Letter Ummo 294

THE CONCEPT OF THE OAWOO By provisionally defining the IBOZOO as a differentiated elementary entity composed of a bundle of orthogonal axes that cannot intersect each other, we have precisely introduced (albeit for pedagogical purposes) a concept that you should reject a priori: that is, expressed with a very familiar word on Earth, the AXIS. If you associate our word OAWOO ('AXIS' or DIRECTION) with a directed straight line, we return to the starting point because you will not have understood anything from our previous explanations. Obviously, there is a serious obstacle here because we are speaking of different mathematical languages. Languages which, by definition (as we noted in a previous document), are conditioned by a set of different psychological conceptions between you and us. When, from the earliest childhood stages, the UUGEEYIE has been educated within defined and narrow logical molds, and, having respect for unreal mathematical postulates, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to educate its mental mechanisms to dissociate illusory images related to its mode of perception. For this: if we invite non-mathematicians to imagine the IBOZOO UU as a series of axes (undefined, ideal straight lines) (S59-f22), we invite MATHEMATICIANS to reconsider that our concept of OAWOO which, although involving a 'DIRECTION,' can never be assimilated to real or ideal axes or lines. We wish to emphasize that an isolated IBOZOO UU is not susceptible to being conceived; that is, it has no reality. We, we say AIOOIEDOO (false concept, absurd, which cannot have reality). We can take an example for non-experts in PHYSICS. Imagine we wish to obtain a closed space and we have a number of cylindrical vases. Obviously, an isolated vase will never constitute a closed space, but if we close its opening with another (S59-f23), we will achieve a small closed space. A chain of vases would obviously form, if we associate them as in the image S59-f24, a string of closed spaces. Before continuing, it is necessary to further clarify the concept of STRAIGHT LINE. The distance from one point to another must be interpreted as a succession of IBOZOO UU whose EIDIIU (ANGLES) or, to be more precise, whose IOAWOO (note 1) differ from each other (dθ). (See 59-f17 of the previous report). Note 1: The difference between EIDIIU and IOAWOO is very important: EIDIIU is the version in our language of the familiar concept of angle. Thus, an EIDIIU would be the right angle formed by a vertical wall and the flooring of a room. IOAWOO would be the "ANGLE" formed by two OAWOO ("AXES") of two associated IBOZOO UU (S59-f11); if in both cases we use the word "ANGLE" even though they are two very different concepts, it is because there is no word in your language that comes close, and because using the word "ANGLE" better assists laypersons in these matters. We told you that between two points (S59-f15) we can consider not one, but an infinite number of different chains of IBOZOO UU (for distinct three-dimensional reference systems). In other words, it would seem that one of them is in reality a "GEODESIC" (the SHORTEST LINE that a moving object would follow between two points on a hypersphere located in a four-dimensional framework) (S59-f25 A). But this is insufficient. Any other arc located on this sphere (assuming it represents a greater apparent distance (S59-f25B)) would be represented by the SAME chain of IBOZOO UU for which the designation of "GEODESIC" would be incorrect; thus we preferred to qualify it as a GEOID, even though both words have an etymology linked to the sphere on planet EARTH. THE CONCEPT OF TIME. The flow of time leads to a psychological type perception for the OEMII. This is another of our illusions. Within our organism occurs a complex series of periodic phenomena, from blood circulation to processes such as fat metabolism. If we close our eyes, we continue to perceive that TIME flows due to the periodic rhythmicity of these thousands of physiological phenomena. But the concept of time for the Earth physicist differs significantly from the perception analyzed by psychobiologists. You consider TIME as a dimension, at least this is how it is accepted by followers of EINSTEIN's relativistic theory. Our concept of TIME undoubtedly presents new facets that are unknown to you. First of all, we cannot consider TIME as a dimension or continuum, as you conceive it. It is not that time is quantified; it is that among other things one cannot conceive a moment as a point on the timeline. The interval (dt), although it may tend towards zero, we could never conceive it as small as we wish. Moreover, there is an aspect related to this question that we strongly wish to emphasize. You consider the highest speed that a sub-particle can achieve in the WAAM (COSMOS) to be 299,780 km/sec (the speed of light) and you regard this speed as "CONSTANT". Undoubtedly, you did not miscalculate this measurement. Indeed: it is the same speed that we recorded... in this same three-dimensional framework. But it is enough to change the frame or system to three dimensions so that this LIMIT SPEED varies significantly up to the point where the only reference that can reflect the change of axis is precisely the measurement of this speed or constant C. We thus define a family of values: C C C C .............. C ..............C , which extends from C = 0 to 0 1 2 3 i n 0 C = ∞, each representing a defined reference system. In the first case (zero speed of light), we will tell you, anticipating concepts, that certain phenomena you associate with parapsychology occur, such as telepathic communications. The WAAM analyzed in this three-dimensional reference system presents absolute uniformity (you would say MAXIMUM ENTROPY). (note 2) Note 2 - And although this state of MAXIMUM ENTROPY or DEGRADATION can exist in any other reference system where the speed of light is 'NON-ZERO'. In the limiting case of infinite speed of light, the WAAM can be considered as non-existent, WAAM AIOOIEDOO, since it could be assimilated to an identification of all the IBOZOO UU with itself, that is to say, to a single IBOZOO UU which, as we know, has no PHYSICAL reality. You must understand this before going further. Even if it is difficult to accept due to your usual logical reasoning. If you imagine in space an infinite range of small spheres or small polychrome balls, each different from the next by color and in its color by shades, you will then have a rough image of the WAAM. Now imagine that you suddenly locate two spheres exactly of the same color and shade. Using the logical mechanisms in use, you would say that if these two small balls are in different places, they are different entities. In sum, these are two balls, and this plurality of spheres differentiated by color has failed miserably. But if we shift this reasoning to the cosmos: if you locate two IBOZOO UU that were until now distinct since their 'axes' (OAWOO) were oriented in different directions, and if now you contemplate them with this perspective and the two IBOZOO UU are equal; you will then have to use another reasoning dissociated from binary logic and assert that these 'two' IBOZOO UU are the 'same' IBOZOO UU. And indeed: a pair of IBOZOO UU that, in one reference system, appeared differentiated, pertaining for example to a neutron and a pion, by changing reference axes, these two subparticles that in another frame appeared to the observer as if so distant that they belonged, both, to two different galaxies, must be considered, in another three-dimensional system, as the same IBOZOO UU. But the probability for this to occur for a pair of IBOZOO UU α and β is practically zero when the new reference system differs only slightly in angle from the previous one. We are deliberately straying from the central question: we define a time interval ΔT as a succession of IBOZOO UU whose IOAWO differ from each other by constant amounts (S59-f26). That is to say, in a UU IBOZOO we consider the four "axes" (OAWOO) (pay close attention to the true concept of OAWOO) which we call OAWOO UXGIGII because they represent the three-dimensional reference framework (S59-f27). OAWOO UXGIGII, which in reality do not exist because they are as conventional as a symbol, but they serve the mathematician to fix the position of the real OAWOO. Note: Although this state of MAXIMUM ENTROPY or DEGRADATION could be found in any other reference system in which the speed of light is "NON-ZERO" (S59-f27) (4 orthogonal axes in an OAWO hypersphere generating the IOAWO "distance"). If the real OAWOO (U with arrow) oscillates inside this ideal framework, now imagine a new referential system of two OAWOO UXGIGII, each of them forming 90° with the previous four (See S59-f27). This new framework of action of a real OAWOO (T) and those previously defined, define respectively SPACE and TIME (S59-f28). Observe that the OAXOO (RECTILINEAR AXES) defining SPACE AND TIME have distinct degrees of freedom. The first can traverse IOAXOO (Space-Angles) in three different orientations corresponding to the three typical dimensions of SPACE, while the second is 'constrained' to move on a single plane. (S59-f29) Two IBOZOO UU whose OAXOO axes T1 and T2 differ by an angle such that there does NOT EXIST in WAAM another IBOZOO UU whose T is located between the two, will define the smallest interval of TIME. We will call this interval UIWIIOO (INSTANT) (59-f29). What is the flow of time? Is this flow an illusion? Let's take any object: a fruit. Even though we have not yet developed the concept of atomic subparticles, we have suggested in other documents that each of the atomic components is actually an IBOZOO UU. The fruit will be composed of water, carbohydrates, proteins, and other chemical and organic components. Each of these is made up of NIIO A (atoms) and these by subparticles: each one is an IBOZOO UU with its OAXOO (axes) oriented in a particular way. When we measure on our watch an interval of one microsecond, the orange we have... is the hand the same as the one we held just a moment before? Is it the same? A chemist from Earth would say: in reality, it is not the same because within it, in its cells, the metabolic process has altered its characteristics. The physicist would say: NO, its electrons will vary in position within the orbits. But if we now ask him if these electrons, which have a different position, are the same as before; he might respond: Yes. But that is a mistake: a jump of the IBOZOO UU has occurred that previously represented electron E of orbital O of atom A and it is no longer the same. A layperson in physics will understand better with this example. Imagine a frame formed by a mosaic of electric bulbs. At time t, the bulbs were lit to form a capital A. But a moment later, at t, the A seems to have moved. The A is the same but its components have varied. Some lamps were turned off to turn on others. The illusion of continuity is the same, but the A seems to... If I find myself at a 'point' P represented by an IBOZOO UU with its Tp (OAXOO) oriented vertically, what will happen tomorrow? 'I' will be at T'p (another IBOZOO UU) that I will call future. (1) (1) By saying I, we do not refer to an OEMII (Person) composed of trillions of IBOZOO UU, but to an elementary subparticle of my organism: a proton for example. You can observe that the Earth physicist Einstein conceived a universe that in some ways is not so different from the one we are describing to you. You just need to replace the 'SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM' with 'discrete (discontinuous) set of IBOZOO UU'. Moreover, Einstein agreed with us on other essential points. But Einstein was unaware that what he considered the SPEED OF LIGHT CONSTANT was not... It exists only within one of the possible reference systems. He was unaware that there were other three-dimensional frames besides the one familiar to us. Our conception of WAAM explains certain contradictions that Earth physicists believed to have found between Quantum Mechanics and relativistic theory, as we will explain in subsequent documents. But what happens on the "ME NOW" plane for another point distant from me by a distance d, that is to say a chain of IBOZOO UU? Quite simply, the orientation of its (OAXOO) Tu (time axis) will be different. Therefore, one cannot say there is simultaneity of TIME. One cannot, for example, say "NOW" such and such is happening on the planet VENUS because such a concept of simultaneity makes no sense (and ALL of this within the same frame of reference). THE SPEED LIMIT. For the same three-dimensional system, the speed of light or speed limit is constant.