christx11
Jedi Master
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).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.
I think over the years a lot of the clues about the physics and math are very confusing.
Has the missing link been found yet?
Has the meaning of expanded gravity been discovered?
I think what the C's mean by gravity as 'a great expansion upon the same concept' is the missing link.
I think once we know what gravity as 'a great expansion upon the same concept' is mathematically, gravity as a binder will become self apparent, the densities will become self-apparent. I think we will discover that not only is electromagnetism (the non-material world) an uncountably infinite continuum, but that we may discover that also physicality (the material world) is also an uncountably infinite continuum and this gravity as 'a great expansion upon the same concept' creates both continuums simultaneously. One cannot exists without the other.
.
