It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Eight-dimensional space and the possibility of multi dimensions

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2016 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

But Duality is a flawed concept in general, let me explain more then two forces make up our quantum equation, as we speak i am studying what constitues a third force...hence the macro> the micro< and what i call the midro, i am certain there is even more then three forces but i am studying the third one, so the idea of just two forces (duality) is not a correct equation as far as i am concerned, but i get what you were getting at.
edit on 9-5-2016 by King Seesar because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 9 2016 @ 11:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: King Seesar
a reply to: cooperton

But Duality is a flawed concept in general, let me explain more then two forces make up our quantum equation, as we speak i am studying what constitues a third force...hence the macro> the micro< and what i call the midro, i am certain there is even more then three forces but i am studying the third one, so the idea of just two forces (duality) is not a correct equation as far as i am concerned, but i get what you were getting at.


Perhaps the union of the two constitutes this third aspect: which is neither + or -, but 0 (midro)? Proton and electron unify to form a neutron (the mass of proton + electron = neutron [their charges add up too]). Here we see three entities; 0, -, +

This rule is no exception for humans: it is male, female, and the union of the two

The union of the two is 0. Male/Female are +/- The original human was a unified male/female: 0



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 11:04 PM
link   
We live in an infinitely large growing larger u universe that simultaneously both exist and not exist at the same time.

Within the context of infinitity we will find all possibilities existing creating infinitely more possibilities

There no 8 dimensions there are always infinitely more dimensions tomorrow than there was today.

It's a never ending cycle of possibility unfolding in and around us at all times in parralells and not parralells

The real question is where and what are you within this paradigm and where are you going



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 06:11 AM
link   
a reply to: King Seesar


The terms or the equation i am gathering is that adding on to vectors of dimensions for the possibility of multi is not properly done by adding more numbers to the designed eight or ten mold, in factoring in the apptitude of multi i think a splitting off of the core eight or ten vectors into smaller sub designs with each core split is what we are looking for, then and only then is the multi equation possible.


Are you just trying to see if anyone takes you seriously? Until you start using words in a defined way, this is an exercise in pointlessness. What do you mean by "aptitude of multi?"



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 11:23 AM
link   
This is a good video explaining the dimensions from 1-10:




posted on May, 10 2016 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Sorry you don't understand what i am grasping let me try and explain a little more clearly, the bottom line equation of my thesis is the concept of adding by subtracting, instead of adding more dimensions to the studied eight i am saying split the eight in a partical equation to see if we can create a smaller equation of dimensions from the studied eight, in laymens terms i am saying i am trying to split the eight to smaller parts to see if this creates alternate or multi dimensions within them.

Also what i meant by "aptitude of multi?" was the sum of the whole once the desired splitting into smaller parts from the eight was done.

Thanks for the question.
edit on 10-5-2016 by King Seesar because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: King Seesar
a reply to: cooperton

But Duality is a flawed concept in general, let me explain more then two forces make up our quantum equation, as we speak i am studying what constitues a third force...hence the macro> the micro< and what i call the midro, i am certain there is even more then three forces but i am studying the third one, so the idea of just two forces (duality) is not a correct equation as far as i am concerned, but i get what you were getting at.


Perhaps the union of the two constitutes this third aspect: which is neither + or -, but 0 (midro)? Proton and electron unify to form a neutron (the mass of proton + electron = neutron [their charges add up too]). Here we see three entities; 0, -, +


This rule is no exception for humans: it is male, female, and the union of the two

The union of the two is 0. Male/Female are +/- The original human was a unified male/female: 0


Very good observation, in terms of the union of two however it can be a slippery slope, let me explain i feel the third force i have been working on resonates a frequency of it's own, only gray to the naked eye (more of a baige color instead of neutral because it represents a resistance to the other two forces), still early in my studies of this force but i am feeling it might be a equation of it's own or maybe as you say the equation between the union, i am doing this test of this force with the concept of Tesla scalar waves, and i have seen results, but if it's some kind of middling with a resistance or a force of it's own i don't know yet.
edit on 10-5-2016 by King Seesar because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

Good question, i am going to do more bare bones research into the eight dimensions of what i have been looking into, and i am going to see at this point with Tesla scalar wave theory if i can get any results in terms of manifested results, that and also work on some mathematical eqautions to map this out on paper.

Right now i do feel strongly that adding by subtracting in terms of trying to split the eight into sub theory (meaning smaller parts of a whole for instance taking one of the eight and making it three or four parts) seems to be the most likley best result to see if anything can come about this.

Thanks for asking.



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: King Seesar


Consider that c2 can be calculable to t2 as in time squared. We often assume that time does nit have space but the problem with that is Einstein, as he defines "space/time".

Time takes of space.

There was some research years ago where due to curvature dimensions exited within dimensions.

Actually relevant.

To be clear DJW001 has a point.

You need to elaborate your position beyond the "Pale Blue Sky".






edit on 10-5-2016 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Multiverse theory is relatable to a fundamental problem in Chemistry.

This relates to the "Electron Cloud".

Beyond that....



One of those promoting the idea that “dark flow” was evidence for a multiverse was Mersini-Houghton, who in a 2008 paper with Holman wrote:

Our contention, then, is that these observations of bulk flow can be construed as evidence for the birth of the universe from the landscape multiverse imprinted on the super horizon sized nonlocal quantum entanglement between our horizon patch and others that began from the landscape. When we calculate the size of the induced dipole in our theory and convert it into a bulk velocity dispersion, we will see that for the constrained values of our parameters we arrive at a velocity dispersion of order 670 km/sec, remarkably close to the observed value of 700 km/sec.


www.math.columbia.edu...



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: King Seesar


Consider that c2 can be calculable to t2 as in time squared. We often assume that time does nit have space but the problem with that is Einstein, as he defines "space/time".

Time takes of space.

There was some research years ago where due to curvature dimensions exited within dimensions.

Actually relevant.



To be clear DJW001 has a point.

You need to elaborate your position beyond the "Pale Blue Sky".







I see what DJW001 was saying, but i was elaborting equation just in a hyperbole sense that i guess some could not follow, the theory has to do with decrease in terms of the 8 dimensions with splitting them off into segments rather then increase the equation.

The way around the concept of time with nit in space in this equation would be the concept of time side ways, or time split in sectors, but good observtion.



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
Multiverse theory is relatable to a fundamental problem in Chemistry.

This relates to the "Electron Cloud".

Beyond that....



One of those promoting the idea that “dark flow” was evidence for a multiverse was Mersini-Houghton, who in a 2008 paper with Holman wrote:

Our contention, then, is that these observations of bulk flow can be construed as evidence for the birth of the universe from the landscape multiverse imprinted on the super horizon sized nonlocal quantum entanglement between our horizon patch and others that began from the landscape. When we calculate the size of the induced dipole in our theory and convert it into a bulk velocity dispersion, we will see that for the constrained values of our parameters we arrive at a velocity dispersion of order 670 km/sec, remarkably close to the observed value of 700 km/sec.


www.math.columbia.edu...





Again great add my friend, i guess a way to bend this theory would be to observe what the exact entanglement in the equation would be, then see if deducting or adding any type of measurements would produce different results.

Again thanks for adding to the thread you gave me much to think about.


edit on 10-5-2016 by King Seesar because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: King Seesar

arxiv.org...

logic.harvard.edu...

www.academia.edu...

arxiv.org...

www.quantamagazine.org...


edit on 10-5-2016 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: King Seesar

The point of my post was to point out that there is no 8 dimensions but there is also a paradigm with 8 dimensions.

You have a long way to go down these rabbit holes.

You have to examine things from the perspective of potentials and possibilities and not in terms of what is and what is not.

There is no is or is not there is always both and always neither at the same time .

We live in an unlimited realn of possibilities that are never ending and always creating another set of possibilities at all time while simultaneously not existing

It's a paradox it's unsolvable and unkowable within the human mind just enjoy the ride



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: King Seesar

If you really want to understand science you have to look at it through the lens of magick or creation and not through the lens of discovery.

Looooooonnngggggg way to go.

I hope you keep going though.



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

There is no eithgt or ten dimensions there is both eight and ten dimensions and also infinitely more dimensions infinitely growing possible potentials endlessly

There's eight and not right dimensions and in order to understand why this is true you have to get deeper the human mind has its limits

You have to get outside of the mind in order to understand why this is true



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 02:28 AM
link   
8 rings true to me, a perfect 7 attainable to the highest of vibration then an overlooking 8 as infinite creation. There's universal clues in even just the shape of numbers. When people see 69 they snicker at the thought, but I think of balance and our own milky way galaxy. I'd like to know where 1-9 first originated and the intention involved



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 06:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

Thanks for the references you read my mind i am going to look into the exact entanglement and mathmaticle reference points in terms of The Multiverse Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, to see if i can come up with something.

Again thank you.

edit on 11-5-2016 by King Seesar because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 07:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: King Seesar

If you really want to understand science you have to look at it through the lens of magick or creation and not through the lens of discovery.

Looooooonnngggggg way to go.

I hope you keep going though.


Funny you say that because i have been studying magick books, a ton of them and i have been doing a bunch of personal tests with the human mind.

The problem with equation in the application of magick in the realm of science even in this formula is this, how to apply the studied field of discovery, should it be with psionics or magick and there is a difference and let me explain what that difference is...

Psionics would be the discovery of using the actual human mind and it's scalar capabilities to see if the bending of such equations produces results where as magick in theory would be the minipulation of such ideas threw the energy out side the mind for results.

In another words how to approach the apllication of the concepts one would work on in sceintific fields would it be threw the power of the mind (which is psionics) or the power of working with math and energy equations out side the mind (which is magick).

A quandry indeed but i think working on both those things will lead to the discovery i think i may be finding, because after all what is magick, magick is science not discovered yet.
edit on 11-5-2016 by King Seesar because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 07:28 AM
link   
I feel it might be nesscery to state what i was trying to convey with the OP again, because some are falling for the trap i warned about in the first place, let me elaborate.

People keep trying to add on to the 8 dimensional hyper space equation i presented in the first place, which of course you can but the point of my post was to add by subtracting not adding by adding, the produced results of multi dimensional space i feel is more obtainable threw splitting the core of the designed eight into a smaller particle equation, in terms of taking the 8 that has been talked about and splitiing each one down into smaller sections.

So for instance take the number of them >1> 1 >1> 1> 1 >1 >1> 1 >8 and then split them into halfs so you have 16 halfs of one 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 and then split them even smaller to see if this creates the vacuum of multi and or alternate dimensions within that equation.
edit on 11-5-2016 by King Seesar because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join