Imploversial Physics

This is exactally ewhat im saying when I say 1 & 2 Dimensions are non existent in reality they are constructs of the mind applied to flat surfaces i.e. 3D objects that assume the imagined 2nd D quality.  3D/Omni-D source is the base line of reality.

Not sure if the shape has a name.
But its basically a tetrahedron embedded in a sphere, and whose edges are projected on the sphere.

Also, I would high recommend learning more about math. It's quite beautiful how everything works together.

Quote from: Ryan Onessence on November 22, 2011, 01:35:07 PM

This is exactally ewhat im saying when I say 1 & 2 Dimensions are non existent in reality they are constructs of the mind applied to flat surfaces i.e. 3D objects that assume the imagined 2nd D quality.  3D/Omni-D source is the base line of reality.

They exist in reality.  Just because you perceive one dimension more doesn't mean they don't exist.  But if you wanna get technical, the universe actually exists in 4 dimensions:

x, y, z, and Time.


There may be some math that says it's actually 12 but I'm not sure.

Quote from: Lorddave on November 22, 2011, 01:40:09 PM

Quote from: Ryan Onessence on November 22, 2011, 01:35:07 PM

This is exactally ewhat im saying when I say 1 & 2 Dimensions are non existent in reality they are constructs of the mind applied to flat surfaces i.e. 3D objects that assume the imagined 2nd D quality.  3D/Omni-D source is the base line of reality.

They exist in reality.  Just because you perceive one dimension more doesn't mean they don't exist.  But if you wanna get technical, the universe actually exists in 4 dimensions:

x, y, z, and Time.


There may be some math that says it's actually 12 but I'm not sure.

by the same token as I have stated in 1.3. which you seam to have overlooked, x,y,z, (1D, 2D, 3D) produce time, so 4 is 1,2,3 as a whole. Since 1 & 2 are constructs of the mind projected as reference within 3D space then the 3rdD is actually time, since 3D's do not exist exclusively without an observer, so both are fundamental factors in the equation of time i.e. vice/versa they are mutaually inclusive.

There must be distinction made between densities and dimensions.

Densities are like higher states of 3D reality such as the astral/celestial lucid realms beyond the band's of physical .

Whereas dimensions are the fields and principles by which a reality functions. 

3D space is in fact the baseline of dimensional potential in reality, one can speak of 2D membranes etc. in a hypothetical sense as in zoomed in quantities of 3D space behaving as a plane in 3D space however in reality 2D's are just a mental construct and does not proceed the 3rd dimension.

the 1st dimension is likewise in reality non existent as something independent of all other dimensions, the first is actually nothing - being the canvas of reality and is all dimensions/possibilities collapsed as a uniform formless field. Because it holds all it must by proxy have pseudo-qualities of each. So labelling it as 1st dimension is inadequate as it contains all, so it is Omni-Dimensional; source. And source is eternal, which means there is an essence of time to it, there has to be otherwise time could not exist. Time to source is the same self similar moment overlapping as a continuous single moment it has no closure.

3D reality is 3 Dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time which is really the same as only 3D's anyway, consciousness is time, 3D's are nothing without an observer and an observer cannot exist without 3D's. So how the 4thD will be used here is different  to the common use of the term.  This also adds to the notion that source is aware because it must have a quality of consciousness to itself in order to be extracted as an Individuated possibility.

...

When one contends with the 3D Aetheric space outlook the zeros are excluded and 1,2,3, becomes the focus of expression. However  the 4thD is still present as the cosms semi-formless Akashic carrier wave beyond linear perception. This is where we then see that:

1: represented as 0 in esoteric science becomes the unseen carrier wave

2: represents the Hyperspheres in 3D space combined as the vortating TDT field.

3: represents time/conciousness, motion over the coarse of linear implosive infinitive depth           

This is the esoteric recalibration of dimensions, I understand the basic academic logic and meanings as such this quote from 1.3 shows...

You are just being petty now Dave I'm not spending anymore time on this subject the discussion is over. 

There must be distinction made between densities and dimensions.

Densities are like higher states of 3D reality such as the astral/celestial lucid realms beyond the band's of physical .

Whereas dimensions are the fields and principles by which a reality functions. 

3D space is in fact the baseline of dimensional potential in reality, one can speak of 2D membranes etc. in a hypothetical sense as in zoomed in quantities of 3D space behaving as a plane in 3D space however in reality 2D's are just a mental construct and does not proceed the 3rd dimension.

the 1st dimension is likewise in reality non existent as something independent of all other dimensions, the first is actually nothing - being the canvas of reality and is all dimensions/possibilities collapsed as a uniform formless field. Because it holds all it must by proxy have pseudo-qualities of each. So labelling it as 1st dimension is inadequate as it contains all, so it is Omni-Dimensional; source. And source is eternal, which means there is an essence of time to it, there has to be otherwise time could not exist. Time to source is the same self similar moment overlapping as a continuous single moment it has no closure.

3D reality is 3 Dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time which is really the same as only 3D's anyway, consciousness is time, 3D's are nothing without an observer and an observer cannot exist without 3D's. So how the 4thD will be used here is different  to the common use of the term.  This also adds to the notion that source is aware because it must have a quality of consciousness to itself in order to be extracted as an Individuated possibility.

When one contends with the 3D Aetheric space outlook the zeros are excluded and 1,2,3, becomes the focus of expression. However  the 4thD is still present as the cosms semi-formless Akashic carrier wave beyond linear perception. This is where we then see that:

1: represented as 0 in esoteric science becomes the unseen carrier wave

2: represents the Hyperspheres in 3D space combined as the vortating TDT field.

3: represents time/conciousness, motion over the coarse of linear implosive infinitive depth           

your inability to contend that conciousness existed long before the creation of this existention (what you call the Universe) is not my problem if that makes you unable to comprehend why 3D and consciousness are mutually inclusive...

Quote from: Ryan Onessence on November 22, 2011, 07:23:57 PM

your inability to contend that conciousness existed long before the creation of this existention (what you call the Universe) is not my problem if that makes you unable to comprehend why 3D and consciousness are mutually inclusive...

Then where did consciousness come from if there is no space for it to inhabit?

heheeheh your a realy good troll I'll give ya that

Quote from: Lorddave on November 22, 2011, 08:28:02 PM

Quote from: Ryan Onessence on November 22, 2011, 07:23:57 PM

your inability to contend that conciousness existed long before the creation of this existention (what you call the Universe) is not my problem if that makes you unable to comprehend why 3D and consciousness are mutually inclusive...

Then where did consciousness come from if there is no space for it to inhabit?

that's for those who understand to know and those who don't to figure out, I don't spell it out because you must expand your perception on accord of your own volition, if I told you directly how exactly that is, you wouldn't get to experience the epiphany of epiphanies

Try again

Quote from: Lorddave on November 22, 2011, 08:28:02 PM

Quote from: Ryan Onessence on November 22, 2011, 07:23:57 PM

your inability to contend that conciousness existed long before the creation of this existention (what you call the Universe) is not my problem if that makes you unable to comprehend why 3D and consciousness are mutually inclusive...

Then where did consciousness come from if there is no space for it to inhabit?

that's for those who understand to know and those who don't to figure out, I don't spell it out because you must expand your perception on accord of your own volition, if I told you directly how exactly that is, you wouldn't get to experience the epiphany of epiphanies

I'm simply pointing out that:
1) You're uneducated.
2) You're spouting gibberish.
3) You're probably delusional.

Quote from: Lorddave on November 22, 2011, 08:46:37 PM

I'm simply pointing out that:
1) You're uneducated.
2) You're spouting gibberish.
3) You're probably delusional.

Precisely.

Onessence's pseudo-intellectual rants have gone on for long enough. We get it, you want attention.

His posts give me a headache.

Quote from: Ryan Onessence on November 22, 2011, 08:43:47 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on November 22, 2011, 08:28:02 PM

Quote from: Ryan Onessence on November 22, 2011, 07:23:57 PM

your inability to contend that conciousness existed long before the creation of this existention (what you call the Universe) is not my problem if that makes you unable to comprehend why 3D and consciousness are mutually inclusive...

Then where did consciousness come from if there is no space for it to inhabit?

that's for those who understand to know and those who don't to figure out, I don't spell it out because you must expand your perception on accord of your own volition, if I told you directly how exactly that is, you wouldn't get to experience the epiphany of epiphanies

I don't want to experience an ephipany, I only want to know the true nature of the Universe. Could you give us a hint?

Quote from: jraffield1 on November 22, 2011, 10:56:15 PM

Quote from: Ryan Onessence on November 22, 2011, 08:43:47 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on November 22, 2011, 08:28:02 PM

Quote from: Ryan Onessence on November 22, 2011, 07:23:57 PM

your inability to contend that conciousness existed long before the creation of this existention (what you call the Universe) is not my problem if that makes you unable to comprehend why 3D and consciousness are mutually inclusive...

Then where did consciousness come from if there is no space for it to inhabit?

that's for those who understand to know and those who don't to figure out, I don't spell it out because you must expand your perception on accord of your own volition, if I told you directly how exactly that is, you wouldn't get to experience the epiphany of epiphanies

I don't want to experience an ephipany, I only want to know the true nature of the Universe. Could you give us a hint?

I can't because I don't really know how it works. I just had this idea one day that seemed like it was the true nature of the Universe. Trust me, I'm right and if you had the same experience I did, you would agree with me.
This isn't religion or blind faith though because I said it, not some priest.

Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoteric

That says it must be reproducible. Nothing Ryan has said here is reproducible or even testable.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esoteric
And that says Esoteric is an inward opinion or belief.
So it seems that you've applied the second word correctly but not the way you thought.

Quote from: Ryan Onessence on December 20, 2011, 02:43:32 AM

Quote from: jraffield1 on November 22, 2011, 10:56:15 PM

Quote from: Ryan Onessence on November 22, 2011, 08:43:47 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on November 22, 2011, 08:28:02 PM

Quote from: Ryan Onessence on November 22, 2011, 07:23:57 PM

your inability to contend that conciousness existed long before the creation of this existention (what you call the Universe) is not my problem if that makes you unable to comprehend why 3D and consciousness are mutually inclusive...

Then where did consciousness come from if there is no space for it to inhabit?

that's for those who understand to know and those who don't to figure out, I don't spell it out because you must expand your perception on accord of your own volition, if I told you directly how exactly that is, you wouldn't get to experience the epiphany of epiphanies

I don't want to experience an ephipany, I only want to know the true nature of the Universe. Could you give us a hint?

I can't because I don't really know how it works

[Translates to:  the expectancy of others to value the validity of the belief that I do not know what I claim to, all the whilst without any proof that that belief regarding the above sentence is true].

I just had this idea one day that seemed like it was the true nature of the Universe

[Translates to; Lord Dave has not read all of the esoteric/exoteric posts, the fact that his previous post stated that I had used the term exoteric wrong (having said I hav no reproducible evidence is the hint of this fact) otherwise he would have known that the thread explains the difference between esoteric/exoteric science and is not a claim of having exoteric evidence).]

Trust me, I'm right and if you had the same experience I did, you would agree with me. [Re-Translation: I would never suggest anything of the sort to anyone as notion to accept with blind faith, you are simply placing your own words in my posts... find the truth out for yourself, don't trust anyone else's word at face value, not even mine...only trust that which you feel to be congruent with your heart after honest unbiased considerations of all possibilities have been explored. pretty sure buddha said words to the same effect; laso buddah was not religious, like christ he was a holy man who had religions based around his life teachings]

This isn't religion or blind faith though because I said it, not some priest.

[we've been here a few times now, but you insistence that its religion just shows a shallow understanding of what religion actually is... its ok tho because you have no interest in theosophy so I don't expect you to understand the inaccuracy of your stance. Seems as tho falling back on this interjection of claiming spiritualists to be religious is convenient for those who don't want to trust that reality is inherently spiritual (given the connotation of religion in general having acquired a negative connotation)

Religion, is that which is practised religiously i.e. it is a form of ritual and rigid routine, be it in  activity of prayer and worship or habituated thoughts of belief in a higher power without any aspiration of finding out for certain that it I real.

In contrast of all I have shared with TFES, science is closer to a religion than the abstract possibilities and perceptual potential of which is indicative of the holistic spiritual modality derived from the epiphanies of existention. (i.e. channelling direct intuitive knowledge form first hand source) which is confirmable from a personal level of outlook via the effect that that power/feeling (once accessed from within) has upon the world and those around oneself.

I have said it before and I feel compelled to remind you that I am not here to debate anything with  anyone.  Because one can only debate that which they are to some degree uncertain about. As much as it bothers those who need first hand exoteric evidence as proof of this esoteric claim, they will simply have to accept that there are people who claim ways to find out, and that if they are not ready to apply those techniques 100% then the only real say that they inadvertently imply every time they make comment, is...they'd rather not know/believe that what is presented is the truth.]             


Translated into Reality.

Quote from: jraffield1 on November 22, 2011, 10:56:15 PM

Quote from: Ryan Onessence on November 22, 2011, 08:43:47 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on November 22, 2011, 08:28:02 PM

Quote from: Ryan Onessence on November 22, 2011, 07:23:57 PM

your inability to contend that conciousness existed long before the creation of this existention (what you call the Universe) is not my problem if that makes you unable to comprehend why 3D and consciousness are mutually inclusive...

Then where did consciousness come from if there is no space for it to inhabit?

that's for those who understand to know and those who don't to figure out, I don't spell it out because you must expand your perception on accord of your own volition, if I told you directly how exactly that is, you wouldn't get to experience the epiphany of epiphanies

I don't want to experience an ephipany, I only want to know the true nature of the Universe. Could you give us a hint?

So you only want to know the nature of the universe so long as it doesn't involve having an epiphany which is connected to understanding the true nature.... Fair enough, but that's the only way to know if what I say is true or not.

Most who do not want to fully apply what I have suggested in my esoteric /exoteric thread are just unsure that they are ready/want to find out if stating a serious and unbending intent of acknowledgement to a higher power, will thereby result in it revealing itself so long as one continues to trust it will without a shadow doubt.

As my words in the thread infer, that is not blind faith, because blind faith is that which continues to believe without ever getting any esoteric or exoteric. If you can give your all to the trust, then you will find it without fail... everyone who has esoteric experiences knows this for a fact.