Thinking past the 4th dimension.

Into the 10th dimension. Pretty cool stuff
-10th-dimension-883625/

i want to kick this guy in teh nuts

Just in case anyone's wondering, I've read multiple sources that say this has no relation to the ten dimensions you may have heard about in superstring theory. It seems to be a popular bit of pseudoscience but it's not really worth anything. Let me see if I can dig up any references.

lol i wanna watch SLIDERS!!

good quote bob lol

ROFL epic reply Jase hahaha....

The fucking tesseract (hypercube) and the whole 4rth dimension gives me a head ache:





seriously fuck you spinning tesseract and fuck you 4rth dimension u make me feel dumb.

ive heard the movie Donnie Darkko is all about the 4rth dimentiong, thats why he sees those 3d worlds that its simply a 3d cross section of himself etc.

its not "all about" anything afaic figure out, just some stylish and moody entertainment

wat? get out

btw Lee Jones lives in the 10th dimension, he is the one who makes the super strings vibrate... he is just playing the harp.

wow wtf, my head exploded and now it hurts

baal that video about 4d pisses me off, it seems to extrapolate too much from our ability to draw '3D' on paper and then apply those same rules to a theoretical 4D environment.

and Donnie Darko is the fucking nuts

On December 02 2008 23:48 Baal wrote: btw Lee Jones lives in the 10th dimension, he is the one who makes the super strings vibrate... he is just playing the harp.

priceless quote

This is quoted from "Warped Passages" by Lisa Randall, right? Great physics book for the interested but otherwise ignorant (finance + econ major here)

EDIT: Nevermind... similar explanation. Sweet stuff, head asplode, etc, etc.

On December 03 2008 00:05 PokerDoc88 wrote: baal that video about 4d pisses me off, it seems to extrapolate too much from our ability to draw '3D' on paper and then apply those same rules to a theoretical 4D environment.

ya i know

hate you OP

jeah u can fold a piece of paper cuz it's a 3 dimensional object gj
now let's fold space! np!
ok fold that! np!

On December 03 2008 02:21 Guillaume wrote: hate you OP

Good, it's hate that drives me. That and porn

haha is this floofy's older twin http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=73560

my video adresses the 4rth dimention much better than OPs where they over simplify it as "time", when in reality is much more complex than that.

baal your clip , id like to know more

to me your clip is BS because it has no grounding in reality and goes on and on and on about "visualising" (or rather "seeing" ) 4D when infact you can't visualise 4D (or there is no basis for visualising it) because 4D IS TIME to us, and "visualising" it is worthless other than purely to explain/illustrate it easily (and the 1st vid does a good enuff job)

now he's going on to say we can't draw in 3D, maybe i'm misunderstanding this particular bit, but you can draw in 3D....its called a sculpture

edit: no this is crap because he says you need a 4D device to make the 4D light. unless he later goes on to explain more about light and how it relates or comes from 4D this is nonsense


apologies if i misunderstand

stop calling me op
my name is bob, fourth responser

3:00 in OP video explains the movie Deja Vu with Denzel, 8:00 explains the end of Men in Black

1:25 in Baal's scared the shit out of me, "a 4d entity may be in your room" I had to look behind me lol

On December 03 2008 04:12 TedHastings wrote: 3:00 in bobs video explains the movie Deja Vu with Denzel, 8:00 explains the end of Men in Black 1:25 in fourth posterererer scared the shit out of me, "a 4d entity may be in your room" I had to look behind me lol

On December 03 2008 03:54 Perisie wrote: baal your clip , id like to know more to me your clip is BS because it has no grounding in reality and goes on and on and on about "visualising" (or rather "seeing" ) 4D when infact you can't visualise 4D (or there is no basis for visualising it) because 4D IS TIME to us, and "visualising" it is worthless other than purely to explain/illustrate it easily (and the 1st vid does a good enuff job) now he's going on to say we can't draw in 3D, maybe i'm misunderstanding this particular bit, but you can draw in 3D....its called a sculpture edit: no this is crap because he says you need a 4D device to make the 4D light. unless he later goes on to explain more about light and how it relates or comes from 4D this is nonsense apologies if i misunderstand

first of all, why do u smurf?

it has grounding in reality, in the real 4rth dimention, its not as simple as time, if you know what an hypercube aka tesseract is, you would know how we 3D beings, can only see a cross section of a fourth dimention.

I like these
http://dimensions-math.org/Dim_regarder_E.htm

and the intro and finishing music rocks ^^

omg its 4th not 4rth, are you levelling us? =)

I'm afraid bob's(amirite?!) video is pseudoscience.Baal's video gave me a headache but it had a purely theoritical context so I guess it's legit from what I had the patience to understand.

Ted Hastings explain to me why the movie Deja Vu with Denzel Washington didn't have a really stupid ending if you will. I thought it was great and then it had the most absurd ending ever,it felt like a waste of time.

btw string theory's dimensions have nothing to do with what is described in the first vid and the references on Quantum physics are misleading or not understood at all by the maker of this vid

edit:along with other stuff,like the fact that dimensions were created during the big bang, that the universe can't take multiple directions (decided by whom??)etc

I wish I could move in the 4th dimension and go shoot the maker of the vid in the face before be got the chance to make this :/ I mean I was with him until the 5th dimension but how does he jump from that to the 7th and beyond that it just didnt make sense.

"What the bleep do we know " on youtube.. great videos.. i realy enjoyed them
i think they are little older but whatever
quantum physic and practical things related to it

this is just one part of it.. about diemnsions
there is no much info here , but it's good animated

On December 03 2008 06:37 morph1 wrote: "What the bleep do we know " on youtube.. great videos.. i realy enjoyed them i think they are little older but whatever quantum physic and practical things related to it this is just one part of it.. about diemnsions there is no much info here , but it's good animated

omg not this bs plz
this is the definition of pseudoscience and retarded new age religiousness
just do a wiki search and see all the holes this thing has
one of the speakers of this "documentary" actually had all his sayings selectively edited so that it would seem like he's aggreeing to the general metaphysics of the movie when in fact he gave a huge interview on why he thought it was bs.

Also all the quantum physics info in it are really distorted/false ,this is like supporting "the secret" with a few pseudoscientific arguments

lol.. i didnt know that .. i found it realy interesting
probably b/c it's good animated and i already heard some good stuff about it from my friends .. so i already rated it as a good one : )))

i'll do some wikipedia later =)

btw I'm talking about the movie "what the bleep do we know",I haven't seen the episodes,the movie tilted me enough.

'The observer influences particles according to quantum physics so that means it's all in our minds!It all depends! I can make that rock over there disappear with my mind and quantum physics is here to back me up!'

This is the amazing thought process in that movie

hehe.. yea i totaly understand you, there is a bunch of BS in it, like good 90%.. but for someone new in this field (like me) it was quite amusing
probably the ony part i like is that part with some basic explenations of quantum physic, and that water thing thou idk if it's true but looks realy interesting

and i think this is movie just separated in parts :D

What the bleed do we know ROFL seriously guys wtf..... whywould anyone believe that pseudoscience babble?

The producers of that movie are part of a fucking CULT called: Ramtaha School of Enlightment, aslo the founder (the red headed bitch in the movie) thinks she carries the 35 thousand year old spirit of ATLANTIS!!!!!!! LOLOLOL


that 4th dimension clip animation is not related to the previous BS i mentioned tho, that is actually a really really good way to exemplify how the 4th dimension works and why we have such a hard time conceptualizing it.

If a being "lives" in the 4th dimension he would be a god to us since he will be able to see everything in our 3dimentional world... they can see our face and our back at the same time, and also our insides.

On December 03 2008 07:29 morph1 wrote: hehe.. yea i totaly understand you, there is a bunch of BS in it, like good 90%.. but for someone new in this field (like me) it was quite amusing probably the ony part i like is that part with some basic explenations of quantum physic, and that water thing thou idk if it's true but looks realy interesting and i think this is movie just separated in parts :D

well the water part had exactly the same reasoning:

quantum physics sais observer influences subatomic particle behaviour by only observing -------> water is made by particles------> we can have it's particles formation changed by guys thinking about it depending on the emotions ----------> we can make healing water/holy water or whatever by influencing water with our emotions ----> our minds can do anything we are all evolving gods if only we could know how to use our brains more effectively -----> come to our institute we can help you join our meditation groups for a very reasonable price because buying our books/dvd's isn't really enough

jesus.. it looks i am the only one that didnt know that it's some kind of cult .. ROFL >.<
i am gonna kick my friends ass for not telling me

On December 03 2008 07:41 lebowski wrote: Show nested quote + On December 03 2008 07:29 morph1 wrote: hehe.. yea i totaly understand you, there is a bunch of BS in it, like good 90%.. but for someone new in this field (like me) it was quite amusing probably the ony part i like is that part with some basic explenations of quantum physic, and that water thing thou idk if it's true but looks realy interesting and i think this is movie just separated in parts :D well the water part had exactly the same reasoning: quantum physics sais observer influences subatomic particle behaviour by only observing -------> water is made by particles------> we can have it's particles formation changed by guys thinking about it depending on the emotions ----------> we can make healing water/holy water or whatever by influencing water with our emotions ----> our minds can do anything we are all evolving gods if only we could know how to use our brains more effectively -----> come to our institute we can help you join our meditation groups for a very reasonable price because buying our books/dvd's isn't really enough

yeah i actually saw this movie before i knew it was a hoax and that part make me ROFL so i investigated it and turned out to be a hoax.

That water bullshit was proved to be a hoax before the movie was even made, the asian "pseudo scientist" that made that experiment was challenged many times to by the scientific community to repliate his studies with a reliable observed and he refused multiple times.

also funny thing is, those are all doctors and profesors on famous universitys

btw.. baal noone sayed he believe in that pseudoscience babble , i just said that it was interesting for me

On December 03 2008 07:49 morph1 wrote: also funny thing is, those are all doctors and profesors on famous universitys btw.. baal noone sayed he believe in that pseudoscience babble , i just said that it was interesting for me

well, most of those guys are real scientists, but what they do is pretty much this:

They mix tapes of Carl Sagan and friends talking about misterious quantum physics, everybody watches in awe pretending that they understood what they just heard (they didnt) and between those vids, they put random clips of total bullshit conclusions and hoaxes in, like if those were the conclusions of the scientists while they are not.

lol yea and in the end when credits fall they put a small paragraph where they say that not all the participants agree on everything that is presented in this film,they have their ass legally protected and noone will notice because who reads the boring credits anyway

On December 03 2008 07:54 Baal wrote: They mix tapes of Carl Sagan and friends talking about misterious quantum physics, everybody watches in awe pretending that they understood what they just heard (they didnt) and between those vids, they put random clips of total bullshit conclusions and hoaxes in, like if those were the conclusions of the scientists while they are not.

I could not for the love of life describe that movie better then u just did, this is just spot on.

also, fuck donnie darko the only thing worth anything in that movie is the kewl looking bunny .

Baal, in total seriousness, if you can see how ridiculous "What the bleep do we know" and the vid posted in the OP are, I don't really understand how you can believe a word of similar stuff like "Zeitgeist" or various 9/11 conspiracy theories.

On December 03 2008 10:36 rgfdxm wrote: Baal, in total seriousness, if you can see how ridiculous "What the bleep do we know" and the vid posted in the OP are, I don't really understand how you can believe a word of similar stuff like "Zeitgeist" or various 9/11 conspiracy theories.

also lolfail.


didn't know microsoftsam was into that kinda shit lol

One question about the flatlanders i've always had (i read some books in which they appeared too...):

They're 2d, so how can they see other 2d objects on the same paper? Surely, they can only view the side of it! A balloon or 3d human would def not look like a circle or a cross-section, but just a line with some bumps in it. A flatlander then having 2 eyes will be able to see the distances in the line. You can only perceive n-1 dimensions with a single eye in n dimensions...

lol aseq ur right

On December 03 2008 13:53 aseq wrote: One question about the flatlanders i've always had (i read some books in which they appeared too...): They're 2d, so how can they see other 2d objects on the same paper? Surely, they can only view the side of it! A balloon or 3d human would def not look like a circle or a cross-section, but just a line with some bumps in it. A flatlander then having 2 eyes will be able to see the distances in the line. You can only perceive n-1 dimensions with a single eye in n dimensions...

i think they see a line?

even though a flatlanders have no depth, because their image is a collection of points, they will see a line i think.

On December 03 2008 10:36 rgfdxm wrote: Baal, in total seriousness, if you can see how ridiculous "What the bleep do we know" and the vid posted in the OP are, I don't really understand how you can believe a word of similar stuff like "Zeitgeist" or various 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Because they are nothing alike in any way, i always do "independent research" after a movie.

For example after the "what de bleep do we know?" movie i googled the crystal experiment that sounded like bullshit and i got many hits claiming it was a hoax, etc.

After watching Zeitgeist, after independant research confirming all the facts they say about for example 9/11 demolition, it was impossible for me to keep believing it was a terrorist attack, (in the beggining i thought it was obv an attack and laughed about conspiracy theorists too, i remember reading Maddox's entry about it and i agreed with him, but previously to watching Zeitgeist i saw undeniable evidence that it was a demolition).

I did found bullshit in their religion part, but i dont give a fuck about that part anyway, i verified their quotes and claims and they were totally legit, do the same plz.

On December 03 2008 14:13 collegesucks wrote: Show nested quote + On December 03 2008 13:53 aseq wrote: One question about the flatlanders i've always had (i read some books in which they appeared too...): They're 2d, so how can they see other 2d objects on the same paper? Surely, they can only view the side of it! A balloon or 3d human would def not look like a circle or a cross-section, but just a line with some bumps in it. A flatlander then having 2 eyes will be able to see the distances in the line. You can only perceive n-1 dimensions with a single eye in n dimensions... i think they see a line? even though a flatlanders have no depth, because their image is a collection of points, they will see a line i think.

wouldn't everything just be one big line then?

On December 03 2008 15:12 Baal wrote:. After watching Zeitgeist, after independant research confirming all the facts they say about for example 9/11 demolition, it was impossible for me to keep believing it was a terrorist attack, (in the beggining i thought it was obv an attack and laughed about conspiracy theorists too, i remember reading Maddox's entry about it and i agreed with him, but previously to watching Zeitgeist i saw undeniable evidence that it was a demolition). I did found bullshit in their religion part, but i dont give a fuck about that part anyway, i verified their quotes and claims and they were totally legit, do the same plz.

I'd be interested to see what you turned up in your research, then. To be honest, with respect to Zeitgeist the fact that they were so spectacularly wrong (and clearly deliberately so) about the religion section casts any claims of credibility in a pretty bad light. The section on finance was pretty lolbad too, so I didn't put any stock in what they said about 9/11. Consider the source IMO.

But then again, just because Zeitgeist is garbage doesn't prove that whatever theory they chose to feature is wrong, it just means they aren't convincing. If you've found some evidence or arguments from actual credible sources I'd love to read them.

alright so everything is a point as you go higher ez game

On December 03 2008 17:06 brambolius wrote: Show nested quote + On December 03 2008 14:13 collegesucks wrote:   On December 03 2008 13:53 aseq wrote: One question about the flatlanders i've always had (i read some books in which they appeared too...): They're 2d, so how can they see other 2d objects on the same paper? Surely, they can only view the side of it! A balloon or 3d human would def not look like a circle or a cross-section, but just a line with some bumps in it. A flatlander then having 2 eyes will be able to see the distances in the line. You can only perceive n-1 dimensions with a single eye in n dimensions... i think they see a line? even though a flatlanders have no depth, because their image is a collection of points, they will see a line i think. wouldn't everything just be one big line then?

Yes, that's right, in a way. But the line could still have different colors, and by moving around with their 2 eyes they could make the colors change. Also, if there is 2D lighting or 2D fog those would make a difference.

2d worlds sound boring and confusing

On December 03 2008 17:06 brambolius wrote: Show nested quote + On December 03 2008 14:13 collegesucks wrote:   On December 03 2008 13:53 aseq wrote: One question about the flatlanders i've always had (i read some books in which they appeared too...): They're 2d, so how can they see other 2d objects on the same paper? Surely, they can only view the side of it! A balloon or 3d human would def not look like a circle or a cross-section, but just a line with some bumps in it. A flatlander then having 2 eyes will be able to see the distances in the line. You can only perceive n-1 dimensions with a single eye in n dimensions... i think they see a line? even though a flatlanders have no depth, because their image is a collection of points, they will see a line i think. wouldn't everything just be one big line then?

like everything is a big plane to us
but as we do, they would see depth using their brain

LOL ready for more?
...more what...?

i was reading "the celestine prophecy" and its all logic (albeit verbose) till about chapter 6 then SUDDENLY without warning he starts talking about how the energy he's describing (which i cud simplify as "karma" ) is actually "visible" . he briefly talks about multiple trustworthy sources , for example..

a) people who can "see" the auras of energy around people and objects, seeing energy as glowing colour
b) a controlled experiment where (bare with me, and i cant remember properly) , a man thinks about damaging a plant . the plant is presented with a "line up" of people . the plant is able to "detect" which person from the line-up is/was thinking about damaging it.

my friend kinda believes this stuff and i'd like to research it a lot more (ill start now). it's a concept involved in SO many psuedosciences and religions and beliefs and experiences. im sure u kno how many things go unexplored or ignored due to lack of funding-science

search for kirlian effect

On December 03 2008 15:12 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On December 03 2008 10:36 rgfdxm wrote: Baal, in total seriousness, if you can see how ridiculous "What the bleep do we know" and the vid posted in the OP are, I don't really understand how you can believe a word of similar stuff like "Zeitgeist" or various 9/11 conspiracy theories. Because they are nothing alike in any way, i always do "independent research" after a movie. For example after the "what de bleep do we know?" movie i googled the crystal experiment that sounded like bullshit and i got many hits claiming it was a hoax, etc. After watching Zeitgeist, after independant research confirming all the facts they say about for example 9/11 demolition, it was impossible for me to keep believing it was a terrorist attack, (in the beggining i thought it was obv an attack and laughed about conspiracy theorists too, i remember reading Maddox's entry about it and i agreed with him, but previously to watching Zeitgeist i saw undeniable evidence that it was a demolition). I did found bullshit in their religion part, but i dont give a fuck about that part anyway, i verified their quotes and claims and they were totally legit, do the same plz.

I dont want to get started on that. But like I said before EVERYTHING in Zeitgeist movie is false. All the facts and the numbers they throw out are all total bullshit. There is not even a single reliable source cited in the movie.
The problem with WTC is that people who know what happened and why can not argue with people who don't. Cause all conspiracy's lack the technical knowledge.

On December 02 2008 21:45 jase wrote:

I have this picture on my AIM, I've always wondered what it is from though. Do you know?

On December 05 2008 04:21 SpoR wrote: Show nested quote + On December 02 2008 21:45 jase wrote: I have this picture on my AIM, I've always wondered what it is from though. Do you know?

monty python meaning of life maybe

isnt it from scanners?