4th Dimension film

reply to post by dragonridr


Yes, I caught your first post dragonridr. If someone had disagreed enough with your post they would have replied so. Obviously he has a solid understanding and perhaps a level beyond most in this thread, but this thread is not limited to absolutes and a single reality.

We are all at different ages, different skill levels and different backgrounds. Everyone needs to climb the steps at their own pace in order to digest the material being presented.

Some of us may not get it ever, but that doesn't mean we're not allowed to dream about the what ifs, and we certainly don't need some one to tell us we're all stupid for looking. As far as I'm concerned what we know as humans about our reality is infinitesimal compared to the knowledge that will come.

Originally posted by Malankhkare
Scientists agree that there are several other dimensions and most now think that the maximum number is 11.

This is totally untrue. Scientists do not agree on this and most do not think that there are 11.

Additionally, no hypothesis will ever provide evidence. String theory's foundation are "1 dimensional objects with length". If you understood how much of a contradiction this was to begin with you'd realize why reality throws this out as invalid from the start.

I've studied all of this before, years ago. I don't need any references, but if you'd like to attempt to explain it yourself then I'd be more than willing to share facts.

Originally posted by verylowfrequency
and we certainly don't need some one to tell us we're all stupid for looking.

I never said you were stupid. And yes everyone without a congenital brain defect can know this. It's simple!

Science is gathered, not postulated! Science does not and can not just make things up because science isn't about subjective conviction it's about objective reality.

reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

Am I not allowed to live by your virtues?

Yes, you can - by all means, my friend.

It is our world we are all welcome to it.

I must say - you amazed me just now.

reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal



While you may not have called me stupid - your demeanor towards some folks here left them feeling like you did or at least that's what I felt. The reason behind my rant in my first post.

Oh yes how true, but how can we know what to gather if we have not postulated what we might find?


[edit on 27-9-2008 by verylowfrequency]

reply to post by verylowfrequency


That's the beauty of the mystery. True scientists gather whatever comes at them. They postulate nothing of what will be found, only search to find the cause of the effects and the effects of the cause.

I can't postulate why grass grows. I can only make observations and from there begin determining and gathering further evidence. I realize that when the grass isn't watered it dies, when it doesn't receive sunshine it dies, and that it does not grow where there is not soil.

I can not postulate why from my own mind, my own subjective conviction will not change why the grass grows, I can only know why through gathering and observing the objective reality.

I don't know where I've spoken in a demeaning nature, I did make a poop joke, I do have a sense of humor that sometimes slips out on here and maybe it's taken the wrong way. I have attempted to do nothing but be civil and use logic. I haven't called anyone stupid, I haven't told anyone to shut up, I haven't attacked anyone's character. I have doubted that knowledge and understanding would come forth of certain topics, which was justified. I have dealt with name calling and slandering with logic, not a returning of name calling and slandering. I'm doing my best to be civil without being too bland and robotic. I think after 10 pages I've been very patient and thorough whereas other posters have come in calling me names on their first post. Now, I'm not saying that this makes me "better" than anyone, I'm just showing comparison. From this comparison I've followed the rules fairly well.

[edit on 27-9-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
reply to post by Odessy

 

If something can never be known, then you can never explain it. I know that 1d and 2d realities only exist hypothetically, I would never attempt to explain a 4d reality. That is foolish. I would never attempt to explain a 2d reality, that is equally as foolish.

How do you begin to explain what can NOT be known? You can't, you can only know what can be known.

Wrong, you investigate. You study. You research. You experiment. You try and find a link that connects the dots. You do all of this until something you do know if found and then attempt to understand it even more...

Originally posted by Odessy
Wrong, you investigate. You study. You research. You experiment. You try and find a link that connects the dots. You do all of this until something you do know if found and then attempt to understand it even more...

I didn't say that. I said you can only know what can be known.

So what are you calling wrong?

So I am NOT wrong, but you are wrong in calling me wrong.

I will make it known to all as it is known to me: as it is, not as I think it is or as I postulate that it should be.

You study through gathering and through learning what has been gathered by others through research, you experiment to see if the information gathered is true, you experiment to find cause and effect (The happen [everything, eternity, objective reality] is scientifically understood and re-membered by gathering through a dual method of cause and effect).

You can only know what can be known. You can not know what can never be known. You can only know what exists, you can not know what doesn't, because it doesn't exist.

The only imaginations (images, objects, existence) that can ever manifest are through the essence of existence: A 3 dimensional Immeasurable Energetic Singularity (Eternity) that is interconnected and interdependent through all of its varying forces, objects and energetic states.

[edit on 27-9-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by buds84

Did you watch the whole thing?
They make a 4-D graph in 3-D.

After reading many topics on 4-D on the net and in magazines this film does the best job I can find of getting you to visualize and imagine 4-D.

Yes I did watch the one with the 4.dim and I did watch it in full and that's why I posted that there is no need to stop with 3 axes on a paper.
It's the simplest from to display a 4 dimobjectwhen yousimple set 4 axis on the paper.

The second part of their movie just shows lines and dot's in a 3D graphic:
Slices and Shadows. In my opinion this is not really that good presented with just dots and lines. Most will see just that, dots and lines. But slices of 4d objects are indeed full-body 3D objects.
There you can do really cool animations where the 3d-full objects changes shape when you move with the slice through the 4 d object from various sides and corners. And about the shadow/projection this are "nested" 3D objects forexample a sphere in a sphere..thisisnt reallythat visible.
I at least saw better presentations of 4d object s projected into 3d in magazines and movies in the past (some years back) when i was interested in this things.
But I figured the simplest way to look at a 4d object is with the 4 axis on the paper like I posted. Of course you still need a good skill in spatial sense.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

That's the beauty of the mystery. True scientists gather whatever comes at them.

So are you claiming that Einstein is not a true Scientist? Didn't he claim to use his imagination?

They postulate nothing of what will be found, only search to find the cause of the effects and the effects of the cause

I can't postulate why grass grows. I can only make observations and from there begin determining and gathering further evidence..

One could say if you did not postulate you would have never noticed the grass in the first place. This is a chicken & egg argument. We agree to disagree on that point.

I don't know where I've spoken in a demeaning nature, I did make a poop joke, I do have a sense of humor that sometimes slips out on here and maybe it's taken the wrong way. I'm doing my best to be civil without being too bland and robotic.I've followed the rules fairly well.

That's in the past - lets move on. You are a bit out of sync - socially, but I understand you quite clearly now. Yes, you are very good at scaling the wire on the rules - nice work. You'd make a good civil servant, but if you're going to do anything in science you have to dream in order to break new ground. Rehashing known absolutes of past scientific work will not give you any new observations for that you have to stick you neck out and except the possibility you might be wrong the first time.

Originally posted by verylowfrequency
So are you claiming that Einstein is not a true Scientist? Didn't he claim to use his imagination?

The image or imagination only manifests in 3d. If you understand your imagination then you comprehend physical reality. However, subjective imagination is not equivalent to objective reality until that imagination is created. I can imagine what a car looks like and how it moves, but it means nothing to anyone until I can discover how to create all of its parts and actually make it work in reality.

Einstein was a true scientist until he was swayed by the ramblings of a Catholic priest's faith in God that the big bang occurred. Einstein's work was showing an existence that was eternal and required no deities. From the day that Einstein began believing that God was in charge of the universe or created it, is the day that he lost his credence as a scientist. That isn't the mechanics of a scientific mind, it is one of a religious mind. It is one of faith, not knowledge.

One could say if you did not postulate you would have never noticed the grass in the first place. This is a chicken & egg argument. We agree to disagree on that point.

I agree. Depending on what definition of postulate we're using.

I was referring to this.

to assume without proof, or as self-evident; take for granted.

I notice the grass because I have eyes that I perceive through, to keep it simple.

I can not just postulate that the grass grows because I breathe air. I must understand why it grows because I breathe air. I can't think that the grass grows because I am looking at it; that's false altogether. You must consider the whole environment, not just yourself.

Science is not about what people think or assume, it's about the way that things actually are.

You are a bit out of sync - socially, but I understand you quite clearly now.

Um? Your evidence for this is where? What does out of sync socially mean? (maybe I'm the only one in sync ) I am athletic and involved with sports, I have friends that I hang out with often and I go to the gym 3 times a week minimum. We can talk about my personal life if you'd like, but please don't assume what is and is not about it before you gather the knowledge from it.

Yes, you are very good at scaling the wire on the rules - nice work. You'd make a good civil servant, but if you're going to do anything in science you have to dream in order to break new ground.

No, I'm going to stick to sound science, logic, math and truth. That's what has gotten me far and that's what will continue to propel me far beyond the speculations of others. It's not even me, it's reality, it's science, not make believe.

Rehashing known absolutes of past scientific work will not give you any new observations for that you have to stick you neck out and except the possibility you might be wrong the first time.

If they are known absolutes then why doesn't everyone settle on them?

They are absolutes that are not known, no, they're not uncertain, they're definitely absolute, they're just passed up and ignored in a hope for fame, in the chase of being "the one". Only when you give in to the existence and take it for what it is will you be "the one". Fortunately that's me, and I know that I'm not "the one", I do this for existence and reality and for all of you, not for just me, not for a name, not for a prize or for money. Not to have my name published in a magazine or to be the talks of generations to come... but to simply give truth for everyone for eternity, so that we're all on the same page 'till the end of our time.

[edit on 27-9-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

[edit on 27-9-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Science is not about what people think or assume, it's about the way that things actually are.

You speak as if you know all there is to know and there is no more beyond that. That's really the problem or what I find hard to believe. Just because you believe you can see all there is in your reality doesn't invalidate the possibility of other realities.

Um?

Your evidence for this is where? What does out of sync socially mean?

It was an attempt of a nicer way of saying you're socially inept - a result of being arrogant, bull headed and unwilling to consider other peoples perspectives. It may seem you have the world/subject by the tail at the moment, from my perspective I know there will be a day when you step beyond your current stance. Yeah, that means I have faith in you that one day you will laugh when you look back at yourself now.

BTW- I wasn't referring to your social life in your real life, I was speaking of your social interaction with others here in this thread. You have systematically ignored multiple persons on a single thread. That isn't normal - not that any of us are.

If they are known absolutes then why doesn't everyone settle on them?

Because we want to grow beyond what we are now - it was how we were designed. To keep asking question until they have all been answered to our satisfaction. Maybe you are satisfied to settle at the moment, but don't be so surprised that not many others takes a seat with you.

[edit on 27-9-2008 by verylowfrequency]

reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal


It's surprising that you are adamant about the non-existence of dimensions beyond the perceivable 3 (discounting time), when you actually referred to additional ones in your off-the-cuff remark about being clairvoyant. The spiritual world exists in unknown dimensions that coexist with our 3. Anyone who has experienced even a touch of spiritual reality can testify to its reality. It's true some things are simply imagination, but even imaginations is real and exists beyond 3 dimensions. Having an open mind means allowing the possibility for nearly anything, even if it violates your frame of reference or strongly-held beliefs. I agree that mathmatics can sometimes be used to prove that which is not real, particularly when you get into non-Euclidean math. That is totally speculative and can only be proven given a set of man-made rules. I don't call that science any more than you do. But, the ability of the mind to conceive of things beyond ourselves is substantive proof that there is something beyond ourselves, else why would we even think it?

Originally posted by verylowfrequency
You speak as if you know all there is to know and there is no more beyond that. That's really the problem or what I find hard to believe. Just because you believe you can see all there is in your reality doesn't invalidate the possibility of other realities.

No, that's not how I speak of it. Is that how you want it to be so that you can find something wrong with what I'm typing? I said that what we have is the foundation for all that can be. I never said that I know all that there is to know, I said I can only know what can be known.

It was an attempt of a nicer way of saying you're socially inept - a result of being arrogant, bull headed and unwilling to consider other peoples perspectives.

Alright. I consider everyone's perspectives, that's why I've replied to everyone about their perspectives compared to reality. What I do not do is give into other people's nescient assumptions.

Your faith has no place in my future, but I acknowledge the expression that you wish for me to fail. However I can not.

BTW- I wasn't referring to your social life in your real life,

I was speaking of your social interaction with others here in this thread. You have systematically ignored multiple persons on a single thread. That isn't normal - not that any of us are.

I don't befriend people that come at me yelling insults. My trust and respect are gained and earned just as I do with others, not freely given to random abusers. I don't live to be abused, I live to be respected and I live to respect others, but when you disrespect me constantly or in such a way that I determine to be nothing but pure hatred and total disregard for not only me as this creature but for the content I'm providing you with, and I have not done this to you so you are attacking me without provocation, then you lose my presence, my friendship and my responses to you. I don't take part in that type of behavior. Attacking without provocation is what animals do. I don't have the social problem, they do. Please re-evaluate the situation.

Because we want to grow beyond what we are now - it was how we were designed. To keep asking question until they have all been answered to our satisfaction. Maybe you are satisfied to settle at the moment, but don't be so surprised that not many others takes a seat with you.

I'm not surprised at all. The next wave of religion, mind control and cults is upon us: false science (again! This time just mixed with scientific half truths to update the religion).

If you wanted the truth you'd settle on it. You don't, so you fight it away even though you continuously lose the battle.

It's fine to grow beyond what you are, but it's not okay throw all the truth that you've grown into out the window.

Trying to prove other dimensions is the same as the modern day flat Earthers. You're only going backwards again.

[edit on 27-9-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


There is nothing beyond the 3d. You can't imagine beyond the 3d, you can't create beyond the 3d, you can only assume and accuse beyond the 3d.

We don't imagine things beyond the 3d, we're just not aware that it's not beyond the 3d, so we think that it is.

I am psychic to an extent; I know with 100% certainty, thus I am able to predict (although since I know with 100% certainty it's not necessarily a prediction anymore) that no object will ever manifest beyond the 3d.

Excuse my sense of humor. I understand there isn't much room for it in a discourse involving serious aspects and serious people. I'll do my best not to make any jokes, but I can't make any promises.

Please remain on topic... the 4th dimension film.

Any further comments relating to the personality of a participating member or any post not related to the film will be removed as Off Topic.

Continued off topic posts by any member after removal of one such will receive a warn with the requisite -500 points penalty.

perhaps we have not evolved far enough to understand. Maybe there is a 4th dimension, again maybe more...
Always very easy to accept life around us as fact as long the boat does not rock. I suggest people must get out of their comfort zone and think outside the box - horizons are much wider then.

Originally posted by americandingbat
EDIT: acknowledgement of following post. Seen, and I guess that's what you did mean. Sorry, the symbolic representation "logic" on my screen is a bunch of electromagnetic radiation associated with the non-physical concept logic in my mind. But good try.

If all A's are C and all B's are A, then all B's are definitely C.

That's logic, it's physical and its symbolic, it doesn't come from anywhere else. The concept in your mind is associated with the values of the symbols in that equation and comes from no where else.

Logic is not a non-physical concept. If it is then its up to you to provide this evidence. Prove to me that logic is a non-physical concept.

If you can do that then I'll submit to the non-physical concept of the 4th dimension as well as described in this film.

Can you provide evidence of a non-physical logical equation? (By the way, before you begin: logic's foundation is based on the physical world, the first word you write to me that begins to explain anything about a non-physical logic will be physical)

[edit on 28-9-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal


Look, I respect your activity on this thread...

But obviously there is no changing your mind.

I believe that there are things that could be considered paranormal and with no explanation that we will one day discover investigate and be blown away with what unfolds...
There are so many things left to discover.
100 years ago no one would be able to even begin to understand or be able to explain Plasma Cosmology, and today we are getting it close enough to replace Gravitational Theory...

Look, I respect you're right to think what you want.

I think you are dead wrong...
you think I am dead wrong...

thats cool, perhaps we can agree on something else...

Originally posted by Odessy
that's cool, perhaps we can agree on something else...

I never disagreed with anything you wrote. Except for if you are referring to the paranormal as "ghosts", that such things don't exist. When you die, you die. However, just to cater to your idea, a ghostly apparition would still be 3 dimensional.

There ARE things left to discover, but they're all 3d.

Plasma cosmology is 3 dimensional.

What you just wrote had nothing to do with anything that I denied or provided. I've been talking about the 3 dimensions the entire time and how everything is 3 dimensional and not anything else.

You just want to find a reason to disagree, make up reasons in your own mind to disagree with me, but not actually deal with what I've provided to you. I never said anything about gravity, never said anything about plasma cosmology until now. However, they exist in the 3d fabric that is space/time.

I don't think you are dead wrong, I know you are dead wrong. I do not think, I am a Human Being.

[edit on 28-9-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

[edit on 28-9-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]