No Big Bang? Ever Cycling Universe?

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
What if there was no big bang and we live in an ever-cycling universe?
There is no good evidence that our universe even had a beginning, a startling proposition that means the cosmos could collapse in about 100 billion years

Space 14 August 2019
By Anna Ijjas


REFLECTING on the question of what God was doing before creation, Saint Augustine is said to have quipped: “He was preparing hell for those who pry into mysteries.” Apparently the idea of hell doesn’t scare today’s scientists. As a matter of fact, many of us are trying to understand how our universe came to be.

You might think that the universe started with a big bang. Ten years ago, that is what I thought too. But then I came to realise that the issue is far from settled. Pursuing this question prompted me to change the tack of my career and become a cosmologist, even though I had just completed a PhD in the philosophy of quantum physics. What I have discovered since then supports a radically new response to the question that irked Augustine – what came before the beginning? The answer, thrillingly, may be that there never was a big bang, but instead a universe with no beginning or end, repeatedly bouncing from an epoch of contraction to expansion, and back again.

In the 1920s, the Russian physicist Alexander Friedmann and the Belgian priest and astronomer George Lemaître independently proposed that the universe was expanding. Extrapolating backwards in time, Lemaître reasoned that it ought to have started off as a small “primeval atom”. When Edwin Hubble provided compelling empirical evidence in favour of cosmic expansion based on his observation of the motions of distant galaxies, the case was settled. The expansion theory implied that the cold, vast universe we see today had once been a tiny, hot patch of space. Keep going further back, assuming the same laws apply, and the hot patch shrinks to a pinpoint containing an ultra-high concentration of energy. This hypothetical state came to be dubbed the big bang. But there is no evidence that this simple extrapolation is valid or that the universe began this way. Nevertheless, it has become the standard view, so ingrained that many of us learned about it as children, as I did.

“There never was a big bang, but instead a universe with no beginning or end”

There is one very good reason to be suspicious of this extrapolation, and it is to do with quantum theory. By the time the big bang entered the popular lexicon, the rules governing the subatomic realm were pretty clear, albeit extremely strange. Among other things, they say that particles can pop into and out of existence all the time, as long as they don’t stick around too long. This constant fizz is important at small scales such as the big bang, when the universe was the size of a pinpoint. Whatever this speck contained would have been constantly and randomly fluctuating in energy so that, as space expanded, those differences should have been spread out, resulting in huge imbalances in the amount of energy in different parts of the universe. But here’s the thing: we see no such imbalance.

Although matter in the universe randomly coalesces in clumps that we call galaxies, when we look at the universe on the largest scales, the distribution of all forms of matter is remarkably smooth over space. This uniformity calls for an explanation. Furthermore, those same quantum fluctuations at the big bang ought to have caused space to twist, curve and warp. As the universe expanded, these deformations would have expanded too, and would produce wild distortions in the path of light travelling across the cosmos. Yet astronomers see no trace of these distortions.

In the early 1980s, theoretical physicists Alan Guth, Andrei Linde, Andreas Albrecht and Paul Steinhardt introduced an idea designed to resolve the big bang theory’s problems. They proposed that just moments after the big bang, the universe underwent a brief epoch of extremely rapid expansion, known as inflation. Their concept was that inflation would stretch the universe so quickly that any twists, curves and warps in the fabric of space-time would be ironed out and the distribution of all matter smoothed.

But inflation creates problems of its own. For example, it requires a hypothetical field called the inflaton. This needs to have switched on at just the right time and with just the right strength – and remained nearly constant over time – in order to account for the smoothness of the universe. In the big-bang scenario, this is unlikely to have occurred, because the strength of the inflaton field would differ in different regions of space due to large quantum fluctuations. As a result, it is more likely to have no inflation or not enough to smooth the universe, or inflation that would lead to a universe different from what we observe.

What is more, in places where there is substantial inflation, those same troublesome quantum fluctuations take over and prevent inflation from ending, except perhaps in a few rare patches of space. In those regions, cosmological properties differ randomly and unpredictably. Instead of the uniform universe we see, the outcome of inflation is that space is ultimately divided into an infinite number of patches with an infinite variety of different properties. This uncontrollable diversity is called the inflationary multiverse, an ensemble in which any number of different universes are possible and yet nothing is probable.

“The current phase of the universe expanding will end and it will enter a new contracting phase”

The majority of cosmologists and astrophysicists today tend to neglect these issues. But ever since I first heard about these problems, I haven’t been able to ignore them. My original plan was to explore ways of fixing inflation, but then something else happened that changed my mind.

A generic feature of inflation, again due to quantum fluctuations, is that there should be small distortions in the fabric of space-time wherever inflation ends that evolve to become a curious phenomenon known as primordial gravitational waves. These aren’t the same ripples in space-time spotted by the LIGO collaboration in 2015, which are usually created by colliding black holes. Primordial gravitational waves have much larger wavelengths – so large that the only way to detect them is by their imprint on the cosmic microwave background radiation. This radiation pattern is sometimes called the baby picture of the universe because it provides an image of what the universe looked like when it was about 400,000 years old. This might sound old, but if applied to a human life, it would correspond to a picture taken of a day-old baby.

The European Space Agency’s Planck satellite had long been mapping this radiation in exhaustive detail, with the goal of finding evidence of primordial gravitational waves. But in 2013, the researchers behind it announced that they had failed to find them at the expected level. When I heard this news, I realised that this meant the simplest versions of inflationary theory were eliminated. I felt that inflation was losing its appeal as a simple explanation of what happened after the big bang, so I chose to abandon my initial plan and explore a different approach to cosmology.

The idea I decided to pursue was first put forward by the same Steinhardt who co-proposed inflation. He pointed out that there was a logical alternative to the big bang. It could be that our universe began not by bursting forth from nothing, but after a previous universe slowly contracted down to a small patch of space and then bounced, whereupon it began to expand as we observe it today.

The main appeal of this scenario was the long phase of ultra-slow contraction before the bounce. Just as inflation required a special form of energy (the inflaton field) to drive rapid expansion, ultra-slow contraction requires a special form of energy that exerts extraordinarily high pressure. The high pressure slows contraction by resisting compression and, at the same time, tends to smooth out any irregularities in the distribution of energy and in the fabric of space-time. But, unlike an inflationary phase, a slowly contracting phase doesn’t require special starting conditions. It can be triggered in various ways, for example, by decaying dark energy.

And there was another perk: in a slowly contracting, cold universe, quantum fluctuations remain small at all times. That means the outcome of the bouncing scenario is definite, unlike the messy multiverse produced by wild quantum fluctuations during inflation.

Missing from the scenario was evidence that a bounce with these properties was actually possible. Last year, I published the first theoretical account of how a bounce could happen. Simply put, I describe a putative source of energy that halts the contraction and smoothly reverses it to expansion long before the universe shrinks to the point where quantum gravity effects are important. A universe that emerged from such a bounce would have exactly the smooth distribution of energy and flat untwisted geometry of space-time that we observe.

“We could be living in a cyclic universe with bounces every 100 billion years or so”

Today, together with Steinhardt and Frans Pretorius at Princeton University, I am modelling the evolution of the universe to search for novel distinctive signatures of the contraction-and-bounce process. One prediction is that the ultra-slow contraction doesn’t produce detectable primordial gravitational waves. This is in agreement with the Planck data and subsequent observations.

More sensitive experiments are under construction, such as the Simons Observatory in the Atacama desert of Chile and the LiteBIRD satellite to be launched within a decade by Japan’s space agency. If they detect primordial gravitational waves, the idea of slow contraction must be wrong. I am often asked if it worries me that my idea could be eliminated by a single experiment. But to me this is what real science is all about. I wouldn’t want it any other way.

If we do see signs of a bounce, however, the implications would be profound. A natural extension of the concept is that we could be living in a cyclic universe with bounces occurring every 100 billion years or so.

It is even possible to imagine a cyclic universe with no beginning or end. Each period of ultra-slow contraction would erase any fine details of the previous cycles and bring the universe to the bounce point with the same conditions as it had the cycle before. As a result, all the features of the universe would be the same on average during each cycle, including the temperature, the concentration of dark matter, ordinary matter and dark energy, and the number of observable stars and galaxies. In other words, if you had lived on a planet like Earth in the cycle before our own, you would observe roughly the same basic properties of the universe as we do.

This, in turn, leads to a dramatic prediction: the current phase of the universe in which its expansion rate is slowly accelerating will come to an end and the universe will enter a new contracting phase. It will then head towards a new bounce and new phase of expansion. Consequently, the dark energy that is driving the current accelerated expansion must decay away, which may be detectable in future experiments.

This, together with the search for primordial gravitational waves, means it may soon be possible for us to know if the universe really did begin with a bang. My guess is that the story is a little more circular.


Neither bang nor bounce?

Think the universe must have had a beginning? Physicists are not short of far-out ideas

Joshua Howgego
Steady State

We know from observations that the universe is expanding, so it may seem logical to conclude that it expanded from a single point. But there is another way to think about it, as proposed by cosmologist Fred Hoyle in 1948. If new matter is continually created as space expands, then each new region of space would look the same. Under this view, there need not be a beginning or an end to the universe. Hoyle coined the phrase big bang in derisory reference to astronomer George Lemaître’s ideas on expansion, but the joke was on him when the term was picked up.

The No-Boundary Proposal
The physicists Stephen Hawking and James Hartle thought rather differently. They suggested that as you go back in time towards the big bang, and things get smaller and smaller, the three dimensions of space and one of time would essentially transform into four dimensions of space. This means that the universe had no time boundary to it and the question of a beginning, or of what came before the big bang, is meaningless.

The Antimatter Universe
Latham Boyle and Neil Turok at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Canada think the no-boundary proposal is flawed and came up with an alternative, using similar mathematical tools. They propose that our universe could be the mirror image of another. This antiuniverse would extend backwards in time before the big bang, getting bigger as it does so, and would be dominated by antimatter.

String Gas Cosmology
Inspired by string theory, Cumrun Vafa at Harvard University and Robert Brandenberger at McGill University in Canada proposed that the current universe emerged from a hot, dense gas of excited superstrings, which are thought to be the fundamental components of matter.

Change of Phase
Some physicists think that space-time itself must be made of tiny, atom-like particles. One implication, according to Daniele Oriti, a physicist at the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics in Germany, is that just as atoms can organise themselves into a solid, liquid or gas, particles of space-time can coalesce into different phases. Maybe the beginning of the universe was the point these particles condensed. As to what things were like before that point – who can say.

Source: What if there was no big bang and we live in an ever-cycling universe?
 

nicklebleu

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Sometimes the New Scientist has some interesting things (referring to your other thread about sexual orientation). But I cancelled my subscription a few years ago, because overall they were way too pro-industry, pro-standard science, in fact quite critical of anything just even slightly outside the mainstream.
 

John G

The Living Force
Sometimes the New Scientist has some interesting things (referring to your other thread about sexual orientation). But I cancelled my subscription a few years ago, because overall they were way too pro-industry, pro-standard science, in fact quite critical of anything just even slightly outside the mainstream.
The big bang is one area where even mainstream sources occasionally throw out some wild ideas.


All three of the above can sort of fit with "New Cassiopaea". Two are information and brane based models and the Cs have said good things about information and branes. The other is an old parent/new baby universe model which fits a bit with this:

May 9, 1998

Q: So, you would say that this is Chinese rather than Japanese. Okay. Recently there was some information about a VERY distant and intense explosion seen with the Hubble telescope... I am interested in what this was.

A: Reflection of other universe's genesis.

Q: What other universe?

A: They all start, and end that way!

Q: (A) Other universe?

A: What is "big bang" Arkadiusz?

Q: (A) Well, it was a big bang, certainly, but it was in OUR universe and not some other universe...

A: But what was the origin? And from where? All is one and one is all.
Perhaps the 7th density all is one, one is all Planck scale is an interface of sorts between information lost in one older universe and found in a newborn universe.
 

John G

The Living Force
The No-Boundary Proposal
The physicists Stephen Hawking and James Hartle thought rather differently. They suggested that as you go back in time towards the big bang, and things get smaller and smaller, the three dimensions of space and one of time would essentially transform into four dimensions of space. This means that the universe had no time boundary to it and the question of a beginning, or of what came before the big bang, is meaningless.

The Antimatter Universe
Latham Boyle and Neil Turok at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Canada think the no-boundary proposal is flawed and came up with an alternative, using similar mathematical tools. They propose that our universe could be the mirror image of another. This antiuniverse would extend backwards in time before the big bang, getting bigger as it does so, and would be dominated by antimatter.
That math is Ark's 4 spacelike, two timelike conformal gravity math and yes it could have antiuniverse backwards in time implications (I've seen Hawking's math described as 6-dim overall).
 

PERLOU

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Surprenant et cela donne à réfléchir... Merci Laura pour ce partage...

Surprising and thought-provoking... Thank you Laura for sharing....
 

biala84

Jedi
FOTCM Member
To be truth that as wave is more closer each time and after when i read a post and before also i have a feeling that All the things already happend before. I mean the knowledge we learn now and we will learn in the future i have a feeling inside that maybe i did it before. Like a circle....
 

msante

Dagobah Resident
FOTCM Member
When I was reading the article came to my mind this session excerpt ... (Aug 17th 1995)

A: [...] Now, we wish to return to the visual representation as mentioned previously. If you notice the core circle connects with all seven sections to the outer circle. Now, picture that outer circle as being an ever expanding circle, and each one of the seven segments as being an ever expanding line. Of course, now, this will expand outward in a circular or cyclical pattern. Please picture visually an expanding outer circle and a non-expanding inner circle. Contemplate that and then please give us your feelings as to what that represents.

Q: (L) Does it represent an expansion of our knowledge and consciousness?

A: That's part of it.

Q: (L) Does it represent also expanding influence of what and who we are on that which is around us?

A: That is correct.

Q: (L) Does it also represent a more...

A: Oops! We detected a slippage of your visual representation! Contemplate, if you will, the ever-expanding outer circle and the non-expanding inner circle, and, of course, the seven partitions also moving outwardly. What type of shape does that form in your mind's eye?

Q: (L) A wheel?

A: Is that all?

Q: (T) A pie?

A: Keep going.

Q: (L) An eye.

A: Now we are starting to turn it into a sphere! Why would it turn into a sphere?

Q: (L) How can it turn into a sphere?

A: How can it not!

Q: (SV) It is going in ALL directions, not just flat...

A: Is a straight line a straight line or a...

Q: (L) Oh, you're not talking about a circle?

A: We are talking about a circle. What becomes of a circle if you expand it outward forever?

Q: (J) It disappears.

A: It disappears? How can it disappear? Where does it disappear to? We ask you that, Jan? Jan?

Q: (J) Visually, as the outer circle expands, the inner circle becomes smaller and smaller until it disappears. As you continue to expand out with the outer circle, the inner circle disappears.

A: But where does it disappear to?

Q: (J) A black hole?

A: A black hole. Well, that's a possibility. But, we really didn't want you to concentrate so heavily on the smaller circle, now did we? It's the outer circle.

Q: (T) The outer circle is used to encompass more and more.

A: And what shape does it begin to take on? I want you to look at this outer circle expanding outward!

Q: (J) Are we to assume that the seven spokes remain the same size in relation to the circle?

A: Well, answer that question for yourself.

Q: (L) Okay, we are looking at it as a plane representation. As a flat surface.

A: Well, what happens to a flat surface if you extend it outward forever?

Q: (L) Well, we don't know. That, that... (SV) It keeps on going.

A: It keeps on going?

Q: (L) Yeah, bigger and flatter!

A: It does? What happens to a line if you extend it forever and ever?

Q: (Laura and Susan) It keeps on going.

A: It does?

Q: (L) Um hmmm!

A: Where does it go to?

Q: (SV) Forever. (J) Back to itself. (L) We don't know that.

A: Oh, someone said "Back to itself."

Q: (J) Like a snake taking hold of its own tail.

A: Why don't we know that?

Q: (L) Because we don't. It is conjectured that space is curved...

A: "Because we don't know. Now, why don't we know?

Q: (L) Because we haven't been there.

A: Had Columbus been outside of Italy and Spain?

Q: (L) Okay, we are going to assume that if it keeps on expanding it will eventually come back to itself...

A: No, no, no wait! We asked a question!

Q: (L) Well, of course Columbus had an idea that there was something but he hadn't been there, no. But he went and checked it out.

A: Did he have just an idea?

Q: (L) Well, pretty much, I guess.

A: Hmmm. That's not the way we remember it. The way we remember it is that he had instinct and imagination and when he married his instinct with imagination, it became reality. And, when it became reality, he had created a reality which he was fully confident would be manifest in the physical third density reality. It wasn't that he was confident. He knew it to be so. He didn't stop himself by adding prejudice to the equation which is what you are doing when you say: "Well, we don't know what happens because we have never been there!" Think logically, please. We have told you so many times that everything is a grand cycle. If it's a grand cycle, we have told you about circles within circles. We have told you about cycles. We have told you about short wave cycles and long wave cycles. Now, after all this information that you have asked of us, which we have more than happily given to you, would you expect that a straight line would just go out forever and ever and ever as a straight line? How could it possibly do that? What happens if you take, on your third density earth, and you draw a straight line to the East or to the West or to the North or to the South...

Q: (J) It comes all the way back to itself.

A: Right...

Q: (L) Okay, so we're living in a big globe!

A: Are we?

Q: (L) Well, that is what it sounds like, a big circle?

A: Oh, my, my, my. You need more study and learning, my dear. Need more study. Even your Albert Einstein had a theory about what happened.

Q: (L) Yes, but that was just a theory.

A: Oh, well I guess then it must be dropped. We'll never know. It's just a theory. Well, we'll just forget about it.

Q: (T) I'm still expanding the circle... (SV) Me too.

A: Very good, that was the idea. It keeps going and going and going.

Q: (L) Well, mine does too, but it hasn't come back and met anything. So, what's the point?

A: Does there need to be a point?

Q: (L) Of course!

A: Who says? We are trying to help you learn. When do you expect to shut down this process?

Q: (J) Never. (L) Gee, I hope never.

A: Then there never is a point!

Q: (J) Point taken! (L) There is no point. [Laughter.] Well, if you expand the circle outward and continue expanding it in all directions, it pulls the seven spokes with it which encompasses more and more space in a cross section, and then turn that circle, you have a sphere.

A: Precisely. But Laura says that means we are living in a big globe. And, maybe we are.

Q: (T) Well, it wouldn't be a big globe, so to speak, it would only be a big globe within the circle. If the circle continues to expand, it would just continue to go outward and outward and the globe would become bigger and bigger and bigger... (L) You're making me nervous... (T) But it goes outward forever... cause there is no end to going out...

A: There isn't?

Q: (SV) Nope.

A: Well, then maybe there's no beginning.

Q: (T) Well, there wouldn't be a beginning, just a big, open void. An infinite void...

A: If there's no end and no beginning, then what do you have?

Q: (L) No point. (J) The here and now.

A: The here and now which is also the future and the past. Everything that was, is and will be, all at once. This is why only a very few of your third density persons have been able to understand space travel, because even though traveling into space in your third density is every bit as third density as lying on your bed at night in your comfortable home, the time reference is taken away. Something that you hold very close to your bosom as if it were your mother. And, it is the biggest illusion that you have. We have repeatedly told you over and over that there is no time, and yet, of course, you have been so brainwashed into this concept that you cannot get rid of it no matter what you do, now can you? Imagine going out into space. You'd be lost when confronted with reality that everything is completely all at one? Would you not? Picture yourself floating around in space!
I'm sorry, the extract is a little long, but IMO it's interesting to see how the Cs emphasize the idea of conceiving reality as a sphere. If one visualizes a point on this sphere, and begins to expand this point in all directions, eventually the circle that runs through the sphere will close at a point opposite the original point, and if the process continues now from this point, the circle will close again at the original point, eventually restarting the process from the beginning.

I don't know, but can be this a visual image that might well represent the idea of an ever-cycling universe, without begining and/or end...? :huh:
 

hlat

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
If one visualizes a point on this sphere, and begins to expand this point in all directions, eventually the circle that runs through the sphere will close at a point opposite the original point, and if the process continues now from this point, the circle will close again at the original point, eventually restarting the process from the beginning.
That big circle with spokes expanding outward, after its expansion passes the halfway point on the globe, that big circle will start shrinking as the collapses inward on the opposite side of the globe, until the time that the big circle shrinks to the same size as the small circle at the beginning.
 

Carl

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
That big circle with spokes expanding outward, after its expansion passes the halfway point on the globe, that big circle will start shrinking as the collapses inward on the opposite side of the globe, until the time that the big circle shrinks to the same size as the small circle at the beginning.
Yes so if your 2d circle expands out over a 3d globe, it eventually comes back on itself.

And in the same way, if the circle becomes a globe (say our world or our universe), expand that globe outwards forever over a 4d shape (lets call time a dimension) then the globe would also expand to a point, the ratio would flip, and it would come back on itself.

There really is no beginning and no end.

But going back to that session, my monkey brain is still asking what's the point? We just slosh back and forth and repeat cycles? We grow to become one with the creator in 7d, only to devolve and experience the other path in the next cycle? We go through all the suffering, just so we can do it all again? Yeah it kinda boggles the mind.
 

axj

Dagobah Resident
Well, the C's mentioned other universes and the question is whether those have their own seven densities or whether there is only one 7th density as a unity of all universes.

In this regard I am reminded of what Theun Mares wrote about seers observing that the “Eagle“ (Castaneda's terminology) is not alone:

“In conclusion, realize that in all of what we have looked at so briefly here the Unspeakable, the first aspect of which is termed the nagual, is the source of all life. Is the Unspeakable itself perhaps but the manifestation of something beyond it? We simply do not know, but from what Toltec seers have been able to glean of the Unspeakable, it is apparently not alone. In other words, it appears as if there is not only one Eagle, but many - whatever this may mean or imply! No doubt one day we must and will enter the great unknowable, but until then we must concentrate upon the vastness of our own beingness which we can fathom, but which we still do not fully grasp.“
 

monotonic

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
So if there is no beginning and no end, then there can be no us in the middle. But we know we exist. So when we see a beginning and an end, what are we really looking at? If there is no beginning and no end, then is there even a forward and back?

What does this do to our definition of a dimension? How do we define a dimension when we can't terminate the ends at "nowhere"? Does it wrap around at some far point? Does it wrap into the next dimension? How do we terminate the ends without a discontinuity?

What if no consecutive dimensions are perfectly orthagonal? Could this be related to the curl term in Maxwell's equations? Not that I know anything about that... And Dzhanibekov effect?

One thing I noticed recently is that there can be no empty dimensions. If you have any dimension that is zero, then you have no volume, no space. Therefore there must be either infinite dimensions or no dimensions. And we know that there are dimensions. No guarantees that I know what I'm talking about.

The Cs have described us as wave riders and transient passengers. What if our assumptions determine where we "go" next, and that trajectory moves us through a constant transformation of dimensions which reinforces the assumptions that keep us rooted in this representation of reality?

The Cs say we have been brainwashed and programmed not to understand this. We know that one way to do that is to control language. If we stop using a word, we become unable to understand the idea that word represents. So if there is a word that replaces the beginning and end paradox, what would that word be? And what idea does it represent?
 

aimarok

Jedi Master
FOTCM Member
If we consider the idea of ever expanding circle from Aug 17th 1995 session and the fact that time is an illusion (according to Cs), then expanding effect of the Universe becomes a matter of point of reference. Somewhere in the "future" the Universe will be shrinking though no "real" expanding/shrinking is taking place. No surprise very few people understood space travel, one needs to really think out of the box to achieve it.
 

SlipNet

Jedi Master
Mind bending theories abound! I just wonder who I was just prior to being born. It genuinely fascinates me just thinking about it. When does anything start? What is the beginning? What transition is initiated by an ending? The C's give clues but I can't help but think that I am still a prisoner of "time". I look forward to where this thread leads, sounds promising to me. But then, it didn't really start, did it?;-D
 

monotonic

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
It strikes me that perhaps there is an analogy to be made with a CRT screen. The electron beam scans across the screen in a sawtooth pattern to create the whole image. Each line has a beginning and an end, where it retraces and begins the next line. Imagine a lifetime is one line. If you think the part between the beginning and end of one line is all there is, then it doesn't make any sense. But a whole collection of lines creates an image. The Y scan is also a another sawtooth, but slower. And a collection of images makes a scene. A collection of scenes makes a movie. And you can just keep going from there.

To us there is little difference between the X and Y dimensions of the screen. If we scanned vertically instead of horizontally it would make no difference. Similarly there is no significant difference between X Y and Z dimensions in every day life. Physics doesn't care about direction, the X dimension behaves no different than the Y dimension. So our 3 spatial dimensions, like the 2 dimensions on the computer screen form a frame within which we perceive the world. But if there is a 4th dimension it is very different from the first 3 we are familiar with; like the consecutive frames of a movie scene, our 4th dimension doesn't operate on the same rules as the preceeding dimensions which form the homogeneous frame of our experience.

So if the first 3 dimensions are our frame of experience, the 4th dimension contains a whole set of 3D frames, of which the astral and ethereal realms may just be a subset of those frames. And then the question is, how many dimensions are there above the 4th before there is a new superset of frames? If the 4th dimension contains the superset of dimensions relevant for this reality, than does the 5th dimension contain that as well as all the supersets for every other reality? And why do those supersets sometimes bleed together and interfere?
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom