Magnetism is to electricity as gravity is to what?

[WhiteMountain]

Magnetism is to electricity as gravity is to... information? I think of the way an AC signal can 'ride atop' a DC level in a circuit. Perhaps unstable gravity waves can ride atop a stronger, constant gravitational pull. Can unstable gravity waves be nevertheless periodic and regular? Wireless electromagnetic waveforms transmit information of a sort, (light/radio waves), and the waveform must be processed based on this or that protocol that matches the signal. Perhaps gravity waves can also be used to transmit information, or that is their natural, primary purpose, in which case the protocol to convert the signal to information may be embedded in nature.

Of course, it may be an error to make correlations between light/radio waves and whatever unstable gravity waves are, and I know little about higher physics and math.

Interesting the fact you bring up unstable gravity waves. I wondered what that meant. But after just writing the above post (that I spent way too much time on - luckily I am a very fast typer :)) and you reminding me of it, maybe the idea of a wave without frequency or information / perturbation is sort of like what they are talking about in terms of "unstable gravity waves." A wave without frequency or with the inability to transmit information would be considered unstable. Now I have to go back and remind myself what exactly they said about unstable gravity waves. The way I see it the key feature of them is that they would be EM "waves"/perturbations that do not actually carry energy, and thus could explain how gravitational orbits (or even electrical ones for that matter) do not decay if there is a magnetic like component to the gravitational field, which I as you can see in the post above definitely think is possible.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

What's interesting about the question is that usually, people compare the gravitational force to the electrostatic force since they both vary with the inverse of the square of the distance, and then they ask whether there is an unknown "force" that connects to gravity similarly to the way magnetism connect to electricity.

Ahh maybe I'm asking it backwards? I think John G's suggestion to read Laura's recent posts on Ark's blogs are apropos to this discussion, especially the point about the magical inverse square law, here are the links again for reference:

The Goldilocks Enigma

Arkadiusz Jadczyk

ark-jadczyk.blogspot.com

The Goldilocks Enigma – Part Two

Arkadiusz Jadczyk

ark-jadczyk.blogspot.com

In earlier times, these laws were seen to be ‘thoughts of God’ or derived from God’s role as law-maker and keeper of order. After Darwin, of course, it could be suggested that nobody needed God to create things; natural selection did that very well. Of course, as I have noted, that just put the problem off several steps. But in any event, today the ‘laws of physics’ are central to science and foundational to physical reality. These laws have been discovered and described bit by bit over hundreds of years.

Galileo supposedly dropped balls off the tower at Pisa and discovered that the distance the ball falling increases as the square of the time. Davies asks the obvious question: Why is there such a mathematical rule? Where does the rule come from? And why is the rule as it is and not something else?

Why does the force between magnets diminish with the cube of the distance between them? Why is it so that if you double the volume of a fixed mass of gas while keeping the temperature constant, its pressure is halved? (Boyle’s Law) Why is it so that the square of the period of an orbit is proportional to the cube of the orbit’s radius? (Kepler’s law) Why is it so that the force of gravity diminishes with distance as the square of the separation between the two bodies?

We could say that the physical world conforms to mathematical laws or that mathematics and laws emerge from the behavior of objects in the physical world. Chicken or egg? Does it matter?. By using Newton’s laws of motion and gravitation, engineers can figure out when a space craft will arrive at point B after departing from point A. And it always works. Whatever the origin of the world – matter or mind – the mathematical models of reality appear to always describe what actually happens in the real world. Davies captures the deep mystery: “Why is Nature shadowed by a mathematical reality?”

So, the next question is: How many laws are there? It turns out that many of the laws are not independent. Davies writes:

Newton’s laws of gravitation and motion explain Kepler’s three laws of planetary motion, and so are in some sense deeper and more powerful. Newton’s laws of motion also explain Boyle’s law of gases when they are applied in a statistical way to a large collection of chaotically moving molecules. … The laws of electricity … were found to be connected to the laws of magnetism, which in turn explained the laws of light. These interconnections led to a certain amount of confusion about which laws were ‘primary’ and which could be derived from others. Physicists began talking about ‘fundamental’ laws and ‘secondary’ laws… This streamlining and repackaging process – finding links between laws, and reducing them to ever more fundamental laws – continues apace, and it’s tempting to believe that, at rock bottom, there is just a handful of truly fundamental laws, possibly even a single super-law, from which all the other laws derive.

The idea of Laws of Nature resulted from recording and codifying observations of patterns in nature, i.e. physical events. Somewhere along the way, the laws themselves became the reality rather than the events they described. The laws of physics became abstractions within their own realm and only touch our world when they ‘act’. Davies writes:

It’s almost as if the laws are lying in wait, ready to seize control of a physical process and compel it to comply… So we have this image of really-existing laws of physics ensconced in a transcendent eyrie, lording it over lowly matter.

Come to think of it, I think those posts subconsciously motivated me to start thinking about the topic to begin with. Either way, it just occurred to me that gravity doesn't seem to have a friend that it "dances" with like electricity and magnetism do. Is it because it's somehow more fundamental or "primary" and the other forces are somehow derived from it? But as others mentioned, I don't think we can understand it without consciousness and information. If it binds physical and non-physical, it seems like having a grasp of how those 2 relate to each other, and what is "non-physical" anyway, would be important. So the purely attractive force can't be the whole of it, it seems to me like that too is like an "expression" of true gravity.

As I see it, Maxwell's equations are a very, very good starting point for our approach to quaternions. They should enable us to sense, if not understand, the very structure of space on which these equations are based, if Maxwell's equations don't themselves define space, time and even what is out of the space-time (NULL time). Keep in mind that Cs said that there was quaternions and something more... No more questions to the Cs on this point have been asked to the Cs since many years. Maybe it's TIME (if @ScioAgapeOmnis has the occasionto ask the question next time).

I don't have any special access any more than anyone else - I think once we all get some clarity from the discussion about what exactly we want to ask and why, and come up with clear, concise, and meaningful questions, then we got something. Right now I'm trying to follow the fascinating discussion, and I admit I'm not always understanding parts of it, even a lot of the questions that were added. But that could also be just me being not well versed in the concepts involved.

One thing I keep coming back to though - is that there is an elegance to the universe. I don't like explanations that are not elegant. Like the multiverse theory that claims that there are an infinite number of universes and we just happen to be in one of the incredibly rare few where the fundamental laws magically align to allow for life. Something about creating an almost infinite amount of universes that are devoid of any possibility of life seems so wasteful and not elegant. I'm not saying the answers are simple, but just like the inverse square law, I think they should be, for lack of a better word, beautiful?

I mean what we have found about life and the universe just fits together in such beautiful ways. In other words, if it was the case that there are an infinite number of unworkable universes, why should we be in the one that is so beautifully elegant and everything just fits so well together? We would far more likely end up in one that is just barely good enough for life but with lots of other discordant elements that suggest it's "just barely good enough". It would be clear it was an accident, I think. Those would be FAR more numerous than one that seems so perfectly designed. And the chances of us being in one that is so well made seems even more unlikely. So if it was designed, and the designer is really clever and clearly likes beauty, synchronicity, and for things to all just "make sense", then I feel like the answers we seek will not suddenly become "over-engineered" or convoluted. I think they will continue to reveal a very beautiful and elegant tapestry.

 

[Mark7]

The way I see it the key feature of them is that they would be EM "waves"/perturbations that do not actually carry energy

Perhaps a simple question for the C's. It seems like gravity waves could potentially be used for communication:
Can unstable gravity waves be harnessed to transmit information? Another question: What do unstable gravity waves do/what is their function or are they a by-product of other processes?

I would guess that unstable gravity waves perform some sort of function in the universe.

The sexual center is in direct contact with 7th density in its "feminine" creative thought of "Thou, I Love." The "outbreath" of "God" in the relief of constriction. Pulsation. Unstable Gravity Waves.
Session 25 March 2017

The above session quote implies that individual human beings can be one pole of a gravity wave with the other pole in 7th density via the sexual center. Here gravity waves seem like some sort of psychic impulse. Like an earthquake that releases energy once a certain level of static force/potential is reached. An impulse would tend to reverberate, create 'aftershocks'.

 

[John G]

Here we come back to what you mentioned at the beginning of your answer: the Kaluza-Klein geometry. As it happens, this approach, called "flawed" by the Cs, is based on a quest for unification between gravity and electromagnetism, without realizing, of course, that the fact that gravity IS electromagnetism was never envisaged by the researchers of the time. It was a separate, isolated view of reality that initiated such a process of unification, resulting in the emergence of a new dimension external to space, a 5th dimension. The approach was all the more biased in that it was also based on the consideration of time as the 4th dimension of space... which is not the case, as the Cs have repeatedly pointed out.

So, rather than looking for new, external dimensions to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics, another possible path would be to pursue the idea, or awareness, that gravity IS electromagnetism. Even if, at this level, we're not yet talking about multidimensional Gravity and Electromagnetism but simply 3D (at the level 3). This could then be translated into the highlighting of dimensions residing within the 3 dimensions of reference space as resonant modes of vibration. In this way, the 4th dimension of space would not be time, but another way of looking at 3D outer space, the container, taking into account an internal dimension, specific to the 3 external dimensions, which would translate into variability, into an internal dynamic within the 3D container hitherto considered as static and constant.

This would enable us to take into account the 3D container (exterior) and the 4D content (interior) at the same time, through the body's own resonant frequency (a frequency we could identify with a 4th dimension of space). In this sense, we would be joining the various clues provided by the Cs on the true nature of the 4th dimension of space... And this view is one of unity, unified because we would be addressing all states of matter within a single reference space.
​

Ark got an answer for the 4th dimension as frequency idea:

(Ark) I have question. It's not about hyperdimensional being, but about hyperdimensional physics. I am coming to the session of 14 November 1998 where I was asking about the relation between 4th density and 4th dimension. And the answer was that yes indeed, 4th density is experienced in 4-dimensional reality. So, I got curious about this 4-dimensional reality. I was asking if it was any kind known in physics under the name of Kaluza-Klein theory. But the answer was that no, it's related to visual spectrum. And then there came the term this is related to a prism. Now, visual spectrum, I am associating with the frequency of light. And so, my question - which I should have asked then, but didn't - is: Is 4th dimension indeed a frequency?

A: Yes

Q: (Ark) If it is a frequency, I would like to know what kind of geometry has this 4th-dimensional reality? Is there such a concept of a distance there, for instance?

A: No

Q: (Ark) Well, there is something more general than distance. For instance, there is a degenerate metric. Is there a metric there? Metric tensor?

A: Yes

Q: (Ark) Well, if it is not a distance but it is a metric tensor, does it mean it is degenerate so that there is zero distance between two different points?

A: Yes

You can have Kaluza-Klein-like hyperdimensional basis vectors but no extra Kaluza-Klein-like dimensions for your metric tensor so details of the context can matter a lot for some things. The Cs do like Ark's 4 space, 2-time conformal metric but it could be more a structure group for a metric rather than the metric itself aka details are important and the Cs often leave the details as work for the humans.

 

[John G]

What's interesting about the question is that usually, people compare the gravitational force to the electrostatic force since they both vary with the inverse of the square of the distance, and then they ask whether there is an unknown "force" that connects to gravity similarly to the way magnetism connect to electricity.

Yes I think some have seen the fly-by anomaly as a possible gravitomagnetism effect.

 

[EricLux]

What's interesting about the question is that usually, people compare the gravitational force to the electrostatic force since they both vary with the inverse of the square of the distance, and then they ask whether there is an unknown "force" that connects to gravity similarly to the way magnetism connect to electricity.

Yes, what's interesting is to realize that electromagnetism as we talk about it today is a 3D terrestrial interpretation of Maxwell's equations, modified or not.

So there are 3 possible answers:

- as @ScioAgapeOmnis reminds us "electricity E is generated by changing magnetic fields and how moving electric current creates a B magnetic field. Electric motors and generators work based on these principles.". This can be seen as a double interaction between E and B, providing a glimpse of the double loop evoked by the Cs, linking 4th density to 6th density. This would support my feeling that Maxwell's equations are multidimensional in nature, and even more so, interdimensional (they are valid and retain the same structure in all dimensions).

- Which brings us to the 2nd point : reinterpreting EM. This requires a dimension-specific approach, which means that even if they retain the same appearance or structure, they concern other phenomena, or even physical phenomena, of which E and B are only faint glimpses specific to terrestrial 3D. In this way, for us, they would be valid at our 3D level and not at other levels (dimensions) of which we are only just beginning to become aware. We would then seek to modify them to take account of new phenomena, without realizing that a reinterpretation of the related variables could also explain the new phenomena.

In other words, we're complicating the approach in view of our basic reference (3D), whereas simply by changing dimension, they remain the same but the physical factors have evolved or even become variable. This is perhaps where the variability lies that we need to highlight to realize that we've changed dimension (4D). This requires a view (perception) specific to each dimension, so perhaps we can speak of a living view. It's interesting to note that the Cs had replied to @ark that freeing ourselves from time meant reinterpreting the time variable and that considering the variability of a physical factor calls for taking into account a new dimension in which the factor varies. It might be a good idea to consider 2D time.

- Finally, the fact that Cs have directed us to the link between gravity and electricity puts us on the road to highlighting a more universal magnetism (or gravity), mirror of a universal consciousness. Since gravity is electricity perceived and apprehended in ZERO time, it would be a good idea to consider, in parallel, a less terrestrial magnetism that might be at the origin of space-time. This would take us away from the limited approach to space-time to which general relativity is confined and towards something more universal. This could be done more simply by distinguishing the Newtonian approach from the Galilean one, as the Cs invited us to do when commenting on the fallacy of the Lorentz transformation. Then 3D electromagnetism perceived in NULL time would, perhaps, open the way to unstable gravity waves...
I don't type as fast as @WhiteMountain and I have too many ideas when I reply to a message. I do the best I can :)
​

**
​

Oui ce qui est intéressant c'est de réaliser que l'électromagnétisme tel qu'on en parle à l'heure actuelle est une interprétation 3D terrestre des équations de Maxwell, qu'elles soient modifiées ou pas.

Donc 3 éléments de réponse peuvent être apportés :

- comme le rappelle @ScioAgapeOmnis "l'électricité E est générée par des champs magnétiques évoluant dans le temps et l'évolution des courants électriques crée un champ magnétique B. C'est sur ces principes que fonctionnent les générateurs et moteurs électriques.". On peut y voir là une double interaction entre E et B qui donnerait un aperçu de la double boucle évoquée par les Cs qui relierait la 4ème densité à la 6ème densité. Cela viendrait appuyer mon sentiment que les équations de Maxwell sont de nature multidimensionnelles,voire, plus encore, interdimensionnelles (elles sont valables et gardent la même structure dans toutes les dimensions).

- ce qui nous conduit au 2ème point : la réinterprétation des EM. Celle-ci doit passer par un regard propre à chaque dimension qui ferait que même si elles gardent la même apparence ou structure, elles concernent des phénomènes autres voire des phénomènes physiques dont E et B ne sont que de faibles aperçus propres à la 3D terrestres. C'est ainsi qu'elles seraient valables à notre niveau et pas à d'autres niveaux (dimensions) dont nous commençons à peine à prendre conscience. Nous chercherions alors à les modifier pour prendre en compte les nouveaux phénomènes sans se dire qu'une réinterprétation des variables mis en relation pourraient aussi expliquer les nouveaux phénomènes.

En d'autres termes, nous compliquons l'approche au vue de notre référence de base (la 3D) alors que tout simplement en changeant de dimension, elles restent les mêmes mais les facteurs physiques ont évolué voire sont devenues variables. C'est peut-être à ce niveau que se cache la variabilité que nous devons mettre en exergue pour réaliser que nous avons changé de dimension (4D). Cela passe par un regard (perception) propre à chaque dimension alors, peut-être, pourrons-nous parler d'un regard vivant. Il est intéressant de noter que les Cs avaient répondu à @ark que se libérer du temps passait par une réinterprétation de la variable temporelle et qu'envisager une variabilité d'un facteur physique appelle à prendre en compte une nouvelle dimension dans laquelle varie le facteur. Il serait peut-être bien d'envisager un temps 2D.

- Enfin, le fait que les Cs nous aient orienté sur le lien entre gravité et électricité nous met sur la voie pour mettre en évidence un magnétisme (ou une gravité) plus universelle, miroir d'une conscience universelle. Puisque la gravité est l'électricité perçue, appréhendée dans un temps NUL, il serait de bon aloi d'envisager, en parallèle, un magnétisme moins terrestre et qui serait peut-être à l'origine des espaces-temps. Nous sortirions ainsi de l'approche limitée de l'espace-temps dans laquelle est cantonnée la relativité générale pour nous orienter vers quelque chose de plus universel. Ce qui pourrait s'opérer de façon plus simple en distinguant l'approche newtonienne de l'approche galiléenne comme nous ont invité à le faire les Cs lorsqu'ils se prononçaient sur le caractère fallacieux de la transformation de Lorentz. Alors l'électromagnétisme 3D perçu dans un temps NUL nous ouvrirait, peut-être, la voie vers les ondes de gravité instables...

Je ne tape pas aussi vite que @WhiteMountain et j'ai trop d'idées qui viennent quand je réponds à un message. Je fais au mieux :)​

 

[Scottie]

1x1=2? Well heck, why not? It's interesting to think about even just as a potentially mind-expanding exercise.

Cuz, ya know, let's face it: In 4d (dimension or density or whatever), if time is different/non-existent and there's no "distance" as we perceive it, then what happens to: a moving charge creates a magnetic field? With no distance or time in which to move from point A to point B, then...???

I suspect all the rules of electromagnetism that we accept as "science" are actually manifestations of higher-density mojo as it represents in 3d. Since we can't actually explain it, we declare 'rules' and tell ourselves we're super-educated. But the truth seems to be that we have no idea how any of it really works.

 

[Wandering Star]

1x1=2? Well heck, why not? It's interesting to think about even just as a potentially mind-expanding exercise.

Cuz, ya know, let's face it: In 4d (dimension or density or whatever), if time is different/non-existent and there's no "distance" as we perceive it, then what happens to: a moving charge creates a magnetic field? With no distance or time in which to move from point A to point B, then...???

I suspect all the rules of electromagnetism that we accept as "science" are actually manifestations of higher-density mojo as it represents in 3d. Since we can't actually explain it, we declare 'rules' and tell ourselves we're super-educated. But the truth seems to be that we have no idea how any of it really works.

I've been here for a while and I know that you support each other and form a common front against criticism, but to me this is ridiculous.

Nothing, continue with your thing.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

I've been here for a while and I know that you support each other and form a common front against criticism, but to me this is ridiculous.

Nothing, continue with your thing.

It may be ridiculous but isn’t saying time and space don’t exist also ridiculous from our vantage point? I am a programmer, and I say “this is ridiculous” at least once a day when some code that logically shouldn’t work, does anyway. Sometimes we are just missing some information that would make the absurd sensible. And sometimes reflecting on the absurd, just letting your mind entertain it and spinning it around in your head results in a realization. Sometimes sleeping on it and letting your subconscious work on it results in a eureka the next morning.

In fact, I believe most great ideas that progress knowledge and science don’t come from meticulously massaging equations to solve for X. They come from eureka moments. Which are moments of inspiration. I don’t know where they come from, but everyone knows when it happens. You’re busy thinking about something “absurd” one second (or not even thinking about it anymore) and suddenly yell “oh wait I think I got it!” and rush to test it.

And honestly it sounds like you want to get some stuff off your chest. Why do you think there’s a front against criticism, can you provide some examples? Also, how are you doing in your life, is everything ok in general? Your remark goes way beyond 1*1=2, and I feel like it would be good to talk about it (perhaps in the swamp so we don’t derail this thread?). It seems to me that carrying whatever you’re carrying kinda soils your ability to engage in good faith. And by discussing it, you may gain some knowledge that might help you change your perspective. And then you won’t be burdened with whatever is messing with you. OSIT.

 

[Wandering Star]

And honestly it sounds like you want to get some stuff off your chest. Why do you think there’s a front against criticism, can you provide some examples? Also, how are you doing in your life, is everything ok in general? Your remark goes way beyond 1*1=2, and I feel like it would be good to talk about it (perhaps in the swamp so we don’t derail this thread?). It seems to me that carrying whatever you’re carrying kinda soils your ability to engage in good faith. And by discussing it, you may gain some knowledge that might help you change your perspective. And then you won’t be burdened with whatever is messing with you. OSIT.

No, all it's all right.

Thank you for your interest.

 

[Scottie]

It may be ridiculous but isn’t saying time and space don’t exist also ridiculous from our vantage point? I am a programmer, and I say “this is ridiculous” at least once a day when some code that logically shouldn’t work, does anyway. Sometimes we are just missing some information that would make the absurd sensible. And sometimes reflecting on the absurd, just letting your mind entertain it and spinning it around in your head results in a realization. Sometimes sleeping on it and letting your subconscious work on it results in a eureka the next morning.

That's the story of my life.

 

[JGeropoulas]

It's easy to understand how relative this answer is, since researchers from different dimensions and dimensional realities will inevitably have a different mathematical reference base. As far as the 3D terrestrial path is concerned, the one we're most interested in following from our current conscious incarnation, this question can be translated as follows : is it simpler to access the UFT from Maxwell's equations themselves or from the search for a reconciliation between its two children (general relativity and quantum mechanics)? For me, the question deserves to be asked, as we quickly realize that the mathematical level is not the same between Maxwell's 4 equations and what has since been derived from them. Of course, this type of questioning is related to the way we look at reality, if that way of looking is more or less disconnected from observed reality. In other words, is the observer's perception, more or less conscious, linked to his or her state of consciousness?

Supposedly, Einstein on his deathbed said, "I wish I'd spent more time reading Maxwell's work".

As the C's (7-30-1994) said, "Where you are is not important. Who you are is and also what you see."

 

[JGeropoulas]

As to a GUT in general, I am guessing there are several GUTs. What do I mean? We are constantly refining our theories over time. You can have a general GUT that actually describes your known universe, what you can observe, but does not provide all the specifics. Those get introduced in later and later GUTs - all of which can be correct yet incomplete because the experimental data does not exist to fill in the holes. So if we have a valid GUT now it could be valid, but not as detailed as what is available in 4D where they can carry out more meaningful experiments. 5D will have more refined equations. 6D will be even more defined. And 7D and maybe the end of 6D existance on the journy to 7D - well you get the final chapter.

Seems like I read (ISOTM) that regarding our state of being, Gurdjieff taught that the higher we ascend in densities, the fewer laws we are subject to. Is that because the higher our density, the more we "see" and understand, so we can utilize these laws (of physics?) as desired, instead of being controlled by them (e.g. in 4th density, we will exist in a state of "variable physicality," always having the choice to occupy, or not occupy a body)? Maybe the "truth" in this statement is much more powerful than we've imagined: "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free."

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Seems like I read (ISOTM) that regarding our state of being, Gurdjieff taught that the higher we ascend in densities, the fewer laws we are subject to. Is that because the higher our density, the more we "see" and understand, so we can utilize these laws (of physics?) as desired, instead of being controlled by them (e.g. in 4th density, we will exist in a state of "variable physicality," always having the choice to occupy, or not occupy a body)? Maybe the "truth" in this statement is much more powerful than we've imagined: "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free."

Maybe it's the same as when you do the Work and become more in control of yourself. More knowledge = more free will and choices = more responsibility and accountability. The same principle could apply to densities - your level of awareness makes your interaction with the universe more conscious overall, which comes with greater response ability and therefore responsibility.

 

[lindrie]

I thought there was a session transcript that mentioned Gravity and EM forces look or condensed to the same on our 3D view? If so, I'm not sure how much we can extract on Gravity from EM forces alone, but definitely should be able to correlate between the two.

I'll scan through the transcripts but in the meantime, has anyone seen/used a Ferrocell? Credit to Ken Wheeler, who I found it through. It gives a different view on the field lines of magnets and may help with visualizations perhaps or maybe a different angle of approach.