5 - The fifth D0- point of nothing discloses its secrets...

The next two-oneness should also offer two -and no more than two- possibilities.
The first possibility identifies the fifthD0- point of nothing its beta-symbol “ 5 ” on the first 
₁D1- line or X- axis of natural (counting) numbers, defining & quantisizing five 5 unities of the chosen D1- distance or length to the local zero 0, or five 5 unities of Ð1 as smallest possible unity. 
But there is no new two-oneness which would be in accordance with all oer-conditions and offer a second possibility as well...hence the next conclusion is simple and un-ambiguous:

either     the concept of a "two-oneness" is not the exclusive building block of the process
              of creation... 
or...        one of the earlier two-onenesses is hiding another one...

And if no solution is found, the ultimate question arises: “can the process of creation ever be identified or will it always be an inaccessible secret for human beings ?”

 

Returning to the Start with Nothing
The not existing second possibility of number “5” enforces to return to the start with nothing, going in opposite direction by an operation which is called “projecting”:

3 ↓ 2  When all D0- points of nothing of an object in D3- space are projected on a flat
          D2- plane, this operation shows how their third power is reduced with on unity when
          they are projected on a flat D2- plane which as inseparable two-oneness, having
          two -and no more than two- “sides”, identity of the second power. Hence any
          D0- point of that object can only be at one side...hence both of the two possibilities
          are identified, being in agreement with the oerconditions.

This discloses also the secret of “seeing objects in D3- space” by their images in a flat
D2- plane or painting: only after you have seen this object or a similar one before and only when you have made a (mental and hence massless) image of it which is stored in your memory you can only recollect it after the image of that object has been completed by a suitable alpha-name, also stored in your brains.

2 ↓ 1  The same happens when all D0- points of nothing in a flat D2- plane are projected
          on a straight D1- line, their location being at just one side excludes the other
          possibility...

1 ↓ 0  All D0- points of nothing on a D1- line of nothing reduce to one D0- point of nothing,
          which is the chosen non-natural local zero 0 as origin of the three axes...

But now the Natural Start of the Beginning of the process of creation of mass and matter etc. etc. did arrive at the definition of the “unity of distance or length” in unambiguous  and undeniable alpha-words, in a most general, independent, universal and objective way, its beta-part has also been quantisized as smallest possible unity in that process, in the same way, so the alpha-word “oerdimension” implies a constant, never changing, eternal value... This means that the final conclusion must be that one of the two -and no more than two- points P1 (= previous P2) as first natural (counting) number 1 and the other point P0 as non-natural (counting) number zero,0 at distance Ð1 must be hiding some other possibility.

  

5 - The fifth D0- point of nothing discloses its secrets...

The next two-oneness should also offer two -and no more than two- possibilities.
The first possibility identifies the fifthD0- point of nothing its beta-symbol “ 5 ” on the first 
₁D1- line or X- axis of natural (counting) numbers, defining & quantisizing five 5 unities of the chosen D1- distance or length to the local zero 0, or five 5 unities of Ð1 as smallest possible unity. 
But there is no new two-oneness which would be in accordance with all oer-conditions and offer a second possibility as well...hence the next conclusion is simple and un-ambiguous:

either     the concept of a "two-oneness" is not the exclusive building block of the process
              of creation... 
or...        one of the earlier two-onenesses is hiding another one...

And if no solution is found, the ultimate question arises: “can the process of creation ever be identified or will it always be an inaccessible secret for human beings ?”

 

Returning to the Start with Nothing
The not existing second possibility of number “5” enforces to return to the start with nothing, going in opposite direction by an operation which is called “projecting”:

3 ↓ 2  When all D0- points of nothing of an object in D3- space are projected on a flat 
          D2- plane, this operation shows how their third power is reduced with on unity when
          they are projected on a flat D2- plane which as inseparable two-oneness, having 
          two -and no more than two- “sides”, identity of the second power. Hence any 
          D0- point of that object can only be at one side...hence both of the two possibilities 
          are identified, being in agreement with the oerconditions.

This discloses also the secret of “seeing objects in D3- space” by their images in a flat 
D2- plane or painting: only after you have seen this object or a similar one before and only when you have made a (mental and hence massless) image of it which is stored in your memory you can only recollect it after the image of that object has been completed by a suitable alpha-name, also stored in your brains.

2 ↓ 1  The same happens when all D0- points of nothing in a flat D2- plane are projected 
          on a straight D1- line, their location being at just one side excludes the other
          possibility...

1 ↓ 0  All D0- points of nothing on a D1- line of nothing reduce to one D0- point of nothing, 
          which is the chosen non-natural local zero 0 as origin of the three axes...

But now the Natural Start of the Beginning of the process of creation of mass and matter etc. etc. did arrive at the definition of the “unity of distance or length” in unambiguous  and undeniable alpha-words, in a most general, independent, universal and objective way, its beta-part has also been quantisized as smallest possible unity in that process, in the same way, so the alpha-word “oerdimension” implies a constant, never changing, eternal value... This means that the final conclusion must be that one of the two -and no more than two- points P1 (= previous P2) as first natural (counting) number 1 and the other point P0 as non-natural (counting) number zero,0 at distance Ð1 must be hiding some other possibility.

... there is also a two-oneness of directions of rotation
The rotation of the radius in its D2- plane discloses also another two-oneness: there are two -and no more than two- directions of rotation: “clock wise, cw with symbol P or counter-clock wise, ccw Q”. And similar to the impossibility to define & quantisize the direction of a straight D1- line of nothing in a D2- plane of nothing in an objective way, it is impossible to define the direction of rotation in an objective way, leading to other spectacular surprises...
But whatever the direction of rotation might be, the frozen position of the radius on paper also hides another ambiguity: all sizeless D0- points of nothing on this D1- radius of nothing are in motion except the D0- origin P0 which remains static & immobile, disclosing a most important question:

                     “is the rotating radius semi-static or is it semi-dynamic ?”...

Actually this is a “contradiction in terms” because the alpha-words “static” and “dynamic” are absolute & unambiguous, showing a perfect opposition, hence alpha-adjectives are even impossible. And knowing that the alpha adjective “semi “ refers to the mathematical operation of a “division by two”, you know right now that a mathematical operation of “dividing” has not been identified to be part of the mathematical operations followed by the process of creation... Anyway symbol R must stay upright till the problem of its ambiguity is solved.  

There were more disasters in mathematics: after zero 0 has been invented in the Middle East, it was also used to identify the origin of the circle and it became a habit to chosen the length of the radius “to be unity” R = 1... 

but thisalso means that the radius is no longer visible in related beta-formulas, being “amputated“ because all powers of 1 like 1^x are equal to 1, even 1⁰ = 1¹, as if any zero^th power is exercising its might !! 

Any D0- point of nothing P on radius R of whatever length will have its own tangential speed v_t, its direction always being perpendicular, hence Pythagoras’ hypotenuse of all these speeds is showing what is known as  

                                                  “speed-triangle”

 

5.2 - The curved length of a D1- circumference is not a D2- surface...
Now oerdimension Ð1 is defined & quantisized as smallest possible unity of distance in
nature, as rotating radius of the smallest possible circle its status is ambiguous: as first
oerdimension it is defined as constant, never changing unity of distance or length in nature, its beta-part quantisizing the  smallest possible unity, but the D2- plane did show that the other characteristic of the Ð1- radius being its direction, is constantly changing...
Watching the power of powers shows undeniably that the true identity of a circle is not its circumference with a curved length of twopir as first power of Ð1 but its surface, quantisized to be π. Ð1² as smallest possible unity of surface as part of a boundless, unlimited and infinite large D2- plane

                  the α- name of this identity of the second power is coined the “percx”.

But when this percx is enclosed by a static square with sides 2 Ð1, its surface is 4. Ð1²... 
  a first proof that pi is smaller than the natural (counting) number 4.  

      Five millennia ago the “gateway to the palaces of the Chinese emperors were         build as “π “ and being considered as direct descendant of the gods in heaven,       emperors were enjoying “eternal life”. It is most peculiar that this beta-symbol
      π is now identified to be inseparably related to the second oerdimension,
                                   another important hint...  

But when a D2- plane shows three circumferences of three percx which are two by two“in touch”, having one D0- point of nothing in common, there are already “uncovered, open surfaces” between them, which remain un-identified, just like all D0- points of nothing between number 1 and 2 or all D0- points on the rotating radius, a next indication...

 

5.3 - The rotating radius discloses its inseparable relation with
       dynamics...
The eldest concept to measuring “time” was based on the rotation of the moon and sun around planet Earth, based on the oer-concept of Yang & Yin as “symbol for heaven and earth”, symbolised by number 1 and 2, the Chinese quantisized one “day” of sunlight and darkness, each one lasting 3 times 4 =12 unities called “hours”, 12 times 5 being the basis of their hexagisemal system of counting. Timekeepers were directly responsible to the emperor, mistakes being a capital offense. And when the Roman emperor Caesar launched "his" calendar of 365,25 days, Chinese clocks were showing a precision of
1 minute per year...

When the Dutch scientist and mathematician Christian Huygens [1629-1695] got his “pendulum” patented in 1657 CE, its precision allowed him to develop the formula
                                                       T = 2 π √ L / g 

Based on the local coefficient of gravity g = 9.81 [ L¹ / s² ]  at sea level at 46° latitude North (of Paris), a pendulum length L between the pivoting point and the centre of the plumb bob of  0.9936 meter would result in a "period" of 2  “seconds” between the
extreme positions, being 1/60^th part of a minute which is 1/60^th part of the hour.
Although this formula is only valid if &when half the angle θ of deflection is small to allow the simplification of  θ = sin θ, it was used as "unity of time" of the MKSA // ISO- system of physical dimensions: M being the unity of length in meters (its new purified symbol should be [ L ] to avoid confusion with mass),  K for kilogram as "mass of one cubic decimetre or 1 litre of water" and S for second, when a full rotation of the sun around the Earth is decided to be 24 hours, later completed with A for Ampere as unity of strength of anelectric current which will appear in part II. 

Unfortunately this formula is not correctly understood when is mentioned “that the mass of the pendulum plays no role”, because this ignores the relation between the local g and Newton’s G as "universal constant of gravity"...
Now “taking roots” is no operation in Nature's process of creation, Huygens’ formula can easily be purified by being multiplied by itself, resulting in “squared seconds”:

                                                  T ² = 4 π ² . L / g   [ s ² ]

showing the mysterious number 4 as second power of 2  and the second power of pi  as well as the linear, first power relation between the length L of the pendulum  and g as local constant of gravity at sea level...

This also shows that the true identity of Ð2- as oerdimension of dynamics should not be based on “classic Huygen’s time” as identity of the first power, but on “a period of
Ð2- thime in squared seconds [ s ² ]“ whereas the second power of pi will disclose more shocking consequences...
    (raising the curious question why the original alpha-word “second” has been chosen by our     ancestors as unity of classic time, especially now the second oerdimension is identified as     identity of the “second power”?).

The precision of his pendulum did allow Huygens two years later to develop his general law for a rotating mass in 1659CE“which is kept in its circular orbit by a “rotating force” which is always directed to the centre of the circle as D0- point of nothing, its “strength” being F_H =  M. v_t ² / R, and to avoid misunderstanding “ M ” will be symbol of mass M, times the second power of its “tangential speed” with symbol v_t,which has just a linear (first power) relation with the length of radius R. The definition of the sub-dimension “linear speed” v without index, is a straight D1- distance or length which also defines the direction of its straight D1- line, even when there is still no objective method to quantisize its direction in a flat D2- plane or in D3- space, its adjective being necessary now there are also “curved circumferences”. When this D1- length is divided by a quantity of classic time in single powered seconds, its physical dimension being

                                                    [ L¹/ s¹ ]

And now a two-oneness manifests itself more and more as excluive building block of the process or creation, pure alpha-language allows the word "mass" to be completed by the adjectives "single & lonely", a most helpful distinction between Newton's law for two -and no more than two masses of 1687CE.

Now the definition of a “tangential- or rotation speed” is based on the definition of the circle and its radius which is defined as straight D1- distance between the D0- origin of the circle and the D0- point of no thing which is rotating around the circumference of the circle as curved D1- line, there is a need for adjectives “straight” and “curved”.
This also means that the tangential speed of any D0- point on that radius is always perpendicular to the radius.
    The unity of tangential speed can be shown by a chosen unity of linear speed and when
    these two characteristics are shown as “vector”, all points of all speed arrows are laying
    on the hypotenuse of the “speed triangle”, confirming how the origin of this circle is
    static, immobile and at rest...But this makes the definition of the radius ambiguous.

The two-oneness of the direction of rotation
Just as there are two -and no more than two- possibilities to move along a straight
D1- line, there is now a two-oneness of two -and no more than two- possibilities for a rotating D0- point of nothing, being the centre of gravity of the rotating mass: it is either going clock wise P, cw or going counter clock wise Q, ccw.
Since a rotation is inseparably related to a flat D2- plane having two –and no more than two- sides, the side from which the rotation is observed shows a perfect opposite direction as the other side. So a clockwise cw direction of rotation at one side also means a counter clockwise ccw direction of rotation at the other side and vice versa providing proof of an absolute truth. 
    So after the unambiguous conclusion that no negative distances do exist in nature, now
    identified as result of human creativity, there is no objective method to define the
    direction of rotation, further consequences being revealed in part II. 

Most unfortunately Huygens’ formula of a single & lonely rotating mass was abused by Newton “pretending that Huygens’ term  v²_t / L  in his formula F_H =  M. v_t ² / R would be equal to the linear acceleration “ a “ in Newton's F_N = M. a  which shows how a single & lonely forceF_N is “accelerating” mass M along its own straight D1- working line of F_N.

In other words: Newton is suggesting that Huygens’ rotating force F_H which is necessary
        to keep the singe & lonely mass in its circumferential orbit would be equal to “his”
        own linear force F_N which is accelerating such singe & lonely mass along a straight
        D1- line, the consequence being that Huygens term v_t ² / R was said to be equal to
        his acceleration...

    This also provides the ultimate, undeniable proof that Newton did not invent the
    “calculus” but just tried to copy the new mathematical methods of the versatile German
    diplomat, mathematician and philosopher, sinologue Gottfried Wilhelm baron von
    Leibniz [1646 - 1716CE]. According to his rules “the instruction to differentiate the
    constant, uniform, non-changing tangential speed v_t to (classic) time as variable will be
    zero: dv_t / d t = 0”, but the social position of Newton was such that he got away with it...
    denying & darkmooning the constant changing direction of Huygens' central force.

             In old China nearly five thousand years ago, three thousand years before the Common Era
              CE,  the peculiar role of the mysterious natural (counting) number with symbol “ 5 ” was
              identified being in the centre of a pan-diagonal perfect magic square, confirmed by
              mrs. Kathleen Ollerenshaw from the Manchester Institue of Mathematics when she spend
              almost 20 years, her whole retired life, to this subject ....

.

'.