In that case surely we only find three dimensions in the universe: any point can be described by three numbers. However in reality actually finding a point is tough: we seem to lack a rigid starting point (excepting of course the sun).
The lack of a starting point isn't a problem. What you take as your origin is arbitrary. ALL measurements have to be made in relation to something - up to you what something is (Your city, the Earth, the Sun, the centre of the Milky Way, the centre of some supercluster, etc. - basically whatever's most convenient). BTW Mosheh seems to have invented his own definition of "dimension". i give up.
ACTUALLY NO... i have simply made sense out of that which most take for granted.... the 3rd dimension... its. is a state of space... .. space is not expanding... if it could.. then all energy pumped into the universe... would result in expansion... but if it cannot expand.. then all applied energy would manifest within... as higher and higher levels of complex motions. i have just explained for you.. the very formation of space.. how and why. what and how time works.. and why.. in relation to space.. what dimensions are.. how they formed.. why.. and how it relates to space and time and matter... and gravity... but i havent gotten to that. i have given you the fundamentals of contemplating the qualities of the applied energy... and most clearly illustrated by the concept of Pi.... 3.14... as it is here by explained as well... clearly in relation to space... creation.. time.. everything. and you just wanna give up..? -MT
THERE are two kinds of energy.... the one we know of... is, and was the product of the 4th dimension... i.e.. all energy.. all.. is basically made of that first original thing... the fundamental particle... and it is... spatial tension... or tensioned space. imagine if you will... if you had a flat sheet of laytex.. rubber... thin.. and perfectly square.. now... if you were to pull on two opposite sides.... what happens?? the mass which is the sheet... streches.... and the whole thing... assuming it doesnt break.... will strech until the flat sqaure sheet has become a long thin line of rubber.... that is what all energy as we know it is... space which has been streched... forming spatial tension. lots of it.. side by side... formed in the 4th... due to the attempted expansion caused by the 4D two way spin i described... so now this.. tension... formed from the fabric of space itself... and all things as we know them.. result from the dimensional energizing of these fundamental lines of tension. first are photons and inductive fields.... then magnetic fields.. and perhaps pions. then a transitionary step... too forming nucleon mass as we know it... photons.. electric fields.. magnetic fields.. matter... are all versions of this fundamental stored energy.. stored as tension. the other form of energy.... was the energy applied in creation... and all i can tell you is that it had such a quality as to result in the dimensional universe we have today.. and with its many well known universal constants. and it is by the study and contemplation of these.. that we can gain insight as to the nature of that applied energy and its source. GET IT? -MT
Actually some objects are moving, such as Earth etc., so choosing them as a foundation for the relation of points in space is a bad idea because then we cannot find the exact point in space we are looking for!
Actually, no. Space doesn't come with a built in coordinate system. Positions are relative, in the sense that you have to give an objects position in relation to something else (you already know this). The same goes for speed. The speeds of objects also depends on how you fix your coordinate system. As an example, it usually makes more sense to give a car's speed in relation to a road on Earth than the centre of the Milky Way galaxy. Both measurements of the car's speed would be equally valid: you'd have no basis for claiming one of them was "better" than the other. In general, objects don't have absolute speeds. This is Galilean/Newtonian relativity (not to be confused with Einstein's theories that came much later), and it has been around for a few centuries. If it helps you absorb this, try describing how you would measure the Earth's "real" speed in space.
Mosheh, You, like so many people with a poor understanding of physics, are confused about terms that are rigourously defined and have completely unambiguous meanings to physicists and mathematicians. Energy, in physics, is a number - a quantity that you get when you apply a certain formula. Nothing more. Physicists can show that this quantity in any system doesn't change over time (the law of conservation of energy). Its not magical or mysterious - its just a property of the fundamental forces of nature. The ONLY reason physicists care about this formula and quantity they call energy is because it turns out that it doesn't change over time. This greatly simplifies certain problems. Its just a useful mathematical trick. People who don't understand this have a tendency of confusing what physicists call "energy" with other, more metaphorical refereces to energy they may have heard in poems, other people's life philosophies, etc. If they don't understand the physics definition of energy, they are likely to just assume all these "energies" are one and the same thing, or at least related to one another. Here's an example: This is something the magician and spoon-bender Uri Geller once said in an interview, and his conclusion is wrong (aside from a misquotation of Einstein). He's allowed to talk about "life energy" if he wants. He's allowed to believe in life after death if he wants. He can NOT conclude that the law of conservation of energy applies to what he's called "life energy" because this "life energy" has nothing to do with the quantity "energy" in physics that the conservation law covers.
first of all... i didnt write that quote about spirits.... and what you do not understand is.. i have studied all the classic physics.. and while your arguements may be valid... they do not apply to the theoritician... who job it is to see things more clearly... you may not have the freedom of mind to think outside the box... but i do. and my proposals do not violate anything... it is you who simply does not understand what i am saying... and clearly... it is because you have biased acceptance of things you have been taught.... -MT
hmmm gettin down to earthy i'm sure you know theone ofthe flat 2D plane, be it a picture, etc. then an actual 3D sphere is pssed tru it. for any 2 eye on that plane would see a series of circles which range consequtively from small circle seeming to appreear from nowhere to large circle to small and then disappearing agin. when actually it is a sphere so question: how do we relate to our '3D' reality--tat we have been indoctrinated in when a 4D 'object' appears? i think ofreports from the paraphychological fields and UFO ET fields , where people claim to see objects appear, disappear, change shape. and seem to be both material and 'spirit'/consciousness......and let us very much keep in mind that many people actually do also report a change in their consciousness in relation to the event so if it is know for the latter mind experimnt that the actuality is a sphere. being speculative, what wouod you say is going on with events where seemingly SOLID 'things' happen in our '3D' space?
ohhh myyyy gaaaawwwwwwd. whys none interested In this.....?? incredible. we see here reams and reams pages andpages of same old same old literalist crap, ie., 'why does god allow hate?' for the zillionth time. yet this and othe threds worth teir mint get ignored? is it cuse many love the safe zone and dont want to have to think? anyway i will carry on.....i am wondering what it mans to actually experience dimensions which are deepr than the 3D we are all indoctrinated in. why do i claim tis? well, the evidence issss, that say i were to tak about dimensions wit someone who is a materilaistic scientist, and mention consciousness. they will get upset. why IS that? could it be that we are indoctrinated to only believe in the limitations of 3 D reality?
so consciousness is the missing link. would you agree? for itis very consciousness tat wonders all about tis isn't it. that observes dimensional reality.
Well, since our minds have only developed to be able to handle 3 spatial dimensions, we can't visualise or imagine 4 dimensional spaces. Some claim they can; I know I definitely can't and I don't really need to (handling any number of dimensions mathematically is a doddle - even infinite dimensions). Also if you were simply dropped into a four dimensional space you'd only be able to see along a 3D hyperplane because of your 3D eyes and 3D neck that'd be incapable of getting your head to face in a fourth dimension. I know the latest physics theories are playing around with more than 3 dimensions. I heard Brian Greene specifically state that string theory REQUIRED these extra dimensions or it'd fall apart. The latest number of dimensions I heard of in M-theory was 11 (or even 26): 10 spatial and one time dimension (most of the extra spatial dimensions are taken to be really small and closed in on themselves).
I know you didn't. I was giving an example of someone who misunderstood science and using a physical law in the wrong context. I'm afraid that its clear in some of your posts that you don't understand some of the laws and theories you're using. You obviously do have an interest in science, nature, and the workings of the universe, though, and that's more than can be said for most. Sounds like you're tackling metaphysics head on here. Good luck - you're exploring territory I see no way into. I like to understand the relationships between all the different theories I study, and where they come from/how they came about. Sometimes I like to derive certain theories on my own rather than simply study them - a reinvention of the wheel that I consider a good exercise. Just don't get the impression that I'm some machine blindly applying equations straight out of the textbook. You'd be in a better position to make this claim if you better understood basic physics. If you want to understand how the universe works at the most fundamental level, I'm sure you'd agree you're not doing yourself any favours by missing out on the life experience of 300+ years of scientists who have already done a lot of the catalogueing and descriptive work for you. This is true - mostly because you're not speaking my language, if you like. I can not follow your definition of dimension because I don't know what a "transitionary level of formation" is, or what you mean by "transindental fluid," "dimensional rise," "series of transitions," "application of energy from an outside source," or even what you mean by "application of energy from an outside source." I'm sure it all makes perfect sense to you, but most of these statements are completely meaningless to me. Who doesn't? I encourage you to seriously work on your understanding of science and logic sometime. It'll pay off in the end. 'K?
m So you are saying that we are made to oly be able to experience and see 3dimensional reality. i dont agree. i feel it is more we have been INDOCTRINATED to believe that by a maerilaistic philosophy. don't know if you have had psychedelic experience?...if so, i wonder how you interpret the experiences you've had? fort ME i definately am awae of drmatically slipping out of that 'just-3d' indoctrination....i am also trying to see a logical similarity between the example of a 2D plane encountering a 3D shhere --as ascending and descending circles, with us encountering 4dimensional(? reelaity as entities, UFGos, ETs(?).....fairies, etc. speculate. what then would be BEHIND these 'objects', in the 2D plane it is depth. a sphere. so what would it be for us---speculatively speakin
duendy, We're 3 dimensional beings that have evolved in a 3 dimensional world, and our senses are only capable of giving us information from 3 dimensions. Its impossible for us to physically experience any more than 3 dimensions, so its not surprising if our minds haven't developed to handle any more. I simply cannot visualise a 4 dimensional object in my mind. Are you claiming you have? (I've also never taken psychedelic drugs - are you suggesting I start?) I wouldn't go as far as saying anyone's been indoctrinated simply because they lack a mental capacity. Would you say we've been indoctrinated because we (most of us, anyway) can't mentally multiply 50 digit numbers? We've also been living with general relativity and curved space-time for nearly a century now, and people played around with the idea of extra dimensions being 'there' even though we couldn't imagine or directly experience them even before that. Once you hear about points being zero-dimensional, lines being one dimensional, planes being two dimensional, and volumes being three dimensional, its only natural to wonder what comes next in the sequence.
According to the superstring theory, which I believe will be completed within 20 years: Dimension 1 - A point. Dimension 2 - A line. Dimension 3 - A box. Dimension 4 - The passage of time. I think it only exists as "delta t", because if there is no difference (ie the same time twice) it cancels itself out to infinity. Dimension 5 - Gravitation. Dimension 6 - Invisible, but when it vibrates it is seen as electromagnetic radiation in our 3 dimensions. Dimension 7-10 - I don't know. But I would assume strong and weak nuclear force. Dimension 11 - A weird one. Almost invisible because it's a loop that loops in on itself infinite times. I dubbed it, the "God" dimension.
