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

4th Dimension film

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 12:03 AM

Originally posted by Moegli
Instinct would no longer exist if one is aware of every minute detail of reality.

No, that would be the new instinct. When you are born, you are born with this instinct, to want to know all things, you are born with curiosity. However the pressures and brainwashing of society oppress this instinct and turn you into a dumbed down drone that can no longer think on its own, only be told what to think.

Maybe you need some definitions. Allow me to help you better understand what you're talking about.

instinct (ĭn'stĭngkt') Pronunciation Key

- An inherited tendency of an organism to behave in a certain way, usually in reaction to its environment and for the purpose of fulfilling a specific need. The development and performance of instinctive behavior does not depend upon the specific details of an individual's learning experiences. Instead, instinctive behavior develops in the same way for all individuals of the same species or of the same sex of a species. For example, birds will build the form of nest typical of their species although they may never have seen such a nest being built before. Some butterfly species undertake long migrations to wintering grounds that they have never seen. Behavior in animals often reflects the influence of a combination of instinct and learning. The basic song pattern of many bird species is inherited, but it is often refined by learning from other members of the species. Dogs that naturally seek to gather animals such as sheep or cattle into a group are said to have a herding instinct, but the effective use of this instinct by the dog also requires learning on the dog's part. Instinct, as opposed to reflex, is usually used of inherited behavior patterns that are more complex or sometimes involve a degree of interaction with learning processes.

1. an inborn pattern of activity or tendency to action common to a given biological species.
2. a natural or innate impulse, inclination, or tendency.
3. a natural aptitude or gift: an instinct for making money.
4. natural intuitive power.

It has been theorized that if the brain can be aware of every subatomic particle and its behavior as it courses through space, the collisions, magnetic and gravitational influences etc, then one can be aware of fate/destiny.

That's not a theory, it's a fact. That is logically sound. Locally if I know and track the movements of the planets and all meteors, energetical disturbances, creatures, satellites and deep space objects in our solar system, I know for a fact, unless the sun, Tau Ceti, or a nearby star supernovas, what will and will not happen to every object in the solar system.

The only question would be, how far into the future can you see? Time as we perceive it has an interwoven mechanism which ties directly to space.

Time is nothing more and nothing less than the 3 dimensions of space interacting with one another through their forces. Space and time are one and the same and not separate. That is high-school physics knowledge.

Four dimensional awareness would therefore be mastery of time.

No. This is tripe. You make no logical conclusion of how you even jump to the 4d. You just start saying it. You don't even explain what it is except for saying that it is complete awareness of the 3d, which would only be complete awareness of the 3d. Time and space are one, basic physics, basic Einsteinien knowledge.

Of course if one is aware of anything, one can change its path in time.

Or seemingly so. It's really also the thing changing one's and not just one changing the thing's path, and beyond that nothing is being controlled, the eternal one is simply Being, happening as a result of thoughtless interaction.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 12:11 AM

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
reply to post by buds84

If you'd like to logically show me where I look dumb and where I've made a mistake then I'd be more than willing to admit it.

Right when you rudely started trolling the thread and ruining it for people trying to have an educated discussion.

Any educated person with an open mind would not jump into a subject/conversation they know nothing about and automatically say "theres no such thing."
Instead a person with a real brain in there head would look it up further before making obnoxious comments.

Either way it's rude to do things like that in a thread especially in the Metaphysics forums.

Just because you haven't done enough research and exposed yourself to the subject doesn't mean you you can disprove it.

As a matter of fact, you can't disprove it.

I have done enough math and research in my day to know 4-d can't be disproved anymore.

This is the most rude and unintelligent postings I have seen on ats.
If your going to say something as bold as "There is no 4-D" At least back it up with some type of facts and information thats even remotely close to the facts and information I have provided with the film.

posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 12:11 AM
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

You're trying to represent the properties of dimensions other than three, in a three dimensional physical perspective (therefore failing to comprehend whether they exist or not). If anything exists in 1D 2D and 4D they wouldn't be 'objects' anymore. In 1 dimension, it is a point of (NO) space and infinite energy/potential. 2D would be a flat plane or grid, if looked on its side (3D representation) it would appear to just vanish. There is an outward progression of the way 1D (God existence) is expressed, by DETAIL. There simply wouldn't be as much possibilities that could be interpreted in 2D as much as in 3D, the more dimensions exist the more detail is perceived.

Once you reach infinity you'd find yourself back at ONE. Nothingness.

"Once you can accept the universe as matter expanding into nothing that is something, wearing stripes with plaid comes easy. " - Albert Einstein

posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 12:25 AM

Originally posted by Moegli
You're trying to represent the properties of dimensions other than three, in a three dimensional physical perspective (therefore failing to comprehend whether they exist or not).

No, this is what you're trying to do and what the movie is trying to do. As I will show in the reply to the next quoted section. Are you that detached from yourself and this conversation? No, I'm representing the properties of the 3 dimensions and nothing else. I've told you that the others don't exist in singular form. They are only hypothetical, it takes all 3 to form the true reality that is existence. Therefore you're failing to comprehend my stance and yours.

If anything exists in 1D 2D and 4D they wouldn't be 'objects' anymore.

Exactly, therefore they don't exist! Hoo-ray!

In 1 dimension, it is a point of (NO) space and infinite energy/potential.

Energy can only be 3 dimensional, so how can a 1 dimensional realm be having 3 dimensional properties being placed on it? C'mon now, I'm brighter than that. 1 dimension is represented as a dot, dots have height, width and depth.

2D would be a flat plane or grid, if looked on its side

Which doesn't exist. no matter how flat it is it must still be measurable, otherwise it doesn't exist. It must have some thickness, otherwise it doesn't exist. If it had no thickness you would not be able to see it from any angle.

There is an outward progression of the way 1D (God existence) is expressed, by DETAIL. There simply wouldn't be as much possibilities that could be interpreted in 2D as much as in 3D, the more dimensions exist the more detail is perceived.

No, there's only 3 dimensions. The more knowledge and intellect exists the more detail is perceived in this case. This is all non-sense.

Once you reach infinity you'd find yourself back at ONE. Nothingness.

The eternal one is 3 dimensional. It is the presence of the concept of absence, but it is definitely present. It is NOT nothingness, it is the concept of nothingness, but it is everything.

"Once you can accept the universe as matter expanding into nothing that is something, wearing stripes with plaid comes easy. " - Albert Einstein

The universe is not "expanding" outwards. The existence is an Eternal One, an immeasurable singularity. Eternity does not expand, it can not, nor does it contract, it can not.

When nothing becomes something there is no expansion into anything because nothing is no longer nothing, rather something is eternal, and there can only be one eternity, there is only space and time for one eternity.

Einstein wasn't right about everything, and this case wasn't right about nothing.

posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 12:27 AM
reply to post by buds84

I know everything about this. Please keep your assumptions to yourself and only make remarks about my character and my knowledge until you actually know about my character and knowledge.

If you continue to attempt to trash my character through your lack of knowing the knowledge that I possess and through knowledgeless assumptions of me and my character I will have to put you on ignore because that's not respectful nor is it true, unless you can prove that you are a psychic, at which point you'd still be wrong about everything that you've thus far presumed of me. Let's focus on the facts, eh?

[edit on 25-9-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 12:37 AM
when we are talking 4 dimensions are we talking 4 spatial dimensions or the quantum physics dimensions which i think there are 10 or 11 in theory?Because if it is spatial dimensions what about a hypercube?It supposedly has 4 spatial dimensons.

posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 12:47 AM
Oh well I'm pooped. I'll just get back to daydreaming again. Thanks anyway.
Not that I agree with every word you've said though.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by Moegli]

posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 12:47 AM
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

Everything your posting = "because you said so"

You said here "Energy can only be 3 dimensional"

That is not true at all.

Your not explaining where your getting all these made up facts from because there all in your head.
Not much of anything you said here today is true in any way or proven.
Not that it needs to be hard proven but there all opinions.

Remember long time ago retards thought the world was flat?
That was a fact a long time ago.

Everything can be explained with math, math is the universal language of the world and science and everything that can be proven is proven with math.

Theres no point in arguing with your narrow minded opinion because you haven't taken the time to watch the film or do any research at all.
Do yourself the favor and watch the film and you will clearly see 4-d explained.

I did my homework already and I was just trying to share information to people that can appreciate something like this.
I knew about 4-D from painfully long lectures in class and then research on the internet later coming across this film which was visually entertaining and educational.
4-D objects are very much possible.
4-D entities or beings very much possible if you believe in God or a superior spirit / creator.

You saying theres no 4-D is pretty much the same as the olden days when people thought the world was flat.

Some of us here have past the "Thats impossible" mind frame.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by buds84]

posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 12:56 AM

Originally posted by buds84
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

Everything your posting = "because you said so"

No, everything I'm saying = Because reality says so.

Still, you've yet to tackle any of my quotes or replies logically and appropriately.

Well, I'm sticking to the "that's impossible" mind-frame. You can stick to the earth is flat mind-frame of the retards of the old days... because guess what, that's impossible.

I know what's possible and impossible. You don't. And I'm going to have to ignore you now because nothing good comes of this from you. You don't focus on facts, all you do is assume and accuse.

posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 01:07 AM
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

Yeah, thanks for ruining the thread.
I'll see you in hell.

posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 01:08 AM
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

This is one of the most rude and uneducated replies to any threads for a long time (not this particular post but the whole series of replies). The only thing You do is state "your" point over and over without any kind of umm hard proof. At least the OP gives a movie in which people try to prove their point via math (You do know that math is usually used to prove theories that are pure theoretical and cannot be proven otherwise until technology catches up with the theory) and come to some conclusions.

Of course its easy to say "there is no 4d" because I say so but thats not the way to disprove a theory , at least in my humble opinion of course.

Btw You do know that common knowledge was wrong on so many times in the past right ? (umm flat world , sun orbits earth , etc...)

If all people would think like You then we would still be living in caves because well there cant be anything beyond the caves right ? Or we would have known about it already ....

posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 01:16 AM
reply to post by buds84

Listen, until there is a definite way of communicating with each other, as Humans, in a completely comprehensive and efficient way, anything anyone says has a way of being misunderstood because our minds assign emotion to words. Not all emotions are completely detrimental to development mind you, though some can be. Take this from a 16 year old trying to uncover the mysteries of the universe.

posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 01:18 AM
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

hey man, I´m not so sure "reality is something that can be measured or even proven to "exist", everything is possible in the symbolic universe, lets not forget that what we perceive to be "real" to us depends on the face of the coin we are in.

Not all paradigms are the same, and not all cultures and societies have seen things the same way we see them now, we know very little considering the size of the Universe, to people 100 years in the future we will be the same as the people in ancient Rome.

Dimensional science will be subject matter to kids in a few years.
Supercolliders send particles somewhere not on this plane

check this out:

models of large extra dimensions, the string and Planck scales become accessible at future colliders. When the energy scale is above the string scale or Planck scale a number of interesting phenomena occur, namely, production of stringy states, p- branes, string balls, black hole, etc. In this Proceedings, we summarize a recent work [1] on the production of black holes, string balls, and p-branes at hadronic supercolliders, and discuss their signatures. I. INTRODUCTION In a model of large extra dimensions (ADD model) [2], the fundamental Planck scale can be as lowas a fewTeV, which is made possible by localizing the SM particles on a brane while gravity is free to propagate in all dimensions. The observed Planck scale (∼ 10 19 GeV) is then a derived quantity. Signatures for the ADD model can be divided into two categories: sub-Planckian and trans-Planckian. The former has been studied extensively, while the latter just recently received more attention, especially black hole production in hadronic collisions. The fact that the fundamental Planck scale is as lowas TeV opens up an interesting possibility of producing a large number of black holes at collider experiments (e.g. LHC) [3–5]. Reference [6] showed that a BH localized on a brane will radiate mainly in the brane, instead of radiating into the Kaluza-Klein states of gravitons of the bulk. In this case, the BH so produced will decay mainly into the SM particles, which can then be detected in the detector. This opportunity has enabled investigation of the properties of BH at terrestrial collider experiments


and this:

The questions "where have the local baryons gone, and what are their properties?" are being answered with greater certainty than ever before. "We think we are seeing the strands of a web-like structure that forms the backbone of the universe," said CU-Boulder Professor Mike Shull. "What we are confirming in detail is that intergalactic space, which intuitively might seem to be empty, is in fact the reservoir for most of the normal, baryonic matter in the universe."


that dark matter is not on this "reality" we only perceive kind of like its shadow projected from somewhere else!


[edit on 25-9-2008 by TheOneEyedProphet]

posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 01:19 AM
reply to post by Thill

No, the Earth is round. We know this. There are 3 dimensions. We know this.

Saying there is a 4th dimensions and attempting to prove that 1d and 2d objects exist (which they don't and never will therefore their concepts are irrelevant) is exactly like saying, "okay, let's prove since we now know that the Earth is round that it's really square!"

Which translates to, "okay, let's prove since we know that there are only 3 dimensions that there are really 4!"

Still, you have not even attempted to refute any of the logic in my posts. I apologize for my first post, as for me it is common knowledge that there isn't a 4d.

I am well versed in math and physics, I'll have you know.

It's simple really, a thing that is 10X10X0 (measuring the furthest extent of height, width and depth, on this object since reality is 3 dimensional!) is a thing that doesn't exist because a measurement is zero.

To propose that an object can be 10X10X10X10 going on height, width and length alone means that you have to explain what that last measurement is and not through using one of the 3 dimensions of height, width and depth! It is a new measurement all by itself.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 02:17 AM
All that exists and will ever exist exists in just a point of no space at all (1D, not even a dimension). This existence is characterized by everything being connected at a common (infinitesimally small) source. From that source, would everything branch out into infinite different expressions of itself, and those expressions would progress until they themselves become infinite, and back to being a point of (infinite) existence.

You can see it in nature, the way a tree grows by branching many of its leafs until a seed drops to start again. The seed has the code/potential to become a the big whopping tree and recreate itself many many times.

Different dimensions are cycles within cycles, one travels through them by gaining knowledge which in turn detaching from one's instinct, to become aware and gain control. Instinct has nurtured us for a long time, it's time we remember who we are. Cycles never end, time is our school.

posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 02:56 AM
is there a version not so nerd. like a 10 second lasps or something

posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 04:39 AM
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth - Sherlock Holmes

Without forethought, imagination and the ability to make the 'impossible' and 'unknown' become probable, mankind would never have progressed as far as we have. We would never have lifted ourselves out of the stone age. Your point of view is rather antiquated and and reminiscent of those geniuses who still believe that the world is flat and is the centre of the universe.

posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 05:32 AM
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal


Can you apply everything you have said about the absolute objectivity of 3 dimensional existence, to all of our dream worlds? After all, for a few hours every night, that becomes our reality.

posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 09:48 AM
reply to post by Moegli

very well said. instinct is needed when rational thought cannot be used.

posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 10:52 AM
lastvoiceeternal, you are too confident in your beliefs.

you are saying 2D doesn't exist, so it can't be used as a paradigm to understand 3D in 4D, and yet 2D does exist.
and here's where. light. when light strikes a photographic plate, it records a 2D image. and that, even thought the light itself is coming from every direction.

there's that, and there is time. without time everything would be everywhere/nowhere at once. but when you add time to the mix, you have added another dimension. ie. something measurable is a dimension. now, just because we have no way move through time in more than one vector, does NOT mean it is IMPOSSIBLE. it is impossible for a fish to imagine a world where they can't swim and float about until that fish is out of the water. it is impossible to imagine DOES NOT EQUAL impossible.
and yet time is subject to gravity and actually stretches and compresses depending on the availability of space. so, therefore, gravity is another dimension (measurable).

according to your logic, because we cannot see time and gravity, they do not exist. according to your logic, because we cannot see or touch things at the subatomic level, they do not exist, either.

according to your logic, nothing exists outside our individual point of view, ie. what each of us THINKS he senses, and even that points to the idea that there is ?something? OUTSIDE of that perception, because the perception itself is OF that ?something?.

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in