Magnetism is to electricity as gravity is to what?

[Mark7]

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?

To decode sound from common AM radio waves all one needs on the receiving end is a coil tuned to the frequency of the broadcast and then something as simple as a diode to filter out the signal portion of the radio wave. Digital communication protocols are much more complex, encoded, and layered.

I imagine we would get a "yes". It would be a good question to ask. Asking questions is like troubleshooting a problem, cutting it in half consecutive times. Perhaps they simply have inbuilt psychic communication, the ability being genetic, psychic, and 4th density.
So if "Yes" we could ask what if any tech is involved. If "Yes" to that we could ask if it is possible to use tech in 3rd density to communicate instantaneously via some principle; gravity waves, uncanny action at a distance, etc.

 

[DreamGod]

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.

I'm trying hard to understand the reasoning behind what Terrence suggests in 1x1=2, but I end up with the same thing; does not compute in my mind.

I will keep trying to grasp something, but my instict tells my he has some bad reasoning in that matter in particular.

Besides that, I think he is into something about Gravitiy, Shapes and Waves.

Note: The common mistake is thinking that when someone is right in something, it has to be right in all subsequent findings, but thats not true; the same apply when someone is wrong in something, it doesnt mean it has to be wrong in subsequent findings. Everyone has a little piece of truth, the challenge is to achieve the sufficient knowledge to see the truth between the disinformation.

 

[John G]

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.

If you really think dimension alone then there's a mathematical physics analogy of sorts. It would be 1-dim length times 1-dim width equals 2-dim area. In physics it would be the product of two vectors giving you a bivector. For example the product of an X space vector and a Y space vector would be an XY bivector for a plane (of rotation).

For us programmers/engineers, thinking of an 8-dim spacetime as an 8-bit byte is somewhat unbelievably useful. That XY bivector rotation would be 11000000 and via a hint from a physicist you can do cellular automata things with it.

For the 3 to 1 ratio, it would be more 1x1x1=3 giving you a volume/trivector. In physics it's useful to have 1x1x1x1=4 for a 4-vector volume form for the 4-dim spacetime.

 

[John G]

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 :

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".

Ark has a bimetric model too (via adding a degenerate one) and has an anti-universe too via a conformal structure including the structure at infinity. First time I had heard about the structure at infinity was via someone saying "if you ignore the structure at infinity...". Sometimes it can be good to go back to ignored things.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

If you really think dimension alone then there's a mathematical physics analogy of sorts. It would be 1-dim length times 1-dim width equals 2-dim area. In physics it would be the product of two vectors giving you a bivector. For example the product of an X space vector and a Y space vector would be an XY bivector for a plane (of rotation).

For us programmers/engineers, thinking of an 8-dim spacetime as an 8-bit byte is somewhat unbelievably useful. That XY bivector rotation would be 11000000 and via a hint from a physicist you can do cellular automata things with it.

For the 3 to 1 ratio, it would be more 1x1x1=3 giving you a volume/trivector. In physics it's useful to have 1x1x1x1=4 for a 4-vector volume form for the 4-dim spacetime.

Ok turning it into x-y-z (etc) axis makes more sense to me. I feel like that guy might have some interesting ideas, but I won't get much out of reading the book or watching the Rogan podcast because his way of explaining doesn't work for me at all. He jumps around too much and doesn't sufficiently clarify each point he's trying to make, at least for me. But I'm also kinda slow sometimes and take longer for some concepts to land. Which also means I can't parse out which ones are nonsense and which ones aren't either, so it all sounds like nonsense at the speed he's delivering it.

 

[Andrian]

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.

As SAO, i've perceived as well from your message a kind of "resentment". Don't want to sidetrack this thread, I apologize for that from the start, just wanted to add a humble advice, listen to your true self, don't listen to the predator mind's sweet whispering that enjoys to poison our hearts and minds thus accomplishing its objective, that is, leading astray and away from like minded souls, from your journey here and from your true self.

It seems there is some acceleration in everything and an intensity of incoming energies going on, especially for the last 6 months which I keep in mind when feeling under the weather.

Also the following excerpt from the C's is extremely important:

Session Date: December 30th 2023

[...]

A: Be aware that your own group is under scrutiny and subject to attack if all are not fully aware and communicating. It would be helpful for all of you to read Paul's letter about love a few times per week and ponder each aspect in relation to yourself and others. Times ahead are going to be shocking and unstable. Hold fast to your network and do not allow yourselves to be stampeded or externally driven. Ask when needed and we will be here. Peace be with you. Goodbye.



END OF SESSION

 

[Wandering Star]

As SAO, i've perceived as well from your message a kind of "resentment". Don't want to sidetrack this thread, I apologize for that from the start, just wanted to add a humble advice, listen to your true self, don't listen to the predator mind's sweet whispering that enjoys to poison our hearts and minds thus accomplishing its objective, that is, leading astray and away from like minded souls, from your journey here and from your true self.

It seems there is some acceleration in everything and an intensity of incoming energies going on, especially for the last 6 months which I keep in mind when feeling under the weather.

Also the following excerpt from the C's is extremely important:

So it is the predatory mind that causes multiplying one by one to result in one and multiplying two by one to result in two.

Personally, I prefer to add one plus one with a result of eleven and screw the predatory mind.

Well, thanks for your concern.

 

[DreamGod]

If you really think dimension alone then there's a mathematical physics analogy of sorts. It would be 1-dim length times 1-dim width equals 2-dim area. In physics it would be the product of two vectors giving you a bivector. For example the product of an X space vector and a Y space vector would be an XY bivector for a plane (of rotation).

For us programmers/engineers, thinking of an 8-dim spacetime as an 8-bit byte is somewhat unbelievably useful. That XY bivector rotation would be 11000000 and via a hint from a physicist you can do cellular automata things with it.

For the 3 to 1 ratio, it would be more 1x1x1=3 giving you a volume/trivector. In physics it's useful to have 1x1x1x1=4 for a 4-vector volume form for the 4-dim spacetime.

I dont know much about programming, but the fundament that is evaluated/debunked is Multiplication of 1x1.

Perhaps the "X" or "*" symbols that denotate the fundament of multiplications are not the same fudation in programming, are they?

In volume, 1 x 1 x 1 denotate 1 unit of medition, in 3D representation
In area, 1 x 1 denotate 1 unit of medition, in 2D representacion

But in vectors or force could be different, it all depends in which fundaments are you talkinf about or taking in account.

Hope I could explain myself

 

[DreamGod]

Ok turning it into x-y-z (etc) axis makes more sense to me. I feel like that guy might have some interesting ideas, but I won't get much out of reading the book or watching the Rogan podcast because his way of explaining doesn't work for me at all. He jumps around too much and doesn't sufficiently clarify each point he's trying to make, at least for me. But I'm also kinda slow sometimes and take longer for some concepts to land. Which also means I can't parse out which ones are nonsense and which ones aren't either, so it all sounds like nonsense at the speed he's delivering it.

He has alot of RAM capacity, but I think he is into some medications, maybe microdosis of mushrooms or something alike, he really get deep into the ideas, thats why its so hard to follow him in his train, but I dont know, it may be some side effects thats why he divague alot.

 

[DreamGod]

I dont know much about programming, but the fundament that is evaluated/debunked is Multiplication of 1x1.

Perhaps the "X" or "*" symbols that denotate the fundament of multiplications are not the same fudation in programming, are they?

In volume, 1 x 1 x 1 denotate 1 unit of medition, in 3D representation
In area, 1 x 1 denotate 1 unit of medition, in 2D representacion

But in vectors or force could be different, it all depends in which fundaments are you talkinf about or taking in account.

Hope I could explain myself

More on this, I thing Terrence is confusing fundaments, but I dont know why, he seems smart enought to know that, but maybe he is just trying to disinform, he came from hollywood, I dont know.

 

[EricLux]

By the way, in case anyone is interested here are the 20 original equations with some history about their development. https://wp.optics.arizona.edu/kkieu/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2019/01/Orig_maxwell_equations.pdf

Also worth mentioning, Maxwell's original equations were 4 SPATIAL dimensions, so in the sense that people started counting time as a fourth dimension after Relativity, Maxwell's equations would essentially define a 5 dimensional physics including time.

@WhiteMountain : thanks for this information.

It's very interesting that Maxwell's initial equations are described in a 4-dimensional space because it's towards such a space that the Cs invite us to move in order to reach 4D, taking into account the right 4th spatial dimension.

So, if we return to Maxwell's initial approach, the Cs confirmed that it takes place via quaternions but not only... There's yet another element we need to identify (December 5, 1998).

So, several questions come to mind:

- are Maxwell's initial equations those of 4th density, whereas we are studying a modern version of Maxwell's equations specific to 3D?
- Is there as much information in the modern version of Maxwell's equations (there are now only 4 equations) as in the 20 initial Maxwell equations in the quaternionic approach?
- Do Maxwell's 4 equations describe the unified field, once understood in the right framework?
- In addition to quaternions, what else do we need to take into account to find the right 4D framework?
- Should appealing to quaternions make us realize that the imaginary number i (such as i²=-1) to which we use to obtain the foundations of quantum mechanics is only a limited glimpse of a larger imaginary reality?​

 

[Mark7]

Here are a couple of videos that I think will help visualize quaternions. 3blue1brown is a YouTube Channel that specializes in helping to visualize math and statistics. quaternion math is being used by game developers, which I mentioned on another thread.

 

[WhiteMountain]

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.

Interesting anecdote to that. I was in a Princeton University classroom for a math competition when I was in high school and I saw the following on the chalkboard from a prior class or something. "1+1 = 3 for large values of 1"! Me and my classmates were literally like "What the hell were they teaching?"!!! 1 is a defined quantity, there is no such thing as a "large value of one" unless this is some totally insane form of number theory. Arithmetic is one of the few things we know for sure, along with the hard mathematics that derives from it.

 

[John G]

I dont know much about programming, but the fundament that is evaluated/debunked is Multiplication of 1x1.

Perhaps the "X" or "*" symbols that denotate the fundament of multiplications are not the same fudation in programming, are they?

In volume, 1 x 1 x 1 denotate 1 unit of medition, in 3D representation
In area, 1 x 1 denotate 1 unit of medition, in 2D representacion

But in vectors or force could be different, it all depends in which fundaments are you talkinf about or taking in account.

Hope I could explain myself

A bivector is the exterior product of two vectors and even though it uses the term product which might help the strained analogy with multiplication, it's certainly a more complicated
thing.

 

[WhiteMountain]

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...)

Amazing! Literally that is what I posited above without knowing about that work - gravity and EM are exactly the same except + attracts + reversed. I knew that those ideas could not have been original - someone else had to have asked these questions. Glad to think not all of my ideas are hair brained :)