Can "energy" be or feel solid in a higher dimsensi

[Spirit]

Hello,

I am writing a book about Mediumship and explain the different "spiritual" realms. A scientist most likely will call them dimensions instead.

I have a theory that I would like to break some scientists brains over.

It is proven that when somebody dies, the body becomes lighter.
"Energy" or "Spirit/Aura" moves from the body. Energy (if I am right) is also referred to as "mass" which cannot be destroyed.

Now here it comes... If energy fibrates on a higher frequency, could it be that this energy looks, feels or is "solid" in a higher dimension?

For example: The wind blows, we can feel it but we cannot hold it. However, the wind moves the leaves on the trees etc. etc. When there is enough speed (Storm). The wind's force is as "solid" or feels "solid"and can break or move even bridges etc.

So, if our spirit, soul or energy (whatever you prefer to call it) moves from our body when we die and either fibrates faster or is on a different frequency. would that mean that we possibly will be able to see, touch or feel similar "energies" in a higher dimension.

Look forward to read your thoughts on this,

Thanks,

[houserichichi]

This doesn't answer your question, but try and read/learn everything from this link.

http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp

Granted weight loss directly implies energy loss, why would you think to equate energy and spirit/aura?

[jinydu]

This doesn't answer your question, but try and read/learn everything from this link.

http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp

Granted weight loss directly implies energy loss, why would you think to equate energy and spirit/aura?

After reading that link, I think you will agree that MacDougall's results don't prove the existence of souls, let alone that souls have a measurable mass.

Also, if by "Scientists call it the fourth dimension", you mean that scientists are convinced of the existence of a fourth spatial dimension, then that is incorrect. However, it is a feature of Einstein's General Relativity, a generally accepted theory on gravitation, that spacetime can be represented using four dimensions. But this is not equivalent to saying that a fourth dimension, in the sense of a generalization of the three ordinary dimensions, actually exists.

There is also a mathematical theory of four dimensions (and more generally, n dimensions). Basically, you start off by assuming that it is possible to draw four mutually perpendicular lines through any given point (or some equivalent assumption), and from that, derive theorems. In short, mathematicians aren't concerned about the question "Does a fourth dimension exist?", because mathematics cannot answer that question. Instead, they are interested in "What would a four-dimensional space be like if it did exist?", which can be answered, provided that you also use other geometric axioms.

[houserichichi]

The point I was pretty much trying to get across from that link was that one of the most famous scientific attempts to show evidence for a physical interpretation of "souls" was unsuccessful, granted it was performed, what, 100 years ago? Same respect we, as scientists, can't rule out the existence of them as there is no direct counterproof. The best we can say is that there is no evidence to support it so until someone finds experimental evidence we're not going to consider it (as per Occam's razor, which seems to be the general concensus).

For the original poster, if the soul had any mass then it would, and should, have been discovered directly in that link that I posted. Unless you have a more recent (and accurate) experiment to prove otherwise, unfortunately the soul isn't a physical thing we can touch or hold (if it exists at all).

[Spirit]

Thanks mate!

Great link you provided. It only comes to show that we are better in making a mess of tests and how human everybody is.

However, lets forget about if the human body has a soul or not.

What I am interested in is how "energy" or lets say even "sound or light" would manifest itself in a possible 4th dimension. All that I have seen discussed is how we might "see" the fourth dimension.

Indeed, it is difficult to proof something that one cannot see, touch or feel.
Then again, if we look at a person that has been born blind, they have been told by other human beings that "light" exists.
The blind person then can make the choice to believe or not to believe.
If the blind person would go about it the scientific way: - "proof to me that light exists".

In other words, I am not trying to proof that the human soul exists because I know that it exists. As I am not a scientist, I just don't know how to explain it to the "seeing" people that have a blind "third eye".

Like explaining to a physically blind person what light looks like.

[jinydu]

Well, one important difference between light and spirits is that there are firm scientific theories about light that are testable and objective. Furthermore, predictions from these theories have been confirmed experimentally. For example, Maxwell's theory predicted the existence of radio waves, which were subsequently detected some decades later.

In fact, to say more about your analogy with the blind person, one major contributor to the field of optics (the study of light) was Leonhard Euler, who was actually going blind while he was working on a theory of optics.

[Spirit]

Indeed somethings have been scientifically proven.
That's not my argument.

Also going blind is knowing what light looks like which is distinctively different from being born blind.

[houserichichi]

Just as a side note, you don't have to see light to know it exists. The fact that microwaves work is a result of "light" as is the warmth of the sun. In the end it's not whether we can feel, see, smell, taste, or hear something that makes it real, it's whether or not physics requires its existence. Experiment eventually demystifies our natural human skeptisism...at least that's how theoretical science goes (sometimes).

So I can understand your logic, Spirit, why would a soul require a higher dimension or "realm" to exist in, or is this all a thought experiment on your part?

[wendy]

Energy is a product of things, and does not exist by itself: that is, we have no feeling for it, but it is the measure of what we see and feel.

That is something like 1 ftpdl has no meaning, but we can experience something like an ounce-force acting over a foot, or so much heat, or something like that.

It's kind of like petrol: it has no meaning by itself, but it lets you go so far on your car: the bigger the guzzler, the less you travel.

[Gilles]

Nothing exists by itself, or everything does.

Everything is a product of things, and things only exist as long as something is aware of them.

So, energy by itself doesn´t exist, no, but there are people who agree on the fact that lighter matter, aura´s/spirits exists.

And spirit, don´t try to explain the light to the blind, he won´t understand.
Or do try it, and find out yourself. But on this forum, some people are open for new ideas though...

[Spirit]

So I can understand your logic, Spirit, why would a soul require a higher dimension or "realm" to exist in, or is this all a thought experiment on your part?

In order to explain this question, I can only give you a Yes, part thought experiment based on spiritualist / "religious" theory and what I can see (Aura). Doesn't matter what kind of religion. Most religions will base something on either a "heaven", afterlife, reincarnation etc. Some of them talk about realms (7 at least, maybe more) Each realm has different properties but it is believed one can "travel" to lower realms but not upwards, unless you shed one of your "auric" bodies.

I see Aura but I cannot say for sure how many layers I am able to see.
Theory of various religions (Mainly Asian) mention that there could be upto 64 different auric bodies, maybe more.

I possibly see upto three. Unfortunately I'm a bit of a loner here as I haven't found anybody else who can truly see aura. The aura cameras are too restricted and only show one layer.

Too many people in my profession are (I hate to say) "charletans" or "cold" readers. So, if I cannot find discussion among my so called "collegues" I am looking to get "healthy" discussions with open-minded people or scientific orientated "Sceptical" people through forums like this.

To me, realms are a spiritual word for "dimensions" .
The auric bodies are in line with the other dimensions but possibly will only be used when we (like a snake) shed one of our bodies. In this dimension our physical body.

Hence my first question. How does energy possibly manifest itself or will be perceived in a higher dimension.
And as one of the other forum members has pointed out. Energy needs a source (like fuel) in order to manifest itself. But once manifested with some or maybe all energy sources (don't know for sure) they don't disappear but keep on travelling. Like sun light. Sun is the source of this "energy", light travels but doesn't disappear. Same with sound.

And well, this will create another thought process which is beyond me. Possibly we have a source, or fuel (God?) as well, that has created us energies (souls).

[jinydu]

Possibly we have a source, or fuel (God?) as well, that has created us energies (souls).

That is beyond the scope of science and reason.

However, we do know that we are most certainly powered by the nutrients we eat and the air we breathe, through a complex system of chemical reactions.

Also, in a mathematical sense, a dimension is not some mysterious realm that actually exists, but rather a well-defined concept. The starting point of four dimensional geometry is the assumption that it is possible to draw four mutually perpendicular lines through any given point (or some equivalent statement). Mathematicians are not concerned about the validity of this assumption; instead they are interested in the consequences of this assumption.

[Spirit]

Indeed like I said where are initial energy comes from is beyond me.

I am not refering to a dimension as a Mysterious realm.
To me a realm is also a concept that to me is what a scientist would refer to as a dimension. Religion is a concept.

I am not trying to proof that a realm or dimension exist. It is a theory that I am exploring like you are exploring the 4th dimension?

Hence my question which has still not been contemplated.

How would energy react or manifest or be perceived in a fourth dimension?

[jinydu]

Indeed like I said where are initial energy comes from is beyond me.

Initial energy? If you mean energy received right after conception, the source would just be the mother's womb. Throughout pregnancy, the mother's body is the developing embryo's source of nutrients (and in turn, energy).

How would energy react or manifest or be perceived in a fourth dimension?

Before I can say anything on that, you would have to clarify: Do you mean perception of energy by a 4D creature or by us?

Also, in this case, the assumption of a 4D world does not give us enough information to answer the question. We would also have to know about the laws of nature in the 4D world. Clearly, Newton's Law of Gravitation (for example) can't work in exactly the same way. If some analogue still exists in this hypothetical universe, what would be its properties?

In short, the question isn't specific enough to be answered.

[Spirit]

Initial energy? If you mean energy received right after conception, the source would just be the mother's womb. Throughout pregnancy, the mother's body is the developing embryo's source of nutrients (and in turn, energy).

Jinydu, I am referring to the energy possessed by the first ever living creature in the universe. Like I said, it is beyond us and we start to divert too much. The first ever living creature might not have had nutrients etc.

Before I can say anything on that, you would have to clarify: Do you mean perception of energy by a 4D creature or by us?

Also, in this case, the assumption of a 4D world does not give us enough information to answer the question. We would also have to know about the laws of nature in the 4D world. Clearly, Newton's Law of Gravitation (for example) can't work in exactly the same way. If some analogue still exists in this hypothetical universe, what would be its properties?

In short, the question isn't specific enough to be answered.

Perception by us would be limited as we are not 4th dimensional beings. You get that lovely cartoon explanation, so nicely depicted on this forum about possible first and second dimensional beings.

Your remark about Newton's law of Gravitation is now exactly the kind of topics that I am looking for! Indeed what would Gravity be like in a fourth dimension?
Exactly my thought pattern! However, I started asking about energy (in all its forms), as that is the end result that I am looking for. If that means contemplating Gravity and all sorts of things in order to come to my topic than, yes, a long way to go but at least we are getting somewhere.

[jinydu]

Jinydu, I am referring to the energy possessed by the first ever living creature in the universe. Like I said, it is beyond us and we start to divert too much. The first ever living creature might not have had nutrients etc.

I would say that with the current state of science, we are unlikely to know the answer to that anytime soon. Its hard enough making theories about the first life forms on Earth, let alone in the whole universe.

Perception by us would be limited as we are not 4th dimensional beings. You get that lovely cartoon explanation, so nicely depicted on this forum about possible first and second dimensional beings.

Your remark about Newton's law of Gravitation is now exactly the kind of topics that I am looking for! Indeed what would Gravity be like in a fourth dimension?
Exactly my thought pattern! However, I started asking about energy (in all its forms), as that is the end result that I am looking for. If that means contemplating Gravity and all sorts of things in order to come to my topic than, yes, a long way to go but at least we are getting somewhere.

An important feature of space that could allow us to detect additional dimensions is this:

Consider a point that radiates energy at a constant rate, uniformly in all dimensions. If no energy is lost in transit, then the the energy density varies according to an inverse (n-1) law, where n is the number of dimensions in the space.

This can be derived from geometry. Its easier to visualize when n = 2 or 3. In the case of n = 2, you can imagine a point on a piece of paper that radiates energy in "all directions". As far as the point is concerned "all directions" lie on the paper.

Suppose that at t = 0, the point emits a pulse of (2D) light in all directions. If you were to take a snapshot of this pulse at some time after, you would observe a circle of light, centered on the point. Assuming no light was absorbed in transit, at any time, the total energy in the entire circle would equal the energy at the moment the pulse was emitted.

Now, suppose a 2D being builds a light detector at a particular distance from the source. At some instant, part of the expanding circle of light reaches the detector. We would like to know: How much energy reached the detector. We can assume that the size of the detector is small compared to the size of the circle.

Since the energy was emitted equally in all directions, we have:

Energy in an arc = Length of arc / Circumference

If r is the radius of the circle, L is the length of the arc and E is the energy in the arc, then

E = L/(2pi*r)

In other words, for a detector with constant length L, the energy received by the detector is inversely proportional to the radius of the circle. But the radius of the circle is just the distance to the source. Thus, in 2D, energy spreads out according to an inverse law.

You can use a similar argument for 3D. Instead of a circle of light, you get a sphere of light. If you work it through, you'll find that in 3 dimensions, energy varies according to an inverse square law (i.e. you get r^2 in the denominator). This can be traced back to the fact that the surface area of a sphere is proportional to the square of its radius.

You could keep going with 4D, 5D, 6D, etc. In each case, you find that the "surface area" of an "n-sphere" is proportional to r^(n-1). Thus, energy density is proportional to 1/r^(n-1).

Thus, in 4D, energy density would vary according to an inverse cube law. Double the distance, and the energy density decreaess by a factor of 8. Thus, if we could detect an energy field that follows an inverse cube law, it could be evidence for a fourth dimension. However, so far, no such field has been detected.

[Gilles]

As far as I know, mathematics don't involve energy, of life.

If you ask about 4-dimensional perception, then you hit a slight problem immediatly. Perception involves conciousness, and science doesn't search that area.
We can't even agree on the fact that our 3-d perception is something static. What may look as light to me, might be interpretated as sound to you. And that's just an example. Of course, that's an extreme example, but everyone might agree on the fact that people often have a hard time understanding each other, due to a lack of the capacity to release our own point of view.
We observe lots of different kinds of energies: light, sound, taste, smell, and subtler forms for some.
We have organs for that.
It would be no more than logical to assume that 4-d beings have different 4-d organs for different kinds of energy aswell, and possibly integration centers to help form a concience.
Aswell as us, this concience would see everything around him as "normal". Something that he's used to, just like us.
The difference could only be noticed if someone could see from both perspectives, but it's hard to realise that.
For these reasons, I assume that energy-perception to those (to most hypothetical) beings, doesn't differ from ours. It's just normal to the viewer.

[jinydu]

As far as I know, mathematics don't involve energy, of life.

Perhaps not, but physics certainly does study energy. Living beings ultimately rely on the same sources of energy as nonliving things. At one time, it was commonly believed that living beings are powered by a different source of energy. This belief, known as vitalism, has now been discredited, at least among scientists. There are several reasons for this, including:

1) It is relies on unnecessary assumptions, and hence violates Occam's Razor. The formation and breaking of ATP molecules (as well as some other chemical processes) does a fine job of explaining how living things store and use energy.

2) It is untestable and uninsightful. Even if we assume that living things are powered by some special energy outside the usual physical laws, this assumption tells us nothing about the nature of this energy, nor any means of verifying this assumption experimentally. One scientist once remarked "We may as well say that cars are powered by automotive force".

If you ask about 4-dimensional perception, then you hit a slight problem immediatly. Perception involves conciousness, and science doesn't search that area.

Perception may involve "consciousness" (read very complex processes), but the collection of sensory information doesn't (ex. cameras). Furthermore, science does study "consciousness" (although, maybe not in your sense of the word). Just ask the neuroscientists.

We can't even agree on the fact that our 3-d perception is something static. What may look as light to me, might be interpretated as sound to you.

Only if one of us suffers from synthesia:

http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology ... hesia.html

Sorry, but there are objective differences between light and sound. For one thing, light can travel through a vacuum, while sound can't. Just because the perception of two people is different doesn't mean that they're equally valid.

We observe lots of different kinds of energies: light, sound, taste, smell, and subtler forms for some.

Only the first two are forms of energy (well, I don't know about "subtler forms", unless you're more specific). Taste is the response of our taste buds to certain kinds of substances. Smell occurs when very small particles enter our nose and meet specific chemical receptors. They most certainly are not forms of energy.

[Gilles]

Perception may involve "consciousness" (read very complex processes), but the collection of sensory information doesn't (ex. cameras).

How can you get a camera work, and collect information, if there is no consciousness involved? You can't film 4-d energy and see or understand it afterwards. Understanding is what this is about.

Taste is the response of our taste buds to certain kinds of substances. Smell occurs when very small particles enter our nose and meet specific chemical receptors. They most certainly are not forms of energy.

Ok, but so is sight. Smal particles are energy forms though. Einstein has stated that for the first time, and quantum mechanics involves that idea aswell. Particles, are now seen as "energy packages"