4th Dimension film

reply to post by billybob


I don't think light counts as 2D does it? A beam of light, such as the common laser point still has 3D aspects to it doesn't it? And the photographic plate exist in a 3D world. I do like the post about dreams, what Dimension do they exist? But then again, the world is created in our heads, just electrical pulses sent to the brain to be decoded, I was reading somewhere that the brain creates say, the distance between my face and the computer screen. Doesn't mean objective space doesn't exist, simply that is just something created by the brain.

reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal


Actually, buds84 is correct.

You haven't given any proof outside of you saying over and over again that you're right just because you're right and we should all just accept that.

Geez, at least be bothered to give some outside source for your oh so correct opinion.

Great big fat

Originally posted by chickenshoes
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

 

Actually, buds84 is correct.

You haven't given any proof outside of you saying over and over again that you're right just because you're right and we should all just accept that.

Geez, at least be bothered to give some outside source for your oh so correct opinion.

Great big fat

LOVE doesnt need sources. He eloquently explained to you his observation of the real world. He gave real evidence how everything has to have 3 dimensions to exist. You can test this yourself and see if it is true or not. I am not saying that I agree with LOVE, but he has done more to support his argument than anyone else on this thread. Seems to me that the concept of anything other than 3 dimensions is a construct of Math and Physics to model reality. Doesnt mean they are real, just means they help the mathematical model make more sense.

Do you think anyone asked Newton what his "sources" were for gravity? All they had to do was test his theory to see that it was a correct model.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by justsomeboreddude]

LOVE doesnt need sources. He eloquently explained to you his observation of the real world. He gave real evidence how everything has to have 3 dimensions to exist. You can test this yourself and see if it is true or not.

and thats the case

you know, for me it is funny as I studied theoretical phisycs

do you know, why all community accepted 11-dimensional world ? because of experencies shown, that it is NOT POSSIBLE to explain all in 3, 4, 5 .... 11 was OK in 11-dimensional space they had said - OK, we can make a model of this

we do mean - TODAYS SPACE is 11-dimensional, however 7 dimensions are as small as "invisible"

------------------------

on the other case, during my OOBE when I was in space where there was no colours and no directions, hmmm, what I want to say - it is my experience that the space could be very different to what we see with our perception

[edit on 25-9-2008 by sechmet]

Originally posted by sechmet
on the other case, during my OOBE when I was in space where there was no colours and no directions, hmmm, what I want to say - it is my experience that the space could be very different to what we see with our perception

[edit on 25-9-2008 by sechmet]

Well there has to be some concept of directions in space or how would we ever land a rover on Mars?

I am not trying to insult you but, I am not sure an out of body experience would qualify as scientific proof.



[edit on 25-9-2008 by justsomeboreddude]

I am trying to insult you but, I am not sure an out of body experience would qualify as scientific proof.

thats great - and I have to agree
however - what was the point - I experencied sth which would be called n-dimensional reality (n>4) and what I have to say - time is very relative as 100 years there was in fact not even 10 minutes here (REM with deep journey, 5 lives each 20 years)

so, I want to agree on the basis of mathematics and phisycs, and also on my own experience - there are more dimensions, and reality is much more wired than somebody who wants just realise it on 3d or 4d basis - however 4d seems to me much better as we have to move our mind and use a lot of "good phantasy" to imagine how it works

is it OK ?

reply to post by sechmet


That is cool. I wish I would have those kind of OOBE's. I am jealous Maybe you can share more of what you have seen.

Truth is dimensions are still justly a theorem which means haven't been proved to be true. So to say that math proves there existence is false. Nothing in science is proved until it is observed. And lastly I have made this argument before we are already in 4th dimensional space to prove my point to place any object any where in our universe you need 4 points of reference. Lets look at a plane flying to place the plane at a given location you need altitude, Then we need an x and y axis and then lastly you need the time. example 1000 ft at 5 degrees north 27 degrees east at 1:32 pm. So the argument that we are in 3D space now is misleading. So in effect this is a 4th dimensional universe.

reply to post by dragonridr


Well there you go. An observation that may disprove LOVE's. Watch out they are going to start asking for sources.

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude

Originally posted by chickenshoes
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

 

Actually, buds84 is correct.

You haven't given any proof outside of you saying over and over again that you're right just because you're right and we should all just accept that.

Geez, at least be bothered to give some outside source for your oh so correct opinion.

Great big fat

LOVE doesnt need sources. He eloquently explained to you his observation of the real world. He gave real evidence how everything has to have 3 dimensions to exist. You can test this yourself and see if it is true or not. I am not saying that I agree with LOVE, but he has done more to support his argument than anyone else on this thread. Seems to me that the concept of anything other than 3 dimensions is a construct of Math and Physics to model reality. Doesnt mean they are real, just means they help the mathematical model make more sense.

Do you think anyone asked Newton what his "sources" were for gravity? All they had to do was test his theory to see that it was a correct model.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by justsomeboreddude]

I'm not arguing that there are 3 dimensions, and I can't myself prove the rest, but at least the OP bothered to give some outside sources.

This other guy, basically, keeps saying over and over again, that it is that way because I say so. All the so called proof he offers only shows that, yes indeed, there are 3 dimensions, and that's all we can see with our eyes (most of us, anyway), but doesn't prove in any way to me that there is no possibility of other dimensions that most can't see could exist (even if it is just theoretical).

His ideas seem to be pre Einstein as well, such as that the universe is not expanding,(therefore I assume no big bang) etc. etc.

I wouldn't be surprised if he up and declared the world flat, the earth the center of the universe, and that mice spontaneously generate from baskets of dirty rags.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by chickenshoes]

Originally posted by Moegli
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

 

That is a bold statement of the unknown, coming from a frail and feeble Human mind.

Hmmm. Do I detect a Luddite?

What about time as a dimension?

Actually, other higher dimensions exist in mathematics and in computer programming when arrays and matrices are used to store information.

[edit on 9/25/2008 by centurion1211]

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
reply to post by Mr Headshot

 

It doesn't take that. Why doesn't the world open its eyes and stop playing this game of subjective intellectual elitism and settle on the objective truth as it is?

Wow - the concept of 4d really upsets you huh..

interesting..

Wow, some lively arguments have sprung from this. I agree with the poster that was pleased to see a topic away from the norm. (If anything can be called such here, lol.)
On topic, while the video is indeed an interesting attempt at conceptualizing a human's perception of the 4th dimension, I'm inclined to disgree/disbelieve it for the most part. I'm an avid reader of Michio Kaku and others, and agree with the belief that the human mind is pretty much incapable of completely visualizing the 4th dimension, simply because we are (our brains) trained to sense only those visible/sensible to us from birth, effectively limiting our capacity for higher-dimensional awareness from an early age.

actually there is such thing
it goes all the way up to the 10th dimension i believe
its this neato thing called quantum physics

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Actually it's not so bold, it's the truth.

What is ignorant, frail and feeble is the idea of a 4th dimension, that which is unknown and impossible.

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

My mind is not frail and feeble, maybe this is a projection of what you think of yourself and others, but it's certainly not true for me. My mind is objectively consistent and not holding fast to the illusions of subjectivity.

[edit on 24-9-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by bosna87
actually there is such thing
it goes all the way up to the 10th dimension i believe
its this neato thing called quantum physics

I truly believe this statement, and NO I am not an expert in this field but one thing I do know. We humans are cannot see any other dimension than the one we currently see, we are not made to view other dimensions. The fact that we can't see them doesn't mean that they are not there.

Simply put, we can't see other dimensions, our silly human minds won't allow it.

Originally posted by sechmet

do you know, why all community accepted 11-dimensional world ? because of experencies shown, that it is NOT POSSIBLE to explain all in 3, 4, 5 .... 11 was OK

in 11-dimensional space they had said - OK, we can make a model of this

we do mean - TODAYS SPACE is 11-dimensional, however 7 dimensions are as small as "invisible"

Isn't this how a hypothesis becomes a theory? That to do the math any other way doesn't explain the outcome, so this particular way must be the right way of looking at it?

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. In fact I'd like any and every single one of you to prove that physical 1d, 2d, or 4d objects exist and that they are not only illusions of a subjective mind and hypothetical mathematical representations that all exist in 3d. That's how confident I am and that's how smart I am. Now put your money where your mouth is buds.

The truth here is that you're projecting that you feel dumb and don't really know what you're talking about so you're attempting to make yourself be smart by belittling others, in this case me, through insults devoid of any logic or mathematical and physical substance and no where have you focused on the actual content of anything that I've provided for you.

In reality in luck vs. knowledge, knowledge wins everytime. Good luck buds.

I didn't read all of the posts so I don't know if someone else posted this, the 4th dimension is time. In order for an object to exist in our planar universe it needs three dimensions on axes x, y and z and that object needs to exist at some point or points on dimension 4, which is time, otherwise it never existed at any time. To say it exists 4th dimensionally means it exists across time for a number of minutes, hours, seconds in one spacial location on coordinates x, y, z.

We could get into the discussion of temporal mechanics and multiple streams or slips of time including time folds, but I'm no physics teacher so we would just be hypothesizing.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by sos37]

Really interesting posts. I'm all for learning more, as I'm terrible at math and science, so I appreciate when a group of people can explain proofs of math to me visually in which I'd have a terrible time grasping in their terms.

An axis on which an object rotates, thus moves, ergo giving the perception of "time" is not another "dimension", it's more accurately a point of reference.

But that's really a very elementary way of looking at it. That's only mathematical and doesn't deal with the physical reality of why the plane is actually moving (it only gives an axis that has no attributes), which is because of forces, either a combustion engine or a contracting of muscles, which exerts and consumes energy.

Don't confuse the word dimension (height, width, depth) with point of reference.

Every point of reference is also 3d. To create a model either mathematically or through a computer graphic arts program and make it move, yes it requires an axis to rotate or move along, but that's not another dimension, it's just another point of reference in the 3d reality. It also has height, width and depth.

Movement and change come about through the forces of the 3d interacting, but everything is always 3d, even the forces. Everything must have height, width and depth.

I challenge every single one of you to go create an object that has only width and height.

Having a play on the 3 dimensions and attempting to bend them into others is really making an illusional parody of physics and material reality.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

This is for all in this thread, LastOutfiniteVoice will do nothing but claim you are wrong and he is right, I'd address him myself, but he has me on ignore because he didn't like the idea of me having my own opinion on a matter, if it wasn't his opinion, it's wrong.

He is an incredibly arrogant and rude person, and believes he is God's gift to 'truth' and 'reality' he doesn't realise that these are both subjective to ones own view of the universe, he has some great zingers, I noticed the 'I know all there is to know about this', this should give you an idea of his narcicism.

To the OP, good thread, I ain't had a chance to watch the vid yet, going out soon, but I will, and get back to you. I actually agree with alot L.O.V.E has to say, but the manner in which he expresses himself is childish and combatitive, he has a huge beef to pick with someone, and I noticed, he projects, alot. But he is right, in a manner of speaking (IMO), 1D, 2D and 4D can't be expressed in our 3D reality, but they do exist. This '3D physical' reality, is only our current perception of our world, so these other dimensions do exist, IMO, just cannot be expressed in our limited view of the world.

EMM

Edit: please, for an example of my opening statement, please refer to his thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

Good idea and at first, some healthy discussion, but upon the realisation I wouldn't accept his theory as 'gospel' I was ignored. Just a pointer to show how futile discussing with this man can be.

P.s.

Originally posted by billybob
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.

Personally, I don't see time as a 'dimension', more like a measurement of the rotation and expansion of what we would call the universe and the dimensions that create it.

EMM


[edit on 25-9-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]