# 4th density geometry

This is wrong. The Octonions aren't associative. The Sedenions aren't an alternative algebra, whatever that means.
What makes sedenions really weird are zero-divisors as in you can multiply two non-zero numbers to get zero.

Yeah, I'm wondering now if gravity is the way light interacts with itself. So two EM waves don't just pass through each other, but instead each one generates a potential for the other, which influences the way the other moves. This potential would be gravity.

Also, if you like general relativity, then perhaps you can think of gravity bending light, thus causing a perception of curved space, which really is curved space if there is no space. The curved space is then gravity, which in turn bends light. So there's a kind of triad.

Back to the subject of Coral Castle:

Q: (L) Now, did the fellow who built the Coral Castle spin in his airplane seat while thinking his manipulations into place?

A: No. He spun when gravity chose to manipulate him to spin in order to manipulate gravity.

The C's had said that everything is gravity. It makes sense that gravity would interact with itself.

And this is why geometry is important. After all, to measure space you need objects that can establish geometrical relationships, right? I'm thinking (and I think we're back to that in the end but in other words) that the manifestation of all that was, is and will be, is gravity interacting with itself, changing geometrical relationships. Nested geometries that go from the quantum to the cosmos.

I think a projective space over hypercomplex numbers would look just like projective space over Rn or Cn. You'd need to show that the vector multiplication is well defined when taking projections and I'd be surprised if it were. Still good stuff though, maths is interesting in its own right.
You have zeroed in on the best bit! The projections define hyper-surfaces that have the potential to extend throughout all space. This is how quantum mechanics exists...

How else can a photon traverse every single possible path through our entire universe? Think about the supposed size of our universe, yet a photon extends through its entirety and creates standing waves.

It is similar to a Riemann sphere, but not...

Unlike Kaluza-Klein, or String theory, you don’t need stupid ideas like microscopic rolled up dimensions. Each sub-space is closed and self consistent, but interactions with external dimensions project as surfaces and volumes - in both directions!

No wonder the ancients thought spheres were of the gods! They are!

Tony Smith has this relationship to Sedenions:

Thanks! I had checked out his site after re-reading through the Cs transcripts. But my math is still too primitive for me to be able to read his notation. Soon...

I had also checked out the stuff from Miles Matheson. He intuitively grasps that circles and spheres are mis-understood, and their conventional treatment broken, but he completely missed the mark by demanding that time/acceleration be incorporated into any circle...

But now I know where I’m going with this!

I can fit 1D and 3D subspaces into our universe and everything is consistent with Geometric Algebra.

I’m 90% locked in with our universe being Quaternionic (elipsoidal) inside an Octonionic one - and 10% on our universe being complex (spherical) in a Quaternionic one...

It is a question of why h (Planck’s constant) is the same in all directions...

I’m working, for now, without time - so all quantum wave functions are timeless, and photons are using E= hc/lambda - deriving the photon wave function purely spatially...

I can re-insert time later if it turns out to be necessary, but I doubt it will...

I’m just clawing my way through learning the language of maths while working 70 hours per week on my company - trying not to go bankrupt...

This is inspiring though!

You have zeroed in on the best bit! The projections define hyper-surfaces that have the potential to extend throughout all space. This is how quantum mechanics exists...

How else can a photon traverse every single possible path through our entire universe? Think about the supposed size of our universe, yet a photon extends through its entirety and creates standing waves.

It is similar to a Riemann sphere, but not...

Unlike Kaluza-Klein, or String theory, you don’t need stupid ideas like microscopic rolled up dimensions. Each sub-space is closed and self consistent, but interactions with external dimensions project as surfaces and volumes - in both directions!

No wonder the ancients thought spheres were of the gods! They are!
Conformal structures/Bounded Complex domains are Poincare disks/spheres/hyperspheres and the conformal metric could have projective structures as an affine connection and the Geometric algebra hodge dual structure (4-vectors as self dual) could give you Standard Model Yang-Mills structures.

Conformal structures/Bounded Complex domains are Poincare disks/spheres/hyperspheres and the conformal metric could have projective structures as an affine connection and the Geometric algebra hodge dual structure (4-vectors as self dual) could give you Standard Model Yang-Mills structures.
Ooooo.....

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

You just saved me years of reinventing the wheel!

I figured the maths was out there already, and I’m not surprised it was done by Poincare, but it struck me as weird that in every presentation on 1D and 2D, 3D entities they ignore these things and instead talk of points, lines, planes and volumes...

A point is actually 0D not 1D.

A 1D entity has a single dimensional value (say r), and if projected onto 1D is represented as a 1D hypersphere with perimeter thickness r. (e.g. A circle within a disk, with coincident centers at 0, and the radius of the circle given by its position in the 1D disk. Or, a line segment within a line, of length r, positioned at a point denoted by its 1D position from the origin, and orientation denoted by another 1D orientation- a 1D bi-vector...)

That same entity, when projected onto 2D is represented as a 2D hypersphere with radius r. (e.g. A circle within a ellipse at a position/orientation within the elipse given by 2D a bi-vector.)

Projected onto 3D is represented as a 3D hypersphere, again with radius r. (e.g A sphere within an ellipsoid at a position/orientation given by a 3D bi-vector...)

It all becomes so simple!

I think a projective space over hypercomplex numbers would look just like projective space over Rn or Cn. You'd need to show that the vector multiplication is well defined when taking projections and I'd be surprised if it were. Still good stuff though, maths is interesting in its own right.

Vector multiplication within the projection would behave in accordance with “Geometric Algebra meets Quantum Mechanics” - using the Hypercomplex number as the basis for the subspace (& its projection) is the reason why Geometric Algebra applies in the first place! The projected hypersphere is why QM exists the way it does...

I’m not trying to invent a new universe; I’m just asking “why” things are the way they are already, and “how” can they be that way...

I'm not even going after Lorentz/Relativity (yet). I’m trying to understand how we can only experience 3 dimensions when there are clearly more (QM) - and how can a closed n dimensional space exist in a wider n+m dimensional universe.

Coming back and with an interesting article. Here we have related the light, the gravity, the spiders and the geometry of their webs. I will translate the article from Spanish and make it as short as possible.

Two spiders on the space station find a surprising trick to build webs without gravity

Spiders are capable of building typical webs in microgravity, provided they have access to a light source, according to new research published in Science of Nature. In the absence of gravity and therefore an up and down feeling, a light source provides a frame of reference for spiders. When a light source is available, spiders weave their normal asymmetrical webs and wait for their prey near the top. However, without light, they build symmetrical webs, which is not normal behavior. It is a surprising discovery *that highlights the relatively unimportance of gravity for spiders when they weave their webs.

(*my comment: don't be so sure, if gravity is what binds everything in creation)

The species chosen for the 2011 spider experiment is the golden silk orb weaver or Trichonephila clavipes. Cushing and Zschokke designed an experiment in which two spiders would build their webs in separate test chambers on the ISS, while two spiders were kept in identical habitats on the ground to serve as a control group .[...]It turns out that spiders, when working in microgravity, tend to weave webs that are significantly more symmetrical than those built on Earth. In addition, the shafts were placed closer to the center of the webs and the spiders did not always keep their heads down.

But this was not the case in all areas. Some webs exhibited a surprising degree of asymmetry, especially for those "whose construction had begun when the lights were on, suggesting that light replaced gravity as an orientation guide during web construction,"
according to the paper. In addition, the light also provided a reference for the spider in terms of its position on the web (by top, the researchers mean the top of the habitat).

Interestingly, access to a light source was not even considered as a factor in the experiment.

"We would not have guessed that light would play a role in the orientation of spiders in space," Zschokke said in a statement from the University of Basel. "We were very lucky that the lamps were placed on top of the camera and not on several sides. Otherwise, we would not have been able to discover the effect of the light on the symmetry of the zero-gravity networks.

This article provides a series of clues that point to the direction of a geometric network that interacts with light and gravity. What if the same observable principle occurs at the quantum level? Can this be evidence of the close relationship between light and gravity?

What's the current take about fractals in the geometry study of the work done so far? Could you guys shed some light on this?

Maybe....

Two geometries in one. It depends on how you look at it.
Sorry it's only in beautiful french language

Very interesting conversation and info being shared, unfortunately I don't have the in-depth knowledge of some ideas and theories discussed. I can give my thoughts on the basis of mathematics and physics, of which I do ponder quite often with contemplation and prayer.

I think 4th density geometry has a lot more to do with how symbols are used than what we normally think numbers alone can translate, much like our folklore and how chinese characters are used. They encompass vast stores of knowledge and experiences, through utilizing symbolism, much like how the cathedral architecture does.

Liken how the basis of 4th density concept is to us, is like trying to describe GOD in a brief paragraph. Maybe that is my point for writing this: GOD. For GOD, The All, The Cosmic Mind, can really KNOW, for example, what 0, ♾, 1, 2, 3, a point, a line, a plane, circle/sphere/pie really Is. Throw away whatever perceived knowing of what those things really Is, for at best they represent symbols to 3rd density minds. Don't see what I mean? Ask yourself, In our reality, which is the only proof of what we can witness, have you actually seen 0 or infinite? Nope, we end up caught in a fractal loop, a catch22, a mis perception of reality. This actually applies to many many things, going back to 1, 2, 3, a point, a line, etc. GOD is perfect in the fullest sense of the word, so GOD really knows what those things are, in my own words; HE has seen infinite to its beginning and end, seen a plane because it is perfectly flat, a line because it is perfectly straight, a circle/sphere because it is perfectly round and pied to the infinite, HE is the 1 that became 2 - that birth 3 and to all things from that point(no pun intended). I do recall the C's trying to explain a point, and then from that point start a line stretched infinitely, actually meets at the exact point you started the same line.

I hope in revisiting these basic concepts and symbols, we can ask and pray for more communication for understanding and deeper meaning of knowledge.

*Apologies for the convoluted paragraphs, I started out writing one thing many days ago and just kept rewriting them, best I could get out into words hope any of that is helpful in some way or form.

*also here are a few lingering thoughts and jumbled ideas/words I could not find a way to craft into a well meaning sentence structure.
------------
-Expand Awareness, the opposite of a very limiting factor to the way we perceive our reality.
-The variability of physicality.
-time travel coordinates that need to be back-engineered to human tech, such as re-coded for ai quantum computing to understand and manipulate
-Theory of Everything so simple and straightforward it describes reality as it is, a 5 year old can grasp the concepts

IMO, I think here's the key. If we accept such a definition of the Cs, this must include both space and energy. And if it turns out to be so, for example, you can turn energy into mass.

The part that I highlight in black, I think, is closely related, in part, to some discussions that arise from the theory of the electric universe.
With respect to octagons, exagons and pentagons, we have this: Saturn's hexagon - Wikipedia

In relation to this phenomenon, one could add and hand in hand with the stellar windows,
the formations we see in the birkeland currents:

Note that a spiral is circular in nature.

Within a birkeland current the following figure can be seen:

Perhaps here we have a relationship between geometry and electromagnetic and gravitational forces.

We must remember that the Cs mentioned that the stars and planets are windows.

It occurs to me that such a hypothetical individual is in wave mode, and when he wishes to materialize, the wave collapses.
Hmmm this gives new dimension to the 'illumination', i.e. being (like) light
Exhibiting both particle and wave behaviours or modes.

Hmmm this gives new dimension to the 'illumination', i.e. being (like) light
Exhibiting both particle and wave behaviours or modes.
I saw an interesting video a few years ago where Dr Donald E Scott gave a talk on the forces in Birkeland currents. Here are a couple of links