Session 23 September 2023
- Thread starter Laura
- Start date
Evan
The Living Force
@Ðekel I guess I was unclear. Apologies. In addition to my response to @MJF , the part about not seeing it in Sessions was in reference to the original post from @Ajourneythroughthevoid he was addressing:
“It was the word "terrori'z'm" a clue for "gaza"?”
which you correctly reference in your response as being incorrect.
“It was the word "terrori'z'm" a clue for "gaza"?”
which you correctly reference in your response as being incorrect.
In this session of June 15, 1996 the C's said that:
Here they would seem to indicate that a gravitational wave is collected or disperse according to the geometrical property that conforms the object. That is, let us suppose that a pentagon has the property of "attracting" a wave and that a hexagon can "repel" it. What remains to be seen is: At what rate does it do it? That (I don't really know) is perhaps what determines the frequency because it is the number of repetitions per unit of time of any periodic process. The period is the time duration of each repetitive event, so the period is the reciprocal of the frequency.
And perhaps those geometries determine those two things: whether they collect (inward direction) or disperse (outward direction) and the frequency at which they do so.
Debra
The Living Force
Perhaps a “Macro” structure, the matched resonance used to transmit or receive information to OR from the “micro” structure of DNA.
Here’s a still from a video, linked below, showing the positions of the “353535” positions on DNA.
The full video, if interested.
Astute !
The intention behind dispersing and collecting is the more important aspect of this
One can inhale hate, or just air
One can exhale poison or just sigh
Who is collecting what and when
Who is dispersing what and why
And that, from experienece (both unfortunatrly and fortunately) is directly correlated to who we are and what we SEE
When we look at the world, what are we looking FOR
That is an interesting suggestion. We are, of course, looking at statements made by the C's in the 1990's. At that time, scientists were not even sure gravity waves existed. This can be gleaned from the exchanges between Ark and the C's in the session dated 18 July 1998:
Q: (T) Basically, man is doing what he is supposed to be doing, whether we know it or not. [...] (L) Now, one question that we were discussing earlier is: how can the close approach of the companion star cause an increase in the Sun's gravity when there is no reason why it should change anything since gravity is a function of mass?
A: But do you rally know all there is to know about gravity?
Q: (A) No, we don't know. But, does this mean that this will be an effect that does not follow from the theory of gravity that we know already?
A: Gravity is the life force that binds all realities as one.
Q: (L) What are the mechanics of the increase in the Sun's gravity? What is going to cause this?
A: In order to understand this, you would need a reworking of the theorem.
Q: (L) Can you help us in this reworking of the theorem?
A: Waves.
Q: (A) What I want to ask is: we have Einstein's theory of gravity, and the question is whether the effect of increasing the Sun's gravity is something that goes beyond Einstein's equations or not?
A: You must see the wave.
Q: (A) What wave, a gravitational wave, or an electromagnetic wave, or some other wave? What wave?
A: Arkadiusz, how do these intersect?
Q: (A) Gravity and electromagnetic?
A: Yes. And others.
Q: (A) How they are described within a theory, or how they intersect in space when they come together?
A: Both.
Q: (A) Okay, why does this increase in the Sun's gravity have anything to do with electromagnetism? We were told that the Brown star will not radiate any radiation, so, in particular, no electromagnetic radiation. So, where does electromagnetics come in? I do not understand...
A: Gravitational pull incites electromagnetic impulse.
Q: (A) Okay, that means we go beyond gravitational theory, and this is part of Unified Field Theory?
A: Yes, exactly!! The complete UFT was withheld from you!
Q: (L) I think they mean humanity in general...
A: Yes.
Q: (T) So, the complete UFT is known to someone here on the planet?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) And they are not making it available...
A: Oh no, because "The Truth Will Set You Free!"
Q: (J) From gravity!
A: You may access hyperspatial truths with UFT.
[...]
A: Even without notes, the lonely young man walks down the concrete walk with the clumsily arranged light poles, contemplating the truth, the REAL truth. You were in an alpha state, a crossroads, wondering "where do I go from here?" "And why are all these things being pushed onto me?" Go back to then, Arkady. You know you are really a "Russian" at heart!
Q: (A) Well, we started with the increased mass of the Sun, and we came to UFT which is hidden from us because it would make us free; there is this tendency in me to follow this road because it is science and would open a new road. The question is whether such activity or knowing such things will lead to other densities? Is it just for satisfaction, or is there real value in knowing more in this direction?
A: Well, the Unified Field Theory unlocks the door completely to the higher densities.
Q: (T) But there are parts of this that have yet to be discovered by the general research books because it is being kept secret?
A: No. [MJF: It is curious that the C's refute this. The C's also said elsewhere: "A: Elaboration is not needed because the answers are there for you already in the texts, as with so much else. One needs only listen to the "music to your ears"."]
Q: (T) Has science acknowledged that gravity is a wave, as something that can be measured, quantitative?
A: Controversy.
Q: (L) What gravity is and what it is not is a controversy. (T) But if gravity is part of the UFT, and somebody knows what it is... (L) They are building HAARP. (T) I think there is more to it than this HAARP. UFT is a major step...
A: Grids.
Q: (L) What kind of grids... (T) They keep jumping off... wait a minute...
A: We are not "jumping off."
Q: (L) What kind of grids?
A: The planet has been enshrouded with EM grid.
Q: (T) Are these the ley lines?
A: No.
Q: (L) Are they artificially generated?
A: Contoured.
Q: (L) They are artificially contoured. What is the result of this shrouding?
A: Manipulated for use by 3rd/4th Consortium.
Q: (A) What kind of EM grid? (L) The natural EM grid is being contoured...
A: Like a gently waving geometric "blanket."
Q: (T) Is it on the surface of the planet, through the planet, or where?
A: Above.
Q: (J) Do microwave towers factor into this?
A: Indirectly discovered by same principal. [person?]
Q: (A) Who is this principal? A name? (T) The gravity waves, whether they exist or not, are a controversy, yet they are part of the UFT, and someone already knows how it works. Therefore, it is only controversy to those who don't know what the answer is, and it is not a controversy to those who know. They know what it is and how to measure it and how to use it.
A: Of course.
Q: (T) So, it is only a controversy that is allowed to be. (L) Or created. (A) Some power is used to sustain this grid. What is it?
A: Land and space-based generators.
Q: (T) What can it be used for?
A: Multiple uses.
Q: (L) Well, what are the top three, for example?
A: No "top three."
Q: (T) Just an example, give us an idea? How does this affect us?
A: Broaden concept.
Q: (T) Can this grid be used by other objects as a power source? (J) Can it be tapped into?
A: Net. [MJF: A net is, of course, something you can collect things in]
Q: (L) It is a net that traps things?
A: Broaden.
Q: (L) It is a net that...
A: Calculates...
[...]
Q: (T) Well, maybe it is a defensive shield that has been put up to protect us since we have monkeyed with the ozone so much...
A: No. Better to contemplate and meditate. No linear thinking please, you know better.
Q: (J) I think they just slapped your hand. (A) I want to ask if there is something that we can and should do about this grid for ourselves?
A: Why? To know was all you need.
Q: (A) Well, it was said that this was for the purpose of control and manipulation. So, knowing is all that we need. Or, we could try to shield... (L) But, to know IS the shield. I don't know how that works, but it seems to be so.
A: Yes.
Q: (A) Now, how did we come to this grid from UFT?
A: Grid construction represents application of...
Q: (L) Somehow we went from the increased gravity of the Sun, to UFT, to the grid...
A: UFT explains the "increased" gravity of Sol. But, is there not something in UFT about increase/decrease??? [MJF: Is this a reference to the 'Inverse Square Law'? See: Inverse Square Law]
Q: (A) There is no reason for it to increase or decrease... but this is Einstein's theory which we were told is incorrect... (L) Well, maybe it is speed? When two things are rotating in tandem, when they come together, wouldn't it increase their speed, and doesn't speed increase gravity? (A) No, we were told that there is some interaction between gravity and EM wave, and this is what UFT is about... If we use other dimensions which we are supposed to use in this UFT, going with Kaluza-Klein, then the very concept of mass is something which is not so clear, and mass can be variable...
A: Yes, variability of physicality.
Q: (T) Fourth density. (A) We were told earlier that this UFT opens the door to other densities...
A: Yes.
[...]
Q: (A) Can we have a UFT which unifies EM and gravity and does not include the concept of other densities. In other words, can we put in a textbook all about the gravity and electromagnetics, and a student could learn all of this and still know nothing about other densities?
A: No. Other densities become apparent when...
Q: (A) So, it means that Einstein and Von Neumann knew about these other densities?
A: Yes, oh yes!!!
Q: (T) Just a thought: having UFT and being able to manipulate different fields within it, creates different effects. So, as we understand it in the apparent present state of science, we have to spin something in space in order to create gravity. But, with the UFT, one small offshoot is that one could create real gravity without spinning anything. So, the problem of weightlessness is really already solved...
A: Elementary my dear Terry, elementary.
Q: (T) So, this whole thing with the space station and all the trouble they are having readapting to gravity when they come back, is all a game...
A: When you "let the cat out of the bag," you create an entire feline "nation."
Q: (T) So, we are capable of "Star Trek" right now?
A: In a sense, but there is so much more than that.
When you look at the history of the gravity wave concept you learn a few interesting things. Quoting from Wikipedia:
Gravitational waves are waves of the intensity of gravity that are generated by the accelerated masses of an orbital binary system, and propagate as waves outward from their source at the speed of light. They were first proposed by Oliver Heaviside in 1893 and then later by Henri Poincaré in 1905 as waves similar to electromagnetic waves but the gravitational equivalent.
And, of course, the C's have confirmed that our own sun is part of a binary star system. For me though it is of major relevance that the scientist who first proposed gravitational waves in 1893 was Oliver Heaviside, since this is the same Oliver Heaviside of the Royal Society who came along and butchered James Clerk Maxwell's original theory of electromagnetic radiation, which had been based on the Irish mathematician Hamilton's quaternions. Maxwell's was the first theory to describe electricity, magnetism and light as different manifestations of the same phenomenon. Is that same phenomenon gravity perhaps? Maxwell demonstrated that electric and magnetic fields travel through space as waves moving at the speed of light. Does this necessarily mean that gravity also travels at the speed of light or can it move quicker (see more below on this)?
Maxwell expressed electromagnetism in the algebra of quaternions and made the electromagnetic potential the centrepiece of his theory. In 1881 Heaviside replaced the electromagnetic potential field by force fields as the centrepiece of electromagnetic theory. According to Heaviside, the electromagnetic potential field was arbitrary and needed to be "assassinated". (sic) A few years later there was a debate between Heaviside and [Peter Guthrie] Tate (sic) about the relative merits of vector analysis and quaternions. The result was the realization that there was no need for the greater physical insights provided by quaternions if the theory was purely local, and vector analysis became commonplace.
Perhaps the C's have also dropped hints concerning the respective merits of vector and scalar analysis since they have used the phrase 'apples and oranges' on more than one occasion in the transcripts, for example:Maxwell expressed electromagnetism in the algebra of quaternions and made the electromagnetic potential the centrepiece of his theory. In 1881 Heaviside replaced the electromagnetic potential field by force fields as the centrepiece of electromagnetic theory. According to Heaviside, the electromagnetic potential field was arbitrary and needed to be "assassinated". (sic) A few years later there was a debate between Heaviside and [Peter Guthrie] Tate (sic) about the relative merits of vector analysis and quaternions. The result was the realization that there was no need for the greater physical insights provided by quaternions if the theory was purely local, and vector analysis became commonplace.
A: No use comparing apples to oranges.
However, this could be a reference to something James Clerk Maxwell once said when he compared vector and scalar analysis (see more below on this).
The C's also confirmed that Maxwell knew more than the official record admits:
Q: (A) What about quaternions? Lord Hamilton invented quaternions, and this Bearden tells us that Maxwell wrote his equation using these quaternions, and his original papers are hidden from us by the government; that Maxwell knew more than we are told. Is this really the case?
A: Yes.
Q: (A) Are these quaternions useful?
A: Partly, but there is a missing link. [MJF: Was this consciousness?]
It is a fact that Einstein studied Clerk Maxwell's theory closely before he came up with his own General Theory of Relativity. Indeed, Einstein acknowledged his debt to Maxwell when he visited the University of Cambridge in 1922 and was told by his host that he had done great things because he stood on Newton's shoulders. Einstein replied: "No I don't. I stand on the shoulders of Maxwell."
Gravitational waves were later predicted in 1916 by Albert Einstein on the basis of his general theory of relativity as ripples in spacetime. Later he refused to accept gravitational waves. Gravitational waves transport energy as gravitational radiation, a form of radiant energy similar to electromagnetic radiation. Q: (A) What about quaternions? Lord Hamilton invented quaternions, and this Bearden tells us that Maxwell wrote his equation using these quaternions, and his original papers are hidden from us by the government; that Maxwell knew more than we are told. Is this really the case?
A: Yes.
Q: (A) Are these quaternions useful?
A: Partly, but there is a missing link. [MJF: Was this consciousness?]
It is a fact that Einstein studied Clerk Maxwell's theory closely before he came up with his own General Theory of Relativity. Indeed, Einstein acknowledged his debt to Maxwell when he visited the University of Cambridge in 1922 and was told by his host that he had done great things because he stood on Newton's shoulders. Einstein replied: "No I don't. I stand on the shoulders of Maxwell."
The first indirect evidence for the existence of gravitational waves came in 1974 from the observed orbital decay of the Hulse–Taylor binary pulsar, which matched the decay predicted by general relativity as energy is lost to gravitational radiation. In 1993, Russell A. Hulse and Joseph Hooton Taylor Jr. received the Nobel Prize in Physics for this discovery.
The first direct observation of gravitational waves was made in 2015, when a signal generated by the merger of two black holes was received by the LIGO gravitational wave detectors in Livingston, Louisiana, and in Hanford, Washington. The 2017 Nobel Prize in Physics was subsequently awarded to Rainer Weiss, Kip Thorne and Barry Barish for their role in the direct detection of gravitational waves.
Hence it now seems that gravity waves are well established in modern science. You will also note that Einstein, although he predicted them in 1916, subsequently rejected them for some reason (see more on this below). He also refused to believe in the aether (today the 'quantum foam') and was never really reconciled to quantum theory. In contrast Clerk Maxwell did believe in an aether and hyper dimensionality as one can see from a poem he wrote in honour of another great mathematician of the time, multi-dimensional geometer Arthur Cayley. Maxwell wrote:
"Oh WRETCHED race of men, to space confined!
What honour can ye pay to him, whose mind
To that which lies beyond hath penetrated? The symbols he hath formed shall sound his praise,
And lead him on through unimagined ways
To conquests new, in worlds not yet created.
First, ye Determinants! In ordered row
And massive column ranged, before him go,
To form a phalanx for his safe protection.
Ye powers of the nth roots of - 1!
Around his head in ceaseless* cycles run,
As unembodied spirits of direction.
And you, ye undevelopable scrolls!
Above the host wave your emblazoned rolls,
Ruled for the record of his bright inventions.
Ye cubic surfaces! By threes and nines
Draw round his camp your seven-and-twenty lines-
The seal of Solomon in three dimensions.
March on, symbolic host! With step sublime,
Up to the flaming bounds of Space and Time!
There pause, until by Dickenson depicted,
In two dimensions, we the form may trace
Of him whose soul, too large for vulgar space,
In n dimensions flourished unrestricted."
-- James Clerk Maxwell
To the Committee of the Cayley Portrait Fund -- 1887
This suggests Maxwell must have studied the Seal of Solomon (the Star of David - see my earlier post) very carefully and used it in his hyperdimensional model.
Confirmation that Maxwell’s "hyper-dimensional" inquiries extended far beyond "mere" physical interactions can be seen from another of his "unknown" poems ...
"My soul is an entangled knot,
Upon a liquid vortex wrought
By Intellect in the Unseen residing.
And thine doth like a convict sit,
With marlinspike untwisting it,
Only to find its knottiness abiding;
Since all the tool for its untying
In four-dimensional space are lying."
As Richard Hoagland points out:
In another work ("The Aether," 1876), Maxwell underscored the "ultimate" significance of these inquiries ...
"Whether this vast homogeneous expanse of isotropic matter [the aether] is fitted not only to be a medium of physical Interaction between distant bodies, and to fulfil other physical functions of which, perhaps we have as yet no conception, but also as the authors of The Unseen Universe seem to suggest, to constitute the material organism of beings exercising functions of life and mind as high or higher than ours are at resent, is a question far transcending the limits of physical speculation ..."
This startling connection -- between Maxwell’s demonstrably deep interest in questions "hyperdimensional," including his direct homage to one of his scientific mentors’, Arthur Cayley’s hyperdimensional geometry (the "27 lines on the general cubic surface" problem -- see diagram, below); and our rediscovery over a century later of that same geometry ... at a place called "Cydonia" ... on Mars -- is nothing short of astonishing.
And, of course, we met this 27 line cube in my commentary on the hexagram in my post of yesterday. So this suggests that Maxwell was aware of this hyper dimensional geometry and may have incorporated it in his original theorem before Oliver Heaviside got his hands on it and did a cover up.
As Hoagland notes
...Ye cubic surfaces! By threes and nines, Draw round his camp your seven-and-twenty lines- The seal of Solomon in three dimensions [emphasis added] .."
"Whether this vast homogeneous expanse of isotropic matter [the aether] is fitted not only to be a medium of physical Interaction between distant bodies, and to fulfil other physical functions of which, perhaps we have as yet no conception, but also as the authors of The Unseen Universe seem to suggest, to constitute the material organism of beings exercising functions of life and mind as high or higher than ours are at resent, is a question far transcending the limits of physical speculation ..."
This startling connection -- between Maxwell’s demonstrably deep interest in questions "hyperdimensional," including his direct homage to one of his scientific mentors’, Arthur Cayley’s hyperdimensional geometry (the "27 lines on the general cubic surface" problem -- see diagram, below); and our rediscovery over a century later of that same geometry ... at a place called "Cydonia" ... on Mars -- is nothing short of astonishing.
And, of course, we met this 27 line cube in my commentary on the hexagram in my post of yesterday. So this suggests that Maxwell was aware of this hyper dimensional geometry and may have incorporated it in his original theorem before Oliver Heaviside got his hands on it and did a cover up.
As Hoagland notes
...Ye cubic surfaces! By threes and nines, Draw round his camp your seven-and-twenty lines- The seal of Solomon in three dimensions [emphasis added] .."
Which, of course, are nothing less than the geometrical and mathematical underpinnings of the infamous "circumscribed tetrahedral latitude" memorialized all over Cydonia ... 19.5 degrees, the identical, hyper-dimensional quaternion geometry whose physical effects (see below) we have now rediscovered all across the solar system ... and beyond!
In a tragedy for science (if not for society in general) whose outlines we are only now beginning to appreciate, after Maxwell’s death, two other 19th Century "mathematical physicists" -- Oliver Heaviside and William Gibbs -- "streamlined" Maxwell’s original equations down to four simple (if woefully incomplete!) expressions.
Because Heaviside openly felt the quaternions were "an abomination" -- never fully understanding the linkage between the critical scalar and vector components in Maxwell’s use of them to describe the potentials of empty space ("apples and oranges," he termed them*) -- he eliminated over 200 quaternions from Maxwell’s original theory in his attempted "simplification."
This would seem to be the reason why the C's could confirm that Maxwell knew more than we are told. Indeed, it looks as though Maxwell may have come up with a rudimentary UFT in his original theory.
As to the tetrahedron model, the C's had this to say about it in the session dated September 25, 1999:
A: Yes. All Hoagland has done is highlight a point at which magnetic lines converge using the tetrahedron model.
Q: If they converge at that point...
A: But the question is how does the tetrahedron model relate to trans-dimensional space?
Q: How does the tetrahedron model relate to trans-dimensional space?
A: A key which unlocks the door.
Q: Back to the tetrahedron. How is it a key to trans-dimensional space? Does one activate it in some way? Do you place machinery of some sort at these points?
A: No. Magnetism.
Q: Are you supposed to generate magnetism, or is it natural magnetism?
A: Natural.
Q: Are you supposed to do anything to it or with it?
A: Supposed???
Q: Is it useful to do something with it?
A: Can be.
Q: In what sense?
A: Travelling between dimensions.
Q: Is anybody at the present time utilizing it in this way?
A: Not terran STS 3rd density.
For more on this see my article on The Hexagon and the Star of David here: Alton Towers, Sir Francis Bacon and the Rosicrucians. I am also attaching the full article as a word document.
In my previous post I said: "Hence, if you start with a two-dimensional hexagram, which becomes a cube in three dimensions, what do you get in a four dimensional projection of this species?"
Well I had actually answered that question in an earlier post when I said:
Q: (A) Okay, as you repeatedly mention this ‘matrix,’ I want to know exactly what your definition of ‘matrix’ is?
A: Picture a perfectly symmetrical three dimensional parallelogram.
Q: (A) It’s a cube.
A: Yes, now convert to 4 dimensions, and you have the mathematical representation of the matter-antimatter matrix.
makes me think of the tesseract, which is a four-dimensional analogue of the cube; the tesseract being thus to the cube as the cube is to the square.
The four-dimensional hypercube, or 4-cube as a member of the dimensional family of hypercubes or measure polytopes. It is a regular polytope with three cubes folded together around every edge.
As to whether gravity can travel faster than the speed of light, I am sure the C's have confirmed this fact in recent times. Perhaps someone can track down the relevant quote in the transcripts. However, years ago I came across the work of an astrophysicist called Dr Tom Van Flandern who went on record as arguing that gravity could travel much faster than light (see: Tom Van Flandern - Wikipedia). Indeed Van Flandern wrote a paper in 1998 asserting that astronomical observations imply that gravity propagates at least twenty billion times faster than light, or even infinitely fast. He calculated that, in order to explain the Solar System’s stability, gravity must propagate at at least 2x1010c, i.e. 20 billion times faster than light or even at infinite speed allowing it to act instantaneously over any distance. Of course, his findings were rejected by mainstream scientists. See link to a paper seeking to discredit his findings - The Speed of Gravity
As to pentagons and hexagons, the C's provided the following additional comments on the relationship of gravity waves to UFT and hyper-dimensional geometry when when they said "pentagon is the foundation; hexagon is the conclusion". They also confirmed that Einstein had only refuted the existence of gravity waves in order to comply for political and security reasons. Note also their comments on the quantisation of gravity and gravitons.
Session 22 August 1998:
Q: Okay, we will study supernovae. (A) I have a question about UFT. A piece from Einstein's biography says that in 1931, Einstein and Mayer re-formulated Kaluza’s five dimensional theory, retaining a four-dimensional space-time. I would like to know if it was a step back or a step forward when they did this?As to whether gravity can travel faster than the speed of light, I am sure the C's have confirmed this fact in recent times. Perhaps someone can track down the relevant quote in the transcripts. However, years ago I came across the work of an astrophysicist called Dr Tom Van Flandern who went on record as arguing that gravity could travel much faster than light (see: Tom Van Flandern - Wikipedia). Indeed Van Flandern wrote a paper in 1998 asserting that astronomical observations imply that gravity propagates at least twenty billion times faster than light, or even infinitely fast. He calculated that, in order to explain the Solar System’s stability, gravity must propagate at at least 2x1010c, i.e. 20 billion times faster than light or even at infinite speed allowing it to act instantaneously over any distance. Of course, his findings were rejected by mainstream scientists. See link to a paper seeking to discredit his findings - The Speed of Gravity
As to pentagons and hexagons, the C's provided the following additional comments on the relationship of gravity waves to UFT and hyper-dimensional geometry when when they said "pentagon is the foundation; hexagon is the conclusion". They also confirmed that Einstein had only refuted the existence of gravity waves in order to comply for political and security reasons. Note also their comments on the quantisation of gravity and gravitons.
Session 22 August 1998:
A: Step back, then forward.
Q: (L) The paper was a step back and then they stepped forward in secret?
A: Close.
Q: (A) Next question: three weeks ago you mentioned in relation to UFT pentagons and hexagons. I have here a pentagon and a mathematical formula under pentagon which for me, relates to a pentagon, and it has x, y, z, three dimension; time, which is one dimension, and perhaps the fifth dimension, which corresponds to the fifth. Is this association of pentagon with this mathematical symbol below correct?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) I want to ask if you ever told us to do something with a Tesla coil which I failed to record or got lost somewhere?
A: Maybe. Gravity waves, pentagon is the foundation; hexagon is the conclusion.
Q: (A) I want to go back to this little mathematical formula here. I have here a plus or minus and I don't know which sign to take in front of this field variable. Should it be plus like x,y and z, or should it be minus, like with t?
A: Minus.
Q: (A) Related to these gravity waves, in 1936 Einstein wrote a paper which was rejected, in which he claims to have discovered that there are no gravity waves. When you talk...
A: Cloak for others. Einstein knew differently, but was forced to comply for political and security reasons.
Q: (A) Should gravity be quantized as other fields?
A: It can be.
Q: (A) But, if it is quantized, it will be gravitons, and you said that there are no gravitons...
A: Gravitons are really electrons within a time vacuum.
Anyway, much food for thought
Yes! I was just thinking about that session yesterday. The idea is that what changes is the geometry of the field. We put a little bit of Star Trek here to use it as an example:
Now to generate that distortion the mechanics within the star trek universe explains that for that you need the energy produced in the reaction of the matter-antimatter collision.
The thing here is that the famous warp field produced by (using the jargon of the series) gravimetric field displacement manifold modifies the geometry of its field, producing different effects.
Now, mathematics supports the warp field as a pausible concept:
Alcubierre drive - Wikipedia
A: Like a gently waving geometric "blanket."
When the C's talk about a waving blanket, I think a topological defect applies here:
Topological defect - Wikipedia
See how it bounces? Like a waving blanket...
A soliton and an antisoliton colliding with velocities ±sinh(0.05) and annihilating.
So, how does the sun's gravity increase? You change the geometry of the field and you can make it collect or disperse.
Last edited:
Further to my previous response, on re-reading the transcripts again, I learned that the citizens of the abandoned cities of Mohenjo Daro and Angkor-Wat had suffered the same fate. Unfortunately, what I said about the Lizards/Reptilians moving human populations around in my earlier response appears to have been their fate, except they were not moved from one Earth location to another but off-planet in this case:
Session 22 August 1998:
Q: We watched this television show the other night which talked about the city of Angkor Wat and its orientation to Draco 10,500 BC. You said that Angkor Wat was built 3108 years ago by the Lizzies themselves, and that the city of Mohenjo Daro was also built by the Lizzies 3065 years ago, which is within 30 or 40 years of the same time period. Do you still confirm that the Lizzies themselves built these cities?
A: Reptilian Beings.
Q: And they did this themselves?
A: Yes.
Q: What happened to the inhabitants of these cities?
A: Taken to another planet.
Could someone please redirect my post to "War in Israel", please?
Mod's note: Your post has been moved.
Mod's note: Your post has been moved.
Last edited by a moderator:
Talking about changing the geometry of a field, would a gravity wave, especially one that travels faster then the speed of light, produce such a change in a field? The C's have spoken about riding the Wave in the past:Yes! I was just thinking about that session yesterday. The idea is that what changes is the geometry of the field. We put a little bit of Star Trek here to use it as an example:
Now to generate that distortion the mechanics within the star trek universe explains that for that you need the energy produced in the reaction of the matter-antimatter collision.
The thing here is that the famous warp field produced by (using the jargon of the series) gravimetric field displacement manifold modifies the geometry of its field, producing different effects.
Now, mathematics supports the warp field as a pausible concept:
Alcubierre drive - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
A: Like a gently waving geometric "blanket."
When the C's talk about a waving blanket, I think a topological defect applies here:
Topological defect - Wikipedia
See how it bounces? Like a waving blanket...
So, how does the sun's gravity increase? You change the geometry of the field and you can make it collect or disperse.
Session 4 April 4th 2015:
(Galatea) What star or constellation are you closest to right now?
A: We ride the Wave and thus are much "closer" than you can imagine. At the same time, imagination is the most direct way to comprehend that we are only a thought away.
Q: (L) So, you're saying that distance is not a viable concept. Is that what we're getting at here?
A: Yes
Q: (Pierre) Thought transcends distance.
(L) Thought transcends distance, and we are quantumly entangled or something...
A: Yes.
Although the Wave (which is meant to be transporting three shiploads of 36 million Nephilim here) is not meant to be a gravity wave, would it be possible for a space vessel to ride a gravity wave I wonder?
Ah yes
One of them is from 30 Sep '94:
Does this (theoretically) mean that they might not arrive at all ?
Maybe
Or maybe it means who knows what might have gone wrong on the way
Since it could have taken "millions of years"
Might be 36 million birds in there by now
One of them is from 30 Sep '94:
Does this (theoretically) mean that they might not arrive at all ?
Maybe
Or maybe it means who knows what might have gone wrong on the way
Since it could have taken "millions of years"
Might be 36 million birds in there by now
