# Philosophical: Fourth Dimension

1. 60
vector7posted 12 years ago

This concept has struck me for a long time.

A young man I once heard of stated he could see it through geometry and it looked like shapes built upon shapes.

I've looked at different angles to approach this and think I've come close but never hit it.

It seems by the way he spoke it is obvious if a mental image is seen and can't be mistaken.

Wondering if anyone else has insights, interests, or thoughts on the subject.

1. 60
mischeviousmeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

We all live in the fourth dimension. It is the concept that we all things are occuring at once and that the individual is not at the center. It is the dimension of time.

1. 59
couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

From a mystical perspective, it's been believed that the fourth dimension is where spirits or the spirit lives, unbound by the constraints of a 3 dimensional world. The time-space continuum theory holds that time is inseperable from space and, in theory at least, we should be able to travel in any direction between the two.

Einstein called the fourth dimension time but today some physicists describe the fourth dimension as any space that's perpendicular to a cube -- the problem being that most of us can't visualize something that is perpendicular to a cube.

While we can move in any direction in our 3-D world, we can only move forward in time, at least for now.

So we can't, as yet, use the fourth dimension to time travel, and we can't even see the fourth dimension but string theory, for example, relies upon at least 10 dimensions.

1. 60
mischeviousmeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

That's the fourth plain and yes, it is believed to be a higher plain and it is said that some have made it.

2. 60
janesixposted 12 years agoin reply to this

Like a tesseract?

1. 59
couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

The tesseract is to the cube as the cube is to the square.

Living in 2-D means that the square is surrounded by circles, triangles and rectangles, but all the square sees are other lines. One day, the square is visited by a sphere. On first glance, the sphere just looks like a circle to the square, and the square can't comprehend what the sphere means when he explains 3-D objects. Eventually, the sphere takes the square to the 3-D world, and the square understands. He sees not just lines, but entire shapes that have depth. The square asks the sphere what exists beyond the 3-D world; the sphere is appalled. The sphere can't comprehend a world beyond this, and in this way, stands in for the reader.

Our brains aren't trained to see anything other than our world, and it will likely take something from another dimension to make us understand

1. 60
janesixposted 12 years agoin reply to this

Ive read a couple science fiction stories along those lines. Fun stuff

3. 60
Elijah7posted 12 years agoin reply to this

Deleted

1. 59
couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

Can you tell us when we'll be able to interact with the next dimension?

1. 60
Elijah7posted 12 years agoin reply to this

Deleted

1. 60
mischeviousmeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

Another rediculously long, over worded stream of idiocy. Forget about the bible versus and continue with your own words...

1. 0

waist of perfectly good binary.

2. 59
couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

Thanks, Patanjali. A simple yes or no would have sufficed. Or maybe something in the common vernacular, no offense intended.

1. 0

1. 60
mischeviousmeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

Yeah... He might break out his colors and dumb us down some more...

1. 0

He makes me scroll to much. Scroll, scroll, scroll.

1. 59
couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

4. 67
jdflomposted 12 years agoin reply to this

Vector -- I saw this video on youtube a while back and it might help -- or not.

I'm at work, so I can't watch them, but since you reminded me of it with your forum posting, I plan to watch them again when I get home to refresh myself on the information.

1. 60
vector7posted 12 years agoin reply to this

Thanks JD. What I'm particularly interested in is application of the [somewhat touched on in the video] concept into one's mind's eye.

The info it presented however is very vague and raw. I understand the time concept but the measurement element doesn't complete the puzzle.

This may not be the best description but in my defense I'm describing something I'm looking for that I've never [and neither has 99% of the populace] envisioned in their mind's eye. Which I sincerely consider possible, yet astronomically improbable.

5. 0

It's my understanding that very few understand time and I am unfortunately no exception. Einstein understood it and tried to explain it the best he could. To this day he has not been proven wrong, although there was that neutrino scare a few months back, but Einstein is still right and nothing has yet been shown to travel faster than light.

The easy part, The closer one gets to the speed of light the slower time moves for that person, or the fast time moves for everyone else. Traveling at close to the speed of light in a glass spaceship you would see time for stationary objects speed up relative to you.

It gets better, Two objects on a head on collision both at the speed of light would not hit each other at twice speed of light. Just at the speed of light.

It gets ever better. At rocket ship traveling at the speed of light would be passed by another rocket ship traveling at the speed of light at the speed of light. In other words the second would pass the first as if he were standing still even though they were both doing the same speed.

There are those among us with special abilities. Einstein was certainly one. Daniel Tammet may be another. He is able to see numbers as shapes which helps him see how the numbers fit together. He was also able to learn Icelandic in a week.

So, as for the imagery you eluded to, it possible the young man you mentioned has or had a brain that works differently then most.

I know mine does. LOL

6. 63
PhoenixVposted 12 years agoin reply to this

I found a pattern within geometry. But then again humans have a tendency to be pattern recognition machines.

1. 60
vector7posted 12 years agoin reply to this

Is it profound?

1. 63
PhoenixVposted 12 years agoin reply to this

The accomplishment of finding it was, because it took quite some time. It was personally rewarding.

1. 60
janesixposted 12 years agoin reply to this

Can you explain it for us?

1. 63
PhoenixVposted 12 years agoin reply to this

Yes, it's similar to quilting, although I personally never have.

1. 60
vector7posted 12 years agoin reply to this

Ok, you can stop. It's too much.

The massive quantity of knowledge you are conveying is overloading my processor.

1. 63
PhoenixVposted 12 years agoin reply to this

Well your original question was very interesting and specific otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned my experience. I dont think I found something 4 dimensional. I found a pattern within the patterns.

1. 60
janesixposted 12 years agoin reply to this

Ignore vector, i personally find these kinds of things very interesting. Id like to hear more.

2. 83
psycheskinnerposted 12 years ago

The fourth dimension is time, I assume you mean 5+.

There are plenty of theories about N dimension space out there, you might want to start by looking some of them up.

3. 85
donotfearposted 12 years ago

The only fourth dimension I ever saw was back in 1974 when me, Melissa and Janet got............)(*^^\$%#\$#^%#*&*++__O)U*Y^\$#\$@\$#@

and then, the next thing I knew I was at the College Bowl with Larry. We took off with Ricky ......then ended up;__)()*(&^%\$#@!#%^&*)(__*(&*%^%\$#\$#@\$

there were lots of purple and pink auras on everyone.  9**&^*^&^&

&&^&(&*)P)(UIOU

and that's when I saw the ......FOURTH DIMENSION.

1. 59
Eric Newlandposted 12 years agoin reply to this

This has been my experience as well.

4. 61
knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

If the speed of light is the limit, then the flying saucers I have seen are an impossibility and I am deluded.

1. 0

You are deluded... Unless they come from Centauri A & B, roughly 4.35 light years away from us. That being said... you are deluded none the less.

5. 61
knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

Never did much care for Einstein. Just another progressive like Darwin. But now it is established that I am deluded.

1. 73
jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

Einstein Shm-Einstein!

Just another deluged dude in human history trying to figure "it" out.
Thousands before him; thousands after him.
Okay, so a few of his ideas stuck and caused further inspection, marketing, feasibility studies. Big woop!

1. 59
couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

OMG! You are so jaded! So anyone who makes a major scientific breakthrough is just another guy who got lucky? Hmmm.

1. 73
jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

lol !
Well, finally, I got a rise out of someone. Thanks Lee!

Luck? No, he had an idea and ran with it.
Most of his concepts are still hugely and grossly misunderstood -if understood at all. His theories were not new either.

Some think Einstein was a Scientific Neanderthal, in comparison to his predecessors, just as Plato was a Closet Epicurean. Even that young Greek philosopher who was credited with the worlds first 'stock market' algorithm was considered a genius in his time, yet history shows, such calculations existed before him -with as much precision as the city of Amun Ra (Thebes).

Technology is only valid for its time. The tools of Einstein were not the tools of Hezekiah. Some would consider our tools today 'wack' in comparison to thoseof the Mayans, with their Middle Paleolithic technology which included the use of diamonds, forged metals -even forced air compression chambers (like ancient refrigerators or booby-traps), light frequency (sound waves), etc.

So, the real credit for breakthrough isn't the individual as much as it is the tools/measures used to apply/disdain the concepts behind them.

James.

1. 0

I wan't aware that the mayans had satellite telescopes and Hadron Colliders.
I guess there may be some who consider Einstein a Scientific Neanderthal. There could be something to that. NOT. Sure he most likely had great ideas from those before him, but that is what science is all about. He has yet to be proven wrong, that day may someday come, but few can say his contribution was not way before his time.

2. 59
couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

J - I understand what you're saying and may even agree with it to some degree in terms of technology and it's time. What we do today is far different from Amun Ra for sure and we may well be repeating long lost history, just getting there by different means. One small difference is the extrapolation today's tech allows. We can see the past and predict the future in ways the Mayans couldn't dream of.

Now, if we get onto the subject of space-time travel, who knows.

3. 60
vector7posted 12 years agoin reply to this

Tools are tools and took designing as well, or application of ideas.

Go on and tell them the pencil gets the credit. I'm sure they'll understand.

1. 73
jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

Vector,
Let's lend the question, then, for who/what gets credit:

Strip away every gram of technology -from the wheel to particle accelerators -even glo-in-the-dark pencils, and where or what could humans say they have achieved on their own. Next, why do humans persist on needing these tools to understand or find out about this universe.

Technology, for the most part, gets credence.

Certainly one can argue that, "Well, a human invented that technology, so the human should get the credit." Yes, in a minute way they are due some credit. But, as we have mounds of proof, humans are slaves to industry, development and technology.

The follow up question is can humans truly discover and understand this universe without mechanics? Have they ever considered looking at the universe -and its parts- by the universes perspective, rather than the limited -and often narrow- view from the technological/industrial perspective?

James

1. 60
vector7posted 12 years agoin reply to this

Let me spin the camera to a more blatent angle for you.

The human body itself can't operate without mechanics James. Are you suggesting that your hand get the credit for holding the pencil? I believe the statement usually made to indicate that situation is " I   am holding a pencil."

Take the human away and leave the mechanics/tools you speak of and tell me what is then able to be accomplished.

The initiative and will of the human is what makes these 'breakthrough"s possible.

Take the human away. and there will be no accomplishment nor progress.

Take the tools away, and the human can make more tools. The human is the cause for the progress. Sir.

It's very simple. You can't give credit to the tool that has no function without the operator.

I'm sort of in awe that I'm having to argue such obviousness.

1. 73
jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

Really? And, if I can be so bold as to inquire, what external (man made) mechanic/tool is required for the human body to operate?

This point, to me, is irrelevant. "I" holding the pencil is not required for existence nor sustainability. Further, I can understand the universe -meaning the sum-substance of this planet, in its entirety- without that mechanic -or any other such device. And since we (humans) are well able to observe and remember/report about the objects on this planet without such mechanics, there is nothing to suggest we cannot also understand objects off this planet by the same token. Of course, this would require a great amount of "time" and attention to every detail. And it appears, by all evidence, humans seem in quite a hurry to understand this planet and universe, using mechanics. But, I suppose that is an altogether different conversation.

Again, taking the human out of the equation only reinforces why these mechanics are not necessary. without the inventor, what good is the invention. Which again, provides a minute level of credence to the human. Still, the slavery to the mechanic(s) is heightened and the original purpose of the mechanic diminished. The human is being driven by the tool, not the other way around. In actuality, humanity is giving daily affirmation to the tool -to the invention- rather than the inventor. Why? Because crediting the inventor leaves no room for marketing and further industrialization.

The human will, in my opinion, is not to discover or breakthrough via mechanics -at least not in the core of his/her being. Will they readily accept accomplishment? Yes. Can they "progress" void of mechanics? Yes, indeed. However, what humans deem as progression (technological advances/new tools/industry) is precisely what is keeping them from true credence, tangible freedom, from a very handicap lifestyle. A lifestyle of slavery to the tools made (i.e. Blackberry, Android, iPhone Addicts). Hence, the tool, which -as you said- has no function, becomes both master and keeper.

I think humans have duped themselves into believing they are far less able, inferior even, to the world around them, without these mechanisms. A being that -again, in my humble opinion- was designed with complete knowledge of this planetary system, to -not only enjoy- but to fully engage/interact with and manage, void of tools.

James.

1. 60
vector7posted 12 years agoin reply to this

"Really? And, if I can be so bold as to inquire, what external (man made) mechanic/tool is required for the human body to operate?"

-jacharless

Yes, very bold indeed, as I didn't claim you to be man-made.

You do know what "mechanics" are right?

The human body itself is a machine James.

I won't address the extensive wording, as it's not that complicated.

You keep giving the credit to your books, forgeting who wrote them.

2. 0

Technology is just a tool. A tool is one of the things that separates us from other animals. The extend that we use tools separates us from all other animals. Without the tools of technology we become much closer in our understanding of the universe to other animals. A look back to the middle ages illustrates this. Until the invention of the telescope we had no understanding of the universe. Tools have also given us an understanding of the universe on the micro scale as well. To try to understand the universe without tools is to try to understand the universe without being human.

1. 73
jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

So, in your opinion, the tools define us as human and without said tools we would be no greater than the animals on this planet?

James.

1. 0

Yes and No,
Yes, without tool, and left alone naked on the african savannah we would be just like any other animal trying to survive.
No, because human nature is to use tools. It's what sets us apart. Take away the tools and we will find new ones. The first would most likely be a big stick to protect yourself from the hungry lions. It's hard to say wether it was the use of tool that spawned our intelligence or was it our intelligence that spawned the use of tools, but without a single tool was are useless. Slow and weak. The one thing we do have physically that sets us apart from other animals is our endurance.

2. 0

Let's not confuse Darwin and Einstein. They are nothing alike. Darwin was brilliant, but stumbled upon something that would have been studied shortly anyway, while Einstein had an understanding of time, energy and gravity that few can comprehend today. Einstein was right about everything and wrong about nothing. He had this understanding of the universe from his chair. No computers, no hubble, no satellites. Just his mind.

1. 59
couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

Thanks, Rad. Some people have forgotten there was little tech at the time.

1. 0

Also, most (me included) still don't understand what he was talking about. All that time distortion and gravity bending light. WHAT?

1. 60
vector7posted 12 years agoin reply to this

Which proves tech is a lesser tool. Considering we have it and people don't understand stale concepts.

Is the subject escaping you or is it just boring and you're branching off?

1. 0

6. 73
jacharlessposted 12 years ago

A geometric shape is built on smaller, identical shapes, and so on and so forth.
I read many moons ago that a botanist studied a seed and found the identical image of the full grown tree inside it...

1. 60
vector7posted 12 years agoin reply to this

Fractals.

Application?

7. 61
knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

An armchair voyeur.

1. 0

Speaking of voyeurism. Your image is a little creepy.

1. 59
couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

He's in the fourth dimension where the lines are fuzzier the farther out they go.

8. 61
knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

If Picasso said its art it's art. Hope he knew what was talking about. But then we have to take his word for it.

1. 59
couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

Picasso. Stick figures. What a ripoff.

9. 61
knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

Thought he was good with design but not much of a colorist. I was into his ceramics for a time.

10. 60
vector7posted 12 years ago

So time is the 'measurement' for the dimension.

How can we apply this fact to peek through the blinders?

I'm keeping my expectations low, as this is not a promising subject considering the limited information.

You can view 100 frames of a bird in flight and that is essentially time in motion. We can watch in play as a review of the event as it played out.

We can rewind, and fastforward both observable but blurry to the human eye.

Yet in the mind that same 100 frames [say 25 seconds of an event] can be viewed all at once recalled in an instant as if simultaneously.

The other notable factor is that this doesn't include future or present. [except for the past's connection in creating the present, and likewise with the present creating future]

How would this alternate plane be viewed? If it's possible at all, I would think it only so in the mind.

To understand the substance of it entirely you would have to see it, and then have to have the ability to navigate the plane.

I have some very, very complicated theories on how to do this, but the numbers and calculations involved in doing so leave the individuals view limited by their mental capability and as humans if we could make use of the methods I've started building at all the sight would still be very short due to the overwheming mass of information.

11. 81
dmopposted 12 years ago

I have researched and contemplated this for many years. My best theory is based on a few different physicists' ideas and those of a psychic. The theory is that the fourth or more commonly believed multiple dimensions exist, but aren't perceivable by our senses or tools. These dimensions are similar to ours, they are made up of matter and atomic structures. What separates them is the frequency of motion of the electrons around the atom. It is best compared to a radio with no frequency changing knob. The radio can only get broadcasts from the set frequency, and no other. We and all the atomic structures in our world are moving with-in the same frequency so we can perceive, interact and even manipulate things in our dimension. While the atomic structures in other dimensions move at a different frequency leaving them virtually undetectable to us. Just like the radio though there may be certain circumstances that bring in some fuzz from the other dimensions.

1. 60
vector7posted 12 years agoin reply to this

dmop, we've disagreed on a few things, more than likely pertaining to my faith in Christ, but I'm intrigued by your post and am glad you posted it.

I think you may have just led me to a connection. Not that it will enable us, but hopefully explain why it is, and how it is exactly, that we cannot see nor interact with another dimension.

Maybe I should say, give a visual example. I hope.

Thanks man. Good stuff.

working