It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Interdimensional Geography

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 03:28 PM

Very interesting, must read. Explanations of interdimensional reality, this is very long with alot of information.

posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 03:48 PM
Even if it didn't have completely meaningless words in it, it would still be almost impossible to read, since the author doesn't seem to be capable of understanding paragraphs.

And that's why no one's going to read it.

posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 03:51 PM
But does the page really "say" anything? I don't want to sound mean, but it reads like a page generated by one of those nonsense writing programs. It declares "seven particles" but gives no proof for them. It just makes up a name and assumes you'll go "oh wow! Cool!"

How does this person who makes up nakes know there are seven and not four? Or sixteen? And why should we believe them about an 'energy dimension'? Energy exists within the universe and is part of it. It's not a separate thing.

By the time the writer gets down to the planets and planes, it's pretty obvious that we're dealing with someone who suddenly got an inspiration from a source that has no idea of science. And the Bermuda Triangle stuff -- I'm sorry, but even the kids wouldn't believe this.

No, it's not because we aren't highly advanced. It's because the author is frankly writing nonsense.

We see a lot of this sort of channeled stuff, where someone gets a sudden Blinding Revelation. Typically it's by someone who doesn't understand the science and gets caught up in a "wow!" moment. But the "wow" stuff just isn't true... it's like me going "wow" over a car design and channeling power systems for automobiles. And let me tell you that if I channeled a drive system for a car, you had better not try to build it or use it as anything true, because what I know about engineering could be scribbled on a single sticky note.

We need inspiration. We need truths.

But we really REALLY don't need another page of inspired gibberish that has no connection with reality or truth at all.

I know you liked the page, but I'm calling this one like I see it. Could I recommend the Dalai Lama's pages to you instead?

posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 03:53 PM

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Even if it didn't have completely meaningless words in it, it would still be almost impossible to read, since the author doesn't seem to be capable of understanding paragraphs.

And that's why no one's going to read it.

Heehee! That, too!

I did go through it to be fair, but... oy! And the blatant abuse of commas just about drove me nuts.


posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 04:20 PM
Thanks for the link, don't mind the guys cutting it down, they are probably too closed minded to think beyond CNN or their newspaper.

posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 04:57 PM
Here is in info about the site

posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 05:10 PM

The information in this base are mainly based on downchanneled information from the spacepeople, using different telepathic methods of communication.

Well, I guess that pretty much settles it!

posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 02:45 PM
i can say i myself have had alot of proofless speculatorive theories but they all lack firm proof. the way i see it i keep them in case i ever feel the need to write a novel or make a movie. im sure philip k dick and george lucas were called insane for their ideas before they channeled them to something mundanely usefull. overall tho hold nothing as absolute truth, that closes off the gates of infinity

posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 02:57 PM
For the love of Pete, didn't the "space people" tell this guy about the miraculous ENTER key!

How about a diagram man?

Interesting stuff, but pretty pie in the sky....imho.

posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 06:54 PM
I was honestly planning on reading it, until I read down and saw that every single person who posted on the board declared that it was utterly ridiculous, heard it was associated with channeling aliens, and saw that the text didn't even have an author.

Sorry. I am pretty open-minded and will give just about anything a read, but sounds like this is pure folly and not worth the time.

posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 08:30 PM

Originally posted by Yarcofin
I was honestly planning on reading it, until I read down and saw that every single person who posted on the board declared that it was utterly ridiculous, heard it was associated with channeling aliens, and saw that the text didn't even have an author.

Sorry. I am pretty open-minded and will give just about anything a read, but sounds like this is pure folly and not worth the time.

Glad to see you like to make your own choices.

And for the record everyone, I do not claim to say everything said on the site to be true nor does it actually say such things in there. On another note If anyone on here decides to not read or take serious because of what is being said from anyone eles or from grammer/spelling errors or by reading things they dont understand is a close minded person. I'm affraid to tell you guys this but us human's dont know very much, meaning there is so much unknown, face it. You cant expect anyone to learn more or gain anything thinking this way what do yall think would happen if everyone told einstein to go away because he couldn't do math very well and needed a tutor? This is a man who had to represent his theories to a mathematician, come on here people. Its funny when people in your history that you would label genius were the ones who were in fact thinking outside the box... because if they never did we still would not have known about most of the things we do know today. Think of all the ridicule people face on a daily basis, how isolated and lonley they must feel and how many people just wont think out of this type of thinking out of fear, so think how much we would know as a race if we excepted and took serious everything every single person says? I mean how hard is it to sit down with these people, anyone and go through what they may say and take it into the lab with them? In the end we would all grow wether or not if anything was found.

condemnation without experimentation is the height of ignorance

[edit on 5-8-2005 by DarkCyrus]

posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 06:33 AM
Hmm. Granted I haven't read the whole thing yet either, but so far it sounds like a rephrasing of fairly standard material. Allow me to translate.

>The term "space people" means beings coming from a different
>planet or another geographical point outside the Earth,
>in such a manner that they must traverse space.

When he says "space people" he means creatures that are real flesh and blood creatures like you and me, but who just happen to be from a different planet, or star. As oppossed to say...angels, or demons, or "spiritual" creatures that could be better described as living in a different space, as opposed to just somewhere else in this space.

>There are several beings on the Earth standing higher on the ladder
>of development than the humans.

There are however, creatures on Earth which aren't merely "space people."

>These being are on parallel planes on the Earth

This seems out of place. First all, he's jumping ahead of himself, because he hasn't described any dimensions yet. Second, it doesn't follow (in my mind) that "extra dimensional beings" would be "on earth" but confine themselves to the "parallel planes" he's speaking of...but if he doesn't mean "extra dimensional" it's add that he would say that they are higher up on the ladder. (Implying more spiritually evolved.) The phrasing is poor. When reading this sort of material, I really think it would be convenient if people would just stick to more mathematical descriptions for these things instead of mixing in phrases that were thought up by science fiction authors. "Parallel plane of earth" is just a fancy way of saying saying that:

--There are three "dimensions" plus time. You're comfortable with that. add a fifth "spatial" dimension.
--Populate that dimension on both sides with "copies" of the "three dimension plus time" universes that you're familiar with.
--(This means that there are a whole bunch of "earths" in a line along that fifth dimensional axis.) put in another way, if you think of "three dimensions plus time" as one "thing" (basically a tesseract) then this fifth dimension is really just a great big long line of those "things" next to each other, with ours just one of many, somewhere in the middle.

"Parallel plane" is science fiction-ese for "those other things."

Anyway...all of this may sound terribly complicated, but it really isn't. Ask any programmer to explain to you what an array is, and once you understand, ask him to show you a four or five dimensional array. That's all we're doing here. We're saying that "The Universe" is an array, but that it happens to be comprised of more dimensions than we happen to see, and that some of those dimensions contain "data" that is layed out in a slightly different manner.

>but the nature of these planes are
>often invisible to each other.

Well, yes. We generally only see in three dimensions.. Of course we can't see those other "planes" and they, presumably, can't usually see us.

>To see the most of the nature on Earth, one must in addition to
>the 4 dimensions of the orthodox science (height, length, width
>and time), add another 2 dimensions,

Remember I said he was jumping ahead of himself? This part should have come first. He's saying that the universe is "bigger" than our famliiar 3+time dimensions. I think modern physics says 11 dimensions. This guy only appears to be concerned with two extras, at the moment. We have the familiar names: "height" "width" "time" etc. He's just giving names to some new ones.

But, while we're here, re-read the first sentence. "To see most of the earth." Think about that. Remember I said "we can't them, and they can't see us?" But...if the universe is layed out as we're describing, the whole idea of there being a whole bunch of "Earth's" is really just our perspective, based on the fact that we can't see out of our silly little thre or four dimensional box. If you were able to perceive all of those dimensions simultaneously, you would likely perceieve "all those Earth's" as a single, five dimensional object. "Most" of the Earth is invisible to us, simply because we're only paying attention to a single one of the "planes."

>namely the energy dimension and the microidic density.

Two important things here. First, remember the "fifth" dimension I mentioned earlier? Same idea, but he's calling it an "energy" dimension. Ok. Second...notice that he's referring to one as a "dimension" but he calls the other one a "density?" This is classic new-age nomenclature. We'll get to the details in a moment, but just for now think of the "density" as only sort of being a "dimension" in the mathematical sense, but more strongly resembling a range of frequency. For have low frequency light, like red. You also have high frequency light, like blue. You might think of the range of "frequencies" as being in a line, thus constituting a "dimension." But...this one happens to function diferently, so we're going to call it "density" instead of "dimension" to make it easier to differentiate.

>Microidic density (prubunsic) means the unatomic particle the,
>microid which is the smallest particle in the universe and of
>which there are 7 main groups in our universe.

Don't worry about the names for now. The important part is the "7 main groups of the universe" part. Remember my light frequency metaphor above? Well...with visible light you have red, orange, yellow, green, blue, "indigo," and violet. That's seven different "groupings." The strange thing about light that even though the frequency may change gradually, if you look at the spectrum you'll tend to see these very obvious "groupings." If you look at the top edge of yellow, and compare it to the bottom edge of green, you'll see what appears to be a fairly rapid change...even though the actual frequency of the light isn't all that different. Within "blue" there are a whole bunch of actual number frequencies...but they all kind of look "bluish."

This "Microidic density" that he's talking about works in basically the same way. There is a range...and any point along the range might be a certain numeric "frequency" but all the same, if you look at it from the outside, there will tend to be a visible "grouping" along its length. This is what I was referring to when I said earlier that the "data in the array is layed out differently." For example...if I have a simple two dimensional table:

7 99 99 99 99
6 88 92 81 84
5 53 67 72 59
4 50 45 47 43
3 37 32 44 34
2 38 29 27 42
1 15 11 12 10

You'll look at it and instantly realize that it's not just a random bunch of numbers. There is structure. The left-most column in numbered sequentially, and each of the rows generally contain bigger numbers, correspinding with the higher row number. Numbers in the fourth row (fourth density) are generally larger than numbers in rows one through three. Etc. The universe is layed out similarly, and some dimensions contain different sort of structure than others. You can see this plainly in our perspective of "time." You'll often hear that time is a dimension, but obviously we perceive it in a very different manner than the three spatial dimenions we're familiar with. Imagien for a moment being a one-dimensional creature, sitting on the "11" and able to see only the 15 on one side of you, and the 12 on the other, and being able to move left and right along that row only. Naturally, all of the above talk of "columns and rows" would seema little odd to you, and you would have no sense of any sort of "layout" to your universe, even though it's perfectly obvious to us, being able to observe both dimensions simultaneously.

The universe works the same, and there are more dimensinos than we can perceieve, some of which carry structure.


Anyway...I could continue, but does anyone care?

My advice would be to have a physicist sit down at the ouiji board with these people and let him ask the questions. If the material is accurate, someone with a lab and a particle accelerator and so forth would probably be in a better position to make use of the information.

[edit on 6-8-2005 by LordBucket]

posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 12:40 PM
Thanks for your analysis LordBucket
And ya I agree with you I think this information would do better in a lab.

ed to remove quoting the entire, lengthy post just above this one

[edit on 6-8-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]

new topics

top topics


log in