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: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 10:56 PM
link   
Imo, since in math theory there can be infinite euclidean dimensions, i am inclined to think they do exist.

But our organic existence correlates to 3 physical dimensions & time.
My impression is that time is uniquely different from the physical dimensions which are all effectively interchangeable.

One can think our 3D experience is a kind of heaviness that does not allow us animation into 4th & all other dimensions, but perhaps more correctly the nature of all the elements of our Universe have specifications that construct a 3D experience.

ie. N required local connections creates K dimensions [perhaps including fractional variants for some N values]

If every node of a graph is required to have exactly 6 adjacencies then i think you end up with [some conformation of] a planar graph.
And if you always stay with that internal, self-referential, uniform logic then it always performs as a rigid 2D geometry. Even if in some higher dimension it may not be completely flat. It could almost be in a computer or something. You might even be able to swap two adjacent node positions but they would have to exchange a pair of adjacencies to do so.

With 3D there isn't a perfect structuring available [i don't believe]. I think 5 tetrahedrons around a shared edge comes close, but it isn't quite perfect. So there would have to be some kind of variant adjacency rule for 3D. Sort of like 16 [+1] or 16 [-1] (not sure if it is plus or minus); mostly 16 adjacencies with occasional 15s or mostly 16 adjacencies with occasional 17s.

And it could be that that imperfection is what allows slippage, animation & the passage of time. It could be that perfect [exactly 6 adjacencies] 2D Universes are frozen & incapable of allowing change & therefore time to pass.

I am pretty sure that with geometries the specifications must be distributed across the system. The differences of the specifications determine topological geometries or N-space filling/occupying geometries.
Both are self-referencing i am quite sure, at least if you are going to have a consistent geometry.
An odd thought is that some particle could come floating in from who knows where, & if it fits the specification parameters of a geometry/space/Universe it is readily incorporated. I mean there almost has to be some kind of checking system like that. I suppose it could be like an ID code, but it makes perhaps more universal sense to simply check for identical specifications for inclusion or exclusion.

Another odd thought
(getting a lot of those)
maybe the expansion of space is where lots of additional correct specification elements are being added & where space is contracting or gravity is drawing [objects] close is where somehow the elements are being damaged or altered so they are being excluded so there are less of them & less space.
Also where new elements are added, it could be things of [much?] higher dimensionality, & much higher connection specifications, where you simply cap off all the unused specifications & only use the necessary subset.
& maybe where space [gravity] is contracting is where somehow adjacency specifications are being capped [broken?] off somehow.

Of course if it all comes down to adjacency specifications and one knows how to manipulate those, virtually anything becomes possible. One can probably jump the adjacencies to something seemingly vastly far away, but the real trick is keeping at least a single [or more] 'far' node adjacency in some kind of reserve to weave into whatever local nodes/matter one wants to reweave to there. Hopefully closing up all the 'old' local adjacencies neatly as one exits here & goes to there.

but one would have to know what held the adjacency specifications & how one manipulates them.

In any event. I see no particular logical reason why we live in a 3D universe as opposed to a 2D, 4D or any other dimensional Universe. There may be organic reasons, or it could simply be a synthesis of pure but very disciplined logic.

If we can't escape our own 3D universe, we can never know what the heck may be out there. It could be anything or nothing or both.

In infinite dimensions anything not only is possible, but so probable it is certainty, but you have to know the direction [& distance?] of that particular certainty, which may be the trick.




posted on May, 3 2010 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 

A star for your excellent post. I haven't seen the historical origin of the misuse of scientific terms and concepts by mystics, cranks and crooks ever explained simply and elegantly on these forums. If you can spare the time, why not start a thread on it? The Science & Technology forum would be quite appropriate for such a thing. I promise to contribute, and help if I possibly can.

Blavatsky and her followers have done more damage to the world than is generally understood. For example, her 'friend' Henry Steel Olcott is to be blamed for the evangelical Buddhist revival that has destroyed my own country's hopes for the future since our independence from Britain, and added fuel to the fires of a generation-long civil war.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 09:02 PM
link   
the question that we are asking, if i am hearing it right, is this: if it is true that these two schools of thought are actually speaking about the same thing, how might we codify everyone's data into a single disciplined model?


is everyone okay with that as the question?

__________

my answer, then, is this.



everyone can admit that, although we can agree that things do exist (for example: the chair next to you), no one can say exactly HOW the things have come into existence, or how they are able to persist in for any extended period of "time".

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.

the three dimensions of physical reality are strongly correlated with one another. but it is possible, just POSSIBLE, that there are other intersecting dimensions that we may experience as part our reality. in order to understand these "other" dimensions, and the densitites that exist within those dimensional modes, we will now create a "metaphysical model" which will be capable of integrating all such uses of the words "density" and "dimension".

______________

when either party is speaking of density, they probably would best be referring to what is usually called "probability density".





interestingly, the most useful example of how a density function works is the simple "bell curve". this type of density function can be used to model a wide range of data that exists in our measurable reality. it is almost as though, when we draw the shape of the bell curve on a piece of paper, we can affix labels of nearly every polar dichotomy of information that we can imagine, and in so doing, explain the appearance and behaviors of the model components in question.

as examples of how such a 2-dimensional probability density function can be applied to BOTH physics AND mysticism, i will draw the functional representations of "the secret", and "the quantum wave/particle duality". as follows:








the basic model here shows how two dependent factors, Particle/Wave and Affinity/Reality, react to one another across a spectrum called "communication"; and in so doing, their interaction condenses into a single point of density at the peak of the "normal" center of the curve.

in this way, BOTH of our suspects for use of the word "density" can be reconciled and satisfied to one another. any reality is simpy a condensation from out of the nether/ether as a probability distribution density.
__________

it is most interesting to note that the density function is two dimensional in nature.





in order to speak of a structure or representation that is in less than three dimensions, and dicover just how does the 2D density function relate to the 3D density function, we must be careful to remember that the "two-dimensional" reality fragment does not have meaning inherent within itself. rather, it requires a reference point to other 2D dimensional representations.

we can say, then, that the most important aspect of any dimensional representation is that it has reference to other, similar represenations.

in the creation of 3D physical reality, the "density point of reality", as drawn at the peak of the distribution curve, is only meaningful when it intersects with at least three other similar dimensional frames (four, if you include time as a dimensional intersection). when this happens, it creates a matrix of three 2D density points, or the sum density interaction across six total dimensions.

in the creation of mystical realities, we might have other dimensional density distributions which intersect with physical 3D, but are otherwise blind to it. it is also possible for these other density functions to interact exclusively with each other in isolation from 3D reality. but in general, i would say that in order for a mystical dimension to have action within the 3D frame, it would have to intersect with the 3D matrix.



(the following is my own interpretation of the interaction of three such 2D density functions in the creation of the 3D physical universe


these three, two-dimensional frames slip past one another in a rotational pattern, the rotational movement is represented as an elongated horizontal spiral across the top of the above image. by slipping past each other in this way, they create a three-dimensional combined density reality we call the solid 3D universe, complete with einstien's field equations and including torsional effects.

the only question that remains is this: which direction are we turning (spinning)?

_________



this, i feel, is sufficient to satisfy the desires of both the mystics and the rationalists in terms of what they would like to be referring to when they use the words "dimension", and "density".


thanks,




posted on May, 3 2010 @ 09:19 PM
link   

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?


Sure, if you're talking about material density, say grams per cubic centimeter, then I can have, say, a magnetic field which will have zero material density.



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.


And there's where you jump ship. "exist in a density" is a meaningless statement.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


no, it is not. i can definitively state that you are not outside of the box enough on this one. the model above is "metaphysical".


perhaps in terms of the standard physical model, "exist in another density" is a meaningless term. but we are not talking exclusively about physics. rather, we are trying to get to the step above, or "metaphysics". and by doing so, attempting to marry both the physicists and mystics.


you are going to have to get further outside the box on this one.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by tgidkp

you are going to have to get further outside the box on this one.


Pretty much the entire thread is dedicated to "these terms have definitions which are from physics and have been arrogated to mysticism to make it more 'sciencey'". Trying to misuse "density" in this manner is a prime example.

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.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


a new term is not necessary at all. i have broken no rules in regard to application of existing terms. density is acceptable in both cases....and in both cases it essentially means the same thing. this is why it makes intuitive sense to use the same words.

you are making no attempt whatsoever to understand what i am trying here. he!!, i even drew pictures for you. and, for the record, i included the statement, "if they exist at all".


but, until standard physics can answer the following questions for me, i will keep my model just as it is. (because my model can answer these questions) these questions were asked in my above post also:

by what mechanism do things persist?

how do you account for consciousness?

__________


you have to admit that, in attempting to account for consciousness, it would be nice if we could do so using known terms and definitions? would it not?


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.





posted on May, 3 2010 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by Bedlam
by what mechanism do things persist?

how do you account for consciousness?


Why should they NOT persist? Unless, of course, they're perfect. Then you have Kiri-kin-tha's second law of metaphysics "Nothing perfect persists" to deal with.


Why do you have to ring in some undemonstrable alternate dimensions (or "densities" if you prefer) in order to account for consciousness? It may be nothing more than an emergent behavior for "brain", and there are any number of studies which indicate just that. It sounds like you're trying for an appeal to Descartian dualism.



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.


Each cat his own rat, I always say. But misusing already defined terms confuses people. Which, in the case of new age/theosophy is the intent. Why not make up more descriptive new terms? I do like "bogosity" to describe most mysticism, although I can understand it might not appeal.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam
Why should they NOT persist?



i rest my case.


you, nor anyone else, can explain from whence ANY OF THIS emerges.


you may think that i have misused the terminology. i would appreciate it if you would stop making this accusation. you might cause my argument to become lower in stature to some unwitting passer-by who will take you at your (inaccurate) word.

but i submit that it is you that is lacking proper understanding. but, of course, you are the graduate level physicist....you already have all the answers.

[edit on 3-5-2010 by tgidkp]



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by tgidkp
i rest my case.


Right, right. Let me guess - they persist because they're secretly in the 4th density, with the aliens.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


look, friend. simply because i am providing a validation of sorts for those persons who might use a term like "4th density", does not mean that i agree with them. nor would i, generally, give them enough credibility that they, themselves, know what they mean by using such a term. but again, i do think that this type of usage is intuitive and actually quite correct however abused all to hell that it may be.

i would probably never use that term, and i agree that for the most part people that do use it make themselves sound foolish.


nevertheless, i am interested in truth and discovery and in creating models of reality which are capable of accommodating a wide range of phenomenon. and having an accurate model of reality, including proper definitions of "density" and "dimension", is essential to that aim.


and, if it should happen that the "aliens from the fourth density" really and truly have some hand in the manifestation of reality, then i would be more than happy to take a look at the evidence of such.


i have my own ideas about what constitutes an extraterrestrial, and how they might fit in to reality. but that is not what this thread is about.

now, unless you have some glaring error for me to defend, we may kindly refrain from riducule as well.




[edit on 4-5-2010 by tgidkp]



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


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.

I was going to say you were spelling it wrong, so it's a good thing I checked first.

I second your proposal: henceforth, let us call a spade a spade, and that which is bogus a bogosity.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 04:12 AM
link   
reply to post by IAmD1
 



Hi, we use 11 dimensions to live in a 3d world, extrapolate this; a cube has 7 dimensions, 2 dimensions for each side and a point of origin, use this to make a cube in 3d and you need 21 dimensions. to navigate within a 3d cube use the original 7 dimensions (hyperspace) in a 6d fold space, eg: how to get from here to the moon without rocket fuel.

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.

Hence, we go FTL and bypass NASA wormhole (so crude and slow)

If you want to got FTL, then use harmonics at a quantum level, follow the harmonic spin ratio and when that has been achieved (a harmonic standing wave) in a static field you can transport anything.

Bimodal tachyons, have 3 values, "A" , "B" and "C"

HINT: use the spin light radius and diameter in a harmonic fractal spiral - time travel or "from here to the moon"

Happy hunting ; 0

HADES



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 04:23 AM
link   
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



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by FTL_Navigator
 


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.

Leave Douglas Adams out of your mumbo-jumbo, please. He was a convinced atheist and scientific materialist who spoke out against pseudoscience and New Age mysticism every chance he got.

The arch-atheist Richard Dawkins were close friends and Dawkins actually dedicated The God Delusion to Adams. Here is the dedication in full.


In Memoriam
Douglas Adams
(1952 - 2001)
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without
having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"


The quote is from Adams's own book, Last Chance to See. It captures his attitude to woo and pseudoscience perfectly.

And by the way, 9 x 6 does = 42 - so long as you calculate to base 13.

[edit on 4/5/10 by Astyanax]



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 09:02 AM
link   
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. They will persist in claiming that the mainstream science definition is the only allowable use of the word, not because they understand other usages and claim there is a better alternative, but because their narrow paradigm has lead them to not even believe that the other things the terms are used for even exist and they find offence in what they call new agers, "hijacking" their beloved terminology. The etymology or linguistic evolution is having to play "catch up" to the rapid global spiritual awakening. The context sets the meaning, if im in a physics discussion ill use that definition, but if im talking to a shaman or a lightworker about my travels to other worlds then the context implies what I mean, there isnt confusion. There is only confusion on the part of those from the narrow paradigm who see only one side of the application for the words.

Generally words come into widespread usage by a sort of popularity vote of usage which has taken place and the words chosen will stick until they get replaced with better alternatives.

Spiritual people should be free to talk about their "out of this world" experiences amoungst each other with words that are in their vocabulary, without persecution from another who, partly due to their lack of insight into such discussions, has claimed they are wrong to use such words for those things.

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. The two (metaphysics and physics) will merge on day but at the moment trying to marry the two in a single thread is virtually impossible. Youve mixed a bit of both into the OP. 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? Go to any mainstream science website for their definition and for the spiritual definition id reccomend the ra (law of one) or seth material. It is possible to see a mergence between the two applications but only after a great long deal of research.



[edit on 4-5-2010 by polarwarrior]



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Not a physicist, but aren't there at least 5 dimensions: x, y, z, time & where dark energy is (homogeneously everywhere, but at the same time nowhere in x, y & z) ?

[edit on 4-5-2010 by rhinoceros]



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Hey everyone - at this point in the discussion I would like to clarify thats my reason for starting this thread was that I wanted to brush up on my (and other readers) science understanding of the terms dimension and density - as these boards are about denying ignorance and I feel that these terms more often than not are used without a basic understanding on their original meaning. At the same time I wanted to start a discussion to see if there is a valid application of these scientific terms in spiritual discussion or if perhaps we need other terminology to accurately describe these experiences.

So Bedlam and tgidkp I thoroughly enjoy both of your contributions to the thread...please don't get caught up in arguing amongst yourselves better just prove or disprove eachothers theories and lets move on....there is a gray zone here (IMO) so let's discuss it without getting personal.


Anyone else that resort to insulting another persons opinion....how is that helping exactly? To deny ignorance we have to educate ourselves...wether we be scientifically or spiritually- adept ,both or even neither, there is alot to be learned from eachother. IMO denying ignorace does not mean exclude those that do not understand you....I believe it means try to find a way for them to understand your point so that they them selves can make an education decision in what to believe.

This is also why i want to put everything in plain language for all to understand (we have alot of second or even third language english speaker on here myslef included).

I noticed that there are some great 'new' ideas on here but I'll be the first one to put my hand up to say that some of it is way above my head. i will have to re-read a few times to see if i get what is being said. When /If i do I will ask some hopefully relevant follow-up questions. I am ready and willing to up my understanding and for me that means first of all accepting that i do not know nor do I understand everything.

Welcome to the new people and I hope we'll be able to continue thi thread way past page 4



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   

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.


I disagree with you here...I am confused but does that mean that i have not experienced or been to the 'other' planes of existence? Well you could start by asking if i have and then lets discuss the validity of your statement above.




....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 agree but if we are ever to bridge the gap between 'applied science' and 'spiritual science' (which i personally believe is entirely possible) then we need to agree on what we are talking about when we use the terms we chose apply to our experiences. Hence the reason for wanting to define the terms not just from a text book.




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.


And that is wrong because...?



... 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? ...


No I don't. I asked for the science to be defined...not only as textbook definition but also in terms of perhaps 'new' thinking on the subject...I wanted to pick the brains of the more scientifially adept to see if they could see any valid usage from a science point of view for the use of these terms in the spiritual sense. And I belive thus far there has been some interesting points made...

Why do you assume that scientist do not have spiritual experiences? And that they may not be working on defining these according to the rules of applied science? ( or am I missunderstanding you?)



I would have enjoyed your contribution much more if you actually came up with an argument and explanation as for why these terms are infact valid in a spiritual sense. And I really hope you will be back to pass on your points for or against using density and dimension when talking about spiritual realms. (Pointing to the RA material in my view is a cop out) Use your own understanding to explain how it works...

Part of the process is in being able to interact to ask questions, argue points and form new ideas together with someone not just taking some unknown unavailable persons word for it just because other people do.


So please come back and contribute =)

[edit on 4/5/2010 by IAmD1]



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   

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


Don't be defeatist....let the ones who kill kill them selves while the rest of us pursue knowledge and defies ignorance
Please continue to contribute.

BTW I had a hard time understanding your thread so i need to spend som time melting the info and I will be back with some questions i hope.




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join