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.

 

Fifth Dimension

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 03:35 AM
link   
Hi all, hope its ok to post my opinions on the matter.

From what I understand, the Universe is in a shape of a toroid, within a toroid, within a toroid, going into infinity.

The walls of the toroid are the astral levels. Inside the toroid is physical reality and the holes of the toroid is hyperspace.

Here is a link to an image i've made of how the universe looks like.

Universe

As for time and space, all time happens simultaneously, the past/present/future is happening now! Its just where your soul wants to experience is where your conciousness resides in this lifestream. Nice time to pick where we are! In Hyperspace, there is no time or space, and the colour 'brown' represents the now and present.

All the best
Merger




posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 09:28 PM
link   
It's important for everyone reading/participating in this thread to remember that they should be taking what they find with more than a single grain of salt.

First, Yarium, you've expressed some great thinking, but you're mixing in your thoughts and the known facts without differentiating them. It is very difficult to draw the line between what you think is going on, and what is definitely going on. That's a great stroke of overconfidence, because, while you've got some good ideas and thought going on there, it isn't necessarily all true. When something is "Just your idea" it doesn't mean that no one else has come up with it, it means that it's never been considered/proven to be the reality, so it could have been considered and found to be false.

The same sort of thing needs to be said to gl2, and to a lesser extent The_Renegades. I'm not attempting to call anyone down - but I've done quite a bit of research into this area, and while I'm not nearly an expert, or a qualified physicist, I happen to know that you are all doing thought experiments based on past thought experiments that you conducted, which were based on others, upon others, upon assumptions that you made when you were younger, mixed in with known science of today. It could very well be perfectly right, but I would ask that you attempt to separate thought from fact.

Now, onto some explanations of my own, which, as far as I know, are a roughed out version of the known facts.

String Theory is, at present, an untestable, unverifiable theory that attempts to unite Special Relativity with Quantum Mechanics. In order to do this, many possible methods that all fit under the blanket "string theory" were thought of. These methods each called for the existence of extra dimensions. Let's define what a dimension, as used in String Theory, and in most physical sciences, means.

Dimension can have two meanings - one of which is really a subset of the other. A dimension is a means of measurement, that adds detail to a specific "location". For example, at the location (6,4) on a graph. That point is located 6 units into the positive x axis, and 4 into the positive y axis. You could add another dimension, which would make the location more specific, (6,4,-3) - the point is not just 6 units into the positive x and 4 into the positive y, but also exactly 3u into the negative z axis. You could add another number, and this would extend into yet another axis, and another number, and another - an infinite number of dimensions in this method is easily possible. We, as beings that experience 3 spacial dimensions, can only really visualise three dimensional space, though in this way, you can make n dimensional space, where n is any dimension you desire.

That is the standardised definition, and is really the mathematical definition of a dimension, of course written in my own words. Strictly in physics, spacial dimensions are generally only assumed to exist in terms of length, width, and height, and, superseding them, a time dimension would exist. Any further dimensions would be either spacial, time, or a transcendent type that is neither space nor time. These dimensions are not simply tools of measurement, they are properties of the physical universe. Things that would not be dimensions: Parallel Universes. People often call parallel universes "Alternate Dimensions", which is a misnomer and is not at all the right use for the word. Similarly, people often use Dimensions in terms of Astral Projection, and the similarities generally end with the spelling of the word.

Now, back to the String Theory. Four main "branches" of String Theory existed for quite a while, each one requiring the addition of extra dimensions to our universe. Variants required 10, 11, 25, or 26 dimensions. Quite a math battle was fought, and the variant that won out was 11 dimensions. It was named M-Theory, and the M doesn't really stand for anything.

In M-Theory, the three spacial dimensions we all know and love, in addition to time, all exist. Then, there are 7 more dimensions that are curled up around each other that exist at every 'point' in space. Strings float around in all 11 dimensions, while we can only detect 4. There has been quite a bit of suggestion and math that seems to point to the idea that our universe is simply a piece, known as a 'brane', short for membrane, floating in an immense multiverse, known as a 'bulk'. From here on out, everything gets fairly convoluded, and it all becomes personal speculation.

My own thoughts are that M-Theory has quite a bit going for it. I've made several modifications to it in my own head that I've brought to my nearest physicist who couldn't find any glaring errors, but protested that he likely couldn't see them if they were there, and I agree. Until I find a physicist to exasperate by telling him or her my crackpot theorising, I'll just research, and refine. I'd say that's good advice, which is why I take it.



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Viendin
First, Yarium, you've expressed some great thinking, but you're mixing in your thoughts and the known facts without differentiating them. It is very difficult to draw the line between what you think is going on, and what is definitely going on. That's a great stroke of overconfidence, because, while you've got some good ideas and thought going on there, it isn't necessarily all true. When something is "Just your idea" it doesn't mean that no one else has come up with it, it means that it's never been considered/proven to be the reality, so it could have been considered and found to be false.


I'm sorry, you're right, I probably came off as overconfident in my beliefs. That is why I have attempted to always include the worlds "probably", "maybe", "I believe", and "it's possible" wherever I distinguish facts from personal thought experiments.

So I'll take this time to say that yes, these are my beliefs that I have put forward in this post. I hold them to be theoretical, not the truth. However, thought experiments are the foundations of understanding. Learning is easy, learning is simple. Knowledge is abundant, and finding knowledge is easy. Wisdom is understanding, and understanding will lead to wisdom. With wisdom one can access knowledge and learning in abundance. It is a dam that, once broken, gives out an ever-flowing river of new ideas, new possibilities, and new directions.

I put forward my ideas not so that they will be proven, not to be famous or be seen as enlightened or intelligent, but to provoke wisdom in others. Socrates was right, question everything. If you see my theories to be wrong, then question them. I will attempt to answer. Then question those answers. Keep asking until we arrive at the truth. The truth will be that I don't know. But that is not a reason to not ask - for by asking those questions, you force me to push my limits of understanding. In the end, both of us are left wiser than when we began, as hopefully I will push the limits of your understanding as well.


gl2

posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 12:24 AM
link   
I don't know how to put this in a way that you won't disagree with, Viendin, but you're wrong. You're bounded by archaic assumptions. How are they archaic? This is an unusual website and I'm probably unusual also, but then again, like many others who write here, on occasion.

First off, you begin from a number of assumptions. #1 You assume that a first dimension is a Cartesian, fixed and unmoving point, a singular whole of sorts, in that it's a complete zero. Meanwhile, in the physics of the actual universe, the only whole number quantity is the entire universe--from the beginning(s) to the very end(s), all inclusive. Only the entire universe through all of time even approaches the definitive whole number quantity (one, or zero, probably both at the same time), and even then it does so with non-local qualities. At both ends of time it tucks back into itself with strangely nonlocal characteristics; it cycles into itself with condensed (or unified) qualities. In short, all that we see is/are merely fractions of the whole. The best we can do is model the near-whole, because a kind of uncertainty principle disallows you from being outside of it to see the whole, to begin with.

So, your fixed and infinitely small 1st dimensional point is non-existent. It is always moving and fluctuating. If it were infinitely small, it would verge on a singular (black hole-like) quality that would cause it to fluctuate, if not merge on a deeper dimensional basis, with other similar quantities. It would cycle into a larger, virtually connected subset of the universe.

Make sense? Therafter, any extra dimension would be related to the same universal constraint, also. Weird as it may sound, they are all fractions of the larger near-whole, with weirdly non-local, always moving, always fluctuating qualities. So, your remark has one foot in the old Greek idea of concretes and object things (all whole numbered), while your other foot seems to flirt with the idea of the new quantum weirdness.

In my case, I'm an actual experiencer and telepath, part of a larger community of the sort. I don't explain extra dimension as a thought exercise. Instead, it is as I daily experience such--in ongoing "extra" interactions. I hear about such from various "extras" daily, also. It isn't a thought exercise but is very real, part of a larger kind of interactions that you may have read about on the threads about aliens.

I understand how, from your own experience, you want to tell us the limits of the human mind and the (marginally concretized, partly fudged Cartesian precept-based) laws of physics, to date, but don't be so sure of the limits just because you haven't experienced anything to challenge such assumptions. They are assumptions.

And as for string theory, it's beautiful mathematics but don't forget that M theory poses different kinds of maths, some of them very weird, for each extra dimension. All such maths must converge and agree, in ways, weird as that may sound. Witten is onto something, but string theory appears to fail in positing a whole numbered single dimension as the basis of each string. It's an irony of the whole-numbered mathematical limits that string theory actually explores. Where a string is posited, we could just as easily find a cohomology of interdimensioning cycles, evacuated by the negative dimension of a previous cycle, yet all of them virtually connected. We could live in a multiverse premised upon a series of previous universe cycles, previously inhabited, some of them hyper-intelligent.

Like many others, however, I know from experience that we can easily explore extra dimension, but there are starkly lucid, although often subtle long-term implications in doing so. By communicating or interacting on such a basis, you enter a universe of condensed, interacting identities, or quantities, if you will, in which shared values are a given. It is already a highly intelligent universe. We have already made contact(s) of various sorts and are now deeply involved in a rapidly evolving exopolitical analysis. Love seems to be the strongest, most universally enduring value, to date, but intricate intelligence for intelligence's sake, for the continued evolution of yet finer understandings, keeps many aloft.



[edit on 28-12-2005 by gl2]



new topics

top topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join