4th Dimension film

page: 5
16
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 


Logically, I would like to know the source and conlusive proof of this part of your previous reply
What and who isn't instinctual? Everything is instinct.

How can you physically show me or prove this?




posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

 


Yes, actually there are absolutes, like right now the Earth is absolutely the concept defined of and as spherical and it always will be that way until it is destroyed or collides with another object etc.


I thought the Earth was more like an ellipsoid than a 'true' sphere?

[edit on 25/9/08 by ChChKiwi]



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 06:36 PM
link   

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


I like this quote, actually.

The only farce is that you're placing this quote on me as an attack, rather than looking at the evidence of and from reality that I've provided. If you did so you'd realize that when the impossible is eliminated (2d, 1d, 4d), whatever remains (3d interaction), however improbable (doesn't matter what you "think" or what your opinion of it is), must be the truth.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChChKiwi
I thought the Earth was more like an ellipsoid than a 'true' sphere?


You're right, it could also be considered somewhat ellipsoidal. We call bodies in space "celestial spheres".

The point is that the Earth is circular, it is round, it is ellipsoidal and spherical, it is definitely NOT flat. That is an absolute. Absolutes DO exist.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by imd12c4funn
 


The definition of the word.

Not a one liner.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 06:52 PM
link   
I think it is funny how you have hijacked a thread and now have others trying to prove you wrong. You are in a thread supporting the 4th dimension, which means the burden of proof is on your side. Provide links, articles, studies, papers, whatever, that say the world is only three dimensional.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mindsmog

In my opinion he/she never rudely trolled your thread as you put , they are simply putting their opinion across , this is called discussion and whether you like it or not people can always disagree with what you say...


If your gonna stroke this guy, at least add to the topic.
He came with a rude one liner adding nothing to the thread at first and you want to support his crap.

Sharing opinion is one thing, but trying to totally destroy the topic and end everything because "He said so" would be considered rude.
Not only that, since I don't share his views and I don't give up on the subject, he ignores me.

Get real man. Your IQ must be the same as his.


[edit on 25-9-2008 by buds84]



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Can anyone make heads or tails of what this little article is trying to say? From my limited understanding it is an experiment done in 2-dimensional phase space.

Multifractal structure in two dimensions in proton - nucleus interactions at high energy



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ninthaxis
 


Get a piece of cake. That cake has height, width and depth. Now, I challenge you to make a 4th dimension or to make that cake 1 or 2 dimensional. The burden of proof isn't on me, it's on you. Reality has already provided me with the proof.

This is a thread supporting the 4th dimension, I DON'T support the "4th dimension". The burden of proof is on you, not I. All those who support the 4th dimension please provide some form of physical proof in the form of objective reality.

No one here has even begun to attempt to explain the 4th dimension which leads me to conclude that none of you know what you're talking about, you're just angry that I'm bringing some sense to your 4d, 1d and 2d party which is causing it to crumble.

HYPOTHETICAL CONCEPTS, not actual reality. Since they are hypothetical they are completely irrelevant.

We can argue about what's fake, impossible and invisible, or we can deal with what's real. What shall it be?

[edit on 25-9-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 


Has anyone ever told you that you're a jerk? One, you have not posted any damn evidence to support any of the hateful things that you have said. Two, unless you're the bleeding Master of The Universe and Keeper of All Knowledge you don't know jack. In fact, you cannot say that a fourth dimensional reality does not exist anymore than I can say it does. Neither of us has any evidence to support either claim. This is all conjecture and speculation, I'll grant you that, but without conjecture and speculation Science would not be where it is today. Take, for example, the seemingly simple airplane. Do you have any idea how much flack the Wright brothers caught over that? Flying is impossible, said their peers and critics...oh really?

I can name off numerous other examples; hell, the existence of qi is all but proven and that's some trippy, bio-energy #. The point is this: the human race doesn't know jack about life, the universe, or anything. Far more brilliant people than you have said as much. We don't know how our bodies work. We don't know how our brains work, or what the hell consciousness even is. We don't know for certain how the Universe started or life either for that matter. We don't even know what the hell gravity is, dark matter is, dark energy is, or whether or not dragons/ghosts/leprechauns/zombies exist.

So, you suck at life. I hope someone discovers how to travel through the fourth dimension, teleports behind you, and shanks you fifty time in the kidneys for being an arrogant ass. Also, your grammar is terrible.


[edit on 9/25/2008 by Torsten]



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 


I don't support war...but that doesn't make it any less real.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Torsten
 


I'm not sorry, sir or ma'am, but I'm going to have to ignore you after that post. If you have nothing to do here but come in and attempt to flame my character then I'm just going to ignore you so that my ATS experience can be maximized to the upmost intellectual integrity.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 


Physical proof isn't the only proof in the world. Do we have physical proof of black holes, photons, electrons, quarks, etc? Not really. We have inferences based off observations of things we can see, touch, feel. So your standards of proof are very discriminatory.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ninthaxis
 


Exactly, what you just explained is physical PROOF.

We know there are photons because we have SOLAR panels (among a countless of other ways), there are also neutrinos studied under microscopes. Electrons? Where does electricity come from?

We "appear" to see large areas in space where matter, even light can not escape. The black hole is considered a force, not an object, since it can not yet be objectified.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 07:17 PM
link   


S-layers Main article: S-layer An S-layer is a cell surface protein layer found in many different bacteria and in some archaea where it serves as the cell wall. All S-layers are made up of a two-dimensional array of proteins and have a crystalline appearance, the symmetry of which differs between species. The exact function of S-layers is unknown, but it has been suggested that they act as a partial permeability barrier for large substrates. For example, an S-layer could conceivably keep extracellular proteins near the cell membrane by preventing their diffusion away from the cell. In some pathogenic species, an S-layer may help to facilitate survival within the host by conferring protection against host defence mechanisms.


Bacteria Cell Structure

This article explains that the S-layer of bacteria is made of 2-dimensional array's of protein.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ninthaxis
Physical proof isn't the only proof in the world.


Yeah it is, unless you're insane!

My invisible rabbit says hello. Get the point? If it's not there, it's not there, until you have physical proof that it is.

Objective, physical proof is the only truth. What exists as a conviction to ignorance in the mind is not supported by physical proof, rather faith, blind faith.

Now, I'd have no problem discussing the 4th dimension if it didn't have any serious mental health issues and implications, the same way we could sit here and discuss what my imaginary friend looks like... fortunately he doesn't exist, only in my mind... but even in my mind he is a 3d image, nothing more and nothing less.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 07:19 PM
link   
I read everything LastOutfiniteVoiceEternl said and it's all a load of crap that he his limited mind "thinks".
Anyone with an education or slightly intelligent should find his limited views laughable.
My 17 year old brother took a read on this thread and had good laugh and questioned LastOutfiniteVoiceEternl's age.

He has given no evidence at all what so ever, I actually pity him.
He prolly never heard of Superstring Theory, Dark matter or Dark energy and the huge amount of money being payed to research it and 4-D.

The logic of all his post summed up is basically = "If you can't see it, it doesn't exists"

I rather not argue with someone who has the same intelligence as me when I was 12. He could be 12 for all I know, with those childish view and no proof.

He's asking people for proof of 4-D when the movie clearly is proof and gives sources and actual math formulas.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by buds84]



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 


Ok, now you are obviously derailing the thread as I have provided multiple links and you are stuck playing semantics game with a post you had already responded to by me. Make a comment on the information I have provided instead of attacking statements and words.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ninthaxis
 


The term dimension in that article is not being used in reference to height, width and depth.

The term 2 dimensional in that article is referring to the actions that the protein carries out.

For example. In baseball I can be referred to as a 2 dimensional hitter because I can bat right and left. It doesn't mean that I have only height and width.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 
Einstein would disagree with you.

According to Albert, the fourth dimension is time.

You are smarter then Einstein?

A closed mind and proud heart gather no knowledge.

You're only limited by your imagination.

webspace.utexas.edu...


[edit on 25-9-2008 by ofhumandescent]





new topics
 
16
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join