Counting Music in Circles

Why is Strawberry Fields Forever tuned some place between A and Bb? The story is fairly well-known that John had recorded a slightly slower take in A, and a slightly faster take in Bb. By changing the playback speed of the two clips just a bit (slowing the faster recording and speeding up the slower recording), they ended up being able to use sections from both takes in the final version of the song... in the key of neither A nor Bb, but some place in between.

Was John sensing some connection between the tempo of the song and the root note? Could it be that John already knew how to count music in circles?

In my video The Beatles and the Big Wave I talked about how some songs seem to have everything - from the tempo, to the feel, perhaps even to the key the song is in - all feel perfectly aligned, with the musicians melding together as one. For the times I've personally been lucky enough to play in an ensemble where we all locked together in a Big Wave, there is something a bit mystical, or even something spiritual about that feeling. In Magical Mystery Tour, we saw the Beatles dressed up as wizards in a circle, who Come Together as one to work their magic. If there is only one wave function for the universe, then this coming together is not an illusion but a recognition of an eternal truth - and Schrodinger's lifelong fascination with the connections between the quantum world he was helping to discover and the ancient mystical realm of the Vedanta and the Upanishads makes good sense. It's also why emotions like joy and fear and love move through us all like waves: after all, Schrodinger insisted that "all is waves".

The idea of using our hands to count music in circles occurred to me last month, and I've shown a part of this idea in a few of my most recent YouTube videos. So far I've not been able to find this concept promoted elsewhere, but it certainly seems simple enough: perhaps this is another example of Plato's "anamnesis" - knowledge we are all born knowing, forget as children, then educate ourselves to remember. Please comment if you know where this counting technique has been promoted before.

Most of us, if we're counting along with 4/4 time on our fingers, will hit beat one with our thumb, beat two with our pointer finger, and so on, repeating the pattern with each bar. Next time you're listening to a song, try counting each alternate bar starting with the pinky. This then moves the second beat to your ring finger, so the cycle then repeats starting with the thumb again.

If you do this with both hands starting on the thumb, you end up with a pattern that moves outward in the first four, and inward on the second four. For me, this already starts to make me more aware of the longer structures in the music. It also allows me to visualize that I am describing a circle, where the first four beats move along the top of the circle, and the second four move back to the start along the bottom of the circle. 

 "All is waves", with virtually everything in the universe observing Maxwell's infinitely scalable field equations. Isn't it interesting that all you need to make a wave is a rotating circle? In my video "The Wave and the Circumpunct" I mentioned this idea - the Circumpunct, or "circled dot" has been used through the ages to represent the universe, God, enlightenment, and much more. In my mind this means it could also represent what Max Tegmark called the Ultimate Ensemble, or Gevin Giorbran called the Omniverse, or I've described as the Tenth Dimension in its unobserved state. Thinking of the enfolded whole as a single thing has its uses, but as I've often remarked, it's also a little boring. Add some rotation, and things get much more interesting.

A rotating point on the circumference of a circle creates a sine wave (and the cosine wave, at 90 degrees to what we're seeing here). Faster rotations create higher frequencies, while bigger circles create waves with greater amplitude. In a number of my videos I have superimposed this animation on to the bottom third of my project's rotating helix animation, because this animation could be thought to be representing how rotations in the x, y, and z axis combine to create the 3D world we see around us. And the principle of the Fourier transform tells us that no matter how complex a wave may be, it can be broken down into component parts of sine waves of different amplitude and frequency. Like the sine and cosine, electricity and magnetism are also at right angles to each other, creating the 4D world of spacetime that we are observing. But we still need to add an additional dimension to that to get to Everett's Many Worlds.

In some of my videos I've talked about "the universe as a song": if "all is waves", then the universe we are observing in spacetime is like a recording. The recording is always there, ready to be played, and "before" and "after" the song is really the same thing: Kip Thorne calls it "The Bulk". The Bulk is the "everything else" that our universe is not. In my blog entry "Time in Either Direction" I quoted physicist Sean Carroll writing for Scientific American, in which he said this: "The universe began empty and will end up empty--the appearance of stars and galaxies is a temporary deviation from its usual equilibrium conditions". Thinking of the universe from its beginning to its end as the turning of a wheel through one single revolution, with the start and end at the same position, is a fanciful way of holding this idea in our minds.

Later in the article he adds this: "According to the rules of quantum mechanics, the total number of microstates in a system never changes." The quantum wave function, defined at the fifth dimension using 3D space, 4D time and 5D imaginary time in its calculation, describes these potential microstates. The 4D "world tube" (as Kip Thorne refers to it) of the universe we are observing, represents from its beginning to its end one unique subset of all those possible microstates.  

In the same way, any song represents a unique subset of all the possible ways that waves can be combined to create music. And if we think of a single piece of music as the turning of a big wheel through a single revolution, we end up with the same idea: "before" and "after" the song is a return to the same state, an underlying symmetry where this particular song is not playing. 

From there, we can break our song into its component sections as smaller wheels rotating around the circumference of the big wheel. And each of those can be broken down into even smaller wheels representing phrases, breaths, beats, subdivisions to the beat, vibrato speed, and so on. I have proposed that in some cases we can continue this fractal subdivision even to the root frequency of the song. 

This principal of subdivision down to a root frequency is an extension of a trick I was taught long ago. It's much easier to play at an even tempo if you are mentally subdividing the beat: if you are playing quarter notes at a walking tempo, then just counting 1, 2, 3, 4 is okay, but feeling the pulse of the eighth notes between each of those quarters will tighten up your timing: 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and. Counting the sixteenths will tend to make your timing even tighter: 1-e-and-a-2-e-and-a-3-e-and-a-4-e-and-a. If everybody is locked together, then a player can mentally subdivide the beat to whatever resolution feels comfortable to them, and often it is the nuances that are introduced by notes that adhere to these much finer resolutions that give a piece of music its unique qualities, its cultural identity, its style. Feeling the faster subdivisions as a "buzz" rather than individual events is where we start to make the transition to pitch from rhythm.

In the 1980s I composed some music in "ten tone equal temperament", or 10-TET (yes, my fascination with "ten" goes back a long way). Some of those pieces also divided the bars into ten beats, and one of my favourites had a lopsided swing feel created by a repeating 3-followed-by-2 pattern. Certainly, there's no reason for us to lock ourselves into 4/4 time and "1-e-and-a-2-e-and-a" as we explore the idea of counting music in circles! Triplets, different swing feels, polyrhythms, and so on are just different ways of dividing up the circumference of a circle, or laying one circle upon another.

I've seen Ringo Starr remark that "Come Together" is his favourite Beatles song. I have an intuitive feeling that this is a song where the key, the tempo, and the groove are all perfectly aligned. Next time you hear that recording, try counting along with it using this two- handed circular counting technique: see if it helps you to feel how Ringo, and everyone else in the band, might have been counting their music in circles.

Enjoy the journey!

Rob

What Did Equal Temperament Make Us Lose?

A direct link to this video is at https://youtu.be/kaz8rXXP6uI

At the end of this video I play a "perfect fifth" on my Kawai electric piano, which is tuned in 12-tone equal temperament. In music theory, we are taught to think of this perfect fifth interval as being at rest, or "highly consonant". 

In 1772 Bach released volume one of The Well-Tempered Clavier, a collection of 24 pieces in all 12 major and minor keys that celebrated the tonal freedom afforded by equal-tempered tuning. "12-tone equal temperament" became widely accepted in Western society's music in the 18th century, and continues to be what you'll hear almost all of the time when you listen to music to this day.

Dividing the octave into 12 equal subdivisions, where the frequency of each ascending semitone is the same multiple as the previous, gives us music that can do amazing things - Jacob Collier comes to mind as someone who has taken those 12 notes and built mind-blowing harmonies in piece after piece. But Jacob is also relevant to this discussion because he has composed pieces in other tuning systems. Here's a very quick video of Jacob explaining the tonal compromise that equal temperament requires us to accept.

A direct links to this video is at  https://youtu.be/XwRSS7jeo5s 

Prior to the 18th century, "just intonation" was more commonly used, which would put the individual notes more in tune with the naturally occurring harmonic series for a sweeter, more calming sound. The disadvantage, of course, is that modulating to other keys can make for some very nasty sounding chords, and this is the main reason equal temperament was embraced instead. 

In my video above, you'll see me playing some Koshi Chimes,  which are tuned in just intonation. Each of the four chimes you see here have a different character, but all have this more peaceful quality that just intonation brings to music. What I found interesting is to immerse myself in the Koshi Chimes tuning for a while, then go back to the piano and play a perfect fifth. Suddenly it didn't sound so perfect! Watch the video and see if you experience the same thing when I go back to the piano at the end.

If Jacob Collier is new to you, I strongly suggest you visit his YouTube channel. I am so glad I live in one of the Many Worlds where Jacob exists!  

https://www.youtube.com/user/jacobcolliermusic

Enjoy the journey,

Rob Bryanton

Instagram 121-130

121. Sometimes there aren't very fine people on both sides.

122. These cusps, these bifurcations from the noise within the chaos, are points within a five-dimensional probability space defined by the 4D causal chains bending and twisting in the fluid transitions of a rotating tesseract, with virtually everything in the universe obeying Maxwell's infinitely scalable field equations. Slice it up at the Planck length and you see the sacred geometries of spacetime creating the beautiful world we see around us, a single universe with a unique vibration defined by Everett's Universal wavefunction, which we are all observing. Which future are we going to choose?

123. Think of reality as sliced out of 3D Planck frames. Think of consciousness as sliced out of our fifth-dimensional probability space. Out of all the possible 4D paths we could have taken, this is the one we chose. This one, single solution to Everett's Universal Wavefunction, creating this one single universe we are all observing.

124. Some food for thought. Background image from my Tesseract video posted earlier this year: https://youtu.be/zjhW7GzcN3c

125. Onward and upward, with each iteration even more unlikely than the one before, ascending to the pole of our tenth-dimensional sphere of indeterminate size. #westartwithapoint

126. Here's a brilliant visualization of the rotating forces that ripple across spacetime to create the natural world. https://youtu.be/20g74GOaqZ4

 127. Another Max Planck quote: “When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change.” #westartwithapoint

 

128. Free energy from the sky, worthy of our praise and wonder through the ages with a long line of heliocentric deities. Since we are all observing the same universal wavefunction, the sun figures more prominently in our daily lives than we realize, what with the ebb and flow of its jackhammer din. #westartwithapoint

 

129. It's good to have a plan.

130. Falling within the fifth dimension in the Poincare dodecahedral space to create what Kip Thorne calls a world tube and I called a long undulating snake. Makes sense to me.

 

Seth Abramson on Imagining the Tenth Dimension

https://sethabramson.substack.com/p/the-best-videos-on-the-internet-vol

Seth Abramson is a well-known professor, attorney, author, and political columnist. He is currently an assistant professor of Communication Arts and Sciences at the University of New Hampshire and an affiliate faculty member at the New Hampshire Institute of Art. His teaching areas include digital journalism, post-internet cultural theory, post-internet writing, and legal advocacy. His "Proof" substack offers lots of interesting essays, but the one I wanted to tell you about is a recently published article he called The Best Videos on the Internet Volume One. And what was his number one pick? I'm pleased to report it's my Imagining the Tenth Dimension video!

 

Here's what he says about the video: 

This video will change your life - if you let it, and if you can get through all the dimensions of reality detailed below with some semblance of your sanity intact. I've played this video for undergraduate students for many years, in part as a way of explaining post-internet cultural theory, and most poop out at the seventh dimension. If you can fight your way past that point, you'll be well rewarded.

Fantastic! Thanks for you support, Seth, it's very much appreciated. I did write back in the comments, here's what I wrote:

Hi Seth, Rob Bryanton here, thank you for including my Imagining the Tenth Dimension video in this list! I'm honoured. Why, some may ask, is my 2006 video in two parts? Because back in the early days of YouTube 11 minutes was the maximum duration for accounts like mine. By 2008 they raised that limit, so I posted another version which runs uninterrupted, here it is: https://youtu.be/XjsgoXvnStY

Yes, there are a number of copies of copies of my video out there that have removed my name, copyright info, and the explanatory text at the end... including a Korean channel, their copy is currently at 6 million views! But there are also critics who say everything about this video past the third dimension is wrong, so let me try to clear up some confusion.

First of all, as I write at the end of the video, this is not the explanation for string theory, although it has some connections, including the idea that our reality is constrained by "branes" at the third and seventh dimension. It has more direct connections to Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, and if you read Nobel laureate Kip Thorne's 2014 book The Science of Interstellar you'll see a very similar explanation of the first five dimensions. Thorne says a theoretical observer elevated to a five dimensional vantage point would see the many branching timelines of Everett's Many Worlds bending and stretching in the warped 4D geometries of the tesseract. Thorne goes on to say that it's fine to lump all of the dimensions beyond the fifth together and call them "The Bulk". The Bulk is the rest of the information that becomes reality that is not directly connected to our observed universe. Likewise, with my approach the first five dimensions show where our observed reality comes from, while with each dimension beyond the fifth with my approach we move further and further "outside" of the unique universe we are currently observing.

Finally, I've always tried to make it clear with my videos and blog that I'm not a physicist and I'm not pretending to be one. I'm a composer and sound designer (currently I'm mixing a film starring Scott Eastwood and Mel Gibson). The logic my video uses to imagine these dimensions relates nicely to the point-line-plane postulate, which is the accepted methodology for visualizing any number of spatial dimensions. That's the key - this video requires us to accept that all of the dimensions, including the fourth, are spatial, and it's our unique perspective as creatures embedded in the third dimension that makes it appear that the dimensions beyond the third are not as spatial (or "space-like" as some physicists prefer to say).

Ultimately, I try to frame this video as a "mind-expanding exercise". I hear all the time from people who feel this video has been a positive influence on their lives, and from people who see connections between this approach and ancient mysticism, sacred geometry, psychedelics, and much more. In his book The New Science of Psychedelics, author/scientist David Jay Brown wrote these amazing words: "Physicist Michio Kaku's book Hyperspace: A Scientific Odyssey through Parallel Universes, Time Warps, and the Tenth Dimension and Rob Bryanton's Imagining the Tenth Dimension both seem to provide uncanny maps of the territory that one encounters after smoking salvia or DMT. Like the two-dimensional character in Edwin Abbott's book Flatland, we seem just as limited in our three-dimensional perspective."

 

Enjoy the journey,

Rob

 

 

Instagram 111-120

111. Everything fits together in the fifth dimension, at right angles to spacetime. #westartwithapoint

112. I'm fascinated to think it was only a few centuries ago that many believed magnets had souls. You can recognize Wheeler's self-excited circuit driving Maxwell's infinitely scalable waves along in the vortex polarities of a magnet, or withing a creature's indomitable spirit.

113. What you are experiencing right now is what is always happening. The universe is always observing itself within a finite but unbounded five-dimensional hypersphere.

114. What you are experiencing now is Wheeler's self-excited circuit, the one-Planck-frame-after-another engine that is the universe observing itself, from its potential beginnings to its potential endings, and all the potential iterations between. And because there is not a separate quantum wavefunction for each particle, there is only the one Universesal Wavefunction. We are all connected in ways we can only begin to imagine.

115. The universe behaves differently when you observe it.

116. How many dimensions are there? If you only look at time and imaginary time, everything happens within two dimensions!

117. There are bad people with bad intentions in the world. How do we solve this problem? I have always believed it would be by giving everybody a voice. Then we will see each other in our shared connections, through our Universal Wavefunction calculated in imaginary time.

 

118.  We are all one thing, biologically speaking. And we are each observing the current solution to Everett's Universal Wavefunction, one out of the many worlds within our 5D probability space. 

That's where you beat a virus.

 

119. Thank you for your support! 

 

 

120. Happy Halloween! Scary enough for ya?

Instagram 101-110

101. When Richard Dawkins described the genes connecting us back through time to the beginning of life as a "river out of Eden", he was showing us the same timeless perspective that Einstein embraced. Superimposing the Kabbalistic Tree of Life on the human body shows how our energy starts for our physical presence at the base of the spine. Back in 1986 I wrote a song about feeling that energy, this is the opening verse: "I could feel it starting at the base of my spine, Made me sit up straight made me feel real fine, Sure opened those squinty little eyes of mine, For the very first time".

102. One of my more popular YouTube videos about Everett's Many Worlds is called "We're Already Dead (But That's Okay)". I've quoted my friend Garth on this idea before as well, his words on the subject are "I am always in the version of me that is taking the longest to die."

103. Here's my contribution towards looking for some fun when times and glum: I and four good friends ever since high school are singing a song I wrote in 1974 called "Moose Jaw Woman".  https://youtu.be/Uvk5LKNzC4w
It's a love song for a fictitious woman from the not fictitious city of Moose Jaw, just a 45 minute drive up the highway. I hope you enjoy our social distancing recording, sent out with love to you all.

104. Terence McKenna described periods of increasing novelty before abrupt change. Ain't that the truth! The change is upon us.

105. My new video "Tesseract" is up on YouTube now. Thanks to @fhazalmusic for the fantastic music you'll hear in this video: the song is called "Tesseract (feat. 10thdim)" because it starts off by mutating a sample of my voice from my video "Imagining the Fourth Dimension".
Tesseract 1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjhW7GzcN3c
Tesseract 2 - more explanatory text: https://youtu.be/-EdBNPCWHIk
Instagram (vertical mode) version: https://www.instagram.com/tv/CBgCVhZl57q/

106. The seed of life and the helix show us Maxwell's infinitely scalable field equations expressed across our reality. The helix is just as big as it needs to be because of that geometry, and is often engaged with the Fibonacci spirals of nature and life.

107. When people say reality is a "hologram projected from the edge of spacetime" they are talking about the fifth dimension. Similarly, for our imaginary 2D Flatlanders, no matter where they go within their 2D plane, the third dimension would always be at the "edge" of their reality.

108. My new video on YouTube is a remix of the first song in the 26-song collection attached to my first book. I'm calling the remix "Everything Fits Together 2020".
Here it is on YouTube in horizontal mode: https://youtu.be/htGhyQqmrGg
And here it is on Instagram in vertical mode: https://www.instagram.com/tv/CB9HBE5pa6Z/
When you watch this video: you'll see that it's a visual meditation on spheres within hyperspheres within hyperspheres. Because it is equal parts circles coming towards you and circles moving away, see if you get a feeling of balance when you watch these visuals.

 

109. My new book is now available in Paperback and as a Kindle download from Amazon.com. 
https://www.amazon.com/Start-Point-but-whats-point/dp/B08C8R9QBT/
This is the link for the American store, if you're in a different country you'll probably have to go to the nearest version of Amazon for your location - here in Canada, for instance, you can order the paperback version from Amazon.ca.

110. Everything Fits Together 2020 is my latest video on YouTube. It is primarily constructed from concentric circles, roughly half of which are always expanding, while half are condensing to a point. So rather than being something that give you weird visual after effects, I find it makes me more peaceful and focused. Try it out! https://youtu.be/htGhyQqmrGg

Komandor Cliff

Who will you be with when you die? The two of you will know for sure what's on the other side. The universe continues, even when you don't, and there are no holes in Omega.

Since its launch in 2006, I've always presented this project as a mind-expanding exercise, an exploration of possibilities connected to science, spirituality, Eastern mysticism, consciousness, altered states, and so on. I had something that helps open people up to orthogonal thinking, an important part of the creative process. Allowing people to visualize ten dimensions using the three-steps-at-a-time process inherent in the point-line-plane postulate (the accepted methodology for visualizing any number of spatial dimensions) is the goal. And I hear regularly from people who have become scientists and teachers who thank me for awakening their intellectual curiosity when they were younger. It's good training for the brain to think orthogonally.
.
Still, I do occasionally come across people who feel that my "new way of thinking about time and space" is being presented as "this is a scientific theory" rather than "this is a mind-expanding exercise". Back in 2006 all I could say was "this is not the explanation for string theory, but it does have interesting connections to many other schools of thought". You can lay these ten dimensions on Kaballah or Sacred Geometry or the psychedelic experience or Maxwell's infinitely scalable field equations, it all makes sense within those different frames of reference because it's all spatial dimensions, that's my declared starting point (insert the usual arrow sound effect here). This project did get a credibility boost in 2014 when my approach to visualizing the fourth and fifth dimension was the one shown in Nolan's Interstellar, since that film had Nobel laureate Kip Thorne as science advisor. Thorne's proposal that the rest of the dimensions can be lumped together into an "everything" which he calls The Bulk also can be aligned with my approach, as I've talked about in other blogs and videos. Still, like I've said many times, I am not a physicist and I'm not pretending to be one. This project is a creative exploration of ideas, and I'm grateful for the millions of people who have enjoyed this journey of discovery.

Which brings me to Komandor Cliff, and a conversation I had with him on YouTube over the last few days. A friendly warning, there is a lot of foul language in the following, if you are uncomfortable with that then you should consider yourself warned before you continue reading. But he represents a voice that needs to be heard and I thank him for his input. I  will continue to follow Thorne's imagery since it aligns with my own. Thank you Komandor.

This video is quite literally a load of bullshit past the third dimension and is nothing more than somebody's dumb headcanon of how dimensions work

1. you don't mix time and spatial dimensions as those are different things

2. universes aren't a dimension!

3. that's not what multiple dimensions of time actually do: two dimensions of time means time isn't a line but a plane but that doesn't mean its a plane stacked with isolated timelines, you would not have timelines anymore, you'd have a timeplane, you would have normal time and sideways time, you would measure time as a coordinate like x4+y6 seconds to an event, accelerations and motion would use 2 time variables, and assuming arrow of time would still be a thing it would now be a gradient of time and you could move in time either forward or diagonally, but not exactly sideways

casual relationships would get weird and a cause would create a forward ripple or spread of effects instead of a single effect, and moving more to the left or the right would represent a slightly different state of things, but unlike different timelines things would come and go based on the time direction you throw them in and would exist as a small continuum along sideways time instead of as individual objects, imagine a ball about to hit another ball thrown forward in space, but it was thrown a little sideways in time so it wont affect the ball exactly forward in time but a little to the left in time and so it will hit the leftmost timeside of the ball and push those parts of ball continuum forward, transferring less energy the farther from its leftmost side the continuum of the ball is until the ball directly forward in time doesn't visibly move, essentially hitting the ball continuum forward and rotating it a bit like a ball would a stick

people would have two dimensional memories that could be arranged on a plane of 'happened in the past' + 'happened sideways', kids would learn to remember left and right in space and different left and right in time, a default zeroth sideways time axis would need to be agreed upon just like the prime meridian, clocks would be more like compasses but for time directions not just simple counters, and people upon repeated differing interactions from other people and events on their leftmost and rightmost time sides would find them further and further apart in causality that at some point they would diverge and split into two functionally different people, and people would argue 'where is the point we are different continuums?' for ages and someone will create a 'clock of theseus' problem that asks if we are still the same continuum after so many splits and interactions throughout the duration and span of our lives while carl sagan the XII+VI will say we are all made of the star stuff continuum anyway, and that every square of time deserves to be loved, all the while people will argue being married on both sides of time to different people is fine but christian nutjobs will say its evil and quote their ancient+ancient book on it

basically its similar to a 4th spatial dimension if you manage to finally understand it (and understanding 4th helps a lot with imagining the time dimensions as its a good reference), that is to say its quite mundane and not so different but at the same time makes everything WAY more complex and unintuitive which makes it hard to imagine

Please read Nobel laureate Kip Thorne’s 2014 book The Science of Interstellar. He shows the same interpretation of the fourth and fifth dimension as I’ve been explaining with this project since it started in 2006. He says that an observer in the fifth dimension would see the different 4D world lines (he refers to them as “world tubes”) of Everett’s Many Worlds bending and stretching around them in the warped geometries of the tesseract. Also, the 2017 laboratory demonstrations of time crystals, which are static 4D shapes which cycle from state to state without using energy, is confirmation that this “spatial” way of thinking about the fourth and fifth dimension as incorporating the past and future as a “spectrum of possibilities” (as Hawking described it) is the true nature of our reality.

An interpretation of dimensions made for a movie doesn't represent reality, we still didn't crack quantum gravity while the movie had to have it, therefore an interpretation was born, it doesn't represent reality the way interstellar's black hole does, that one was based on real data after all

time crystals are not 4d the hell? its just a 3d crystal forced into a weird quantum state of matter nr.27 or whatever (because there's a lot of weird quantum states of matter) and oscillates in time instead of space, this really isn't that impressive as quantum world plays fast and loose with time already, the truth is we aren't sure time is even a fundamental thing or some emergent phenomenon, or in other words, if its real or not

4d shapes interact with light and gravity in very weird ways and require a 4th spatial macro dimension to exist, the implications of said dimension existing would have PROFOUND effect on our physics, for one if we didn't have 4d thickness our insides would fall out sideways at the angle we can't see, and if we had such thickness we would be so much heavier, things would also be knocked into the 4th dimension constantly, i suggest 4d toys game and videos as that game actually simulates a simple 4d space with physics, of course there's also the fact that in reality 4th spatial macro dimension would mean either all fundamental forces or just gravity would essentially come undone so..

oh wait, you meant 4th dimension as time? well, 4th dimension isn't time, its used as a coordinate t in mathematics and physics because its convenient, but that does NOT mean its the 4th dimension, its the 1st time dimension, NOT the 4th dimension, spatial and time dimensions are distinct, you cannot build a shape where matter exists in four perpendicular directions of which one is time, because time isn't a spatial dimension, and while time crystal does incorporate the dimension of time, so does everything else!

it also proves absolutely nothing of a fifth dimension, it has nothing to do with any fifth dimension, the idea of a sea of possible futures and multiple timelines also don't imply any fifth dimension, it implies additional physics, and last time i checked fundamental forces or molecular physics don't imply dimension of their own either! to freely interpret works and thoughts of other people specifically upon your personal model doesn't prove your personal model, its bias, where's your peer reviewed hypothesis article containing hard math proofs of your personal model of ten dimensional reality even being possible anyway?

the thought that we are really 3d slices in a 4d volume that for some reason are going through the slices forward in time is naive and doesn't work for a couple of reasons

1. there still has to be TIME, a reason for the 3d slices to cycle through them forward, to obey causality, to follow the arrow of time, to even form in the first place as static 4d slice worms that begin and end abruptly as a distinct object, this isn't a workable dimension of time, its more like a spatial interpretation of the timeline if you took all the past and future matter arrangements and then made them exist all at once and stacked them for some reason

2. it would have profound implications of physics like stated above since its still a fourth axis that exists and is macroscopic, most likely it would actually have even MORE implications than a simple addition of a fourth axis since it now would have rules

3. occam's razor, the exact same state of time can be explained simpler mathematically as a separate dimension of time which is just a single axis that defines this variable called time and allows objects to change in state in a continuous manner based upon additional non-spatial movement upon this axis

and finally moving onto time dimensions, my blurb about two time dimensions was based upon me trying to interpret the fact two time dimensions would mean that time became a coordinate and all equations involving time variable would now have to involve two of them, since i can find nothing on the internet on how it could be like, i also know that 2d planes aren't divided into isolated 1d lines for some reason so i knew two dimensions of time don't imply time travel or many timelines, fortunately i had my experience trying to imagine the 4th spatial dimension intuitively, so i banged my head into the wall until i produced something workable based on simple math, just like imagining (or simulating) 4th spatial dimension is done on similarly simple math, that is to say nothing more than an additional coordinate

it may be wrong, it probably even is, but that's what i got from parsing the implications of two time coordinates in my mind, i also assumed arrow of time (gradient of time in 2d time) still exists and causes everything to move forward, take it or leave it i guess, at least its unique and mind bending in a way i haven't found looking for other 2d time interpretations on the internet, and believe me i did look

i will still take it anytime over your interpretation, the fact that your video contributed greatly to people thinking time is the 4th dimension pisses me off as well as many other 4th spatial dimension enthusiasts as people tend to butt in with minimal knowledge and go 'BuT 4tH DiMEnSiOn Is TiME!11!!!1!one!one1'

i also find your interpretation to be on the level of time cubes to be honest, since all you did was take 3 spatial dimensions, then duplicated them two times, first putting all the timelines in their own 3d volume and calling it 6th dimension then doing the same with universal sets and calling THAT 9th dimension, topping it with a null = all as the tenth dim (why does THAT even NEED to be a dimension?! a totality of all 9 dimensional volumes doesn't imply a tenth to contain, you don't need higher dimensional manifolds to contain lower ones!), but all you need for all of this is just 3 distinct spaces in a hierarchy, not 9 dimensions, it seems to be based on limited imagination, basic pattern repetition and a misunderstanding of what the word 'dimension' means, its also actually quite limiting, because its structure is rigid and doesn't allow high level weirdness, i'd rate it 4/10 if it was a fictional meta-cosmology made for a story for example, but since its intended for a real world it needs to be scrutinized very heavily

finally when it comes to its spiritual and philosophical value... meh, i've seen better

Kip Thorne is one of the world’s most respected physicists. When he signed on as executive producer and science advisor for Nolan’s Interstellar, he made it his mission to present modern scientific thinking in that movie. In his book about those ideas, The Science of Interstellar, he describes some of the times that Nolan wanted to introduce plot points which strayed outside of those constraints and how they were able to adjust them to keep them within the bounds of scientific credibility. 
I love that you are quoting the same tired criticisms trolls have used to suppress these ideas since this project started. “You don’t even know what a dimension is” being my favourite. Einstein agreed a century ago that our reality is resolved at the fifth dimension, where his equations for general relativity and Maxwell’s equations for electromagnetism can be integrated. Stephen Hawking describes the fifth dimension as “imaginary time, at right angles to spacetime” because Everett’s Universal Wavefunction incorporates the realm of imaginary numbers. And as Sean Carroll says, “there is not a separate wave function for each particle. There is only one wavefunction: the wave function of the universe”. 
I did not originate the idea that all of the extra dimensions are spatial, or space-like. I did not originate the point line plane postulate, which has been taught in schools from long before I was born (and I’m 65). It can be used to visualize any number of spatial dimensions, by taking them three at a time, resetting your frame of reference, and continuing to add dimensions for as many as you care to imagine.  
Yes, our window into the extra dimensions is limited by the 3D membrane our atoms and molecules are embedded within, so our one-Planck-frame-after-another window into the extra dimensions makes them appear “curled up at the Planck length”. But to complain that this approach is somehow limited in scope ignores what happens each time you add a spatial dimension. Think about the exponential growth in possibilities added as we go from a 1D line to a 2D plane to a 3D space! Each new dimension adds a set of states that were inaccessible from the previous dimensions. Each new dimension enfolds and includes the previous ones, that is the nature of spatial or space-like dimensions. And just because we can’t physically experience Einstein’s vision of the fourth dimension, where the distinction between past present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion, doesn’t make that idea invalid. 
Finally, this video says time is a direction, not a dimension. “Time”, as a way of describing change from state to state, can be applied to any dimension, not just the fourth. Thinking about the fourth spatial dimension in abstract terms is fun, the topologies and transformations of a fourth dimensional object passing through 3D space are fascinating, but our world is not filled with dots that become spheres and shrink back to nothing (as a simple example). There’s no question, as physical beings our access to the extra dimensions is different from what an omnipresent observer placed “outside” of our dimensions would see. But if we’re talking about reality and not abstract ideas, then Kip Thorne says the same thing I do: a hypothetical observer in the fifth dimension would see all the potential fourth dimensional causal chains of Everett’s Many Worlds attached to a moment, bending and stretching in the geometries of the tesseract.

You actually didn't respond to any of my points, you're just repeating your own in greater detail, nice

i especially like how you say that 'you don't know what a dimension is' is somehow trolling, but at the same time say time is a direction while ALSO saying its the 4th dimension, and a spatial one according to this 'timeworm composed of 3d slices' concept, i mean arrow of time isn't even a function of a dimension, its a function of entropy and thermodynamics!! since you don't know even that then not knowing what a dimension is is a valid criticism, and there is a reason it gets repeated so many times against you, if you really do mean that dimensions are like you say then give equations or else cease and desist instead of accusing everyone of trolling

Kip Thorne based the fifth dimension used in interstellar on string theory, and its idea for branes, said fifth dimension is a fifth spatial macro-dimension that exists outside of the universe and is essentially outside of time (because time is a component of the universe, which would be contained in said fifth dimension) which explains the time shenanigans

"Einstein agreed a century ago that our reality is resolved at the fifth dimension, where his equations for general relativity and Maxwell’s equations for electromagnetism can be integrated." you mean this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza%E2%80%93Klein_theory because this theory is a direct precursor to the superstring theory and its variants, and without modifications its essentially obsolete today

"Stephen Hawking describes the fifth dimension as “imaginary time, at right angles to spacetime” because Everett’s Universal Wavefunction incorporates the realm of imaginary numbers. And as Sean Carroll says, “there is not a separate wave function for each particle. There is only one wavefunction: the wave function of the universe”." imaginary numbers introduce a coordinate system into the number line, turning it into a number plane, so imaginary time essentially imply two dimensions of time, a 2d time, more specifically a second time dimension that presumably exists on the quantum level or outside of the universe or whatever because i'm pretty sure i didn't measure my year in 356+356 days so its not a macro-dimension, which is basically time dimension analogue to what string theory does to the additional spatial dimensions in the space of our universe, that is folds them

it would also not be described as the fifth dimension, but as the second time dimension in addition to our 3 spatial ones, because spatial dimensions =/= time dimensions!

at this point i'm pretty sure that what you're doing is repeating an appeal to authority while also wildly misunderstanding what said authority actually means, because all those people are essentially talking about the string theory, which is wildly incompatible with your 10 dimensional model! and that's obvious if you just look at the number of dimensions, which isn't 10 in any variant!

"I did not originate the idea that all of the extra dimensions are spatial, or space-like. I did not originate the point line plane postulate" obviously

"It can be used to visualize any number of spatial dimensions, by taking them three at a time, resetting your frame of reference, and continuing to add dimensions for as many as you care to imagine." that creates a series of hierarchical 3d volumes, NOT actual additional dimensions, as any additional new dimension adds complexity that is IMPOSSIBLE to easily explain using the previous dimension, its also NOT what this video is doing, as it DOES NOT explain additional dimensions above the third but creates a new TYPE of dimensions that follow the same 3 coordinates but in different things than space, which is my main gripe with the video actually, as it does NOT explain 10 dimensions, it explains 3 spatial dimensions, 3 timeline (not time) dimensions and 3 phase-space dimensions, as well as additional 1 dimension that is basically null=all and represents no dimension, but that could have its own video as a concept

"Yes, our window into the extra dimensions is limited by the 3D membrane our atoms and molecules are embedded within" yes, that's exactly what string theory says... "so our one-Planck-frame-after-another window into the extra dimensions makes them appear “curled up at the Planck length”." this, on the other hand, is absolutely NOT what string theory says!

"But to complain that this approach is somehow limited in scope ignores what happens each time you add a spatial dimension." i DID NOT complain about the damn string theory, but about your particular model, WHICH ISN'T COMPATIBLE OR EVEN COMPARABLE WITH STRING THEORY ANYWAY "Think about the exponential growth in possibilities added as we go from a 1D line to a 2D plane to a 3D space! Each new dimension adds a set of states that were inaccessible from the previous dimensions. Each new dimension enfolds and includes the previous ones, that is the nature of spatial or space-like dimensions." Yes that's what new dimensions entail, you have a whole new perpendicular axis, you can have things like chain-links that look bound in 3d that aren't actually bound, things like a torus and a sphere in one, or that 4d tori called tiger which is awesome but has no analogue in 3d, or the sixth platonic solid in addition to 4d analogues of the 3d ones, but those aren't just spatial concepts, because a dimension is just a coordinate and NEEDS to be identified as a time or spatial one BECAUSE on its own there's nothing that says which one it is, its the universe that does this by differentiating what different coordinates do in physics at the fundamental level

i mean, a TEMPERATURE could be a dimension if it was fundamental like space and time, but we know its an emergent property of atoms which is why it isn't! 4 time dimensions would have time analogues of hyperspheres and who knows how that would work, but we don't have even 2 time dimensions in macro-space, we have just one

"And just because we can’t physically experience Einstein’s vision of the fourth dimension, where the distinction between past present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion, doesn’t make that idea invalid." false, we can experience and we do, after all Einstein's vision of the fourth dimension is essentially Minkowski space time, which integrates 3 spatial and 1 temporal coordinates with special relativity and current physics and uses that as a coordinate system of our spacetime, the thing that it DOESN'T imply is that spacetime is actually structured like that as we have no evidence, its just a mathematical construct used in relativity for equations, its a representation, a model, or a universe where there are 3 spatial dimension, 1 temporal dimension and spacetime stretches with gravity like it does, not dissimilar to how vector spaces are used in game engines to create a usable coordinate system, its a functional mathematical representation, not a recreation of the universe, if it was then it wouldn't have so much problems with quantum physics as it has! "

“Time”, as a way of describing change from state to state, can be applied to any dimension, not just the fourth." yes, it can be applied and easily, you just need a single new coordinate used as a time variable, which is generally called a temporal or time dimension, which you add to your spatial system to have change in time, what it doesn't do is it won't allow you to extend your 4d hypercubes into the 5th dimension and make 5d hypercubes if you add a time dimension to your 4d volume because its NOT A SPATIAL AXIS! "Thinking about the fourth spatial dimension in abstract terms is fun, the topologies and transformations of a fourth dimensional object passing through 3D space are fascinating, but our world is not filled with dots that become spheres and shrink back to nothing (as a simple example)." yes, which is why nobody argues that there is a 4th macro-dimension of space in our universe!

"There’s no question, as physical beings our access to the extra dimensions is different from what an omnipresent observer placed “outside” of our dimensions would see. But if we’re talking about reality and not abstract ideas, then Kip Thorne says the same thing I do: a hypothetical observer in the fifth dimension would see all the potential fourth dimensional causal chains of Everett’s Many Worlds attached to a moment, bending and stretching in the geometries of the tesseract." which is the same way a 3d person would perceive a 2d dimension from outside as a series of slices in a 3d volume... except that a 3d observer actually would not perceive a 2d universe from outside in this way! he would perceive a jumble of possible states if he looks outside of the universe and therefore outside of time on our universe, and THAT would essentially be a phasespace, NOT a timeline jumble, but actual phasespace, it would require advanced instruments or exotic biological adaptations to actually perceive them in a way where a time dimension of a 2d universe would be represented as a 3d spatial universe, because a third spatial dimension is something the 2d universe doesn't have, and its 1d time dimension has no way to form 3d shapes in combination with 2d space dimension naturally!

in the same way, a 4d person would not perceive a 3d universe with 1d time naturally as a tesseract where the 4th axis is used to stack 3d slices going from past to the future, a representation would need to be constructed, because spatial and temporal dimensions do NOT share coordinates to produce a 4 coordinate volume, they produce a 3 coordinate volume with an additional 1 coordinate line, the usage of which depends on the universe in question and its fundamental physics this representation would be also a spectacular failure in the field of representing all information in a usable format in being completely unable to represent parallel timelines and possible futures, which is presumably why you even made the phasespace dimensions, and those are the one aspect of your video you can't even TRY and defend, because sure enough famous inteligent scientists are sometimes talking about the time dimensions and string theory and outside perspectives from a brane into a singular universe and so you can reinterpret and shove those quotes into your weird contradictory system with no equations for verification as defenses, but i didn't hear anybody talking about the 3 phasespace dimensions, other than you this video is still a pseudoscience based on a monumental misunderstanding of what scientists say about reality and what mathematicians say about dimensions and coordinates, and you have given me nothing else than quotes talking about superstring theory and falsely thinking that those pertain to your naive model somehow i'm going to wait until you address my previous points and provide math for your model

Okay we have firmly established that you believe Nobel laureate Kip Thorne is wrong when he says an observer in the fifth dimension would be able to see the many branching 4D “world tubes” as he calls them, representing the different possible pasts and futures of Everett’s Many Worlds. You want discussions of the fourth spatial dimension to ignore the third dimension of atoms and molecules that is our unique vantage point into these spatial dimensions, preferring to discuss only abstract four-dimensional topologies. You say it pisses you off when I say the fourth dimension as we experience it is made of two new directions, which we have traditionally called time and anti-time, even though those are just labels, and calling those new directions Ana/kata (for instance) would not change that we are talking about the dimension that is orthogonal to 3D space. Since my understanding of the fifth dimension aligns with Kip Thorne’s and not yours, would you also tell Kip Thorne that what he says is bullshit?

I didn't say Kip Thorne is wrong i said you are misinterpreting what he says, don't put words in my mouth or i'm going to start putting them in yours!

many worlds interpretation is just an interpretation and isn't confirmed, and sure as hell there's no math or physics describing world tubes, you're basing your model of personal beliefs of a scientist then defending it by saying that he's a scientist, appeal to authority much?

"you want discussions of the fourth spatial dimension to ignore the third dimension of atoms and molecules that is our unique vantage point into these spatial dimensions, preferring to discuss only abstract four-dimensional topologies" see here's your problem, you're assuming atoms and molecules are unique to 3 dimensions, i didn't say that and nobody said that, in a matter of fact atoms and molecules would still easily exist, but the electron orbitals would be different so all elements would have different properties besides, how does that assumption of "atoms+molecules being unique to the 3d" somehow imply "4D IS TIMELINES AND WORLD TUBES WOOO", just HOW? at this point you aren't even following any logical pattern you just take a random part of physics and say "THIS DIMENSION REPRESENT THIS RANDOM PART OF PHYSICS BECAUSE I SAY SO!"

i also like how you speak of abstract four-dimensional topologies when

1. you yourself were speaking of those but for some reason used them to construct a timeworm instead of a hypercube or a hyperdiamond

2. this isn't topology but geometry anyway, unless you're talking about curved space or surfaces of klein bottles

3. its about as abstract as three-dimensional 'topologies', but you're living in one of those so it isn't abstract to you, and its also abstract because you prefer bloody timeworms instead of math and will fanatical defend what is more of a personal belief than any actual scientific model, then present it to people as its ANYWHERE near scientific

you think i missed how you didn't answer ANY of my points and instead regurgitate the same stuff over and over while shielding yourself with authority figures? do you know who also does that? religious fanatics!

also you still didn't explain why the fuck 6-9 universe dimensions would even be a thing, and i KNOW you can't justify THAT with a famous quote so here goes any evidence for it! "

You say it pisses you off when I say the fourth dimension as we experience it is made of two new directions," i have NEVER said that, i said it pisses me off people commonly now talk about 4th dimension as time and butt in to other people talking about a spatial 4d, also the damnable VS battle wiki dimensional tiering crap is your bloody fault and i hate it

"which we have traditionally called time and anti-time, even though those are just labels," never in my entire life i have heard of anti-time, and i never heard anybody that actually calls a 4th spatial axis time and anti-time, the hell? at this point you're making stuff up, ana and kata was specifically made to represent a SPATIAL 4th dimension, just like trength was, it was before einstein, and it was EINSTEIN that introduced 4th dimension as time in the first place, something scientists recognize was dumb in wording so they use 3+1 dimensions to describe the universe instead!

the fact that you can measure all relativistic phenomena by using a 3d volume and a time dimension as a separate value means 4d volume where fourth axis is time quite literally doesn't abide Occam's razor

"and calling those new directions Ana/kata (for instance) would not change that we are talking about the dimension that is orthogonal to 3D space." yes, and guess what time isn't? orthogonal to the 3d space!

its a SEPARATE axis, for the love of actual 4th dimension stop mixing minkowski spacetime coordinate system with 4d space, integrating time as a 4d axis was a decision to make calculating and representing light cones and other special relativity stuff easily, but isn't a representative model of reality anymore than a mercator projection is of earth

"Since my understanding of the fifth dimension aligns with Kip Thorne’s and not yours, would you also tell Kip Thorne that what he says is bullshit?" how about you tell Kip Thorne that you think string theory is bullshit considering your damn system is wholly incompatible? you can also throw in how you reinterpret his quotes as defense in your whack-job model and put in people's mouth they think he's talking crap if they don't agree with you without his permission, at this point i'm starting to think you think you know more about what Kip Thorne says than the man himself!

i will repeat myself again, GIMME MATH OR SHUT IT!

I’m beginning to think you have not read The Science of Interstellar.  

You have made it 100% clear that you disagree with the idea of fourth dimensional spacetime being as spatial as the first three dimensions. You dislike me quoting experts, so when Brian Greene says “just as we think of all of space as being out there, as really existing, we should think of all of spacetime as being out there, as really existing too” will you again say I don’t understand his meaning? In The Science of Interstellar, when we see Thorne’s hand-drawn diagrams of his 4D “world tubes” that must really bug you. And with more and more physicists jumping on the Many Worlds bandwagon, your old-fashioned defense of “that’s just an interpretation” should at least acknowledge that Kip Thorne, Sean Carroll, Brian Greene and many more respected physicists have given Everett’s Theory of the Universal Wavefunction their full support. David Deutsch says “calling Everett’s Many Worlds an ‘interpretation’ is like calling dinosaurs an ‘interpretation’ of the fossil record.” Sean Carroll says “ ‘Many Worlds’ has the simplest, smallest, most compact fundamental picture of reality. It’s just a wavefunction obeying an equation.”  

When my ideas were presented at Oxford in 2010 a team of artists and scientists in their Quantum research division constructed the “fifth-dimensional camera project”, showing the same way of visualizing the fifth dimension that I portray. And that’s the meat of the matter here. If the fourth spatial dimension is orthogonal to the third then it includes the third dimension, and that’s where the unique configuration of matter and energy that makes our unique set of atoms and molecules is found. And if the fifth dimension is orthogonal to the fourth then of course it includes this 4D spacetime. You say I’m putting words in your mouth, but you disagree with my description of the fifth dimension as being where Everett’s Universal Wavefunction is calculated. I don’t see how you can have it both ways. Are you saying you disagree when I say this is the correct way to interpret the fifth dimension, but when Kip Thorne says these different potential pasts and futures are accessed via the fifth dimension you might agree?

You know, i'm going to wait till you actually respond to ANY of my points, not just regurgitate your appeals to authority and repeat points about 4th and 5th dimension THAT I ALREADY ADDRESSED MULTIPLE DAMN TIMES! are you actually ignoring me or what? because i'm tired of being cherry picked! you were to oxford and people listened while not having any math to support your crap? well here goes the reputation of oxford i guess i'm not even going to respond with actual points anymore if i see you keep ignoring them or i see that your next comment won't have any numbers in it other than those followed by D, because clearly you aren't interested in a discussion, you just want to browbeat people with how 'clever' and 'obviously true' your personal little model is while ignoring actual arguments 

I never said I went to Oxford, I said my ideas were presented there. Dr. Richard Benjamin, Dr. Andrew Briggs, and Dr. John Rarity of Oxford’s QIP IRC (Quantum Information Processing Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration) were the main scientists involved in the project, which included a video featuring Dr. Benjamin talking about the branching possibilities of Everett’s Many Worlds in the fifth dimension, using graphics obviously based upon my graphics from my original 2006 Imagining the Tenth Dimension video. Shouldn’t you be asking physicists like Kip Thorne to show their math since they’re the ones who support the idea that our fourth spatial dimension is time/anti-time and the fifth spatial dimension is where Everett’s Universal Wavefunction is calculated? I’m sure Dr. Thorne would be interested to hear your many reasoned points as to why everything he says about what’s beyond the third dimension is bullshit.

Their math is publicly available, so where's yours? or is your model so incapable of standing on its own that you have to shield yourself with actual accomplished names to deflect this fact? i see you STILL didn't answer ANY of my points 

By way of analogy: I publish a video saying the world is round, and I say a Nobel prize winning scientist has also said what I am saying. A commenter on YouTube posts passionately phrased responses saying the world is flat. I respond with other scientists saying the world is round. The commenter says you haven’t responded to my refutations, you’re just hiding behind what these scientists say. I say I still prefer the opinion of the Nobel prize winning scientist, it aligns with my own intuitive understanding of the world, so I will stick with that. 

I have never once claimed this is a scientific model, I have said multiple times in multiple videos that I’m not a physicist and I’m not pretending to be one. A short bio is here; is.gd/aboutrob  

The biggest claim I have made is that this is a “new way of thinking about time and space”, and many of the over 400 videos I’ve published since 2006 explore the connections between this approach and ancient mysticism (Schrodinger of course was an avid student of the Vedanta and said it helped him in formulating quantum theory), consciousness (Planck, Bohr, Heisenberg and Schrodinger all agreed consciousness is fundamental to quantum theory), and Everett’s Many Worlds, which I first started to intuitively visualize in 1962, so this project has been my passion for a lifetime. As someone who has never tried a psychedelic, one of the biggest surprises for me as this project has been embraced by fans around the world is the number of people saying my spatial approach to visualizing the dimensions helped them to understand their psychedelic experiences. David Jay Brown is a scientist and author, you may have seen his writing about modern psychedelics research in Scientific American. In his 2012 book The New Science of Psychedelics he wrote this paragraph: “Physicist Michio Kaku's book Hyperspace: A Scientific Odyssey through Parallel Universes, Time Warps, and the Tenth Dimension and Rob Bryanton's Imagining the Tenth Dimension both seem to provide uncanny maps of the territory that one encounters after smoking salvia or DMT. Like the two-dimensional character in Edwin Abbott's book Flatland, we seem just as limited in our three-dimensional perspective.”  

You ask why I keep focusing on the fourth and fifth dimensions in my responses. Clearly if you can’t accept that the fourth dimension is just as spatial as the third, even though our window into the fourth dimension is limited by our unique perspective as 3D observers, then you will disagree with everything else I say about the dimensions beyond that. In the visualization I have proposed the first five dimensions are how we get to the world we are observing, and the dimensions beyond that are how we get to what Max Tegmark calls The Ultimate Ensemble. In The Science of Interstellar, Kip Thorne says it’s fine for us to lump all of the rest of the dimensions beyond the fifth together and call them The Bulk. That works for me too.

Now you're comparing my reasoning with that of flatearthers, you just keep being more and more disingenuous are you? the more accurate analogy would be you saying the earth is flat and twisting the statements of scientists so they look as if they agree, while ignoring essentially all arguments saying otherwise then shifting the entire thing on me in a fit of logical dishonesty and hypocrisy rarely seen in public, all to deflect the fact that you're hopelessly unable to actually address any point yourself, because you know your model is indefensible and you desperately want it to be true

i already wrote examples of how you keep twisting the meanings of statements of actual accomplished people, but its easier to ignore them then paint me as the troll and the 'flatearther' than is it to actually think isn't it?!

i think i'm going to just copy paste my previous points by category and leave you with nothing else to respond to next time, so you will have to face them, just like anybody would if their opinion could stand under its own power

your 'bio' is completely unrelated as is the tangent of psychedelics, why did you even feel the need to include it, are you a narcissist?

"Clearly if you can’t accept that the fourth dimension is just as spatial as the third, even though our window into the fourth dimension is limited by our unique perspective as 3D observers" All this time i KEPT SAYING that the 4th dimension is JUST a spatial as the third! literally half my points are about the fact that 4D IS SPATIAL AND NOT TIME

we have NO window into the fourth dimension BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST IN OUR UNIVERSE its quite obvious now you don't just ignore my points, you don't even read them, and you keep expecting me to read your bio? as if 

Some day you will read The Science of Interstellar. i hope you enjoy Kip Thorne's description of four dimensional world tubes and the fifth dimensional space of Everett's Many Worlds.

Here is the way in which I think we agree. It's perfectly valid to think of our reality as coming from 3 dimensions of space a dimension of time and a dimension of imaginary time. That's how Stephen Hawking described Everett's multiverse. But in so doing you have to accept retrocauality into your picture, at which point the two directions of time create the full picture of our fourth dimension. What do you think Feynman was describing when he said antimatter can be thought of as matter moving backwards in time? When I talk about antimatter I show a Feynman diagram, as I'm sure you recognize. And what did Hawking mean when he said the past is as fluid as the future, meaning observations in the present can change the past? These are all spatial ways of thinking outside of our limited river of time into a truer picture of the fourth dimension.

"But in so doing you have to accept retrocauality into your picture, at which point the two directions of time create the full picture of our fourth dimension." No, it creates the full picture of a singular dimension of time, which isn't spatial at all, imaginary time would imply four directions of time instead!

"What do you think Feynman was describing when he said antimatter can be thought of as matter moving backwards in time?" he was describing the chirality of atoms, the antimatter can also be described as a mirror image of matter, and you could turn one into the other by flipping it, it highlights the fact that the electric charge sign is essentially a topological property just like left or right-handedness of proteins is

"And what did Hawking mean when he said the past is as fluid as the future, meaning observations in the present can change the past?" he meant that quantum mechanics play fast and loose with time, the arrow of time is just a suggestion there just like all of classical physics

nowhere do those statements even imply time is spatial in nature nor that is it the 4th dimension, all of them fit perfectly with a singular time dimension that deals ONLY with time and is merely adjacent to the 3 spatial dimensions, not integrated with them and making a 4d volume together 

Since virtually everything in the universe obeys Maxwell's infinitely scalable field equations, simply imagining spheres within hyperspheres within hyperspheres is how the point line plane postulate allows you to visualize as many dimensions as you're interested in. Kip Thorne says you can forget about the dimensions beyond these five, the rest is not part of the information that becomes our reality. The fifth dimension is where the field equations for gravity and light are resolved. That idea is as true now as it was back then, this has nothing to do with if you happen to be a fan of string theory or not. Look at an animation of a quantum wavefunction. Our 3D reality is defined in two dimensions, creating waves across time and probability in the fourth and fifth dimension. What did you think of the fifth dimensional perspective scenes Kip Thorne oversaw for Interstellar? The many strands of causal chains connected to an event, bending and twisting with the familiar transformations of the rotating Tesseract.

https://youtu.be/KKr91v7yLcM 

"The fifth dimension is where the field equations for gravity and light are resolved" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza%E2%80%93Klein_theory is a precursor to string theory, obsolete in its original form and the resulting fifth dimension is like in string theory curled up on a planck scale and therefore utterly incompatible with your model as its not a macro-dimension

you could at least TRY to understand the statements you're quoting instead of blindly assuming they prove your ideas!

the tesseract was an artificial time interface not a representation of how time looks like, and the interstellar is still a damn sci fi movie and kip thorne didn't direct the bloody thing only consulted, this isn't a documentary and the science of interstellar isn't a PhD

is a sci fi movie your main source of time being the 4th spatial dimension or something?! do you think wild tesseracts hide within blackholes too? 

Point line circle sphere hypersphere, all you need is spin across some or all of those and you've made yourself a universe out of waves in the fifth dimension. Each Planck frame is a solution to Everett's Universal Wavefunction, and there are not multiple wavefunctions for each particle. There is just the Wavefunction of the universe. Nothing strange about the idea that we're all observing the same wave, is there?

You ask if these ideas I began working on in 1962 were inspired by Interstellar. No, sir, I am not a time traveler.

Einstein agreed with Kaluza's discovery that the math worked out - when the field equations for general relativity were calculated in five dimensions, Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism emerged. Are you anti-math? Are you convinced Einstein was wrong to agree with this idea?

And the snide insinuations and word-in-mouth putting continue maybe its YOU who is anti-math considering you don't want to provide any for your model? its because i'm NOT anti-math that i understand that your idea of the fifth dimension is about as far from what Maxwell's equations use as a star is from a planet!

Haha, maybe if you stopped reading my words through clenched teeth you would see I'm not being snide at all. Here's the Wikipedia version of the Kaluza story, Greene and Kaku have told it similarly. "The five-dimensional theory developed in three steps. The original hypothesis came from Theodor Kaluza, who sent his results to Einstein in 1919,[2] and published them in 1921.[3] Kaluza presented a purely classical extension of general relativity to 5D, with a metric tensor of 15 components. 10 components are identified with the 4D spacetime metric, four components with the electromagnetic vector potential, and one component with an unidentified scalar field sometimes called the "radion" or the "dilaton". Correspondingly, the 5D Einstein equations yield the 4D Einstein field equations, the Maxwell equations for the electromagnetic field, and an equation for the scalar field." Has something changed about these equations to make you say Einstein is wrong?

You really do love putting words in peoples mouth, its honestly just sad, like, seriously, clenched teeth? i also never said einstein was wrong so i would appreciate if you stopped shoveling words into my mouth

i can read basic summary on wikipedia too you know, and if you were able to read further you would understand the 5th dimension proposed here is completely curled up at planck length and inaccessible to macro objects, in no way can it be responsible for a branching timeline structure like in your naive model, you know besides the fact its not a time dimension

seriously your copypasting of basic statements and descriptions as your only defense against criticism is just getting sad, doubly when you think you understand what they say but apparently you don't, its like a flatearther copying a summary of orbits and using that as a proof that earth is flat because orbits exist on a plane, and somehow thinking it makes sense i ask again, where's your math huh? 

Come now. You have shown me not one ounce of respect during this conversation, you started out saying this video is “literally a load of bullshit” and every time I have shown you supporting evidence from the experts you’ve dismissed it. Why is it so hard for you to understand that physically our window into the branching probabilistic outcomes of the fifth dimension is one Planck frame at a time, like a 3D flip-book animation? We don’t get to have the expansive view endorsed by Kip Thorne in Interstellar of what it means to say the fifth dimension is orthogonal to spacetime because we as observers are in a universe made not of Schrodinger’s waves, but of 3D atoms and point-like particles, that never changes. When Kaku and Greene (for instance) say that Einstein accepted that the math for general relativity reveals Maxwell’s equations when calculated in five dimensions, I believe them. Please help me to understand why you believe Einstein was wrong to endorse Kaluza’s discovery that the math for general relativity (gravity) and electromagnetism (light) is resolved in five dimensions.

Why would i show respect for somebody that keeps repeatedly telling me i supposedly think einstein is wrong when i NEVER said that?!

Why would i show respect for somebody who called me a troll and equaled me to a flatearther in the first place?!

Why would i respect someone who can't show me even a SINGLE BLOODY EQUATION to show he actually DID research and actual work on his model instead of it being a childish pseudoscientific interpretation?!

Why would i respect somebody that not ONCE during this dumb multi-day comment conversation addressed even ONE of my many, Many, MANY POINTS DIRECTLY?!

Why would i respect somebody who prefers to stand by and repeat his DOGMA without acknowledging 95% things i wrote as if he's a bot repeating programming talking points as if a fanatic that fiercely tries to defend his god?!

i called your model bullshit because that's what it is, period, this want meant to other readers to hopefully spare them from the pseudoscience of charlatan, i didn't expect nor care for your own response!

because that's what you are, a charlatan that avoids directly addressing my points to NOT get compromised, a narcissist that thinks he's so smart and clever he figured out the nature of dimensions and can figure it out just from simple statements alone, an example of dunning-kruger effect in thinking his interpretation is SOMEHOW what all those scientists meant ALL ALONG despite all attempts to tell you otherwise and above all else an anti-math fool that is completely incapable to deal with any math or provide any math, if you could this stupid video wouldn't even EXIST

you think i don't see what you're doing? avoiding all my points, ESPECIALLY those that point out your mistakes in scientific terms? the pathetic excuses that it would be like arguing with a flatearther or poisoning the well with attempts to prove to ME i'm thinking einstein is wrong DESPITE TELLING YOU MULTIPLE TIMES I DO NOT? the constant repeat of bare bones statements of scientists without context as if SOMEHOW it deflects the faults in your own model? the absolute silence on the math front for 25 fucking comments?

attempting to shield yourself with your biography (that i'm not going to touch) as if it had something to do with the model itself, attempting to excuse it as not attempting to create a physical model, yet your own damn video clearly attempts to frame the entirety of all realities into it as if its doing its DAMNEDEST to upstage the string theory as a way of THINKING about science

doing everything in your own power to avoid answering even a SINGLE. POINT. and putting all excuses possible to seem as if you don't need to

my points on the 6-9 dimensions of yours lay buried and forgotten because you never even attempted to respond to those, and i know exactly why, its because NO SCIENTIST EVER ARGUED UNIVERSES/MULTIVERSES/PHASESPACES ARE OR NEED THEIR OWN DIMENSION, so you have NOTHING to defend this with, clearly if i were to attack those and only those you would be screwed, because your model cannot stand on its own and you have no idea what to say if nobody else is doing the talking for you!

well, continuing with your analogy with a flatearther, people will GLADLY address ANY AND EVERY point a flatearther makes, but flatearthers commonly refuse addressing points, will ridicule the opposition, or copypaste barebones no context opinions of 'experts' to try and defend their position, over and over again, with minor tweaks only, all while avoiding math as if its burning them

sounds fucking familiar? its EXACTLY the behavior you have demonstrated here, the only difference is you chose a topic that is already esoteric enough to normal people that you sound like an expert, but to me, to somebody who was sitting on the damn fourth dimension and above, jumped into the math and simulations, attempted to understand them, to intuit them, and has recently moved onto the alien idea of more than one time dimensions to do the same? your lies stick out to me like flatearthers stick out to normal people, and i don't argue with you to prove it to you, but to make sure everyone reading this stays clear of this crap, and don't worry i already screens-hotted the entire conversation

You want my damned respect? you want to prove you're not a pseudoscience peddler? then ADDRESS THE POINT BELOW, DIRECTLY, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, AND PROVIDE MATH TO PROVE OTHERWISE V

"Why is it so hard for you to understand that physically our window into the branching probabilistic outcomes of the fifth dimension is one Planck frame at a time, like a 3D flip-book animation?"

Because. Its. WRONG. can you even READ the following statement: "Klein introduced the hypothesis that the fifth dimension was curled up and microscopic, to explain the cylinder condition. Klein suggested that the geometry of the extra fifth dimension could take the form of a circle, with the radius of 10−30 cm." Do you know what it means?! IT MEANS:

1. The 5th dimension is curled up on the planck length, LENGTH, notice that word? LENGTH, not FRAME or DURATION or TIME

2. because its curled up, NO MACRO OBJECT CAN INTERACT WITH IT, only quantum fields can! this includes GROUPS OF OBJECTS BOUND BY FORCES, subatomic particles might, but an atom or a molecule or more? N.o.p.e~

3. time is a MACROSCOPIC PHENOMENON that affects THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE AS A WHOLE, the LARGEST bound collection of objects, if it wasn't true then every single particle would be isolated in its own little timeline FOREVER

4. clearly the second and third are INCOMPATIBLE, and so under no sane interpretation would your idea of fifth dimension even work, and guess what, scientists are not insane, and their idea of the fifth dimension is very different, even if some effects may be similar

but you don't care because you cherry pick, quote mine, reinterpret, and dumbly repeat your ignorant version of those, then deflect saying the scientists REALLY mean your own interpretation because apparently you are a fucking mind reader and know better than the people that made the damn math, and then call me a troll and equate me to a flatearther when i rightfully call your ridiculous actions aloud, i bet if einstein HIMSELF came down to earth and slapped you upside the face with MATH you would still ask him why he thinks he's wrong

I see that you disagree with Klein's addition from a few years later to Kaluza's original proposal. Why do you feel that means Kaluza's original idea, which Einstein agreed to and endorsed, is wrong? Why do say "your idea of the fifth dimension is about as far from what Maxwell's equations use as a star is from a planet" when Einstein agreed to this notion that Maxwell's equations appear out of general relativity when calculated in the fifth dimension? You accuse me of putting words in your mouth, but I am directly quoting your words. Einstein agreed to this, you say it's wrong, but I am jumping to conclusions when I ask you to explain why you disagree with Einstein? Nonsense.  
Kip Thorne says our observed universe comes from Everett's Universal Wavefunction in the fifth dimension.
https://youtu.be/KKr91v7yLcM This animation shows the same idea: our quantum wavefunction is calculated using two orthogonal axes, which Hawking called time and imaginary time, and which Thorne calls the fourth and fifth dimension. Your desire for there to be a fourth spatial dimension that is purely abstract, that does not arise from or include the third dimensional space we are observing, has been well established, and you can go ahead and imagine that if you so desire. But Kip Thorne's 4D "world tubes" show exactly the same 4D "long undulating snake" concept I showed in my original 2006 animation and have talked about ever since. The fact that I have confirmation in 2014 from a Nobel prize laureate is certainly icing on the cake, but it doesn't change what I've been saying all along.
I am sorry to hear my little passion project has pissed you off so royally. Obviously it bugs you that somebody could arrive at an intuitive understanding of the dimensions which happens to align with modern scientific viewpoints being advanced by recognized experts like Sean Carroll and Kip Thorne. Do I understand the math the way these experts do? No, as I've already said here and as I have often said over the last 14 years I am not a physicist and I'm not pretending to be one. But after a decade and a half of showing these ideas I do hear regularly from people who are now scientists and teachers, who say my videos were their introduction to thinking about how there is more than just the 3D reality we see around us, and thanking me for awakening their intellectual curiosity. It is those kinds of messages that give me the drive to continue making new videos as I explore the many connections arising from this approach to cosmology, ancient mysticism, altered states of consciousness, sacred geometry, free will/determinism, and much much more.

You barely even acknowledged what in wrote, so many words and you don't even care, and you wonder why i don't respect you at all, also i never said i want the 4th dimension to be real, but considering your reading comprehension is basically down the drain at this point i don't think i care anymore what you think i said

Fine, i will explain EXACTLY why i think your idea of the fifth dimension is about as far from the kaluza klein theory's one as a planet is from a star, by trying to explain what kaluza klein theory ACTUALLY IS ABOUT AND DOES, and i hope you are happy i had to research the damn bloody theory for me to get at it

and if you won't listen to the explanation i will now bring up, if you won't acknowledge it in any way and don't respond to it directly, you're officially a pseudoscience shill and anti-math, no excuses, no deflection, take it or fucking leave it here it goes:

V

The kaluza klein theory's entire shtick is that somebody was curious what would happen if they ran equations on a 4d space with a 1d of time instead of 3+1d like a normal universe, and surprisingly in such a universe the entire general relativity and gravity itself calculates like maxwell's equations

one dimension higher and gravity acts like electromagnetism does in our universe, that's the entire damn point, einstein was delighted with its elegance

klein realized that it could be turned into a good quantum theory if he just solved for nonexistent 4th spatial dimension, so he got the idea to shrink and loop the dimension on the planck's scale in the form of a simple circle, which now means the 4th spatial dimension is invisible and doesn't interact with anything larger

fundamental subatomic particles were thought of as point-like (until the string theory anyway) and so they DO interact with those, but nothing larger

so now you have small little circular loops of the 4th spatial dimension that only particles partake in, individually at that, particles now have a fourth direction, the AROUND direction, in this model it turns out this assumes the form of charge (for electrons at least) where one way is - and other is +

it also predicts the mass of the electron is 5kg

OOPS

it also predicted a new dilaton field and a corresponding particle, both of which were never seen but fortunately WANTED! posters were distributed (hint: they also made wanted posters for santa claus) and didn't actually give rise to anything BUT the dilaton field and the electromagnetic force (the other 3 fundamental forces were given MISSING! posters)

as you see its slightly wrong and so goes to the trash, but people didn't abandon the idea, and a thousand string theory-like theories spawned, the most known one is the big string theory itself, and they are very different than the original

the kaluza klein theory itself? OBSOLETE, the 5th dimension is not actually used in maxwell's equations at all! never was, because the theory was not for maxwell's equations, it was for gravity and it was a bust

the interesting bit of understanding researching this gave me is i now KNOW what curled up planck-size dimensions actually look and act like and what they mean for things, an intuitive understanding i looked for quite some time for those, they apparently only allow you to turn around in a new direction, but never go anywhere in that direction

now that i think of it, it seems kinda obvious, the curled up looped new dimensions have the size of just a planck-length, but just like a normal dimension they exist throughout our entire 3d volume, but since they only go for a single planck-length then its really as if our entire 3d volume was multiplied by 1 on a new axis, our 3d volume technically has those new spatial dimensions, but they have a length of effectively zero and our 3d volume is functionally just an infinitely thin, planck-length sized slice of those new dimensions it would be without them

you cannot go further because you already occupy all the space of that new dimension, its only wide enough for a single 3d volume worth of stuff, so the only possible use of it is rotation on a new axis if you are ALSO planck-length, its like if you had a sheet of paper with a grid floating in a void and put tiny paper loops in every square that stick out, the loops are exactly the size of the squares, so if a flat drawn person were the size of a single square it could use that loop as a medium only to rotate himself into the 3d dimension but wouldn't be able to move anywhere further in 3d using the loop because there's no more paper for him to occupy, and if he were just a bit bitter than the square he wouldn't fir the loop at all and couldn't use one, in that scenario the paper is the brane, the loops are the curled up additional dimensions and the drawn person is the subatomic particle, and the void is the NOT!Space outside of existence of our little universe

this actually gives me more ammunition to use because it means that if your interpretation of the 4, 5 and higher dimension were true the universe would NEVER move beyond its first 'planck-frame', because there is no direction it can go, the length of time would be exactly one planck-time, but that's not true therefore your interpretation goes to trash

Now for some sniping:

V

"I am sorry to hear my little passion project has pissed your off so royally." stop thinking so high of yourself damn narcissist, the only thing that pissed me off about your little 'passion project' is how it misguides people, it pisses me off in the same way flat earth 'theory' does

"Obviously it bugs you that somebody could arrive at an intuitive understanding of the dimensions which happens to align with modern scientific viewpoints being advanced by recognized experts like Sean Carroll and Kip Thorne." spoken like a true example of a dunning kruger effect, you think you have it all figured out huh? you're a small time pseudoscience peddler not a nobel prize recipient which you would be if you would really arrive at a truly intuitive understanding of the dimensions that explained all of fucking reality, and i don't care for your excuses, your video is trying to do exactly that, right down to the ONE WITH EVERYTHING!!!1!1!!! 10th dimension

"Do I understand the math the way these experts do? No" then why the fuck do you even talk about it since you obviously know nothing of it? its nearly entirely math, without math your understanding of the issue is comparable to a child's understanding about complex machinery, naive, simplistic and full of errors, which seems entirely in line with what i observed of you, including the unflappable righteous feeling of being completely right

"as I've already said here and as I have often said over the last 14 years I am not a physicist and I'm not pretending to be one." then stop attempting to tell me exactly what all highly accomplished physics mean in those vague statements and stop pretending to understand the complex theories when you clearly fucking don't, you aren't a physicist and can't understand the math which means you're clearly incompetent at the field, so why the bloody flying FUCK are you acting like a damn expert?!

"But after a decade and a half of showing these ideas I do hear regularly from people who are now scientists and teachers, who say my videos were their introduction to thinking about how there is more than just the 3D reality we see around us, and thanking me for awakening their intellectual curiosity." all those poor people mistaking you for an expert that knows what he's talking about, hopefully they will learn better with time

"It is those kinds of messages that give me the drive to continue making new videos as I explore the many connections arising from this approach to cosmology, ancient mysticism, altered states of consciousness, sacred geometry, free will/determinism, and much much more." sacred geometry? ancient mysticism? congratulations you're a full time pseudoscience shill 

 Yes, I believe we have firmly established that as a non-scientist with a curious mind I am interested in topics well beyond your narrow definition of reality, and if that makes me a crackpot I am proud to wear that label, as I said in my 2006 book Imagining the Tenth Dimension.

And here we have it, no response, like expected when confronted with actual science you ain't shit, at this point it may as well be an admission of defeat from you also, my reality is narrow? oh you poor fool if only you knew of all the lovecraftian horrors and bizarre ideas my mind contains, your dumb dimensional hierarchy is so basic compared to some things that swim in there that its laughable you can even consider it clever and this is your life's work?! bloody hell you are right in one thing, you're no physicist, too bad you continue acting like you have a clue

I look forward to your takedown of Thorne’s The Science of Interstellar, where you convince him he is wrong about 4D world tubes and the 5th dimension of Everett’s Many Worlds.

Why? it won't change anything, you will learn nothing, we already established you don't actually care about science, if you would your responses would actually address my points at least i shut you up about me supposedly thinking einstein was wrong

Haha, you are hilarious. Okay, we will ignore what the Nobel laureate says about 4D world tubes in tesseract shapes seen from the fifth dimension from here on in, as you wish.  

The reason I think teaching people about orthogonal thinking beyond the first three dimensions is a positive thing to do, is because thinking in terms of "and what's at right angles to that?" is a great way to organize thinking processes. As a film composer I was always thinking in terms of parallel and orthogonal motion, and structures that repeat across time and space, which can also describe entrainment, entanglement, and even causality. Indeed, one physicist I've watched proposes that it's valid to think of molecules or chemical reactions as being like little songs, repeating structures in time and space, the same thing over and over just like Bing Crosby's White Christmas. Richard Dawkins talks about genes connected within a "river out of Eden": once again we have a scientist encouraging a timeless perspective, which I believe is easily superimposed on Simulation Theory, or on fluid dynamics, the precursor to quantum theory. That's why genes as turbulence within a timeless four-dimensional river, from the beginning to the end of life on the planet, is such a great image.  

Brian Greene describes our universe and its locked-in constants as existing at a position within the landscape multiverse. That is not saying a universe is a dimension. That is saying our universe exists at a position within the information that becomes our reality. We are someplace within what Thorne calls The Bulk. What dimension is Greene's Landscape Multiverse? In this video I suggested the Landscape Multiverse would be the ninth dimension, as the highest dimension where change can take place within my approach, but conceptually I think whether you call it the Landscape Multiverse or The Bulk doesn't change what we are talking about. Some place within Tegmark's Ultimate Ensemble our universe exists, and that is what we are observing, nothing strange about that.

I noticed how you stopped using einstein, maxwell and the kaluza klein theory, hmm maybe you DO learn

fine, i'll bite, do you know what world tubes are? the 3d equivalent of world sheets and world lines, its the path a 3d object traces in space, its used in mathematics and in quantum physics related equations, especially in 4d minkowski spacetime equations, they are not LITERAL time worms that ACTUALLY exist as LITERAL PHYSICAL OBJECTS

oh wait you're still on about 5d, you learned nothing, because 5d in string theory is exactly the same as in kaluza klein theory, except it works, its too small for anything to go into it, only rotate using its axis, and its to small for somebody to actually SEE anything from it

you seem to be confusing the curled up 5d in our brane and the external multiversal 5d that does not invade our own universe, those two do NOT interact in superstring theory, and they are ALL spatial, time NOT included

you're still an incompetent fool that thinks he knows what experts are talking about, but you can barely even comprehend the actual subject

"The reason I think teaching people about orthogonal thinking beyond the first three dimensions is a positive thing to do, is because thinking in terms of "and what's at right angles to that?" is a great way to organize thinking processes. As a film composer I was always thinking in terms of parallel and orthogonal motion, and structures that repeat across time and space, which can also describe entrainment, entanglement, and even causality."

oh for fuck's sake get a damn 4D Toys game off steam and stop with this 4th spacial dimension is time bullshit, a damn game will teach you orthogonality better than your dumb video ever could, partially because the person who made that game knows the fucking math

Isn’t it strange how you keep bringing up Klein’s later addition to Kaluza’s original proposal? When did Einstein withdraw his public endorsement of Kaluza’s original idea, and why do you keep talking about your hatred of Kaluza Klein theory and string theory rather than what Einstein agreed to? Yes of course a world line and a world tube are the same idea. Both are about thinking about the fourth dimension spatially, where the distinction between past present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion. In this video I call them worldlines, since it came out well before Kip Thorne introduced the world tube phrasing to me in The Science of Interstellar. I’ve also called them spimes, Bruce Sterling’s term used to describe the data set representing an object in the fourth dimension. And we still have Kip Thorne saying our reality comes from the fifth dimension of Everett’s Many Worlds, please stop pretending I am alone in my obsession with this idea. Imaginary time, at right angles to spacetime, is used in the calculation of our Universal Wavefunction. We have a Nobel laureate calling that the fifth dimension, and we have some guy on the internet saying that’s wrong.

Kaluza klein theory fails both with and without klein addition, the kaluza theory by itself predicts a completely different universe from ours, there would be no stable orbits for example, and the entire element table would be different, its not that hard to get!

i don't and never did hate kaluza klein theory! why do you have to keep putting words in my mouth?! what, do you LIKE putting things in people's mouth? do you have a fetish?! how many times do i have to teach you this lesson old man?!

KIP THORNE'S IDEA OF THE FIFTH DIMENSION COMES STRAIGHT FROM THE M-THEORY YOU SHILL! NOT FROM IMAGINARY TIME ONE, STOP MIXING CONTRADICTORY THEORIES THEY DON'T EVEN WORK IN THE SAME UNIVERSE SO CEASE AND FUCKING DESIST, what part of this simple fact do you not understand?!

HERE straight from fucking wiki "The idea of the wave-function of the universe is meaningless; we do not even know what variables it is supposed to be a function of. [...] We find the laws of Nature by reproducible experiments. The theory needs a cut, between the observer and the system, and the details of the apparatus should not appear in the theory of the system.[10]"

for the entire damn week you're regurgitating your bullshit, i could write a short book from the times i addressed it AGAIN AND AGAIN, but you are INCAPABLE of learning!

You ridicule Kaluza Klein theory, string theory, and M-Theory, I apologize for suggesting that means you dislike them, maybe you love them, who knows. You want me to stop bringing up Kip Thorne’s description of the fifth dimension containing Everett’s Many Worlds? Show me where Thorne, one of the world’s most respected physicists, has recanted his position on this idea.

Quantum mechanics is often described as our most-confirmed theory of reality, will you agree? When Everett put forth his Theory of the Universal Wavefunction (now commonly referred to as the Many Worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics) back in 1957 he did not talk about the fifth dimension. Instead he talked about the branching world lines of his “many worlds” occurring within a “subspace which is orthogonal to spacetime”. Extra dimensions were not in vogue at that time, but if we are talking about something orthogonal to spacetime that sure sounds like the fifth dimension to me, the same fifth dimension Thorne is endorsing now. In 2007 a team of scientists at Oxford under the direction of David Deutsch published a paper mathematically equating the probabilistic outcomes of quantum mechanics with the branching worldlines of Everett’s Many Worlds, and New Scientist magazine called the paper the most important science news story of the year. I have well-respected physicist Sean Carroll saying “Many Worlds has the simplest, smallest, most compact fundamental picture of reality. It’s just a wave function obeying an equation” and “There aren’t separate wave functions for each particle. There is only one wave function: the wave function of the universe.” I have KipThorne saying the simultaneous branching causal chains of Everett’s theory can be viewed from the fifth dimension. And I have a random guy on the internet telling me I am wrong to be spreading these ideas. Is there any chance at all I could get you to acknowledge that yours may not be the only viewpoint in the world?

I already acknowledge that, and i know what many worlds interpretation is, i also know its essentially unfalsifiable, it could also just exist as a free standing phasespace anyway and that's not a dimension, it doesn't really have requirements in that regard i also know your video mangles many world interpretation something fierce, my gripe is still with your model in this video so, how about math? lets talk math, do you have math? i'd like your math now please

As I'm sure you know, Everett insisted that all of the potential outcomes are equally real for the observers in each version of the universe, to the point where each observer would be convinced that theirs was the only possible reality and free will is an illusion. This would be one of those cases where serious scientists have a different viewpoint from yours, while others support your position, fair enough. Why are you asking the crackpot for the math when I'm only reporting what the experts say? Do you disagree with the math of quantum mechanics? Do you disagree with the Deutsch team's proof equating quantum mechanics with Everett's Many Worlds? I believe we've already established that you disagree with Kip Thorne's depiction of the different probabilistic fourth-dimensional world tubes that can be viewed simultaneously from the fifth dimension, the same idea I show in this video, but perhaps I am putting words in your mouth again?

Well your model is different than other theories, so it needs its math so where's the math? and no, you don't get to shield yourself with experts and insinuate that i disagree with science, because your model is clearly different, the 4th and 5th are different than anything else and the similarities are only at surface level as fundamentals are different, but especially its 6th dimension and forward are different, it also has 10 dimensions (9 really) not 11 so m-theory it is not 

Yes, as I said at the end of my very first video, “this ‘way of imagining’ is not the explanation for string theory“. The premise of my thought experiment is “all dimensions are spatial”. You say my depiction of the fourth and fifth dimension is different from Kip Thorne’s, having read The Science of Interstellar, I disagree. You say my approach of thinking about what it means to say each new dimension is orthogonal to the previous ones is bullshit past the third dimension, and yet I depict the fourth dimension as a world line, and the fifth dimension as where you can see there are the multiple worldlines of Everett’s Many Worlds connected to any event, same as Thorne. There’s nothing ambiguous about this, you either buy into Thorne’s fifth-dimensional depiction of Everett’s interpretation or you do not. I do.  

I would be happy to discuss how that spatial logic might be continued past the fifth dimension if I thought it would do any more than trigger more name calling and expletive-laden tirades. No chance of that, obviously. But thanks for the conversation, you taught me some things.

May I have your permission to post this conversation on my blog? 

(Of course this last question was offered only to be polite, I don't need permission to post something that's already public, I just thought we might have heard one final response, but after two weeks of silence it looks like this conversation is done.)