Hate to tell you friend, you are so unbelievably far away from the topic, you have yet to contribute a thought other than to criticize, you have absolutely no knowledge of this topic, so why are you here? I seem to be the only one that understands what the 4th dimension applys to you might want to read maybe you can learn something, or you can stay ignorant to the subject, its up to you.

The point is man, this thread is all about spatial dimensions. Not spiritual states of consciousness. You just came in here yakking about open mindedness, which really isn't what the topic is about. Just because I can relate the Beatles to German Impressionism films doesn't mean I should post in the Beatles thread with a list of films.

We get it. You think of dimensions as states of consciousness. That's cool. Just don't stick it where it isn't relevant.

I believe the condescension started on your end

Stay on topic please

Dimensions are effectively described as "Spaces within which only certain ranges of motion are possible".

the 1st dimension only has length. The 2nd only has length and width. The 3rd dimension, in which we experience everything has length, width, and depth.

We are capable of seeing and conceiving of the 1st and second dimensions already, through terms such as "A line" (Or more formally, a vector), and "A plane".

Mathematically the 4th dimension occupies a space within which a 4th identifier is required in order to denote the location or shape of the simplest object.

If there is a 4th dimension we have no way of interacting with it, (Scientists no longer believe time is the 4th dimension, so the idea of 4d being 3d+ time travel is silly) and therefore there's no practical benefit to making **** up about beings or objects within it because they cannot affect us and we cannot affect them. To such an immutable degree that we cannot even OBSERVE them, since that would require things in our universe to have come from the 4th dimension so that we could see how the 4th dimension had affected them.

Put into perspective, in 3 dimensions a photon being picked up and observed by the eye denotes the presence of light. the qualities of that photo or stream of photons concludes our experience of that light and allows us to determine qualities of an object, IE, is it red, is it blue.

No such relationship exists (nor can it exist) between ourselves and the fourth dimension.

We can, geometrically, envision the concept of a 4th plane of existence, however a plane of existence is defined not as a place or space, it is defined as another direction in which something is able to travel, one fundamentally separate from the preceding directions. As such, we return to the idea of 1d 2d and 3d.

A single dimension is a line. However since this "dimension" has no width, or depth, only length, its more accurate to conceive of its as a vector. There is only one, predescribed, vector of motion.

When we add a second vector along which the point of location can be defined, we obtain a 2d shape - the boundary within which location can be defined, has changed to have both length and width. The length remains from the first dimension, and the new dimension, width, CANNOT affect the length. One can only increase the length of the vector by increasing the length of the vector. Increasing the width (Of the "Plane" that defines 2d) will have no effect on anything but the width.

When we move into 3d, we add a third vector, that being "depth". We can now move in 3 directions, independently and with not one of those vectors of motion affecting any element of the other two. One can increase the length, depth, and width of the shape being described one at a time without the others being affected at all.

When we add a 4th dimension to our concept of a shape, we describe a way in which something can move, physically, in a direction (along a vector), without affecting the other 3 vectors.

The challenge of describing a 4th dimension is in determining how one can change a point of location in space, without changing length, width, or depth.

Now, a dimension is described as such, but it is also described (And indeed defined) as a quality of the space within which an object resides. This means shapes and objects are not defined as 3 dimensional, but rather the space within which an object IS is defined with however many dimensions.

If there were a 4th dimension that occupied any tangible part of our lives, then WE WOULD EXIST WITHIN 4 DIMENSIONS, because the dimension is not a quality of the OBJECT, but the SPACE.

We can observe this for ourselves in computer games, where we can already define code that can give a virtual space either 2d or 3d qualities, or even 1d, but I'm not aware of any games with only 1 possible vector of motion. (Arguably Pong is, but only for the object the player controls. The pong dot with which one scores is definitely moving within a 2d virtual space. The bat itself however only has 1 dimension of movement, the game simply uses a 2d visual representation of a boundary within the game code moving in 1 dimensional virtual space so that we can more easily see where it is.)

As an aside: Interesting fact - Any "2D" game is in fact not 2D itself, but rather it is many 2d planes superimposed on top of each other in order to allow independent movement of objects on different planes.

Way to go thanks for regurgitating someone else's thoughts, doesn't mean you understand it.

At least it was on topic.

Now take everything you wrote and think about how that applies to the mind, how our brains word and you might get a different understanding of the dimensions.

http://i.imgur.com/EusIK.jpg






























http://i.imgur.com/XJyCb.jpg

This thread will remain closed until you can act like adults.

So I've opened it again, but from this point on any religiously themed post is going to be deleted. Nothing against that discussion, but this thread's topic is on tangible dimensions, not spiritual ones. Read the damn OP.

This thread is being reopened.

As from today until further notice seekn4 has been informed that he is banned from all off topic areas of the forum. If you see him post in any parts of these forums ignore the post and just report it. If you don't do this be warned that any reply you make with him will also be deleted.

This punishment only extends to the non-music forums, he is allowed to post in the music forums. Any members goading him or trying to start things with him into drawing him to post in the areas he is not allowed to post in will also find themselves having action taken against them.

I hope this is clear to you all.

Now do not discuss this post in here, just go back to discussing the original thread topic.

I could only watch three of the videos. One thing that didn't make sense was Carl Sagans retelling of Edwin Abott²s Flatland. If an apple was to pass through a 2D world being 3D it wouldn't see anything it wouldn't be able to kick the square out of the 2D universe and the 2D square couldn't make sense of of a 2D uinverse floating above it. For the apple a 2D universe would be {x,y,0} that means at any or all time it would be looking at nothing! Yes the brain as the organ that comprehends what the eye visualizes it in two dimensions, but that doesn't mean the eye see 2D. Now just apply that to the visual perception of an apple. There would no inforamtion to garner from a 2 plain that had zero height, it doesn't make sense. The story is more or less a thought experiment but not on the same level as one Einstein would performed when he was working on his two theories.

Another possiblity is that we live in a infinite dimensional universe. If one took in consideration Richard Feynman's single-electron hypothesis, There isn't many electrons throught the universe spinning around different nucluei, but maybe one electron with protrons and neutron obitting a single electron but each in its own different dimension. And it just appears to us that the universe is 3D and there are many electrons. Now the downside of this single-election hypothesis is that the purpose of the Large Hadron Collider is to unravel the universe.

The fifth dimension is at right angles to "Space-Time" Which means that there are other versions of time we do not know about, or have not experienced. The simplest way I can explain it to you is to use vertical and horizontal as examples, they are the only dimensions I can explain time to you with right angles.

"One can think of ordinary, real, time as a horizontal line. On the left one has the past and on the right, the future. But there is another kind of time in the vertical direction. This is called imaginary time, because it is not the kind of time we normally experience. But in a sense it is just as real, as what we call real time" Stephen Hawking

Imagining the Fifth Dimension - YouTube

Or do not exist.

Well it does exist. Just because you cannot comprehend it or experience it subjectively does not mean it does not exist.

Acceptance of one's ignorance to everything is the first step to infinite wisdom old chap. Einstein accepted the existance of the fifth dimension. It took a while but he eventually gave his approval to Theodore Kaluza's proposal that the field equations for gravity and light are resolved for our space time when they are calculated at the fifth dimension. The fifth dimension becomes a medium in which to combine Einstein's theory of relativity with Maxwell's theories on electro-magnetism.

Huh.

It exists as a mathematical concept, it lacks empirical confirmation, and has theoretical difficulties.

Gravity waves would go a long way to confirming it's existence, which they hope to observe soon.

Anything beyond that is seems to be speculation. There a lot of different theories counteracting each other, and every single one has a lot of impressive mathematics (and no doubt youtube videos) behind it.

So maybe I was being more accepting of my ignorance when I added it not really existing as being one of the options. Especially when talking about dimensions BEYOND the aforementioned fifth one.

super cool. i have no idea what it means. but it sounds SO COOL.

Yeah I think that just because mathematics can explain aspects of reality doesn't mean that everything that exists mathematically is real.

theoretical physicists used mathematics to describe what they believed was a particle necessary for the existence of mass called the higgs boson. the math described something that could not be visually represented on any scale digitally due to the fact that the math said one rotation of this particle occurred in 720 degrees of spin. that's something we're simply not equipped with the hardware to visualize. nonetheless, CERN got the funds and built the Large Hadron Collider, the biggest particle accelerator ever made and something hailed as mankind's most impressive machine, and found the higgs boson.

so in a way, you're right, but nonetheless, lack of imagination is no reason to give up trying.

edit: and on another note, the higgs boson is proof of another dimension. absolute proof. ;)

I am certainly no expert but I get the feeling that there is some very complicated maths to explain something that is currently beyond their understanding and they might look back in 50 years and laugh.

by "currently beyond their understanding" i get the feeling you're referencing my saying that it can't be visualized. correct me if i'm wrong. but, assuming i'm getting you here, i can assure you that visualizing higgs boson has nothing to do with understanding it. they understand it. they understood it before they found it, and they understood it well. if they didn't, the most expensive science experiment in the history of mankind would never have taken place. but it did.

Like I said I'm no expert. I just got the impression whenever I've read any articles on the subject that theories in the field are rather tentative.

Really? I'm a bit sceptical to what you're writing, but also intrigued. Do you have a source to some information about this 720 degrees spin stuff?

As far as I know, the latest particle to be found at CERN is not yet confirmed to be the Higgs Boson so one should be a little careful talking (or writing) about it as if it is.

As a general comment to the rest of the thread, I don't believe in parallell multiple dimension worlds with multiple dimension creatures that we can possibly bump into and think it sounds like a silly idea.

I've spoke about this a few times, I completely understand 1D, 2D and 3D. What confuses me is how can we fathom something we don't know exists? I mean we can't interact with the 4D and there's no way of proving it is there, so why do so many people believe the theory? Not only that, without knowing of the 4D existence how can we begin to go beyond that in to the 5th D and even up to 71D? I'm not being ignorant either just genuinely curious.

Its not ignorant at all. It would however be ignorant to say that these dimensions do not exist simply because we cannot see them, when stephen hawking, Einstein and Carl Sagan accepted their existance.
Well we know the fourth dimension is there, we just can't comprehend it basically. It is all relative, just as a 2 dimensional being cannot comprehend the concept of "up".

watch this.

...

Dr Quantum - Flatland - YouTube

That was actually a really good video explaining basically why we can't comprehend 4D.


So what ideas and theories do people have about 4D, in which way do we believe they're different. I'm really confused but I'm trying to get my head round it!

lol, i made a playlist for you :P

4th Dimension - YouTube

Haha, cheers! I will add them to my faves n watch later :)

Except there aren't two dimensional beings so it's using something theoretical to explain why we can't comprehend something else that's theoretical.

How do we know that there are no two dimensional beings when we cannot really observe it properly? Correct me if i am wrong, but aren't all of the dimensions part of a larger thing, and not simply seperate dimensions? Therefore if they are all in and out of themselves, part of the same thing, and there are "beings" in the third dimension, then surely there are representations of those beings in this dimension in every other dimension. Or reflections.

Yeah I don't know. I guess dimensions are really another mathematical concept that makes a convenient frame of reference for us to conceive the broader picture.

I would really like to talk about this while taking something like DMT.

I keep wanting to come back in here to continue the discussion...but my brain is spent.

And Po...as for what you were saying...if we can barely conceive of the basic idea higher order dimensions, there is absolutely no way we can think about our relationship to beings residing in them. As for 2-d beings...I tend to think of those on a more consciousness-oriented level. Singe celled organisms think in 2 dimensions...go towards this and move away from that. I doubt they can perceive our existence on any level at all...much like us and higher dimensional beings.

The thing that always boggles me about the 2 dimensional beings is, where are they, I know I have asked you questions similar to this, but are they amongst my surroundings at this moment in time, in my table, in me even, and I just cannot see them? If four dimensional beings can see me why can I not see 2 dimensional beings, maybe 4 dimensional beings cannot see me then given that point of referance. lol. This thread is going to make an interesting read over later on.

^

Again, I consider bacteria and single celled organisms to be 2d beings. You are used to thinking of dimensions in a visual way, but that's just a small part of it. Sure, bacteria exist in our 3d world, but their conscious perception of it is 2 dimensional (if it could be considered conscious perception). So you are right in that we exist in all dimensions...but our perception of it is limited to 3 of its dimensions.

Now that is fascinating! 1 dimensional beings on the other hand! :P

Did you see that playlist I sent linked to Fetcher? It has stuff about the fifth dimension up to the eleventh. Showed it to my father and it blew his mind.

Haha I'd have to think about 1d beings a little harder to come up with something there.

I'll have to check out that playlist as well. I'll report back when I do.

Just have to voice out that I fundamentally disagree with this. Generally speaking, single cells like bacteria, unicellular algae or even sperm have length, width and height and they exist in and relate to a world which clearly has 3 dimensions. If you were smaller, it wouldn't reduce the amount of dimensions in the world, even if you were blind.

Why would the world seem 2d to a plankton or gut bacteria?