The way to the Unified Field - 4

[EricLux]

That implies that you are touching all points in space. Therefore you don't have to move from point A to point B.

A = B

So it makes no sense to think in terms of velocity or time. I think that's what the concept of omnipresence expresses.

Now if you want to point out a specific point in space being in 4th density then the 4th spatial reference becomes necessary to segment what is a continuum.

What you get is a picture of a collapsed wave state.

From what I understand, when we talk about time in 3rd density it is this aspect of separation between states that does not allow us to see the continuum.

This is what the C's were referring to with the example of the slides.

In other sessions the C's said to replace time with conscience. That would explain that our consciousness is able to retain in memory the slides, referential points of space.​

It's exactly what I think : at this level, we are maybe in 5D, in the state within there is no time so no space. All is interconnected. Consciousness has a desire, so information translates into manifestation through the 4th "dimension" of space giving access to the outside and inside at the same time : inside would be the information and outside the 3D manifestation.

If we quote the C's answer : Ether is the interface between information and manifestation. So maybe the 4th "dimension" of space would be the Ether. It would be coherent with the fact that Einstein told that he does not need to call on the Ether, as an absolute reference, for his theory given his hypothesis of the constancy of the speed of light and that C's indicated that Einstein's theory is only accurate in 3D.

Einstein goes in search, through his theories, of the 4th dimension of space which he cannot find since he does not need it in his theoretical approach and assuming that 4th "dimension" of space, as a reference, would be the Ether would erase largely his theory of relativity (TOR) since that would take the total opposite of his working hypothesis at the base of the TOR. This is, in fact, what the C's seem to specify too.

August 17, 2000

Q: (A) Okay. UFT. This is one of these things that I don't know what it is good for, because the Wave will erase everything and make everything new. Yet, it is in me, so let me ask. I don't know what it is good for but I want to do it. Einstein was working on his UFT for like 30 years. Maybe more. He was changing his methods. At some point, did he realize that he found a solution? During all these thirty years, was there a point where he came upon the right solution?​

A: Yes but, sadly, his solution for UFT largely erased TOR.

Thus, to go further than TOR, we must return to the reality of Ether as an absolute reference (not as an absolute space as thought Newton since its absolute character comes from the fact that it "resides" out of space and out of time) but, rather, as an anti-referential.​

 

[EricLux]

And perhaps in the electromagnetic realm where fourth density may operate, dark matter is no longer dark (invisible).

Seeing the fourth dimension in fourth density, dark matter may be visible to those inhabitants.

To be honest, it's what I think since one we get the 4th "dimension" of space, we can access all the dimensions all at once. This 4th "dimension" is like a magic key to the Universe.

 

[Bluegazer]

It's exactly what I think : at this level, we are maybe in 5D, in the state within there is no time so no space. All is interconnected. Consciousness has a desire, so information translates into manifestation through the 4th "dimension" of space giving access to the outside and inside at the same time : inside would be the information and outside the 3D manifestation.

If we quote the C's answer : Ether is the interface between information and manifestation. So maybe the 4th "dimension" of space would be the Ether. It would be coherent with the fact that Einstein told that he does not need to call on the Ether, as an absolute reference, for his theory given his hypothesis of the constancy of the speed of light and that C's indicated that Einstein's theory is only accurate in 3D.

Einstein goes in search, through his theories, of the 4th dimension of space which he cannot find since he does not need it in his theoretical approach and assuming that 4th "dimension" of space, as a reference, would be the Ether would erase largely his theory of relativity (TOR) since that would take the total opposite of his working hypothesis at the base of the TOR. This is, in fact, what the C's seem to specify too.

August 17, 2000

Q: (A) Okay. UFT. This is one of these things that I don't know what it is good for, because the Wave will erase everything and make everything new. Yet, it is in me, so let me ask. I don't know what it is good for but I want to do it. Einstein was working on his UFT for like 30 years. Maybe more. He was changing his methods. At some point, did he realize that he found a solution? During all these thirty years, was there a point where he came upon the right solution?​

A: Yes but, sadly, his solution for UFT largely erased TOR.

Thus, to go further than TOR, we must return to the reality of Ether as an absolute reference (not as an absolute space as thought Newton since its absolute character comes from the fact that it "resides" out of space and out of time) but, rather, as an anti-referential.​

For something to be an interface between information and manifestation, it should act as a translator. An abstract layer that mediates between a wave state and a collapsed state. That to me says that this is what variable physicality is all about.

Maybe you should take a look at the Alton Towers thread, because there are dots being connected.

Alton Towers, Sir Francis Bacon and the Rosicrucians

It's not new. Just look at things like Combat 18. -> Combat 18 - Wikipedia I was aware of Combat 18 but not that it took its name from Hitler's initials. I wonder how many of these right wing Neo-Nazi groups are really controlled opposition. It probably helps the PTB to have extreme right...

cassiopaea.org

 

[EricLux]

As I've mentioned, I know almost nothing of physics or advanced maths, so I don't have much to offer.. Actually I was placed in "business maths" in highschool - the lowest level maths class for people who are terrible at maths (which I failed anyway because I skipped class all the time) :) ... Except I have done a lot of self-taught 2D and 3D graphics programming (this might sound quite mathsy, but, it's pretty simple algebra.. even when it came to matrix multiplication, I did it by trial and error, and voodoo coding...).. and spent countless hours looking at fractals, exploring the Mandelbrot set etc, in my life... So that's the point of view my thoughts/opinions on this stuff come from... This is probably all pretty obvious stuff, to mathematicians, or people who've read Ouspensky, or The Wave, etc :)

I think it's quite easy to imagine a 4 dimensional space... I can't quite, exactly visualise it, but can extrapolate (from the difference between 2D and 3D) and sort of see the general character of the difference between 3D and 4D... In programming, it's very simple to add a fourth spatial dimension. It's no different than having 2, 3 or any number of dimensions, when you're just dealing with an array of numbers... You can translate it into 3D graphics (if you come up with a way to represent/manipulate the fourth dimension).. and things look quite weird and behave in unexpected ways. It does indeed let you see the "inside" and "outside" of an object at the same time. Very interesting... ( e.g., this video, which I've posted before:

) ... It seems to possibly match up with ways UFOs have sometimes been observed to act, or various other strange phenomena from history (e.g. people who can take an object out of a closed box, without opening it...)..

But I don't think any of this helps with EricLux's questions, or answers the important stuff, like why the C's distinguish between "dimension" and "density" - It's just the material side of things maybe? - I guess there's much more to 4th density than JUST the extra spatial dimension...



Coincidentally, I was reading the science fiction novel 'Death's End' by Cixin Liu last night, and reached a chapter where a spaceship has entered a region of space where there are "warped points", dimensional bubbles which you can move through which will transport you from being in 3-dimensional space to 4-dimensional space.. Some of the things experienced in this region include people being seen somewhere when they are known to be somewhere else, then vanishing. Here's an excerpt, just for fun:​

​

It's great to have feedback from mathematical experiences, not necessarily academic ones. Everyone brings his or her own view and contribution.

I like your 2D/3D comparison, however, I remain convinced that the 4th "dimension" has nothing to do with the 3 dimensions we usually know. However, in modern mathematics and theoretical physics, we tend to multiply the dimensions, by inertia, considering them all identical as our 3 dimensions of the basic Euclidean space.

The Cs having confirmed that the 4th "dimension" is of a frequential nature, it is now cobvious that the 4th "dimension" has nothing to do with the 3 basic dimensions characterizing space. This indicates that there is something to be taken into account in algebra or to be changed : we also find this observation concerning the 12*12*12 matrix of which the C's speak to translate the matter/antimatter interaction. I have never heard of a 3D matrix, I don't know yet what it can correspond to and, even less, why the terms of the matrix must be of p-adic nature and not integers. According to the C's, this is specific to the consideration of the 4th "dimension".

The fact that the 4th "dimension" allows to apprehend simultaneously the outside and the inside is most certainly due to its frequential nature with a mirror effect between the inside and the outside, hence the wave structure.

The fractal and Mandelbrot structures are mathematical treasures obtained by taking into account the complex numbers and thus the imaginary number i. It is obvious that this number is of colossal importance in the structure of space and reality. It is very interesting to see to what extent questioning one of our basic concepts has resulted in an extraordinary impact in mathematics and physics. The imaginary number i is now almost everywhere in science.

It is clear that the 4th density which unfolds in "4 dimensions" is of a very particular nature for someone who lives in 3D. Just like in Flatland, it is not easy to discover the 3rd dimension when you are a 2D being. However, we are more complex beings than purely 3D because this 4th "dimension" is clearly within us otherwise we would not be able to perceive the 3 dimensions at once. The fact is that we only perceive them from a certain angle and not all at once. The key is perhaps there: there is no extra-spatial dimension as such. It is an idea that comes when we imagine all the dimensions of the same nature as in the Euclidean or Cartesian space. As far as we are concerned, I feel that this 4th "dimension" of space characterizes something that we did not take into account in the description of our space and that we have to take into account in order to fully apprehend the nature of space.

It's as if we had stood outside of space for centuries, considering ourselves separate from the objects we observe, and that with the taking into account of this new "dimension", this new reference spatial (common denominator), we can no longer perceive our environment as outside of ourselves, separate from us. It's very difficult to transcribe it and it's perhaps what allows us, not to understand intellectually, mentally, but to experience what it means to apprehend outside and inside, at the same time, that is to say the fact that everything is connected by a common denominator. This is how we speak of unity, of perfect continuity because we would have there a living organism and no longer separate inert objects. Wouldn't the essence of the imaginary number i characterize this reality?

We have with this "dimension" what defines a space without forgetting that ,at the base of the notion of physical space, there is what separates things. It allows us to consider, at the same time, another aspect of space, its content and interiority. So, rather than considering it extra-spatial, I would feel it out of space, just like in the out-of-body experience with the whole new perception that is coming. Space is then a form of body, of structure from which we can leave... and to leave space, it’s perhaps to borrow the wormholes which are bridges towards other realities, other dimensions...

​