Hyper Dimensional Design

[The Man]

Logically, no matter how many so-called dimensions there are, they are all by the very nature of the process by which dimensions are created, mutually dependent on each other and therefore readily apparent simultaneously everywhere.

This means that the idea that there is some "other dimension" just a little "out of synch" with this one, isn't something that is possible other than in science fiction and clever mathematical puzzles. It's no different than Escher's staicase illusion, which uses two dimensional trickery to make it appear that a third dimension is at work, when in fact it isn't. Watch this fun little video that illustrates what I'm getting at:







The only possibility that some other state of existence exists in some parallel place to ours is to consider it as an entirely separate universe, tied by some common thread to a "multiverse".

j.r.

So just how many so-called mutually dependent readily apparent simultaneously everywhere dimensions are there anyway (“Logically” that is)? Your latter paragraph seems to assert just “one”.

How are you defining your “so-called dimensions” (not to mention “mutually dependent” as well as “simultaneously”) and what is this “process by which dimensions are created” of which you speak? Given such a process would not “how many so-called dimensions there are” potentially be variable? Is there also a “process by which dimensions are” destroyed and what is that process?

Oh and welcome to the thread.

 

[ufology]

So just how many so-called mutually dependent readily apparent simultaneously everywhere dimensions are there anyway (“Logically” that is)? Your latter paragraph seems to assert just “one”.

How are you defining your “so-called dimensions” (not to mention “mutually dependent” as well as “simultaneously”) and what is this “process by which dimensions are created” of which you speak? Given such a process would not “how many so-called dimensions there are” potentially be variable? Is there also a “process by which dimensions are” destroyed and what is that process?

Oh and welcome to the thread.

Thank you for the welcome ... and very good questions. Understanding how this all ties together requires that everything we're talking about be put into the proper context first. Otherwise we're going to go way off the rails. You may find that in essence we are talking about very similar things from two different angles.

Rather than cut and paste my info all in here, I edit a ufology site where the concept of the Extradimensional Hypothesis ( EDH ), and the Universe, is briefly covered:

http://ufopages.com/Reference/BD/Extradimensional-01a.htm

http://ufopages.com/Reference/BD/Universe-01a.htm

The above articles are fairly concise and aren't based on "woofology", they are based on a combination of actual hard science and critical thinking. They also answer your initial questions. Once you read them we can establish where our two vantage are. Then we may be able to see where our two fields of view merge, and perhaps we'll find something new for both of us ! This stuff is great. Looking forward to your next response.

j.r.

 

[The Man]

Thank you for the welcome ... and very good questions. Understanding how this all ties together requires that everything we're talking about be put into the proper context first. Otherwise we're going to go way off the rails. You may find that in essence we are talking about very similar things from two different angles.

Rather than cut and paste my info all in here, I edit a ufology site where the concept of the Extradimensional Hypothesis ( EDH ), and the Universe, is briefly covered:

http://ufopages.com/Reference/BD/Extradimensional-01a.htm

http://ufopages.com/Reference/BD/Universe-01a.htm

The above articles are fairly concise and aren't based on "woofology", they are based on a combination of actual hard science and critical thinking. They also answer your initial questions. Once you read them we can establish where our two vantage are. Then we may be able to see where our two fields of view merge, and perhaps we'll find something new for both of us ! This stuff is great. Looking forward to your next response.

j.r.

In that case it would probably be best to leave the discussion of that “EDH” to its own thread. If you start such a thread and post the link here anyone here that is interested can join that discussion. While I can’t guarantee that I would join that discussion it is certainly more likely than me actually visiting your website. Nothing personal, I’m just not in the habit of going to someone’s website just because they claim the answers to the questions I asked are there.

 

[ufology]

In that case it would probably be best to leave the discussion of that “EDH” to its own thread. If you start such a thread and post the link here anyone here that is interested can join that discussion. While I can’t guarantee that I would join that discussion it is certainly more likely than me actually visiting your website. Nothing personal, I’m just not in the habit of going to someone’s website just because they claim the answers to the questions I asked are there.

Links to external information are often used in the JREF. It makes more sense than copying and pasting pages of text into a huge long response. I guess it all just depends on how interested somone really is. It's there if you want to know. No pressure.

j.r.

PS: There is also the issue of giving away entire articles to the JREF, which is part of the user agreement.

 

[Daylightstar]

... If you start such a thread and post the link here anyone here that is interested can join that discussion.....

Because they can find that discussion (as a thread) more easily.

And j.r., since the actual subject of this thread appears to be the clinical presentation of the OP's mental in-capacities, don't you think you deserve your own thread for your subject which is recognized as an actual subject by gazillions of people?

 

[ufology]

Because they can find that discussion (as a thread) more easily.

And j.r., since the actual subject of this thread appears to be the clinical presentation of the OP's mental in-capacities, don't you think you deserve your own thread for your subject which is recognized as an actual subject by gazillions of people?

Well I suppose that the EDH itself could be covered in the Critical Thinking In Ufology thread. But I'm condidered just as much of nut by the skeptics over there. Here it was just the topic of multiple dimesions ... there you get to add UFOs into the mix, so if you think it's gone woo here, imagine what it must be like over there if you want to take it seriously.

j.r.

 

[Daylightstar]

So, you don't want to discuss this "EDH" in it's own thread.
You can make that choice.

 

[ufology]

So, you don't want to discuss this "EDH" in it's own thread. You can make that choice.

I've got too much going on to open up another thread, and the EDH is technically a ufology topic anyway. It just has principles that apply to what this thread seemed to be about, so I thought someone might be interested. I was wrong.

j.r.

 

[The Man]

Links to external information are often used in the JREF. It makes more sense than copying and pasting pages of text into a huge long response. I guess it all just depends on how interested somone really is. It's there if you want to know. No pressure.

j.r.

PS: There is also the issue of giving away entire articles to the JREF, which is part of the user agreement.

Indeed they are, as well just brief explanations of the usages questioned. Requiring “copying and pasting pages of text into a huge long response” is probably not going to peak anyone’s interest in such a response. However, it does tend to peak peoples interest in why that requirement is felt to be necessary and is also an excuse used by Dutch. The links with brief responses or quotes that actually address the questions also addresses the issue of “giving away entire articles to the JREF”. Allow me to demonstrate (for Dutch as well)…


“so-called dimensions”:

In the intuitive sense dimensions are informally defined as the number of coordinates needed to locate a point in some given space. Other specific mathematical usages of the word dimension (like Lebesgue covering dimension or Hausdorff dimension) have their own specific mathematical definition(s).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension

For sets which are of a complicated structure, especially fractals, the Hausdorff dimension is useful. The Hausdorff dimension is defined for all metric spaces and, unlike the Hamel dimension, can also attain non-integer real values.[3] The box dimension or Minkowski dimension is a variant of the same idea. In general, there exist more definitions of fractal dimensions that work for highly irregular sets and attain non-integer positive real values

“Dimension” is also sometimes colloquially used as a term to reference some realm of existence though technically (and mathematically) the word “universe” is used in that regard with dimension(s) being an aspect of said universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_universe_(fiction)


“mutually dependent”:

Other than in reference to Symbiosis, when variations in one aspect result in variations of the other (and visa versa) the two aspects are said to be mutually dependent. In other words they have a dependency that is mutual (shared). Some aspects can simply be dependent, for example the money I can save depends to a great deal on how much I earn by working. However, how much I earn by working does not depend on how much I save. So while my savings is dependent on (among other things) my job earnings, my savings and my job earnings are not mutually dependent. Conversely, my over all earnings do depend on my investments (including how much I save and the interest) so while my job earnings and my savings are not mutually dependent my total earnings and savings are.


“simultaneously”:

Refers to events that can be said to happen at the same time in some reference frame, given that time varies for different reference frames what seems to happen simultaneously in one frame of reference may not be so definable in another.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simultaneity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity



Very little cut and pate, mostly my own words with links (some imbedded) so anyone can delve into it further.

I hope this helps.

 

[ufology]

Back To The Beginning

My original post, as now, only deals with the practical considerations for the original premise of this thread, To Quote:

"This thread is dedicated to the search for indications of hidden underlying multidimensional design just underneath the surface of our familiar 3-dimensional reality."

Mathematical models for abstract dimensions outside our spacetime are of no practical value in exploring reality ( as was the point in the little video link I posted ). Such realities cannot exist other than in the realm of numbers and art. If we are to find some analogy to our character in the video who finds a way to fracture the reality he is trapped in, we first must determine the extent of the reality we are in now.

Essentially I propose that the dedication of this thread is not possible because there can be no "underneath the surface" in this reality. However by looking at it slightly more logically, there could be another reality altogether ... not another dimension, but another "universe".

j.r.

 

[Daylightstar]

I've got too much going on to open up another thread, and the EDH is technically a ufology topic anyway. It just has principles that apply to what this thread seemed to be about, so I thought someone might be interested. I was wrong.

j.r.

Perhaps you should try to converse with the topic starter directly and see to what degree your concept of dimensions agrees or clashes with his.

 

[ufology]

Perhaps you should try to converse with the topic starter directly and see to what degree your concept of dimensions agrees or clashes with his.

I'll wait for that person to make the move. Might you have any thoughts of your own on this topic?

j.r.

 

[Daylightstar]

Since you stated:

My original post, as now, only deals with the practical considerations for the original premise of this thread, ...

I would insist you try to converse with the topic starter directly.
Unless ofcourse you explicitly prefer comments from other posters than the topic starter.
Is this the case?

 

[The Man]

My original post, as now, only deals with the practical considerations for the original premise of this thread, To Quote:

"This thread is dedicated to the search for indications of hidden underlying multidimensional design just underneath the surface of our familiar 3-dimensional reality."

Mathematical models for abstract dimensions outside our spacetime are of no practical value in exploring reality ( as was the point in the little video link I posted ). Such realities cannot exist other than in the realm of numbers and art. If we are to find some analogy to our character in the video who finds a way to fracture the reality he is trapped in, we first must determine the extent of the reality we are in now.

Essentially I propose that the dedication of this thread is not possible because there can be no "underneath the surface" in this reality. However by looking at it slightly more logically, there could be another reality altogether ... not another dimension, but another "universe".

j.r.

There you go, direct, to the point and relevant to the discussion at hand.

Unfortunately, ufology, all of Dutch’s HDD calculations are entirely one dimensional (related only to the sidereal period of orbits). So other dimensions, even those of a “familiar 3-dimensional reality”, don’t even enter into the ‘equation’, so to speak, for him. The disparity between Dutch’s “dedication” and what he actually does is blatantly obvious without even considering the possibility (or lack thereof) of other dimensions, as Dutch only considers and ‘calculates’ one. Which also makes just “exploring reality” impossible for his dimensional design hype.

 

[ufology]

Since you stated:

I would insist you try to converse with the topic starter directly.
Unless ofcourse you explicitly prefer comments from other posters than the topic starter.
Is this the case?

I'm good with comments from whomever is considering the same type of thing that thread starter suggests we are dealing with ... the idea of some actual invisible nearby state(s) of existence other than our own generically dubbed another "dimension".

j.r.

 

[ufology]

There you go, direct, to the point and relevant to the discussion at hand.

Unfortunately, ufology, all of Dutch’s HDD calculations are entirely one dimensional (related only to the sidereal period of orbits). So other dimensions, even those of a “familiar 3-dimensional reality”, don’t even enter into the ‘equation’, so to speak, for him. The disparity between Dutch’s “dedication” and what he actually does is blatantly obvious without even considering the possibility (or lack thereof) of other dimensions, as Dutch only considers and ‘calculates’ one. Which also makes just “exploring reality” impossible for his dimensional design hype.

OK ... I think I get what you are saying, not that I can concur with any notion of a one dimensional orbit, I just thought we might have been looking at the same geneic idea from some different vantage point with out of synch terminology, and that perhaps there might be some common ground someplace. In your experience that seems like maybe asking too much ... I guess?

j.r.

 

[Daylightstar]

I'm good with comments from whomever is considering the same type of thing that thread starter suggests we are dealing with ... the idea of some actual invisible nearby state(s) of existence other than our own generically dubbed another "dimension".

j.r.

You might want to have a look at this thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87858

 

[Daylightstar]

Also, you need to understand that in the context of this thread, for the topic starter the word dimension(s) is a buzz word only.

 

[The Man]

OK ... I think I get what you are saying, not that I can concur with any notion of a one dimensional orbit, I just thought we might have been looking at the same geneic idea from some different vantage point with out of synch terminology, and that perhaps there might be some common ground someplace. In your experience that seems like maybe asking too much ... I guess?

j.r.

We? What, we as in me and you or we as in you and Dutch, or perhaps some other we? Guessing about my experience is not likely to get you anywhere. Again if you want to actually talk about this “EDH” stuff then I again suggest you start a thread to discuss it directly. Claiming you just “got too much going on to open up another thread” while attempting to discuss it in this or some other thread is not going to garner you much sympathy. As you note this “EDH” is directly related to UFO’s so perhaps that other thread (Critical Thinking In Ufology) might be a better place if you just don’t feel a dedicated one is appropriate.

Here is the link to that thread for other posters.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=213999

 

[The Man]

Also, you need to understand that in the context of this thread, for the topic starter the word dimension(s) is a buzz word only.

Exactly, Daylightstar, so actually discussing dimensions is a non-starter for the thread starter.