I would like to ask about 'Sequential Fragmentation Theory' and whether it has anything to do with the 'expanded gravity model' , 'uft', information or not?
I found the SFT 'Sequential Fragmentation Theory' years ago and many of the sessions clues seem to fit it. I know that there is a high probability that the things I see as fitting the clues are wishful thinking and/or just data fitting in circumstances where the context may have been for something else, yet I have checked on this little theory periodically over the years and it seems more and more that little things seem to fit.
'SFT' seems to have originated in the depths of the scientific intelligence matrix ( DOE, Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore/Berkeley, Oakridge, the national laboratory network ). Wilbur K. Brown seems to be the originator with papers back in the 60's in the area of astrophysics.
Title: Model for formation of solar systems from massive supernova fragments. (no link)
Author: Brown, W. K. (Wilbur K.) ; Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory
Published: 21 Oct. 1969.
Later publications formalized the theory -
A Theory of Sequential Fragmentation and Its Astronomical Applications
Wilbur K. Brown Lassen College, Susanville, California 96130, USA
Received 1987 May 21; revised 1988 November 15; accepted 1988 December 1
Abstract. A theory of sequential fragmentation is presented that describes a cascade of fragmentation and refragmentation, i.e., continued comminution. It is shown that the theory reproduces one of the two major empirical descriptors that have traditionally been used to describe the mass distributions from fragmentation experiments. Additional experimental evidence is presented to further validate the theory, and includes explosive aerosolization, grinding in a ball mill, and simulated volcanic action. Also presented are some astronomical applications of the theory including infalling extraterrestrial material, siderophile concentrations in black magnetic spherules of possible meteoritic origin, the asteroids, the distribution of galactic masses, and the initial mass function of stars.
SFT is basically a theory about particle size distributions resulting from 'continued comminution', and later 'particle size' was converted to 'mass'. Continued comminution's most extreme example would be explosion.
Later on this theory was also picked up by Ken Wohletz in the field of vulcanology. Ken Wohletz is also from within the scientific intelligence matrix - LANL, LLNL, DOE, etc.
This is the basics of the theory:
Basically the function for the distribution is controlled by a free parameter, a variable, (gamma), where (-1 <= gamma < 0). It is kind of like a function that describes the relationship between particle sizes (or masses) and gamma can be seen as a variable dial defining the distribution. One of the mass derivations describes it as thus:
The quantity m2n(m) is precisely what is measured when a sample of particles is sifted through a series of sieves of decreasing mesh size where the mesh sizes between any two adjacent sieves is a fixed ratio. (This is precisely a geometric series - my note - emphasis) As Brown and collaborators noted7,8, the form m2n(m) closely resembles the lognormal distribution11 (see Fig. 3), a distribution that has enjoyed a long history of successful, empirical use; we note the lognormal distribution has a mathematical basis16, but no physical basis.
So from my limited scientific background it appears to be basically a geometric theory which is governed by a tunable variable that has a range (-1 <= gamma < 0).
The clues, first off it is a geometric theory. It does not purport to have anything to do with gravity. In fact the authors state that the theory is only about resultant distributions and does not purport to describe the forces involved at all. The SFT theory is not even about inward binding forces that is gravity as we perceive it. SFT is about an outward process - how a large object breaks into smaller and smaller pieces. It is a reach but 'expanded gravity' - expansion - explosion - outward. And even though the authors make it clear that the theory does not describe the forces involved, there are forces involved in a continued comminution process especially if you think of the outward force of explosion.
The more I read papers on the SFT theory, the more little things seemed to fit. For instance the sessions excerpts on gravity and uft -
990724
Q: (A) Another problem: I am stuck at one point. When we were talking about phi and Mandelbrot, you mentioned the name 'Carboni.' (L) And you also mentioned the name 'Carboni' to Santilli, saying that this group was behind the Molise Institute.
A: Yes. Scientific/intelligence matrix. Neapolitan.
Q: (L) Well, we did a search and have not been able to find anything on it. I don't know if Molise has very much money behind it because, by looking at their pages, it doesn't seem to be very well funded.
A: Looks can be deceiving. Front is vulcanology.
Q: (L) You mean they study volcanoes?
A: Front.
SFT is straight out of the
Scientific/intelligence matrix.
Ken Wohletz' (the
vulcanologist) paper: 'Eruptive Mechanisms of the
Neapolitan Yellow Tuff Interpreted from Stratigraphic, Chemical, and Granulometric Data', Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Energy Vol.67, 263-290, 1995.
Ken Wohletz CV as of 2008 -
1993-Present: Universita di Napoli "Federico II", Visiting Professor, Dipartimento di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Largo S. Marcellino 10, 80138 Napoli; volcanic hazards and physics of magmatic systems
Currently CV shows -
1993-2000: Visiting Professor (Volcanology), University of Naples, ITALY
What else about the theory seems to fit some clues?
Some of the Mandelbrot stuff -
990710
Q: (A) Okay, we are coming to densities. But, before that, one more question: what is matter? How is matter built out of gravity? What forms of gravity correspond to matter in terms of the geometric model?
A: First of all, since we are to answer such questions, you need to make this surface smoother!!
[The Plexiglas cover on the board was tacky. We used window cleaner and polished it up.]
Q: (A) So, it was good for previous questions, but not for this! [laughter] (L) Okay, carry on!
A: You live in a "matter" universe, from your perspective. There is an accompanying energy universe which you largely are unable to perceive as of yet.
Q: (A) But, my question was ...
A: Who/what is Mandelbrot??
Q: (A) Okay, you are talking about fractals now, certainly...
A: Are we?
Q: (A) Mandelbrot is the name of a French mathematician who is famous because he discovered fractals and some laws that govern fractals and chaos. But, as to 'what' - some fractal images are also called 'mandlebrot.'
A: And where does this lead, Ark?
SFT is not only about how matter distributes but the gamma free parameter is also a measure of the fractal dimension of the distribution. In fact it is precisely 1/3 the fractal dimension of the distribution. In other words the fractal dimension of a distribution is -3gamma.
Title: Derivation of the Weibull distribution based on physical principles and its connection to the Rossin-Rammler and lognormal distributions
Authors: Wilbur K. Brown, Kenneth H. Wohletz
Publication Date: LA-UR-94-3297 - April 1995
One interesting thing about SFT is that with the variable exponent (gamma), the resultant distribution curves as you tune the free parameter reminds me of an oscilloscope.
9808015.html
Q: (A) Okay, now I have a question that goes back to Marinov. When we were asking about him, and what it was that he knew, and the answer was that it was UFT and it was given in quotation marks. All other mentions of UFT were given without quote marks. What was this for? What more can be said about that in this case?
A: Watch, not spell out. [Attempts made to draw something, but unsuccessfully.] Russian letter "b."
Q: (L) What next? I don't understand...
A: Cyrillic "S" - P - K - G - Y - S - K - A.
Q: (L) If that was in Cyrillic, what would it say? Were you trying to show us a diagram of something?
A: No. Place is near Urals.
Q: (A) It is a place?
A: Yes. Start at Novosibirtsk, draw a line to Irkutsk.
Q: (L) How does that relate to the question?
A: Site is lab at magnetic meridian.
Q: (L) What does that have to do with what Marinov was working on?
A: Everything.
Q: (L) But telling us where the site is doesn't tell us anything about it!
A: Presumptuous!
Q: (A) There is something at this site?
A: Yes, but your clue begins your discovery. Marinov saw light waves.
Q: (A) What does that mean?
A: Oscilloscope.
Q: (A) Is there anything we can or should do with an oscilliscope?
A: It is a clue.
Q: (A) Okay, we see waves on an oscilliscope...
A: What if it measures magnetic pulse?
It also makes me think that SFT could be used to describe the light spectrum. As you tune the dial (gamma) the waves become more peaked and wavelength narrower. Move the dial the other way and the peaks of the curves become shorter and the wavelengths longer. And this might be a tie-in to the visual spectrum / prism clues. And also remember that each curve's gamma value also describes its fractal dimension.
These clues have been fruitful in many areas, but they also seemingly apply to SFT.
Supernovae:
980822
Q: Was this a date when the ships from Orion arrived to go into orbit around the Earth?
A: No. Now you should study all you can about supernovae.
Q: Okay, there was a mention of a supernova in this book. Was there a supernova at that particular time?
A: Maybe, but the real question should be: Will there be one again, and soon?
One may have run into several papers on SFT while researching supernovae.
Title: Model for formation of solar systems from massive supernova fragments.
Author: Brown, W. K. (Wilbur K.) ; Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory
Published: 21 Oct. 1969.
Title: The Supernova Fragmentation Model of Solar System Formation
Author: Brown, W. K. (Wilbur K.) ; Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory
Gitzo, L.A. ; Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory
Published: 10 December, 1985
Title: High explosive simulations of supernovae and the supernova shell fragmentation model of solar system formation
Authors: Brown, W. K.
Affiliation: Los Alamos National Lab., NM.
Publication Date: 09/1987
Abstract: Comparison of photographs of explosive experiments to the Casseopeia A supernova remnant reveals a striking similarity. The similarity could indicate the presence of a relatively cool, underlying shell in the Casseopeia A remnant. As this shell expands and fragments, the observable features are produced by hot gases squirting through the cracks - as in explosive experiments. The existence of such underlying shells in supernova remnants supports the author's model of solar system formation.
Title: The Birth of Planetary Systems Directly from SuperNovae
Author: Wilbur K. Brown
Publication: Origin of Elements in the Solar System: Implications of Post-1957 Observations.
Edit: Edited by O. Manuel, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2000.
Pyrotechnics:
981205
Q: Okay, I am done. (A) I want to ask about this grid business. I have this book with this 'sacred geometry' business, Bruce Cathie and all that. These people draw these grids with geometric shapes that differ from simple meridians. I would like to know how to find out what is the true geometry of this grid. Is it as complicated as they draw it, or is it as simple as longitude and latitude? Can I have some help with this?
A: Seek answers in the pyrotechnics.
Q: (L) Do you mean having to do with explosives or fireworks?
A: All that is related to the root. For example: lightning.
Q: (L) Yes, but what we are asking is how to SHAPE, to construct a correct grid! Is there a particular geometric figure that applies, and are there particular locations...
A: No, no, no. You are assuming, and you are not being patient.
981212
Q: I suggested that one of the things you may have meant by suggesting, last week, an investigation of pyrotechnics, might be as simple as finding where, on the planet, are the highest number of lightning strikes, and that these might indicate foci of grid points. Would this be, in fact, a good line to follow?
A: One of them.
Q: Could you offer more clues about this 'pyrotechnic' suggestion, because we were pretty much drawing a blank during the week on it. It was not a useful path so far.
A: But it will be. Rome was not built in a day, and neither is your higher knowledge.
Several of the SFT papers have fci experiments: Fuel Coolant Interaction as analogs of phreatomagmatic events - using thermite interaction with water - thermitic compounds are basically what fireworks are made of - aluminum, zinc, magnesium, metal powders. So researching pyrotechnics you could easily run into SFT papers.
Vulcanology:
And then the vulcanology as a cover for the research and all of Ken Wohletz' SFT research.
Title: Particle Size Distributions And Sequential Fragmentation/Transport Theory Applied To Volcanic Ash
Authors: K. H. Wohletz, M. F. Sheridan and W. K. Brown
Publication Date: November 1989
Title: Particulate size distributions and sequential fragmentation/transport theory
Authors: Kenneth Wohletz and Wilbur Brown
Publication Date: June 1995
Title: Derivation of the Weibull distribution based on physical principles and its connection to the Rossin-Rammler and lognormal distributions
Authors: Wilbur K. Brown, Kenneth H. Wohletz
Publication Date: LA-UR-94-3297 - April 1995
Title: Eruptive Mechanisms of the Neapolitan Yellow Tuff - Interpreted from Stratigraphic, Chemical, and Granulometric Data
Authors: Kenneth Wohletz, Giovanni Orsi, and Sandro de Vita
Published in: Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Energy Vol.67, 263-290, 1995
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Earth and Environmental Sciences Division, Los Alamos, NM 87545
University of Naples Federico II, Department of Geophysics and Volcanology, Naples, Italy 80138
Sequential Fragmentation Theory has been used successfully in many areas, visual image statistics, sedimentation, aerosols, vulcanology, astrophysics, ....
But gravity is a binding inward force and it obeys the inverse square law.
This is where my idea / hypothesis takes over. Perhaps wishful thinking or just data fitting of a layperson's eyes on a rather complex idea. Anyway I'll put it out there, it can only be wrong. If you don't ask you don't know.
In the last couple of years I ran into a web page where Ken Wohletz consulted some researchers that were trying to determine the mechanism for the creation of what was called the Mars blueberries.
Link
Yes the Weibull distribution is very flexible, but the one derived from SFT considerations has basic grounds and can be interpreted physically if we limit ourselves to fragmentation and accretion processes. To support that view, here is a quote from a correspondence of Ken Wohletz :
"Regarding fragmentation and aggregation, the SFT equations cover both
processes, and it is just in the value of the transfer function exponent
that determines whether an ensemble of particles has been generated by the
comminution of a parent ensemble of larger particles or by the sticking
together of smaller particles"
The multimodality of the spherules distribution has been inferred several times in the Go Measure thread (BTW the hungarian paper only says that the distribution is gaussian), and some distributions from Pancam images are suggestive to this respect. It is also a finding in the SFT analysis of three pancam distributions at Victoria by Ken Wohletz :
"I made a composite distribution of the five samples and find:
(1) the distributions all show positive gamma (dispersion)
values characteristic of aggregation; and (2) the some of the samples appear
to have two subpopulations. The main subpopulation has a modal diameter of
4.62 mm while the subordinate population has a modal diameter of 3.39 mm.
This result requires additional evidence to understand in that it might
suggest a compositional (hence density) difference between the two
subpopulations or perhaps two different origins"It is to be noted that both subpopulations have accretion characteristics.
Additional
Link and
Link
It appears that SFT gamma takes not only minus values for continued comminution, but positive values that indicate accretion, agglomeration, etc.
So SFT models both an outward process (outward forces) and an inward process (inward forces).
So SFT has two directions being modeled - inward and outward. The inward and outward processes (forces) modeled go throughout the entire fractal dimensional range ( 0 --> 3 ) (-1 <= gamma < 0) and (0 < gamma <= 1).
111498
Q: (A) I have another question. In a session from April, you made the following comment: 'four dimensional, fourth density, see?' So you related four dimensions to fourth density. I don't know a mathematical representation of density. I know how to represent four dimensions. This was the first time that you related dimension to density. Is there really a relation?
A: Yes, because 4th density is experienced in 4th dimensional reality.
Q: (A) Speaking now about 4 dimensional reality, is it four dimensional reality of the Kaluza-Klein type?
A: Visual spectrum.
Q: (A) Does that mean that the fourth dimension is NOT related to the fifth dimension of the Kaluza-Klein theory?
A: Yes.
Q: (A) Yes it is related?
A: No, yes it is not. There is a flaw in these theories, relating to prism. What does this tell you?
Q: (A) To prism?! Visual spectrum? I don't know what it tells me. I never came across any relation to prism. But, what is this 4th dimension? Is it an extra dimension beyond the three space dimensions, or is it a time dimension?
A: Not "time," re: Einstein. It is an added spatial reference. The term "dimension" is used simply to access the popular reference, relating to three dimensions. The added "dimension" allows one to visualize outwardly and inwardly simultaneously.
Q: (A) When you talk about this 4th dimension, what is the closest thing in currently understood physics that corresponds to this term? I cannot find anything that corresponds. It is not in relativity theory, it is not in Einstein, it is not in Kaluza-Klein...
A: Exactly, because it has not been hypothesized.
That is interesting.
I subsequently encountered a paper by Wilbur Brown from 2000, that also confirmed this.
Title: The Birth of Planetary Systems Directly from SuperNovae
Author: Wilbur K. Brown
Publication: Origin of Elements in the Solar System: Implications of Post-1957 Observations.
Edit: Edited by O. Manuel, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2000.
Link
An interesting quote I ran into - (
Link)
Re: Fwd: [64] JAPAN'S FY '96 GDP GROWTH PREDICTED AT 1.3-2.9
From: John Conover <john@email.johncon.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [64] JAPAN'S FY '96 GDP GROWTH PREDICTED AT 1.3-2.9
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 04:36:06 -0700
BTW, Statistical theory is often mis-applied in dynamical systems. All dynamical systems have characteristics that can be represented by "bell curves," at least over a limited interval of time. However, the "signature" that the system is exhibiting dynamic system phenomena is that the "tails" of the bell curve deviate from the "normal" or Gaussian bell curve by, frequently, fractions of a percent, (which is called Kurtosis.) "Normal" statistics can provide a forecastability in these cases limited by the "horizon of visibility." For example, about three days in weather forecasting, (although we should be, at least in theory, able to predict a week-but it would require a precise measurement of barometric pressure and temperature that is not practable with current technology-about one part in a billion, or so.) The defining difference between stochastic, (ie., "statistical" systems,) fractal, and chaotic systems, is that the prediction of a stochastic system is accurate forever, without exception. In fractal systems, the accuracy of a prediction deviates from empirical measurement at a linear rate. And in chaotic systems, the accuracy deviates at an exponential rate. As examples, pitching pennies is a stochastic process, stock prices and river flooding are fractal, and weather is a chaotic process. Obviously, to exhibit "cyclic" phenomena, a chaotic process is necessary-ie., a fractal dimension greater than 3.
One of the interesting things about SFT is that it seemingly shows that the lognormal distribution is only a mathematical construct. Brown and Wohletz show numerous examples where a lognormal distribution fit a data set, but an SFT distribution fit the data set better, precisely in the areas mentioned above (the tails of the curve).
In further consideration of mass distributions developed by fragmentation processes, we show that one particular mass distribution closely resembles the empirical lognormal distribution. This result suggests that the successful use of the lognormal distribution to describe fragmentation distributions may have been simply fortuitous.
The second bolded statement in the 'John Conover' quote comes into play in regards to the 'double loop of the cylinder'.
951202
Q: (L) What is a loop of cylinder?
A: Complex, but is profile in 4th through 6th density.
But where do we get to an inverse square or square grid, force???
How do we get here:
Inverse Square Law, General
Inverse Square Law, Light
Inverse Square Law, Gravity
Well the following got me thinking:
990710
Q: (A) Yet, still there is my question about dimensions. Phi is not an integer number and we will look into it. But, what I said was that the way you are using the term 'dimensions' is not what physicists are familiar with in using this term.
A: The trouble here is with semantics: the general public uses that word to mean different things from the physicists!
Q: (C) Okay, phi is a Greek letter but I don't see how that is connected.
A: No, not phi, dimensions!
Q: (L) Define dimension. (A) I have tried to guess what you mean by dimensions from all the things that you have said about it...
A: Our "meaning" is closer to that of the general public definition.
Q: (A) Very good, yet you have said certain things in a context that was more related to the structure of the universe. And we were talking about dimensions also in the context of Kaluza-Klein theories. At one point, you said there are infinitely many dimensions, and at another point it was implied that different dimensions meant different universes, which would mean that there are infinitely many universes. I would like to represent these dimensions in some mathematical model. My idea was that these dimensions were like slices; and each slice is a universe and, indeed, there are infinitely many possible slices. So, that was my idea of dimensions: slices. Is it correct?
A: That is good.
Q: (A) There are infinitely many dimensions because there are infinitely many slices. Now we come to densities. There are not infinitely many densities, there are only seven. Or, are these seven just for the general public and there are really infinitely many of them as well?
A: No.
Q: (A) Good. So, there are seven densities. Now, how come, there are seven, and not three or five, or eleven? Does it follow from some mathematics?
A: What form of mathematical theory best describes the concept of balance?
Q: (L) Algebra. (A) So, I had the idea that these seven densities were related to what Gurdjieff relates to the number of laws that apply in the various densities; the higher the density, the fewer the laws that apply, which means there is more freedom?
A: That is very close. Consciousness is the key here.
Q: (A) Yes, so my question relates to the geometric model of gravity and consciousness.
A: Picture an endless octagonal... in three dimensions.
Q: (A) A lattice, you mean?
A: Okay.
Q: (A) Are these densities related to the mathematical concept of 'signatures of the metric?' I would like to model densities with slices of different geometric properties, in particular slices with different properties of the distance.
A: Yes...
990724
Q: (L) Well, it all seems to be discharging over our heads! I have never witnessed such lightning. (A) Okay, I was trying to figure out how to build this expanded gravity, and I made a table to assist the question. The first possibility is that one can build gravity on a square matrix. This matrix can be symmetric, can be non-symmetric, or can be a complex matrix, which I call possibilities a, b, and c. The second possibility is to build a theory of gravity on the basis of a connection which looks like a cube rather than a matrix. Here we also have three possibilities: no curvature, but torsion; no torsion but curvature; torsion and curvature. These are possibilities 1, 2, and 3. Another possibility is to use any combination of these two lines of speculation. Another possibility is none of the above, but to build gravity on the basis of an irregular cube, or an irregular square, which I call A. Another possibility is to use something that is none of the above.
A: Octagonal complexigram. Try the formula for possibility 1-c first.
Along with the mention in the sessions multiple times of "change the unit".
About a year ago the session from September 2008, regarding Heim, it seemed changing the unit to '2' was a good idea (and the 6 dimensional construct of the Heim theory seems productive). Well here we go, what if in SFT we changed the range of the tunable variable gamma to '2'. make the exponent '2'. Would that give us our square geometric grid that could then include the gravity we are familiar with?
(-2 <= gamma < 0) and (0 < gamma <= 2)
Complexi-gram makes me think of 'complex' 'mass'. What if gamma were complex and or both complex and square.
On the one hand complex and square could be built in to gamma just having a value = -1 ( i^2 ).
On the other hand in a layperson's eyes '2' can be represented as ( 2i^4 ) and here I see at least in a layperson's eyes - octagonal and complex.
Finally, if we imagined that gamma did have a range of (-2 <= gamma < 0) and (0 < gamma <= 2), then if the fractal dimensional coefficient on gamma held (Df = -3gamma), the result would be that we would have 6 fractal dimensional units to be able to account for what we call gravity and what we call gravity would possibly be Df = 6. It would actually be perhaps the realm border of 6D to 7D. Is it possible that what we call gravity is actually a 6th density manifestation? Another interesting thing in such a model would be the perfect balance as there would be an inward and outward force throughout the entire dimensional continuum. And gravity as the sessions allude 'the expanded gravity model' would be the inward force that goes all the way through all 6 dimensional units - the inbreath. Perhaps consciousness is the outward force throughout all 6 dimensional units - the outbreath.
Some of the things that then make sense in a layperson's eyes:
The idea of density versus dimension.
If dimensions are not discrete, 1 dimension, 2 dimensions, 3..., discrete dimensions as we think of them, (2 +1), (3 +1), 11 or 29 and branes or whatever string theory is now up to. If they are continuous, then there are infinitely many. If a density were perhaps a continuous fractal dimensional unit, then some of the sessions excerpts about dimension and density in my eyes seem to make some sense.
981114
Q: (A) I have another question. In a session from April, you made the following comment: 'four dimensional, fourth density, see?' So you related four dimensions to fourth density. I don't know a mathematical representation of density. I know how to represent four dimensions. This was the first time that you related dimension to density. Is there really a relation?
A: Yes, because 4th density is experienced in 4th dimensional reality.
Q: (A) Speaking now about 4 dimensional reality, is it four dimensional reality of the Kaluza-Klein type?
A: Visual spectrum.
Q: (A) Does that mean that the fourth dimension is NOT related to the fifth dimension of the Kaluza-Klein theory?
A: Yes.
Q: (A) Yes it is related?
A: No, yes it is not. There is a flaw in these theories, relating to prism. What does this tell you?
Q: (A) To prism?! Visual spectrum? I don't know what it tells me. I never came across any relation to prism. But, what is this 4th dimension? Is it an extra dimension beyond the three space dimensions, or is it a time dimension?
A: Not "time," re: Einstein. It is an added spatial reference. The term "dimension" is used simply to access the popular reference, relating to three dimensions. The added "dimension" allows one to visualize outwardly and inwardly simultaneously. (my emph: SFT models inward and outward simultaneously, it is a matter of flipping the sign)
Q: (A) When you talk about this 4th dimension, what is the closest thing in currently understood physics that corresponds to this term? I cannot find anything that corresponds. It is not in relativity theory, it is not in Einstein, it is not in Kaluza-Klein...
A: Exactly, because it has not been hypothesized.
970104
Q: (L) If gravity is the binder, is gravity consciousness?
A: Not exactly. Did you know that there is no "right" or "left" in 4th density through 7th density? If you can picture this exactly, then you may be able to understand the responses to all the questions you are asking. If not, best "give it a rest." Because it will only be productive learning when you ponder and reflect/review "later."
951202
Q: (L) What is a loop of cylinder?
A: Complex, but is profile in 4th through 6th density. (my emph: to exhibit "cyclic" phenomena, a chaotic process is necessary-ie., a fractal dimension greater than 3)
980718
Q: (A) And, some time ago Santilli was here and he had his own idea about UFT; gravity and anti-gravity, and he was told that he had a good idea of UFT, but that he only has one seventh of the equation. I don't understand why UFT has to go to other densities? Does it follow, or is it necessary once we have UFT, that the other densities will become clear in that they are necessary? How is it?
A: Fragmented inquiry.
Q: (A) Can we have a UFT which unifies EM and gravity and does not include the concept of other densities. In other words, can we put in a textbook all about the gravity and electromagnetics, and a student could learn all of this and still know nothing about other densities? (my emph: SFT with gamma range _+-2 and Df coefficient on gamma of 3, hypothetically if taught, other densities would be obvious)
A: No. Other densities become apparent when... (my emph: you change the unit)
Q: (A) So, it means that Einstein and Von Neumann knew about these other densities?
A: Yes, oh yes!!!
Many of the ideas - 'Frequency of light...', 'complex square matrix', 'octagonal complexigram', 'the realities begin to reveal their perfectly squared nature to you', 'connect the threes', 'Both times 2 is your square, my dear. In other words, perfect balance',
970531
A: We have told you before that gravity is the foundational force of absolutely everything!!! This means at all density levels, all dimensions... It is the "stuff" of all existence. Without it, nothing would exist. Your thoughts are based in gravity, too!!
990710
Q: (A) If gravity is modeled by curvature or torsion of geometry, mathematically, how would consciousness come out of geometry?
A: That is a broken question. What we can say is this: if one could visualize the inverted representation of the gravity geometric model, one would be squarely on the path to understanding the geometric model of consciousness. (my emph: invert-> flip the sign)
050806
Q: (A) I asked a question long ago about mathematically modelling consciousness, and the answer was "visualise the inverted representation of the gravity geometric model" and that this would lead me to the geometric model of consciousness. But I couldn't find what inverted representation means. So what is it?
A: Do you have an equation for that model for gravity?
Q: (A) No. I don't have any equation. The model is a model and can have many different equations. Equation is something additional that makes the model work one way or another.
A: Find the equation, and then "invert." (my emph: invert-> flip the sign)
Q: (A) Okay, so say I found the equation; I still don't know how to invert the equation. Read it backward? Upside down?
A: Gravity is consciousness "expressed."
980815
A: Yes, but your clue begins your discovery. Marinov saw light waves.
Q: (A) What does that mean?
A: Oscilloscope.
If SFT were 6 dimensional maybe what Marinov saw was that all are waves across the entire 6dim continuum.
Even if this idea is not on the mark, I still like the ideas that it presents. The SFT theory with gamma +-2, gives a square grid. In that square grid there are 6 dimensions. The dimensions are not discrete dimensions as we think of dimensions, they are continuous like a visual/electromagnetic spectrum. Gravity may then be the whole thing or at least the inward force throughout the whole thing. The inward and outward forces go through the entire range - perfect balance. The idea anyway makes sense to me.
What is 7th density? Well it seems to be distinguished a little differently. 7th is 'Union with the One', 'One continuous cycling', 'big bang'. I am guessing an endless multiverse of 6D continuums.????
Anyway that is about what constitutes my question. There are dozens of other session excerpts that seem to fit one way or another with the idea of SFT, but then again this is from a layperson's eyes and the wishful thinking / data fitting scenario has a high probability. Octagonal Complexigram could relate to octonions or something else entirely and my layperson's eyes are just fitting what it is familiar with for lack of knowledge.
Did the whole Ken Wohletz vulcanology, scientific intelligence matrix thing send me off in to a data fitting spree or is there something more to the whole SFT story?
