(excerpts from letter D 52 (?), received 11 - 28 - 1966 by M. Villagrassa)

 ABOUT THE CONCEPT OF SPACE:
(NdR: all sketches are missing)

When you look at yourself in the mirror, the image you see IS NOT IDENTICAL to what other people see when they look at you. Simply hold up a written page in front of a mirror to verify what you have known all the time but not given much thought to. The mirror seems to transpose left to right.

Not long ago, one of our brothers in the United States informed us that a North American writer had written a scientific book which posed the following: if a person sees their image inverted left to right in a mirror, then why isn't the image also reversed top to bottom, with the feet at the top of the image?

It seems that in the United States, only 2 % of the adults they asked could give a satisfactory answer. Only 38 % of a group made up exclusively of experts and students in Physics, Psychiatry and Mathematics could answer quickly.

This illustrates perfectly that if a great percentage of people of the Earth are not prepared to understand certain fundamental concepts in connection with space symmetry, vision and perception on the level of the brain, they will be even less able to understand and analyse proofs and demonstrations in connection with Higher Mathematics.

When two objects are symmetrical in relation to a plane, we say them that they are INNUO VIAAXOO (eniantiomorphic). It is easy to see that these two objects cannot be superimposed, although their morphological identity is obvious: you could yourself, on Earth, find thousands of examples (right shoe and left shoe, left-turning screw and right-turning screw, two ears, etc). Obviously, many INNUO VIAAXOO (enantiomorphic) bodies can be superimposed when their morphology is symmetrical.

Any body which can be divided into two identical parts [ or INNUO VIAAXOO (enantiomorphic) ] in relation to a plane, we say that it is AA INNUO (symmetrical). Some examples of AA INNUO (symmetrical) bodies are the OEMII (human bodies except secondary physiological differences) and the polyhedrons regular among many others.

Any physics student could give the definition of a field according to Earth physics. Is a force field symmetrical? You consider the field to be isotropic. This is false

Imagine that in an " area " of the Cosmos free of asteroids, cosmic dust, gas etc we put a metal sphere. Apparently nothing has changed in the vicinity, so now we put at a distance a smaller sphere, which is attracted towards the larger one with a force you call gravity.

Let us repeat the experiment at various points A, B, C, etc. of this area of the cosmos. The closer we put the small sphere, the larger the force of attraction will be, and so too its speed towards the central mass.

You define the field of forces as an area surrounding the sphere where the phenomenon appears. An area whose ray is infinite. Your physicists are accustomed to graphically representing a field by points to which one assigns a symbol they name vectors (in this case force-vectors. You assign to the central sphere represented by the point M the characteristic of INERT MASS which creates this mysterious GRAVITY FIELD. It is inevitable that serious questions arise regarding such a poorly-explained concept.

What is mass ? Does any particle, any body have an inert mass ? Which is the true nature of these mysterious forces? When we look at an object, we know that it has volume and at the same time that it " weighs ", " has a mass ". Are MASS and VOLUME (or SPACE) the same thing, or at least are these two concepts so closely related that one cannot conceive of an object that has volume but not mass or vice-versa?. A great confusion inevitably arises when we start from the false assumption that space is an entity unto itself, completely separate from our mental phenomena like FEELING and PERCEPTION.

Does space exist OUTSIDE OF OUR MENTAL perception or is it an illusion of our senses?

To answer definitely one way or the other would be a serious error. WE on UMMO know for certain that there is a REALITY outside of ourselves, which stimulates our brain and sets in motion a mental process we call BUAWAIGAAI (perception).

But this reality is as different from MENTAL PERCEPTION as a mountain is from the word "M-O-U-N-T-A-I-N ", which is used to represent it.

This concept is not foreign to your scientists. Some examples: what does COLOUR (PERCEPTION) have in common with the electromagnetic wave which stimulates our retina? The colour is a pure psychological phenomenon. It does not exist outside of the self, and there is even the paradox that different wavelengths cause different perceptions. Thus when the stimulus is 398 Earth (millimicrons), we interpret it as a red patch of colour, but if it arrives at our skin with a slightly longer wavelength, " we feel heat "; something very different than COLOUR: The same external reality causes different illusions.

So also SPACE (as such) is another illusion of our senses. Yes, there is an external " something " which causes this psychological perception but this " something " is really as different from our illusory concept of space as a wavelength is from the green or yellow the spirit perceives.

And we also say to you: your specialists have held onto this idea of differentiating the concepts FIELD of FORCES and SPACE as distinct entities. You admit that the nervous system masks the feeling of FORCES and the feeling of SPACES and work out a system of mathematical equations to define this " something " external to the self called GRAVITATIONAL, MAGNETIC and ELECTROSTATIC FIELD, and this other " three-dimensional or N dimensional something" called SPACE.

You know that a FIELD of FORCES cannot exist outside of a SPACE affected by these fields.

Moreover we affirm that FIELD OF FORCES and SPACE can be identified. There cannot be a universe outside our own in which, because there are no particles, there are no deformations of this space (which we call FIELD) either.

More specifically: the action of the gravitational field is that which stimulates our nerve endings, sending a series of codified impulses to our brain which in turn makes emerge this illusion we call SPACE.

That is why when we speak about dimensions to define space, do not believe that the dimension of length in the WAAM (cosmos) is the same as we imagine it in our minds. As this would require a considerable and continuous mental effort, throughout these reports and for the sake of convenience, the length of a straight line can be considered to be synonymous with dimension, and to a certain degree that is correct.

We will also speak to you about the perception of space, the way in which we conceive the decadimensionnel WAAM, the true concept of asymmetry of our WAAM (Cosmos) which converts it into an ENANTIOMORPHE of the U-WAAM (anticosmos).

We will explain you how we polarise sub-particles to make space travel possible by using the curvature of space and we will also speak to you about true distance which makes such travel possible.
 

 
We ask you to refer to page 61 of the September 1993 issue of "Ciel et Espace " where you will find the photograph of a nebula which your specialists have called "PROPLYD "

It is in fact the first photograph by the HUBBLE telescope of a toroidal nebula, and not of a protoplanetary disc.

The physical characteristics of this type of nebula are the following: