It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Dimension versus density...help defining the science

page: 1
7
share:

posted on May, 1 2010 @ 08:59 AM
As I've been reading here on ATS and elsewhere on various alternative and science topics I realise that my understanding of density and dimension is very limited. I see terms such as 4th and 5th density beings and 4D reality thrown about left right and center but can make no discernable sense of it.

I therefore call on the more versed on these subjects to help me answer a few questions on I have regarding these terms and perhaps in laymans terms explain if there is a finite answer to these questions or if it is borderline metaphysical in nature. So here goes my first set of questions:

Dimensions:
1. How many dimentions are there and what are their names?
2. How are they defined scientifically (in terms of and defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify each point within it.)?
3. How does this fit in with the idea of 1D 2D 3D 4D etc reality?
4. How does time become a dimention according to the definition
(the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify each point within it.)

Density
A. How many densities are there?
B. What are their definitions (in terms of mass per unit volume)
C. How does this fit in with the idea of being able to exist in different densities?

Applying the science:

X. In terms of dimensions and density how can we explain ghosts, the human spirit, dreams and other metaphysical entitites?

Y. Are there a dimensional or density separation between our 'inner' world ( that which we sense beyond our 5 physical senses) versus our outer world that which we experience with our 5 senses ?

Z. How many dimentsons does a human being have (defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify each point within it.)

Thank you for your input on any or all of these questions. Moderators please feel free to move this thread should you feel that it does not belong in Science & technology.

Ok adding a link to some calculations of the density of the universe.
hypertextbook.com...

Are we as humans in the same density as the universe? Obviously not being of the same density as aforementioned.

[edit on 1/5/2010 by IAmD1]

[edit on 1/5/2010 by IAmD1]

posted on May, 1 2010 @ 09:51 AM
Infinite dimensions. In our present reality, our consciousness, or our multidimensional selves, ‘inhabit’ 11 dimensions.

Regular science cannot measuring them. You’ve gotta go outside of that, into quantum-ness … and outside of some people’s comfort zones.

You can access 4th, 5th, 6th dimensions, and higher from right where you are physically. You don’t GO anywhere, everything is inside you. The higher you vibrate, the higher the dimension you can reach. You can go up and down, then you can explore out when you get good at it.

The time thing is an illusion and I don’t know the metaphysical way to explain it, other than we agree to abide by it while we are here in 3D.. we also to agree to abide by gravity.

Density is the rate of vibration you, or a ‘chunk of matter’ vibrates at … or your frequency. The higher you vibrate, the less density you carry and the higher dimensions you can access.

Metaphysical entities exist in antimatter, just opposite us. There is a constant shift between matter and antimatter that flashes consciousness units into both realms via macro and micro white and black holes. This is the underpinning of NOW reality that converges into all time holograms. It permeates all matter and antimatter, and you live in both.

Checkout www.multidimensions.com or www.ask-angles.com for easier ways to understand it. You can’t always apply our ‘human science’ to these other realities because they are multidimensional – all we can perceive is our linearity from where our consciousness is now.

The visible matter that we understand actually makes up less than 4% of the multiverse. Appx. 20% of our universe is made up of ‘dark’ or invisible matter. The rest of it, 75-80% is antimatter. So imagine what exists beyond our perceivable 4%. There are so many parallel universes... it just goes on and on and on. And it can make your mind go crazy sometimes.

posted on May, 1 2010 @ 10:12 AM
Hi Bluejay: Thank you for your indepth response but I was after the scientific definition of dimension and density and the application of these on the metaphysical world.. I am aware of these terms in a metaphysical sense but to be honest they originate as scientific terms and as such I would like to start by defining these.

I believe many of these terms including vibrations and such as used in metaphysics is sometimes used incorrectly and there fore I would like to deny my ignorance by getting the facts before delving into the philosophical debate.

many thanks for taking the time to reply. hopefully as this thread moves from the basic science into the grey area that you will be back to debate (if there is anything to debate) wether what you believe is fact or fiction or somewhere inbetween =)

[edit on 1/5/2010 by IAmD1]

posted on May, 1 2010 @ 10:18 AM
I've been wondering about this for a while now, it will be interesting to see what people come up with!

The closest I've come to understanding the density thing is from a series of fantasy novels by Raymond E. Feist and so could obviously be nonsense

The world in which these books are set is essentially equally balanced good/evil, but this is explained as having a sort of 'optimum' energy level..

Above and below this there are 7 more densities. The lower ones have increasingly lower energy levels, and vice versa.

So far as occupying other densities..

If a being from a lower density goes up a level, it will essentially suck the energy from its surroundings. The more levels said being goes up, the more energy it will consume, to the point where it will.. well I dunno, explode or something

If higher density beings go down levels, they will have their energy sucked from them, I guess until the point where they implode or some such.

I guess the mass question may relate to the energy levels E=MC2 and all that.

I know fantasy books ain't textbooks but it must be based on some truth. Hope there was something useful in all that! I look forward to reading more knowledgeable replies!

posted on May, 1 2010 @ 10:50 AM
Having studied science and engineering at university I have longed to form the bridge between the metaphysical and the physical sciences. This gap is seemingly closing when one delves into the eccentric cutting edge of sciences but it is inherently incomesurable and incompatible. The problem stems from the illusion we experience and it being a very clever construct which seperates us from the true nature of things. Attempting to use tools from within the illusion to explain other illusions or the true underliers is folly. What one does do however is "borrow" words from our language that fit the best to explain the experiences of perception broader than the illusion most experience, these words are similar amoungst people so we know were both talking about the same thing. You are correct to say these terms are used incorrectly if you feel the science denifnition is the only allowable one, the words now have many meanings and not often have I encounterd a clash because their applied context defines the usage.

I think "dimension" to be not a good one for people such as myself because I immediatly think of spacial coordinate system definitions or orthoganality and algebraic applications. Others think of the sci-fi "other dimension" meaning and use it to explain a related perception or experience of parralell universes, other planes of existance or realities.

I use the term density alot for the metaphysical meaning, Im sorry I didnt coin the word I just use it because others all do. Were are experiencing the progression through an octave of being so locally there are eight. But there are infinity octaves. Mass and volume do not exist exept for them appearing to in illusions. So defining density using those terms is not the right approach. The above poster is correct to relate it to vibration. But then youd want to be thinking of the broader metaphysical usage of vibration rather than common physics usage.

You will find lots of people using "dimension" or "density" to describe the same thing which can be confusing, I use the term the person im conversing with is most familiar with, I dont care for the terminology its the transmission of the thought concept that counts.

Im sorry I would be up all night trying to explain what densities actually are so what I wanted to touch on was the confusion from the rapidly evolving etymology of the words you seek definition for.

Have you been out of body? astral traveled or been to other densities? I think you would agree as I did when you get back that the words being "thrown around" are ok. Unfortunatly they are not good for people who havnt experienced it first hand, they are better for people whove had the same experience that cant be put into words but people will attempt to do so anyways for the sake of relating experienced by coining new meanings for old words.

[edit on 1-5-2010 by polarwarrior]

posted on May, 1 2010 @ 10:51 AM
Thanks MOTFA: Again not what I was after but I like it =)
Please star and flag so that we can get some more people on here....I'd really like for this discussion to get going

BTW Just a thought lower density needs energy...does that mean that if you insert enough energy into a black hole then it will come undone eventually and reverse? Also is a black hole the lowest density availabe in our density or do they exist in another density? Is it more energy, less presure or less gravity that is needed to move up the density ladder?

So many questions that need answers

posted on May, 1 2010 @ 10:55 AM

Originally posted by IAmD1
Hi Bluejay: Thank you for your indepth response but I was after the scientific definition of dimension and density and the application of these on the metaphysical world.. I am aware of these terms in a metaphysical sense but to be honest they originate as scientific terms and as such I would like to start by defining these.

I believe many of these terms including vibrations and such as used in metaphysics is sometimes used incorrectly and there fore I would like to deny my ignorance by getting the facts before delving into the philosophical debate.

many thanks for taking the time to reply. hopefully as this thread moves from the basic science into the grey area that you will be back to debate (if there is anything to debate) wether what you believe is fact or fiction or somewhere inbetween =)

[edit on 1/5/2010 by IAmD1]

I totally understand. It is a process and since all we've been taught is 'science' that is a comfortable area to start.

I have been where you are. I was one of the people proudly displaying my silver Darwin bumper sticker and a fact finding fiend.

It all comes together eventually and you find that science and spirituality meet up in a very comfortable arena.

Best to you.

posted on May, 1 2010 @ 11:11 AM

Originally posted by polarwarrior
Having studied science and engineering at university I have longed to form the bridge between the metaphysical and the physical sciences. ......You are correct to say these terms are used incorrectly if you feel the science denifnition is the only allowable one

No science is far from correct in describing all of reality...and I too am looking for a way to bridge the gap. One way for me to do this is to get the science facts and the metaphysical facts together and then look for the solution to the cproblem. Ultimately I am looking to personally understand both sides of the story.

Have you been out of body? astral traveled or been to other densities? ...

[edit on 1-5-2010 by polarwarrior]

Yes I have and I am not convinced that neither density nor dimensions explain it for me although I do use themsame as you do depeding on who and what I am talking about. But then again they are just words and as i am essentially word blind and feel their meaning only when I understand them entirely I wanted to define these clearly so that I can understand them.

As for OOB and Astral Projection - They way i feel them is as a state entirely free of density. Not so much vibration as 100% emotion free of bodily respons. Again i feel emotions as physical representations in my body same as i do with words so for me the definition of a word is very important for me to understand it and correctly store it as a physical feeling
)

Welcome to the thread ....now it's really getting interesting

posted on May, 1 2010 @ 11:18 AM

Originally posted by blujay

I totally understand. It is a process and since all we've been taught is 'science' that is a comfortable area to start.

I have been where you are. I was one of the people proudly displaying my silver Darwin bumper sticker and a fact finding fiend.

It all comes together eventually and you find that science and spirituality meet up in a very comfortable arena.

Best to you.

I'm glad you understand the process although I must confess that I grasp the metaphysical side quite well I am now looking for the scientific side to match

I am completely happy that science and metaphysics can and will meet up somewhere in the middle and I really hope that you will stay with the thread for the duration as i feel there'll be much to discuss
to you and again welcome to the thread

posted on May, 1 2010 @ 11:34 AM

Glad you enjoyed, I think like most Fantasy novel 'magic', there is some truth in there, but quite diluted, thankfully! It would likely go over my head otherwise

Good luck with the thread! I shall keep reading, likely wont have much info to contribute though!

Cheers

posted on May, 1 2010 @ 11:36 AM
Sorry....but density is not a term that I've seen used in scientific literature to describe dimensions. It is used to describe the compactness of matter.

When channelers etc. use the word "density", to describe dimensions.... it sounds like they are DENSE in the head to me [just an opinion].

How can we use the term density to describe light ?

Edit: please don't take it personal, just stating a differing opinion.

[edit on 1-5-2010 by zzombie]

posted on May, 1 2010 @ 12:02 PM
If E=MC2 and mass is energy, and light is well, energy.

If light is energy and energy is mass and mass can be described as dense, then I see no problem discussing the density of light.

I also have no idea if that's right and no time to check, fingers crossed eh.

posted on May, 1 2010 @ 12:06 PM

Within existence there are three main dimensions.

1. The largest and the smallest of them all. The infinite dimension of pure energy.

2. The smallest dimension of them all is the dimension of finite matter(solids). Here i mean amount. The volume of solids. Just in case this would be misunderstood.

3. And the second largest and second smallest dimension of them all is: Emitted energies.

The infinite dimension created finite matter, and the finite matter creates emitted energies. In that order.

The last finite to disappear would be emitted energies. The first thing that would disappear would be the finite solids.

How fast a finite matter will take to return to infinite energy, depends on the dimension of emitted energy the finite matter exists within. Emitted energy also acts as a restriction for the finite matter to emit energies.

There is no doubt that infinite energy has lower pressure than finite matter and emitted energies. That's why for instance, light can travel as fast as it does. Light is emitted energy, Light is expanding. Emitted energies is the second largest dimension to the infinite dimension. Its the second largest because it expands faster then a solid. But not as fast a the infinite.

Before i go on. People would have to understand this.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

posted on May, 1 2010 @ 01:09 PM

Originally posted by IAmD1
As I've been reading here on ATS and elsewhere on various alternative and science topics I realise that my understanding of density and dimension is very limited. I see terms such as 4th and 5th density beings and 4D reality thrown about left right and center but can make no discernable sense of it.

I therefore call on the more versed on these subjects to help me answer a few questions on I have regarding these terms and perhaps in laymans terms explain if there is a finite answer to these questions or if it is borderline metaphysical in nature. So here goes my first set of questions:

Hi, IAmD1. I see you posted this in a science forum. I generally avoid the metaphysics forums because I don't believe in metaphysics, mysticism, ghosts, or whatnot, I don't post there in order not to be Willie Wetblanket for the True Believers. You asked here, though, so my answers are going to come from my understanding of science. I can't officially call myself a "real scientist" until I get that PhD in physics, I only have my masters' in Physics and EE, and quitting work which I really like in order to slog through a couple more years of grad work for a doctorate seems like a burden. Maybe if I win the lottery. The Navy is pushing us to have a physics of acoustics oriented PhD on board for sonar work, so maybe eventually we'll spin the bottle and I'll lose the draw.

I think some of your issue with understanding what you're hearing is mostly due to a pair of women who should have been post-natally aborted in the late 19th century. At that time, physics and electrical engineering were big hairy deals, and were constantly in the press, mainly because they were in their heyday of making lots of advances in ways that were still somewhat understandable to the layman, and these were rapidly trickling into society - the electric light, the phonograph, moving pictures, powered flight, radio, one thing after another. Peoples' lives were changing a lot - if you lived in that era it was a time of definite culture shock.

Enter "Madame Blavatsky" and theosophy. Blavatsky and Alice Bailey made up this syncretic hodge-podge of mystical crap that she named "Theosophy". She was a shrewd lady, sort of a mystic P.T. Barnum, and in order to lend an air of believability to her dreck she arrogated a lot of the then current physics terms. It made her sound all "sciency" in a way that the laymen of her time found difficult to distinguish. Here you have people like Steinmetz, Edison, Tesla and Edison using these terms, and they're churning out things that are affecting your life, and here's this woman using them as well, maybe she's like them...which was of course what she had in mind.

Today when you hear new agers use physics terms like "dimension", "density", "frequency", "vibration" and the like, they are not using them in the way that science uses them. In the footsteps of Blavatsky and Bailey, and in many cases they started the thing, they use terms from science that have no application the way they use them. But they sound the same. And if you don't understand that they AREN'T the same, you can become confused by that.

So as a good starting point, if you're wondering about spirits or astral travel or something, and you're wondering about what "dimension" means, you have to remind yourself that the physics and mysticism terms are totally disjoint. Sort of like how "two" and "to" sound the same but aren't. New Age "dimension" "vibration" and the like aren't at all the same as the terms from physics, even though they sound alike.

Dimensions:
1. How many dimentions are there and what are their names?

Well, you know that there are at least three, in terms of spatial dimensions, named length, width and height.

Whether there are more sort of depends on the physics you ascribe to. Early on, a couple of guys named Kaluza and Klein came up with a fairly nice theory in five dimensions. I think currently the M-theory guys are dicking around with 11 dimensions, most of which are compactified.

It's a tough go to figure these things out. From a layman's pov, it probably looks arbitrary, some old guys sitting around saying "No, there's 11!" "No, 5!" and then they go eat lunch. It's not that way at all. Kaluza-Klein started off wanting to show that gravity and electromagnetism were different aspects of the same force. You have to establish an elaborate set of maths describing the way in which this might be so. In the case of K-K, they had to add in a couple more spatial dimensions.

And it's still not simple, once you have your math models done, you have to be able to manipulate the equations in such a way that things you KNOW to be true pop out. Like Maxwell's equations. You also have to produce Einstein's field equations from it, and you have to show invariance where that's true, and just a lot of other hurdles you have to leap through. K-K was great in some ways - they could derive Maxwell and Einstein's equations, but it failed in some ways that showed five dimensions didn't get the job done. It helps a lot too if your model doesn't start crapping out with a ton of singularities, and doesn't have a lot of "magic numbers", i.e. you should be able to figure out from the model why pi is the value it is, instead of just being some arbitrary number that pops out of nowhere. And it can't conflict with things that can be tested, if so, it's wrong.

IIRC, the other two K-K dimensions were once called "ana" and "kata" but I could be misremembering. In general, they're not named.

posted on May, 1 2010 @ 01:20 PM
In answer to zzombie and MOTFA:

Density of light
www.allwords.com...

Light density metres 'Densiometres'
www.rickly.com...

SPY66

If I understand what you are saying correctly there are the three states. Could you also explain these like this? ( My conclusion of the science of the matter)
So by that definition it seems that there could be three density states. The 'black hole' type state which is infinite mass no space, our space where infinite matter spread out in infinite space maintaining an equilibrium and the non density state where there is infinite space without matter. Or am I completely off here?

Could these then equate to being body, 'body and mind' and spirit?

And in terms of dimensions 1 dimension non movement in space, the possibility of movement in any direction in space and omnipresence?

Just thinking out loud here...any thoughts on this?

welcome to he thread Spy66 =)

posted on May, 1 2010 @ 01:34 PM

Originally posted by IAmD1

Dimensions:
4. How does time become a dimention according to the definition
(the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify each point within it.)

Early on, say the end of the 19th century to the beginning of the 20th, time was viewed as a possible spatial dimension. That is no longer considered true in physics. Time is now considered an aspect of space. Hermann Minkowski is probably where you should start if you want to read up on the origin of that school of thought.

Unfortunately, a lot of movie/TV writers who likely can't change the batteries in their cell phone without help never got the news that this was no longer true, sort of like how you often see them still depicting electrons as orbiting atoms the way planets orbit the Sun. So you pick up a lot of popular common knowledge from these guys that is just not true.

Density
A. How many densities are there?

I'm afraid this is one of those new age questions that doesn't make sense in a physics way. In fact, I think the only place I've seen density used this way is on ATS, although I don't frequent other forums that address these topics, so take that for what it's worth.

Density is a term describing the concentration of something, basically. You can use it, for example, as a description of how much mass is in a volume. This would be the density of a material. Water thus has a density of one gram per cubic centimeter. Density of a population is the number of people per square mile. The density of magnetic flux is the number of lines in a bounded area.

You use the physics concept of "density" for a lot of things. But you can't really ask "how many densities are there" because that's sort of like "how high is up", the question doesn't make sense. It looks on ATS like they're trying to use it as "alternate reality" or something, esp that thread I just can't bring myself to read about aliens from the 4th density, but no, density doesn't mean anything like that and can't really be used that way.

Applying the science:

X. In terms of dimensions and density how can we explain ghosts, the human spirit, dreams and other metaphysical entitites?

Likely not at all. I don't believe in ghosts or spirits, or other metaphysical entities. Dreams are interesting, in that they're possibly your mind's way of adjusting neuron response weights by practicing information, the way you anneal a neural net. But I don't see them as being metaphysical. It does, occasionally, raise the question in my mind "how in God's name did you come up with that association, Tom?" the next morning when I think about some pit-spawned horror of a dream, but I think it says something more about me than about the eldritch horrors of density 8 which lurk around the corner you can't turn, waiting for Yog-Sothoth to open the gate.

For instance, as a kid I often dreamt of angels carrying me up about 100 feet and dropping me on the concrete, so when I saw Dogma I had a real laugh. Apparently I'm not the only one that had that nightmare.

Y. Are there a dimensional or density separation between our 'inner' world ( that which we sense beyond our 5 physical senses) versus our outer world that which we experience with our 5 senses ?

Oh, you have more than five, you have proprioception, for instance, and I'm pretty sure people can sense electric fields, possibly magnetic fields as well. In general, I am not sure that "psi" powers can be established to exist in properly designed experiments, although I'm still open on that, but not so open you could change my mind with anecdotes about your Granny knowing when Uncle Ed died. Say I'm about a half-Randi on it.

Flippantly, your "inner world" has just less than the density of water, the outer world is the density of air. In general.

Z. How many dimentsons does a human being have (defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify each point within it.)

Three.

posted on May, 1 2010 @ 01:49 PM

There will be no convincing scientific answer to this as science knows only 4 dimensions which includes time.
String theory stipulates another 7, but they are so curled up and tiny, that there is no physical manifestation that you can see.
On the other hand it is hypothesised that there are indeed infinite dimensions. I personally lean towards this hypothesis.
Density that you say as mass per unit vol is in our existence. But the densities people talk about may be other metaphysical dimensions essentially.
For co ordinates each dimension has one co ordinate and so on.

Picture this Even in our everyday life you may be aware that it is difficult to say where reality ends and illusion begins.
No doubt physics will evolve as time goes by or maybe it will be completely revamped and revolutionised.
The oppurtunities are endless

Cheers

posted on May, 1 2010 @ 02:34 PM
I think the standard definition of a dimension is some [apparently] continuous axis of potential movement/transit.

Most often considered to be a 'straight' line in usage by lay people, at least from the perceptual perspective of the inhabitants or observers .

Density is how compacted or loose some particulate matter is in some bounded* confine.

This is a notion that gets intermingled with the notion of mass, but empirically there is no need to include the notion of mass with density in the realm of pure ideas.

one oxygen molecule per cubic centimeter is much lower density than one million oxygen molecules per cubic centimeter.
Density is effectively an analogue scale because of the very high granularity of our Universe.
10^23 is pretty much uncountable as far as i am concerned.

In math theory there are infinite dimensions.
In our everyday perceptual world there seem to be 3 spacial dimensions and then time. Einstein adds another geometric [warping] dimension as gravity.

Black holes are said to have infinite density. Hawkings says they decay given sufficient time, of course time is said to slow to zero at its core so i don't know how one calculates that.

magnitude is some relative size of a finitely conceived interval(s) of some dimension(s).

* some of the specified confines may be infinite. ie. a line is infinite along a single dimension but has infinite[?] density of dimensionless points.

Q: In strict Euclidean geometry you can not get more dense than complete spacial occupation, can you? Would that be infinite density or unitary density?
Maybe infinity or discrete occupation of a given spacial void depends on the size/volume of the particulates one chooses.

[edit on 1-5-2010 by slank]

posted on May, 1 2010 @ 02:52 PM
If reality has an underlying fractal nature then the degrees of freedom would be nearly if not absolutely infinite.

Degrees of freedom is a general term used in explaining dependence on parameters, and implying the possibility of counting the number of those parameters. In mathematical terms, the degrees of freedom are the dimensions of a phase space.

If the theory Max Tegmark (MIT) has put forward is true then the universe must be fractal and the degrees of freedom (dimensons) would indeed be infinite.

The Mathematical Universe

All structures that exist mathematically also exist physically. This is in the sense that "in those complex enough to contain self-aware substructures (SASs), these SASs will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically 'real' world". The MUH can be considered a physico-mathematical expression of the philosophy known as modal realism, which treats physical reality as indexical, or self-referent, rather than absolute. The MUH suggests that not only should worlds corresponding to different sets of initial conditions or to different physical constants be considered real, but also worlds ruled by altogether different equations.

Tegmark claims that the MUH has no free parameters and is not observationally ruled out, and is therefore to be preferred over all other TOE's by Occam's Razor. He envisages conscious experience as taking the form of "self-aware substructures" of mathematical structures, which will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically "real" world.

The MUH is related to the anthropic principle, to theories hypothesizing a multiverse, and to Jürgen Schmidhuber's ultimate ensemble of all computable universes

space.mit.edu...

arxiv.org...

[edit on 1-5-2010 by constantwonder]

posted on May, 1 2010 @ 02:54 PM
According to Einstein space is a [sequence of?] 3d surfaces warped in the 4th dimension of gravity. Which implies either our time movement/passage is concurrent [up or down] with gravity conformations or we are traveling in possibly a 5th [quasi-?] dimension of time. Otherwise i think we would intersect our own previous instants in some quite messy ways.

Also from Einstein, time is a/the alternating phase change of electromagnetic radiation from its electric to magnetic phases i believe. The reason times slows down at close to light speed is because one gets in synchronism with the light wave(s) & its phase changes. From your point of view the phases hardly ever seem to change. I wonder if the photon particle is either of the phases specifically? Maybe it spasms between particle & wave? It is running so fast it is gasping for air.

new topics

top topics

7