Density and Dimension : What are they?

I'm an old school Western Ceremonial Magick / Enochian metaphysics type with a strong background in Electrical engineering and software engineering. I have heard and read these terms; "Density" and "Dimension" for some years, but, I still don't understand the terms in the context of "new age metaphysics". I have studied metaphysics, quantum physics, relativistic physics, and other sciences; so I like to think I have a rather good grasp on reality.

So, could some kind person please explain these two ideas; "Density", and "Dimension" in terms that actually relate to either modern science, or Hermetic Science.

93

reply to post by tanka418


Space is a viewpoint of dimension. I don't know what the terms mean in "current" metaphysics - they lost me when crystals and such nonsense began taking off.

reply to post by tanka418

Here is what I understand for "Density"... though the analogy is rough.

The cells of your body live "one density down" from yourself. Their "awareness" is as an "individual" in a massive community. We ourselves, are individuals in a massive community, but have no capacity to really see or appreciate from our typical vantage the life of the much larger entity we are a part of.

The "lower" you go, the more "dense" it gets. There are 7 billion "individual beings" (people) packed into the space of a single planet. There are trillions of "individual beings" (cells) packed into a single person.

It is "sorta" viable for us to communicate downward to speak the language of cells, but no cell will be capable of inherently and of its own volition communicating upward in our language. At least that I know of!

Thus when "Ra" is speaking to us... our words back are the equivalent of a cell releasing some chemical when we submerse it in a solution. We "understand it" and it "understood us"... but it will never understand the conversation we have with the assistant next to us (or even be "aware" of it)... and we can't really understand what it's like to "be" the cell.

reply to post by BardingTheBard

When you're talking cell awareness you have to take into account all the individual lives within a single cell. It's made up of many many lifeforms. Mitochondria are my favorite, they latched onto us and have helped humans since our inception.

reply to post by Aleister

Absolutely agreed. They would be an additional density down colony of "individuals". Then there are the molecules. Then the atoms. Then the subatomics, etc.

Upwards we have planets, solar systems, galaxies, etc... though I would assume the actual "higher" densities would be made up of things we aren't even detecting yet... at least scientifically. Or don't recognize them for what they are.

It also relates to the rate of motion. We move VERY slowly compared to the "life" of our cells, just as the levels above us seem to be "relatively stable" simply because we don't live long enough to appreciate the full movement.

reply to post by tanka418


Density and Dimension are basically the same thing.

""
I still don't understand the terms in the context of "new age metaphysics".

""

The same applies to the certainly often used term "vibration" - to be honest I have read many otherwise good books etc. but anytime I read "vibration" I feel like I want to throw up.

I think a LARGE number of publications/theories/people use all those terms loosely and that most (not all) have no ideas what they really say or why they use those terms. It's meaningsless, I call it, "empty word shells".

But for the more educated, serious ones... "density" may well mean what it is..."density of matter". For example, an astral body or a soul cannot interact with physical matter. The soul has less "density".
(?????)

"Dimension" is also so overused....but for me it could mean a different state of consciousness == different reality == different dimension. We could argue that souls or astral bodies are existing in another "dimension"...a reality parallel to ours, possibly/likely with different density.

ANYWAY...I am getting more hesitant and wary about when all those terms are used...for example if I hear a theory when someone uses "vibration" over and over I'd very like to know WHAT is supposed to vibrate. I am pretty confident that 80% of those using the terms would not (be able to) give an answer.

reply to post by NoRulesAllowed


I suspect it will become clearer as science brings the universe into sharper focus, so to speak.

I think the terms 'vibration', 'density' and 'dimension' are sometimes used in ways that suggest the user may not really be familiar with what they are trying to say. For 'vibration' and 'density', think about the difference between a guitar string that has just been struck and a guitar string that is still. One vibrates. The other appears more dense. The guitar string that vibrates is in more than one place at the same time. I think the metaphysical suggestion is that all matter can behave as the guitar string does. Not sure if my analogy will make sense to anyone else. Maybe not. That's just how it (sort of) makes sense to me.

reply to post by tanka418


1 will share the subjective understanding of the words in relation to Ascension.

density

The density of a substance is its mass per unit volume. The symbol most often used for density is ρ (the lower case Greek letter rho). Mathematically, density is defined as mass divided by volume:[1]
\rho = \frac[m][V],
where ρ is the density, m is the mass, and V is the volume. In some cases (for instance, in the United States oil and gas industry), density is loosely defined as its weight per unit volume,[2] although this is scientifically inaccurate – this quantity is more properly called specific weight.

Different materials usually have different densities, and density may be relevant to buoyancy, purity and packaging. Osmium and iridium are the densest known elements at standard conditions for temperature and pressure but certain chemical compounds may be denser.

To simplify comparisons of density across different systems of units, it is sometimes replaced by the dimensionless quantity "specific gravity" or "relative density", i.e. the ratio of the density of the material to that of a standard material, usually water. Thus a specific gravity less than one means that the substance floats in water.

The density of a material varies with temperature and pressure. This variation is typically small for solids and liquids but much greater for gases. Increasing the pressure on an object decreases the volume of the object and thus increases its density. Increasing the temperature of a substance (with a few exceptions) decreases its density by increasing its volume. In most materials, heating the bottom of a fluid results in convection of the heat from the bottom to the top, due to the decrease in the density of the heated fluid. This causes it to rise relative to more dense unheated material.

The reciprocal of the density of a substance is occasionally called its specific volume, a term sometimes used in thermodynamics. Density is an intensive property in that increasing the amount of a substance does not increase its density; rather it increases its mass.

en.wikipedia.org...

In relation to Ascension...

It is the basic output -/+ energy associated with the Soul/Spirit/Internal Energy of a CREATOR Creation. The more positive or negative activities done and associated with said CREATOR Creations generates the Density. A density related to Higher Ascension or Lower Ascension...
The LAWS of ATTRACTION if applied would allow Ascension both a Higher & Lower into (inhabited) Dimensions/Realms where the Soul/Spirit/Internal Energy gravitated or pulled some to.

This is why some said to be (Service To Others STO) or (Service To Self STS)
LIGHT Workers as well as OTHERS un-mentioned, Guide or place tempting test in the paths of some less mature or unAWARE Soul/Spirit/Internal Energies in order to assist or not in uplifting somes Density/Frequency/Vibrations to ensure Higher Ascension as opposed to a Lower Ascension.

dimension

In physics and mathematics, the dimension of a space or object is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it.[1][2] Thus a line has a dimension of one because only one coordinate is needed to specify a point on it (for example, the point at 5 on a number line). A surface such as a plane or the surface of a cylinder or sphere has a dimension of two because two coordinates are needed to specify a point on it (for example, to locate a point on the surface of a sphere you need both its latitude and its longitude). The inside of a cube, a cylinder or a sphere is three-dimensional because three coordinates are needed to locate a point within these spaces.

In physical terms, dimension refers to the constituent structure of all space (cf. volume) and its position in time (perceived as a scalar dimension along the t-axis), as well as the spatial constitution of objects within—structures that correlate with both particle and field conceptions, interact according to relative properties of mass—and are fundamentally mathematical in description. These, or other axes, may be referenced to uniquely identify a point or structure in its attitude and relationship to other objects and occurrences. Physical theories that incorporate time, such as general relativity, are said to work in 4-dimensional "spacetime", (defined as a Minkowski space). Modern theories tend to be "higher-dimensional" including quantum field and string theories. The state-space of quantum mechanics is an infinite-dimensional function space.

The concept of dimension is not restricted to physical objects. High-dimensional spaces occur in mathematics and the sciences for many reasons, frequently as configuration spaces such as in Lagrangian or Hamiltonian mechanics; these are abstract spaces, independent of the physical space we live in.

In relation to Ascension/Existence...

To 1 subjectively speaking, Dimensions of the metaphysical and physical-paranormal exist.
These dimensions are locations that can or have been inhabited by Various CREATOR Creations, in various Environment suit forms.
Environment suit forms meaning, the dimension inhabiting CREATOR Creations may be flesh like Soul like/ both or plasma-Star like if not in any interpreted form at all. And in these dimensions these beings exist like beings of EA*RTH.
There is also potential advancement associated with Ascending beyond a dimension into yet another Higher or Lower dimension hmm perhaps associated with the LAWS of ATTRACT and Density acquired with activities demonstrated amongst others.
And so LOVE or Hate to locate your next Ascension UP or DOWN...

This again is all speculative to 1 subjective understandings tanka418

NAMASTE*******

Density means the amount of something per unit area or volume. Nothing else.

For example, the density of pure water at STP is 1 gram per milliliter. Any other use of the term "density" is an intentional misnomer attempting to make the topic sound "sciency". As, for example, its use by New Agers. The same way they misuse "vibration", "field", "energy" and whatnot. This continues a long tradition that began back with Theosophy and Blavatsky.

Bedlam
Any other use of the term "density" is an intentional misnomer attempting to make the topic sound "sciency". As, for example, its use by New Agers. The same way they misuse "vibration", "field", "energy" and whatnot.

Scientists co-opt existing words to describe something which is "similar" but we don't have an existing word for all the time. The choices usually revolve around concepts which have a semantically useful relationship.

"Super strings" aren't *really* strings. Black Holes and White Dwarfs aren't actually holes or dwarfs. Quarks aren't charming. Well I guess charm is in the eye of the beholder. A computer virus and a biological virus are not remotely the same things except in loose behavior relationships.

If "new agers" tried to make up their own words people would make fun of them for that and it would be even more confusing.

BardingTheBard

If "new agers" tried to make up their own words people would make fun of them for that and it would be even more confusing.

Science doesn't then try to relate the misused term back to its original meaning, though. You don't expect to determine how to actually entice someone by the use of the charm of a quark, for example.

On the other hand, new agers actually try this on a regular basis. As proof, look at any ATS thread dealing with one of these terms. I especially like the ones where they try to relate the theosophic use of 'energy' to some physics equation, generally you see this in threads where someone says "Physics PROOF!!!! that the soul does not DIE!!!11!" and then they try to relate "energy" to the first law of thermodynamics.

reply to post by Bedlam

Armchair or eager/attempting to learn forum physicists do the same thing.

There is a difference between taking those who are dabbling and fumbling in one field and holding them to the standards of the professionals in another. The lower dregs on physics boards are full of the same stuff. It's brutal trying to work through some of the things armchair chemists and physicists come up with.

That's *people*. All fields have people who mix up concepts, terms, etc.

That said, we're always most surprised by what we didn't know we didn't know but thought we knew. Best to you.

BardingTheBard
That's *people*. All fields have people who mix up concepts, terms, etc.

With new agers, it's endemic. I'm not sure I've ever read a "respected" new ager from Chopra on down that doesn't try some sort of term-based syncretism to bolster their metaphysical ramblings. Even the term "metaphysics" has been co-opted, a philosopher would use the term very differently than a paranormal investigator.

That said, we're always most surprised by what we didn't know we didn't know but thought we knew.

Those can be the best surprises, when they're real. When they're not, they can be the most amusing.

reply to post by Ophiuchus 13


Thank you. That actually helped.

I would appear that "Density" is very much like the actual scientific use of the term. Except that in this case we are talking about, among other related properties, "positive Karmic density". If One has a positive "net" karma they are of higher density. Rather simplified, I'm sure.

Dimension

In my system of metaphysics there are four worlds, we all reside in the lowest world, or "Plane". The plane above us in conjunction with this plane constitute most of the "physical" world, along with what is experienced of the higher, more spiritual planes.

Each of these planes is divided into a hierarchy of ideas, thought, form, spiritual path, etc. Each "station in this hierarchy represents a "step" closer to the "purely spiritual".

So I will, at least for the time; think of these "Dimensions" as merely "stops" along the path, not unlike the sephira of the "Tree of Life".

Bedlam
Even the term "metaphysics" has been co-opted, a philosopher would use the term very differently than a paranormal investigator.

Indeed!

And, both are a wee bit different than a metaphysicist.

Bedlam
With new agers, it's endemic. I'm not sure I've ever read a "respected" new ager from Chopra on down that doesn't try some sort of term-based syncretism to bolster their metaphysical ramblings. Even the term "metaphysics" has been co-opted, a philosopher would use the term very differently than a paranormal investigator.

Have you fully explored the possibility your assumptions and belief that you know better than they is preventing you from understanding what they are communicating? That what you *think* they are saying and believe to be wrong isn't what they are actually saying?

I say this only because... well... I've held your perspectives. Then at some point, I realized I was the one who had been interpreting what they had to say incorrectly. It doesn't mean I think they are all correct, not by a long shot... no more than science is all correct either.

However there was a point where a "OHHHHH now I see what you're saying" hit and suddenly science, new age, metaphysics, religion, philosophy, ancient mythologies all snapped into place as clearly and impressively connected. Each complimenting the other, with all of them together providing a far more useful, complete, and exciting perspective which also dramatically accelerated my ability to absorb and understand all the fields.

-------

But enough about that... Let's play a game related to the OP regarding "what do these words mean".

Tell me what energy is. You made a claim that you know the appropriate places and ways of utilizing energy in formulating theories/concepts and that others are using it wrong... so that must mean you know what it is in order to be able to define the limits of its use.

You use the word energy... I would like to know what you think that word is referring to.

BardingTheBard
Have you fully explored the possibility your assumptions and belief that you know better than they is preventing you from understanding what they are communicating? That what you *think* they are saying and believe to be wrong isn't what they are actually saying?

I say this only because... well... I've held your perspectives. Then at some point, I realized I was the one who had been interpreting what they had to say incorrectly. It doesn't mean I think they are all correct, not by a long shot... no more than science is all correct either.

I looked at it, and it's a lot of wishful thinking and incorrect/untestable/unfalsifiable concepts framed in the terminology of physics. My perspective is as a user and part-time doer of physics, i.e. I'm an engineer with a masters in physics. I use this stuff every day. If you tell me you're "sending positive energy" by waving your hands around and imagining Chinese pictographs, well, that's hokum. IMHO.

...which also dramatically accelerated my ability to absorb and understand all the fields.

Hard to understand how chakras help you with Hamiltonians. They seem to be mutually exclusive, although the chakra believers would have you think they understand quantum physics. (looking at you, deepak...)

But enough about that... Let's play a game related to the OP regarding "what do these words mean".

Tell me what energy is. You made a claim that you know the appropriate places and ways of utilizing energy in formulating theories/concepts and that others are using it wrong... so that must mean you know what it is in order to be able to define the limits of its use.

That one's straightforward - energy is the capacity to perform work. You also have to use the physics definition of "work" and "capacity" here. You can have energy that can't perform work because there's no differential to perform the work against - i.e. a closed thermodynamic system looked at as an abstract. However, in such a system, there are always some sort of internal kinetics that can be measured as energy - the energy in internal photons or in some gas at a uniform temperature.

What energy is NOT, is "feelings about something" i.e. if I like something,it's sending out "positive energy" or if I don't it's "negative energy".

Bedlam
IMHO.

Bedlam
That one's straightforward - energy is the capacity to perform work. You also have to use the physics definition of "work" and "capacity" here. You can have energy that can't perform work because there's no differential to perform the work against - i.e. a closed thermodynamic system looked at as an abstract. However, in such a system, there are always some sort of internal kinetics that can be measured as energy - the energy in internal photons or in some gas at a uniform temperature.

Gotcha... and with ya.

Now... point me to some energy.

What *is* the energy. Not its behavior... but what it *is*. A dog is not a tail wag... though a dog does wag a tail.

Bedlam
What energy is NOT, is "feelings about something" i.e. if I like something,it's sending out "positive energy" or if I don't it's "negative energy".

Are you *sure* you're not doing the equivalent of a person denying x-rays or microorganisms prior to their common discovery?

Absolutely positive... no chance at all... none whatsoever... that we might be missing something with our current methods of observation?

Perhaps something about the nature of consciousness (willing to describe what that is)? Or perhaps something about the conceptual nature of the experiences of Flatlanders versus Spherelanders?