I thought everything was just impossible then this video explained it. What are the odds?

Stupid. Dimensions in reality are quantized, and these ideas are just mathematical.. not real… so pointless.

i'd like to get Bryanton's take on Eric Weinstein's theory of an "observerse." granted, it's not yet an actual theory, but the fact that we can quite literally manipulate physical matter w/ our minds—albeit on a molecular level [for now, at least]—is so intriguing that i always want to know more about any and all hypotheses which center around consciousness.

Nice try, but as dimensions are mans construct to describe the locations of objects or lack of, only three are required. Time is not an additional dimension to these three. It's the measure of the rate of change in position of an object in relation to some other object. That's all we have, there is no more. Why do you feel we need to make it more complicated when nature is quite simple? There is not one scrap of evidence to suggest that there is more to the universe outside 3 dimensions and the motion of objects.

this is total shit

Doing lsd and dmt a handful of times, following along with this video was surprisingly easy. Strong lsd trips let you see the loops of the 5th dimension. Super triply stuff

I tried arguing that zero is really the biggest number, if only I was dealing with a more sophisticated banker.

If you take nothingness and place a 3D grid within and consider the distance from one point (0,0,0) to another (0,0,1) to be a foot: then this mean that the zeros placed would be literal (zero feet). Therefore a 2D space could not possibly be and the thought experiment of dropping a 3D object within mute. With this said what can we say about the Fourth? Well, what defines the surface of any 4D object when matter or anything hasn't been introduced? As we've done with the second dimension, we'll place a 3D grid within and try to add another fundamental "direction" (the others are practically this: length, width and height just interchangeable based on perspective)…how ever space itself has been defined. The only other option I see is entanglement. Possibly, just an abstract creation derived from two (or more) plains of physics interacting with one another. Square cube law, or string theory and energy displacement/ reactions, ex… And this is when some of the weird quantum (possibly cosmic in relation) stuff happens… Meh, what do I know.

So in this way of thinking, would it be accurate to say that the quanta or Planck length of a dimension is equal to the sum of all lower dimensions?

I downloaded this Thank you

if u start at 1 and count toward infinity then count minus 1 minus 2 up to minus infinity

the possibility stream all the things that could be is just a thought away the one thing faster then light is thought

You lost me at 6.

I have a question what dimension is when I had a vision of my co-workers was working in reality he was home sleeping? and I think to go to the 10 dimension I believe you have to step out sidethe universe why because our universe and space is time to do that step outside this Chrystal ball we live in out side the ball we live in is infinity

These theories were in a book I read called "The Fourth Dimension." You've explained them perfectly.

..though what is the 'cause' of the conceptual 'point' ?

Brain washing how to: put weird swirly circles in your video

There are 3 and only 3 dimensions. anything else is scifi fantasy. Or abstract maths results, based on irrationally devised equations that have no relation to reality.

Hey ! What’s problem ? I know “ exo dimension “ ? And other worlds .

In letters from a so called fake story said clearly more than 30 years ago than they knew there was 10 of what we considered as dimensions at the time… It was the UMITTES! Search, but BEWARE, it has been discredited when it happened and now it's almost impossible to find any information about the case. Along with things like our universe has a twin universe (before we knew that dark matter even existed). Etc. Actually, I know it happened. Which is sad since we as a culture simply decided it was false with no proof of it being false at the time! Seriously, look at it.

I love this. He makes it easy to understand advanced concepts. I think too easy maybe. After the fourth dimension orthogonal space, imo, is meaninglessness. The higher dimensions exist simultaneously with the fist four. But trying to visualize a phase shift or a change in frequency…… that correlates to a directional change well that would be difficult.

mine are ((+n) + (-n)) = 0 & infinity minus one equals zero plus one therefore zero equals infinity

0 = point, 1D = line, 2D = square or circle, 3D = box or sphere. I understand that the box/sphere is capable of motion, which requires the substance of time/space, which would = 4D. The fourth dimension allows three dimensional objects to move around in a finite universe. This is represented by the tesseract, a box floating around inside a larger box. Without time, there can be no motion. 3D stands still. 4D moves. The universe is expanding, so I would go as far as to say that the expansion of the universe would make for a fifth dimension. If the universe is expanding then it must be expanding into something, so there must also be something outside of the box, but I've only heard speculations about what might be beyond, and assumptions don't make for facts, although I have heard that they do make for something else. I fail to see the practicality in trying to say that theoretical events like our possible alternative choices or Michael Jackson still being alive in another "realm" can be considered a base argument for something that should be real and physical, practical and observable, like points, lines, squares/circles, spheres/boxes, and time/space. Theoretical, conceptual, and idealistic don't make for practical, observable, and applicable. It's like saying there's a multiverse out there without being able to see beyond our own universe. It's an interesting concept, and it sounds good in theory, but how practical and accurate will these concepts and theories truly turn out to be?

very enlightening, thank you; and most interestingly, science gets back into the "metaphysical business", lol

This is pseudoscience BS. Time is not "the fourth dimension", and time and space are not alike. Minkowski spaces help with visualizing what one reference frame looks like from another, not what's going on inside them. Another fun fact: One can switch height and width and not change anything fundamental about the object, but switch meters with seconds and game over. If you really want to visualize 10 dimensions check out this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwAD6dRSVyI&vl=en

I never knew zero was so hard to understand lol. Thanks for the vid

Thank you for giving me a headache…….!

I felt like I was on acid.

I thought everything was just impossible then this video explained it. What are the odds?

Stupid. Dimensions in reality are quantized, and these ideas are just mathematical.. not real… so pointless.

i'd like to get Bryanton's take on Eric Weinstein's theory of an "observerse." granted, it's not yet an

actualtheory, but the fact that we can quiteliterallymanipulate physical matter w/ our minds—albeit on a molecular level [for now, at least]—is so intriguing that i always want to know more aboutanyandallhypotheses which center around consciousness.Nice try, but as dimensions are mans construct to describe the locations of objects or lack of, only three are required.

Time is not an additional dimension to these three.

It's the measure of the rate of change in position of an object in relation to some other object.

That's all we have, there is no more.

Why do you feel we need to make it more complicated when nature is quite simple?

There is not one scrap of evidence to suggest that there is more to the universe outside 3 dimensions and the motion of objects.

this is total shit

Doing lsd and dmt a handful of times, following along with this video was surprisingly easy. Strong lsd trips let you see the loops of the 5th dimension. Super triply stuff

I tried arguing that zero is really the biggest number, if only I was dealing with a more sophisticated banker.

If you take nothingness and place a 3D grid within and consider the distance from one point (0,0,0) to another (0,0,1) to be a foot: then this mean that the zeros placed would be literal (zero feet). Therefore a 2D space could not possibly be and the thought experiment of dropping a 3D object within mute.

With this said what can we say about the Fourth?

Well, what defines the surface of any 4D object when matter or anything hasn't been introduced? As we've done with the second dimension, we'll place a 3D grid within and try to add another fundamental "direction" (the others are practically this: length, width and height just interchangeable based on perspective)…how ever space itself has been defined.

The only other option I see is entanglement. Possibly, just an abstract creation derived from two (or more) plains of physics interacting with one another. Square cube law, or string theory and energy displacement/ reactions, ex…

And this is when some of the weird quantum (possibly cosmic in relation) stuff happens…

Meh, what do I know.

So in this way of thinking, would it be accurate to say that the quanta or Planck length of a dimension is equal to the sum of all lower dimensions?

I downloaded this Thank you

if u start at 1 and count toward infinity then count minus 1 minus 2 up to minus infinity

the possibility stream all the things that could be is just a thought away the one thing faster then light is thought

You lost me at 6.

I have a question what dimension is when I had a vision of my co-workers was working in reality he was home sleeping? and I think to go to the 10 dimension I believe you have to step out sidethe universe why because our universe and space is time to do that step outside this Chrystal ball we live in out side the ball we live in is infinity

These theories were in a book I read called "The Fourth Dimension." You've explained them perfectly.

https://www.google.com/search?q=the+fourth+dimension+book&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwietp3HxNbbAhXB2FMKHXG4CtoQ_AUICygC&biw=1920&bih=898#imgrc=0h3r2HthE-BQRM:

..though what is the 'cause' of the conceptual 'point' ?

Brain washing how to: put weird swirly circles in your video

There are 3 and only 3 dimensions. anything else is scifi fantasy. Or abstract maths results, based on irrationally devised equations that have no relation to reality.

Hey ! What’s problem ? I know “ exo dimension “ ? And other worlds .

In letters from a so called fake story said clearly more than 30 years ago than they knew there was 10 of what we considered as dimensions at the time… It was the UMITTES! Search, but BEWARE, it has been discredited when it happened and now it's almost impossible to find any information about the case.

Along with things like our universe has a twin universe (before we knew that dark matter even existed). Etc. Actually, I know it happened. Which is sad since we as a culture simply decided it was false with no proof of it being false at the time!

Seriously, look at it.

I love this. He makes it easy to understand advanced concepts. I think too easy maybe.

After the fourth dimension orthogonal space, imo, is meaninglessness. The higher dimensions exist simultaneously with the fist four. But trying to visualize a phase shift or a change in frequency…… that correlates to a directional change well that would be difficult.

mine are ((+n) + (-n)) = 0 & infinity minus one equals zero plus one therefore zero equals infinity

0 = point, 1D = line, 2D = square or circle, 3D = box or sphere.

I understand that the box/sphere is capable of motion, which requires the substance of time/space, which would = 4D. The fourth dimension allows three dimensional objects to move around in a finite universe. This is represented by the tesseract, a box floating around inside a larger box. Without time, there can be no motion. 3D stands still. 4D moves.

The universe is expanding, so I would go as far as to say that the expansion of the universe would make for a fifth dimension. If the universe is expanding then it must be expanding into something, so there must also be something outside of the box, but I've only heard speculations about what might be beyond, and assumptions don't make for facts, although I have heard that they do make for something else.

I fail to see the practicality in trying to say that theoretical events like our possible alternative choices or Michael Jackson still being alive in another "realm" can be considered a base argument for something that should be real and physical, practical and observable, like points, lines, squares/circles, spheres/boxes, and time/space. Theoretical, conceptual, and idealistic don't make for practical, observable, and applicable. It's like saying there's a multiverse out there without being able to see beyond our own universe. It's an interesting concept, and it sounds good in theory, but how practical and accurate will these concepts and theories truly turn out to be?

very enlightening, thank you; and most interestingly, science gets back into the "metaphysical business", lol

This is pseudoscience BS. Time is not "the fourth dimension", and time and space are not alike. Minkowski spaces help with visualizing what one reference frame looks like from another, not what's going on inside them. Another fun fact: One can switch height and width and not change anything fundamental about the object, but switch meters with seconds and game over. If you really want to visualize 10 dimensions check out this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwAD6dRSVyI&vl=en

I never knew zero was so hard to understand lol. Thanks for the vid

Im calling my next dog, "Tangent"