It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

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: 2
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Maybe time is light passing through the universe, which would strongly imply that light has additional dimension characteristics.

That would sort of fit with black holes having slowed time, because they get infinitely stretched, so light would take [infinitely] longer to pass through that point. But that would also imply that the flow of light/time WAS along a perpendicular to the gravity welling/warping.

so maybe gravitons are [relatively] bigger things going [mostly] perpendicular to spacetime,
& much finer light passes through all points of the universe more equally, again [mostly] perpendicularly, because it is somehow finer grained causing the passage of time.

So maybe gravitons are clumped light [photons?] stuff? Gummed up light gnarls? hey just throwing stuff out there.




posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   
F & S to you my freind, great subject! Please read the "RA material, Law of one"

www.lawofone.info...

It is channeled material which explains density's (dimensions) and a lot more information regarding the times in which we live. You will either resonate with the material or not. Listen to you higher self in all things.

Peace and Love to you All.

[edit on 1-5-2010 by Klaatumagnum]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by IAmD1
 


And thank you


To understand how the three different dimensions are built, we have to think a bit bigger.

I am going to use some images to illustrate how the different dimensions fit into each other.



1. The infinite dimension ( The main dimension). Also discribed as nothingness.




As you can see. You cant see anything. Not even depth. This is what a dimension of pure infinite energy would look like. This is what nothingness looks like.

In the next image i will add three lines from our measuring system to give the black image depth. Because the infinite dimension would have infinite depth.

You will also see that the dimension is infinitely big and infinite small at the same time.



Now keep in mind that i am using three lines from our measuring system to give you a concept of depth. That's all. I have used the three lines to give Height. Length and Depth.

This dimension of total darkness must have everything needed to create and sustain finite matter for a "Time".

All finite matter can only be at one location within the infinite black dimension. And that's in the middle of the infinite black dimension.

I will illustrate that with a new image under.



But how it got there depends on what you believe in. I believe it got there by a compression. Its the only explanation that fits how matter and energies expand. But you know, we all seam to understand science a bit differently. But this even fits into the bible. I made a post explaining all this with science.

I believe the finite dimension of solids and emitted energies were created by the infinite dimension of energy. By a compression.

The compression created 2 more dimensions inside the infinite dimension of energy. First the compression creates the finite matter. Than the matter creates emitted energies.

Light would be the first sign of the creation of a finite matter. Because of the force/pressure applied.

Because of the light you wouldn't be able to see the finite matter. "Emitted energy expands much faster then a solid". That's why you wouldn't see anything but light.

It would probably look like this image bellow.



Emitted energy will create a barrier between the infinite energy and finite matter.

Why?

Because emitted energies expands faster towards the infinite energy.

I will illustrate the order of expansion in the image bellow.



The solids are the only source that really emit energies. But the energies also emit energies as they expand towards the infinite.

You could visualize it as a lineup to reach infinity. Where the solids are at the end of the line.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 



...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....



bedlam,

i really enjoyed reading your explanations.


neverthless, i have to disagree with your above quoted statement. i am reminded of another quote from ???, "one should not assume that a poorly argued point of view is thus invalid." or something like that.

the point being that, just because the terms are used incorrectly does not mean that such misuse is founded in stupidity. it makes a lot of sense, intuitively, to use the terms in this way. and we may come to find that, indeed, "density" and "dimension" ARE the correct terms to be using in this context.

me and many others work in these forums (i even posted in the 4th-dimensional thread you have been avoiding) away from the tasteless misuse of these concepts, and toward a shared foundation between the metaphysics and physics.

you may think that this is not a valid endeavor. however, even the most advanced scientists of our day are genuinely mystified about the basic nature of our reality. and the concepts that they are using, like it or not, have a certain mystifying flavor. IMO, metaphysics is more important than physics....not less.


----->>> MOST IMPORTANTLY: every one of us is a qualified empiricist in the field of "consciousness studies". so to dump someones collected data aside, simply because they are not speaking in correct terms, is a fallacy.





posted on May, 1 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 


However, it causes confusion, and as far as I can tell, using "density" when you sort of seem to mean "alternate reality" is obfuscatory at best.

Thus do you get a lot of people (should have seen that HAARP thread...) where people legitimately do not know what "frequency" means, but think it means "level of consciousness" or something.

Blavatsky should have made up her own terminology instead of hijacking one that has some hard definition to it, in an attempt to make mysticism sound all sciencey. That's all I'm saying.

BTW, there's ANOTHER term that's misused..."metaphysics". There's both a philosophical definition where you have Spinoza, Aristotle, and Godel, and a "new age" definition (basically anything woo) where you get Ghost Hunter.

I rarely use it in the correct form, though, so I generally mean "mysticism".



edit ps: I guess it depends on if you're used to misusing the terms if it seems intuitive, I see "raiders from the 4th density" and I think "WTF?", sort of like it read "aliens from the color 82"

[edit on 1-5-2010 by Bedlam]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 12:20 AM
link   
from pg 1:
slank, constantwonder and bedlam - thank you and welcome to the thread. This is exactly the sort of thing I was after. There's much to read here and take in but in essence in the world of science the terms density and dimension can not be applied to the metaphysical 'worlds'. It seems to me that to think outside of the 'box' we perhaps need to coin new terms for the 'other wordly' experiences so as not to get confused about what we are talking about. I am really hoping that once we've established the scientific facts that we can start to discuss the metaphysical experiences using non scientific terms. Perhaps by removing the faulty lables from the conversation we might actually get closer to bridging the gap between the two?

Right now I feel there are too many good scientific minds getting caught up in the semantics and thus completely ignoring that there are other experiences outside this prooved one that needs defining. There are also alot of metaphysically endowed who completely ignore the fact that the terms they use are faulty and there for does not describe the reality of the experience.

Because they are using the same terms but mean totally different things by them there can not be a valid discussion between the two schools of thought and perhaps we are missing out on some great discoveries/discussions because of it?

Just me thinking out loud again now on to reading page 2 ....



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by slank


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.



Black holes radiate. Which is the why we have Hawking radiation. Which is just blackbody radiation applied to a black hole.(I think)

Then it is said that after a LONG period of time a black whole will have radiated so much that it will explode. But before this can happen it has to finish it's mass supply.That is why some refer to the big bang as the explosion of the black hole that contained all the matter in our universe.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 01:10 AM
link   
Spy66 - wow thank you for the great visuals ... that really helped in understanding what you are saying. I'm really getting exited about this, new understanding is a fantastic thing =)

Klaatumagnum - thanks but for this discussion I think the RA material is as useful as say the bible or the Koran would be. They are important pieces to understanding the world don't get me wrong I just don't think they solve semantics issue that is being discussed. Perhaps they will become important later on in the discussion =)

Bedlam and tgidkp:
Your discussions and points are exactly the reason for starting this thread. You both have valid points but I tend to agree with bedlam in that there is a need to perhaps coin new terminology to describe the spiritual experiences so as to stop the confusion. I don't think it is Ok especially when trying to deny ignorance to use terms that are inherently incorrect it seems to stop the moving forward in that semantics becomes the issue rather than the science/exploration of reality.

It is important to be clear so that the messages can be understood by all...that is the whole point of language otherwise we'd be talking to eachother using words that have no meaning other than for the speaker. As communication dictates that for it to be any the receiver of the communication has to understand the message being relayed. Otherwise you are just talking to yourself. (Which I find alot of people do)

I hope you'll both stick with the thread and perhaps help in solving some of the problems as they present.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 01:31 AM
link   
To get the thread moving forward I am thinking that perhaps the best way forward is to define in laymans terms what the two expressions density and dimention means and then discuss their application in the metaphysical/spiritual discussion.Please correct me where I am wrong preferrably with an example to follow. I really want this to be something that everyone (even a child ) can understand.



Density:

Describes the compactness of an object.(compared to water?)
Either it is more dense or less dense. Something that is less dense than water forms a separated layer or space that float on top of it. Something that is more dense will sink to the bottom and form a separated layer or space.

Describes the disphersion of light in space. The more dense the light is less surface area it is lighting up.(provided the amount of light is the same?? How would you meassure this. Is it the amount of enery the light contains?)


Describes a universe?? The amount of collective mass spread over a certain amount of space. The more mass over less space the more compact i.e. dense is the universe? at the center is infinite mass and att the edges is infinite space. In the middle is the 3D reality expanding and contracting between the two states?

How can we now apply this to the spiritual discussion concerning entitites that exists in separate densities from us? Or can we?


Dimensions.

Describes points in space that an object occupies. It is directional and in terms of 3D reality described the height, width and depth of an object.

There are arguements around wether time is the 4th dimension. (in my logic then it would describe an objects height, width, depth and time)

?? It is not descriptive of movement. I.e a dimension is a static measurement. So that rules out the movement in space or time. Please correct me if I am wrong here. An object is either 1D, 2D,3D or 4D or it is not

I.e it either has a height, height and width, height, width and depth or height width depth and time???

A dimensional object can move about on any of its axes including time. The size of the object is irrelevant as the directions are infinite.


So how can we apply this to describe spiritual/metaphysical experiences and entities in terms of it's dimension? Or can we?

Again please correct me if my logic i flawed.

[edit on 2/5/2010 by IAmD1]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 08:39 AM
link   
I was wondering this for a long time. I finally came across it in "Anna Hayes" material.

One density = 3 dimensions (1,2,3)

There are 5 densities (5 X 3 dimensions)

The first 12 are physical like our bodies.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by true-life
 


Hi and welcome to the thread true-life. Please would you mind expanding on that theory. Which are the 5 densities that you talk about? How are they measured.? How do they tie in with the 3 dimensions? What about time as the 4th dimension?



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAmD1
Because they are using the same terms but mean totally different things by them there can not be a valid discussion between the two schools of thought and perhaps we are missing out on some great discoveries/discussions because of it?

Just me thinking out loud again now on to reading page 2 ....


I think you've got two problems it causes.

One, the science oriented guy hears someone grossly misusing the terms, and dismisses them as ignorant or deranged, when in fact the mystic/spiritual guy may actually be trying to describe something objective, just badly. Or at least in a way that makes them seem to be unhinged.

Two, the spiritual guys use the terms to mean something New Agey or Theosophic, but then not knowing that the terms are NOT the same, try to then blend in physics based things they hear or read that use the same terms. Thus do you end up with things like that HAARP thread the other day, with the mystic guys trying to conflate physics papers with the word "frequency" in, and mystic concepts also using the word "frequency", and making a total hash out of it, and thinking they'd discovered some new truth. When in fact, none of the mystic side guys actually knew what frequency meant, in the physics terminology.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by IAmD1
 


Physics doesn't use time as a dimension any more, it's more a condition of the space in which the dimensions exist.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by true-life
I was wondering this for a long time. I finally came across it in "Anna Hayes" material.

One density = 3 dimensions (1,2,3)

There are 5 densities (5 X 3 dimensions)

The first 12 are physical like our bodies.


This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. Anna Hayes has no proof of this. Density is not an appropriate term here, and a 4th spatial dimension would be all you would need to contain an infinite set of 3 spaces beneath it.

Similarly, I could claim that there are 10 planes of existence, the first is physical, the second the plane of pure forms, the third the plane of pure essences, the fourth the plane of pure energy etc, name each plane after a sephirot, put up a website with some blarney, and some of the mystic guys would flock to it as truth.

edit: this is also a beautiful example of what I was talking about, trying to conflate the physics term "dimension" with the woo definition of "density".

[edit on 2-5-2010 by Bedlam]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam
Thus do you end up with things like that HAARP thread the other day, with the mystic guys trying to conflate physics papers with the word "frequency" in, and mystic concepts also using the word "frequency", and making a total hash out of it, and thinking they'd discovered some new truth. When in fact, none of the mystic side guys actually knew what frequency meant, in the physics terminology.



Thanks again Bedlam that is another reason for starting this thread at least we are on the same page here....except my science facts are very rusty

I'm greatly enjoying your contribution to the thread =)



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam
reply to post by IAmD1
 


Physics doesn't use time as a dimension any more, it's more a condition of the space in which the dimensions exist.



Thanks for clarifying that. Are there any other conditions that the space could have? (to make it even easier to understand) Or can space only have one condition which is time?



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by IAmD1
 


Well, it can be expanding or contracting, it can be bent (by gravity, for example), in which case the rate at which time passes will vary in that space.

It can be so bent that it wraps around itself and closes, if you're in the event horizon of a singularity.

There are some physicists that think it might be possible to alter the way that light passes across a volume of space, other than by having matter in it or by bending it with gravity.

There's probably others I'm not thinking of right now - I'm off doing thermal simulations on a heat sink I'm designing so my head's in thermodynamics world. I'm popping in here during runs.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by IAmD1
 


Dimension of density:

There are three types of main density dimensions.

1. The infinite dimension
2. matter.
3. emitted energies.

All of the above have their Owen specific dimension of density.

-Finite matter (solids) only interact with the dimension of emitted energies. And other solids of course


-Emitted energies interact with both the dimension of infinity and matter.

-The infinite, house them all. But only interact with emitted energies.

All solids are created by the infinite dimension, but is not connected directly to the infinite dimension after a "Time". Because, all solids emit a dimension of emitted energies.
When a solid is made, energies are emitted so that it can become a solid. It must emit energies to be able to cool down and harden.

The order of expansion: The order of expansion is very important to understand to be able to separate the three main dimensions from each other.

PS: Did you know that water belongs to the density dimension of emitted energies?


[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAmD1

Originally posted by Bedlam
reply to post by IAmD1
 


Physics doesn't use time as a dimension any more, it's more a condition of the space in which the dimensions exist.



Thanks for clarifying that. Are there any other conditions that the space could have? (to make it even easier to understand) Or can space only have one condition which is time?


To clarify: Time is a part of our created measuring system.

We use time to measure: distance, speed and changes in what we observe. And we use what we observe to determine Time.

Time is something we have chose as a constant. To measure.

Existence have two main dimensions of time. And 2 observers.

The main dimensions of time are.

1. Emitted energies.

2. Matter. Matter change because it emits energies.

3. The observer of thee time is the infinnite. The second observer is the human.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   
the concept of both dimension and density are borne of man's perception of reality. In that sense, they mean nothing and are of no value to dwell on. You cannot change time. Einstein was wrong about many and most things.

in applied science, density describes a material's mass divided by it's volume. There are many assumptions built in, namely atmospheric pressure. in space, the calculated density of any material is of little value. The main purpose for density in history is for the money-changers, metal exchangers.

if you carefully read Plato's Allegory of a Cave, you will more clearly understand the perspective that I have.

[edit on 2-5-2010 by ibiubu]

[edit on 2-5-2010 by ibiubu]




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join