Curious questions

[breddell]

First of all. Ufology thanks for making my post look prettier. You guys are way above my IQ. Journalist, authors, and so much more I'm sure. I will work on improving as I read posts. My first forum ever.


Second Breddell, No evidence that I know of other than shows and reading peoples thoughts. I just think it would be small and narrow minded to think we're it. Some believe in the great primordial soup. Which I don't.
Some say the earth was seeded from the likes of a comet crashing after earth cooled down. That's possible I would say. But, if that was the case then the seeds came from some other distant world.

I guess my best answer would be faith. Too many galaxies, too many stars, and in a short distance from us already several planets found.

You all totally lost me with the multiverses and dimensional talk. But all the same good reading.


Thirdly Han. Loved your answer as well. The only thing I know of Chinese writing is that it is old. So I can see where your coming from. Good correction to me.
I do think we have gotten better at containing radiation but having an incident happen is very possible and I could see coverups as well. We have had plenty of coverups thrown right in our face.
What I intended in my post is looking for an earthly explanation to explain things. I'll have more.

Here's one more.
Cattle mutilations. From what I've read and heard. Laser like cuts, organs removed, almost all or all the animals on big ranches and insured, and black helicopters.
Would it be safe to say the CDC conducting tests for mad cow and other diseases. They work as privately as possible, the rancher gets reimbursed, and everyone left scratching their heads as to what happened.
The reason I say that is that I used to deer hunt and sometimes the game department would remove the tongues and udders to look for certain things.

Your thoughts,
Robert

Thanks Robert and I'm sorry part of your discussion was derailed. When you get time, do check out all of the conversations as they do pertain to cutting edge research and theory that are trying to uncover reality. Just look to see what credible organizations are working on and funding and decide what makes the most sense. I did confirm your suspicions that it is unreasonable based on physics of the universe for interstellar travel. As you suggest, maybe focus on life here and why are we so special.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Waller]

Unreasonable only if you have never been exposed to the information readily available about interstellar travel. How do you access that data?

Ask an ET.

 

[Randall]

First of all. Ufology thanks for making my post look prettier. You guys are way above my IQ ...

I wouldn't be so sure about that ... lol. It's more likely that we've just spent more time reflecting on these particular things. I might be completely incompetent at some of the things you are good at, and that wouldn't mean I'm stupider than you any more than it means you're stupider than we are if I lose you on some things you're not familiar with. The important thing is that if we are interested in furthering our understanding, that we make the effort .

 

[Sand]

Getting back to my original point/question - there is no physical evidence to date, but there is a lot of evidence such as remnants of interaction (radar images, weird things showing up on cameras but not seen (or vice-versa), electromagnetic signatures, burnt marks on the ground, etc.). I personally have a satisfactory answer for me (if interested contact me privately), but can it be possible for these 'signatures' to be evidence of some other phenomena or beings (from other spatial dimension or realm) interacting in our world just as above with a 3D person touching a 2D world? To me this seems more likely than the overcoming the physics of interstellar travel, assuming life even exists or had time to 'evolve'. Like everyone here, this is a personal opinion based on interpretations of the best humanity has to offer, with the understanding that better answers are being sought after.

One last question on my part.

Breddell, if there are extra spatial dimensions in our universe (or brane if talking M-theory) that are larger than the micro curled up dimensions, wouldn’t we have detected them? Hasn’t the Large Hadron Collider searched for extra dimensions down to a size less than a millimeter? (and I realize Ufology feels extra spatial dimensions cannot exist in our universe) If you have an explanation for UFOs that you feel satisfied with, I’d be interested to hear about it.

And uscoins, great first thread.

 

[Randall]

... Unless you can illustrate your idea on the above picture, there is no way I can understand your claim.

OK I'll try, using your picture as a reference:

In the picture above there is a 2D universe and a 3D universe. So the picture is dealing with separate universes, which is entirely different than separate dimensions within a single universe, which is the context that the point of contention in our discussion was taking place in. But for the sake of discussion, let's have a look at the diagram and consider the issues:

First of all it's probably a good idea to tackle the idea that physical objects can exist in 2D. The only way for this happen is if we assume a quantum 2D universe where all particles are aligned in a 2D plane, making that universe very thin, but technically still 3D where depth is the diameter of the particle or the radius of the vibration of the string or whatever the case may be. Mathematically however, because 2D areas contain no depth, they cannot act as containers, and therefore no objects can be contained within them. They are an abstract concept only.

Now, setting aside, for the sake of illustration, the issue of objects physically existing in 2D, there is nothing that prevents a 2D segment from a 2D universe to be mapped into 2D coordinates in a 3D universe without any loss. However because of sequential dependence, the reverse is not true. A 3D object cannot be mapped into a 2D universe without its volume collapsing to zero, thus destroying the object. Similarly, a 3D object from one universe can be mapped into another 3D universe without any loss. A simple cut and paste operation would do the trick, and these principles remain intact regardless of how many dimensions we want to add.

The same is not true however if instead of independent universes, we're talking about additional dimensions within a single universe. Your illustration doesn't facilitate the best explanation for this and I don't have the time to create a video for this, but if anybody out there is good at creating animations, let me know, because I'd really like to create this one. In the meantime, I'll do the best I can with your diagram. First we need to substitute the word "universe" for "dimension". When we do that the 3D X axis is an extension of Origin ( O ) and 2D area ( O,y times O,z ), giving us O,y times O,z times O,x = Volume ( V )

In this situation, all 3D objects within V must of necessity also contain coordinates mapped onto the y and z axes, and therefore no 3D object within this construct can exist independent of y and z. Therefore it's not possible for some 3D object ( like 3D aliens to ) "look down" onto y and z as if they are separate from it. Their ship and everything about them would include 2D coordinates from Flatland and if we assume that Flatlanders have perceptual abilities, they would be able to see them as clearly as they can see themselves.

This also means that there is no way for the 3D aliens to magically "float" up out of Flatland without collapsing their y and z axes, and destroying themselves. The only way this can happen is by mapping all 3 axes onto another 3D construct ( a separate universe ), but that still doesn't mean that either universe can observe or detect the other. That's because if we assume quantum ( Q ) universes, the points constituting the reality within each universe are separated from each other. So there is no link between Q1 in Universe A and Q1 in Universe B. We could however delineate a universe outside our own by mapping it with respect to the container universe that they both reside in ( C ), which only needs to be 3D itself. So inside C, the Q1 in Universe A might be situated at sector Cx:1,Cy:1,Cz:1 and Q1 in universe B might be situated at Cx:1.5, Cy:1.5, Cz:1.5.

It might also be possible that if the quantum fluctuations in each universe are close enough, that one universe might have some influence on the quantum particles in the other, facilitating indirect detection. It might even be possible for quantum bits to slip from one universe into the other from time to time, seemingly popping in and out of existence from nowhere, and coincidentally ( or otherwise ), such phenomena do seem to be real. So although aliens travelling to and from higher dimensions is logically impossible, I would suggest that there's a lot more to the idea of alternate universes than you might have first thought.

I hope this helps.

 

[breddell]

One last question on my part.

Breddell, if there are extra spatial dimensions in our universe (or brane if talking M-theory) that are larger than the micro curled up dimensions, wouldn’t we have detected them? Hasn’t the Large Hadron Collider searched for extra dimensions down to a size less than a millimeter? (and I realize Ufology feels extra spatial dimensions cannot exist in our universe) If you have an explanation for UFOs that you feel satisfied with, I’d be interested to hear about it.

Hello Sand,

Detecting extra dimensions probably requires quite extensive technologies that can look for the appropriate signatures in the processes of rare interactions. I think it has only been in recent years that we have come close to being able to do this with instruments such as the LHC and LIGO - but maybe they are not enough, that remains to be seen. I think the search is more complicated than just looking for some 'direction', which we will never see. Here is a CERN article discussing the search at LHC.

Extra dimensions | Media and Press Relations

I don't want to de-rail Roberts email too much, so I would be happy to discuss your questions on my beliefs privately!

 

[Randall]

... I don't want to de-rail Roberts email too much, so I would be happy to discuss your questions on my beliefs privately!

The thread is called "Curious Questions", and dimensions and universes definitely have mysteries that fit into that category. So I doubt @uscoins minds if we explore these issues ( I hope ), and he can always put us back on track with his own questions whenever he wants too .

 

[breddell]

In the picture above there is a 2D universe and a 3D universe. So the picture is dealing with separate universes, which is entirely different than separate dimensions within a single universe, which is the context that the point of contention in our discussion was taking place in. But for the sake of discussion, let's have a look at the diagram and consider the issues:

Ok. That might be a bad label, it is just terminology meant to say the universe according to the 2D being to illustrate what he can and cannot see.

First of all it's probably a good idea to tackle the idea that physical objects can exist in 2D. The only way for this happen is if we assume a quantum 2D universe where all particles are aligned in a 2D plane, making that universe very thin, but technically still 3D where depth is the diameter of the particle or the radius of the vibration of the string or whatever the case may be. Mathematically however, because 2D areas contain no depth, they cannot act as containers, and therefore no objects can be contained within them. They are an abstract concept only.

This is a problem. First of all I'm not sure what you mean by a 'quantum 2D universe'. What you have pointed out is a good observation. In a 2D space or universe, the physics will look quite different, including the quantum structure. What were physical objects in 3D only parts of them show up in 2D.

Now, setting aside, for the sake of illustration, the issue of objects physically existing in 2D, there is nothing that prevents a 2D segment from a 2D universe to be mapped into 2D coordinates in a 3D universe without any loss. However because of sequential dependence, the reverse is not true. A 3D object cannot be mapped into a 2D universe without its volume collapsing to zero, thus destroying the object. Similarly, a 3D object from one universe can be mapped into another 3D universe without any loss. A simple cut and paste operation would do the trick, and these principles remain intact regardless of how many dimensions we want to add.

I agree with everything you say here except the destroying the object part. The 3D object still exists and only a slice of it exists in the 2D space (like a very think slice through the apple)- to use the Carl Sagan video that you referenced at one point.

The same is not true however if instead of independent universes, we're talking about additional dimensions within a single universe. Your illustration doesn't facilitate the best explanation for this and I don't have the time to create a video for this, but if anybody out there is good at creating animations, let me know, because I'd really like to create this one. In the meantime, I'll do the best I can with your diagram. First we need to substitute the word "universe" for "dimension". When we do that the 3D X axis is an extension of Origin ( O ) and 2D area ( O,y times O,z ), giving us O,y times O,z times O,x = Volume ( V )

I don't understand your last sentence here at all - I think you are just trying to define a volume? Maybe you are right that a professional artist is needed. Coordinates are arbitrary. What I have shown in the picture was chosen so that we can do simple math on relating the 2D to 3D conversation.

In this situation, all 3D objects within V must of necessity also contain coordinates mapped onto the y and z axes, and therefore no 3D object within this construct can exist independent of y and z. Therefore it's not possible for some 3D object ( like 3D aliens to ) "look down" onto y and z as if they are separate from it. Their ship and everything about them would include 2D coordinates from Flatland and if we assume that Flatlanders have perceptual abilities, they would be able to see them as clearly as they can see themselves.

This is completely untrue and doesn't follow from this discussion. I think the confusion is related to understanding of what a dimension is - and this is an esoteric subject. It is most commonly thought of as simply direction (or degree of freedom) of space or it is sometimes referred to as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify a point within it. In my picture, if the square object is a piece of paper that has no thickness then it is a 2D dimensional object and any 3D observer at any location can see the object. If instead of paper part of it is air and a 3D object passes through, a 2D being will see something suddenly appear, then disappear. Nobody can think beyond 3D, so there is no way to understand what the nD (n=4,5,6,...) space would look like and how it would manifest itself in our space (this is equivalent to the slice of a 3D object in 2D space).

This also means that there is no way for the 3D aliens to magically "float" up out of Flatland without collapsing their y and z axes, and destroying themselves. The only way this can happen is by mapping all 3 axes onto another 3D construct ( a separate universe ), but that still doesn't mean that either universe can observe or detect the other. That's because if we assume quantum ( Q ) universes, the points constituting the reality within each universe are separated from each other. So there is no link between Q1 in Universe A and Q1 in Universe B. We could however delineate a universe outside our own by mapping it with respect to the container universe that they both reside in ( C ), which only needs to be 3D itself. So inside C, the Q1 in Universe A might be situated at sector Cx:1,Cy:1,Cz:1 and Q1 in universe B might be situated at Cx:1.5, Cy:1.5, Cz:1.5.

I think I partially agree with this in that a 3D object can come out of a 2D object. A 3D object passing through a 2D space will suddenly appear and disappear or collide with whatever material they overlap in the 2D space - in which case not sure what happens.

It might also be possible that if the quantum fluctuations in each universe are close enough, that one universe might have some influence on the quantum particles in the other, facilitating indirect detection. It might even be possible for quantum bits to slip from one universe into the other from time to time, seemingly popping in and out of existence from nowhere, and coincidentally ( or otherwise ), such phenomena do seem to be real. So although aliens travelling to and from higher dimensions is logically impossible, I would suggest that there's a lot more to the idea of alternate universes than you might have first thought.

This is really speculation at this point. You talk as if aliens from a higher dimension are physical objects - if they exist, who knows of their properties. We've really gone off the deep end. This is a very complicated topic and I think we've gone to the limits of our explanation on this topic. I do applaud you for bringing up this challenging topic. As you said in a previous post - 'at least we have this universe'.

I hope this helps. [/QUOTE] Nope

 

[Randall]

This is a problem. First of all I'm not sure what you mean by a 'quantum 2D universe'.

I mean a universe composed of quanta, which is essentially the same idea that is the basis for quantum mechanics, which is the idea that the universe is composed of discrete bits, referred to as particles or strings, depending on which model one wants to build on. In a 2D universe all such quanta would be aligned in a 2D plane.

I agree with everything you say here except the destroying the object part. The 3D object still exists and only a slice of it exists in the 2D space (like a very think slice through the apple)- to use the Carl Sagan video that you referenced at one point.

Destroying the 3D object only happens if it is separated from its 2D coordinates, because a 3D object requires all 3 axes to exist. It cannot float "up out of 2D" into 3D space as if that space is independent of D1 and D2. Applying this principle to "higher" dimensions aliens might hypothetically come from: For the sake of argument, if our universe has 4 spatial dimensions instead of 3, then the aliens are of necessity still part of the same 3D coordinates we are and therefore they can be always be detected as 3D objects at all times.

If they attempt to disconnect they will lose D1, D2, & D3, collapsing into D1 and consequently destroying themselves. Therefore the idea of moving to and from higher dimensions inside a given universe as if each higher dimension is independent of those below it, is logically incoherent and therefore impossible. I'm not going to be able to do much better at getting this idea across here without some sort of visualization. So maybe we should just move on and give you some time to reflect on it.

 

[victimized]

We're digressing in that the context of the discussion has been switched, but I'll try to address the points in a way that brings us back into the context that we started off in. BTW: The Bostrom paper is worth reading too if you haven't done that yet.

Multiverses and extra dimensions are both speculative, so saying either is speculative neither validates nor invalidates them. What can invalidate a speculative theory is if it's logically incoherent within the context it is being considered. In the case of the extra dimensions mentioned in the article you linked to, they aren't what we're talking about. We're talking about the possibility of aliens coming "down" from a "higher" dimension into our "lower" dimension, as if they can exist "up there" independently of what's going on "down here", and the dimensions talked about in the QM article are completely different, and have their own different incoherencies to deal with. Consider this statement:

"... but there are additional dimensions which are curled-up very tightly so that they have an extremely small radius: less that one 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 th ( nonillionth ) of a centimeter"
​

First of all, anything that has a radius is either a 2D circle or a 3D sphere, and therefore what is being described isn't an "extra dimension", but a tiny area or volume of space within a larger 3D construct. So again, it seems there is some conflating of concepts going on there between "higher dimensions" and really small areas or volumes. But aside from that, even if we decide that there is some as of yet unexplained rationale for why we should consider these areas or spaces to be dimensions in their own right, they are so tiny that in the context of what we're talking about ( as places where aliens who come here in UFOs might originate from ), they are completely inapplicable.

That depends on how you define "existence", objects", and "2D". This can get rather philosophical, but basically A set of 2D coordinates is an area, which is a purely abstract concept that describes the size of an object's surface, not any object in and of itself. So we don't generally think of areas as objects, other than perhaps as designators for certain kinds of places e.g. "The living room is our entertainment area."

That takes us back out of context again and into abstract mathematical models that bolt on more abstract mathematical components that have been labeled "dimensions" but do not fit the interpretation of "dimensions" that we are discussing, which is the possibility of "higher" spatial dimensions within our observable universe that aliens can move in and out of as if they exist independent from our "lower" dimensions. So although interesting, and FWIW I like to follow the latest developments in the accelerator labs too, none of that is applicable to this particular discussion.

The only thing you need to understand, to understand my claim, is the principle of sequential dependence in spatial geometry where dimensions are clearly differentiated from universes, and how that might apply to transporting physical objects between them. This can be done without reference to any other papers. Consider the question: How is it possible for something in a hypothetical universe with 6 spatial dimensions to exist in dimensions 4-6 without also being composed of dimensions 1-3? Once you have the answer to that firmly in place, then you can easier see how the rest of what I was saying falls into place.

Counting 1111111111111 not 00000000

The ancient concept for the act of conversion related to One God as a status, and to never alter the One status.

1 = 1
11 = 2 of 1
111 = 3 of 1 etc.

The male believed himself to be God, yet how can you be a human being, living after another organic organism....animals and then imply you are a circle?

The concept of God = O a circle, the values of the PHI losophy of Stone, why they called the stone, the God creator of the Heavens, by the release of hot gases out of the stone body.

When you review the philosophy the review stated that the first advice was that the atmospheric body had been voided by 1, for the named groups by value equate to minus 1.

Minus of the 1 review stated that the Earth stone was abominated, so was Nature.

The concept of the O circle or PHI related to the review of LIGHT in a circular motion rotating, for G is a point that swirls into the value of O, that is then separated by I (phi) into the D and D condition. Why D = 500 the value of Christ 1000 and M the middle also 1000.

The condition realization stated when the human male was given irradiation....intense brain prickling (thorns,) and then unnatural bleeding from his body, that the atmospheric body that once protected his own life had been removed, as the minus 1 condition or sacrifice of his own Christ realization, as a Heavenly body review.

The review the male has never realized is that the Shaman was in a drugged mind state when he gained concepts for the levitation of stone, and hence then caused irradiation of the atmosphere and fall out, for his own life, an organic life, as animals did not belong to the amount of radiation that plants formed in.

The male conceptualized that the atmospheric mass was an angel, and that he personally had an angel, yet he personally had his own natural self. The mass that surrounds and supports Earth, is the same mass that surrounds and supports our own life.

His concept of the angel was the fall out condition that our life does not belong to.

I know, for I was witness to the act of the atmospheric vi SION.

As I was irradiated, I saw the angel imagery forming as the atmospheric fall out began to cool, the evil images of spiritual presences that manifested were taken in a line and moved away by the presence of the angel. As I am not a male, I therefore did not believe my own person was an angel, and saw what the angel reaction meant as a formed image in the reactive state.

As modern day occultist, who also by self choice, self feed back of brain/mind interaction have the same occult belief of those who attacked our lives previously they too believe that they personally own an angel...yet they do not....they own the atmospheric mass interacting with their natural life....the angelic condition belongs to fall out and is the condition that keeps our own life safe from irradiation.

 

[victimized]

First of all. Ufology thanks for making my post look prettier. You guys are way above my IQ. Journalist, authors, and so much more I'm sure. I will work on improving as I read posts. My first forum ever.


Second Breddell, No evidence that I know of other than shows and reading peoples thoughts. I just think it would be small and narrow minded to think we're it. Some believe in the great primordial soup. Which I don't.
Some say the earth was seeded from the likes of a comet crashing after earth cooled down. That's possible I would say. But, if that was the case then the seeds came from some other distant world.

I guess my best answer would be faith. Too many galaxies, too many stars, and in a short distance from us already several planets found.

You all totally lost me with the multiverses and dimensional talk. But all the same good reading.


Thirdly Han. Loved your answer as well. The only thing I know of Chinese writing is that it is old. So I can see where your coming from. Good correction to me.
I do think we have gotten better at containing radiation but having an incident happen is very possible and I could see coverups as well. We have had plenty of coverups thrown right in our face.
What I intended in my post is looking for an earthly explanation to explain things. I'll have more.

Here's one more.
Cattle mutilations. From what I've read and heard. Laser like cuts, organs removed, almost all or all the animals on big ranches and insured, and black helicopters.
Would it be safe to say the CDC conducting tests for mad cow and other diseases. They work as privately as possible, the rancher gets reimbursed, and everyone left scratching their heads as to what happened.
The reason I say that is that I used to deer hunt and sometimes the game department would remove the tongues and udders to look for certain things.

Your thoughts,
Robert

Irradiation is likened by my self experience to being cut, yet my personal body was not cut, yet it hurt as much as being cut.

The same circumstance happened to our ancient occult brother, and he actually bled....whilst Nature, existing before us as animals gained a greater amount of radiation.

This is why we believe in the Ark story of the b - east and that God warned humanity in the forming of the UFO/ARK condition or the (I) or eye of RA (phi).

+, the cross, changing of the magnetic field of Earth by east, travelling.............and modern day Earth magnetic field has shifted.

+ north L south L, east L, west L equals the cross + as a back to back value.

Anima or Satanic spirit manifestation attack, the loss of the organic nature anima - L.

The spirit attacked by the Ark building of PHI 2 x 2.

Self combustion as an incidence relates to the use and applications of nuclear conversion. I know for I was nearly self combusted, the fed back atmospheric advice stated that because ice melted, the attack was cooled. Obviously some of us are not so lucky. Removal would mean "combustion".

As human and organic animal life is a high percentage of water....water considered to be the Heavenly holiness of the Christ, and you change the condition of water in the atmosphere by converting the hydrogen body for nuclear fuel, then why else is it happening?

 

[breddell]

I mean a universe composed of quanta, which is essentially the same idea that is the basis for quantum mechanics, which is the idea that the universe is composed of discrete bits, referred to as particles or strings, depending on which model one wants to build on. In a 2D universe all such quanta would be aligned in a 2D plane.. . .So maybe we should just move on and give you some time to reflect on it.

Ufology, I appreciate the efforts here, but one doesn't need to invoke quantum mechanics to explain physical dimensions. The facts are that it is possible for extra dimensions to exist and maybe even multiple universes - the former being tied directly to known research with tangible results, the latter is untestable. With respect to your claim that it is logically incoherent for extra dimensions to exist, there is no evidence or published work to indicate this. For the folks interested in this topic, please look for yourself and you will see that plethora of work in this field. Michio Kaku is a leading physicist and has written a very good article explaining the extra dimensions and multiverses, some of what we discussed in this thread. He states, "almost 5,000 papers, at last count, have been published in the physics literature concerning higher dimensional theories", there is not a single paper published explaining what ufology is stating (as far as I can tell).

Michio Kaku (one of worlds leading physicists) on hyperspace

I don't mean to sound sarcastic, but if you feel very strong about this, I highly encourage you to document this in a paper and get it peer reviewed and published. If you are right, this is ground-breaking and then the rest of the world is wrong and looking in the wrong directions and wasting a lot of money.

Your theory has been very challenging to me as best as I can understand it, but cannot proceed further as I have no mathematical bases to proceed. I agree that we should move on at this point.

 

[breddell]

The thread is called "Curious Questions", and dimensions and universes definitely have mysteries that fit into that category. So I doubt @uscoins minds if we explore these issues ( I hope ), and he can always put us back on track with his own questions whenever he wants too .

Fair enough. I originally posted the question of what Robert (or anyone) would think of inter-dimensional beings interacting in our world as a possible explanation. I also mentioned that after you factor out all the explained 'ufo' sightings (mis-identifications and natural phenomena), that the rest are 100% unphysical. Assuming that extra dimensions exist, the physics tells us that they can interact in our world. I believe that when you look at all the evidence of these residual cases, that it points to creatures (physical or not) in another realm (or dimension) interacting in our world. This would easily explain the weird shapes appearing and disappearing, weird electromagnetic and radar signatures, camera anomalies, and of course, lack of physical evidence.

 

[Randall]

Fair enough. I originally posted the question of what Robert (or anyone) would think of inter-dimensional beings interacting in our world as a possible explanation. I also mentioned that after you factor out all the explained 'ufo' sightings (mis-identifications and natural phenomena), that the rest are 100% unphysical. Assuming that extra dimensions exist, the physics tells us that they can interact in our world. I believe that when you look at all the evidence of these residual cases, that it points to creatures (physical or not) in another realm (or dimension) interacting in our world. This would easily explain the weird shapes appearing and disappearing, weird electromagnetic and radar signatures, camera anomalies, and of course, lack of physical evidence.

Another realm ( as in another universe ) is possible, and I like the idea. The thing is, we don't know if other universes exist. We do know that ours does. We also know that interstellar travel is scientifically possible. It might be difficult now, but a thousand years in the future, it might be no more difficult than taking an intercontinental flight is now.

 

[Randall]

Ufology, I appreciate the efforts here, but one doesn't need to invoke quantum mechanics to explain physical dimensions. The facts are that it is possible for extra dimensions to exist and maybe even multiple universes - the former being tied directly to known research with tangible results, the latter is untestable.

You must have missed the post where I explained how in the computational model, a universe outside our own could be detected, and how others might be detected by their effects on ours, and how there are scientists looking at those possibilities, and posted a video ( one of many out there ) and pointed out that science has considered other universes as causal factors for such things as Dark Matter. Here's another paper: The Possible Parallel Universe of Dark Matter | DiscoverMagazine.com So it seems to me that you're just rewinding to restate a claim that has already been shown to be in error. Who is missing what there?

With respect to your claim that it is logically incoherent for extra dimensions to exist, there is no evidence or published work to indicate this.

I have not made the claim that extra dimensions cannot exist. I've made the claim that the interpretation of the word "universe" and the word "dimension" are sometimes used synonymously, resulting in confusion about what is and isn't possible, and that what isn't possible is for some object to exist independently in a "higher dimension" as if it's separated from the "lower dimensions" that it is of necessity also composed of.

For the folks interested in this topic, please look for yourself and you will see that plethora of work in this field. Michio Kaku is a leading physicist and has written a very good article explaining the extra dimensions and multiverses, some of what we discussed in this thread. He states, "almost 5,000 papers, at last count, have been published in the physics literature concerning higher dimensional theories", there is not a single paper published explaining what ufology is stating (as far as I can tell).

Michio Kaku (one of worlds leading physicists) on hyperspace

I don't mean to sound sarcastic, but if you feel very strong about this, I highly encourage you to document this in a paper and get it peer reviewed and published. If you are right, this is ground-breaking and then the rest of the world is wrong and looking in the wrong directions and wasting a lot of money.

I've made no claim that the "rest of the world is wrong". It's more a matter of precision in contextual interpretation. Kaku also uses the Flatland analogy. I've outlined the problem there, but maybe his carp in a pond analogy would be a better model to explain the contextual weakness. The carp in a pond analogy would be more accurate if the space above the surface of the pond and the space below the surface of the pond were considered analogously to be two separate universes rather than dimensions, because in the context of the analogy, the two realms are separate and both are using the same type of 3D spatial construct.

Your theory has been very challenging to me as best as I can understand it, but cannot proceed further as I have no mathematical bases to proceed. I agree that we should move on at this point.

Sure. It might be the case that you're overthinking it. We often see claims that our brains aren't equipped to imagine higher spatial dimensions, however when one studies the premises from which the math is built, we run into the same ambiguities of interpretation between what we mean by "universe" and "dimension", so maybe it's the case that we can't imagine it because it doesn't really work. I've pointed out before that we can map all the points of Escher's impossible staircase into a mathematical expression, but that in no way means that such a thing can actually be built. It's just not possible.

Also, The point where these problems emerge is no more complex than high-school geometry. X x Y x Z = V, therefore V cannot exist independently of X, Y, or Z, therefore no V can float up out of X and Y as suggested in the Flatland analogy. What is happening there is that an independent 3D construct ( B ) is somehow able to detect a separate 2D construct ( A ) which means that the logical analogy is that A and B are in two separate universes as opposed to different dimensions.

At any rate, I do thank you for trying to bear with me, and it has inspired me to try to find someone who can help me do a good video that explains it. It seems fairly simple to me now, but at first I was probably as confused as anyone else. Who knows, maybe I'm still confused ... lol ... but I don't think so. I do make a very concerted effort to substantiate my thinking with sound logical analysis.

 

[breddell]

At any rate, I do thank you for trying to bear with me, and it has inspired me to try to find someone who can help me do a good video that explains it. It seems fairly simple to me now, but at first I was probably as confused as anyone else. Who knows, maybe I'm still confused ... lol ... but I don't think so. I do make a very concerted effort to substantiate my thinking with sound logical analysis.

I tried. We'll revisit later when there is more material. Thanks.