8 - The unnatural birth of the beta-word “imaginary”

History shows how in 1572CE the Italian Rafael Bombelli published his book “ l’ Algebra”, written “for those without higher education, like himself”. As architect he was dealing with the problem how to calculate cubic-volumes and hence equations of the third power; finding how solutions could be calculated when  ²√ - 1, the “square root of the negative unity” was introduced. But based on own thinking,Descartes did not believe in the existence of negative distances in nature and because it would be impossible ”to construct a negative distance in geometry”, hence Bombelli’s solutions for cubic equations were regarded as impossible, coining the derogative alpha-word 

                                                “imaginary”

Fundamental problems of understanding Bombelli’s imaginary numbers continued till next steps were made by the Norwegian surveyor Wessel, the French Argand and the German mathematician and geodesist Carl Friedrich Gauss [1777-1855]. Being linguistically gifted, Gauss suggested in 1797CE to name the Y- axis the "lateral coordinate", acknowledging how this new identity would allow to use the Y- coordinate to represent other physical dimensions as identified in the new technology of "electricity", coining Descartes’ plane of coordinates the “complex plane”. Unfortunately Descartes’ derogative word “imaginary” was too popular to be changed, letter “ i “ becoming the symbol of ²√ - 1.

When the British chemist Michael Faraday [1791-1867CE] discovered in 1831 how to use
“iron filings to show hitherto invisible lines of magnetic flux between the poles of natural magnets”, he described them as “imaginary lines” emphasizing very clearly “that the word “flux” indicates that there is no real flow (of real some thing)”...

On the continent this stimulated Gauss to propose the Board of the Göttingen University to appoint Wilhelm E. Weber as professor in physics. Based on Gauss’ new sub-dimension of “magnetic flux density per unity of surface in square meters”, they developed the “magneto-meter” and organized a European network of observatories which necessitated the development of world’s first “electro-magnetic telegraph” to collect all data. In 1840CE they published the first “Atlas of magnetism of the world”.

But when Weber started to develop his own “Rational system of absolute physical/ electrical dimensions” this title -published in 1846CE- is undeniably suggesting that Gauss’ system wasn’t. But in Weber’s system a “constant term” emerged in all his formulas, and with assistance of Kohlrausch this was investigated in 1856CE. Gauss was asking his genial student G.F.B. Riemann to witness these tests and it was Riemann who did observe “that the value of Weber’s constant did have the same value as the then known value of the “speed of light” as well as “the speed of propagation of heat in a solid body”.
This last subject being his specialism since the 1822’ publication of Joseph Fourier’s “Théorie analytique de la Chaleur”, but Riemann’s remark was not picked up by Weber, reason to publish his own "Beitrag zur Elektrodynamik" in 1858 CE, his own contribution to electro-dynamics, its surprising results being detailed in Part II... 

It was the geodesic part of Gauss which recognised that the perpendicular Y- axis is independent hence this would allow to represent other dimensions than just geometric ones, especially other physical dimensions or characteristics like “magnetic flux density as magnetic strength per unity of surface, volts or amperes etc. etc.“, or even (classic) time when all variations of magnitudes during one revolution of “electric-generators or electric motors” can be shown.
But even when the unity of geometric (Ð1-)distance along the real X- axis is chosen to be the same as the unity of geometric (Ð1-)distance along the Y- axis, the necessity to use alpha-adjectives “real & imaginary” are unambiguously identifying that the two are not the same, hence it is a bad habit in static math:

    “to take common parts of the real term and the imaginary term  outside  their unifying 
     brackets, treating both of them like a real common part, term or number”...

usual shown as:  P_c = a + i. b   or  P_c = Re a + Im. b  or  P_c = a x + i. b y often even using Gothic letters. But pure alpha-language already shows how the ”imaginary” term is not the same as the “real” term, and even after the beta-word “imaginary” will  be purified as “un-real”: no part p of the imaginary term b can -by any chance- be the same as part p of the real term a or vice versa, as suggested by P_c =  p. ( a / p  +  i. b / p ) =  a  +  i. b  hence:

          the whole imaginary term must always stay well locked behind Bombelli’s bar “i ” 
          and a bold dot “ . ”

 

Complicated complexity
As mentioned before, even when “Cartesian coordinates” seems to be a surprisingly simple method in a flat D2- plane of nothing, it did create much confusion when the coordinate along the Y- axis will get another identity than the initial geometric one on paper or in sand. This is caused by the fact that the original// initial geometric identity is easy to visualize when real mass or matter exists, just jot such Cartesian system of coordinates on paper, but next chapter will show that complex// complicated problems arise when the X- or Y- coordinate will represent a new dimensions, characteristic, identity or entity especially when they are invisible because they are not related to mass or matter...
      

8.1- Purifying the alpha-word “imaginary” 
When Descartes’ derogative word “imaginary” is analyzed, it is inseparably related to the existence of an “image”, but that can only be an image of “some real thing”: more precisely one or more images of some D3- volume which consists of mass or matter being enclosed by flat or curved D2- planes. And even when mass or matter is not yet defined & quantisized in accordance with all oerconditions, any image only reflects the visible part shown by flat or curved D2- planes or combinations, whereas its other part is invisible, unless all is subjected to a rotation... 

The logistic order shows that any image can only be made + retrieved “when it has been seen before” and is stored in your own memory, the principles of photography being not invented at this moment in history... And only when this image has been completed with a unique & unambiguous alpha-name, copied// learned from ancestors or getting some beta-identification, or after you do create new names, only then you can retrieve this two-oneness, some time in the future, sometimes even accompanied with sounds, odors or shadows of incoming light, sentiments and memories etc... Even when police investigations do show “how images as seen before with your very own eyes” are not always in agreements with objective facts...

Fortunately next example shows the two-oneness of a D2- plane which explains the basics of the beta- or matter of that paper” between real + imaginary. Now is acknowledged that any D2- plane has two -and no more than two-“sides”, only one side is visible whereas all that is on the other side of that D2- plane or behind it, is “invisible” because of the existing mass of the paper.

Only after you turn the page, you can identify the image on that other side and compare “what you are seeing now with all images you have seen before”, with your very own eyes...if & when those images were properly stored in your memory, completed with some unique & unambiguous identifying alpha-name which does allow its retrieval.

When however the circumference of the circle is drawn as solid line and the legs of a pair of compasses would change a bit during a repeated rotation, this shows a slightly larger circumference, showing the same circle, now drawn as a “striped “line.

It is such misfit which shows how this striped circumference can be interpreted as “image of the same circle, having the same origin & the same radius, the same circumference and the same surface, being only at this other side of the paper, its vertical imaginary Y- axis also being invisible till the moment when the page was turned...

Only when the striped circumference is drawn a bit larger (or smaller), it will no longer be hidden by the solid drawn circumference, allowing its presentation at the same side as “complex circle” on the complex plane of the paper, showing its horizontal solid & real X- axis and vertical striped imaginary Y- axis, knowing how this imaginary circle at the other side does haven the same origin, the same circumference and the same surface, only being invisible now...

But the simple fact that a circle as two-oneness of its D0- origin and its straight D1- radius which is rotating in order to define & quantisize its D2- surface enclosed by its curved
D1- circumference is intersecting the Y- axis also means that its distance to the origin is equal to D1... But because the perpendicular Y- axis is independent, the unrestricted freedom to multiply whatever is liked also allows to use this unity to represent whatever other dimensions, characteristic, identity or entity etc. etc. even to be i  = √ -1 as unity of Bombelli’s imaginarity. But “negative –“ distances don’t exist in nature, they only show that another origin is chosen than Ð0 and in addition to this “taking roots” is a not allowed operation in dynamic mathematics. 

Now the alpha-word “real” is inseparably related to the existence of mass or matter, there can only be one alpha-word which is its perfect opposite: “un-real”. This necessitates to purify the alpha-word “imaginary” to the perfect opposite alpha-word “un-imaginary”, which simply means that
                   “no image can be made of no thing”...

And this same alpha-word also applies to the fact that

                  “no image can be made of a boundless, unlimited and infinite large quantity”...

This also confirms also how a boundless, unlimited and infinite large quantity of “some thing” can’t exist (simply because it would leave no space for the mass of your own body, living life of its own somewhere on planet Earth).

Both descriptions confirm the two-oneness of the Universe, the outer part being not only empty but also boundless, unlimited and infinite in size. This emptiness contains no thing, being a vacuum just as the vacuum of Torricelli’s barometer, which was improved by Descartes when he installed a linear gauge to measure the height of the mercury column... apparently he didn’t realize how he was looking at & through a vacuum...

The example of the circle on both sides of the same page allows to distinguish between imaginary and un-imaginary this also shows how all that has been read on previous pages used to belong to the un-imaginary future, now being real and part of the past, facts that can’t be changed.

This example also confirms that only one term of Fermat’s purified unifying formula at the left side of the “ = ” symbol must be the real part of Descartes’ Universe, the other part being un-imaginary indeed, in both meanings of this alpha-word. So finally each perfect two-oneness of purified alpha-words can be unified by “ ↔ ” which should be a double
line = a boundless, unlimited and infinite series of positive + (counting) numbersas symbol of equality, now unified with double arrow points in perfect opposed directions symbolizing  “real <=> un-real” and hence

                                           “imaginary <=> un-imaginary”.

Now the alpha-word “complex” is no longer related to the beta-unification of (real + imaginary), as alpha-word its remains still single & lonely, without some opposite alpha-word. This allows to realize that any D0- point of nothing on a straight D1- line of nothing identifies a two-oneness all by itself, having two -and no more than two- “sides”, but being a sizeless D0- point of nothing, this also means that there is a boundless, unlimited and infinite quantity of them on even the smallest possible part of that straight D1- line of nothing.
Hence the oerconditions do command one unique & unambiguous special D0- point of nothing, just 1, which is now complex, having a {real side + an (un-)imaginary side} on this Z- radial of Descartes’ unique & unambiguous boundless, unlimited and infinite Universe, indentified byFermatto be a unified two-oneness.

‘)  In Part II the same symbol will be applied to the oerlaw of equal & reciprocating
                                       “action <=> reaction” forces.

 

8.2 - Universe has a “complex” radial...
Now the oerconditions identify Universe as two-oneness and arguments of symmetry do command its shape to be a sphere, the initial problem “how to define & quantisize the direction of a straight D1- line in an objective way” is no problem anymore:
                                               any direction will do.
This boundless, unlimited and infinite long straight D1- line is not only identified as
Z- radial of the Universe, just because this Universe is a two-oneness this Z- radial must be a two-oneness of a real and hence finite part of a- unities of distance or length  + an un-real and hence un-imaginary boundless, unlimited and infinite part, the other part being b- unities of distance or length, unified as complex radial Z_c = (a + i. b). And of course both unities of distance or length are the same, being “twopir” as axial length of the cylinder as new unity of D3- volume, a dynamic volume because of the inseparable relation between Ð1, pi and Ð2.

This third power of this real part identifies the real and finite size of the unique & unambiguous “Innersphere”, whereas the third power of b as remaining part of the unified complex radial “c” actually makes no sense because this does not define a true “Outersphere” but just a boundless, unlimited and infinite thick “shell” which is surrounding the Innersphere, hence a better alpha-name will be “Outerspace”, its size making it impossible to quantisize its volume...

And both (Innersphere + Outerspace) are sharing the same Ð0 as Oersprong and although the idea of a “boundless, unlimited and infinite” quantity might still be difficult to understand, Wallis horizontal eight “ ∞ ” of 1685CE as symbol for infinity inspired Möbius two hundred years later “to twist” a flat strip joining its ends, suggesting that its D2- surface is now “infinite”, denying & darkmooning the fact that such twisted strip occupies D3- space in the third direction, hence the accompanying repeating multiplication is missing as well as one unity of power...

The zero^th power is almighty
Did Descartes introduce alpha-letters like a, b, c etc. for “known variables” and x, y, z etc, for unknown ones, the general beta-formula of static math x⁰ = a⁰ = 1⁰ = 1 shows in an undeniable way how the non-natural (counting) number zero, 0 does have the absolute lowest possible power, an absolute power to unify “all physical dimensions, characteristics, identities, entities etc. etc.” with the One, just like any power of the One confirms to be the same unchanged One: 1ⁿ = 1¹ = 1.

And when -much later- human beings did discover all kinds of physical and other dimensions and characteristics than geometric ones, a general description of this zero^thpower reads in plain alpha-language:

                  “all that has been created will lose all its identifying powers 
                  at the end of its Ð2- thime of life and will be unified with the One”...

Now the shape of the Universe can only be a sphere for reasons of symmetry this also identifies Ð0 as its static & immobile centre, the Oersprong of all, this is the origin of all complex radials in any possible direction, the beta-symbol of this very special D0- point of nothing will be “ ☼ “: 

                  symbolising a perfect (geometric) “Super-Symmetry” in all radial directions

There is not only a perfect mirror like symmetry which is limited to any flat D2- plane which is passing Ð0, there is also a perfect symmetry in each one of such D2- planes to a D1- line of symmetry and now there is even a perfect symmetry to Ð0, a perfect geometric “point-symmetry” of each cylinder during its period of being complex...
         (it is most peculiar that this special “line- and point-symmetry” re-appears much later
         in static mathematics when fundamental differences between “even”
         cosine-functions and "odd” imaginary sine-functions are identified, relative to the
         Y- axis and the locally chosen “deputy” zero...)

 

Quantisizing the Innersphere
Now there is a boundless, unlimited and infinite long Z- radial as axis of a boundless, unlimited and infinite long row of , identified by their axes as D1- line of natural (counting) numbers N = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5...  the three bold dots symbolising a boundless, unlimited and infinite series of such numbers. And now the cylinder is identifeid as new unity of volume, its length being twopir 2 Π Ð1 and the hitherto broken relation with Ð2 as oerdimension of dynamics has been restored, the oerconditions command just one to be dynamic, when its period arrives to be complex... so when the first cylinder is identified by the natural (counting) number “one” 1, which confirms why number zero 0, is a non-natural (counting) number, the centre of this volume is also the first one which is truly “complex”: its symbol is chosen to be letter “ c ” enclosed by the fully drawn circumference of the circle, needing a natural (counting) number as index:

                                                      “ ©_N ”     

Since the oerconditions do command a perfect opposition between a boundless, unlimited and infinite quantity and the unique & unambiguous quantity of just one, it is only the"
N^th- one in line which is now “complex” as well, reminding how upright print indicate a static & immobile identity. This centre is not just an ordinary D0- point of nothing, it is the absolue first one which will be complex during the first period of Ð2 identifying the
Z- radial of the Universe as complex two-oneness of a (real + imaginary) part: one side of ©_N is facing the real part of Z with lower natural (counting) numbers as “real, static and hence finite part”.
   This also explains the fact that number zero 0 on the Z- radial is a non-natural    
   (counting) number on the Oersphere around Ð0 as Oersprong of all : it never has been
   complex...

So all higher natural (counting) numbers than N = 1 are part of the future. Hence ©_N also defines & quantises the surface of a spherical D2- plane as identity of the second power, the

                                                 “X_Nplane”

The third power of this “real and hence finite” length of the Z- radial also defines & quantisizes the real and hence finite volume of D3- space as “Innersphere” of the complex Universe, all at the other side of this complex X_Nplane being boundless, unlimited and infinite, un-imaginary, never quantisizable...

 

But the alpha-word “complex” must be purified a second thime...

Now Universe is identified as a complex two-oneness and ©_N identifies the centre of the cylinder as “complex” end of the Z-radial which defines & quantisizes the Xplane, the same cylinder was identified to be dynamic. First being identified by a series of natural (counting) numbers N = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... the three bold dots symbolizing the identification of a boundless, unlimited and infinite quantity of D0- points of nothing on a boundless, unlimited and infinite long straight D1- line, each one having a distance of twopir, 2 π. Ð1¹ as smallest possible unity of geometric distance or length between two –and no more than two- successive natural (counting) numbers but also of a boundless, unlimited and infinite continuation of Ð2- periods of thime.

This means that both characteristics of being “dynamic” as well as being “complex” are unified, which means that the alpha-word complex is dynamic too, from now on printed in italics, the alpha-word cylinder shown as complex cylinder or ccylinder. Actually this is a tautology now each cylinder in the X_Nshell has the same radial distance to Ð0 during this N^th period of Ð2- thime, being complex and hence dynamic or the inverse, the “womb in which one cycle of creation is going to be realized”...

 

8.3 - The first cycle of the process of creation also means “start 
       counting”

Since the Natural Start of the Beginning with Nothing two oerdimensions have been identified, both being un-imaginary, that is: if neither mass nor matter etc. would exist, preliminary identified as “some thing” which is in perfect opposition to no thing, the volume of the (un-)imaginary cylinder is still just as empty as Outerspace at the other outer side of the “X_N=1 plane”.

But when the process of creation of some thing is started, its first cycle will be realized in the first cylinder, its centre ©_N=1 being on the ₁Z- radial at the smallest possible distance of 1- pir to its percx located at the non-natural (counting) number zero 0 of this ₁Z- radial, as close as possible to the Oersphere and Ð0. The length of the axis of this ccylinder ends at the natural (counting) number N = 1. Being part of a dynamic phenomenon, this first cycle is finished after “its N = 1 period of being complex during this N = 1 period of Ð2- thime” which also means that ©_N=1is no longer complex anymore, from then on
being upright printed ©_N=1, each unity of content of such cylinders at the same distance to Ð0 now being part of the past.
When the results of this cycle are identified in Part II, this shows: "how this new content will start “life of its own”, subjected to all known & unknown laws of Nature...  

Right now the unique & unambiguous conclusion is that “alpha-language unifies twopir as geometric length of the cylinder based on pi and Ð1 with the length or duration of one period of Ð2- thime”.

After the first cycle of the process of creation has taken its period of Ð2- thime, the next cylinder on this Z- radial is literally “in line” to be complex “during the next period” N = 2, till this period is over and the next period N = 3 begins which means that cylinder N = 2 and all its content becomes a fact of the past:

disclosing how the alpha-word “complex” means counting periods of Ð2- thime, for ever and ever, eternally...

In other words: “the complex cylinder which is identified by natural (counting) number N is just one of a boundless, unlimited and infinite long row of cylinders, being only dynamic during its own matching N^th- period of Ð2- thime, “jumping” in a sizeless moment between two successive periods of Ð2- thime over a radial distance of twopir to ©_N+1 , the geometric centre of the next in line cylinder which will now be complex during its whole N+1- period”.

So in the boundless, unlimited and infinite series of static “upright printed” natural (counting) numbers N = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... only one is dynamic, being printed in italics. Hence “all content with lower numbers belong to the past”, its number being as static & immobile as all higher numbers which do belong to the future, upright printed by the contour “ N + " followed by a new series of natural (counting) numbers, neatly waiting in line “till their own period of being complex arrives”, being the ₁Z- radial of the Universe: 

 This also shows how the old Dutch alpha-word “toecomst” -translated by the English word “future”- announcing how “it will come to you”, following its own logistic order... This also explains why the local zero, 0 as beginning of the ₁Z- radial of the first generation is a “non-natural” (counting) numbers: it never has been “complex”...

  

8.4 - Was multiplication not a repeating addition in a second direction?

When the developments of Descartes ‘coordinates are analysed and compared with the three operations in dynamic mathematics, it is obvious that Descartes’ coordinates of P(a, b) as by a two-oneness of two -and no more than two- coordinates one along an X- axis and the other one along a perpendicular Y- axis actually defines the second power of its distance to the (local) origin as intersection of both axis because Pythagoras formula states how this is the unification of the addition of the second powers of a and b: 
z_P² = a² + b² , figure I -10 d showing how its origin is actually the centre of a rotation and hence the centre of a circle.

What happens when Descartes’ flat D2- plane is acknowledged as two-oneness having two -and no more than two- sides?

When Gaussdiscovered how the perpendicular Y- axis is actually independent of the X- axis, this means that this allows to use its unity of (geometric) distance along the Y- axis to represent any other dimension, characteristic etc. etc. and when his suggestion to call this the “lateral” coordinate failed because Descartes’ prerogative word “imaginary” was too popular, Gauss did introduce the alpha-word “complex”. Now the same D0- point of nothing P with index “ _c “ in a flat D2- plane is defined as unification of (a + i. b) which now means that the initial multiplication of  a . b no longer defines & quantisizes a rectangular surface inDescartes’ plane but now shows the addition of two coordinates a real a along the real X- axis plus (and) b along the real Y- axis which is now called to be “imaginary” because of Gauss’ complex plane.
But when this “imaginary surface” is identified as being just the other side because any flat or curved D2- plane is an inseparable two-oneness, the classic alpha-word complex had to be purified, even twice because the italic print which goes together with dynamics discloses why “complex” allows counting periods of Ð2- thime since the sizeless moment of the Beginning.

This also shows how “unifying by adding along a straight D1- line of boundless, unlimited and infinite quantity of natural (counting) numbers” as first operation in mathematics, that is before the second operation of unifying by multiplication as repeating addition in the independent and hence second direction makes the differences between static and dynamic part.

 

8.5- Three independent directions in space...
Now Ð0 is identified as unique & unambiguous centre of the Universe and the real part of is complex Z- radial defines the X_Nplane, this has no thickness like any flat or curved D2- plane. Purified as the one and only true, unique & unambiguous complex plane, its real side facing the real and hence finite Innersphere whereas its other outer side is facing the un-imaginary large and empty Outerspace. Perpendicular to the real end of each complex Z- radial is the “percx” as smallest possible cross section halfway the complex cylinder, its real X- axis shown in an arbitrary horizontal direction facing the real and hence finite Innersphere and Ð0 whereas the imaginary Y-axis is in the perpendicular vertical direction is facing the un-imaginary Outerspace. It seems as if each percx which is tangent to this X_Nplane is “expanding” in a sizeless moment between two successive periods of Ð2- thime  over a distance of “onepir” in both directions to be the complex cylinder now defining & quantisizing a shell with a thickness of twopir, coined the

                                                    “X_Nshell”

 And as will be shown in next chapter, there must not only be a whole number of cylinders, inside the volume of this X_Nshell, geometric symmetry commanding even an even whole number of them, but first of all the analyses of the three dimensions must be completed.
Now the dynamic  ©_N  identifies not only the centre of the N^th-cylinder at the end of the real part of the complex ₁Z- radial of the first generation, but also identifies the matching N^th- period of Ð2- thime since the moment of Beginning of the process of creation, the boundless, unlimited and infinite length of this ₁Z- radial of the first generation. And its inseparable relation with matching periods of Ð2- thime discloses how the process of creation of something out of nothing goes on for ever and ever, eternally.

Next figure shows the three independent axes in an exploded view:

                                                                                   

This complex ©_N  jumps to “the next ©_N+1  in line” over a radial distance of twopir 2 π. Ð1¹ this identifies the next period of Ð2- thime during which one unity of “something” will be created out of “no thing” inside the empty volume of the next cylinder in line, now being complex during “its period”. (subject of Part II)   
And because the ₁Z- radial is boundless, unlimited and infinite like any straight D1- line, the process of creation will continue for ever and ever...

The German Gottfried Wilhelm baron von Leibniz [1646-1716 CE] showed his universal level as (α + β) genius when he described “complex” numbers to be result of:

“the Divine Spirit, when it found a sublime outlet in that wonder of analysis... that portent ( = omen or significant sign) of the ideal world, that amphibian between being and non-being”.

 

Cosmologic proof of the Zwelbol=Xphere
Now the Innersphere of the Universe is dynamic & expanding, coined “Zwelbol” in Dutch = “Xphere”, the process of creation of mass, matter etc. etc. is an ever “continuing discontinuity” or a “discontinuous continuity” in each complex cylinder at both sides of the X_Nplane”, perfect reversibility being proof of absolute truth...

These results are confirmed by observations of the American cosmologist Vesto Slipher [1875-1963] when he applied new spectrographic methods, his collected data did allow Edwin P. Hubble [1889-1953] to arrive in 1927CE at a beta-law showing “the speed of expansion of the Universe”. This was leading the Belgian Jesuit priest-professor George Lemaitre to the conclusion that Universe “should have been smaller in the past”, a quite logic conclusion based on the “law of conservation of mass or matter in a closed system” as discovered in 1879CE by the French chemist Lavoisier. So as consequence of this expansion, all mass or matter etc. etc. as presently observed -estimated, measured or calculated- was created at the same moment of Beginning, an estimated period of about 13.7 billion years ago.

And because in static mathematics it is also not allowed to divide by zero, the result being undefined, all mass or matter etc. etc. could not be contained in a sizeless D0- point of nothing, but in a “singularity” apparently a nearly sizeless “point of some thing” which was nevertheless alleged to contain all presently observed and estimated and calculated quantities of mass...resulting in an high density, pressure and hence temperature...And in the sixties of last century this "theory of the Big Bang" acquired a global popularity.

Next chapter will show how this “is the wrong choice of a two-oneness of two -and no more than two- possibilities”, because the Zwelbol=Xphere of the Universe is not a closed system,
on the contrary: even when “that what is flowing in, is actually a flow of no thing, a flux, it nevertheless is there in an undeniable way”... 

     (When at the end of last century Andrew Wiles presented his proof ofFermat’s Last 
     Theorem of 1637CE, it was said that only a few mathematicians on the whole world
     “would be able to understand his 130 pages of newly developed, highly specialised
     “modular elliptic mathematics”...

But when you realize that the third power is defining& quantisizing the present size of the space you live in right now, somewhere on the surface of a sphere called planet Earth, everybody living there must be able to understand in which part of space he or she is living, especially now the results of AuTheo’s dynamic mathematics are simple and accessible to every body...).