Spirique de Persée
I have a couple of questions about the shape of the photon and about the torus.
Some background first so that hopefully others will be able to visualize some of the things I have been contemplating.
There was a news story in the past year about some Polish physicists who used a method they called quantum holography to determine the shape of a single photon.
What shape are photons? Quantum holography sheds light
This is an image of the shape that was found and the theoretical shape.
Then recently another story was in the news regarding the Nobel Prize for physics being awarded to physicists working with exotic states of matter.
Physicists explore exotic states of matter inspired by Nobel-winning research
This is the shape of the vortex and anti-voretx from their research.
The vortex looks somewhat like a toroidal flow and the anti-vortex some what like an equilateral hyperbola and its conjugate.
I ran into one of these shapes years ago while looking into the Carboni clues and posting a couple times about it - Scientific intelligence matrix, Neapolitan, cover is vulcanology. The scientists I was looking at were vulcanologists and worked for the Department of Energy, Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, Atomic Energy Commission... They did a paper on the Neapolitan Yellow Tuff [ Campi Flegrei deposit ] and one was a visiting professor to 'Universita di Napoli'. The research led me to a paper by them on a theory called, "Sequential Fragmentation / Transport theory". As I dug into one of the authors (
Wilbur Knight Brown ), it appeared he was the originator of the theory and he had a background in explosive tests working for the Atomic Energy Commission, the DOE and the DOD. He also appeared to do a lot of research in cosmology.
One of Wilbur K. Brown's cosmology papers was about the creation of solar systems from supernova, "The Supernova fragmentation model of solar system formation." In it he proposed that when a supernova collapsed, the resulting planetary disk was modeled by a fragmentation equation that contained a variable with a value between 0 and 1. At different values, different topologies would result that determined what kind of planets resulted ( all gas giants, inner dense planets with outer gas giants, only asteroids and comets, etc. ).
One of these topologies was the double hyperbolic cylinder.
So in the matter of a few months I seemed to encounter this shape twice and with the original old research from years ago, it made the third time I had encountered it.
Back to the shape of the photon. It appears that it could be an equilateral hyperbola ( right or rectangular hyperbola) and its conjugate.
For ease of reference I will refer to the equilateral hyperbola and its conjugate as a 'double equilateral hyperbola'.
So I am kind of seeing this same shape in all three fields. In a star's core topology during a supernova, in exotic matter state transition, and in the shape of the photon.
Now some references from the sessions:
tetrahedron: if you could take the four faces of a tetrahedron and lay them out flat on a plane they could look like this:
kind of like a Maltese cross
kind of like pyramids inverted upon one another
December 26, 1998
Q: Okay, I am done. (A) I was trying to put together things related to research on UFT, and the questions I have asked recently. After a time of being quite desperate, because I could not put these things together, I could finally see some dim light. So, I would like to ask. But, please do not reassure me if what I think is wrong... just tell me it is wrong, and I will look for something else. I came up with the idea that we should model our space time on a kind of a surface embedded in a higher dimensional flat space. This would account for several things that you have told us. At some point you said the following: 'Old makes new again,' which suggested that we should come back to what Einstein was thinking, and then you said 'equilateral versus hypotenuse.' I didn't have a clue, but then I got an idea that it is related to different kinds of tensors with three indices, rather than to geometrical features. Is this guess correct?
A: Partly, but geometric figures provide a third density guide for visualizations of field concepts.
Q: (A) Hmmm....
A: Pyramids inverted upon one another.
Q: (A) Where to put these pyramids?
A: Hexagonal representation of flat plane...
Q: (A) What is hexagonal representation?
A: What does a hexagon look like when converted to three dimensional representation?
Q: (L) Well, a 'flat pyramid' is a triangle, and a triangle has three points, and two triangles inverted becomes a sort of Star of David, and that has six points and is a sort of hexagon... (L) Well, this hexagon business... two dimensional inverted pyramids make a Star of David. But, what if these pyramids were really tetrahedrons? They LOOK like a hexagon in a plane, but in 3 dimensions... (A) They are octahedrons... Octonions... hmmmm....
A: Vortices... this is what your "wormhole" would look like.
kind of like crossroads
November 14, 1998
Q: (L) In my little quest with my maps, I have come across the suggestion that the cities, Laon, Lyon, and Luxemburg are three cities named from the root of light. Also, there is Leiden. These four cities form an interesting geometric shape when related to one another, particularly the first three. My question would be: once one has constructed this arrow type triangle, what does one then do with it?
A: Place upon the valley of the clover dale.
November 28, 1998
Q: (L) That is an interesting thing. Alfalfa was named as the 'father of foods,' and was grown, primarily for, interestingly, horses! And, we have chevin and the 'Horse of God.' Anyway, one of the primary areas where this particular type of alfalfa was grown happens to be in Baden, right next door to this Horselberg... right off the banks of the Rhine. There is a valley there. Clover is, of course, a variation of alfalfa, and 'dale' is a depression in the ground. Could this be right there next to the location of the Lorelei rock off the Rhine?
A: Closer, and what of the four leaves?
four leaf clover
Speaking of "Place upon the valley of the clover dale". Dale means valley, so we kind of have a
double valley.
December 21, 1996
Q: (L) Well, you once said that it was necessary to be on a planet that had a star that was getting ready to go supernova in order to molecularize physical bodies. What I want to know is: what is this process whereby thought becomes manifest as matter?
A: This is too complicated for this medium. You need another method. Something that allows for greater word usage.
Q: (L) But, just a clue: how does thought become matter?
A: Bilaterally.
Q: (L) What do you mean by "bilaterally?"
A: Dual emergence.
Q: (L) Emergence into what and what?
A: Not "into what and what," but rather, "from what and to what."
February 26, 2002
Q: (A) I have a question because when I was asking about quantum jumps, the answer was, I don't know if I will be able to read because it is in cipher, it's coded. I cannot decode okay. Reads: "With respect to ummm... (Ark and Rickard are reading from a paper) (R) "With room for alterations, the way to quantum jumps the key to quantum jumps is always in discovering new mathematics." My first question is about this 'room for alterations' which sounds very suspicious - like hinting. 'Room' here is a strange word. I suspect that it has hidden meaning like for instance Hilbert space. It is my guess that the room here has a double meaning correct?
A: Di/bi/double.
Q: (L) Di like dipole, bi like a bipole and double, which is triple meaning. (A) Now this new mathematics was the answer I was given when I was asking about the p-adic numbers, which relates to the prime numbers. So I got a book on p-adic numbers. And I am ready to jump into this new mathematics, but I don't want jump into the wrong thing, okay? So the question is: what is this 'new mathematics?' Can it be related to quantum jumps?
A: In this respect you are going to have to put the puzzle together from many pieces.
The 'double equilateral hyperbola' to me looks like a fluted column and even more so if you consider the 'double hyperbolic cylinder'.
May 25, 1996
Q: (L) Fluted?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Does 'fluted' have anything to do with 'grooving?'
A: Columns.
Q: (L) What columns are we talking about?
A: Ionic.
Q: (L) Why are we talking about Ionic fluted columns?
A: Because they are a link to previous direct contact between humans and density 4 STO!
Q: (L) Okay, Ionic columns fluted and grooved...
A: Plastic hoses, fluted and grooved.
Q: (L) Well, you are getting more and more obscure. How do we establish this direct link between us and 4th density STO through the concept of fluting, and grooving, and columns?
A: Magnetic telemetry profile.
A double holed torus in the hyperbolic disk (notice the fluting appearance):
The center of a double equilateral hyperbola or double hyperbolic cylinder also has the appearance of fluting:
This also reminds me of
'between the light poles' and
'windows' at the center of stars, planets with magnetic fields, photons, neutrinos, electrons...
So it seems we have this shape involved possibly with electromagnetism at many scales and also at the macro level in stars, planets, supernova.
Question: Is this going in the right direction, this double equilateral hyperbola for these many clues?
Question: Is this really a double hyperbolic cylinder that we should be looking at?
Next, I was working off this idea with the double hyperbolic cylinder as the topological shape for the photon and trying to connect it to the torus and the interesting clue about the double loop of the cylinder -
'one loop is time cycle and the other is included, but not inclusive'.
February 5, 2000
A: Selection 3.
Q: 3 is the torus. (L) What is a loop of the cylinder? Yes, there is one loop and then there is another loop. One loop is probably what we call time - cyclical time.
A: Time cycle.
Q: What is the second loop?
A: Included, but not inclusive.
Q: I guess that means that it is included, but is not the whole thing. It covers that, but that isn't the whole thing. What DOES it mean?
A: Yes.
Q: Wait, I asked what is the second loop? The second loop is included but not inclusive?
A: Remember, you do have cycles but that does not necessarily mean cyclical. 3 Dimensional depiction of loop, seek hexagon for more. Geometric theory provides answers for key. Look to stellar windows. Octagon, hexagon, pentagon.
Q: Are those the different levels of density?
A: No, but it relates. Geometry gets you there; algebra sets you "free."
This may be silly nonsense, but I was looking for a way to relate a double hyperbolic cylinder to the torus.
What I did find out is that an equilateral hyperbola upon inversion does create a lemniscate of Bernoulli or
'Spirique de Persée'.
From here the rest of the post is speculation ( all of it before this is pretty much speculation also ). Most of this following is just derived from thought experiments.
But here is how it goes. If we are actually working with a double hyperbolic cylinder for the photon and if the equilateral hyperbola can invert into a lemniscate (slice of the torus) could we have the double hyperbolic cylinder also invert into a torus?
I don't have very good graphics to demonstrate adequately what I envision but here are some images with notes:
This is a single hyperbolic cylinder. I couldn't find an image of a double hyperbolic cylinder, but you just have to imagine a second, conjugate hyperbolic cylinder. If you can imagine the double equilateral hyperbola and extend it on the z-axis you would see an east-west pair cylinder and a north-south pair cylinder.
I envision the double hyperbolic cylinder undergoing inversion. The east-west pair turn into tubes and if they bend inward they can form a torus. Similarly the north-south pair can undergo inversion, turn into tubes and bend inward. You would end up with two tori criss-crossing one another.
The problem is both tori still have both loops, I wanted some way for the clue about -
'one loop is time cycle and the other is included, but not inclusive'.
So I decided to kind of reverse engineer the torus, looking for a way where perhaps such a condition would exist.
Here is what I came up with:
I started with a regular torus.
I cut it into 2 pieces.
One looks like the rim of a bicycle wheel.
The other looks like the tire that covers the bicycle wheel.
We still have one loop that is complete, but the other is broken.
Next I decided to cut the outer tire like portion into 2 pieces.
Here I have cut the outer tire portion and kind of rotated one 180 degrees.
And the final result is this:
We still have all the pieces and we can put back together the pieces to form a complete torus.
We have maintained one of the loops or at least we have a piece that still has a complete cycle.
But the other loop or cycle is broken.
In a way we have a type of model where one loop is basically intact and the other is included in the model, but it is not inclusive.
I envision taking a double hyperbolic cylinder, having it undergo inversion like the lemniscate, but perhaps only half way.
Then the east-west pair bend inward to form the bicycle like rim above and the north-south pair bend in the opposite direction (outward), one upward, one downward as in the shapes above.
The north-south pair would kind of look like
'horseshoes'.
Next I envisioned taking many of these models, like a bunch of puzzle pieces and building multiple tori.
The following once again lacks proper graphic representation, you will need to imagine each one as the curved structures - the bicycle rim like structure with the two horseshoe tire covering structures.
The rim like structure is connected / bound together / covered by two horseshoe like structures.
Fitting them together.
This would kind of be a set of completed tori, fitting the pieces together. We could form an infinite sheet.
Each set of perpendicular tori could be looked at as an octagon and so this could be looked at as an infinite octagonal.
It may be nonsense, but it does kind of satisfy some criteria of the session clues.
February 5, 2000
A: Selection 3.
Q: 3 is the torus. (L) What is a loop of the cylinder? Yes, there is one loop and then there is another loop. One loop is probably what we call time - cyclical time.
A: Time cycle.
Q: What is the second loop?
A: Included, but not inclusive.
Q: I guess that means that it is included, but is not the whole thing. It covers that, but that isn't the whole thing. What DOES it mean?
A: Yes.
Q: Wait, I asked what is the second loop? The second loop is included but not inclusive?
A: Remember, you do have cycles but that does not necessarily mean cyclical. 3 Dimensional depiction of loop, seek hexagon for more. Geometric theory provides answers for key. Look to stellar windows. Octagon, hexagon, pentagon.
Q: Are those the different levels of density?
A: No, but it relates. Geometry gets you there; algebra sets you "free."
There are literally dozens of clues that seem to fit some kind of model like this.
I will discuss some ideas that could fit and then if I can organize my thoughts, quote some more sessions' excerpts.
For the following I am just going to go off the deep end.
Imagine this, a double hyperbolic cylinder as the basic energy / information bit of the information field.
It is the base stuff of everything. Pure energy permeating everything. Infinite, timeless - no time cycle.
Consciousness acts on one of these energy/information bits.
Consciousness creates a time cycle (the bicycle rim) and generates gravity/anti-gravity, elementary charge + -.
The above labels are just guesses.
Maybe the horseshoes are gravity, matter and the center rim with time cycle is anti-gravity, anti-matter, conscious energy.
Maybe it is all just nonsense.
There are some clues that seem to fit this kind of an idea.
A big one is the idea that gravity is a binder.
In this model idea, gravity connects everything together, even consciousness. It would bind everything.
If a graviton is really an electron in a time vacuum, this model shows gravity not having a time cycle until it binds with consciousness.
All the references to bi/di/double, columns, entubed, perfectly squared nature, crossroads, and there is the horseshoes thing. RU playing horseshoes?
July 10, 1999
A: And where does this lead, Ark?
Q: (L) But that doesn't answer what matter is.
A: We are bringing you to the place where you can begin to path to understanding this.
Q: (A) That brings us to fractal properties of space time and such things.
A: What if matter were the "half-life" of energy?
Q: (C) Well, half-life is the decay factor. What if energy decays into matter? Is that what they are saying?
A: Be careful of the quote marks, they bring you to the crossroads. As in: "you take the high road, I'll take the low road, and I'll be in Scotland before ye."
Another thing that kind of fits this rim and horseshoe model is the interchangeability of space and time.
August 15, 1998
Q: (A) I want to have one more clue about the relation of quantum theory to all of this. Hilbert dealt with quantum theory. Is it true that, from UFT, like Einstein dreamed it, that one can derive quantum theory?
A: Yes.
Q: (A) What is the relation of this Hilbert Space business to multiple realities? I don't understand this. Can I have a clue?
A: What do you not understand?
Q: (A) I do not understand what Hilbert's Mathematics has to do with Multiple Realities. I understand multiple realities can have all kinds of wormholes and bridges...
A: The wormholes are the bridges. His mathematics has to do with how one passes through parallel realms in order to traverse extreme distances within the same originator realm without altering the perceived passage of time.
Q: (A) That's interesting to think about.
A: In other words, "zero time," and the folding of space. This is where the complete Unified Field Theory would come into play. You see, the problem needing solution is to demonstrate how space and time are interchangeable, and how gravity and magnetism are born of the same source, with the application of electromagnetic fields as the key to utilizing all realms simultaneously.
It is easy to see how in the rim and horseshoe model how the time cycle could swap. If the horseshoes pieces bent in the opposite direction and the rim pieces bent in the opposite direction, the time cycle would swap. In fact you could do this over and over, back and forth, and it would look like butterfly wings flapping or even breathing.
And then there is the idea about "Light bends at intervals". If you think of the shape of light and each quadrant of the double hyperbolic cylinder as being an interval. Or if you think of wavelength and frequency, the bending happens at a length of the hyperbolic cylinder and of course frequency and wavelength are related and this idea of time cycle would also fit in.
October 10, 1998
Q: (A) Can space with fractal properties, non-differentiable structure, non-smooth structure, be used to derive Schroedinger equation and quantum theory like the Nottale is proposing in some of his papers?
A: Close.
Q: (A) What is incorrect? Why is it only close?
A: Light bends at intervals. Look to the quasar for the clue.
And also the clue in the exchange about "visual spectrum".
November 14, 1998
Q: (A) I have another question. In a session from April, you made the following comment: 'four dimensional, fourth density, see?' So you related four dimensions to fourth density. I don't know a mathematical representation of density. I know how to represent four dimensions. This was the first time that you related dimension to density. Is there really a relation?
A: Yes, because 4th density is experienced in 4th dimensional reality.
Q: (A) Speaking now about 4 dimensional reality, is it four dimensional reality of the Kaluza-Klein type?
A: Visual spectrum.
Q: (A) Does that mean that the fourth dimension is NOT related to the fifth dimension of the Kaluza-Klein theory?
A: Yes.
Q: (A) Yes it is related?
A: No, yes it is not. There is a flaw in these theories, relating to prism. What does this tell you?
Q: (A) To prism?! Visual spectrum? I don't know what it tells me. I never came across any relation to prism. But, what is this 4th dimension? Is it an extra dimension beyond the three space dimensions, or is it a time dimension?
A: Not "time," re: Einstein. It is an added spatial reference. The term "dimension" is used simply to access the popular reference, relating to three dimensions. The added "dimension" allows one to visualize outwardly and inwardly simultaneously.
Q: (A) When you talk about this 4th dimension, what is the closest thing in currently understood physics that corresponds to this term? I cannot find anything that corresponds. It is not in relativity theory, it is not in Einstein, it is not in Kaluza-Klein...
A: Exactly, because it has not been hypothesized.
If in the inversion of the double hyperbolic cylinder, one pair bends inward and one pair bends outward simultaneously to form the rim and horseshoe configuration, then we kind of have this added dimension, this additional spatial reference idea that is inward and outward simultaneously.
And we have the Medusa 11 exchange.
June 13, 1998
A: You must remember mosaic, matrix... When you are on the verge of quantum changes or discovery, the realities begin to reveal their perfectly squared nature to you.
Q: Is that the only thing you want to remark about the crossing of the comets in front of the eye of Medusa?
A: Can you not picture all reality as a curving and bobbing journey through a transparent, undulating matrix mosaic?
Q: Well, do you have anything else to say about Andromeda? (It's VERY HOT in here!) Okay, Medusa 11. So, this was 11 of the 33, and assuming that you were not saying that there were 11 heads, but that Medusa was one of three heads, is that what we are getting at here, that there are three heads and Medusa was one?
A: Or both times 2.
Q: What do you mean? I don't understand.
A: Both times 2 is your square, my dear. In other words, perfect balance.
Q: Okay...
"Both times 2 is your square, my dear. In other words, perfect balance.", seems to kind of fit the double hyperbolic cylinder / double equilateral hyperbola idea.
There seems to be many ideas and clues that point to some possibility such as this. The more I look through the transcripts the more I find.
I also wonder if this kind of idea is in the right direction, then I wonder if the swapping of the time cycle could be related to the idea of variable physicality?
As I mentioned, all of this is some rather outlandish speculation, data fitting some clues to some strange ideas. I do not have any math to guess if any of the labels or concepts are even feasible and I can also find sessions' clues that do not fit.
For example:
June 22, 1996
Q: (L) Proper technology. Unstable gravity waves. And once you told us to study Tesla coils.... antimatter... destabilizing the gravity waves through EM generation allows the antimatter to interact with matter which then creates a portal... is it in the antimatter universe that all this traveling back and forth is done by aliens when they abduct people?
A: Close. They transport through it, but most abduction takes place in either 3rd or 4th density.
Q: (L) Is this movement through the antimatter universe, is this what people perceive in their abductions as the "wall of fire?" The coming apart. The demolecularizing?
A: No. That is TransDimensional Atomic Remolecularization.
Q: (L) Okay, if a person were passing into the antimatter universe, how would they perceive it?
A: They wouldn't.
Q: (L) Why?
A: No space; no time.
Q: (L) Antimatter universe has no space and no time... so, the antimatter universe is possibly where the poor guys of flight 19 are?
A: Yes.
So an antimatter universe has no space and no time cycle.
September 12, 1998
Q: (L) If I remember correctly, they said it was a wave of 'hyperkinetic sensate.'
A: Yes.
Q: (L) What does hyperkinetic sensate mean?
A: Your being merging with hyper spatial energy.
Q: (L) Cool!
A: Matter/antimatter. One features atomic particle based matter, the other features pure energy in conscious form. Gravity is the balancing binder of it all.
Q: (C) I have always seen energy as atomic.
A: That is material energy.
The above quote sounds like what we think as antimatter is not a particle. Yet we have positrons which we assume is a particle. So, is the C's notion of antimatter even what we think is antimatter? And this one quote kind of blows away the little matter/antimatter, gravity/antigravity labels I put on the model. Perhaps antimatter that the C's talk about is just not-matter, the hyperbolic tubes (double hyperbolic cylinders) of pure energy that I called the information field? Perhaps the double hyperbolic cylinders are consciousness. Who knows? But I think something in this line of thinking is involved.
Ignoring the speculation on any labels I imposed on the model/idea, here is the next basic question:
Question: Ignoring the attempts at labeling this idea/model, is the basic idea of the four pieces of the double hyperbolic cylinder inverting into something like this rim and horseshoe model to form a torus on the right track?
That is pretty much what I have to ask. The rest is just some quotes on gravity, etc. and maybe some musings:
May 27, 1995
A: Now, what is missing factor which allows third density and fourth density matter to achieve light speed without disintegration? Think...
Q: (RS) That is the fundamental question of nuclear physics... matter cannot reach the speed of light intact... (J) Anti-gravity? (RS) Even by using anti- gravity. At this moment, matter cannot do this... (L) Okay, if you have some matter and this matter is speeding up, and it is approaching the speed of light and it is losing its integrity the faster it goes, what if, at some point you start incrementally adding anti-matter which... (RS) Use the inverse process... take an electron and positron and put one inside the other and recreate the photon. But matter cannot reach the speed of light... if it does, time stops... there is no dimension... (L) Maybe it is consciousness? (J) Awareness? (RS) If it is awareness, yes... (L) Can you factor in consciousness mathematically? (RS) Yes, of course!
A: What is the missing link between matter and consciousness?
Q: (RS) Ah! (L) If we knew these things we wouldn't be here! [Laughter] (RS) It is supposed to be a field. (J) Is it EM? (RS) No, a bioenergetic field. (L) What if consciousness creates gravity? (RS) Gravity is created by matter. (L) But isn't matter created by consciousness? Don't we collapse the wave by observing it? (RS) Yes, the mind can create matter...
A: There are no "gravitons."
Q: (RS) Not to my knowledge. They do not exist. They are in Einstein's theory, but I will never believe it... Does our consciousness create gravity?
A: Getting "warmer." Not "our."
Q: (L) Somebody else's consciousness creates gravity? (RS) Fourth level.
A: Level Seven.
Q: (RS) Oh yes! That I can understand! The ultimate level. Is it true that the universe, as perceived from level three, which is expected to be made up of equal amounts of matter and anti-matter, is, in actuality, open? That is, is matter continuously created somewhere in the universe? Matter and anti-matter?
A: Better word would be: Recycled.
June 15, 1996
A: Unstable gravity waves unlock as yet unknown secrets of quantum physics to make the picture crystal clear.
Q: (L) Can we free associate about these gravity waves since no bookstores are open at this hour? Gravity seems to be a property of matter. Is that correct?
A: And....
Q: (L) And hmmmm....
A: And antimatter!
Q: (L) Is the gravity that is a property of antimatter "antigravity?" Or, is it just gravity on the other side, so to speak?
A: Binder.
Q: (L) Okay. Gravity is the binder. Is gravity the binder of matter?
A: And...
Q: (L) Is gravity a property of light?
A: Not the issue.
Q: (L) What is the issue? Can you help me out here, F****?
A: Gravity binds all that is physical with all that is ethereal through unstable gravity waves!!!
Q: (L) Is antimatter ethereal existence?
A: Pathway to.
Q: (L) Okay.
A: Doorway to.
Q: (L) Are unstable gravity waves... no, hold everything... do unstable gravity waves emanate from 7th density?
A: Throughout.
Q: (L) Do they emanate from any particular density?
A: That is just the point, there is none.
Q: (L) There are no unstable gravity waves?
A: Wrong...
Q: (L) There is no emanation point?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) So, they are a property or attribute of the existence of matter, and the binder of matter to ethereal ideation?
A: Sort of, but they are a property of anti-matter, too!
Q: (L) So, through unstable gravity waves, you can access other densities?
A: Everything.
June 22, 1996
Q: (L) When you are in 5th density, is part of your service to be a guide? Are there two kinds of beings on 5th: those who are there for the recycling, and those whose level it simply IS?
A: No. All are as one in timeless understanding of all there is.
Q: (L) If, at 5th density a person has timeless understanding, what is it about them that determines that they will "recycle" as opposed to moving to 6th from 5th?
A: Contemplation reveals needed destiny.
Q: (L) So, being united with other beings on 5th, you come to some sort of understanding about your lessons....
A: Balanced. And this, my dear, is another example of gravity as the binder of all creation... "The Great Equalizer!"
December 21, 1996
Q: (A) What is elementary charge?
A: Elementary means basic construct, whether directly from the natural "state," or indirectly.
Q: (A) What type of entity?
A: Purely substantive, as in a binder.
January 4, 1997
Q: (L) You have said that gravity is the binder of all reality.
A: Yes.
Q: And now you talk about perception bonding.
A: Yes. Now, try to picture how gravity is the binder of all reality!!!
Q: (L) If gravity is the binder, is gravity consciousness?
A: Not exactly. Did you know that there is no "right" or "left" in 4th density through 7th density? If you can picture this exactly, then you may be able to understand the responses to all the questions you are asking. If not, best "give it a rest." Because it will only be productive learning when you ponder and reflect/review "later."
March 1, 1997
A: What is the nature of neutron stars, super novas, "black holes," etcetera?
Q: (L) You go in a black hole, and you come out a pulsar?!
A: All are the junction of matter/antimatter... the borderline between realities as you know them... material realms/etheric realms, density level junctures, realities. One can pass through these windows with ease; remember, the stars and planets are windows too.
Q: (L) And stars and planets were described as being giant atoms. Is an atom a window?
A: Yes.
Q: (A) Is a proton a window?
A: Yes.
Q: (A) OK, so it is. And it's massive, so let me ask. Is photon a window, too?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Is gravity something from the center of the window to a reflective opposite in the ethereal realm, rather than the attraction between objects in this material realm?
A: Gravity is the "binder" common to all imaginable existence. That is all you really need to know.
May 21, 1997
Q: Okay, some time ago when I had the '3 dominos' dream, or experience. I asked you about this, and you said it was not an important dream. Yet, it led to an incredible series of discoveries. Why did you say it was not important?
A: What was important, the dream or the discoveries?
Q: Well, of course the discoveries... and there really were no dominos... but it gave me a teensy idea that helped with all the rest... and one thing led to another to another...
A: Dream was not important until fulfilled.
Q: Anyway, I found at the same longitude as Oak Island, a place with the name "Percee." This led to Fontainebleau, Chartres, and Coll du Perche and Moulins la Marche. Then, the 'blue waters and white skies' led to Lake Geneva and Point Perce. And this was the third 'Percy'...
A: Devour newspapers for any recent news re: Percy.
Q: Okay. So, then I had the thought that 'Percy' was the center of an incredibly complex web. It was like what you had described for me before: mosaic consciousness. I could see connections no matter which way I looked. I mean, literally everything connects... alchemy, Rosicrucians, Masons, physics, genetics, eschatology, Cassiopaea, prime numbers, Medusa, Perseus... I mean, it is the most incredible thing I have ever seen in my life...
A: So far...
Q: Okay. But, that led to the idea of the universe being like a sort of spider web, with the spider being at the center... kind of an expanded and more complex 'perpendicular reality' idea. All the levels connected by the threads, or conduits... the gravity binder from the spider in the center... am I onto something here? ***
A: Stay tuned...
Q: I hate it when you do that!
A: But you love it when you discover!
June 14, 1997
Q: Ark says: Please ask: last time the C's made a remark about 'juxtaposition' and 'failure in the formula.' Can they let me know which formula, and can they let me know through a code that will precisely address my knowledge and experience. Okay, which formula did you mean?
A: Formula revealed by obvious juxtaposition, when one observes again using knowledge recently gained and compares with that known then!
Q: Are you talking about the juxtaposition of Einstein to Kaluza?
A: Learning is accomplished through discovery.
Q: Anything else you can give that will address Ark's knowledge and experience, concerning the failure in the formula?
A: The failure is deceptively simple... "Old makes new again." Equilateral versus hypotenuse.
August 22, 1998
Q: (A) Related to these gravity waves, in 1936 Einstein wrote a paper which was rejected, in which he claims to have discovered that there are no gravity waves. When you talk...
A: Cloak for others. Einstein knew differently, but was forced to comply for political and security reasons.
Q: (A) Should gravity be quantized as other fields?
A: It can be.
Q: (A) But, if it is quantized, it will be gravitons, and you said that there are no gravitons...
A: Gravitons are really electrons within a time vacuum.
June 13, 1998
A: You must remember mosaic, matrix... When you are on the verge of quantum changes or discovery, the realities begin to reveal their perfectly squared nature to you.
September 12, 1998
Q: (L) If I remember correctly, they said it was a wave of 'hyperkinetic sensate.'
A: Yes.
Q: (L) What does hyperkinetic sensate mean?
A: Your being merging with hyper spatial energy.
Q: (L) Cool!
A: Matter/antimatter. One features atomic particle based matter, the other features pure energy in conscious form. Gravity is the balancing binder of it all.
Q: (C) I have always seen energy as atomic.
A: That is material energy.
September 19, 1998
Q: (A) Last time you said that gravity waves are of instantaneous imprint. That would mean that the wave propagates in space instantaneously. How does its intensity vary when you are away from the source? Does its intensity become weaker and weaker?
A: No.
Q: (A) You say no. That's a funny thing. If there is a source, how can we recognize what is the source of the wave? Where is it?
A: First you must get a correct picture of gravity. Gravity is the binder between matter and anti-matter.
Q: (A) You are using the word 'gravity.' Scientists are also using the word 'gravity.' Apparently there are two different meanings?
A: How so?
Q: (A) Because, according to science, gravity is a force, like other forces, is a field, like other fields, and being a field...
A: But it is the foundational field from which all other fields emanate.
Q: (A) Now, there is something which we call 'space.' Is there such a thing as space? Is it one of the fundamental things? The space concept? Is it secondary?
October 3, 1998
Q: (A) Okay, as you repeatedly mention this 'matrix,' I want to know exactly what your definition of 'matrix' is?
A: Picture a perfectly symmetrical three dimensional parallelogram.
Q: (A) It's a cube.
A: Yes, now convert to 4 dimensions, and you have the mathematical representation of the matter-antimatter matrix.
Q: (A) In mathematics, by a matrix we understand a cube with slots to put numbers in. How many slots do we include?
July 10, 1999
Q: (A) Okay, no clue there. Now, next question relates to the story of creation which L wrote for the website, and I was reading it and trying to make sense, to make it not contradictory, and I found that it is not easy because many of the concepts that are used during these sessions are somehow contradictory to each other or they don't quite fit with the standard meanings of these concepts, so I wanted to ask for some explanation. First, we were told that gravity is essentially the most universal force and that it is from this that everything originates...
A: Gravity is the binder.
Q: (A) But, my question is: gravity is a term that is defined in dictionaries and encyclopedias and is a term which has a very precise meaning for physicists and mathematicians. I want to know if you are talking about the same thing or if you are using the term 'gravity' to describe something completely different that we know as gravity. Are we talking about the same thing?
A: Well, are you certain these "definitions" you speak of are not limited?
Q: (A) Yes, I am sure they are limited. Nevertheless, they are precisely defined concepts and you are using the same term 'gravity,' so I am asking if we are talking about the same thing, or if you are talking about something completely different?
A: How about a great expansion upon the same concept?
Q: (A) Okay. That answered my question. So, we are using the same thing, but for you it is more adequate or so. Now, I want to ask about mathematical modeling of gravity. The gravity that we know about is modeled by geometry of a curved space. Is the gravity that you are talking about, which is an expansion of this concept, capable of being modeled in a similar way: by geometry?
A: Geometry is the correct model.
Q: (A) So, geometry is the correct model and I understand that we have to just write a generalization or expansion of Einstein UFT, and that this will be the correct model of gravity; is this correct?
A: Close.
Q: (A) Now, the question is: if gravity can be modeled in this way - geometry is the correct model - what do we need more to model also consciousness? Will it be automatically implied in such a model of gravity, or is it something extra?
A: Consciousness is contained within the expanded realization of the gravity model. The Unified Field Theory, if completed, would give one an insight into the synchronous relationship between gravity and consciousness.
Q: (A) If gravity is modeled by curvature or torsion of geometry, mathematically, how would consciousness come out of geometry?
A: That is a broken question. What we can say is this: if one could visualize the inverted representation of the gravity geometric model, one would be squarely on the path to understanding the geometric model of consciousness.
Q: (A) Now, there are claims, more or less, shared by many scientists that quantum theory is necessary to model or understand consciousness. From what was said before, it seems that quantum theory is not necessary, that it is sufficient to have the right geometric model of extended gravity.
A: No, not extended, expanded.
Q: (A) Does that mean that quantum theory is irrelevant for understanding the modeling of consciousness?
A: Quantum first needs to be graduated from the realm of theory.
Q: (C) It means it needs to be proved, right?
A: No. Proving is a concept we should now be moving beyond.
Q: (C) When they said 'graduated from the realm of theory,' I assumed that meant that it needed to be proven. So how does it get graduated? What is the next realm after theory?
A: No, my dear, you are missing the point. The currently imposed protocol for "proving" theories is a bit passé, we thinx. Can you imagine trying to fly a plane if you must first prove that there is a sky?
Q: (C) So, don't try to prove quantum theory, just go ahead and use it, I guess.
A: Pretty close.
Q: (A) Are you laughing at quantum theory?
A: No. We are laughing at 3rd density scientific protocol!
Q: (A) Okay, we are coming to densities. But, before that, one more question: what is matter? How is matter built out of gravity? What forms of gravity correspond to matter in terms of the geometric model?
A: First of all, since we are to answer such questions, you need to make this surface smoother!!
[The Plexiglas cover on the board was tacky. We used window cleaner and polished it up.]
Q: (A) So, it was good for previous questions, but not for this! [laughter] (L) Okay, carry on!
A: You live in a "matter" universe, from your perspective. There is an accompanying energy universe which you largely are unable to perceive as of yet.
Q: (A) But, my question was ...
A: Who/what is Mandelbrot??
Q: (A) Okay, you are talking about fractals now, certainly...
A: Are we?
Q: (A) Mandelbrot is the name of a French mathematician who is famous because he discovered fractals and some laws that govern fractals and chaos. But, as to 'what' - some fractal images are also called 'mandlebrot.'
A: And where does this lead, Ark?
Q: (L) But that doesn't answer what matter is.
A: We are bringing you to the place where you can begin to path to understanding this.
Q: (A) That brings us to fractal properties of space time and such things.
A: What if matter were the "half-life" of energy?
Q: (C) Well, half-life is the decay factor. What if energy decays into matter? Is that what they are saying?
A: Be careful of the quote marks, they bring you to the crossroads. As in: "you take the high road, I'll take the low road, and I'll be in Scotland before ye."
Q: (L) I guess that means that we are not to use the usual interpretation of 'half-life,' but that there is a pun, a clue intended here that is to be deciphered.
A: Look folks, we cannot just spill the secrets of all existence all over this board, but we sure can open the doorways, yeah.
Q: (L) That brings me to a little question that I want to insert here. You have said that Service to Others means 'giving all to those who ask.' We are asking, so why aren't you giving all?
A: Not quite. Cannot abridge free will!
Q: (L) Well, my free will says that I want all the secrets of existence! I mean, other people are channeling sources that just dump endless answers to anything and everything...
A: Other people are channeling crappola.
Q: (C) It's a new breakfast cereal! (A) Now, the two main concepts that we are using are dimensions and densities. Again, you use the concept of dimension in not quite the way physicists and mathematicians use it.
A: Phi.
Q: (A) Well, I have no idea what this phi is doing here which is probably related to Fibonacci and the Golden Ratio...
A: Carboni.
Q: (A) Yet, still there is my question about dimensions. Phi is not an integer number and we will look into it. But, what I said was that the way you are using the term 'dimensions' is not what physicists are familiar with in using this term.
A: The trouble here is with semantics: the general public uses that word to mean different things from the physicists!
Q: (C) Okay, phi is a Greek letter but I don't see how that is connected.
A: No, not phi, dimensions!
Q: (L) Define dimension. (A) I have tried to guess what you mean by dimensions from all the things that you have said about it...
A: Our "meaning" is closer to that of the general public definition.
Q: (A) Very good, yet you have said certain things in a context that was more related to the structure of the universe. And we were talking about dimensions also in the context of Kaluza-Klein theories. At one point, you said there are infinitely many dimensions, and at another point it was implied that different dimensions meant different universes, which would mean that there are infinitely many universes. I would like to represent these dimensions in some mathematical model. My idea was that these dimensions were like slices; and each slice is a universe and, indeed, there are infinitely many possible slices. So, that was my idea of dimensions: slices. Is it correct?
A: That is good.
Q: (A) There are infinitely many dimensions because there are infinitely many slices. Now we come to densities. There are not infinitely many densities, there are only seven. Or, are these seven just for the general public and there are really infinitely many of them as well?
A: No.
Q: (A) Good. So, there are seven densities. Now, how come, there are seven, and not three or five, or eleven? Does it follow from some mathematics?
A: What form of mathematical theory best describes the concept of balance?
Q: (L) Algebra. (A) So, I had the idea that these seven densities were related to what Gurdjieff relates to the number of laws that apply in the various densities; the higher the density, the fewer the laws that apply, which means there is more freedom?
A: That is very close. Consciousness is the key here.
Q: (A) Yes, so my question relates to the geometric model of gravity and consciousness.
A: Picture an endless octagonal... in three dimensions.
Q: (A) A lattice, you mean?
Sep 25, 1999
Q: Okay. And, beneath this 4th density reality, there is an etheric reality; and the etheric reality consists of 5th density. Okay? Beneath the 5th density reality, there is the 6th density reality which I am trying to describe in terms of geometry. That geometry is the underlying, essential thing about ideas, natures or aspects of concepts that come into being in our material world; that geometry is the essential nature of things. Am I getting there? But, beyond this geometry, from what does the geometry emanate? I know you are going to say something like "The One," or "Seventh Density," but I would really like to have a concept because I can't get beyond this. Even if it is inadequate, from what does geometry, which expresses as gravity, emerge?
A: Not in sync.
Q: What will get me "in synch?"
A: No "beneaths."
Q: Okay. Since there are no "beneaths," what term would be a suitable replacement?
A: Around.
NOTE: Just an interesting note here. The rim and horseshoe model with gravity as the horseshoes, indeed qualifies as around, as in around the rim.
August 6, 2005
Q: (A) I asked a question long ago about mathematically modeling consciousness, and the answer was "visualize the inverted representation of the gravity geometric model" and that this would lead me to the geometric model of consciousness. But I couldn't find what inverted representation means. So what is it?
A: Do you have an equation for that model for gravity?
Q: (A) No. I don't have any equation. The model is a model and can have many different equations. Equation is something additional that makes the model work one way or another.
A: Find the equation, and then "invert."
Q: (A) Okay, so say I found the equation; I still don't know how to invert the equation. Read it backward? Upside down?
A: Gravity is consciousness "expressed."
...
...
Extraneous Musings:
===============
Sept 05, 1998
===============
Q: (A) Now this supernova that is supposed to explode soon, will it be soon in the sense of our SEEING it, that is the arrival of the light from this, or soon in the instantaneous sense?
A: Optically.
Q: (L) So, this supernova must have already occurred?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) And where did this supernova take place?
A: No dice, baby!
Q: (L) What clue can I follow to determine which star it is?
A: Instincts.
Q: (A) But, if it already occurred, then this means that the instantaneous effects have already been felt, even if it was lesser than the optical effects. It must have been recorded by anomalous changes in genes? (L) Is that true?
A: Close.
Q: (L) So what, in the records, should we be looking for?
A: Sign of struggle out of sequence with pre-ordained activities of Royal Blood Lines.
Q: (L) In other words, the usurpation of the blood lines?
A: Close.
===============
Dec 04, 1999
===============
Q: I have two last questions: at one point you said to note the "struggle out of sequence with pre-ordained activities of royal bloodlines." Now, of course, I made the remark about usurpation of a throne, but later I realized that we don't really know what the pre-ordained activities of royal bloodlines really are. They don't necessarily have to do with a secular position, they could be a function. What are the pre-ordained activities of royal bloodlines?
A: Control.
Q: Control of what? People?
A: Close.
Q: Control of the reality in some sense?
A: Not as close.
Q: Control as in STS domination?
A: Yes.
===============
January 1, 2005
===============
Q: Wasn't Rigel meant to go supernova?
A: Rigel already went!
Q: When?
A: We already said look, listen and no dice!
Discussion on when we thought Rigel went supernova, around 1229, actual distance in light years is disputed however
A: R U playing horseshoes?
R U - letters as numbers 18, 21 - 1281, 1218 as the year Rigel went supernova?
==============================
Magna Carta 1218, 1225?
A: Sign of struggle out of sequence with pre-ordained activities of Royal Blood Lines.
Q: (L) In other words, the usurpation of the blood lines?
A: Close.
==============================
Jul 16, 2007
Q: (L) I would just like to know what form this help is going to take?
A: That would be cheating. Look to the skies...
[ This could be the 40 or so days - thrills and chills, Rigel would be thrilling visually, cosmic rays triggers cloud seeding, cooling/chilling. It may also up the ante/anti and may engender DNA modification, hopefully beneficial.
Somewhere between or around: Jan 19, 2017 ~40 days >< Jan 29, 2017 ~50 days, but as always - wait and see! ]
Could phi be the log2 scale? log2 is associated with "half-life", phi is also the log2 scale, called the phi scale and used particularly in the particulate distribution studies such as Wilbur K. Brown / Carboni? In fact SFT uses the phi log scale for its particulate distribution.
It is interesting that Carboni was mentioned with Phi.
Q: (C) It's a new breakfast cereal! (A) Now, the two main concepts that we are using are dimensions and densities. Again, you use the concept of dimension in not quite the way physicists and mathematicians use it.
A: Phi.
Q: (A) Well, I have no idea what this phi is doing here which is probably related to Fibonacci and the Golden Ratio...
A: Carboni.
This is kind of funny in that phi seemed to be leading to the golden ratio, but here we have this funny inclusion of Carboni again. Are they really trying to get us to log2?
It seems at some points phi points to the golden ratio and at other points to log2, "half-life" also seems to point to log2.
Can log2 particulate distribution be extended to
Sometimes being human feels so odd.
