Session 18 May 2024

[christx11]

Basically, it's not as stupid as all that, since the ether was supposed to be an absolute reference frame when scientists set out to prove it. A special reference frame. Their interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment was that they didn't need their concept of the ether to justify their observation. This in no way means that the ether they envisaged does not exist.
​

But they were trying to detect an absolute physical reference frame and that absolute "reference frame" is not physical. So in a way it was a good experiment as it showed there was no absolute physical reference frame. But still everyone is thinking and working only from the conception that all there is is the physical world.

What's more, can't something that can't be measured be described mathematically?​

Sure. Mathematics can provide a bridge between what is physical and that which is not. But the experiment was not a theoretical mathematical description of that which bridges the physical and the non-physical. The experiment was about measuring, which implies measuring something physical.

And just because something isn't physical doesn't mean it isn't measurable: can we say that cosncience isn't physical when its effects are measurable?
​

Show me the man-made physical machine that can measure conscience. What units are you using to measure? What is the unit of conscience or sadness or joy? This could get into a discussion of philosophy or become circular real quick. Conscience can be experienced. But what does that mean? Science would say that everything we feel and experience is just a by product of random physical events that eventually led to the complex human physical body and that everything is just a result of the physical world creating itself. We have many machines that can detect brainwaves, etc. We can correlate electrical patterns to specific emotions, etc. But science would say it is all just physical chemicals, the emotions, conscience, consciousness doesn't exist, it is just all physical and that leads to the whole Darwinian debacle.

I think some questions about the interpretation of this experiment, its role and its necessity in justifying Einstein's theory of relativity, should be put to the Cs. Because it's looking more and more like a real can of worms. ​

I think this is just a dead end without some new mathematics or mathematical insight that is probably simple but will have paradigm changing effects on all of math and science.

 

[Marc Johanson]

In my case, this is how it is perceived.

 

[Marc Johanson]

You say that consciousness is one of the energies in the equation but that begs the question as to what is energy? When I studied physics at High School, that was a huge issue for me. I remember my physics teacher trying to define energy and I well recall not being very satisfied with the answer. Just what is energy? We know that matter can be destroyed and converted into energy (and the opposite is probably true as well - think here of Star Trek's replicator machines and teleportation, which the C's called TDARMs). Energy also has potential. Hence, there is evidently a strong correlation between energy and consciousness. Thus, rather than thinking in terms of solid matter, perhaps we should view the material universe as an energy construct. After all, our TV pictures and lap top images create a two dimensional illusion for us but they are in reality just energy constructs using photons. I would suggest our multidimensional holographic reality is the same. If all is consciousness then all is energy too.​

Imagine, for example, a hexoid. So, at the points of convergence of the edges, there are windows into the seventh density, and these edges are formed due to the interaction of these windows. Something like this.

 

[MJF]

Yeah, the good old 'There is only The One'. Spinoza wrote about this - that there is only one Substance. This substance has infinitely many attributes. This substance is God or nature (Deus Sive Natura or 'God is Nature'). Each of these attributes express the divine essence. And all else is a mode of the one substance. But then, as is usual with philosophers, it's pretty tricky to understand what exactly he means by these words.

Gurdjieff, too - there is the Ray of Creation, which differentiates according to the schemas he outlines such as the worlds within worlds. He also gets pretty tricky with his nested pentads, or levels of Being, as outlined in J.G. Bennet's Gurdjieff: The Making of a New World, or his discussion of the Trogoegoautocrat, Heptaparaparshinokh and its relation to the Triamazikamno. So there's the One, and there is differentiation.

The C's have intimated as much as well - all is One, divided into 7 densities. We are fragments or reflections of that One. But what to make of that notion 'All is One' or 'everything is consciousness'? In particular, what to make of:



Well, my first thought was that there's no reason to assume consciousness can't be proven. Seems like an a priori truth claim.

'Everything is consciousness, there is nothing left to prove' has a curious twist. Seems to me that the statement 'everything is consciousness' needs itself to be proved in order for the statement to work. So the statement invalidates itself unless one accepts 'everything is consciousness' as an a priori truth.

Also, on a practical level, I don't think that if this 'One' is said to be Consciousness, then therefore we can conclude that 'there is nothing to be proved'. It's like looking into the sky and seeing the sun, and taking that at face value. Is there really nothing more to do than just experience a hot glowing orb in the sky?

A better approach for me is that of 'knowing Nature is loving God' as spoken about on the forum for many years now. Knowing Nature includes knowing the sun's characteristics and properties, making calculations - for instance proving correlations between sunspots and cyclical cataclysms, or proving correlations between the health of the human Soul and the function of the solar system. All of this detail would be missed if one just experiences the sun. After all, the C's did say that the meaning of Life is to organize information bits!

I don't think it makes sense to prematurely declare Oneness, either. We sure as hell are separate at some levels of reality - which can be easily proved. Yep, it's said to be an illusion, but we're also here to learn the lessons of 3D, and that includes, in my view, a degree of acceptance of that illusion, knowing it's limitations, and more importantly, our own limitations. Maybe it's just my past experiences speaking, but premature declarations of Oneness can be very bad news, a sign of wishful thinking or New Age fluff. I'd say that in 3D, we are both One and we are not.

So yeah, I'd prefer if we didn't call off the search just yet. Mostly because it's fun - kinda like a way of playing peekaboo with God (which God absolutely loves, apparently) even though the game is often pretty damn terrifying!

I agree with your analysis. Just to throw in one more reference found in the Ra material, Ra tended to refer to people as "consciousness units". That is a curious reference since the word "unit" usually connotes a measure of some sort.

Where you say "like a way of playing peekaboo with God", this reminds me that Sir Francis Bacon, who was the father of the modern scientific method, believed that God had given man an intellect in order that he might seek out the secrets of the universe and, by doing so, learn of the creator at the same time. He saw it as a divinely inspired duty since God had hidden these secrets within the material universe (or this 3D illusion) for us to discover, rather like some sort of super easter egg hunt.​

 

[EricLux]

But they were trying to detect an absolute physical reference frame and that absolute "reference frame" is not physical. So in a way it was a good experiment as it showed there was no absolute physical reference frame. But still everyone is thinking and working only from the conception that all there is is the physical world.​

As I explained in another post, this experiment is inconclusive in the sense that you can say whatever you like : that it demonstrates that the ether exists, that it demonstrates that the ether doesn't exist (the Einsteinian way), which is the "same thing" as saying that we don't need the ether and yet all in relation to a specific model of the ether.

The fact is, we can also say that the ether doesn't exist and realize that the values measured on Earth are as they are precisely because of the ether, whose physical characteristics we know nothing about. And since we know nothing about its dynamics, we're lost. Except to consider that terrestrial dynamics relative to the ether induce the value of terrestrial variables. In fact, we've approached the study of light too closely to the external approach of mechanics : with light, it's perhaps time to change our approach and frame of reference, and consider ourselves within a relative system (the Earth). We would then be in a particular 3D, one of an infinite number.

What's more, this notion of a new, sought-after frame of reference can only be perceived from the Earth's 3D (as far as the observational reality of human scientists is concerned) : in other words, this new frame of reference can only be perceived relatively. It's as if we were observing a 4D reality from 3D perspective : we can only describe a 3D/4D reality, i.e. 3D and 4D at the same time. And this leads us directly to the introduction of a new datum : a new relative spatial reference that allows equilibrium with the random reference of Galilean reference frames. This new reference is none other than the 4th "dimension" of space. This is something that could never have been envisaged by the scientists of the time, as they only had a mechanical approach to reality, an external 3D approach. Taking time into account as they did doesn't change a thing. Their reference space is still 3D.

By taking into account this 4th "dimension" of space, this new spatial reference, this relatively absolute frame of reference, we can finally consider the internal aspect of reality. In other words, this new spatial reference allows us to consider the interior from the outside. In other words, it allows us to make transparent the boundary (sort of window?) that defines outside and inside. This boundary cannot be envisaged until we are aware of the reality of the inner part of reality. And here we come back to the Cs' hint : the 4th "dimension" of space allows us to consider outside and inside at the same time. We could say that Einstein's special relativity is perfectly valid in 3D. As long as we stay within this field of action.

What allows us to go beyond Einstein's relativity is to take into account the 4th "dimension" of space and therefore the interiority of bodies, of light... If we want to treat the dynamics of a body correctly (in the sense of conforming to reality), we have to go through the exterior/interior perspective. To be clearer, because I don't know if I'm making myself clear, what I feel is that matter is the confluence of 2 fields of action, the meeting of 2 qualitatively opposed actions: one that acts internally, locally, and the other that globally, externally, responds to it in an echo and comes to limit it in its action. The result is a limited sphere of action, a material element. In my view, this is where we come face to face with the 4D matter-antimatter matrix mentioned by the Cs.

I'm convinced there's something we haven't understood about the nature of light : we've taken only a purely external view of it. However, light as we perceive it on Earth, in 3D, is only one facet of an infinite number. There are lots of questions I'd like to ask the Cs on these different points, but that will come one day...

Thank you for allowing me, thanks to your reply, to go further than in my previous post on this subject. It's unfolding, little by little. I don't hide the fact that I'd like to finally have the whole picture, the solution to this beautiful enigma, but, apparently, one lesson after another...
​

**​

Comme je l'ai expliqué dans un autre post, cette expérience est non concluante dans le sens où l'on peut dire ce que l'on veut : que cela démontre que l'éther existe, que cela démontre que l'éther n'existe pas (voie einsteinienne) et qui est la même chose que de dire qu'on n'a pas besoin de l'éther et encore tout cela par rapport à un modèle particulier d'éther.

Le fait est qu'on peut aussi dire que l'éther n'existe pas et réaliser que les valeurs mesurées sur Terre sont telles quelles justement grâce à l'éther dont on ne connaît aucune caractéristique physique. Et comme on ne connaît rien de sa dynamique, on est perdus. A part de considérer que la dynamique terrestre relativement à l'éther induit la valeur des variables terrestres. En fait, on a trop approché l'étude de la lumière avec l'approche extérieure de la mécanique : avec la lumière, il est peut-être temps de changer d'approche et de référentiel est de se considérer à l'intérieur d'un système relatif (la Terre). Ainsi, nous serions dans une 3D particulière, une parmi une infinité.

De plus, cette notion de nouveau référentiel recherché ne peut être perçu que depuis la 3D terrestre (pour ce qui concerne la réalité observationnelle des scientifiques humains) : en d'autres termes, ce nouveau référentiel ne peut être perçu que de façon relative. C'est comme si nous observions une réalité 4D depuis la 3D : nous ne pourrons décrire qu'une réalité 3D/4D, c'est-à-dire 3D et 4D en même temps. Et cela nous conduit directement à introduire une nouvelle donnée : une nouvelle référence spatiale relative qui permet l'équilibre avec la référence aléatoire des référentiels galiléens. Cette nouvelle référence n'étant autre que la 4ème "dimension" de l'espace. C'est quelque chose qui ne pouvait être envisager par les scientifiques de l'époque car ils n'avaient qu'une approche mécanique de la réalité, une approche extérieure 3D. Prendre en compte le temps tel qu'ils l'ont fait n'y change rien. Leur espace de référence est toujours 3D.

Avec la prise en compte de cette 4ème "dimension" de l'espace, cette nouvelle référence spatiale, ce référentiel relativement absolu, nous pouvons enfin considérer l'aspect interne de la réalité. C'est-à-dire que cette nouvelle référence spatiale nous permet de prendre en compte l'intérieur de façon extérieure. En d'autres termes, elle nous permet de rendre transparente (sorte de fenêtre?) la frontière qui permet de définir l'extérieur et l'intérieur. Cette frontière ne pouvant être envisagée tant qu'on n'est pas conscient de la réalité de la partie interne de la réalité. Et là, nous rejoignons l'indice des Cs : la 4ème "dimension" de l'espace permet de considérer extérieur et intérieur en même temps. Nous pourrions dire que la relativité restreinte d'Einstein est parfaitement valable en 3D. Tant que nous restons sur ce champ d'action.

Ce qui permet de dépasser son domaine de validité, donc d'aller au-delà de la relativité d'Einstein, c'est la prise en compte de la 4ème "dimension" de l'espace et donc de l'intériorité des corps, de la lumière... Si l'on veut traiter correctement (dans le sens d'être conforme à la réalité) la dynamique d'un corps, il faut en passer par la perspective extérieur/intérieur. Pour être plus clair, car je ne sais pas si je me fais bien comprendre, ce que je ressens c'est que la matière est la confluence de 2 champs d'action, la rencontre de 2 actions qualitativement opposées : une qui agit intérieurement, localement et l'autre qui globalement, extérieurement lui répond en écho et vient la limiter dans son action. Le résultat en étant une sphère d'action limitée, soit un élément matériel. Pour moi, c'est à ce niveau que nous faisons face à la matrice 4D matière - antimatière dont nous ont parlée les Cs.

Il y a quelque chose que nous n'avons pas compris dans la nature de la lumière, j'en suis persuadé : nous avons posé un regard purement externe sur la lumière. Cependant, la lumière telle que nous l'appréhendons sur Terre, donc en 3D, n'est qu'une facette parmi une infinité. Il y a plein de questions sur ces différents points que je souhaiterais poser aux Cs, cela viendra un jour...

Merci de m'avoir permis, grâce à ta réponse, d'aller plus loin que lors de mon précédent post sur ce sujet. Cela se déploie, petit à petit. Je ne cache pas que j'aimerais avoir enfin la perception globale de la situation, la solution à cette belle énigme mais, apparemment, une leçon après l'autre... ​

 

[MJF]

@MJF

I'm a bit overwhelmed between the last translations of the sessions to be done in French, my studies, some ideas in physics and maths that I'd like to post (and which require rigorous and clear writing because that's how I check if I'm comfortable with what I'm feeling and writing) and reading all the sessions to familiarize myself with the energy and presence of the Cs. Little by little, this will do it.

What's more, I need to read in French to make sure I don't miss any subtleties.

You've given me lots of references, some of which I've already heard of. I'm writing them all down because, in the search for UFT (Unified Field Theory), what I've come to realize is that there isn't just one truth. Each contributor carries his or her own share of truth.

As soon as I can, I start by posting a thread on UFT for Cs questions.

We'll keep on exchanging so that, little by little, we become aware of the structure of reality in which we're all immersed. Thanks to the 4th "dimension", we've become aware that we can get out of 3D and the proper way to do that is to integrate all the lessons of 3D :)

This suddenly got me thinking : can we be in 4D just through mathematics?

The Cs have repeatedly insisted on the need to study maths (for example, to get a feel for what the Sumerians really were - or are). Yet I have the feeling that until you've experienced something, you can't translate it into equations. Which would tend to mean that you first have to integrate the 3D lessons in order to be able to explain them in mathematical form. Perhaps, I'm talking about living mathematics as opposed to today's abstract mathematics. Now that I'm answering you, I have this recurring question : if guys find the UFT, do they go straight into 4D? Are they aware of other realities? Because it's one thing to get your hands on a theory and quite another to experience the phenomenon described by the theory. I'd much rather live it!

Thanks for all, see you soon...​

Sorry to add to your reading list but I think it would be well worth your while getting hold of copies (French translations if possible) of Lewis Carroll's two books Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass. Both books were mentioned by the C's and they would have had their reasons for drawing Laura's attention to them. Indeed, they even told us that the experience of going from 3D to 4D was like that which Alice experienced when going through the looking glass:
​

Q: Well if a person transitions directly from 3rd to 5th density via dying, that implies that persons can transition directly from 3rd to 4th density without dying. Is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: How does that feel? How is that experience …

A: Alice through the looking glass.

There is so much more to these books than simple children's fantasies. I have posted on Carroll and his works on various threads. There was so much more to this man than a children's story teller. Apart from being an Oxford don at Christ Church College Oxford specialising in mathematics and being a librarian there with access to a wealth of information long before the creation of the internet, he was also allegedly a member of a secret society called the Orphic Circle, which numbered in its ranks such luminaries as the British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, the author, government minister and leading Rosicrucian Lord Edward Bulwer-Lytton (who wrote Vril: the Coming Race that so influenced the German Thule Society and by extension the Nazis) and Sir Richard Burton the famous British explorer and travel writer and orientalist scholar who founded the infamous Victorian dining club known as the 'Cannibals Club'. Carroll moved in other social circles too including the Pre-Raphaelite art movement headed by John Ruskin and Dante Gabriel Rossetti. He was an early member of the Society for Psychical Research. What most biographies seem to leave out though is that he was also involved with the Theosophy movement, which brought him into contact with the likes of Annie Bessant, Madam Helena Blavatsky (the author of 'The Secret Doctrine'). Thus, Carroll would be a prime example of someone involved with 'circles within circles' and was also someone who seemed to be aware of the "other realities" you referred to in your post above.

The Orphic Circle (with its reference to Orpheus in the Underworld and by extension ancient Greco-Roman mystery schools) engaged in trance channelling through gifted young mediums like Emma Hardinge Britten (the esoteric Alice in Wonderland) but also through special (sacred) mirrors, which may have acted as psychomanteums (a practice Laura was encouraged to follow by the C's). Who knows what knowledge Carroll may have learned from these sessions, which he may then have built into his books. For example, the twins Tweedledee and Tweedledum in Through the Looking Glass may be a disguised reference to the matter/antimatter universes, as hinted at by the C's here:

Q: (F) Well, they mentioned twice to be careful about putting in the designated quotes. (L) One of the crop circles you interpreted was an "astronomical twin phenomenon." What is an astronomical twin phenomenon?

A: Many perfectly synchronous meanings.

Q: (L) Synchronicity is involved. Does this have something to do with "image?"

A: Duplicity of, as in "Alice through the looking glass." [ref. the twins Tweedledee and Tweedledum]

Q: (L) Double images. Does this relate to matter and antimatter?

A: Yes, and...

Q: (L) Gravity and manifesting on one side and manifesting a mirror image on the other...

A: Yes, and...

Q: (L) And images of 4th density bodies with tenuous fibers connecting to DNA as in manifesting imaginal bodies on 4th density?

A: Astronomical.

Q: (L) Okay, that relates to stars and planets... astronomical in terms of another universe, an alternate universe composed of antimatter?

A: Yes, and....

Q: (L) And is this alternate universe going to merge with our universe...

A: No.

Q: (L) Is this alternate universe of antimatter the point from which phenomena occur or are manifested in our universe?

A: More like doorway or "conduit."

Q: (L) Is this alternate universe the means by which we must travel to 4th density? Is it like a veil, or an abyss of some sort?

A: Think of it as the highway.
​

​

In the book, a sequel to Alice's' Adventures in Wonderland, Alice again enters a fantastical world, this time by climbing through a mirror into the world that she can see beyond it. There she finds that, just like a reflection, everything is reversed, including logic (for example, running helps one remain stationary, walking away from something brings one towards it, chessmen are alive, nursery rhyme characters exist, and so on).

This reflection and reversal may therefore be a reference to the matter and antimatter universes, where in the latter things are reversed, so that antimatter is composed of the antiparticles of the corresponding particles in "ordinary" matter, and can be thought of as matter with reversed charge, parity, and time, known as CPT reversal. Thus, a proton and an antiproton have the same mass but opposite electric charge. An antiproton is negatively charged and an antielectron (a positron) is positively charged.

The modern theory of antimatter only began in 1928, with a paper by Physicist Paul Dirac. Dirac realised that his relativistic version of the Schrödinger wave equation for electrons predicted the possibility of antielectrons (N.B. Dirac did not himself use the term antimatter). These were discovered by Carl D. Anderson in 1932 and named positrons from "positive electron".

Hence, the modern theory of antimatter appeared long after Lewis Carroll's time. However, could he have learned about it through the scrying/channelling sessions involving the Orphic Circle just as we have learned of such things through the C's?

For more on the mysterious Orphic Circle see my post on the Alton Towers thread: Alton Towers, Sir Francis Bacon and the Rosicrucians

For your information, Carroll was a brilliant mathematician who was a a contemporary of William Hamilton and James Clerk Maxwell. He was certainly aware of their work. However, it is known that he was also a critic of the new forms of mathematics emerging at that time, like Hamilton's quaternions. Carroll found the radical new maths illogical and lacking in intellectual rigour. In “Alice”, he attacked some of the new ideas as nonsense using a technique familiar from Euclid’s proofs, reductio ad absurdum, where the validity of an idea is tested by taking its premises to their logical extreme. Quoting from a 2010 article called Algebra in Wonderland by Melanie Bayley, which I am attaching to this post:
​

"The Mad Hatter and the March Hare champion the mathematics of William Rowan Hamilton, one of the great innovators in Victorian algebra. Hamilton decided that manipulations of numbers like adding and subtracting should be thought of as steps in what he called “pure time.” This was a Kantian notion that had more to do with sequence than with real time, and it seems to have captivated Dodgson. In the title of Chapter 7, “A Mad Tea-Party,” we should read tea-party as t-party, with “t” being the mathematical symbol for time.

Dodgson has the Hatter, the Hare and the Dormouse stuck going round and round the tea table to reflect the way in which Hamilton used what he called quaternions a number system based on four terms. In the 1860s, quaternions were hailed as the last great step in calculating motion. Even Dodgson may have considered them an ingenious tool for advanced mathematicians, though he would have thought them maddeningly confusing for the likes of Alice (and perhaps for many of his math students).

At the mad tea party, time is the absent fourth presence at the table. The Hatter tells Alice that he quarrelled with Time last March, and now “he won’t do a thing I ask.” So the Hatter, the Hare and the Dormouse (the third “term”) are forced to rotate forever in a plane around the tea table.

When Alice leaves the tea partiers, they are trying to stuff the Dormouse into the teapot so they can exist as an independent pair of numbers, complex, still mad, but at least free to leave the party."

Hence, on a subtle and hidden level, Carroll's book Alice in Wonderland was intended to be a critique of the new mathematics and ideas for Carroll was very much a traditional algebraist and a punctilious logician. This reminds me of what the C's once said about the importance of algebra and its relevance to the matter and antimatter universes:
​

A: It is not all that way, and you know it! Most are not eaten, just manipulated. Knowledge protects in the most amazing ways. Mathematics are "taught' in your realm in such a way that only a select few will learn. And mathematics is the language of all creation. For example, advanced math studies, such as algebra, provide the keys to unlocking the doors between the matter and antimatter universes. Suggest those present who still need to, learn algebra.

Q: (L) Okay, you suggest that those present learn algebra...

A: Who need to.

Q: (L) Are you saying that we can unlock doors between matter and anti-matter universes? Is that what you are getting at here?

A: Maybe...

Carroll's works are also laced with esoteric information that may have been an attempt by him at a deliberate disclosure of long held Rosicrucian secret knowledge for those capable of understanding it. For more on this esoteric theme see Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland: An Esoteric Journey – Nifty Buckles. Quoting from that article (which I am attaching to this post):​

In Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland one of the principal characters, the White Rabbit, symbolises purity, spiritual enlightenment. The White Rabbit is in esoteric terms a shamanic guide who journeys between worlds such as the Earth, underground and heavens. The Rabbit leads the seeker into multiple worlds or realities to reveal truths of the universe and the seeker’s true self. [However,] the White rabbit is also about time and out of time racing in and out of seven dimensions (densities?). The Book of Enoch mentions seven heavens. Time may not be linear like we have been taught, go ask the rabbit. It may represent our souls passing through different worlds being recycled and experiencing amnesia of past lives. Alice asks “Who am I?”

That black and white swirly tunnel that leads to Wonderland may represent our subconscious or a portal to other dimensions, or maybe a stargate? There are many references to time in the novel. This story may hint towards a tribute to time, Chronos the Greek deity the personification of time.

​

I apologise if you think I may be labouring the point but I believe that physicists and mathematicians who read the book with an open mind, leaving preconceived ideas on one side, may discover hidden gems within Carroll's works, which he may have learned of through his participation in the Orphic Circle. I believe that the C's deliberately referred to Carroll's books for a good reason and wished to draw our attention to them as evidenced here and in the earlier quote above:
​

A: Who are your prime numbers?

Q: The dwellings or the mystics, or do you want specific numbers?

A: Yes.

Q: (A) Who?

A: Who?

Q: How do we find out who are the prime numbers? Do we plot...

A: Who are the first 3?

Q: Father, Son and Holy Ghost?

A: Numbers!!!

Q: (A) 1 2 3 are the first three prime numbers...

​

A: Yes, thank you Arkadiusz!!!! Laura is dancing around in wonderland, meanwhile all of creation, of existence, is contained in 1, 2, 3!!! Look for this when you are trying to find the keys to the hidden secrets of all existence... They dwell within. 11, 22, 33, 1/2, 1/3, 1, 2, 3, 121, 11, 111, 222, 333, and so on! Get it?!?!

And

Q: (J) Internet? (T) Is it like a big fence* to keep us in? *The world wide electromagnetic field that shrouds the Earth.

A: You are dancing on the 3rd density ballroom floor. “Alice likes to go through the looking glass” at the Crystal Palace**. Atlantean reincarnation surge brings on the urge to have a repeat performance.

**This could be a possible reference to the ALICE detector, which interfaces with the Large Hadron Collider (the LHC accelerator) at Cerne in Switzerland, which is a bit like a crystal palace when you think about it. For more on this see: ALICE experiment - Wikipedia and ALICE opens its new nerve centre.

Overall view of the ALICE detector
​

Q: (T) The Atlanteans who have reincarnated are getting ready to do the same thing they did before with the crystals. So this is an Atlantean type thing that is being done now? Different equipment, but the same type of thing?

A: All lessons must be learned before you can move on to bigger and better things.

Q: (L) Is that a general statement about the Atlanteans repeating the lessons, or that once we learn this lesson, we can move on to bigger and better things in counteracting this grid.

A: All that is present and future too.

If you cannot lay your hands on the books in France, I can supply electronic copies (in English) that I have on file in my documents folder. If you do get the chance to read them, feel free to pass on your comments, if any, within the Forum. I know that another Forum member was so taken by the hidden knowledge concealed in Carroll's works that he forwarded copies of the articles to Ark. However, I have no idea what Ark made of them or whether he even read them.​

 

[Bernardo GA]

However, if you remove time from the equation, it then raises questions about the existence of linear causality.

That reminded me of the May 29, 2021 session, in the following excerpt:

Q: (Ark) But that's not my main point. My main point is that I developed this theory that is behind quantum computers like many years ago. Now they are testing quantum computers. Recently there was publication about benchmarks of quantum computers. They tested 21 quantum computers from IBM and others. They were using one of my programs that is put in the book on quantum fractals. My code is now running on quantum computers. It's not just something abstract, but it's used for benchmarks. Now, what I want to know is... because this quantum theory is now real, that's for sure. It will be soon in supermarkets but nobody understands quantum theory. And I have a theory but I don't really understand. Einstein wanted such a theory. What is needed in order to understand quantum theory which I FAILED? I know how to run quantum computers, but I don't understand it. What is needed to understand? Like Einstein wanted?

A: Consciousness interaction needs to be formulated. You are on the way. Get back to work!!

Q: (Ark) About consciousness... Some minutes ago we were reminded that consciousness is related to the soul. And now consciousness is related to quantum theory. So consciousness is in the middle of everything. Where consciousness is located?

A: Where is it not?

Q: (Ark) What kind of mathematics is needed to describe consciousness?

A: Algebra.

Q: (Ark) Consciousness is related to information. What really happens when things happen is that information is recorded. Where is information recorded?

A: By consciousness. [laughter] Information recorded equals time.

Q: (Ark) Is quantum theory related to time loops? That there are time loops and there are many of them? It's in my head...

A: Yes

Q: (Ark) Oh... That's good! Well, I am done. I don't understand, but algebra is one thing that I understand. [laughter]

A: Okay, work!

Q: (Joe) If information recorded equals time, and time only exists for us, does that mean that at higher levels information is recorded?

A: No

Q: (Joe) It just...

(L) I think they've said that time is different at other densities.

(Joe) They said time is an illusion for us.

(L) Time as we perceive it.

(Ark) Oh, oh, oh! Do we need second time dimension?

A: Yes

Q: (Ark) Do we need third time dimension?

A: No

Q: (Ark) Aha! THAT'S an information!

(Pierre) You recorded it?

 

[MJF]

That reminded me of the May 29, 2021 session, in the following excerpt:

That's a very good spot. Where the C's say that at higher density levels information is not recorded, this is presumably because it is instantly and freely available through a cosmic retrieval system or the Akashic Records.

This reminds me that human beings can sometimes experience a sensation of timelessness as happened to Nicolas Tesla when he accidently electrocuted himself. He said that in that moment, he could look backwards and forwards in time as if there were no time. Hence for him, the illusion of linear time was removed at that particular moment by the electric shock he was experiencing, which brought him very close to death.​

 

[irjO]

That's a very good spot. Where the C's say that at higher density levels information is not recorded,

They didn’t say is not recorded at higher levels, they only mentioned that is ‘equals time’, which at higher levels can be perceived or could be a totally different concept as how we perceive or understand ‘time’.

 

[KaWaiAwaAwa]

On the subject of spike protein.
If someone is exposed to someone else’s spike, do they then become able to transmit the spike them self?
God I hope not.

Good question. I guess in theory that you do not have the mRNA coding to produce it, but who knows?

 

[MJF]

They didn’t say is not recorded at higher levels, they only mentioned that is ‘equals time’, which at higher levels can be perceived or could be a totally different concept as how we perceive or understand ‘time’.

I am not sure about that. When Joe asked "does that mean that at higher levels information is recorded?", the C's said "No". That seems pretty clear to me.

However, I do take your point that time at higher levels is perceived in a different way, which could be a completely different concept to our perception or understanding of time in 3D.

 

[KaWaiAwaAwa]

So, quantum mechanics, as we know it, is not 3D biaised, if I understood well?

It is biased that way, but the supposed explanations of the physical observations seem to suggest differently.
Entanglement is just one of the notions that seem problematic.

On a possibly related note, I never quite understood the explanation of force fields as the exchange of some type of particle (Feynman diagrams) as they were explained by my professors in the early 1970s. But then again, I never understood what the physical background of a Field was either. Doing the calculations is one thing, having an understanding of what is going on is another. I agree with Feynman's comment that no one understands quantum and those who claim to are lying (but maybe they are just brighter than I am).

 

[KaWaiAwaAwa]

To be clearer, the explanations of the physical observations in quantum seem to scream that physical observations will not be useful for a 3D person who is trying to understand things that are beyond 3D.