Talk:Interdimensional UFO hypothesis

References

Recommendation: This article really should include some references and footnotes. The author appears to be familiar with Jaques Vallee. Some specific sources for Dr. Vallee's research should be referenced. Also, I am going to make a couple small changes in the first paragraph to better explain the basic idea of this hypothesis, as the current article seems to presume the reader is already somewhat familiar with it.

this text is really funny... "indeed the answer would destroy cherished notions of humanity's place in the universe", as though that's such an earth-shattering realization that it would paralyze our society any more than being on the verge of some technological singularity. I don't think so. -- 216.234.56.130 21:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

That's not funny at all. There are a lot of very religious people in the world, and this view does not meet with their beliefs. Look how some of the more dogmatic religions are when someone says the smallest thing to challenge their beliefs. Some of these remarks are punishable by death! I've personally met religious people who were disturbed by the very idea that evidence of life was found on a meteorite from Mars, because they felt the Bible said that was not the case. History is filled with such examples. Look at Copernicus and Galileo and the religious disputes over heliocentrism. DavidRavenMoon 01:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

So then if anything, it's not the people trying to "get out" the answer that would be the problem, but those trying to suppress it, e.g. Galileo, etc. were the good guys, Church was the bad guy. You say: "Some of these remarks are punishable by death!" But that doesn't mean they person making the remarks is the bad guy -- on the contrary, it's the suppressor who is. mike4ty4 (talk) 08:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The interdimensional hypothesis gets along quite well with religions like Christianity. What do you think supernatural and spiritual beings like angels, cherubim, seraphim, and demons are? 73.186.67.165 (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The Control Mechanism

I question whether these two paragraphs (at least in their current form) actually belong here.. the second paragraph in particular seems POV (it seems to assume there are aliens controlling humanity) edit: I gave in and rewrote parts of the second paragraph, spending way more time on an odd topic than it deserves :) Digfarenough 14:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Proof of Interdimensional Theory vs. Hypothesis

An Hypothesis requires no proof, whereas Theories require at least circumstantial proof. The existence of interdimensional people who interact in real time with humans, is readily proveable in many quiet natural areas that have a local water source. No laboratory is required. Interdimensional and invisible people often exist in those areas by the dozens, if not hundreds. They range in size from short 4 legged lizard like but intelligent people, up to the tallest Bigfoot/Sasquatch people. All frequently attempt some sort of real time communication with us. The smaller people often utilize electronic clicking. The larger often utilize crisp branch breaks snaps, that may come from a nearby location from which there are neither visible branches nor visible interdimensional people. Their desire to seek safey in the higher dimensions, may have been motivated by moronic man's inherant tendancy to shoot anything that he either does not understand or he fears. Consequently, the interdimensional people remain invisible in the higher dimensions for all except for the most trusted of us, such as women and children. Virtually none of the interdimensional people have demonstrated malevolence toward man. They appear to be more likely interested in attaining some sort of communcation with man, performing some simple and harmless tricks of amazement, and maintaining an extended friendship. These interdimensional people can exist in multiple dimensions. The further away from man's dimension that they exist in, the less our animate, and inanimate objects as well as gravity, seem to affect them. In dimensions that are only twice removed from man's, our plant and animal life likely no longer has a solid presence. In dimensions twice or more removed from man's, the medium size and larger interdimensional people can emit a strong electromagnet radiation that can be felt on our skin, when they are within about 50 yards. The electricity necessary for that radiation, is likely the driving force in their ability to change dimensions. (The modification of frequency of vibration in free quanta loop strings, aka string theory, as described in "X3" by Adrian Dvir.) In dimensions three or more removed from man's, neither our gravity, nor our principles of moment of inertia, seem to affect them. This is because they can both fly and/or transfer locations in an instant, when in those dimensions. For instance, they can jump back 50 yards in the wink of an eye. Naturally occurring interdimensional people seem to have the capability of reverting back to an almost pure energy orb phase, possibly for the purposes of travel, safety and stealth. At night, Orbs can often be viewed and filmed with the assistance of infrared night vision devices that have an infrared illuminator. In conclusion, circumstantial proof of the presence of interdimensional intelligent lifeforms can be readily obtained in a variety of ways, thus qualifying "interdimensional" for Theory status instead of as an unproven Hypothesis. 4.242.174.88 (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Every topic deserves it! If people rewrite topics they don't agree with, that taints the story with their skeptical viewpoint. And then it's no longer in the spirit of the topic. As crazy as it sounds, there are some convincing arguments for the possibility of present, or ancient control of humanity by non humans. DavidRavenMoon 01:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Trimming Article

I've removed the following sections, as they seem to be an excessive level of detail:

Going further back in history, to prehistoric Europe, during the ice age, before the written word existed, people recorded their world in a symbolic language of cave paintings and illustrations have since been found, deep underground, of animals of various sorts; the deeper one goes and the more inaccessible the cave becomes, the more deformed the animals appear, eventually becoming demon or monster like in their appearance, each monster being made up of parts of various animals, for instance, the head of a horse and the body of a bison with the legs of an ibex, etc.

It is conjectured by modern science that these images represent the spiritual beliefs of the people of the time, with caves thought to be "womb like", and the illustrations of the monsterous animal hybrids representing mother earth, creating the various forms of animals that inhabit the world. The deeper one goes the more chaotic the forms, approaching more realistic forms the closer one is to the surface, before the earth creates or gives birth to the species that inabit the surface world. Alternatively it might just be easily said that demons, illustrative of the forms that people drew on the walls, were actually manifesting within the caves and communicating with the people and influencing their view of the world, their religion, and creating myth. Comparisons can be drawn with reported manifestations of dwarves or ogres in the mines of medieval Germany.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Standeven (talk • contribs) 16:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Anolog of the matrix and animatrix movie.

Just want to note, that popular fiction like the Matrix and the Animatrix. Actualy are about these kind of worlds as described by this phenomene. Especialy the Animatrix, part in which there is house with errors in time/space.

Depending of phylosophy of what our universe is. I think it's not a so uncommen tought interdimensional hypothesis. A quantum computer literly uses the concept of multidimensional space. Or rather multiple happenings in a common defined space

Perhaps it's an idea to have some links from this page to these subjects (animatrix / quantum multiverse ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.143.153 (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirection from Interdimensional

A peculiarity exists in that those seeking information on the subject of "interdimensional", are redirected to "dimensions", with no reference to this section. "Dimensions" has to do with the existence of any number of dimensions, whereas "interdimensional" has to do with the ability to change dimensions, especially to and from the higher dimensions. I propose that the redirection be to this section and not to the "Dimensions" section.208.100.240.151 (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

John A. Keel's Ultraterrestrials

John A. Keel's Ultraterrestrial Hypothesis falls under the Interdimensional Hypothesis. Keel wrote that UFOs and other phenomena are manifestations of beings who exist in a sort of parallel dimension.To be specific he said that these entities operate in a part of the electromagnetic spectrum that the human eye can't perceive. I think a paragraph of two should be dedicated to his writings. I'm currently studying his books, so in a few weeks I'll feel confident enough to add to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vomitbrown (talk • contribs) 18:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I am curious: Did you add in material? Thanks. Misty MH (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that Ted Holiday should be stirred in here as well, somehow. His was the hypothesis known as The Goblin Universe. I think that John Keel refered to this in his books. Kortoso (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

By reading John A. Keel, behind the language of a "UFO's: Operation Trojan Horse", one is to bear in mind that whatever is caught on film is merely an object, in spite of what is sighted by one's very senses live. No confirming scientifically a force behind the object, ruling out the notion to a 'celestial phenomenon.'

In terms of the silhouette against the horizon, the emerging red eyes "to something" sighted, following the flash of "purple" or blue light granting the sightee the slip, by what the mind confabulates beyond this violet, it is intended clear that it is only to say that there was inadequate light present to make out what stirred one's senses, perhaps initially through hearing.

Keel personally confesses under literature "sleight of hand" to be an existing personal hobby. Philip J. Imbrogno within published field is one, perhaps another to hint of a phenomenon perhaps socially one time reserved for trick of the magician.

Much of this seems to root Fort whose material is recommended for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.44.178.72 (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Youtube Example of Little Interdimensional People

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYwU1RGOC9c Although the video is labeled as a baby Bigfoot, and Bigfoot are known to be interdimensional, it is unlikely that a baby Bigfoot of this size would be out of his mothers arms, much less have the agility to hang from and frolic in tree branches. The little person is seen in the tree in the distant background, and was apparently unintentionally photographed.208.100.241.95 (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Field Study of Large Interdimensional People

Large Wall Of Text having no bearing on the writing of this encyclopaedia article removed simply to make this talk page easier to read. Uncle G (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

My deletion of a hypothesis from the article.

I removed the "variant hypothesis" on UFOs being an unusual optical/electromagnetic phenomenon based on as-yet-unsuspected properties of light: I don't see that this has anything to do with the Interdimensional hypothesis, although it is of course a perfectly good hypothesis in its own right.Ben Standeven (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Question on a sentence

"Strictly, IDH is considered a belief system rather than a hypothesis like ETH, because it is not falsifiable through scientific testing and experiment." How does one go about falsifying the extraterrestrial hypothesis? I see how it could be verified, of course. Ben Standeven (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that statement means, the extraterrestrial hypothesis is such that it would occur within the science of our universe/dimension, and would therefore leave hard evidence. It would be possible to falsify/verify each instance. The argument is that IDH would leave no such hard evidence. So ETH can be falsified on an individual basis, much the same with any scientific test occurring on anything else. Icemotoboy (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

How could it be verifiable but not falsified? GC. Kortoso (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Redirect

I can not see any reason why this was split from the parent article, it is a fringe theory of a single fringe theorist. Any RSes and information drawn from RSes would be welcome at the target article. Simonm223 (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

@Simonm223: of Interdimensional being or possibly UFO religion? Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 17:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Jacques Vallée was what I was considering I think - though this comment is literally a decade old so (shrug emoji) I don't really have any significant horse in this race. Simonm223 (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

IDH because interstellar travel is impractical?

To me this whole paragraph is not supported and probably should be removed from wikipedia.

Some UFO proponents accepted IDH because the distance between stars makes interstellar travel impractical using conventional means and nobody had demonstrated an antigravity or faster-than-light travel hypothesis that could explain extraterrestrial machines.[citation needed]

Nobody has demonstrated that there are other "dimensions", let alone conventional means to travel between them and I would dispute that antigravity or FTL is required to explain extraterrestrial visitors, see Self-replicating spacecraft or Generation_ship

With IDH, it is unnecessary to explain any propulsion method because the IDH holds that UFOs are not spacecraft, but rather devices that travel between different realities.[10]

Since it's not clear to me what is the means of propulsion in IDH it's hard to gauge the validity of the statement of what is unnecessary. Inter dimensional travel is just as fantastic FTL or antigravity at this point in our understanding of our universe and it's laws.

Finally, The reference for this paragraph is to a book by David Hatcher Childress, who according to his wikipedia page, "Childress claims no academic credentials as a professional archaeologist nor in any other scientific field of study". Why would his book be cited here when discussing the merits of hypothetical physics. Chaozu42 (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I agree with you that FTL speed is not required to explain extraterrestrial visitors (not that I have done all the math, but I did start some this last month, regarding that very thing). If the Galaxy is billions of years old, even if it took a million years to get here from somewhere, some machines (A.I.) could potentially have traveled the distance, maybe multiple times even.

Without reading the whole article, I think a simple rewording could help the paragraph sit fine: "Some UFO proponents prefer an IDH because they believe the distance between stars...". I think that including some explanation of some people's preference of IDH to the ETH is important.

In this field of study, I am not sure ANY academic credentials could be sufficient to call anyone an expert. Quantum Physicists might be close, as long as they have some advanced Astronomy credentials to go with it (and maybe some others). On the other hand, if an IDH is explained by some kind of almost-metaphysical means, then what? ¶ Such hypotheses are so advanced in concept – as you have admitted – that it is likely that NO scientist is fully qualified to comment. A whole new serious multi-disciplinary scientific field is needed, and dare we call it UFOlogy? This probably won't help, LOL, but Childress was a regular on Ancient Aliens. Whether he has academic credentials or not, his experience in this field likely counts for something, and has brought him onto that show. I myself wonder if anyone is qualified to be cited for certain hypothetical physics. But I do think that IDH is a major idea, worthy of discussion – some woman I met tonight said her hobby is quantum physics, and she talked about the idea of a "multiverse",* which is similar in concept to multiple dimensions in this case – and frankly, any person with a good idea (even a child) may be worthy to be heard. When we are dealing with things so advanced or so beyond our actual scientific knowledge, we are hard-pressed to find a person whose opinion (and it may be just that) that can be widely trusted as a source or citation for such things.

:)

* One definition: "an infinite realm of being or potential being of which the universe is regarded as a part or instance." (Apple Dictionary) Another def.: "multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of infinite or finite possible universes (including the historical universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists and can exist: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them. ... The various universes within the multiverse are sometimes called parallel universes." (Wiki)

Misty MH (talk) 06:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC) Misty MH (talk) 06:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I am fine with your suggested correction to start the paragraph with "Some UFO proponents prefer....". As for the second sentence, I still feel like this sentence is almost meaninglessly vague, "With IDH, it is unnecessary to explain any propulsion method because the IDH holds that UFOs are not spacecraft, but rather devices that travel between different realities." That's a total shell game since you if you can't explain propulsion you should instead adopt another unexplainable mode of transport (through time or other dimensions)? Does anyone have any more detail from the only cited source which is Childress' book? Chaozu42 (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Is Hilary Evans an IDH advocate?

I have just read the reference given for this assertion in the entry:

One advantage of IDH proffered by Hilary Evans is its ability to explain the apparent ability of UFOs to appear and disappear from sight and radar; this is explained as the UFO entering and leaving our dimension ("materializing" and "dematerializing"). Moreover, Evans argues that if the other dimension is slightly more advanced than ours, or is our own future, this would explain the UFOs' tendency to represent near future technologies (airships in the 1890s, rockets and supersonic travel in the 1940s, etc.

Evans nowhere uses the words dimension or interdimensional. The specific language he uses includes the phrases alternative universe, parallel-universe theorists, and parallel space-time continuum. While people do throw these terms around as though synonymous, they are not precisely the same thing and scientists would probably be more accepting of parallel continuums than of extra dimensions. I would also question whether Evans was personally expressing belief in such things than providing education that some ufo thinkers thought that way. Four years later, in his book The Evidence for UFOs (1983), he gives a personal assessment that expresses acceptance of the involvement of "structured artefacts of extraterrestrial origin," man-made experimental craft, natural biological objects, and psychological processes. There is nothing about parallel universes or dimensions. By 1997, in an essay for the Fortean Times anthology UFO 1947-1997: Fifty Years of Flying Saucers, he points out the lack of evidence for extraterrestrial visitors and emphasizes how much of UFO phenomena turns out to be myth. It seems a bit peculiar to see Evans here as if the IDH was a significant aspect of his legacy to ufo thought.

Magonian (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

"Dimension"

Taken from Interdimensional being:

It is important to note that dimension is a direction, and thus in this context is technically used incorrectly.Kortoso (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Support from physics

What this topic requires is a section describing theories of physics that might support it.

http://www.huliq.com/10282/ufo-sighting-origins-linked-einstein-parallel-universes-say-top-physicists

“How do you know you’re reading this sentence, and not floating in a vat on a distant planet, with alien scientists stimulating your brain to produce the thoughts and experiences you deem real," asks one of the world's foremost physicists.

Professor Brian Greene says “these issues are central to epistemology, a philosophical subfield that asks what constitutes knowledge, how we acquire it, and how sure we are that we have it? “Think of the universe like a deck of cards,” adds Greene while explaining “parallel universes” and “the deep laws of the cosmos,” and why there’s alien life and “another life” in what “popular culture has brought to a wide audience in the films such as The Matrix, The Thirteenth Floor, and Vanilla Sky. He then asks: “How do you know you’re not hooked into the Matrix?”

Greene, a foremost physicist, also wrote The Elegant Universe and The Fabric of the Cosmos. Greene received his undergraduate degree from Harvard University and his doctorate from Oxford University, where he was a Rhodes Scholar. He served on the physics faculty of Cornell University and Columbia University as “professor of physics and mathematics.” Greene is a colleague of Stephen Hawking and an expert on the work of Albert Einstein.

Today, Professor Greene says he’s tackling the existence of multiple universes in his latest book, The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos.

Recent discoveries in physics and astronomy, he says, point to the idea that our universe may be one of many universes populating a grander multiverse.

"You almost can't avoid having some version of the multiverse in your studies if you push deeply enough in the mathematical descriptions of the physical universe," he says. "There are many of us thinking of one version of parallel universe theory or another. If it's all a lot of nonsense, then it's a lot of wasted effort going into this far-out idea. But if this idea is correct, it is a fantastic upheaval in our understanding,” added Professor Greene during the NPR interview.

Stephen Hawkings in The Grand Design: "The conclusions are groundbreaking. Of all the possible universes, some must have laws that allow the appearance of life. The fact that we are here already tells us that we are in that corner of the multiverse. In this way, all origin questions are answered by pointing to the huge number of possible universes and saying that some of them have the properties that allow the existence of life, just by chance." Kortoso (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Degree of falsifiability

Instead of:

"IDH is considered a belief system rather than a scientific hypothesis because it is not falsifiable through testing and experiment"

Consider this instead:

"IDH cannot be considered scientifically true at this point, because it is not falsifiable through testing and experiment"?

As Wolfgang Pauli said, "it is not only not right, it is not even wrong!"

There is a potential for someone to figure out a way to test it by some means other than thought experiment. Perhaps, at this point, it's a working hypothesis, along the lines of multiverse (perhaps sharing some common issues)?

I would caution against calling IDH a belief system because that's essentially an empty term, and equating it to religion implies that there are better explanations for the phenomena this hypothesis attempts to address. Kortoso (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. I would go with

IDH cannot be considered a true scientific hypothesis at this point because it is not falsifiable through testing and experiment.

to avoid the epistemologically problematic phrase "scientifically true". - 2/0 (cont.) 23:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that's great. "At this point" as a general practice, to avoid being embarrassed by novel discoveries. Kortoso (talk)

Epistemically impossible is probably the term we are searching for. Kortoso (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Jacques Valee

Someone asked for his views on this: http://www.jacquesvallee.net/bookdocs/arguments.pdf Note that he is one of the scientists who chooses the term "Interdimensional Hypothesis". Kortoso (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

NPOV Debate

I reported this article for not having a Neutral Point of View, specifically for the statement, "Unlike ETH, it is not possible to verify IDH by experiment or by observation because there is no way to detect the alternative realities it postulates."

While is IDH is not verifiable, ETH is just as NOT verifiable. These planets that ETH theory claims, actually can be verified as nonexistent. Also, what ETH objective experiment exists anyway? It's a dumb biased statement that should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.214.14 (talk) 17:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

That paragraph is a mess, I have trimmed down accordingly. Possibly we could have some statements allong these lines but it seems like it would either need to be attributed to someone or a consensus between multiple sources. Artw (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Improvements

• Add Meade Layne's etherships of 1945, 1947
• Second source for "hypostasis"?
• Source Layne, Keel and Vallee via Academic Folklore sources, NOT UFO sources.
  • Reorg as Notable proponents?

Feoffer (talk) 02:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Phenomena throughout history

Perhaps what's still not clear enough, is that it's not that such phenomena manifested throughout history, except for the belief in such and the relevant traditions (i.e. superstition, the belief in spirits, etc). And of course personal experiences like related to sleep paralysis. Some sources likely mention these links and the tendency for proponents to revise older traditions and art in light of their current beliefs. —PaleoNeonate – 00:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Science Fantasy element in Real Life

does this make Real Life Science Fantasy-like? Masonicon (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)