# Motion and the Foundation of True Metaphysics

Table of Contents

**Subtitle:** The Metaphysical Nature of Euclidean Geometry

*“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.”*

**Nikola Tesla**

**Author’s Note:** What I am about to discuss with you in this article runs deep, and I am somewhat shy that my entire mortal existence may not be enough to unravel it. Our physical observations of motion no longer satisfy as the boundaries for our study of geometry and of the universe. Something else lies beyond. Something metaphysical and also Euclidean.

………

**Introduction **

**Central Question:** Is something physical or metaphysical the cause of the sensation of inertia?

Metaphysics is an aspect of knowledge that was plagued mostly with unguarded speculations and unfounded laws. This further prompted the dismissal by the scientific community of any form of knowledge which attempts to take man beyond that which can be physically observed.

However, physics is now at a crossroad, and this is because we have approached the end or limits of physical science. There can be no further progress for science that satisfies the dictates of physical observations.

Metaphysics is now the only way to further our understanding of the universe, and not just because we have exhausted the limits of physical science, but because the universe has been metaphysical all along.

There has never been the dire need to understand the metaphysical operations of the universe like it is now. This is the purpose of this blog and the intent of this article, which is to reveal to you the true metaphysical operations or laws of the universe.

If you are not new to this blog, you must have realized that I always tell you that Euclidean geometry is the geometry of the universe. And I have pointed out that the Euclidean geometry I speak of is metaphysical and not physical.

The Euclidean geometry upheld since Euclid proposed his theses or axioms is physical and it is the one most classical and modern physical theories (except general relativity is based).

Now, post-modern physics is not based on physical Euclidean geometry rather it is based on metaphysical Euclidean geometry. So, whenever I classify post-modern physics together with some other theories of standard physics which follow Euclidean geometry, I do so with this underlying understanding.

Also, this general classification is because of the obvious mathematical similarity between Euclidean geometry as applied in post-modern physics and as applied in classical and modern physics.

You will not be aware of the distinction between the Euclidean geometry of post-modern physics and that of (classical and) modern physics without the basic understanding of how the concepts of space and time changes or differs in both eras of physics.

Firstly, and importantly, physical Euclidean geometry is based on **the conceptualization** which identifies just one form of space and time, while metaphysical Euclidean geometry is based on **the great conceptualization** which identifies two forms of space and time.

Metaphysical Euclidean geometry is based on the great conceptualization which identifies two forms of space and time.Click To Tweet

This is very important. Since the beginning of physical science, we have been studying and understanding the universe according to **the conceptualization**. Now, in this post-modern era, which marks the beginning of metaphysical science, we will be studying and understanding the universe according to the great conceptualization.

Everything about physical Euclidean geometry is founded on one form of space and time, while everything about metaphysical Euclidean geometry is founded on the two forms of space and time. I cannot over-emphasize on this blog and on any other platform the importance of this shift.

When we move from the physical realm into the metaphysical realm, we are moving from one kind of scientific knowledge to another kind of scientific knowledge, and it is in the metaphysical realm that scientific truth exists.

Euclidean laws hold great importance to physics, and it has not being questioned geo-qualitatively ever since Euclid proposed them. The discovery of Riemann geometry which is the core geometrical principle of general relativity only questions Euclidean laws geo-quantitatively and not geo-qualitatively.

**The Great Conceptualization and the Orthogonality Principle**

In the treatise, Euclidean principles are directly applied to absolute space and time and not physical space and time. In other words, post-modern physics is based on **the great conceptualization**.

The great conceptualization is the true mathematical foundation of the universe and of absolute relativity. This beautiful and insightful diagram below captures the presentation of space and time according to the conceptualization and also according to the great conceptualization.

**Fig. 1: The above diagram shows the representation of space and time according to the conceptualization and the great conceptualization**

Post-modern physics now questions the geo-qualitative nature of Euclidean laws. The graph of space and time on the left-hand side is based on **the conceptualization** and it has so far been used to describe the physical universe.

The great conceptualization is the true mathematical foundation of the universe and of absolute relativity.Click To Tweet

In figure **A**, the axes for space and time are represented by black lines, however, in figure **B**, the axes for uniform space and time and those for accelerated space and time are represented respectively by blue and green lines. This reflects the qualitativeness of the universe absent in physical science but present in metaphysical science.

In post-modern physics, the three possible axes of uniform space are denoted alongside uniform time as,

While the three possible axes of accelerated space are denoted alongside accelerated time as,

In the diagram above, other axes of uniform space dx and dy and accelerated space Δx and Δy are omitted.

Now, whenever I am referring to metaphysical science, I am simply referring to the science that duly recognizes the qualitative and quantitative nature of space and time. I don’t want you to misconstrue my elucidations of metaphysics for an approach into vague and baseless theories of religious spiritism. I’m talking about true scientific metaphysics.

As you can deduce above, our physical description of the universe based on just space and time are approximations of the true description or representation of the universe based on metaphysical space and time. In other words, **the conceptualization** is an approximation of **the great conceptualization**.

The conceptualization is an approximation of the great conceptualization.Click To Tweet

Our description of the cosmos since man began to scientifically investigate nature has been based on just (physical) space and time. However, on the right-hand side, we have the graph of the two forms of metaphysical space and time and which describes the universe based on **the great conceptualization**.

Looking at the two graphs, I must now let you know that the graph for metaphysical space and time is the true representation of the cosmos. This further affirms our mathematical approach to understanding the universe.

This is because for so long, mathematical principles have been applied to the universe, and we have always wondered why the universe is mathematical. We have wondered if mathematics really exists in the universe or if it is simply a creation of our minds born out of the necessity to model the universe according to predefined principles.

Furthermore, **the great conceptualization** reveals to us the intentionality of the cosmos which **the conceptualization** doesn’t. What do I mean? In our physical description of the cosmos, space *x* is usually placed orthogonally to time *t* as the above shows.

We do this without the realization that this simple mathematical procedure really exists in the universe. However, in the real application of this mathematical procedure, we will be dealing with absolute metaphysical space and time, which unlike physical space and time, have a qualitative essence.

The qualitative essence of metaphysical space and time refers to the two forms of space and time, uniform and accelerated space and time, that correspond to the two forms of motion in the universe, uniform and accelerated motions.

So, we don’t move in uniform motion simply because we have the innate capacity to do so, but because the universe provides us with uniform space which is the space we move in when we move in uniform motion.

And we don’t move in accelerated motion simply because we have the innate capacity to do so, but because the universe provides us with accelerated space which is the space we move in when we move in accelerated motion.

This new understanding alters how you understand the universe and introduces you to the principle of forms. The universe is very intentional about motion. This qualitative nature of metaphysical space and time draws us to consider the experiential significance of the orthogonality of the corresponding forms of space and time as shown in the above diagram.

The orthogonality of the corresponding forms of space and time is of far greater significance than the orthogonality of physical space and time which is only of geometrical and mathematical significance.

The orthogonality of the corresponding forms of space and time besides being of geometrical and mathematical significance is also of experiential significance. The experiential significance of metaphysical space and time and the great conceptualization lies at the foundation of post-modern physics.

Also, the experiential significance of the orthogonality of metaphysical space and time introduces immense simplicity to post-modern physics, and explains at the base of post-modern physics, as I will show you, some of our experiences of motion which in classical and modern physics would have to be explained at complex abstractive levels.

Now, Euclidean laws which we have thought to apply in just physical space now applies in both uniform and accelerated space. This is the metaphysical extension of Euclidean laws of geometry which infuse qualitativeness into axioms which have otherwise been only quantitative.

So, what plagues physical science in that it only quantitative and observative and lacks a qualitative base also plagues physical Euclidean geometry which also lacks a qualitative base.

In metaphysical science or post-modern physics, Euclidean laws are applied qualitatively to both forms of space and time making it quantitative, qualitative and non-observative.

In post-modern physics, the quantitativeness of motion and metaphysical quantities are borne on an intuitive application of **comparative proportions**. The subject of **comparative proportions** deals with the recognition of light, gravity and the two forms of rest as limits of inertia while placing the inertia of moving bodies in between.

In a surprising manner, the application of **comparative proportions** seems to be enough for the understanding of the transcendental conceptual framework of absolute relativity. This is all the more satisfactory with the new scientific method because the balance of quantitative and qualitative science launches experiential science and not the solely quantitative science we have been practising in other eras.

At the foundation of science lies a very important association of the sensation or inertia or motion with straight lines or linearity. In Newton’s first law of motion, he stated that “a body remains at rest or continues to move in uniform motion in a **straight line** unless impressed by an external force.”

Newton’s first law of motion shows us how we follow physical observation, and associate (uniform) motion with spatial linearity only. Einstein even went further and associated accelerated motion with geodesic which is a kind of straight line in curved spacetime.

This is due to **the conceptualization** that makes us think space and time can in a way, according to observation be dissociated. So, when we observe the motion of a body in space, we fail to realize that at a fundamental level (outside the spacetime notion of relativity) we really cannot separate motion also from time.

We have wrongly been misled by physical observation to only associated motion with spatial linearity independent of time. Now, in the metaphysical universe, motions, both uniform and accelerated motions, are associated with the orthogonality of metaphysical space and time. Never are the two separated.

This fundamental orthogonality which arises due to **the great conceptualization** informs us that in the true understanding of motion, we cannot separate the two forms of space from their corresponding forms of time. I think what I am trying to explain can be better clarified by the figure 2 below.

**Fig. 2: The above diagram shows the physical observation of motion according to Newton’s laws**

As we can see from the above diagram, a body is shown to move in uniform motion in a straight line in space absent of time. Time is not represented in any way. This is obviously because we cannot by any physical means observe the time path of the moving body but only its path in space and we can make of it that it is a straight line.

So, if a force is impressed on the body as shown in **B**, its path in space is no longer straight, it becomes curved as the body is continually impressed by force. This deviation from linearity is represented by the angle θ, where θ > 0º. This precedent association of linearity and motion by Newton was adopted by Einstein in general relativity.

Einstein, within the relativistic framework, shows that bodies in accelerated motion due to gravity move in a subtle kind of linear path called geodesic. These congruent methods in both classical and modern physics make it seem as though the universe seeks to maintain linearity for all motions.

Thus, the paramount question now is, according to the intentionality of the universe, does it really seek to maintain linearity for all motions? Are the true laws of the universe associated with linearity and the deviations from it? This is very paramount considering that Newton’s first law of motion inclines us to think so.

Now, listen, according to the intentionality of the universe, the universe is concerned about maintaining orthogonality for both uniform and accelerated motions. Just as linearity lies at the foundation of physical science, so does orthogonality lie at the heart of metaphysical science.

What sort of orthogonality does the universe seek to maintain? The universe seeks to maintain the orthogonality of the corresponding forms of space and time. The true laws of the universe are associated with orthogonality and the deviations from it.

The true laws of the universe are associated with orthogonality and the deviations from it.Click To Tweet

Now, because of the inextricable involvement of time, we can no longer subject orthogonality to physical observation like we do for linearity in physical science. This is what it means to metaphysically observe motion.

The diagram below which is very similar to the one above shows us what it means to be in uniform motion in the universe according to metaphysics.

**Fig. 3: The above diagram shows the metaphysical observation of motion according to Echa and Science**

In figure **A**, you see what it means to move in uniform motion in the universe. The coordinates for accelerated space and time are omitted so as to ease clarity. From the above diagram **A**, for all bodies in uniform motion, the orthogonality of uniform space dx and time dt is maintained or preserved.

When we move to figure **B** which shows you accelerated motion in the universe, you will realize two things, the preservation of orthogonality between accelerated space Δx and accelerated time Δt and the deviation of orthogonality between accelerated space Δx and uniform time dt represented by the angle θ, where θ > 90º.

For bodies in accelerated motion, the relationship between accelerated space Δx and uniform time dt no longer preserves orthogonality. So, to preserve orthogonality for accelerated motion, accelerated time Δt comes in.

What is the experiential importance of orthogonality? Orthogonality of metaphysical space and time determines if bodies will sense inertia or not. The (deep) association between orthogonality and inertia does not appear coincidental like the (supposed) association of linearity and inertia in physical science.

For uniform motion above, the moving body does not sense inertia because of the orthogonality of uniform space dx and uniform time dt (and not because it moves in a straight line as physical observation would want you to think.)

**The Three Absolute Quantities **

The absolute quantity that captures this orthogonal relationship between uniform space and time is called the **absolute uniform velocity** * v_{x}* and it is represented mathematically as,

When we move to accelerated motion shown in figure **B**, the moving body can sense inertia due to the non-orthogonality of accelerated space Δx and uniform time dt (and not because it deviates from a linear path.)

And from the above diagram, one can deduce that accelerating bodies sense inertia in proportion to their deviation from orthogonality. The more θ shifts farther from 90º, the more the sensation of inertia.

The absolute quantity that captures this non-orthogonal relationship between accelerated space Δx and uniform time dt is called the **absolute accelerated velocity** ** v_{a}** and it is represented mathematically as,

Now, the body can sense inertia due to the non-orthogonality of accelerated space Δx and uniform time dt. This is the unique consequence of the **absolute accelerated velocity**.

So, the absolute quantity that captures and restores this orthogonal relationship between accelerated space Δx and accelerated time Δt is called the **absolute acceleration a_{x}** and it is represented mathematically as,

And the body also cannot sense inertia due to the orthogonality of accelerated space Δx and accelerated time Δt (and not because the body moves in a geodesic in curved spacetime.)

Also, looking at the product of the two form of time in the denominator, you will begin to realize why **acceleration** in physical science must be expressed in relation to the reciprocal of the square of physical time. The physical quantities are shadows of the metaphysical quantities.

In relation to the **absolute accelerated velocity v_{a}**, the

**absolute acceleration**

**is written as,**

*a*_{x}All these elucidations show us how the foundation of metaphysics differs from the foundation of physics. All the physical quantities of physical science are founded on linearity, but the absolute quantities of metaphysics are founded and inextricable from orthogonality and the deviations from it.

I want you to now understand the fundamental difference between the **absolute acceleration** of metaphysics and **acceleration** according to Newtonian mechanics, for doing this will by extension show you the fundamental distinction between physical Newtonian force and metaphysical force.

The true nature of force is metaphysical, and how you have understood it according to Newtonian mechanics is flawed at a fundamental level. Whenever I talk about force in this blog, unless I specify that I am talking about relative force, then know that I am talking about absolute force.

If you look at the above absolute quantities of metaphysics, you will realize that they are mathematically similar to the physical quantities of physical science. The three absolute metaphysical quantities above only differ from the relative physical quantities because of their qualitative nature or attribute of forms.

Furthermore, just as the **absolute acceleration** * a_{x}* reveals to us the nature of

**absolute force**, so do the other two absolute quantities, the

**absolute uniform velocity**and

*v*_{x}**absolute accelerated velocity**, reveal to us the nature of the two kinds of absolute momentum in the universe.

*v*_{a}The **absolute 4-momentum** is related to the **absolute uniform velocity** while the **absolute 5-momentum** is related to the **absolute accelerated velocity**. These two kinds of momentum in metaphysics are qualitatively different from the single kind of momentum in classical physics.

These new and profound insights about the universe alter the foundation of our scientific knowledge. They greatly simplify our understanding of all things in a manner that physics trapped in complex principles and blind observations cannot. Post-modern physics ironically is about metaphysics and not physics.

Now, what do we make of our physical observations? We must now see them as shadows and hints about the metaphysical laws of the universe. Like the figure below.

If you critically look at physical observation, you will see how the current scientific method of physical science fails to truly represent our true observation of motion.

**Figure 4: The physical and metaphysical observations of uniform motion.**

The figure 4 above shows that while in the physical universe a body in uniform motion maintains linearity, in the metaphysical universe, what the body actually maintains is orthogonality. There is no comparison between the two perceptions of uniform motion.

The physical observation of uniform motion is false, while the metaphysical observation of uniform motion is true. However, one can see the physical observation of uniform motion as an adherence to linearity to be a shadow of the adherence of uniform motion to orthogonality.

The figure 5 below shows the physical and metaphysical observations of accelerated motion. In the diagram below, the blue axis for uniform space and the green axis for accelerated time are omitted so as to ease clarity.

**Figure 5: The physical and metaphysical observations of accelerated motion.**

The figure 5 above shows that while in the physical universe a body in accelerated motion deviates from linearity, in the metaphysical universe what the body actually deviates from is orthogonality. There is also no comparison between the two perceptions of accelerated motion.

The physical observation of accelerated motion is false while the metaphysical observation of accelerated motion is true. However, one can see the physical observation of accelerated motion as a deviation from linearity to be a shadow of the deviation of accelerated motion from orthogonality.

As have been discussed, in order to restore orthogonality to accelerated motion, accelerated time which is orthogonal to accelerated space would have to be introduced. This leads to the **absolute acceleration** and consequently to **absolute force**. Now, you will begin to realize why force exists in the cosmos.

Force exists in the cosmos so that orthogonality can be preserved for accelerated motions. This also applies to 4-momentum which exists so that orthogonality is preserved for uniform motions.

Also, even though one can dismiss the association of the deviation from linearity from the sensation of inertia, one cannot dismiss the deviation from orthogonality from the sensation of inertia. The deviation from orthogonality, unobservable by any physical means, is the true cause of the sensation of inertia.

**The New and the Old Scientific Method **

When we are observing bodies in motion, in a deep, and intuitive way we realize that we are observing an inseparable effect of space and time. But going by the old scientific method, we would have to analyze using meter sticks, the space a body moves, and then separately check for the time the body moved.

We employ this practical method as though space and time are separable. Our separate practical analysis of the space and time for bodies in motion does not harmonize with the inseparability of space and time for bodies in motion according to our intuition. Physical observation based on **linearity** chops away time from space.

This is what it really means to physically observe. Physical observation involves all methods to understand motion using the old scientific method. The disconnection between space and time in our practical methods resulted in our association of motion with **linearity** and not **orthogonality**.

The new scientific method realizes the inseparability of space and time from the on-stage, and it realizes that orthogonality is the geometrical relationship between space and time. It doesn’t chop away time from space as the old scientific method does.

The new scientific method produces metaphysical observation based on orthogonality which is true, organic, internal and experiential while the old scientific method produces physical observation which is false, mechanistic, external and non-experiential.

The new scientific method is concerned with vital internal aspects of motion such as orthogonality because they determine our internal experiences of motion like whether we sense inertia or not, and it is upon these internal sensations that the true laws of the universe were written.

Our physical observations are only shadows or consequences of the internal, experiential nature of motion and of the universe. So, we must make paramount the metaphysical nature of motion, for it determines our true experiences of the universe.

What am I really saying? In somewhat simple terms, I am telling you that if you want to understand the cosmos, then you must become concerned with experiences like why we sense inertia or not, which cannot be known from physical observations.

It is by probing the metaphysical that you will realize why we experience motion as we do, and when you do, it will dawn on you that there are metaphysical laws that determine our internal experiences of motion, and these metaphysical laws, disparate from physical laws, are the true laws of the universe.

This is what it means to ascend. You no longer become concerned with physical laws deduced from physical observations, but metaphysical laws deduced from metaphysical observations.

Also, it is important that you understand how the three absolute quantities of metaphysics shown to you above are related to the absolute natures of light and gravity. The association of the three absolute quantities to the absolute natures of light and gravity gives important concreteness to metaphysical science.

There is no need doing it here in this article, I have done it in the article below:

I want you to take your time and understand these new teachings of the universe which I have come to let you know about. The above article will also take you farther in the understanding of **comparative proportions**. It will also show you the **absolute** and **relative natures** of light and gravity.

**The great conceptualization** changes all you know about the universe in a fundamental way. Space and time diagrams based on **the great conceptualization** which I have shown you in this article is the true space and time diagrams of the universe.

Furthermore, I have suggested that while bodies in uniform motion have only to travel beyond the inertia of light, accelerating bodies seek to travel beyond the inertia of gravi-electromagnetic wave which consists of two fundamental components, light and gravity.

So, one can also contend that accelerating bodies can take a curved path in physical observable space because they are attempting to travel beyond the inertia of light and gravity and not only light. This also is a consequence of orthogonality.

There is probably no limit to the reach of the orthogonality principle in the cosmos. It is the first absolute principle of the universe. This is why when you want to probe the true laws of the universe, you have to see beyond physical linearity and penetrate metaphysical orthogonality.

Metaphysical orthogonality is greatly associated with our experiences of motion, and the true laws of the universe are primary experiential. Physical observations of motion only come second to the first understanding of the experiential universe.

Concerning the discrepancy between physical observation based on **linearity** and metaphysical observation based on **orthogonality** described above, one must realize that they apply respectively within the domains of physics and metaphysics.

**Points in the Physical and Metaphysical Continuum **

Linearity and orthogonality stand apart, and the true understanding of the universe is based on orthogonality and the metaphysical. This brings us to a very subtle notion of Euclidean geometry that is important for the understanding of motion.

Remember, I have aforestated that linearity chops away time from space. This is particularly why even Euclidean laws are spatially dependent. They describe the continuum of **spatial points**.

However, metaphysical Euclidean laws are spatial-temporal. They describe the continuum of **spatial-temporal points**. This is the continuum that is particularly important for the physicist and not for the mathematician.

Listen, whenever we associate space and time orthogonally like we do in our graphs in physical science, we think we do this as a result of our mathematical culture or out of mathematical convenience.

Now, **the great conceptualization** makes us understand that the orthogonal relationship between space and time has a real existence in reality, and it shows us the consequences of this orthogonality in relation to the sensation of inertia. This is a core aspect of metaphysics.

So, the chopping away of time, reducing our observation of motion to spatial linearity instead of spatial-temporal orthogonality does not fit reality. We can no longer compromise or deal with reality according to abysmal approximations. The truth has come.

The quantities of physical science such as **velocity** and **acceleration** are results of separate space and time, but the absolute quantities such as **absolute uniform velocity** and **absolute acceleration** are results of fused space and time.

The spatial continuum of physical Euclidean laws of geometry do not produce sensation and motion, it is the spatial-temporal continuum of the metaphysical Euclidean laws that do.

This is why when a body moves in a straight line by physical observation, I want you to understand that in the metaphysical world, to move in a straight line is not to sense inertia. It is all about the internal experience of motion. This is the metaphysical nature of Euclidean geometry.

You have to employ metaphysical observation whenever you are concerned about the internal experiences of motion. No result or method produced by physical observation can explain the internal experiences of motion.

You have to employ metaphysical observation whenever you are concerned about the internal experiences of motion.Click To Tweet

**The Great Conceptualization and the Four States of Motion **

From** ****the conceptualization** comes the three states of motion, rest, uniform motion and accelerated motion, while from **the great conceptualization** comes the four states of motion, uniform rest, accelerated rest, uniform motion and accelerated motion.

In the universe, there are four states of motion and not three. The four states of motion lie at the heart of metaphysics, which now ensures that we understand the universe according to the two forms of absolute space and time and not the one form of space and time.

I have talked explicitly about the four states of motion in the article below:

Also in the article, I discussed the principles of motion that emerge from the four states of motion. My dear reader, what I am showing you in this article is the new and true way to understand the universe.

The four states of motion will further mark our shift from the physical universe into the metaphysical universe, of which for the first time in history, the true operations of the metaphysical universe is being exposed to us.

The disunity present in physics today only arise because some very vital components of reality are missing in physics. These very vital components, like the four states of motion, are so subtle that they can only be found beyond the boundaries of physical science.

Metaphysical science, which is the science of this post-modern era is no longer a vague kind of science. It is now formally and firmly established in Echa and Science. Man is now being ushered into the adytum of scientific knowledge.

If you look at the four states of motion, it simply informs you that just as there are two forms of motion in the universe, uniform and accelerated motions, so also there are two forms of rest in the universe, uniform rest and accelerated rest. This is a simple knowledge that emerges from metaphysical science.

**The Beginning of Practical Metaphysics **

I would like to end this article with the resolution of a question that may have been going through your mind while you read this article. You may have thought, how can we place standards on our experiences of metaphysical space and time just as we have for physical space and time.

I must let you know that I think that we can. However, this will begin with our exploration of gravi-electromagnetic wave. There is something common between gravi-electromagnetism and metaphysical observation shown to you in this article.

The connection between gravi-electromagnetism and metaphysical observation is orthogonality. The day we begin to produce useful gravi-electromagnetic information just as we have done for light, we will align properly with the orthogonal principle of metaphysical observation.

When this becomes possible, man will become the true metaphysician of the universe.

**Summary **

This article deals with the metaphysical understanding of the universe based on **the great conceptualization** and not **the** **conceptualization**, and it implicitly contends that every geometrical inference or conclusion based on **the great conceptualization** and which runs through post-modern physics is (metaphysically) Euclidean.

The importance of **the great conceptualization** based on metaphysical space and time and metaphysical Euclidean geometry is that they are responsible for our experiences of motion. **The conceptualization** based on physical space and time and physical Euclidean geometry are not responsible for our experiences of motion.

An Euclidean principle such as orthogonality is very paramount in metaphysics, for it determines whether bodies will sense inertia or not. This simple concept of orthogonality, which determines our experiences of motion, is the critical factor associated with the true laws of the universe.

Until next time.

– M. V. Echa