Session 3 September 2008

[Ca.]

Although, if the US succeeds in starting a war with China and/or Russia,

Don't forget about Britain and Australia.

The foreigners in China’s disinformation drive

Foreigners are increasingly appearing on YouTube promoting China's narrative on issues like Xinjiang.

www.bbc.com

https://twitter.com/x/status/1417854761475268608

Reedit Comment on British vlogger Jason Lightfoot .

US currently as the only source of hope, they're the only ones which are organizing any type of meaningful push back.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1417901192580112384

https://twitter.com/x/status/1417900504399630341

https://twitter.com/x/status/1417206819575959559

 

[othree]

Don't forget about Britain and Australia.

The foreigners in China’s disinformation drive

Foreigners are increasingly appearing on YouTube promoting China's narrative on issues like Xinjiang.

www.bbc.com

https://twitter.com/x/status/1417854761475268608

Reedit Comment on British vlogger Jason Lightfoot .

https://twitter.com/x/status/1417901192580112384

https://twitter.com/x/status/1417900504399630341

https://twitter.com/x/status/1417206819575959559

I'm aware of all the protests, but they don't seem to amount to much in terms of legislation, apart from in the US. But I would love to be corrected on that point.

 

[Ryan]

For this reason, many regard the US currently as the only source of hope, they're the only ones which are organizing any type of meaningful push back.

I disagree. For most outside the 'western' Anglo/west Euro sphere, the US is a psychotic clown show. The country appears to be on the verge of a civil war and the far leftist 'culture' that has been promoted by the schizoids in US academia is regarded with great amusement by countries where relatively normal modes of thinking still predominate.

The attitude of the US towards China is just more evidence that the imperialists are still well in control in the US, and it's causing a groundswell of Chinese nationalism that only unifies China further and hastens Eurasian integration, especially with regards to defence alliances with Russia.

The most virulent purveyors of the "Great Reset" are focused on the US, and they intend to disarm the country and subject it to the same type of totalitarianism currently seizing power in Australia. It's yet to be seen whether they will fail.

I wonder if all those things are currently tipping the scale in US's favor and if maybe the destruction won't be as devastating as proclaimed.

While I don't think we'll see nuclear bombs exploding in the US (Trump's election probably prevented that), the country is certainly headed for destruction and seems likely to implode in on itself similar to the way the Soviet Union did in the late 80's/early 90s, or so I think.

 

[Ryan]

I'm aware of all the protests, but they don't seem to amount to much in terms of legislation, apart from in the US. But I would love to be corrected on that point.

None of Denmark, Sweden or Norway have mandated vaccinations for their citizens like in the US, and in fact have now dropped all coronavirus-related social restrictions.

 

[EricLux]

Did you notice that one of the small triangles along the bottom is missing?

Yeah, maybe the grass is overcooked or dried there. I was just wondering why the figure was in such and such a field, in such and such a place, and not in another. Are the figures deposited according to a magnetic grid?​

 

[EricLux]

Rodin knowingly or unknowingly has likely crossed over to the dark side. He has Tom Bearden as an endorser and Jeff Rense as an interviewer. A while back Ark looked into whether physics lost anything by going away from quaternions and what Ark determined was that quaternions may very well be useful but they haven't actually gone anywhere, they are perfectly alive and well in Clifford Algebra. This Rodin Enneagram-like stuff is also quite alive and well inside of Clifford Algebra. Even in Jungian psychology where one can't actually do algebra there is still actual geometry to replace the Enneagram symbol. It's very interesting to look at the historical origins of ideas and see the numerological patterns but things don't have to stay clouded in the mystery of ancient symbols and numerology when there is actual algebra and geometry that can be used. Gurdijeff may have had valid reasons for just sticking to symbolism but it's quite OK today to be direct when possible.​

Thanks @John G !

I was just wondering whether electromagnetism had lost anything by abandoning quaternions and, after exchanging with ark, it would appear not. However, quaternions appeal to complex space and the action of modulus 1 quaternions naturally translates into rotation in space. Are Maxwell's rotational equations for E and B the translation of the presence of modulus 1 quaternions?

And, as a result, appealing to quaternions would be a natural way of appealing to another structure of space than the purely vector approach. I think the question is not: have we lost something by changing approach, but are we still in reality?

It's well known that, since Newton's time, he concluded that quaternions might well be useful but that they hadn't actually disappeared anywhere, that they were perfectly alive and well in Clifford's algebra.

What does Clifford's algebra bring us in relation to quaternions? Why did we need to use it?
​

**​

Je me demandais justement si l'électromagnétisme avait perdu quelque chose en abandonnant les quaternions et, après avoir échangé avec ark, il apparaitrait que non. Cependant, les quaternions font appel à l'espace complexe et l'action des quaternions de module 1 se traduit naturellement en rotation dans l'espace. Est-ce que les équations de Maxwell relatives au rotationnel de E et de B sont la traduction de la présence des quaternions de module 1?

Et, du coup, le fait de faire appel aux quaternions serait une façon naturelle de faire appel à une autre structure d'espace que l'approche purement vectorielle. Je pense que la question n'est pas : avons-nous perdu quelque chose en changeant d'approche mais sommes-nous toujours dans la réalité?

Il est connu, depuis l'époque de Newton, que l'on peut décrire, et donc interpréter, un phénomène d'une multitude de façons. Si les quaternions sont parfaitement vivants et bien portants dans l'algèbre de Clifford.

Que nous apporte l'algèbre de Clifford par rapport aux quaternions? Pourquoi avons-nous eu besoin d'y recourir?​

 

[EricLux]

Sorry, it took me so long to reply, I didn't catch this question earlier. If you look at the other pics of this crop circle that portion is there so i think the apparent missing triangle in the first photo i posted must be due to glare or angle or something like that. Here's another photographer's picture of it.

Also the wheat appears to be bent not broken:

Thank you very much for your answer, I hadn't thought to use other photos, from other angles to check! I thought it came from the grass in that place, wondering why the crop-circle had taken place here and not in another place? What if it could be related to the Earth's magnetic field?
​

**​

Merci beaucoup pour ta réponse, je n'avais pas pensé à faire appel à d'autres photos, sous d'autres angles pour vérifier ! Je pensais que cela venait de l'herbe à cet endroit-là en me demandant justement pourquoi le crop-circle avait eu lieu ici et pas à un autre endroit? Si cela pouvait être lié au champ magnétique terrestre?​

 

[John G]

Thanks @John G !

I was just wondering whether electromagnetism had lost anything by abandoning quaternions and, after exchanging with ark, it would appear not. However, quaternions appeal to complex space and the action of modulus 1 quaternions naturally translates into rotation in space. Are Maxwell's rotational equations for E and B the translation of the presence of modulus 1 quaternions?

And, as a result, appealing to quaternions would be a natural way of appealing to another structure of space than the purely vector approach. I think the question is not: have we lost something by changing approach, but are we still in reality?

It's well known that, since Newton's time, he concluded that quaternions might well be useful but that they hadn't actually disappeared anywhere, that they were perfectly alive and well in Clifford's algebra.

What does Clifford's algebra bring us in relation to quaternions? Why did we need to use it?​

Clifford Algebra includes quaternions and extends them. Cl(1) is complex numbers, Cl(2) is quaternions, Cl(3) is biquaternions not octonions, Cl(4) bivectors is the Lorentz group, Cl(6) bivectors is the conformal group... The bivectors for the SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) of the Standard Model EM and nuclear forces could be in a Clifford Algebra too. The middle algebra of a Clifford Algebra could be the classical part of Ark's EEQT. The rest of the Clifford Algebra could hold the rest of EEQT. It as Ark has said could be a good mother algebra for holding everything.

 

[EricLux]

Clifford Algebra includes quaternions and extends them. Cl(1) is complex numbers, Cl(2) is quaternions, Cl(3) is biquaternions not octonions, Cl(4) bivectors is the Lorentz group, Cl(6) bivectors is the conformal group... The bivectors for the SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) of the Standard Model EM and nuclear forces could be in a Clifford Algebra too. The middle algebra of a Clifford Algebra could be the classical part of Ark's EEQT. The rest of the Clifford Algebra could hold the rest of EEQT. It as Ark has said could be a good mother algebra for holding everything.​

Cool, then, Clifford's algebra would turn out to be the mother of all physical actions. All that remains is to ask for confirmation from the Cs and to understand how physical variability is obtained in the framework of Clifford's algebras. I've always had a bit of trouble imagining a complex space in reality: i² is the double rotation that makes you go from the + axis to the - axis. However, the - axis of a Euclidean frame of reference is purely abstract because it is linked to the randomly chosen reference of the frame of reference in question. It has nothing to do with a purely negative domain like that of antimatter seems to be...
​

**​

Cool donc l’algèbre de Clifford se révèlerait être la mère de toutes les actions physiques. Il ne reste plus qu’à demander confirmation aux Cs et à comprendre comment s’obtient la variabilité physique dans le cadre des algèbres de Clifford. J'ai toujours eu un peu de mal à me représenter un espace complexe dans la réalité : i² est la double rotation qui fait passer de l'axe + à l'axe -. Or, l'axe - d'un référentiel euclidien est purement abstrait car lié à la référence aléatoirement choisie du référentiel en question. Il n'a rien à voir avec un domaine purement négatif comme semble l'être celui de l'antimatière...​

 

[John G]

Cool, then, Clifford's algebra would turn out to be the mother of all physical actions. All that remains is to ask for confirmation from the Cs and to understand how physical variability is obtained in the framework of Clifford's algebras. I've always had a bit of trouble imagining a complex space in reality: i² is the double rotation that makes you go from the + axis to the - axis. However, the - axis of a Euclidean frame of reference is purely abstract because it is linked to the randomly chosen reference of the frame of reference in question. It has nothing to do with a purely negative domain like that of antimatter seems to be...
​

The way complex spacetime tends to be pictured is with a time disk and a space hypersphere. The circumference of the disk would be real time and the inside complex time and the 3-dim boundary of the 4-dim hypersphere would be real space with the inside being complex space. Complex spacetime is really the Cartesian product of the time disk and space hypersphere but that is too complex to picture. Ark does tend to need good details figured out before the Cs give good confirmation.

 

[John G]

And, as a result, appealing to quaternions would be a natural way of appealing to another structure of space than the purely vector approach. I think the question is not: have we lost something by changing approach, but are we still in reality?
​

The conformal invariance via the Cl(6) Clifford Algebra bivectors would relate most to this derivation from Wikipedia's Maxwell's equations article:

In the differential form formulation on arbitrary space times, F = 1/2Fαβdxα ∧ dxβ is the electromagnetic tensor considered as a 2-form, A = Aαdxα is the potential 1-form, 𝐽=−𝐽𝛼⋆d𝑥𝛼

is the current 3-form, d is the exterior derivative, and ⋆

is the Hodge star on forms defined (up to its orientation, i.e. its sign) by the Lorentzian metric of spacetime. In the special case of 2-forms such as F, the Hodge star ⋆

depends on the metric tensor only for its local scale. This means that, as formulated, the differential form field equations are conformally invariant, but the Lorenz gauge condition breaks conformal invariance.

The Lorenz gauge condition could be what is losing some of reality. The Lorenz gauge condition is Lorentz invariant and the names do get confused with each other. The 1-form A relates to the U(1) Standard Model symmetry for EM.

 

[EricLux]

The way complex spacetime tends to be pictured is with a time disk and a space hypersphere. The circumference of the disk would be real time and the inside complex time and the 3-dim boundary of the 4-dim hypersphere would be real space with the inside being complex space. Complex spacetime is really the Cartesian product of the time disk and space hypersphere but that is too complex to picture. Ark does tend to need good details figured out before the Cs give good confirmation.​

Thank you very much @John G ! The notion of hypersphere is important for what I feel about it and perhaps not as we currently intellectualize it: we must work in such a way as to no longer depend on time to be able to go beyond our 3D representation of the reality; as long as we remain with a temporal variable, we will be stuck in notions of space-time while the Cs invite us not to mix space and time (return to a more Galilean approach to reality). I think that mixing space and time helps to complicate our view of reality.

Furthermore, how does the matter-antimatter relationship fit into the domain of hypersphere? This relationship proving crucial for all dimensions and densities, it must be at the heart of our approach and this is where we find a limit of the relativistic approach to make antimatter emerge naturally from the bases of relativity. We only take it into account by uniting special relativity and quantum mechanics thanks to Dirac as if quantum mechanics carried within it what special relativity lacks.

I've always wondered if with the right assumptions we couldn't get quantum special relativity from the start. Which would avoid the search for a late unification between general relativity and quantum mechanics by realizing that electromagnetism and gravity are already ONE. This would involve guessing where gravity is hidden in relativity and quantum mechanics. Maybe freeing up time is the way?
​

**​

Merci beaucoup @John G ! La notion d'hypersphère est importante pour ce que j'en ressens et peut-être pas telle que nous l'intellectualisons actuellement : nous devons travailler de façon à ne plus dépendre du temps pour pouvoir aller au-delà de notre représentation 3D de la réalité; tant que nous resterons avec une variable temporelle, nous serons englués dans des notions d'espace-temps alors que les Cs nous invitent à ne pas mélanger espace et temps (revenir à une approche plus galiléenne de la réalité). Je pense que le fait de mélanger l'espace et le temps à participer à complexifier notre regard sur la réalité.

De plus, comment s'inscrit la relation matière-antimatière au sein du domaine de l'hypersphère? Cette relation se révélant cruciale pour toutes les dimensions et densités, elle doit être au cœur de notre approche et c'est là que nous trouvons une limite de l'approche relativiste pour faire émerger l'antimatière naturellement depuis les bases de la relativité. Nous ne la prenons en compte qu'en unissant la relativité restreinte et la mécanique quantique grâce à Dirac comme si la mécanique quantique portait en son sein ce qui fait défaut à la relativité restreinte.

Je me suis toujours demandé si avec les bonnes hypothèses, nous ne pouvions pas obtenir une relativité restreinte quantique dès le départ. Ce qui éviterait la recherche d'une unification tardive entre la relativité générale et la mécanique quantique en réalisant que l'électromagnétisme et la gravité sont déjà UN. Cela supposerait de deviner où se cache la gravité en relativité et en mécanique quantique. Peut-être qu'en se libérant du temps est la voie ?​

 

[John G]

Thank you very much @John G ! The notion of hypersphere is important for what I feel about it and perhaps not as we currently intellectualize it: we must work in such a way as to no longer depend on time to be able to go beyond our 3D representation of the reality; as long as we remain with a temporal variable, we will be stuck in notions of space-time while the Cs invite us not to mix space and time (return to a more Galilean approach to reality). I think that mixing space and time helps to complicate our view of reality.

Furthermore, how does the matter-antimatter relationship fit into the domain of hypersphere? This relationship proving crucial for all dimensions and densities, it must be at the heart of our approach and this is where we find a limit of the relativistic approach to make antimatter emerge naturally from the bases of relativity. We only take it into account by uniting special relativity and quantum mechanics thanks to Dirac as if quantum mechanics carried within it what special relativity lacks.

I've always wondered if with the right assumptions we couldn't get quantum special relativity from the start. Which would avoid the search for a late unification between general relativity and quantum mechanics by realizing that electromagnetism and gravity are already ONE. This would involve guessing where gravity is hidden in relativity and quantum mechanics. Maybe freeing up time is the way?​

Well the degenerate metric certainly zeros out time and does quite a number on space too. It seems like to "go" anywhere you have to be able to "go" to non-causally related locations. Not really sure how that works though conformal symmetry can allow time travel so it perhaps connects non-causal locations too?

The hypersphere aka complex spacetime is the spacetime of the conformal symmetry as long as the conformal metric hasn't become degenerate. A conformal infinity bridge connects the matter dominated universe to the antimatter dominated anti-universe. The conformal group is the full symmetry of the Dirac equation too and along with it being the full symmetry of Maxwell's equations and Ark having conformal gravity (rotations, boosts, translations, dilations, and special conformal transformations) things are rather unified. You do kind of need it in triplicate though (creation, annihilation and the EEQT central algebra classical part).