The point, the most elementary measurement in mathematics is not sizeless, not dimensionless, but four dimensional. And by the time we demark one physically, or in our imagination a person itself would have already represented in the act of physical or cognitive formation energetic motive, which accounts for a fifth dimension, the four previous being the three dimensions of coordinate symmetry, and one for space. Therefore a line, which is assumed as a string of successive points, is also five dimensional, thus cannot logically run upon, or run through a point, but run relative to a point, in maintaining the non-centric focus of reality fluently into the planck scale and depther where present notions of space-time convey an irregular continuation of quantum mechanical properties coming from the macro-scale of the universe. The line is five dimensional, but due to the fact that the energetic dimension covers pure energy, elementary particles, and elementary particles as building blocks for macro objects, the fifth dimension, whose own development introduced the arrangement of elementary particles that field a temporal systemate, therefore the temporality is not a superscript, but an intrascript positionally, on the energetic spectrum, and as it is a point along a development, previous developments are conveyed based on the developmentative nuance of temporality. And as is, with a classic style, centrical, bare temporal approach, we are conveyed three clear levels for the energetic dimension, therefore our repiction of reality must show a mirror synopsis, which led us to believe that matter was of three dimensions, with space being underscored by the same parameters, and it all came from one tiny speck of energy. The line, the plane, the sphere, were natural reflections of the construction of this three part energetic real dimension, and the assimilation of space to the same parameters was quite natural too. Space will be shown to be simply further down the scale of reality development. Einstein's forever existent universe, which I assume such a smart man must have believed true secretly in his hearts of hearts to his death, did in fact make more sense all our fundamental basis were fundamentally ancient, so we are obliged to excuse ourselves.
However, this is a new century, and we are coming out of that cave, bold, and sublime.
.Across The Parallels
How I categorize a dimension is considerably dissimilar to the classical definition of a dimension. The three axis coordinate system that is comprised of the x, y, and z axes with which we are familiar as the depiction that in a conclusive case shows up and down, back and forward, left and right, unified by an absolutely central point is conclusively illogical as an ultimate predetermination of the reality structuralization.
If we imagine this central point(0,0), in re of its hypothesized non-existence, separating the three axes into halves of themselves what we are left with are six isolated representations.
Now, from these six variables we can put together many isolated segments, and quadrants, and cooptive spatial representations. Given that these variations are not centrally focused, the individual variations themselves cannot be represented in time, and classically thought dimensional space. Lets say Euclidean space.
These hypothesized isolates are at various points degrees higher than absolute non-centrality, a sector of the reality construct that is so far removed from the range that we have misfamiliarized ourselves that its comprehensive explanation cannot be attempted here, but in the #TheArx will.
The X,Y, and Z together are to be seen as the most general conclusion of space and time and dimension that we can imagine. To get a synopsis of just how insufficient this is lets imagine that we have built up a sphere, much like the planet that we presently inhabit, from a central point outward.
It becomes clear to us that the X,Y, and Z coordination can only account for six actual coordinate points on the outer shell of the sphere, and the minimal associated points that fall on the specific lines leading out from the core.
To fill in the sphere there would have to be an infinite amount of lines and points graphed and dotted to suffice. All these new variables must possess isolated interpretations that are not directed by our temporally interpreted central point. In no uncertain terms I am definitely outbounding the origin scenario given in the big bang where "dimensions" unfolded from a so-called point, that we have to assume to be a central one , then proceed to get ourselves into a cycle of progressive incorrectness to justify not wholly incorrect observations( You will always hear physicists tell you that relativity and quantum mechanics are two of the most experimentally sound theories in history, and they are right) but half perspective. It would be like being able to watch only half of the football pitch during a game, and deducing the order from that vantage. An assumption of some type of order would be perforce in any case.
The above mentioned approximations of isolates as referring to the X,Y,Z axes are, when most elementarily approximated, representative of fractions of a dimension, or fractionals: states that are not what we would term as complete dimensions, but rather the building blocks of dimension, that are progressively structuralized, rather than being homogenous.
It is a logical reduction of centrality. Removing (0,0) conceptually, means that extenuate coordinate points and axes no longer relate the same way. Points and axes become non-conjunctive.
The composition that the three axes represent together depends primarily on the fact of the point, and points being conjunctive from one to the next. That is how we count. That is how we conceptualize distance: a previous point, so-called, has to remain substantantively conjunct to the next and so on for a distance to be demarcated. This represents the first real look at the new method of calculation that will place us in great stead for the future. The conjunction of the dimensional references, the X, Y, and Z has to come after the conjunction of points that make up these axes.
Alright then, lets imagine the axes representation fully pointed and fully centric. This is how we would in any normal circumstance envision it. Ok. Now imagine these points unconjuncted, but they are there, and the axes are there, (0,0) still conceptually removed, now representing a non-centric relationship. Here we have a non-centric graph of space. Removing the axes one by one would be the continuation of this reduction. With each one removed, the unconjuncted effect increases, until, with some rather ironic finality. After all the dimensions that we know are removed, we come to the absolutely non-centric level of the reality, a whole new conceptuality of quanta, of relatablity.
I have used a similar example as the following before to demonstrate dimensional fallacy in a previous article(arcadescinza.blogspot.com)
All temporal estimations of dimension, and distance, begins with the configuration of a point, then continues through a series of point to a final point B representation. If point A is fundamental, and leads directly to point B, first, we should never logically assume a point B. and the logicalization of point C, the distance itself, dependent on a false assumption of point B, and thus the extenuating dependence of observation on point B.
The distance extentuating from Point A is dependent on the fallacious coordination, or the fallacious unanimous coordination of points. A point A never actually becomes a point B, or C in the logical reality of the isolate. Therefore we see a structural differentiation between distance and direction arise, where distance only occurs in time( time being here hypothesized as an intrascriptive effect of the energetic dimension, thus non-existent in the four previous dimensions of X,Y, and Z axes, and space) and direction, essentially dimension, does not.
Distance is an energetic relation to space, like two opposing point on the brim of a concave lens, never truly separate but determinably opposing. direction thus does not possess the capacity to be extensive. We cannot demonstrate 50 miles of direction, but we can fifty miles of distance.
Within the isolate reality, though still a part of the dimensional state, distance cannot emanate from direction, an isolate direction expresses the exclusive planar scope of any dimension in which only it can develop, and with development being relative to the other dimensions synergistically, pre-positively the planars remain unanimous, and thus determinations of development are logically reducible to temporalization.
There has not been too many theories that have postulated that dimensions are energetic. This is where the belief that there is a fundamental difference between dimensions, space, and energy, and matter becomes embedded for most of us. Clearing up the confusion from a basic level is necessary.
When I say energy, I only mean what I consider to be real energy, as is indicated by isobaric spin. Energy is a characteristic material property. Spin represents when, how, where, why the particle developed from the purer state of energy, along the energetic planar. This is of course means that spin is not being maintained here as a dimensionless quality, and thus is reducible to fractionals, and not in the traditional sense of half spin, or whole spin, or zero spin. I refer to the fractional equivalent of 0.1328, of 0.73532,and so on. Exotic fractions like this are completely logical material states, and even more revolutionary for our time: numbers like -1.0956, - 20.7512, and so on.
The term energy is too loosely used. Heat energy( Heat is not a separate energy, but is a different developmental stage to matter), kinetic energy, chemical energy, potential energy: these are all subjective overdiversifications and misdeterminations of fundamental energetic planar development.
For matter we have termed it spin; for space there is a relative bearing, that for the three dimensions have relative bearings, which indicates to a real energetic-like stratification from the first dimension up to the differentiations of matter that we observe. Basically, dimensions are characterizably substantive in the way that can demystify nothingness for us.
Such a material mechanization unifies so-called motion to the real consistence of particles, which is to say that motion is put on par, and indivisible from what we accept as substance.
Space( all spatials), the first, second, and third dimensions are real energy types, unanimous types, with their own "direction". For the sake of clarification lets reserve the name energy for the typology that we know, and ascribe separate names for planars of the other dimensions. Energy is one expression of what I call Symmotivity: there is no motion but the planar development of the dimensional symmetry, therefore a particle, a part of the energetic planar, logically is not moving from point to point (we have shown how this is actually impossible), but the planar is complexifying within parameters.
Everything in the universe relative to you is, on the wider symmotive range, a variation of your structure dependent on it's distance from you, and how you are being expressed from the lower symmetries, the expression of the potential between you and an object determines that object, determines you. Rising through the absolutely non-centric planar, then through five symmetric, dimensional planars, to crescendo before our observation as matter, distance, relative positions as material outcome in time, based on everything else in the universe. Imagine yourself punching a fist at a face. In the distance between your hand and the face, are innumerable variations of the situation that are being express in other universes with the almost indeterminably small symmotive departures, like different energetic angles to the same symmotion, because at the absolutely non-centric planar there are multiple quantas ( a whole new type of multiplicity. See arcadescinza.blogspot.com), and our lowest fractional of the first dimension, represent only one in an innumerable amount of first fractionals that correspond to an innumerable amount of non-centric quanta which are too energetic typologies, therefore reachable logically, so long as any of the innumerable routes are followed. Celestine.
Symmotively all those possibilities have to be how they are so we can be the way we are in this universe, so we can have our basic temporal logic, as opposed to their basic temporal logic. In a universe out there somewhere when a fist hits a face the head turns to gas, and in another universe out there somewhere when a fist hits a face the head turns to a flock of seagulls, because that is what the basic temporal logic appears. But it must be reiterated here that ultimate logic( Celestine) can be discovered from anywhere in the reality construct, for after all all the symmotive, planar, outcomes are remained as mere analogs.
the total arrangement of objects in our universe cannot dictate such a transfer of tensity. A so-called normal transfer is only logical because of the exactitudes of the "universal mass" at this time at this bang, but the space prior to your certain punch express a number of possibilities somewhere else, and what we see as our logical outcome, is one in the series, and invariably after us the series continues in other relative universes. To put this in even clearer terms: the directionness that we determine, that consists of points, and distances, and the developmentalness of mass, is a window into an innumerable amount of energetic dimensionalizations that we cannot actually reach. When we travel across any distance, the universal mass equivocates the determined fact of actual transposition of what we think is our localized mass, therefore energetically we never actual "change position", and the distance that we determine is a show of potential that positionally, in terms of fractionals being possessive of fundamental isolate inherencies, we can only, presently, interface, rather than transpose or insert ourselves into, so we stay in our universe if our efforts are abiding to the basic temporal limits energetically.
Well of course now we are being opened up to a wider energetic/ temporal experience, just from reading this for the first time means that you have become more energetically potentiated, because now you know ,and that is as equally a physical act within causality as anything else.
When I say that objects are dependent on you, you must factor the position, and the motion of the said object as characteristic of the object as you do the so-called dimensions of the objects.
Naturally the first thing we think is to work out the sequence- which object kicks off the cycle, which ends it. When we attempt this we will endeavour so by configuring which direction the sequence will be coming from, and try to workout a spread of time thinking that there is no rational way that one could lead to others.
The explanation of so many facets of this hypothesis always swings back to a proper perception of time. Time emerges at a relatively macro-scale: however, at the Planck scale, and lower and lower, time is more accurately individed from substantivity, and continuing with the hypothesis's new synopsis of motion, the tributations of energeticism to form real-dimensions. And as we go down the dimensional ladder we see how we become more and more removed from the capacity to configure central themes for reality, by determinable fractionals, all the way down to the absolutely non-centric planar, which in itself is a mere fractional, but I do not want to just dive into such intrications just yet.
Therefore to see how an action can be determined as non-causal and independent, yet inexplicably control everything else. It is a matter of our perception of space and position being centric.
Now lets say that a chalk board in front of me is ten feet away, the state of the board depend on my state and the state of every other space and object in the universe precisely, down to the most intricate quantum probability.
What this means is that the collective motions in the universe is responsible for the highly constant state of the black board is dependent on these motions to keep the board in place, and as it appears, and my position plays a part in that, because after all, we perceive that only contact alters the constancy. I might smash it with a sledgehammer, but it is always collective- therefore there is a principle here- the state, the position, the motion of the space or object is determined by the overall state of the rest of the universe.
From my perspective, that space between the chalk board and myself, including the elementary particles spread across this space, represents examples of an actual numeric state and capacity ( from where we will pull new axioms to replace the Peano axioms shortly)
The three dimensionalness of the chalk board is relative to cognition but there are innumerable variations to shape and sphericity that is non-centrically expressed in the space between my perspective and the chalkboard, that leads up to the chalkboard from my position.
We know two dimensional and three dimensional shapes, but there are more, and I am not merely speaking of amorphous representations, but I am of energetic formations that we have never had the universal mass formation to determine or access naturally. Basically in the next "universe" over you would be incapable of energetically potentializing anything circular, square, rectangular, etc. Those forms are real, naturally expressed in other universes.
The attempt to energetically recreate these energetic potentiation in this universe will require a non-centric approach to substance and spatials, that is possible- it just will not be what it would have created energetically in its home universe, but it would produce energetic proportions and tributations, and effect-for-result like we have never seen in this universe.( www.facebook.com/SpheromentisLabs ) the chalkboard the distance is equaled to a sequencing of these shapes( the retro gradation of dimensions by the smallest fractionals possible )which are basically( in a temporal sense) variations of the chalk board, to us, but from there of course it would have to be something else, something intrinsic being positionally effective in other universe, where the shape cannot be three dimensional or sphericality but a variation of them down to there last fractionals - we will call the positions that are expressed relative to us from parallels- unanimous positions, depending on the " length of the distance", these unanimous positions are correlative to a number of shapes, but the shapes themselves are not numerable actually, but the shapes and how they relate distance is a new and independent category and description. For example: />, /}, /^,/-, is not per se one two three four, nor a variation of numerical sequence the way Peano puts it.
It is not a matter of your shape vs objects elementarily speaking. The shapes we determine at the large scale are not exactly the same depending on how you are position, there is a central atom, a central quark to electrical interface in conjunction with a gluonic exchange space, making sure there is no centrality actually, accurater than the energetic output of thinking can relate to us, it is from this dynamic dimensional relationship that our anatomies symmetrically extend, relative to the same complex for the earth as an object, relative to the same complex for the sun as an object, relative to the same complex for the galaxy as a complex object.
We can see where there is neither a linear layout, or time for how the universe is set up.
Our personal complex is, judging from our proximity to it, highly connected to the earth, and this indicates that we do not think with just our brains but our whole bodies, therefore what you think, how you think, are directly relative to our coordinate positions, yes, in terms of latitude and longitude. Therefore thinking can be said to be a coordinate function. Where you are, at a particular time, taking into account your entire history of position and consequential anatomical development, dictates your thought in that moment absolutely.
Then anatomical position, post reaction to geological effect, which is post relativity to the sun, to the galaxy, to the universe.
Cognitivity is presently being afforded by our proximity to the earth positionally, this is why so many objects can say they think, the commonness of the providing factors, which is why extension into the galaxy will invariably change how we think and thus how we relate to substance, and space, and therefore time, and an overall perception of universal state.
Now, I have stated that gravity dictates the following position of the object: the objects on the earth's surface are subject to the earth's gravitational field dominantly. You might ask how could we be in the gravity of earth that is dictating it's next position and our anatomies are in the way of things, in our non-gravitational mass having to be presented. Well, at the time we were being formed the earth was spinning faster as the earth was being positioned, the spinning motion allowed for the presentation of extenuating objects that remain on the surface without impeding the position, this mechanism of course stipulated how emerging objects would look and be materially capacitied.
The temporal angular rotation of mass, given that there is no motion actually, the presentation of speed is not from how fast an object is being presented symmetrically, but the relation of four dimensional points into five dimensional lines, planes, and sphericals. A four dimensional point, comprising of innumerable fractionals, can relate with an almost infinite capacity for material type, thus the "speed" those objects appear to be traveling.
In the presentation of the earth as an object, spinning, on axis, around the sun, in its place in the galaxy, the dimensional capacity of the four dimensional points that make up our universe are equipped to capacitize the emergence of what appears as surface objects able to come about. Objects on earth are not exactly on earth per se, and these object including ourselves are not exactly within the earths gravity per se- I mean it. There are no overlapping gravitational fields- throw out those textbooks now because they wrong We are not exactly on the earth : this is why we perceive distance as diameteral, where the horizon, where up meets forward, a perception that escapes our direct interfacientability no matter how we try- this is a dimensional incapacitation, which if we were actually on the earth would be our perview; as we go out of the earths atmosphere, we coordinately function a dissipation of up and down, back and forth, right and left, but we are actually being privied to a clearer view, and the further we are, and thus find ourselves in weaker regions of the earths gravitational field , the more we become aware, and if we ever find ourselves in a space of no gravity, there would not just be a topical inability to sense direction, but we would have to be in possession of a much clearer synopsis of space altogether, a synopsis .
The above expressed ideas are transposed in abridged format from the book: The Arx: The Hypothesis of a New Universe, by Arcades Cinza, 2015.
That's a real analysis. I'm still dizzy over it.
"There was a young man from Japan
whose poetry never would scan
when he was asked why
he gave this reply:
"I don't know, I just try to get as many words in the last line as I possibly can..."