## Positional RelationsEdit

Accordingly:

Where *P* is position and *df*_{1} and *df*_{2} are opposing direction. What then would *P*_{1} and *P*_{2} equate to seeing that 2 or more constitute a single possibility?

Where *x,* y*, and* z *are 3 dimensions of space and* u *is time, according to Einstein's Four-dimensional relativity (which excludes Klausa-Klein dimensions and quantum many worlds hypothesis).*

Now positions are *df* so that:

Where a line-segment expresses 2 dimensionality the additional dimensions converge with the abstractions of actual space-time there also at position. Where up, down, left, right and depth are perceived.

Visually we may experience space-time conceptually through anyone of our five senses or any combination thereof to what is actual, but we ourselves incorporate energy being delimited to only a certain number of freedoms of which eventually repeat.

In a 2-dimensional diagram we can depict a dot to represent a position of space-time and intersection it with as many lines as would fit on the diagram.

Without pictorially filling up all the cross sections, (All the faces) we can imagine the result, while co-existing with any other position.

However this is just the first face. If we complete all faces by rotating them all in all degrees of freedom absent of the second direction, ( a mass weather spinning or not, can take up several circular degrees of freedom, but cannot do so in the opposing direction near simultaneity without having to forfeit the first set of directions to embark on the second set ) we get the impression of a sphere. They would account for all directions, possible, for a position, provided a change in direction requires a change in position and a change in position means going back to *df* to change position.

Stopping and/or restarting, Ending and beginning. Again space-time indicates that it is automatic, and therefore reveals that position with respect to energy is automated. As far as we know when a body is at rest, space-time is still present and automated again suggesting that even at rest for the body, energy is still present and that goes down to the Quantum. Assuming absolutely no energy whatsoever, we see then position evaporating and the mass can move anywhere (or nowhere) with absolutely no resistance and at any speed.

However the criteria do not match up to the information as to why space-time is automated. An event may be described as the establishment of a finite amount of energy created by externally induced force.

We could assume that 1 position allows for an end for Ε while 2 allow for a beginning and an ending which, extrapolated from the High-Low would be 0 0. (zero, zero is read vertically, one atop the other). (Sorry, this was impossible to create on wikibooks).

If we assume a body of mass at rest (assume a square block) then we say that that body at rest is in a state of potential energy aside from the fact that the quanta comprising it are in an energetic mode. (Wave-forms)=information. It is then said that the mass at rest has potential energy, which is stored energy, ready for use by an externally controlled, manually induced force. Potential energy is said to be therefore energy of position. However a single position can not be possible without the possibility for another position.

Thus according to the interpretation of potential energy it is energy all of position-stored, or by virtue of position. Even though the mass’s quanta occupies billions of positions. A single position alone cannot possess the seed for a single possibility. Not ‘any’ possibility but “A” possibility. A single position of distance-direction does not possess the property of or for the potential for a single possibility.

For this reason, a position of itself not possessing the potential for a possibility to become actual without another position to manifest a possibility (with respect to energy) it follows that potential energy for a single position of distance-direction is NOT energy all energy of position alone. Since a mass is macroscopic it occupies more than one position can be actual and can therefore possess the potential for becoming actual kinetic energy.

(Hence if we were to have a mass that occupied a single position (of) distance-direction it would then not be actual.) If in so being 2 positions relate to what can “be-come” actual, does this indicate that with less energy between these 2 positions or their very occupancy where energy exists from potential energy, or their very properties-corresponds to in-actuality or that in-actuality manifests that which can be actual in some exotic state?

Where:

The interpretation here is from the viewpoint of energy in relationship to position. The manifestation of it in space-time corresponds to positions when E is present. No energy, subsequently relates to no degree of freedom since nothing is being used, but is ready to be used. Two positions in terms of energy, defined as Δd, are indistinguishable as separate one from the other. How can two positions be separate to create “space” between each other? A single position cannot therefore be “actual” as would be defined by:

It is only our perception that positions exist in light of energy in debt to Pe that gives position. When we omit or avoid potential energy in the use of energy, position becomes in-actual.

The proper equation is as follows:

Where Ν is an indeterminable number of uncounted positions. We reveal that positions are *imaginary due to the fact that E is in debt to gravity through potential energy or visa versa.

- (MC-that is that positions and therefore degrees of freedom (of) space-time are nothing more than the expression of energy in debt to gravity through potential; energy manually operated with externally influence in space-time.)) In the absence of potential energy in debt to E, positions are in all truth are or cannot be-come actual.

Therefore a body that incorporates an exotic form of displacement across space-time would go unaffected by the constraints of positions because that body does not utilize manually induced energy that is in debt to potential energy. The operation (E÷(-E)) is the only method I know of to reveal how E is in debt to gravity to cause positional prohibitions (limits, df) defined from Δd. (E-(-E)) is not respective of –1 only, where i is an imaginary number corresponding to PN caused by the indebtedness of energy to gravity through potential energy.