*
*

*
*
**Tractate 8 : The Error of Einstein (continued)**

**The tunnel of perception**

We are now ready to revisit the tunnel of abstraction in the physical form. To distinguish the physical form of the tunnel from the abstractual form of the tunnel we will refer to the physical form of the tunnel as the tunnel of perception since it is through the physical senses we do our observing and it is from our observing that we draw most of our understandings regarding abstractual perceptions. Once having established our tunnel of perception, we will examine how the physical form is ‘attached’ to the tunnel of abstraction.

The tunnel of perception

As we can see we have already created the basics for our tunnel earlier. A few modifications are in order:

In this tunnel, a second question mark appears beyond the physicalness of nothingness. The density of physical space becomes less and less the further ‘out’ we move. The question becomes: What is less dense than the physicalness of nothingness itself?

If we turn our tunnel around, we get:

Again we see: In this tunnel, a second question mark appears beyond the physicalness of nothingness. The density of physical space becomes greater and greater the further ‘in’ we move. The question becomes: What is denser than the physicalness of nothingness itself?

Denser/less dense, it is the understanding of ‘density’ we ‘gravitate’ towards because density represents a characteristic of the physical and it is the understanding of the physical we think we seek because it is the physical with which we are most closely associated. In fact, however, the physical is not a ‘thing’ but rather reduces down to ‘no’ thing, reduces down to nothingness as we approach both ends of the tunnel of perception. The physical approaches the ‘primal atom’( &Mac176; / 1 ) in one direction of the tunnel and approaches the universal building block ( 1 / &Mac176; ) in the other direction of the tunnel. This understanding leads us to Einstein’s concepts of relativity and how they relate to ‘i". The understanding regarding the relationship of ‘i’ to the physical leads us to understanding that time and distance is only variable where time is functional. Time and distance are only variable in the coherency of the constancy of the physical and time and distance are only constant in the incoherency of the variability of the abstract. To better understand such a concept it will help to use graphics.

We are now ready to expand our tunnel of perception to include our tunnel of abstraction:

Having laid the ground work needed to understand the metaphysical significance of ‘i’, we are now ready to apply the fundamental ground work to the concept regarding what possible metaphysical meaning, the quotient, the square root of the distance divided by the square root of time, could possible have to the whole of reality versus physical reality.

**Part IIb: The Einsteinian ‘i’:**

The Constant Variable Equals the Square Root of the Distance Divided by the Square Root of the Time

**Introduction**

We have examined the mathematical and metaphysical relationship regarding the abstract as it applies to individual numbers both imaginary numbers and real numbers. We have examined Zeno’s work as it applies to the separate existence of real/Cartesianism and the ‘real illusion’/ ‘imaginary’/non-Cartesianism.

We have examined the mathematical relationship regarding inverse relationships as it applies to the metaphysical linear relationship regarding imaginary and real numbers and we have examined Hegel’s work as it applies to the separate existence of passive observation/Cartesianism and active observation/non-Cartesianism. Mathematically we observed this relationship emerging from the concept: the inverse of time being equal to the inverse of distance.

Now we are ready to examine the mathematical relationship regarding relativity as it applies to the metaphysical quadratic relationship regarding imaginary numbers and real numbers which is implied by the metaphysical system of ‘being’ being ‘Being’/symbiotic panentheism. In short we are ready to examine the metaphysical relationship of imaginary numbers and real numbers and how it is this mathematical/scientific understanding supports the concept regarding the metaphysical existence regarding the Cartesianism and the non-Cartesianism existing as simultaneous independent states of action found within the whole. Mathematically we will observe this relationship emerging from the concept: the square root of the speed of light squared (velocity squared) found within the equation: E = mc(2).

We have now reached the point from which we can begin to understand what it is Einstein inadvertently had to offer us metaphysically which we were unable to ‘see’ before Einstein developed his perceptions of physics and before the new perception of ‘being’ being ‘Being’ had been put into place.

We are on our way towards expanding our understanding regarding the concept regarding the functionality of concrete variability of time as opposed to abstract constancy of time.

In this last portion of the tractate, it is not the absolute values of energy, matter, distance, or time upon which metaphysics relies to expand its past models, rather it is the presence of ‘i’ and the lack of the presence of ‘i’ which become the focus point of metaphysics. It is our ability to understand the relationship existing between time, distance, matter, and energy upon which metaphysics must explore.

What is to emerge is the understanding that positive and negative values in terms of both the ‘real’/concrete and the ‘real illusion’/ ‘imaginary’/ abstract have a part to play in our understanding the metaphysical relationship existing between ‘i’ and the lack of ‘i’.

It is the ability of the model, ‘being’ being ‘Being’, the non-Cartesian powered by the Cartesian, which reinforces the validity of the simultaneous integrated existence of the Cartesian and the non-Cartesian, ‘being’ being ‘Being’, as opposed to either simple Cartesianism or simple non-Cartesianism being the model of reality.

In addition, it is the inability of either the Cartesian or the non-Cartesian to explain such a relationship which further reinforces the validity of the simultaneous integrated existence of Cartesian and the non-Cartesian, ‘being’ being ‘Being’, as opposed to either simple Cartesianism or simple non-Cartesianism being the model of reality.

**The square root of Einstein’s equations: ‘i’**

And secondly:

Regardless of the equations only two results emerge if one places the concepts of energy and matter in the realm of constancy. The two emergent results become the positive of the speed of light or the negative of the speed of light:

The schematic gives us eight options.

The Hegelian metaphysical system was developed before the understanding regarding Einstein’s theories of relativity. As such, we will consider both the speed of light and the quotient of E/m to be absolute values. In addition we will consider E/m to be a constant. E/m, should it exist would be a ‘universal constant’. As such, we shall give it a unit value of one. This is no more an unusual process than designating the distance from the earth to the sun to be a unit value, the unit value of one astronomical unit or 1 au. We shall designate E/m as 1

This is not to say E/m is one nor is it saying E/m is a constant. Rather E/m is considered to be a variable constant of physicality.

The result is that all eight options when the absolute value is applied become simply:

c = 1

The speed of light is the ratio of distance to time. This gives us:

d/t = 1

or

1 = d/t

In terms of metaphysic, what does the number one imply and what does the ratio of time to distance imply?

The number one implies ‘a’ location where time and distance can be found ‘within’ which change can originate.

The number of such locations has no meaning ‘within’ timelessness in terms of an absolute value. However, as perceived by awareness immersed within a universal fabric of time,

represents the potential ‘number’ of locations/universes which could exist within timelessness within which change of the timeless could be generated.

In terms of the symbolic representation of d/t, the quantity, d/t represents velocity. Velocity is the relationship between two abstractual concepts, distance and time, generated by the physical.

What does distance equals time imply? Within the purely physical, such a concept is meaningless. Within the metaphysical, the direct relationship is very significant. Metaphysically the absolute value of distance being equal to the absolute value of time implies that neither time nor distance is more important than the other. Relative value is meaningless within the realm of the abstract. Abstractual concepts have no relative value one to another because the concept of a universal fabric of time and distance is absent. The universal fabric by which we ‘compare’ the value of one to another is non-existent as a ‘universal’ marker within the purity of the whole of the abstract ‘found’ to exist ‘outside’ the physical..

There is more than just the elimination of ‘relative value’ implied in the concept: d = t which needs to be examined.