## The Meaning of words

4th June 2013 Meaning of words.

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés

The following sentence is deliberately confusing so that you can think about what I mean by the meaning of words in my eBook.

The point of points is to distinguish between points so different points mean different things, get the point?

By creating layers and different points you can have multiple dimensions in the same diagram.

By saying ¹point is different from 0point. Let us define ¹point as a dimension or dimensions that have the essence of 'Reality' built into them. At this point we do not have to define exactly what this essence is other than to say that if anything has this ¹point missing means the things we are displaying are abstract and are not real.

The ¹point must be multidimensional in its own right because if any dimension that is required to create 'Reality' is missing then this ¹point is also abstract. As we build our dimensions from these ¹points we add attributes at the higher levels to complement these hidden dimensions within these ¹points. Reality (our reality) is always multiple ¹points that create 7 dimensional volumes (or however many dimensions are required to create reality).

I call these ¹points, points of 'Existance' (Different from Existence which has ¹points of 'Existance' within it and 0points. I.e. Existence is what we experience).

Let me build with these ¹points.

Our world (Universe, space) consists of ¹points and 0points within volumes of space (existence).

First let me add what I consider the missing 5th dimension which is the density of space itself. I.e. the ¹point has a density whereas the 0point does not. I will come back to density in a minute. So an abstract line can be a string of 0points in a line (abstract one dimension, that goes to abstract infinities in both directions) and superimposed on one of these 0points you can have a ¹point, so a one dimensional real ¹point is created (the ¹point on its own is at least a dimension in itself, the dimension of 'Existance'). A few more superimposed ¹points lying along this (abstract) line creates a two dimensional 'real line' (one dimension for the ¹points themselves and another dimension because they are lined up within a straight line). You will see that these ¹points need not be continuous along the (abstract) line to exist. If they are close together then the line is more dense at this portion of the line and less dense if the ¹points are further apart. If nothing changes along this line then there is no time. If there is a change along this line then there is a dimension of time (I will come back to time, as there are different times to consider). This line is already 4 dimensional. It has the one space dimension, the dimension of density, one dimension of time and the dimension of 'Existance', remember 'Existance' incorporates anything else that it needs to create reality.). If there are ¹points at right angles to this line then this is 5 dimensional surface, and any above the surface is a 6 dimensional volume. When you start to move these ¹points you get ? dimensional volumes. Why the ?

This is because time at this low level is different to time at our level. Each space dimension has its own time component. Imagine there was only the normal one dimensional line. Think of just one ¹point along the one dimensional line it can go forwards or backwards in time along the line. Now if there was another dimension at right angles to this I.e. the 2 D plane and there were other ¹points on this surface but not on the line. These other ¹points do not have to move with the ¹point on the line, so there would be no time for these other ¹points, but there would still be time on the one D line. These ¹points on the surface need 2 dimensions of time to move on the surface (one for each dimension of space) and as you go to the normal 3 D you need 3 dimensions of time. All 3 dimensions of time put together create what I call Secondary ²Time. Our normal time I call Tertiary time or ³Time (sometimes I call it 'Global time'). ³Time is not independent of space but it is an intrinsic part of space created by all the ²Times put together. This is because space itself is quantised and each quantum of space has its own ²Time. Primary ¹Time is 'Existance'. This is actually the quantum itself existing (the 'APE'). I call it the 'APE' to distinguish it from other quanta, because it has characteristics that no other quanta possess. This ¹Time is time before anything changes, you can think of it as zero time I.e. ³Time not moving (frozen in time). It is not the absence of time which I call 'null time or 0Time' which is abstract and nothing can exist in it. If no time (0Time) then it does not exist, if zero ³Time then it exists and has not moved yet (like freeze frame). You cannot actually freeze time like this because ²Time never stops, so ³Time which is composed of all the times together never stops either.

All the current models of the Universe and all the laws of physics are currently based on 0points in various dimensions on abstract planes, branes manifolds etc. at different scales, don't worry about the names but I believe they are all based on the sphere in different higher dimensions using metrics and fields.

Unfortunately I believe that this causes more problems than are required because it is based on the fact that three dimensional objects are spheres so they consider the surface of a sphere as a two dimensional flat surface on the sphere. (When I say flat it means that any imaginary being that lived on the surface would not know that the surface was curved and would not know the existence of the third dimension above and below them). In my model (explained in another section of my eBook) the sphere is not the fundamental 3 D object but the toroid is. A 'Real' sphere is at a higher level and is 7 dimensional.

What does this mean?

It means that 0points are given abstract characteristics trying to explain 'Reality' when they should be explaining the underlying structures of 'Reality'. In a way they are but because they are abstract they have no bounds, so their characteristics are extrapolated into abstract higher dimensions and extrapolated into absurdities. This is why I believe that all physical laws eventually break down at some scale or other because scale is relevant to all physical laws. Time at our scale does not act the same way as time at the lowest scales, the same with density that has a different characteristic at different levels, the same is true for all the dimensions of space as they are all intrinsically linked together.

All levels need to be more clearly defined so that each law can have its natural limits built in. Let us take Newton’s law of Gravity as an example. Instead of saying it is incorrect because Einstein was more correct. Newton’s assumptions were incorrect because he said something to the effect that there was an instantaneous action at a distance and he did not consider relativity at high speeds. What we should do is to say that instantaneous action at a distance is not defined at all levels in his laws of Gravity and that they hold true at certain levels and up to certain speeds. This means you do not need to know the details of this so called instantaneous action at a distance for his laws to be true within their boundaries. Instantaneous action at a distance is not truly instantaneous but it does not matter at his level (for his intent and purpose it can be considered instantaneous). This is partly done already and people know its limitations, but this should also be done with Einstein's curved spacetime where he does not specify the structure that creates this curvature and subsequent Gravity i.e. it does not hold true below a certain level (at the lowest level it curves back out again, explained in another Tea Break Book). Where laws do not apply outside their limits they should not be used to extrapolate into other levels that do not apply to them. E.g. Newton’s laws at or near the speed of light (this is already done) but also Einstein's curved spacetime should also be defined in the same way as well (not just Einstein but all Laws should). As explained in another section of my eBook Einstein's curved spacetime is a global curvature where he does not specify the means that this structure takes at the detailed level.

Coming back to 0points and the mathematics that goes with them. Let me take Lorentz transformations as an example; as length decreases with increased velocity along the axis. The mathematics just calculates this new length but does not specify how it works. In my model the actual length of the APE actually decreases in length as a structure. Let us say it is moving along on the z axis. It is moving in the medium of other APEs. I think of the medium as having similar characteristics of custard before you cook it, at a certain consistency. If you move slowly in it, it is easy to move through it, the faster you go the harder it becomes. If you hit it with a hammer it is like a solid rock. Anyway as the APE moves along this axis it is compressed against the medium it is traveling through and shrinks in size lengthways and I believe in the x and y plane as well increasing its density as it goes, it does not have to decrease the x and y planes by the same amount so that it looks more like a squashed balloon, the x and y planes are the same relative to themselves. As you increase the speed you are adding more energy to it (more APEs, as APEs are the constituents of energy) in this way you increase the mass which then increases the density even further because of the structure thereby shrinking it even further still. There comes a point where you cannot increase the density any further and it will act like the custard where you can hit it with the hammer and it will not penetrate it. The pushing force will equal the resistive force, think of it a bit like terminal velocity in air. All this is achieved by the structure and the nature of the APEs themselves. As stated in another section of my eBook the mathematics does not specify the nature of 'Reality' but the nature of 'Reality' specifies the mathematics.

So something like E=mc²+pc can be interpreted as two different types of momentum at different levels. The first term is merely the internal complex angular momentum when the APE or APEs are stationary, its Potential energy (this is not an abstract higher dimensional quantity, but actual rotations in space around the 0points the ¹points around them at the low level). The second term is merely the momentum of the APEs when they are moving along the z axis at the higher level (this term will include the movements in the x and y planes also around the 0point).

As stated I am not a mathematician so I cannot translate the relevant mathematics from my model to the relativistic models that we have at present.

My model can start with something like the following in non relativistic terms

E0²{1} = m.¹vc + m.²vc = mc² when stationary.

The ²{1} denotes 1 secondary quantum 1 APE.

¹v = c - ²v therefore when ²v theoretically is zero ¹v = c. Thereby making mc².

By the way the ²v can never become zero because of the structure of the APE and the minimal value is what causes the vacuum energy of space when everything appears to be stationary.

I.e. the dimension of In and Out around the 0point, ²v fluctuates (the ¹points) in the x, y and z planes around the 0point, this is when the APE is stationary at 0point I.e. it is not really stationary in real terms.

Both terms are internal momentum terms at this low level, to include the normal momentum term ρc which is a level higher up, you would probably add ρc to it, something like

E0²{1} = m.¹vc + m.²vc + ρc when moving in let us say the x axis, but I do not know how to calculate the ρc term such that it incorporates the additional APEs (that are required to create the ρc term) and proper velocities with respect to each other and different observers.

I will leave that to the mathematicians once they understand the concepts of my model.

Morph your mind with Morphological at

apepes.com

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés

The following sentence is deliberately confusing so that you can think about what I mean by the meaning of words in my eBook.

The point of points is to distinguish between points so different points mean different things, get the point?

By creating layers and different points you can have multiple dimensions in the same diagram.

By saying ¹point is different from 0point. Let us define ¹point as a dimension or dimensions that have the essence of 'Reality' built into them. At this point we do not have to define exactly what this essence is other than to say that if anything has this ¹point missing means the things we are displaying are abstract and are not real.

The ¹point must be multidimensional in its own right because if any dimension that is required to create 'Reality' is missing then this ¹point is also abstract. As we build our dimensions from these ¹points we add attributes at the higher levels to complement these hidden dimensions within these ¹points. Reality (our reality) is always multiple ¹points that create 7 dimensional volumes (or however many dimensions are required to create reality).

I call these ¹points, points of 'Existance' (Different from Existence which has ¹points of 'Existance' within it and 0points. I.e. Existence is what we experience).

Let me build with these ¹points.

Our world (Universe, space) consists of ¹points and 0points within volumes of space (existence).

First let me add what I consider the missing 5th dimension which is the density of space itself. I.e. the ¹point has a density whereas the 0point does not. I will come back to density in a minute. So an abstract line can be a string of 0points in a line (abstract one dimension, that goes to abstract infinities in both directions) and superimposed on one of these 0points you can have a ¹point, so a one dimensional real ¹point is created (the ¹point on its own is at least a dimension in itself, the dimension of 'Existance'). A few more superimposed ¹points lying along this (abstract) line creates a two dimensional 'real line' (one dimension for the ¹points themselves and another dimension because they are lined up within a straight line). You will see that these ¹points need not be continuous along the (abstract) line to exist. If they are close together then the line is more dense at this portion of the line and less dense if the ¹points are further apart. If nothing changes along this line then there is no time. If there is a change along this line then there is a dimension of time (I will come back to time, as there are different times to consider). This line is already 4 dimensional. It has the one space dimension, the dimension of density, one dimension of time and the dimension of 'Existance', remember 'Existance' incorporates anything else that it needs to create reality.). If there are ¹points at right angles to this line then this is 5 dimensional surface, and any above the surface is a 6 dimensional volume. When you start to move these ¹points you get ? dimensional volumes. Why the ?

This is because time at this low level is different to time at our level. Each space dimension has its own time component. Imagine there was only the normal one dimensional line. Think of just one ¹point along the one dimensional line it can go forwards or backwards in time along the line. Now if there was another dimension at right angles to this I.e. the 2 D plane and there were other ¹points on this surface but not on the line. These other ¹points do not have to move with the ¹point on the line, so there would be no time for these other ¹points, but there would still be time on the one D line. These ¹points on the surface need 2 dimensions of time to move on the surface (one for each dimension of space) and as you go to the normal 3 D you need 3 dimensions of time. All 3 dimensions of time put together create what I call Secondary ²Time. Our normal time I call Tertiary time or ³Time (sometimes I call it 'Global time'). ³Time is not independent of space but it is an intrinsic part of space created by all the ²Times put together. This is because space itself is quantised and each quantum of space has its own ²Time. Primary ¹Time is 'Existance'. This is actually the quantum itself existing (the 'APE'). I call it the 'APE' to distinguish it from other quanta, because it has characteristics that no other quanta possess. This ¹Time is time before anything changes, you can think of it as zero time I.e. ³Time not moving (frozen in time). It is not the absence of time which I call 'null time or 0Time' which is abstract and nothing can exist in it. If no time (0Time) then it does not exist, if zero ³Time then it exists and has not moved yet (like freeze frame). You cannot actually freeze time like this because ²Time never stops, so ³Time which is composed of all the times together never stops either.

All the current models of the Universe and all the laws of physics are currently based on 0points in various dimensions on abstract planes, branes manifolds etc. at different scales, don't worry about the names but I believe they are all based on the sphere in different higher dimensions using metrics and fields.

Unfortunately I believe that this causes more problems than are required because it is based on the fact that three dimensional objects are spheres so they consider the surface of a sphere as a two dimensional flat surface on the sphere. (When I say flat it means that any imaginary being that lived on the surface would not know that the surface was curved and would not know the existence of the third dimension above and below them). In my model (explained in another section of my eBook) the sphere is not the fundamental 3 D object but the toroid is. A 'Real' sphere is at a higher level and is 7 dimensional.

What does this mean?

It means that 0points are given abstract characteristics trying to explain 'Reality' when they should be explaining the underlying structures of 'Reality'. In a way they are but because they are abstract they have no bounds, so their characteristics are extrapolated into abstract higher dimensions and extrapolated into absurdities. This is why I believe that all physical laws eventually break down at some scale or other because scale is relevant to all physical laws. Time at our scale does not act the same way as time at the lowest scales, the same with density that has a different characteristic at different levels, the same is true for all the dimensions of space as they are all intrinsically linked together.

All levels need to be more clearly defined so that each law can have its natural limits built in. Let us take Newton’s law of Gravity as an example. Instead of saying it is incorrect because Einstein was more correct. Newton’s assumptions were incorrect because he said something to the effect that there was an instantaneous action at a distance and he did not consider relativity at high speeds. What we should do is to say that instantaneous action at a distance is not defined at all levels in his laws of Gravity and that they hold true at certain levels and up to certain speeds. This means you do not need to know the details of this so called instantaneous action at a distance for his laws to be true within their boundaries. Instantaneous action at a distance is not truly instantaneous but it does not matter at his level (for his intent and purpose it can be considered instantaneous). This is partly done already and people know its limitations, but this should also be done with Einstein's curved spacetime where he does not specify the structure that creates this curvature and subsequent Gravity i.e. it does not hold true below a certain level (at the lowest level it curves back out again, explained in another Tea Break Book). Where laws do not apply outside their limits they should not be used to extrapolate into other levels that do not apply to them. E.g. Newton’s laws at or near the speed of light (this is already done) but also Einstein's curved spacetime should also be defined in the same way as well (not just Einstein but all Laws should). As explained in another section of my eBook Einstein's curved spacetime is a global curvature where he does not specify the means that this structure takes at the detailed level.

Coming back to 0points and the mathematics that goes with them. Let me take Lorentz transformations as an example; as length decreases with increased velocity along the axis. The mathematics just calculates this new length but does not specify how it works. In my model the actual length of the APE actually decreases in length as a structure. Let us say it is moving along on the z axis. It is moving in the medium of other APEs. I think of the medium as having similar characteristics of custard before you cook it, at a certain consistency. If you move slowly in it, it is easy to move through it, the faster you go the harder it becomes. If you hit it with a hammer it is like a solid rock. Anyway as the APE moves along this axis it is compressed against the medium it is traveling through and shrinks in size lengthways and I believe in the x and y plane as well increasing its density as it goes, it does not have to decrease the x and y planes by the same amount so that it looks more like a squashed balloon, the x and y planes are the same relative to themselves. As you increase the speed you are adding more energy to it (more APEs, as APEs are the constituents of energy) in this way you increase the mass which then increases the density even further because of the structure thereby shrinking it even further still. There comes a point where you cannot increase the density any further and it will act like the custard where you can hit it with the hammer and it will not penetrate it. The pushing force will equal the resistive force, think of it a bit like terminal velocity in air. All this is achieved by the structure and the nature of the APEs themselves. As stated in another section of my eBook the mathematics does not specify the nature of 'Reality' but the nature of 'Reality' specifies the mathematics.

So something like E=mc²+pc can be interpreted as two different types of momentum at different levels. The first term is merely the internal complex angular momentum when the APE or APEs are stationary, its Potential energy (this is not an abstract higher dimensional quantity, but actual rotations in space around the 0points the ¹points around them at the low level). The second term is merely the momentum of the APEs when they are moving along the z axis at the higher level (this term will include the movements in the x and y planes also around the 0point).

As stated I am not a mathematician so I cannot translate the relevant mathematics from my model to the relativistic models that we have at present.

My model can start with something like the following in non relativistic terms

E0²{1} = m.¹vc + m.²vc = mc² when stationary.

The ²{1} denotes 1 secondary quantum 1 APE.

¹v = c - ²v therefore when ²v theoretically is zero ¹v = c. Thereby making mc².

By the way the ²v can never become zero because of the structure of the APE and the minimal value is what causes the vacuum energy of space when everything appears to be stationary.

I.e. the dimension of In and Out around the 0point, ²v fluctuates (the ¹points) in the x, y and z planes around the 0point, this is when the APE is stationary at 0point I.e. it is not really stationary in real terms.

Both terms are internal momentum terms at this low level, to include the normal momentum term ρc which is a level higher up, you would probably add ρc to it, something like

E0²{1} = m.¹vc + m.²vc + ρc when moving in let us say the x axis, but I do not know how to calculate the ρc term such that it incorporates the additional APEs (that are required to create the ρc term) and proper velocities with respect to each other and different observers.

I will leave that to the mathematicians once they understand the concepts of my model.

Morph your mind with Morphological at

apepes.com