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

[EricLux]

I don't know if you've been paying attention to this video, called a short, on Youtube. It's with our friends @SoFloJayC and @Hunter Williams.

In a nutshell, it helps to grasp the fact that outwardly, you can't know a person's intention as long as you stay on the physical plane.

@Hunter Williams' angle is to make us feel the difference between SDS and SDA. SDS focuses on the physical, the self, and worships the physical universe, whereas SDA focuses on the collective to the point of forgetting the self.

When I saw this video, it made me realize how perfectly it embodied the difficulty we have in getting our heads around the 4th “dimension” of space. I've already made clear, in other posts, what I was apprehensive about regarding the nature of this new “dimension”. It can be thought of as the interiority of Light, a level in which Light is identical to Itself at every point. In another way, we could say that with the interiority of Light, we approach the very notion of continuity, because with this new “dimension”, we enter into continuity, into that which cannot be separated.

Nature of the 4th "dimension" of space

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...

cassiopaea.org

Session 27 April 2024

Were they talking about Yggdrasil? I finished Gods of the North by Brian Branston and there might be some clues: The War In Heaven Kidnapping of Freya in this legend somewhat resembles the kidnapping of Helen of Troy by Paris which triggered the Troyan war: More from Branston: The Don river...

cassiopaea.org

Session 18 May 2024

What would you suggest to support the hormonal system? Supplements? Such as DHEA or Pregnenolone? I have tested my hormones, they are in the range of levels typical for post menopause. I would check with the gynecologist to make sure everything is alright, no hormonal growths in the uterus and...

cassiopaea.org

Magnetism is to electricity as gravity is to what?

I thought there was a session transcript that mentioned Gravity and EM forces look or condensed to the same on our 3D view? Oh, I was a bit off, It was a comment Roger Santilli in the May 27, 1995 transcript Q: (RS) From the third level there cannot be a unification of electromagnetism and...

cassiopaea.org

Magnetism is to electricity as gravity is to what?

To ask a meaningful question (and therefore get a meaningful answer) about whether some aspect of gravity can be used for communication, we should probably understand how current wireless communication works. Like at a basic simple level. How is information transmitted and received? What basic...

cassiopaea.org

Magnetism is to electricity as gravity is to what?

Here are a couple of videos that I think will help visualize quaternions. 3blue1brown is a YouTube Channel that specializes in helping to visualize math and statistics. quaternion math is being used by game developers, which I mentioned on another thread. I've seen it before, as I...

cassiopaea.org

All this, to tell you that, with the help of this short video, we understand how impossible it will be to distinguish between two beings at the gym. As @Hunter Williams says, between two people at the gym, one will be motivated by the appearance of his physical body for his own pleasure, and the other will be motivated by working on his physical body to offer his physical temple the best conditions to welcome the appropriate vibration that will enable him to give the best of himself to others. Outwardly, you'll NEVER be able to tell the difference between the two.

And it's exactly at this point that the 4th “dimension” comes into play, the dimension that enables you to move from the individual to the collective, to the network. In other words, from the point to the circle that connects all points as individuals. For those who like geometric images, this could be summed up as the difference between a point that is the center of the circle and a point that is the circle itself (not the circle as an infinity of points, but the circle as an expanded, unfolded point). This enables us to better grasp how to move from the discontinuous (center of the circle) to the continuous (circle in itself), and vice-versa, and to feel the life, the pulsation, the frequency that enables us to move from one to the other. And, above all, to realize that one cannot exist without the other...

I hope these few words have helped you to better apprehend the true nature of the 4th “dimension” of space, and not that of mathematicians who apprehend the 4th dimension of space as a conform copy of one of the 3 dimensions of space (which are interchangeable), and thus help you to expand, to unfold your center in full awareness. You'll then experience the reality of the 4th “dimension” of space, the very frequency that makes you what you are as an individual reality, while opening the door to the spiritual world. You'll experience, in full consciousness, the confluence of being both inside and outside. As you become aware of the vibration you embody. It's the beginning of opening up to others, in consciousness, and it's the sleeper who wakes up...

Thanks again to @SoFloJayC and @Hunter Williams for making me aware of this!
​

**
​

Je ne sais pas si vous avez fait attention à cette vidéo, ce qu'on appelle un short, sur Youtube. C'est avec nos amis @SoFloJayC et @Hunter Williams.

En résumé, cela aide à appréhender le fait qu'extérieurement, vous ne pouvez pas connaître l'intention d'une personne tant que vous restez sur le plan physique.

L'angle d'approche de @Hunter Williams est de nous faire sentir la différence entre SDS et SDA. SDS sont focalisés sur le physique, le soi et ils vénèrent l'univers physique alors que le SDA se focalise sur le collectif jusqu'à en oublier le soi.

Lorsque j'ai vu cette vidéo, cela m'a fait réaliser combien cela incarnait parfaitement le mal que nous avons à nous faire une idée de ce qu'est la 4ème "dimension" de l'espace. J'ai déjà précisé, sur d'autres posts, ce que j'appréhendais quant à la nature de cette nouvelle "dimension". On peut la considérer comme l'intériorité de la Lumière, niveau dans lequel la Lumière est identique en Elle-même en tout point. D'une autre façon, nous pourrions dire qu'avec l'intériorité de la Lumière, nous abordons la notion de continuité même car avec cette nouvelle "dimension", nous entrons dans le continu, dans ce qui ne peut être séparé.

Nature of the 4th "dimension" of space

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...

cassiopaea.org

Session 27 April 2024

Were they talking about Yggdrasil? I finished Gods of the North by Brian Branston and there might be some clues: The War In Heaven Kidnapping of Freya in this legend somewhat resembles the kidnapping of Helen of Troy by Paris which triggered the Troyan war: More from Branston: The Don river...

cassiopaea.org

Session 18 May 2024

What would you suggest to support the hormonal system? Supplements? Such as DHEA or Pregnenolone? I have tested my hormones, they are in the range of levels typical for post menopause. I would check with the gynecologist to make sure everything is alright, no hormonal growths in the uterus and...

cassiopaea.org

Magnetism is to electricity as gravity is to what?

I thought there was a session transcript that mentioned Gravity and EM forces look or condensed to the same on our 3D view? Oh, I was a bit off, It was a comment Roger Santilli in the May 27, 1995 transcript Q: (RS) From the third level there cannot be a unification of electromagnetism and...

cassiopaea.org

Magnetism is to electricity as gravity is to what?

To ask a meaningful question (and therefore get a meaningful answer) about whether some aspect of gravity can be used for communication, we should probably understand how current wireless communication works. Like at a basic simple level. How is information transmitted and received? What basic...

cassiopaea.org

Magnetism is to electricity as gravity is to what?

Here are a couple of videos that I think will help visualize quaternions. 3blue1brown is a YouTube Channel that specializes in helping to visualize math and statistics. quaternion math is being used by game developers, which I mentioned on another thread. I've seen it before, as I...

cassiopaea.org

Tout cela, pour vous dire, qu'à l'aide de cette courte vidéo, on saisit combien, il sera impossible de faire la distinction avec deux êtres à la salle de sport. Comme le dit @Hunter Williams, entre deux personnes à la salle de sport, une sera motivée par l'apparence de son corps physique pour son propre plaisir et l'autre sera motivée par le travail sur son corps physique afin d'offrir à son temple physique les meilleures conditions pour accueillir la vibration adéquate qui lui permettant de donner le meilleur de lui-même aux autres. Extérieurement, vous ne pourrez JAMAIS faire la différence entre les deux. Et, c'est exactement à ce moment qu'entre en scène la 4ème "dimension", cette dimension qui permet de passer du point individuel au point inscrit dans un collectif, dans un réseau. En d'autres termes, qui nous permet de passer du point au cercle qui relie tous les points en tant qu'individu. Cela pourrait se résumer, pour ceux qui aiment les images géométriques, à faire la différence entre un point qui est le centre du cercle et un point qui est le cercle lui-même (non pas le cercle en tant qu'infinité de points mais le cercle en tant que point expansé, déployé). Ceci permet de mieux appréhender comment passer du discontinu (centre du cercle) au continu (cercle en lui-même), et vice-versa, et de sentir la vie, la pulsation, la fréquence qui permet de passer de l'un à l'autre. Et, surtout, de réaliser que l'un ne peut être sans l'autre...

J'espère que ces quelques mots vous auront aider à mieux appréhender la vraie nature de la 4ème "dimension" de l'espace, et non celle des mathématiciens qui appréhendent la 4ème dimension de l'espace comme une copie conforme d'une des 3 dimensions de l'espace (qui sont interchangeables), et vous aidera ainsi à expanser, à déployer votre centre en pleine conscience. Vous vivrez alors la réalité de la 4ème "dimension" de l'espace, cette fréquence propre qui fait de vous ce que vous êtes en tant que réalité individuelle tout en vous ouvrant la porte vers le monde spirituel. Vous vivrez alors, en conscience, cette confluence d'être, à la fois, à l'intérieur et à l'extérieur. Et ce, en devenant conscient de la vibration que vous incarnez. C'est le début de l'ouverture aux autres, en conscience, et c'est le dormeur qui se réveille...

Merci encore à @SoFloJayC et @Hunter Williams de m'avoir permis cette prise de conscience ! ​

 

[Cooroibah]

Thank you Eric,
What You wrote and what Hunter said helps me remember why I used to dance so much. It gives me the desire to start doing it again.
Reading you helps me understand, grasps notions that are sometimes difficult for me to get, it also helps me remember somehow. It is mental but it is also somehow physical ( I feel what you wrote) .
And I hope this message makes sense, arfffff it is such a art to make myself understandable and clear.

 

[EricLux]

Thank you Eric,
What You wrote and what Hunter said helps me remember why I used to dance so much. It gives me the desire to start doing it again.
Reading you helps me understand, grasps notions that are sometimes difficult for me to get, it also helps me remember somehow. It is mental but it is also somehow physical ( I feel what you wrote) .
And I hope this message makes sense, arfffff it is such a art to make myself understandable and clear.

This message makes perfect sense to me. And I'm glad it speaks to you, I tried to put into words what I felt while listening to this little video.

It's very difficult to make yourself understood because, as my friends often tell me, “what's obvious to you, Eric, isn't necessarily obvious to us or to others”.

So I take my time to post, to be as clear as possible, as far as I can and as I understand clarity. I've been fascinated by the idea of the 4th “dimension” since I was very young, and this was reinforced during my university studies when I saw how this notion of dimension was treated.

As we get older, it becomes, clearer and clearer, and with the answers and advice of the Cs, we should be able to form an increasingly accurate picture, even if it means going back to the basics of mathematics and physics. And that's the fun of it, realizing that we already have the answers through the Cs' messages and that what we're lacking is that famous expansion of consciousness! Experience the expansion of consciousness and then describe or even express it in mathematical terms. You have to go beyond a simple description, which always remains external to the phenomenon. You have to go so far as to live the phenomenon (I have a feeling that the Ancients were in this state of being) to then give birth to the living mathematics that characterizes it. Without this faculty, the rest of Reality will be purely abstract, and it can no longer be so as soon as we become aware of the true nature of the 4th “dimension” of space, for there we encounter the spiritual world that so frightens scientists and which, for want of a better word, we'll approach from the angle of Consciousness in physics. But that's all right, because the spiritual world is Consciousness! In a way, the spiritual world will still have won, if I may say so

And you're very clear, imagine if you heard a frenchman with a strong southern accent speaking English then ​

 

[Cooroibah]

This message makes perfect sense to me. And I'm glad it speaks to you, I tried to put into words what I felt while listening to this little video.

It's very difficult to make yourself understood because, as my friends often tell me, “what's obvious to you, Eric, isn't necessarily obvious to us or to others”.

So I take my time to post, to be as clear as possible, as far as I can and as I understand clarity. I've been fascinated by the idea of the 4th “dimension” since I was very young, and this was reinforced during my university studies when I saw how this notion of dimension was treated.

As we get older, it becomes, clearer and clearer, and with the answers and advice of the Cs, we should be able to form an increasingly accurate picture, even if it means going back to the basics of mathematics and physics. And that's the fun of it, realizing that we already have the answers through the Cs' messages and that what we're lacking is that famous expansion of consciousness! Experience the expansion of consciousness and then describe or even express it in mathematical terms. You have to go beyond a simple description, which always remains external to the phenomenon. You have to go so far as to live the phenomenon (I have a feeling that the Ancients were in this state of being) to then give birth to the living mathematics that characterizes it. Without this faculty, the rest of Reality will be purely abstract, and it can no longer be so as soon as we become aware of the true nature of the 4th “dimension” of space, for there we encounter the spiritual world that so frightens scientists and which, for want of a better word, we'll approach from the angle of Consciousness in physics. But that's all right, because the spiritual world is Consciousness! In a way, the spiritual world will still have won, if I may say so

And you're very clear, imagine if you heard a frenchman with a strong southern accent speaking English then ​

I was fascinated too. When I was 7 , I was certain that by the time I became an adult everybody would know how to communicate telepathically, be gifted with ubiquity, heal with songs, and instant teleportation would be the way to travel because everyone would have figured out how life truly works. This was part of my idea (among other visions) of the invisible 'other dimension'. 'Life and Teaching of the Masters of the Far East' written by Baird Spalding inspired me at that time, and then came other authors through novels mostly.

I understand that you are inspired by mathematics and physics and that it is fun to be. I actually remember the C saying we should all learn mathematics.
So far I have not been able to grasp the basics in mathematics or physics. I really struggle to understand and form anything clear to me.
Even though my weakness here is bottomless I have experienced extraordinary physical sensations while dancing .
Once, with a group of dancers, we went to work in a new room and started an improvisation with our eyes closed. I remember throwing myself again and again on a wall for some minutes experiencing different ways of landing on it because it felt very comfortable, soft and welcoming. I stopped and went elsewhere in the room because I though I was cheating , there probably was a mattress someone had stored in that place. I was afraid to be scolded by the teacher for staying in my comfort zone.
A while later, as we sat to talk, I looked for a wall with a mattress, there was none!
That day I knew my bony body had nothing to do with me hurting on a hard wall or a hard floor, as I usually did. Something happened.
I could not repeat the experience though but I know it is possible.
Ps: the day after I was not covered in bruises.

An Australian friend of mine understand French better when spoken with l'accent du Sud, Vé! I guess it's sort of the same in written English for me ( humour absurde)

 

[Esote]

Interesting topic. Note that SDS is French for STS and SDA for STO

 

[EricLux]

@John G, @MJF and @Ryan

To explain paranormal phenomena, there's no need to call on physics itself : by understanding the nature of 4D, the trick is done (because, in fact, it's all the same thing : the physical laws we're looking for are the laws of 4D reality, quite simply. Searching for the field from which everything originates is tantamount to finding, at the same time, the laws inherent in all reality. That's what a unified field is all about!) To do this, we need to grasp the nature of the 4th "dimension" of space and, to do this, we need to integrate the difference between the notion of density and dimension.

Indeed, we know that 4D is EXACTLY Einstein Bergman's 5th dimension :
August 23, 2001​

Q: (A) What is the relation between the fourth density that we know and the fifth dimension of Einstein and Bergman?
A: Identical.

While 4D unfolds in 4 "dimensions" :
October 3 1998​

A: Four dimensional, Arkadiusz, 4th Density, see?

How can we explain that a set of dimensions is equal to one dimension? Is this where we enter the realm of non-linearity? It's as if the 4th "dimension" of space, as a new spatial reference, enabled us to apprehend the structure of space, the birth of space, and therefore space in all its dynamics. In other words, this new "dimension" of space generates space itself, naturally linking the 3 dimensions of space together. We could even say that it's only at the 3D level, by pure abstraction, that we consider 3 interchangeable spatial dimensions via a reference, the origin of the related spatial reference frame, as 0.

Question: is this new "dimension" the aether that scientists were looking for in the 19th century to justify the dynamics of light? January 4, 1997​

A: Please... we are drifting! Tell A that "aether" is Terran material science's attempt to address ether.

The only problem is that the aether was then sought as a substance, a luminiferous medium of propagation, because for a 3D viewpoint, only media exist to justify a mode of propagation. It's the only reference a 3D mind knows, so it applies it to whatever it's looking for.

Wouldn't it be better to consider the transition from one environment to another, rather than the environment itself? Taking into account what is common to two different media enables us to understand what generates a medium. Perhaps that's why there are different 3D environments (the different states of matter) and why, in order to consider them together in the same space, we need to appeal to the notion of density? Would 3D density be everything that brings together the different 3D possibilities?

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.

These reveal how we move from one state of matter to another, and therefore what they have in common. A little bird tells me that this is where the presence of the 4th "dimension" of space is revealed. Note that going from one state of matter to another would be like changing reference frames in physics but here it's not the laws inherent in the reference frames that are being considered, but the reference frames themselves! A new level of relativity if ever there was one. Rather than talking about external dynamics whose laws we'd be looking for in relation to a solid, static, so-called Euclidean reference frame, we're talking here about looking for the very dynamics of the basic reference frame in question.

While we've always been interested in an external approach to reality, we need to find a new reference point for apprehending the outside and inside of any reality, at the same time. What is the hypothesis that had to be made in physics to reveal the nature of the 4th "dimension" of space? It comes down to deconstructing and destructing our basic concepts to become aware of their relativity and limits through their own definition. Indeed, to define is to limit, to freeze a dynamic in a freeze frame. And what we're looking for is the inherent dynamic linking all concepts and definitions together. Let's not forget that every definition or observation frame of reference is associated with an observer. At some point, we'll have to integrate the presence of the observer himself into the canons of physics itself, without forgetting that, being in 3D, we can only apprehend the 4th "dimension" in relation to our 3 basic dimensions.

Becoming aware of the very structure of our apprehension of 3D reality, of how we seek to describe it in relation to our 3D reference tools, unlocks our perception of reality. In other words, once we've integrated how we freeze our perception of reality through our 3D concepts, we're able to embrace a more fluid, dynamic and living perception to apprehend other states of matter, at the same time. We're embracing 4D perception. We're locked into a 3D reality because we're locked into our 3D concepts based on external perception of the solid state of matter.

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?

Time is an illusion based on the perception of space :
April 27, 2024​

A: In reality, there is no time. Perception is what gives the illusion.

Can space only be 3D in nature?

To be continued...​

 

[John G]

To explain paranormal phenomena, there's no need to call on physics itself : by understanding the nature of 4D, the trick is done (because, in fact, it's all the same thing : the physical laws we're looking for are the laws of 4D reality, quite simply. Searching for the field from which everything originates is tantamount to finding, at the same time, the laws inherent in all reality. That's what a unified field is all about!) To do this, we need to grasp the nature of the 4th "dimension" of space and, to do this, we need to integrate the difference between the notion of density and dimension.

Indeed, we know that 4D is EXACTLY Einstein Bergman's 5th dimension :
August 23, 2001​

Q: (A) What is the relation between the fourth density that we know and the fifth dimension of Einstein and Bergman?
A: Identical.

While 4D unfolds in 4 "dimensions" :
October 3 1998​

A: Four dimensional, Arkadiusz, 4th Density, see?

How can we explain that a set of dimensions is equal to one dimension? Is this where we enter the realm of non-linearity? It's as if the 4th "dimension" of space, as a new spatial reference, enabled us to apprehend the structure of space, the birth of space, and therefore space in all its dynamics. In other words, this new "dimension" of space generates space itself, naturally linking the 3 dimensions of space together. We could even say that it's only at the 3D level, by pure abstraction, that we consider 3 interchangeable spatial dimensions via a reference, the origin of the related spatial reference frame, as 0.​

There is also this which I think you've mentioned before:

August 27 2022
(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

The Einstein Bergmann 5th dimension is circular which really means it's a 6-dim conformal structure which at infinity gets you to that 4-dim degenerate metric where the 4th is no longer Einstein time. As you say, a new linkage of 3-dim space worldlines/states is needed and it's a frequency one.

Question: is this new "dimension" the aether that scientists were looking for in the 19th century to justify the dynamics of light? January 4, 1997​

A: Please... we are drifting! Tell A that "aether" is Terran material science's attempt to address ether.

The only problem is that the aether was then sought as a substance, a luminiferous medium of propagation, because for a 3D viewpoint, only media exist to justify a mode of propagation. It's the only reference a 3D mind knows, so it applies it to whatever it's looking for.

Wouldn't it be better to consider the transition from one environment to another, rather than the environment itself? Taking into account what is common to two different media enables us to understand what generates a medium. Perhaps that's why there are different 3D environments (the different states of matter) and why, in order to consider them together in the same space, we need to appeal to the notion of density? Would 3D density be everything that brings together the different 3D possibilities?

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.

These reveal how we move from one state of matter to another, and therefore what they have in common. A little bird tells me that this is where the presence of the 4th "dimension" of space is revealed. Note that going from one state of matter to another would be like changing reference frames in physics but here it's not the laws inherent in the reference frames that are being considered, but the reference frames themselves! A new level of relativity if ever there was one. Rather than talking about external dynamics whose laws we'd be looking for in relation to a solid, static, so-called Euclidean reference frame, we're talking here about looking for the very dynamics of the basic reference frame in question.​

4th Density is described as variably physical and this probably relates to ether aka the conformal structure and the "phase transition"/reference frame dynamics would be weird and more mind dependent than we are used to.

While we've always been interested in an external approach to reality, we need to find a new reference point for apprehending the outside and inside of any reality, at the same time. What is the hypothesis that had to be made in physics to reveal the nature of the 4th "dimension" of space? It comes down to deconstructing and destructing our basic concepts to become aware of their relativity and limits through their own definition. Indeed, to define is to limit, to freeze a dynamic in a freeze frame. And what we're looking for is the inherent dynamic linking all concepts and definitions together. Let's not forget that every definition or observation frame of reference is associated with an observer. At some point, we'll have to integrate the presence of the observer himself into the canons of physics itself, without forgetting that, being in 3D, we can only apprehend the 4th "dimension" in relation to our 3 basic dimensions.

Becoming aware of the very structure of our apprehension of 3D reality, of how we seek to describe it in relation to our 3D reference tools, unlocks our perception of reality. In other words, once we've integrated how we freeze our perception of reality through our 3D concepts, we're able to embrace a more fluid, dynamic and living perception to apprehend other states of matter, at the same time. We're embracing 4D perception. We're locked into a 3D reality because we're locked into our 3D concepts based on external perception of the solid state of matter.

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?

Time is an illusion based on the perception of space :
April 27, 2024​

A: In reality, there is no time. Perception is what gives the illusion.

Can space only be 3D in nature?

To be continued...​

We are in our 3D Minkowski structure frozen out of the conformal structure; it is actually described with the term "frozen out".

 

[EricLux]

The Einstein Bergmann 5th dimension is circular which really means it's a 6-dim conformal structure which at infinity gets you to that 4-dim degenerate metric where the 4th is no longer Einstein time. As you say, a new linkage of 3-dim space worldlines/states is needed and it's a frequency one.​

Dear @John G

The question that comes to mind is : why do we need to resort to infinity to find the metric that would seem to describe 4D? Since the Cs have said that Einstein Bergmann's 5th dimension is exactly 4D, shouldn't we have all the time what we currently find only at infinity?

I think there's still something we don't understand about space. We know that there's a flaw in Kaluza-Klein's approach in relation to the notion of prism.

- What's the nature of this prism? Does it distort our perception of reality? Is it the EM spectrum?
- This prism would be the structure to take into account as the 4th "dimension" of space? A prism that we should consider, both externally and internally? This would only be possible via the 4th "dimension" of space, which has the ability to simultaneously take into account the inside and the outside, as a frequency?
- Is this frequency, the 4th "dimension" of space, an EM-type frequency as we've known it since Maxwell? I don't think so! Rather, I sense a 3D/4D frequency that characterizes the boundary and foundation of our 3D terrestrial reality. A +/- frequency, whereas the EM frequencies that propagate are only +.

I still can't precisely describe mathematically what this 4th "dimension" should be. What I feel, more and more, over the years, is that it must be linked to the number 0 in a very special way. In other words, we need to change the way we look at the number 0. In mathematics, we have a static approach to it and I feel that we need to apprehend it in a living, dynamic and even variable way. It's almost as if we need to reverse our perspective on it. We think of it as synonymous with emptiness, whereas we should see it as characterizing universal dynamic equilibrium. In fact, 0 represents the end of our perception as such, of what we can measure in our 3D reality :

- Must the 4th "dimension" of space be linked to the number 0 in a very special way?
- Doesn't the number 0 have a dimension of its own that we can only take into account by changing our perspective on it and so access to 4D reality?

A bit like the change of state that results in a physical change that we can't measure, for a while, and which eventually translates into a physical state other than the initial one.

- Is there's a link between the parts and the whole, between the discontinuous and the continuous that we can't quantify, that we can't become aware of, and that would characterize the quantum leap between 3D density and 4D density?

And this quantum leap would only occur if we took into account a frequency, a particular wave that would define, by resonance, our 3D terrestrial reality - as I've mentioned in other messages, in other threads. As if we had a 3D/4D type relationship - discontinuous/continuous - positive number/negative number. Here, again, this negative number has nothing to do with the one associated abstractly with a Cartesian reference frame in relation to its origin. I'm talking here about a real negative number that participates in the very dynamics of space.

By taking into account this 4th "dimension", we are taking into account an origin in the same way as scientists did 130 years ago, when they were looking for the aether as a reference to describe the dynamics of light. The fact is, we couldn't find it because we projected our conceptions, our basic concepts, our 3D a priori on its nature, on its reality, whereas we only describe and observe 3D reality in a purely external way. We take less than 50% of reality into account: what we lack, at present, is its internal aspect, and what enables us to take its external and internal aspects into account at the same time - the famous 4th "dimension", this new reference other than our basic 0.

- Isn't the 3D/4D wave just our 3D perception of the frequency specific that is the 4th "dimension"?

We should therefore think that Einstein-Bergmann's 5th dimension does not carry the flaw of Kaluza-Klein's 5th dimension and does indeed integrate the prism whose reality we must take into account. We need to be aware that this dimension, which is circular in nature, is special in that it allows us to take into account the inside and the outside at the same time, whereas our vision and interpretation of any circular form is, by nature, external only.

Finally, could the difference between loop and circular not have its origin in the way we look at its reality : 3D or 4D? The fact of perceiving a 4D reality, from a 3D perspective, translates into a 3D/4D frequency.

- Wouldn't Einstein-Bergmann's circular dimension be the famous infinity circle that defines all perspectives and thus all representations of space in projective geometry?

Well, @John G, that's the best I can do at the moment : when I write messages like this, I never know in advance what I'm going to write. I try to structure as much as possible to make it as clear as possible for readers. Over the years of reflection and meditation on the subject, all I've come up with are glimpses, sensations that I try to transcribe but still no overall picture. I've left in bold what might be the subject of questions for the Cs if you ever have the opportunity to ask questions and some of them resonate with you.

Thank you for your answers, which allow me to go a little further each time.​

 

[John G]

Dear @John G

The question that comes to mind is : why do we need to resort to infinity to find the metric that would seem to describe 4D? Since the Cs have said that Einstein Bergmann's 5th dimension is exactly 4D, shouldn't we have all the time what we currently find only at infinity? ​

The structure at infinity interfaces between the universe and antiverse and just like the mind can access ourselves in the future aka 6th density, the mind might get awareness of the degenerate metric.

I think there's still something we don't understand about space. We know that there's a flaw in Kaluza-Klein's approach in relation to the notion of prism.

- What's the nature of this prism? Does it distort our perception of reality? Is it the EM spectrum?
- This prism would be the structure to take into account as the 4th "dimension" of space? A prism that we should consider, both externally and internally? This would only be possible via the 4th "dimension" of space, which has the ability to simultaneously take into account the inside and the outside, as a frequency?
- Is this frequency, the 4th "dimension" of space, an EM-type frequency as we've known it since Maxwell? I don't think so! Rather, I sense a 3D/4D frequency that characterizes the boundary and foundation of our 3D terrestrial reality. A +/- frequency, whereas the EM frequencies that propagate are only +.​

It's not an EM frequency; it's I think the light-like path version of what in a time-like path would be an affine parameter handling proper time. This affine parameter for light-like paths is usually considered to be non-physical because light is usually considered to not have a reference frame.

I still can't precisely describe mathematically what this 4th "dimension" should be. What I feel, more and more, over the years, is that it must be linked to the number 0 in a very special way. In other words, we need to change the way we look at the number 0. In mathematics, we have a static approach to it and I feel that we need to apprehend it in a living, dynamic and even variable way. It's almost as if we need to reverse our perspective on it. We think of it as synonymous with emptiness, whereas we should see it as characterizing universal dynamic equilibrium. In fact, 0 represents the end of our perception as such, of what we can measure in our 3D reality :

- Must the 4th "dimension" of space be linked to the number 0 in a very special way?
- Doesn't the number 0 have a dimension of its own that we can only take into account by changing our perspective on it and so access to 4D reality?​

Well there's zero distance and zero elapsed time with the degenerate metric so how the mind would choose where to branch from and to is certainly different.

A bit like the change of state that results in a physical change that we can't measure, for a while, and which eventually translates into a physical state other than the initial one.

- Is there's a link between the parts and the whole, between the discontinuous and the continuous that we can't quantify, that we can't become aware of, and that would characterize the quantum leap between 3D density and 4D density?

And this quantum leap would only occur if we took into account a frequency, a particular wave that would define, by resonance, our 3D terrestrial reality - as I've mentioned in other messages, in other threads. As if we had a 3D/4D type relationship - discontinuous/continuous - positive number/negative number. Here, again, this negative number has nothing to do with the one associated abstractly with a Cartesian reference frame in relation to its origin. I'm talking here about a real negative number that participates in the very dynamics of space.​

Trapping light for the degenerate metric certainly plays havoc with Planck unit things via sending light speed to zero and can certainly require corresponding changes with the Planck constant and the idea of discontinuous/continuous.

By taking into account this 4th "dimension", we are taking into account an origin in the same way as scientists did 130 years ago, when they were looking for the aether as a reference to describe the dynamics of light. The fact is, we couldn't find it because we projected our conceptions, our basic concepts, our 3D a priori on its nature, on its reality, whereas we only describe and observe 3D reality in a purely external way. We take less than 50% of reality into account: what we lack, at present, is its internal aspect, and what enables us to take its external and internal aspects into account at the same time - the famous 4th "dimension", this new reference other than our basic 0.

- Isn't the 3D/4D wave just our 3D perception of the frequency specific that is the 4th "dimension"?

We should therefore think that Einstein-Bergmann's 5th dimension does not carry the flaw of Kaluza-Klein's 5th dimension and does indeed integrate the prism whose reality we must take into account. We need to be aware that this dimension, which is circular in nature, is special in that it allows us to take into account the inside and the outside at the same time, whereas our vision and interpretation of any circular form is, by nature, external only.

Finally, could the difference between loop and circular not have its origin in the way we look at its reality : 3D or 4D? The fact of perceiving a 4D reality, from a 3D perspective, translates into a 3D/4D frequency.

- Wouldn't Einstein-Bergmann's circular dimension be the famous infinity circle that defines all perspectives and thus all representations of space in projective geometry?
​

It is projective geometry and as Wikipedia's article says about it: "The basic intuitions are that projective space has more points than Euclidean space, for a given dimension, and that geometric transformations are permitted that transform the extra points (called "points at infinity") to Euclidean points, and vice versa." There's a paper entitled "Unimodular conformal and projective relativity" by Kaća Bradonjić and John Stachel that has a nice review of the math structures involved but doesn't do anything new with them. Ark liked the Bradonjic /Stachel review and has new ideas.

 

[EricLux]

This is becoming increasingly clear to me.

We need a conception of space that's real and alive. Not abstract and theoretical. Because as long as we don't know what space really is, we won't make any progress in the search for the Unified Field.

To do this, we need to have a few convictions :

- in all perception, objects that appear isolated to us are, in fact, internally related to one another. It's this universal link, this common denominator, that we need to seek out, and which we call the 4th "dimension" of space. And it's because scientists aren't aware of the reality, of the presence of this 4th "dimension" of space, that they have an interpretation, an abstract and dead view of things. This view can only be enlivened and brought to life when it becomes aware of the internal relationship between all things. At that point, the awakened scientist will have a perception of space that is both external and internal. In other words, living and therefore variable. Everything he observes is a living manifestation of a single reality that transcends abstract, Euclidean 3D and all its derivatives.

- We need to grasp the whole of what appears to us, at first glance, to be separate, united by a spiritual bond, a conceptual unity that is not accessible to the external eye. Only in this way can we move from the abstract and theoretical to the real. In other words, we've moved from 3D to 4D, which is a living, organic 3D. This unity is drawn from the inner essence of nature itself.

I would even go so far as to say that what appears in our minds as law is the pulsation of the Universe itself. It is here that we find the essence of the 4th "dimension" of space. This is a resonant frequency that gives life, animates and characterizes every space and every object.
​

 

[Natus Videre]

Q: (A) Okay, as you repeatedly mention this 'matrix,' I want to know exactly what your definition of 'matrix' is?
A: Picture a perfectly symmetrical three dimensional parallelogram.

Q: (A) It's a cube.
A: Yes, now convert to 4 dimensions, and you have the mathematical representation of the matter-antimatter matrix.

Q: (A) In mathematics, by a matrix we understand a cube with slots to put numbers in. How many slots do we include?
A: Try inserting phi or an infinite number.

Q: (A) The number of slots must be an integer like one, two or three, not a decimal like phi.
A: Four dimensional, Arkadiusz, 4th Density, see?

The "matter-antimatter matrix" makes me think of space-filling tessellations, especially the tesseractic honeycomb.

In four-dimensional euclidean geometry, the tesseractic honeycomb is one of the three regular space-filling tessellations (or honeycombs), represented by Schläfli symbol {4,3,3,4}, and constructed by a 4-dimensional packing of tesseract facets.

Its vertex figure is a 16-cell. Two tesseracts meet at each cubic cell, four meet at each square face, eight meet on each edge, and sixteen meet at each vertex.

It is an analog of the square tiling, {4,4}, of the plane and the cubic honeycomb, {4,3,4}, of 3-space. These are all part of the hypercubic honeycomb family of tessellations of the form {4,3,...,3,4}. Tessellations in this family are Self-dual.

Regular and uniform honeycombs in 4-space:

• 16-cell honeycomb
• 24-cell honeycomb
• 5-cell honeycomb
• Truncated 5-cell honeycomb
• Omnitruncated 5-cell honeycomb

Q: (A) I think it could help me. At that time I found something that was interesting that relates to integers. I found somebody writing a paper on Lorentz transformation that was made of integers; that is like, if space-time was kind of a grid or lattice. And...
A: Indeed it is.

Now, how do we reconcile 4D geometry with the fact that distance, as we know it, is no longer a viable concept in 4th density? Is this where consciousness is more "plugged" to matter, allowing "instantaneous" paths through space?

 

[EricLux]

The "matter-antimatter matrix" makes me think of space-filling tessellations, especially the tesseractic honeycomb.

View attachment 97773


Now, how do we reconcile 4D geometry with the fact that distance, as we know it, is no longer a viable concept in 4th density? Is this where consciousness is more "plugged" to matter, allowing "instantaneous" paths through space?

The question is how do we convert this 3D matrix in 4D :

Q: (A) It's a cube.
A: Yes, now convert to 4 dimensions, and you have the mathematical representation of the matter-antimatter matrix.

It's clear that the matter-antimatter matrix is at core of the UFT, it's an outside-inside space matrix.

I feel that converting the 3D matrix into 4D means taking into account the fact that the slots are not whole numbers : the Cs speak of decimal or p-adic numbers. But how do you represent non-integer slots? When I think about it, I see a cubic matrix in which each slot is a cubic matrix in which each slot is a cubic matrix, to infinity. A kind of fractal. I don't know if you understand me?

Don't forget that the Cs confirmed that space is basically fractal in nature.

I don't yet have the opportunity to ask the Cs questions during the zoom sessions but I think it would be interesting (since the session was in 1998) to ask the Cs if the 4D matter-antimatter matrix is really one tesseractic honeycomb as you feel it is, or if it's more of a fractal matrix as I feel it is.

Let's not forget that this matrix describes all possible spaces, so it can't just be Euclidean as you mentioned at the beginning. And I think the fact that it's 4D erases all the rigidity and strictness of the Euclidean approach. The fact that it's both outside (matter) and inside (antimatter) is certainly reflected in the non-integer aspect of the 4D matrix slots. Maybe another question to ask?
​

Now, how do we reconcile 4D geometry with the fact that distance, as we know it, is no longer a viable concept in 4th density? Is this where consciousness is more "plugged" to matter, allowing "instantaneous" paths through space?

4D density is in a 4D realm (4D is a living, organic 3D as I stated before - Towards the nature of the 4th "dimension" of space), a kind of dynamic and variable 3D. So, the 4D matrix is a very special form of 3D matrix, cubic in the sense that it has exceptional characteristics not found in conventional cubic matrices (with an integer number of slots, for example).

My feeling is that the answer to your question lies in the fact that the "gap" between 3D and 4D, is the gap between discontinous and continuous perspective. In other words, 4D vision requires a change of mind (consciousness) and therefore of perception. When you see a straight line, in a discontinuous way, you can speak of a kind of distance but when you see it in a continuous way, there is no beginning and no end, just one point expanded. I don't know if I'm clear enough?

A potential question to the Cs : is the discontinuous vision a 3D one and continuous a 4D one ?
​

I've got lots of other ideas, some of which go a long way! If you're interested in building up a pool of questions for Cs on the subject, we can continue the adventure.

Thanks for your message, @Natus Videre, which gave me a better idea of how to do without the notion of distance in 4D.

​

 

[Natus Videre]

Thank you, @EricLux, your enthusiasm is contagious!

Don't forget that the Cs confirmed that space is basically fractal in nature.

I don't yet have the opportunity to ask the Cs questions during the zoom sessions but I think it would be interesting (since the session was in 1998) to ask the Cs if the 4D matter-antimatter matrix is really one tesseractic honeycomb as you feel it is, or if it's more of a fractal matrix as I feel it is.

I don't think space is one tesseractic honeycomb. Maybe the 4D honeycomb is a basic unit replicated in a fractal manner. Or maybe there are multiple base units which are combined to form a multifractal. I am always wondering how the Universe keeps track of fractal subdivisions, because, when we look at fractals, the start and the end are practically indistinguishable. How is "progress" quantified in cosmic terms? If gravity is "static," and if consciousness is some type of inversion of gravity, then it may seem like we are just "sculpting" whatever is already "there." It's quite paradoxical, because, on one side, "all there is lessons" and, I imagine, it is possible to learn all of them, but on the other, the Universe is infinite which could imply that the number of lessons is also infinite. Is there always something new to learn? How is the learning path closed? Do beings choose to forget in order to complete the cycle?

My feeling is that the answer to your question lies in the fact that the "gap" between 3D and 4D, is the gap between discontinous and continuous perspective. In other words, 4D vision requires a change of mind (consciousness) and therefore of perception. When you see a straight line, in a discontinuous way, you can speak of a kind of distance but when you see it in a continuous way, there is no beginning and no end, just one point expanded. I don't know if I'm clear enough?

One way to reach 4th density is to go at the speed of light.

Q: (RS) Then the point is valid. (J) Is gravity what keeps us in third density? (RS) So, then if you go at the speed of light then you are in fourth density.

A: Now, what is missing factor which allows third density and fourth density matter to achieve light speed without disintegration? Think...

So this means there is a well-defined barrier that keeps us in 3D, like a prison. If this barrier is a loop, then we break out of that loop when we reach 4D (either naturally through DNA, or artificially through technology). But how would we go back to 2D from 3D? Do we have to "slow down" our perception even more? Is going up or down the ladder of densities a matter of skillfully manipulating light?

More questions than answers...

 

[axj]

From the same session you quoted above:

Q: (L) What is the link between consciousness and matter?

A: Illusion.

Q: (L) What is the nature of the illusion? (T) That there isn't any connection between consciousness and matter. It is only an illusion that there is. It is part of the third density...

A: No. Illusion is that there is not.

Q: (L) The illusion is that there is no link between consciousness and matter.

A: Yes.

Q: (T) The illusion is that there is not a link. In third density... (L) I got it! (T) Don't disappear on me now! [Laughter] The relationship is that consciousness is matter.

A: Close. What about vice versa?

Q: (L) Just reverse everything. Light is gravity. Optics are atomic particles, matter is anti-matter... just reverse everything to understand the next level... it can't be that easy. (J) Wait a second: gravity equals light, atomic particles equals optics, anti-matter equals matter? It is all about balance. (L) And the answer must always be zero.

A: And zero is infinity.

Q: (L) So, you are saying that it is not that there is a link, the illusion is that there is separation. There is no difference, they are the same?

A: Yes.

Q: (T) If you warp space/time you travel by bringing your destination to you. (L) Or, you can reverse that and understand that there is no distance between us and, say, Alpha Centauri, it is the alteration of perception that turns the axis and creates the illusion of distance.

A: Now, all you need is the "technology."

Q: (T) The technology is being developed right now. (J) The technology has probably already been developed, it is just suppressed.

A: Yes.

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.

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?

Somewhat related to this topic, Theun Mares (Toltec seer) mentioned in his book Cry of the Eagle that the c squared in E = mc2 is really about consciousness and not the speed of light:

Einstein's Law of Relativity is another major breakthrough
for the scientific community, for this is in fact a mathematical
expression of the law of manifestation. In his simple equation,
e = mc2, Einstein in effect proved that energy(e) is equal to
mass/matter(m), for indeed the tonal is but the manifestation
of the nagal. However, the equation e = m is only true when
(m) is multiplied by the square of some constant. Einstein took
the speed of light as the necessary constant. Yet Toltecs beg to
differ with Dr. Einstein on this point, because from our
experience there is nothing in this universe which is truly
constant - not even the speed of light.

This does not mean that Einstein's equation is wrong. The
only thing that is wrong is the scientific fraternity's
interpretation of a constant. Einstein's equation is perfectly
correct once it is understood that within the realm of
manifestation the required constant is the constant interaction
between the two poles of awareness. Thus it can now be said
that differentiated consciousness(m), multiplied by the product
of the two poles of awareness(c2), is equal to undifferentiated
consciousness(e). This, however, is not the way in which the
majority of scientists view Einstein's Law of Relativity, and yet,
ultimately, and ironically, this is the very meaning of the term
'relativity'.

In order to understand the implications of this, we must again
refer to the Truths of Awareness, where it is stated that man is
the microcosm of the macrocosm, and is therefore an exact
replica of the universe. Looking then at awareness in relation to
the scale of man, we find that the pole which separates (the
thinking principle) is that faculty of man which we term the
rational mind, whereas the pole which unifies (the feeling
principle), is that faculty which we term emotion. Needless to say,
although the interaction between the two poles of awareness is
always constant, the result of this interaction is most certainly
never constant, but a true variable. Consequently, it is therefore
not so strange that the world, or the spirit, for that matter,
should be relative to our perception. In other words, our view of
the world is directly dependent upon the result of the interaction
between the two poles of awareness. This is the true meaning of
relativity.

It should now be clear to see that if we favour the rational
mind, then our view of the world becomes very materialistic and
separative; but if, on the other hand, we favour the emotions,
then our" view of the world becomes spiritual and inclusive.
However, it is only when we come to the point of realising that
a bias in any direction is an imbalance that we can truly
understand the need both for the mind and for the heart; both
for discrimination and for unification, in order to achieve that
balance which we term the totality of the self.

 

[EricLux]

One way to reach 4th density is to go at the speed of light.

When I read it, I think that speed of light can be measured in different media (water, diamond,...) where the speed of light is different from the one we measured in the air : c. So maybe, 4th density can be grasp at any speed, in fact.

I think we need a change of perspective here and understand the true nature of the 4th "dimension" of space : what if, simply, the way to reach 4D is to take account of the 4th "dimension" of space, of this frequency whose nature we don't yet know ? And, maybe, what we're seeing as speed of light, even speed of an object, is the projection, in 3D, of this 4th "dimension". In other words, speed of light becomes, reveals itself as a vibration in 4D.

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.
​

So this means there is a well-defined barrier that keeps us in 3D, like a prison. If this barrier is a loop, then we break out of that loop when we reach 4D (either naturally through DNA, or artificially through technology).

So you get your answer here : the well-defined barrier is our linear perception of reality. If we give up this linear perception, we enter in the 4D reality. It seems that this well-defined barrier, this limit of perception is linked with our speed of light.

If we can make it variable, we are no more in 3D prison. 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.

Interestingly, today I worked on the session of October 22, 1994 (I've been working on them one by one since the beginning) and I noticed this sentence : "Was this done technologically or was it strictly done by mind power? They are one and the same. " (Cs' sessions key sentences). So, outside consciousness seems to be technology. We can achieve this result (reach the 4D) by a change of consciouness (DNA change) or by technology.​