The Fourth Dimension consists of Energy Levels

[jeffrey.sharpe]

Imagine movie cameras recording everything that happened in the so-called three-dimensional world, which we only viewed on flat two-dimensional TV screens. Now imagine something more difficult … that we live like this from birth and so do not know that a third dimension exists and cannot visualize it even if we were told it existed. Although everything we saw on our TV screens varied in its distance from the camera we would see everything as one seamless flat picture. So it would be very difficult to believe that everything was separated from everything else in a third dimension. For example, if we saw images of objects that seemed to be decreasing or increasing in size as they moved across a TV screen, we would not be able to understand that the reason for this was because they were not only moving sideways (two-dimensionally) but also away from us or towards us (three-dimensionally). So our problems of trying to make sense of our flat TV world would be caused by the mistaken belief that we could see everything.

This delusion would lead scientists to create mathematical equations, which represented ‘change of size’ phenomena. And because they could do this successfully they would believe we inhabited a universe designed by a God who appreciated mathematics. On the other hand, if we suddenly became enlightened about the three-dimensional nature of our world and abandoned our TV screens, we would also have to abandon most of our mathematical equations … they cannot help us solve dimensional problems.

For example, in a flat TV world we would not be able to see what lay behind anything we viewed on our TV screens. So if an object moved because something that was hidden behind it caused the movement, we could not know the nature of what caused the object’s movement. But our ignorance would be compounded because we would believe we could see everything. So it would be very difficult to believe something could have caused the movement.

The same problem manifests in many ways in our supposedly three-dimensional universe, such as the inability to discover the mechanism of gravity. Once again, we believe we can see everything so how could such a mechanism exist? We do not understand such phenomena because we cannot visualize what causes them. However, if we could view the universe from a four-dimensional vantage point we could solve this problem. Imagine being trapped in a maze. How many people would think of making use of an additional dimension to find the way out? All one has to do is climb above the maze to get a three-dimensional view of its lay-out. How then does one obtain a four-dimensional view of the universe? It’s simple. The apparently seamless three-dimensional view in front of us is not seamless; every shade of colour represents a different energy level of the universe, which is separate from its adjacent energy levels. And the same applies to our other experiential senses and every other form of consciousness.

How then does a fourth dimension help us explain the mechanisms of the universe? Imagine four-dimensional pulses of energy, such as light waves, being like waves of the sea. What determines a wave’s force is its height above the surface of the sea. Similarly, a four-dimensional pulse derives its energy from the height of its wave, which exists in a fourth dimension, while it travels three-dimensionally in all directions. But because we experience a light wave as a colour, we cannot know that it exists four-dimensionally. The same applies to rotating pulses of energy, or so-called particles; their four-dimensional height gives them substance. This is why they cannot be visualized or defined in three-dimensional terms and why they can only be measured in terms of the three-dimensional effects they cause. An additional dimension also explains why most of the mechanisms of the universe are invisible. Seeing means we experience colour-energies, which travel along a few of the many fourth-dimensional levels of the universe. So we cannot see any of the other energies of the four-dimensional universe, although we can experience some of them as our other senses.

Sceptics might point out that the idea of a four-dimensional universe consisting of different energy levels is not possible because such levels, by definition, would need to be separate from one another and therefore could not be integrated to form real objects. But what is a real object? It is something we can sense and measure. In other words, one’s brain integrates the various four-dimensional energy levels of an object into a single level (or three-dimensional view) by superimposing them on one another. However, a complete view of an object not only consists of its three-dimensional measurements but also its four-dimensional structure, which occupies a range of energy levels, some of which can be sensed. Both these views are necessary to describe any object completely.

Sceptics may also believe that it is impossible for energy levels to exist separately from one another in a fourth dimension, each consisting of its own three-dimensional world. It is impossible to visualize such a scenario. But this impossibility arises because we presume that the fourth dimension must be an extension of a three-dimensional world, whereas the truth is, a three-dimensional view of the world is a squashed-up four-dimensional view. Suffice to say it also seems impossible for a two-dimensional map of the world to represent a three-dimensional globe. But it is possible to join regional maps to become the surface of a globe.

Is there any hard evidence to justify the idea of different fourth-dimensional levels? A simple example is a prism, which apparently splits light up into the various colours of the spectrum by bending the various colours to different degrees. It is well known that light bends when it enters a denser medium. This can easily be seen to happen by observing a pencil dipped in a glass containing a liquid … the greater the density of the liquid, the more the pencil appears to bend when it enters the liquid. The question is: why do the various colours that make up white light bend to different degrees when they enter a prism, which has a constant density? In terms of different fourth-dimensional density levels, the reason is clear. A prism exists over a range of fourth-dimensional levels. And the various colours that make up white light also exist at different fourth-dimensional levels. So a low energy level colour, such as red, entering a low energy level of a prism bends less than a higher energy level colour, such as violet, which enters a higher energy level of the prism.

Another hard piece of evidence in favour of four-dimensional levels can be heard but not seen. It consists of our ears, the working parts of which are only a few millimetres in length but can apparently detect the wavelengths of waves much more than a metre in length, which is implausible. (The wavelength of the note middle-C on a piano is more than a metre in length and the length of the note an octave below middle-C is more than two metres in length and so on). However, if different sound waves travel at different four-dimensional levels, our four-dimensional ears would only have to detect the existence of pulses of sound energy traveling at different levels, not their wavelengths.

But perhaps the most obvious evidence in favour of the existence of four-dimensional energy levels is that light, radio and mobile phone waves etc., each of which has a different energy level, do not interfere with one another. This is because each energy level is separate from all the others rather than overlapping one another within the same space.

[ICN5D]

Welcome Jeffrey, thanks for becoming a member, and posting your ideas. The logic is sound, when thinking of particles as higher dimensional waves of energy. Many people have considered this avenue, and turns out to be extremely good at simplifying complex equations. Certainly we shouldn't abandon our current formulas, but rewrite them, in extra-dimensional contexts. Such is the case with string theory, using more and more dimensions of space to express an equation. String theory is parallel to your idea, but goes way, way further than 4D! Last time I read up on it, the mathematicians were using around 26 spatial dimensions in their formulation. It was an experimental Standard Model, that used only geometry to derive the constants of nature. But, they describe a universe that has some very strange properties, but works a lot like ours. This forces us to think in higher dimensional terms, when reasoning how a proton works.

The idea is based on what can be called the Garden Hose model, with such things as Extended and Compactified dimensions. Let's say a person was tight-rope walking along the garden hose, stretched out and suspended above the ground. This person has only one dimension of freedom to move in, forwards and backwards. Two people cannot walk around each other, either. There isn't enough room. Now consider a tiny ant walking along the hose. The ant is so small, that it actually has two dimensions of freedom: for/back and left/right. Two or more ants are able to move past each other. But, in the new dimension, traveling far enough leads to back to the start. This thickness is the compactified dimension, and the length is the extended dimension. Objects large enough only operate in a 1D universe, while objects small enough operate in 2D.

So the concept is, that particles are made of tiny loops of energy that operate in 22 compact, curled up dimensions of space, and people and planets operate in 4 extended dimensions of space-time. We are so huge ( as well as protons, electrons, etc ), that we readily perceive only 4 dimensions of the universe. As we have looked deeper into particle physics, quantum mechanics, etc, we have found so many more instances of extra dimensions at work. Take superposition, for instance: when we cool down a single cloud of atoms in a magnetic bottle, some will turn into several clumps in a pattern. This is a Bose-Einstein condensate, where all of the wave-like properties of the atoms have overlapped and converged into a single, giant super-atom. Some of these super-atoms exist in multiple locations at once, hence the term superposition. It is an individual that exists as a group, not a group of individuals. Trying to isolate only one of the clumps ( if you somehow could ), would fail, because it is one particle in several places simultaneously.

This fact alone proves the higher extra dimensions of our universe, in my opinion. Take this image as an example:




This is a 3D cross section of a nine dimensional shape. Here, we call it the triotorus tiger, represented as (((II)I)((II)I)((II)I)) in what's called the toratope notation. So, basically, what we have done is taken this very high-dimensional, complex shape and dipped it into our ultra-thin 3D line of sight. What we end up being able to see out of this act, is 64 spheres in a cube-shaped lattice. So, that's 64 seemingly separate locations, where this one shape exists. In it's full 9D glory, it is a single, smooth surface, unbroken with no sharp edges or pointy corners. It's an innertube that can be inflated with air, basically. The important part of this, is that an extra-dimensional object, be it an innertube, wave of energy, etc, has the ability to be in several places at once, when represented in only 3D. Our current equations for the universe are written in a low-D context, making them indistinguishable and super complex. But, by adding dimensions to represent the equation, and represent what's happening in finer detail, we ultimately simplify it, and find new connections not previously known.

I forget when, maybe back in the 90's, the string theory experts ( not me ) were playing around with equations. They decided to rewrite the laws of thermodynamics in an exotic 8D context. It turned out to resemble the equations for general relativity, with astonishment. Here was the first connection ever found between temperature and gravity. We could estimate with great precision the temperature, entropy, and surface area of a black hole by its gravity ( if they even exist, with current ideas suggesting otherwise ). Here was also the first time some real, hard evidence came out, that supported the idea of extra dimensions to the universe, or at least more than four of space-time.


It's not all that impossible to comprehend how energy levels coalesce in higher dimensions. Rather than sharply defined levels, it could very well be a smooth transition from zero energy to maximum energy. The difference would be how far the "energy cone" has been protruded into our 3D plane. Between null and max energy, we would see it change mysteriously, unable to physically see the mechanism. But, with a little time ( or maybe a lot ) one can grasp the concept well enough to visualize.

Sound is nothing more than vibration and compression through a medium of some kind. I believe it can exist in as little as one dimension, as incompressible lines bounce off each other in the only direction they have. A pulse of these lines is the most elementary form of a sound wave, like cars hitting their brakes, then speeding up. The wave propagates along the medium, where the medium need not be in motion to occur. We've discussed the properties of actual sound, light, and gravity waves in 4D space, and it's more bizarre than you would think!

[jeffrey.sharpe]

Dear ICN5D,

Many thanks for your comments. You obviously devote much time and thought to the problem of dimensions. The diagrams you use, consisting of billiard balls and geometric shapes, also send me a strong message, besides attempting to represent reality. This message is that our experiential senses of billiard balls etc. are the arbiter of what is real or not. But one needs to avoid a trap when using ones experiential senses judgmentally. For example you state that: ‘…Trying to isolate only one of the clumps (if you somehow could), would fail, because it is one particle in several places simultaneously.’ In other words, our senses seem here to be experiencing a paradox.

But perhaps there is no paradox. In my post I referred to one’s ears being able to hear different musical notes at different fourth-dimensional energy levels, each of which has its own unique frequency. This is how one can hear chords, which means individual sounds have merged into a ‘clump’ in one’s brain, but remain separate from one another ‘out there’. There is no reason why this cannot happen with sight as well. One does not need 20 extra dimensions to explain things being in more than one place simultaneously - only one extra dimension is necessary.

Would you mind if I include your comments on my website under ‘Reviews’ at www.thefourthdimension.info?

[ICN5D]

Well, yes! Due to our limited senses, and of what we're taught in general, we experience many paradoxes! Actually, the 'billiard balls' you see came from a 3D graphing program I use. All I did was derive the equation for the surface of that shape, and plug in it's 3D cross section form.

This is the surface equation for that 9D shape:




What comes out in that particular 3D cut are the 64 spheres in the 4x4x4 array. If you browse the Tiger Explained thread, you will find many more cross sections of many more shapes.

But it's only a paradox, if we forget about other dimensions . We say " How can a shape be in several places at once? " At first, it doesn't make any sense. Trying to explain this property in 3D is too complicated, and exotic. But, if we use extra-dimensional thinking, as is the case for this shape, then all of a sudden, we say " Oh, I see now! It's really a higher dimensional shape, that extends into higher directions we cannot physically see! " This particular one has holes in it, so when we keep making cut after cut, losing a dimension each time, we get more and more interception points into our 3D plane. It doesn't always happen that way, but for many it is.

Case in point is a regular 3D torus:





If we make 2D cuts of this, we get:

Two circles side by side




Two concentric circles




It's easy for us to comprehend what's happening here, but to a Mr. Square, a 2D being, he'll see only two separate circles. For him, these look like two unrelated shapes. But, they're actually joined through a higher dimension, that of 3D. So, these two circles in each case are essentially part of one shape, existing in superposition, in several places at once. In 2D, it only looks this way. But, in 3D, it turns out to be part of one shape, a single entity that exists as a whole in 3 dimensions. Same case with the 9D one, but the 'two circles side by side' effect is manifested in a much higher dimensional way, producing 64 spheres in a 4x4x4 cubic array.

It's entirely possible to have a 4D shape with the 64 spheres as a 3D cut, but it wouldn't be one of the common toratopes I work with that correspond to the OEIS A000669 integer sequence. In a purely geometric sense it isn't necessary to require 20 dimensions to explain superposition. But, in the field of particle physics, it's turning out to be. There's a lot of complicated interplay and relationships down at that level. By using more and more spatial dimensions, our explanation becomes ever more simplified, with each addition.

The shining point of extra-dimensional shapes, is that we can never see them with our eyes. Not even the most advanced computer monitor in the world can show you their entirety, either. The only way is with our mind, using the 'Mind's Eye' . With practice, lots of attempts, lots of conceptual hurdles, and lots of discussion, one can eventually conceive of such things. There are tricks to do this, in visualizing a construction process through rotation, translation, scaling, and inflation. Shapes can be built in your mind this way, along with using many of the shape notations on this forum. A few of us here have made them, and they're extremely useful, once you've gotten the hang of it, and learned how to read it.

Of course, then there's the 3D way to represent the shape. With either shadow projections or cross sections, +4D can be shown. I started with projections, then moved to cross sections. Thing is, with making -1 dimensional cuts, we have to move the slicing n-plane around, to trace out the rest of the extra structure. That's pretty much what higher-D shapes are, they're bigger in a different, strange way. They extend in new directions, away from their 3D slices. There's more to them than meets the eye, to cue a nostalgic childhood theme.

It's a very strange concept to extend outside and away from a 3D plane. We comprehend it easily with comparing 2D to 3D. But getting around the hurdle, and understanding the concept of infinite thinness, we can apply this "thinness" to our whole 3D experience. The 4th dimension then becomes a sort of new "up and down", that sticks 90 degrees away from all of XYZ, into a new perpendicular direction. And from there, even higher dimensions like 5, 6, 7D, etc, are nothing more than iterations of this concept. They keep becoming a new "up/down" direction sticking off at 90 degrees from the previous, infinitely thin sheet of (N-1) dimensions.

And again, in 3D, sound does not extend into 4D to occur, it's only a 3D compression wave of fluids or solids. The only energy that is utilized in a sound wave is the repulsive force between neighboring electron orbitals. These fields push away from each other, so when we compress them together, they want to expand away to their initial distance. An explosion pushes a large amount together very quickly, sending a large amount to push off a ton of others very quickly, producing a sonic shockwave blast. Of course in this case, we'll get heating caused by rapid compression, followed by cooling from rapid decompression.

Would you mind if I include your comments on my website under ‘Reviews’ at http://www.thefourthdimension.info?

Sure, go for it. Would you be willing to supply a link back to this thread/forum? There's a ton of discussion about all of these things on here, from many people.

[jeffrey.sharpe]

You state: ‘ … sound does not extend into 4D to occur, it's only a 3D compression wave of fluids or solids. The only energy that is utilized in a sound wave is the repulsive force between neighboring electron orbitals…’

This statement illustrates where science has gone astray - in my opinion it is not valid to use terms that cannot be defined. All of us have been brought up to accept that forces are independent ‘prime movers’. But what is a force? Show me its structure or substance. Something that lacks these attributes cannot be real, cannot exist.

The reason why there has to be a fourth dimension, in my opinion, is to explain force and substance. Everything we know is part of a four-dimensional aether. So-called forces are movements of the aether and particles are rotations of the aether (vortices). The aether has many levels with a range of densities, the movements of which are caused by previous aether movements and so on, back to the time of the so-called Big Bang. Our five senses are the different vibrations of five of these four-dimensional levels.

Whatever one sees, touches, smells etc. are different levels of the fourth dimension. For example, each colour represents one of its energy levels pulsating, which creates a pulsating impression on one’s eyes, called a colour. But we do not see different colours at different fourth-dimensional levels any more than a flat TV image lets us see different three-dimensional distances. A TV behaves in this way because although it receives pulses of energy from different distances, it cannot ascertain individual distances. Similarly, one’s brain cannot ascertain individual aether levels but superimposes all the colours of the spectrum to form what we refer to as a three-dimensional view. And because forces (aether movements) act along the planes of various levels, one’s brain cannot detect these either, except as the three-dimensional effects caused by such movements.

You state: ‘The shining point of extra-dimensional shapes, is that we can never see them with our eyes.’

Regretfully to all those mathematicians who have been trying to concoct an extra-dimensional shape - there is no such animal, in my opinion. However, if one combines one’s sense of a three-dimensional shape (a visual image) with one’s sense of touch (a tactile image), this combined experience can be called ‘a substance, which has a shape’. This is a true four-dimensional experience. In other words, we know the fourth dimension intimately, as the objects around us. And if one wishes to see some of the aether’s individual levels, one can do so by observing white light passing through a prism, which redirects the various colours of the visible spectrum three-dimensionally according to their natural frequencies, so allowing one to view them individually, at their different fourth-dimensional levels.

[ICN5D]

I see that the 4th dimension you are referring to is non-geometric. Most ( and probably the vast majority ) of what you will find on this forum is geometry-applied dimensions. This is where I'm coming from. Geometric dimensions are nothing more than the minimum required degrees of freedom to locate an object or measure its size. If an object has two dimensions in a 2D plane, then we measure it with 2 inches X 2 inches, and whose center point is located at 3 units by 5 units from origin (0,0). Both its size and location needs only two parameters each, to fully describe its physical attribute.

In the non-geometric sense of dimensions, we can define other physical attributes, in addition to size and location. You refer to our 5 senses as perceptions of 4D effects. These 5 senses are our severely handicapped and biologically subjective methods to perceive. Each one, then, should be represented by its own dimensions, having its own axes to locate a value on.

Our eyes are sensitive to only three colors, our brain has a way to cross the different frequencies into a 'colorized grayscale', for lack of a better term. Color is also a figment of our imagination, and not real. Our biology determines what's red, blue, green, etc. A different animal, say a bee, will perceive through its specific biology several more types of colors, into the ultraviolet and infrared. It's unique vantage point tells a whole different story to what's colored what, in the same world we live in. Now consider the mantis shrimp: this champion of vision has 16 color sensitive receptors in its eye! In addition to three pupil focal points, it senses an entirely different world, far more vibrant than we could ever imagine. It not only sees over 60 million distinct colors, but can distinguish different polarity as well. So again, this creature can tell a whole other story, based on its unique biology to perceive the same world as we do ( when we go snorkeling or SCUBA diving, of course).

In fact, the colors we sense are only the reflected photons, the ones that the object rejected. In this reasoning, the object contains all colors except the ones you see! We see only reflections in the past, as an electron absorbed an initial photon, increased its energy to the point of instability, then cast off the extra juice as a lower frequency photon. In the case of using dimensions to define colors, we can establish each one we're sensitive to as an axis on a coordinate grid. We end up with a 3D grid containing the red, green, and blue dimensions. All colors we can sense, then, can be located somewhere in that 3D grid, based on how much blue, green, or red it has( just like the function of a computer monitor, RGB, CYMK, etc). Attempting to define all colors on just one axis or dimension is like defining an XY grid as only a line, it won't work to well for practical purposes. One could argue that it's only one specific frequency along a line, like the electromagnetic spectrum. But, if we are sensitive to three distinct colors, and our brain mixes these to form one color, then it would make sense to assign them individually, in my opinion.

One could assign taste and smell to have dimensions on an olfactory coordinate grid. We sense four distinct tastes: sweet, sour, bitter, salty. I insist that 'chemically' is also one, and would have a very wide spectrum, in light of our industrious world we were born into. Whereas taste and smell is nothing more than our sense of the shape of a particular molecule. We don't actually taste or smell the chemistry or atoms involved. An atom's electron orbitals determine the arrangement to other atoms, which determine the shape of a molecule when combined, which determines how our palette senses its shape alone. Take aspartame, for example. Aspartame is a fake sugar, created by mankind to trick the human body. It's a mirror image of an actual sugar molecule. When this impostor lands on our palette, we can't distinguish it between a real sugar molecule, because it's shaped the same way, or nearly identical. But, our gut is smarter than our olfactory sense, when it comes across aspartame. It says " What the heck is this fake crap! This isn't a real sucrose molecule! Unfortunately, I do not have the required enzyme to break this thing down, so I'm gonna store you here, in your fat. Forever." Which is why you don't drink diet sodas, your body doesn't know what to do with it, so it gets stored indefinitely. Perhaps with enough consumption, a mutant human will emerge after enough generations that can reduce aspartame. But, it may break down into highly toxic substances, that then require a repeat of the cycle of forced mutation. So, we could use a 4D grid to assign all we can sense through olfactory judgement. Once again, these smells and tastes are all extremely subjective, and a figment of our imagination. I'm willing to bet that a fly finds a pile of crap as tasteful as a filet mignon. We would not agree with the fly, for we have different biology, and therefore different senses to follow, to suit our nutrition requirements.

Emotion can also be assigned axes to a coordinate grid. But, there are sooooo many distinct feelings, I wouldn't know where to start. It cannot be simplified into simple happy, mad, jealous, envious, sad, etc. I do suppose that maximum indifference to all things can be the origin, at (0,0,0,0,0,0,...). If you feel for nothing, then all emotional dimensions all at null. If you are highly emotional, then the grid can be bristling with all sorts of grayscale mixed feeling axes. The matter gets further complicated by different dispositions towards the same thing. If you were to love and hate something ( and we all do! ) maybe it can be represented by a complex number, like (3-happy, 5-envious) or something like that. Then again, emotion is highly subjective, entirely unique and dependent on the observer. Emotions, I have always thought, are more like electrical charges. We are predisposed to certain attractions and repulsions, toward a great many things. Electrons are, after all, great friends with the proton, and seeks its companionship at any given instance. So, we would have an infinite dimensional grid to represent emotion. We would have to leave this one out, infinity causes problems. But, there are ultimately an infinite number of ways to describe an attribute, allowing an infinite dimensional universe in the non-geometric context.

Now for touch: we come back the whole electron orbital thing again. These orbitals are all the same magnetic charge, so they are all like the same poles of a bar magnet. Trying to push two of the same poles together requires effort, because they repel each other. This gives matter its solid feel, but its really only 10 trillion trillion electron fields pushing away from another 10 trillion trillion, that's all! You ask me what is this force, what is it made of, what is its substance. You refer to the well known aether hypothesis as a way to describe waves conducting along a medium. Your argument is " What medium is the energy wave pulsing through? " This is a very valid point, and the answer is no one knows for sure. It could be the Higgs Field. It could turn out that empty space is permeated by Planck-scale singularites, and atoms are inverse blackholes, spewing out energy from a galactic core blackhole. Who knows. I have always held the thought that 'empty space' is actually where all of the energy is. Atoms are like air bubbles in water, and when we go deeper underwater, the bubbles shrink to tiny sizes, containing the same amount of substance. As space cools, the omnidirectional outwards push is squeezing atoms smaller, as if empty space was acting like water pressure.

On the subject of sound perception, we don't require ears to sense it. Sound being nothing more than vibration, we can feel it. Take a gunshot for example. A person could be born deaf, but they will most certainly feel the sound wave hit their clothes, hair and skin. The ear's ability to sense sound waves longer than the ear itself happens through echoing inside the cochlear. No matter how long or tall the compression wave is, it will still bounce off the inside of our eardrum. Being shaped like a spiraling snail shell, the waves bounce back and forth, arriving at particular cilia hairs. Frequency determines the distance a sound wave will travel inside our eardrum, once it has entered. Different frequencies land on different cilia hairs, and so our brain interprets this as a particular note. Once you experience a damagingly loud enough sound at a given frequency, you will never hear that frequency again. This is because those specific cilia hairs for that specific frequency were destroyed, by intense acoustic vibration. I, myself, am evidence and proof of this fact. I heard a loud enough sound one time, enough to rattle the crap out of my ear drum painfully so. I can no longer hear when sounds get loud enough, it all comes in like static, and I can feel it in my ear.

On the subject of geometric dimensions, mathematicians aren't really 'concocting' 4D shapes like some magical potion. Higher dimensional shapes require imagination to visualize. This is different from existing only in the imagination. Again, it's a heck of a conceptual hurdle to conceive of a 4th spatial direction, that sticks off at 90 degrees from all of 3D space. The difficulty level should not be interpreted as impossible or incomprehensible. Convincing yourself that way only denies you the incredible achievement of doing so. The grokking moments when you realize what you see in your head right, is a bit of an addiction for me. I'll admit. 3D shapes can be represented by an image, projection, or equation. A cube, sphere, or tetrahedron exists because they are mathematically possible shapes in 3D. Higher dimensional shapes also use these equations in the same exact way. They can be also represented by images of cross sections or projections. What makes them real is the simple equation that defines them in their entirety. We don't need anything more than this formula for its surface to describe it.

But due to the unavoidable effect of representing part of a high-D shape in 3D, is we lose information about it. In its full 4D glory, a spheritorus has a whole 3D sphere inflating the edge of a circle. But, if we make a 3D cut of it, we only get two spheres side by side, or a regular torus . We cannot physically see the entire shape in its natural 4D home. And at the same time, this biological handicap does not make it any less real. It forces us to open our minds to spaces, places, and shapes that exist beyond our limited physical sensory ability. Then again, what is a physical sensory ability? It's possible that the action of our mind visualizing an observation is a way of sensing and perceiving. We would in fact have more than 5 senses, with the addition of our mind's eye ability to sense what we don't immediately see. The mere act of imagining what's not there, be it in all 5 senses, is identical to visualizing a 4D shape. In both cases, the object(s) you are visualizing are not actually present for you to biologically perceive, you are 'seeing' them with only your mind. We do this everyday, all day long.

[jeffrey.sharpe]

I thought this particular blog was about non-spatial dimensions.

You did not answer my question: What is a force?

Science needs to define such fundamentals as force, mass, time, consciousness, if it wishes to understand the fundamental nature of the universe.

Otherwise it is just technology.

In my home town there is a university called 'Imperial College of Science and Technology'.

Technologists use equations containing mass, force and time because they are useful, numerically. But they don't have a clue how they work.

How does a force move a mass? How does time slow down clocks as they move through space? How does mass make substances susceptible to gravity? How come particles don't have shapes? How come photons don't have mass? What does a photon have? What is the relationship between non-spatial dimensions and spatial dimensions?

If one wants to begin to understand the fundamental nature of the universe, one first has to ask questions like these.

[wendy]

You are invoking the fourth dimension in part, because your reality does not permit intersecting things.

Even in ordinary fluids, there is a thing called 'osmosis', where if only some of the materials flow across the membrane, then the liquid will act as parts, some see the barrier, and some do not. In short, what we see in the container, is a superposition of several liquids, some as if there were a barrier, and some as if there were not.

Radio waves, light, etc, all work, because in the first instance, there is very little intersection, and secondly, we have photons that travel fairly un-interrupted from source to target, without ever encountering anything. It's only that the target has to be tuned to accept the photons that the target becomes apparent to the photons. In any case, one can have several waves radiating from a place, and use the expanded wave-form to recreate the source. This is how holograms work. I mean, even in the search for MH370 (the lost Malaysian airliner), they were using doppler effects to find the apparent motion of the source against the waves it was producing.

Likewise, the ear as such is only an antenna. The real mechanism is a harp-like instrument, where hairs are tuned to different frequencies. A sound will cause all of these to ring, but if the wavelengths are aharmonic to the sound, it dampens very quickly, and if it is harmonic, the sound causes the thread to vibrate, which makes the brain hear a sound. But if there is trouble in this ear-harp, then the string will ring, or appear to ring without a sound driving it, and the brain will hear ringing in the ear. It of cause supposes that all of the sounds are coming in the same three-dimensional thread.

[jeffrey.sharpe]

Hi Wendy,

I rest my case.

You haven't bothered to reply to any of my questions.

For example, photons, which you mention. They are no more than a half-baked hypothesis, which tries to explain how light travels through space. If photons existed and were able to make impressions on the retinas of our eyes, why don't our eyes bulge out because they have received countless billions of them? Don't tell me that the reason is because photons don't have mass. How can something make a physical impression if it doesn't have mass?

As for your hypothesis that the hairs in the inner ear are like a harp. They are all roughly the same length, for a start. Enough said.

If light and other waves intersect, how does interference happen if waves are out of phase with one another?

I would agree with you that my proposing a whole new dimension is rather a drastic step to take, just to explain intersection. But when I developed the 4D idea, I also found it explained many other things as well, including force, substance, consciousness (see my blog of today), the mechanism of DNA and its origin, the mechanisms of gravity and electromagnetism. At first, I did not believe that one extra dimension could explain all these things. By the way, it also explains how time slows down or speeds up and why E=MC2, which I believe is a four-dimensional equation. Whether Einstein realised this is debatable, which makes it even more brilliant in my opinion. Incidentally, my 4D idea also demonstrates that there are two forms of time, chronological and timeless. 'Normal' time varies between these two extremes. I mention all this because the 4D idea is not something that I have sucked out of my thumb. I graduated from the university mentioned above.

All the above-mentioned ideas and others to do with Buddhism have recently been published in a book called 'The Fourth Dimension'.

Best wishes, Jeffrey.

[ICN5D]

I thought this particular blog was about non-spatial dimensions.

It is. You posted in the correct place. I elaborated quite a bit on the subject of non-spatial dimensions, and how to define them using our senses. It's a dense and heavy read, but inclusive in the manner you were looking for.

You did not answer my question: What is a force?

Actually, I believe I did. Quoting myself from yesterday's post : " You ask me what is this force, what is it made of, what is its substance. You refer to the well known aether hypothesis as a way to describe waves conducting along a medium. Your argument is " What medium is the energy wave pulsing through? " This is a very valid point, and the answer is no one knows for sure. "

I then move on to say : " It could be the Higgs Field. It could turn out that empty space is permeated by Planck-scale singularites, and atoms are inverse blackholes, spewing out energy from a galactic core blackhole. Who knows. I have always held the thought that 'empty space' is actually where all of the energy is. Atoms are like air bubbles in water, and when we go deeper underwater, the bubbles shrink to tiny sizes, containing the same amount of substance. As space cools, the omnidirectional outwards push is squeezing atoms smaller, as if empty space was acting like water pressure ".

But, only as wild unfounded speculation, since we aren't sure what the mechanism is.

Science needs to define such fundamentals as force, mass, time, consciousness, if it wishes to understand the fundamental nature of the universe.

Well, I can tell you from what I gathered through reading in-depth periodicals and texts, that there is no time, only space. There is no 'mass', only waves of energy. Force is a mysterious attraction/repulsion disposition, and we have only begun to question its substance. It could turn out to be much like gravity. All forces may turn out to be geometrically curved space. A sharper curvature manifests a stronger force. Curves that stick up in the same direction are 'like charges', and repel. Opposite pointing curves are opposing charges, and will attract each other, in an attempt to neutralize. Neutral force ( non-existent) is essentially "flat, uncurved" space.

I always felt matter has energy waves that point in a certain direction. Antimatter, then, is the same frequency and amplitude ( and thus same mass ), but points in an opposite direction. When the two combine, they annihilate into pure energy, as photons. So, if two opposite pointing waves overlap, they cancel out, and produce a very large amount of what I call " dual-peak waves" as photons. This photon wave points in both directions of matter/antimatter, as it's a tiny combined entity of both. This dual-peak wave would interact neutrally in the language of mass. Same direction waves repel, opposite directions attract, and dual-state waves are neutral to both, possessing both inherent attraction/repulsion characteristics. If one were to somehow coax a very large amount of photons together, and entangle them into a single giant super-photon, it would be a very large dual-peak wave. I believe this is the state of energy before spontaneous matter/antimatter creation at the planck scale. This giant dual-peak wave would have to be literally torn in half, into two separated up or down waves, of matter and antimatter.

Technologists use equations containing mass, force and time because they are useful, numerically. But they don't have a clue how they work.

That's not the job or focus of physicists, or " technologists". It's the job of a Theoretical Physicist to comprehend and study such things.

How does time slow down clocks as they move through space?

Because, in actuality, we move through a 4D space-time. Moving faster in space tilts our worldline in 4D, away from being parallel with time, and more parallel with space. Our worldline is then a slanted line. A slanted angle in 4D space- time, experiences less displacement in time, because we have borrowed some of the magnitude of that vector, and given it to our velocity through space.

How does a force move a mass?How does mass make substances susceptible to gravity? How come particles don't have shapes? How come photons don't have mass? What does a photon have? What is the relationship between non-spatial dimensions and spatial dimensions?

All very good questions Jeffrey. It's many others' life ambition to figure those things out. I encourage you to investigate those ideas. And, it works best to keep an open mind, especially when you come across the things that will challenge or contradict your own personal beliefs. You never know, what that theoretical physicist wrote down in that publication just may be right.

For example, photons, which you mention. They are no more than a half-baked hypothesis, which tries to explain how light travels through space. If photons existed and were able to make impressions on the retinas of our eyes, why don't our eyes bulge out because they have received countless billions of them? Don't tell me that the reason is because photons don't have mass. How can something make a physical impression if it doesn't have mass?

Accumulating photons in the eye only exchanges energy from one form to another. If we assume photons have mass, then yes, our eyes could explode. But they don't, thankfully. So, deductive reasoning may conclude that something else must be going on, where photons are truly massless and energetic, and only excite the photoreceptors, telling our brain there was a beam of photons in that specific location.

As for your hypothesis that the hairs in the inner ear are like a harp. They are all roughly the same length, for a start. Enough said.

Yes, they're the same length. But, nonetheless, the hairs further inside our ear detect a different frequency than hairs closer to the entrance. It is this mechanism alone that tells the frequency: location, location, location.

.... E=MC2, which I believe is a four-dimensional equation. Whether Einstein realised this is debatable, which makes it even more brilliant in my opinion.

It is in fact a 4D equation. Einstein knew of this as well. Nothing new there. This realization was the advent of the whole understanding of a real 4D spatial extent in our universe. Many artists focused their work on the new idea, like M.C. Escher and Picasso.

I mention all this because the 4D idea is not something that I have sucked out of my thumb. I graduated from the university mentioned above.

Congratulations, and good luck in selling your new book. Though, how long have you been nurturing this idea? How many scientific periodicals have you read on the subject, specific to commonly accepted ideas? Your ideas aren't that new, the aether hypothesis is a very old one, and its application to explain waves conducting along a medium. There are many things you demand to be true with conviction.

Some of the others on this forum ( who are willing to talk to you ) are the actual, real life experts in their field. Have you thought about posting some of your questions on Reddit? That's a great community of academic thinkers, and you may receive more usable feedback there.

[jeffrey.sharpe]

Thanks for your input.

I have answered nearly all of the questions I posed to you. They are all in my book.

But a blog only discusses individual ideas, like discussing individual pieces of a jig-saw puzzle.

The problem is to put them all together to form a coherent picture without knowing in advance what the picture is.

I believe my book achieves this. At least no-one yet has said to me: your book contradicts experimental reality.

However, I am not sure whether science is ready to embrace a different way of viewing the universe. Too many career interests are at stake here, not to mention the billions of dollars wasted on the Hadron Collider in my opinion.

[ICN5D]

....not to mention the billions of dollars wasted on the Hadron Collider in my opinion.

If we experimentally verified what we theoretically postulated, then no money was wasted Case in point is the Higgs Boson.

I believe my book achieves this. At least no-one yet has said to me: your book contradicts experimental reality.

Has anyone bought and read your book, yet? I see your webpage was copyrighted in 2014, fairly recently. But for us, you have so thoughtfully condensed your book into a few posts of what you believe. I can deduce the remainder, in addition to further questions, if I feel so obliged.

However, I am not sure whether science is ready to embrace a different way of viewing the universe.

Science is by itself a way of viewing the universe. All ideas, no matter how 'half-baked' they are, are methods of description and explanation. That's why I encourage you to share this on Reddit. It's home to an audience several orders of magnitude greater than this forum, from all fields of interest.


But, like I keep trying to tell you, is that stopping at only 4D to explain the universe ( the way you interpret it) is very limiting. Each sense can have an axis on a particular coordinate grid. When assembled together, we get a much higher-D non-geometric universe than 4D. Just something to think about. Hopefully, after interacting with us on this forum, you leave with greater knowledge and ideas than when you started. Which should, in turn, nurture an expansion to what you currently believe, without having to rewrite your book.

[wendy]

Light

The scientific understanding of light works at the large scale has not changed from before the 1800's. Newton's discussion on Optics is as relevant today as it sas in the seventeenth century. The mathematical model of light has changed, but each model must answer to everything that is seen in Optics, and the new discoveries that they are based on.

The notion that light is electromagnetic, is based on the solution to certain equations of electric and magnetic fields in the absences of sources. This is an ancient formulation called the 'wave equation', which greatly predates electromagnetism. The free-space equation for electric and magnetic fields, is that they move in some direction at a particular velocity. Maxwell noticed that the measured EM velocity as prescribed by the theory, is close to the then-current measures of the speed of light, and concluded that light travelled in the same ether as EM waves.

Hertz constructed an EM wave source, by a fast-rotating magnet, and showed that the waves it produced followed the same laws that Newton's Optics demanded of light.

The existance of photons is due to an entirely later, and different effect: the photoelectric effect. This means that light falling on particular surfaces, will not produce any induced voltage, until the frequency of the light exceeds a certain value, and then act in the correct style that a wave would for higher frequencies. The level of the effect can be helped or hindered by applying a field to the surface, but the effect of a cut-off is the same. The explination is that light is made of particles (photons), the cutoff being caused by the requirement for a light-particle to dislodge an electron from matter.

So photons really are not needed to get light from the sun to the earth: the wave model does that quite nicely. I never involked photons as the means for transmitting light.

E=mc² is preciesly three-dimensional. The derivation of it involves the 'curl' function, which exists in three dimensions, and three dimensions only.

Prisms

That light defracts in a prism, differently to how it defracts in water, has nothing to do with its density. What it has to do is the 'refractive index' of the material. That we continue to see white light pass through water without splitting is due to water having a constant refractive index over that region. A prism defracting light, does so because the medium has a different refractive index per frequency, and hence light travels on different speeds and different paths accordingly. Newton discusses this in the Optics.

A defraction grating, such as might be seen with a CD, will likewise cause a rainbow, but this is for a different reason. Light being bounced off adjacent rings of dots on a cdrom (because that's what they are), will travel slightly further. If this distance is not an exact match for the wavelength of the light, the signal will be so faint we would not see it. But if the difference in path exactly match the wavelengths, then the light from several rows will add, and we will see that colour. The variation of different angles to the eye, will mean that we see rows in increasing lengths, from purple to red. The mathematics fits the observations.

Exactly the same process is used to add and subtract sounds in audio. You can reliably 'mix-out' the audience, if you know what the sound of the audience is without the band, at the point of the band. It's hardly new stuff. Defraction-grating stuff is pretty much the same stuff you get with acoustic feedback.

Sound

Sound is a longitudinal wave in matter. A sound travelling in the 'x' direction will cause compression and expansion in the 'x' direction. It's a pressure, and you can quite easily see demonstrations of the pressure wave on diaphrams. A drum can be made to give different sounds, because the sound produced is caused by the harmonics produced on where the surface is hit. This is pretty ordinary music theory that goes centuries back.

Even though the ear-harp consists of similar-length threads, the key element here is 'similar'. They're not the same. What happens is that first, it is not immersed in air, but a liquid, and secondly, a frequency of sound has room to excite all the hairs, but unless the frequency is harmonic with a given thread, the process will dampen.

It's not dissimilar to sloshing water in the bath-tub. You can wave your hand in the water at different tempos, but if you hit the right harmonic, the water is not generally fighting the previous oscillation. The hand serves to add energy and the water will slosh from end to end in rythm with the hand. You don't need four dimensions to explain that, surely.

The Eye

What we see is a learnt experience. Our senses sees patterns of light, of which we identify objects of varying types. We can, for example, work with the notion that things further away are smaller, and that things like 'elephants', are essentially the same size. Using the two together, we would generally percieve an elephant occupying a small part of view as being far away.

The continuity of objects hidden from view, such as passing behind a wall, is something that children learn at quite a young age, and many animals understand this too.

It is of course possible to interrupt the perception of depth, by changing the focal distance of glasses. One processes what is seen, and judges it to be so far away, but the change of focus has made it actually closer, and one bumps into things. I have had this happen to me.

You are indeed proposing that the mind has an innate understanding of the three dimensional world. This is largely learnt, and we know this from tests on blind people, for example. The distances are learnt, and are relatively easy to disrupt.

Mathematics

There is a book 'Actuallity and Reality' by Khrisnamuti which deals with this. We can not percieve actuallity, although it is what we live in. What we do is to create from past experiences, various realities of various actuality. When we create a mind-object 'elephant', it describes a variety of beasts that look and behave in similar ways. A cow is not an elephant, for example. The idea here is that elephants behave in certain ways, and present us opportunities and threats that are a different set to how cows do it. We don't have to create the same 'elephant' set for each elephant we encounter. We make a given animal belong to 'elephant', and treat it so.

Mathematics is an abstract extension of this. The notion that 'things fall' tells us that we need to keep things that we don't want to fall, by protecting their motion on one side only. A cup only needs a table to stop falling, not a closed box. A more mathematical expression of this allows us to fire a cannon and have its shot fall at a precise place. Newton's universal model of gravity is based on this exact same equation, using for example, cannons firing their shot fast enough that the fall is the same of the curvature of the earth.

The moon falls in its orbit. It has a fast enough horizontal velocity, that it falls in a circle around earth. The mathematics of gravity as an attractive inverse square law *by itself* is sufficient for us to put man on the moon, and place satalites in precise orbits. It does not need an understanding of gravity at a quantum level.

Calculations of the electric field around wires do not resolve down to counting, or even considering, individual electrons etc. It is sufficient for example, that to power a jug rated at 1800 Watts, at 240 volts, one needs a current of 7.5 amperes. No electrons were invoked. We did not even consider whether the current was made of excess electrons, or a flow of holes. Yet the theory exists that we can make this distinction (the Hall effect).

Four Dimensional Waves

The theory is supposededly presented as being based on the ocean waves, which are on a 2d surface in 3d. However, the nature of 3d waves of light and of sound, are well enough understood, that we don't need to invoke four or more dimensions.

Sound is a longitudinal wave. It is an increase and reduction of pressure, caused by matter bunching and relaxing. The units of sound are measured in decibels of guage pressure, which means that sound is the result of pressure and density waves.

Light consists of a pair of orthogonal transverse waves. Light travelling in the X direction, has an electric field in the Y direction, and a magnetic field varying in the Z direction. It is the cross product of the electric and magnetic fields that produces the energy flow orthogonal to both of these fields. However, the underlying cross-product is characteristicly three-dimensional.

Energy Levels as 4D

The real problem with supposing that energy levels are separated in space, is that when the energy is disapated, then one supposes that it changes in the W axis too. It's like supposing that a person running along a track, is displaced 5 metres upwards by his running, and then when he trips and falls, he falls the extra five metres too. Nothing of the sort either happens, or is demanded by what we see in nature, or what our models tell us.

So if the problem is not in the inadequaticy of the theory to tell us this, then it must be elsewhere.

Reading the arguments over, one suspects the similar models i suggested earlier form the basis. That things are necessarily hard objects, and thus to occupy the same space, must be separated by a different dimension.

Rule of Obligation

Science is not so much about 'truth'. It's about 'testability'. This means that is a model saying that A ought happen when we can defer to nature to see whether A or B is true. Technology is more about 'truth', in the sense that it supposes a mathematically described reality where if the calculations say A happens, then we would be highly surprised when A did not happen. Or we would look for some difference, ie we would look for B-A.

A proposition that 'god causes things', leads to no statements that A happens, while nature might suppose B. What happens with this, is that B for being observed, becomes 'god causes B'. And this is neither science or technik.

So if ye suppose a different model to the world, it is your role to present it and its justifications.

[jeffrey.sharpe]

Maybe I haven’t explained my theory properly.

In my view, the fourth dimension can’t be bolted on to the other three. You can do that kind of thing when you repair bikes. But you cannot do it with dimensions. My theory is about four dimensions permeating one another intimately and completely. Any attempt at separating them is like trying to separate the surface of a pond from what lies underneath.

Imagine some 2D person who believed that the surface of a pond was all there was to a pond. Then I came along and told this person about a third dimension right under his nose, which gave it ‘depth’. Of course his reaction would be one of complete lack of comprehension. His reaction might be to say, there are many other dimensions. Can you imagine how exasperated that would make me when I am trying to tell this 2D person he is missing out on a whole new world under the surface of his pond.

If you think 2D, every scientific idea, like density, light and hundreds of other terms will be 2D ideas. Admittedly it would be possible for a 2D person to discuss a 3D ripple on a pond in terms of 2D longitudinal measurements, without realising it is 3D, but that is not the same as experiencing ‘a ripple’, is it? And the same applies to many other scientific terms. An extra dimension changes all of them dramatically. One would have to start from scratch again.

In terms of this theory, there can no such thing as an extra-dimensional shape. This would be like our 2D friend saying there are many extra-dimensional surfaces. What would that mean? Even if I told him that each of those extra surfaces was next to and parallel to the surface of his pond, he still wouldn’t get it, would he? So close but so far away.

Here’s another example. In my humble view a 3D visual image of an object in one’s mind’s-eye is a representation of a real 4D object. But if one combines this 3D image with one’s sense of touch then one knows one is sensing something more than an image. That something is 4D substance.

Shape is a 3D concept. Substance is a 4D concept. That is why mass cannot be defined in 3D terms. We are four-dimensional beings, but we mistakenly believe we are three-dimensional.

Are you ready to make a giant leap into another dimension? It’s right under your nose .

[ICN5D]

In my view, the fourth dimension can’t be bolted on to the other three. You can do that kind of thing when you repair bikes. But you cannot do it with dimensions. My theory is about four dimensions permeating one another intimately and completely. Any attempt at separating them is like trying to separate the surface of a pond from what lies underneath.

I can agree with that. So, what you're saying is that trying to represent all things in 3D is an incomplete view, an incomplete description of what actually there? It still feels like 3D in this case is an infinitely thin "slice" of this higher medium, where there are infinite stacks of these 3D slices, parallel and separated to what we currently observe. I have to apply my geometric understanding here, your idea is very new to me.

An extra dimension changes all of them dramatically. One would have to start from scratch again.

Yes, it definitely changes things. I like to believe it simplifies them, with the addition of dimensions in our description. Just like those 2D slices of the torus above. In 2D, it's two separate circles. Trying to wrap one's 2D mind around the idea that both circles are actually one object sounds crazy, and too incomprehensible to be true. But, as we can see quite clearly, if we use three dimensions to represent and describe the torus, it all makes sense. Our comprehension is simplified, with the addition of 3D thinking. One could go further to say that the torus can be constructed by taking all 2D slices, and stacking them together, parallel to each other, separated by 3D. The end result would be a fully functional, fully represented 3D torus. Of course, this is using a geometric object to express the idea, in analogy to what you may be saying.

In terms of this theory, there can no such thing as an extra-dimensional shape. This would be like our 2D friend saying there are many extra-dimensional surfaces. What would that mean? Even if I told him that each of those extra surfaces was next to and parallel to the surface of his pond, he still wouldn’t get it, would he? So close but so far away.

If this extra dimension is just the 3D separation of 2D parallel layers, then yes, a cube cannot be built. It would just be a 3D separated stacking of 2D squares. But, how does that fit into your first paragraph, about permeating completely, unable to be separated? An infinitely permeated stacking of squares will indeed make a cube, extra dimensional with respect to a square. However, if there are a finite amount of separated squares, the cube won't exist.



Funny thing with repairing bicycles: I have to use more than just sight to accomplish it. There's the matter of feel, sound, and smell to it. These become additional methods to observe a certain state of disrepair. One who is rather adept at identifying a particular sound as a specific issue will in turn be a better mechanic. A great many things can make a sound on a bicycle, and portray issues that are hidden from sight, and must be sensed by other means. I suppose this is a way of extra dimensional sensing, in the way you describe. The mental image I build in my mind through these sights, sounds, feels, and smells combine seamlessly, into a more complete understanding of the issue at hand, and whether or not it's been successfully resolved. Also, you know the Wright brothers were bicycle mechanics, right? Weren't they also highly accomplished developers of aircraft, as well? Just sayin'

[jeffrey.sharpe]

You’re almost there dude.

Like me when a senior Zen Buddhist monk asked me, in the early 1990s:

What is the sound of two hands clapping?

Speak, speak! he demanded.

[ICN5D]

All right, cool. Well, I'm going to go explore a 7D geometric shape today, and take pictures of it. You can check it out later in the Toratope thread.

[jeffrey.sharpe]

Best wishes.

[Secret]

Imagine movie cameras recording everything that happened in the so-called three-dimensional world, which we only viewed on flat two-dimensional TV screens. Now imagine something more difficult … that we live like this from birth and so do not know that a third dimension exists and cannot visualize it even if we were told it existed. Although everything we saw on our TV screens varied in its distance from the camera we would see everything as one seamless flat picture. So it would be very difficult to believe that everything was separated from everything else in a third dimension. For example, if we saw images of objects that seemed to be decreasing or increasing in size as they moved across a TV screen, we would not be able to understand that the reason for this was because they were not only moving sideways (two-dimensionally) but also away from us or towards us (three-dimensionally). So our problems of trying to make sense of our flat TV world would be caused by the mistaken belief that we could see everything.

This delusion would lead scientists to create mathematical equations, which represented ‘change of size’ phenomena. And because they could do this successfully they would believe we inhabited a universe designed by a God who appreciated mathematics. On the other hand, if we suddenly became enlightened about the three-dimensional nature of our world and abandoned our TV screens, we would also have to abandon most of our mathematical equations … they cannot help us solve dimensional problems.

For example, in a flat TV world we would not be able to see what lay behind anything we viewed on our TV screens. So if an object moved because something that was hidden behind it caused the movement, we could not know the nature of what caused the object’s movement. But our ignorance would be compounded because we would believe we could see everything. So it would be very difficult to believe something could have caused the movement.

The same problem manifests in many ways in our supposedly three-dimensional universe, such as the inability to discover the mechanism of gravity. Once again, we believe we can see everything so how could such a mechanism exist? We do not understand such phenomena because we cannot visualize what causes them. However, if we could view the universe from a four-dimensional vantage point we could solve this problem. Imagine being trapped in a maze. How many people would think of making use of an additional dimension to find the way out? All one has to do is climb above the maze to get a three-dimensional view of its lay-out. How then does one obtain a four-dimensional view of the universe? It’s simple. The apparently seamless three-dimensional view in front of us is not seamless; every shade of colour represents a different energy level of the universe, which is separate from its adjacent energy levels. And the same applies to our other experiential senses and every other form of consciousness.

How then does a fourth dimension help us explain the mechanisms of the universe? Imagine four-dimensional pulses of energy, such as light waves, being like waves of the sea. What determines a wave’s force is its height above the surface of the sea. Similarly, a four-dimensional pulse derives its energy from the height of its wave, which exists in a fourth dimension, while it travels three-dimensionally in all directions. But because we experience a light wave as a colour, we cannot know that it exists four-dimensionally. The same applies to rotating pulses of energy, or so-called particles; their four-dimensional height gives them substance. This is why they cannot be visualized or defined in three-dimensional terms and why they can only be measured in terms of the three-dimensional effects they cause. An additional dimension also explains why most of the mechanisms of the universe are invisible. Seeing means we experience colour-energies, which travel along a few of the many fourth-dimensional levels of the universe. So we cannot see any of the other energies of the four-dimensional universe, although we can experience some of them as our other senses.

Sceptics might point out that the idea of a four-dimensional universe consisting of different energy levels is not possible because such levels, by definition, would need to be separate from one another and therefore could not be integrated to form real objects. But what is a real object? It is something we can sense and measure. In other words, one’s brain integrates the various four-dimensional energy levels of an object into a single level (or three-dimensional view) by superimposing them on one another. However, a complete view of an object not only consists of its three-dimensional measurements but also its four-dimensional structure, which occupies a range of energy levels, some of which can be sensed. Both these views are necessary to describe any object completely.

Sceptics may also believe that it is impossible for energy levels to exist separately from one another in a fourth dimension, each consisting of its own three-dimensional world. It is impossible to visualize such a scenario. But this impossibility arises because we presume that the fourth dimension must be an extension of a three-dimensional world, whereas the truth is, a three-dimensional view of the world is a squashed-up four-dimensional view. Suffice to say it also seems impossible for a two-dimensional map of the world to represent a three-dimensional globe. But it is possible to join regional maps to become the surface of a globe.

Is there any hard evidence to justify the idea of different fourth-dimensional levels? A simple example is a prism, which apparently splits light up into the various colours of the spectrum by bending the various colours to different degrees. It is well known that light bends when it enters a denser medium. This can easily be seen to happen by observing a pencil dipped in a glass containing a liquid … the greater the density of the liquid, the more the pencil appears to bend when it enters the liquid. The question is: why do the various colours that make up white light bend to different degrees when they enter a prism, which has a constant density? In terms of different fourth-dimensional density levels, the reason is clear. A prism exists over a range of fourth-dimensional levels. And the various colours that make up white light also exist at different fourth-dimensional levels. So a low energy level colour, such as red, entering a low energy level of a prism bends less than a higher energy level colour, such as violet, which enters a higher energy level of the prism.

Another hard piece of evidence in favour of four-dimensional levels can be heard but not seen. It consists of our ears, the working parts of which are only a few millimetres in length but can apparently detect the wavelengths of waves much more than a metre in length, which is implausible. (The wavelength of the note middle-C on a piano is more than a metre in length and the length of the note an octave below middle-C is more than two metres in length and so on). However, if different sound waves travel at different four-dimensional levels, our four-dimensional ears would only have to detect the existence of pulses of sound energy traveling at different levels, not their wavelengths.

But perhaps the most obvious evidence in favour of the existence of four-dimensional energy levels is that light, radio and mobile phone waves etc., each of which has a different energy level, do not interfere with one another. This is because each energy level is separate from all the others rather than overlapping one another within the same space.

I had a feeling that the first underlined point is an important point in understanding your view of the fourth dimension, mind elaborate a bit more?

As for the final bolded point
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questi ... experiment
http://www.falstad.com/fourier/

Actually, waves of two different frequencies (what we perceive as color for the case of light, and pitch for the case of sound) DO interfere. But if their relationships between the frequencies changes as the waves travel through (that is, the separation between the peak of one wave and the peak of another is not constant in time or along the wave at different positions) (what is referred as non coherent waves in the stackexchange link), which is usually the case for a lot of things except e.g. lasers, then since a particular interference pattern (say some time and somewhere, the waves interfere destructively) only last for a short instance, we are usually unable to detect it. As a whole, all we see is all theese different interferece patterns get squashed up and all we see is just a blurry mush, thus it is like they don't interfere with each other at first glance

And if you play around with the falstad link above, you will found that wave of very different frequencies (e.g. radio vs visible light), when they superimpose (add together) produce an interference that the original waveform is relatively unaffected (e.g. you can trace out the shape nicely for the low frequency and high frequency wave, and you found they are relatively unaffected)

However all of this just show that the frequencies can actually interfere. Since from your post you said that the various energy levels in non spatial 4 dimensions are being squashed up into a single picture as we perceive them, my statement above actually does not differentiate whether the frequencies are just an emergent phenomenon in 3D+1 spacetime (as what people who learn physics are commonly taught) or as you proposed, each frequency are different energy levels in non spatial 4 dimensions

You state: ‘ … sound does not extend into 4D to occur, it's only a 3D compression wave of fluids or solids. The only energy that is utilized in a sound wave is the repulsive force between neighboring electron orbitals…’

This statement illustrates where science has gone astray - in my opinion it is not valid to use terms that cannot be defined. All of us have been brought up to accept that forces are independent ‘prime movers’. But what is a force? Show me its structure or substance. Something that lacks these attributes cannot be real, cannot exist.

The reason why there has to be a fourth dimension, in my opinion, is to explain force and substance. Everything we know is part of a four-dimensional aether. So-called forces are movements of the aether and particles are rotations of the aether (vortices). The aether has many levels with a range of densities, the movements of which are caused by previous aether movements and so on, back to the time of the so-called Big Bang. Our five senses are the different vibrations of five of these four-dimensional levels.

Whatever one sees, touches, smells etc. are different levels of the fourth dimension. For example, each colour represents one of its energy levels pulsating, which creates a pulsating impression on one’s eyes, called a colour. But we do not see different colours at different fourth-dimensional levels any more than a flat TV image lets us see different three-dimensional distances. A TV behaves in this way because although it receives pulses of energy from different distances, it cannot ascertain individual distances. Similarly, one’s brain cannot ascertain individual aether levels but superimposes all the colours of the spectrum to form what we refer to as a three-dimensional view. And because forces (aether movements) act along the planes of various levels, one’s brain cannot detect these either, except as the three-dimensional effects caused by such movements.

You state: ‘The shining point of extra-dimensional shapes, is that we can never see them with our eyes.’

Regretfully to all those mathematicians who have been trying to concoct an extra-dimensional shape - there is no such animal, in my opinion. However, if one combines one’s sense of a three-dimensional shape (a visual image) with one’s sense of touch (a tactile image), this combined experience can be called ‘a substance, which has a shape’. This is a true four-dimensional experience. In other words, we know the fourth dimension intimately, as the objects around us. And if one wishes to see some of the aether’s individual levels, one can do so by observing white light passing through a prism, which redirects the various colours of the visible spectrum three-dimensionally according to their natural frequencies, so allowing one to view them individually, at their different fourth-dimensional levels.

Bold point one: In physics, we describe force as something that causes things to accelerate. Before Einstein and his general relativity, force is often perceived as some influence between objects when they interact. They do not necessary have to be in contact with each other e.g. like charges repel each other in electromagnetism. When Einstein proposed his general relativity, people started thinking forces might be just what happens when objects move along 'straight lines' (otherwise known as geodesics) in curved spacetime. But as ICN5D have told you, since science is one of the many ways humans try to understand nature (and happens to be the most successful one so far given all the technological advancements) and cannot prove things, only can be falsified by some inconsistent experimental results, What a force really is, we are not really sure

I was reminded of an interesting discussion with my physics professor. We we discuss about the meaning behind the complex phase of the wavefunction, he asked jokingly: "What is an electron?". This is some sort of wake up call to me that while in physics we say an electron is a fuzzy wave like cloud of probability with a measured negative charge of some value and some mass, it might be just how we humans understand it. In reality, we are not really sure what actually is an electron

Bold point two: I don't quite get the structure of your non spatial 4 dimension
You say our 5 senses are just vibrations of 5 of the many levels in 4 non spatial dimensions, yet earlier you mention in your first post that each color/frequency of light exist in a different energy level, in the same 4 non spatial dimensions. So is the structure look something like this?

e.g.
Level 1: Sight
1.0 Red
1.1 Orange
etc.

Level 2: Hearing
2.0 Low pitch
2.1 High pitch
etc.

Bold point three:
This point sort of remidn me of this partial quote of ICN5D

[...] Each sense can have an axis on a particular coordinate grid. When assembled together, we get a much higher-D non-geometric universe than 4D. Just something to think about. [...]

So exactly how does our 5 sense form this non spatial 4 dimension, that from the perception by us, got integrated into something with substance and form a rich experience that is not just consist of 3D space?
And if what my guess on the structure of this non spatial 4D is correct, then why there is such a big difference between level 1 and level 2, since they are just being separated along the same 4th dimensions?

Maybe I haven’t explained my theory properly.

In my view, the fourth dimension can’t be bolted on to the other three. You can do that kind of thing when you repair bikes. But you cannot do it with dimensions. My theory is about four dimensions permeating one another intimately and completely. Any attempt at separating them is like trying to separate the surface of a pond from what lies underneath.

Imagine some 2D person who believed that the surface of a pond was all there was to a pond. Then I came along and told this person about a third dimension right under his nose, which gave it ‘depth’. Of course his reaction would be one of complete lack of comprehension. His reaction might be to say, there are many other dimensions. Can you imagine how exasperated that would make me when I am trying to tell this 2D person he is missing out on a whole new world under the surface of his pond.

If you think 2D, every scientific idea, like density, light and hundreds of other terms will be 2D ideas. Admittedly it would be possible for a 2D person to discuss a 3D ripple on a pond in terms of 2D longitudinal measurements, without realising it is 3D, but that is not the same as experiencing ‘a ripple’, is it? And the same applies to many other scientific terms. An extra dimension changes all of them dramatically. One would have to start from scratch again.

In terms of this theory, there can no such thing as an extra-dimensional shape. This would be like our 2D friend saying there are many extra-dimensional surfaces. What would that mean? Even if I told him that each of those extra surfaces was next to and parallel to the surface of his pond, he still wouldn’t get it, would he? So close but so far away.

Here’s another example. In my humble view a 3D visual image of an object in one’s mind’s-eye is a representation of a real 4D object. But if one combines this 3D image with one’s sense of touch then one knows one is sensing something more than an image. That something is 4D substance.

Shape is a 3D concept. Substance is a 4D concept. That is why mass cannot be defined in 3D terms. We are four-dimensional beings, but we mistakenly believe we are three-dimensional.

Are you ready to make a giant leap into another dimension? It’s right under your nose .

Assume Tl;dr my post

I think I need more specific elaboration on what hierarchy or structure of your 4 dimension is like, otherwise I don't get how it works and how it relates to the many concepts of the 4 dimensions we are familiar with

In particular, these are what I got form your post so far about your 4 dimensions (henceforth referred as 4S, stands for '4 sense dimension' (ya I made up this term), so as not to be confused with spatial 4 dimension (4D) or spacetime (3D+1))
1. Each sense exist in a separate energy level in 4S, and are vibrations of them
2. The different colors of light each occupies a different energy level in 4S
3. 4S, unlike 4D or 3D+1 spacetime, is not a extension of 3D space (or in modern terms, 3D+1 spacetime), it is intimately tied to our familiar 3D+1 spacetime, like how different maps of the globe sewed together to form the surface of the globe, and how each of those extra surfaces was next to and parallel to the surface of his pond, so they are not separated from our 3D+1 spacetime in terms of distance, but some sort which suggest they are next to us but 'out there' (a charactristics for non spatial dimensions)
4. Our brain, when receiving the information from different levels of 4S, tied them together to give a 4 dimensional experience that cannot be represent by the 3D spatial extend and time of the object alone

What I need to clarify is the following:
1. The structure of 4S, (e.g. how does the levels have two attributes by being just somewhere in the same 4S, e.g. how does in one level it is sight, and in another it is hearing, and yet in another it is just the color red from sight?)
2. Why the 5 sense (which as ICN5D mentioned, each will form an abstract space where each of them is a dimension, thus should make a 5 dimensional abstract space) can all be packed into just one dimension (the 4S) given that they are very different from each other, yet seemed to suggest they have sublevels in the form of different colors, pitches or frequencies?
3. In very simple terms (one to three words) what exactly is 4S (just as we said that 3D is space, the +1 of 3D+1 spacetime is time, 4S=?)

[jeffrey.sharpe]

I think my 2D analogy might be useful here. A 2D being will think a 3D pond is a 2D surface. He will say the surface is part of 2D space because the surface is infinitessimally thin.

We believe we are 3D beings and exist in 3D space.

But I am saying we are 4D beings in the same situation as the 2D guy who believes space is 2D. We just believe space is 3D. The reason we are all trying here to explain the fourth dimension is because we are four-dimensional, and somewhere deep down we know this.

The 2D pond-surface is really the surface of water. which has depth. 3D 'space' also has a 'depth', which I have called a four-dimensional aether.

The structure of this aether is like an atmosphere around us which ranges in density, gradually decreasing in one direction and vice versa. Each level has its own natural frequency of vibration. We are able to detect some of these levels by means of our five senses, We can experience these different 4D depths because we are 4D beings.

But science does not believe that our senses represent reality. My 4D model depends on our five senses representing five levels of a real aether. One's senses of different colours and sounds are the vibrations of the various levels of the aether. But one's brain fools us into believing there is no aether, but only one level i.e. 3D space. This is analogous to what happens when you take a photo of the supposedly 3D view. It is squashed up into a 2D view, which nobody seems to mind.

The only way a 4D movement can correspond with a so-called force is if it is purely along the same 4D level, like a movement in the plane of the surface of the 2D guys flat world. But if a movement of the aether acts between various 4D levels, science is flummoxed and so has to invent new terms, which attempt to mimic what is happening. But there is no need for any of this. Only the aether exists, and everything we know are parts of the aether. This is lot more plausible than we are all part of 3D space, which started from nothing.

Sorry if I have not explained this well. By the way, I believe the 4D aether is spherical in shape and all the levels I have mentioned are concentric layers within the sphere, each of which is like the skin of an onion, which can be peeled away. The Big Bang can be explained as something colliding with our 4D spherical universe and setting off a chain of vibrations in the aether, which are still reverberating today. The highest frequencies are on the outer surface.

Please note I have described every part of this sphere as a different chapter of my book The Fourth Dimension. It is a holistic theory, which means you can only really understand it when you have all the pieces and fit them together. Each piece described on its own does not make sense if you do not know the bigger picture. That is why I couldn't decide where to start first. Whatever you describe does not make any sense until you explain more etc. etc.

[jeffrey.sharpe]

Dear Wendy, re your post of 5th June.

The notion that light is electromagnetic, is based on the solution to certain equations of electric and magnetic fields in the absences of sources.

A fourth dimension is necessary to describe the path of a light wave. A ripple on a flat two-dimensional water surface takes place in a third-dimension as it fans out in two dimensions. Therefore a light wave, which fans out three-dimensionally must have a ripple in a fourth dimension. This 4D ripple is in fact the magnetic part of an electromagnetic wave. And the electric part of an electromagnetic wave describes its three-dimensional fanning out. This, I would suggest, is why the wave equations work. They unwittingly describe a 4D universe.

So photons really are not needed to get light from the sun to the earth: the wave model does that quite nicely. I never involked photons as the means for transmitting light.

The wave model requires an electromagnetic field, which must fill the whole of space. But it must be a four-dimensional field, so as to incorporate the magnetic part, as mentioned above. It seems strange to me that science has rejected the idea of an aether, as first put forward by Maxwell, but believes that space is filled with a electromagnetic field. The reason for this rejection is that the aether cannot be imagined to exist in addition to everything else. However, in my model, there is nothing else - everything is made from the aether, including atoms (vortices in the aether), currents in the aether (forces) and waves (pulses of the aether).

E=mc² is preciesly three-dimensional. The derivation of it involves the 'curl' function, which exists in three dimensions, and three dimensions only.

Not so. You have not defined E or M, which require four dimensions. And so does C, as described above.

That light defracts in a prism, differently to how it defracts in water, has nothing to do with its density. What it has to do is the 'refractive index' of the material.

A material does not possess a ‘refractive index’. It possesses density of molecules. Science believes a material’s ability to refract or bend light is proportional to the wavelength of the light. But why does this bending take place to different degrees for different wavelengths, if its molecular composition is constant? Bear in mind that wavelengths of light are much larger in magnitude than molecules and so would hardly be influenced by them. On the other hand, if the molecular density of a material varies in a fourth dimensional direction, this would explain how refraction works.

Sound is a longitudinal wave in matter. A sound travelling in the 'x' direction will cause compression and expansion in the 'x' direction.

Compression and expansion of what, or caused by what? You cannot say. This is hypothetical, as the rest of your criticism.

The real problem with supposing that energy levels are separated in space, is that when the energy is disapated, then one supposes that it changes in the W axis too.

Please define energy. The ‘energy levels’ in my theory are the density levels of the aether, which allow waves to pass along any level. Or the aether can change density because of the presence of rotating vortices of the aether, so causing local semi-vacuums. But the material of the aether remains in place and does not dissipate.

[wendy]

Dear jeffrey

You really do not need four dimensions to describe electromagnetism. Three is perfectly ample. Like a snake, the amplitude of light is orthogonal to the motion. Your model supposes that light is like a ripple in a pond, yet no supporting evidence is presented. Just speculation.

The idea of photons is so the EM wave does not have to fill space. The electric and magnetic vectors are orthogonal in two dimensions, and Poynting's vector tells us that the energy travels perpendicular to both. This has been known since the nineteenth century.

E=mc² is perfectly understood by fairly common folk. There's no real reason to define the elements. As before, you have not defined the need for a fourth dimension. The validity of relativity specifically demands the operation of the 'curl' function, which exists exactly in 3D only.

'Refractive index' is a function of frequency. In essence, it is the ability of atoms to react to changing electric and magnetic fields at different frequencies. Some materials are opaque at some frequencies, and transparent at others. For water, it's pretty constant at 4/3 over the visible range. The gas ozone is transparent at visible frequencies, and opaque in the ultravoilet. That's why we don't get frizzled in the sun. You do notice it when the ozone layer is depleted.

Sound is a longitunal wave. It is a wave that compresses and expands air. It's quite in the range of measurement. It's not theory, it is a perfectly demonstrated fact, even down to putting sand on a drum, or changing chords on a guitar.

Energy, in a sense, does not exist. What exists are various mass-potential relations, (such as force-length, or weight-temperature or charge-voltage) and it's the conversion of one to another that one invokes a quantity 'energy'. There's no such thing as 'pure energy' or 'energy levels'. Energy requires a mass-like object to 'live in'. It does not live in a vacuum. Light, for example, is a photon-frequency product. Energy is transported from the sun to the earth, in little packets called 'photons'. What we experience is not 'energy', but the effect of some potential applied against our mass.

[jeffrey.sharpe]

You really do not need four dimensions to describe electromagnetism. Three is perfectly ample. Like a snake, the amplitude of light is orthogonal to the motion. Your model supposes that light is like a ripple in a pond, yet no supporting evidence is presented. Just speculation.

I happen to believe that a wave requires a pond in order to exist. This would apply to a light wave as well. Call this speculation if you like. However, if one believes waves do not need ponds, many things are possible, just like the Cheshire Cat in Alice in Wonderland. For example, one can explain electromagnetic waves, such as light waves, three-dimensionally. You just have electric charges and magnetic forces, whose magnitudes seem to vary like waves. And they also appear to influence one another although the reason for this is unknown, and you speculate that these influences cause an electromagnetic wave. And if someone asks: what is this wave made from, you invent electromagnetic fields or photons, depending on your preference, which also do not need ponds.

However, in terms of real waves, like those on a pond of water, a magnetic force is analogous to the suction caused by the orthogonal or upward movement of a ripple or wave, and an electric force is analogous to the force of the wave fanning out in all directions. The two forces certainly influence one another for the simple reason that they are both parts of the same wave.

You ask for evidence. Take a soft 'pajama' rope with no tensile properties and use it as a whip. A wave travels along the rope, for which there is no three-dimensional explanation. But it can be easily explained four-dimensionally. The whipping motion creates a magnetic or suction force in the aether in a fourth-dimensional direction, which preserves the whipping motion of the rope, which in turn preserves the suction force and so on. Gyroscopic forces can be similarly explained. Here the whipping motion is replaced by an acceleration caused by rotation. (Incidentally, I have given several ways in which my theory is supported by evidence, which you have rubbished with 'Cheshire Cat' arguments.)

Didn’t Einstein believe that gravity was four-dimensional? Why not magnetism as well? Why not the universe? A four-dimensional model of the universe is able to do something that science has been trying to do unsuccessfully for more than a hundred years, namely to unify micro and macro phenomena. And there is a bonus. A fourth dimension not only explains many unknowns in physics, but also in biology and psychology.

[wendy]

Dear jeffrey

The fact that you believe things to be so does not make them true. Indeed, there are several kinds of wave even among physical objects.

Much of electromagnetism came together with James Clerk Maxwell, the various defects of that theory lead first to the etherfer and then to the relativity of Einstein and Minkovski. There were some intense minds turned to this subject.

I have read a good deal of literature, both ancient and modern, and no one suggests a fourth dimension to describe intensity. The flow of energy suggested by Poynting and Heaviside perfectly explains the electromagnetic field, one can readily demonstrate this with polarising lenses.

You are right in supposing that waves without something to wriggle is an alien idea. But scientists come to accept that the quantum world is an alien place, and the evidence for ether is thin on the ground. The work of deBroglie tells us that neither particle nor wave is correct, but that what we see is somewhere inbetween and really, it's our perceptions of nature, rather than nature itself, that is confusing us.

Einstein did not believe in four dimensions as such. In fact, he had very little to do with the space-time geometry of Minkovski or even the potential graphs that ye are probably misreading. You might be thinking of those models where there is a stretched fabric, and large masses make an intentation, like on a trampoline. This actually is a graph of space (the surface) against potential (the height). Since ordinary gravity does a good job of converting height to potential, you really can use the graph as a billiard table. But it's only a gravity-powered model.

All space is curved. If one supposed that the curvature needs to be in a higher space, than that space is curved too. So if 3d implies 4d, then 4d implies 5d, and so forth. It does not happen like that. What happens instead is that the length of different arcs around a point can be longer or shorter than a euclidean circle. Space being "in tension" pulls things in the direction of the longest half (ie where half the circumference makes the smallest angle). Light appears to bend because it divides the circumference, not the angle, in two. So it will have as much circumference on one side to another. You don't need a higher space too make this happen.

[ICN5D]

Jeffrey,


How does your 4D model explain:

1) spooky action at a distance
2) spontaneous matter-antimatter creation
3) quantum tunneling
4) the double slit experiment with and w/o observer
5) the casimir effect
6) the hall effect
7) superposition
8 ) superfluids/supersolids
9) superconducting fields


Just to name a few. I'm quite interested. I'd like to hear some constructive theory that describes these things in one, all inclusive geometric model of actuality.

[jeffrey.sharpe]

Wendy.
You asked for evidence. I gave you evidence. Strangely, you have evaded discussing it, which is not how science should work. Let me repeat it, there are no 3D forces involved when a wave travels along a soft rope. How would you explain this? Speak O Queen!

ICN5D.
I have constructed an all-inclusive geometric model of reality, which answers your points above, which seem to be mainly about micro phenomena. And it also solves many cosmological questions, including the Big Bang and Relativity. It takes 226 pages to explain it, and they have been published in my book called ‘The Fourth Dimension’, which cannot be reproduced here, my publisher tells me. Suffice to say that the ‘spooky’ effects you mention above are no longer spooky in a 4D model. If spookiness is what turns you on, a 4D model is not for you. Go well.

[wendy]

There are 3d forces in the pajama chord. Pajama chords have a fairly decent tensile strength, which is why it does not fall to pieces when you tie up your pajamas.

What happens when you flick it, is that one part of the chord lifts the next peice up, and these follow in a wave-like pattern. The wave actually is exactly the same way that particles in the water go: straight up and down, the motion being a decent amount of kinettic energy, tensile strength, and gravity.

It's actually when the wave gets to the end of the chord that one gets a crack of the whip: the motion continues in a different form (sound).

[jeffrey.sharpe]

Pick up the end of a pajama cord, which is lying on the floor, and flick it upward and downward. The end of the cord in your fingers pulls the next piece of the cord downwards. But after that, a wave travels along the cord at a constant velocity. This would seem to imply that any piece of the cord is able to make the next piece rise upward. But this is baloney.

Comparing a pajama cord with a wave on the surface of water is also invalid. The surface of water can only behave like a wave because it has depth. For example, if someone jumps into a swimming pool, this creates currents and displacements under the surface, which also affect the surface. However, a pajama cord is not part of the surface of something that has depth and so cannot behave like a wave – unless it is floating on the surface of water.

This is what is happening to the cord. It is being supported, I would suggest, not by water, but by a 4D aether, which behaves in certain ways like water. There is no such thing as in independent wave, or independent forces etc. There is only the aether. That is where theoretical science has gone astray. Its mathematical terms are believed to represent reality whereas they only represent the surfaces of reality.

[ICN5D]

I have constructed an all-inclusive geometric model of reality, which answers your points above, which seem to be mainly about micro phenomena. And it also solves many cosmological questions, including the Big Bang and Relativity. It takes 226 pages to explain it, and they have been published in my book called ‘The Fourth Dimension’, which cannot be reproduced here, my publisher tells me. Suffice to say that the ‘spooky’ effects you mention above are no longer spooky in a 4D model. If spookiness is what turns you on, a 4D model is not for you. Go well.

I could read your book, but right now, I'm talking to the real-life author. Is the author not a dynamic way to interact with a book? You have given me the exciting opportunity to converse with the brains and architect behind these amazing new ideas.

You could read all of my 559 posts on here. Or, you can simply ask me directly, since it all came from me. I'm cool enough to answer any of your questions, without redirecting around it. I can explain, in depth, all of my theories and ideas, at any given moment. This allows you a direct line of communication, and a unique way to interact with me.

Your publisher is okay with you explaining your theories, I just checked. In fact, your very first post elaborated on the specifics in your book, so it's kinda too late for that. Plus, Amazon is a multibilliion dollar corporation, I don't think they care about missing a few sums of US dollars. They spend 10^4 more money on paying salty semi truck drivers to deliver their goods.

So, it would seem that the Jeffrey Theory cannot explain such things. That's too bad I was looking forward to a good read this morning. Can your theories provide the mathematics to send a spacecraft to Titan? Empirically, the current scientific model can. I'm really interested in some of your holistic equations, and what they may look like.


Also, " Spooky Action at a Distance " are the words of Albert Einstein, not myself. It's a form of quantum entanglement, where subatomic particles forever unite after only one collision. Once separated, if one undergoes a change of quantum state, the other one does so as well, instantaneously. How do aether vortices in 4D explain this recorded observation?


In light of only providing micro-scale phenomena, how about the rotation velocities of stars in a galaxy? How does aether in 4D explain the stars moving way too fast on the edge of a galaxy? It would seem, to some degree, that it may. I'd like to hear your thoughts, from the author himself.

[jeffrey.sharpe]

I was asked to give hard evidence of the existence of a four-dimensional aether. It is right under your nose but you don’t want to believe it. A wave traveling along a pajama cord.

As far as traveling into space is concerned, perhaps it is because science does not understand the truth about pajama cords that it has to spend so much money on rockets