(L) Oh yeah! This is very interesting. I forgot to tell ya'll about this. Ark has read a very interesting study about water and how you can talk to it and program it.
(Arky) So question is first, is it really the case that water is so smart that when you talk to it, you can change its properties?
A: Yes
Q: (Arky) Okay. Now, what is it in the water that makes it so sensitive to intentions that they make the water change its chemical and biological functions?
A: This goes beyond the material properties to the information field that is the fundament of water, a most basic substance in the cosmos with strong creative and receptive qualities.
Q: (Galatea) Water has memory. It's like a library. It has memory.
(L) That's the problem we're trying to get to.
(Galatea) Oh, you're trying to understand why?
(L) Exactly.
(Arky) Is water really VERY, VERY, VERY special in this respect?
A: Yes
Q: (Pierre) So other substances don't have those properties?
A: Right.
Q: (Galatea) That's where the idea holy water comes from.
(Joe) So, should we talk to our water?
(Arky) Yes
A: Yes
Q: (Joe) What should we say?
(L) Good water! Good water!
(Andromeda) Nice water! [laughter]
(Galatea) Is it good to let rainwater touch your skin whenever it rains?
A: Not much recently, you might get burned.
Q: (L) Acid rain. You've got more questions about the water, honey?
(Arky) Not about the water. I want to ask about dialectical logic. There was this guy Hegel. He invented what is called dialectics. It can be summarized like contradictions are important; there is thesis, anti-thesis, and then you have synthesis. Okay... There is idealistic dialectics, materialistic, etc. And of course there are critics saying it's nonsense, that the only good logic is Aristotelian logic, and all this dialectics is just pure nonsense. I would like to have some hint. Should I study dialectic logic and Hegel?
A: Law of Three rules!
Q: (Arky) Law of three?
(Pierre) Thesis, antithesis, synthesis.
(Arky) Okay, I am done.
(Joe) On the water thing, is it best to do this with distilled water?
A: Yes
Q: (Galatea) I have a question that'll sound crazy. Is water similar to space?
A: Yes
Q: (Galatea) I knew it! [laughter]
(Pierre) Similar in what sense?
(L) It's like etheric.
(Galatea) Space is water?
A: Yes
Q: (Galatea) I knew it!
(L) So did the ancients. They called it The Waters Above.
(Galatea) Really?
(Joe) Can we make heavy water by talking to it?
(Arky) No, no, no. With water, this is very strange. I was reading about the experiments. So, first you talk to water, you test the water, and it makes it different. But then you have to be clever. If it is just information, you don't have to talk to water. You use the computer to convert your talk into a number. You print the number on the piece of paper, you put it on the bottle, and water should be smart enough because anyhow it's information! It's not your talk. It's somewhere, right? You put it on the label, and water knows what was your intention. Experiments were even done like that.
(Galatea) Water is the Google search of the universe.
A: Yes
Q: (Arky) You convert your talk to a number, like 1000, 2010, okay there's a number. Your language and intent is this number. But you can say something with good intentions, or with wrong intention. The algorithm is such that it may produce the same number for either. Yet, it seems that the water is smart enough that even if you put the same number on two bottles, but derived from different language and intent, it knows whether the intention was positive or negative!
(L) Even if the number is the same?!
(Arky) You see? So the information is somewhere. It's not really important what words you use or what you say exactly. You communicate in some way with the information field that is everywhere.
(Pierre) And the water has this special connection to the information field, and it knows what the number is related to.
(Arky) So your piece of paper is really the address of a piece of information.
A: Yes
(Andromeda) That's fascinating.
(Arky) Now, I would like to know because there are many different approaches. Sheldrake we know, but he's not a physicist; he's just talking fields, fields, fields, blah blah blah. I mean, what would be the best entry point in physics to this information field? Electromagnetics? Gravity? Quantum theory?
(Pierre) Light?
A: EM gravity.
Q: (Pierre) Electromagnetic gravity! [laughter]
(Scottie) No problem.
A: Make it your goal to make this hold in math.
Q: (Arky) Let me continue. [laughter] I was reading some words by this Russian-Israeli physicist. He was claiming that what was wrong with physics actually began with Maxwell because Maxwell introduces this concept of an abstract field, and electromagnetic field, to get rid of the concept of the ether. From Maxwell, it ALL went wrong! Even if Maxwell made the EM theory, it was already on the wrong way.
A: Just so! Ether is the interface between information and manifestation.
Q: (Arky) OH!
(Pierre) Because there's still a link between information on one side, and matter and energy on the other side. And once I asked this question. They mentioned "sphere arranged leptons", but I don't know what it means. It was way beyond my knowledge.
A: Gravity "travels" on ether.
www.lanacion.com.ar
www.infobae.com
www.zerohedge.com
