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.
Originally posted by tgidkp
what we can say: perhaps the easiest thing we can say, is that:::
>>>>if a thing that exists, it has "density".
yes? can we agree, then, that a thing that is in physical existence has a density in our normal 3D reference, and that everything else....everything that is not in physical existence within 3D, does not have a density in 3D?
then, it is a simple matter of stating that things which are not of "this world", if they exist at all, exist in a density which is not of "this world". thus, they must be plotted onto a different dimensional model altogether.
Originally posted by tgidkp
you are going to have to get further outside the box on this one.
Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by Bedlam
by what mechanism do things persist?
how do you account for consciousness?
its okay if you think my long post with pictures is a waste of your time. but i will not allow you to dismiss it with a mere swipe of the hand. this model has paid many dividends to me.
Originally posted by Bedlam
Why should they NOT persist?
Originally posted by tgidkp
i rest my case.
I suggest "bogosity" instead of the way you're using "density", with our 3 space being bogosity 0, and anything extrapolated past that without some sort of proof, being much much higher on the bogosity level.
The answer to the universe was prewritten by Douglas Adams when the Earth computer said "The answer is 42". 42 dimensions to navigate within a 3d space cube.
Originally posted by polarwarrior
People who have never even been to or experienced these other planes of existance through astral travel or meditation are not qualified to claim the terminology unappropriate........There is only confusion on the part of those from the narrow paradigm who see only one side of the application for the words.
....Spiritual people should be free to talk about their "out of this world" experiences amoungst each other with words that are in their vocabulary,
I know the title of the thread was about the science of it, but come on you know how far science has to go before explaining such matters. Thats like asking about the science of god, or the science of the soul.
... What youve gone and done is take the spiritual application for a word and ask scientists to define it, see anything wrong with this picture? ...
Originally posted by FTL_Navigator
reply to post by FTL_Navigator
Just notice that this thread just got killed.
No surprises really.
Gotta love the PTB's who hate "new knowledge", and they will kill anything that teaches people about FTL and how to navigate let alone use the technology for StarTrek knowledge eg: "Beam me up Scotty", they just use Tacyhon harmonics.
HADES