Towards the physical and mathematical nature of the 4th "dimension" of space

[EricLux]

I realized I put maybe my post not in the right place, so here we go

Reading @Laura's and @ark's Q&A about the 4th "dimension" of space, made me realize quite a few things, so I thought I'd share them with you.

Here you will find some questions to deepen our understanding:

Nature of the 4th dimension
Q1. In the session of November 14, 1998, the Cs confirmed that the 4th dimension is not Einstein's time but "an added spatial reference" allowing one to "visualize outwardly and inwardly simultaneously". In the session of August 27, 2022, the Cs confirmed step by step: the 4th dimension is a frequency, its geometry has a metric tensor but no distance concept, and this metric is degenerate — meaning zero distance between distinct points. Is this degenerate metric precisely the mathematical structure of the split octonion algebra 𝕆' with signature (4,4), where the 7 imaginary directions are isotropic — vectors of zero length — and correspond to the 7 densities?

Q2. In the session of May 27, 1995, the Cs told Roger Santilli: "Merge geometry with optics" and then "Matrix". In physics, the difference between the Laplace equation (geometry/mechanics) and the Maxwell wave equation (optics) generates a purely imaginary residue — what we call i·dx. Is this residue precisely the missing factor you referred to in Santilli's isogeometry — the one you said he had left out?

Q3. In the session of August 27, 2022, the Cs confirmed that the 4th dimension has a degenerate metric with zero distance between distinct points. In the session of November 14, 1998, They also said this dimension "has not been hypothesized" in modern physics. Is the correct mathematical candidate, the contact metric on the 3-sphere S³ via the Hopf fibration above ℂP¹ — where the fiber direction is precisely the isotropic direction of the 4th density, allowing simultaneous interior and exterior visualization as you described?

Q4. In the session of January 4, 1997, the Cs told @ark : "There is no right or left in 4th density through 7th density". For me, this means the 4th dimension integrates both chiralities simultaneously — which is the mathematical signature of a non-orientable space. Is the 4th dimension, as the plan at infinity of 3D space, precisely the real projective plane RP² — a continuous, unbounded, non-quantifiable surface that identifies opposing polarities and cannot be connected to Euclidean space by any finite path?

Q5. In the session of May 27, 1995, we learn that to access 4D reality, one must realize that “Matter is Consciousness and vice versa”. However, the only way connecting Matter and the perceiver’s Consciousness is perception. Perception seems to be the result of the confluence between consciousness and matter. Is the 4th “dimension” of space 1) perception, 2) the integration of conscious perceiver’s through their perception, 3) the ether that physicists seek to explain the dynamics of light as a material substance, 4) a particular form of magnetism, 5) gravity in the form of unstable gravitational waves or 6) all of the above, given that we are entering a non-linear reality?

Gravity, light, antimatter and the unified Field
Q6. In the session of June 15, 1996, the Cs said: "Gravity is all there is", "Gravity is God" and "Light is energy expression generated by gravity". In the session of September 19, 1998, "Gravity is the binder between matter and antimatter" and "The speed of light exists within the larger framework of gravity". In the session of May 23, 2020, the Cs answered @ark's direct question with "Supersedes" when asked whether gravity respects the speed of light. Does this mean that gravity in its complete form is a unified tensor g⁺/g⁻ — where g⁺ is the matter component (attractive, collection) and g⁻ is the antimatter component (repulsive, dispersion) — and that what physics currently observes as gravity is only the g⁺ projection of this tensor?

Q7. In the session of April 23, 2022, the Cs confirmed to @ark : "Should the theory of gravity be formulated as electromagnetism rather than what Einstein did? Yes". You also confirmed in a previous session that bi-metric gravity is "close enough but you can expand and improve it". Is the precise improvement that the relationship between g⁺ and g⁻ is exactly analogous to the E/B duality in electromagnetism — where g⁺ corresponds to the electric field (collection, matter) and g⁻ to the magnetic field (dispersion, antimatter), unified in a single antisymmetric tensor in Clifford algebra Cl(4,2)?

Q8. In the session of May 31, 1997, the Cs said: "Gravity and magnetism are born of the same source". In the session of June 15, 1996, the Cs confirmed: "Can sound manipulate gravity? Yes" and "Generation is really collecting and dispersing". Is the common source of gravity and magnetism the degenerate metric of the 4th dimension — where the chiral rotation between g⁺ and g⁻ produces what we call interdimensional magnetism, exactly as a variable electric field induces a magnetic field in ordinary electromagnetism via Maxwell-Faraday induction?

Q9. In the session of May 27, 1995, the Cs said to Santilli: "Light, gravity, optics, atomic particles, matter, antimatter — unify, please" and confirmed that "all are vibrations of the medium that fills up the entire universe." In the session of June 15, 1996, "Gravity binds all that is physical with all that is ethereal through unstable gravity waves". Is this universal medium the θ field of the degenerate metric — a sine-Gordon type field in a Galilean metric — whose oscillations between matter state (+) and antimatter state (−) generate the matter/antimatter duality and whose equilibrium point θ = π/4 corresponds to the 4th dimension as the dynamic zero between the two polarities?

4th dimension as a variable constant
Q10. In the session of August 27, 2022, the Cs confirmed to @ark that the speed of light is not constant (varies with frequency) and that Planck's constant is not constant. In the session of September 19, 1998, unstable gravity waves are "timeless" and instantaneous. Are c, h, and G all local (3D) projections of a single deeper parameter — the frequency of the degenerate metric of the 4th dimension ? Is the 4th dimension a constant as the common denominator of all spaces, all energies so that it appears as a variable in 4D ?

Q11. In the session of May 27, 2000, the Cs answered "... one on 4th density perceives objects in terms of their own union with all of them?" and "Who is in union with the objects? Perceiver". Is the 4th dimension a constant that hasn't been discovered yet as the dynamic harmonic coordinator of all vibrations across densities ? Is 4th density a 4D reality where everything is connected by a constant (the 4th "dimension") that hasn't been discovered and which allows us, as a perceiver, to be part of everything ?

Q12. In the session of September 19, 1998, the Cs told @ark : "The speed of light exists within the larger framework of gravity". In the session of April 8, 2023, Pierre asked about measured variations in the speed of light between 1929 and 1945 and the Cs answered: "Variations in density subjugation" and "Gravity wave". Does this mean that local variations of c are variations of the coupling constant between the ordinary 3D metric and the degenerate 4D metric — that is, variations in the local value of the frequency parameter of the 4th dimension, driven by cosmological unstable gravity waves?

Q13. In the session of September 19, 1998, the Cs confirmed that the intensity of unstable gravity waves does not decrease with distance — "No" was the direct answer. In the same session, that they are "timeless". Does this mean that in the degenerate metric, the concept of propagation does not apply — that what appears as a wave in 3D is simply a chiral rotation in the isotropic plane of Cl(4,2), which has no velocity because it has no spatial extension in the degenerate direction?

Ark's mathematical program
Q14. In the session of May 23, 2020, the Cs told "Clifford with enhancements, infinite dimensional" and confirmed that sub-Riemannian geometry is the right track, that the Dirac operator links Riemann to Pauli and that algebraic spinors are better than ordinary spinors. Is the specific enhancement the inclusion of the G₂ group action on the split octonions 𝕆' — so that the enhanced infinite-dimensional Clifford algebra is Cl∞(4,2) with G₂ symmetry, whose 12 roots correspond to the 12×12×12 matrix indicated in an earlier session?

Q15. In the session of July 24, 1999, the Cs gave the instruction: "Octagonal complexigram. Try possibility 1-c first" — a complex connection without curvature, without torsion. They also gave "six signs" and "four plus, two minus" indicating signature (4,2). Is possibility 1-c precisely the G₂-invariant connection on the split octonion bundle over the 4-sphere S⁴ — whose structure group is Spin(7) and whose fiber is S⁷ via the Hopf fibration — which simultaneously encodes gravity (as curvature of the base S⁴) and electromagnetism (as curvature of the fiber S³)?

Q16. In the session of October 20, 2018, the Cs confirmed that Atiyah was "definitely onto something", with his geometric derivation of the fine structure constant α, and suggested that "something should be reversed" and linked α to "dark things in relation to light and electricity". In the session of February 25, 2023, They told that Wyler "made assumptions". The historical criticism of Wyler identifies his unjustified normalization on the Shilov boundary of domain D₅. Is the correct assumption — the one that fixes Wyler's derivation — that the measure on the Shilov boundary must be the G₂-invariant measure on the split octonion unit sphere, rather than the standard SO(5,2)-invariant measure?

Q17. In the session of May 23, 2020, the Cs confirmed: "Drop off signs — Yes" and "Sub-Riemannian geometry — Yes". In the session of October 8, 2001, "From signs you get Riemann" and "Operators link Riemann to Pauli". They also confirmed in the session of March 15, 1997 that the Galilean group is better than the Lorentz group because of "the symmetric calculations they used as a basis". In sub-Riemannian geometry with the Dirac operator on signature (4,2), dropping signs means going to a degenerate metric — the 4th dimension. Is the correct procedure to start with the Galilean structure, add the degenerate frequency direction as the 4th parameter, and derive the Lorentz approximation as valid only in the limit where the degenerate coupling is negligible?

Q18. In the session of April 8, 2023, the Cs confirmed that phi "is a key component to the puzzle concerning gravity waves". In a session from late 1998, you also linked phi to Mandelbrot and said "try inserting phi" into the matter/antimatter matrix. For me, the eigenvalues of the Dirac operator on the Cl(4,2) quadric follow a Fibonacci progression whose ratio approaches phi. Is phi the scaling ratio of the G₂ root system — the ratio between long and short roots of G₂ — which appears naturally as the proportion between successive modes of unstable gravity waves as they rotate between g⁺ and g⁻?

Q19. In the session of October 8, 2001, the Cs told "Integrate integers — indeed, space-time is a lattice". In a session from late 1998, They gave the 12×12×12 matrix and said "try it and see" when asked why 12. For me, the 12 roots of G₂ correspond to the 12 directions of this matrix and the components are in the ring ℤ[φ] — integers combined with phi. Is the correct integer lattice for Ark's unified theory the E₈ lattice — which contains the G₂ root system as a sublattice and the Cl(4,2) structure as a sub-algebra — projected onto the (4,2) signature subspace?

Q20. In the session of April 23, 2022, the Cs confirmed that the 7 densities can be described by algebra and that octonions are better than quaternions. The 7 imaginary directions of the split octonions 𝕆' correspond to the 7 lines of the Fano plane and each line carries exactly one quaternionic sub-algebra. Is each density precisely one line of the Fano plane — where the 3 points on each line correspond to the 3 basis quaternions that constitute the physical laws of that density — so that the transition between densities is a rotation in the Fano plane under G₂?

Consciousness, DNA and the perceiver
Q21. In the session of July 10, 1999, the Cs confirmed: "That which extends into 4th density is that which is effected by the pituitary gland — the psychic" and that DNA acts as a variable superconductor. In the session of June 15, 1996, "Gravity binds all that is physical with all that is ethereal through unstable gravity waves". Is the pituitary gland's role as frequency receptor the biological instance of the degenerate metric connection — where the gland sits at the zero-distance point between the 3D neurological system and the 4D frequency space, functioning as the biological G₂-invariant connector between the two metric structures?

Q22. In the session of May 27, 1995, the Cs said "The illusion is that there is not a link between consciousness and matter", "Variable physicality is the key — awareness of the link between consciousness and matter makes physicality variable" and "Level Seven consciousness creates gravity". For me, the preceiver is the living degenerate point — the zero-distance junction between matter (g⁺) and consciousness (g⁻). Is awareness of this link what mathematically corresponds to activating the isotropic direction e₄ in the split octonions — that is, accessing the 4th dimension not as a location but as a mode of perception that makes physicality variable by coupling the 3D metric to the degenerate 4D metric?

Q23. In the session of May 27, 1995, the Cs confirmed "Level Seven consciousness creates gravity — not our consciousness". In the session of April 23, 2022, "Consciousness is life, life is consciousness". For me, the 7th density corresponds to the real unit e₀ of the octonions — the only non-isotropic direction, the source from which the 7 imaginary isotropic directions (the 7 densities) are generated by chiral rotation. Is the 7th density precisely this real direction e₀ of 𝕆', whose gravitational creation is the differentiation of matter from antimatter through the G₂ chiral rotation — so that "gravity is God" means literally that the G₂ action of 7th density consciousness on e₀ generates the g⁺/g⁻ unified tensor?​

 

[John G]

Going through all of that could be a fun discussion. I've seen all of those concepts before but some of them are things I used to know better and some are things I never had much of a grasp on. I'll say more later but first I want to say the 4,4 signature is very key and so is Clifford aka geometric algebra but maybe Cl(4,4) instead of just Cl(4,2). SO(4,2) also has 12 roots but I'm not sure that is important for your use of 12.

 

[John G]

Below from a comment from Anna in Ark's blog is the idea of a 2,2 signature being a phase space for a 2-dim system. Thus 4,4 could be a phase space for a 4-dim system. Phase space could be a nice thing to have when the metric becomes degenerate. Ark via Born reciprocity and Kahler manifolds has been into phase space ideas and he liked Anna's comment.

At the previous post Saša asked about the origin and meaning of the dimensions of our toy 4-dim space. Now I am thinking about some alternative interpretation of these dimensions. Why necessarily space-time? Perhaps, we could consider 4d space with (2,2) signature as a PHASE space (x,p) of a 2d system. Lagrangian L=T-U seems to be a quadratic form of the right signature. Vector product [x,p] and Poisson bracket {x,p} are both anticommutative and probably can be tailored somehow to be product operation.

 

[palestine]

I appreciate the idea of "a metric", belonging to 4th D (and remaining to be discovered). Perhaps time is still relevant but functions differently. I would still opt for "there's no time". I assume it has to deal with the motion of "going forth", or production of anything. How in the world would this be appreciated in 4th D... In addition, do upper densities of existence each work differently, or is it a stable metric starting from the fourth?!

I appreciate that a sine curve is something used in 3D, which means that it may be a representation whose use would be applicable to 3D only. I may be wrong (I don't know). My idea would be that if the 4th D metric remains "unknown" (and yet to be found, illustrated, or grasped, somehow) - its representation may be something completely new and unknown yet. Perhaps, we would come to the realization that its representation in 3D is impossible (because... I would say, "because it belongs to 4thD specifically and that's why ..."; I think you see my point; unless in 4th D ourselves, we wouldn't be able to "feature" anything that could be grasped... because it would require a 4th D apparatus / body). Since C's have been encouraging to find those elements, I think it is not impossible.

Your developpings are way too complicated and skilled for me, and the above is what I could express myself on. I wish you good research and find it nice than to research this aspect. I hope and wish you will find something interesting, something working! Good luck!

 

[SasaM]

Few remarks/questions on the fly, that might or might not be relevant or helpful to the inquiry and strivings presented in the opening post. IOW, FWIW.

What is "space"?
Does "space" exist in reality on its own without the consciousness "occupying" or "defining" it? Would one consciousness "unit" as in a free particle of classical mechanics be enough to talk about the "space" around it or there should be at least two of them to create "space" between them?
Is the "space" introduced by Newton as a stage where (every) things happen, and its homogeneity and isotropy as fundamental physical axioms, actually a product of limited and limiting 3-dim linear perspective and its inability to open itself to limitless terms and boundless beauty of Creation? If "space" really is kind of independent medium as Physics postulated, is it compressible like every other known medium in nature or incompressible like most if not almost all physicists in that field treat plasma?

In a session where Artemis commented, paraphrasing, that space is like water, the C's replied affirmatively. In recent session they also responded affirmatively to Ark's suggestion to treat densities as phases and phase transitions, IRC, like treating different agregate states (of consciousness or awareness?). Does that imply that nature of "space" is different for different densities, like water essentialy exhibits different intrinsic properties when being solid (ice), liquid and gaseous (vapor)? Further suggesting that the structure and "density" of space themselves depend on the states of consciousness and awareness and their perspectives or interactions with that same "space", i.e. their surroundings? Like in that C's saying that it doesn't matter where we are, but who we are and what we see? If so, does that further suggest that perception of space or perhaps "space" itself, whatever it really is, is different in STO environment compared to STS environment? Maybe something like spacetime in relation to gravity, where usual physical description of gravitation as contraction or attractive force only results in a spacetime implosion around and in hypothetical black holes, while "metaphysical" aspect of expanding gravity would essentialy and effectively create and make "new" space (and time) around such a source?

 

[Mark7]

Here you will find some questions to deepen our understanding:

Thanks for assembling all this... I have a bit of a statistics background, but really not proficient in higher math like Fourier analysis. I am vaguely familiar with the narrow path toward the doctoral levels in math and physics. Thanks for making it as simple as possible but not too simple.

 

[John G]

I appreciate the idea of "a metric", belonging to 4th D (and remaining to be discovered). Perhaps time is still relevant but functions differently. I would still opt for "there's no time". I assume it has to deal with the motion of "going forth", or production of anything. How in the world would this be appreciated in 4th D... In addition, do upper densities of existence each work differently, or is it a stable metric starting from the fourth?!

I appreciate that a sine curve is something used in 3D, which means that it may be a representation whose use would be applicable to 3D only. I may be wrong (I don't know). My idea would be that if the 4th D metric remains "unknown" (and yet to be found, illustrated, or grasped, somehow) - its representation may be something completely new and unknown yet. Perhaps, we would come to the realization that its representation in 3D is impossible (because... I would say, "because it belongs to 4thD specifically and that's why ..."; I think you see my point; unless in 4th D ourselves, we wouldn't be able to "feature" anything that could be grasped... because it would require a 4th D apparatus / body). Since C's have been encouraging to find those elements, I think it is not impossible.

Your developpings are way too complicated and skilled for me, and the above is what I could express myself on. I wish you good research and find it nice than to research this aspect. I hope and wish you will find something interesting, something working! Good luck!

A degenerate metric is a known math thing but not used for a physics model so how one goes from a third density Minkowski metric to a fourth density degenerate metric is not something modeled before. Ark mentioned once on his blog that starting with an 8-dim space might be needed.

 

[Thassa]

Have you taken a look to my selections of Physics excepts?
They are marked as pink!

Metaphysics is orange.


This goes just until 1998! My selecting is an ongoing project...

Cassiopaean files – Google Drive

drive.google.com

 

[Gaby]

Essentially, he gave up on measuring gravity.

Weighing in on the mystery of the gravitational constant

Gravity keeps our feet on the ground, holds planets in orbit around the sun, corrals stars and other matter to create galaxies, and shapes galactic clusters to weave the web of the universe. But its strength, expressed as "big G," is not exactly known.

Scientists have been trying to measure the constant for over 225 years, a century after Isaac Newton published his famous law of gravitation.

Although experiments have become more sensitive and sophisticated, many recent measurements of big G have had slightly different values. Although the differences are slight, about one part in 10,000, they are still too large to be explained by routine experimental errors.

That disparity had created an unsettling mystery. Is there some overlooked experimental error causing the mismatches—the most likely explanation—or is there something fundamentally wrong with our understanding of gravity?

After years of work, Schlamminger says he's devoted enough time to chasing big G. "I'll leave it to younger generations of scientists to work on the problem," he added. "We must press on."

Ahem, obviously there's something fundamentally wrong with our understanding of gravity.

 

[palestine]

A degenerate metric is a known math thing but not used for a physics model

Thanks! I was pretty sure it was jargon.

starting with an 8-dim space might be needed

It makes sense to me as we know the Universe goes up to the Seventh. I am wondering why 8 (instead of seven). Seven densities automatically narrows the equation to it. I suppose it is still possible than to use a variable (perhaps for the sake of having a math equation), but that it may only become from 1 to 7 (hmmm unless we would like to express 1,5, 1,8 etc to indicate levels that are intermediate).

 

[Mark7]

Ark mentioned once on his blog that starting with an 8-dim space might be needed.

There are 7 days in a week, 7 notes to the scale, binary is 0-7 represented as decimal space. 7 dimensions and a placeholder? Binary links hexadecimal, octal. That 8-dimensional model in gaming...

 

[John G]

Is this degenerate metric precisely the mathematical structure of the split octonion algebra 𝕆' with signature (4,4), where the 7 imaginary directions are isotropic — vectors of zero length — and correspond to the 7 densities?... Clifford algebra is Cl∞(4,2) with G₂ symmetry, whose 12 roots correspond to the 12×12×12 matrix indicated in an earlier session?... For me, the 7th density corresponds to the real unit e₀ of the octonions — the only non-isotropic direction, the source from which the 7 imaginary isotropic directions (the 7 densities) are generated by chiral rotation. Is the 7th density precisely this real direction e₀ of 𝕆', whose gravitational creation is the differentiation of matter from antimatter through the G₂ chiral rotation — so that "gravity is God" means literally that the G₂ action of 7th density consciousness on e₀ generates the g⁺/g⁻ unified tensor?​

It makes sense to me as we know the Universe goes up to the Seventh. I am wondering why 8 (instead of seven). Seven densities automatically narrows the equation to it. I suppose it is still possible than to use a variable (perhaps for the sake of having a math equation), but that it may only become from 1 to 7 (hmmm unless we would like to express 1,5, 1,8 etc to indicate levels that are intermediate).

There are 7 days in a week, 7 notes to the scale, binary is 0-7 represented as decimal space. 7 dimensions and a placeholder? Binary links hexadecimal, octal. That 8-dimensional model in gaming...

In a session where Artemis commented, paraphrasing, that space is like water, the C's replied affirmatively. In recent session they also responded affirmatively to Ark's suggestion to treat densities as phases and phase transitions, IRC, like treating different agregate states (of consciousness or awareness?). Does that imply that nature of "space" is different for different densities, like water essentialy exhibits different intrinsic properties when being solid (ice), liquid and gaseous (vapor)? Further suggesting that the structure and "density" of space themselves depend on the states of consciousness and awareness and their perspectives or interactions with that same "space", i.e. their surroundings? Like in that C's saying that it doesn't matter where we are, but who we are and what we see? If so, does that further suggest that perception of space or perhaps "space" itself, whatever it really is, is different in STO environment compared to STS environment? Maybe something like spacetime in relation to gravity, where usual physical description of gravitation as contraction or attractive force only results in a spacetime implosion around and in hypothetical black holes, while "metaphysical" aspect of expanding gravity would essentialy and effectively create and make "new" space (and time) around such a source?

Both octonions and split-octonions have 1 real and 7 imaginary numbers. This most directly would be like 1 dimension of time and 7 of space. A lot of 7 structures could just play with the imaginary numbers. Via a property of 8-dim structures only called triality, the spin component directions of matter and antimatter would also be 8-dim. This could kind of make the spin directions a lot like spacetime but not exactly spacetime and this is what spin seems somewhat confusingly to be. There's a paper where the split-octonions 4,4 signature shows triality a little less confusingly than the 4,4 signature of Cl(4,4). The Cl(4,4) geometric algebra is needed however since the split-octonions even with its G2 symmetry is way too small to show all particles, spacetime, spin directions, etc. of physics.

So what do 4,4 split-octonions for triality give that 8,0 regular octonions for triality doesn't? You can get 4 position-4 momentum duality and 4 large spacetime- 4 internal (small) spacetime duality. Large vs small can explain why we only see 4 spacetime dimensions. Position-momentum can give us a phase space where things like consciousness can be used for densities. Hence why Ark asked in the session if changing densities was like changing phase (like with water). The metric becomes a degenerate one for 4th density due to certain states in phase space.

The small split-octonion math itself can relate more directly to densities without the phase space if you make the 8 things of of the split-octonions relate to more complex things than spacetime directions like for example spiritual-physical and STS-STO. This is exactly what Laura effectively did when mapping densities to the Sephirot. The personality space equivalent of what Laura did uses 6 of the 8 things to have future discovery-present care for spiritual-physical and inward focus-outward focus for STS-STO). The 6 things would be like the spatial part of position-momentum. I originally got into Ark's kind of math via needing root system math for a personality theory paper. Rather than being roots, the 12 things may be 12 spacetime dimensions of sorts (related to Ark liking Heim's 12 dimensional model) and that could be the phase space plus the degenerate metric. The roots though are made from spacetime dimensions.

How to get from Cl(4,4) to Cl(infinity)? Cl(4,4) would be the math at a single vertex of spacetime while for countable infinity as the Cs said recently, you would have all the vertices of the universe state being the countable infinite dimensional tensor product Cl(4,4)xCl(4,4)xCl(4,4)x... All the universe states would be an uncountable infinity as the Cs once said for all that is.

 

[John G]

Essentially, he gave up on measuring gravity.

Weighing in on the mystery of the gravitational constant

Ahem, obviously there's something fundamentally wrong with our understanding of gravity.

Q16. In the session of October 20, 2018, the Cs confirmed that Atiyah was "definitely onto something", with his geometric derivation of the fine structure constant α, and suggested that "something should be reversed" and linked α to "dark things in relation to light and electricity". In the session of February 25, 2023, They told that Wyler "made assumptions". The historical criticism of Wyler identifies his unjustified normalization on the Shilov boundary of domain D₅. Is the correct assumption — the one that fixes Wyler's derivation — that the measure on the Shilov boundary must be the G₂-invariant measure on the split octonion unit sphere, rather than the standard SO(5,2)-invariant measure?
​

The gravitational constant is for gravity strength while the fine structure constant is for electromagnetism strength. If like Wyler you only use geometry this gravity strength should come out exactly one while the EM strength is 1/132. So geometrically gravity should be stronger but it really is a lot weaker. So the gravitational constant is kind of a fudge factor. The other fudge factor is via the very well known mass of weak bosons. Gravity is like Planck mass black holes are the gravity bosons (gravitons) even though they aren't. Somebody suggested virtual Planck mass black holes are gobbling up the gravitons. Why the gravitational constant measuring problem? Who knows? Virtual things a problem? Variable Planck constant and speed of light a problem? (A couple things Ark verified in sessions).

 

[palestine]

The gravitational constant is for gravity strength while the fine structure constant is for electromagnetism strength. If like Wyler you only use geometry this gravity strength should come out exactly one while the EM strength is 1/132. So geometrically gravity should be stronger but it really is a lot weaker. So the gravitational constant is kind of a fudge factor. The other fudge factor is via the very well known mass of weak bosons. Gravity is like Planck mass black holes are the gravity bosons (gravitons) even though they aren't. Somebody suggested virtual Planck mass black holes are gobbling up the gravitons. Why the gravitational constant measuring problem? Who knows? Virtual things a problem? Variable Planck constant and speed of light a problem? (A couple things Ark verified in sessions).

Perhaps the idea of sticking with a fixed "seven" or "eight" is a trap since it's how we deal with things in the 3D reality. No clue how to get out of the box here, but basic idea would imply a sort of equation palliating to each and every situation - with us figuring out things work around a seven chunk way. A sort of equation based ont he infinite and ending up showing you it's constricted aroud seven - after assigning values to variables.

So it IS seven, but that's something that you would find after, and not requiring to be set up at the starting point. Defining "7" at the start would natively constrict the outcomes - and the matter would work upside-down.

 

[EricLux]

I appreciate the idea of "a metric", belonging to 4th D (and remaining to be discovered). Perhaps time is still relevant but functions differently. I would still opt for "there's no time". I assume it has to deal with the motion of "going forth", or production of anything. How in the world would this be appreciated in 4th D... In addition, do upper densities of existence each work differently, or is it a stable metric starting from the fourth?!

I appreciate that a sine curve is something used in 3D, which means that it may be a representation whose use would be applicable to 3D only. I may be wrong (I don't know). My idea would be that if the 4th D metric remains "unknown" (and yet to be found, illustrated, or grasped, somehow) - its representation may be something completely new and unknown yet. Perhaps, we would come to the realization that its representation in 3D is impossible (because... I would say, "because it belongs to 4thD specifically and that's why ..."; I think you see my point; unless in 4th D ourselves, we wouldn't be able to "feature" anything that could be grasped... because it would require a 4th D apparatus / body). Since C's have been encouraging to find those elements, I think it is not impossible.

Your developpings are way too complicated and skilled for me, and the above is what I could express myself on. I wish you good research and find it nice than to research this aspect. I hope and wish you will find something interesting, something working! Good luck!​

Yes, it is increasingly noted in the scientific field that, for several decades now, there has been a sense of a plateau within the 3D realm: scientific questions are piling up, major breakthroughs are no longer occurring and mathematics is becoming increasingly abstract and complicated. Is this a sign of a decorrelation between mathematics and physical reality? It is obvious that we can only seek to describe what is observed through the lens of what we know and grasping the reality of the 4th 'dimension' of space is a genuine challenge for the human mind, even for the world’s best scientists.

We are embodied in a 3D reality, at least as we collectively perceive it, and the very fact that we can perceive a 3D reality indicates that we possess, at the very least, a 4th dimension that enables this perception. Where does it reside within our human structure? Furthermore, it is important to note that when we observe an object in our environment, we perceive it from a given angle or perspective. It is never fully apprehended — as @Laura mentioned in a session (14 January 1995) — in a 360° perspective with total fusion. This is one of the paths to approaching 4D reality: the transition from the individual to the collective. Separation from the observed in 3D, versus total fusion with the observed (which, incidentally, no longer needs to be called 'observed' since there is no longer an exterior or interior in this density).

Like you, @palestine, I always find it important to put words to things because it allows us, in a way, to maintain a link with reality. Mathematics is a bridge, a path that the mind has chosen to take to describe its physical environment. To me, it seems obvious that at some point — and this may be the case as early as 4D — mathematics and physics become ONE. This will certainly require changing the mathematical base (the base 10 system we use relies on a separate perception of things that allows for counting) to grasp the dynamics of 4D: will we even 'count' there, for that matter?

Granted, our major bias is that we are formatted for 3D and it is therefore exhausting to imagine a way out. Let’s not forget that the Cs indicated that to transition to 4D density, all 3D lessons must be mastered. This brings to mind phase changes in matter: nothing happens for a period and, then instantly, everything changes state. The key may lie there: we circle everything we can conceptualize in 3D until the moment an illumination, an intuition, or something else enables us to grasp the nature of the 4th 'dimension' of space that is so hidden from us... Perhaps it is the very thing locking our 3D reality and identifying it without fully understanding it will allow for a shift in our perception of reality?

Time is a 3D descriptive artifact of a 4D reality: we understood this well when the Cs confirmed that Einstein's approach was biased regarding time — a reality I had intuited back when I was at university. That was what opened a breach in my studies and made me realize I had to pursue this path... about 30 years ago. Of course, I’ve rubbed shoulders with the 'shut up and calculate' movement, which is content with doing the math as long as it works!

But what I’ve realized by continuing to meditate on the nature of the 4th dimension, the speed of light and the emergence of modern physics, is that it cannot be done without the human mind... hence my questions regarding the integration of the conscious observer into 4D reality. It is still a taboo subject in quantum physics, even if more and more voices have been addressing it in recent years. This is normal, we must not forget the growing presence of the approaching Wave.

So, what is the 4th-dimensional process behind our 3D concept of linear time? The Cs told @ark to replace time with consciousness and to work in 'consciousness spaces'. How do we describe consciousness in math? This is what I was led to do while meditating on these subjects: I am now convinced that with 4D reality, we enter the non-linear where everything is connected, including to the human being. How can we approach the non-linear when all our references are linear? What is the constant that links everything into an organic reality (because we can no longer speak of a mechanical reality at this level, right?) while linking it entirely to the observer? Does this constant have a 3D mathematical counterpart or is it only graspable in 4D? Are quaternions, octonions and Clifford algebras 3D concepts? Maybe and they are the only tools currently at our disposal. Perhaps by identifying the nature and structure of the 4th 'dimension', there will be a feedback loop allowing us to see how to improve our mathematical tools so they aren't just 3D attempts to describe a 4D reality...

As the Cs like to say: you will understand once you are there! So, exhausting? Yes but so much fun! Because through this experience, we learn to know ourselves better and isn't knowledge fun?

PS: When time (lol) permits, I try to post messages in this format because it is part of our way of grasping this reality that is already germinating within us and that we are seeking. I remain convinced that — even if I don't yet know if we are speaking of a unified field at this level — it must ultimately be grasped by any human. I hope, @palestine, that this answers your message somewhat. ​