Visualizing, and thus beginning to understand the 4th Dimension

[bngenoh]

Hi all,

This is a video series that takes one from 2D to 4D. Its in 9 parts.
[list type=decimal]
[*]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTP-H4oFLYc&feature=related
[*]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7ssGdswaKw&feature=related
[*]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9OaDjYJRlA&feature=related
[*]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7UfgyJ38fY&feature=related
[*]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egIPnwcJuZ8&feature=related
[*]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feyoEXbaoGw&feature=related
[*]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4nrvAzngzE&feature=related
[*]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzWN9ljjD04&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
[*]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6lUeUaBQB0&feature=related
[/list]

"I" found the comparisons to the 2D lizards "escaping their miserable existence" in 2D to be really funny given all that is here.

It struck me with great profoundity that in representing 4D objects in 3D "internal structure" is employed. It brought to mind Don Juan saying to Castaneda that humans may be seen as a complex of fields. The internal structure thing also brought to mind the importance of clearing oneself of illusions, beliefs, etc.

This quote from the C's fits well:

Q: (A) I have another question. In a session from April, you made the following comment: 'four dimensional, fourth density, see?' So you related four dimensions to fourth density. I don't know a mathematical representation of density. I know how to represent four dimensions. This was the first time that you related dimension to density. Is there really a relation?
A: Yes, because 4th density is experienced in 4th dimensional reality.
Q: (A) Speaking now about 4 dimensional reality, is it four dimensional reality of the Kaluza-Klein type?
A: Visual spectrum.
Q: (A) Does that mean that the fourth dimension is NOT related to the fifth dimension of the Kaluza-Klein theory?
A: Yes.
Q: (A) Yes it is related?
A: No, yes it is not. There is a flaw in these theories, relating to prism. What does this tell you?
Q: (A) To prism?! Visual spectrum? I don't know what it tells me. I never came across any relation to prism. But, what is this 4th dimension? Is it an extra dimension beyond the three space dimensions, or is it a time dimension?
A: Not "time," re: Einstein. It is an added spatial reference. The term "dimension" is used simply to access the popular reference, relating to three dimensions. The added "dimension" allows one to visualize outwardly and inwardly simultaneously.
Q: (A) When you talk about this 4th dimension, what is the closest thing in currently understood physics that corresponds to this term? I cannot find anything that corresponds. It is not in relativity theory, it is not in Einstein, it is not in Kaluza-Klein...
A: Exactly, because it has not been hypothesized.

And this:

A: Gravity is the binder.

Q: (A) But, my question is: gravity is a term that is defined in dictionaries and encyclopedias and is a term which has a very precise meaning for physicists and mathematicians. I want to know if you are talking about the same thing or if you are using the term 'gravity' to describe something completely different that we know as gravity. Are we talking about the same thing?
A: Well, are you certain these "definitions" you speak of are not limited?

Q: (A) Yes, I am sure they are limited. Nevertheless, they are precisely defined concepts and you are using the same term 'gravity,' so I am asking if we are talking about the same thing, or if you are talking about something completely different?
A: How about a great expansion upon the same concept?

Q: (A) Okay. That answered my question. So, we are using the same thing, but for you it is more adequate or so. Now, I want to ask about mathematical modelling of gravity. The gravity that we know about is modelled by geometry of a curved space. Is the gravity that you are talking about, which is an expansion of this concept, capable of being modelled in a similar way: by geometry?
A: Geometry is the correct model.

Q: (A) So, geometry is the correct model and I understand that we have to just write a generalization or expansion of Einstein UFT, and that this will be the correct model of gravity; is this correct?
A: Close.

Q: (A) Now, the question is: if gravity can be modelled in this way - geometry is the correct model - what do we need more to model also consciousness? Will it be automatically implied in such a model of gravity, or is it something extra?
A: Consciousness is contained within the expanded realization of the gravity model. The Unified Field Theory, if completed, would give one an insight into the synchronous relationship between gravity and consciousness.

Q: (A) If gravity is modelled by curvature or torsion of geometry, mathematically, how would consciousness come out of geometry?
A: That is a broken question. What we can say is this: if one could visualize the inverted representation of the gravity geometric model, one would be squarely on the path to understanding the geometric model of consciousness.

And this:

A: Remember, you do have cycles but that does not necessarily mean cyclical. 3 Dimensional depiction of loop, seek hexagon for more. Geometric theory provides answers for key. Look to stellar windows. Octaon, hexagon, pentagon.

Q: Are those the different levels of density?
A: No, but it relates. Geometry gets you there, algebra sets you "free."

Now, if you are like me you are probably gonna watch it a few times :), but it is definitely a good and fun use of the computational power of the old noggin, so have fun :).