The way to the Unified Field - 1

Hello :)

The purpose of this publication is to initiate reflections following answers, indications and scientific leads provided by the Cs during the sessions since 1994. I will do my best to publish regularly on these subjects in order to participate to an awareness in the scientific field allowing us to get out of the ambient and morose atmosphere by laying the seeds of a new reality, at least, the seeds of a new look at the reality in which we live.

Of course, I do not hide it, the objective behind these hundreds of hours of reflection, when free time is there, is, little by little, to access the Unified Field in consciousness. Because, to this day, it is the only way that assures us of being fully a conscious creator. Of course, this is my level of perception as I’m writing these lines.

Finally, I will do my best to be as clear and accessible as possible for any type of reader, scientific or not.

At present, we belong to a 3D reality and we are gradually moving towards a 4D reality. From what the Cs told us, scientists are micro-dipping into 4D reality at the quantum level without really being aware of it. Indeed, the 4D reality is completely unknown to us since we aren’t aware of its nature. So, we aren’t yet in a condition to speak of the one relating to the Unified Field which takes place in 7D. Step by step (in 3D, we are in a linear perception do not forget it). Let's start with the apprehension of 4D reality.

The following questions then arise:

  • Should we review the foundations of our earthly mathematics to access, at the mathematical level, 4D reality?
  • Do we need to review the foundations of our algebra and analysis?
  • Is our construction of real numbers exact?
  • The Cs said that algebra would free us: should we review our vision of the number 0?
  • Is our construction of complex numbers exact?
  • More specifically, is the reality underlying the number i really that of our algebraic and geometric interpretation of the number i?
  • The Cs indicated that it would be appropriate to consider p-adic numbers (number with an infinity of digits to the left of the decimal point whereas, in our classic approach to numbers, the infinity of digits is after the decimal point) when we want to talk about 4D reality. Three questions then emerge :
    • why numbers inverted in relation to "ours", should we see an opposite movement in 4D to the usual one we know in 3D. In other words, does centripetal motion exist in 4D if we consider centrifugal motion in 3D? Or, does this mean that in order to access 4D, we had to take into account two simultaneous opposite movements. Indeed, remember, the Cs informed us that the 4th “dimension” of space, which we still don’t know the nature, allows us to apprehend the exterior and the interior at the same time.
    • what do prime numbers (numbers that are not divisible by integer numbers other than themselves and 1) do at this level?
    • when we talk about 4D, are we talking about 4D, from 4D, or about the vision we have of 4D, from 3D, because most of our scientific and human approach is based 3D. Even if we come to describe a "higher" reality, we are describing it from 3D.
  • When we talk about geometry, everything is based on a vision of the dimensionless mathematical and geometric point: how can we talk about a line and a plane sitting on a dimensionless point? Does the quantum leap towards 4D go through a new look at the mathematical and geometric point?
  • If the 4th "dimension" makes it possible to apprehend, simultaneously, the exterior and the interior of reality, does this mean that it confers a dimension to the point that we do not envisage in 3D. The point would have an interiority that we do not take into account in our 3D approach, of which we are not aware. What seems supported by the fact that the transition from 3D to 4D would go through taking into account a change of unit (Santilli session on May 27, 1995)?
  • If my intuition is correct, Planck's constant shows us the way to a point which is not without dimension: in other words, NOTHING is ZERO, and by conferring a dimension to the mathematical-geometric point, this means that we identify it with the physical point due to the 4th “dimension”. From 4D,with the 4th “dimension”, we reveal the inner nature of the point that was previously non-existent or invisible. We leave the external approach, the 3D representation of reality to finally enter reality by taking into account its internal aspect (negative 3D). The 4th “dimension” characterizing the fact of considering, at the same time, the positive 3D and the negative 3D? Given the smallest of Planck's constant, our immersion in the heart of reality is, so, extremely weak(our quantum mechanics).
  • What is the true nature of the 4th “dimension”? We don't know yet because the Cs told that we haven't made a certain assumption: What is the nature of that assumption?
  • Ark recently intuited that the 4th "dimension" of space is a frequency: is it the frequency of light whereas in Einstein's theories we only consider speed light ? Is it a frequency different from those of Maxwell, the so-called Tesla scalar waves?
  • If another view of the point is needed to access 4D, does that mean that the continuity we envision in real number intervals is in fact not real? Does this mean that going towards the Unified Field is to identify, in terms, mathematics and physics or, in a more rigorous way, to find THE mathematics that is ONE with physics valid in all dimensions?
  • If we have to revisit the concept of point, does this mean that in 4D the number pi is no longer equal to 3,14159… (as we already the number pi is variable in special relativity although this theory is only spatially correct) because the circle would no longer be an infinity of points but, in fact, one and the same fully continuous and entire expanded point?

Here are some elements of reflection resulting from multiple readings of sessions of the Cs: my feeling is that, rather than using very complex mathematical concepts, the key to the Unified Field is, perhaps, also, in a return to the foundations of our mathematical concepts which have, perhaps, locked something that we must release or even make variable so that they are more alive. Because necessarily moving towards 4D means moving towards a more universal life, therefore being more alive... internally.

If these few lines were able to resonate with you, then I am happy and am open to any discussion to go further and find the answers together.

With Love and Light, Eric.
 
At present, we belong to a 3D reality and we are gradually moving towards a 4D reality.
Please understand that when we use "3D" or "4D" here on this forum, it generally means 3rd or 4th density.
It's not (directly) related to dimensions.

So these questions are meaningless :
  • If the 4th "dimension" makes it possible to apprehend, simultaneously, the exterior and the interior of reality, does this mean that it confers a dimension to the point that we do not envisage in 3D. The point would have an interiority that we do not take into account in our 3D approach, of which we are not aware. What seems supported by the fact that the transition from 3D to 4D would go through taking into account a change of unit (Santilli session on May 27, 1995)?
  • If my intuition is correct, Planck's constant shows us the way to a point which is not without dimension: in other words, NOTHING is ZERO, and by conferring a dimension to the mathematical-geometric point, this means that we identify it with the physical point due to the 4th “dimension”. From 4D, with the 4th “dimension”, we reveal the inner nature of the point that was previously non-existent or invisible. We leave the external approach, the 3D representation of reality to finally enter reality by taking into account its internal aspect (negative 3D). The 4th “dimension” characterizing the fact of considering, at the same time, the positive 3D and the negative 3D? Given the smallest of Planck's constant, our immersion in the heart of reality is, so, extremely weak(our quantum mechanics).
  • What is the true nature of the 4th “dimension”? We don't know yet because the Cs told that we haven't made a certain assumption: What is the nature of that assumption?
  • Ark recently intuited that the 4th "dimension" of space is a frequency: is it the frequency of light whereas in Einstein's theories we only consider speed light ? Is it a frequency different from those of Maxwell, the so-called Tesla scalar waves?
 
For your other questions, I have the feeling that you do not completely grasp the mathematical concepts that you mention.
May I ask you what is your academic level in maths (or physics) ?

For instance, what do you mean by : "Is our construction of real numbers exact?" or "Is our construction of complex numbers exact?" ?!?
 
Please understand that when we use "3D" or "4D" here on this forum, it generally means 3rd or 4th density.
It's not (directly) related to dimensions.

So these questions are meaningless :
Hello my dear Bastian:)

It's a pleasure reading you. It gives me the opportunity to specify the subject : as the Cs said, many times, 3D reality (3rd density) is grounded on 3 dimensions and when Arkie asked for 4D reality Einstein was working on with his theories of relativity, Cs answered that we need a 4th dimension since we're talking about 4th density. And that the 4th dimension is NOT linear time as Einstein said in his approaches. We're looking for the true nature of the famous 4th dimension of space to be able to perceive the reality in which we live in a very different way.

So, the questions you underline are precisely essential and specific to achieve, in consciousness, the integration of the true nature of the 4th dimension in math and physics. And I'm just surprised that no folks, unless I'm mistaken, asked them during the sessions. With the answers to these questions, we can overcome the Einstein theories and access to a reality where we will understand more about our profound nature.

We don't know yet (we haven't made a certain assumption as Cs said about it) the nature of the 4th "dimension" of space and, above all, we don't know how to describe it in a mathematical and physic way. What's the assumption we haven't done? We don't know since no one asked the questions during the Cs sessions.

Merci Bastian, thanks a lot to give me the possibility to clarify all this and I count on you, perhaps, to ask these questions at the next session of the C :)

It would be fantastic to get the answers !

With Love and Light, Eric
 
For your other questions, I have the feeling that you do not completely grasp the mathematical concepts that you mention.
May I ask you what is your academic level in maths (or physics) ?

For instance, what do you mean by : "Is our construction of real numbers exact?" or "Is our construction of complex numbers exact?" ?!?
Salut Bastian, je viens de réaliser grâce à ta petite phrase préférée sous la réponse que tu parles français donc je vais te répondre en français tout en mettant la traduction pour nos amis anglophones.

Tu as tout à fait raison, je n'ai pas encore complètement saisi la transformation mathématique et physique que va induire la prise en compte de cette 4ème "dimension" de l'espace. Elle va certainement nous amener à revoir pas mal de nos concepts mathématiques et physiques.

Justement, sur ce point, je m'interroge sur la possibilité que nous soyons passé à côté de sa présence et de sa réalité par rapport à nos fondements mathématiques (et donc physiques puisque l'un ne va pas sans l'autre, même si depuis la construction du corps des réels et la mise en place de la théorie des ensembles et de son axiomatique, ce n'est plus trop la physique qui impulse les recherches en mathématique mais les mathématiciens œuvrent tout seul dans leur coin. C'est une autre histoire ou pas :) )

Pour te répondre le plus précisément possible, pour que cela soit clair pour nous deux et ceux qui auront la chance de nous lire, je suis en train de préparer l'agrégation de mathématiques et j'ai un DEA de physique théorique. En suivant la préparation, j'ai une approche qui consiste à m'interroger sur les concepts sur lesquels je suis amené à travailler et non à apprendre par cœur et réciter passivement ce que j'en ai retenu. Cela demande plus de temps, c'est sûr, et plus de travail mais c'est beaucoup plus passionnant !

Tant que ne savons pas comment traduire, en math et en physique, cette 4ème "dimension", nous ne savons pas où nous nous sommes limités dans notre approche scientifique et ce que nous devons changer. Le corps des nombres réels R a été créé pour répondre à certaines finalités mathématiques et plusieurs approches ont été faites durant le 19ème siècle (coupures de Dedekin, suites de Cauchy, Cantor...) en ce sens.

Néanmoins, avec la nécessité de prendre en compte une nouvelle dimension, et donc un nouveau point de vue, est-ce que ce qui a été fait n'est pas insuffisant? Je suis d'accord avec toi, ces constructions de R et C (corps des nombres complexes) sont des définitions, concepts dont nous avons eu besoin, à un moment. Ils sont donc limités, par définition :)

Tu sens bien comme moi qu'il va falloir revoir nos concepts de base en intégrant cette nouvelle dimension en conscience dans notre réalité. Fondamentalement, cette 4ème "dimension" n'a rien à voir avec une 4ème dimension à la Descartes ou Euclide comme nous utilisons dans notre description de l'espace 3D. Ce qui rend la quête encore plus excitante.

J'espère avoir répondu à tes interrogations et n'hésite pas à revenir vers moi si tu as d'autres questions, ce sera avec plaisir ! Si tu as l'occasion de pouvoir poser ces questions lors des sessions, ce serait cool et nous lancerait plus loin dans l'aventure de notre rencontre avec nous-même.

Enfin, n'hésite pas à lire les autres messages que j'ai posté en question pour les Cs ou message après la session du 25 février. Suite à ton intervention, je vais, peut-être, créer un fil dans le forum sur ce sujet où je vais tout regrouper car je ne suis pas sûr que tout le monde l'ait vu. Je découvre, petit à petit, le fonctionnement du site.

Encore merci pour ton intervention Bastian.

**​

Hi Bastian, I just realized thanks to your favorite little sentence from the Cs under your answer that you speak French so I will answer you in French while putting the translation for our English speaking friends.

You are quite right, I have not yet fully grasped the mathematical and physical transformation that will be induced by the taking into account of this 4th "dimension" of space. It will certainly lead us to review a lot of our mathematical and physical concepts.

Precisely, on this point, I wonder about the possibility that we have missed its presence and its reality in relation to our mathematical foundations (and therefore physical since one does not go without the other, even if since the construction of the reals field and the implementation of the sets theory and its axiomatics, it is not so much physics which impels the research in mathematics but the mathematicians work alone in their corner. It's another story or not :) )

To answer you as precisely as possible, so that it's clear for both of us and for those who will have the chance to read us, I am preparing the Agrégation of Mathematics and I have a DEA in theoretical physics. During the preparation, I have an approach that consists in questioning myself about the concepts I have to work on and not in learning by heart and passively reciting what I have retained. This takes more time, for sure, and more work, but it is much more exciting!

As long as we don't know how to translate this 4th "dimension" in math and physics, we don't know where we are limited in our scientific approach and what we have to change. The real numbers field R has been created to answer some mathematical purposes and several approaches have been made during the 19th century (Dedekin's cuts, Cauchy's sequences, Cantor...) in this sense.

Nevertheless, with the necessity to take into account a new dimension, and thus a new point of view, isn't what has been done insufficient? I agree with you, these constructions of R and C (complex numbers Field) are definitions, concepts that we needed, at some point. So they are limited, by definition :)

You feel as well, as I do, that we will have to revise our basic concepts by integrating this new dimension in consciousness in our reality. Basically, this 4th "dimension" has nothing to do with a 4th dimension "à la Descartes or Euclid" as we use in our description of 3D space. This makes the quest even more exciting.

I hope to have answered your questions and do not hesitate to come back to me if you have other questions, it will be a pleasure! If you have the opportunity to ask these questions during the Cs sessions, that would be cool and would launch us further into the adventure.

Finally, feel free to read the other messages I posted as "questions for the Cs" or messages after the February 25th session. Following your intervention, I will, perhaps, create a thread in the forum on this subject where I will gather everything because I am not sure that everyone has seen it. I am discovering, little by little, how the site works.

Thanks again for your intervention Bastian.
 
That 4th dimension as frequency comes from the 8-27-22 session:

(Ark) I have question. It's not about hyperdimensional being, but about hyperdimensional physics. I am coming to the session of 14 November 1998 where I was asking about the relation between 4th density and 4th dimension. And the answer was that yes indeed, 4th density is experienced in 4-dimensional reality. So, I got curious about this 4-dimensional reality. I was asking if it was any kind known in physics under the name of Kaluza-Klein theory. But the answer was that no, it's related to visual spectrum. And then there came the term this is related to a prism. Now, visual spectrum, I am associating with the frequency of light. And so, my question - which I should have asked then, but didn't - is: Is 4th dimension indeed a frequency?

A: Yes

Q: (Ark) If it is a frequency, I would like to know what kind of geometry has this 4th-dimensional reality? Is there such a concept of a distance there, for instance?

A: No

Q: (Ark) Well, there is something more general than distance. For instance, there is a degenerate metric. Is there a metric there? Metric tensor?

A: Yes

Q: (Ark) Well, if it is not a distance but it is a metric tensor, does it mean it is degenerate so that there is zero distance between two different points?

A: Yes

Q: (Ark) Okay, that's what I was suspecting. But the next question is whether 5th density requires 5-dimensional reality?

A: No

Q: (Ark) So 5th density requires what?

A: No space, no time.

Q: (Ark) If there is no space and no time, what is there?

A: Pure information in units.

Q: (Ark) Alright. Next question: Is the speed of light constant?

A: No

Q: (Ark) Does it vary with frequency?

A: Yes

Q: (Ark) Are there discrete dimensions rather than continuous?

A: Somewhat.

Q: (Ark) Somewhat. Okay. Is Planck's constant a constant?

A: No

Q: (Ark) Aha.

As Ark mentions here, the 4th dimension as frequency relates to a degenerate metric. Ark gets the degenerate metric via the conformal infinity idea he has written papers on. The conformal structure at infinity (for both dual light cones aka what in the sessions is often referred to as the matter and antimatter universes) is twistor space (4 complex, 8 real dimensions) and the 6-dim projective twistor space is also important. I think this degenerate metric is via the speed of light being zero at this structure at infinity. The degenerate metric has signature +++0 with the zero kind of meaning there's no time and also as Ark says here no distance, nothing moves. I think this means you get to different parts of your worldline via a frequency-like affine one-form which is a generalization of proper time in relativity. I'm not totally sure I'm stating all of this exactly correctly.
 
Merci pour vos questions et vos idées, hâte de savoir ce qu’en pense Arkie...

Thanks for your questions and ideas, looking forward to hearing what Arkie thinks...
Ahah merci Perlou ! Hâte de voir aussi si ce qu'en pense Ark et s'il en posera certaines à la prochaine session :-)
 
That 4th dimension as frequency comes from the 8-27-22 session:

As Ark mentions here, the 4th dimension as frequency relates to a degenerate metric. Ark gets the degenerate metric via the conformal infinity idea he has written papers on. The conformal structure at infinity (for both dual light cones aka what in the sessions is often referred to as the matter and antimatter universes) is twistor space (4 complex, 8 real dimensions) and the 6-dim projective twistor space is also important. I think this degenerate metric is via the speed of light being zero at this structure at infinity. The degenerate metric has signature +++0 with the zero kind of meaning there's no time and also as Ark says here no distance, nothing moves. I think this means you get to different parts of your worldline via a frequency-like affine one-form which is a generalization of proper time in relativity. I'm not totally sure I'm stating all of this exactly correctly.
The 4th "dimension" is not a dimension as the 3 ones of our space, euclidian or not. It's a spatial added reference that allows us to visualize outisde and inside simultaneously. This our 3 dimensions of space don"t allow it. They only describe space outwardly. So it's natural we need a frequency to visualize space outwardly and inwardly.

Morever, it's a degenerate metric since, in 5D, there is no time and no space. We are out of space and time.

The central question is : what's the nature of this frequency, is it a maxwellian one or not?

Let's talk about Einstein's theory of relativity : the C's have confirmed what I have felt, for years, from my own reflections, that it is only valid spatially. This is consistent with the fact that the 4th "dimension" of space is not linear time nor is it related to the 5th dimension of Kaluza-Klein. To go beyond the theory of relativity is to go back to its roots and find out where we have restricted reality to obtain Einstein's theory of relativity. The roots in question are Maxwell's equations. Einstein interpreted them in a mechanical way by copying the concepts of mechanics to the electromagnetic (EM) reality.

Thus, we must return to EM reality and find out how it is fundamentally different from mechanical reality. This is what the C's invite us to do by confirming that something is wrong since Maxwell's equations. And so, with the theory of relativity.

FEBRUARY 6, 2016

Q: (Arky) Let me continue. (laughter) I was reading some words by this Russian-Israeli physicist. He was claiming that what was wrong with physics actually began with Maxwell because Maxwell introduces this concept of an abstract field, and electromagnetic field, to get rid of the concept of the ether. From Maxwell, it ALL went wrong! Even if Maxwell made the EM theory, it was already on the wrong way.
A: Just so! Ether is the interface between information and manifestation.

The way to do it appears to be the reinterpretation of the variable time in the Maxwell's equations and find how these equations have been misinterpreted or even truncated.

OCTOBER 23, 1999

Q: (A) Can equations of electromagnetism be written without using time as we use it?
A: Yes
Q: Should we discard this time that is in the present equation altogether or replace it by something else?
A: Reinterpret. It is subjective, therefore fluid or variable. In other words, open to many interpretations.

Finally, your remark about the speed of light being zero resounds to the fact that, in 4D, the concept of speed is useless since speed is a 3D concept. It would seem that the 4th dimension is deeply linked to the disappearance of many 3D concepts, as if we were leaving the linear domain to enter a non-linear domain. The 4D looks like a reality that we cannot measure with real numbers...

 
Finally, your remark about the speed of light being zero resounds to the fact that, in 4D, the concept of speed is useless since speed is a 3D concept. It would seem that the 4th dimension is deeply linked to the disappearance of many 3D concepts, as if we were leaving the linear domain to enter a non-linear domain. The 4D looks like a reality that we cannot measure with real numbers...
In Astronomy, the distance of celestial bodies is measured in light years. Light has a speed and it depends on the distance from that sun, the light we see from it has a certain age. If it is 300 light years away, the light we see now is 300 years old. We are looking at the past.

That seems to be the theory and if in the fourth dimension light has zero time...

I wonder how we would see the firmament.

Could I look at the sky and see the celestial bodies in detail regardless of the distance they are from me?
 
In Astronomy, the distance of celestial bodies is measured in light years. Light has a speed and it depends on the distance from that sun, the light we see from it has a certain age. If it is 300 light years away, the light we see now is 300 years old. We are looking at the past.

That seems to be the theory and if in the fourth dimension light has zero time...

I wonder how we would see the firmament.

Could I look at the sky and see the celestial bodies in detail regardless of the distance they are from me?​
Who knows, my dear friend?

Maybe, in 4D, we are in the instant, the present time? And you "observe", you vibrate with what you "observe", at the same time, because you feel, live that you are deeply linked to what you "perceive". I put all these verbs in quotation marks because, in 4D, you no longer live in the same way since you begin to appropriate your body of light. The movement no longer appears to be 3D like the one we know every day, the movement is at the vibratory level. Moreover, the "speed" of the light being variable, you can consider that it is NULL and then reach any "place" of the universe at the moment.

Finally, when we look at the universe, we perceive it as 2D images, what is to say that by accessing another frequency domain (density), we would not perceive the celestial objects in 3D in front of us as what surrounds us daily? Are you beginning to grasp the changes?

What is surprising is that the 4th dimension is not Einstein's linear time, that in the true 4th "dimension" time is ZERO (no time) and that Einstein's approach reaches this reality at the speed of light. It is when the body moves at the speed of light, that its time becomes NULL. In other words, Einstein's theory of relativity reaches the reality of the 4th "dimension" at the speed of light. Should we deduce that if it reached the reality of the 4th "dimension" for all speeds, we would then be in 4D permanently? This would then translate into a variable speed of light in order to match the field of all mechanical speeds... and the linear time used by Einstein's theory woud vanished totally. Is it the way reinterpreting time or writing physics without time? :-)
 
Q: (L) What is ball lightning?

A: Electromagnetic spark. Pass from 4th to 3rd density.
I was looking in the sessions that in the fourth density from Jupiter, you would only see the earth if your attention is fixed on it, so perhaps with the vision of the fourth dimension you can see the different time lines of a 3-dimensional object. d.

So I found this that might give you some idea:
 
Back
Top Bottom