What do you mean with dimension?
Since I have read there is no math involved (which I have difficulties to understand), what is it that is called four or five dimensional?
Why not 31/2d or 31/3d?
Do we speak of topological, metric, verctor spaces?
I didn´t get it, yesterday the post on 5d was closed in the exening to answer.
How can someone invent the term 4d or 5d if it has nothing to do with math? I find that strange misleading to those who have math understanding...
So please, what is 4d and what 5d beyond any math?
Replies
No, Time is used as a measurement....it has no physical construct, whereas length, width and height have definite physical constructs.
ALL dimensions are a state of being....for any and all consciousnesses in those dimensions!
I AM a human "Being"...not a human "Doing", and I, the same as every other being in this dimension of experience have the power to make choices without being emotionally attached to fear or the so called "limits in 4d". We are ALL empowered to make these choices and decisions right now....we do it everyday...we don't have to wait for the 5d experience to do this!
This will explain levels and planes of existence to you....if you'll but take the time to listen.
http://www.monroeinstitute.org/resources/downloads/cat/explorer-series
Number 6 should do it, but I suggest listening to them all, as they all have good info.
Good luck.
Typo:"ts just that your science is not yet advance enough to describe this."
I meant to say OUR science (that of humanity) not yours in particular.
I am thankful for your patience and kindness.
Maybe I get ready yet looking at this perspective of Melchizedek´s approach. I had "Flower of Life" in my hands and could not find any ingress. It´s been 5 or 6 years now. And you know what? I definitely saw that this guy had difficulties with math! Otherwise he comes from a math backround using dimensional notations. And I´m not sure he is clean with that maybe coming from bad grades his math professor had to give him - thus he switched both, paradigms and definitions (I myself examined students in philosophy and saw over the years how highly inventive and creative they became after failing important exams)...
Anyway, maybe I find a way of understanding while approaching Melchizedek again and anew...
Tertiusgaudens,
I do agree that anything above 3D, in spirituality, is difficult for us to imagine, and that you prefer to simply label them "other dimensions". What I do know about this is that Drunvalo does define each dimension as palpable and discreet. In fact, he states that there are 12 dimensions each with 12 overtones, hence 144 possibilities, though there is a 'bran new frontier' that is being described as the 13th dimension. The lower 4th dimension, according to him, is the frequency at which many people go when they die, and are not yet ready to transcend the reincarnation cycle. The Reptilians and Grey aliens also allegedly exist, in some part of their being, in that dimension. The higher levels of the 4th dimension are of the angelic realm, according to Drunvalo, while the 5th dimension is one of true unity consciousness. There are specific 'barriers', or the 'void', similar to the void described in Tachyon technology, that seems to separate certain overtones and certain dimensions. So it appears that it is very discreet and probably scientificm its just that your science is not yet advance enough to describe this. This is my opinion. However, I do trust Drunvalo's understandings, as he is very thorough and is of the Order of Melchizedek. He is not from here, so to speak.
I am also of a scientific mind, and had a similar question several years ago.
The scientific definition of dimensions are x,y,z, etc. Actually, they are different inputs that affect a given output. If you have taken multidimensional calculus, you may understand this. For example, the speed of a car, a. the composition of a car,b, the type of engine a car has, c, how many airbags it has d, etc. may all affect the outcome of how safe the car is in a collision. Each input is a variable.dimension.
In spiritual terms, dimension has nothing to do with this. Drunvalo Melchizedek, who was one semester short of earning a degree in physics at UC Berkeley (before he switched to fine art... he got sick of the stodgy way of thinking among scientitsts), he describes dimensions as being different vibrational frequencies which are discreet. It is very similar, by analogy, to music. A C note is different from a D note in a discreet way. At each frequency, we interpret our reality in a different way. Additionally, like with music, there are different overtones within each dimension, hence subdividing the dimensions.
I hope that helps. I strongly recommend you also read this article if it helps you in understanding the shift we are likely to face very soon.
http://www.znakovi-vremena.net/en/drunvalo.htm
I meant, multivariable calculus. Although, dimensions and variables in the scientific sense are essentially the same.
This is exactly my approach: mathematically, a dimension is a number I need to describe a thing/event.
My question is: what is necessary (in terms) describing 3d, 4d and 5d, and I mean entirely necessary?
If I for instance want to know temperature and moisture distribution in a cloud, I need besides 3 space coordinates numbers of temperature plus moisture = 5 numbers = 5 dimensions. Thus mathematically operations with necessary numbers to describe something is not only possible, but very useful.
Another point is imagination: 1d is imaginable as timeline, 2d as area, 3d as x-y-z expansion we call room. Then it stops - from 4d on it is describable, but not imaginable, which I generally do not find problematic - there are many things and happenings I can´t imagine, this is all day appearance.
I prefer calling other dimensions breaking in my "world imagination" not 4d or 5d, but simply "other dimension(s)". The reason is my mathematical understanding providing certain terms only for certain connotations - it is difficult to me using 4d or 5d other than mathematically, since this is comman in science community.
So how I call higher dimensions breaking into my world and eyperience? In my view not 4d or nd, but "other dimension" - I feel more comfortable with that...
Thank you for your kind lines....
A short remark at the end. In Germany there is recently a group of young physicists trying to approach modern cosmology with LESS than 4 dimensions by using 2d gravitational understanding. They say: look at holographic images (appearing 3d) actually displayed in 2d - the old game between appearance and reality.
Greetings & Salutations One & All,
As always, great questions coming through here, & great answers as well.
Please allow me to offer another perspective to your query, and that is The Law of One material.
When perusing this tome, I ask you to take note that The Law of One makes no distinction between a density & a dimension..... the terms are not necessarily interchangeable & do not have a direct 1:1 correlation. Those notions have been muddled a bit by people's mis/re-interpretation of the material over the years, as well as the varying cosmologies introduced by other channelled sources besides Ra & members of The Confederation of Planets In Service of The One Infinite Creator. Carla Rueckert, the individual who originally trance-channelled the entity Ra, writes in some detail on the very subject in chapter 6 of A Wanderer's Handbook.
The Law of One mentions a little-known 20th century American physicist by the name of Dr. Dewey B. Larson & his Reciprocal System of Theory as being the most accurate model of physics as to how everything (energy/the universe) actually works (well, at least, our universe, anyway). I promise you, you will have to un-learn practically everything you think you know about physics when you get into Larson's material & The Law of One.
It is interesting to note that while The Law of One discusses The Great Pyramids & their benign nature in detail, as well as mentioning (or not!) Roswell, author & researcher Joseph P. Farrell has a completely different take on both of those subjects. While he does not openly support the notion of extra-terrestrial intelligence & the validity of channelled material, he does not openly deny the possibility of its/their existence. In several interviews he has rebuffed The Law of One material indirectly, & yet most, if not all, of his research into Nazi scientific projects & breakthroughs, as well as ancient earth history, theology, psychology, etc. confirms both Larsonian physical concepts in real-world applications, as well as the cosmology described in The Law of One series of books.
Another individual that has little or nothing to do with The Law of One or channelled material in general, Thomas Campbell, surprisingly (or not so, depending upon which POV you opt for) also independently confirms the cosmology & Larsonian physics presented in The Law of One material, in his three-volume set of books entitled My Big T.O.E. While those are a tome in-and-of-themselves, he has done several interviews over the years, as well as videos, attempting to whittle down decades of research into simple concepts. I have reviewed most of them & I still feel his best "nutshell" interview about his books is on The Patrick Timpone Show over on One Radio Network.
To take a page out of the Confederation's book so-to-speak, allow me to say that I am very happy to speak with you about this material and I would ask only that each & everyone who reads this be responsible for reading with a discriminating eye to that which I've written, as I am absolutely not an authority in which I wish to impose my opinions on anyone. Rather, I am happy to share my thoughts & experiences in the hopes that some of them might be of use. Please keep those thoughts that resonate to your inner sense of truth and discard the rest without a second thought.
I implore you to visit L & L Research's website & avail yourself of their search engine & half-a-century of channelled transcripts. Plug in any subject you like as it is a seemingly inexhaustible source of information on a plethora of subjects (devil, Satan, dolphins, & bigfoot are some of my faves). You can visit their sister website, Bring4th, & visit the forums with any questions you might have regarding the aforementioned material. Carla & Jim do a regular radio show with Q & A on The Law of One, & you can also visit their "TooYube" channel for various videos regarding The Law of One & some of the concepts presented therein.
May this information bring you the clarity you seek.
Peace be with you.
Nice post, but as I said above, there is a strange aversion to LoO or if discussed it quickly comes and goes. (I tried it, so don't waste your energy. Those who need to find it, really do. It's amazing how completely out of the blue it is found by some people.)
I think it has to do with the level of understanding of existence. And only few here will even give it the time of day. There is a feeling of competition on sites such as this and that reduces anything to just another thing. Which is a great tragedy for certain materials/teachings - both off world and from our world.
Antoher thing, here both the STS and STO and anything inbetween is studied and passed around. Which is important for souls to sort themselves out, before committing to those paths. I suggest no interfering with that by pushing LoO. You can tell immediately that those who do not favour even talking about STO-STS paths, still need time to come to the understanding that polarity exists beyond this density.
And that's something many on new age sites such as this simply do not want to think about. So it is still a learning process for many of them. To find their polarity, without being told about it in a clear cut manner as the LoO does. Which I think, is pretty much the point of this density.
Of course, when one makes some noise, some interest is raised, as always.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next