Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
UM-Bot

Uri Geller: 11th dimension access

18 posts in this topic

Peter Fotis Kapnistos: Recent progress in science predicts there are more than three familiar dimensions of space that we know of. In order for modern quantum string theories to work out, there must exist up to eleven dimensions. But the extra dimensions may be enveloped or "wound up" in areas so small they are microscopic or beyond our detection.

arrow3.gifView: Full Article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh. Don't look into physics much, do you? Don't mind answering, that was a rhetorical question.

What do you mean by this, for instance?

Recent progress in science predicts there are more than three familiar dimensions of space that we know of.

You are, naturally (given that you write about the subject) aware that string theory was "born" in 1970, correct? And that the 11 dimensions (or M-theory) is some 16 years old or so? Not exactly recent in physics.

Say, how about this one?:

A dimension is an attribute of an object (or its space). We physically travel and navigate along the common dimensions of length, width and height.

While not exactly wrong, you never hear anybody with even a simple understanding of physics say something like that.

However, this one:

What might a fifth dimension be? Maybe heat or temperature. Every object in space has a temperature.

:blink:

Matter has thermal energy (or heat), the temperature is the measurement unit by which you quantify it. By all means or respect, but you have written an essay of fiction littered with fancy words and nothing to stitch them together except some weird references to 11/11/11 and mysticism (spirals).

Uhmmmmm......Good grief.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Edited by badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh. Don't look into physics much, do you? Don't mind answering, that was a rhetorical question.

Yeah well, it's the 'Bot and Uri Geller. Neither particularly stellar thinkers. One was a successful con artist, however.

By all means or respect, but you have written an essay of fiction littered with fancy words and nothing to stitch them together except some weird references to 11/11/11 and mysticism (spirals).

It's an article featuring Uri Gellar.

Hell, it's a article featuring a acclaimed "psychic." The main method is throwing scientific techno-babble into it as much as possible.

S'why anytime I hear someone exclaim the evils of electromagnetism I have to figure if it's a Poe or not.

Edited by ShadowSot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah well, it's the 'Bot and Uri Geller. Neither particularly stellar thinkers. One was a successful con artist, however.

Very true indeed - on all accounts.

It's an article featuring Uri Gellar.

Hell, it's a article featuring a acclaimed "psychic." The main method is throwing scientific techno-babble into it as much as possible.

Indeed. Seems to be the MO of said author (and quite a few others). It just makes me sad when people can jumble physics up like that; if you have to make something in writing, at least try and get it straight, only then are you in my book allowed to make leaps of faith :P When you start out by being completely wrong, you are not making a leap of faith, you are throwing yourself over a cliff.

But sadly, I am sure some will gobble it up.

S'why anytime I hear someone exclaim the evils of electromagnetism I have to figure if it's a Poe or not.

:lol:

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But sadly, I am sure some will gobble it up.

Yup, imagine how many people would refuse to invest in something that was a quantum leap over it's competitors, if they understood the terminology.

Personally, it's ruined how I watch Star Trek, but hey, stuff gets blown up during the episode, I'm satisfied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, imagine how many people would refuse to invest in something that was a quantum leap over it's competitors, if they understood the terminology.

Personally, it's ruined how I watch Star Trek, but hey, stuff gets blown up during the episode, I'm satisfied.

Hahaha, anything with stuff in it that gets blown up works for me :P

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting question the articles raising. Does it discredit spring theory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting question the articles raising. Does it discredit spring theory?

Not at all. The author simply knows too little about physics to write anything coherent about said subject, let alone discredit anything but himself (which he does pretty thoroughly).

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all. The author simply knows too little about physics to write anything coherent about said subject, let alone discredit anything but himself (which he does pretty thoroughly).

Cheers,

Badeskov

I have to disagree with you. The only raise in the article is very basic, what is dimension? The dimensions that we know of height, width, length, and time all can be measure with am instrument of some kind. If there are dimensions then you do measure them. Hwo do you show 11 dimensions in a three dimensions world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to disagree with you. The only raise in the article is very basic, what is dimension? The dimensions that we know of height, width, length, and time all can be measure with am instrument of some kind. If there are dimensions then you do measure them.

Indeed so, I have no problem with that so how do you disagree? I basically stated that while not wrong, the nomenclature used is one that anybody well versed in physics would never use. But that is really not the worst part. He doesn't even know the difference between heat and temperature (which is so basic that it hurts my eyes to read), which tells me that the author of this essay has no place to write it in the first place, as it is simply a bunch of fancy words pretty much jumbled by by poor knowledge of the subject at hand.

Hwo do you show 11 dimensions in a three dimensions world.

You can't. That is pretty much well known. No mystery there, but where does 11/11/11 and Uri Geller fit into this equation? They don't. If you want to raise the question on what constitutes dimension, then he should do so, but that is not what he does. He stitches up a patchwork of pseudoscience and mysticism. That is all that he does. And it has no scientific merit whatsoever. Despite his feeble attempts of putting in some science, which he clearly does not understand in the first place.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed so, I have no problem with that so how do you disagree? I basically stated that while not wrong, the nomenclature used is one that anybody well versed in physics would never use. But that is really not the worst part. He doesn't even know the difference between heat and temperature (which is so basic that it hurts my eyes to read), which tells me that the author of this essay has no place to write it in the first place, as it is simply a bunch of fancy words pretty much jumbled by by poor knowledge of the subject at hand.

You can't. That is pretty much well known. No mystery there, but where does 11/11/11 and Uri Geller fit into this equation? They don't. If you want to raise the question on what constitutes dimension, then he should do so, but that is not what he does. He stitches up a patchwork of pseudoscience and mysticism. That is all that he does. And it has no scientific merit whatsoever. Despite his feeble attempts of putting in some science, which he clearly does not understand in the first place.

Cheers,

Badeskov

You have clearly misunderstood his article. We know what the four dimensions are: length, width, height, and time but the article is asking what the other dimensions are? When he was writing about the fifth dimension, he was speculating that it was maybe heat or temperature. It does not make sense but neither does 11 dimensions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have clearly misunderstood his article.

I wouldn't say that I have misunderstood. I would say that it is beyond comprehension, but maybe you can enlighten given that you must have understood it given that you can state the above.

We know what the four dimensions are: length, width, height, and time

Yes, I get that. Except that that terminology is not one that anybody with even a mediocre knowledge of physics would use, but let that be for now.

but the article is asking what the other dimensions are?

I get that too. No biggie there.

When he was writing about the fifth dimension, he was speculating that it was maybe heat or temperature.

And this is where it completely goes wrong for the poor fellow. To use his terminology, is the first dimension length or meters? The bolded part is that ignorant of physics. It demonstrates a clear and blatantly lack of understanding of even basic physics.

It does not make sense but neither does 11 dimensions.

No, heat or temperature doesn't make sense - at all. However, 11 dimensions do if you actually understood the math and physics behind it. Whether correct is a completely different question.

So now, please do explain to me why 11/11/11 has anything with this to do and what Uri Geller is doing in this ridiculous mix. Because I sure don't see any connection but a feeble attempt of trying to tie mysticism into the mix and drum up sensationalism (as usual, I daresay).

I am all ears.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say that I have misunderstood. I would say that it is beyond comprehension, but maybe you can enlighten given that you must have understood it given that you can state the above.

Yes, I get that. Except that that terminology is not one that anybody with even a mediocre knowledge of physics would use, but let that be for now.

I get that too. No biggie there.

And this is where it completely goes wrong for the poor fellow. To use his terminology, is the first dimension length or meters? The bolded part is that ignorant of physics. It demonstrates a clear and blatantly lack of understanding of even basic physics.

No, heat or temperature doesn't make sense - at all. However, 11 dimensions do if you actually understood the math and physics behind it. Whether correct is a completely different question.

So now, please do explain to me why 11/11/11 has anything with this to do and what Uri Geller is doing in this ridiculous mix. Because I sure don't see any connection but a feeble attempt of trying to tie mysticism into the mix and drum up sensationalism (as usual, I daresay).

I am all ears.

Cheers,

Badeskov

I do not know wo Uri Gellar an I did not think we was important to the article. I do not know where 11/11/11 came from. I am going to assume it is from Uri Gellar. He only use his name in the title.

How can you believe something exist if you cannot define it. There is no definition for the 11 dimensions. No way of definiting them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not know wo Uri Gellar an I did not think we was important to the article. I do not know where 11/11/11 came from. I am going to assume it is from Uri Gellar. He only use his name in the title.

By all means of respect, but if you don't even know ho Uri Geller is and where the 11/11/11 date came from, how can you with any authority tell me that I misunderstood his article, when you don't even understand the main parts of it?

How can you believe something exist if you cannot define it. There is no definition for the 11 dimensions. No way of definiting them.

It is not a question of believing. We want to know, but we don't yet. However, the 11 dimension theory is one that actually fits our observable Universe pretty well. Is it correct? Nobody knows, but we can see that we can derive physical constants from that theory that no other theory can so far.

And it is ridiculous to state that we cannot believe something because we can't define it. First of all, again, we don't want to believe, we want to know to the best of our abilities. Secondly, just because we cannot put 11 dimensions into an explanatory visualization doesn't that we haven't defined them. We have - mathematically. Just like gravity, a 1000 years ago nobody had defined gravity, but it still was there.

The whole article is a sad picture of bungled up physics and mysticism stitched together in something that can at best be called abstract art.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By all means of respect, but if you don't even know ho Uri Geller is and where the 11/11/11 date came from, how can you with any authority tell me that I misunderstood his article, when you don't even understand the main parts of it?

It is not a question of believing. We want to know, but we don't yet. However, the 11 dimension theory is one that actually fits our observable Universe pretty well. Is it correct? Nobody knows, but we can see that we can derive physical constants from that theory that no other theory can so far.

And it is ridiculous to state that we cannot believe something because we can't define it. First of all, again, we don't want to believe, we want to know to the best of our abilities. Secondly, just because we cannot put 11 dimensions into an explanatory visualization doesn't that we haven't defined them. We have - mathematically. Just like gravity, a 1000 years ago nobody had defined gravity, but it still was there.

The whole article is a sad picture of bungled up physics and mysticism stitched together in something that can at best be called abstract art.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Why do I need to read the whole article? The first few paragraph were what was important. He is trying to understand what the 11 dimensions are. He suggest that it is heat. He is probably wrong but who can say he is wrong. We feel the effect of gravity that how we know it exist. You cannot do use the same idea to understand the 11 dimensions. You are believing something that you cannot feel, touch or any of the other senses. So how do you know they existence? All we have is mathematic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do I need to read the whole article?

By all means of respect, but how do you feel you can judge my comments if you haven't even read the full article? How can you make any qualified comments when you clearly do not understand what he is trying to convey?

The first few paragraph were what was important.

And you know this how? He asks the question what the 11 dimensions are, uses bungled up physics and then goes on to tie in mysticism. Please do elaborate on how anything in his article is important in any way.

He is trying to understand what the 11 dimensions are. He suggest that it is heat. He is probably wrong but who can say he is wrong.

Yes, he is wrong. Not only can he not describe even basic physics (bungling up heat and temperature), but heat can by the mathematical requirements to the dimensions not be a dimension.

We feel the effect of gravity that how we know it exist.

Yet, it was not defined a 1000 years ago. We don't even have a grasp of gravity today. We have theories to predict the effects of gravity, but that is about it. Same with the 11 dimensions. The M-theory explains things that other theories don't. Exactly the same thing.

You cannot do use the same idea to understand the 11 dimensions.

Yes, I can.

You are believing something that you cannot feel, touch or any of the other senses. So how do you know they existence? All we have is mathematic.

The same with Gravity. We have a mathematical theory describing gravity. It works. There is M-theory using 11 dimensions that describes other observable facts. It works.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Edited by badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By all means of respect, but how do you feel you can judge my comments if you haven't even read the full article? How can you make any qualified comments when you clearly do not understand what he is trying to convey?

And you know this how? He asks the question what the 11 dimensions are, uses bungled up physics and then goes on to tie in mysticism. Please do elaborate on how anything in his article is important in any way.

Yes, he is wrong. Not only can he not describe even basic physics (bungling up heat and temperature), but heat can by the mathematical requirements to the dimensions not be a dimension.

Yet, it was not defined a 1000 years ago. We don't even have a grasp of gravity today. We have theories to predict the effects of gravity, but that is about it. Same with the 11 dimensions. The M-theory explains things that other theories don't. Exactly the same thing.

Yes, I can.

The same with Gravity. We have a mathematical theory describing gravity. It works. There is M-theory using 11 dimensions that describes other observable facts. It works.

Cheers,

Badeskov

The first few paragraph tell you what he was trying to say. They were point of his article. All the stuff about heat and temperature were not important. They were example. The point is no one understand what the 11th dimension are. Only someone who understand mathematic which very few people do at that level.

Are you telling me you understand what the 11th dimension are? That you can observe them? This you will to show me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Secret Life Of Uri Geller (2013)

1 hour Documentary

Synopsis

Uri Geller, the world-renowned mentalist, paranormal expert and spoon bender, has had a life in front of the cameras, a life surrounded by controversy, a life dotted with amazing psychic demonstrations. But most people didn’t know that, away from the bent cutlery and broken watches, he had been leading a second, covert, life as a ‘psychic spy’, working secretly, and without recognition for nearly thirty years. This ‘secret life’ has included work for the military and intelligence agencies on three continents – indeed, the scientists who first did rigorous research on Geller more than forty years ago (and concluded that he has a phenomenal gift) were funded by the CIA!

Now, for the first time, this incredible story is going to be explored in a new television documentary, with unique and compelling interviews from Uri himself as well as those who knew and worked closely with him.

Team Credits

Director: Vikram Jayanti Producer: Vikram Jayanti, Bruce Burgess

Executive Producer: André Singer

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.