1) First general aspects:

- In mainstream physics with its "4-dimensional
space-time" motion as such seems to be hidden in
the concepts of Time - or Velocity - or "Interaction",
without any place in its own right. (Why all these motions?)
Yet, motions are perhaps the main object for the physicists'
studies and their equations.

And motions are surely the best way to combine Distances and Time.

- Motion as concept could be expressed as
**the communication between +E= mc**^{2}
and - E= mc^{2} and between "matter"
and "antimatter in all different d-degrees
of complementarity.

In what occurs motions? A relatively
empty space as "anti-matter" is a condition
for external motions of material bodies. (Even physicists
as Mach who didn't like the concept of a Space with an
own reality, had flats to move around in.)

- Motions is also to perceive as **the
transformation of the 5th d-degree, the Entirety**,
into all lower dimension degrees, all motions of
Universe as the expression for the Entirety as first binding
force, a perpetual translation...

Doesn't "anti-matter" in some
sense exist just in all cases of *events*!

- Time has been called "an aspect on
the relative motions of bodies" Distance as concept
could of course likewise be called an aspect
on the relative positions of bodies, and Motions an **aspect
on the relative changes in distances**.

- Hence, Motion becomes **the derivative of Distances**,

- Motion has been identified as **a relative
history** since Galilei.

Yes, there is obviously a need for something external
to relate the motion to for the possibility to observe
it. But at the same time Einstein who stressed this relativity,
still regarded - or used - the velocity of light as "absolute"
in some way. How can velocity be "absolute"
but motion not ?

- Motion could also be described **as a
"transformation of Distance into Time"**:
30 miles to our goal, time zero; 0 miles to our goal when
we arrive, time +5 hours.

But behind our backs, the Distance
reappears again!

- **Distances is double directed, Time
one-way directed**. According to main principles
in this model, this indicates that Time is a result of
more polarizations, a polarization of Distances.

Hence, it should not be quite logical
to see Distance and Time as complementary poles of d-degree
1 as in the original texts but rather perhaps the "quanta"
of Distances in motions:

**Motion as polarization of lines:**

- In this model Motion is identified as polarization of
a line, that is of an 1-dimensional entity: - into
the poles 1a (movements towards each other, and 1b (movements
from each other):

All inherent motions implies
2 poles and should be possible to describe as an pendulating
between two poles of convergence and divergence in some
meaning. As striding. (And swimming, crawling, flying.)
Even the chemical currents in movement of an amoeba (perhaps
as changes in density). A half step doesn't lead anywhere.
In walking the pendulating of the gravitational center
of the body means a repeated crossing over the straight
gravitational line.

Is this aspect true also for rotating
motions, the rotation of a planet around its own axis
for instance? We shall return to the question further
down.

(Compare the figure perhaps with the polarization of a
light wave in left-right polarized photons, (some
comments later about fundamental experiments in **quantum
physics**) and of light waves into electron/positron
pairs.)

- **Distance** - or 1-dimensional potentials, is according
to this model the nearest **binding force in motions**,:that
is between motions from and to.

In human life this is mostly obvious,
with goals for human walk and ways for transportation.
But what is the goal for an emitted light wave or the
like?

In the motion of waves we have to look
at the small displacements as quanta of distances, passing
one change as energy to next one in linear propagation,
- or as the phase displacement between E- and M components
in electromagnetic waves, the common center displacements
along the propagation way, creating the longer distances.

Compare human beings who are pregnant
with their own further propagation, giving birth to next
generation ("in empty space"), a transportation
of "energy packages", not of themselves, into
the future.

**Motion as a force in itself **

or only a result of forces? In classical physics motions
or changes in motions were seen as the result of
forces. But of course motions motions must be seen as
forces in themselves too, as in this model.

Each d-degree step towards lower d-degree
in this model means 1 d-degree "branched off",
translated into motions. And with d-degrees of structure
seen as binding/polarizing forces in relation to
one another, motions become results of forces. But as
the last step in a dimension chain they should also be
interpreted as the ultimate polarizing forces in underlying
levels and binding forces in superposed levels.

More elementary: a
motion as a stroke in a battle is of course an acting
force on the opponent (or call it "communication"
!), but at the same time an expression for an inherent
force (or "will") in the acting fighter.

When physicist of today
talk about forces as "interactions", they obviously
see motions as forces, particles throwing bosons or other
quanta on each other, or as simple push and pull activities.

**Entropy**

- and the opposite: With the dimension model here we have
assumed a primary one-way direction from higher to lower
d-degrees and more and more motion moments. This is in
accordance with the theses in physics about entropy, about
a development towards ever more of "disordered"
thermal movements, lower energy forms. But the validity
of this law in the__ whole__ universe, not only in
__partial__ systems, has been questioned. Life, for
example, is apparently a contradiction to it.

There is also this development towards superposed levels
and life:motions translated to bonds, to structure, in
the opposite direction of entropy.

In this dimension model we also have
two possibilities,:to see it "linearly" (5→4→3→2→1→0/00)
- or to look at it "perpendicular", (5→4→3→ | ←2←1←0/00)
as developed from 5 and 0/00 inwards towards the middle
step 3-2. This would mean that lower degrees and motions
are incorporated and bound in structures of higher d-degrees.

According to the model we have also
4-dimensional fields in Universe underlying matter, which
we can assume continue with structuring processes in cosmos,
shaping stars and planets - and probably life.

We could presume that the first steps
5→4→3→
in the development of Universe from Big Bang have the
nature of "exothermic" reactions, to borrow
a concept from chemistry (and inflationary?).

__2) Structure of motions:__

As said in the Presentation of the model here we assume
that each step in a dimension chain, implying a branching
off of 1 d-degree,is translated into eternal movements.
We get a dimension chain of motions in the opposite direction
of the chain of structures or potentials.

1. Path movement.—
describes a line

2. Rotation — describes
a surface

3. Spiral forms of movements or

other 3-dimensional movement —
describes a volume

4. Expansion / contraction — describes a 3-dimensional room,

ccvolume + directions inwards
/ outwards

5. Pole exchange (0/00) —
describes center / anticenter

ccin one moment.

Hence,

- we should be able to identify an 1-dimensional path
(or "translation") movement in 4-dimensional,
radial vector fields, and attribute

- rotation to material bodies as 3-dimensional structures,

- spiraling or translations along 3 coordinate axes to
charges or waves when analyzed as 2-dimensional structures,

- expansion / contraction to 1-dimensional, linear entities
as distances (an obvious fact in cosmos or a formalistic
madness ?, see comments further down),

- pole exchanges (0/00) to 0-dimensional "units"
or entities.

Comments and critical remarks:

One first general, critical comment is that there seems
to be more motions than corresponding to "lost"
d-degrees. A planet as the earth for instance seems to
have both a rotation around its own axis and a path way
movement around the sun - and its axis also rotates slowly
over thousands of years.

It seems as if we have to count on an
accumulative scheme, corresponding to different levels
of d-degrees involved for the "3-dimensional"
bodies ?

**1-dimensional motions in ****4****th
d-degree**:

What kind of 1-dimensional motion could we relate to 4-dimensional
vector fields (or a 4-dimensional "room")? The
essence of the propagation concept, the Big Bang as creating
distances, distances quantified in what we later call
longitudinal waves as the assumed gravitational waves,→ 0 ← 00 → 0 ← 00 → 0 ← 00 → 0 ← , also a quantifying of Density?. In the more materialized
world the vibration of individual quanta, or halved such
vibration implying translation, path movements, 0 →
00 ?

A convincing identification of such
a motion in 4-dimensional fields is of course essential
for this 5-dimensional model. The newly recognized expansion
of Universe (of "Vacant Space") is presumably
the first, most obvious expression for this motion. It
has been said in this connection that celestial bodies
are not "flying away" from us, they are "carried
away" by this expansion of the Space.

The opposite pole - the inward direction,
from anticenter 00 with in infinite multitude of starting
points for the vectors, can be understood as an answer
to "Big Bang".

The two forces together - or 4-dimensional
fields, would then give the result of curved, bound orbitals
as path lines for celestial bodies as the earth or the
sun: About d-degree step 4-3: more **here**.)

Hence, we should be able to assign
all such path movements (or translations) to a 4-dimensional
field level. (So too in the propagation of electromagnetic
waves, quantified 0-00-0-00 etc. through the quantified
bonds in the atoms.)

Still, there remains a question mark:
in the seemingly static gravitational field around the
earth or the sun for example, or in a seemingly static
electric potential between a plus and a minus pole, do
we have some "external motion moment", perhaps
not identified as such ?

The magnetic field of the earth has
been slowly reversed over time. Perihelium of the planet
orbitals is very slowly rotating, which Einstein explained
for Mercury in some terms of gravitation. And perhaps,
in microcosm, the **weak
interaction force** (Fw), changing circumstances
in atomic fields, could include expressions for such motion?

2-dimensional motions in 3**rd d-degree:**

Rotation, the 2-dimensional motion, is rather
curious: Why all this rotation of big bodies in cosmos
- planets and stars and galaxies - and of particles in
microcosm ? Here meaning around their own axes. Shall
it really be necessary?

Which terms should we use to be able
to call it an explanation for it ?

One explanation in line with this model here is just that
rotation as 2-dimensional is **the** **necessary translation
of energy** when 2 d-degrees are lost in the structure
(and matter as 3-dimensional is an effective way to pack
energy).

Another more intricate view is an explanation in terms
of **coordinate axes**: With one axis the nearest way
between the outer poles is the diameter. With 2 orthogonal
axes the nearest bond between outer poles seems to be
π, the arc of a circle.

We should perhaps count on a polarization
in "an elliptic and a hyperbolic geometry" with
the angle step from 180° to 90° in d-degree 4→3
(between masses and vacant space) ?

In this model there is also the principle
of center displacement towards superposed levels, where
the anticenter on one level through pole exchange in the
last step becomes the center on next level etc. Then the
surface of a closed unit could be regarded as center in
relation to superposed levels. (Cf. an external push on
a ball toward its anticenter, giving in a rotation.)

**3-dimensional motions in ****2****nd
d-degree:**

It will of course be more difficult in the 3rd
step to draw the border between structure and motions
of 2-dimensional phenomena.

One example is electromagnetic waves,
where we have simultaneous motions along 3 coordinate
axes: the variations in the electric and the magnetic
component as orthogonal - and the propagation. The wave
could be described as a 2-dimensional field in translation
between an electric and a magnetic component during propagation.

A superposition of rotation and translation
gives a spiral as motion through 3 dimensions. One example
is electric charges in spiral movements around the magnetic
field lines of the earth.

Concerning atoms: With a change from
a particle model of atoms to a shell model, there ought
to follow one more d-degree in motions: does it ? Probably
it should be seen in connection with the Schrödinger
wave functions for electron shells and the impossibility
to decide positions for electrons as particles at the
same time. This means the impossibility to make an analysis
of the structure in both d-degree 3 and 2 simultaneously;
the transition between d-degrees as quantum jumps appearing
as uncertainties.

On superposed levels where the 2nd d-degree has been substantiated
to material layers, shells (or liquids relative to the
chemical phase of solid bodies), 3-dimensional motions
can be found for instance as spiraling streams in liquids,
discovered in research of turbulence; probably too in
currents in the sea and in magma streams in the earth
or plasma streams in the sun.

Cell membranes with their invaginations
and evaginations etc. are other, obvious examples as well
as the behavior of membranes during the embryonic development.
(See later parts of this work.)

**4-dimensional motions in ****1st****
d-degree: **

- a "formalistic madness"?

1-dimensional, linear structures are of course
very difficult to point out as just structures on an elementary
physical level. They should be attributed motions in 4
dimensions, as expansion / contraction, motions in 3 directions,
added a motion double-directed outwards / inwards relative
to a center. (Also spiral motions, rotation plus propagation
plus growing circumferences outwards, shrinking inwards,
can illustrate such a 4-dimensional motion.)

This means among other things that it
should be the distances as 1-dimensional that grow and
shrink at the expansion (and eventual contraction of Universe),
not the space or vector fields as 4-dimensional in this
model. A sophisticated difference !

Where can we find such motions?

We could imagine such a combination of structure - motions
as a photographic"negative" to the 4-dimensional
vector fields with assumed motion in 1 dimension.

Perhaps gravitational collapses and
nova explosions can be analyzed in these terms. If the
so called "field lines" in vector fields are
seen as a reality, not only a help construction, we we
could imagine them contracting inwards, - also as factors
in the concept of "Mass" (see page **Mass
- Matter**...) - expanding outwards - also as factors
in creation of Space.

Magnetic processes in the sun and its
protuberances could perhaps be other examples.

With the suggested interpretation of the weak interaction
force (see **here**)
and weak disintegration, it could be possible to connect
it with this "1-dimensional structure" and perhaps
see its "carrier" in terms of 4-dimensional
motions curved into quantified "vector bosons"?

On more substantiated levels we have the pumping of the
heart muscle e.g.. The motion is a result of actinium
and myosin threads as materialized 1-dimensional "lines"
in the "shell" of the muscle, which "expand"
/ "contract" in relation to one another:

The
motion of the single threads seems mostly linear, but
myosin is more accurate a double spiral of protein chains
with hooks which attach to actinium and undergo angel
changes, so the relative motion of the protein "lines"
could possibly fulfill the demand of being 4-dimensional,
not only the heart as a whole.

(More about such motions in "**Biology**")

The DNA-chains have got several other
motions on: spiraling and contracting or stretching, turning
inside out when copying etc.

Still there are difficulties in our imagination to isolate
1-dimensional structures, and attribute motions in 4 dimensions
to them. What about single dimensions as 1-dimensional,
used as a bit metaphysical "building stones"
in this model? - or some kinds of chemical bonds, perceived
as 1-dimensional?

Here we can add that the

**
string theory**** **should include some answers

**,**
even if we have postulated in the model here that the
same patterns will show up on all superposed levels.

**5-dimensional motion in ***d-degree *0/00*:*
In the last step in our dimension chain, we have pole
1b as motions from each other, defining a secondary pole
00', and pole 1a as motions towards each other, defining
a secondary pole 0'. This implies a pole exchange between
outwards and inwards, and together it re-creates a 5-dimensional
entity of pure motions: a 5-dimensional motion attributed
to 0-dimensional "units".

Two meeting or converging (crossing) path
lines define first a new center, a 0-pole. After passage,
when path lines diverge, this 0-pole has been redefined
as anticenter, a 00-pole.

In this pole exchange, representing
the least thinkable time, we can see

**the germ of motion**
and we can see this "area" where it occurs as
a new complex "point" or center for development
of a new dimension chain.

Compare the physicists' detested infinities sometimes
appearing in their calculations when they operate with
particles as 0-dimensional points? (More about that here.)

The 4 motion arrows in d-degree 0/00 would be possible
to interpret as translation of d-degree 4, with the pole
exchange momentarily redefining the 5th d-degree..

(Perhaps we also should include the changes and discontinuities
as +00/-00 of tangent at 90° in such a view, sine/cosine
as

1** / **(+/-0) in the coefficient of direction.)

** Attraction - Repulsion:**

→ ← ← →

The concepts attraction and repulsion could be used for
converging and diverging motions respectively. Observe
then that these patterns of motions should be expected
as complementary - and only in the 4th degree antiparallel,
with the assumed elementary geometries in this model.

In 3rd d-degree the attraction as motions
inwards could be expected taking a circular form, while
repulsion motions as outward directed are taking a radial
form: an aspect on why planets not fall into the sun or
electrons into the atomic nucleus.

Most orbital path motions (or "Translation")
in nature seem to be more or less elliptic. Here we can
trace the inward-outward direction of d-degree 4, as a
result in d-degree step 4-3. We could connect it with
the general view that the poles of lower d-degrees should
be interpreted as complex compounds out of the higher
d-degree.

If we go on and accept the hypothesis
about angle steps through the dimension chain, the relation
between attraction and repulsion in d-degrees 2 - 1 would
be more and more parallel (with a difference of only 22,5-11,25°
in direction ): this could be one way to perceive the
p-p-bonds forming atomic nuclei.

** Miscellaneous about patterns of motion:**

**a)** **Two examples or illustrations** of dimension
degrees of motions:

- An air current from a ventilation outlet: linear motion
(1), Whirls at the borders of the stream (2), growing
whirls in solid angles (3)…

- The driving system of a car: explosion (4), piston movement
(1), the rotating rod (2), the gear drive rotation in
2 planes (3.

**b) The growing complexity of path movements:**

For material celestial bodies, seen from outside, we have
an increasing dimension degree of the path movement, for
example in the motion of the Moon around Earth, around
Sun, around the Galaxy:

- the own linear movement of the body (1),

- this closed to rotation around a secondary center (2),

- the spiraled path, seen as relative to a tertiary center
(3),

- spiraling of the spiral path around a forth /quaternary center…(4)…

The dimension development of the movement could be illustrated
with a dimension chain seen perpendicular, in the two
opposite directions, with "lost" dimensions
meeting "the other way around":

We can find a similar development of motion e.g. in the
rolling up of the DNA spiral to chromosomes:

*Figure from unknown source with hope
of permission*

c) **Chemical and cyclic processes**: Generally speaking
we should be able to analyze the pattern of motions as
a dimension chain, chemical and cyclic processes as well
as cosmic motions.

Movements towards / from each other could give a basis
for cyclic processes through pole exchanges as change
of path and change of direction:

Motion in d-degree 4 as 1-dimensional,
linear, translated to 2-dimensional movement in d-degree
3: a combination of the motion moments of both poles.

A rotation movement is then a composition
of 2 half-turns. Original 0-pole and 00-pole (anticenter)
give the basis for elliptic rotation.

Pole exchange, path change, increasing
one-way direction, direction change, polarizing (parting),
combination, inversion - all become aspects on or key
words for the changeover from linear to rotational movement
in the step 4 →3 of the
structure chain. As well as "the other way around",
via 00, anticenter.

**d)** **Motions as building workers, motion patterns
gradually substantiated:**

An aspect from the end of the dimension
chain would also be possible: motions as primary phenomena,
gradually substantiated:

On the biological level we have embryonic
blood islands as "points" which join to blood
"lines" or ways which then form blood vessels,
2-dimensional tubes, which later get partly curved as
through counterdirected blood streams, forming a tube
heart, a center which then will develop to a 2-3-4-room
heart. And tubule in the cell plasma
of nerve fibers could be interpreted as substantiated
chemical rotation superposed a chemical path propagation
movement?

**e) Energy aspects:**

Does it exist something like pure kinetic energy ?
Without a carrying mass? Obviously even massless quanta
as the "carriers of forces" like the bosons
represent energy. (And neutrinos for instance has been
said to be mostly kinetic energy. It's still uncertain
if they have any mass.)

A body, once set in motion, will in empty space, without
friction, continuously go on with the same velocity and
this motion, if following a straight line, doesn't represent
any energy according to Newton. No force is needed to
uphold it. But are there any straight line motions in
Universe for celestial bodies? And if so, at least the
first action which sets them in motion represent energy
which is carried on with the body, with its "linear
momentum", depending on the velocity.

With curved path lines it is another
thing, To explain them, a force is demanded according
to this classical physics. That is gravitation.

But how if the curved motions of planets
and stars are interpreted as the border line between +/-
E, between the fields of inwards and outwards acceleration
forces, as it appears in d-degree 3: an "E0-line"
between complementary forms of energy or forces. Compare
Einstein's curved space and bent path lines as the nearest
distances in this space in the neighborhood of attracting
fields.

In the model here we have identified
the inward directed vector field in d-degree 4 with so
called gravitation, and assumed that Mass (versus Vacant
Space) in d-degree 3 is a result of inward directed or
negative acceleration. We have assumed that the fields
of vacant space and masses together forms a curved, non
Euclidean structure in d-degree 3, according to the hypothesis
about angle steps.

Then d-degree 4 as double-directed
binding force underlying structures in d-degree 3 would
still be regarded as a force. At least half of this force
would represent gravitation, even if the space is already
curved and the "lost" d-degree is translated
to motion: rotating motions along "E0"-lines.
It seems difficult to totally replace gravitation with
the curved space.

** **

See some comments to

**Einstein** and
about

**d-degree step 4-3**

-----------------------------------------

See further about

**Temperature -
some notes**

**Velocity**

**Time - a few notes**