multi-dimensional physics thread (for Gisteron) ;-)

More
21 Jan 2020 22:18 #348635 by forceuser
Wow you've done a great job ! 2 thumbs up!

Keep up the great work and trying to help some of US Open eyes a little bit.

Try not to a take Too much offense to most of the people on this forum their eyes are just so tightly closed they don't know if they're living upside down or not.

Some people will never be convinced I for one Know this 1st hand.
Almost every story I've told about what I've done in my past I have I witnesses for.

I've even had Some close people of mine see me do something And their minds are totally blown.
People that I know well even say well we saw it happen we can't believe that its even physically possible But how do we know you did it ? Maybe it was some kind of Supernatural instantaneous miracle.
And they see it and they still can't believe.

So rest assured Most of all your wonderful knowledge will fall upon deaf ears.
But be glad even if you find one person that you have helped and I'm sure you have.

May we all continue to be with the force.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Fyxe

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
21 Jan 2020 22:23 #348636 by elizabeth
Some of your plains are seperate from the force it says.
I personally believe the force is everything, in everything.
How come you seperate parts?
Just wanting to understand not argue

I own my life
The following user(s) said Thank You: Gisteron, OB1Shinobi

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
21 Jan 2020 22:24 #348637 by Rex
So what is a dimension and what is a matrix since both of those have been mentioned already?
Also how do you validate your results and ensure accuracy? What's the methodology you use?

Knights Secretary's Secretary
Apprentices: Vandrar
TM: Carlos Martinez
"A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes" - Wittgenstein
The following user(s) said Thank You: Gisteron, OB1Shinobi

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
21 Jan 2020 22:36 - 21 Jan 2020 22:37 #348641 by Fyxe

elizabeth wrote: Some of your plains are seperate from the force it says.
I personally believe the force is everything, in everything.
How come you seperate parts?
Just wanting to understand not argue



Of course, I understand. It's the same reason we are seperate parts, the observer and the observed. You cant experience something you cant observe from outside yourself. Neither can the force. All is the force but also its seperate. It is like trying to observe "the self". When you try it disappears inside your head. So you need an observer of the self to experience. That is the reason we experience opposites, hot cold, good evil. We need that perspective in order to experience!

A true teacher would never tell you what to do. But he would give you the knowledge with which you could decide what would be best for you to do
Last edit: 21 Jan 2020 22:37 by Fyxe.
The following user(s) said Thank You: elizabeth

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
21 Jan 2020 22:39 #348642 by Fyxe

Rex wrote: So what is a dimension and what is a matrix since both of those have been mentioned already?
Also how do you validate your results and ensure accuracy? What's the methodology you use?


The matrix is the construct. It is all of it. The matrix is the force. The dimensions are levels of reality and of consciousness.

A true teacher would never tell you what to do. But he would give you the knowledge with which you could decide what would be best for you to do

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
21 Jan 2020 22:43 - 21 Jan 2020 23:14 #348643 by Gisteron
Way to make it all about the person, brother. But fair enough. I'll take what I can get.

So, let's start out with your most recent model as of post #348596 for the sake of generosity. I'll assume that being the most recent, it is the best researched of them all to date, and possibly most accurate. Where elder models you presented contradict it, I shall assume until further notice that this one trumps the others. According to it, then, there are
  • seven objects called "worlds",
  • ten objects called "dimensions", and
  • twelve objects called "realms".
Furthermore, the worlds have a "housing" relation towards the dimensions, and a "creating" relation towards the realms. While you have composed a diagram now, it seems not to correspond to that classification, as there are no only eleven dedicated realms and something like a twelfth that's just written right in the middle of the description, is parallel to five more, but which are also parallel with four of the dimensions and one of the planes... Oh and yes, rather than seven worlds there are seven planes in it... Frankly this is more confusing than clarifying. Regardless, at the time of my beginning to compose this post, the diagram was not yet released. Forgive me, if you can, that I shall at first stick with the... well, I don't want to call your earlier ramblings "coherent", but at least you made clear there were different numbers and terms and relations between them. At any rate, it seems that it is not about multi-dimensional physics anyway, but rather of spiritual matters, which despite my liberal usage of the term "The Force" are beyond the scope of my comment from post #345707, as the term was there used to refer to the cosmic superstructure, rather than matters of personal religious practice anyway.

Now before you object that I am continuing on where we left off last time instead of jumping straight to the point about physics, I shall briefly disclaim my motive:
I was under the impression that after you said "ok" in post #345708 to my recommendation to move yet another discussion about the structure of... reality, I guess... to a dedicated thread, you were compiling references or composing a lecture about the physical evidence of your structure model you were alluding to in your post #345705 . I would go back and inquire about the only seven realms with no mention of worlds or twelve of any sort of object, but, as I say, in the spirit of generosity I choose instead to settle the contradictions in favour of the most recent claim, assuming that you arrived at it after re-considering and researching further. Still, the existence of this thread is still due to your mentioning of "much evidence for this structure in physics" of post #345705 and my plea to present some amount of it to us.

While some discussion pertaining to the meaning of the terms employed is unavoidable, seeing as this is about physics moreso than semantics, a brief primer to the physically relevant aspects should suffice without too much of the metaphysical implications until further necessary.


So my first specific question would be - in lieu of you making your case as expected after #345708 - would be about the "a lot of physics" that already "has theory of 10 dimensions". My knowledge of physics is somewhat limited, and in some areas so is my interest. While I have no significant expertise in any one of the following, here are areas I have enjoyed a reasonably full introduction to:
  1. classical mechanics by experimental methods
  2. experimental ray optics and classical wave mechanics and optics
  3. theoretical classical mechanics including the formalisms of Lagrange and Hamilton
  4. electricity and magnetism, analog circuitry, and simple digital electronics
  5. theoretical classical electrodynamics and wave optics, including Einstein's special theory of relativity
  6. classical thermodynamics by experimental methods
  7. atomic physics by experimental methods
  8. non-relativistic quantum mechanics
  9. theoretical classical and quantum thermodynamics and statistical physics
  10. solid state physics by experimental methods
  11. nuclear and particle physics by experimental methods
  12. Einstein's general theory of relativity
I have also given/tutored classes in #5 and #8 of this listing. Whether this is a lot or not I'm happy to leave to the judgement of the better knowledgeable. But as far as any of them could or did make me aware, the only area of physics where notions of ten-dimensional spaces are considered are some string theories. Of course, any abstract measurement direction might well be called dimension, such as the dimension of mass, or of length, or of electrical charge, but there is no limitation on that sort of dimensionality, and what can be spanned with these would not be a vector space, much less a metric space of any sort. So I assume that you'd mean the string theories that propose ten (rather than eleven) dimensions. Is that correct? Seeing as string theory does not have a large share of the physics that is being taught post-graduate, graduate, or undergraduate students, nor an area of physics that has a large share of active public or private research, nor an area of physics that has any noteworthy share of industrial application, in what sense is it "a lot of" physics? If string theory is not what you mean, please, name as many as two other areas of physics that work with ten-dimensional spaces.


My second question is about the evidence you alluded to in post #345708. For this, I'm afraid, we will have to be a bit more specific about what the actual claim is. To help keep track of our journey, I propose the following course of action:
  1. Reference a non-zero amount, preferably more than one observation that has been made and can be intersubjectively verified that cannot be accounted for without internal contradictions or appeals to the worlds-dimensions-realms structure your model proposes.
  2. Demonstrate, that the worlds-dimensions-realms model does account for the elsewise unexplained observation.
  3. Demonstrate, that the worlds-dimensions-realms model does not conflict with other observations that would fall within its descriptional scope.
  4. Demonstrate, that the worlds-dimensions-realms model is - in the appropriate limits - equivalent or compatible with other models the scopes of which have an overlap with it.
  5. Demonstrate, that the worlds-dimensions-realms model is not ad-hoc, i.e. is not only consistent with already gathered observations, but can make specific, novel, non-trivial predictions derived from its postulates about observations yet to be made in experiment.
  6. Specify the margins of error for the predictions the worlds-dimensions-realms model makes. How much deviation from the predicted value is still consistent with the theory, and what might an experimental outcome look like before you'd say that it contradicts the theory?
Granted, this does not look like a query for specifics on the term meanings. As I said, it is not about the semantics, for now. You said there was evidence indicating this structure, so the first point is to name the observation the structure hypothesis is supposed to account for, and then to show that it is indeed evidence, i.e. positively indicative of a generally falsifiable claim over its alternatives. This will naturally require a specification of what the claim even is, but since we are talking physics and not metaphysics here, I'll be content already if all we get here is a reduction of the model to its non-trivial predictions, without delving much into the ontology it postulates to make them. So on the question of what the structure "is", it'll be fine to say just what it predicts and by what reasoning, and on the question of what evidence there is for it, it's all about the intersubjective observations that were made to motivate the model's central postulates and the ones it predicted successfully beyond the successful predictions made on competing theories.

Better to leave questions unanswered than answers unquestioned
Last edit: 21 Jan 2020 23:14 by Gisteron.
The following user(s) said Thank You: elizabeth, OB1Shinobi, Skryym, Rex

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
21 Jan 2020 23:29 - 21 Jan 2020 23:37 #348652 by Fyxe
I am going to be extremely generous with you here gisteron as you have already violated the spirit of this thread by bringing in not all of these previous threads but also all of your assumptions (wrong as they are) about those threads. My intent here is to start at a baseline in the matrix I provided and move forward. However allow me to hitch a ride on your backpedaled logic and see if I can distill the essence of your questions down to some answers.



GIST:please, name as many as two other areas of physics that work with ten-dimensional spaces.

why? Are we not discussing multi dimensional physics here? The field of study for this physics is string theory. So why are you asking for others?



GIST:Name the observation the structure hypothesis is supposed to account for, and then to show that it is indeed evidence.

the observation that there is more to the universe than meets the eye? The mathematics that cant account for the reason the universe is not only expanding but accelerating. The observation that there is not enough obvious mass in the galaxies to actually hold them together like they do. All this you label with a nebulous term dark energy and dark matter. But you dont know anything about it. It's just your convenient placeholder for a thing you refuse to believe might exist. Do I know what this structure actually is? Yes I do, it is the force. How do I know, because of the ascended masters that have revealed such things to me. Even in the flesh at times. This is not a matter of knowledge transfer but ascended knowing transfer. The experiences have left no doubt in my mind, this is the very idea that I know that I know. In return all you have is speculation, rhetoric and skepticism. Open your heart and reach out, the masters are there but it takes an incredible amount of dedication and patience and practice. But if you let them speak your eyes shall be open and your doubts removed by the intensely simple idea of the true nature of reality... the very reason we exist!!

A true teacher would never tell you what to do. But he would give you the knowledge with which you could decide what would be best for you to do
Last edit: 21 Jan 2020 23:37 by Fyxe.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
21 Jan 2020 23:37 #348654 by OB1Shinobi

Ganner Rhysode wrote: I personally find Fyxe's diagram absolutely fascinating. Is it right? Who knows? I won't lie, it makes sense to me.

To your comment, OB1, if she made it up, who's to say it isn't correct? Haven't we all made up most of what you see here on this website? Where does the concrete truth come from other than the minds of human beings?


Is it possible that Santa Clause and his flying reindeer real?

People are complicated.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Rex

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
21 Jan 2020 23:40 #348655 by Fyxe

OB1Shinobi wrote:

Ganner Rhysode wrote: I personally find Fyxe's diagram absolutely fascinating. Is it right? Who knows? I won't lie, it makes sense to me.

To your comment, OB1, if she made it up, who's to say it isn't correct? Haven't we all made up most of what you see here on this website? Where does the concrete truth come from other than the minds of human beings?


Is it possible that Santa Clause and his flying reindeer real?



Are you making the claim they do not exist? Absolutely? Please show evidence to that.

A true teacher would never tell you what to do. But he would give you the knowledge with which you could decide what would be best for you to do

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
22 Jan 2020 00:13 #348656 by Rex

Fyxe wrote: Are you making the claim they do not exist? Absolutely? Please show evidence to that.

That's not how it works

Knights Secretary's Secretary
Apprentices: Vandrar
TM: Carlos Martinez
"A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes" - Wittgenstein
The following user(s) said Thank You: OB1Shinobi

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Moderators: RexZero