Laws of physics 'are different' depending on where you are in the universe

[combsbt]

As I read The Wave, I come up with the idea that our definition of gravity is NOT the same thing as the C's definition of gravity. I would even go as far as saying that the very idea of gravity, as our physics currently describes it, could not be any more 180 degrees out of whack with what the C's are saying it is.
The idea that I point at an orange, and say "that's an orange, with the properties of an orange".
Someone else points at an orange, and says "that's an apple, with the properties of an apricot".
Whoa. Hold the phone.
We got the concept of fruit (I hope) and the tree that it hangs on (or not).
Can we start the gravity conversation over again, and this time let's make sure we are all looking at the same thing?

This question was actually asked in one of the sessions.

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 modelling of gravity. The gravity that we know about is modelled by geometry of a curved space. Is the gravity that you are talking about, which is an expansion of this concept, capable of being modelled 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 modelled 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.

Full session: http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,23952.msg268475.html#msg268475

 

[Ðekel]

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.

so what do you guys think ?

any thoughts on ''the synchronous relationship between gravity and consciousness'' ?

the c's have said that gravity is affected by consciousness.. i cannot seem to find the exact transcript at the moment.

 

[SeekinTruth]

The C's have also said that gravity is the binder of all ethereal existence with all material existence. So you can kinda see that a complete Unified Field Theory (which the C's have also said would make evident the concept of different Densities) would give insight into the "synchronous relationship between gravity and consciousness."

Just a note: purely ethereal existence being consciousness that is not embodied in any way -- no physicality at all.

 

[RobertB]

The C's have also said that gravity is the binder of all ethereal existence with all material existence. So you can kinda see that a complete Unified Field Theory (which the C's have also said would make evident the concept of different Densities) would give insight into the "synchronous relationship between gravity and consciousness."

Just a note: purely ethereal existence being consciousness that is not embodied in any way -- no physicality at all.

Would this be the one?
http://www.unifiedfieldtheory.info/
And using the English version of the paper.

 

[Ðekel]

the correlations would be interesting.

when asked what relationship gravity and consciousness have, the c's have stated that unlike commonly held notions in "science", gravity is affected by consciousness directly.

but what could this mean ?
the extent of gravity or its properties or something else altogether ?

the details aren't that important but it is interesting nonetheless..

 

[bngenoh]

The C's have also said that gravity is the binder of all ethereal existence with all material existence. So you can kinda see that a complete Unified Field Theory (which the C's have also said would make evident the concept of different Densities) would give insight into the "synchronous relationship between gravity and consciousness."

Just a note: purely ethereal existence being consciousness that is not embodied in any way -- no physicality at all.

Would this be the one?
http://www.unifiedfieldtheory.info/
And using the English version of the paper.

Excellent link RobertB, looking foward to taking a more indepth look at it since i have only scanned it.

As to the topic at hand, the C's have said "Consciousness is gravity "expressed"," & "Utilization of gravity generates light." The connection with light is very interesting, as i hope to demonstrate. First, lets go back to the science of warp, especially this part:

From the point of view of humanity, I think the question of whether superluminal travel is possible will have a lot more consequence than the question of whether time travel is possible.

It seems Superluminal travel is possible, & has been demonstrated:

The textbooks say nothing can travel faster than light, not even light itself. New experiments show that this is no longer true, raising questions about the maximum speed at which we can send information.

Can a light pulse travel faster than the speed of light? This question has intrigued physicists for many years because such an event could violate Einstein's theory of special relativity and the principle of causality (that 'cause' always precedes 'effect'). Together these imply that no object or information can travel faster than the speed of light, c=3times108 m s-1. For nearly two decades, physicists have been sending certain light pulses faster than c over short distances (so-called superluminal propagation), but the light pulses have always been distorted in the process so interpreting these experiments has been difficult1-3.

Never heard of that before.

In May this year, Mugnai et al.4 reported superluminal behaviour in the propagation of microwaves (centimetre wavelengths) over much longer distances (tens of centimetres) at a speed 7% faster than c. A report by Wang et al.5 ( page 277 of this issue) now demonstrates a very large superluminal effect for pulses of visible light, in which a pulse propagates in a specially prepared medium with a negative velocity of -c/310: that is, not only faster than a pulse travelling in a vacuum, but so fast that the peak of the pulse exits the medium before it enters it!

A negative velocity can be understood by comparing the times it would take for identical pulses of light to cover some distance L in a vacuum (travelling at velocity c) and in a superluminal medium (travelling at velocity v). The difference in transit times DeltaT= L/v-L/c is a negative quantity if the velocity is superluminal. If v has a negative value then DeltaT can become sufficiently negative that the peak of the pulse emerges from the medium at an instant earlier than when the peak of the pulse enters. This brings to mind Arthur Buller's well-known limerick with relativistic over tones:

There was a young lady named Bright,
Whose speed was far faster than light;
She set out one day,
In a relative way,
And returned home the previous night.​

But Wang et al.5 claim that, unlike the heroine of this rhyme, their light pulses do not violate causality. They argue that their superluminal pulses are the result of the wave nature of light itself (fortunately, making it impossible for an object with mass to travel faster than c) and that no actual information, or signal, is transmitted faster than c. They use smooth, well-defined light pulses, so that the peak of the pulse at the output results from the forward rising edge of the input pulse, which occurs far earlier in time, making it consistent with causality. An abrupt feature in the light pulse would not be able to travel faster than c. This means that even if the 'effect' appears to precede the 'cause', you still can't send useful information — such as news of an impending accident — faster than c.

Think that they are back tracking here, but my understanding is limited, since the Cassiopaean experiment adds a lot of evidence for superluminal communication, being as valid an application of physics as the telephone, radio, etc.

A light pulse has a finite duration, and it is a well-known theorem in physics (the bandwidth theorem) that, to create a pulse of finite duration, an infinite number of waves of different frequency must be added together. The shorter the desired pulse, the larger the bandwidth of frequencies that must be used. All light pulses are therefore formed by a packet of waves of different frequency, each of which has a different amplitude and phase. There is a distinction between the speed of individual waves, called the phase velocity, vp, and the velocity at which the peak of the wavepacket propagates, known as the group velocity, vg. In a vacuum the phase and group velocities are the same, but in a highly absorbing or dispersive medium they are usually different. A negative group velocity results when the phases of the different frequency components are shifted by the medium through which they travel, so that the wavepacket they form at the exit is brought forward in time compared with the same pulse travelling through a vacuum.

One way to achieve negative velocity is to modify the refractive index of the medium through which the light passes. Last year scientists at Harvard6 and elsewhere succeeded in modifying the refractive properties of a cloud of ultracold atoms to generate very slow light pulses with group velocities of a few metres per second. To create the opposite effect — superluminal pulses of light — you need a medium in which the refractive index changes rapidly, for example near an atomic absorption frequency ( Fig. 1a). The only problem is that the so-called anomalous dispersion region in Fig. 1a, where vg can be negative3, is also in a region where there is increased light absorption. In experiments with such highly absorbing materials, the light pulses are either strongly distorted or absorbed, making any faster-than-light claims difficult to interpret.

Mirrors anyone :D :D

[...]

There remains, however, some debate about what is the true speed at which information is carried by a light pulse. Traditionally the signal velocity of a light pulse is defined as the speed at which the half peak-intensity point on the rising edge of the waveform travels; in this experiment, this is clearly superluminal. In contrast, some researchers argue that the true speed at which information is carried by a light pulse is not the group velocity of a smooth pulse, but rather the speed at which a sudden step-like feature in the waveform travels, which so far has not been shown to exceed c. Superluminal effects are especially interesting in the case of light pulses consisting of only a few photons, in which it could be argued that the group velocity is the same as the velocity of the individual photons. The type of superluminal behaviour discussed here is also predicted to apply to single photons8, which might have implications for the transmission of quantum information.

Source: http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/science-technology/10495-faster-than-speeding-photon.html

The source is very interesting, because it is a forum, but the next comment after this one cites Yu.V.Nachalov's Theoretical Basics of Experimental Phenomena, which psyche found and posted on the "Psychomantium, Past, Present, & Future thread," but this one is not the abriged version, it is complete with references.

Synchronicity indeed. :D :D :D

 

[bngenoh]

This is relevant to this thread:

Look past the details of a wonky discovery by a group of California scientists -- that a quantum state is now observable with the human eye -- and consider its implications: Time travel may be feasible. Doc Brown would be proud.

The strange discovery by quantum physicists at the University of California Santa Barbara means that an object you can see in front of you may exist simultaneously in a parallel universe -- a multi-state condition that has scientists theorizing that traveling through time may be much more than just the plaything of science fiction writers.

And it's all because of a tiny bit of metal -- a "paddle" about the width of a human hair, an item that is incredibly small but still something you can see with the naked eye.

UC Santa Barbara's Andrew Cleland cooled that paddle in a refrigerator, dimmed the lights and, under a special bell jar, sucked out all the air to eliminate vibrations. He then plucked it like a tuning fork and noted that it moved and stood still at the same time.

[...]

What does it all mean? Let's say you're in Oklahoma visiting your aunt. But in another universe, where your atomic particles just can't keep up, you're actually at home watching "The Simpsons." That may sound far-fetched, but it's based on real science.

[...]

The multi-verse theory says the entire universe "freezes" during observation, and we see only one reality. You see a soccer ball flying through the air, but maybe in a second universe the ball has dropped already. Or you were looking the other way. Or they don't even play soccer over there.

[...]

"Unless you can imagine some super-advanced alien civilization that has figured this out, we aren't affected by the possible existence of other universes," Carroll said. But he does think "someone could devise a machine that lets one universe communicate with another."

[...]

"Time seems to be a one-way street that runs from the past to the present," says Fred Alan Wolf, a.k.a. Dr. Quantum, a physicist and author. "But take into consideration theories that look at the level of quantum fields ... particles that travel both forward and backward in time. If we leave out the forward-and-backwards-in-time part, we miss out on some of the physics."

Wolf says that time -- at least in quantum mechanics -- doesn't move straight like an arrow. It zig-zags, and he thinks it may be possible to build a machine that lets you bend time.

[...]

"Newton said all time is universal and all clocks tick the same way," Gott says. "Now with Einstein's theory of Special Relativity we know that travel into the future is possible. With Einstein's theory of gravity, the laws of physics as we understand them today suggest that even time travel to the past is possible in principle. But to see whether time travel to the past can actually be realized we may have to learn new laws of physics that step in at the quantum level."

Read more: _http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/05/freaky-physics-proves-parallel-universes/#ixzz1n2Q2HonF

Ted talk about visible quantum object: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/aaron_o_connell_making_sense_of_a_visible_quantum_object.html

 

[dant]

Some thoughts:

Are the 6D C's definition of "light" the same as our 3D's
definition of light? To us in 3D, have we defined "light" to
mean that limited band of frequencies, given the entire
EM spectrum? Perhaps the C's definition of "light" is the
entire unlimited EM spectrum, "all" including "null"?

When we say, `the speed of "light"', 'speed' being the
operative 3D term (it has distance/time), are we only
measuring the speed in this limited band of EM
frequencies, and not considering frequencies beyond this
limited EM band? As the wavelength approaches zero, the
frequency approaches infinity, i.e. it is "unlimited"?

Could Conciousness represent "close to infinite" frequencies
in 6D but "slows down" (like a prism) as it descends
"downward" from 6D into 3D (and below)?

correction: wavelength->frequencies

 

[bngenoh]

Some thoughts:

Are the 6D C's definition of "light" the same as our 3D's definition of light? To us in 3D, have we defined "light" to mean that limited band of frequencies, given the entire EM spectrum? Perhaps the C's definition of "light" is the entire unlimited EM spectrum, "all" including "null"?

Our definition of anything is limited by our age, our personal & collective experiences, etc. Studying history and witnessing the growth & development that has taken place in how we perceive reality & ourselves is i feel a great indication of to quote a wise person "The greatest minds are the prisoners of their ages."

In essence that which is "greater" encompasses that which is "lesser," while still understanding that which is "lesser". Thus, when seeking to communicate to that which is "lesser," that which is "greater" will as a natural function of being "greater" possess a broader vision. Take for example one of us communicating with another person in the last say 500 years. Our definitions have changed a lot since then, and even new ones which they did not know have come into existence. Only the creation of a dictionary which both agree to use will facilitate any worthwhile level of communication.

 

[Deleted member 8431]

Very interesting. That is something that must scare the hell out of many scientists. Think about the implications of such a discovery.

Nikola Tesla had figured it out already in my opinion. While reading stuff about the Philadelphia experiment, I read that he had "synchronized" EM fields with those of our sun and galactic center. I didn't know what it meant but after going through C's stuff and Ra material (Logos), it became clearer. As much as this new theory.

I'll keep searching! Cool stuff quite indeed!