Magnetism is to electricity as gravity is to what?

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.

I've seen it before, as I understood quaternions helps to define the "area/volume/space" (some in imaginary numbers) of a 4D object, it is a tool to see it in motion, and let us appretiate that 4D objects not only are in motion, but in rotation too.

In minute 26:06 of the video, it can be seen the motion of the sphere oscilating between 1 and -1, been 0 the maximum expansion of the object.

Thought?

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 :)​
Just curious, have they actually said that? It is possible 4th density being could access more than 4 dimensions, unless they have said otherwise. And we know that 2 second density entities can access three dimensions, or cows and other furry critters would have trouble navigating the world. So it appears there is not necessarily a one to one correspondence.

@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?​
I think we can answer the question of whether it describes a unified field as a no since these equations only appear to apply to an inverse square law. He had no knowledge of the strong force interaction, for instance, which is completely different in its nature. I am still of the belief what we need to do is take what we know from the original 20 equations of maxwell, general relativity, and quantum field theory and just rework them into a coherent and complete mathematical reformulation of the physics adding a extra parameter for Consciousness as a plug (call it a deus ex machina factor) for what we cannot describe yet. I think we need to rethink some concepts from special relativity as well as they made assumptions about Maxwell's equations which might not be true (i.e. that the solution to them in the rest frame apply in relative motion and it is possible the "constants" themselves could be modified just as easily as time just as they are when travelling through matter - not the same constants, obviously - just saying effectively the terms used change). Like I said, I never bought the universal speed limit.

I think we can answer the question of whether it describes a unified field as a no since these equations only appear to apply to an inverse square law. He had no knowledge of the strong force interaction, for instance, which is completely different in its nature. I am still of the belief what we need to do is take what we know from the original 20 equations of maxwell, general relativity, and quantum field theory and just rework them into a coherent and complete mathematical reformulation of the physics adding a extra parameter for Consciousness as a plug (call it a deus ex machina factor) for what we cannot describe yet. I think we need to rethink some concepts from special relativity as well as they made assumptions about Maxwell's equations which might not be true (i.e. that the solution to them in the rest frame apply in relative motion and it is possible the "constants" themselves could be modified just as easily as time just as they are when travelling through matter - not the same constants, obviously - just saying effectively the terms used change). Like I said, I never bought the universal speed limit.
I'm not so affirmative :)

As I answered in other post on this thread, the key is the outlook we use to interpret the variables of an equation.

When Maxwell's equations were derived to unify all the results of electrical and magnetic phenomena, no one had really considered that electricity and magnetism could be two facets of a larger field (apart from Faraday and Oersted, at least), the electromagnetic field.
We only look at, or even observe, phenomena through our consciousness, which is essentially that of identification with the physical body. Thus, Maxwell's modern equations have been interpreted through a 3D Euclidean space, a rigid physical space whose 3 axes are interchangeable. This frame of reference allows for a completely different interpretation if, for example, the basic reference space had been spherical geometry.

So, as far as I'm concerned, consciousness isn't something extra, something external, to be added to 3D physical laws. It's already present in the variables and concepts used to elaborate and interpret an equation. It's the awareness I gained after years of reflection on the theory of special relativity and why we never perceive a speed greater than the speed of light. Because, like you, I never bought this idea (the constant speed of light or the the universal speed of light limit), ever since university, and came to the conclusion that we don't observe a speed greater than the speed of light because the latter quantifies our 3D perception. There's more to be said here, too, since assigning a speed to light is, for me, a tall order. It results from a mechanistic interpretation of light, identified with a material point. This is the 3D interpretation we have of light, which, once again, is validated by experience, as everything is light, and matter is the 3D interpretation we have of it. As far as I'm concerned, light is multidimensional and I was reassured when the Cs confirmed that there was no longer any reason to talk about the speed of light in 4D, since it's an obsolete concept. In 4D, everything is light for our new perception. Speed is only a 3D concept. So, to support what I said in the previous paragraph : the state of consciousness manifests itself through a given perception.

So, when you mention atomic and nuclear forces (strong and weak forces), I'm more and more convinced that they could fit into the framework of Maxwell's equations with a different perception and frame of reference. I don't even know if, at this level, we can still talk about 3D reality. The Frenchman Nottale has made some interesting discoveries in this field, based on a fractal perception of reference space. Interestingly, by starting from classical mechanics, he obtained certain elements of quantum mechanics. And the Cs confirmed the fractal nature of space. Through all these elements, we get a clear sense of the multidimensional and living character to be found, which unites the different perceptions of reality and validates all aspects of it as relative realities. What's more, we don't forget that electromagnetism is the basis of quantum mechanics, so in a way, strong and weak forces are a particular aspect of electromagnetism.

I agree with you that physical constants are bound to vary : the speed of light, Planck's constant... confirmed by Cs.

As far as general relativity is concerned, it's a 3D expression that can be surpassed : it's based on special relativity, which is a mechanical interpretation of the dynamics of light, that they tried to apply to Newton's gravity. It's a generalization of the principle of relativity to Newton's gravity. It's the 3D view pushed to its maximum, with black holes as its ultimate limits. In other words, by going back to the principle of relativity at the basis of classical mechanics...

One of the interesting questions that could be put to Cs : does electromagnetism follow, or verify, the principle of relativity?

**
Lorsque les équations de Maxwell ont été obtenues afin d'unifier tous les résultats de phénomènes électriques et magnétiques, personne n'avait vraiment envisagé que l'électricité et le magnétisme puissent être deux facettes d'un champ plus large (à part, Faraday et Oersted, au moins), le champ électromagnétique. Nous ne regardons, voire observons, les phénomènes qu'à travers notre conscience qui, pour l'essentiel, est celle de l'identification au corps physique. Ainsi, les équations modernes de Maxwell ont été interprétées à travers un espace euclidien 3D, espace physique rigide dont les 3 axes sont interchangeables sans distinction. Le cadre servant de référence permet d'obtenir de toute autre interprétation si, par exemple, l'espace de référence de base avait été la géométrie sphérique.

Donc, pour moi, la conscience n'a rien d'une donnée extra, extérieure, à ajouter aux lois physiques 3D. Elle est déjà présente à travers les variables et les concepts servant à élaborer et interpréter une équation. C'est la conscience que j'en ai obtenu après des années de réflexion sur la théorie de la relativité spéciale et sur pourquoi on ne perçoit jamais de vitesse supérieure à la vitesse de la lumière. Car, comme toi, je n'ai jamais acheté cette idée (une vitesse de la lumière constante ou une vitesse de la lumière indépassable), depuis l'université, et suis arrivé à la conclusion que nous n'observions pas de vitesse supérieure à la vitesse de la lumière car cette dernière quantifie notre perception 3D. Il y aurait, là aussi, plus à dire puisque affectée une vitesse à la lumière est pour moi, une gageure. Cela résulte d'une interprétation mécaniste de la lumière, identifiée à un point matériel. C'est l'interprétation 3D que nous nous faisons de la lumière et qui, encore une fois, est validée par l'expérience car, tout étant lumière, la matière en est l'interprétation 3D que nous nous en faisons. Pour moi, la lumière est multidimensionnelle et cela m'a conforté lorsque les Cs ont confirmé qu'il n'y avait plus aucune raison de parler de vitesse de la lumière en 4D puisque c'est un concept désuet. En 4D, tout est lumière pour notre nouvelle perception. La vitesse n'est qu'un concept 3D. Ainsi, pour appuyer ce que je dis dans le paragraphe précédent : l'état de conscience se manifeste par une perception donnée.

Ainsi, lorsque tu évoques les forces atomiques et nucléaires (forces forte et faible), je suis de plus en plus convaincu qu'elles pourraient s'inscrire dans le cadre des équations de Maxwell avec une perception et un cadre de référence différents. Je ne sais même pas si, à ce niveau, nous pouvons encore parler de réalité 3D. Le français Nottale a fait de jolies découvertes, dans ce domaine, en s'appuyant sur une perception fractale de l'espace de référence. Chose intéressante : en partant de la mécanique classique, il en obtenait certains éléments de la mécanique quantique. Et les Cs ont confirmé le caractère fractal de l'espace. A travers tous ces éléments, on sent bien le caractère multidimensionnel et vivant à trouver qui unit les différentes perceptions de la réalité et qui en valide tous les aspects en tant que réalités relatives. De plus, il ne faut pas oublier que l'électromagnétisme est à la base de la mécanique quantique donc, d'une certaine manière, les forces forte et faible sont un aspect particulier de l'électromagnétisme.

Je suis d'accord avec toi que les constantes physiques forcément doivent être amenées à varier : vitesse de la lumière, constante de Planck... confirmé par les Cs.

Pour ce qui est de la relativité générale, elle est une expression 3D donc dépassable : elle repose sur la relativité spéciale, qui est une interprétation mécanique de la dynamique de la lumière, qu'ils ont cherché à appliquer à la gravité de Newton. C'est une généralisation du principe de relativité à la gravité de Newton. C'est le regard 3D poussé à son maximum dont les trous noirs en sont les limites ultimes. Autant dire qu'en revenant sur le principe de relativité à la base de la mécanique classique...

Une des questions intéressantes qui pourraient être posée aux Cs : l'électromagnétisme suit-il, vérifie t-il le principe de relativité ?

I'm not so affirmative :)

As I answered in other post on this thread, the key is the outlook we use to interpret the variables of an equation.

When Maxwell's equations were derived to unify all the results of electrical and magnetic phenomena, no one had really considered that electricity and magnetism could be two facets of a larger field (apart from Faraday and Oersted, at least), the electromagnetic field.
We only look at, or even observe, phenomena through our consciousness, which is essentially that of identification with the physical body. Thus, Maxwell's modern equations have been interpreted through a 3D Euclidean space, a rigid physical space whose 3 axes are interchangeable. This frame of reference allows for a completely different interpretation if, for example, the basic reference space had been spherical geometry.

So, as far as I'm concerned, consciousness isn't something extra, something external, to be added to 3D physical laws. It's already present in the variables and concepts used to elaborate and interpret an equation. It's the awareness I gained after years of reflection on the theory of special relativity and why we never perceive a speed greater than the speed of light. Because, like you, I never bought this idea (the constant speed of light or the the universal speed of light limit), ever since university, and came to the conclusion that we don't observe a speed greater than the speed of light because the latter quantifies our 3D perception. There's more to be said here, too, since assigning a speed to light is, for me, a tall order. It results from a mechanistic interpretation of light, identified with a material point. This is the 3D interpretation we have of light, which, once again, is validated by experience, as everything is light, and matter is the 3D interpretation we have of it. As far as I'm concerned, light is multidimensional and I was reassured when the Cs confirmed that there was no longer any reason to talk about the speed of light in 4D, since it's an obsolete concept. In 4D, everything is light for our new perception. Speed is only a 3D concept. So, to support what I said in the previous paragraph : the state of consciousness manifests itself through a given perception.

So, when you mention atomic and nuclear forces (strong and weak forces), I'm more and more convinced that they could fit into the framework of Maxwell's equations with a different perception and frame of reference. I don't even know if, at this level, we can still talk about 3D reality. The Frenchman Nottale has made some interesting discoveries in this field, based on a fractal perception of reference space. Interestingly, by starting from classical mechanics, he obtained certain elements of quantum mechanics. And the Cs confirmed the fractal nature of space. Through all these elements, we get a clear sense of the multidimensional and living character to be found, which unites the different perceptions of reality and validates all aspects of it as relative realities. What's more, we don't forget that electromagnetism is the basis of quantum mechanics, so in a way, strong and weak forces are a particular aspect of electromagnetism.

I agree with you that physical constants are bound to vary : the speed of light, Planck's constant... confirmed by Cs.

As far as general relativity is concerned, it's a 3D expression that can be surpassed : it's based on special relativity, which is a mechanical interpretation of the dynamics of light, that they tried to apply to Newton's gravity. It's a generalization of the principle of relativity to Newton's gravity. It's the 3D view pushed to its maximum, with black holes as its ultimate limits. In other words, by going back to the principle of relativity at the basis of classical mechanics...

One of the interesting questions that could be put to Cs : does electromagnetism follow, or verify, the principle of relativity?

**
Lorsque les équations de Maxwell ont été obtenues afin d'unifier tous les résultats de phénomènes électriques et magnétiques, personne n'avait vraiment envisagé que l'électricité et le magnétisme puissent être deux facettes d'un champ plus large (à part, Faraday et Oersted, au moins), le champ électromagnétique. Nous ne regardons, voire observons, les phénomènes qu'à travers notre conscience qui, pour l'essentiel, est celle de l'identification au corps physique. Ainsi, les équations modernes de Maxwell ont été interprétées à travers un espace euclidien 3D, espace physique rigide dont les 3 axes sont interchangeables sans distinction. Le cadre servant de référence permet d'obtenir de toute autre interprétation si, par exemple, l'espace de référence de base avait été la géométrie sphérique.

Donc, pour moi, la conscience n'a rien d'une donnée extra, extérieure, à ajouter aux lois physiques 3D. Elle est déjà présente à travers les variables et les concepts servant à élaborer et interpréter une équation. C'est la conscience que j'en ai obtenu après des années de réflexion sur la théorie de la relativité spéciale et sur pourquoi on ne perçoit jamais de vitesse supérieure à la vitesse de la lumière. Car, comme toi, je n'ai jamais acheté cette idée (une vitesse de la lumière constante ou une vitesse de la lumière indépassable), depuis l'université, et suis arrivé à la conclusion que nous n'observions pas de vitesse supérieure à la vitesse de la lumière car cette dernière quantifie notre perception 3D. Il y aurait, là aussi, plus à dire puisque affectée une vitesse à la lumière est pour moi, une gageure. Cela résulte d'une interprétation mécaniste de la lumière, identifiée à un point matériel. C'est l'interprétation 3D que nous nous faisons de la lumière et qui, encore une fois, est validée par l'expérience car, tout étant lumière, la matière en est l'interprétation 3D que nous nous en faisons. Pour moi, la lumière est multidimensionnelle et cela m'a conforté lorsque les Cs ont confirmé qu'il n'y avait plus aucune raison de parler de vitesse de la lumière en 4D puisque c'est un concept désuet. En 4D, tout est lumière pour notre nouvelle perception. La vitesse n'est qu'un concept 3D. Ainsi, pour appuyer ce que je dis dans le paragraphe précédent : l'état de conscience se manifeste par une perception donnée.

Ainsi, lorsque tu évoques les forces atomiques et nucléaires (forces forte et faible), je suis de plus en plus convaincu qu'elles pourraient s'inscrire dans le cadre des équations de Maxwell avec une perception et un cadre de référence différents. Je ne sais même pas si, à ce niveau, nous pouvons encore parler de réalité 3D. Le français Nottale a fait de jolies découvertes, dans ce domaine, en s'appuyant sur une perception fractale de l'espace de référence. Chose intéressante : en partant de la mécanique classique, il en obtenait certains éléments de la mécanique quantique. Et les Cs ont confirmé le caractère fractal de l'espace. A travers tous ces éléments, on sent bien le caractère multidimensionnel et vivant à trouver qui unit les différentes perceptions de la réalité et qui en valide tous les aspects en tant que réalités relatives. De plus, il ne faut pas oublier que l'électromagnétisme est à la base de la mécanique quantique donc, d'une certaine manière, les forces forte et faible sont un aspect particulier de l'électromagnétisme.

Je suis d'accord avec toi que les constantes physiques forcément doivent être amenées à varier : vitesse de la lumière, constante de Planck... confirmé par les Cs.

Pour ce qui est de la relativité générale, elle est une expression 3D donc dépassable : elle repose sur la relativité spéciale, qui est une interprétation mécanique de la dynamique de la lumière, qu'ils ont cherché à appliquer à la gravité de Newton. C'est une généralisation du principe de relativité à la gravité de Newton. C'est le regard 3D poussé à son maximum dont les trous noirs en sont les limites ultimes. Autant dire qu'en revenant sur le principe de relativité à la base de la mécanique classique...

Une des questions intéressantes qui pourraient être posée aux Cs : l'électromagnétisme suit-il, vérifie t-il le principe de relativité ?
"So, as far as I'm concerned, consciousness isn't something extra, something external, to be added to 3D physical laws. It's already present in the variables and concepts used to elaborate and interpret an equation."

That makes sense. But the point I was trying to make is that from a 3D perspective, I am not sure there is any way of modeling consciousness as a mathematical variable, at least right now. It is more of an abstract construct. It could be quite possible to create a valid GUT with a formulaic plug for consciousness that does not have the specific detail you describe, and the nature of that formula can be fleshed out in higher dimensions when we have more perception and the ability to do more meaningful experiments. One of the reasons I think this makes sense is the Cs did say that someone has successfully formulated a GUT here in 3D. Does anyone actually believe the people who created it had a sufficient understanding of consciousness to adequately model it as you describe. It has to be a less specific model, in my opinion, that is basically functional for most things in 3D, but not complete. For example how do you measure the strength of a personal intention in terms of a healing experiment, which is one place consciousness would intervene in real life, without an additional perception. You need a wider perception of consciousness, an expanded psychic awareness per se, to begin to make sense of things. Maybe they have this with all the black projects, I just highly doubt it.

"This is the 3D interpretation we have of light, which, once again, is validated by experience, as everything is light, and matter is the 3D interpretation we have of it."

I don't think it was validated by experience as much as it was through an arguably flawed interpretation of Maxwell's Equations. If you look at the Michelson-Morley experiment for instance in the 1800s, it is EXACTLY what you would expect if the speed of light was variable. Lorentz and Einstein believed that the solution to Maxwell's Equation in a REST FRAME meant the speed of light had to be constant regardless of the M-M experiment, so they came up with the solution to a problem that did not necessarily exist - hey time must be variable! An elegant solution it was, but if you premises are wrong, garbage in garbage out. I might be mistaken in saying this, but I think it is mostly general relativity that has the most experimental proof behind it, so there might be something else going on there. Einstein might have actually stumbled on something accidentally with his equivalence principle thought experiment. But I totally agree with you conceptually on the perception thing.

In fact when it comes to quantum phenomenon I often wonder how many of our particle accelerator experiments are real. For instance, there was an elegant derivation of the W unification with the EM field, but at the same time, it is pretty artificially constructed. To me the fact it actually worked was one of the most amazing things in physics. But did it work and predict essentially the same mass for W as the experimental. I have often wondered if it was because it really exists like that or because THEY WERE LOOKING FOR IT AND MANIFESTED IT and it is an inherently quantum phenomenon. Same with the Higgs particle. You have entire teams working on this project expecting a success. Remember experiments have been done where people through INTENTION can alter the behaviour of computer pseudorandom number generators. From a mechanistic world view, thoughts should not affect digital logic devices! But they do. So to me it seems entirely likely that a lot of quantum level experiments can potentially be useless. It would be interesting to come up with a BS particle and convince the people who run the mechanics of the accelerators with little theoretical background it was real, and then to see if they could find it :).

"So, when you mention atomic and nuclear forces (strong and weak forces), I'm more and more convinced that they could fit into the framework of Maxwell's equations with a different perception and frame of reference."

I agree that is possible with the weak force, since we already have a unification theory of it (if it really works...see above). That is the reason I specifically mentioned the strong force. It really is its own beast. It behaves completely different seemingly in all respects. You have to even renormalize it to calculate anything with perturbation theory because everything otherwise blows up to infinity because it is so "strong." There is no dual polarity - you deal with "colors" - 3 of them. I think you need equations with a different structure than Maxwell's original equations to account for this behavior. And then maybe when you understand that structure you can find a common framework, completely different, where you can merge the two in higher dimensions or something like that.

"What's more, we don't forget that electromagnetism is the basis of quantum mechanics, so in a way, strong and weak forces are a particular aspect of electromagnetism."

I would argue that we discovered and tested quantum mechanics through electromagnetism, but the basis of how QM was derived was from classical physics (obviously with the exception of stuff like the plank equation, which was derived from light propagation). When confronted with the reality of the uncertainty principle, they took the Lagrangian you use in classical physics and just modified it to a differential vector equation (which did make use of the plank equation) where you could express that as uncertainty. If the potential is EM then you put an electromagnetic analog for the potential in the equation, and if you are using gravity I would argue you put in the gravitational potential expression which is similar.

Again I agree with you one the weak force since came out of EM, but Quantum Chromodynamics / the strong force came out of quantum field theory models and that was basically created on the fly to explain the strange behavior of what goes on in the nucleus. Really the only connection I see to electromagnetism is they used a lot of the same formalisms from Quantum Electrodynamics like Feynmann diagrams to describe it. But you use the tools you have. That does not mean there is that much in the way of similiarites.

It has been my belief that gravity will be unified much more easily into some sort of model than the strong force, because it is so different than everything else.

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.
You must be referring to these 2 threads:

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.

Can you clarify what do you mean by “support”? Isn’t supporting generally a good thing?

As for common front against criticism - is that really all you saw happening in those threads? That perfectly valid and well researched criticism of some idea (or group, depends on which thread you look at) was presented, and it was summarily dismissed without any kind of discussion or analysis or consideration of the points made? That the issue wasn’t thoroughly analyzed and discussed from every angle? In other words, that the criticism was discarded out of hand?

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.

Last edited:
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.