Transition from the 3D to the 4D

The 3D reality is only a set of separate points, apparently isolated without connection between them (empty). The link between them turns out to be the link between 3D and 4D. So, if we want to understand how to have a 4D vision, we have to integrate the reality of the link between the 3D points. There is also the question of the vision of a 4D element in a 3D reality: does the necessity to work with the number 12 translate the fact that in order to represent the 4D reality from our 3D vision, we should associate 4 dimensions to each of our 3 dimensions to get the 12D? In short, each of our 3 dimensions must be deployed in 12 aspects to be able to correctly represent the 4D?

In fact, we have a very very small overview of the Reality in relation to our visual spectrum and to adopt a 4D vision is to apprehend under 360 °, to open to 360 ° our field of vision, to apprehend all the possibilities, all the potentials all at once, everything is open (past, present, future as Einstein saw). When we take the two left and right infinities of a line in 3D as one and same point, the line becomes a circle in 3D (as Nicolas de Cuse felt the circle is of immeasurable nature to the line). In fact, the circle can’t be approached by a set of lines, so is the change of unit of space, evoked by Rugiero in May 1995 to pass from 3D to 4D, also the transition from the line to the circle each belonging to different realities (incommensurability)?

One overcomes the linear infinity by identifying the left and right infinity points of a line, so one overcomes the linear infinity by modifying its physical curvature? The 4th dimension is the physical curvature, which we do not perceive since we are also inside this curvature. We don’t want to take into account the observer, we don’t even realize that our vision of the environment is biased by our physical curvature essentially associated with the nature of our physical body. When we perceive emptiness (absence of curvature), in fact we perceive a hidden reality of negative physical curvature that is perceived as null by our own positive physical curvature? Becoming aware of the presence and reality of our own curvature is feeling our belonging to space, to the Universe, to the reality we perceive in our sphere of vision. In feeling so, we integrate the 4th "dimension" spatial reference?

In fact, space is not the abstract representation we make with the Cartesian reference system, where each axis is interchangeable with another one and where the origin is located anywhere in space, externally to the observer. Space is instantly apprehended all at once. This is our way of seeing it under its true 4D nature from our 3D look. This is how we see the outside of the Hyperspace, entering inside It, we will become aware of its negative physical curvature by the fact that everything is ONE in this spherical domain. When we take into account the internal movement of the line (present time flow towards future), the transition from linearity to circular is translated, this time, by a double loop which gives the lemniscate therefore what we interpret as time is an internal dynamic that we feel because we are inscribed in it: would physical curvature also be a movement?l

In this way, the process of finding and living the true nature of the 4th dimension can only be a individual spiritual and scientific journey because we are brought to find the unity in us to live the 4th dimension : this 4th dimension is already present within the 3D space as Gravity. Its inside aspect is Consciousness and its outside aspect is Matter. Taking account this new positioning, which we interpret by 4th "dimension" of the Space, the space interiority, in fact Gravity, we have Consciousness = Matter. It’s the merging of science and spirituality.

Einstein look for a structure for his general relativity by wanting to integrate gravity into his TOR which only took into account the EM without realizing that Gravity was already present in TOR, included. EM is an expression of gravity just as 3D is an outside expression of 4D. Einstein doesn’t need to look for a new external dimension to add to his 4 TOR-dimensions for unification. In fact, we must go back to the base of physics and take the observer as the origin and main element. The origin of the Space is inside him and not positioned outside as Descartes did, translating the fact that he had lost the connection and unity with the Spirit that was still present and living, at least, inside Nicolas of Cuse and Kepler. Actually, the dimension to look for is incluvive to the 3D and the 3D are simply an outside expression of it. In other words, the 3 dimensions are an outside expression of the gravitational action. The reference we’re looking for is inherent to the 3 dimensions. It's about taking into account their internal aspect that we get the HyperSphere, the Hyperspace. The true reference adapted to the observer’s reality, we’re looking for, it’s a sphere from with the observer in its center or origin.

****

*Questions to the Cs*

*Q: Kepler used the pentagon and the hexagon to determine the orbits of some planets. When you talk about pentagon and hexagon in relation to gravity, are you talking about the same pentagon and hexagon as Kepler? If so, how did Kepler find them?*

Q: When you say that the pentagon and the hexagon are associated with the metrics (3,2) and (4,2), does the 2 of the metrics correspond to t² or a negative space?

Q: You say that Sakharov knew that the answer was in the pentagon? Can you elaborate on it?

Q: Is the Sphere, as I’m thinking of, the Hyperspace?

Q: Is it necessary to deduce that the Platonic solids have their origin in the Sphere? If so, how are they derived?

Q: Is the 4th "dimension" at the origin of the variability of the constant unit of Cartesian axes or is it simply the variability of this unit of measure?

Q: The link between the 3D and the 4th "dimension" is mathematically translated by the fact that, in the 3D, the 4th "dimension" is hidden by its non variability? If so, would this explain why the speed of light is perceived as constant because we don’t yet know its true nature ignoring the true 4th "dimension"?

Q: Is Hyperspace the Gauss complex domain? In this case, are the + curvature for the physical, - curvature for ether and zero curvature (or pure imaginary in the mathematical sense) for Gravity?

Q: Is Hyperspace the Riemann Projective Sphere?

Q: What do the 3 Pauli matrices concretely represent for the Complex Sphere?

Q: Can the unity of space be +, - and pure imaginary? If so, should we infer that the physical curvature of the dimensions is a vibration?

Q: Hyperspace is an ocean of vibrations, dimensions that can be perceived as HyperSphere’s harmonics?

Q: If we need to revisit our definition of Space, what should it be?

Q: In the spatial Hypersphere, where time and space are zero, must time be replaced by negative space?

Q: To go inside the Hypersphere, do we have to get out of our physical curvature and invert it? We can only access the Hypersphere by our Light body?

Q: To realize the reality of the 4th "dimension" is to realize that the human being is more than just a physical body and that he’s, at least, a physical-etheric organism?

Q: The fact that the line and the circle are incommensurable, that the transition from one to another one is a quantum leap is it a sign that we must find a new mathematics for the circular Hyperspatial domain?

Q: Should we revisit our calculation of the number pi?Q: When you say that the pentagon and the hexagon are associated with the metrics (3,2) and (4,2), does the 2 of the metrics correspond to t² or a negative space?

Q: You say that Sakharov knew that the answer was in the pentagon? Can you elaborate on it?

Q: Is the Sphere, as I’m thinking of, the Hyperspace?

Q: Is it necessary to deduce that the Platonic solids have their origin in the Sphere? If so, how are they derived?

Q: Is the 4th "dimension" at the origin of the variability of the constant unit of Cartesian axes or is it simply the variability of this unit of measure?

Q: The link between the 3D and the 4th "dimension" is mathematically translated by the fact that, in the 3D, the 4th "dimension" is hidden by its non variability? If so, would this explain why the speed of light is perceived as constant because we don’t yet know its true nature ignoring the true 4th "dimension"?

Q: Is Hyperspace the Gauss complex domain? In this case, are the + curvature for the physical, - curvature for ether and zero curvature (or pure imaginary in the mathematical sense) for Gravity?

Q: Is Hyperspace the Riemann Projective Sphere?

Q: What do the 3 Pauli matrices concretely represent for the Complex Sphere?

Q: Can the unity of space be +, - and pure imaginary? If so, should we infer that the physical curvature of the dimensions is a vibration?

Q: Hyperspace is an ocean of vibrations, dimensions that can be perceived as HyperSphere’s harmonics?

Q: If we need to revisit our definition of Space, what should it be?

Q: In the spatial Hypersphere, where time and space are zero, must time be replaced by negative space?

Q: To go inside the Hypersphere, do we have to get out of our physical curvature and invert it? We can only access the Hypersphere by our Light body?

Q: To realize the reality of the 4th "dimension" is to realize that the human being is more than just a physical body and that he’s, at least, a physical-etheric organism?

Q: The fact that the line and the circle are incommensurable, that the transition from one to another one is a quantum leap is it a sign that we must find a new mathematics for the circular Hyperspatial domain?

Q: Should we revisit our calculation of the number pi?

**Indeed, its own nature is circular and no linear, so it must have a different value than the linear value, in 10-base, 3.14159...? Can it be that pi is no longer irrational in the 4D reality? Is it an integer?**

*Q: It seems obvious to me that since spatial relations are no longer the same with dimensional and therefore geometric change, the 10-base we use for our Euclidean calculations is no longer suitable for more living and variable realities than we are led to meet in reality 4D. Must we speak of a 12-base, 13-base which, however, has absolutely nothing to do with the 12-base obtained by simple extension of our 10-base? Are Pauli's matrices playing a role in this circular base?*

Q: Rather than developping TOR in seeking to integrate Gravity with a new dimension like Kaluza Klein, Bergman Einstein Bargmann and others did, should we not go back to Galileo and Newton? Since time is not the 4th "dimension" of space, should we consider that the 3 dimensions of space are the external expression of the 4th "dimension" which is Gravity, the physical curvature?

Q: How to connect 3D, 4D to the 12 dimensions you talk so often? I imagine that for this we must be aware of how the 3D come from the unified 4D reality and that the 12 dimensions are related to the very nature of the HyperSphere?

Q: You say that the nature of the 4D reality is a visual prism, should we deduce that the EM spectrum is the externalization of this visual prism?

Q: Since Hyperspace is a double-loop, shall we deduce the nature of the EM spectrum is also a lemniscate?

Q: Actually, 4D vision means seeing the EM spectrum, at 360 °, all at once so the 4D observer merges with the HyperSphere instead of being the origin of the cartesian system as in 3D? In other words, the 4D observer is aware of being ONE with the compact HyperSphere which is totally continuous, whose center IS the periphery?

Q: Is the principle of covariance adopted since Galileo a dead end? Should we not rather opt for the principle of invariance? In this respect, the Lorentz group is there to ensure the covariance of 4 Maxwell-Heaviside's equations, should not we look for their invariance even if the Galilean group does not insure this invariance?

Q: Is 4D reality a Moëbius torus?Q: Rather than developping TOR in seeking to integrate Gravity with a new dimension like Kaluza Klein, Bergman Einstein Bargmann and others did, should we not go back to Galileo and Newton? Since time is not the 4th "dimension" of space, should we consider that the 3 dimensions of space are the external expression of the 4th "dimension" which is Gravity, the physical curvature?

Q: How to connect 3D, 4D to the 12 dimensions you talk so often? I imagine that for this we must be aware of how the 3D come from the unified 4D reality and that the 12 dimensions are related to the very nature of the HyperSphere?

Q: You say that the nature of the 4D reality is a visual prism, should we deduce that the EM spectrum is the externalization of this visual prism?

Q: Since Hyperspace is a double-loop, shall we deduce the nature of the EM spectrum is also a lemniscate?

Q: Actually, 4D vision means seeing the EM spectrum, at 360 °, all at once so the 4D observer merges with the HyperSphere instead of being the origin of the cartesian system as in 3D? In other words, the 4D observer is aware of being ONE with the compact HyperSphere which is totally continuous, whose center IS the periphery?

Q: Is the principle of covariance adopted since Galileo a dead end? Should we not rather opt for the principle of invariance? In this respect, the Lorentz group is there to ensure the covariance of 4 Maxwell-Heaviside's equations, should not we look for their invariance even if the Galilean group does not insure this invariance?

Q: Is 4D reality a Moëbius torus?

Thanks for reading and comments my friends,

With Love,

Éric