It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Could a magnetic field prove the 4D nature of the universe?

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 04:02 PM

4D stereographic projections

When you perform a stereographic projection of a 3-sphere into three dimensional space using a theoretically fixed light source, you get a type of torus reminiscent of a magnetic field. Could magnetism prove that the source of the magnetic field is truly being projected into our three-dimensional world from a fourth dimension? Could the flow of electrons within a substance be attracting some kind of extradimensional force which is projecting itself into our reality?

Also, if you look at the static stereographic projections of a 3-sphere into 3D space, it almost looks like orbital diagrams for electron orbits.

edit on 11 27 2014 by Nechash because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 04:23 PM
a reply to: Nechash

I was under the impression that 4D is basically fractal 3D. Or is that oversimplifying it?

posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 04:29 PM
a reply to: TzarChasm

That's the way many string theorists seem to envision it, but what if instead of being compact dimensions they were hyperdimensions instead?

Look at what happens to matter in solar systems and galaxies, it tends to orbit eventually along a 2D plane eventhough we know for sure it could orbit anywhere in 3D space. What if that is how our entire universe is? What if things could be going off into a fourth dimension, but they are stuck in trajectories along these three dimensions and none of us have ever figured out which direction the w-axis should be going?

We can model a 4 dimensional hyperuniverse in a computer and it works out. It is just our brains aren't able to visualize how that might look, at least mine isn't.

Here's a movie I saw that illustrates this concept.

edit on 11 27 2014 by Nechash because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 04:35 PM
a reply to: Nechash

That's part of the theory. you could literally be staring at a 4D object and you would be incapable of perceiving the 4D aspect of it.

posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 04:38 PM
a reply to: TzarChasm

That's what I'm wondering.

posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 04:41 PM
a reply to: Nechash

This video explains it very well. keep in mind its mostly theory at this point, but well grounded theory.

posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 04:51 PM
a reply to: Nechash

Amazing find. I covered this here in relation: Quantum Current Flow - Volution

posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 05:08 PM
No you are getting it wrong. Either something Exists or it does not.

The universe and everything in it, is what we would define as existance. And anything that for lack of a better word is not in the universe. It does not Exist.

Because in order for something to exist it has to be somewhere. And the only where we can observe is the universe because trying to think of an existance seperate from everything the universe has is impossible.

Magnetism is created by ossilation. The spinning action of the sub-atomic particles creates surface area.

LIke a helicopters blades, It creates a wide image.

The more sub-atomic particles orbit. The harder it is for light to pass through. Extremely dense objects have a lot of spinning particles which generate the image of the atom.

There is nothing contained within the atom itself or rather the empty space that draws out energy.

The energy itself is being drawn out by the magnetic nature of the sub-atomic particles and the slivers they are made of.

It's the indestructable slivers of sub-atomic particles such as electrons protons and neutrons that hold the charges.

So when these objects are spinning they are not *holding anything* inside it.

So to assume that an interior universe is present in an atom may be a false assumption. Likewise trying to say there is a pocket in space to another universe within our own is like trying to fill a sink full of water without a plug. It can't be done unless of course the drain is plugged.

So what exactly is 4D?

We can't base assumptions on reality because of some pixil or matter orientation along an horizontal verticle surface.

Because there is no such thing as 2D in the first place.

2D does not exist. Neither does 1D. Both were people who were trying to hard to understand. But even 3D imaging is not 3D because unless you are looking at an image or a video or an object it can be quite specific. Since 4D is typically described as Time, which can be translated to movement. Without 4D no other *dimensions* would exist. Similarly.

3D and 2D are exactly the same and there is no difference in either.

You can very well create 3D looking objects just using 2D illusion techniques. The fact remains that any 2D surface we use will always be just regular molecules. Drawing a picture and adding some symolic meaning to it dosn't change this fact. It does not turn this object made of atoms and molecules into some doorway into another universe.

So why would altering *dimensions* which are only points of view of perspective?

I don't understand how people can jump to these conclusions. Even a 1 D object is still 3D well moving in 4D. And even then. Objects such as pictures are still moving in 4D because without the light reflecting off of it. You simply wouldn't see it. And light reflection requires time and movement. If you were to be moving so fast that you could almost slow down the picture to assume the role of viewing the picture in 3D without 4D. You wouldn't see a picture because the light would be travelling so slow your brain wouldn't beable to comprehend the random flashes of light it would see.


Am i warping your reality a bit with this logic?

Lets see how much further i can go. Now lets say theres a 5th D. we already covered everything else which still technically has no *dimensions* that effects it's reality rather as explained dimensions are only stigmas we give objects because of importance and relevance to ourselves. It is all rather Taboo.

But if we were to imagine a 5th D we could assume it's enegy, But technically energy would of been the first dimension because without energy nothing can be viewed. Expecially consiousness without energy consiousness wouldn't exist and thus cannot observe.

So somewhere in these dimension theories we have to fit energy into there. And we will also have to fit heat and cold as in temperature variables. Why not? We are talking about points of perspective right? I say the rectangle is rather warm because the sun is shining on it. lol. So it must be drawing me towards the warm universe.

The only solid objects in space is space itself. Space is made of unmoving solid objects and the universe is packed full of it.

That is why everything is so spread out. Because a real particle is creating the seperation between all this mass. Without it all mass would be pooled to one point. Because it wouldn't be pressurized, Space is pressurized if it wasin't all the galaxies around us would be falling towards the same direction. But since the universe is full, it acts as a type of isolated chamber where no currents are being drawn out objects can begin to form such as galaxies stars planets ect. Mass becomes space under the influence of a black hole, and space eventually becomes mass because the space is just made of up particles with 0 magnetic charge since they are compressed slivered of the guts of atoms arranged in no proper magnetic orientation thus not generating a hologram via spinning.

It would be several times smaller than an atom. So even tho the surface area may make it seem like the universe is 80% black energy and matter. The ratio is actually a lot higher it is more like 99.99999999% black matter and energy. As matter is hollow and within matter itself is black energy flowing in and out of these particles, sometimes an electron will colliding with an oncoming black energy particle and will knock it around causing the atom to seemingly jump all over the place likewise when sub-atomic particles begin losing their charge this effect becomes more frequent until the particle shoots off without the rest of it being able to catch up and the remaining particles will utilize what they have left and a new particle will be formed, Or the old particle will break apart completly and divide itself amount nabouring particles.

I don't see where another universe fits into this tho as dimensions are not universes only points of perspect. As mentioned any 2D object will always be made molecules and atoms which are always *3D*.

So maybe if we can drop the universe assuming themes of dimensions we can apply more perspectives yes? Energy would be great for 1st D because as mentioned without it, there is nothing period. Lol. 1D cannot be an idea. Because without energy Ideas don't exist. And energy is always the driving force in all actions.

That is not debatable.

posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 05:19 PM
a reply to: TzarChasm

I think my head just exploded. Thanks for that. ;p

posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 05:34 PM

originally posted by: Nechash
a reply to: TzarChasm

That's the way many string theorists seem to envision it, but what if instead of being compact dimensions they were hyperdimensions instead?

Look at what happens to matter in solar systems and galaxies, it tends to orbit eventually along a 2D plane eventhough we know for sure it could orbit anywhere in 3D space.

If Matter were to orbit in all directions around a star, most of it would end up colliding, disintegrating and the fragments changing orbital parameters until what was left remained relatively stable and identical orbit.

If black holes formed as soon as the universe was formed, they would have acted as gyroscopes keeping everything strung together into tight filaments as well as aligned. As galaxies and star systems coallesced, the planets, asteroids and moons would all be in the same plane as well.

posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 06:02 PM
many say the universe is a person and we see some connections. 3d vs 4d take the way we see the universe as flat then put it all into the shape of a being and that is the difference to me and explains wormholes and all that somewhat.

posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 07:13 PM
Electric Universe:

Though there is also the digital and holographic universe that would be electric in nature, and that does not equate time or 4D. More information field that you render with your computer brain. All the bits of data, like a dvd.

posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 07:50 PM
a reply to: Unity_99

Time is always moving, as long as objects are moving then you are experiencing time.

Say you move really fast, You are increasing your time. Making everything else appear to be moving slower.

Because everything else would be moving slower. So even if you could describe moving from location instantaniously from one location to another.

There is no other way of describing time because that exactly what time is. We count using the 60 seconds we know of branched from the orbit of earth spinning on its Axis.

Lets say you make copies of the atoms and molecules from one location to another that makes an instant copy.
That wouldn't exactly be teleporting which is moving so fast you seem to move instantaniously which is true teleportation.

Making particles respond to each other over a distance does not really count lol. Still a cool trick tho, Particles do react with each other based on frequency harmonization.

But dimensions are always just points of perspective.
As our perspetives evolve, it does not alter reality. Reality is unalterable.

Only we can evolve to the universes reality not the otherway around. the universe is far to large to grovel to our narsassistic needs.

We could claim entitlement to everything we see and that dosn't mean it's going to go down the way we plan it.

All these different points of perspective are great at analyzing the universe, but by all means. We cannot change the universe we can only mask it with our own expectations called the Ego.

The universe does act like a holograph sort of. As explained sub atomic particles are simple spinning and moving about way to fast along its linar magnet orbits. They get locked into their place so reflect electrons and protons bouncing off it or passing through it. But there are physical objects there. Just they are so tiny and move so fast you cant see them.
Since it requires an electron to bound off it and return to the camera lol. There are other methods beside electrons+Protons There is infrared that measures temperture in heat. Likewise there would be a cold camera, donno if it exists yet but i think they have adapted radio telescopes to do similar things of that nature.

posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 03:52 AM
a reply to: AnuTyr

I was going really well until 4D .

posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 10:56 AM
a reply to: AnuTyr

mybe im wrong, but im thinking your explanation is...not exactly accurate.

Because there is no such thing as 2D in the first place.

2D does not exist. Neither does 1D.

so left and right dont exist. neither do up and down.

3D and 2D are exactly the same and there is no difference in either.

...aaaand back and forth go out the window too. so basically every dimension is a lie according to you.

like i said, i could be wrong, but i dont think i am.

posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 08:12 PM
I like the representation of the magnetic fields. It looks like the green defines the area of the magnetic poles, the blue defines the magnetic field and the red is the boarder between these two. Is that close?

As for a dimension, it is the same as any other variable that we use to measure the world around us. To add an extra spacial dimension to our more common 3D view we could use something like distance or force to complement our length, width and height. What this will give us is a vector that can be used with some predefined origin point.

The area of scalar waves has some exploring of 4 spacial dimensions with magnetic fields. There are some rumors and conspiracies around of sending and receiving of electromagnetic energies instantly across space and time. Project Looking Glass is one practical application of such technology, if it exists...

posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 12:12 AM
a reply to: kwakakev
Interesting. It almost parallels right-hand-rule. Green as magnetic field, blue as current flow in relation to the field, and red as direction of torque provided by magnetic force.

As for scalar stuff, I think it has to do with reluctance/reactance and the Q-factor. If magnetic waves are acting on something (not readily observable by most means), those properties should be the most indicative of it. It's like a pressure or bounce when there's no acting media. (No aether or phlogiston that I'm aware of. More current arguement is likely for zero-point/quantum foam.) However it seems scalar effects requires at least two overlapping magnetic fields to produce the interference patterns. Something that seems impossible to do with fixed magnets (continous fields push off of each other or connect depending on polarity), but perhaps something unique to do with solenoid coils and phenomena like eddy currents with dynamic fields.

With modern tech, I wonder if some type of magnetic detection array could be setup with a computer using time-lapse interferometry and measure results of some experiments done with supposed scalar devices. If something curious is happening, that would probably be the best approach to do physical analysis of something that is otherwise mostly a mathematical construct or simulated. Problem is there is a lot of mumbo-jumbo and BS around scalar tech, but considering what was done with some of Tesla's work there might be something to it. However we have better means to approach the supposed phenomena than in the past, and more plausible approaches to producing scalar effects should be subject to review. (Some scalar debunkers used example devices that shouldn't work according to scalar theory regardless, and weren't much better than charlatans pushing some misguided ideas on the stuff.)

posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 09:58 PM
IMO, I would think the basic view of time or the idea of 4d is a straight between two dots, or like a river. Although this river is a part of something like a storm swirling and spinning, interacting with other rivers in it that bend back word or forward constantly, tugging at each other making various possibilities or more like probabilities.

It would be like looking in a mirror with another mirror behind you, reflecting or maybe refractoring till you can't see it no more.

I stole the storm idea from the Prince of Persia begining cut scene.


log in