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.

 

Understanding Creation.

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
"...as perceived by an individual" is the key phrase in that statement. This doesn't declare that time is malleable. It declares the perception of time to be malleable.


The problem is, any time you try to measure time, it is going to be relative to some perception.

Even two stop watches traveling at different speeds are going to record time differently, especially the closer they get to approaching the speed of light, according to Einstein. And actually this has been verified through a number of experiments, if you care to look it up. This is "mainstream" physics you are arguing with. So you can not have one universal system where time is constant unless you have one universal individual perspective.


In fact, there is overwhelming evidence - and all around us - that time is a universal constant.


Well I'm going to leave you to argue this with yourself because Einstein's general relativity flies right in this face of this statement of yours, and there are sure to be plenty of people who would love to explain this to you more than I care to.



Then you get to things like entanglement, which demonstrate an exchange of "information" or whatever you'd like to call it, that appears, from the best measurements so far, to occur at least 10,000x the speed of light, if not instantly...


I see. 10,000x the speed of light...... And this is measured...how?


If you actually want to take the time then you would read the article provided, which was reported by many, many different sources. It comes from actual experimental data gathered in a lab experiment. From what I can see you are "in a mood" to pick an argument but not in any mood to actually learn anything so again, I'll let you figure this out on your own.


We should probably just agree to disagree.


Make sure you point out that you also disagree with Einstein's theories as well as the most recent scientific measurements of entanglement's action.
edit on 8-6-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 


The God in everything is fragmented because our perception of God is fragmented. Maybe.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


First off, time can only be measured on a cosmic scale relative to your position of observation.

Einstein was an idiot. The information that is ever so popular to talk about is self contained. This means that if you have 1 bit of information, all of the information that you have is relative to that.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


God isn't fragmented because everything is exactly the same thing. Creation is awareness of self. By becoming more aware of your self, you inherenitly become more creative. Try it, become more aware of your throughs, become more aware of what you think of as the truth, become more involved with whats happening right in front of you rather then whats happening in the future or the past. Become more aware of everything, from your vision, to your entire body on a celular level, see what kind of creative force you become. When you breath, feel every cell inside of whatever it is sitting next to you, breath with you.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by onequestion
First off, time can only be measured on a cosmic scale relative to your position of observation.


I agree with that.


Einstein was an idiot. The information that is ever so popular to talk about is self contained. This means that if you have 1 bit of information, all of the information that you have is relative to that.


I don't agree with everything Einstein postulated, but his general relativity theory agrees with your first sentence, as quoted above. Either way there is no evidence that time is constant unless the observers (or observing machines) are in the exact same place, traveling at the exact same speed in the exact same direction, etc. The differences may be trivial until you approach extreme conditions, but going out into the depths of space, the relative velocities of the Earth and various other systems could easily become extremely different.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Its because nothing is actually moving.

Try this experiment, and its really easy.

Imagine all of the empty space in the universe collapsing, bringing all of the matter in space to the same location, completely connected. Now imagine all of those same pieces of matter existing within the same space. This is the reality of what you are. When you were born into your world, all of the matter spread apart into an observable format so that you could turn it into your version of heaven, or shambala, or whatever you want to call it.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by onequestion
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Do you remember being a baby? When was your first memory? Where did that memory come from and how did it get there?


That's perception. As information, it's not even fact. All perception is good for is establishing Identity.

Therefore, your analogy fails.

You exist as a physical manifestation, and whether you agree to that fact or not, it's still a fact. Since you are a physical manifestation, the obvious implication is that physical existence is not a myth of perception. In fact, in order to impact what exists as either perceived or as real, the active affecting agent must share physical state with what it is affecting. So, if you are a bit of god, and affecting other bits of god, then there is a shared physical state that is allowing you to achieve that effect. The direct implication is that regardless of what you believe to be true, you exist as physical, and with that established, your premise that you are god requires that god is physical, and that requires that your god have a physical genesis of some sort.

In fact, your premise works off the concept of required contextual juxtaposition as being the impetus for this god thing's self-fragmentation. So, tacitly, you're agreeing with what I'm stating here that this god serves the existential requirements of a physical state of being in its effort to experience relative context, and does not dominate them. The direct implication of your admission is that your god is not the whole of all that is - and beyond the confines of raw existential imperatives and requirements. That established, the requirement for share physical state - in this god's effort to experience relative juxtaposition with itself (even if only in an artificial sense of true contextual juxtaposition) - will necessarily be primordial, and certainly not something that this god of your can sidestep.

Then, you have to deal with the fact that the being state (relative versus absolute) is so foundational to the existential identity of whatever it is that exists, that no matter what it is it can't switch from relative (physical) to absolute (conceptual) at will, regardless of what the bible claims. Sure, it's easy to claim that this god thingy can do this, but even that god of yours knows better than to think it can. Hell, if what you say is true, then the damn thing literally exploded itself just to experience contextual juxtaposition. That doesn't sound like something that can command the existential state of being. Not if it has to fragment itself just to experience relative association.

There are a ton of other issues with your premise, but this is the one that is the easiest to detail. It's the buzzsaw in the doorway, and good luck getting through it without just tossing out the faith canard and bailing on the issue altogether.


Your ignoring the possibility of intelligent energy. I'm sure you would agree energy behaves strangely particularly at a sub atomic level. Also if you consider this universe in which physical matter, as we know it, is a relatively small percentage of the total mass and then combine that with the idea that there may be multiple universes, it seems to me there is scope for the idea that god exploded part of itself.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 03:14 AM
link   
I get a great laugh from those who flex their mental muscles and apply the process of logical argument to attempt a debunk of something that presently can only be experienced as a bigger-picture reality on an individual basis.

The sceptics cannot see the limitation of such argument because they as yet have no point of reference... other than that learned by rote. Which is to say they come from a limited perceptional background to begin with, hence the use of such argument to over-ride the offering of those who may have direct experience of their own.

Perhaps when science matures a little bit more from it's current state of just starting to crawl before it can walk, then perhaps these logical argumentists may finally see the inherent limitations of their own Beliefs... and thus all Indoctrinated Belief.

Until then they will continue to fail in gaining any understanding outside of their own Limitations.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 04:06 AM
link   
So what I am getting from this entire thread is that I created all of you, control all of you and therefore I create all of this. Everything you do, I control and command. Lil ole me....imagine that.

GO ME!

You are all welcome by the way. With out me.......aww you get it..



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by AusiAnarchist

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by onequestion
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Do you remember being a baby? When was your first memory? Where did that memory come from and how did it get there?


That's perception. As information, it's not even fact. All perception is good for is establishing Identity.

Therefore, your analogy fails.

You exist as a physical manifestation, and whether you agree to that fact or not, it's still a fact. Since you are a physical manifestation, the obvious implication is that physical existence is not a myth of perception. In fact, in order to impact what exists as either perceived or as real, the active affecting agent must share physical state with what it is affecting. So, if you are a bit of god, and affecting other bits of god, then there is a shared physical state that is allowing you to achieve that effect. The direct implication is that regardless of what you believe to be true, you exist as physical, and with that established, your premise that you are god requires that god is physical, and that requires that your god have a physical genesis of some sort.

In fact, your premise works off the concept of required contextual juxtaposition as being the impetus for this god thing's self-fragmentation. So, tacitly, you're agreeing with what I'm stating here that this god serves the existential requirements of a physical state of being in its effort to experience relative context, and does not dominate them. The direct implication of your admission is that your god is not the whole of all that is - and beyond the confines of raw existential imperatives and requirements. That established, the requirement for share physical state - in this god's effort to experience relative juxtaposition with itself (even if only in an artificial sense of true contextual juxtaposition) - will necessarily be primordial, and certainly not something that this god of your can sidestep.

Then, you have to deal with the fact that the being state (relative versus absolute) is so foundational to the existential identity of whatever it is that exists, that no matter what it is it can't switch from relative (physical) to absolute (conceptual) at will, regardless of what the bible claims. Sure, it's easy to claim that this god thingy can do this, but even that god of yours knows better than to think it can. Hell, if what you say is true, then the damn thing literally exploded itself just to experience contextual juxtaposition. That doesn't sound like something that can command the existential state of being. Not if it has to fragment itself just to experience relative association.

There are a ton of other issues with your premise, but this is the one that is the easiest to detail. It's the buzzsaw in the doorway, and good luck getting through it without just tossing out the faith canard and bailing on the issue altogether.


Your ignoring the possibility of intelligent energy. I'm sure you would agree energy behaves strangely particularly at a sub atomic level.


I embrace the existence of "intelligent energy". In fact, I'm creating an ongoing event trajectory that consists of "intelligent energy" as I answer your post. You're also adding to your own ongoing event trajectory of "intelligent energy" as you read my answer to your post. We call this "intelligent energy" Intellect, and it's dynamic, impactful, and even determinative within this contextual environment to varying degrees. It does have its limitations, however, in spite of the assertions of some quantum theorists.

Then again, what quantum theorists focus on is dynamic activity (clashing, competing and complimenting matrixed event trajectories) at a level where precious little is layered one-to-the-next in contextual precedence; resulting in relatively wide latitude for trajectory potentials (unlike the densely packed realm that has built up around the general regions that we consciously make our way through as existential epitome event expressions. Similar to a spider web, if one's size can be reduced enough, the open spaces between the web's strings become entire universes in their own right, and the web ceases to be a trap anymore.

What exists at all levels is the impact of contextual precedence, in the form of determinative residual instructions (facts) that have emerged on the heels of previous successful (and unsuccessful) event trajectories with the contextual environment (which contains all associated universes, dimensions, and physical realms - informational (or spiritual, for traditionalists) and corporeal (event-centric) - that share the same unifying Unit Rate of Change (URC) event emergence "common clock"). Information is the only form of permanent existence, and its residual version (the fact) gathers in unit clusters to establish what we call reality (what is, as opposed to what isn't) as a direct result of what happens (emerges as events, both linear and structurally redundant - or matrixed) within a shared URC. This informational structure doesn't ever cease to exist, but it does adjust to new additions - amplifying and mitigating contextual predominance's as it does so.

At the quantum level, the "open spaces" are comparatively larger, since the layered associations within the event matrix holons are much simpler, less prolonged, and as a result, less contextually determinative. Hell, one noted thinker (Deepak Chopra) has these simple event matrixes "winking in and out of existence at the rate of millions of times per second". Of course, he sees these matrixed trajectories as particles of matter, but when you get to the quantum level, it begins to appear as though matter really isn't what we've always assumed it to be. In fact, the idea that matter is actually identified event collectives (like instances of rush hour traffic) begins to make a lot of sense when you bring your focus to this very primitive level. The problem that physicists are having with the quantum level is that none of them are willing to surrender the particle's reign as the indivisible unit of physical existence. Until they do that, they'll be inventing all sorts of excuses for why nothing makes sense at the quantum level.


Also if you consider this universe in which physical matter, as we know it, is a relatively small percentage of the total mass and then combine that with the idea that there may be multiple universes, it seems to me there is scope for the idea that god exploded part of itself.


The problem with an ALL that needs to explode itself in order to experience contextual juxtaposition with itself, is that it can't be the ALL that you insist it to be if it has to explode itself in order to experience this. The very act of fragmenting itself suggests a clear deference to the physical requirements of the relative being state. This clashes with the assertion that this ALL is really all that ALL. Anything that is physical can fragment itself (or become fragmented), but if it does, then it's not "All there is". In fact, to be capable of physical fragmentation, it must exist as physical to begin with, and if it is physical, then it can't have always existed without physical genesis. Physical existence is emergent, and only in the imagination of humanity is this requirement negotiable.

Also, there's the issue of environment when dealing with anything that can exist as relative to anything else - even if it only exists as relative to chunks of its own self. When one relative thing is placed next to another relative thing, a contextual environment is created that contains, and confines, both relative things. They can't exist as relative to one another without that environment that contains, and therefore dominates, them. In this exploding god concept, the god in question could never have been the ALL, since it would've had to create something greater than itself to explode itself within, and if this god is the ALL, then that would be logically, and literally, impossible for it to do. The classic "Can God create a rock too big for Him to lift?" paradox comes to mind.

And like I told another guy in another thread (I think it was a different thread) the assertion that this god is everything, and that it needed to explode itself to experience the relative state of being, suggests that it's not everything, and never was everything. After all, the relative state of being definitely exists as something, and must have existed as something beforehand, or this "everything" god would not have gone and blown itself to trillions of bits in order to experience it. Maybe it's not as obvious to you as it would be if you were just now walking in on this notion, but from where I sit, the contradictions are overwhelming.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tayesin
I get a great laugh from those who flex their mental muscles and apply the process of logical argument to attempt a debunk of something that presently can only be experienced as a bigger-picture reality on an individual basis.

The sceptics cannot see the limitation of such argument because they as yet have no point of reference... other than that learned by rote. Which is to say they come from a limited perceptional background to begin with, hence the use of such argument to over-ride the offering of those who may have direct experience of their own.

Perhaps when science matures a little bit more from it's current state of just starting to crawl before it can walk, then perhaps these logical argumentists may finally see the inherent limitations of their own Beliefs... and thus all Indoctrinated Belief.

Until then they will continue to fail in gaining any understanding outside of their own Limitations.


And in the event of schizophrenia, experience is pretty direct for the one experiencing what he/she is experiencing. Yet, would you argue that reality should be reconsidered as a result of this individual's big-picture reality? Or are you suggesting that reality doesn't exist beyond the perception of the perceiver? And if that's true, then why do you pay your bills each month? As a bootcamp lesson in personal responsibility?

I don't know.

You guys make some grand statements about how progressed your point of perspective is - as opposed to the rut-level perspective that someone like me has - but when it comes to actually detailing any of what you've learned, all I've ever seen is links to one site or another where some guru on a pillow is playing phrase scrambles with the freshmen philosophy students that have taken their sophomore year off to sit at his feet and get enlightened. Their phrases make no sense when set next to one another, and certainly not when one compares them with what can be directly experienced by simply stretching out one's hand into the world that presses in from all directions.

And I know that it's because I'm "not enlightened" and because my ego is still alive (whatever that means), that I can't see the obvious truth here. Then again, that's pretty much the sort of thing a schizophrenic would tell me in defense of his/her delusions, so what am I supposed to do? Believe you people or my lying eyes, ears, nose, mouth, touch, and rational capacity for comparative logic?

There are only two choices. Either something is real or it's not real. This includes the veracity of concepts as well as everything else. And as far as determining what's real by experience alone, the human mind is the only free thing that exists. It sits at the very top of the entire existential structure, and the only thing it can't insist upon is the true nature of the structure that supports it and brings it into existence. Even God itself depends on the unrestrained madness of the human mind for comparative clarity and the novelty that its priceless perspective brings to what would otherwise be an extremely predictable forever. That said, only the human mind would ever look to itself as the arbiter of truth. Everything else knows better.

Everything has its value, and the human mind is no exception. That value is not its ability to determine what's real, but then it's the only thing in existence that can invent its own version of reality. That unrestrained freedom of interpretation is its gift to creation.
edit on 6/9/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 

Hi NorEaster,

I had to put my serious glasses on and take my time to read your reply, which I thank you for. The depth of your perspective is refreshing, and I have to kick my old brain into gear to offer anything remotely suitable.

Your first question on Shizophrenia is something I've thought about often. At that time, and only to them, they are experiencing a different reality to the consensus. But I would not say we should adjust our bigger picture understanding because of their limited experience, limited to themselves I mean.

I don't think the person suffering schizophrenia has any direct control over their experience, particularly if they could be considered at the more extreme end of the spectrum for this disorder.

Contrast this with a person who at will easily moves into what is poorly termed the astral layers (of awareness) and can report precise details equally as well as those who get OOBE in emergency rooms have been able to.

The difference is quite obvious I would think.

Nor would I think reality ceases to exist without an observer. I only base this on my experiences. The only reason I trust my experiences is because of the nature of the a priori information (for want of a better way to say it) obtained over these many years that has been borne out in consensus reality. I do not for one minute think that pre-knowing then causes me to create it in the consensus. I do think it is possibility and probability only when I receive it and then wait for it to become "real".

And I would never think I am so powerful as to create the reality of all other observers, as is often thought in the new-age Industry among others.

So I think reality is what exists, as most people do, although I think what exists does so on multiple levels that are far larger than the small portion we are privvy to at any one time in our day to day human awareness. Much like we can only sense this material experience with limited abilities... as you mentioned, and beyond that is a far larger spectrum again. And so for me what exists continues into larger and larger pictures of reality, while we exist in only limited aspects of thos levels. And with a little practice anyone can directly experience those larger pictures at will.

We pay our bills because this is the physical reality we souls chose to have the experience of. Strangely enough that is also why some do not pay their bills.

I can understand your frustration with what must appear to be symptoms of new-age ferver. It's okay too, I often feel that way. I do not support Teachers of any form, I much prefer teachers. The difference between the two is immense.



Their phrases make no sense when set next to one another, and certainly not when one compares them with what can be directly experienced by simply stretching out one's hand into the world that presses in from all directions.


You express yourself beautifully... I feel honoured to to read your thoughts.

Neither can we compare the guru's offerings with the simplest means for experiencing directly the world's the guru only hints at. Even moreso can we not compare experiencing those levels of awareness and then balancing the Knowing Awareness that comes from it within the physical experience.. to make it "real", so to speak.



And I know that it's because I'm "not enlightened" and because my ego is still alive (whatever that means), that I can't see the obvious truth here. Then again, that's pretty much the sort of thing a schizophrenic would tell me in defense of his/her delusions, so what am I supposed to do? Believe you people or my lying eyes, ears, nose, mouth, touch, and rational capacity for comparative logic?


Don't let any other people's Beliefs, Dogmas, Interpretations, Insistences and indoctrinations cause you to doubt yourself. You know already you have clear percpetion of many things most people don't. It is not the case that you are not enlightened, or that ego has any seriously negative impact to your ability.. both of those concepts are only limitations of other Belief-systems.

All that prevents you from experiencing the "higher-self" and bigger picture reality is... what You Believe about yourself and everything else. Sound crazy I know, but to experience what does exist you have to drop all concepts, all beliefs, all expectations, all thoughts about it all so that you do not limit possible experiences.

The mind , as you know, is a tool. One that is most often under employed, and underestimated. One that can be self-creating if it's "operator" does not exercise self mastery, does not have "control" of focus and the energy inherent in it. And here we find something of importance... while we use Focused awareness to instigate bigger picture reality experience, we also reach a plateau where we must let go of the control to allow it to be what it will be for us.

And even though we let go having control with our focused intent, we are still able to monitor our "input" into the fledgling experience as it begins to open to us. The simplest key here is Feel.. not feelings.. but a learned understanding of the energy drain we feel when we are creating the experience via mind input. When we let go of thoughts and control then the experience opens itself.. and we play the role of Vigilant Observer. Observing what is, while also monitoring our energy "flow" to prevent any "falsehood" in the experience.



There are only two choices. Either something is real or it's not real.


You know this is not so. An electron may jump state and disappear from observation only to reappear later. That electron is real, then it is not, then it is real again. And yet it cannot be "not real" when it is unable to be observed in it's higher (or next bigger picture) state of existence.

I think we need to consider all aspects of existence, all levels of the awareness stream within it as a spectrum. (Must be my word for the day) I cannot see things as black and white, yet I can sense a million variations, many interplays of the two within the spectrum.



And as far as determining what's real by experience alone, the human mind is the only free thing that exists. It sits at the very top of the entire existential structure, and the only thing it can't insist upon is the true nature of the structure that supports it and brings it into existence.


If experiences can be replicated at will using only Focused Intent while being vigilant on our input then the mind remains only a tool. If we consider the Brain as a neck-top bio-computer then we could consider the Mind to be the software running on it, and the Experiencer as the User operating the System.

I also think that it is very simple to deduce from valid, replicated at will experience how the experiencer, the mind, and the brain came into existence. To me it is self evident, although that is based solely on my own experiences. I see that it is our universe, the bubbleverse we exist in that is the source awareness and that it diversifies itself into everything in existence within it. Thus everything is one, and varied only in it's concentration and "current format".

It's been said that we are energetic probes created by the universe, and that as possesors of awareness we are the means by which it comes to know itself. And this is exactly my experience of our Bubbleverse.

May I say you made me work hard for the first time in a few years, and I thank you for the push.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by onequestion
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Its because nothing is actually moving.

Try this experiment, and its really easy.

Imagine all of the empty space in the universe collapsing, bringing all of the matter in space to the same location, completely connected. Now imagine all of those same pieces of matter existing within the same space. This is the reality of what you are. When you were born into your world, all of the matter spread apart into an observable format so that you could turn it into your version of heaven, or shambala, or whatever you want to call it.


Brilliant. Space isn't real and neither is time.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATC_GOD
So what I am getting from this entire thread is that I created all of you, control all of you and therefore I create all of this. Everything you do, I control and command. Lil ole me....imagine that.

GO ME!

You are all welcome by the way. With out me.......aww you get it..


Well yes. But also you created your 3d self. So the question is, can your 3d self control everyone? Remember, your 3d self is apparently separate from your 4d self. Your 4d self is that which created everyone, and everyone is your 4d self is my 4d self.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


You're a very smart person I can tell. But what I'm seeing now is that the God we most often refer to is our 4th dimensional self (higher self). Our higher self that is ONE has created this universe from start to finish. It creates everything simultaneously outside of time and space.

Perhaps there are other beings on our higher self's level, but for that to be possible, each higher self would have to be assigned to it's own universe. In the 5th dimension, those 4d higher selves have their one higher self. In the 5th dimension, all 4d is one. In the 6th dimension, the 5th dimensional overlords become one 6th dimensional being. My mind is about to explode, so for the sake of ancient texts teachings, I'm going to presume the 7th dimension would be the realm of God and you can't go higher than that.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 



All of this reality is experienced through the mind. The mind is the only absolute in the physical world. You can string together as many words as you would like to try and explain one simple thing.

Reality is directly interfaced through your mind, reality is a construct of the mind. This is what your quantum physics is working so hard to eventually explain.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


There is no 4th dimensional self. This is snake oil peddled by misguided minds. The only dimension that exists is self. You either already are, or you already aren't. There is no going to be, or was.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Tayesin
 


Delete.
edit on 9-6-2011 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by onequestion
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


There is no 4th dimensional self. This is snake oil peddled by misguided minds. The only dimension that exists is self. You either already are, or you already aren't. There is no going to be, or was.



I'm talking about physical dimensions. There is obviously length width and height that come together to make 3 dimensions. I agree. There is only self, but I am not you from a 3d perspective, I am you from a 4d perspective. Each dimension is an aspect of Self.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb
I'm talking about physical dimensions. There is obviously length width and height that come together to make 3 dimensions. I agree. There is only self, but I am not you from a 3d perspective, I am you from a 4d perspective. Each dimension is an aspect of Self.


A dimension is the range of data in anything measured. Temperature is a dimension. Color gradient is a dimension. There is no "The Fourth Dimension".

So exactly which dimension are you referring to with you claim to be "from a 4D perspective"?



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join