Questions about linear time perception vs. cosmic processes

[John G]

see for instant here for related stuff

Thnx! Will read, at least...

The answer is: no one knows.

Well, no one knows "here". That why this is in the "Questions For the Cs" section.

Ark has asked the Cs about a conformal metric (the math behind a compressible aether/longitudinal photons). They confirmed spacetime does have a conformal 4,2 metric. Ark had figured that out on his own. For things we can figure out on our own the Cs don't tend to give away very exact information. They tend to want us to work on it for ourselves.

The questions you are asking are related to how to go from the mathematical physics to engineering/experiments/earth changes where conformal group strangeness might show up. The Cs have talked about 4th density bleed-through-like things like a road that appears straight even though it isn't causing accidents or in a future bleed-through doing something like flying for a half hour then landing five weeks later.

Experiments/engineering that might mimic the earth changes situations could include those mirrors. How would they work from a conformal metric point of view? I've read in a very general sense that it might be possible to create longitudinal photons via intersecting beams of normal transverse photons. One problem would still be how to make the longitudinal photons be different than the normal transverse photons' light-cone before the longitudinal photons become virtual. Maybe consciousness has to somehow be involved.

The Cs have talked about a secretly developed time machine; maybe the mind is necessary to navigate such a thing. Maybe the conscious mind played a part in the Coral Castle engineering. The Cs say consciousness played a part in the Bermuda Triangle strangeness. Maybe there's a reason this group has been inspired by the Cs to get into the idea of connecting chakras leading to "engineering" ideas like charging crystals and water with the conscious mind. Involving the mind in engineering would kind of be a new frontier for engineering at least publicly.

There's of course still work to do for the mathematical physics too. You could for example try to work back from the still quite physical conformal metric to the underlying information theory, the "thought forms" of sort. For me when going to the conformal group from something like cellular automata information, there seems to be a pairing up into axes of information bits that weren't previously paired up. Is there a natural way to pair them up? I've seen someone try to create the conformal group from cellular automata bits but it didn't seen to have a pattern to it, just random matching of cellular automata pictures into groups without paying much attention to the binary data. There could of course be something I was missing. Group things like the split form vs a compact form seem to play havoc with my ability to notice patterns.

 

[MrEightFive]

Ark has asked the Cs about a conformal metric (the math behind a compressible aether/longitudinal photons). They confirmed spacetime does have a conformal 4,2 metric.

Bluelamp, was it in public session? I cannot remember session with such topic discussed.
(As for the rest of your an others' thoughts I'm not yet ready to comment...)

 

[John G]

Ark has asked the Cs about a conformal metric (the math behind a compressible aether/longitudinal photons). They confirmed spacetime does have a conformal 4,2 metric.

Bluelamp, was it in public session? I cannot remember session with such topic discussed.
(As for the rest of your an others' thoughts I'm not yet ready to comment...)

It was from the 12-19-1998 session which is not yet added to this forum's transcripts. From the transcripts that were on the now closed Cassiopaea Yahoo group:

Q: (A) Okay. At another point when we were talking about
gravitons, you first said that there were no gravitons, per se,
but that a 'graviton' was an electron in a time vacuum.
A: Yes.
Q: (A) When you said that there are not gravitons, you
meant that there are none in the usual sense of the word as
implied by some physicists.
A: Yes, closer.
Q: (A) Well, in a well devised Unified Field Theory, there is
a place for something we may call 'graviton,' and this
something comes from, or has a similar source to an
electron, but within a time vacuum. At that point I started to
think of time as a kind of field - like other fields. This field
has something to do with this fifth dimension. I have a
hypothesis about how one can have time coming from a fifth
dimension, and what a time vacuum means. This means that,
where there is a time vacuum, there is no time.
A: Yes.
Q: (A) Okay, now, this is one thing. At some other point we
were speaking about pentagons and hexagons and I tried to
be tricky and when it came to pentagons, I wrote a
mathematical formula, a symbol for a pentagon, and then
there was the question of signs. We needed five signs. I
asked you whether there should be four pluses and one
minus, or 3 pluses and two minus. The answer was that there
should be 3 pluses and two minuses in a pentagon. Now,
what about a hexagon? What should I put in a hexagon?
Three pluses and three minuses, or four pluses and two
minuses?
A: Four and two.
Q: (A) That is what I hoped for, however, I see a certain
discrepancy between this pentagon, because if I start from
five dimensions, and I try to build something such as a time
field from one plus and one minus, I use one dimension,
which is like a light dimension in this five dimensional space,
then I end up with two pluses and one minus, which has
nothing to do with anything that we know in physics. For me
there is a contradiction between three pluses and two
minuses and the fact that I need to build time as an extra
field. What to do? I don't know. What should I do?
A: When we said "spring forth" from 5th dimension, what
interesting possibilities does this pose?
Q: (A) You get what we may call a time form and this time
form is sometimes like any other physical field. So, of course
the different possibilities that I can mathematically model:
time form, time vacuum, different times, time loops, and
other things. These are interesting possibilities that I have,
provided I use something similar to Kaluza-Klein. Did I miss
something?
A: It is not that you miss something; it is merely that you have
not yet found the something.
Q: (A) What is this something?
A: Tetrahedron.
Q: (A) Okay, at some point we were talking about a 3
dimensional matrix, 12x12x12. I was wondering where this
12 comes from, and I was thinking that 12 is 2x6 and I was
supposed to be looking at hexagons, and a hexagon
represents 6 dimensions, four pluses and two minuses. If I
add to this 6 energies corresponding to 6 dimensions, then I
have 12 dimensions, and this would account for number 12.
Is this correct?
A: Yes.
Q: (A) Now, this all has something to do with gravity, and at
some point you said that all this gravity/anti-gravity business
is just the way, and that the main goal is to attain higher
knowledge. What is this higher knowledge; what kind of
higher knowledge?
A: You are on the path.
Q: (A) I want to ask about Ruggerio Santilli. He was here,
talking to you, using his own terminology. You were
answering using some of his terminology. Several times I
tried to understand his work, but I simply cannot. Is this
something wrong with me?
A: No.

That 2x6=12 could be related to the conformal group working with imaginary as well as real spacetime dimensions. That 12x12x12 comes from Santilli and though he may have been getting close to something, he likely didn't quite have it exactly correct. 12+12+12 would make more sense to me in the math property triality sense which means it would be part of something like a 16-dim vector representation plus 16-dim half spinor representation plus the other 16-dim half spinor representation.

 

[John G]

That 2x6=12 could be related to the conformal group working with imaginary as well as real spacetime dimensions. That 12x12x12 comes from Santilli and though he may have been getting close to something, he likely didn't quite have it exactly correct. 12+12+12 would make more sense to me in the math property triality sense which means it would be part of something like a 16-dim vector representation plus 16-dim half spinor representation plus the other 16-dim half spinor representation.

The 12by12by12 hint from the Cs via the Santilli session is here from the 8-8-1998 session:

(A) In this session with Santilli there was repeated at least twice the
term 'matrix.' Laura made a comment that maybe it was a
three dimensional matrix. So I was thinking about this matrix
and I have two possibilities. If it is related to the number 3, it
can be a matrix that is flat and 3 by 3. Or, it can be any
matrix that is three dimensional rather than flat. Which of
these, if any, is the concept mentioned in the session?
A: Three dimensional 12 by 12.
Q: (A) 12 by 12 by 12?
A: Yes.
Q: (A) Why number 12? What is so particular about number
12?
A: Try it and see.

The Santilli session is here:

https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,34857.msg495497.html#msg495497

 

[MusicMan]

It seems to me that MrEightFive has to put himself in the position of Schrodinger's cat.
He should imagine that he is inside the box, and rest of the universe is outside the box.
The only way he can perceive motion, or the 'passage of time', is to activate a portion of his consciousness outside of the box, literally to 'think outside the box'. The concept of Quantum photon entanglement may assist this process.
If he can contact his higher self, outside the box, then that perception is possible.