4th Dimension film

reply to post by thegrayone


You are welcome! This subject is one very hard and complex thread!
Sometimes neat little videos like the 2 I posted helps to make sense, and make it a little less complex!

This is one of the deepest and most complex ideas out here right now IMO.

This really opens wide and exposes our parameters that make up our minds.
You see we are truely trapped within this 3rd dimension physically.
However mentally we can step outside for a moment and really dig our mental teeth into this subject and kinda put ourselfs out of this plane if not for a few mins!

I know this topic is going to be on my mind all night long.. And for the rest of my life.

Ive always felt this has some mega truth to it.
But at the end of the day all we can do is mentally project what we think is going on out there.

When we really have no solid proof, as we can not point, we can not go into these other places with our bodies.
However our minds will allow us to expand and explore the possible notion here.
When our minds are set into many parameters.
Once you break threw one parameter you find you are confronted by new parameters. You break threw those and find more parameters.

This goes back to what I coined here on ATS.
The universe is a very BIG place.. Contained in a very small space!

I very much really expanded on what we as human are to other higher planes. To us we have these human bodies, and we live within each moment. Passing into the next moment.
But from a higher plane.. We are all connected to our higher selfs.
Thus what we truely look like is really really deep!!!

WE know we have these bodies. But the truth to what we look like outside the 5 sense world is nothing short of amazing!!
Truely freakin awesome!

THis has me thinking so deeply and so vast right now its hard for me to really put this into words where you guys are going to be like.. Oh he makes sense..
If anything I am rambling on and on here.

As I do not have the answers.. I am not gifted with a high IQ.
I can hardly spell here! LOL

But one thing that makes me who I am is my own personal mind, and how I understand things to myself.
When I think of this stuff.. It makes total sense to me.

Yet if I go into the other room, and speak with my family about this.
They are lost within moments of me opening my mouth.

Some have a gift to explain things that otherwise seem impossible.
When I know in my heart.. That nothing is impossible!!!

Impossbile is only a word that dictates parameters.
If you are contained within a parameter, anything beyond that parameter can seem very impossible. And one can not fathom what is outside of that box. Until you break threw that box, and find yourself within another box.
A box within a box, within a box within a box.. The human logical trap.

We are breaking free of this logical trap.. And that is something that makes me like I have no words. As words are a parameter system that contains us.
So much more! And so much to really get to learn about the 4th dimension!
I will return with more thoughts, and more rambling!!!
Once I get a chance to process all this new info.

Plus I want to make a post that directly explains how I feel about the OP video that he posted for all of us. But I have not gotten around to processing the vast information yet.. But soon..

Originally posted by thegrayone
I guess the key would be to tune to 4D frequency or vibrational state!

Since most of you agree that the fourth dimension is time, then tuning a frequency to the dimension of time wouldn't make any sense.

Every frequency is happening right now as we speak, as time passes. Every frequency and vibration is the cause of time. As I said: What you call time is the 3d interacting through its forces, it is not a separate dimension, it is a conglomeration of the 3 and all frequencies and forces interacting to cause change, that we then measure. So, in that case you're already tuned into the 4d because you're already experiencing time.

reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal


Your right but I fear you battling with a windmill. Physicist separate dimensions for the purpose of math it makes it easier reading thru hear people think dimensions are other places of existence. In reality every dimension they talk about is in the universe we know. The forth dimension is just another aspect of the physical world where in.

Originally posted by zysin5
reply to post by thegrayone

 

This is one of the deepest and most complex ideas out here right now IMO.

This really opens wide and exposes our parameters that make up our minds.

I'm with you on this, the topic of multi dimensions is truely mind boggling!

Some really great links posted up too, its good to see new stuff.

I just watched the movie "What the bleep do we know : Down the rabbit hole" which was very interesting and something i'd suggest anyone watch. It's not so much on multi dimensions but really ties in the quantum mechanics of reality and is something that I think relates to this.

I also stumbled across the tenth dimension discussion boards which relates to the youtube videos on "imagining the tenth dimension". The thread below is particularly interesting with one poster claiming he frequents the 4th and 5th dimensions. Pretty far out stuff but interesting none the less!

www.tenthdimension.com...

Cheers

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

 

Your right but I fear you battling with a windmill. Physicist separate dimensions for the purpose of math it makes it easier reading thru hear people think dimensions are other places of existence. In reality every dimension they talk about is in the universe we know. The forth dimension is just another aspect of the physical world where in.

I agree with you, it is another aspect of the universe we live in, but this doesn't change it's existence, even if we can't percieve it yet. IMO, It is there, and it is far beyond the physical, the physical is a cause of this effect. Some people see it as time, or another universe, and they are no more wrong than myself, were as I see it as another facet of our own universe, a new way of percieving it on a much larger scale, time is merely measuring the interactions of these dimensions, aswell as our spatial dimensions, with each other.

And people have mentioned alot more ideas than just time being the 4th dimension, although this is currently a popular belief, it is not the only one.

EMM

reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal


I am NOT one of those that think that time is the 4D. Time is a concept created by Humans.

And yes, all frequencies are happening simultaneously at the same time but we are only tuned to one. Just like radio stations or TV channels. Just because your tuned to channel 4 that doesn't mean that channel 5 doesn't exist.

So just because we are tuned to a 3D world, it doesn't mean that a 2D or 4D doesn't exist, we just can't perceive it because it is a different frequency/vibrational state; and when we do perceive it, it wouldn't look like anything in 3D, that's why a 2D object can't be what a 3D object is in a 3D world.

In conclusion: No one here is arguing that a 2D/4D object could be a 3d object in a 3d world, we are arguing the fact that you claim that because of that no other vibrational state, dimension, frequency exist, only a 3D world.

Remember, we now know things that decades or centuries ago were impossible: Cell phones, TVs, remote control, plains and the subatomic world to be simple.

So, for you to claim that no other dimensions exist is to claim that earth is the center of the universe and we are the only intelligent (as intelligent as we brag ourselves to be) beings in the universe!



[edit on 9/9/2008 by thegrayone]

[edit on 9/9/2008 by thegrayone]

reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal



How IRONIC. Look at your avatar... that is a perfect illustration of the concept of multiple dimensions. You know what they say " A picture could say more than a thousand words!!!

Originally posted by thegrayoneTime is a concept created by Humans.

Could say the same about 2D/4D. Created by humans for no good reason. I watched the vids from dimensions-math.org and none of them made me believe that 4D exists. The opposite actually..

Originally posted by Blue10110

Originally posted by thegrayoneTime is a concept created by Humans.

Could say the same about 2D/4D. Created by humans for no good reason. I watched the vids from dimensions-math.org and none of them made me believe that 4D exists. The opposite actually..

I guess we all believe what we want to and one would miss the point if one doesn't want to believe.

Now, believing what you want to believe is ok with me, nothing wrong with that, as long as you don't impose it nor make it a fact. Hey, even I could be wrong about everything.

Originally posted by Realtruth
I can guarantee you that it will all of the others that I have chatted with over the past 20 years on lucid dreaming will say the same thing. Numbers and letters change before you eyes. It's really cool the first few times, because you get so excited when you discover your dreaming, due to that particular event.

I must disagree.
Various times I have managed to see text that did not change.

The art of lucid dreaming has been far from mapped out completely, and everyone experiences it differently.

Many also claim that it is impossible to create light in a dark room, though I find this easy as well. Shadows ''realistically'' (as far as I believe) move according to the position of objects relative to the light source.

To not even speak of the more ''paranormal'' aspects.

----------------------
Ontopic:
LOVE had one point though. About 2d or 1d objects not existing in 3d.

Even atoms and molecules have a certain size. Now if I give you for example a coin, you would see differences in thickness on that coin.

Now imagine the thickness slowly reducing to 0. When it reaches 0, it has no thickness, so technically you shouldn't be able to hold it or see it.

You shouldn't be able to see it from the sides either, as that would imply the thickness is still there.

Furthermore, if you take the set 3D size of atoms / molecules to be true, the coin would defy physics if it were here, yet smaller than the material it's made out of.

Of course this is my speculation about 2d OBJECTS, not shadows or whatever.

Interesting article on the subject of multi-dimensions:

"A NOTION fashionable among theoretical physicists is that the Universe may be constructed out of more than the four familiar dimensions - three of space and one of time. The higher dimensions are not apparent, say the theorists, because they have been 'rolled up and shrunk away'. Now the idea has run into problems. It cannot be used, it seems, to describe a neutron star, the compact remnant created when a star collapses under its own gravity."
Please read the entire article.
Article located at:
www.newscientist.com...

In reply to a statement made by L.O.V.E. that a blackhole is considered a force:

Blackholes are not considered a "force". A blackhole is the visual condition created by the extreme gravitational field of an object (probably a collapsed giant star). The reason for the belief that an object lies at the heart of a blackhole is that the effect of extreme gravity on surrounding celestial bodies is calculable to a super dense mass. Gravity is the resultant force of the super dense mass and the name blackhole is just a term applied to the condition created by the lack of light escaping the extreme gravitational field. So, although the object itself is not "objectified" visually, it is accepted that an object is there and that is supported by measurements of speed and perturbation of orbits of adjacent bodies.

But, hey, what do I know?

I've thought about this quite a lot in the past. Using only cartesian mathematics, you find that as 2D object like a playing card is really 3D, so a 3D object is really 4D and so on. So to avoid a particle's volume being 0, you have to conclude that it posesses length in an infinite number of dimensions.

I've tried to find something unique about 3D that avoids this problem but I have not succeeded. The same thing happens with polar coordinates.

This type of reasoning always gets flamed by realists (that's lcap, pun intended) so I'll have fun reading the replies ; personally I disbelieve relativity because I don't consider time a dimension, but there should already be threads on that subject so I won't go into it.

Anyhow, the usual proof or disproof cited by rational intellects is that if the 4D existed, then 3d sections of 4d objects would constantly appear and disappear causing absolute chaos for humans.

However, a while ago I realised that you could avoid this problem with a model in which a big bang first forms a 2d disc of particles, which then very slowly deviate into 3D, and more slowly still into 4D, etc. If the speed of expansion in plane (n-1) is faster than any (n)d object can travel, then a "fully" (n)d organism could never interact with a "fully" (n-1)d organism. The fate of any area of this universe would be to slowly evolve from D to D+1 and with regards to life, a smooth transition from biology at D to D+1 would be possible.

The question which I think follows is whether it's possible to describe this hypothetical universe without cartesian maths? I'm wondering if there's a more general way of looking at all angles, at right angles in particular.

In other words, perhaps there is no such thing as a dimension in the first place? So if an empiricist asks you to prove the 4D exists, go ahead and surprise him by asking first for proof that 3D exists. In fact for the fun of it I'll ask anyone on this forum to prove our universe is exactly 3D

can i bump a thread?
is the thread bump another dimension?

i've been watching the movies, and they are pretty awesome. mind-bending stuff.

Hi There,

Have just come across this very interesting thread, and although it is disappointing that some posts seem to criticise the holder of the ideas expressed, rather than remaining central to the argument, there have been some very well-thought out responses.

Manifold dimensionality is to my own mind a potential reality, only having a lowest and highest threshold determined by the availability of 'space' in which to manifest.

By this I mean availability of space is the arbiter for dimensions to exist, for without space there are no dimensions upon which measurement can take place and the results quantified. Space is, in effect, the 1st dimension, yet space without content is not quantifiable or measurable, for content in space both describes and allows for vector co-ordinates for the mesurability of space.

If we accept the concept of the 'big bang', as being the point at which both content and time came into space, manifold dimensionality became a relative cognition (in hindsight) of dimensional experience. By working 'backwards' (conceptually) to the point of the big bang, we see the elimination of 3d dimensionality due to the elimination of the vector points (ie, quanta) from which we begin and end our measurements, until all that's left is the absolute 'void' of space. Conceptually, this is the easy part, working conceptually forwards to discover or unravel the multiplicity of dimensions is much harder.

Of course, a question that may make itself present in the reader is, 'was space extant prior to the big bang'? The common concensus held is that the big bang is the point at which simultaneously space, time, and content were created, but to my own mind, this is a interpretational error. It is evident that the big bang had to explode into 'something', and that 'something' was 'non-co-ordinated' space...space that is both immeasurable and inexpressible. The consequence of the big bang was that non-co-ordinated space became co-ordinated 'spatial' space, both measurable and expressible through the introduction of content (ie, quanta) that fell into spatial (vector) relationships with one another as the universe cooled. Thus, the difference between 'space' prior to the big bang, and 'space after the big bang, is space's vectorization through the introduction of content.

The point I want to make, however, is that our presentation and experience of reality is four dimensional already. We have (of course), the co-ordinates of length, breadth, and depth, but to this we must add space in which our measuring co-ordinates exist. Without space, all co-ordinates reduce to zero. The foundation of geometry rests entirely upon the availability of space in which its co-ordinates can be expressed. Space must be the 1st dimension, the canvas upon, and in which, all other potential dimensions appear. Ergo, the potential for there to be other dimensional co-ordinates ascendent from those already known must be high, because the availability of space, especially in the experience of our reality, is a verified quantification.

Can the higher (or rather enfolded) dimensions be conceptualized to a relative accuracy and understanding in terms of our actual 4d experience of length, breadth, depth, and space (spatiality)? I'd like to answer in the positive, but I fear I cannot, because the accurate answer is that such conceptualization would be meaningless in our reality. This is not to say that higher dimensions do not exist, but that their doing so is not explicitly quantifiable, only implicitly so.

Best wishes


[edit on 18/10/08 by elysiumfire]

Heres the rub.
What we know is that we exist definitely within three dimensions which are up/down, left/right, and forward/backward. Put more appropriately, we exist physically on an X, Y, and Z scale.
Now I'm going to jump ahead, but in a minute this will make some semblance of sense. Let us suppose that past, present, and future are all illusions. Everything which has existed in the past exists now, but on a different time frame. Every person is still alive and already dead. If you can follow this train of logic, this would imply that we are simply moving through time as though viewing a slideshow. Now, if certain theories regarding dimensions are correct, and the fourth dimension is in fact time, it is only logical to assume that aging, and thus the passing of time, is fourth-dimensional movement. This is about as far as I'm willing to describe my theory on time, which is based on an admittedly abstract chain of logic. Of course, if the fourth dimension is in fact something else, what I've just described is pointless.
If time is not the fourth dimension, one must assume that time is another form of geometry beyond the xyz scale. I'm ill at the moment, and can't think clearly; I'll continue this thought later.