The five-dimentional nature of the universe cannot be denied.

Nor have you offered any simple, rational, logical common sense narrative in those regards. Ergo goop smeared out as fuzzy cloud of mystique.

However, you and Fuller both have a 5D scenarios. Who doesn't?

Fuller explains his 5D this way scenarios in two differrent ways. I will give the simple way first.

We have 3D, as the referencing of volumetric, and the minimal volumetric of Universe is finite tetra{4}hedron { integral }

Those four hedra{ planes/faces/areas/surfaces/openings { no-events aka no-vents }

* metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/conceptually mathematical concepts ergo Fullers 1st 4D of a 5D scenario. *

The are not manifest as

__occupied space__, unless they have a dynamic spin motion. Spin being Fullers 5th D as the initiating ---or primary--- factor of consideration for

__occupied space__ existence.

However, since the exists 6 primary motion Fullers introduces the idea of powering, which he states is more associated with what mathematicians do. So each of the 6 primary types of motion { powering }, are each likened to a dimension { powering }.

Motion Powering:

1} spin,

2} orbit,

3} torque { twist },

4} precession --most often at 90 degrees--- is the effect of bodies in motion on other bodies in motion,

5} expand-contract,

6} inside outing.

So Fuller begins with the metaphysical-1, 4D no-vents, and adds powers{ dimensions },

5D is 4D plus spin

6D is 4D plus spin and orbit,

7D is 4D plus spin, orbit and torque etc.

Eventually Fullers arrives at sum-total of 32 powerings{ dimensions }.

I forget if Fuller considers a particle properties ex.charge, in his narrative.