Mind Blowing Quantum Physics

reply to post by majestictwo


you are correct i dont assume.. i have infinity as my debunk weapon

why have the word if one can not understand the meaning of it?

its goes on for infinity --- the only way out of the loop is death.. im sure we will find more and more dimentions as time goes by becouse if that was not the case then we are allready pointless in being created.

we bare witness to it.. =)

very long time is infinity
infact its so long time has no relevence... i think aliens know that already

Originally posted by theresult
do you know why you infact use that flower of life but wont infact admit you was created by the very same methord that alows that flower of life to be depicted in all its glory?

Yes I do, it's because I am not my flesh and body, I am consciousness/soul/spirit. There is no logic that can create consciousness.

I understand the difference between the thinker and the thought. I understand the difference in being the observer, and being that which is observed.

If you want to be bound to the limits of your perception and believe you are the result of a fractal rather than the source, then by all means be my guest. I am not the result however, I am the cause.

reply to post by badmedia


i did laugh reading this sorry

If it was the result, then time would not exist. The universe didn't create me. Again, logic does not create consciousness, it's the other way around.

im sorry but ur logic is flawed if you are telling that the thing you are currently inside did not create you??????

and time would not exist?? er hello only reason you see time is becouse your alive to feel its affects..

am i having an argument with some alien from another dimention that does not understand he is infact on planet earth with x billion gallxies?

oh wait no your not becouse the universe didnt create you and im talking to someone in another dimention where the laws of phyics dont apply.. even tho they are sat on a pc..

im totaly shell shocked at that statement.. can you please tell me what did create you then? or me considering im talking to you on ATS

?

Originally posted by theresult
reply to post by majestictwo

 

you are correct i dont assume.. i have infinity as my debunk weapon

why have the word if one can not understand the meaning of it?

its goes on for infinity --- the only way out of the loop is death.. im sure we will find more and more dimentions as time goes by becouse if that was not the case then we are allready pointless in being created.

we bare witness to it.. =)

very long time is infinity
infact its so long time has no relevence... i think aliens know that already

Well whatever – I’m not going to get into an argument. Anyhow I think the tread has gone off track from quantum physics the OP it appears is long gone and so I will bid you goodbye.
See you in another dimension

MJ2

Originally posted by badmedia

Originally posted by theresult
do you know why you infact use that flower of life but wont infact admit you was created by the very same methord that alows that flower of life to be depicted in all its glory?

Yes I do, it's because I am not my flesh and body, I am consciousness/soul/spirit. There is no logic that can create consciousness.

I understand the difference between the thinker and the thought. I understand the difference in being the observer, and being that which is observed.

If you want to be bound to the limits of your perception and believe you are the result of a fractal rather than the source, then by all means be my guest. I am not the result however, I am the cause.

Yes I do, it's because I am not my flesh and body, I am consciousness/soul/spirit. There is no logic that can create consciousness.

hold up one second here!!!! your not flesh? and body??? LOL!!!! woohoo

There is no logic that can create consciousness.

so that means in theory you should not exsist.. becouse you are a logical carbon based life form that has acumiltated all his/her thoughts based on logical situations

You did not appear here with all this imput you wish to use as the base of your argument..

You are just like everyone els.. you are matter with a pinch of energy that shall go back "once you die" into the grand sceam of things...

tho then again becouse the universe didnt create you im guessing your into the god aspect of things "spirit" and soul..

sounds alot like bible talk. and look were that has got us..

you see the differnce with aliens and humans is this

They stoped asking why along time ago.. humans are still asking for that "farther" figure or "spirit" thing

there are only 2 things in life one can be asured of .. being born and being dead..

the rest is some # the next guy used to controll the other.. next thing we know you will be telling me god wrote the bible.. "is that not were we get the word spirit" you use?

Biblical refences and new age nonesenns remindes me of monty pythons life of brian..

maybe you should watch it sometime

Humm...

If the video on the OP was referring at space I would say that anything that can be measured (takes space) in either X or Y automatically has a Z, either your perceive it or not. Nothing that takes space can exist without X,Y and Z, no matter how unmeasurable Z is.

It's the holy trinity in time.

Even if you stuck in a 2D plane only being able to move forwards, backwards and sideways, that plane necessarily has a volume so both X and Y can exist. Without a Z, there is no space so consequently there is no X or Y.

And without time there is nothing and everything.

Theoretical sciences are just that; theories. We cannot know anything about any other dimension without being there using the perspective of that very own dimension.

And even if we were able to look at another dimension we would still be bound to the perspective from our dimension. So it would be nothing more than an illusion of the senses.

If we are, let's say in the 3rd dimension and look at the 4th dimension we can judge it by being 2D (which is already wrong by nature), while someone else at the 4th can look at the 3rd and say the same thing while both are three dimensional dimensions.

It all boils down to perception.

Dr. Quantum has nothing to add, he is just a silly guy trying to apply concepts with holes of his own dimension to others that he cannot even imagine.

reply to post by thomas_


Would you feel better if it was coming from Carl Sagan? It's actually a pretty old concept.

Originally posted by theresult
tho then again becouse the universe didnt create you im guessing your into the god aspect of things "spirit" and soul..

sounds alot like bible talk. and look were that has got us..

you see the differnce with aliens and humans is this

They stoped asking why along time ago.. humans are still asking for that "farther" figure or "spirit" thing

I'm sorry, but did you really mean to just laugh at me for understanding the difference between consciousness and logic, call it bible talk and silly, and then proceed to talk about the difference between humans and aliens in the next sentence, and how they have moved beyond such things?

And thats not even the bad part, I suppose it could actually be true and you knew such. But no longer asking why without knowing is not even a sign of higher intelligence, and that is the kicker of it.

Good luck, I don't think I'll be replying to you anymore.

reply to post by thomas_


Thank you tomas

you understand what 3d is and what the relevence of dr dimetions bull# is about becouse of x y and z

as i said befor in my post befor it was kinda offtopic was the fact that once someone is alive in 2d "space" it automaticly becomes 3d becose of preption

reply to post by badmedia


Well im sure you wont as the universe didnt create you.... did it?

and im not being silly im point out facts you said in your own statement..

you cant be a hypercrit and tell me that becouse you are spirit that the universe didnt create you..

and to be honest i may type crap but i have done mathmatics for over 20 years so yeah i guess i can say with that fact to back me up.

you judge a book by what ever cover you wish..

only leads to ones ignorance of the truth..

is the sky blue? or is that your preception?

can you prove you have a spirit can you prove there is an afterlife? no you cant.. and niether can i. thats why we have religion for people who cant cope with the cold hard facts that people do infact die.. and your spirit only counts when you are infact "alive" becous that is the only reason you have one.. or you could ask a baby that was just born what infact a spirit is... You learn this in books its not givin..

can you argue that point with me? no you cant it requires belife and this topic is about mathmatical proof and theory based on it..

2D is not a reality in something one can live inside.. "to us" its unknown and always will be.. thats why Dr Dimentions is wrong as i have pointed out any many others also.. you bring to the mix infinity and that its possible becouse of some train "that is on 2d" tracks? just becouse its only moving forward and backwards does not make the dimention any more credible than "imagaing" no hight as you put it

its got to do with volume and containers or dont you understand you need something in order to be in something

univerese is out container.. the volume in witch we measure this is mathmatical.. the same can not be said for a 2d plane becouse its still being mesured ...

i cleary pointed that out in my illstration!! x y z

like i said use a 3d application and you will understand what many have been saying

Im here to debunk 2d dimetions that dr dimetion was hypothersying not here to argue over symantics and spirit and god and the next life...

Yes I do, it's because I am not my flesh and body, I am consciousness/soul/spirit.

But you have a physical body too don't you? Otherwise you wouldn't be typing here.

There is no logic that can create consciousness.

As soon as you think you're being logic in one way or the other. The two processes are bound to each other for as long you're stuck with a brain.

I am not the result however, I am the cause.

Everyone (or better yet, everything) is both the result of something and the cause of something. By saying you're just the cause you're both neglecting your fathers and everything in your lifetime that got you to the point you are and stepping in GOD shoes, if you believe in one.

You are just like everyone els.. you are matter with a pinch of energy that shall go back "once you die" into the grand sceam of things...

And let's not forget that matter it self is energy. Nature doesn't loose a thing, we are all 100% recyclable

there are only 2 things in life one can be asured of .. being born and being dead..

For this very own physical life that's a fact, but I really believe there is way more to it than what meets the eyes.

reply to post by thomas_


hehe yes ur correct about the rycling part we are 100% eco friendly

and the part about after death i dont worry about.. i get to that stage when im dead

all i know is im here and im happy and i understand what i see very well in regards to shapes and mathmatics, if there is more to "being me" and i dont know that then its all good, ill still miss being alive tho on this crummy planet with the rest of the 6 billion people hehe

reply to post by badmedia


Ok so Carl Sagan is Dr. Quantum

Both have nothing to add in this regard, sorry.

The concept of a second dimension applied to space is just a second dementia.

His own example is a fallacy since for that square to be able to exist in X and Z space it uses a paper that has a Y value.

Do you agree that 0 is nothing right?

If you have something (maybe I should say nothing) absolutely "flat" with zero Y value (inexistent Y) you automatically don't have SPACE so both X and Z couldn't being there.

Bottom line is, there is no flatland.

In space, X is tight to Z which is tight to Y. The three axis are tight to each other and none of them can't be without the others.

reply to post by theresult


LOL!

So true man!

It's sad that some spend their entire lifetime living the afterlife without enjoying this life while it lasts.

reply to post by thomas_


Yes, I truly get all of that. But it is a matter of perspective. And it's not used to illustrate or give understanding of the 2D, it's used to show the relation between 2D and 3D so that one can understand what the 4th Dimension is.

These are explanations of the 4th Dimension, not of the 2nd. It's to help someone understand how to imagine the 4th Dimension. The very act of showing it from the side is what creates the height dimension. In that picture that shows the height, you aren't viewing it in a 2d perspective, you are still looking at in the 3d perspective.

Yes, 2d exists in 3d, and 3d exists in 4d, which we can see with time, and then on and on.

As for the father stuff. Yes, the father knows all and I have a limited perception and so on. But, these things do not define who or what I am, rather they define my individual experience among many. My individual perspective among many.

Imagine for a minute that you are all knowing. That you knew every possible thing that could happen, from the start and end of time. All things are known. In this state, the universe is static. It doesn't move, there is no time. This is the perspective of the father, which nobody can be equal too.

This would be like taking a movie film and stretching the film from start to finish. You are viewing the entire movie at once. It's static, it has no change, it has no time. But, when you take this and limit the perspective to only 1 frame at a time, you now have created the illusion of time, change and so on. And we of course are watching the movie, the limited perspective.

It appears to us that this is a linear time, just like a single movie film. However, when all is known and all possibilities exist, then it is not just a single movie film, it is many films, each "side by side", "stacked on top of each other" and so on. I use quotes because these are not literal directions in 3d.

So, these films stacked become 4d, those become stacked into 5d, and so on. This is where sacred geometry comes in, because the flower of life reveals these shapes.

The choices you make determine your linear path across this universe. So while it appears you are on a linear path in a 3 dimensional universe, this is not the truth. And this is where religion and such comes in, not to be confused with the junk the church and organized religions sell.

This is how you reap what you sow. Because when you sow, you are making a choice that determines the path you take. And that path will lead to what you reap. This is no different than action and reaction, but you have the ability to choose actions that create reactions. So that is what I mean by I am the cause, not the result. Because I can choose otherwise. Where a rocket has no choice and follows the laws of physics in it's path, I can choose to go elsewhere.

And this is exactly what the entire end game is on this planet. To limit and narrow your choices. To get you stuck in traps like duality, and to get you on the level of action and reaction. Because then those with control can initiate actions that will cause the reaction they want in you, just like they can determine the path of that rocket. Only if people wake up and see these are not the only paths, that they have choice and so on will they no longer be subject to such measures of control.

The truth sets one free, all this talk about being a part of creation, being a part of the logic and so on is talk towards being in bondage and being more easily controlled by actions. As if there is no choice or free will, as if we are stuck on a linear film strip and just have to accept what the director has given us. You are your own director, but you had better be wise in your choices because you reap what you sow. The hypocrite however sows that which they point out as bad, and so reap the same.

i still think you are confusing the 2 aspects here...

the universe is not static.. its constant i liked the movie clip anolgy tho.. and that is somewhat correct.. but you are saying thats what we are given .. im tryin to point out you are controdiction here

One can not be both at the same time.. sadly

There is no logic that can create consciousness.

but logic determans your choices "thats why we have logic"...

its not that logic creates consciousness, its apart of you tho and how you make choices.. "algarythms"

the universe is only odd once you are aware of self.. my cat does not ask the questions we do.. becouse it has no reason to its happy just being a cat.. and it was made to be a cat.. humans on the other hand are aware of the thing we are infact in "better" than the cat becouse thats how we was made.

Now when one talks about god it goes all screwy... lets keep it about dimentions "2d"

2d is only a line not a dimention

3d is a dimention in witch ALL others can be viewed but not affected!! think of being on a bus.. its got a path it takes and you are riding the buss

aint no getting off the bus untill you "die" sad but true

Originally posted by badmedia
reply to post by thomas_

 

Yes, I truly get all of that. But it is a matter of perspective. And it's not used to illustrate or give understanding of the 2D, it's used to show the relation between 2D and 3D so that one can understand what the 4th Dimension is.

I see that but the problem is with the base argument that both use. I know it's all a matter of perspective but when it comes to space as we know it there is no 1D or 2D, 1D and 2D are the resulting illusion of not seeing or realizing the volume of an object. So using that as basis to explain a 4th or others physical dimensions is just wrong.

1D and 2D are both by-products of 3D (within the 3rd dimension) and it's relation can't explain a completely separated physical dimension.

They are trying to apply a division just by perception of space which isn't the cause of the separation. Space is product and most likely will be present in any physical dimension.

It's really easy to mix things up when it comes to dimensions.

I do agree in most parts with the strings and super strings theories. But if you look closer at them it kinda boils down to "vibration" and that has nothing to do with space being at it's base (at least not as I perceive it).

Maybe the problem is that this subject is too big, too broad, too confusing and too theoretical to fit 9 minutes videos using "flat-landers" as the base argument.

I'll have to go out now, but I'll be back later to discuss this further


cheers,

Originally posted by thomas_
I see that but the problem is with the base argument that both use. I know it's all a matter of perspective but when it comes to space as we know it there is no 1D or 2D, 1D and 2D are the resulting illusion of not seeing or realizing the volume of an object. So using that as basis to explain a 4th or others physical dimensions is just wrong.

I think they keyword in your statement is "as we know it". What you know is a 3d perspective. When the video takes it to the sideview, which shows height, you are looking at it from a 3D perspective there, it is not showing a 2d perspective, so it's not right to try and say that it is trying to show a 2d perspective. The reason you have to imagine they have no perception of height is because height is a part of our perspective.

1D and 2D are both by-products of 3D (within the 3rd dimension) and it's relation can't explain a completely separated physical dimension.

Thats because it isn't a completely seperated physical dimension. I believe that is the point.

They are trying to apply a division just by perception of space which isn't the cause of the separation. Space is product and most likely will be present in any physical dimension.

All things are connected. Walk across the room, and then imagine yourself in everyspot you were in, connect them together with "time". Like a long exposure on a film. Now, rather than just the single person you are now, you can see you are connected to each previous point in time. this is connected also along the sides and so on. But your individual perspective instead of seeing it this way only sees 1 of it, the now. Each one of those points is a different "dimension" in "time". But again, a linear perspective.

It's really easy to mix things up when it comes to dimensions.

I believe what you think is another dimension is just a bigger jump, or seeing in the 4th dimension and such. It's not like you just "enter into the 4th dimension" and suddenly you are in an entirely different place. Jump back in time 400 years, and that is a huge jump in dimensions. Completely different world, events and so on. But you are still in a 3d perspective. You just moved across many dimensions, but you didn't enter in a higher dimension. If your perspective went into such a higher dimension then you would see both, all events in between and many different possibilities along the way.

I do agree in most parts with the strings and super strings theories. But if you look closer at them it kinda boils down to "vibration" and that has nothing to do with space being at it's base (at least not as I perceive it).

I'm not a big fan of vibration. I don't hate it, but I know it's not actually true that things vibrate, it's again a matter of perception. Nothing moves IMO except consciousness. The vibration is a wave of course, and different waves are different patterns. But rather than seeing a single string in many patterns, I see many strings in specific patterns, and only part of those is available to perception at a time, and the strings nearest to each other would be almost exactly like the previous, so it would give the appearance of vibration and such as they changed in "time".

But if that perception leads to better understandings and such, then I'm all for it. Many things in the past haven't been exactly right, but have been right enough to allow for more advances and so on.

Maybe the problem is that this subject is too big, too broad, too confusing and too theoretical to fit 9 minutes videos using "flat-landers" as the base argument.

I'll have to go out now, but I'll be back later to discuss this further

cheers,

I think it's just meant to give understanding, not a lecture or class about it. I think it's the difference in throwing a baseball and knowing the physics behind the throw. Sure, there are details in the physics and such, and those are useful, but you don't need them to throw a baseball, just a bit of a understanding.



[edit on 13-2-2009 by badmedia]

here is your problem

it is not showing a 2d perspective

that is the flaw.. there is no Prespective in 2d.. only 3d gives you prespective.

en.wikipedia.org...

hope that helps you understand

[edit on 13-2-2009 by theresult]

1D and 2D are both by-products of 3D (within the 3rd dimension) and it's relation can't explain a completely separated physical dimension.

what tomas is trying to convay and he did it well to me is that being in 3d IS what everything comes from!!

Every other diemention can bee "seen" becouse we are in 3d.. it does not matter what 4d is you can not exsist in anyother dimention on the one you are in right now.. i know you say you can change dimentions by lifting up your arm or typing but thats not a dimention.. thats a time line and its affects was already set in stone becouse it made this dimention so everything you do possible only in this dimention and thats the fun part!!!

Everything is possible but the bad part is staying alive to affect it!!

a dimention in 2d becouse this is our debate is not infact a dimention its a constant "in mathmatics" its an odd number.. or a flat repesentation of a shape / loop 2d objects "birds eye view" there is no life in 2d space its just apart of our 3d prespective of it...

Think about it.. if there was a 2d universe how come you are not inside it?

becouse of preception! and prespective.. Yes 2d is real but its not the same as 3d its a componeant that makes up 3d...

its called infinity

2d = death
3d = alive

and by death i mean thats the reason why you are here in the first place

I do admit its very strange in many ways but its so simple with math its crazy

some people just get confused alot or cant cope with it in there head

I loved tesla becouse he could see it in his mind.. thats how i see mathmatics not as "application of methord" but more as a object

[edit on 13-2-2009 by theresult]