David Icke's Official Forums (https://forum.davidicke.com/index.php)
-   The Matrix / Nature of Reality (https://forum.davidicke.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   The Different Aspects of One-Dimensional Time(47) (https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=173893)

brad_watson_miami_fl 23-06-2011 02:29 PM

The Different Aspects of One-Dimensional Time(47)
 
The different aspects of the one-dimension of time47

There are 7 aspects of 'regular time': (1) past, (2) present, (3) future, (4) the beginning - Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago, (5) the end - black holes and this universe's final entropy (?), (6) the void: beyond the boundary/horizon of an expanding universe, & (7) a constant: the speed of light.

In addition, there are also 4 aspects of time travel or 'hypertime': (1) fast forward/time dilation: moving clocks run slower than stationary clocks and clocks run faster in less gravity. (2) reverse or faster than light: tachyons, torsion waves, information through quantum entanglement, thought through quantum non-locality, and even space itself under certain conditions. (3) stop time: photons and all electronic waves traveling at the speed of light are in a domain where time47 stops74 in that reference point74, and as the horizon of a black hole is approached, time slows down relative to that of distant observers - stopping completely on the horizon. And (4) before the beginning and after the end: this universe had a birth and may have a death, yet, it is but one of the infinite non-parallel universes in 'The Conglomerate' or multiverse (supermassive black holes Big Bang [supermassive white holes] into new universes).

G7od4 is eternal and eternity is ALL of time: 7 aspects of regular time + 4 aspects of hypertime. When this is coupled with M-theory's 6 or 7 dimensions of hyperspace + 4 common dimensions, we have unified string (u21s19) theory.



Synchronic reaction: Th 6/23/11 10:20 My girlfriend calls, "I'm wasting my time waiting for the plumber."

sadukan 24-06-2011 06:04 PM

dimensional equivalence & the isomorphic omniform
 
To a certain extent, as long as we maintain the total number of dimensions, we can "convert" a temporal dimension into a spatial one; and vice versa.

This depends on the observer's "frame of reference" somewhat. If we take the example of a "Flatlander" (2Dspace+1Dtime) we can extract an analogy for arbitrary dimensional equivalence with the following "":

Let's say we have a static (abstract, and therefore fully "spatial") Sphere in 3Dspace and attempt to describe this to the 2Dspace of the Flatlander, then their experience must be augmented somehow.

To do this, we can pass the (3Dspace+0Dtime) Sphere through the Flatlander's 2Dspace+1Dtime world sheet. The Flatlander would observe a single point in 2 dimensions, which evolves in the additional time dimension, into a circle that increases in diameter, reaches a maximum and then shrinks back to a point. Notice that the Flatlander and the Sphere now have the same total number of dimensions:

Flatlander = 2Dspace+1Dtime = 3DIM
Sphere = 3Dspace+0Dtime = 3DIM

The Flatlander is able to observe the static Sphere by extending their observation into an extra time dimension - animating the Sphere by slicing it into layers and observing them as a sequence of events.

So, by this scenario, we can surmise that any completed spatial dimension can be "converted" into a temporal dimension in an arbitrary fashion, eventhough the observer's frame of reference may be fixed. Eventhough the 2 spatial dimensions of the Flatlander seem to limit their observation, they can still extrapolate into the 3DIM of the Sphere, and then recognise this fully spatially completed form as existing - albeit outside of their plane of direct observation.

For example, if 11D M-Theory has 11 spatial dimensions, then each one of these can be split into temporally equivalent dimensions - retaining the 11DIM constraint on the total number of dimensions:

11Dspace + 0Dtime = 11DIM
(Ultimate Frame)
10Dspace + 1Dtime = 11DIM
9Dspace + 2Dtime = 11DIM
8Dspace + 3Dtime = 11DIM
7Dspace + 4Dtime = 11DIM
6Dspace + 5Dtime = 11DIM
5Dspace + 6Dtime = 11DIM
4Dspace + 7Dtime = 11DIM
3Dspace + 8Dtime = 11DIM (Normally Apparent Frame)
2Dspace + 9Dtime = 11DIM (Flatlander)
1Dspace + 10Dtime = 11DIM
0Dspace + 11Dtime = 11DIM

The difference between each ratio being that of the observer's frame of reference - eg, the Flatlander would need an extra 9 dimensions of time to be able to recognise M-Theory in their 2 dimensions of space.

In this way, we can say that a spatial dimension is a completed time dimension, because once the 3D Sphere has passed through the 2D Flatland fully, its description is complete.

11DIM of space would then be the highest level of observation in the hierachy of reference frames - the Ultimate Frame. Theoretically, we can arbitrarily switch between these reference frames, eventhough we seem to be limited to 3Dspace, we can utilise an extra 8 dimensions of time to make up the difference to 11DIM in total!!!

The question then is, how do we change our frame of reference???
(Even if we can, would we want to?)

sadukan.

PS - Is the Flatlander at a disadvantage seeing as they only have 2 spatial dimensions? (We saw how they could still recognise a Sphere by adding an extra temporal dimension, eventhough they are stuck inside the 2D Flatland.)

PPS - I just realised that this has to do with entropy, in that the extra temporal dimension required - to recognise a higher spatial dimension - removes information from the given reference frame. For example, what if the Sphere was more egg-shaped - they'd have to wait until they could filter the observed form out of the category of "Spherical". The other thing to notice is that this approach only deals with abstracted "map", it does not describe the "territory" - unless with M-Theory we have the finest level of discernment, so that we have effectively found the "" map/territory omniform.

gluoniel 13-12-2011 01:45 AM

any recommended bibliography for both of this essays?

size_of_light 19-01-2019 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sadukan (Post 1059990464)
To a certain extent, as long as we maintain the total number of dimensions, we can "convert" a temporal dimension into a spatial one; and vice versa.

This depends on the observer's "frame of reference" somewhat. If we take the example of a "Flatlander" (2Dspace+1Dtime) we can extract an analogy for arbitrary dimensional equivalence with the following "Thought experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia":

Let's say we have a static (abstract, and therefore fully "spatial") Sphere in 3Dspace and attempt to describe this to the 2Dspace of the Flatlander, then their experience must be augmented somehow.

To do this, we can pass the (3Dspace+0Dtime) Sphere through the Flatlander's 2Dspace+1Dtime world sheet. The Flatlander would observe a single point in 2 dimensions, which evolves in the additional time dimension, into a circle that increases in diameter, reaches a maximum and then shrinks back to a point. Notice that the Flatlander and the Sphere now have the same total number of dimensions:

Flatlander = 2Dspace+1Dtime = 3DIM
Sphere = 3Dspace+0Dtime = 3DIM

The Flatlander is able to observe the static Sphere by extending their observation into an extra time dimension - animating the Sphere by slicing it into layers and observing them as a sequence of events.

So, by this scenario, we can surmise that any completed spatial dimension can be "converted" into a temporal dimension in an arbitrary fashion, eventhough the observer's frame of reference may be fixed. Eventhough the 2 spatial dimensions of the Flatlander seem to limit their observation, they can still extrapolate into the 3DIM of the Sphere, and then recognise this fully spatially completed form as existing - albeit outside of their plane of direct observation.

For example, if 11D M-Theory has 11 spatial dimensions, then each one of these can be split into temporally equivalent dimensions - retaining the 11DIM constraint on the total number of dimensions:

11Dspace + 0Dtime = 11DIM
(Ultimate Frame)
10Dspace + 1Dtime = 11DIM
9Dspace + 2Dtime = 11DIM
8Dspace + 3Dtime = 11DIM
7Dspace + 4Dtime = 11DIM
6Dspace + 5Dtime = 11DIM
5Dspace + 6Dtime = 11DIM
4Dspace + 7Dtime = 11DIM
3Dspace + 8Dtime = 11DIM (Normally Apparent Frame)
2Dspace + 9Dtime = 11DIM (Flatlander)
1Dspace + 10Dtime = 11DIM
0Dspace + 11Dtime = 11DIM

The difference between each ratio being that of the observer's frame of reference - eg, the Flatlander would need an extra 9 dimensions of time to be able to recognise M-Theory in their 2 dimensions of space.

In this way, we can say that a spatial dimension is a completed time dimension, because once the 3D Sphere has passed through the 2D Flatland fully, its description is complete.

11DIM of space would then be the highest level of observation in the hierachy of reference frames - the Ultimate Frame. Theoretically, we can arbitrarily switch between these reference frames, eventhough we seem to be limited to 3Dspace, we can utilise an extra 8 dimensions of time to make up the difference to 11DIM in total!!!

The question then is, how do we change our frame of reference???
(Even if we can, would we want to?)

sadukan.

PS - Is the Flatlander at a disadvantage seeing as they only have 2 spatial dimensions? (We saw how they could still recognise a Sphere by adding an extra temporal dimension, eventhough they are stuck inside the 2D Flatland.)

PPS - I just realised that this has to do with entropy, in that the extra temporal dimension required - to recognise a higher spatial dimension - removes information from the given reference frame. For example, what if the Sphere was more egg-shaped - they'd have to wait until they could filter the observed form out of the category of "Spherical". The other thing to notice is that this approach only deals with abstracted "map", it does not describe the "territory" - unless with M-Theory we have the finest level of discernment, so that we have effectively found the "Isomorphism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" map/territory omniform.

Quoting this excellent post so I can find it again when necessary.

Very well explained.

fairyprincess 19-01-2019 09:24 PM

I have a theory a while back. Let me try to remember it.....

If you draw a square on a piece of paper. You may think you've drawn a two dimensional shape, but you havent. The graphite in the pencil isn't 2D, and nor is the paper you've drawn it on.

So, a person can conceive of a 2D thing. But never truly represent it in 3D space.

What if all things you can imagine, but cannot replicate in the 3D world is 2D. What if the first or second dimension IS the imagination......

size_of_light 19-01-2019 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fairyprincess (Post 1063056321)
I have a theory a while back. Let me try to remember it.....

If you draw a square on a piece of paper. You may think you've drawn a two dimensional shape, but you havent. The graphite in the pencil isn't 2D, and nor is the paper you've drawn it on.

So, a person can conceive of a 2D thing. But never truly represent it in 3D space.

What if all things you can imagine, but cannot replicate in the 3D world is 2D. What if the first or second dimension IS the imagination......

Good thinking!

And, by extension, our 3D world would be the imagination of 4D minds.

size_of_light 19-01-2019 09:32 PM

I found this brilliant for helping to visualise/conceptualise how 4D objects intersect and interact with our 3D plane.

Visualizing 4D Geometry - A Journey Into the 4th Dimension

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4URVJ3D8e8k" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Is everything we perceive in our world a 3D representation of higher-dimensional objects?

size_of_light 19-01-2019 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fairyprincess (Post 1063056321)

i have a theory a while back. Let me try to remember it.....

If you draw a square on a piece of paper. You may think you've drawn a two dimensional shape, but you havent. The graphite in the pencil isn't 2d, and nor is the paper you've drawn it on.

So, a person can conceive of a 2d thing. But never truly represent it in 3d space.

What if all things you can imagine, but cannot replicate in the 3d world is 2d. What if the first or second dimension is the imagination......

Quote:

Originally Posted by size_of_light (Post 1063056322)

Good thinking!

And, by extension, our 3D world would be the imagination of 4D minds.

You just gave me a (not fully fleshed out) thought...

If the 2D world only truly exists in the imagination, or the abstractions, of 3D minds, and the sole purpose for it's creation is to provide a source of inspiration and understanding, i.e. an informational power source, for the 3D world (mathematics, geometry etc.). then...

...doesn't it logically follow that the 3D world is, in some sense, a lower-dimensional 'abstract' creation of 4D minds, created to provide a source of inspiration, understanding and 'power' to minds in that dimension?

Food for thought.

Or should that be: Thought for food ?

size_of_light 19-01-2019 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by size_of_light (Post 1063056326)
You just gave me a (not fully fleshed out) thought...

If the 2D world only truly exists in the imagination, or the abstractions, of 3D minds, and the sole purpose for it's creation is to provide a source of inspiration and understanding, i.e. an informational power source, for the 3D world (mathematics, geometry etc.). then...

...doesn't it logically follow that the 3D world is, in some sense, a lower-dimensional 'abstract' creation of 4D minds, created to provide a source of inspiration, understanding and 'power' to minds in that dimension?

Food for thought.

Or should that be: Thought for food ?

OK, so I'll keep rolling with this before I forget my train of thought...

If conscious beings in a 2D world (akin to the Flatlanders of the Edwin Abbot novel Flatland)...

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/C8oiwnNlyE4" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

...only exist as abstractions in the minds of us 3D beings (because true 2D space is physically impossible in a 3D world), and conscious 3D beings (i.e. us) only exist as abstractions in the minds of 4D beings, then...

...when we visualise or conceptualise conscious beings in a Flatland reality, they are no less real and conscious than we feel ourselves to be, as manifested visualisations or concepts of a higher 4D mind.

decim 20-01-2019 01:46 AM

Like ancient Egyptians and their 1D/2D wall art without any perspective and poor proportion, but an apparent genius level of understanding of geometry and engineering in stone.
It as if they lived in a 2D world and spawned the 3D signifying it with the pyramid, culminating withe the Gizeh plateau constructions.


https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=h...pid%3D15.1&f=1


https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=h...mshot4.jpg&f=1


https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=h...pid%3D15.1&f=1
https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=h...hs.svg.png&f=1
Hyperdimensional Platonic solids.
Brain, a 4D computer/transceiver in/imagining a 3d world.
Blockheads with Tesseract minds, the imposible puzzle.


https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=h...0-cell.gif&f=1https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=h...0-cell.gif&f=1


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:01 PM.