Calculating Densities and a Theory of Everything!

[lucky_luci_logica]

Hello lovely people of the Universe! I'm new to the spiritual side of the Universe, but the teachings of the Ra Contact and similar sources have been exceptionally helpful as I understand the Universe my own way! See, I have Autism, and I've always felt detached from the world because all I've ever wanted to do is study the Universe. I didn't realize I have Autism until recently, however, and once I  have, it fundamentally changed how I view the Universe. I am now able to see the Universe through a lens of pure mathematics, and the teachings of the lower fundamental densities has become something that I can not only see, but quantify with Mathematical proof! I've been developing this Math for about a month now, and finding the Bring4th forums today I believe is an essential step in my journey to understand the Universe! I would love to teach you all about my Math, and in exchange would love to learn from all of you about the nature of our world from a spiritual standpoint, as I've never fully understood what that meant until I discovered this Math that proves that we are all one, which I call Information! At the end of this paragraph is the first draft of my paper, I've tried to make it as understandable as possible by explaining it all relative to the One thing all of us are, and I choose to call it Information, but some people call it Conciousness ! Ultimately, they're the same thing at a fundamental level. I think that this math can also give us the tools which we need to better communicate with extraterrestrial, or as I would think of it, extradimensional beings such as Ra and the Confederation! Any feedback you have is greatly appreciated, and I look forward to our understanding of the Fifth Density growing as we explore the implications of this math!

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c_0_...sp=sharing

[meadow-foreigner]

Hello, LUCKY_LUCI_LOGICA. 

Interesting reasoning. The atemporal quality of information is surely unprecedented, and I see that you do know far more than you're currently articulating in your first paper. The fact that you also do not stick very much to preconceived mainstream notions of mathematics is also a great asset to you and will also be the cause of your emancipation in knowledge.

I appreciate people that simplify allegedly complex things, and you summarized in 18 pages a work that could certainly expand, in traditional-obsolete means, hundreds of pages.

You utilized graphs, which denotes a skill of abstract thinking that few mathematicians have been demonstrating; if they even have it at all. It's one thing to express formulas and algebraic notations; another thing is to put this information in graphical notations so as to illustrate these notions.

Dividing by zero is a bold move that certainly denotes a certain kind of defiance to the mathematical establishment, so to speak, and thus is something really admirable. 

You also mentioned Stephen Hawking, which is a bonus. I'd like to point that he also has a paper about virtual black holes, which has the following image:

There seems to be an issue with the semantics you utilized to denominate the words and terms you utilized in your paper in relation to the mathematical properties that they represent. In this sense, the positive/negative values that you represented in your work seemed a little off to me, in a roundabout way. Since you seem to use a base-10 math and your work is about a theory of everything, I was expecting to see the value 1 being used as a central reference point, as is the numerical difference between 1/φ and φ, which also implies a constant that is found pretty much everywhere in a 3D point of view, unlike Planck's constant, that seems to be prevalent in the micro-scale only.

I also think that your work can be condensed even further, to a single idea, and then expanded further as you explore and detail it. I'm sure you are more than capable of articulating it, and I certainly appreciate your enthusiasm and your energy in your demonstration of knowledge.

[pat19989]

Welcome here! I am a math fanatic and a ponderer of consciousness as well. I have just begun your Dimensionomy and you've got me hooked, will reply later with questions and comments but I like where its going.

[lucky_luci_logica]

Hi Meadow-Foreigner!

Thank you so much for your feedback! I've been developing these concepts a lot over the past few days, and your feedback is exactly in tune with my findings so far! I've been making a lot of graphs to help myself and others visualize the movement which I'm trying to describe mathematically, as I've discovered even more symmetries than those currently in the paper! The image you attached is exceptionally helpful, as it almost exactly correlates to what I've been noting as Improbability fields, or the result of graphing the Impact of an object on Time, and I will definitely be exploring the similarities between these two figures! 

Additionally, you're absolutely right that there is an issue with the semantics. I've only begun to learn about this by connecting one concept to the next, and they have a tendency to get jumbled at times. However, I am now in the habit of writing and filing my math and it's helped me to much more accurately analyze the movement of Energy through Time. I do focus on the central reference point being 1, however, I never clearly state it. The value i is ultimately the square root of negative one, and my equation for time is relative to G^0 which is equal to positive one, and I plan on further developing the Math so that I can eventually equate everything to 1. Now that Gravity can be defined relative to Energy, we can further study Gravity and define it's movement through Time more accurately since we know that that is equivalent to Impact! I plan on using the basic equivalencies from the current paper to build new one's that define properties of these dimensions, including properties of Gravity! These properties will ultimately boil down to being relative to 1 as they are simply properties of the definitive i!

My work can be condensed further! And it will be! The more I understand that which I am seeking, the better I am able to articulate it to myself and to others, and the more I am able to learn as a result! While I can define i as both the square root of negative one and the absence of Time, I think it makes more sense to break those into two separate things and prove their equivalence! The absence of Time is something that I am choosing to define as Consciousness, and I can then prove its existence to be imaginary in nature as it moves through Time. From there I think it will be easier to explain movement along a Wave Function since our terms are clearly defined as Consciousness moving through Time in a state of Imagination! I think that there is a lot to learn from this Math and I look forward to studying it!

Once again, thank you so much for your feedback! I find it exceptionally helpful and look forward to better understanding this Math as a result of it!