I realize that this topic will be controversial and may sound bombastic, but let me explain.
In the cosmology of TUB two very important revelations are given about space. The first is that space exhibits various motions that can be reduced to spiral descriptions, the combined respiratory and rotational motions. The second follows the first in that they tell us that space is subabsolute. It follows because if space were absolute it could not move.
The foundations of Euclidean geometry rest on 5 axioms. They are all important to "The Geometry" but none more so than the fifth postulate that has to do with parallel lines. Without this postulate the edifice crumbles.
Stating the fifth postulate or axiom:
"Given a line and a point not on that line, there is not more than one line which can be drawn through the point parallel to the original line."
This axiom must exist as a given but assumes many things. First it assumes that parallel lines can exist. If space is not absolute, then these so called parallel lines but meet. TUB tells us that parallel lines cannot exist because space is not absolute.
Another way to look at this is that two parallel lines must have some distance between them. A line is a one dimensional ideal idea. You cannot see a line because it has no width or depth, only length. In order to maintain a distance you must have time and space. Neither time nor space nor motion can be accommodated in a linear construct. So, their can only be one line as an idea. It can have no parallel. The concept of parallel lines not only assumes more than one line, which precludes unity, but presumes that lines are spatial and that they are in space. Neither is true.
NonEuclidean geometry fairs no better with TUB revelation. In the middle of the 19th century a few prominent mathematicians came up with a brilliant idea to upgrade the plane geometry of the two previous millennia. The feeling was that if the fifth postulate were pulled from the geometry that the cathedral of Euclid would not collapse but that the 'absolute geometry' would still be buttressed by the other four postulates. The new crew of geniuses, Riemann, Lobachevsky, Bolyai and others figured on a new postulate that was the opposite postulate five. They surmised that if it is possible to draw more than one straight line, infinitely many in fact, through a point parallel to a given straight line, then one could build all new kinds of geometric models to explain newly discovered physics of that time.
This new and improved geometry suffers from the same confused metaphysical assertions. Axioms are not provable because proof would mean the they are not axioms. Axioms are a given, obvious and agreed to by all without the need to prove anything about them. The only thing we ask of them is that axioms not lead to contradictory consequences. But simply saying something is consistent does not make it universally true.
Einstein borrowed heavily from this new hyperbolic geometry, but curvature alone would not answer the problems of physics for long. You see, this new geometry still assumes absolute, nonmoving space and linear time. Yes, space is hyperbolic, but it not absolute and its motion is spiral. Time dilates but it is not linear, it is circular simultaneity. Einstein's new theories were therefore false and inconsistent with TUB. Minkowski assumed correctly that time and space were perpendicularly arranged, simply because motion was traversing absolute space in linear relative time. The problem that no one seemed to notice is that a line (time) cannot be perpendicular to anything but a plane or a circle or another line. Linear time could not be perpendicular to 3 dimensional space. The slight of hand was the "light cone" where the time line with arrows on both ends was depicted perpendicular to a plane Minkowski called 'space'. How could the crowd miss this and for so long!?
They explain this away by the use of another genius move, the development of complex number and the imaginary plane. One can certainly play with these numbers analytically and come up with lots of solutions to problem posed in electrical engineering and elsewhere, but this is heuristics and gives no real understanding to the nature of reality.
The fact remains that a hyperbolic space the moves spirally can only be perpendicular (orthogonal) to circular time. This requires 7 dimensions, not four. Four dimensions of hyperbolic space (S^4) moving in 'accelerated acceleration' (time^3). Or, space/t^3.
It is no wonder that our math breaks down an the quantum level and we are now seeing a growing account of anomalies in our space calculations. Curves must be fit to the data, not the other way around.
Let us pay more attention to what TUB is telling us, or we shall surely pay the price in time.
Regards, Louis
