Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
Comment
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


Discord Now Fully Linked With 420chan IRC

different dimensions of intelligence

Reply
- Fri, 25 Oct 2019 20:20:03 EST 8FCx5DJP No.899462
File: 1572049203910.jpg -(4536893B / 4.33MB, 2000x2000) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. different dimensions of intelligence
Are chimps living in a different dimension? Did the jump from early human primate to where we are today as homo sapiens involve some sort of entrance into a different dimension? Humans study, play with, even hurt chimps, wherever they exist. And to the chimps, they don't seem to have any intelligent behavior to analyze our motives and understand who WE are. Could there be an intelligence out there that is interacting with us in a similar way? Like where we are aware we're being fucked with and studied/played with, but we attribute it to super basic concepts that don't accurately reflect the profoundness of the intelligence and more so generalize it? Like the idea of how ideas can be alive and intelligent, but we are stuck believing we are running the show and the voice in our head is completely controlled and imagined by us. Nothing external.

Tell me what you think
>>
Ebenezer Bessleterk - Fri, 25 Oct 2019 20:45:35 EST xbpVKR2z No.899463 Reply
How about this: Humans sweat, apes don't. Humans have white eyes, apes don't. And look at our feet. Maybe science is being retarded in that case.
>>
David Herrytot - Fri, 25 Oct 2019 21:54:42 EST jlcoTZD+ No.899464 Reply
Why are there more pseudo-intellectual schizophrenic ramblings than actual drug discussion on here
>>
Charlotte Buzzfoot - Fri, 25 Oct 2019 22:49:38 EST 8FCx5DJP No.899468 Reply
>>899464
this is a thought I came to under the influence of psychedelics. Isn't that relevant enough
>>
Barnaby Gicklestone - Sat, 26 Oct 2019 04:00:39 EST kfOLGXFF No.899476 Reply
thought police arrived
>>
Barnaby Gicklestone - Sat, 26 Oct 2019 04:01:23 EST kfOLGXFF No.899477 Reply
ok sorry, I will shut up
>>
Isabella Grimshit - Sat, 26 Oct 2019 05:17:45 EST MU5DQUTc No.899486 Reply
>Like where we are aware we're being fucked with and studied/played with, but we attribute it to super basic concepts that don't accurately reflect the profoundness of the intelligence and more so generalize it?
what do you think mushrooms are doing

this is the same logic as the "lab mice are actually running experiments on humans!" thing from hitchhiker's guide. which isn't to say it's wrong just that you're not the only one worried about it
>>
Hugh Smallfuck - Sat, 26 Oct 2019 16:39:34 EST ojGDoPm6 No.899499 Reply
>>899462
Ignore the gatekeepers of psychedelic discussion purity. Sad people who don't have a life like to police the internet. Cool concept, in the same vein i'm convinced we are being farmed by higher beings that have modified animals (our ancestors) to be more like them, they farm us for emotions that can be collected and sold in their society. To us they are like Gods but they relate to us more like farm animals.

They made us just enough like them that our emotions became compatible for their consumption. In their incredibly long and rich lives they get to consume joy or betrayal like we enjoy chocolate or balsamic vinegar.

Our wars are their wars, our ideas are their ideas. We're freak animals created by amoral godlings.
>>
Nicholas Duckfuck - Sat, 26 Oct 2019 18:22:26 EST LywZUfmH No.899500 Reply
Fuck off to /tinfoil/.
>>
Edward Weffingforth - Sun, 27 Oct 2019 01:24:47 EST c+ot2hXd No.899505 Reply
>>899499
> in the same vein i'm convinced we are being farmed by higher beings that have modified animals (our ancestors) to be more like them, they farm us for emotions that can be collected and sold in their society. To us they are like Gods but they relate to us more like farm animals.

They made us just enough like them that our emotions became compatible for their consumption. In their incredibly long and rich lives they get to consume joy or betrayal like we enjoy chocolate or balsamic vinegar.


There's alot of ways one could apply this concept to modern society. We're glued to screens and media to see what kind of content gets our brains to release the most dopamine. Mo' dopamine = mo money.
>>
Basil Nacklespear - Sun, 27 Oct 2019 05:40:49 EST DiXcnWuI No.899518 Reply
>>899505
Interesting view points, although I hesitate to say that there necessarily have to be any higher beings involved... at least not beings in the way we classically conceive them to be.

I mean, what is an economy, exactly? What drives it? Are economies always financial? Any greater system and market place of exchanges can be considered an economy, meaning culture is too, only it deals in information. The system is driven by something like Plato's Forms, the ideas and concepts themselves are what are created, drive, and thrive off these transactions. Once the whole process kicks off, the whole system's function is to propagate, perpetuate, and facilitate itself--to evolve to ensure its continued survival.

It seems that evolution and survival is far from being an exclusively biological process; rather, biological life is merely an obvious manifestation of it. Information itself is what's evolving and surviving, and whether or not the arrangements and collective arrangements of the information doing the surviving are conscious or in a form of being we formally recognize as "being" or not is neither here nor there. Being in that sense isn't the point, and never was. It's simply one particular way of being that we've assigned importance too.

So, while it may be possible that we are being farmed for our emotions or whatever really only seems to be a matter of perspective. Does there need to be intelligently conscious intent behind the act of farming or consuming for that to be what's taking place? Surely in the case of the latter, our common sense definition of consumption would say that the answer is "no", so why feel any differently about the former? What is farming but an organized manner of production? Can't the structure of that organization arise on its own? Who is to say that it didn't when it comes to us, even? I'd say the real question here isn't whether or not our emotions, ideas, or the information we generate are being farmed for consumption by "higher" beings or entities of some kind is taking place or not, but rather whether these beings/entities are conscious/self-aware and have the specific intent to "farm us" or not.
>>
Basil Nacklespear - Sun, 27 Oct 2019 05:42:16 EST DiXcnWuI No.899519 Reply
>>899518
>facilitate itself
by this i mean facilitate its existence and its reproduction
>>
Basil Nacklespear - Sun, 27 Oct 2019 05:50:40 EST DiXcnWuI No.899521 Reply
>>899518
>What is farming but an organized manner of production? Can't the structure of that organization arise on its own?
A somewhat concrete example of this is symbiotic relationships forming between fruit bearing plants and animals that eat their fruits, or fungi and animals. Fungi seem to have a sort of immunilogical function in the animal kingdom (I suggest watching the Joe Rogan podcast with Paul Stamets to learn more about this), and trees/plants could be said to farm the animals that eat their fruit and spread their seed around. They promote their survival at least long enough to use them to their own ends, just like us raising livestock, only instead animals eat the fruit, shit it out in fertilizer, and also die later on and decompose into fertilizer too.

Here, no formal intelligence (that we recognize) is required, the system more or less formed itself via the process of natural selection... and then eventually through artificial selection when it comes to human beings collecting the seeds and planting and growing them themselves. It could just as easily be said that these plants are farming us as it is that we are farming them.
>>
>>
Charles Dennerhene - Sun, 27 Oct 2019 06:04:35 EST MU5DQUTc No.899522 Reply
some search terms y'all might be interested in:
opticus wrangler (opti and I)
homoplasmate
genius loci
egregore
>>
Awe' !!Bwteoy2D - Mon, 28 Oct 2019 18:27:30 EST ZgfrcNMJ No.899565 Reply
>>899462
The jump involves ETs called Anu(naki), who made Adam from themselves and hominids on earth and from Adam made Eve around 300k years ago.
>>
Edwin Drondleman - Wed, 30 Oct 2019 19:56:31 EST 8FCx5DJP No.899624 Reply
>>899565
Still does not answer the question, was there a jump into a different measurable dimension of reality
>>
Awe' God !!Bwteoy2D - Wed, 30 Oct 2019 22:31:29 EST 1y5zBkqO No.899625 Reply
>>899624
Every shift of frequency is a different dimension.
>>
Beatrice Saffingfield - Thu, 31 Oct 2019 02:24:27 EST cvCR0bT/ No.899636 Reply
>>899625
What definition of dimension are you using here? If you can't provide a meaningful one that actually makes sense with the way you're using the word and what you're proposing tan perhaps dimension isn't a word oyu should be using.

When it comes to science and mathematics, I've found two definitions. One is a bit too abstract, so I'll include both.

More easily understood definition: "In physics and mathematics, the dimension of a mathematical space (or object) is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it."

Abstract definition: "dimension, in physics, an expression of the character of a derived quantity in relation to fundamental quantities, without regard for its numerical value."

Using those definitions it makes sense to refer to 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension. How does yours make sense?
>>
Awe' God !!Bwteoy2D - Thu, 31 Oct 2019 14:09:48 EST 8aZ2dcvw No.899643 Reply
>>899636
Fair point.

I was using murky metaphysical/ new age definition which isn't really a definition, but rather a figure of speech combined with the ordinary everyday use of the word applied to equally as murky question, but I figured the question was more about the murky definitions I mentioned than the extremely limited mathematical definition.

I really shouldn't be using the word. But I wanted in on the discussion and I think in the way the query was presented, the answer is accurate.
>>
Eugene Brenkinwater - Thu, 31 Oct 2019 16:29:33 EST tiw19Qbn No.899649 Reply
>>899643
>extremely limited mathematical definition
Well, it's that way by design because it's meant to actually describe something meaningful.

>and I think in the way the query was presented, the answer is accurate
In what way? I'm not trying to be an ass here, it's a legit question. I already find the way OP is talking about dimensions lofty enough, but you're making an assertion rather than simply asking a question to generate discussion. How exactly are shifts in frequency different dimensions? I'm trying to understand what you're actually saying. It sounds nice, but does it actually mean anything? Because I can't honestly say I know what you're talking about when saying that.
>>
Awe' !!Bwteoy2D - Thu, 31 Oct 2019 16:40:10 EST Z0jAWLYq No.899650 Reply
>>899649
I really don't know what I am talking about, this is serious answer, I'm not being an ass either, just couldn't be bothered to ask OP what he means because he probably means jack shit anyways and the question would simply make him invent something new instead of admitting that he meant fuck all. But in any case it was an intuitive answer based on loose definitions that barely mean anything. I'm open to a discussion tho, since you seem to be communicable. It's just that I don't think we really have a basis for discussion here, since neither OP nor me really meant much and you just said "hey guys, sup, I'm wondering what your talking bout here".
>>
Charlotte Wonnerstone - Thu, 31 Oct 2019 18:44:17 EST IUfz5v9T No.899656 Reply
>>899650

I think I understand what you mean by your shift in frequency bit. I get the gist, I think, but I'm trying to think of what it would mea in relation to general relativity, modern cosmology and mathematics (of which I know pretty much nothing).

I think about a similar idea where objects traveling at certain speeds phase in and out of this "dimension." I guess that means our three spatial dimensions, plus the fourth (time), might be treated as a single set in an equation. I don't know and I am retarded. I think it would depend on your continued interaction with the original dimension. Would you completely break free of contact somehow, or would you be in some kind of, "almost out of contact" state where you're essentially skipping across the edge of this dimension like a flat stone across a pool of water?

I feel like you'd have to be in contact some how.
>>
Awe' !!Bwteoy2D - Thu, 31 Oct 2019 20:04:19 EST 2THwhI+z No.899657 Reply
>>899656
Well I think you mean the shortening of length and time in this dimension when you are traveling real fast. This is all well understood and the theories of relativity explain it. Basically time becomes partially length from our perspective if we observe an object that is moving fast. Length and time are interchangeable, it's just that one second is hell of a big length, but we treat seconds like it's nothing, hence the apparent confusion. If our one dimension of space became our time and vice versa in the original setup it would basically seem like you became paper thin and see through, and at the same time you would always live your life in that past. It'd be like your life suddenly took a 90 degree turn and noone who didn't change the direction ever saw you again and yet you just lived on... This probably doesn't make sense, but you get the gist. I'm not very interested in this course of discussion though as relativity is well understood already and mostly pertains to physics, while having little to do with consciousness and metaphysics.
>>
Awe' !!Bwteoy2D - Thu, 31 Oct 2019 20:06:48 EST 2THwhI+z No.899658 Reply
>>899657
Physics doesn't account for things like the fact that you create this 100% from the present which means that causality and continuity is an illusion and therefor the laws of movement and such is just a choice. For the sake of the game and the vescica pisces I would add. nb
>>
Cedric Megglepen - Sat, 02 Nov 2019 11:13:56 EST D1p5VSa2 No.899728 Reply
>>899657
I think your knowledge of relativity is a bit lofty, you should revisit some educational material about it. Your unwillingness to discuss subjects at length beyond throwing around some buzzwords to "prove" you have knowledge of the subject seems more like a defense mechanism to avoid actually having your ideas challenged, being potentially proven wrong, and learning something new.

You seem to do this a lot, saying you aren't actually interested in having a discussion on these subjects, yet you respond when people ask you to elaborate with really half-baked ideas and some buzzwords and finish up by saying you don't want to discuss it any more. If you truly weren't interested in discussing things, you wouldn't have responded regarding any of this whatsoever.

>Physics doesn't account for things like the fact that you create this 100% from the present
What do you mean when you say this? I've seen you claim that when somebody experiences reality they are creating it before, so is that what you're trying to say? If so, plenty of people, including myself some time ago, have proven this is likely wrong and is fairly absurd to believe.
>>
Awe' !!Bwteoy2D - Sat, 02 Nov 2019 12:02:41 EST 2THwhI+z No.899729 Reply
>>899728
I mean that the past and the future as the ideas that they are to us are created from the now, everything is simultaneous.

Your second question I think is weird because I don't think I ever said that reality is created before, actually I don't understand what you are saying.

As for relativity I'm very curious to hear where you perceived my understanding to be incorrect. Because I want to learn, senpai.
>>
Cedric Megglepen - Sat, 02 Nov 2019 13:39:42 EST D1p5VSa2 No.899730 Reply
>>899729
>I mean that the past and the future as the ideas that they are to us are created from the now, everything is simultaneous.

Oh, never mind then.

>Your second question I think is weird because I don't think I ever said that reality is created before, actually I don't understand what you are saying.
There was a whole discussion once where you claimed the experience was what created reality, and a few others were making the argument than existence precedes essence, etc. Might've been GoAcid but I'm about positive it was you.

>As for relativity I'm very curious to hear where you perceived my understanding to be incorrect.
It was difficult to actually decipher what you were trying to say specifically in your post. For all I know your understanding is fine, I couldn't really tell. Honestly though your explanation was poor enough that it just seemed to imply you didn't really understand what you were talking about.

For instance:
>Well I think you mean the shortening of length and time in this dimension when you are traveling real fast
>Shortening of length
What does that even mean? Are you trying to say that spatial dimensions change in size because the warping of spacetime curvature or what?
>In this dimension when you are traveling real fast
What do you mean about shortening of length and time in this dimension when traveling real fast? In this dimension? It's like you're implying the base reality in itself we experience exists within a single dimension. As far as we are able to tell, we exist in three spatial dimensions with one time dimension. There is no "this dimension" in the manner you are using it. If you're speaking in these terms, it's not possible that you have an accurate understanding of relativity. The "shortening" of things is merely a relativistic effect. Either the passage of time constricts or dilates, and to an outside observer that is observing time ticking more quickly or slowly for that which is moving at sufficient enough speed (relative to the observer, from another perspective it is the observer moving that speed toward or away from what the observer is observing), that object will stretch or shrink accordingly.

Of course, the difference in relative velocity for said objects would have to be so great that observation of this stretching or shrinking wouldn't acually be possible, or at least it not practically speaking.

>Length and time are interchangeable
Again, your use of terminology here is very curious for somebody who actually "knows" what they're talking about. Are you trying to say that space and time are interchangeable? Strictly speaking, this statement isn't false, but it's rather misleading and opens itself up for a lot of misunderstandings. What I'm having difficulty with here is determining whether you're actually misunderstanding it or not, because you haven't demonstrated enough of what you know for that to be determined.

Really, thinking of space and time as interchangeable isn't a great way to look at things, because space and time aren't two separate things. Spacetime is one thing; the spatial part of it affects the behavior of matter in one way, and the time in another. They appear separate because of this, but that's where the nature of the mind and the inadequacy of language wind up screwing us over. These are just two aspects of the same thing, the same underlying structure that guides and informs the behavior of the energy/matter that exists within it.
>>
>>
Cedric Megglepen - Sat, 02 Nov 2019 13:43:45 EST D1p5VSa2 No.899731 Reply
Also, thinking of time or length, width, and height as stretching and shrinking in an absolute manner is a mistake. They do not actually stretch or shrink that way... the point is that they stretch or shrink (constrict or dilate) relative to a given set of observers. Each interpretation or observation from a given observer should be considered correct and is in fact correct. But, if observers can fundamentally disagree on what they observe, then the idea of anything absolute has to be cast aside. Everything is 100% relative.

Also, I fail to see what any of this has to do with answering my question about how each shift in frequency is a different dimension. How exactly does this answer relate to that?
>>
Awe' !!Bwteoy2D - Sat, 02 Nov 2019 14:22:30 EST 2THwhI+z No.899732 Reply
>>899730
>There was a whole discussion once where you claimed the experience was what created reality, and a few others were making the argument than existence precedes essence, etc. Might've been GoAcid but I'm about positive it was you.
Oh, ok, I misunderstood, it was prolly me, but I still don't know what exactly I was talking about or what you are referring to.
>What does that even mean?
It means that as an object is traveling real fast, it's spacial dimensions become from our perspective the time dimension (from our perspective) therefor from our perspective it's length along the dimension of travel is shortened from our perspective because it partially becomes a dimension of time from the POV of the fast object.
>Are you trying to say that spatial dimensions change in size because the warping of spacetime curvature or what?
No, I'm saying that they are interchangable and a spacial dimension can become a time dimension and vice versa, the direction is changed by acceleration and apparent difference of direction between objects is observed as a relative change of location and an associated speed relative to the objects.

I am not aware of objects streching or time speeding up as observed in a fast moving object relative to the observer.

I didn't say I understand theory of relativity through and through, I just said that there are people who do, so it's not like we are figuring out something here, rather just messing around with what we know and understand.

>thinking of space and time as interchangeable isn't a great way to look at things, because space and time aren't two separate things
hmmm, so if they were separate things it would be a great thing to look at them as interchangeable?

From what I can tell our personal understanding of what spacial and time dimensions are and how they relate differ greatly. So much so that we may not even have what to talk about.

As for shifts in frequency it has already been explained in posts way above.

Look man, I don't understand relativity or at least I'm not sure I understand it as the original idea of einstein, I just have a theory that makes sense to me based on theory of relativity, I've studied it too little to even be able to tell if those are exactly the same theories. For me time dimension and space dimentions are exactly the same, it's just that we are traveling many many plank lengths in time dimension all the time while in space relatively speaking we move so little, that's why time seems such a different dimension, but actually it's just another space dimension.
>>
Awe' !!Bwteoy2D - Sat, 02 Nov 2019 14:28:59 EST 2THwhI+z No.899733 Reply
>>899732
if your entire height dimension suddenly became time dimension in single moment for me you would look like a pancake, I hope that makes sense. And as I move the appropriate amount of plank lengths into the future I would layer by layer observe your entire body but that would last a very short while, because 1 s is equal to a whole lot of miles.
>>
Awe' !!Bwteoy2D - Sat, 02 Nov 2019 14:38:36 EST 2THwhI+z No.899734 Reply
>>899733
reading about it, it seems this is not the point of view of mainstream physics or einstein for that matter, but I don't have a better theory and I'm too lazy to sink my teeth into the theories of relativity ATM so I'm content with what makes sense to me. There is no other way I can explain the time dilation and length shortening from the observers point of view, wouldn't even know where to begin...

I'd rather watch some music videos ATM than read about relativity, but feel free to enlighten me or point out where my theory may have holes or where I am completely mistaken.
>>
Hedda Pugglesick - Sat, 02 Nov 2019 19:51:15 EST Ns7olT9R No.899735 Reply
>>899733
>if your entire height dimension suddenly became time dimension
Dude, dimensions don't just swap out, that's not how that works lmao. If my entire height dimension was suddenly switched out with the time dimension, then the matter moving up and down on the z axis would literally be traveling through time. To an outside observer, I'd be entirely flat. A whole picture of me could only be generated by time traveling and taking millions of snapshots and superimposing them onto one another.

This is why I said I didn't think you had a very good grasp on relativity, you really do need to review the subject. I'm not trying to be a dick, you're just clearly mistaken about the basic fundamental mechanics of the universe man.
>>
Mr_Shawmeen - Sat, 02 Nov 2019 20:54:38 EST g+skIZxa No.899736 Reply
>>899735
Now he's gonna tell you how high is IQ is. Then he'll continue to declare he's correct not even explaining why or incoherently doing so while refusing to cite any sources. Then he's gonna spew some new age pseudo-scientific ramblings and declare himself superior.
>>
Sidney Subblebury - Sat, 02 Nov 2019 21:51:53 EST Ns7olT9R No.899737 Reply
>>899736
Dude, go smoke some weed or something and chill out for a bit. Nobody on the internet should upset you this much. I mean, you're not wrong, but for your own sake, let it go already and move on
>>
Mr_Shawmeen - Sun, 03 Nov 2019 00:17:00 EST g+skIZxa No.899740 Reply
>>899737
I'm not upset by it I just relish that moment of "called it" even if is an easy one. I mean every time the dude pops up people generally react the same, but at the same time maybe he could be motivated to source some links and we could all really learn something. Identify the patter for someone then allow the opportunity to fix it and we're all better for it. In all seriousness no one on here has ever really upset me. Most of this board is just people asserting how they've experienced some sort of ego crushing experience and bragging about it not realizing the irony of such a thing. I think we could all learn something from those instances if we take the time to look at and really dissect it. To the point of the OP it's not dimensions so much as socioeconomic and intellectual tiers of individuals all running around exerting influence on one a other, but in places like this we have the opportunity to really look at these things and if but for a moment shatter the grand illusion. Because even if reality is a simulation it would still simply be set to run within its parameters to its own devices. Although reality probably isn't a simulation and it's not likely than anything beyond or above us would really give a shit.
>>
Awe' God !!Bwteoy2D - Sun, 03 Nov 2019 02:07:09 EST 2THwhI+z No.899744 Reply
>>899735
If instead of just saying I'm wrong you explained what would be the correct understanding along with it, the gods would love you for it and the people would praise you.
>>
Awe' God !!Bwteoy2D - Sun, 03 Nov 2019 02:09:08 EST 2THwhI+z No.899745 Reply
>>899740
Btw my iq is so high that it once broke the nasa computers when they tried to measure it.
>>
Sidney Subblebury - Sun, 03 Nov 2019 02:40:56 EST Ns7olT9R No.899746 Reply
>>899744
I already did. Read the entire bottom half of this post to get a super generalized, oversimplified explanation of relativity, and more specifically, the phenomenon of stretching and shrinking you brought up:
>>899729

Not my fault you didn't read it or that you didn't understand it or how it applies to what we're talking about... it's not a complex answer.
>>
Sidney Subblebury - Sun, 03 Nov 2019 02:49:58 EST Ns7olT9R No.899748 Reply
By the way, if you want information on relativity and quantum mechanics and whatnot delivered in an easy to digest and time-friendly package, check out the YouTube channel PBS Space Time.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7_gcs09iThXybpVgjHZ_7g

It does a good job of making the subjects it covers pretty accessible without watering things down or simplifying them to the point that what they're teaching is inaccurate or straight up false. It has several videos dedicated to the topic of Einstein's theories of relativity.
>>
awe !!Bwteoy2D - Sun, 03 Nov 2019 03:07:54 EST 2THwhI+z No.899749 Reply
>>899746
dimensions do swap out with acceleration and your post just reiterated what i have already said. Are you guys really all that surprised that i loose interest in these serious discussions real quick unless there is a fair amount of shitposting weaved into the fabric?
>>
>>
Sidney Subblebury - Sun, 03 Nov 2019 03:49:23 EST Ns7olT9R No.899751 Reply
>>899749
dimensions don't swap out with acceleration. the closest example of something like that i can think of, which you must be thinking of, is how time becomes space-like and space becomes time-like when you cross the event horizon of a black hole. that isn't the same thing as dimensions swapping out even in that case, and especially not just from acceleration.

the way to look at how spatial dimensions become time-like and time dimension becomes space-like is like this. when you cross an event horizon, there is only one direction matter can go: down, into the singularity. if you notice, we can only move one direction through time: forward. in that way, the spatial dimensions have become time-like, because any change in acceleration or "direction" always results in the matter moving further down into the singularity. the way time becomes space-like here is that matter can theoretically move through time forward or backward, but regardless which way it moves through time, that movement always results in the matter moving further down toward the singularity. when time and space "swap" here, it is meant in the sense that time essentially becomes "space" and space becomes "time", hence time becoming space-like and time becoming time-like.

it doesn't mean anything special, time literally just becomes like space, and space like time. you could effectively relabel both of them to match how we normally think of things outside of an event horizon if you wanted. the point is that if we pretended we could look outside from the perspective of anything inside the event horizon, it would appear as though our space became time-like, and time became space-like. it works both ways--it's all relative, go fucking figure.

again though, i cannot stress enough that the time dimension doesn't simply swap out with the spatial dimensions, it just takes on properties that reflect the spatial dimensions and vice versa.
>>
Awe' God !!Bwteoy2D - Sun, 03 Nov 2019 10:14:38 EST 8lJqs/u/ No.899754 Reply
>>899751
Ok, well if that's really the original theory that is believed by mainstream science and Einstein, I don't understand it and it doesn't make sense to me or at least much less sense than the theories that I have amalgamated from the things that we know. But Relativity and it's equations work really well, so I;m pretty sure that stuff is solid, maybe just the interpretations may be a little bit off, but I don't care about it enough to invest time now into fully figuring it out, If I live for years to come I'm pretty sure the info will just fall on my lap eventually.
>>
Awe' God !!Bwteoy2D - Sun, 03 Nov 2019 10:19:32 EST 8lJqs/u/ No.899755 Reply
>>899751
Not because of the things you said about black holes, It's complex enough as it is to fully grasp, I don't need black holes to bend it further. Whatever bro, as you can see I'm a lunatic who clings to his understanding with little regard to the outside information, but the thing is - scientists are ordinary people and ordinary people are full of confusion and sloppiness, it doesn't mean that the scientific paradigm and structure is flawed (the structure is built incrementally and carefully), but the nitty gritty is always going to reflect the people, the creators. I don't think you should waste your time taking me seriously.
>>
Awe' God !!Bwteoy2D - Sun, 03 Nov 2019 10:25:21 EST 8lJqs/u/ No.899756 Reply
>>899755
I'd delve right into science, but sometimes the gems of what scientific paradigm has been able to bring us lie so covered up by the trash and the noise of the people who channel it, that I simply have more exciting ways to spend my time. For now I'm glad that the equations work and there are people who grasp it well or at least well enough to be practical. When I need to engage warpdrive to andromeda, I'll make sure I understand this stuff well, for now even something like nutrition or how to find good music on the internet is way more significant and productive in my life.
>>
Awe' God !!Bwteoy2D - Sun, 03 Nov 2019 11:10:45 EST 8lJqs/u/ No.899758 Reply
>>899757
On the topic of dimensions bigfoot aka sasquatch is able to travel interdimensionally, hence the difficulty of capturing them.

Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.