the vector was that got it there, and what it will be (assuming "ceteris paribus") For example, in the year 2025 (2,025 revolutions of Earth around the sun after the life/death of "J.C."), Earth will be at spatial coordinates x,y,z. When you are observing a given space (picture a model of planetary orbit around the sun or a shoe-box diorama for that matter), it will "look" however it "looks" when your potential coordinates are all satisfied in relation to the constants. Further, we use metrics like "meters", "grams", etc, as constants. On Earth, we use our motion around the sun as our constant. Time is a way of comparing the change of other objects to some constant(s). As far as what it would "look like", that's a little trickier (as if that first statement wasn't ambiguous enough.). If one accepts that time is the 4th coordinate (the 4th dimension), then it is necessarily a piece of the context of vector.
0 kommentar(er)
