Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

4th Dimension film

page: 7
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by ChChKiwi
 


No matter where you are, no matter your perspective, the Earth will always be round until obstructed by an event or object that mutates its shape.

Subjective perspective does not determine objective reality.




posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheOneEyedProphet
If no other dimensions exist, then all of the near death experiences, ghostly apparitions and other contacts from beyond "normal reality" then millions must be imagining things, thousands must be completely naive, and the remainder don't have a clue.


I couldn't have said it any better than you just did, I promise you that.

And next time when you try to imagine, or if you have a NDE, try to di so in a 2d, 1d, or 4d image. Not only is our reality 3d, but so is our imagination, because the image is the reality and the image can only manifest in 3d.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 


You have some good points, but I just don't commune with your absolutes, If you haven't experienced the complete dissolution of the ego and contact with entities from beyond the aethers in a shamanistic ritual entheogenic rite, then no matter what anyone tells you, you wont believe it until you experience it yourself!

I'm really enjoying this thread, all points of view matter in the think tank!




posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 02:59 AM
link   
If you mean "dimensions" in the sense of "universes," as in "a creature from another dimension," come to wreak havoc on earth ... well, forget it, there's only this one universe as far as anyone knows. The use of the word "dimension" in that sense is a crutch for lamer science fiction writers

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.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 


by definition?

Source: www.dict.org
5 definitions found for instinct

From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 :

Instinct \In*stinct"\, a. [L. instinctus, p. p. of instinguere
to instigate, incite; cf. instigare to instigate. Cf.
Instigate, Distinguish.]
Urged or stimulated from within; naturally moved or impelled;
imbued; animated; alive; quick; as, birds instinct with life.
[1913 Webster]

The chariot of paternal deity . . .
Itself instinct with spirit, but convoyed
By four cherubic shapes. --Milton.
[1913 Webster]

A noble performance, instinct with sound principle.
--Brougham.
[1913 Webster]


From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 :

Instinct \In"stinct\ ([i^]n"st[i^][ng]kt), n. [L. instinctus
instigation, impulse, fr. instinguere to instigate: cf. F.
instinct. See Instinct, a.]
[1913 Webster]
1. Natural inward impulse; unconscious, involuntary, or
unreasoning prompting to any mode of action, whether
bodily, or mental, without a distinct apprehension of the
end or object to be accomplished.
[1913 Webster]

An instinct is a propensity prior to experience, and
independent of instructions. --Paley.
[1913 Webster]

An instinct is a blind tendency to some mode of
action, independent of any consideration, on the
part of the agent, of the end to which the action
leads. --Whately.
[1913 Webster]

An instinct is an agent which performs blindly and
ignorantly a work of intelligence and knowledge.
--Sir W.
Hamilton.
[1913 Webster]

By a divine instinct, men's minds mistrust
Ensuing dangers. --Shak.
[1913 Webster]

2. (Zool.) Specif., the natural, unreasoning, impulse by
which an animal is guided to the performance of any
action, without thought of improvement in the method.
[1913 Webster]

The resemblance between what originally was a habit,
and an instinct becomes so close as not to be
distinguished. --Darwin.
[1913 Webster]

3. A natural aptitude or knack; a predilection; as, an
instinct for order; to be modest by instinct.
[1913 Webster]


From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 :

Instinct \In*stinct"\ ([i^]n*st[i^][ng]kt"), v. t.
To impress, as an animating power, or instinct. [Obs.]
--Bentley.
[1913 Webster]


From WordNet (r) 2.0 :

instinct
adj : (followed by `with')deeply filled or permeated; "imbued with
the spirit of the Reformation"; "words instinct with
love"; "it is replete with misery" [syn: instinct(p),
replete(p)]
n : inborn pattern of behavior often responsive to specific
stimuli; "the spawning instinct in salmon"; "altruistic
instincts in social animals" [syn: inherent aptitude]


From Moby Thesaurus II by Grady Ward, 1.0 :

120 Moby Thesaurus words for "instinct":
a thing for, ability, affinity, aptitude, aptness,
archetypal pattern, archetype, automatic response,
automatic writing, automatism, bent, bias, blind impulse,
brain wave, brainstorm, bump, caliber, capability, capacity, cast,
collective unconscious, compulsiveness, conatus, conditioning,
conduciveness, delight, diathesis, disposition, dower, dowry,
drive, eagerness, echolalia, echopraxia, empathy, endowment,
equipment, faculty, fancy, feel, feeling, feeling for, flair,
flash, fleeting impulse, forte, genius, gift, gut response, id,
impulse, inborn proclivity, inclination, inspiration,
instinctiveness, intuition, involuntariness, involuntary impulse,
knack, leaning, liability, libido, liking, long suit, makings,
metier, natural endowment, natural gift, natural impulse,
natural instinct, natural tendency, notion, parts, penchant,
potential, power, powers, predilection, predisposition, prejudice,
primitive self, probability, proclivity, proneness, propensity,
qualification, quick hunch, readiness, reflex, reflex action,
sensitivity, sensitivity to, sheer chemistry, sixth sense, skill,
soft spot, speciality, strong flair, strong point, subconscious,
subconscious urge, sudden thought, susceptibility, talent, talents,
tendency, the goods, the stuff, tropism, turn, twist,
unlearned capacity, unreasoning impulse, unwilledness, urge,
vital impulse, warp, weakness, what it takes, willingness

In this usage taken from above;
The chariot of paternal deity . . .
Itself instinct with spirit, but convoyed
By four cherubic shapes. --Milton.
[1913 Webster]

*from source - www.dict.org
From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 :

Cherubic \Che*ru"bic\, Cherubical \Che*ru"bic*al\, a.
Of or pertaining to cherubs; angelic. "The cherubic host."
--Milton.
[1913 Webster]


With Spirit?
How would spirit be convoyed by 4 cherubic shapes
What are the 4 cherubic states? Certainly Spirit would not be convoyed by 3 states as in 3 dimensions. Rather, by 4 states. Therefor, there must be a 4th dimension for the convoyance of spirit.

I know your interpretation will be other than mine above, yet if there is only height, width, and depth, no matter how minute or voluminous,
then everything, including spirit can be measured with these 3 variables.
Since you have not access to measure spirit, how then can you eliminate all but 3D, even in thesis, thus pretending rather than accertaining that 3D is all that and there is no more?
Albeit, your points are nonrefutable in most tangible aspects, eliminating all else, they do not



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 


I think, your LOVE is on the second side of the "moebius streamer"



just, the best way would be to try to find it, however my perception is not able to do it. however I think, you will proove me the second side of the "moebius streamer" as everything is 3-dimensional, so every piece of paper MUST have 2 sides



your help to find it is highly appreciated



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 03:52 AM
link   
What i am getting is that some people here think that there is no 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, etc, etcD Dimension... Then if i can warp ( yes i am using warp instead of wrap ) my mind around it correctly we only have 1 dimension, the so called 3rd, consisting of; Height, Width and Depth....
Then people that thought op the 1st, 2nd and etcD where ( they had to be ) referring to complete theoretical objects, if they where referring to physical objects they would have been Bogus.... And i can get that, that way of thinking.
You have my sympathies.

I Know people do not like to read long posts so that is why i kept mine short so i will not go on saying that there are physical objects that seem small on the outside and Are huge on the inside ( yes i am referring to Bob Lazar, if he may be genuine or not )

One more thing: There was a time when people thought the world was flat. I wonder what the next civilization would say about our way of thinking....

[edit on 26-9-2008 For grammar and spelling by Sfen Senterra]

[edit on 26-9-2008 by Sfen Senterra]



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 03:59 AM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 



After catching up on all the pages I seem to have noticed that You did ignore one post with a 2D object proposed. Or at least I did not see You reply to it (might have missed it due to the fact of trying to catch up asap from page 1 to pg 7 and fast reading all posts, if I did I apologize and please point me to the right post).

So let me ask again then , what about shadows? Aren't shadows 2D ? (Don't know why I'm trying to prove 2D when this thread is about 4D but why not
)

[edit on 26-9-2008 by Thill]



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thill
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 



After catching up on all the pages I seem to have noticed that You did ignore one post with a 2D object proposed. Or at least I did not see You reply to it (might have missed it due to the fact of trying to catch up asap from page 1 to pg 7 and fast reading all posts, if I did I apologize and please point me to the right post).

So let me ask again then , what about shadows? Aren't shadows 2D ? (Don't know why I'm trying to prove 2D when this thread is about 4D but why not
)

[edit on 26-9-2008 by Thill]

Shadows are just the absence of light there not 2 d there nothing. As well as dimensions for that matter see my earlier post.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 04:11 AM
link   
The word 'dimension' is used for two separate ideas. The first idea and most prominent and the one that is the main focus of this thread is "length, width, and depth".

The other use of the word dimension is to describe a realm that we can't see (at the moment) without the help of technology.

It is known that the atomic structure of our elements is mostly space. This configuration of "mostly space" is called density. Our universe is of a particular density. The next density above ours is pure energy. That is, it's energy that is not trapped by forces to make up sub-atomic particles that make up atoms. An analogy would be a 3d screen. A screen cube. There is matter and then there is a bunch of space. Water would represent the next density level. It is able to flow through this cubed screen because of all the space. I mention density to create a proper context to understand alternate dimensions of our physical existence.

The energy configuration of the sub-atomic particles of our physical dimension is of a particular measurable quantity. An alternate dimension is also physical but has a different energy configuration at the sub-atomic level. The difference between these two configurations allows these "mostly space" dimensions to exist simultaneously in the same space without interfering with one another. This is what has been popularly termed "out-of-phase". These different dimensions can only be crossed using high levels of energy. The high energy can suspend the buffer between dimensions of different sub-atomic energy configurations.

The mental exercise of picturing hypercubes or additional dimensions in respect to measurable vectors is merely a way to keep people arguing and focusing their attention in the wrong direction, which is evidenced in this thread quite plainly.

[edit on 26-9-2008 by OmniVersal]



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
reply to post by Odessy
 


Actually no. What we have today is the foundation for everything that can be made and discovered.

Like I said, and I'm still waiting. Please bring me a 1d, 2d, or 4d object, someone, anyone, and I'll gladly shut up and live the rest of my life in humility.

But, I'm so confident that you'll never do this and that nor will it ever be achieved, that I'll go ahead and place myself in the category of psychic and predict that this will never happen. I never knew I had the powers of clairvoyance. Knowledge is super! Subjectivity and faith... eh, not so much. Never comes forth with evidence, just centric speculation and eventual collapse.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]


ummm easy...

Dark Matter...

Objects that exist without us being able to see them...

Scientifically proven...

The Double Slit Quantum Science Experiment...

Atoms that know when they are being observed and act as waves instead of objects when they aren't being observed...

Scientifically proven...


... Nuff said



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 07:53 AM
link   


Shadows are just the absence of light there not 2 d there nothing. As well as dimensions for that matter see my earlier post.


Within the confines of this debate, shadows have length abd breadth, but no depth. 2 Dimensions. You can dress it up all you want, they exist, they'retangible, you can have 'physical proof' of them, yet they are only 2D.

What made them what they are, doesn't change what they are.

EMM



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by buds84
 


It took me a while to load all the parts and watch them.
Of course the mathematical ' figures' of 4D are theory bc from our 3D point of view, we cannot proove 4D (or even higher dimensions are) is truly there.

But the way this film is done, gives a good overview of how 4D cud look like.

I even saw a Flower of Life symbol passing by in one of the 4D figures


Thx for posting!!

[edit on 9/26/2008 by Melyanna Tengwesta]



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Our mental existences, which are immaterial and have no dimensions, are passing along the Time-Dimension with a uniform velocity from the cradle to the grave. Just as we should travel down if we began our existence fifty miles above the earth's surface.

Personally, I believe in infinity...if you believe in infinity, then you believe in infinite dimensions...The fourth dimension is our boundy which is most closely labeled as "time" (time not being a true title but an easily understood concept)

Time is our boundry...just as depth is the boundry of the 2nd dimension.

So...if depth is the boundry of the 2nd...and time is our boundry in the 3rd...then 4th dimension is "time"

Until you prove me to there is no infinity I will believe you when you say there is no 4th dimension.

Anything we think of, no matter how small...is a reality somewhere.

Perhaps, our exsistance is the split second thought of a being in another dimension?



"A Foolish man, believes himself to be wise, a wise man thinks himself a fool"

You sir are a fool.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odessy
ummm easy...

Dark Matter...

Objects that exist without us being able to see them...

Scientifically proven...

The Double Slit Quantum Science Experiment...

Atoms that know when they are being observed and act as waves instead of objects when they aren't being observed...

Scientifically proven...

... Nuff said


Ah yes, exactly right. Were on the same page.

But I doubt he has ever head of any of these things or done research on them at all. Not much people have.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Melyanna Tengwesta
 


Cool, glad you enjoyed it.

Yes I noticed the Flower of Life passing by also but I wasn't too sure if it was that.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   
I hope people are not taking LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal seriously, he's taking us for a ride and most likely needed his parents permission to register on this forum.

Everything he has typed here is total crap that I would expect from a preteen which I suspect he is.

He lost me when he said "I know everything about this"
Why would someone research something deeply enough to know "everything" about it if you believe there's no such thing?

People don't show interest and spend time researching things they don't believe in.

Thats like someone spending time researching flying pigs even though they know thats not possible in today's world.

His grade school level ideas are laughable and I think he's just trolling.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by buds84
 


He reminds me of fanatic people that their believes is what it is no matter what.

When he understands that a 4d world doesn't have to look like a 3d world he might understand the term "thinking out of the box".
We have many example for 2d "objects" in this 3d world, but because they are 2d they stop being objects; Like your reflection in the mirror, a painting, a movie, a line on the wall. Those are 2d "objects" express in a 3d world, and because we live in a 3d world we need a 3d point of reference. Like, for example, the mirror is a 3d object but the reflection is not.

Would I be a human being if I live under water? I don't think we can solidify a 2d object in a 3d world, we can only express it.
So, when you are 2d, in this 3d world, you stop being an object. If I was 6' feet and 120 lbs, I would be considered a skinny person, but if I was 6' feet and 350 lbs I would be considered big or fat, right?

I don't know how to explain to him that in a 3d world 2d or 1d objects are not solid. Like light, sound, radio waves, color.
The earth is a sphere because that is the way we perceive it in this 3d world, in a 2d world it might look flat, and who know how it would look in a 4d world.
I guess he hasn't heard about the microscopic world, the quantum world and so.

After this I would ignore his super arrogant backside since his ego is so big that it became 4D...



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
I don't need to. To me this is like someone trying to tell me that 2+2 is 5 in a base 10 system. It isn't.

[edit on 24-9-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

One "assumption" I can safely make, based on your use of the term "base 10" is that you haven't read anything about the work done in mathematics since you had high school algebra.

Not only are there 4 dimensions, friend, but mostly likely between 11 and 13. These additional dimensions have been proven through physical experiments and mathematics. In fact, any system that has less than 9 dimensions is impossible to make mathematically consistent.

I recommend that you do some basic reading in some of the popular scientific magazines. You'll be surprised to learn that there have been all sorts of discoveries in the past 25 years. Scientific American or Nature might be a little to much for you, so I'd suggest starting with New Scientist, or even Popular Science. You will see that the concept of >3 dimensions has been unanimously accepted by physicists and scientists of all stripes.

Here's a link to get you started. This is from the Cornell Center for Materials Research.





new topics




 
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join