EricLux
Jedi Council Member
For sure, there can be no singularity in the Universe ! All is polarity !
Session 18 May 2024
- Thread starter Laura
- Start date
The same source makes claims that is incompatible with research and testimonies so far. And it so happens, that he sells his own products that do work and pose no danger, of course. I don't mean he's conscious about it, but still.
Marc Johanson
Padawan Learner
As for the singularity, I don’t quite agree. The state of singularity, in my opinion, is still available in the seventh density of awareness.
EricLux
Jedi Council Member
We're already having trouble grasping what's going on in 3rd density and beyond, so the 7th, union with the ONE... We're already having trouble grasping what's going on in 3rd density and beyond, so the 7th, union with the ONE... 
Marc Johanson
Padawan Learner
Just my ideas. What do you want to understand in third density?We're already having trouble grasping what's going on in 3rd density and beyond, so the 7th, union with the ONE... We're already having trouble grasping what's going on in 3rd density and beyond, so the 7th, union with the ONE...
Marc Johanson
Padawan Learner
Assuming that the state of seventh density is the state of gravity, and gravity is the “glue” that connects matter with antimatter, that is, simply - mixing them at its level to a homogeneous state (by the way, gravity seems silver-gray to me) - to a state of singularity.
EricLux
Jedi Council Member
You see, Yuri, in 3D, gravity is electromagnetism. What I'm wondering is : can we describe all 3D dynamics using a single equation? I'd be inclined to say that Maxwell's equations should answer that question but then where is gravity in Maxwell's equations, because clearly 3D gravity can't be Newton's gravity.
Then, when we talk about quantum mechanics and particles, whatever we call them, are we still in 3D? Where does the need for other densities come from? Does this mean that 3rd density is not total in itself? I don't think so since there are gravitational currents running through it, which don't have the attributes of 3D, apart from those we're willing to give it through 3D modeling... It's only a model, and doesn't tell us anything about how the Universe really works...
Then, when we talk about quantum mechanics and particles, whatever we call them, are we still in 3D? Where does the need for other densities come from? Does this mean that 3rd density is not total in itself? I don't think so since there are gravitational currents running through it, which don't have the attributes of 3D, apart from those we're willing to give it through 3D modeling... It's only a model, and doesn't tell us anything about how the Universe really works...
Marc Johanson
Padawan Learner
I can’t say about Maxwell’s equation (I have no information), I’ll just note that Newton’s gravity describes the perception of third-density gravity. Regarding the need for densities as such, the answer is obvious - lessons. In my opinion, you are trying to solve riddles using third-density tools, but in these equations, in addition to gravity, there must be such components as lessons, cycles, entropy.
I’ve been reading the book ‘Life and Afterlife’ by Michael Prescott. The below quote from the book caught my eye since it describes people that are blown up by an explosion, such as in war, having a rougher experience when it comes to transitioning to the afterlife. Nuclear explosions might have a similar detrimental effect, as described for dying from explosions, but much more magnified.
pg 117-118 said:
This makes me also wonder if such ‘spiritual trauma’ when dying in war via explosions, etc and a period of unconsciousness after death could play some role or be one reason why the military types are the ones that are reanimated or have the soul placed in new bodies in the underground bases after death as mentioned by the C’s. As seen in this session also, in relation to what was said about Jordan Peterson, there is a danger of being programmed when in a coma (and being knocked unconscious for a longer period?). Perhaps there is something similar that can happen when a person dies and they are unconscious for a time in the afterlife.
I figure another reason for selecting military types could be that a good number of military types readily follow orders and serve without questioning authority.
Hi @MJF
I'm glad the message spoke to you. I'm going to bounce off your comments in compliance with the law!
We'll stay on synchronicity as I'm working on Thomas Townsed Brown's work... so I'll do a post (or thread) on the subject when I've completed some tasks in progress.
What I can tell you, at the time, is that when we receive a confirmation or a message from the Cs, it's not, for all that, a foregone conclusion, you know. When they confirm that Gravity (G) and Electromagnetism (EM) are identical, at least in 3D, this can be interpreted in different ways.
Scientists who have set up a theoretical framework to unify G and EM on the basis of Einstein's theory of general relativity (which implies that EM and G are not identical, otherwise they wouldn't have wasted all those years developing a conceptual framework for unification) will be able to claim that this is the case, since G and EM both unfold and propagate at the speed of light. This is how they say they discovered that gravity waves propagate at the speed of light. In fact, what they're describing here, to me, is the 3D perception/interpretation of a physical phenomenon. It doesn't tell us anything about the reality of the physical phenomenon in question. In a way, it's like observing reality through a 3D dimensional filter or a pair of 3D glasses. This is what we say about mathematical models : they serve to model and describe the observed phenomenon but it's only a model. What about the intrinsic reality of the phenomenon itself? This goes back to what many former scientists and, above all, physicists have described over the last few decades, when they said that mathematics had overtaken physics and even science.
This is, I think, the most important bias of current physics : that of interpreting everything through its 3D filter. We observe terrestrial phenomena, model them and use these 3D models to describe or even explain the workings of the Universe, which may have nothing to do with a 3D terrestrial reality. Between modeling, which is just one approach among many, and the fact that the Universe is not necessarily 3D in nature, it's easy to understand why we're talking about dark matter, dark energy and so on...
I've talked about models in another post, I'll make you a compilation of the different posts to avoid scrolling through lots of threads, if you like.
If we take the confirmation of Cs (EM=G), we can approach this result from another angle by saying that everything is Gravity, basically. This is in line with the fact that EM=G, since we tend to say that everything is EM starting from our terrestrial reference. The thing is, here we're reversing the perspective. We start from the Gravity of instantaneous action and say that G=EM. However, instantaneous action is devolved to the atemporal character of Gravity; it is in NULL time, i.e. outside time. This raises the question that some people have begun to raise on various threads of this forum : how can we speak of NULL time when we're evolving in the illusion of linear time in 3D?
This is where we can say that, since the EM refers to +/-, north/south polarity, we could interpret NULL time, the temporal void of Gravity, as the simultaneity of + and - polar actions, and thus speak of NULL time as the conjunction of + and - time (which is reminiscent of matter/antimatter polarity). In this way, EM would appear to be endowed with two times but we would only consider the + time, and we would speak of progressive EM waves whereas we could speak of EM standing waves. By speaking in this way, we would be recognizing Gravity under cover, in its 3D EM guise. The point is that, from this angle, we no longer need to talk about the speed of light, because we're out of the temporal bind, and what we've interpreted as speed in 3D should be perceived differently.
Perhaps this is what the Cs mean when they talk about physics without referring to time. This is further supported by the reality that the 4th “dimension” of space is not time but a new spatial reference that allows us to apprehend outer space and inner space at the same time, i.e. a new spatial reference allowing us to apprehend the dynamic, even living, character of space. ... in other words, something completely unknown in physics as it stands, since the theory of general relativity is based solely on an external 3D approach, unless we take into account a matter/antimatter interaction matrix... but that's another story!
Don't hesitate if I haven't been clear enough, I've done my best according to what came in reply to your message. Thanks again for your feedback.
**
Salut @MJF
Je suis heureux que le message t'ait parlé. je vais rebondir sur tes propos en respectant la loi !
Nous allons resté sur la synchronicté car je suis en train de plancher sur les travaux de Thomas Townsed Brown... donc je ferai un post (ou un fil) sur le sujet lorsque j'aurai terminé certaines tâches en cours.
Ce que je peux te dire, sur le moment, c'est que lorsqu'on reçoit une confirmation ou un message des Cs, ce n'est pas, pour autant gagné, tu sais. Lorsqu'ils confirment que la Gravité (G) et l'Electromagnétisme (EM) sont identiques, au moins en 3D, cela peut s'interpréter de différentes façons.
Les scientifiques qui ont mis en place un cadre théorique pour unifier G et EM à partir de la théorie de la relativité générale d'Einstein (ce qui sous-entend que EM et G ne sont pas identiques sinon ils n'auraient pas perdus toutes ces années pour élaborer un cadre conceptuel permettant l'unification) pourront prétexter que cela est le cas puisque G et EM se déploient, se propagent à la vitesse de la lumière, tous les deux. C'est ainsi qu'ils ont dit avoir découvert que les ondes de gravité se propageaient à la vitesse de la lumière. En fait, ce qu'ils décrivent ainsi, pour moi, est la perception/interprétation 3D d'un phénomène physique. Cela ne nous renseigne pas sur la réalité du phénomène physique en question. C'est, en quelque sorte, comme si on observait la réalité à travers un filtre dimensionnel 3D ou une paire de lunettes 3D. C'est ce que l'ont dit des modèles mathématiques : ils servent à modéliser, à décrire le phénomène observé mais ce n'est qu'un modèle. Que dire de la réalité intrinsèque du phénomène lui-même? Cela rejoint ce que beaucoup d'anciens scientifiques et, surtout, physiciens ont décrit ces dernières décennies en disant que la mathématique avait pris le pas sur la physique voire la science.
C'est, je pense, le biais le plus important de la physique actuelle : celle de tout interpréter à l'aune de son filtre 3D. On observe des phénomènes terrestres, on les modélise et on use de ces modèles 3D pour décrire voire expliquer le fonctionnement de l'Univers qui n'a peut-être rien d'une réalité terrestre 3D. Entre la modélisation qui n'est qu'une approche parmi tant d'autres, et le fait que l'Univers ne soit pas forcément de nature 3D, on comprend aisément que l'on en vienne à parler de matière noire, d'énergie noire et cie...
J'ai parlé des modèles dans un autre post, je te ferai une compil des différents posts pour éviter de parcourir plein de fils, si tu le souhaites.
Si on prend la confirmation des Cs (EM=G), on peut approcher ce résultat sous un autre angle en se disant que tout est Gravité, à la base. C'est en droite ligne avec le fait que EM=G puisque nous avons tendance à dire que tout est EM en partant de notre référence terrestre. Le fait est qu'ici nous inversons la perspective. Nous partons de la Gravité d'action instantanée et nous disons que G=EM. Or, l'action instantanée est dévolue au caractère atemporel de la Gravité, elle EST dans le temps NUL, c'est-à-dire hors du temps. Alors se pose la question que certains ont commencé à évoquer sur différents fils de ce forum : comment peut-on parlé de temps NUL alors que nous évoluons dans l'illusion du temps linéaire en 3D?
C'est ici que l'on peut se dire que puisque l'EM fait état de polarité +/-, nord/sud, nous pourrions interpréter le temps NUL, le vide temporel de la Gravité en tant que simultanéité d'actions polaires + et - et ainsi parler du temps NUL en tant que conjonction d'un temps + et d'un temps - (ce qui n'est pas sans rappeler la polarité matière/antimatière). Ainsi, l'EM se révèlerait doter de deux temps mais nous n'en considèrerions que le temps + et nous parlerions d'ondes EM progressives alors que nous pourrions parler d'ondes stationnaires EM. En parlant ainsi, nous reconnaitrions la Gravité sous couvert, sous son apparence EM en 3D. Le fait est que sous cet angle, plus besoin de parler de vitesse de la lumière car nous sommes sortis de l'engluement temporel et que ce que nous avons interpréter en 3D en tant que vitesse devrait être perçu différemment.
C'est peut-être ce que sous-entendent les Cs lorsqu'ils parlent de physique sans faire appel au temps. Ce qui est encore plus appuyé par la réalité que la 4ème "dimension" de l'espace n'est pas le temps mais une nouvelle référence spatiale qui permet d'appréhender l'espace extérieur et l'espace intérieur en même temps, c'est-à-dire une nouvelle référence spatiale permettant d'appréhender le caractère dynamique voire vivant de l'espace... autant dire quelque chose de parfaitement inconnu en l'état en physique puisque la théorie de la relativité générale ne repose que sur une approche 3D extérieure à moins de prendre en compte une matrice d'interaction matière/antimatière... ce qui est une autre histoire !
N'hésite pas si je n'ai pas été suffisamment clair, j'ai fait au mieux en fonction de ce qui venait en réponse à ton message. Merci encore pour ton retour
As a humble lawyer, I must say that I concur with all that you say above. When I studied physics at High School, I remember telling a fellow classmate (who was a brilliant mathematician) that one day Einstein's theories of relativity would be proved wrong. He was astonished that I could even suggest this. However, even back then I seemed to know instinctively that Einstein was wrong. I know that scientists point to the famous Michelson-Morley Experiment as proof of the Special Theory of Relativity but there are those who think that experiment was flawed (see: Michelson–Morley experiment - Wikipedia).
I agree when you say:
This is, I think, the most important bias of current physics : that of interpreting everything through its 3D filter. We observe terrestrial phenomena, model them and use these 3D models to describe or even explain the workings of the Universe, which may have nothing to do with a 3D terrestrial reality.
For me, we are like the residents of 'flatland' where they try to perceive a three dimensional reality whilst in a two dimensional paradigm. If we are living in a 3D holographic projection or simulation (as some scientists believe) constructed of light, then how are we going to be able to look outside of the hologram to appreciate the true nature of reality? Furthermore, if you are trapped inside such a 3D hologram (whilst also being subject to the perception of linear time), then the speed of light will necessarily be a defining parameter.
Even before I came across the C's material, I was aware that gravity could travel faster than the speed of light, as the C's have since confirmed. This was because I had become aware of the work of the late American astrophysicist Dr Tom Van Flandern. He was a champion of the Exploded Planet Hypothesis as an explanation for the asteroid belt, which the C's have confirmed with them calling the exploded planet Kantek. He was also an advocate for the artificiality of the Face on Mars and the other Monuments of Mars, which the C's have also confirmed. However, it is perhaps his views on the speed of gravity which were the most controversial of his ideas. Quoting from his Wikipedia entry:
Van Flandern supported Georges-Louis Le Sage's theory of gravitation, according to which gravity is the result of a flux of invisible "ultra-mundane corpuscles" impinging on all objects from all directions at superluminal speeds. He gave public lectures in which he claimed that these particles could be used as a limitless source of free energy and to provide superluminal propulsion for spacecraft.
Indeed, many scientists believe that gravity can be explained by the existence of gravitons, which the C's said were really electrons within a time vacuum:
Q: (A) Related to these gravity waves, in 1936 Einstein wrote a paper which was rejected, in which he claims to have discovered that there are no gravity waves. When you talk...I agree when you say:
This is, I think, the most important bias of current physics : that of interpreting everything through its 3D filter. We observe terrestrial phenomena, model them and use these 3D models to describe or even explain the workings of the Universe, which may have nothing to do with a 3D terrestrial reality.
For me, we are like the residents of 'flatland' where they try to perceive a three dimensional reality whilst in a two dimensional paradigm. If we are living in a 3D holographic projection or simulation (as some scientists believe) constructed of light, then how are we going to be able to look outside of the hologram to appreciate the true nature of reality? Furthermore, if you are trapped inside such a 3D hologram (whilst also being subject to the perception of linear time), then the speed of light will necessarily be a defining parameter.
Even before I came across the C's material, I was aware that gravity could travel faster than the speed of light, as the C's have since confirmed. This was because I had become aware of the work of the late American astrophysicist Dr Tom Van Flandern. He was a champion of the Exploded Planet Hypothesis as an explanation for the asteroid belt, which the C's have confirmed with them calling the exploded planet Kantek. He was also an advocate for the artificiality of the Face on Mars and the other Monuments of Mars, which the C's have also confirmed. However, it is perhaps his views on the speed of gravity which were the most controversial of his ideas. Quoting from his Wikipedia entry:
Van Flandern supported Georges-Louis Le Sage's theory of gravitation, according to which gravity is the result of a flux of invisible "ultra-mundane corpuscles" impinging on all objects from all directions at superluminal speeds. He gave public lectures in which he claimed that these particles could be used as a limitless source of free energy and to provide superluminal propulsion for spacecraft.
Indeed, many scientists believe that gravity can be explained by the existence of gravitons, which the C's said were really electrons within a time vacuum:
A: Cloak for others. Einstein knew differently, but was forced to comply for political and security reasons.
Q: (A) Should gravity be quantized as other fields?
A: It can be.
Q: (A) But, if it is quantized, it will be gravitons, and you said that there are no gravitons...
A: Gravitons are really electrons within a time vacuum.
The above statement about electrons may, I think, be linked with what the C's said about the origins of electrons here:
Session 15 March 1997:
Q: (L) In the natural state, we know that a photon can have an interaction which causes it to split into positron and an electron. In the natural state, do electrons come from photons?
A: No.
Q: Okay. In the natural state, where do electrons come from?
A: Aether boundary with material continuum.
Q: Where does the proton come from?
A: 7th density.
Q: So, a proton comes from seventh density, but the electron does not.
A: Not mutually exclusive.
Q: In a substance that conducts electricity, say an electrical wire, you have a circuit where, essentially, electrons get passed from atom to atom along this pathway. And, yet, they don't run out, and they don't really get used, it is only the resistance that causes heat that causes the incandescence...
A: Gravity centre of planet is also "window" to all other density levels and dimensional planes of existence, which is why electrically charged atoms "ground" in order to pass on to other planes through gravity binder.
Q: Getting back to my question of the passing of electrons along a circuit: what force is it that initiates the passing of one electron to another atom that manifests as electricity?
A: Electrical energy is merely "tapped," collected, trapped, then channelled.
Q: If it is tapped, where is it tapped from?
A: Collecting electrons.
Q: What is a collecting electron?
A: Not "a" collecting electron. It is collecting them.
Q: What is collecting the electrons?
A: The utilizers. Electrons are "free" energy.
Q: Okay, but where... I am thinking that in an electrical circuit, the electrons that are there, are the ones that are started with, the ones that are passed along, and the ones that are still there when the circuit is broken and the passing of electrons stops. Am I wrong?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay... then...
A: There is no beginning or end.
Q: Then electricity is, in essence, a flow of electrons?
A: Yes.
Q: You say they are tapped. Where are they tapped from? What is the source of these free electrons?
A: All materials. All matter. All aether.
[....]
A: What conditions exist in outer space?
Q: Well it is VERY cold... (A) It is almost a vacuum. (L) No gravity. (A) No, there is gravity, but only that. What I think we must ask is what is the relation between superconductivity and gravity. There was something mentioned... what was that about aether?
A: Nonmaterial realm of existence.
And that is where, as Laura recognised, consciousness comes into play.
In 1998, Van Flandern wrote a paper asserting that astronomical observations imply that gravity propagates at least twenty billion times faster than light, or even infinitely fast. However Gerald E. Marsh, Charles Nissim-Sabat and Steve Carlip demonstrated that Van Flandern's argument was fallacious.
Well, the C's seem to be supporting Van Flandern's notion that gravity can travel faster than the speed of light. Whether Van Flandern was right but his reasoning and calculations were wrong, I am not in a position to judge. However, you might want to look at his ideas alongside those of Robert Townsend Brown. Just a suggestion.
Well, the C's seem to be supporting Van Flandern's notion that gravity can travel faster than the speed of light. Whether Van Flandern was right but his reasoning and calculations were wrong, I am not in a position to judge. However, you might want to look at his ideas alongside those of Robert Townsend Brown. Just a suggestion.
Marc Johanson
Padawan Learner
Marc Johanson
Padawan Learner
There is always a possibility, it all depends on the “transmitter” and “receiver”. If the “receiver” is forewarned and armed, then the probability is minimal, but it still remains, depending on the situation/conditions. That’s what I think.
Perhaps this would be the difference between the vaccinated vs the unvaccinated, there always could be a possibility, but I would say is much less likely on the unvaccinated side.
