Session 21 September 2024
- Thread starter Laura
- Start date
Seato
Jedi Master
The session pushed me to finally acquire some nicotine products. I have been taking some nicotine gum the last few days; since smoking is not ideal for my current living situation.
Though I would say I feel better for it I am experiencing light dizziness after about 15 minutes of use, lasts for 1-2 hours. I currently am taking 1 a day and the gum only contains 2 mg so I don't think it is toxicity issues as in iamthatis' case.
This is my first time taking a nicotine product is this common or a sign I should be looking for a different brand/product. I see some mentions of dizziness experiences in the larger smoking thread and it taking a while for some peoples bodies to get used to nicotine but it doesn't seem to go into much detail on the causation.
Though I would say I feel better for it I am experiencing light dizziness after about 15 minutes of use, lasts for 1-2 hours. I currently am taking 1 a day and the gum only contains 2 mg so I don't think it is toxicity issues as in iamthatis' case.
This is my first time taking a nicotine product is this common or a sign I should be looking for a different brand/product. I see some mentions of dizziness experiences in the larger smoking thread and it taking a while for some peoples bodies to get used to nicotine but it doesn't seem to go into much detail on the causation.
KaWaiAwaAwa
Jedi Master
Don't chew it like regular gum. Break it up and then just let it sit between cheek and gum. If you chew it constantly, then you are getting an acute dose.
Matty F
Jedi
This is what I do with the lozenges. I just let it sit under my tongue and dissolve slowly. That way the hit of nicotine isn’t as strong.
Lozenges, gum, and pouches often have artificial sweeteners and probably other fun ingredients. What stand out to me are Ace K and titanium oxide. Maybe not all of them have these, but it seems like many do list these ingredients. On the other hand, maybe those things aren't so bad comparatively?
American Spirit, too, has ammonia and levels of heavy metals as high as any other cigarette.
American Spirit, too, has ammonia and levels of heavy metals as high as any other cigarette.
You make a good point. However, I think the C's answer to study mathematics may go much deeper here than that.
You will note that Laura's original question was about the Sumerians who used a sexagesimal number system based on 60 rather than the decimal or 10-based counting system we use today. You will also observe that when the C's responded by saying "Study mathematics for all possible unanswered pieces of the puzzle!!!" they used three exclamation marks when suggesting that mathematics underpinned the answers to all the pieces of the Sumerian puzzle.
It may seem rather odd at first sight that the C's should be proposing to Laura that she should study mathematics to uncover who the Sumerians were. We need though to take into account that Laura had been referring to the work of researcher Alexander Sitchin who had claimed to have deciphered the ancient Sumerian texts concerning the Anunnaki, the gods or lords of the Sumerians, who he believed came from a planet called Nibiru that had a 3600 years orbit. The C's were not as impressed by Sitchin's arguments as Laura may have been up to that time and confirmed that Nibiru was in fact a cometary cluster that had a 3,600 year periodic orbit. Laura subsequently alluded to the Anunnaki gods as the founders of Sumerian civilisation in this later extract from the transcripts:
Q: Well, I don't think I am going to get any more on it. Now, next question: in playing with my 11 house zodiac, it became apparent that, in order for it to work properly, the circle must be converted from 360 degrees to 330 degrees. Now, this made me think about the degrees in a circle. With a 360 degree circle, the total as well as all the cardinal points are numbers that total 9. Frank and I have examined this idea of numbers having some sort of 'frequency' effect on all things, and it seems to be true in a VERY deep sense. So, all our measurements on our globe are based on the number 9, and this is NOT a friendly number! The ancient gods were known as 'they who measure,' and this imposition of a 360 degree circle on our world, and a 12 sign zodiac, is part of a system that imposes a frequency or vibration on our reality that is quite destructive. It perpetuates the negative existence. Am I getting close to the proper understanding here? It may seem rather odd at first sight that the C's should be proposing to Laura that she should study mathematics to uncover who the Sumerians were. We need though to take into account that Laura had been referring to the work of researcher Alexander Sitchin who had claimed to have deciphered the ancient Sumerian texts concerning the Anunnaki, the gods or lords of the Sumerians, who he believed came from a planet called Nibiru that had a 3600 years orbit. The C's were not as impressed by Sitchin's arguments as Laura may have been up to that time and confirmed that Nibiru was in fact a cometary cluster that had a 3,600 year periodic orbit. Laura subsequently alluded to the Anunnaki gods as the founders of Sumerian civilisation in this later extract from the transcripts:
A: The proper understanding is more important than how it was reached.
Q: So, it is the conclusion. But, the deeper I go, the more I see that this world is REALLY controlled by these negative beings! They really have us under their thumbs.
A: Do they?? If so, then how is it that you can communicate with us?
Sitchin had this to say about the imposition of the Sexagesimal Number System
Zecharia Sitchin, The 12th Planet
The Sexagesimal system, also known as base 60 or sexagenary, is a numeral system with sixty as its base. It originated with the ancient Sumerians in the 3rd millennium BC, was passed down to the ancient Babylonians, and is still used — in a modified form — for measuring time, angles, and geographic coordinates.
The sexagesimal system used powers of 60 much as the decimal system today uses powers of 10. Rudiments of this ancient system survive in vestigial form in our division of the hour into 60 minutes and the minute into 60 seconds and when measuring angles and geographic coordinates based on the division of a circle into 360 degrees.
But why choose the number 60 as your base? Well the number 60, a superior highly composite number, has twelve factors, namely 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, 30, and 60, of which 2, 3, and 5 are prime numbers. With so many factors, many fractions involving sexagesimal numbers are simplified. For example, one hour can be divided evenly into sections of 30 minutes, 20 minutes, 15 minutes, 12 minutes, 10 minutes, 6 minutes, 5 minutes, 4 minutes, 3 minutes, 2 minutes, and 1 minute. 60 is the smallest number that is divisible by every number from 1 to 6; that is, it is the lowest common multiple of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Hence, 60 is a very useful number to use in measurements where fractions are concerned.
The base 60 system had decided advantages for Sumerian merchants and buyers in making everyday financial transactions easier when they involved bargaining for and dividing up larger quantities of goods. In the late 3rd millennium BC, Sumerian/Akkadian units of weight included the kakkaru (talent, approximately 30 kg) divided into 60 manû (mina), which was further subdivided into 60 šiqlu (shekel); the descendants of these units persisted for millennia.
For more on this see: The Joy of Sexagesimal Floating-Point Arithmetic
As human beings we naturally have 10 fingers and ten toes. Thus, when using our fingers to count, a ten based counting system would be more natural for us. However, it is known that the Anunnaki and Nephilim had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot. Interestingly, stone statues of what are likely to have been Anunnaki or Nephilim figures found at both Göbekli Tepe and Karahan Tepe in Turkey have six fingers on their hands:
The sexagesimal system used powers of 60 much as the decimal system today uses powers of 10. Rudiments of this ancient system survive in vestigial form in our division of the hour into 60 minutes and the minute into 60 seconds and when measuring angles and geographic coordinates based on the division of a circle into 360 degrees.
But why choose the number 60 as your base? Well the number 60, a superior highly composite number, has twelve factors, namely 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, 30, and 60, of which 2, 3, and 5 are prime numbers. With so many factors, many fractions involving sexagesimal numbers are simplified. For example, one hour can be divided evenly into sections of 30 minutes, 20 minutes, 15 minutes, 12 minutes, 10 minutes, 6 minutes, 5 minutes, 4 minutes, 3 minutes, 2 minutes, and 1 minute. 60 is the smallest number that is divisible by every number from 1 to 6; that is, it is the lowest common multiple of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Hence, 60 is a very useful number to use in measurements where fractions are concerned.
The base 60 system had decided advantages for Sumerian merchants and buyers in making everyday financial transactions easier when they involved bargaining for and dividing up larger quantities of goods. In the late 3rd millennium BC, Sumerian/Akkadian units of weight included the kakkaru (talent, approximately 30 kg) divided into 60 manû (mina), which was further subdivided into 60 šiqlu (shekel); the descendants of these units persisted for millennia.
For more on this see: The Joy of Sexagesimal Floating-Point Arithmetic
As human beings we naturally have 10 fingers and ten toes. Thus, when using our fingers to count, a ten based counting system would be more natural for us. However, it is known that the Anunnaki and Nephilim had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot. Interestingly, stone statues of what are likely to have been Anunnaki or Nephilim figures found at both Göbekli Tepe and Karahan Tepe in Turkey have six fingers on their hands:
Statue discovered at Karahan Tepe
Hence, a 6 or 12 based counting system, as fractions of 60, would no doubt have been natural for them when using their hands.
It is also likely that the Earth's orbit may have been 360 days once rather than the 365.25 days it is today (as a result of Venus displacing Earth from its previous orbit). Again, this might explain why the Sumerians, an Atlantean legacy civilisation, may have used 360 degrees for the division of a circle.
Is it possible the Atlanteans used the Sexagesimal system and the Mesopotamians inherited it? Further intriguing possibilities arise where ancient trigonometry is concerned after a Babylonian clay tablet labelled Plimpton 322 was discovered containing an example of Babylonian mathematics. This tablet, believed to have been written around 1800 BC, has a table of four columns and 15 rows of numbers in the cuneiform script of the period.
This tablet lists two of the three numbers in what are now called Pythagorean triples, i.e., integers a, b, and c satisfying a2 + b2 = c2. From a modern perspective, a method for constructing such triples is a significant early achievement, known long before Greek and Indian mathematicians discovered solutions to this problem. This indicates that the Greek philosopher Pythagoras's famous right angled theorem was known to the Sumerians long before he discovered it, if indeed he did discover it, for it is known that he travelled widely in the ancient world to acquire his profound knowledge and Babylon was in his time a great centre of learning.
Eleanor Robson, a British Assyriologist mathematician and academic, who is the author or co-author of several books on Mesopotamian culture and the history of mathematics, has argued that it is "unlikely that the author of Plimpton 322 was either a professional or amateur mathematician. More likely he seems to have been a teacher and Plimpton 322 a set of exercises." Robson takes an approach that in modern terms would be characterized as algebraic, though she describes it in concrete geometric terms and argues that the Babylonians would also have interpreted this approach geometrically.
This suggests that the Babylonians may have approached such issues geometrically rather than using algebra as we do today. If this is correct, what does this say about Atlantean mathematical approaches to hyperdimensional physics and is there a possible relationship to pranalytical mathematics?
We know from the C's that geometry plays an important part in the Unified Field Theory:
Q: (A) Now, this business about Sakharov, is this related, or better, when I think about Sakharov, I think about his theory that space, time metric can change signature; that space/time geometry builds a kind of singularity, changes the algebraic structure of the metric tensor; and I was trying to relate it to changing of density at some point...It is also likely that the Earth's orbit may have been 360 days once rather than the 365.25 days it is today (as a result of Venus displacing Earth from its previous orbit). Again, this might explain why the Sumerians, an Atlantean legacy civilisation, may have used 360 degrees for the division of a circle.
Is it possible the Atlanteans used the Sexagesimal system and the Mesopotamians inherited it? Further intriguing possibilities arise where ancient trigonometry is concerned after a Babylonian clay tablet labelled Plimpton 322 was discovered containing an example of Babylonian mathematics. This tablet, believed to have been written around 1800 BC, has a table of four columns and 15 rows of numbers in the cuneiform script of the period.
This tablet lists two of the three numbers in what are now called Pythagorean triples, i.e., integers a, b, and c satisfying a2 + b2 = c2. From a modern perspective, a method for constructing such triples is a significant early achievement, known long before Greek and Indian mathematicians discovered solutions to this problem. This indicates that the Greek philosopher Pythagoras's famous right angled theorem was known to the Sumerians long before he discovered it, if indeed he did discover it, for it is known that he travelled widely in the ancient world to acquire his profound knowledge and Babylon was in his time a great centre of learning.
Eleanor Robson, a British Assyriologist mathematician and academic, who is the author or co-author of several books on Mesopotamian culture and the history of mathematics, has argued that it is "unlikely that the author of Plimpton 322 was either a professional or amateur mathematician. More likely he seems to have been a teacher and Plimpton 322 a set of exercises." Robson takes an approach that in modern terms would be characterized as algebraic, though she describes it in concrete geometric terms and argues that the Babylonians would also have interpreted this approach geometrically.
This suggests that the Babylonians may have approached such issues geometrically rather than using algebra as we do today. If this is correct, what does this say about Atlantean mathematical approaches to hyperdimensional physics and is there a possible relationship to pranalytical mathematics?
We know from the C's that geometry plays an important part in the Unified Field Theory:
A: Yes. Sakharov knew the answer was in the pentagon.
[...]
Q: (L) Well... (A) What was this answer 'yes' to the changing of density and how it relates to what Sakharov was working on and how it connects to Kaluza Klein theories?
A: Both.
Q: (L) Well, I guess we are going to have to wait until I type it to make any sense out of it...
A: Geometry... pentagon and hexagon, algebraic equations...
Q: (A) Pentagon and hexagon algebraic equations... (L) What is the connection between the pentagon and hexagon?
A: Discover.
Later the C's added:
Q: (A) Okay, I will do my homework. Now, pentagon. There was this pentagon we talked about last time. Pentagon and then hexagon. My guess is that the pentagon is related to the wave equation in 5 dimensions. I want to ask about this...
A: If one seeks to unify, one needs a common source. If "time" really were the 4th dimension, what if it sprang from, or was born of a fifth. Now, how or where does one "plug" gravity into the equation?
Q: (A) Normally gravity is plugged into the equation as part of the geometry of space and time, except if Newton and Galilei, who consider time as different...
A: Ah, now enter those sneaky pentagons and hexagons.
We should recall that it was Plato who supposedly provided the world with what today are known as the Five Platonic Solids. However, the C's have also recently confirmed that he was a major plagiarist. So how much of this Pythagorean and Platonic learning was originally Sumerian and how much of it was down to the Anunnaki? Were the Anunnaki and their retained Atlantean mathematical knowledge one "piece of the puzzle"?
However, the Anunnaki are also connected to the Lizard beings who are often depicted in Sumerian art as winged beings. They may also have been the means by which the early Sumerians gained their mathematical knowledge according to the C's:
However, the Anunnaki are also connected to the Lizard beings who are often depicted in Sumerian art as winged beings. They may also have been the means by which the early Sumerians gained their mathematical knowledge according to the C's:
A: If you were living in the desert, or jungle, about 7,000 years ago, as you measure time, would you not be impressed if these Reptoid "dudes" came down from the heavens in silvery objects and demonstrated techno-wonders from thousands of years in the future, and taught you calculus, geometry and astrophysics to boot?!?
Q: Is that, in fact, what happened?
A: Yup.
Where the C's talk of "Reptoid dudes" appearing to people in the desert, this may well be a reference to the Ubaid period (c. 5500–3700 BC) a prehistoric period in Mesopotamia in what is today Iraq. The Ubaid period is distinguished by its art and pottery including distinctive Ubaid figurines such as the one shown below, which clearly depicts a lizard looking female carrying a child. Known as "Ophidian figures", they have been exclusively found at various southern Mesopotamian sites. They are characterised by a slender body, long, reptilian head with incised eyes and mouth and a three-dimensional small nose. Some of these figures have been dated back to circa 5,200 BC putting them within the time period the C's mentioned as when human contact with the reptoids took place.
So, were the reptoid beings responsible for the Sumerians' mathematical knowledge, including the Sexagesimal system, which was passed on to the Babylonians and through them to the Greeks?
Wandering Star
The Living Force
Well, although we know early sessions had corruption on them, they always have portrayed mathematics as the universal language, many times during all these years, they have mentioned it in one way or another, the same for geometry, even on this last session, they brought the subject of mathematics again.
John G
The Living Force
From the 10/9/2001 session:
So the hexagon is a 4 plusses (spacelike) 2 minuses (timelike) structure group for the metric tensor (the 4 dimensions we "see" sort of). Make the metric degenerate which makes three plusses for space and a zero for time and then our idea of time would be a minus springing from the original zero of the degenerate metric. The Cs more recently confirmed Ark's suggestion that time (kind of in the general ordering sense) for the degenerate metric would be frequency-like.
From the 9/27/2022 session:
Thank you for drawing these later sessions to our attention. There is an awful lot there in those extracts that probably only has meaning to physicists. However, in my earlier post I mentioned how with regard to Pythagorean Triples the Babylonians would have interpreted their approach to them geometrically rather than algebraically as we do today. This point leads me to the brilliant 20th century quantum physicist Paul Dirac, after whom "Dirac operators" are named, which featured in Ark's comments on what the C's had said about "operators" in the 10/9/2001 session.
My brother, who unlike me is a physics graduate, loaned me Graham Farmelo's biography of Paul Dirac called The Strangest Man. In it, Farmelo mentions how Dirac had studied projective geometry at Bristol University in England as part of his mathematics degree course. This branch of mathematics was apparently largely a French invention derived from a study of perspective, shadows and engineering drawing. It should be pointed out here that Dirac had previously studied engineering before switching to physics and was therefore used to engineering drawings. It may also be of interest here that the great 17th century French artist Nicolas Poussin, whose painting The Shepherds of Arcadia is inextricably tied up with the mystery of Rennes-le-Chateau, studied geometrical perspective under the Jesuit polymath Athanasius Kirchner in Rome. Poussin used the technique of pentagonal geometric projection (or pentatopes) in his works including The Shepherds of Arcadia, which has been found to conceal fascinating hidden imagery that seems to allude to some great secret.
Farmelo tells us that one of the founders of projective geometry was Frenchman Gasparde Monge, who was a draughtsman and mathematician, who much preferred to solve mathematical problems using geometric ideas rather than complicated algebra. In this approach he would therefore seem to have been imitating the Babylonians. In 1795, Monge founded the descriptive geometry that Paul Dirac used in the first technical drawings he made in his elementary school, in which he represented objects in three orthogonal points of view. Another Frenchman, Jean-Victor Poncelet, an engineer in Napoleon's army, built on Monge's ideas to set out what became the principles of projective geometry, which Farmelo argues would become the mathematical love of Dirac's life.
As Farmelo explains, what matters in projective geometry is not the familiar concept of the distance between two points but the relationships of the points on different lines and on different planes. Dirac became intrigued by the techniques of projective geometry and by their ability to solve problems far more quickly than algebraic methods. These techniques allow geometers to conjure theorems about lines from theorems about points and vice versa. For Dirac, this was a powerful demonstration of the power of reasoning to probe the nature of space. Did the aforementioned French mathematicians therefore build on something that had previously been known to the Sumerians/Babylonians long ago, something that would become a useful tool to Dirac in his ground breaking work on quantum physics in the 20th century? For example, Dirac would apply projective geometry to the issue of non-commutation, which arose from Heisenberg's original theory of quantum mechanics. For Dirac it was meaningless to use graphic images, as Neils Bohr had done in his theory of atomic structure, since Dirac believed that quantum particles could only be described using the precise, rarefied language of symbolic mathematics. These symbols were not numbers or measurable quantities but purely mathematical objects. However, it was possible to manipulate Dirac's abstract symbols to make concrete predictions as regards quantum particles that experimenters could check in the real world. As the physicist Sir Arthur Eddington observed, actual numbers are exuded from the symbols.
Dirac in later life would admit that he did not think of nature in terms of algebra but by using visual images instead. Curiously, using mental visualisations was something the great scientist and engineer Nicola Tesla used as well. However, Dirac never included references to geometric projections in his published work since he thought most physicists were unfamiliar with it. Instead, once he had obtained a particular result, he translated it into analytic form and put down the argument in terms of equations.
Did the Mesopotamians have some knowledge of hyperdimensional physics?
In my earlier post, I referred to an extract from a session where the C's had spoken of reptoids (lizard beings) coming down in flying saucers and teaching desert dwellers "calculus, geometry and astrophysics to boot?!?" Is there any proof that these desert dwellers may have put this knowledge to work? Well I think there is and the proof lies in the ancient pyramids or ziggurats that the Mesopotamians constructed in Sumeria (with or without the help of the Lizards).
Drawing upon the work of author and researcher Dr Joseph Farrell in his book The Grid of the Gods: I said this in a post on another thread:
In discussing the World Grid (the same one the C’s described to Laura in the transcripts), Farrell noted that many Megalithic structures, especially the pyramidal ones, that were built along the lines of power of the World Grid system were alchemical hyper-dimensional machines. In the last part of his book, Farrell attempts to show from a mathematical and scientific standpoint that some of these structures were deliberately and scientifically conceived as “hyper-dimensional” machines – i.e., analogues of objects in higher-dimensional spaces.
In the first part of this article, we encountered what Farrell calls the “topological metaphor” of the physical medium, which he notes is strongly associated with consciousness. For him this also implies that, for these ancient cultures, the pyramidal structures esoterically associated with the physical medium were also viewed as consciousness manipulators or alchemical machines for the transformation of consciousness and social engineering (cf. with HAARP today). To some extent this is borne out by what the C’s said about the Tower of Babel, which was a large obelisk with a pyramidal capstone rather like the Washington Monument today:
My brother, who unlike me is a physics graduate, loaned me Graham Farmelo's biography of Paul Dirac called The Strangest Man. In it, Farmelo mentions how Dirac had studied projective geometry at Bristol University in England as part of his mathematics degree course. This branch of mathematics was apparently largely a French invention derived from a study of perspective, shadows and engineering drawing. It should be pointed out here that Dirac had previously studied engineering before switching to physics and was therefore used to engineering drawings. It may also be of interest here that the great 17th century French artist Nicolas Poussin, whose painting The Shepherds of Arcadia is inextricably tied up with the mystery of Rennes-le-Chateau, studied geometrical perspective under the Jesuit polymath Athanasius Kirchner in Rome. Poussin used the technique of pentagonal geometric projection (or pentatopes) in his works including The Shepherds of Arcadia, which has been found to conceal fascinating hidden imagery that seems to allude to some great secret.
Farmelo tells us that one of the founders of projective geometry was Frenchman Gasparde Monge, who was a draughtsman and mathematician, who much preferred to solve mathematical problems using geometric ideas rather than complicated algebra. In this approach he would therefore seem to have been imitating the Babylonians. In 1795, Monge founded the descriptive geometry that Paul Dirac used in the first technical drawings he made in his elementary school, in which he represented objects in three orthogonal points of view. Another Frenchman, Jean-Victor Poncelet, an engineer in Napoleon's army, built on Monge's ideas to set out what became the principles of projective geometry, which Farmelo argues would become the mathematical love of Dirac's life.
As Farmelo explains, what matters in projective geometry is not the familiar concept of the distance between two points but the relationships of the points on different lines and on different planes. Dirac became intrigued by the techniques of projective geometry and by their ability to solve problems far more quickly than algebraic methods. These techniques allow geometers to conjure theorems about lines from theorems about points and vice versa. For Dirac, this was a powerful demonstration of the power of reasoning to probe the nature of space. Did the aforementioned French mathematicians therefore build on something that had previously been known to the Sumerians/Babylonians long ago, something that would become a useful tool to Dirac in his ground breaking work on quantum physics in the 20th century? For example, Dirac would apply projective geometry to the issue of non-commutation, which arose from Heisenberg's original theory of quantum mechanics. For Dirac it was meaningless to use graphic images, as Neils Bohr had done in his theory of atomic structure, since Dirac believed that quantum particles could only be described using the precise, rarefied language of symbolic mathematics. These symbols were not numbers or measurable quantities but purely mathematical objects. However, it was possible to manipulate Dirac's abstract symbols to make concrete predictions as regards quantum particles that experimenters could check in the real world. As the physicist Sir Arthur Eddington observed, actual numbers are exuded from the symbols.
Dirac in later life would admit that he did not think of nature in terms of algebra but by using visual images instead. Curiously, using mental visualisations was something the great scientist and engineer Nicola Tesla used as well. However, Dirac never included references to geometric projections in his published work since he thought most physicists were unfamiliar with it. Instead, once he had obtained a particular result, he translated it into analytic form and put down the argument in terms of equations.
Did the Mesopotamians have some knowledge of hyperdimensional physics?
In my earlier post, I referred to an extract from a session where the C's had spoken of reptoids (lizard beings) coming down in flying saucers and teaching desert dwellers "calculus, geometry and astrophysics to boot?!?" Is there any proof that these desert dwellers may have put this knowledge to work? Well I think there is and the proof lies in the ancient pyramids or ziggurats that the Mesopotamians constructed in Sumeria (with or without the help of the Lizards).
Drawing upon the work of author and researcher Dr Joseph Farrell in his book The Grid of the Gods: I said this in a post on another thread:
In discussing the World Grid (the same one the C’s described to Laura in the transcripts), Farrell noted that many Megalithic structures, especially the pyramidal ones, that were built along the lines of power of the World Grid system were alchemical hyper-dimensional machines. In the last part of his book, Farrell attempts to show from a mathematical and scientific standpoint that some of these structures were deliberately and scientifically conceived as “hyper-dimensional” machines – i.e., analogues of objects in higher-dimensional spaces.
In the first part of this article, we encountered what Farrell calls the “topological metaphor” of the physical medium, which he notes is strongly associated with consciousness. For him this also implies that, for these ancient cultures, the pyramidal structures esoterically associated with the physical medium were also viewed as consciousness manipulators or alchemical machines for the transformation of consciousness and social engineering (cf. with HAARP today). To some extent this is borne out by what the C’s said about the Tower of Babel, which was a large obelisk with a pyramidal capstone rather like the Washington Monument today:
Session 5 October 1994:
Q: (L) What was the event a hundred or so years after the flood of Noah that was described as the confusing of languages, or the tower of Babel?
A: Spiritual confluence.
Q: (L) What purpose did the individuals who came together to build the tower intend for said tower?
A: Electromagnetic concentration of all gravity waves.
Q: (L) And what did they intend to do with these concentrated waves?
A: Mind alteration of masses.
Q: (L) What intention did they have in altering the mind of the masses?
A: Spiritual unification of the masses.
Session 22 October 1994:
Q: (L) What did the Tower of Babel look like?
A: Looked very similar to your Washington Monument. Which re-creation is an ongoing replication of a soul memory.
Types of Numerical Coding
In looking at the pyramidal parts of the World Grid, Farrell noted that they involved not only three levels of construction activity and corresponding scientific and technological sophistication (with the oldest being the most sophisticated, which is suggestive of an ongoing decline) but also three distinct kinds of numerical coding:
- The geographical coding discovered by the likes of Graham Hancock and Carl Munck, which disclosed that Giza and the Great Pyramid were used as a prime meridian.
- The esoterical encoding embodied in three distinct ways: (i) the emergence of number itself as functions of the topological metaphor (see part 1 of the article); (ii) the use of numerical codes in the Platonic, Pythagorean, and Vedic traditions to denote not only certain gods in their respective pantheons, but also as musical codes to denote various schemes of tuning, and the use of these codes in turn to denote the astrological and astronomical data of the celestial “music of the spheres”; and (iii) the use of gematria or numerical coding in texts.
- The strictly scientific numerical encoding, which occurred at two levels in the same structures: (i) codes referring to macrocosmic processes, or to the physics of large systems, e.g., encoded astronomical data; and (ii) codes referring to microcosmic processes, or to the physics of small systems, i.e., encoded numerical data of quantum mechanics in the form of references to the coefficients of the constants of quantum mechanics, or, in the case of the Pythagorean Tetractys, the four “Elements” or forces of the standard model of physics (see above).
Without setting out all of his mathematical reasoning (although for mathematicians among you it would no doubt be interesting), Farrell notes that the very structure of ancient Mesopotamian numerical notation (based on a sexagesimal system) implied a basic familiarity with hyper-dimensional geometries and the basic mathematical techniques for describing objects in four or more spatial dimensions. The modern name for such notations is Schläfli numbers, and their appearance in notation is identical, with each number representing a particular type of geometric function.
I went on to mention what Farrell had said about the work of English mathematician H.S.M. Coxeter, as set out in book Regular Polytopes. Farrell applied his ideas to pyramidal structures like those found in Mexico, the C's having told us that the Mayans who built them were heavily influenced by the Lizards:
The Mexican PyramidsI went on to mention what Farrell had said about the work of English mathematician H.S.M. Coxeter, as set out in book Regular Polytopes. Farrell applied his ideas to pyramidal structures like those found in Mexico, the C's having told us that the Mayans who built them were heavily influenced by the Lizards:
Farrell tells us that it is when one turns to the pyramidal structures in Mexico and Meso-America that one is confronted with something very interesting. He then sets out in his book various charts and diagrams of the pyramids of Teotihuacan and Tikal to demonstrate the point. I am attaching scans of the pages containing these charts and diagrams for the reader’s benefit. Farrell notes that what is immediately apparent in all these examples is that they are not truly regular pyramids. They are elongated, in many cases their vertical orientation is not symmetrical, being skewed off centre, and most importantly they have numerous corners, edges and faces. Farrell then asks the question - why is this so important?
He answers his question by first pointing out that, just as with the two largest pyramids at Giza, the skewed off-centre vertical alignment of the Mexican pyramids suggests that they were deliberately conceived as structures with a twist or rotation, in short, as structures and analogous to torsion.
For Farrell it is also important for another reason, because as Coxeter pointed out, higher dimensional polytopes – and a pyramidal structure is already a departure from a regular polytope – have numerous vertices, faces, and edges. And as Farrell notes, atop each of these structures is a “temple” that, if one looks at them closely, appear to be some sort of resonant cavity. What this strongly suggests or implies is that, just as a tetrahedron can be represented or “squished” into a two-dimensional representation or analogue, so too can higher-dimensional pyramidal objects or constructs can be “squished” into a three-dimensional structure that is an analogue of them.
This last point about how a tetrahedron can be represented or “squished” into a two-dimensional representation or analogue (i.e., as a flattened pyramid) reminds me of what the C’s said here:
Session 7 November 1998:He answers his question by first pointing out that, just as with the two largest pyramids at Giza, the skewed off-centre vertical alignment of the Mexican pyramids suggests that they were deliberately conceived as structures with a twist or rotation, in short, as structures and analogous to torsion.
For Farrell it is also important for another reason, because as Coxeter pointed out, higher dimensional polytopes – and a pyramidal structure is already a departure from a regular polytope – have numerous vertices, faces, and edges. And as Farrell notes, atop each of these structures is a “temple” that, if one looks at them closely, appear to be some sort of resonant cavity. What this strongly suggests or implies is that, just as a tetrahedron can be represented or “squished” into a two-dimensional representation or analogue, so too can higher-dimensional pyramidal objects or constructs can be “squished” into a three-dimensional structure that is an analogue of them.
This last point about how a tetrahedron can be represented or “squished” into a two-dimensional representation or analogue (i.e., as a flattened pyramid) reminds me of what the C’s said here:
Q: Just a little while ago, we looked at the image of the prime number designs that were like interlocking pieces of...
A: Flattened pyramids.
Q: That’s exactly what they looked like. Okay, if you take your series of sound from those that form a three-dimensional pyramid by the proximity based on the flattened pyramids... it really doesn’t matter where you start? You pick one, and take the ones that are connected, is that the idea?
A: Close. But, you will not discover the answer tonight.
What Farrell had to say about the Mexican pyramids is probably just as true of the Mesopotamian pyramids too. Thus, were the ancient ziggurats of Sumeria actually three-dimensional analogues of four-dimensional constructs or objects in higher dimensional spaces that were built on the "as above, so below" hermetic principle? if so, this shows that the ancient Sumerians had a a very advanced mathematics, which might be why the C's answered "yes" when Laura asked "Is there something about mathematics that will tell me who they were?"
For a longer treatment of this subject see my post: Alton Towers, Sir Francis Bacon and the Rosicrucians
For a longer treatment of this subject see my post: Alton Towers, Sir Francis Bacon and the Rosicrucians
lilies
The Living Force
Episode 1: Java Island
Ancient site in ruins: Gunung Padang today
Remodeled and reconstructed via computer by Graham's team, how it may have looked brand new in ancient times, some 7000 years ago:
No bones found, so its not a burial site..
To me it just looks like a fancy landing strip built for a feudal lord from Zeta Reticuli. I put my UFO there I made for the Dot Connector Magazine 14 years ago:
One thing that grabbed me about this picture is that Gunung Padang may be designed as an ascending spiral. If so, it may bear some resemblance to a more recent example of an artificial spiral mound or hill, albeit on a smaller scale, and that is Silbury Hill in Wiltshire, England (see picture below) the same county as Stonehenge is located in:
Silbury Hill in Wiltshire
A former member bngenoh produced a possible illustration of what it may have looked like originally (see picture below) on a thread he started in 2011 called 'Was Silbury Hill built as an ascending spiral, 9 sided polygon, or neither ?'
See: Was Silbury Hill built as an ascending spiral, 9 sided polygon, or neither ?
See: Was Silbury Hill built as an ascending spiral, 9 sided polygon, or neither ?
Below is a possible 3D graphic of the structure as a 9-sided polygon:
Perhaps what we are seeing here is another real world example of projective geometry in practice whereby we are really viewing a three-dimensional analogue of a four-dimensional construct. The same may be true, of course, of Gunung Padang, which may be an older and far more sophisticated example of such applied geometry.
The flipside of an ascending spiral is, of course, a descending spiral, which makes me think of this crop circle that appeared in England some years ago:
The flipside of an ascending spiral is, of course, a descending spiral, which makes me think of this crop circle that appeared in England some years ago:
