Magnetism is to electricity as gravity is to what?

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

I'd like to explore an idea that might seem far-fetched, but maybe it's worth considering. You know how electricity is generated by changing magnetic fields, and how moving electric current creates a magnetic field? Electric motors and generators work based on these principles.

Gravity, being an attractive force, shares some similarities with magnetism. While magnets have opposite poles, gravity always attracts, never repels. I'm wondering if gravity could be thought of as a "magnetic monopole" - a single, unipolar force.

My tentative questions for the C's would be:

1. Does changing a gravitational field near a "conductor" generate a similar effect to changing a magnetic field, creating a flow of something?
2. If so, do orbiting bodies in space generate this effect, similar to a spinning magnet generating an electric current?
3. If we could generate this effect, does it create a gravitational field, just as an electric current creates a magnetic field?
4. Can gravity have two poles, like magnets, or is it a single, unipolar force?

Just wanted to put it out there for general discussion/criticism/correction.

Also, the C's said that electricity and magnetism etc are merely expressions of gravity. Could the attractive force we call gravity also just be one of those expressions - no closer to the true meaning of gravity than the other forces? In other words, could it be a misnomer to call that force gravity? Their clues suggest gravity is much bigger and more fundamental than any of those forces, which might include "gravity" as we define it?

 

[Temperance]

That's an interesting analogy to try to understand gravity better. "Gravity" as we understand it could have more shades of nuance. I've been thinking about some of the transcripts where they talk about it as fundamental, and trying to understand it etymologically as well, along the lines of "grav-" from "grave" as in serious, or of deep importance. Still a work in progress on that thread though, and haven't formulated a question yet, and still making sure it hasn't been asked yet.

 

[irjO]

In my mind comes the word ‘consciousness’. Like the missing part of that equation in the tittle:

Magnetism is to electricity as gravity is to consciousness.

I think that’s one of those subjects that Ark was working around or maybe he still is since long time ago. Understanding gravity the way the Cs mentions it, seems very complex. Create, generate, increase or decrease consciousness could generate more gravity and viceversa, could be similar as how you said on your analogy between electricity and magnetism.
There are so many missing pieces about gravity, we understand it only as a physical force. We don’t know however the ethereal part of it.

Also, what about antigravity? If gravity attracts wouldn’t antigravity repele?

 

[JGeropoulas]

This is an interesting idea to ponder. Makes me wonder where information and sound-based levitation (i.e. anti-gravity) fit into the fundamental scheme.

 

[WhiteMountain]

I'd like to explore an idea that might seem far-fetched, but maybe it's worth considering. You know how electricity is generated by changing magnetic fields, and how moving electric current creates a magnetic field? Electric motors and generators work based on these principles.

Gravity, being an attractive force, shares some similarities with magnetism. While magnets have opposite poles, gravity always attracts, never repels. I'm wondering if gravity could be thought of as a "magnetic monopole" - a single, unipolar force.

My tentative questions for the C's would be:

1. Does changing a gravitational field near a "conductor" generate a similar effect to changing a magnetic field, creating a flow of something?
2. If so, do orbiting bodies in space generate this effect, similar to a spinning magnet generating an electric current?
3. If we could generate this effect, does it create a gravitational field, just as an electric current creates a magnetic field?
4. Can gravity have two poles, like magnets, or is it a single, unipolar force?

Just wanted to put it out there for general discussion/criticism/correction.

Also, the C's said that electricity and magnetism etc are merely expressions of gravity. Could the attractive force we call gravity also just be one of those expressions - no closer to the true meaning of gravity than the other forces? In other words, could it be a misnomer to call that force gravity? Their clues suggest gravity is much bigger and more fundamental than any of those forces, which might include "gravity" as we define it?

Physicists have been trying to figure this one out for over 100 years. The whole electricity and magnetism connection inspired theories like Kaluza Klein geometry (basically throwing in an extra dimension with time), quantum field theory, string theory, etc trying to unify everything in a similar manner. And they were shockingly successful in linking the weak force with E/M - if you have ever seen the original derivation it is quite creative and even more so amazing it experimentally predicted the W particle. That probably inspired more confidence everything can be linked together in one grand unified theory - just no one has cracked it yet.

I am sure Ark probably would have more interesting comments on this as I imagine he has spent a good portion of his life trying to figure out stuff like this, and the C's obviously do not seem like they want to just hand the answers to him, only hints. It will be interesting to see their answers to these questions.

I think the one interesting thing about gravity is that the hyperdimensional physicists claim that you can dramatically reduce its effect on an object by rapidly rotating an object. Supposedly this is how secret space craft like the TR-3Bs work (rapidly spinning mercury in a cyclotron in the center of a craft increasing the angular momentum inside it; interestingly enough years after I heard of this concept I saw a patent coming out of the armed forces describing exactly such a system couching in obscure and completely unnecessary jargon clearly trying to hide what they were saying from the general public). I think this has more to do with lowering the effective mass of an object (also allowing the craft to accelerate much faster under a given force due to lower inertia), than a direct interaction with gravity, but you have to fit this behavior into whatever model of gravity you have.

Also based on what we know about ancient technologies long lost (except for Coral Castle and whatever is done behind black projects) you have to explain the sound frequency resonance phenomenon someone else mentioned above. I wonder if that is somehow linked to the angular momentum TR-3B phenomenon as well since sound waves are also some sort of physical movement of air. I wonder if anyone has thought to try to link those two phenomenon; although perhaps it is different if you get actual levitation through sound waves instead of just reducing the mass to zero so it is just easy to lift. Too bad the guy at Coral Castle never gave up his secrets :(.

I don't think you are going to get anything special around a conductor as to the first question. The way I understand magnetism works is that it is sort of an illusion of a force that happens in a moving electric field - essentially breaks in the electric field at right angles as the source of the field moves creating the perpendicular pseudoforce of magnetism. So essentially you have an electric field that appears as a completely separate force when it moves. You do have gravitational waves when large masses move, similar to electromagnetic fields with the electric force so there probably are some similarities in how the physics works, but it is really hard to detect those phenomenon experimentally because gravity is such a weak force - you are limited to looking at the effects of really large masses moving rapidly in space. But I suspect if you could do those experiments you might see some of the similarities you suggest.

 

[whitecoast]

Also, what about antigravity? If gravity attracts wouldn’t antigravity repele?

One interesting thing I've learned is that all the laws of physics which describe gravity as a force still technically function just fine if you plug in a negative mass for an object. This opens speculation about if negative mass can be achieved by some method.

I think the one interesting thing about gravity is that the hyperdimensional physicists claim that you can dramatically reduce its effect on an object by rapidly rotating an object. Supposedly this is how secret space craft like the TR-3Bs work (rapidly spinning mercury in a cyclotron in the center of a craft increasing the angular momentum inside it; interestingly enough years after I heard of this concept I saw a patent coming out of the armed forces describing exactly such a system couching in obscure and completely unnecessary jargon clearly trying to hide what they were saying from the general public). I think this has more to do with lowering the effective mass of an object (also allowing the craft to accelerate much faster under a given force due to lower inertia), than a direct interaction with gravity, but you have to fit this behavior into whatever model of gravity you have.

This is so fascinating. What hyperdimensional physicists are you referring to here?

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Thanks mods for moving this post to a more appropriate sub-forum. The original thread in "what's on your mind" still has replies in it, but not the original post, so it looks like a broken thread:

Magnetism is to electricity as gravity is to what?

That's an interesting analogy to try to understand gravity better. "Gravity" as we understand it could have more shades of nuance. I've been thinking about some of the transcripts where they talk about it as fundamental, and trying to understand it etymologically as well, along the lines of...

cassiopaea.org

Would it be possible to move those replies to this new location?

 

[WhiteMountain]

One interesting thing I've learned is that all the laws of physics which describe gravity as a force still technically function just fine if you plug in a negative mass for an object. This opens speculation about if negative mass can be achieved by some method.



This is so fascinating. What hyperdimensional physicists are you referring to here?

Supposedly, when the US was sending rockets into space in the initial program they were firing rockets that had a high rotational velocity compared to the Soviets. So one of their first rockets was fired, and they were waiting to get a reading on it from the west coast as it came back around the earth, the time it came around was quite unexpected and did not obey the laws of physics as they then understood them. It traveled higher and faster than expected. Werner von Braun supposedly was trying to figure out what happened and started corresponding with some of his colleagues overseas and came up with the model that the rotational velocity actually reduced the effective mass of the vehicle which they used to correctly calculate the trajectories of future launches. This theory apparently involved the use of higher dimensional physics, although I do not quite know the details (I think a lot people would love to know...). Supposedly you get the same effect by spinning a very dense metal like mercury in a cyclotron on a vehicle like a TR-3B. The rotational mass effect in that cyclotron is apparently so great that is greatly reduces the mass of the vehicle so that it is practically massless. What energy source allows it to power that sort of energy on an isolated craft - I would also be interested in knowing that as I assume if we had access to it there would be no need for oil and gas and these climate change weirdos would shut the hell up :). At least this was the way these craft were reported to work many years ago when I first heard about them.

Then years later I saw this patent that sort of confirms this was the general idea they were using. You can see it here issued to the US Navy...so it is not exactly a crackpot in a garage. And the Navy is supposedly the division of the military this stuff was overseen prior to space force. US10144532B2 - Craft using an inertial mass reduction device - Google Patents. They go out of their way to try to explain this in a conventional paradigm using a lot of jargon about interactions of vibrational energy and the quantum vacuum state ("it is possible to reduce a craft's inertia, that is, its resistance to motion/acceleration by polarizing the vacuum in the close proximity of the moving craft. As a result, extreme speeds can be achieved.").Clearly they don't want to reveal more than necessary for the patent. Here are the key parts:

"Moreover, the coupling of hyper-frequency gyrational (axial rotation) and hyper-frequency vibrational electrodynamics is conducive to a possible physical breakthrough in the utilization of the macroscopic quantum fluctuations vacuum plasma field (quantum vacuum plasma) as an energy source (or sink), which is an induced physical phenomenon." i.e. high velocity rotation is a key part of the design of the craft, as has been previously speculated with the TR-3B Manta craft. Although that does not appear to be the mechanism for this particular craft - they talk more of a charged spinning disc (an inner resonant cavity) combined with high frequency microwaves. But the principle would appear to be the same or similar, just with the addition of the electromagnetic vibrations which might be a part of the TR-3B craft not previously disclosed. They even talk about potentially achieving faster than light travel because "This involves the instantaneous removal of energy-mass from the system (craft) when the craft's speed reaches (v=c/2)."

And what is the effect of such axial rotation when paired with "hyper-frequency vibrational electrodynamics"?:

"It is possible to reduce the inertial mass and hence the gravitational mass, of a system/object in motion, by an abrupt perturbation of the non-linear background of local spacetime (the local vacuum energy state), equivalent to an accelerated excursion far from thermodynamic equilibrium (analogous with symmetry-breaking induced by abrupt changes of state/phase transitions). The physical mechanism which drives this diminution in inertial mass is based on the negative pressure (hence repulsive gravity) exhibited by the polarized local vacuum energy state (local vacuum polarization being achieved by a coupling of accelerated high frequency vibration with accelerated high frequency axial rotation of an electrically charged system/object) in the close proximity of the system/object in question. In other words, inertial mass reduction can be achieved via manipulation of quantum field fluctuations in the local vacuum energy state, in the immediate proximity of the object/system. Therefore it is possible to reduce a craft's inertia, that is, its resistance to motion/acceleration by polarizing the vacuum in the close proximity of the moving craft."

They reduce the inertial and gravitational mass, just as speculated with the TR-3B government UFOs. Interestingly here, you can see that they characterize a negative gravity ("repulsive gravity") as the mechanism for the reduction in mass, something I had forgotten about, which would lend some credence to the idea of "antigravity" mentioned above...assuming they are actually giving us a somewhat correct mechanism and not BS for public consumption to confuse us using a framework that more reflects the standard model instead of alternative physics which was are not supposed to know about.

Also note, "Although the present invention has been described in considerable detail with reference to certain preferred embodiments thereof, other embodiments are possible. Therefore, the spirit and scope of the appended claims should not be limited to the description of the preferred embodiment(s) contained herein." I have a strong feeling they are using the "other embodiments" of the same principle in practice. Don't exactly want to describe to the world how your UFOs really work....

 

[EricLux]

I'd like to explore an idea that might seem far-fetched, but maybe it's worth considering. You know how electricity is generated by changing magnetic fields, and how moving electric current creates a magnetic field? Electric motors and generators work based on these principles.

Gravity, being an attractive force, shares some similarities with magnetism. While magnets have opposite poles, gravity always attracts, never repels. I'm wondering if gravity could be thought of as a "magnetic monopole" - a single, unipolar force.

My tentative questions for the C's would be:

1. Does changing a gravitational field near a "conductor" generate a similar effect to changing a magnetic field, creating a flow of something?
2. If so, do orbiting bodies in space generate this effect, similar to a spinning magnet generating an electric current?
3. If we could generate this effect, does it create a gravitational field, just as an electric current creates a magnetic field?
4. Can gravity have two poles, like magnets, or is it a single, unipolar force?

Just wanted to put it out there for general discussion/criticism/correction.

Also, the C's said that electricity and magnetism etc are merely expressions of gravity. Could the attractive force we call gravity also just be one of those expressions - no closer to the true meaning of gravity than the other forces? In other words, could it be a misnomer to call that force gravity? Their clues suggest gravity is much bigger and more fundamental than any of those forces, which might include "gravity" as we define it?

@ScioAgapeOmnis : This is an excellent initiative, because it's time to ask the right questions in this area. 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?​

Don't hesitate if you have any questions :)

 

[WhiteMountain]

@ScioAgapeOmnis : This is an excellent initiative, because it's time to ask the right questions in this area. 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?​

Don't hesitate if you have any questions :)

It is interesting that you mention Maxwell's equations. The version of Maxwell's equations that we have in the physics books today are not actually Maxwell's original equations. Those are actually the condensed Heavyside equations, which reduce the original equations to the four vector differential equations most are familiar with today.

Maxwell was actually the first to posit hyper-dimensional physics. His original equations were based on the idea of their being 4 dimensions, not three. He used quaternion algebra to formulate it - think complex numbers with not just an i, but a j and k as well, describing a four dimensional topology. If I remember right the original equations were very complex 20 equations and 20 unknowns, so you can understand the rationale for the Heavyside simplification. But the condensed equations eliminated certain solutions like scalar waves (most electromagnetic waves are transfer, scalar are more similar to sound compressional waves and can theoretically be produced by winding wire around a magnetic core in both directions).

I actually tried to find a first edition of Maxwell to compare the 20 equations I found to the original formulation. I found an electronic copy online but it was very strange. The introduction mentioned and apologized for the use of quaternion algebra, that most people were obviously not familiar with. But I did not find a singular instance of what appeared to be quaternion algebra anywhere the rest of the text. I need to probably resume that search since it was long time ago I tried to find that and there is a lot more stuff open source online now. But the impression I got from reading it was that someone clearly modified the text I was viewing if the quaternion algebra was gone yet mentioned in the introduction. Supposedly Tesla circuits can only be explained through the original equations.

As to the comment on the graviton existing in null time that confused the hell out of me. What is exactly does it mean for a graviton to be outside of time, practically? It sounds profound abstractly, but when you get down to brass tacks it seems to make no sense. I mean we know that gravitational waves exist. They propagate through time from some binary star system to be measured at earth, for example, theoretically at the speed of light. So if they propagate through space, that graviton by definition has a time component that is necessary to measure its location in history along with the three cartesian coordinates.

So do they have a completely different definition of time? I mean time has to be multidimensional in their framework (I believe Ark or someone else even asked them about this) because while our density is timeline to us, it would appear that they are existing in their own time dimension. For example if you say you are a 6th density entity etc. communicating from the future, and they will eventually evolve to the seventh dimension, their speech pattern alone indicates their own temporality. Otherwise they would say "we are you from all dimensions simulatneously, or across time, or something like that." So maybe the rule is 4th density can have access to all 3rd density timelines simultaneously, but exist in their 4th density time progression...and so on for each density. Might the graviton being in zero time mean maybe it is linked amongst the different temporal dimensions? Although that does not sit right with me as well. A graviton on 3rd density will have multiple positions throughout its lifetime.

To me to say something exists in zero time would mean it is completely stationary and independent of time, unmovable. But then, it can still be measured across time...but in any case this would not describe a graviton.

Maybe they mean zero time in the sense a photon itself, IN ITS REST FRAME, exists in zero time - time does not progress, according to special relativity. But a photon from our vantage point still has time.

It is also curious they say it is an ELECTRON in zero time. Why not a POSITRON in zero time? For that matter why not neutrons, protons, mesons, or quarks. Are positrons in null time, antigravitons (antigravity carrying particle). There needs to be some clarification like "What is a positron in zero time?" "What is a proton, or its component quarks in zero time?" "What is a neutrino in zero time?" Do these lead to other fundamental force carrying particles like photons or gluons?

MIght it be that other spatial dimensions be hidden in that movement in them can only be perceived in other temporal dimensions that only higher densities can perceive? And does a zero time electron fit in that paradigm.

Or might this just be one of the things where there is a "transmission error" from the C's, that might be leading us down rabbit holes? That is always something to consider. BTW I have a theory on how the transmission errors might work, but that is probably a discussion for another thread.

Man I really want to get a copy of that first edition of maxwell now!!!

 

[WhiteMountain]

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.

 

[EricLux]

In my mind comes the word ‘consciousness’. Like the missing part of that equation in the tittle:

Magnetism is to electricity as gravity is to consciousness.

I think that’s one of those subjects that Ark was working around or maybe he still is since long time ago. Understanding gravity the way the Cs mentions it, seems very complex. Create, generate, increase or decrease consciousness could generate more gravity and viceversa, could be similar as how you said on your analogy between electricity and magnetism.
There are so many missing pieces about gravity, we understand it only as a physical force. We don’t know however the ethereal part of it.

Also, what about antigravity? If gravity attracts wouldn’t antigravity repele?

I agree with you @irjO :)

I think the missing term in the equation is consciousness. Magnetism is to electricity as consciousness is to gravity. But as I replied to @ScioAgapeOmnis, its relationship has to be perceived in a multidimensional way where we only perceive it from a 3D perspective. This is the best we can do at present, as we are only just beginning to become aware of the multidimensional (or hyperdimensional) nature of reality. The fact is, I think that beyond the multidimensional character, we need to consider the interdimensional character of this relationship : in other words, this relationship is the same for all dimensions.

"There are so many missing pieces about gravity, we understand it only as a physical force. We don't know however the ethereal part of it." I totally agree, we only consider gravity from a 3D perspective (Newton) and, again 3D, in its most extended version (Einstein) with time as the 4th dimension of space. The fact is, until we identify the nature of the 4th dimension of space, we won't be able to grasp how our 3D perception of gravity unfolds in 4D. The only intuition I have is that taking into account the true 4th dimension of space will make us feel how gravity becomes variable, how magnetism is the support of consciousness and how the term anti-gravity is a misnomer. Yes, gravity is a physical force in 3D and, in 4D, it will become variable because 4D is the first density to allow the variability of physical laws.

The famous variability revealed for the first time in 4D comes from taking the ether into account, whereas 3D is based solely on the physical. In other words, we understand 3D as if the ether didn't exist. In fact, to this day, we don't even know what the ether really is. I have the feeling that gravity connects matter and antimatter as a 3D expression of a more expansive relationship between the physical and the ether.

If it helps you grasp a little better what I'm feeling, I'm attaching two previous posts.

Session 27 April 2024

Let the Cassiopaeans comment on this: Welcome to our forum, @findhome. We are an English-speaking forum, so could you please use a translator like Yandex? We do have foreign languages subsections, but other than that, we write in English. Also, could you please introduce yourself in our...

cassiopaea.org

Session 27 April 2024

Were they talking about Yggdrasil? I finished Gods of the North by Brian Branston and there might be some clues: The War In Heaven Kidnapping of Freya in this legend somewhat resembles the kidnapping of Helen of Troy by Paris which triggered the Troyan war: More from Branston: The Don river...

cassiopaea.org

I hope this will give you an idea of what questions to ask the Cs on this subject.​

 

[Debra]

Oh boy, I’ve got a VERY strange synchronistic situation going on in my life, and it ties into the “what’s” and “how’s” that you all are discussing in this thread.
I’m been inundated with questions by several of my extended younger family members.

They sent me a Joe Rogan interview with Terrance Howard.
If you are as unfamiliar with Terrance Howard, as I was, here’s a little bio:
“Terrence Howard is an actor of stage and screen lauded for his work in "Crash," "Iron Man," "Empire," and "Shirley," as well as a musician and researcher in the fields of logic and engineering.
www.terryslynchpins.com

Now, his interview with Rogan was 3 Heckin hours long, and after listening to the whole thing, I felt as if I’d spent volunteer time with delusional people in the psychology ward again.(A lived experience from my “getting educated” days, one I would not recommend)

Except, he does drop a few gems, while spewing out his self aggrandizement statements, and his manic way of jumping back and forth between subjects made my head spin.

BUT, I found the transcript!
I’ve copy and pasted a snip below, in case it’s of any interest for anyone, and the link to both the video and transcript is at the bottom.
Remember, the video is 3 hours you’ll never get back, but reading the transcript is rather less time consuming and less disturbing, in my opinion.
“May the odds be ever in your favour!”
[…]
[00:17:43]
“In nature, if everything in the nature, if everything in the universe, everything is expressed in motion, all motion expressed in waves, always were curved every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
So the GrEater the action, the greater the reaction.
The greater the reaction. The greater the resistance.
The greater the resistance, the greater the curvature.
Because the universe is based off of equanimity, which Einstein left out in his theory of relativity, the balancing side of the gravity.
Gravity was caused by electric force.
Electricity is always seeking a higher pressure conDition.
It spends northeast as TRyinG to get to the center of an area, the center of a cone.
But the next electric wave is coming, so it gets pushed out, and as it's pushed out, it gets to the vortices, and that's some on those pieces, those vortices.
Now, instead of it spinning northeasternly, centripetally, it's forced to spin centrifugally, and it spins southwesternly and it expands itself out.
It decays.
It keeps decaying until you get four magnetic waves that hit each other at 120 degree angles.
At that point, they reconvert back into the electric field, and then they make their way back to their source again, whether it's the star, whatever star it came into.
[00:19:10]
What happens when we get older? We expand at our equator, right. We get shorter at the top.
Why?
Because the electric force is pushing in and condensing, and the magnetism expands out at the equator. Electron field, the electrons that's just discharged electricity, devitalized electricity coming from the sun, coming from the earth.
It's the waste product from it.
But it hits our magnetic field, and then it gets pulled right back in and gets compressed again.
And now it becomes electricity for the earth, and then it pushes itself right back out again at the equator.
The equator is 5 miles wider than the poles.
Electricity. Einstein left that out of his equation because he coupled electricity and magnetism together and didn't realize that electricity was the equal and opposite of magnetism.
Electricity being the contractive field you breathe in, that's a contractive thing you breathe out.

That's a magnetic thing, a radiative thing. But they use the term magnet as an attractor.
But to magnify something means to what? Make it larger, increase the space.
That's the work of radiation.
That's what Walter Russell was talking about all those years.
That's the work of radiation. It's the electricity between the things that pull them together, the Coulomb force that supposedly opposites attract and push each other away.
[…]

Transcript of #2152 - Terrence Howard ... | Happy Scribe

Transcript and discussion of #2152 - Terrence Howard from The Joe Rogan Experience podcast

www.happyscribe.com

 

[WhiteMountain]

Oh boy, I’ve got a VERY strange synchronistic situation going on in my life, and it ties into the “what’s” and “how’s” that you all are discussing in this thread.
I’m been inundated with questions by several of my extended younger family members.

They sent me a Joe Rogan interview with Terrance Howard.
If you are as unfamiliar with Terrance Howard, as I was, here’s a little bio:
“Terrence Howard is an actor of stage and screen lauded for his work in "Crash," "Iron Man," "Empire," and "Shirley," as well as a musician and researcher in the fields of logic and engineering.
www.terryslynchpins.com

Now, his interview with Rogan was 3 Heckin hours long, and after listening to the whole thing, I felt as if I’d spent volunteer time with delusional people in the psychology ward again.(A lived experience from my “getting educated” days, one I would not recommend)

Except, he does drop a few gems, while spewing out his self aggrandizement statements, and his manic way of jumping back and forth between subjects made my head spin.

BUT, I found the transcript!
I’ve copy and pasted a snip below, in case it’s of any interest for anyone, and the link to both the video and transcript is at the bottom.
Remember, the video is 3 hours you’ll never get back, but reading the transcript is rather less time consuming and less disturbing, in my opinion.
“May the odds be ever in your favour!”
[…]
[00:17:43]
“In nature, if everything in the nature, if everything in the universe, everything is expressed in motion, all motion expressed in waves, always were curved every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
So the GrEater the action, the greater the reaction.
The greater the reaction. The greater the resistance.
The greater the resistance, the greater the curvature.
Because the universe is based off of equanimity, which Einstein left out in his theory of relativity, the balancing side of the gravity.
Gravity was caused by electric force.
Electricity is always seeking a higher pressure conDition.
It spends northeast as TRyinG to get to the center of an area, the center of a cone.
But the next electric wave is coming, so it gets pushed out, and as it's pushed out, it gets to the vortices, and that's some on those pieces, those vortices.
Now, instead of it spinning northeasternly, centripetally, it's forced to spin centrifugally, and it spins southwesternly and it expands itself out.
It decays.
It keeps decaying until you get four magnetic waves that hit each other at 120 degree angles.
At that point, they reconvert back into the electric field, and then they make their way back to their source again, whether it's the star, whatever star it came into.
[00:19:10]
What happens when we get older? We expand at our equator, right. We get shorter at the top.
Why?
Because the electric force is pushing in and condensing, and the magnetism expands out at the equator. Electron field, the electrons that's just discharged electricity, devitalized electricity coming from the sun, coming from the earth.
It's the waste product from it.
But it hits our magnetic field, and then it gets pulled right back in and gets compressed again.
And now it becomes electricity for the earth, and then it pushes itself right back out again at the equator.
The equator is 5 miles wider than the poles.
Electricity. Einstein left that out of his equation because he coupled electricity and magnetism together and didn't realize that electricity was the equal and opposite of magnetism.
Electricity being the contractive field you breathe in, that's a contractive thing you breathe out.

That's a magnetic thing, a radiative thing. But they use the term magnet as an attractor.
But to magnify something means to what? Make it larger, increase the space.
That's the work of radiation.
That's what Walter Russell was talking about all those years.
That's the work of radiation. It's the electricity between the things that pull them together, the Coulomb force that supposedly opposites attract and push each other away.
[…]

Transcript of #2152 - Terrence Howard ... | Happy Scribe

Transcript and discussion of #2152 - Terrence Howard from The Joe Rogan Experience podcast

www.happyscribe.com

To be honest, I don't think Terrance actually knows what he is talking about. Here is a prime and easy example of something said by someone who does not understand the science:

"But the next electric wave is coming, so it gets pushed out, and as it's pushed out, it gets to the vortices, and that's some on those pieces, those vortices.
Now, instead of it spinning northeasternly, centripetally, it's forced to spin centrifugally, and it spins southwesternly and it expands itself out.
It decays.
It keeps decaying until you get four magnetic waves that hit each other at 120 degree angles."

There is no such thing as an "electric wave" and their is no such thing as a "magnetic wave." There is only an "electromagnetic wave" which consists of the electric and magnetic fields oscillating perpendicular to each other as predicted by Maxwell's equations. Remember magnetic fields are only resulting from the movement of the electric field - the two literally are tied together, at least as we currently understand physics (which conceivably could be wrong if we find the real GUT). Literally any time a charge moves, the perturbation of the field is perceived as a magnetic field propagated as an electromagnetic wave (unless you are discussing quantum mechanics where stuff gets weird; then photons are only released with an energy level change despite the charged particle motion). Maybe you could have something in terms of scalar potential waves, but I am pretty sure you probably get the electric and magnetic fields tied together somehow their too because of the nature of their interrelation, or maybe you just get a compressional wave that is just electric (with no standalone magnetic component or "magnetic scalar wave" possible) with the B field cancelled out; or vice versa. I have not studied scalar wave solutions in that much detail to say for sure.

I personally was never impressed by Walter Russell. I was told I should read him many years ago and bought all his books but never even got through one because the whole impression of what I was reading was sort of like what I get when reading what Terrance is quoting above - gibberish from people that really never looked in detail at the physics and what we knew about physics. If I remember right, I believe what finally turned me off was reading a sentence I knew to absolutely wrong scientifically.

 

[John G]

Laura is currently writing a series of posts on Ark's blog and the latest one has this 12-dim hyperdimensional model of Burkhard Heim:

The Goldilocks Enigma – Part Two

Arkadiusz Jadczyk

ark-jadczyk.blogspot.com

Ark's most recent work is very much Heim-like mostly because Heim's 4+2+2+4 structure includes Ark's 4+2 conformal structure plus the extra 4 might relate to Ark's phase space. The other two might be very Standard Model related in known terms. From a link on the Heim facebook page Laura links to:

The 12 combinations:

the four known physical interactions:

• the strong force H2 ( I2 ,T1 , R3)
• the electromagnetic force H9 (S2 ,T1 , R3) field (particle) with electric charge and mass
• the weak force H6 ( I2 ,T1)*H7 (S2 ,T1)
• the gravitational force H8 (S2 ,R3) neutral field (particle) with mass

the four types of known virtual particles:

• gluons H1 (I2 ,T1)
• photons H5 ( I2 , S2 ,T1)
• bosons H3 ( I2 , S2 ,T1 , R3) W+_ bosons and H4 ( I2, S2 , R3) Z0 boson
• gravitons H12 (S2 ) graviton

plus two interactions (fields) that have not been known before, described by hermetry forms H10 and H11:

• the probability field H10 ( I2 ), contains only the space I2 (is a gravitational-like field)
• the gravito-photon H11 ( I2, S2), contains both types of I2 and S2 (is a gravitational-like field)

The particles can be divided in four groups:

• Electrically charged particles have R3 (X1, X2, X3), T1(X4) and I2(X5, X6) coordinates.
• Neutral particles have R3 (X1, X2, X3), T1(X4) and I2(X5 only, no X6 which is a time coordinate)
• Quanta without rest mass, such as photons have T1 (X4) and I2 (X6 only, no X5 which is a space coordinate). Only when a photon enters into interaction with mass are all 6 coordinates (X1 to X6) needed to describe the process. Thus, the dualism between wave and particle is given expression here.
• Quanta which depends only on the coordinates I2 (X5 and X6), the gravitons. These are the quanta of gravity

Heim is basically making multivectors out of vectors and I like the general idea of what he is doing but as Ark has mentioned, he is a little loose with making sure his details are correct. Ark asked about Heim in the 3/18/2000 session:

Q: (A) I have two questions. The first question is about a German fellow named Heim who wrote a couple of books about gravity, antigravity, and all kinds of strange theories that somehow fit what I think is the right direction. These theories were advertised on the internet by our friend, Berkant, and I looked into it and they seem to be interesting. But, they are in German and are costly. They may be useful, but on the other hand it may be a risk. There is no way to say if they may be valuable or not. So, is it worthwhile to invest in these books?

A: Well, the books contain valuable information, but it is not all valid. One must weave. Static electricity engages a part of continuum.

I think by static electricity it means the near field static region where you might have longitudinal waves that might do Philadelphia Experiment-like things.