Oh, I was a bit off, It was a comment Roger Santilli in the May 27, 1995 transcript
I guess my question now is what would it look like on 4D? Would we even understand it with our current 3D view?
Magnetism is to electricity as gravity is to what?
- Thread starter ScioAgapeOmnis
- Start date
-
- Tags
- electromagnetism gravity
Can you give some examples?
Bastian
The Living Force
Note to everyone writing in this thread :
Please use a distinct notation for dimensions and densities !
I would suggest :
Di. or Dim. for Dimensions
De. or Dens. for Densities
Here we discuss physics. So by default, {3,4,5,etc.}D should be interpreted as Dimensions, as usual elsewhere.
But it's even better to systematically use a clear notation.
So :
(3D = ) 3Di = 3Dim = 3 dimensions.
3De = 3Dens = 3rd density.
etc.
Thank you !
Please use a distinct notation for dimensions and densities !
I would suggest :
Di. or Dim. for Dimensions
De. or Dens. for Densities
Here we discuss physics. So by default, {3,4,5,etc.}D should be interpreted as Dimensions, as usual elsewhere.
But it's even better to systematically use a clear notation.
So :
(3D = ) 3Di = 3Dim = 3 dimensions.
3De = 3Dens = 3rd density.
etc.
Thank you !
EricLux
Jedi Master
Einstein thanked Maxwell because he often said that it was thanks to his work that he had been able to obtain the theory of relativity. In the same way, it's thanks to Einstein's work that we can ask ourselves all the questions we ask today. Einstein did what he could with what he had. He applied to electromagnetism, to light, the only reference he had at the time : classical mechanics. He applied to light, which he considered to be a physical material object, the referential change proper to mechanics. Thus was born Einstein's theory of special relativity.
As with all theories, we can only rely on what we know. This presupposes that everything behaves like what we know. If you don't want to make any presuppositions, then you have to opt for phenomenology.
As with all theories, we can only rely on what we know. This presupposes that everything behaves like what we know. If you don't want to make any presuppositions, then you have to opt for phenomenology.
Bastian
The Living Force
Well, you're late by a paradigm change !
The conceptual revolution has already started...
That's wrong, according (among others) to Jean-Pierre Petit's "Janus" cosmological model :
The Janus cosmological model: a paradigm shift.
The Janus cosmological model: negative mass in cosmology and astrophysics with no paradox, challenging the ΛCDM model.
januscosmologicalmodel.com
As explained in these threads (which should be merged, IMHO) :
Janus cosmological model - by Jean-Pierre Petit
Hello. For those of you interested in cosmology and astrophysics, please check this "outsider" theory which looks like a generalization (?) of Einstein's relativity : The Janus cosmological model: a paradigm shift. Its author is Dr. Jean-Pierre Petit (retired French physicist), for more...
cassiopaea.org
New Astrophysical model and spaceship
I would like to ask to the CS and to Ark what they think about the theory of Jean Pierre Petit (JPP) French Astrophysicist. Yes I know that a few years ago the question was asked and CS answered that he was in error. Since then, he has changed his theory, which no longer speaks of twin...
cassiopaea.org
Black Holes don't Exist - Janus - Metaphysicon
Jean-Pierre Petit is a french physicist, pioneer in the study of magneto-hydro-dynamic (MHD), used on hypersonic russian missiles. He continues to search in mathematic/cosmology. He built a model of the universe "Janus" which considers two types of parallel timeline. One time positive and one...
cassiopaea.org
So in his bimetric model (which explains a dozen of observations, including the Great Repeller, contrary to the consensual Lambda-CDM model) :
- there exists both positive AND negatives masses ;
- in each of these two "realms", which have opposite time arrows, there exists both matter and antimatter (but, IIRC, here in the positive "realm", there is mainly matter -- that's an astronomical observation --, but in the negative "realm" there is mainly antimatter -- consequence of JPP's 2 new coupled field equations) ;
- masses of the same sign attracts mutually (+m1 attracts +m2, and -m3 attracts -m4)
- but masses of opposite sign repels mutually (+m1 repels -m3).
NB: this avoids the "runaway effect".
So, from this PoV, gravity is similar to magnetism, with a significant difference : the law of attraction / repulsion is inversed.
In this conceptual frame, your remark has no (more) meaning...
Well, magnets are dipoles (objects with two opposite poles), usually described as "north" and "south", but "positive" and "negative" would fit also.
And there is only one magnetism, but two apparent effects : same "sign" poles repel mutually ; opposite "sign" poles attract mutually.
For gravitation, masses are either (+) or (-) ; if you prefer, in the (3Dens ?) "duoverse" including the positive-mass universe, there exists only "mass monopoles".
NB : to my understanding, there is no known "mixed" objects with both, which would be "mass dipoles" ; but that would be an interesting speculation...
And there is only one gravitation, but two apparent effects : same sign masses attract mutually ; opposite sign masses repel mutually.
Thanks for starting it !
(To be continued...)
EricLux
Jedi Master
I would tend to think that EM=G at all density levels and not just in 3D, as Rugiero Santilli first proposed. In other words, what doesn't seem so obvious in 3D tends to become more and more obvious in higher densities. In fact, we might even wonder whether it isn't the realization of this identity in 3D that opens the doors to higher densities? Indeed, in the Einsteinian approach, a unification is sought between Einstein's gravity and Maxwell's electromagnetism. In this way, the approach is made more complex and we come to add additional external dimensions, just as we came to add time as the 4th dimension of space with Einstein's special relativity. Clearly, from the 4th dimension onwards, we've gone astray, having failed to recognize the identity between EM and G from 3rd density onwards.
In any case, to pick up on the May 1995 session with Rugiero Santilli, I think it's time to explicitly ask the question to the Cs that wasn't asked :
- Does the identification between electromagnetism and gravity take place at all levels of density?
- Is being aware of the identification between gravity and electromagnetism what opens the doors to other dimensions and densities?
- Is the identification between gravity and electromagnetism what opens the door to other dimensions and densities?
-Does the fault in Kaluza-Klein's approach lie in not taking into account the identification between EM and G?
- Is the prism, a notion absent from Kaluza-Klein's approach, what enables the identification between EM and G?
- Is the identification between gravity and electromagnetism the hypothesis that was not made in physics and that would have enabled us to find the true nature of the 4th dimension?
- Could the new dimensions (which turn out to be internal dimensions) be apprehended at the same time as the external dimensions, via the true 4th dimension of space?
- Is this 4th dimension of space physical and variable, in other words, both etheric and physical, or is it astral in nature, allowing us to apprehend the outside and the inside without being either outside or inside?
- The 4th dimension of space allows us to apprehend the outside and the inside, at the same time : would the outside be the physical and the inside, the etheric?
In any case, to pick up on the May 1995 session with Rugiero Santilli, I think it's time to explicitly ask the question to the Cs that wasn't asked :
- Does the identification between electromagnetism and gravity take place at all levels of density?
- Is being aware of the identification between gravity and electromagnetism what opens the doors to other dimensions and densities?
- Is the identification between gravity and electromagnetism what opens the door to other dimensions and densities?
-Does the fault in Kaluza-Klein's approach lie in not taking into account the identification between EM and G?
- Is the prism, a notion absent from Kaluza-Klein's approach, what enables the identification between EM and G?
- Is the identification between gravity and electromagnetism the hypothesis that was not made in physics and that would have enabled us to find the true nature of the 4th dimension?
- Could the new dimensions (which turn out to be internal dimensions) be apprehended at the same time as the external dimensions, via the true 4th dimension of space?
- Is this 4th dimension of space physical and variable, in other words, both etheric and physical, or is it astral in nature, allowing us to apprehend the outside and the inside without being either outside or inside?
- The 4th dimension of space allows us to apprehend the outside and the inside, at the same time : would the outside be the physical and the inside, the etheric?
**
To save you from searching, you will find, below, what I have written in the last few days in this thread.
In view of the information given by the Cs on this subject, we can say that working towards the UFT necessarily involves awakening consciousness : it's true that this leads to questions about the UFT. Even if Einstein didn't officially find it, the Cs let us know that UFT has been obtained through the work of various teams and, who knows, perhaps also thanks to the intervention of ETs. One immediate question would be whether it's possible to access the UFT with a 3D consciousness? Can such a consciousness do anything with it? Or does obtaining the UFT require a certain awakening of consciousness and so one possible pathway would be the intervention of forces "external" to Earth in order to go beyond terrestrial 3D consciousness? Or has the UFT been obtained on Earth without the people working on it being fully aware that they have the UFT in their hands? Don't forget that UFT allows us to understand how Gravity and Consciousness mirror each other.
Does this mean that, for these beings, the UFT would remain a technology, whereas for beings who have awakened and modified their consciousness, the UFT would be an everyday reality that they would have to live with? It would no longer be an external theory but an internal practice. Thanks to a change in their state of consciousness, they would be able to free themselves from gravity, to play with the laws of terrestrial or other physics, and even to be in several places in one or more realities consciously.
Another facet of the UFT that would be interesting to study is the "intellectual" way of accessing it : since we're talking about a unified field theory, we should be able, through it, to access all possible mathematics and laws of physics. In other words, we find ourselves at the heart of a living multi-dimensional physics because taking into account several dimensions, at the same time, and therefore several laws of physics other than terrestrial ones, simultaneously, must certainly translate into a variable, and therefore living, physics. We can see how, almost immediately, consciousness comes to the fore, because life, whether universal or not, means consciousness, more or less asleep. The question is : from the mathematics and physics of the Dimension to which the scientific researchers in question belong, what is the simplest way to obtain the UFT?
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 childrens (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?
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.
In view of the information given by the Cs on this subject, we can say that working towards the UFT necessarily involves awakening consciousness : it's true that this leads to questions about the UFT. Even if Einstein didn't officially find it, the Cs let us know that UFT has been obtained through the work of various teams and, who knows, perhaps also thanks to the intervention of ETs. One immediate question would be whether it's possible to access the UFT with a 3D consciousness? Can such a consciousness do anything with it? Or does obtaining the UFT require a certain awakening of consciousness and so one possible pathway would be the intervention of forces "external" to Earth in order to go beyond terrestrial 3D consciousness? Or has the UFT been obtained on Earth without the people working on it being fully aware that they have the UFT in their hands? Don't forget that UFT allows us to understand how Gravity and Consciousness mirror each other.
Does this mean that, for these beings, the UFT would remain a technology, whereas for beings who have awakened and modified their consciousness, the UFT would be an everyday reality that they would have to live with? It would no longer be an external theory but an internal practice. Thanks to a change in their state of consciousness, they would be able to free themselves from gravity, to play with the laws of terrestrial or other physics, and even to be in several places in one or more realities consciously.
Another facet of the UFT that would be interesting to study is the "intellectual" way of accessing it : since we're talking about a unified field theory, we should be able, through it, to access all possible mathematics and laws of physics. In other words, we find ourselves at the heart of a living multi-dimensional physics because taking into account several dimensions, at the same time, and therefore several laws of physics other than terrestrial ones, simultaneously, must certainly translate into a variable, and therefore living, physics. We can see how, almost immediately, consciousness comes to the fore, because life, whether universal or not, means consciousness, more or less asleep. The question is : from the mathematics and physics of the Dimension to which the scientific researchers in question belong, what is the simplest way to obtain the UFT?
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 childrens (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?
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.
**
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...
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...
**
We need to be aware that with electromagnetism (EM), we've only just scratched the surface of a reality that's... hyperdimensional. Indeed, the way we look at Maxwell's EM, more or less modified by his successors, is the way we interpret it through our 3D terrestrial scope. More precisely, my intuition is that Maxwell's equations are, by nature, hyperdimensional and that our 3D interpretation is merely the precipitate of a multidimensional chemical process. We therefore have an extremely limited view of a multidimensional reality of which we are not even really aware, at present, since our only reality turns out to be our 3D reality.
So the relationships you mention between electricity and magnetism describe their 3D dynamics. It's a question of understanding how gravity fits into this equation. The Cs mentioned that the graviton (gravity particle) is an electron in NULL time. This should put us on the way to understanding where gravity hides in the EM equations. The fact that electricity and magnetism are energetic expressions of gravity comes from the fact that they are temporal expressions of an atemporal process. Time NULL being synonymous with OUTSIDE of time.
To help you refine the questions you may need to ask the Cs in future sessions, I'm sharing a few ideas/questions on the subject :
- Why is a magnet a magnet? What allows two opposite polarities living together at the same time? Do we need the TUF (Theory of Unified Field) to understand it?
- The dynamic between the two opposite polarities is the movement inherent in interdimensional magnetism and which has nothing to do with an extensive 3D movement, which is of an intensive nature? Then, to understand it in its true nature, we need to take into account a new dimension, the internal dimension of phenomena, processes and this occurs by discovering the new spatial reference which is the 4th dimension allowing us to understand, simultaneously, the exterior and the interior. This happens through interdimensional magnetism?
- The magnetic field we are talking about in classical and quantum electromagnetism is a 3D dimensional magnetic field coming from the 3D electric field?
- By reversing the perspective, by changing dimension, would there exist an interdimensional magnetic field of which the 3D electric and magnetic fields would be manifestations?
- Why when physicists study the magnetic component of light do they need to act at the nano level? Is it not possible to highlight this magnetic component in a macro way?
- What is special about this magnetism? How is it connected to the 4th dimension of space and the inter-dimensional waves that we must discover to have a clear vision of quantum?
- Would the magnetic component of light be its interdimensional aspect and the electrical component its 3D aspect?
- During a session, you said that in the oscilloscope, we could perceive the magnetic pulse. However, an oscilloscope reveals a sinusoid : does this mean that the magnetic pulse reveals something that we have not perceived or taken into account within the sinusoid?
- What’s the reality behind a magnetic monopole? Is graviton a magnetic monopole?
Enjoy :)
So the relationships you mention between electricity and magnetism describe their 3D dynamics. It's a question of understanding how gravity fits into this equation. The Cs mentioned that the graviton (gravity particle) is an electron in NULL time. This should put us on the way to understanding where gravity hides in the EM equations. The fact that electricity and magnetism are energetic expressions of gravity comes from the fact that they are temporal expressions of an atemporal process. Time NULL being synonymous with OUTSIDE of time.
To help you refine the questions you may need to ask the Cs in future sessions, I'm sharing a few ideas/questions on the subject :
- Why is a magnet a magnet? What allows two opposite polarities living together at the same time? Do we need the TUF (Theory of Unified Field) to understand it?
- The dynamic between the two opposite polarities is the movement inherent in interdimensional magnetism and which has nothing to do with an extensive 3D movement, which is of an intensive nature? Then, to understand it in its true nature, we need to take into account a new dimension, the internal dimension of phenomena, processes and this occurs by discovering the new spatial reference which is the 4th dimension allowing us to understand, simultaneously, the exterior and the interior. This happens through interdimensional magnetism?
- The magnetic field we are talking about in classical and quantum electromagnetism is a 3D dimensional magnetic field coming from the 3D electric field?
- By reversing the perspective, by changing dimension, would there exist an interdimensional magnetic field of which the 3D electric and magnetic fields would be manifestations?
- Why when physicists study the magnetic component of light do they need to act at the nano level? Is it not possible to highlight this magnetic component in a macro way?
- What is special about this magnetism? How is it connected to the 4th dimension of space and the inter-dimensional waves that we must discover to have a clear vision of quantum?
- Would the magnetic component of light be its interdimensional aspect and the electrical component its 3D aspect?
- During a session, you said that in the oscilloscope, we could perceive the magnetic pulse. However, an oscilloscope reveals a sinusoid : does this mean that the magnetic pulse reveals something that we have not perceived or taken into account within the sinusoid?
- What’s the reality behind a magnetic monopole? Is graviton a magnetic monopole?
Enjoy :)
Ok so looking at the problem like a 5 year old and playing with it:
An electric field is a vector field that surrounds charged particles, such as electrons or protons. In other words, it's a measure of the strength and direction of the electric force at a particular location.
A magnetic field, on the other hand, is a vector field that is created by the motion of charged particles, such as electrons or protons, or by changing electric fields. So a changing electric field creates a magnetic field and changing magnetic field (aka Electromagnetic Induction) creates an electric field.
A change in one creates/defines the other. Each one is created/defined by a change in the other one. Like an old married couple. And the rate of change in one is correlated with the strength of the other. Rate of change is just basic calculus - how fast an object is changing speed (accelerating), or in this case, how quickly a field is increasing or decreasing.
So naturally some questions come up - because I'm 5 and what even is physics. Can you do that to all fields? Does the mere act of changing any field "A" create/define another field "B"? Does it always work in reverse as well - changing field "B" is how you would define field "A"? In other words, are all fields such a "couple" like electric field and magnetic field?
Let's check gravity - does a change in gravity create/define another field (if so, is it something we're familiar with already, or something unfamiliar to us)? And does a change in that other field create/define gravity? Einstein would say that gravity is defined by the curvature of spacetime. Maybe you could say a curvature is a type of change - instead of changing a field, you're changing spacetime by curving it. So a change in spacetime (B) creates/defines gravity (A). Let's flip it then - does a change in gravity (A) create/define spacetime (B)? Let's say it did - what would that look like in practice?
The C's have mentioned that the gravity on Earth has been different before, and it's associated with the cosmic environment. Did a change in gravity define the cosmic environment? Or did the change in the cosmic environment define the strength of gravity? Cuz cosmic environment kinda sounds like "spacetime" if you squint a little.
But I digress. The curvature of spacetime is a result of the change in the metric tensor, which is a mathematical object that describes the geometry of spacetime. In other words, the gravitational field is a consequence of the change in the geometry of spacetime caused by the presence of mass and energy. Now that's interesting - how do I fit mass an energy into this? Let's use electricity and magnetism and see how it might compare.
Comparison 1:
Electric field (A) results from the presence of electrons or protons (B). It also results from a change in magnetic field (B).
Gravitational field (A) results from the presence of mass and energy (B). It also results from a change/curvature of spacetime (B).
Isn't there a similarity there?
Also does (B) = (B) in both cases above since they both result in (A)? In other words, is it true that:
The presence of mass and energy (B) causes or is equal to a change/curvature of spacetime (B). This is true.
The presence of electrons or protons (B) causes or is equal to a change in magnetic field (B)? Can this be true in any way?
Let's flip the Comparison 1 around using the principle of "a change in one creates/defines the other" and see what we get:
Magnetic field (A) results from the movement of electrons and protons (B). It also results from a change in electric field (B)
Spacetime (A) results from the movement of mass and energy (B). It also results from a change in gravitational field (B)
Can the Spacetime (A) line above be true?
And as before, does (B) = (B) in both cases above since they both result in (A)? In other words, is it true that:
The movement of electrons and protons (B) causes or is equal to a change in electric field (B)? This is true.
The movement of mass and energy (B) causes or is equal to a change in gravitational field (B). Can this be true in any way?
An electric field is a vector field that surrounds charged particles, such as electrons or protons. In other words, it's a measure of the strength and direction of the electric force at a particular location.
A magnetic field, on the other hand, is a vector field that is created by the motion of charged particles, such as electrons or protons, or by changing electric fields. So a changing electric field creates a magnetic field and changing magnetic field (aka Electromagnetic Induction) creates an electric field.
A change in one creates/defines the other. Each one is created/defined by a change in the other one. Like an old married couple. And the rate of change in one is correlated with the strength of the other. Rate of change is just basic calculus - how fast an object is changing speed (accelerating), or in this case, how quickly a field is increasing or decreasing.
So naturally some questions come up - because I'm 5 and what even is physics. Can you do that to all fields? Does the mere act of changing any field "A" create/define another field "B"? Does it always work in reverse as well - changing field "B" is how you would define field "A"? In other words, are all fields such a "couple" like electric field and magnetic field?
Let's check gravity - does a change in gravity create/define another field (if so, is it something we're familiar with already, or something unfamiliar to us)? And does a change in that other field create/define gravity? Einstein would say that gravity is defined by the curvature of spacetime. Maybe you could say a curvature is a type of change - instead of changing a field, you're changing spacetime by curving it. So a change in spacetime (B) creates/defines gravity (A). Let's flip it then - does a change in gravity (A) create/define spacetime (B)? Let's say it did - what would that look like in practice?
The C's have mentioned that the gravity on Earth has been different before, and it's associated with the cosmic environment. Did a change in gravity define the cosmic environment? Or did the change in the cosmic environment define the strength of gravity? Cuz cosmic environment kinda sounds like "spacetime" if you squint a little.
But I digress. The curvature of spacetime is a result of the change in the metric tensor, which is a mathematical object that describes the geometry of spacetime. In other words, the gravitational field is a consequence of the change in the geometry of spacetime caused by the presence of mass and energy. Now that's interesting - how do I fit mass an energy into this? Let's use electricity and magnetism and see how it might compare.
Comparison 1:
Electric field (A) results from the presence of electrons or protons (B). It also results from a change in magnetic field (B).
Gravitational field (A) results from the presence of mass and energy (B). It also results from a change/curvature of spacetime (B).
Isn't there a similarity there?
Also does (B) = (B) in both cases above since they both result in (A)? In other words, is it true that:
The presence of mass and energy (B) causes or is equal to a change/curvature of spacetime (B). This is true.
The presence of electrons or protons (B) causes or is equal to a change in magnetic field (B)? Can this be true in any way?
Let's flip the Comparison 1 around using the principle of "a change in one creates/defines the other" and see what we get:
Magnetic field (A) results from the movement of electrons and protons (B). It also results from a change in electric field (B)
Spacetime (A) results from the movement of mass and energy (B). It also results from a change in gravitational field (B)
Can the Spacetime (A) line above be true?
And as before, does (B) = (B) in both cases above since they both result in (A)? In other words, is it true that:
The movement of electrons and protons (B) causes or is equal to a change in electric field (B)? This is true.
The movement of mass and energy (B) causes or is equal to a change in gravitational field (B). Can this be true in any way?
Last edited:
Whenever I was trying to wrap my brain around electricity and magnetism (as two extremes of electromanetism), I moved towards kind of the opposite spectrum. Magnetism seems more fundamental and electricity as some kind of byproduct. Mind you, I'm not thinking in terms of electric and magnetic field. I tried to approach it as what we "see", assuming we didnt have a notion of what electrons and protons are, mainly because I have a bias against particle physics
Magnets exist in the wild but you dont see any "static" lightening strikes, i.e. electricity (once again, thinking in terms of the two "extremes").In a similar thought experiment, why bother with "anti-gravity" when instead could potentially manipulate local EM fields to produce a similar effect? In the traditional view of Gravity, EM forces is more than enough to "negate" it, like the desk knick-knacks that levitate objects in place with magnets. Theoretically, with a high enough electric current and a dynamic electrically conductive material, like mercury, one could create virtual "magnetic poles", local to an object, producing motion towards that virtual pole, depending on the outer material of the craft (to magnetize!).
This is a pretty neat idea. But, what would NULL time look like? Since we're "time" based creatures, is there an analogy that we can related null time to?
I've been curious about this as well. I've thought of "time" as a unit of measurement between states of something. IE the "length" between a one fresh banana turning rotten.
I think this would be a good question to ask, or at least discuss more.
Would you say stable orbits or orbits in equilibrium? Theoretically, could say stable and equilibrium are same enough, but practically, its possible the orbits are not stable, humans just can't live long enough to see it.
I'm also curious about this question as well, but I'm also thinking maybe more discussion would be needed first? The electron shell model has assumptions built it, IMO. It be like ruling out (EM) light as a wave since the double slit experiment show discontinuous patterns (even though we know it can be described both ways), if that makes sense
I'm not sure why, but the flip comparison seems more consistent to me. Intellectually, I understand first, but the idea of movement seems more natural.
One thought I had - if gravity works by inverse square law where the reduction in gravity is equivalent to the square of the distance, then it will always approach 0 but never hit 0. It would be an asymptote. Which means that a carbon atom on one side of the universe has a gravitational connection to an atom on the other side. So if everything in the universe has a gravitational impact on literally everything else, that's interesting. That has potential implications. One of which is that, if you had an incredibly sensitive device that could measure minute changes in gravity, you could conceivably be aware of all the matter in the entire universe by its gravitational "signature". A small movement or change would change the gravity. The C's also mentioned recently that gravity has an "instant" effect (when talking about super novae I believe), which means if we can measure THAT signature, you have an instantaneous awareness of everyone and everything in the universe. I wonder if that instantaneous gravitational impact has anything to do with the idea of all particles being quantum entangled with all others due to the big bang? If so, then anything that happens anywhere immediately impacts everything else at some level.
If you combine that with using unstable gravity waves for communication, you could conceivably communicate with the entirety of the universe in 0 time at will. And I'm sure that a lot of that "quantum gravity" communication will be encrypted, just like ours is, but that's a separate issue.
I think I see a flaw in his reasoning. Right at the start he says 4/2 is the inverse operation of 2 * 2 = 4, and 2/1 is the inverse operation of 1 * 1 =2. Then he writes "The only difference exists in dimension alone. If they ADD, SUBTRACT, and DIVIDE according to the same ratio then they must also MULTIPLY according to the same ratio, plain and simple!
So if he's saying that 2/1 is the ratio, so you have to be able to do 1 * 1 = 2. Fine. What about 3/1? To keep the same ratio, we would get 1 * x =3. What about 20/1? Now 1 * 1 = 20. Either I don't get what he's saying, or the ratio thing just doesn't make sense.
EricLux
Jedi Master
3D unfolds in 3 dimensions and 4D in 4 dimensions, so for the exchanges taking place in this thread, there's no possible confusion. In any case, we can only talk about these two densities : we barely know 3D and we're trying to understand what happens in 4D, once we've grasped what 4D is. This is impossible until we understand the nature of the 4th dimension of space. So the priority is to find out what the 4th dimension of space is, in order to understand how 3D is limited and what can vary within it. The only way to do this is to understand how gravity, electricity and magnetism - the 3D forces par excellence - work together. Hence the interesting questions initiated by @ScioAgapeOmnis :)
Wandering Star
The Living Force
mandatory intectomy and bentoska
The nicknames may not be completely written correctly, since I can no longer find them in the member list when I search.
Since even the nearest star system, Alpha Centauri is still 4.2 to 4.4 light-years away from Earth, having instant communication all across the galaxy and universe is quite the step up from light or radio wave communication. Such a tech could/would help end Earth's isolation.
Bastian
The Living Force
FWIW, in the Science-Fiction culture, such a device was imagined/foreseen and called an "ansible" :
Ansible - Wikipedia
I think we might be skipping a few steps ahead. To ask a meaningful question (and therefore get a meaningful answer) about whether some aspect of gravity can be used for communication, we should probably understand how current wireless communication works. Like at a basic simple level. How is information transmitted and received? What basic pieces are required for it to work? Right now if they simple answer “yes” what would we do with that answer?
We don’t even know what unstable gravity waves are or how to make them yet. But let’s use an example that we do know how to make - entangled particles. There is a thought out there that they “communicate” instantly, faster than the speed of light. But so far we haven’t used them to transmit information, why not?
We can entangle 2 particles, move them far away from each other, and by measuring the state of one, that instantaneously determines the state of the other. Can we leverage this to send useable information? Well, as I understand it, the outcomes are correlated but random. We can’t control the outcome of the measurement needed to encode information. You’re measuring one of them yes, but you’re not telling it what state to be in, so you can’t control the state of the other either. It’s randomly chosen when you observe/measure it. Not unless you figure out how to use your own consciousness to “choose” what state the particle will be in by the time you measure it. Then you also define the state of the other one, and effectively can transmit 1’s and 0’s of your choosing.
The C’s have said there is no such thing as true randomness. At some level, everything is chosen by some consciousness. So maybe there is a way to “observe” a particle such that you can decide what state it should be in. Perhaps a group of particles, which would encode a lot of information all at once, and that can reflect in their entangled counterparts.
This actually has implications beyond communication. If you can choose the state of particles when you observe them, you’re basically choosing the state of matter. Which sounds an awful lot like variability of physicality. So I wonder if that’s all variability of physicality is - a 4D being is able to take matter, which is in a state of quantum superposition (so all possible states) when unobserved, and choose their configuration by using their consciousness to direct the quantum wave collapse.
Which, if true, might mean that entangled communication is a 4D ability also. And because consciousness is the key in the process, you can’t just use a computer to do it for you mechanically. Which suggests that a lot of 4D technology is interfaced with their consciousness rather than being fully independent like our tech. There’s some info about that - we know the greys are an interface for the souls of the Lizzie’s. I’ve also read that UFO’s interface with the mind of the pilot as the control system. This would allow the tech to leverage variability of physicality when needed as well. And of course an obvious example - the C’s channeling. How exactly do the C’s transmit this information superluminally? Are the above principles somehow involved?
Last edited: