EricLux
Jedi
27, August 2022 :
So I decide to open the can of worms :)
Q: (Ark) I have question. It's not about hyperdimensional being but about hyperdimensional physics. I am coming to the session of 14 November 1998 where I was asking about the relation between 4th density and 4th dimension. And the answer was that yes indeed, 4th density is experienced in 4-dimensional reality. So, I got curious about this 4-dimensional reality. I was asking if it was any kind known in physics under the name of Kaluza-Klein theory. But the answer was that no, it's related to visual spectrum. And then, there came the term, this is related to a prism. Now, visual spectrum, I am associating with the frequency of light. And so, my question - which I should have asked then, but didn't - is: Is 4th dimension indeed a frequency?
A: Yes
Q: (Ark) If it is a frequency, I would like to know what kind of geometry has this 4th-dimensional reality? Is there such a concept of a distance there, for instance?
A: No
Q: (Ark) Well, there is something more general than distance. For instance, there is a degenerate metric. Is there a metric there? Metric tensor?
A: Yes
Q: (Ark) Well, if it is not a distance but it is a metric tensor, does it mean it is degenerate so that there is zero distance between two different points?
A: Yes
Q: (Ark) Okay, that's what I was suspecting. But the next question is whether 5th density requires 5-dimensional reality?
A: No
Q: (Ark) So 5th density requires what?
A: No space, no time
Q: (Ark) If there is no space and no time, what’s there?
A: Pure information in units
Q: (Ark) Alright. Next question: Is the speed of light constant?
A: No
Q: (Ark) Does it vary with frequency?
A: Yes
Q: (Ark) Are there discrete dimensions rather than continuous?
A: Somewhat.
Q: (Ark) Somewhat. Okay. Is Planck's constant a constant?
A: No
Q: (Ark) Aha (L) Oh geez. That's a can of worms.
...A: Yes
Q: (Ark) If it is a frequency, I would like to know what kind of geometry has this 4th-dimensional reality? Is there such a concept of a distance there, for instance?
A: No
Q: (Ark) Well, there is something more general than distance. For instance, there is a degenerate metric. Is there a metric there? Metric tensor?
A: Yes
Q: (Ark) Well, if it is not a distance but it is a metric tensor, does it mean it is degenerate so that there is zero distance between two different points?
A: Yes
Q: (Ark) Okay, that's what I was suspecting. But the next question is whether 5th density requires 5-dimensional reality?
A: No
Q: (Ark) So 5th density requires what?
A: No space, no time
Q: (Ark) If there is no space and no time, what’s there?
A: Pure information in units
Q: (Ark) Alright. Next question: Is the speed of light constant?
A: No
Q: (Ark) Does it vary with frequency?
A: Yes
Q: (Ark) Are there discrete dimensions rather than continuous?
A: Somewhat.
Q: (Ark) Somewhat. Okay. Is Planck's constant a constant?
A: No
Q: (Ark) Aha (L) Oh geez. That's a can of worms.
So I decide to open the can of worms :)
I wonder about the nature of the 4th "dimension" of space. In the session above, Ark guessed that it was a frequency. Is it the frequency of light or, more globally, the electromagnetic frequency itself, the frequency of Gravity?
In parallel, during the same session, the C's confirmed that the speed of light is variable, depending on the frequency. I then wondered why such a variation was not observed for more than a century and connections started to be made:
In parallel, during the same session, the C's confirmed that the speed of light is variable, depending on the frequency. I then wondered why such a variation was not observed for more than a century and connections started to be made:
- Does the fact that we always have a constant speed of light, despite the different frequencies used, come from the fact that Einstein, through his hypothesis of constancy of the speed of light, by changing the Galilean frame of reference, locked, froze the motion of light itself and thus confined the experimental observations to their 3D level?
- Does the translation of the 4th "dimension", as a frequency, within the 3D manifest itself as the speed of light? Thus, by realizing what is the nature of the 4th "dimension" of space, we will be able to observe, finally, in the experiments, a variable speed of light while still being in 3D? It is the frequency of light that we interpret, in a mechanical way, in 3D, as a speed in the classical sense in space-time whereas the frequency is in the instant and does not propagate, in the classical and mechanical sense?
- If we place ourselves in 4D, then we will have to work with the frequency of light because space and time having disappeared, the notion of speed (in the mechanical sense) has no more reason to exist? If we speak of the speed of light, it's the speed of its wavefront (not a speed in the mechanical sense, in space and time) and therefore, we must speak of its frequency?
- To be even more precise, we cannot speak of the speed of light as we speak of the speed of an object, in the sense of classical mechanics. To find the Unified Field, THE formula of Physics, do we have to go back to classical mechanics and optics to realize that we have missed something: for example, in our approach to optics, we implicitly make the assumption that the speed of light is EXACTLY the same as the speed of a material body as used in classical mechanics?
- Is the fact that Einstein's theories of relativity are only valid spatially, only in 3D, due to this implicit assumption that light has a mechanical speed?
- Wouldn't the framework that unifies classical mechanics and wave optics be the EM through Maxwell's equations that we have to reinterpret to avoid attributing to light characteristics that are not its own but those of classical mechanics and material bodies?
- By realizing that the speed of light is not a speed in the classical sense, in the sense of the 3D of material objects, we become aware that we have to go beyond this basic concept and orient ourselves towards something that is related to the nature of light itself: is it the conceptual leap that makes us go from the notion of speed that we no longer need in optics because there is no material reality to which it can be attached to, to the notion of wave that is the basic element of a 4D reality?
- Realizing that the concept of 3D speed of a material body does not apply to light allows us to go beyond Einstein's approach and directly into 4D which is the domain of light?
- This amounts to saying that in classical mechanics, there is no 4th "dimension" of space or, more exactly, that there is a 4th "dimension" of which we are not aware because the spatial unit is constant for the 3 dimensions? To understand the nature of this 4th "dimension" of space is to go beyond our approach to classical mechanics, our approach to 3D space and to set in motion a concept that is fixed because it does not exist, by making it alive, dynamic and therefore variable.
- The question arises: what hypothesis have we not made that would have allowed us to get our hands on the nature of the 4th "dimension" of space? Wouldn't the fixed constant concept that we are looking for so much be the speed of light that Einstein considers constant whereas if we consider it variable, it is then found through the concept of frequency?
- The variation of the unit allowing us to pass from 3D to 4D is that of the speed of light? For a 3D view, we will speak of variable speed to describe the presence of 4D and for a 4D conscious being, we will speak of frequency. The variation of the 'unit of space and time' that we are looking for comes down to the awareness that the concept of 3D speed in the sense of a material body does not apply to light and that we can only apprehend it, from 3D, as a variable speed of light in the sense of a dynamic that is not apparent in classical physics (mechanics)? Through the variability which makes us go from 3D to 4D, there is a movement which has nothing of 3D ! And this movement can only be apprehended through the notion of frequency. That of the unit of time and not linear time?