(11-10-2015, 12:49 PM)Stranger Wrote: I am interested in all four areas equally. You can start closer to higher level with conceptual-intuitive explanations without calculus, but assuming a reasonable level of intelligence on my part
Ok. I will start with a key understanding that's the basis to explaining all four areas. This is not the starting point where I gained my understanding, but I think it maybe an easier starting point for others. If I'm not effective, please let me know, I will see if I can approach the explanation another way.
The 4D Nature of Space (1/2)
To me, Ra's saying of us moving from 3rd density to 4th density (3d->4d) has an additional correspondence, it also means we are moving from knowing our space is 3 dimensional to realizing it's 4 dimensional. Yes, our space (not spacetime) is 4D (in fact, based on Ra's explanation of spiritual evolution, we can assume space has even more dimensions, as string theorists already theorized. However, 4D phenomena are what we have already interacted and observed physically at a collective level, probably not with higher dimension ones -- I think that's one reason Ra said that the earth is already 4d).
This 4th dimension is no different than the 3 that we can observe, conceptualize, and perceive. It's just a 4th Cartesian dimension, with the same property as the other three, i.e. each dimension is perpendicular to the others in the Cartesian coordination system. But how could something be perpendicular to all three 3D axis? It's impossible to picture. The the question inevitably comes to: "if there is another dimension, where is it? how come we cannot see it?" And the answer is: currently, most of us are NOT able to perceive this dimension with our senses directly. However, we are able to detect the existence of this dimension indirectly, through our scientific observations and knowledge.
The idea that there is something there that we just cannot perceive/observe is very hard to accept, even for myself, once I realized the existence of the 4th dimension. This dimension is not small or curved like how Brian Greene described in his TV series "The Elegant Universe", that's not the reason we cannot see or feel it. We simply cannot see it because we are not able. We have not evolved to the point to perceive/experience it.
I myself cannot picture/imagine space being 4D, even though I believe it is true. I can only consider its property and effect through deductive thinking, for example, by considering what a 3D phenomenon would appear to a 2D creature. Before I proceed further, I'd suggest you to try picturing 4D, thinking about the properties of a 4D space, such as what would a 4D object looks to us who can only perceive 3D? I find the following links helpful:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension I found the figure on the right showing how to expand dimensions from a point helpful
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesseract Can you identify all 8 cubes in the left figure and understand why there are 8?
https://plus.google.com/u/0/s/%234D%20john%20baez I found many posts here fascinating, not neccessarily helpful. Don't all those rotating figures remind you of something? ...Plato solids? the scared geometry?
If the space is 4D and we can only perceive 3D, then we can interact with only the cross section of a 4D object that intersect with our 3D space, and when viewed from a distance, what may appear to be 3D to us may only be the projection (mathematically speaking) of a 4D object onto the 3D space we can perceive. So Plato's allegory of the cave is not only figurative, but also descriptive.
One may think, if I know the space is 4D, and know what 4D object would appear to me, then I can directly perceive and experience 4D, right? Not so. This NPR story helped with my understanding: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story...=128977924
The lady was born cross eyed, so she was not able to experience 3D, even though conceptually she knows she lived in a 3D world. Only after she had her eyes corrected in her 40s, she's able to experience 3D for the first time. Her description of experiencing the 3D snow fall was so moving it brought me to tears. Her story also got me thinking: we can experience 3D because our two eyes gives us stereo vision -- no wonder the pineal gland/foresight that supposed to lead one to spiritual awakening is call the "3rd eye", for if 2 eyes give you 3D vision, then logically 3 eyes would give you 4D vision! :-)
I believe some people on earth now can experience 4D sometimes, they just don't know what it was. Some were the people whom Ra called having a "dual activated body". But this is just my interpretation. I think certain awakening experiences people had, some induced by psychedelic drugs, were 4D experiences. But I personally never had any such experiences, so I'm only speculating.
So far I haven't given you any scientific evidence that the space is 4D, I want you to be able to consider it before continuing, because the more you are familiar with it, the easier you may understand my explanation later. When I read Ra Material for the first time, I didn't automatically accept anything it said to be true. I paid special attention to see whether it'd contradict what I know to be true while others don't, such as the space being 4D. I found following that made me trust Ra more:
Quote:4.4 Questioner: Then at this point there is a focusing of energy that is extra-dimensional in respect to our dimensions. Am I correct?
Ra: You may use that vibratory sound complex. However, it is not totally and specifically correct as there are no “extra” dimensions. We would prefer the use of the term “multi” dimensions.
I interpret this as Ra indicating space has more dimension than we think it has, thus it's not "extra". We only think it's "extra" because we thought it was only 3. Ra's answer corrected our distortion without breaking the law of confusion.
Quote:52.10 Questioner: ... Then the energy would be taken out in time/space and you would re-enter space/time at the end of this energy reversal. Am I in any way correct on this?
Ra: I am Ra. You are quite correct as far as your language may take you and, due to your training, more able than we to express the concept. Our only correction, if you will, would be to suggest that the 90° of which you speak are an angle which may best be understood as a portion of a tesseract.
I think Ra couldn't be more clear on this. A tesseract is a 4D cube, so Ra was saying the 90 angle was with regard to a 4D space, not the 3D one that Don would naturally assume. Again, a good answer without breaking the law of confusion.
Lastly, let me cite what I consider to be a supporting physical evidence for 4D space: quasicrystals. It's discovery won the Nobel prize in 2011. "Mathematically, quasicrystals have been shown to be derivable from a general method that treats them as projections of a higher-dimensional lattice." According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasicrystal
Because quasicrystals implicates space is 4D or higher, its discoverer were afraid to present it for many years, and was treated as a laughing stock for a while in the community until natural quasicrystals were finally discovered.
OK. I've dumped a lot of related material here. I hope you can take time to digest them. If you are still interested and when you feel ready, I will continue and show how I deduced scientifically that the space is 4D and where our misunderstandings lie, which lead to the answers to the four areas I mentioned before. Also, feel free to ask questions on what I've presented so far.