# Towards the nature of the 4th "dimension" of space

And, how to get this circular 4D perception when we are in 3D ? By a linearization of a circular action. Do you know what is it ? A vibration.
I think that 4D perception is only possible in 4D. We can only try to form concepts about it or imagine it. Not sure what you mean by "linearization of a circular action" though.

I think that 4D perception is only possible in 4D. We can only try to form concepts about it or imagine it. Not sure what you mean by "linearization of a circular action" though.
@axj You're so right ! I think that a 4D perception is only possible in 4D too.

Nevertheless, 4D density encompasses 3D density and we have glimpses of 4D within 3D. We won't have a full perception of 4D until we're in 4D.

In 3D, we have a linear perception of reality (straight lines, for example). Interestingly, when you consider a circle that gets bigger and bigger, its curvature decreases as you go along : in other words, locally, a circle of infinite radius can be identified with a straight line. This is how a straight line and a circle, two different realities, turn out to be ONE. This gives an idea of how 3D and 4D can be locally ONE. What we need to move from 3D to 4D is the frequency I mentioned earlier, the famous 4th "dimension" of space. The one that allows us to apprehend the inside and the outside at the same time. Something tells me that this undulatory aspect of vibration, of the 4th "dimension" is induced by this ability to apprehend both the outside and the inside.

You're right to be rigorous : when I speak of the linearization of circular action, I'm talking about the linear representation of circular action, the linear perception of circular action. When you take a circular movement into account and deploy it in linear time (along an axis, a straight line), you get an undulatory aspect.

Something tells me that this undulatory aspect of vibration, of the 4th "dimension" is induced by this ability to apprehend both the outside and the inside.
Yes, I think it is basically about doing the Work. Expanding perception or consciousness both inside and outside.

You're right to be rigorous : when I speak of the linearization of circular action, I'm talking about the linear representation of circular action, the linear perception of circular action.
What is circular action? Action in 4D? Why do you see it as circular?

So the missing link in current scientific theories about the nature of the cosmos is definitely consciousness. The C's say that even matter is consciousness. And the density level where we are is determined by our "level" of consciousness.
Yeah the missing link in current scientific theories is the consciousness, the common denominator of all realities which allows us to apprehend them simultaneously inwardly and outwardly, because consciousness is beyond the exterior/interior duality. This is the element scientists lack to finally set out on the road to the unified field. The only way we can take consciousness into account in science is as matter, albeit unconsciously. Consciousness manifests as both matter and antimatter, and this is how we find the famous 4D matter-antimatter matrix. The question we might ask ourselves is this : when Santilli was looking for the unity of Light, was he in fact looking for the matter-antimatter matrix without knowing it? When the Cs speak of the 12x12x12 matrix, are they also referring to the cubic matter-antimatter matrix converted to 4D?

It's when we plug consciousness, voluntarily, in our scientific theories that we enter in 4D. For that, we must know how to describe mathematically consciousness. The first level to do it is with integration of the 4th "dimension" of space in our 3D approach. In doing so, we proceed to an expansion of our 3D consciousness that we're not even aware of in 3D. The fact that we don't see it as present, as existing, as a basic reference, is perhaps reflected in our use of the number 0. Indeed, in 3D, our scientific and everyday approach is purely external, i.e. material. By taking into account a new reference that allows us to consider the exterior and interior simultaneously, we arrive at the 4D matter-antimatter matrix. With this new perspective, I'm wondering whether this new reference, this 4th "dimension" of space, might not be what we call unstable gravitational waves... which, however, would have nothing to do with the current Einsteinian vision of gravity waves. For, in this case, gravity waves would be both matter and antimatter, beyond Einstein's theory of general relativity. So we might be led to wonder whether the material aspect of gravity might not be mechanics, and the antimatter aspect of gravity might not be optics? This would be consistent with the fact that Einstein mechanized light, since he only worked in material 3D...

Thus, our expansion of 3D consciousness translates into a new perception of space and therefore of its nature as the meeting of two qualitatively opposed spaces, an outer space and an inner space. In other words, one becomes aware of reality, of the presence of consciousness only through its variation, its change, its variability. This is where the variability of physics specific to 4D appears. Without reference to consciousness, there is no variability of physical laws.

And this change in consciousness translates itself into a new relationship between matter and antimatter, a new balance that, in reference to our current balance, translates itself into a different perception of space that is nothing but a new aspect of the 4D matter-antimatter matrix.
I'm not sure why technology for crossing into 4D is needed at all, since there is a natural progression path to 4D anyway. And what kind of technology can work directly with consciousness or influence it, since that seems to be the missing link?
AS I answered in previous texts, technology and change in mind are one and the same. You can get access to 4D by a change in consciousness or by technology. Maybe we can find glasses with specific properties that would finally allow us to perceive how gravity acts or the configurations of gravity. In other words, we could use his glasses to perceive the quantum field at the macro level. As I wrote here (Towards the nature of the 4th "dimension" of space), the internal relationship between all things will become apparent, obvious to our eyes. Gravity won't be no more a concept but a reality.

Finally, consciousness is the missing link but it doesn't mean that consciousness is not yet present in our theories or measures. We just aren't aware of it.

One thing that you should be careful with is presenting your ideas as absolute fact. You may be right with your theories or you may be wrong. One of the fundamental ways to expand perception is to be open towards many possibilities, instead of being "boxed in" in a limited set of assumptions or beliefs.

Don't forget, Cs said, in the same session (Santilli's session) that speed is a 3D concept, not a 4D one. Maybe, simply, because the 4D vibration's shadow is a 3D speed.

The question we might ask ourselves is this : when Santilli was looking for the unity of Light, was he in fact looking for the matter-antimatter matrix without knowing it? When the Cs speak of the 12x12x12 matrix, are they also referring to the cubic matter-antimatter matrix converted to 4D?

It's when we plug consciousness, voluntarily, in our scientific theories that we enter in 4D.​

12/19/98 session:
Q: (A) Okay, at some point we were talking about a 3 dimensional matrix, 12x12x12. I was wondering where this 12 comes from, and I was thinking that 12 is 2x6 and I was supposed to be looking at hexagons, and a hexagon represents 6 dimensions, four pluses and two minuses. If I add to this 6 energies corresponding to 6 dimensions, then I have 12 dimensions, and this would account for number 12. Is this correct?

A: Yes.

The 12 via the way Ark phrased it seems related to Heim's 12 spacetime dimensions. For the 12x12x12 3D cube, I could see it as kind of a stack of spacetime gamma matrices for Heim. For the 4D hypercube, the Cs talk about phi, infinity
A: Try inserting phi or an infinite number. space?

11/11/95 session:
Q: (L) What does this code relate to? Is it letters or some written work?

A: Infinite power.

Laura’s note: It is obvious now that the Cs were talking about a phi spiral, Fibonacci Sequence, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, etc., Golden Ratio: The ratio between two consecutive numbers in the Fibonacci Series tends to the Golden Number Φ: 0.618… or 1.618; The ratio of each successive pair of numbers in the sequence approximates phi (1.618. . .), as 5 divided by 3 is 1.666…, and 8 divided by 5 is 1.60. but I was ignorant of all that at the time.

The Santilli session mentions merging geometry with optics so the frequency hint seems there too and along with hinting towards a spiral/helix with phi and infinity thus maybe the hypercube 12x12x12x12 is hinting at the gamma matrices defining spacetime having to be upgraded with frequency for the 4th density matter/antimatter bridge. Gamma matrices do act on spinor matter/antimatter. I don't think they are saying literally do this 12x12x12x12 math just that it's the general idea you have to think in terms of.

Last edited:
One thing that you should be careful with is presenting your ideas as absolute fact. You may be right with your theories or you may be wrong. One of the fundamental ways to expand perception is to be open towards many possibilities, instead of being "boxed in" in a limited set of assumptions or beliefs.​

On this point, I'm serene because I'm only presenting ideas that emerge in my mind following hours of meditation or reflection on the subject, considering the clues, the advice, the more or less direct affirmations of the Cs through their messages and I'm trying to see how they illuminate each other, how they organically interweave to represent different aspects of the same reality that we're trying to reach consciously and then translate mentally.

Of course, as I don't have the opportunity to ask questions of the Cs, and there have been no more "à la Santilli" sessions since that oh-so-magical session, we have to make progress on the forum on these various subjects. I'm well aware that physics and maths don't attract many people : I can see this at university. People often learn lectures by heart but there's not much independent thinking or questioning of certain concepts.

I remember attending a physics seminar where I asked a leading specialist in general relativity where antimatter was in general relativity: he looked at me with a blank stare and ended up saying, "What's the point of antimatter appearing in general relativity? It's the most beautiful intellectual construct in science, and with it we have the pinnacle of what can be done. It's nothing but truth. It's incredible to have been achieved by just one man!". I simply replied that the encounter between special relativity and quantum mechanics had naturally given rise to the concept of antimatter, which turned out to be just as important as that of matter. In a unified structure, we can only expect that every element of one aspect will appear or be reflected in the other aspect, since the structure is ONE. Even if the concept evolves organically or, in other words, turns out to be variable. Following this answer, I realized that I shouldn't count on this person to make progress on the structure of the unified field because he wasn't living its simple basic reality : it's ONE, so all theories contain sparks of truth about the structure of the unified field. As long as we don't seek to break down the boundaries that define the specificities of scientific fields, we won't make any progress towards conquering the unified field. It's always there, but masked under this or that guise as a scientific theory.

I've spent many long years thinking about and then trying to experience, if only intellectually, what the structure of the unified field might be, for want of actually experiencing it consciously and cellularly. It's an action that often baffles our mental translation tool. When I first discovered the Cs sessions, I was amazed at the extent to which I found some of the ideas I'd reached. I'm convinced that, with their help and support, we can achieve this together.

Of course, I dream of having a physics and maths session like at Santilli, once a month or even once a quarter, because we need to have worked seriously on the content of the sessions and on physics and maths so that what the Cs have to say gives us food for thought and enables us to exchange ideas directly with them during the sessions. For example, the information on the 4D matter-antimatter matrix is over 25 years old...

Maybe it's time to talk to the Cs on the subject again : for that, we need to exchange and consider everything they've told us in science, polish it up, confront it to bring out new ideas to propose to our friends the Cs (Us in the future). Only in this way, can we meet ourselves in a rich and nourishing way. Through this work, we participate in the expansion of our own consciousness and, on a certain level, that of all living beings, for we are all ONE.

One last point comes to mind : Ark will be asking questions relating to his work, which may be linked to the notion of quantum groups, conformal groups and highly elaborate quantum mechanics because this is his background, this is what makes him tick and this is his way of approaching the structure of the unified field. I've got another, just as you've got another, or @John G another. This doesn't mean that only one is true and the others false. They are all facets of the field we seek to glass in consciousness : each is a part of the truth and contributes to the others, even if they may appear foreign to each other. They are in no way so and in all humility enable each of us to obtain clues to help us progress along the path. The Cs make no mistake when they give an answer adapted to the inquirer's field of research and conscience. And therein lies the richness of Cs teaching.

All this is to tell you that I'm not a rocket scientist, I go forward through my periods of reflection, meditation, exchanges with people on the forum on this or that point, ideas or pearls delivered by the Cs and I bounce from one idea to another until the encounter with the Cs (our consciousness in the future) orients or redirects this or that approach.

When we leave the realm of 3D, not by escaping but by integrating the lessons of 3D, we evolve towards 4D, which is even freer than 3D. We see this clearly in maths, where we move from real numbers to complex numbers to quaternions, each time abandoning a mathematical constraint. As a result, more and more possibilities are opening up, and we're moving towards a reality where anything is possible. But for that to happen, we still need to have integrated the lessons that enable us to live it out consciously, because we're no longer talking about 3D theories but living realities, as the Cs like to remind us.

Thank you so much for your feedback, which enables us to move forward together.

On this point, I'm serene because I'm only presenting ideas that emerge in my mind following hours of meditation or reflection on the subject
Sorry Eric, but just because you spend hours coming up with your ideas does not make them facts, especially on an elusive topic like this where people spent years trying to come up with answers.

But for that to happen, we still need to have integrated the lessons that enable us to live it out consciously, because we're no longer talking about 3D theories but living realities, as the Cs like to remind us.
The way I see it, one of the major 3D lessons is to make our perception more fluid and open, which allows it to expand. Perception becomes more fluid the more we recognize our personal limiting assumptions/beliefs and instead become able to see any topic from many different perspectives, seeing many possibilities.

It is a part of the Work on ourselves, which is basically a way to learn the 3D lessons faster and expand consciousness.

Sorry Eric, but just because you spend hours coming up with your ideas does not make them facts, especially on an elusive topic like this where people spent years trying to come up with answers.
My bad, @axj, I meant years not hours. I never said it was facts . Just a way to combine pieces of the multidimensional puzzle with ideas or intuitions issued from meditations and reflections. It's clear, nevertheless, that we won't these answers from a 3D mind.

I'm still convinced that someone can come along one day and say, this is how it is and that's how it is, without having done anything about it. Just by having benefited, without being aware of it, from the work of many people on the subject, each at their own level. Like a sudden realization! Some will have spent years, if not their whole lives, others a few minutes and others nothing at all, will learn the laws of the new reality because other people have acquired them by the sweat of their perseverance. Intuition is rarely fact.

On such a special subject, you really need to have a special way of looking at the world: and again, does having a new mindset for looking at nature make it a fact? The fact will remain the fact, it will just be perceived differently!
The way I see it, one of the major 3D lessons is to make our perception more fluid and open, which allows it to expand. Perception becomes more fluid the more we recognize our personal limiting assumptions/beliefs and instead become able to see any topic from many different perspectives, seeing many possibilities.

It is a part of the Work on ourselves, which is basically a way to learn the 3D lessons faster and expand consciousness.
Yup and it's the most difficult one since all human think get THE answer and THE truth. To get a fluid and open perception or a variable one needs to be aware of the limits of our concepts, definitions and so forth in our 3D reality.

To do this, we have to be ready to question everything in our lives and in our explorations at every moment. Which is far from easy, I must admit!

And I feel that working on the nature of the 4th "dimension" is one of the best ways, for me, to achieve this. I've always "known" from a very early age that there was a 4th "dimension" of space, and that it had nothing to do with the 3 dimensions that describe our reality. Reaching one's true nature requires awareness of how we describe the reality in which we evolve and how we have defined it, limited by our perception. Only by being fundamentally aware of our 3D approach can we open up to 4D reality, unlocking what we have consciously or unconsciously restricted. In other words, coming to terms with the true nature of the 4th "dimension" of space is a way of beginning to free ourselves from what we consider to be THE reality.

On reflection, I even wonder if the approach to such an enigma can really be intellectual? It requires such an inner change, at the level of consciousness, that it will certainly undermine the notion of fact, of objectivity in science.​

Bear in mind that what we consider to be the basic frame of reference in physics - the so-called Euclidean or Cartesian frame of reference - is based on the very structure of the solid state. This makes it easier to understand why apprehending a state of matter other than the solid state quickly turns out to be complex if it is related to a Cartesian frame of reference. The only way to apprehend the different states of matter, of course, would be to highlight what is common to all states of matter : phase transitions.​
An interesting thought here. I've always found the concept of a "triple point" in physics - the right conditions for a material to exist simultaneously as a solid, liquid and gas - to be a fascinating phenomenon. Are such conditions purely thermodynamic, or are there additional aspects that also need to be in 'alignment'?

Let's not forget that every definition or observation frame of reference is associated with an observer.
I was thinking about this recently via comparison of Cartesian coordinates with Polar ones. A vector can be described in both ways. However, both descriptions rely on an origin point. It is only via relation to an origin that distance makes any sense. As the C's have pointed out:

C's Session 25th September 1999 said:
Q: Going in a slightly different direction. I have been thinking about the nature of our reality, and I have been thinking that underneath it, or at the base of it, there is a 4th density reality similar to the Kaluza-Klein theory. Am I correct so far? Am I going somewhere here?
A: Pursue.
Q: Okay. And, beneath this 4th density reality, there is an etheric reality; and the etheric reality consists of 5th density. Okay? Beneath the 5th density reality, there is the 6th density reality which I am trying to describe in terms of geometry. That geometry is the underlying, essential thing about ideas, natures or aspects of concepts that come into being in our material world; that geometry is the essential nature of things. Am I getting there? But, beyond this geometry, from what does the geometry emanate? I know you are going to say something like "The One," or "Seventh Density," but I would really like to have a concept because I can't get beyond this. Even if it is inadequate, from what does geometry, which expresses as gravity, emerge?
A: Not in sync.
Q: What will get me "in synch?"
A: No "beneaths."
Q: Okay. Since there are no "beneaths," what term would be a suitable replacement?
A: Around.
Q:
What is around this geometry?
A: For you to pursue.
Q: Can you give me a hint here?
A: We just did.
Q: Would it be safe to say that it is "nested?"
A: No, no, no. You still think in terms of a limited domain. When one goes out into space there is no above, below, up, down, left, right, beneath, etc. There is only around. In a spherical sense.
Q: Every point is the center?
A: Closer.
Q:
Back to the tetrahedron, these points where this tetrahedron touches this sphere, and these are lines of magnetic convergence; how do these lines of magnetic convergence appear on this sphere; do they radiate out from the convergence points like spider webs? Or do they converge from the center to the outside of the sphere? Are they laid on the sphere like the grid of longitude and latitude?
A: Closer to latter.
Q:
So, when you say they are lines of convergence, does that mean that a latitude line and longitude line, so to speak, converge at those points?
A: Think multi-dimensionally. No flat paper please.
As I understand it, in the same way that it seems that Einstein realised the implications of Planck's idea of quanta, which he then used in his paper on the photoelectric effect, it seems he also realised the implications of Kaluza's 5th dimension, which led to his paper with Bergman:

C's Session 23rd August 2001 said:
Q: (A) What is the relation between the fourth density that we know and the fifth dimension of Einstein and Bergman?
A: Identical.
A: Barriers to concept imposed by 4D STS.
Q: (L) Are these barriers to the concept part of what I have been approaching in my writing - the imposition of the idea of linear time by the monotheistic philosophy and religious controls - which is resulting in so much attack?
A: Yes.
Q:
(L) Indeed. It terrifies people "religiously" to even think about it. (A) We know what it means that I am distant from you by 20 inches in space. I know what it means to be distant from the future by 20 minutes in time. What does it mean to be distant from something in the 5th dimension? I can't think of it...
A: Distance is a 3rd density constraint of consciousness energy grid structure.
Q:
(L) Are you saying that consciousness energy is extruded into a grid structure? I don't even know how to ask. (A) Einstein, Bergman and Bargmann, were using distance to measure distance in the 5th dimension. They were not using consciousness, they were not using a grid, but they were using distance. And it was supposedly a good theory because they had to abandon it. So, none of them said anything about consciousness, yet they were using distance. So, my question is, is distance an expression of consciousness? Is there a distance from one point to another point expressed as, say, 2 million atoms? Is that a distance? What does consciousness have to do with this? How to model atoms in this 5th dimensional world?
A: As Grid.
Q: (A) Grid of what?
A: Energy.
Q: (A) What is the 5th dimension role in this grid?
A: Rim of Cylinder.
Q: (A) What is rim?
A: Surface of loop.
Q: (A) Loop. Loop in 3 D or loop in 5th?
A: 5.
According to Wikipedia:
Wikipedia said:
According to Klein's definition, "a geometry is the study of the invariant properties of a spacetime, under transformations within itself." Therefore, the geometry of the 5th dimension studies the invariant properties of such space-time, as we move within it, expressed in formal equations.[11] Fifth dimensional geometry is generally represented using 5 coordinate values (x,y,z,w,v), where moving along the v axis involves moving between different hyper-volumes.[12]
Now, if the "centre origin" point of spatial coordinate system can be literally anywhere - let's say, the centre of the Earth - does that also imply that the origin of the 4th and 5th dimensions can also be assigned in the same way? So if we have point x,y,z with frequency w, does v signify some 4th Density energetic property that may more closely relate to information? So what we think of in "spatial" terms as a higher-dimensional polytope might be a sort of 'half-material, half-energetic" structure?

I feel this goes in a very interesting direction, but need to learn more about the mathematics of Kaluza-Klein theory; Ark co-authored a book about this very subject, which is on my reading list for when I have the necessary foundational math to even begin to have a hope of comprehending it.

To grasp the nature of the 4th "dimension" of space, we need to leave behind the abstract approach of theoretical models, and enter into reality itself. Only then will we be able to integrate 4D. Doesn't understanding how 3D space is generated mean freeing ourselves from 3D space itself? Doesn't freeing ourselves from 3D space mean entering non-space, the eternal present, where everything is in the moment? Aren't we, at this very moment, at the base of physical entanglement itself, outside time itself, where everything is, in essence, ONE?​
The devil is in the details here, I think. Theoretical models are extremely useful, I would even say critically necessary, in order to have a chance of comprehending reality. We should be wary about getting caught up in hermetic ideas about "oneness", even if we have a logical basis for thinking that the Source of all Reality is all One Infinity, osit!

C's Session 31st May 1995 said:
Q: [..] (L) What could we use to represent 7th density as a mathematical symbol?
A: Try this: [draws figure eight on side in ellipse]

The 12 via the way Ark phrased it seems related to Heim's 12 spacetime dimensions. For the 12x12x12 3D cube, I could see it as kind of a stack of spacetime gamma matrices for Heim. For the 4D hypercube, the Cs talk about phi, infinity​
When I saw this 12x12x12 matrix, first time, I immediately thought of the 3D "matter - antimatter" matrix converted to 4D via small 4x4x4 matrices for the slots in question. These 4x4x4 matrices would be, perhaps, what replace the slot numbers which are integers, in general, for common matrices in connection with phi.

I don't know why this cubic matrix keeps reminding me of the tensor associated with geometric curvature in general relativity. Perhaps the GR tensor is only a faint glimpse of the matter-antimatter matrix (for want of a non-temporal 4th "dimension" and a failure to take account of antimatter linked to its basic defect in special relativity). Be that as it may, the matter-antimatter matrix increasingly resembles the Mother Matrix at the heart of all dimensional reality. As if it characterized the interdimensional dynamics at the heart of the universe.

What's more, I have the feeling that the matter-antimatter matrix, Santilli's unit of light and the 12x12x12 matrix are, in fact, one and the same matrix where gravity and geometry merge (for me, negative gravity or gravity antimatter aspect is optics and positive gravity or gravity matter is mechanics). We could even associate this with the change of Galilean reference frame in physics (where Galileo made the distinction between space and time) with the need for a 3rd reference frame to obtain the cubic aspect... but that would take us too far, for the moment.

Note that phi appears in the pentagon but not in the hexagon, and the Cs seem to associate phi, infinity and conversion to 4D. As the pentagon is the foundation of gravity waves (August 22, 1998 Cs session), this foundation could perhaps be sought in 4D (aether), while the hexagon would be linked to 3D (physics). If we remember that gravity is both matter and antimatter, we're entitled to wonder if this 4D matter-antimatter matrix isn't what characterizes gravity waves? Oops, another question to the Cs.
The Santilli session mentions merging geometry with optics so the frequency hint seems there too and along with hinting towards a spiral/helix with phi and infinity thus maybe the hypercube 12x12x12x12 is hinting at the gamma matrices defining spacetime having to be upgraded with frequency for the 4th density matter/antimatter bridge. Gamma matrices do act on spinor matter/antimatter. I don't think they are saying literally do this 12x12x12x12 math just that it's the general idea you have to think in terms of.

Yeah, the Santilli session was (and still is) awesome ! I think merging geometry with optics is what lead us to the 4th Density. The other aspect, the polar one, merging geometry with mechanics is what we get with 3th Density physics. And with the merging geometry/optics come up the famous frequency (the 4th "dimension" of space and as we saw, not necessarily an EM frequency in the usual sense since an EM frequency is 3D one). We really need to overcome time as 4th dimension of space to really begin to enter 4D reality by approaching antimatter since antimatter is the pathway to ethereal existence (June 15, 1996 Cs session).​

An interesting thought here. I've always found the concept of a "triple point" in physics - the right conditions for a material to exist simultaneously as a solid, liquid and gas - to be a fascinating phenomenon. Are such conditions purely thermodynamic, or are there additional aspects that also need to be in 'alignment'?​
Dear @Ryan, these points must be related to the 4th "dimension" of space. I'm wondering if the situation you describe isn't related to the fact that the densities fit together like Russian dolls.
I was thinking about this recently via comparison of Cartesian coordinates with Polar ones. A vector can be described in both ways. However, both descriptions rely on an origin point. It is only via relation to an origin that distance makes any sense.​
Yes, the notion of vector is based on an origin and the notion of distance (distance being defined by the difference between the vector's termination and its origin).

My intuition tells me that the 4th "dimension" of space whose nature we must find is an origin of which we are unaware when we are in 3D with our Cartesian/Euclidean frame of reference. That's why the Cs speak of it as a new spatial reference. It's funny that you should talk to me about polar coordinates because what I sense as a new spatial reference is the polar aspect of the point-origin that we consider, in 3D, as the common point of the 3 dimensional axes of the Euclidean reference frame. The polar aspect of the point-origin is then the dimensionally variable sphere of which the point-origin is the center.

Strictly speaking, I'd say that this variable sphere is the 4th "dimension" of space, as an element common to the 3 dimensions (axes) of the Cartesian reference frame. In other words, the only elements common to the 3 dimensional axes are the central point, as the meeting point of the 3 axes, and the variable sphere, at "infinity", as the second meeting point of the 3 axes. That's why it's not perceived in a Cartesian frame of reference... because this sphere is at infinity! When this sphere becomes perceptible, we are no longer in the solid element (Cartesian reference frame) but, in the liquid or air element, and we become aware of the finite relationship between the two origins/references of the afferent space thus defined.

Let's not forget that this particular sphere can be apprehended from both inside and outside. We thus rediscover the property that the Cs spoke of as an attribute of the 4th "dimension" : apprehending the outside and the inside at the same time. To apprehend this particular sphere is to make infinity finite, or to speak of a relative infinity. What's more, this sphere has nothing to do with the sphere we classically talk about in 3D : this sphere is the one we apprehend from the center point, the point-origin, the sphere's external perception (composed of an infinite number of points, like the Cartesian center point).

The sphere I'm talking about, the interdimensional sphere, is totally continuous too. In one piece. To consider it as an origin requires new mathematics, circular or spherical, a kind of mirror image of the polar coordinates, except that this time the origin is the continuous sphere itself. I don't know how to characterize this mathematically yet. I hope I'm clear.

Would the way we would describe this sphere since the origin of 3Ds be an outer/inside frequency as a continuous, contiguous frequency where the beginning of that frequency, its end, and the frequency itself are one and the same. The famous degenerate metric in question?

This is the maximum I can achieve for the moment on this subject. I have come up with these ideas by dint of studying the subject in recent years. Of course, I won't hide from you that I was only too happy to see that the clues left by the Cs, on this subject, when I discovered their sessions, "corresponded" to what I felt was the 4th "dimension" of space.

This particular sphere would be the aether we are looking for, in the sense of its archetype. Its other pole would be the point-origin : the frequency (degenerate metric) is what would "connect" the two origins which are, in fact, one and the same reality. Once perceived externally and once perceived internally. The point-origin is the foundation of physical reality and the sphere-origin is the foundation of etheric reality. The particular frequency, that of the variable physical reality.

So many times, this is what I feel when I sit down and look at the blue sky : the blue sky is the proof of the existence of the aether coming from the confines of the infinite, as ONE, from all the sides at the same time... The circular archetype one... whereas the basis of the solid terrestrial is the linear element.​

All this must be validated by our friends the Cs