There is a big misunderstanding about the word "dimension" in the lay-person. The physics of space and time uses the mathematical concept of a "dimension" to indicate the number of entries vectors (and matrices) require to properly explain experimental results. This does not really have a lot of meaning beyond mathematics. In the end, it is still just a model.

Just the idea that we live in three spatial dimensions is not immediately obvious from observation in the natural world. In nature it is very difficult to find a cube or objects with exact 90 degree angles. The Egyptians and the Greeks knew the difference between 2D and 3D, but they did not have the math to work with it. All of their math was planar. It was good enough. The idea to just add a dimension to the math is probably not even very old. Descartes, Euler, Lagrange, Gauss, Riemann. It took all those mathematicians to generalize math to a point where you can define an arbitrary amount of dimensions.

In the end, all that matters is, what mathematical model of space-time explains the observed behavior of the universe? How many spatial dimensions does one require to do so? Are there perhaps multiple temporal dimensions? Etc.

You can ask yourself the questions if these dimensions even "exist". Does a sphere exist? We all know what a sphere looks like. Probably most can define it mathematically (it takes 3 dimensions, but you can have an N-dimensional sphere in math easy-peasy). But does a sphere like that really exist in nature? No. This is where one would arrive at the concept of a Platonic sphere.

It is all a model. This does not mean it is useless, but it is always just a model. If tomorrow something happens that your model does not explain, your model is going to need to change.

It's 17 again.

…That we can think of…

FTFY

Please give transcripts.

The video caused some ruminations ...

17 dimensions ...... What could that infer about Q, but even more about Q+? Or are two separate unconnected items connected by sheer will?

Interestingly, human intellect is trained from childhood to work on premises: either this or that. This gives birth to dialectic, juxtaposition and pro's and con's.

Potential, however, goes towards the small difference, existing at the same time.

On this principle all our physics is based, our worldviews, etc.

I am going to deviate from this line of reasoning, and put a book, written by Stephen hawking, front and center for the moment.

It is not about Stephen Hawking, but about the book. The book is called: A brief history of time. (if you want a copy to read, you know where to get it. Search engines are your friend)

This is not about the contents perse, but about the experience at certain intervals. Hawking describes the several views on the nature of the universe. From earth centric to helio centric, and something in between (Tycho Brahe). My personal experience was that I FELT the shift. Because going from one view to the next, not only takes time to embed itself in society, but, to become the basis on which reality is perceived, and seen.

Moving on to quantum physics, that is where I left off. I could not follow it.

Now think of what the videomaker is saying: there is no way to verify what is being claimed. Trust replaces verification.

I personally do not agree. What I observe is suspicion remains because no verification can be done. It does not shift consciousness, perception, but it hits a wall. And that is where this slight differences in memory enter in the discussion. Since, humans are regarded as untrustworthy when it comes to bearing witness to events, only what can be repeatedly demonstrated as "fact", is accepted as such by those who work at CERN or others who seemingly are "in the know"

And what these people espouse, challenges our perception, our awareness, our worldview. We start to doubt ourselves.

The point I am making here is, we should be aware, that this doubt can be very beneficial, or if not handled correctly, can be very devastating.

The current view on physics is not set in stone. Many physicists are meta-physicists. The differences in view, are perfectly made visible if one were to compare Einstein with Bergson, or others.

There are even more peculiar views as is espoused by Doug Renselle, on his website on Quantonics, where the symbol ℏ (h-bar) is a reduced planck-constant, not so much as a physicists material constant, but as a symbolic of the smallest measure of action, leading to changes (Plato: Pantha Rei) not a s fluid movement but minimal steps in difference.

Classically, change is continuous, smooth, predictable. Quantonics, sees change as a jump, a step, discreet, relational.

ℏ (h-bar) then becomes a threshold symbol, marking the point where potential moves to event, possibility moves into realization, field becomes experience.

Ergo, we are looking at the minimal change before anything appears, not as a juxtaposition, but a moving over, presence that is luminated. This leads to positive only reality: appearance by crossing a threshold.

To this there is a rhythm.

In other words: The cosmic threshold between pure possibility and actual presence — the smallest breath of reality in form.

And those familiar with the 8 laws of the universe (Not the Abraham Hicks kind of BS) recognize it immediately.

Branching out, from a Human Design perspective, this system postulates that, based on human nature, i.e. DNA as being a sort of antenna, the cosmic stream of neutrinos, influence potential, allowing us, to access that potential.

The postulated global cycles and the retrograding 6 lines become themes with potential, not in a deterministic sense, but a threshold for change. After all, HOW we respond to anything, is based on several factors:

1. our design, and thus what we are here for in this location of being
2. whether we live out our design to observe reality, or that we superimpose our homogenized will onto reality.

In essence, humanity is divided into 5 groups: Generators or respondents. (signal frustration) Manifesting-generators: i.e. respondents (signal: frustration-anger: at the same time) Projectors: also respondents to invitations to participate (signal: bitterness)

These three make up 91% of humanity. These are the energy types bring things into being by appropriating their energy towards what they respond to.

Potentially, this can be a positive or a negative, wholesome or quite the opposite. But whatever it is, the change IS occurring, not smooth, predictable, continuously, but as a burst, a step, a jump, discrete, relational, like moving towards a threshold, and crossing it over ... or not. You could say, in Q-parlance: D5. Or drip, drip, drip: flood. Or boom, ......boom, boom ....... BOOOOOOOM.

The two other types are not of this world of the 91%: Manifestors & Reflectors.

Manifestors (8%) are here to initiate change. However, change is always rejected, unless, there is a authorization by the first group to lay it all down, explain it, make it known. i.e. Is it ok for me to show you ....

Reflectors on the other hand, are rare, about 1% of a population. They are not here to do anything, just to watch what happens, see the change while it is in progress. Reflectors, if functioning correctly, have a unique way to see potential, the trap of it is to create expectation, extrapolation. They are pretty well suited to reflect upon things. But only when invited, is it possible to say something, otherwise rejection happens. Signal: disappointment.

From the negative signal, a positive signal can be derived.

Of course, each individual has their unique design, their unique authority and strategy. But, being in line with our unique design is not that simple, due to homogenization by family and rearing, by society.

This means, that while we are living out the last year of the Global cycle of Planning, the pressure to homogenize becomes stronger. The rise of the administrative state, of governmentalism, of technocratic means to order society, like the way China designed it in the UK, perverting the will of the people to BREXIT, are a sign of a crossover towards survival of a system that is on death row.

In a time of 5th Generation Warfare, which objective is to sever the connection within mankind between spiritual, mental en physical coherence, living out correctly our own design is a challenge.

The next phase, when the background energy, which has so far supported the Cycle of planning, giving us globalism, just in time delivery, 911 calls, etc, changes to individual, the inner truth that has been capable of discovery during this last phase (since the 60-ies), the line 1: the question. The next phase will be themed: the example, role model.

It does not appear all of a sudden, but a gradual change, with burst, jumps, and what remains is the potential.

The question then is: how do we create a world we want to live in? By cllick-bait emo responding? Or are we going to use the tools and short cuts we have been provided, to effect a positive, whole some one.

Either way, from a "potential" point of view, the choice is ours.

She invited me to see everybody and put 1:40 me at the table of two physicists from 1:42 the CERN. One in Geneva, one in Portugal 1:45 because there are many other minisserns. 1:47 It's not just Geneva. I said, "So, how 1:48 many dimensions officially are living in 1:52 the CERN?" They both said 17 very 1:55 affirmatively.

Hearsay. The physicists probably mean there are 17 fundamental particles including the God particle. M-theory always has 10 or 11 dimensions. You can find more dimensions after that but 10 effective are enough for now and the next bump up might take it to 22 or thereabouts, not 17.

u/justThisGuyYouKnow