Nature of the 4th "dimension" of space

EricLux

A Disturbance in the Force
Dear folks, I'm a french guy passionated in physics and it's always a pleasure to read scientific answers and advices from the Cs. One of my favorite subjects is space and time. To this point, I was surprised when I read that the 4th dimension is not time as Einstein did but a space reference!



In October 10, 1998 session :

Q: (A) I have another question. In a session from April, you made the following comment: ‘four dimensional, fourth density, see?’ So you related four dimensions to fourth density. I don’t know a mathematical representation of density. I know how to represent four dimensions. This was the first time that you related dimension to density. Is there really a relation?
A: Yes because 4th density is experienced in 4th dimensional reality
Q: (A) Speaking now about 4 dimensional reality, is it 4D reality of the Kaluza-Klein type?
A: Visual spectrum
Q: (A) Does that mean that the fourth dimension is NOT related to the fifth dimension of the Kaluza-Klein theory?
A: Yes
Q: (A) Yes it is related?
A: No, yes it is not. There is a flaw in these theories, relating to prism. What does this tell you?
Q: (A) To prism?! Visual spectrum? I don’t know what it tells me. I never came across any relation to prism. But, what is this 4th dimension? Is it an extra dimension beyond the three space dimensions or is it a time dimension?
A: Not “time”, re: Einstein. It is an added spatial reference. The term “dimension” is used simply to access the popular reference, relating to three dimensions. The added “dimension” allows one to visualize outwardly and inwardly simultaneously.
Q: (A) When you talk about this 4th dimension, what is the closest thing in currently understood physics that corresponds to this term? I cannot find anything that corresponds. It is not in relativity theory, it is not in Einstein, it is not in Kaluza-Klein...
A: Exactly because it has not been hypothesized



Moerever, we learn that time is not a dimension and that there wouldn't be "extra dimensions" in space. In the November 23, 1996 session:

Q: (A) Are the extra-dimensions beyond those of space and time relevant?
A:
What "extra dimensions"?
Q: (A) Is time multi-dimensional? If so, is it three- dimensional?
A: Not correct concept. Time is not a dimension. This is very complex from your standpoint but let us just say that time is "selective" or "variable".
Q: (A) Yes, a comment is needed. I am confused about space, time, Einstein's general relativity, gravitation and electromagnetism.
A:
Einstein's Theory of Relativity is only partially correct. That is why we say that there is no "dimension" of time. As far as gravity and electromagnetics are concerned, we suggest a review of the as yet publicly unfinished Unified Field Theory of the same gentleman. Was it completed and put into application in secret? Hmmmmm... And, if so, what are the ramifications? Maybe you could make the same discoveries.

So, we got the information that a 3D time is not the correct concept, time is not a dimension as Einstein thought and that there aren't any extra dimensions. So, instead of talking about space-time, we should speak about a hyperspace with 4D or more precisely with 3D and an added reference. A spatial reference that would make the new space a special one and our 3D space would be a simple aspect of this hyperspace. We would get space variability. At this point, we don’t know yet the nature of this new spatial reference.

In the September 19, 1998 session, the Cs told:

Q: (A) Now, there is something which we call 'space'. Is there such a thing as space? Is it one of the fundamental things? The space concept? Is it secondary?
A: Now this is where all 3rd density types keep getting untracked because they have never been able to rectify the definition of space. For example, where does "space" begin and end. And if it does not, how is this?

So, we got here the information that we have to rectify the definition of space and, seemingly, no one on Earth had did it. We must rethink about the definition of space and space has 4 dimensions. In other words, if we find the nature of this 4th space dimension, we'll have a new definition of space and vice versa, if we can find a new definition of space, we'll find the nature of the space reference. Our definition of space lacks of a reference and this reference is the 4th dimension of space. With it, space becomes hyperspace.

We keep getting untracked because with our actual definition of space, we are still in the 3rd density. Find the 4th dimension of space, it's like being in the 4th density where we're in a 4D space as the Cs said in the October 10, 1998 session.


In the February 24, 1996 session:

Q: (L) Predictions that came true, answers that were verifiable about a number of things.
A: Those would still be dismissed by a great many as mere coincidences. We have already given predictions, will continue to do so but, remember, "time" does not exist. This is a 3rd density illusion. We don not play in that sandbox and cannot and never will. The primary reason for our communication is to help you to learn by teaching yourselves to learn, thereby strengthening your soul energy and assisting your advancement.

Q: (L) Now, my memory for dates and times has always been, at best, a little vague. But, lately, it has been really bad. What is the cause of this loss of ability to keep a sequential record of what one does, who one sees, etc? It is really strange.
A: It is not strange. As one "ages", the illusion of time passage begins to deteriorate because your "higher mind" begins to understand the illusion.


Here, we’ve the insight that “time” doesn’t exist and it’s a 3rd illusion. So, going to the 4th density opens our eyes to the illusional aspect of our 3rd perception of time. And, in the same session, we learn that our higher mind begins to understand the illusion of time passage. Since going in the 4th density is like activating our higher mind, we can state that in the hyperspace, we’re aware that the 3rd perception of time passage vanishes. Like a “zero time” from our standpoint…


In March 1, 1997 session:

Q: (A) I would like to know how long it takes for the transmission to come from Cassiopaea to Earth
A: "Zero" time
Q: (A) 'Zero time...' They transmit, using what?
Electromagnetics, gravity or what?
A: Both. They are interconnected or you could say "unified".
Q: (A) Zero time? Because of what? Because of... structure of space/time? Of warp?
A: Space and time are selective and flexible
Q: (A) What is behind that? What is... what is the medium behind which the transmission goes?
A: If there were a medium, your puzzlement would be justified but there is not. You see, when one utilizes zero time, there is zero space as well.


Here we go. Space and time too are selective and variable! Space and time become closer in their characteristics as if they were one or interchangeable. We learned that time is not a dimension but a kind of data.

Physicists looked, during centuries, for a medium, an aether for the transmission of light but there is not a medium for transmission as precised by the Cs. Instead of a medium, there’s a domain where time is zero. In other words, we coined the idea of a medium because our 3D reference, our time frame standed for a propagation but there is no propagation in a “zero time”! We projected our earthly view to the universal space once again.

Morever, when one utilizes zero time, there’s zero space as well. It’s like time gave birth to space. In some ways, time and space seem connected or entangled. So, my idea would be: will the added spatial reference, not yet hypothetized, be the “zero space” where there’s “zero time” too?

Questions to the Cs:
  1. Is the added spatial reference we look for, as a 4th spatial “dimension”, the “zero space”?
  2. If so, the “zero space” is from our standpoint. Actually, is the “zero space”, the complex space in the mathematical view?
  3. In our quest to unify our vision of reality, is the “zero time/zero space” reality, the common source of space and time?
  4. Is the “zero time/space” reality an interdimensional one?
  5. Is space the outside of reality and time, the inside?
  6. What’s the true nature of the 4th dimension of space?
  7. “If you go at the speed of light, then you are in the 4th density”: so the nature of the 4th dimension is the interiority of the Light and Light gets 4 dimensions?
  8. At the speed of light, our perception of space and time disappears so, for us, our space and our time vanishes? Is it what we named “zero time/space”? If so, is it why we couldn’t find the true 4th dimension in Einstein’s relativity because this 4th “dimension” appears when we’re at the speed earthly limit, the speed of light. It’s the limit of Einstein’s theory of relativity.
  9. The 4th dimension of space visualizes inside and outside simultaneously: in 3rd density, we get untracked in time passage illusion because we can’t apprehend inside and outside simultaneously since we see only the outside of reality?
  10. Time is the inside process of reality we aren’t conscious of since we see only the outside of matter? Once we are aware that there’s a veil between outside and inside of reality, time passage illusion disappears? What’s the true nature of this veil, the illusion there’s a difference between consciousness and matter?
  11. In the 4th density, there’s no difference between outside and inside so force IS matter? Inertia is the inside aspect and gravity the outside? At the 4th density, we are aware to be a consciousness and flow with it?
  12. Since there is no more difference between outside and inside, at the same time, our 3rd dimension should vanishes and the reality of the 4th density must be seen in 2D not in 4D: in other words, when we’re in the 4th density, the necessity to introduce a 3rd dimension to distinguish outside and inside of reality, to difference outside and inside of reality vanishes?
  13. If so, is the 4th “dimension” of space, the negative aspect of our 3rd dimension?
Don’t hesitate folks if you have any comments, ideas or suggestions to get with me out of the illusion ;-)

With Love, Éric
 
13 questions. Curious number.

I have not understood any of your questions.

However, Ra (Law of One) says:

Questioner: Thank you. Is it possible for you to give a short description of
the conditions in the fourth density?


Ra: I am Ra. We ask you to consider as we speak that there are not words
for positively describing fourth density. We can only explain what is not
and approximate what is. Beyond
fourth density our ability grows more
limited until we become without words.

That which fourth density is not: it is not of words, unless chosen. It is not
of heavy chemical vehicles for body complex activities. It is not of
disharmony within self. It is not of disharmony within peoples. It is not
within limits of possibility to cause disharmony in any way.

Approximations of positive statements: it is a plane of type of bipedal
vehicle which is much denser and more full of life; it is a plane wherein one
is aware of the thought of other-selves; it is a plane wherein one is aware of
vibrations of other-selves; it is a plane of compassion and understanding of
the sorrows of third den
sity; it is a plane striving towards wisdom or light; it is a plane wherein individual differences are pronounced although
automatically harmonized by group consensus.


Questioner: Could you define the word density as we have been using it?


Ra: I am Ra. The term density is a, what you call, mathematical one. The closest analogy is that of music, whereby after seven notes on your western
type of scale, if you will, the eighth note begins a new octave. Within your
great octave of existence which we share with you, there are seven octaves or
densities. Within each density there are seven sub-densities. Within each
sub-density, are seven sub-sub-densities. Within each sub-sub-density, seven
sub-sub-sub-densities and so on infinitely.

:lkj:
 

John G

The Living Force
From the 12/19/98 session:
Q: (A) Well, in a well devised Unified Field Theory, there is a place for something we may call 'graviton,' and this something comes from, or has a similar source to an electron, but within a time vacuum. At that point I started to think of time as a kind of field - like other fields. This field has something to do with this fifth dimension. I have a hypothesis about how one can have time coming from a fifth dimension, and what a time vacuum means. This means that, where there is a time vacuum, there is no time.
A: Yes.
Q: (A) Okay, now, this is one thing. At some other point we were speaking about pentagons and hexagons and I tried to be tricky and when it came to pentagons, I wrote a mathematical formula, a symbol for a pentagon, and then there was the question of signs. We needed five signs. I asked you whether there should be four pluses and one minus, or 3 pluses and two minus. The answer was that there should be 3 pluses and two minuses in a pentagon. Now, what about a hexagon? What should I put in a hexagon? Three pluses and three minuses, or four pluses and two minuses?
A: Four and two.
This "four and two" for a time vacuum would be the four space-like and two time-like dimensions of Ark's spacetime metric for his conformal group gravity model.
 

Gawan

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Hi EricLux, seeing this is one of your first posts on the forum, we would appreciate it if you would post a brief intro about yourself in the Newbies section, telling us how you found this forum, how long you've been reading it and/or the SOTT page, whether or not you've read any of Laura's books yet, etc.

Regarding your questions, have you read Lauras books in French (the wave series is completely translated into French)? Of course Laura doesn't explain there the full concept regarding all of your questions, but it could give you a better understanding. Nonetheless, the main problem is that 4D is a concept/theory, and we can only theorize/speculate how it may be there.
 

EricLux

A Disturbance in the Force
Hi EricLux, seeing this is one of your first posts on the forum, we would appreciate it if you would post a brief intro about yourself in the Newbies section, telling us how you found this forum, how long you've been reading it and/or the SOTT page, whether or not you've read any of Laura's books yet, etc.

Regarding your questions, have you read Lauras books in French (the wave series is completely translated into French)? Of course Laura doesn't explain there the full concept regarding all of your questions, but it could give you a better understanding. Nonetheless, the main problem is that 4D is a concept/theory, and we can only theorize/speculate how it may be there.
Hi Gawan ;-)
I'll do my nest very soon, time to write it in French and translate it in english.
First, I wrote, one year ago, to Pierre asking him how to ask scientific questions to the Cs. He gave me some advices, one to write my questions and reflexions in the Forum so that we'll see how it becomes and maybe some questions would be asked to the Cs.
I discovered the Cs in 2003 looking for information about Einstein and the speed of light, one of my favorite conumdrum. But I don't have all the words in english so soon, I promise you, on Newbies my friend.

Merci beaucoup;)

Éric
 

Bluegazer

Padawan Learner
To this point, I was surprised when I read that the 4th dimension is not time as Einstein did but a space reference!

Hi. It is certainly an exciting subject and full of many theories and speculations. I'm not a mathematician or anything like that, but at least I have some knowledge that I'm acquiring while studying design.

There is a class in my career that deals with mathematics, applied to objects in space.

In one of the exercises you have to build a scale model of a space with several objects inside it, in order to calculate the distances between the vertices to place them in the spatial coordinates of X, Y, Z.

Like this:

matesVectores.jpg


When I did the exercise several things occurred to me considering that 4D has a fourth spatial coordinate and not a time coordinate.

I have saved notes of what had occurred to me.

The ideas are:

1) If time is a spatial reference, then it must also be subject to being identifiable in terms of coordinates. Maybe a series of coordinates between two objects or particles where:

Two moving objects exchange information with each other, with respect to the position of each one, within the same frame of reference. Each variation in its position is described by a series of spatial coordinates that seek to differentiate both objects. If for example both objects have the same coordinate, they do not collide or are destroyed. But they can be the same thing (zero time-zero space). Is time a non-deterministic (non-local) spatial coordinate?

2) Is it possible that there is a sort of value of space compensation? That is to say that "time" is nothing other than the difference of position, vector or movement of a particle and another particle next. Can this compensation value be the way the universe has to express all its material forms and EM waves that start from the original substrate, the gravity?

Session 7 June 1997

Q: Today, the exchange was as follows: Ark wrote: C's once said that EM was an expression of gravitational energy. I said: they said that light is an energy expression of gravity, that EM was the same as gravity, or, more precisely, intertwined. And, this would incline me to believe that the total spectrum of EM is the 'stuff' of the 'balloon,' that is the balance to the 'non-balloon,' of gravity, being that which emerges out of non-being, and that the various separations of EM into waves such as light, radio, and other frequencies are energy expressions. In other words, EM IS the unstable gravity wave, so to speak. Was this correct?

A: Close.
 
Top Bottom