Session 20 October 2018

Thank you all a lot for this "reversed" session, where Ark starts off than"ends off".
In reading it , there are two things (now with the last post of Bastian, maybe three) coming in surface.
the first thing is this Quantum Quirks: Quantum Quirks -- Sott.net

The second and maybe the third one is this article from Sott:
Galaxies, like Abell 1689, should not exist at all according to the standard model of physics.
Antimatter mysteries 1: Where is all the antimatter? -- Sott.net

Plus some links:
The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, also designated AMS-02, is a particle physics experiment module that is mounted on the International Space Station (ISS). The module is a detector that measures antimatter in cosmic rays, this information is needed to understand the formation of the Universe and search for evidence of dark matter.
Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer - Wikipedia and AMS experiment measures antimatter excess in space | CERN
“As the most precise measurement of the cosmic ray positron flux to date, these results show clearly the power and capabilities of the AMS detector,” said AMS spokesperson, Samuel Ting. “Over the coming months, AMS will be able to tell us conclusively whether these positrons are a signal for dark matter, or whether they have some other origin.”

Also this one:
Modified Newtonian dynamics
(MOND) is a theory that proposes a modification of Newton's laws to account for observed properties of galaxies.
...
MOND is an example of a class of theories known as modified gravity, and is an alternative to the hypothesis that the dynamics of galaxies are determined by massive, invisible dark matter halos. Since Milgrom's original proposal, MOND has successfully predicted a variety of galactic phenomena that are difficult to understand from a dark matter perspective.[2][3] However, MOND and its generalisations do not adequately account for observed properties of galaxy clusters, and no satisfactory cosmological model has been constructed from the theory.
Modified Newtonian dynamics - Wikipedia

And this ones too:
Basically, if we were looking at the mirror universe, we would see time moving from the future to the past, but from the perspective of that universe, it would look like our time was moving backwards, not forwards, the researchers suggest.
...
They found that, thanks to gravity, the particles ended up with the smallest amount of distance between each other - which they called the Janus point. The particles would then expand back outwards in different directions, signifying how time could move forwards and backwards in an actual multiverse.
"When the particles then expand outwards, they do so in two different temporal directions," Goldhill writes for Quartz. "Barbour and his colleagues created a simplified 1,000 particle point model of the Universe showing this dual expansion, with gravity creating structure in both directions."
"It’s the simplest thing," Barbour says of his research. "You start at that central Janus point where the motion is chaotic - that’s like the Greek notion of primordial chaos - but then in both directions you get this structure forming. If the theory is right, then there’s another universe on the other side of the Big Bang in which the direction of experience of time is opposite to ours."
Scientists Propose a 'Mirror Universe' Where Time Moves Backwards

The janus point's comment: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1601/1601.02790.pdf


It's impressive enough that our human brains are made up of the same 'star stuff' that forms the Universe, but new research suggests that this might not be the only thing the two have in common.

Just like the Universe, our brains might be programmed to maximise disorder - similar to the principle of entropy - and our consciousness could simply be a side effect.
The quest to understand human consciousness - our ability to be aware of ourselves and our surroundings - has been going on for centuries. Although consciousness is a crucial part of being human, researchers still don't truly understand where it comes from, and why we have it.
Scientists Show Human Consciousness Could Be a Side Effect of 'Entropy'
Conclusions and conjectures on the structure of brain-behaviour-environment

It is tempting to speculate, based on these results and the conclusions of a previous study that there
could be a universal logic ruling the evolution of natural phenomena — biological and nonbiological—
and the nervous system in particular: patterns emerge from a central theme captured by maximising
information exchange. Because, in the final analysis, all exchange of information implies exchange
of energy, natural phenomena tend towards the most probable distribution of energy, and thus the
interactions among system constituents tends to be maximized.
Because the brain functions to maintain a predictive model of the environment (the reason the
brain evolved is to model the environment, after all), then perhaps the brain’s global configuration
has to “copy” what is out there: and out there energy distributes in all possible microstates (second
principle of thermodynamics). Then to process such variability in nature, the nervous system should
have same structure, and the result is the ‘inverted U’ that has appeared in our analysis and has
been theoretically proposed in other publications, the top of the curve representing more possible
combinations to handle information/energy exchanges. On the other hand, in the extremes of this
curve we find fewer microstates, thus these are not optimal situations to process the many microstates
in the environment. The key then is not to reach the maximum number of units interacting (which
would be all-to-all connections and thus only one possible microstate), but rather the largest possible
number of configurations allowed by the constraints. In a similar fashion, it has been argued that
the brain needs to show criticality because natural phenomena possess critical dynamics [36]. Then,
perchance, consciousness can be considered as an emergent property of the organization of the embodied
nervous system submerged in an environment, consequence of the most probable distribution of energy
(information exchange) in the brain. In this regard, consciousness (like biochemistry) may represent
thus an optimal channel for accessing sources of (free) energy
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.00821.pdf
 
...

Without consciousness at the beginning who would care for something to be "optimal"?

A lot of work needs to be done!

"Without consciousness at the beginning who would care for something to be "optimal"? ".
It's simply right !
The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly.
One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quiet insane.
N.Tesla
Don't need to be a scientist!
The road is still long until the home.
 
First, what do you mean with "golden mean" ? Golden ratio ? If yes, why would it be different from what is already known ?

Moreover, to multiply the value of the Fine Structure Constant with Pi, and put that in Hz has no meaning at all. From a dimensional analysis PoV, the FSC is a dimensionless constant, Pi as a pure number is a dimensionless quantity too, so why put their product in Hz, giving it a dimension ?

Sure, you can take constants from maths or physics, and "mix" them arbitrarily and interpret that in an apparently meaningful way, but that's similar to pareidolia (to see something known where there is nothing special) - a cognitive bias...

Well - first I didn't use the entire # - it should have been 137.03599911 in which case the answer is 430.5 - a generally accepted hz along with 432 hz for soothing musical sounds. So - I guess the math confirms 430.5. As far as "mixing" - whose to say what constants should be "mixed"? One of the issues with 3D thought is linear thinking - and as has been proven time and again since this site began, that's a trap.
 
Hello compose12 and welcome to the forum.
Maybe the discussion about the 432Hz subject can be continued in the following threads were the discussion has been going on for some time :)
432 Hz vs 440Hz
Music,sound and resonance
The problem with these "special" numbers is not the numbers themselves, but that they relate physical quantities in a very specific way that seems to define our reality at some fundamental level. To take the example of Pi, it's a ratio between the diameter (a linear length) and the circumference (a "curved" length expressed in a linear length).
 
I think art - visual, musical, and other, serves a purpose as a reprieve from the daily grind/struggle, and to please the senses. I mean any expression of creativity can be "art" - from architecture to the design of a coffee mug to clothes etc. No one wants to live in a dull gray world where everything is purely pragmatic and no one does anything because it looks or sounds pleasant. But like anything, it can be used as an obsession or addiction that prevents real progress in knowledge and service to others.

Seeing it mentioned in this thread, I read the first volume of "Life Beyond the Veil", and there is a great emphasis on art, beauty, colors, music, sound, etc. It is there for its own sake and for ceremonial reasons, but often is used as part of a study of the universe at large, and how music/color relate to the creative process, how they can also be used to understand the universe and ourselves better. So assuming any of that is accurate about 5D, even for those who dedicate their time to such pursuits, they are done with scientific investigation in mind, and the sensory beauty is almost a side effect of that work.

As a musician myself (pianist), I absolutely love playing piano, but I go through phases of my life, such as right now, where other work takes precedence and I may not touch a piano for months at a time. And at other periods of my life, when time permits, I can spend hours working on the skill.

At the end of the day, a big reason I enjoy the universe is because it's beautiful and elegant in so many ways. So "art", or beauty and creativity, in all its infinite expressions, is pretty important, and in a sense we all are "instruments" of the DCM, and our experiences are the musical/artistic expressions, so life itself is "art", although that's a bit airy-fairy. Still, knowledge is the most important thing, and art is just there to help you enjoy the ride, and you won't get where you're going if you forget to depart the train because you're staring at the wallpaper either, osit. In other words, art makes the ride more pleasant, but it's a mistake to forget that you're going somewhere because you got hung up on the sights either.
 
I should acknowledge that I’m pretty sensitive to all that is happening in the world and that there is only so much material I can view and absorb about the train wreck before it has a negative effect on me even if I'm not on the train. And that I should try to balance things out with neutral or positive things. I’ll be thinking more about this and also about the root of the higher sensitivity to world events and sensitivity in general. Probably has to do with fear of death, possible pain and suffering and fear of the unknown with all of it.

Well, everything you have said is pretty normal and understandable. It's a good idea to consciously engage in positive activities. We should all remember that these are pretty trying times, in particular for those who are paying attention to what's going on and at the same time making efforts to not get too caught up in it, picking a 'side' etc. Being full conscious of the world and the lies and corruption that define it these days is NOT an easy task, so keep that in mind when you feel the way you describe above, i.e. there IS a reason for it, and it is totally understandable and to be expected. The term "the burden of consciousness" is pretty accurate, but shouldering that burden - without attempting to change it shut it out - is one of the best ways to grow our own inner strength. There are very few people these days, it seems, who are willing to fully bear witness to reality AS IT IS, without turning their faces away and falling into dissociation and wishful thinking.
 
I think, though others may disagree, that there's a difference between dying from old age or even illness and dying from a bullet or a beating in the middle of a violent civil war. Besides, in your bone, you know what is coming. And yet, despite your knowledge, you are powerlessness to change this future. You are even powerless to make the people near you grasp the urgency of the situation.

I don't think there's any urgency or any need for urgency, regarding when we die. It's true of course that we are powerless to do anything about it. But in that case, why would we waste time worrying about it. As far as I can tell, 3,000+ years of the greatest human minds working on the question of the meaning of life and death can be summed up as: 'do what is in front of you to do every day (and forget the rest)'.
 
"Without consciousness at the beginning who would care for something to be "optimal"? ".
It's simply right !

Don't need to be a scientist!
The road is still long until the home.

In keep on walking, i met the following sessions:

29 March 97
Q: (Laura) OK, let me ask this question. In talking about
time, I would like to ask, in relation to time, what is
memory?
A: More specific.
Q: (Laura) You want me to be more specific, well, let me
put it this way. Some understanding of time refers to it as
the 'now', the ever-present now. Well, a lot of people
remember a lot of other 'nows,' some people don't remember
any 'nows' at all, and it seems like memory is almost like
a reverse function of anticipation. Anticipation being
almost like a memory of the 'future' and memory being like
a reverse anticipation into the past. So, what I would like
to know is if time is merely a 'now', what is memory?
A: Conscious and subconscious record of perceptions.
Q: (Laura) Ok. If memory is subconscious or conscious
recording of perceptions, when one accumulates a sufficient
amount of memory, does one then become 'timeless'?
A: One is always timeless.
Q: (Laura) OK, but does one then become aware of one's
timelessness?
A: In 4th density.
Q: (Laura) OK. Does an electron have a memory?
A: Electron is borrowed unit of 7th density.
{...}
Q: (Laura) Is there anything about an atom that holds
memory?
A: Memory is subjective, atom is not.
Q: (Laura) Well, some atoms seem to be somewhat
subjective.
A: No, it is your interpretation.

5 April 97
Q: My first question is: If memory is conscious and
subconscious record of perception, as you have stated, and
there occurs a "reality merge," as you also described
previously, some sort of time manipulation, does this
automatically change individual perceptions?
A: Perceptions "leap" into place according to markers in the
eternally present continuum.
Q: What are these markers?
A: Experiential breaks in the perceptual realm of
continuance.
Q: Markers are experiential breaks. So, one experiences
breaks and they become markers... perceptions leap into
place... is this saying that, when there is a perception
of a break, that some part of the psyche seeks to bridge
this break by leaping into some sort of ...
A: The definition of the previous responses will become clear
for you only after some reflection, my dear!
Q: Umm... does this leaping of perception occur for everyone
as a group, or are some people immune to it?
A: !Como!?! What, said the perplexed ones, incredulously!
Q: Okay, you said that memory is subjective and an atom is
not. If memory is subjective, what you have just been
describing means that each and every person has a slightly
different perspective, even if they are involved with the
same incident or the same time sequence.
A: Of course!
Q: But it also implies...
A: That is the treasury of learning.
Q: Who is the treasurer?
A: The learner.
Q: But still, what you said still implies that an atom has an
objective existence. Is this correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Would you please tell us what constitutes objectivity?
A: The effort on the part of the observer to leave prejudice
"at the door."
Q: How does the effort on the part of the observer to leave
prejudice at the door relate to the objective existence of
an atom?
A: An atom, as with absolutely everything else, cannot exist
without an observer.
Q: So, in the case of the objectivity of an atom, if the
human observers are not objective, where is the observer
who makes the atom objective, or does the atom not exist
if there is no observer?
A: Yes. to the latter comment.
Q: Yes to which part?
A: The latter comment.
Q: So there must be an observer. Must the observer be human?
A: The observer must be a consciousness.
Q: If you say that an atom has an objective existence, yet it
only exists if it is perceived by a consciousness, then an
atom does not have an objective existence, correct?
A: No.
Q: Okay, what is the distinction? You say that objectivity
is the ATTEMPT on the part of the observer to leave
prejudice at the door.
A: Without consciousness, there is neither objective or
subjective!!
Q: So the crux is the attempt to leave prejudice at the door
in the same manner as one would be non-anticipatory in
order to create?
A: Yes.
Q: Well, that is a VERY tricky... (A) Is consciousness
objective?
A: Consciousness is objective, until it has the capacity to
choose to be otherwise.
Q: What is the stimulus for the change, for the giving of the
capacity to choose?
A: The introduction of prejudice.
Q: In a cosmic sense, cosmic consciousness, in the sense of
The One Unified Consciousness, what is the stimulus there
for the ability to choose?
A: When the journey has reached union with The One, all such
lessons have been completed.
Q: But, that doesn't answer the question.
A: Yes, it does!

27 May 2000
Q: (L) Moving along to the next question: we have been discussing memories and how memories of, say, past lives are stored, and that leads to the question of what is the structure and composition of the soul? How does the soul remember? How does it carry its memories from lifetime to lifetime, from body to body, whether simultaneous or sequential? How does the soul "store" them?
A: Has to do with atomic principles. These with gravity present the borderland for the material and the nonmaterial. Which theoretical atomic particulates would you think form the basis here?
Q: (L) How about tachyons?
A: Maybe neutrons?
Q: (A) Neutrons? Or neutrinos?
A: Neutrinos.
Q: (A) Well, first they say neutrons, then neutrinos. Or "maybe neutrons." I say "neutrinos" and they say "yes." So a "maybe" is only a pointer. Neutrinos are funny particles because they are massless. But, some people don't believe that neutrinos exist. My guess would be neutrinos. Do they exist?
A: Okay, we are going to throw caution to the "winds," and say yes. [Laughter.]
Q: (L) In terms of these neutrinos and soul composition, how are memories formed or held or patterned with these neutrinos?
A: Contained within for release when and if suitable.
Q: (L) Memories are contained within the neutrinos?
A: Sort of.
Q: (L) Are they contained within patterns formed by the neutrinos?
A: Closer.
Q: (L) So, that means that if one "consciousness unit," or soul, has more memories or experiences than another consciousness unit, it would have more neutrinos?
A: No.
Q: (B) Different patterns?
A: No.
Q: (L) What's the difference?
A: More data per unit, sort of.
Q: (L) Does that mean that an individual neutrino can be, in and of itself, more "dense" in data, so to speak?
A: So to speak.
Q: (L) Does this increased density of data change the nature or function of the individual neutrino?
A: Maybe it changes the function of the awareness, thus the environs.
Q: (L) Is there a specific number of neutrinos that constitutes a consciousness unit, or soul?
A: Number is not quite the right concept. Orientation is closer.
Q: (L) What are the orientational options?
A: Vibrational frequencies.
Q: (L) Do the vibrational frequencies increase or decrease with density of data?
A: Change; better not to quantify.
Q: (A) We are talking about soul. Soul is what density, in concept?
A: Ark, are neutrinos related to the concept of a bridge into pure energy in some way?
Q: (A) Yes. I was going in that direction. I was wondering why you speak about neutrinos and not photons, because photons are also a bridge to pure energy, I would say. The difference between photons and neutrinos is that photons are bosons and neutrinos are fermions. Neutrinos have to dance so that they don't touch each other. Bosons are like pairs of neutrinos and photons, as bosons, are free to move in space any way they want.
A: We would mention photons in terms of this discussion, but for the tendency of some reading the WebPages to misinterpret in terms of the "love and light" fantastic.
Q: (L) Well, the "light fantastic" was a dance around the turn of the century, so that refers back to the remark about "dancing." (A) Are neutrinos the fundamental building blocks of everything? The most fundamental particle, so to speak?
A: More like a midpoint with spherical outward expansive quality. Tetrahedron, pentagon, hexagon.
How do we retain our knowledge after death?
 
Thank you for the suggestions. I have read the wave series, all of the transcripts multiple times, and have read a Casteneda book(I will be looking in to the rest). I guess what I am looking for is something more direct, perhaps the type of work that doesnt exist yet, or isnt available to the public. The way the C's used the word "tomes" made me think that there is work available outside of your typical "book", perhaps something you would have to go searching for. I guess being on a third density planet kind of limits you to the work of 3rd density beings, and maybe the particulars and details are something we will have to wait for. Very fascinating to think about what reality would be like on the higher densities.

Depends on what type of person you are. Scientific? Religious? Military? Engineer? Botanist? Musician? Painter? [etc..] So when you go to 5thD - judging from what people of different professions reported about 5D -, you'll probably be surprised about finding the same environment reflecting your strong beliefs - what you see there matching your goggles through which you saw the world, while you were alive. This way, I think, the death and after-experience is compassionate and that it might have been deliberately "arranged" or allowed for 5D to be malleable - to help rest first [Owen] - and then to kindly nudge the freshly dead to want to develop further: So the time can come, when the dead person was ready to face the shocking, objective, real parts of that otherworldly existence, this time without delusions, sans beliefs. [Owen]

Cayce relayed - if I remember correctly - a message from a dead engineer-type, who said they basically have almost the same tools there in 5D with a lab and doing research and everything.

Owen - a man of religion (assistant to a priest) - was a lot of fun with his 5 books, detailing the structure of the universe in afterlife. He described it first through the glasses of his religious beliefs, then he was told about ginormous amounts of science [institutions] there and also he was told about the very shocking (probably) objective reality.

Whitehead was a mathematician and philosopher and his description of the universe - including 5D - matched his expertise.

In the Sott.net article there was a mom reporting what his dead son told her about 5D, the (five) senses becoming so much enhanced in 5D, matching what Owen reported.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for sharing another amazing and pertinent session :flowers:

That piece of info on Macron, was definitely the cherry on the cake :-)
 
Un grand merci pour cette nouvelle session enrichissante comme d'habitude...

A big thank you for this new and enriching session as usual....
 
I think art - visual, musical, and other, serves a purpose as a reprieve from the daily grind/struggle, and to please the senses.
No one wants to live in a dull gray world where everything is purely pragmatic and no one does anything because it looks or sounds pleasant. But like anything, it can be used as an obsession or addiction that prevents real progress in knowledge and service to others.
knowledge is the most important thing, and art is just there to help you enjoy the ride
I once had a discussion with an Atheist about why evolution would evolve humans to become enthralled with beauty, music, art etc... Whats the point of appreciating a beautiful sunset or to experience/express joy from an biological evolutionary stance?
His answer was: the appreciation of beauty is a logical mechanical process of evolution acting as a kind of 'fail-safe' to counteract our know-how to destroy ourselves... Essentially, in tandem with advancements to annihilate ourselves along with the rest of the planet, must come the synchronicity of developed appreciation for beauty - of life and Nature - to evolve Man to 'desire' to make for better curators of Earth.

I pointed out it wasn't working out too well. He blamed religion of course. Still, I thought he made a good point.
 
Back
Top Bottom