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.

 

4th Dimension film

page: 10
16
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

Is logic real? Math? I can' t see or touch them. They do not occupy space.

You claim that you prove these things; but the systems of proof are abstract, and agreed upon by humans. They are agreed upon in part because they describe the physical world. They also predict the existence of additional dimensions of which we are not consciously aware.

P.S. - If we call this the Official Hijacked-by-L.O.V.E. Thread, can we have all our fights about whether only the physical 3D universe is real here and let the other threads in the Psychology, Philosophy, and Metaphysics Forum stay on topic?

[edit on 9/27/08 by americandingbat]




posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 


You are making interesting points and causing lots of ruckus in the discussion field which is good.

Lastly, you do know there is a limit to how many people you put on ignore right? I think it is ten or so. Am I right?

[edit on 27-9-2008 by Unlimitedpossibilities]



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 03:09 AM
link   


Reality is reality. Even your oobe, real or not, was in a 3d projection. All images are 3d.


no, it was not in 3d - it was different, multidimensional reality in which "far away" was not present as all distance was the same and different


----------

your ignorance is really HUGE


I think, Einstein was right - I am not sure about universe, too



please do me a favour, just add me to the ignore list and dont reply to my posts as you try to understand something which you are NOT ABLE to understand with this point of view.

this is like you wanted to explain how it is to be a dolphin - without ability to swim in water, as you had never seen the water yourself - you know it only from books



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by americandingbat
reply to LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

Is logic real? Math? I can' t see or touch them. They do not occupy space.

You claim that you prove these things; but the systems of proof are abstract, and agreed upon by humans. They are agreed upon in part because they describe the physical world.


Yes they do. They are constructs of space. This is a simple logical equation, are you ready? The earth is round, therefore it definitely isn't flat. You can touch and see this logic and the constructs, expressed concepts and objects of this logic occupy space.

They are agreed upon by Humans because reality says so, not because Humans say so. It's objectivity, not subjectivity. Yes, those that describe the physical world are real, those that don't are false.


They also predict the existence of additional dimensions of which we are not consciously aware.


No they don't. They make hypothetical models of invisibilities, which like the current financial situation only leads to more hypothetical models of invisibilities to solve the previous failed and fabricated hypothetical models of invisibilities that they just decided to grab out of thin air and create because they can't accept and gather things for what they are. They have nothing to do with physical reality! They are hypothetical models, delusions of an egotistical and lunatic mind searching for fame and popularity and small followings, not truth for all!


P.S. - If we call this the Official Hijacked-by-L.O.V.E. Thread, can we have all our fights about whether only the physical 3D universe is real here and let the other threads in the Psychology, Philosophy, and Metaphysics Forum stay on topic?


Hi-jacked? I am staying on topic talking about the dimensions, most importantly those other than the 3d reality that don't exist. What other thread am I "hi-jacking"? Am I now limited to the amount of posts that I can make in a thread? Is that what you would like? To cage it up and shut it up because you can't disprove what has been provided? Because you don't want the truth to thrive? You'd rather live in a society and a future full of lies and deception where the truth is only known and guarded by a few elites that feed you crap so that they can rule you while you work for them like slaves and believe in and follow the endless circle of invisible deities and dimensions?

That's what this is about. As much as you think I'm a jerk because I don't let any of you get away with anything that is false, I'm just here to help you.



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 03:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Unlimitedpossibilities
 


Well thank you for at least acknowledging and taking notice of the points being made, I appreciate it.

And yes, it is 10. I had to delete one to add another. Wish it was more! Oh well, gotta deal with what you have.



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 


I understand where you are coming from, but still, this statement is not a statement to live by:



I don't attempt to explain things beyond what can be known, that's foolish.


There are tons of factors in our world that are beyond what can be known... why do water vapors crystalize differently when projected with positive energy?
Why do people have religious experiences?
How can something exist in multiple places and only be seen in one?
How can mass act as a wave and understand when it is being viewed?
How can a galaxy suddenly appear, move towards a cluster of stars and just as quickly disappear?

These are all questions that STUMP scientists... they can not explain them, but again, that doesnt mean they don't exist.

Why can't their be a 4th dimension?
Why cant their be multiple universes?
Why can't matter exist everywhere and nowhere at the same time?

To think that we wont discover phenomena that will change our way of thinking is just plain silly.
Its like saying that in the entire multiverse there is no other life than that of earths... thats just silly, right?
I mean how can we possibly know?
How can someone pick up a grain of sand on our beach and say, "there is no other grain of sand in the entire world like this one?"
I mean who knows that answer???

There is so much to discover that is going to BLOW us away...
I mean knock us out cold and change the way we look at everything...

I mean look at the electric universe theory and plasma cosmology... I have no doubt that will one day replace our gravitational theories.

the point to all this is that we dont know, so, "I don't attempt to explain things beyond what can be known" is a foolish statement in itself... because what is known now may be completely different than what is known in the future...













posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

Originally posted by americandingbat
reply to LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

Is logic real? Math? I can' t see or touch them. They do not occupy space.

You claim that you prove these things; but the systems of proof are abstract, and agreed upon by humans. They are agreed upon in part because they describe the physical world.


Yes they do. They are constructs of space. This is a simple logical equation, are you ready? The earth is round, therefore it definitely isn't flat. You can touch and see this logic and the constructs, expressed concepts and objects of this logic occupy space.


Please, if I can touch logic, put it in a box and ship it to me. I can't follow this statement at all!

I can indeed touch the earth. I cannot touch round, or flat. I have ideas of round and flat, and mathematical ideas of the relation between the 3-dimensional sphere and the 2-dimensional circle, but I have no clue what you mean by being able to touch math or logic.

Surely you don't mean that I can touch my computer screen where your sentence appears? But that's all I can think of.

As far as the hijacking remark: this thread was about a couple of videos that the OP posted, which claimed to help us visualize a fourth dimension. It is not about the existence of a fourth dimension. And yes, you might get a sense that when a thread is more than half your responses, you are monopolizing the conversation.

Believe it or not, I've read enough of your posts to have finally figured out what you're trying to say (which was not easy, since most of them make no sense and contain nothing but assertions with no evidence). And this is at least the third thread I've seen, not started by you, which ends up monopolized by you.

I hope you will consider the possibility that the human mind, which came up with logic and mathematics, might have many other valuable additions to your experience. I have made my point (actually, I made it several pages ago, but I guess you missed it). Enjoy. Unless you can actually come up with some reason to believe that logic itself is not intangible, I will not be back.

EDIT: acknowledgement of following post. Seen, and I guess that's what you did mean. Sorry, the symbolic representation "logic" on my screen is a bunch of electromagnetic radiation associated with the non-physical concept logic in my mind. But good try.


[edit on 9/27/08 by americandingbat]



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


Put your finger on where the arrow points ------> LOGIC. Now touch the word LOGIC.

No, I'm not showing off or being arrogant, I'm being serious.

The idea of logic is not only an idea, it must be placed on physical reality, when it is not then it is intangible and irrelevant, however it can still be logical as only a mathematical equation. But our minds have become so detached from physical reality because we think even insomuch that our savior is invisible! We take everything that originated from the objective and attempt to make it subjective.

WE CAN NOT CREATE ANYTHING NEW, WE CAN ONLY WORK WITH WHAT WE ARE GIVEN. The blueprints to everything that we've ever built already existed before we discovered them, that's why we DISCOVERED them. It wasn't anything that we postulated, it was things that we gathered. That's what science does.

[edit on 27-9-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Odessy
 


If something can never be known, then you can never explain it. I know that 1d and 2d realities only exist hypothetically, I would never attempt to explain a 4d reality. That is foolish. I would never attempt to explain a 2d reality, that is equally as foolish.

How do you begin to explain what can NOT be known? You can't, you can only know what can be known. No matter how improbable, after all impossibilities have been eliminated, whatever is left is the truth.

Existence is an energetic, interconnected, interdependent, 3 dimensional Eternal Singularity. There is not more than one universe and there is not a finite universe. The "universe" is never beginning and never ending.

There is not enough time and space for 2 eternities, one eternity encompasses all time that ever was and ever will be and all space that ever was and ever will be, and time and space are ONE, ONE ETERNITY.

Do you see? The Eternal One is reality, not invisible deity.

[edit on 27-9-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 03:54 AM
link   
anyone who does not already realize we are in a 4d world is an idiot. there explanation of it is a little bit much but if you think about it the 4th dimension is simply changes that are made in the third dimension or what we call time, the fact that an object in a three dimensional plane can change is a fourth dimension.



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 05:01 AM
link   
Ok, been thinking about this for a while now and I can't get it out my head. A shadow is 2D, someone mentioned it earlier and it lit the fire of curiosity. An object cannot be 'physical' to be 2D, the moment it is physical, it becomes 3D, so I thought, shadow, it's not 'physical' yet we can measure it's height and breadth, but it has no depth, 2D!

That said, just as we can't percieve something doesn't mean it isn't there, we can't percieve 'another dimension' as it is beyond our realm of perception and maybe even comprehension. Some on this thread are refering to physical properties, length, breadth or depth, wereas, for example I am talking about dimension being a new perception of our current reality, just as length, breadth and depth did. Each adds a new 'dimension' to observe 'reality', thats how I see 4th dimension, it's not a new dimension, just a new perception of our current one.

All this is MY OPINION, it is based on my logic, my knowledge and my perception of reality, many people have many different views, but it is important to remember that, that is all they are, your views, lest you become like someone here in this thread, desperate for any recongnition of their 'self proclaimed genius' and 'flawless logic'.

Oh yea, and LMFAO at whoever said science is or ever was 'pure truth', please, they'd be lucky to be labled 'pure supposition'.

EMM



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 05:06 AM
link   
I just wanted to say thank you to the OP for the great thread.

I watched the whole movie and although much of it was beyond my level it did open my mind for a moment. Thanks.


Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

You can not imagine nor can you create anything that is below or beyond 3d. There will always be aspects of depth, height and width because it is how reality is constructed and how perception then takes place.


I'm really sorry for you. While at one point you have a good grasp of the basics ,but you suffer from constipation of the imagination. (plaque covering your synopsis or a depletion of chemicals due to a withered brain)

While one or two of your responses have merit, you have repeated yourself so many times that you've become nothing but a disruption to this great thread. Maybe your an alcoholic - I know they repeat themselves often - get help.

Your like a DEA agent in the middle of a Grateful Dead show screaming at everyone to go home because the music is no different than it was in the 50's and that paper their eating is no different than corn flakes. I'm certain everyone here reading will get that, but you.


You claim the rest of us are insane or deluded, but the fact is you're the only one lost in delusion and you're only preaching to yourself.

Either post something new or shut up and allow the rest of us to learn.

You have ignored at least a half dozen people on this thread alone and I'm afraid you're going to run out of ignores before this thread is through.

Enough is enough. Good day.

[edit on 27-9-2008 by verylowfrequency]



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by buds84

It's a free movie you can download it here:
www.dimensions-math.org...

Their home page is: www.dimensions-math.org...


Their movie is a little missleading..actually you can draw a forth axis and use it to draw a 4 dim object on a 2 dim paper without any problems.
You can also add a fith axis if you like. Nothign keeps you from that.

This is a quick drawing I made in paint:



It can give you a good idea of what a 4 dim object is if you zoom in and study it a little or even better try drawing something like this by yourself.



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 


They do know that there is more dimensions than the 3 that we live our life in. Scientists do small things called experiments that go a long way to proving their theories.



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by verylowfrequency
 



Everyone keeps saying he doesnt know what hes talking about everything he is trying to tell you is right according to observation. Im going to repost this again since it was ignored. Reality math cannot prove existance of other dimensions they only describe states of matter.

If you mean "dimensions" in the sense commonly used by mathematicians and physicists, these are a human concept, invented to simplify mathematical descriptions of the physical world. Customarily we use three dimensions:

* length or back-and-forth (where back is just negative forth)
* width or side-to-side (left is just negative right)
* height or up-and-down (down is just negative up).

This three dimensional model works pretty well for most things. But there are times when a lesser dimensional model is just fine. If you're running along a track, you measure your motion in one direction/dimension only. If you're mowing your lawn, you may want to come up with a more efficient path through two dimensions. If you're flying a traffic helicopter, you need to worry about all three dimensions.

In relativity, where things are going at close to the speed of light, weird physical phenomena occur, namely, length gets contracted (shortened) and time gets dilated (slower). If you do your mathematics in a particular way, you can write one physics equation to take care of both the spatial stuff and the time stuff. Fewer equations, happier physicists.

In mathematics, there is no difficulty whatsoever in dealing with n-dimensional spaces, where n can be whatever you'd like. These can be dimensions in the sense of directions in some non-visual hyperspace model, or they can be (more properly) "degrees of freedom." For instance, if you were trying to model weather patterns, you might find it convenient to identify a point not only by its location in space and at a point of time, but by its barometric pressure, wind velocity, temperature, etc. That would give you a seven dimensional-model. Similarly, physicists dealing with electrons have quantum numbers like spin, isospin, charge, twist, baryon number, etc. For mathematical purposes, these can be used in multi-dimensional formulae, for a convenient model.

If you mean "dimensions" in the sense commonly used by mathematicians and physicists, these are a human concept, invented to simplify mathematical descriptions of the physical world. Customarily we use three dimensions:

* length or back-and-forth (where back is just negative forth)
* width or side-to-side (left is just negative right)
* height or up-and-down (down is just negative up).

This three dimensional model works pretty well for most things. But there are times when a lesser dimensional model is just fine. If you're running along a track, you measure your motion in one direction/dimension only. If you're mowing your lawn, you may want to come up with a more efficient path through two dimensions. If you're flying a traffic helicopter, you need to worry about all three dimensions.

In relativity, where things are going at close to the speed of light, weird physical phenomena occur, namely, length gets contracted (shortened) and time gets dilated (slower). If you do your mathematics in a particular way, you can write one physics equation to take care of both the spatial stuff and the time stuff. Fewer equations, happier physicists.

In mathematics, there is no difficulty whatsoever in dealing with n-dimensional spaces, where n can be whatever you'd like. These can be dimensions in the sense of directions in some non-visual hyperspace model, or they can be (more properly) "degrees of freedom." For instance, if you were trying to model weather patterns, you might find it convenient to identify a point not only by its location in space and at a point of time, but by its barometric pressure, wind velocity, temperature, etc. That would give you a seven dimensional-model. Similarly, physicists dealing with electrons have quantum numbers like spin, isospin, charge, twist, baryon number, etc. For mathematical purposes, these can be used in multi-dimensional formulae, for a convenient model.

So what IM telling you is, there's nothing magical or mysterious about dimensions. They're just notions scientists dreamed up to help them describe the world.And in reality you exist in the 4th dimension and 5th and 6th ect.



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   
I put no offens, If you were offended, I must have hit home. The reason I called 'some' of you guys kids because you wish not to converse and exchange ideas. That is what adults usually do when they disagree. You keep attacking everyone, claiming that newton,einstein, and hawking are delusional. Its like in the movie contact, "Do you believe 95%(including the most elite scientist,mathematicians,theorists) of the world is delusional, just because they nor you cant prove their faith?" That is a very bold statement. As we grow older we learn to learn from one another, not disrespect individuals for what they believe in. I even told you the name of the book twice and you havent mentioned it yet. You only take out my the things you do not like and the things that cant fit into your logic. This is what ats is about. Exchanging ideas and providing proof something you havent no yet done.
Did you find my excerpts interesting at all? Another book that kills the universe and all of its dimensions is "Hyperspace" by Michio Kaku- he is another one of the leading physicist right now.
Lets just converse lose the juvenile attitude, and stop being sensitive. If you believe tha, we are just asking for proof. Shoot us down with your proof, not outrage.


Thats perfect that someone said logic, and math are not 3d. they are abstract ideas that allow us to measure the universe in any shape and form. It even allows us to equate nothingness(zero), and void, even infinity. Are dimensions are all synchronized thats why some people believe that time is 3dimensional. Allow your mind to follow the laws so you can be able to distinguish between what is a dimension. Yeah what you see might be a physical representation of a vibration but its essence or its properties may take up more than or less than 3 dimensions.
It is not possible , according to your understanding, for an object to occupy more than or less than three dimensions. Study the nature of the tachyon, the electron, and the black hole. they are the only representation of objects that appear 3d are really 0d in nature. Things that we know exist but cant be measured by any of the 3d methods that we know of. You dont believe in hypotheticals, but they rule. Somethings we wont have proof for, like how nature makes her quantum leaps, we are trying to find the individual components of evolution and dimension but it doesnt work like that. Good Luck and peace to all



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by g210b
Their movie is a little missleading..actually you can draw a forth axis and use it to draw a 4 dim object on a 2 dim paper without any problems.
You can also add a fith axis if you like. Nothign keeps you from that.



Did you watch the whole thing?
They make a 4-D graph in 3-D.

After reading many topics on 4-D on the net and in magazines this film does the best job I can find of getting you to visualize and imagine 4-D.

[edit on 27-9-2008 by buds84]



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Yeah, there is a difference between hypothetical model and 3d reality. Even the piece of "2d paper" is really 3d. It has height, width and depth. Even the pencil marks you place on the paper to draw your "2d model" are 3d. The graphite (or whatever you're using) scrapes off onto the paper, no matter how small it also has height, width and depth.

I find it amusing and frustrating when people come in here saying things like "I don't know anything about dimensions or math", then turn around and say something about the content I've provided like "I feel sorry for you, you suffer from constipation of the imagination."

I have one for you. I know nothing about cows, therefore farmers must suffer from insomnia.
Seriously, c'mon.

[edit on 27-9-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by verylowfrequency
Either post something new or shut up and allow the rest of us to learn.

You have ignored at least a half dozen people on this thread alone and I'm afraid you're going to run out of ignores before this thread is through.

Enough is enough. Good day.


From your sig. "The greatest pleasure in life is doing what other people say you cannot do." - W. Bagehot.

Am I not allowed to live by your virtues?



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Scientists agree that there are several other dimensions and most now think that the maximum number is 11. There have been many good documentaries to explain both multiple dimensions and parallel universes, though some understanding of quantam physics does help.

I have read some of Professor Franks explanations and he has now written a book – which I haven't read yet – see www.manyuniverses.com... which it is hoped the lay person can understand.

Dr. Michio Kaku tells us that the Universe is like a Symphony and his explanation has been shown in an excellent documentary. Have a look at this web page www.fortunecity.com... if you want to learn more.

You may need some knowledge of the String theory to grasp an inkling of how multiple dimensions are possible – see en.wikipedia.org...

Einstein tells us that Time is the 4th dimension. Imagine the passing scene visible through the narrow window of a moving train. An observer inside the train can only see what is immediately outside. Sitting on top of the train, one can see far into the distance – the future, or look back at the far past. When we look at the stars we can only see into the past which varies in time according to how distant a star may be.

To claim that there are only three dimensions because that is all the human brain can visualise is no better than those who once insisted that the Earth was flat because they couldn't see that it is round.

Einstein's theory breaks down when scientists take it back to the big bang. The initial fractional seconds of the big bang only begin to match scientific facts when other factors such as other dimensions are accepted.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join