From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 03:37:59 +0100 Archived: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 07:09:29 -0400 Subject: Re: Kathleen Marden On Coast To Coast >From: Jason Gammon <boyinthemachine.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 08:44:23 -0400 (EDT) >Subject: Re: Kathleen Marden on Coast to Coast >>From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul> >>To: <post.nul> >>Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 17:36:06 +0100 >>Subject: Re: Kathleen Marden on Coast to Coast ><snip> >>Apologies for interrupting, but recent off-line discussion >>(yesterday) gave an insight on the 'other dimensions' debate. >>That is, although I'd always dismissed the thought of other >>dimensions, re-thinking the premises outlined in 'Flatland' by >>Edwin Abbott Abbott - see: >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland >><snip> >Other dimensions is not even on the table with regard to the >visitors. People use the term "interdiminsional", "other >dimensions", etc., as a synonym for 'parallel universe', when >the two are completely distinct. >For one thing, we exist in multiple dimensions (length, height, >depth, time, although time is now being challenged as the 4th >dimension). So if there were life in extra dimensions it would >likely exist in multiple dimensions as well. If that life would >then interact with our dimensions it would not appear as flying >saucers and spacemen. When we looked at it we wouldn't know what >we were looking at. It would appear quite odd and something >quite foreign to our perceptions. >Not to mention that the other dimensions that are believed to >exist are all completely rolled up so tiny that only subatomic >particles could be effected by them or interact with them. >Also, parallel universes are quite in vogue as of late. However, >there are problems with them too. If technology could be >invented to transport one into a parallel universe it would not >possess the ability to fine tune or choose a specific parallel >universe. It would all be chance. And the thing about that is >that if the laws of physics are even just slightly off in that >other universe the traveler would immediately cease to be. >To burst another bubble, many scientists have already discarded >the notion of worm holes as well. I'm no expert on this but >supposedly the calculations show that the moment that any matter >would enter a worm hole the worm hole would then immediately >collapse killing any person trying to cross it. Hi Jason, We'd better be precise when talking of 'dimensions'. If there were a fourth dimension, then, according to the strict logic of 'Flatland' no three-dimensional observer could know of it unless a 4-dimensional being somehow 'entered' our dimension - appearing, as I said, as a seemingly paranormal event. Although if that being had complete control over its dimensional movements it could indeed simulate anything it wished: spacemen, ghosts or gods. Coincidentally, while you and I were busy with other things, but after your post, a Chinese pal told me of this short explanation (from one point of view), apparently by a clever teenager - at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGguwYPC32I and titled "4th Dimension Explained By A High-School Student". My Chinese pal sent it because we'd been discussing the (fallacious in our view) relativistic concept of 'Time' as a dimension - and you'll see that student seems to agree. However, as you say, the 'other dimension' term is often used to mean types of (unseen) existence or travel by means presently unknown to us. I'm completely discounting the 'string theory' story of rolled- up dimensions for several reasons, primarily because 'string theory' has always seemed (to me) to be merely mathematicians' wishful thinking, and is no longer even fashionable as speculation. Also completely discounted are 'worm-holes' and their so-called parental 'black holes'. I'm on record - see: http://ufoupdateslist.com/2007/jan/m10-008.shtml but there's earlier posts) as giving several reasons for my disbelief, some concerning their non-visibility (yes - the presence of 'black holes' would be very obvious indeed - if they existed). Another reason is the universal and over-arching power of "conservation of angular momentum" which, to my mind forbids a massive body from reaching a density stage much beyond a neutron star. Because the mathematicians who dreamed-up and popularized 'black hole theory', notably Hawking in Brief History of Time, apparently failed to realize that real, physical objects are a) not symmetrical; and b) will therefore spin - faster and faster - with any accretion. And accelerating spin inevitably means that polar 'jets' will at some stage re-distribute the core matter of that spinning body. As for parallel universes, the idea seems impossible to prove or disprove (so it's not 'scientific' - see Popper), and, along with 'black holes', 'dark matter' and 'dark energy', there has never been any physical evidence of their existence. If we check the accumulating evidence we see that our physics theories and cosmological theories (the standard models) are being shot to pieces by contradicting discoveries - presently all being swept under the mat of 'consensus'. Cheers Ray D Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp