I would check with the gynecologist to make sure everything is alright, no hormonal growths in the uterus and all that. Then, I would consider what you mentioned above, and/or progesterone cream and even topical estradiol.
Session 18 May 2024
- Thread starter Laura
- Start date
TheTodd
Jedi Council Member
I used the wrong word there, I should have written "shedding"! Luckily, I didn't get the vax.
I will try to do the antivax protocol as best as I can. It makes sense after reading all the info regarding the shedding and possible residual side effects of the Covid-19 virus.
PatientObserver
The Force is Strong With This One
It seems that in order to be receptive to the Upcoming Wave or transition into 4D there is a collective variable to the equation that seems to be unaddressed.
I think that one must improve oneself with the data that is collected and experienced, contribute their energy to the group of compatible energies, and help to change the energies in which we co-exist. If one can positively influence others (STO, STS, and the collective that is Growing and yet to decide their orientation), I think we may transition into new energies on Earth.
I think that enough people need to do the work and collectively contribute to create change. Perhaps there are members in our group that still need to grow in order to create this change in our "present" reality.
If you are strong-willed, you may even experiment in this reality. For example, I have interacted with many narcissists (and fewer sociopaths/psychopaths), and observed if an STO-oriented energy may change them in some way. Experience has taught me several simple truths: STS energies will either attempt to master their tactics for manipulation, grow stronger in their attempts to become darker energies, or become conflicted and curious about my thought processes. To estimate, 70% of them attempted to master their craft, 25% attempted to go deeper into the void, and 5% became conflicted slightly with their orientation.
In my interactions with others, I have observed that there are far fewer STO-oriented individuals (an interestingly low percentage) in the environment from which I came. In my current locale, many people seem to simply live life and do not seem interested in personal growth but they are STO-oriented. I have noticed simple and honest communication positively influences others around me in substantial ways.
I have also relinquished fear in almost all of its forms. I have never feared death (at times I unwisely welcomed it), but I have feared the unknown in certain contexts as well as an inability to grow and change. The thought of having to return to Earth in another vessel distressed me greatly because that may demonstrate that my current configuration wasn't adequate for my purpose this life.
If I did not have the assistance of those close to me my progress may have stagnated or I may have taken an unintended path.
There is nothing wrong with the appreciation of beauty in any form, the stimulation of an expertly cooked meal, or anything of the senses as we presently understand them. If one is in the present, one may still experience those data points and actively focus their efforts on the work and their work that is needed to create active change.
ELT
Jedi
Thank you for the session and the following thread. So many new infos that I'll read correctly a second time.
I've explored the ideas from the many forum threads concerning meat and carnivore for the past 7 months, quite intensely, with most of the shared links + quite particularly Georgia Ede's website (which I think hasn't the "whole banana", from insight).
What I came out with was that veggies' vitamins and minerals were badly bioavailable, and that there was everything needed in meat, especially in organs (regarding vit&min - but that we all seem to need varying amounts of "safe" carbs).
Could you share links and ressources, i.e. shedding light, on this matter, please ?
(Should I identify @Chu for the quote ? My question is actually for anyone with knowledge, though)
Thanks
May I ask what these veggies are please ?
I've explored the ideas from the many forum threads concerning meat and carnivore for the past 7 months, quite intensely, with most of the shared links + quite particularly Georgia Ede's website (which I think hasn't the "whole banana", from insight).
What I came out with was that veggies' vitamins and minerals were badly bioavailable, and that there was everything needed in meat, especially in organs (regarding vit&min - but that we all seem to need varying amounts of "safe" carbs).
Could you share links and ressources, i.e. shedding light, on this matter, please ?
(Should I identify @Chu for the quote ? My question is actually for anyone with knowledge, though)
Thanks
Last edited:
Wandering Star
The Living Force
The Surprising Longevity Benefits of Vitamin K
Hi, I would like to share an article about more details on the various types of K vitamins as they serve an important role in our organism. http://www.lifeextension.com/magazine/2014/9/the-surprising-longevity-benefits-of-vitamin-k/page-01 Some excerpts from this article Dr. Bruce Ames is...
cassiopaea.org
I think I see what you are saying here, however my thoughts depart from this line. I will be interested to see if you further refine your hypothesis though.
I suspect it might be the latter:
C's Session 24th September 2001 said:
C's Session 6th February 2016 said:
Thanks; again, it comes back to thoroughly reading Ark's papers to get a handle on this!
EricLux
Jedi Master
Thank you @John G for your response. I deduce from this that the degenerate metric characterizes the action which annihilates the positive measure (matter) to reach the domain of negative action (antimatter).
- Do we know why this very particular metric must be degenerate?
- What does it mean concretely that it is degenerate?
- What is the relationship between the 4th dimension of space (as a frequency reference) and this degenerate metric?
- Does the fact that it is degenerate mean that the frequency is not of the same type as those with which we work in electromagnetism where we only consider the positive solution which then allows us to speak of progressive waves for E and B?
- What does the infinite character of the conformal group refer to?
- Finally, what do you mean by "full symmetry" of Maxwell's equations?
Thanks for your help @John G, I'm asking all these questions in order to better understand this research to ask relevant questions to the Cs afterwards.
- Do we know why this very particular metric must be degenerate?
- What does it mean concretely that it is degenerate?
- What is the relationship between the 4th dimension of space (as a frequency reference) and this degenerate metric?
- Does the fact that it is degenerate mean that the frequency is not of the same type as those with which we work in electromagnetism where we only consider the positive solution which then allows us to speak of progressive waves for E and B?
- What does the infinite character of the conformal group refer to?
- Finally, what do you mean by "full symmetry" of Maxwell's equations?
Thanks for your help @John G, I'm asking all these questions in order to better understand this research to ask relevant questions to the Cs afterwards.
lilies
The Living Force
So essentially when The Beast performed demon summoning rituals - just like other successful black magicians / evil witches of his ilk -, he managed to make the realm border thinner allowing for window fallers to step through. Since the human consciousness fuels this process and has half the influence on its appearance / final result, anything that is expected - summoned -, steps through. They found him in pieces, looking like torn apart by demonic beasts.
The Illuminati and WEF satanists could have received the MO that performing mass animal hurt rituals will make their Covid plandemic project more successful. This shares parameters with the Spanish Flu Operation: judging from the five books I read about its history, it hit where the Lizzies wanted it to hit. It avoided places, where people expected the plague. As if managers of '4thD Big Food Corporation' wanted to maximize incoming mass pain, therefore they pinpointed especially lucrative feeding areas. All the while denying people to gather knowledge entirely. None of the hospital artifical-infection experiments were successful. People were denied gathering knowledge about a Lizzie Plague. Because knowledge would have negated Lizzie domination.
Which is the Skinwalker Ranch Modus Operandi as well: do not allow humans to discover anything. Do not allow humans to gather knowledge.
- Give them nothing! Take from them everything!
Dan Aykroyd mentions a superb publication (blockbuster TV Show) of gathering all the most famous, skillful UFO researchers together, interviewing them, asking them to tell their results. Mentioning their work to the public and summarizing everything they said - as a distillation of separate pieces of powerful knowledge brought together in a new bright light. An essential summary of studying The Alien Presence on Earth: what we know so far.
It could have been an effective study publication with way too strong results. Word was immediately sent down - by Lizzie collaborators, I think - to cancel the show!
Aykroyd says he has the raw tapes - interviews with the best scientists in the field - and it should be published on DVD.
Any and all such human efforts to get to know more about the Lizzies are killed in their infancy. Truly a prison planet Earth with total control.
zak
The Living Force
This sheds some light on Hippocrates' famous quote:
Which I complete with this other one:
And another parallel in relation to information, many of the comments after each session say that they're going to need a bit of time to digest it all, or a lot of food for thought...
A resounding thank you for another gourmet session, and bon appétit to all!
EricLux
Jedi Master
To be very honest with you, I always told myself that there was an ether for light from my early years at university. Not an ether which would serve as a propagation medium because, for me, light is not a physical object. It is not subject to external 3D movement like a material mass. For me, mechanics is the positive domain (positive space) of matter and optics is the negative domain (negative space). And the transition from space + to space - is done by antimatter which is space - understood from a 3D material point of view: this is why the Cs indices "antimatter is l "highway to 4D" and "in 4D, everything is light" really reassured me in my feelings. At this moment, the pure negative domain is that of light which is 4D. The fact that Einstein did not understand the reality of 4D light meant that he considered it as a 3D material object and applied to it the classical transformations of Galileo for mechanics: in other words, he mechanized electromagnetism. For me, the 4th "dimension" of space that we are looking for is already nestled within Maxwell's equations. What limits us is our 3D interpretation of them. But, we proceed this way because we do not fundamentally know what a 4D space is: the only vision we have of it is, either in math a 4-dimensional space where the 4 dimensions are interchangeable, or in physics the 3 spatial dimensions to which we add that of time. This is what Einstein did at its maximum by considering time as the 4th dimension of space. In fact, our perception of time hides a space +/space dynamic - which we don't know how to understand because we aren't even aware of space -. That is to say, we do not really know how our perception as such is based.
We could say that our linear perception of time, our 3D perception, is what we sense of this unconscious underlying dynamic between the two poles of space. It is now obvious to me that once this dynamic underlying the very structure of space is acquired, we will then be in 4D because our perception will have evolved. We will no longer experience matter as frozen, concentrated light, we will experience matter as a dynamic luminous process. It will be obvious that matter (antimatter) is the basis of light. We will have begun to transcend a +/- duality. We will move closer to unity. In doing so, we will no longer speak of time but of a dynamic between two poles, of a variability of space as such, fluid in its very substance. We will experience the latent balance within the void through its permanent imbalance. What we perceive as emptiness for a 3D look, will be light for a broader 4D look. Thanks to this gaze which allows us to understand the polarity at the base of the spectrum, we will experience (because we will share) the dynamics of light (what I call its interiority as the 4th dimension).
To be more concrete, because it is still difficult for me to put this feeling into words, the Lorentz transformation, obtained by Einstein and by Lorentz, is based on hypotheses that are too mechanistic, too 3D, to reflect the reality of the dynamics of light (underlying Maxwell's equations). So, I see several pitfalls in Einstein's approach: that of having granted a speed to a reality for which the notion of speed is obsolete (since 4D), that of having fixed the variability of this speed by considering it constant by change of Galilean frame of reference, that of having considered time as the 4th dimension of space...
To me it is clear that the Lorentz transformation is something biased and too abstract. You see, it allows us to talk about positive, or even zero, distance but does not allow access to the negative domain. After this negative realm, we only perceive it as light. Which means that we should arrive at a fluid approach where everything comes from the same luminous reality, whether it is the frame of reference, the perception of the observer, the particle studied in a given frame of reference, or even the material object. Everything should belong to the same dynamic process specific to light : there, we would be in 4D and the transformation of Galileo and that of Lorentz would have turned into elastic equations describing the very dynamics of light.
The Cs replied that it would be too complex to explain why the Lorentz transformation doesn't reflect reality and if I could ask them questions, this is the point I would dig into because, for me, this is the node which will allow us to understand the two qualitative spaces +/-, the dynamics of light, the variable unit of measurement and the unity sought between relativity and quantum mechanics.
Afterwards, as I have often mentioned, Einstein did what he could with the consciousness of the time, the data and the interpretations of the time. Thanks to his work, we can see further and ask ourselves these types of questions. One that has been bothering me for a long time is: why do scientific experiments correspond to what the theory of relativity predicts? Is it because it corresponds to an STS perception where we only perceive what we wish to perceive and not to an STO perception where we perceive what is? So this would mean that we do have consciousness within our scientific approach even though we do not recognize it! This would mean that as we approach 4D, we are finally entering reality and coming out of the 3D illusion. These are the types of questions I would ask the Cs. Just like, is the fact of not perceiving the variability of the speed of light due to the fact that we have locked this possibility through the Einsteinian approach and that there are phenomena which are due to variability? of the speed of light (variability to which we appeal, from 3D, for want of being in 4D where it would no longer apply) and which we interpret differently, convinced that we are speaking of reality due to our STS perception ? Then, physics would then be more fluid, perhaps simpler, less abstract surely and in the process of unification through perception/consciousness and gravity +/- (mechanics/optics).
This is what comes to me, at this moment, in response to your question.
If it suits you, I would ask myself to write questions relating to this point for the Cs.
Thank you again for allowing me to answer this to you. Don't hesitate to tell me if it's not clear, I'll do my best to put into words what I feel.
We could say that our linear perception of time, our 3D perception, is what we sense of this unconscious underlying dynamic between the two poles of space. It is now obvious to me that once this dynamic underlying the very structure of space is acquired, we will then be in 4D because our perception will have evolved. We will no longer experience matter as frozen, concentrated light, we will experience matter as a dynamic luminous process. It will be obvious that matter (antimatter) is the basis of light. We will have begun to transcend a +/- duality. We will move closer to unity. In doing so, we will no longer speak of time but of a dynamic between two poles, of a variability of space as such, fluid in its very substance. We will experience the latent balance within the void through its permanent imbalance. What we perceive as emptiness for a 3D look, will be light for a broader 4D look. Thanks to this gaze which allows us to understand the polarity at the base of the spectrum, we will experience (because we will share) the dynamics of light (what I call its interiority as the 4th dimension).
To be more concrete, because it is still difficult for me to put this feeling into words, the Lorentz transformation, obtained by Einstein and by Lorentz, is based on hypotheses that are too mechanistic, too 3D, to reflect the reality of the dynamics of light (underlying Maxwell's equations). So, I see several pitfalls in Einstein's approach: that of having granted a speed to a reality for which the notion of speed is obsolete (since 4D), that of having fixed the variability of this speed by considering it constant by change of Galilean frame of reference, that of having considered time as the 4th dimension of space...
To me it is clear that the Lorentz transformation is something biased and too abstract. You see, it allows us to talk about positive, or even zero, distance but does not allow access to the negative domain. After this negative realm, we only perceive it as light. Which means that we should arrive at a fluid approach where everything comes from the same luminous reality, whether it is the frame of reference, the perception of the observer, the particle studied in a given frame of reference, or even the material object. Everything should belong to the same dynamic process specific to light : there, we would be in 4D and the transformation of Galileo and that of Lorentz would have turned into elastic equations describing the very dynamics of light.
The Cs replied that it would be too complex to explain why the Lorentz transformation doesn't reflect reality and if I could ask them questions, this is the point I would dig into because, for me, this is the node which will allow us to understand the two qualitative spaces +/-, the dynamics of light, the variable unit of measurement and the unity sought between relativity and quantum mechanics.
Afterwards, as I have often mentioned, Einstein did what he could with the consciousness of the time, the data and the interpretations of the time. Thanks to his work, we can see further and ask ourselves these types of questions. One that has been bothering me for a long time is: why do scientific experiments correspond to what the theory of relativity predicts? Is it because it corresponds to an STS perception where we only perceive what we wish to perceive and not to an STO perception where we perceive what is? So this would mean that we do have consciousness within our scientific approach even though we do not recognize it! This would mean that as we approach 4D, we are finally entering reality and coming out of the 3D illusion. These are the types of questions I would ask the Cs. Just like, is the fact of not perceiving the variability of the speed of light due to the fact that we have locked this possibility through the Einsteinian approach and that there are phenomena which are due to variability? of the speed of light (variability to which we appeal, from 3D, for want of being in 4D where it would no longer apply) and which we interpret differently, convinced that we are speaking of reality due to our STS perception ? Then, physics would then be more fluid, perhaps simpler, less abstract surely and in the process of unification through perception/consciousness and gravity +/- (mechanics/optics).
This is what comes to me, at this moment, in response to your question.
If it suits you, I would ask myself to write questions relating to this point for the Cs.
Thank you again for allowing me to answer this to you. Don't hesitate to tell me if it's not clear, I'll do my best to put into words what I feel.
**
Pour être très honnête avec toi, je me suis toujours dit qu'il y avait un éther pour la lumière dès mes premières années d'université. Pas un éther qui servirait de milieu de propagation car, pour moi, la lumière n'est pas un objet physique. Elle n'est pas sujette à un mouvement extérieur 3D comme une masse matérielle. Pour moi, la mécanique est le domaine positif (espace positif) de la matière et l'optique est le domaine négatif (espace négatif). Et la transition de l'espace + à l'espace - se fait par l'antimatière qui est l'espace - appréhendé depuis un point de vue matériel 3D : c'est pour cela que les indices des Cs "l'antimatière est l'autoroute vers la 4D" et "en 4D, tout est lumière" m'a tellement confortée dans mon ressenti. A cet instant, le domaine négatif pur est celui de la lumière qui est 4D. Le fait qu'Einstein n'est pas intuité la réalité de la lumière 4D a fait qu'il l'a considérée comme un objet matériel 3D et lui a appliqué les transformations classiques de Galilée pour la mécanique : en d'autres termes, il a mécanisé l'électromagnétisme. Pour moi, la 4ème "dimension" de l'espace que nous recherchons est déjà lovée au sein des équations de Maxwell. Ce qui nous limite, c'est notre interprétation 3D de ces dernières. Mais, nous procédons ainsi car nous ne savons pas fondamentalement ce qu'est un espace 4D : la seule vision que nous en ayons c'est, soit en math un espace à 4 dimensions où les 4 dimensions sont interchangeables, soit en physique les 3 dimensions spatiales auxquelles nous ajoutons celle du temps. C'est ce qu'a fait Einstein a son maximum en considérant le temps comme la 4ème dimension de l'espace. En fait, notre perception du temps cache une dynamique espace +/espace - que nous ne savons pas appréhender car nous ne sommes mêmes pas conscients de l'espace -. C'est-à-dire que nous ne savons pas réellement comme se fonde notre perception en tant que telle.
On pourrait dire que notre perception linéaire du temps, notre perception 3D, est ce que nous ressentons de cette dynamique sous-jacente inconsciente entre les deux pôles de l'espace. Il m'est désormais évident qu'une fois que cette dynamique sous-jacente à la structure même de l'espace sera acquise, nous serons alors en 4D car notre perception aura évolué. Nous ne ressentirons plus la matière comme de la lumière figée, concentrée, nous vivrons la matière en tant que processus dynamique lumineux. Ce sera évident que la matière (l'antimatière) est à la base de la lumière. Nous aurons commencé à transcender une dualité +/-. Nous nous rapprocherons de l'unité. Ce faisant, nous ne parlerons plus de temps mais d'une dynamique entre deux pôles, d'une variabilité de l'espace en tant que tel, fluide dans sa substance même. Nous vivrons l'équilibre latent au sein du vide par son déséquilibre permanent. Ce que nous percevons comme du vide pour un regard 3D, sera lumière pour un regard plus large 4D. Grâce à ce regard qui nous permet d'appréhender la polarité à la base du spectre, nous vivrons (car nous partagerons) la dynamique de la lumière (ce que j'appele son intériorité en tant que 4ème dimension).
Pour être plus concret, car il m'est encore difficile de mettre des mots sur ce ressenti, la transformation de Lorentz, obtenue par Einstein et par Lorentz, repose sur des hypothèses trop mécanistes, trop 3D, pour refléter la réalité de la dynamique de la lumière (sous-jacente aux équations de Maxwell). Donc, je vois plusieurs écueils dans l'approche d'Einstein : celle d'avoir accordée une vitesse à une réalité pour laquelle la notion de vitesse est obsolète (puisque 4D), celle d'avoir figée la variabilité de cette vitesse en la considérant constante par changement de référentiel galiléen, celle d'avoir considéré le temps en tant que 4ème dimension de l'espace...
Pour moi, il est clair que la transformation de Lorentz est quelque chose de biaisée et de trop abstrait. Tu vois, elle nous permet de parler de distance positive, voire nulle mais ne permet pas d'accéder au domaine négatif. Après ce domaine négatif, nous ne le percevons qu'en tant que lumière. Ce qui signifie qu'il faudrait arriver à une approche fluide où tout procède de la même réalité lumineuse que ce soit le référentiel, la perception de l'observateur, la particule étudiée dans un référentiel donné, voire l'objet matériel. Tout devrait appartenir au même processus dynamique propre à la lumière : là, nous serions en 4D et la transformation de Galilée, celle de Lorentz se seraient mues en équations élastiques décrivant la dynamique même de la lumière.
Les Cs ont répondu que ce serait trop complexe d'expliquer pourquoi la transformation de Lorentz ne reflète pas la réalité et si je pouvais leur poser des questions, c'est sur ce point que je creuserais car, pour moi, c'est là le nœud qui nous permettra d'appréhender les deux espaces qualitatifs +/-, la dynamique de la lumière, l'unité de mesure variable et l'unité recherchée entre la relativité et la mécanique quantique.
Après, comme je l'ai souvent évoqué, Einstein a fait ce qu'il a pu avec la conscience de l'époque, les données et les interprétations de l'époque. Grâce à ses travaux, nous pouvons voir plus loin et nous poser ce type de questions. Une qui me taraude depuis longtemps est : pourquoi les expériences scientifiques correspondent à ce que la théorie de la relativité prévoie? Est-ce que parce que cela correspond à une perception STS où on ne perçoit que ce que l'on souhaite percevoir et non à une perception STO où on perçoit ce qui est? Alors cela signifierait que nous avons bien la conscience au sein de notre approche scientifique bien que nous ne la reconnaissions pas ! Cela signifierait qu'en approchant la 4D, nous entrons enfin dans la réalité et sortons de l'illusion 3D. C'est ce type de questions que je poserais aux Cs. Tout comme, est-ce que le fait de ne pas percevoir la variabilité de la vitesse de la lumière tient au fait que nous avons verrouillé cette possibilité à travers l'approche einsteinienne et qu'il y a des phénomènes qui sont dûs à la variabilité de la vitesse de la lumière (variabilité à laquelle nous faisons appel, depuis la 3D, faute d'être en 4D où elle n'aurait plus cours) et que nous interprétons différemment persuadés que nous sommes de parler de réalité dû à notre perception STS? Alors, la physique serait alors plus fluide, peut-être plus simple, moins abstraite sûrement et en voie d'unification à travers la perception/conscience et la gravité +/- (mécanique/optique).
Voilà ce qui me vient, à cet instant, en réponse à ta question.
Si cela te convient, je me poserais pour écrire des questions relatives à ce point pour les Cs.
Encore merci pour m'avoir permis de te répondre cela. N'hésite pas à me dire si cela n'est pas clair, je fais au mieux pour mettre des mots sur ce que je ressens
On pourrait dire que notre perception linéaire du temps, notre perception 3D, est ce que nous ressentons de cette dynamique sous-jacente inconsciente entre les deux pôles de l'espace. Il m'est désormais évident qu'une fois que cette dynamique sous-jacente à la structure même de l'espace sera acquise, nous serons alors en 4D car notre perception aura évolué. Nous ne ressentirons plus la matière comme de la lumière figée, concentrée, nous vivrons la matière en tant que processus dynamique lumineux. Ce sera évident que la matière (l'antimatière) est à la base de la lumière. Nous aurons commencé à transcender une dualité +/-. Nous nous rapprocherons de l'unité. Ce faisant, nous ne parlerons plus de temps mais d'une dynamique entre deux pôles, d'une variabilité de l'espace en tant que tel, fluide dans sa substance même. Nous vivrons l'équilibre latent au sein du vide par son déséquilibre permanent. Ce que nous percevons comme du vide pour un regard 3D, sera lumière pour un regard plus large 4D. Grâce à ce regard qui nous permet d'appréhender la polarité à la base du spectre, nous vivrons (car nous partagerons) la dynamique de la lumière (ce que j'appele son intériorité en tant que 4ème dimension).
Pour être plus concret, car il m'est encore difficile de mettre des mots sur ce ressenti, la transformation de Lorentz, obtenue par Einstein et par Lorentz, repose sur des hypothèses trop mécanistes, trop 3D, pour refléter la réalité de la dynamique de la lumière (sous-jacente aux équations de Maxwell). Donc, je vois plusieurs écueils dans l'approche d'Einstein : celle d'avoir accordée une vitesse à une réalité pour laquelle la notion de vitesse est obsolète (puisque 4D), celle d'avoir figée la variabilité de cette vitesse en la considérant constante par changement de référentiel galiléen, celle d'avoir considéré le temps en tant que 4ème dimension de l'espace...
Pour moi, il est clair que la transformation de Lorentz est quelque chose de biaisée et de trop abstrait. Tu vois, elle nous permet de parler de distance positive, voire nulle mais ne permet pas d'accéder au domaine négatif. Après ce domaine négatif, nous ne le percevons qu'en tant que lumière. Ce qui signifie qu'il faudrait arriver à une approche fluide où tout procède de la même réalité lumineuse que ce soit le référentiel, la perception de l'observateur, la particule étudiée dans un référentiel donné, voire l'objet matériel. Tout devrait appartenir au même processus dynamique propre à la lumière : là, nous serions en 4D et la transformation de Galilée, celle de Lorentz se seraient mues en équations élastiques décrivant la dynamique même de la lumière.
Les Cs ont répondu que ce serait trop complexe d'expliquer pourquoi la transformation de Lorentz ne reflète pas la réalité et si je pouvais leur poser des questions, c'est sur ce point que je creuserais car, pour moi, c'est là le nœud qui nous permettra d'appréhender les deux espaces qualitatifs +/-, la dynamique de la lumière, l'unité de mesure variable et l'unité recherchée entre la relativité et la mécanique quantique.
Après, comme je l'ai souvent évoqué, Einstein a fait ce qu'il a pu avec la conscience de l'époque, les données et les interprétations de l'époque. Grâce à ses travaux, nous pouvons voir plus loin et nous poser ce type de questions. Une qui me taraude depuis longtemps est : pourquoi les expériences scientifiques correspondent à ce que la théorie de la relativité prévoie? Est-ce que parce que cela correspond à une perception STS où on ne perçoit que ce que l'on souhaite percevoir et non à une perception STO où on perçoit ce qui est? Alors cela signifierait que nous avons bien la conscience au sein de notre approche scientifique bien que nous ne la reconnaissions pas ! Cela signifierait qu'en approchant la 4D, nous entrons enfin dans la réalité et sortons de l'illusion 3D. C'est ce type de questions que je poserais aux Cs. Tout comme, est-ce que le fait de ne pas percevoir la variabilité de la vitesse de la lumière tient au fait que nous avons verrouillé cette possibilité à travers l'approche einsteinienne et qu'il y a des phénomènes qui sont dûs à la variabilité de la vitesse de la lumière (variabilité à laquelle nous faisons appel, depuis la 3D, faute d'être en 4D où elle n'aurait plus cours) et que nous interprétons différemment persuadés que nous sommes de parler de réalité dû à notre perception STS? Alors, la physique serait alors plus fluide, peut-être plus simple, moins abstraite sûrement et en voie d'unification à travers la perception/conscience et la gravité +/- (mécanique/optique).
Voilà ce qui me vient, à cet instant, en réponse à ta question.
Si cela te convient, je me poserais pour écrire des questions relatives à ce point pour les Cs.
Encore merci pour m'avoir permis de te répondre cela. N'hésite pas à me dire si cela n'est pas clair, je fais au mieux pour mettre des mots sur ce que je ressens
lilies
The Living Force
Probably eating pig isn't universally ideal, but our best chance in this horrific DNA-mutilation debacle the Orion STS created. Nothing is to be done about it, I think, until Level Playing Field is reached. What a mess.. The compound effects of "many more trials to come" are to severely limit availability of even current best choice, the pigs.
Last edited:
PatientObserver
The Force is Strong With This One
I know this isn't the answer for which you are looking, but perhaps you should try feeling rather than thinking.
See which foods resonate with you. Listen to your body after you eat and eliminate the foods that didn't absorb well.
My diet consists mostly of pork, red/violet yams, carrots, citrus (lemon and calamansi), ginger, red and white onions, and many supplements: Iodine, Potent Multivitamins, Magnesium, an Omega Complex, Minerals, and Sodium Bicarbonate to adjust my pH.
lilies
The Living Force
Since my first mention of pig collagen here on the forum:
I now can state for the second time, that my strong spine and hip pain disappeared after I began consuming three teaspoons of pig collagen every second day for the last year. Its finely ground dry pig skin hydrolized powder - "dissolves" fast into fatty solid meals or in soup -, so it does not coagulate into "chewing gum". I should have been injured again - after recent emergency-situation heavy weight lifting -, but my spine is fine.
Doing hip-splits also make hip pain go away, I found!
Squat: I position just like this guy in the title picture. But arms between widened hips. With both my elbows pressing against [the inside] of my knees - push my knees further apart - I force my hips as wide as they go - against mild pain - into a more open split hip position, while gently "rocking up and down" an inch or so to increase the split. It helps open the hip joint. Ask any chiropractor, I think. Then I stand up and with hands on hip do wide hip rotations in both directions that look like very thorough "hula hoop", but circling as wide with the hips as possible.
I had frequent sharp knee pains, strongly immobilizing spine pains and strong hip pains in the past. Some probably because of acidic blood creating crystals in the joints. Not anymore!!
Since I'm a picky eater and I completely avoid chewing on ugly and icky connective tissue and hard fatty parts (Ew..!), I eat pig collagen powder with my meals instead.
I now can state for the second time, that my strong spine and hip pain disappeared after I began consuming three teaspoons of pig collagen every second day for the last year. Its finely ground dry pig skin hydrolized powder - "dissolves" fast into fatty solid meals or in soup -, so it does not coagulate into "chewing gum". I should have been injured again - after recent emergency-situation heavy weight lifting -, but my spine is fine.
Doing hip-splits also make hip pain go away, I found!
Squat: I position just like this guy in the title picture. But arms between widened hips. With both my elbows pressing against [the inside] of my knees - push my knees further apart - I force my hips as wide as they go - against mild pain - into a more open split hip position, while gently "rocking up and down" an inch or so to increase the split. It helps open the hip joint. Ask any chiropractor, I think. Then I stand up and with hands on hip do wide hip rotations in both directions that look like very thorough "hula hoop", but circling as wide with the hips as possible.
I had frequent sharp knee pains, strongly immobilizing spine pains and strong hip pains in the past. Some probably because of acidic blood creating crystals in the joints. Not anymore!!
Last edited:
EricLux
Jedi Master
When Cs respond, I often wonder how to interpret their response because, sometimes, it's an art :)
It is linked to another answer formulated in another session on a question having, or not, a direct link with the question you have just asked. It is a true multidimensional cosmic web.
When Ark asks for clarification or clarification on scientific matters, it cannot really be called an "objective" response in the sense that, in my opinion, the answer should be (just as it would be the case if someone else asked the question) depending on the vibration of the person asking the question. In other words, when Ark evokes hyperdimensional reality, the Cs' response is linked to Ark's experience, which is most beneficial to him. If I had asked the same question to the Cs, perhaps he would have answered “review the hypotheses used by Einstein to obtain the theory of special relativity”. I think there are countless ways to obtain the unified field and, above all, the nature of the 4th "dimension" of space.
I wonder what the optimal approach might be to study the matter-antimatter relationship knowing that antimatter is only known at the level of quantum mechanics thanks to the work of Dirac and beyond. What we cannot imagine is its role at the macro and universal level.
As for the Kaluza-Klein (KK) theory, it was about unifying electromagnetism and gravity. Which implied that they are not unified. That is to say, scientists had a preconceived idea of the question. However, Rugiero Santilli took everyone by surprise by stating that in fact, they are already ONE. Not yet being aware at the time (May 27, 1995) that there was another 4th dimension of space which had nothing to do with time and, therefore, at least, a 4D reality, the The identification of electromagnetism (EM) and gravity (G) was valid for 3D. Hence the Cs' immediate question "What about the 4th level?" (here, again, an answer adapted to the experience of the questioner because it is what is, in the moment, the most beneficial for him to progress). I think we should ask the Cs if the identification between EM and G is valid for all densities.
As I wrote in another post, this means that KK's approach led to abstraction since it consisted of finding ways to obtain something that is already the case (at least for 3D). What's more, from a 4D space-time which is only the 3D representation that we can make of it (that is to say by using linear time). This resulted in the addition of an additional, exterior dimension, the 5th dimension of space. While taking into account the possibility that they are already ONE, since identical, leads us to a 4th dimension which allows us to understand exterior and interior, at the same time, therefore matter and antimatter. We thus find the fact that gravity is, at the same time, matter and antimatter. Something that general relativity, which is purely in the external domain, absolutely does not allow.
Your answer allows me to understand that when I asked the Cs, what is the simplest way to reveal and find the nature of the 4th "dimension" of space, this would underlie an answer which would concern me and which would not be not necessarily the same for someone else. Thank you again for your answers which, every month, always lead me further.
**
Lorsque les Cs répondent, je me demande souvent comment interpréter leur réponse car, quelques fois, cela relève de l'art :)
C'est en lien avec une autre réponse formulée dans une autre session sur une question ayant, ou pas, un lien direct avec la question que tu viens de poser. C'est une vraie toile cosmique multidimensionnelle.
Lorsque Ark demande des clarifications ou des précisions sur des sujets scientifiques, on ne peut pas vraiment parler de réponse "objective" dans le sens où, selon moi, la réponse doit être (tout comme ce serait le cas si quelqu'un d'autre posait la question) fonction de la vibration de la personne posant la question. En d'autres termes, lorsque Ark évoque la réalité hyperdimensionnelle, la réponse des Cs est en lien avec le vécu de Ark, ce qui lui est le plus bénéfique. Si j'avais posé la même question aux Cs, peut-être m'aurait-il répondu "revoir les hypothèses retenues par Einstein pour obtenir la théorie de la relativité restreinte". Je pense qu'il y a d'innombrables façons d'obtenir le champ unifié et, avant tout, la nature de la 4ème "dimension" de l'espace.
Je me demande quelle peut être l'approche optimale pour étudier la relation matière-antimatière sachant que l'antimatière n'est connue qu'au niveau de la mécanique quantique grâce aux travaux de Dirac et au-delà. Ce que nous n'arrivons pas à nous représenter c'est son rôle au niveau macro et universel.
Pour ce qui est de la théorie de Kaluza-Klein (KK), il s'agissait d'unifier l'électromagnétisme et la gravité. Ce qui sous-entendait qu'elles ne sont pas unifiées. C'est-à-dire que les scientifiques avaient une idée préconçue de la question. Or, Rugiero Santilli a pris tout le monde de court en énonçant qu'en fait, elles sont déjà UNE. N'étant pas encore conscient à l'époque (27 mai 1995) qu'il y avait une autre 4ème dimension de l'espace qui n'avait rien à voir avec le temps et, donc, au moins, une réalité 4D, l'identification de l'électromagnétisme (EM) et de la gravité (G) était valable pour la 3D. D'où la question immédiate des Cs "Qu'en est-il du 4ème niveau?" (ici, encore, une réponse adaptée à l'expérience du questionneur car c'est ce qui lui est, dans l'instant, le plus bénéfique pour progresser). Je pense qu'il faudrait demander aux Cs si l'identification entre EM et G est valable pour toutes les densités.
Comme je l'ai écrit dans un autre post, cela signifie que l'approche de KK conduisait à l'abstraction puisqu'elle consistait à trouver les moyens d'obtenir quelque chose qui est déjà le cas (au moins pour la 3D). Qui plus est, à partir, d'un espace-temps 4D qui n'est que la représentation 3D que nous puissions en faire (c'est-à-dire en faisant appel au temps linéaire). Cela s'est traduit par l'ajout d'une dimension supplémentaire, extérieure, la 5ème dimension de l'espace. Alors que la prise en compte de la possibilité qu'ils soient déjà UNS, puisque identiques, nous conduit à une 4ème dimension qui permet d'appréhender extérieur et intérieur, en même temps, donc matière et antimatière. Nous retrouvons ainsi le fait que la gravité est, à la fois, matière et antimatière. Chose que ne permet absolument pas la relativité générale qui est purement dans le domaine extérieur.
Ta réponse me permet de comprendre que lorsque je demanderais aux Cs, quelle est la voie la plus simple pour révéler et trouver la nature de la 4ème "dimension" de l'espace, cela sous-tendrait une réponse qui me concernerait et qui ne serait pas forcément la même pour quelqu'un d'autre. Merci encore pour tes réponses qui, chaque mois, me conduisent toujours plus loin.
It is linked to another answer formulated in another session on a question having, or not, a direct link with the question you have just asked. It is a true multidimensional cosmic web.
When Ark asks for clarification or clarification on scientific matters, it cannot really be called an "objective" response in the sense that, in my opinion, the answer should be (just as it would be the case if someone else asked the question) depending on the vibration of the person asking the question. In other words, when Ark evokes hyperdimensional reality, the Cs' response is linked to Ark's experience, which is most beneficial to him. If I had asked the same question to the Cs, perhaps he would have answered “review the hypotheses used by Einstein to obtain the theory of special relativity”. I think there are countless ways to obtain the unified field and, above all, the nature of the 4th "dimension" of space.
I wonder what the optimal approach might be to study the matter-antimatter relationship knowing that antimatter is only known at the level of quantum mechanics thanks to the work of Dirac and beyond. What we cannot imagine is its role at the macro and universal level.
As for the Kaluza-Klein (KK) theory, it was about unifying electromagnetism and gravity. Which implied that they are not unified. That is to say, scientists had a preconceived idea of the question. However, Rugiero Santilli took everyone by surprise by stating that in fact, they are already ONE. Not yet being aware at the time (May 27, 1995) that there was another 4th dimension of space which had nothing to do with time and, therefore, at least, a 4D reality, the The identification of electromagnetism (EM) and gravity (G) was valid for 3D. Hence the Cs' immediate question "What about the 4th level?" (here, again, an answer adapted to the experience of the questioner because it is what is, in the moment, the most beneficial for him to progress). I think we should ask the Cs if the identification between EM and G is valid for all densities.
As I wrote in another post, this means that KK's approach led to abstraction since it consisted of finding ways to obtain something that is already the case (at least for 3D). What's more, from a 4D space-time which is only the 3D representation that we can make of it (that is to say by using linear time). This resulted in the addition of an additional, exterior dimension, the 5th dimension of space. While taking into account the possibility that they are already ONE, since identical, leads us to a 4th dimension which allows us to understand exterior and interior, at the same time, therefore matter and antimatter. We thus find the fact that gravity is, at the same time, matter and antimatter. Something that general relativity, which is purely in the external domain, absolutely does not allow.
Your answer allows me to understand that when I asked the Cs, what is the simplest way to reveal and find the nature of the 4th "dimension" of space, this would underlie an answer which would concern me and which would not be not necessarily the same for someone else. Thank you again for your answers which, every month, always lead me further.
**
Lorsque les Cs répondent, je me demande souvent comment interpréter leur réponse car, quelques fois, cela relève de l'art :)
C'est en lien avec une autre réponse formulée dans une autre session sur une question ayant, ou pas, un lien direct avec la question que tu viens de poser. C'est une vraie toile cosmique multidimensionnelle.
Lorsque Ark demande des clarifications ou des précisions sur des sujets scientifiques, on ne peut pas vraiment parler de réponse "objective" dans le sens où, selon moi, la réponse doit être (tout comme ce serait le cas si quelqu'un d'autre posait la question) fonction de la vibration de la personne posant la question. En d'autres termes, lorsque Ark évoque la réalité hyperdimensionnelle, la réponse des Cs est en lien avec le vécu de Ark, ce qui lui est le plus bénéfique. Si j'avais posé la même question aux Cs, peut-être m'aurait-il répondu "revoir les hypothèses retenues par Einstein pour obtenir la théorie de la relativité restreinte". Je pense qu'il y a d'innombrables façons d'obtenir le champ unifié et, avant tout, la nature de la 4ème "dimension" de l'espace.
Je me demande quelle peut être l'approche optimale pour étudier la relation matière-antimatière sachant que l'antimatière n'est connue qu'au niveau de la mécanique quantique grâce aux travaux de Dirac et au-delà. Ce que nous n'arrivons pas à nous représenter c'est son rôle au niveau macro et universel.
Pour ce qui est de la théorie de Kaluza-Klein (KK), il s'agissait d'unifier l'électromagnétisme et la gravité. Ce qui sous-entendait qu'elles ne sont pas unifiées. C'est-à-dire que les scientifiques avaient une idée préconçue de la question. Or, Rugiero Santilli a pris tout le monde de court en énonçant qu'en fait, elles sont déjà UNE. N'étant pas encore conscient à l'époque (27 mai 1995) qu'il y avait une autre 4ème dimension de l'espace qui n'avait rien à voir avec le temps et, donc, au moins, une réalité 4D, l'identification de l'électromagnétisme (EM) et de la gravité (G) était valable pour la 3D. D'où la question immédiate des Cs "Qu'en est-il du 4ème niveau?" (ici, encore, une réponse adaptée à l'expérience du questionneur car c'est ce qui lui est, dans l'instant, le plus bénéfique pour progresser). Je pense qu'il faudrait demander aux Cs si l'identification entre EM et G est valable pour toutes les densités.
Comme je l'ai écrit dans un autre post, cela signifie que l'approche de KK conduisait à l'abstraction puisqu'elle consistait à trouver les moyens d'obtenir quelque chose qui est déjà le cas (au moins pour la 3D). Qui plus est, à partir, d'un espace-temps 4D qui n'est que la représentation 3D que nous puissions en faire (c'est-à-dire en faisant appel au temps linéaire). Cela s'est traduit par l'ajout d'une dimension supplémentaire, extérieure, la 5ème dimension de l'espace. Alors que la prise en compte de la possibilité qu'ils soient déjà UNS, puisque identiques, nous conduit à une 4ème dimension qui permet d'appréhender extérieur et intérieur, en même temps, donc matière et antimatière. Nous retrouvons ainsi le fait que la gravité est, à la fois, matière et antimatière. Chose que ne permet absolument pas la relativité générale qui est purement dans le domaine extérieur.
Ta réponse me permet de comprendre que lorsque je demanderais aux Cs, quelle est la voie la plus simple pour révéler et trouver la nature de la 4ème "dimension" de l'espace, cela sous-tendrait une réponse qui me concernerait et qui ne serait pas forcément la même pour quelqu'un d'autre. Merci encore pour tes réponses qui, chaque mois, me conduisent toujours plus loin.
DoctorQ
A Disturbance in the Force
I see it that way too and I feel the same way. I feel hopeless, even though I try to stay vigilant and maintain the awareness that beyond my skin, bones and muscles, consciousness is not just a bunch of electrical impulses in my head. Generally speaking, I haven't met anyone in my life who looks at the world the same way I do. Evaluates and analyzes in a broader context. It's very overwhelming when you see people being hurt but still voting for their oppressors - it's absurd to me and you can't explain it to them in any way because they think you're crazy.
I think that if we are to move forward, we must rely on our naturalness and wisdom. Say more often - no, it's not like that. I also think that what C says contains a lot of hard hints about the attitude itself.
If we can't change something, let's enjoy what is, what will come and have as much fun as we can while watching the whole show.
In my life, from the very beginning, I have been exposed to various phenomena. There was a moment when I couldn't function normally anymore. I have been plagued by nightmares since I was a child, and up to a certain point I had major problems with nightmares. However, since I started analyzing C.'s sessions, I have gained confidence in my thoughts. This faith is constantly growing and I think it has a great underestimated power.
If they say that abductions include not only the abduction of bodies, but also, for example, the taking over of consciousness during sleep (which is also classified as abduction), it is a clear sign that everything that is happening in our head is significant and we should not ignore it. Let's work on ourselves. Who knows, maybe in some time we will become real guides for those who will have too little time to understand the changes. Much love to you. I hug you warmly.