Awesome questions! For asking in that clarity, you must already have seen beyond! Consider this explanation: Creation is not over, it is happening now, all the time; it is Change. Consciousness is always unlimited; it is One with Creation. With our limited perception we experience Change but perceive it as Time and Space, although both are illusions of ourselves. We are our three-dimensions! If we would evolve into perceiving four-dimensions, nothing would change besides us. That is love!
Thank you for this, I found the two-dimensional videos particularly helpful in bettering my understanding how change, and therefore time, must be an illusion created by the movement of a limited consciousness through space. I am working my way slowly through your whole series; it is exactly the education that I was looking for.
@gerrilea1 Just because we can't know exactly where an electron is at even given moment, doesn't mean that by measuring it(through some force, which produces an interaction w/ the particle at a point in the wave function) causes it to collapse at that point based on the probability of the particle actually existing there. In controlled experiments and with typical household items, we can reduce the probability of a photon existing to the point of nearly one line(lasers, heavy magnets)
thanks for the reply, and thanks again for the series. It is a great joy to consider these questions, isn't it, and a great privilege to have the opportunity to try to understand. I will keep working my way through your talks and may ask more, if you don't mind.
@gerrilea1 Gravity is a property of all matter with "mass". Gravity crushes the atoms inside of a star to fuse hydrogen into helium, which release a lot of energy at the same time. Most stars are primarily composed of these two elements. Later on in their life cycles, they run out of hydrogen and start fusing helium to create other elements all the way up to Iron. Once It starts fusing Iron, the star becomes very unstable and depending on the mass, can end their lives in several different ways
@gerrilea1 As for your paper example, not sure what you are trying to say. If I fold a piece of paper into a plane, is it still not made entirely out of paper? It is very uncommon to be able to visually see wave/particle duality at the macro level, since the probability of all the atoms the constitute the piece of paper as a whole have an (almost) zero chance of also appearing somewhere else while also conforming to the stable structure of the paper.
@gerrilea1 Do you not agree that if we shoot a neutron under the right conditions at a U235, that it will be absorbed and turn the atom into U236? At which point, in a very short amount of time, the isotope decays into Ka92 and Ba141(while also releasing additional neutrons) that we can harness in a controllable chain reaction-aka "splitting the atom". Energy is released by the nuclear decay, but it was already there held in by the strong nuclear force of the atom.
@gerrilea1 Electricity is the flow of electrons down a gradient. I apologize, in my earlier post I had said "electron" where I should of said "photon". Both particles are similar in that they have wave/particle duality(like all matter). Photons are the force carriers of EM, and when electrons absorb photons, they go into a higher energy states.
@gerrilea1 For Tesla, are you referring to the transmission of energy from one object(source) to another(receiver)? If so, that has already been accomplish via induction charging. You can get one for your phone. His attempts via gap discharge is very dangerous. Leedskalin has claims about him that he was able to move massive object with basic tools and (theoretically) magnets. Such feats have never been reproduced, and are unlikely because stones are just not conductive enough to be moved w/ MF
@gerrilea1 Erm, because light doesn't exist as a wave? Its called a wave FUNCTION because it describes the probability of where the particle is actually at. If we want to talk about particles as waves, we must refer to them as discrete units of energy which has no definitive physical reality.(Heisenberg uncertainty principle)
hi, I find your vids really nicely done, I would like to ask where you got those @5:06 and 5:10 - I want to find those in animated gifs, what are the the names of those?
@gerrilea1 All matter is not created in a star either. In fact, no matter at all is "created" only transformed from one type of matter to the other. All the energy a star has released or ever will release already exists in the star. The strong nuclear force is a force that hold together the protons and neutrons in an atom. It is a residual affect of the fundamental force carriers that comprise these particles. In radioactive elements, the strong force starts losing out to EM, and the atom decays
All objects radiates EMR or light from it radius could this form a dynamic dimension? That forms the forward passage of time. We know time is linked to light because of Einsteins equation: energy equals mass multiplied by the speed of light squared.
but I got that wrong, didn't I? it is the motion of space through limited consciousness that creates the illusion of time. Is there an answer to the question of how, or in what way space is in motion?
Thank you for the response, I will think about it. The series is excellent. I particularly like your repeated demonstration of how clear logical thought leads directly to the central mystery of consciousness in the very structure of this place we live in. It is great fun to think about these things, isn't it? I find the current cosmological model inelegant, you too, it seems. I dislike dark energy in particular, there must be a better explanation of the observational data.
@gerrilea1 I guess I should of been more specific, a perpetual motion engine is impossible. Perpetual motion in and itself it not all that useful(for that truly only lies in the vacuum of space) The atom is not an example of perpetual motion. Quantum mechanics tells us that the electrons orbiting the nucleus do not follow an orbital path, rather a probabilistic path that is both non-linear and could not even technically be described as motion. (wave particle duality)
Two eyes alone don't grant the ability to "see" in 3D because our brain only generates ONE picture out of it. If you just open your eyes for a split second, you get a 2D picture, just like a photo. If you leave your eyes open, you get a lot of 2D pictures which the brain assembles into a 3D perception. Two eyes certainly help with this process by adjusting focus and view angles. However, you need a certain "intelligence" for that which I called the ability to understand "concepts".
No, but I specify: Change is created by a movement through higher spatial dimensions - this actually is the clearer definition since yes: "time is nothing but a measurement of change". But, stating this alone says nothing about change itself and how it is created. How can change create itself in 3D space? It's not possible because it would require time to change... but time is change... it's an intrinsic and implausible argumentation. And, assuming "3D only", isn't that just theory as well? M
Ic we can warp,means we are in dimension 5/4(i forgot) if we can warp again from a aprellel world,we are in dimension 6,if we can warp alot and have different types of choices endings(infinite endings) we are in dimension 10
@CupCakeArmy1 So are you saying a Photon is an electron which is then what is described as "electricity"? Because you have yet to tell me what electricity actually is. Heisenberg got one thing right: the act of observation changes that being observed. The manipulation of "matter" to get a predetermined outcome is not proof. I'll emphasize this: the manipulation. If I manipulate a piece of paper, I can make it fly, does this manipulation prove what the paper is?
So there is some creature that lives in a 4-Dimensional world and it just look at us and laughts as we also do on a cat thinking that a new sun rises every day. That feels unconfortable :D
he's accurate with most of this but it bothered me that he didn't say a couple of things. First of all planets exist because of gravity yes but they also exist because of density and compression. Matter collapses into itself imploding and that is how you get the stages of stars, from heat, cooling, energy and motion. Also a dog will see the cube and only see the squares drawn that is why he sees in two dimensions. He perceives the squares. Humans see depth because it is a concept we have created that is commonly understood. We imagine depth because we say the four squares close around each other. Dogs can't comprehend this. However who is correct the dog or the human? This is why the man in this video is correct when he says dimensions do not exist they are only with our understanding and perception.
@gerrilea1 Furthermore, there is no such thing as "Over Unity". I like how you are quick to point out Newtons first law of motion to prove a point, but conviently ignore his other laws, such as conservation of energy. There is no such thing as over unity because you cannot extract more energy from a system than what existed there already. There is no proof that such a thing is possible, and would violate said conservation laws.
You need to remember that no theory is proven, no matter how many scientists suggested it. That's why it's called "theory". If you would actually start researching them, you'd suddenly see all the holes, inconsistencies and paradox in these commonly accepted theories. Of course, the only reason they are only commonly accepted is because almost nobody really tried to understand them. But if you do, you may start making videos like mine to bring up some expanded theories for the open-minded.
Can Gravity bend Time?And if do does Gravity have a higher dimension number than time ?Or not ?Maybe what you have stated is right maybe not ,what is clear is one fact ,we comprehend 3 dimenions ,the 4 th and 5 th might be debatable..for our level of comprehension . Still as human beings we ve codified our existance to bring it down to our human inteligence level and thus i would state 4 th dimension is time because it engulfs all previous 3 dimensions (of course there might be other dimensions that we are unaware but here ,now again we only discuss the ones we know of)and gravity because it has the capacity to affect and probably engulf time might be the 5 th dimension in the ones we know of.I agree ,concepts are necesary i would call them more like human constructs .Do you agree? And a better question would be :If time is a dimension what are the 3 elements of time,past present and future ?Human constructs (because as you clearly stated there is no past present and future ) OR Sub Dimensions?Motion=Cause and Creation=Effect
Can Gravity bend Time? No, because time doesn’t exist. It’s merely an illusion in eternal change or eternal motion, if you will. Concepts = human constructs, yes. Yet we can know clearly that: (1) The perception of dimensions arises within the observer only, not through a cosmic definition. There aren’t dimension #1, 2, 3 assigned to space and #4, 5, 6 to something else. Dimensions have no numbering. (2) Each change in our space/time is created by all higher dimensions, not just the next higher one. There’s no possibility to isolate unknown dimensions. We can only describe their combined effect. Gravity could be a combined effect of many dimension. Don't care about that. (3) A living being that perceives change/motion doesn’t perceive all dimensions. It’s our proof of an unknown and higher reality. (4) Existence takes place in all SPACE and doesn’t spare any dimension. Every living being thus has roots in all dimensions. (5) SPACE is that which contains all dimensions and thus must be dimensionless. We are non-dimensional beings. (6) Reality contains more physical information than our physical senses can perceive. But without our mind, it would have no depth in space and time. As a consequence, we must fundamentally acknowledge that dimensions aren’t purely spatial or temporal, but may also be mental (which we call a density then). And it’s impossible to distinguishing dimensions or densities from each other. Welcome to HERE NOW.
@@lean-mind-offset i thank you for your answer ,i will do my best and try to asimilate this information that you have (thank you for this )chosen to share with me .
@gerrilea1 Perhaps a polite inquiry into ridiculous ideas NOT supported by evidence? What is "over unity", please describe to me what that means since you know so much. I also find it fascinating you think conspiracy theories are more likely than the simple fact that these "ideas" are most likely just rumors. Please provide evidence of your conspiracy theories that are directly related to the topic and do not rely hearsay. Remember, facts are reproducible and independently verifiable.
I imagine 3 dimensions plus time in which matter is only vibrations in force fields. There would have been no Big Bang and no edge to the universe. It would just be an infinite universe in which time passes.
Is it that human life is just a change of space from birth to death is perceived as life we live in. If so how are choice accounted? Moreover at higher dimension if our whole life can be seen as one continuous thing, what happen to the choice I make at this very moment.
Ok, but in order to describe the motion of our position of consciousness along the dimension we perceive as time, we would be a second dimension of time. Unless this second temporal dimension is what we perceive the first temporal dimension as, you've generated a cascade of infinite temporal dimensions. Also, the ordering of dimensions is largely useless, as even the position and orientation of a dimension within another construct of higher dimension is entirely arbitrary.
Wow, nice one! You are on point. For the sake of my time allow me to quote from my book: "The division of our perception into space and time arises within the observer only, not through a cosmic definition. There aren’t explicitly “spatial” and explicitly “temporal” dimensions. All dimensions are of identical nature. The CHANGE of EXISTENCE, which we understand as time, is caused by MOTION in higher dimensions: not only by MOTION inside the next higher dimension but by MOTION within all higher dimensions combined. As a consequence, there is no possibility of isolating an unknown higher dimension. We may only describe the combined effect of all inaccessible dimensions." (p232) Thanks!
@CupCakeArmy1 I never ignored anything, his thermodynamics and C of E assumes and limits the understanding of matter itself. Oppenheimer didn't "split" the atom, he added to it, creating a chain reaction that was more than the sum of it's parts. Your failure to understand these basics is why you cannot fathom "over unity". What appears to be "getting out more than put in" is the best description available until man gives up his false science.
the new form has nothing to do with the old form, surely if that was true a cat wouldn't recognise it's owner everytime it saw him/her because it would be seeing it at a different angle everytime the cat saw the owner? btw i'm not slating it was a general question 'cause i'm quite confused, i hope someone understands what i mean by this quesion :L
@gerrilea1 You have given me names, not any sort of evidence. I have actually looked into Tesla and Leedskalnin and have found no verifiable proof for the claims that are made around them. This is why I asked you for evidence, which you seem unable to produce, further validating my position. For instance, if you cannot answer how they were able to do the feats claimed of them, then you have not proved anything.
@CupCakeArmy1 I agree that what you describe is what is taught. 12% of the time, stable U236 is created, but why's that again? If these theories are an accurate reflection of this universe, there shouldn't be such discrepancies. What is your understanding of the "strong nuclear force"? Herein lies the problem. If all matter is created in a star, it doesn't contain enough force/energy to explain what man's theories claim. Maybe man's missing "dark matter" is the culprit. UGHHH!
Sorry to stumble through the comments here, like a cat round a box, but I'm sure there's a mouse inside if I could just get it open. Space is not in motion, how could it be, if it is the sum total of everything? But is there any order in space, any pattern beyond that which consciousness gives it? I don't think I understand the place of creation in the explanation, is creation simply the product of consciousness stumbling about at random in space? Think I'd better just go lick my butt.
@gerrilea1 And since everybody lies, nothing you are told can be true? Such thoughts present many logical fallacies. A more rational mind who wishes to understand reality, instead of just their perception of it, would validate it through facts that support evidence that support beliefs. Since facts must be validated by OTHER people, such validation gives a much more accurate depiction of reality because you can begin to remove lenses of influence placed on your perception by false information.
@gerrilea1 Likewise I am not liable to believe anything you say if you cannot prove your point. The burdon of proof lies with you, not me. What you are really telling me is that you either too lazy to find any proof, or such proof does not exist. Which is not convicing at all. Why should I do your research for you?
Pendejo Anyone who claims to have a clear answer on questions such as these is deluding him/herself. Nonetheless the assumptions made in this video are too many and there is no evidence present for any of those. Just the ideas and understanding of one person trying to pass it as reality.
fotios369 Well...i hate to tell that as an observer, reality is what you perceive or think. So who are you to challenge his reality? im not telling what to do or not to, but if you don't have another theory for us to challenge, then stop poking holes into someone else's
No, time is a measurement of change in a system. Its not a dimension of space or even directly related to space at all. Also, anything higher than 3d is purely theoretical(unproven). Theorists love 4d + dimensions because it allows them to discard physical limits of 3d space in order to match their theories. You would do well to see them as possibilities instead of certainties.
@MrGarnache Isn't that why we exist, to understand. There is no confusion here, just your inability to expand your understandings. Stop being compartmentalized into belief systems that limit your understanding. This poster is doing his best to understand, even if it's all wrong, from your perspective, does it really matter? Your elites' attitude is what has kept man enslaved. You know only that which you are told to know.
I see what you did here. First you do not agree with my argumentation (which is fine, you don't have to). Then you use my argumentation (which you didn't agree with) to explain why you didn't agree with my argumentation. You shouldn't do that.
@CupCakeArmy1 Overunity, getting more out than put in. When you mature enough to accept the truth, get back to me. I've stated no rumors or CT theories here, just simple facts that you've feebly tried to discredit. Good luck with your disinfo, I will not participate. I have no obligation to provide anything to you that you can find on your own.
Your stating unproven speculation of superstring theory as fact. Your vids are filled with bit's and pieces of different theorys thats don't belong with each other on occation And you confuse philosophy with facts and mathmatics. I could write a book on the mistakes in this vid alone.
Time is not a dimension of space. Discard that notion or be forever dilusioned. iRibbit7 had no idea what he is talking about and it would be much more beneficial for you to get your philosophy elsewhere.
We are confined by definitions, but if we argue that dimensions can be spatial, temporal and get this-functional, we could prove string theory a lot quicker! Length, width, depth, duality, time, light, gravity, velocity and space-time are all dimensions in their own right.
Awesome questions! For asking in that clarity, you must already have seen beyond! Consider this explanation: Creation is not over, it is happening now, all the time; it is Change. Consciousness is always unlimited; it is One with Creation. With our limited perception we experience Change but perceive it as Time and Space, although both are illusions of ourselves. We are our three-dimensions! If we would evolve into perceiving four-dimensions, nothing would change besides us. That is love!
nice work, blew my mind the sudden insight about time being simultaneous. It brings up a lot of interesting questions.
well done - i humble approach to some news ideas -
Thank you for this, I found the two-dimensional videos particularly helpful in bettering my understanding how change, and therefore time, must be an illusion created by the movement of a limited consciousness through space. I am working my way slowly through your whole series; it is exactly the education that I was looking for.
@gerrilea1 Just because we can't know exactly where an electron is at even given moment, doesn't mean that by measuring it(through some force, which produces an interaction w/ the particle at a point in the wave function) causes it to collapse at that point based on the probability of the particle actually existing there. In controlled experiments and with typical household items, we can reduce the probability of a photon existing to the point of nearly one line(lasers, heavy magnets)
In other words: time is the illusion created by a movement through higher spatial dimensions.
thanks for the reply, and thanks again for the series. It is a great joy to consider these questions, isn't it, and a great privilege to have the opportunity to try to understand. I will keep working my way through your talks and may ask more, if you don't mind.
very good and interesting theme. the Philosoph Henri Bergson ( memory and materie )did write a lot about this questions. Thank you !
@gerrilea1 Gravity is a property of all matter with "mass". Gravity crushes the atoms inside of a star to fuse hydrogen into helium, which release a lot of energy at the same time. Most stars are primarily composed of these two elements. Later on in their life cycles, they run out of hydrogen and start fusing helium to create other elements all the way up to Iron. Once It starts fusing Iron, the star becomes very unstable and depending on the mass, can end their lives in several different ways
@gerrilea1 As for your paper example, not sure what you are trying to say. If I fold a piece of paper into a plane, is it still not made entirely out of paper? It is very uncommon to be able to visually see wave/particle duality at the macro level, since the probability of all the atoms the constitute the piece of paper as a whole have an (almost) zero chance of also appearing somewhere else while also conforming to the stable structure of the paper.
@gerrilea1 Do you not agree that if we shoot a neutron under the right conditions at a U235, that it will be absorbed and turn the atom into U236? At which point, in a very short amount of time, the isotope decays into Ka92 and Ba141(while also releasing additional neutrons) that we can harness in a controllable chain reaction-aka "splitting the atom". Energy is released by the nuclear decay, but it was already there held in by the strong nuclear force of the atom.
Why does you latest video not play on my iPhone. What's up with that?
@gerrilea1 Electricity is the flow of electrons down a gradient. I apologize, in my earlier post I had said "electron" where I should of said "photon". Both particles are similar in that they have wave/particle duality(like all matter). Photons are the force carriers of EM, and when electrons absorb photons, they go into a higher energy states.
@gerrilea1 For Tesla, are you referring to the transmission of energy from one object(source) to another(receiver)? If so, that has already been accomplish via induction charging. You can get one for your phone. His attempts via gap discharge is very dangerous.
Leedskalin has claims about him that he was able to move massive object with basic tools and (theoretically) magnets. Such feats have never been reproduced, and are unlikely because stones are just not conductive enough to be moved w/ MF
@gerrilea1 Erm, because light doesn't exist as a wave? Its called a wave FUNCTION because it describes the probability of where the particle is actually at. If we want to talk about particles as waves, we must refer to them as discrete units of energy which has no definitive physical reality.(Heisenberg uncertainty principle)
hi, I find your vids really nicely done, I would like to ask where you got those @5:06 and 5:10 -
I want to find those in animated gifs, what are the the names of those?
@gerrilea1 All matter is not created in a star either. In fact, no matter at all is "created" only transformed from one type of matter to the other. All the energy a star has released or ever will release already exists in the star. The strong nuclear force is a force that hold together the protons and neutrons in an atom. It is a residual affect of the fundamental force carriers that comprise these particles. In radioactive elements, the strong force starts losing out to EM, and the atom decays
All objects radiates EMR or light from it radius could this form a dynamic dimension? That forms the forward passage of time. We know time is linked to light because of Einsteins equation: energy equals mass multiplied by the speed of light squared.
"Within space, consciousness is creating dimensions" , very interesting indeed.
Truly mind boggling . Why can't we be satisfied with a 3 dimensional world? Do we have to know everything?
but I got that wrong, didn't I? it is the motion of space through limited consciousness that creates the illusion of time. Is there an answer to the question of how, or in what way space is in motion?
Thank you for the response, I will think about it. The series is excellent. I particularly like your repeated demonstration of how clear logical thought leads directly to the central mystery of consciousness in the very structure of this place we live in. It is great fun to think about these things, isn't it? I find the current cosmological model inelegant, you too, it seems. I dislike dark energy in particular, there must be a better explanation of the observational data.
@gerrilea1 I guess I should of been more specific, a perpetual motion engine is impossible. Perpetual motion in and itself it not all that useful(for that truly only lies in the vacuum of space)
The atom is not an example of perpetual motion. Quantum mechanics tells us that the electrons orbiting the nucleus do not follow an orbital path, rather a probabilistic path that is both non-linear and could not even technically be described as motion. (wave particle duality)
Two eyes alone don't grant the ability to "see" in 3D because our brain only generates ONE picture out of it. If you just open your eyes for a split second, you get a 2D picture, just like a photo. If you leave your eyes open, you get a lot of 2D pictures which the brain assembles into a 3D perception. Two eyes certainly help with this process by adjusting focus and view angles. However, you need a certain "intelligence" for that which I called the ability to understand "concepts".
No, but I specify: Change is created by a movement through higher spatial dimensions - this actually is the clearer definition since yes: "time is nothing but a measurement of change". But, stating this alone says nothing about change itself and how it is created. How can change create itself in 3D space? It's not possible because it would require time to change... but time is change... it's an intrinsic and implausible argumentation. And, assuming "3D only", isn't that just theory as well? M
Yes. We are not alone :)
Ic we can warp,means we are in dimension 5/4(i forgot) if we can warp again from a aprellel world,we are in dimension 6,if we can warp alot and have different types of choices endings(infinite endings) we are in dimension 10
@CupCakeArmy1 So are you saying a Photon is an electron which is then what is described as "electricity"? Because you have yet to tell me what electricity actually is.
Heisenberg got one thing right: the act of observation changes that being observed.
The manipulation of "matter" to get a predetermined outcome is not proof. I'll emphasize this: the manipulation. If I manipulate a piece of paper, I can make it fly, does this manipulation prove what the paper is?
...
My head hurts
I always thought that time is the rendering of the realization of consciousness and motion. But i guess it's relatively similar.
So there is some creature that lives in a 4-Dimensional world and it just look at us and laughts as we also do on a cat thinking that a new sun rises every day. That feels unconfortable :D
You are right about the ordering......
he's accurate with most of this but it bothered me that he didn't say a couple of things. First of all planets exist because of gravity yes but they also exist because of density and compression. Matter collapses into itself imploding and that is how you get the stages of stars, from heat, cooling, energy and motion. Also a dog will see the cube and only see the squares drawn that is why he sees in two dimensions. He perceives the squares. Humans see depth because it is a concept we have created that is commonly understood. We imagine depth because we say the four squares close around each other. Dogs can't comprehend this. However who is correct the dog or the human? This is why the man in this video is correct when he says dimensions do not exist they are only with our understanding and perception.
@gerrilea1 Furthermore, there is no such thing as "Over Unity". I like how you are quick to point out Newtons first law of motion to prove a point, but conviently ignore his other laws, such as conservation of energy. There is no such thing as over unity because you cannot extract more energy from a system than what existed there already. There is no proof that such a thing is possible, and would violate said conservation laws.
You need to remember that no theory is proven, no matter how many scientists suggested it. That's why it's called "theory". If you would actually start researching them, you'd suddenly see all the holes, inconsistencies and paradox in these commonly accepted theories. Of course, the only reason they are only commonly accepted is because almost nobody really tried to understand them. But if you do, you may start making videos like mine to bring up some expanded theories for the open-minded.
Can Gravity bend Time?And if do does Gravity have a higher dimension number than time ?Or not ?Maybe what you have stated is right maybe not ,what is clear is one fact ,we comprehend 3 dimenions ,the 4 th and 5 th might be debatable..for our level of comprehension .
Still as human beings we ve codified our existance to bring it down to our human inteligence level and thus i would state 4 th dimension is time because it engulfs all previous 3 dimensions (of course there might be other dimensions that we are unaware but here ,now again we only discuss the ones we know of)and gravity because it has the capacity to affect and probably engulf time might be the 5 th dimension in the ones we know of.I agree ,concepts are necesary i would call them more like human constructs .Do you agree?
And a better question would be :If time is a dimension what are the 3 elements of time,past present and future ?Human constructs (because as you clearly stated there is no past present and future ) OR Sub Dimensions?Motion=Cause and Creation=Effect
Can Gravity bend Time? No, because time doesn’t exist. It’s merely an illusion in eternal change or eternal motion, if you will. Concepts = human constructs, yes. Yet we can know clearly that: (1) The perception of dimensions arises within the observer only, not through a cosmic definition. There aren’t dimension #1, 2, 3 assigned to space and #4, 5, 6 to something else. Dimensions have no numbering. (2) Each change in our space/time is created by all higher dimensions, not just the next higher one. There’s no possibility to isolate unknown dimensions. We can only describe their combined effect. Gravity could be a combined effect of many dimension. Don't care about that. (3) A living being that perceives change/motion doesn’t perceive all dimensions. It’s our proof of an unknown and higher reality. (4) Existence takes place in all SPACE and doesn’t spare any dimension. Every living being thus has roots in all dimensions. (5) SPACE is that which contains all dimensions and thus must be dimensionless. We are non-dimensional beings. (6) Reality contains more physical information than our physical senses can perceive. But without our mind, it would have no depth in space and time. As a consequence, we must fundamentally acknowledge that dimensions aren’t purely spatial or temporal, but may also be mental (which we call a density then). And it’s impossible to distinguishing dimensions or densities from each other. Welcome to HERE NOW.
@@lean-mind-offset i thank you for your answer ,i will do my best and try to asimilate this information that you have (thank you for this )chosen to share with me .
@@bogdandima8139 You are very welcome. Thank you :)
Nice job
@gerrilea1 Perhaps a polite inquiry into ridiculous ideas NOT supported by evidence? What is "over unity", please describe to me what that means since you know so much.
I also find it fascinating you think conspiracy theories are more likely than the simple fact that these "ideas" are most likely just rumors. Please provide evidence of your conspiracy theories that are directly related to the topic and do not rely hearsay. Remember, facts are reproducible and independently verifiable.
@PerfectDarkZero021 lol parellel. If we can warp sorry mistakes
I imagine 3 dimensions plus time in which matter is only vibrations in force fields. There would have been no Big Bang and no edge to the universe. It would just be an infinite universe in which time passes.
Is it that human life is just a change of space from birth to death is perceived as life we live in. If so how are choice accounted? Moreover at higher dimension if our whole life can be seen as one continuous thing, what happen to the choice I make at this very moment.
Ok, but in order to describe the motion of our position of consciousness along the dimension we perceive as time, we would be a second dimension of time. Unless this second temporal dimension is what we perceive the first temporal dimension as, you've generated a cascade of infinite temporal dimensions.
Also, the ordering of dimensions is largely useless, as even the position and orientation of a dimension within another construct of higher dimension is entirely arbitrary.
Wow, nice one! You are on point. For the sake of my time allow me to quote from my book: "The division of our perception into space and time arises within the observer only, not through a cosmic definition. There aren’t explicitly “spatial” and explicitly “temporal” dimensions. All dimensions are of identical nature.
The CHANGE of EXISTENCE, which we understand as time, is caused by MOTION in higher dimensions: not only by MOTION inside the next higher dimension but by MOTION within all higher dimensions combined.
As a consequence, there is no possibility of isolating an unknown higher dimension. We may only describe the combined effect of all inaccessible dimensions." (p232) Thanks!
Love my GTI too
@CupCakeArmy1 I never ignored anything, his thermodynamics and C of E assumes and limits the understanding of matter itself. Oppenheimer didn't "split" the atom, he added to it, creating a chain reaction that was more than the sum of it's parts. Your failure to understand these basics is why you cannot fathom "over unity". What appears to be "getting out more than put in" is the best description available until man gives up his false science.
the new form has nothing to do with the old form, surely if that was true a cat wouldn't recognise it's owner everytime it saw him/her because it would be seeing it at a different angle everytime the cat saw the owner? btw i'm not slating it was a general question 'cause i'm quite confused, i hope someone understands what i mean by this quesion :L
@gerrilea1 You have given me names, not any sort of evidence. I have actually looked into Tesla and Leedskalnin and have found no verifiable proof for the claims that are made around them. This is why I asked you for evidence, which you seem unable to produce, further validating my position. For instance, if you cannot answer how they were able to do the feats claimed of them, then you have not proved anything.
WE ARE THE MY CHILDREN! 😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😂
Oh hi Mark !
@CupCakeArmy1 I agree that what you describe is what is taught. 12% of the time, stable U236 is created, but why's that again? If these theories are an accurate reflection of this universe, there shouldn't be such discrepancies. What is your understanding of the "strong nuclear force"? Herein lies the problem. If all matter is created in a star, it doesn't contain enough force/energy to explain what man's theories claim. Maybe man's missing "dark matter" is the culprit. UGHHH!
Where's the math?
I told you ... they are the same dimension ...
forgot I'd already replied, silly me! must be high on life.
Sorry to stumble through the comments here, like a cat round a box, but I'm sure there's a mouse inside if I could just get it open. Space is not in motion, how could it be, if it is the sum total of everything? But is there any order in space, any pattern beyond that which consciousness gives it? I don't think I understand the place of creation in the explanation, is creation simply the product of consciousness stumbling about at random in space? Think I'd better just go lick my butt.
@gerrilea1 And since everybody lies, nothing you are told can be true? Such thoughts present many logical fallacies. A more rational mind who wishes to understand reality, instead of just their perception of it, would validate it through facts that support evidence that support beliefs. Since facts must be validated by OTHER people, such validation gives a much more accurate depiction of reality because you can begin to remove lenses of influence placed on your perception by false information.
@gerrilea1 Likewise I am not liable to believe anything you say if you cannot prove your point. The burdon of proof lies with you, not me. What you are really telling me is that you either too lazy to find any proof, or such proof does not exist. Which is not convicing at all. Why should I do your research for you?
sorry bro but you got this whole thing wrong...
fotios369 Okay, since you have the correct answer, let's have it.
Pendejo Anyone who claims to have a clear answer on questions such as these is deluding him/herself. Nonetheless the assumptions made in this video are too many and there is no evidence present for any of those. Just the ideas and understanding of one person trying to pass it as reality.
fotios369 Well...i hate to tell that as an observer, reality is what you perceive or think. So who are you to challenge his reality? im not telling what to do or not to, but if you don't have another theory for us to challenge, then stop poking holes into someone else's
No, time is a measurement of change in a system. Its not a dimension of space or even directly related to space at all. Also, anything higher than 3d is purely theoretical(unproven). Theorists love 4d + dimensions because it allows them to discard physical limits of 3d space in order to match their theories. You would do well to see them as possibilities instead of certainties.
@MrGarnache Isn't that why we exist, to understand. There is no confusion here, just your inability to expand your understandings. Stop being compartmentalized into belief systems that limit your understanding. This poster is doing his best to understand, even if it's all wrong, from your perspective, does it really matter? Your elites' attitude is what has kept man enslaved. You know only that which you are told to know.
there is no phd for you
Gravity is Time and Time is Gravity
YFLOInternational Apples are oranges, and oranges are bananas.
I see what you did here. First you do not agree with my argumentation (which is fine, you don't have to). Then you use my argumentation (which you didn't agree with) to explain why you didn't agree with my argumentation. You shouldn't do that.
You should speak only for your own cat
sooo..... within space conciousness is creating my gay marriage cake?
absolutely wrong.
@CupCakeArmy1 Overunity, getting more out than put in. When you mature enough to accept the truth, get back to me. I've stated no rumors or CT theories here, just simple facts that you've feebly tried to discredit.
Good luck with your disinfo, I will not participate. I have no obligation to provide anything to you that you can find on your own.
Your stating unproven speculation of superstring theory as fact. Your vids are filled with bit's and pieces of different theorys thats don't belong with each other on occation And you confuse philosophy with facts and mathmatics. I could write a book on the mistakes in this vid alone.
Time is not a dimension of space. Discard that notion or be forever dilusioned. iRibbit7 had no idea what he is talking about and it would be much more beneficial for you to get your philosophy elsewhere.
This is wrong. If the maker of this video said this to a dimension navigator he would be an absolute laughing stock xD.
We are confined by definitions, but if we argue that dimensions can be spatial, temporal and get this-functional, we could prove string theory a lot quicker! Length, width, depth, duality, time, light, gravity, velocity and space-time are all dimensions in their own right.
Very UNscientific.