The way to the Unified Field - 3

27, August 2022 :

Q: (Ark) I have question. It's not about hyperdimensional being but about hyperdimensional physics. I am coming to the session of 14 November 1998 where I was asking about the relation between 4th density and 4th dimension. And the answer was that yes indeed, 4th density is experienced in 4-dimensional reality. So, I got curious about this 4-dimensional reality. I was asking if it was any kind known in physics under the name of Kaluza-Klein theory. But the answer was that no, it's related to visual spectrum. And then, there came the term, this is related to a prism. Now, visual spectrum, I am associating with the frequency of light. And so, my question - which I should have asked then, but didn't - is: Is 4th dimension indeed a frequency?
A: Yes
Q: (Ark) If it is a frequency, I would like to know what kind of geometry has this 4th-dimensional reality? Is there such a concept of a distance there, for instance?
A: No
Q: (Ark) Well, there is something more general than distance. For instance, there is a degenerate metric. Is there a metric there? Metric tensor?
A: Yes
Q: (Ark) Well, if it is not a distance but it is a metric tensor, does it mean it is degenerate so that there is zero distance between two different points?
A: Yes
Q: (Ark) Okay, that's what I was suspecting. But the next question is whether 5th density requires 5-dimensional reality?
A: No
Q: (Ark) So 5th density requires what?
A: No space, no time
Q: (Ark) If there is no space and no time, what’s there?
A: Pure information in units
Q: (Ark) Alright. Next question: Is the speed of light constant?
A: No
Q: (Ark) Does it vary with frequency?
A: Yes
Q: (Ark) Are there discrete dimensions rather than continuous?
A: Somewhat.
Q: (Ark) Somewhat. Okay. Is Planck's constant a constant?
A: No
Q: (Ark) Aha (L) Oh geez. That's a can of worms.​
...

So I decide to open the can of worms :)

I wonder about the nature of the 4th "dimension" of space. In the session above, Ark guessed that it was a frequency. Is it the frequency of light or, more globally, the electromagnetic frequency itself, the frequency of Gravity?

In parallel, during the same session, the C's confirmed that the speed of light is variable, depending on the frequency. I then wondered why such a variation was not observed for more than a century and connections started to be made:​
  1. Does the fact that we always have a constant speed of light, despite the different frequencies used, come from the fact that Einstein, through his hypothesis of constancy of the speed of light, by changing the Galilean frame of reference, locked, froze the motion of light itself and thus confined the experimental observations to their 3D level?​
  2. Does the translation of the 4th "dimension", as a frequency, within the 3D manifest itself as the speed of light? Thus, by realizing what is the nature of the 4th "dimension" of space, we will be able to observe, finally, in the experiments, a variable speed of light while still being in 3D? It is the frequency of light that we interpret, in a mechanical way, in 3D, as a speed in the classical sense in space-time whereas the frequency is in the instant and does not propagate, in the classical and mechanical sense?​
  3. If we place ourselves in 4D, then we will have to work with the frequency of light because space and time having disappeared, the notion of speed (in the mechanical sense) has no more reason to exist? If we speak of the speed of light, it's the speed of its wavefront (not a speed in the mechanical sense, in space and time) and therefore, we must speak of its frequency?​
  4. To be even more precise, we cannot speak of the speed of light as we speak of the speed of an object, in the sense of classical mechanics. To find the Unified Field, THE formula of Physics, do we have to go back to classical mechanics and optics to realize that we have missed something: for example, in our approach to optics, we implicitly make the assumption that the speed of light is EXACTLY the same as the speed of a material body as used in classical mechanics?​
  5. Is the fact that Einstein's theories of relativity are only valid spatially, only in 3D, due to this implicit assumption that light has a mechanical speed?​
  6. Wouldn't the framework that unifies classical mechanics and wave optics be the EM through Maxwell's equations that we have to reinterpret to avoid attributing to light characteristics that are not its own but those of classical mechanics and material bodies?​
  7. By realizing that the speed of light is not a speed in the classical sense, in the sense of the 3D of material objects, we become aware that we have to go beyond this basic concept and orient ourselves towards something that is related to the nature of light itself: is it the conceptual leap that makes us go from the notion of speed that we no longer need in optics because there is no material reality to which it can be attached to, to the notion of wave that is the basic element of a 4D reality?​
  8. Realizing that the concept of 3D speed of a material body does not apply to light allows us to go beyond Einstein's approach and directly into 4D which is the domain of light?​
  9. This amounts to saying that in classical mechanics, there is no 4th "dimension" of space or, more exactly, that there is a 4th "dimension" of which we are not aware because the spatial unit is constant for the 3 dimensions? To understand the nature of this 4th "dimension" of space is to go beyond our approach to classical mechanics, our approach to 3D space and to set in motion a concept that is fixed because it does not exist, by making it alive, dynamic and therefore variable.​
  10. The question arises: what hypothesis have we not made that would have allowed us to get our hands on the nature of the 4th "dimension" of space? Wouldn't the fixed constant concept that we are looking for so much be the speed of light that Einstein considers constant whereas if we consider it variable, it is then found through the concept of frequency?​
  11. The variation of the unit allowing us to pass from 3D to 4D is that of the speed of light? For a 3D view, we will speak of variable speed to describe the presence of 4D and for a 4D conscious being, we will speak of frequency. The variation of the 'unit of space and time' that we are looking for comes down to the awareness that the concept of 3D speed in the sense of a material body does not apply to light and that we can only apprehend it, from 3D, as a variable speed of light in the sense of a dynamic that is not apparent in classical physics (mechanics)? Through the variability which makes us go from 3D to 4D, there is a movement which has nothing of 3D ! And this movement can only be apprehended through the notion of frequency. That of the unit of time and not linear time?​
 
I'm far from understand all what you write, but I remember this regarding constants not so constant in the book of Rupert Seldrake, The Science Delusion. Here is the quote regarding light, sorry, it's in French, but this chapter can be read in part here in English.

Enfin, qu’en est-il de la vitesse de la lumière, c ? Selon la
théorie de la relativité d’Einstein, cette vitesse, dans le vide,
est une constante absolue, et la physique moderne est
construite sur cette supposition.
Il n’est pas surprenant que les premières mesures de cette
vitesse aient varié considérablement mais en 1927 les valeurs
mesurées convergeaient autour du chiffre de 299 796
kilomètres par seconde. À l’époque, la plus haute autorité sur
le sujet concluait : « La valeur de c estimée à l’heure actuelle
est parfaitement satisfaisante et peut être considérée comme
définitivement établie176. » Cependant, entre 1928 et 1945,
partout dans le monde, l’estimation de la vitesse de la lumière
diminua d’environ 20 km par seconde177. La « meilleure
valeur » trouvée par les différents chercheurs semblait
converger avec une exactitude impressionnante – signe, pour
certains, que la vitesse de la lumière était l’objet de variations
cycliques178.
Vers la fin des années 1940, la valeur de c augmentait de
nouveau, d’environ 20 km par seconde, et un nouveau
consensus s’établissait autour de cette valeur supérieure. En
1972, la possibilité embarrassante de variations de c était
éliminée grâce à la fixation de sa valeur par définition. Puis,
en 1983, l’unité de longueur, le mètre, a été redéfinie en
rapport avec la lumière. Résultat : si jamais l’évaluation de la
vitesse de la lumière devait faire de nouveau l’objet d’une
modification, nous n’en saurions rien car la longueur du mètre
changerait ipso facto. (On définit aujourd’hui le mètre comme
la longueur du trajet parcouru dans le vide par la lumière
pendant 1/299 792 458e de seconde.) La seconde elle-même a
été également définie en termes de lumière : c’est la durée de
9 192 631 770 périodes de la vibration lumineuse émise par
des atomes de césium 133 placés dans un état particulier
d’excitation (techniquement définie comme la transition entre
les deux niveaux hyperfins de l’état stable).
Comment expliquer la diminution de c entre 1928 et 1945 ?
On attribue généralement aujourd’hui cet épisode notable de
l’histoire de la physique à la psychologie des métrologistes.
L’Anglais Brian Petley, l’un de leurs chefs de file, l’explique
ainsi : « La tendance des expériences à concorder à un moment
donné a été décrite sous le terme recherché d’“asservissement
de phase intellectuel”. La plupart des métrologistes sont
parfaitement conscients de l’existence possible de tels
phénomènes ; de fait, certains collègues bien intentionnés
prennent plaisir à les souligner ! En dehors de la découverte
d’erreurs, l’approche de la fin d’une expérience conduit à
l’augmentation de la fréquence et de la fertilité des échanges
entre chercheurs, ces préliminaires à l’écriture des comptes
rendus ouvrant des perspectives nouvelles. Toutes ces
circonstances se combinent pour empêcher ce qui devait être le
“résultat final” de le devenir réellement. En conséquence, il est
facile de porter et difficile de récuser l’accusation suivante : il
est plus probable qu’on arrête de se demander s’il faut
apporter des corrections quand la valeur est proche de résultats
déjà obtenus179. »

There is also those Wiki (different content depending the language) :

 
In parallel, during the same session, the C's confirmed that the speed of light is variable, depending on the frequency. I then wondered why such a variation was not observed for more than a century and connections started to be made:​
If I had to throw out a guess on the above, I would say it is because of our level of awareness in general. If I understand this phenomena correctly, quantum mechanics that is, IF there's a correlation between the event observed and the observer, then the level of awareness of what is possible for the observer also plays a role in what is actually being observed.

I am thinking of the double slit experiment, the waves and the particles situation. Which would take it beyond the mere level of awareness of the observer, but the level of awareness of the observer about its own averseness and the implications. That is to say, it's not just what we think is possible, and what we expect, but how aware we are of how our own awareness plays a role in what we see, but also how aware are we about our wrong beliefs and wishful thinking.

Not being a physicist nor a mathematician, that is my best guess at why a variation in the speed of light hasn't been observed, reality is also being shaped by our expectations of it. There's also the fact that science, or its institutions, can be very dogmatic in what information it allows to be questioned, the speed of light being a constant is probably one such unquestionable "fact", as such, if an observation was made about it, that would contradict the dogma, it was probably buried.

My two very, very humble cents.
 
I'm far from understand all what you write, but I remember this regarding constants not so constant in the book of Rupert Seldrake, The Science Delusion. Here is the quote regarding light, sorry, it's in French, but this chapter can be read in part here in English.



There is also those Wiki (different content depending the language) :

Thanks a lot for your answer, I gonna read it, in french, since I'm a french one :)

This list of questions gathers the major questions I have been asking myself for a few years about the basis of relativity because I am convinced that it is only valid in 3D and that the speed of light is variable. Also, I wonder about the reasons why we never notice this variability. I might as well tell you that when I read the C's confirming my intuition, I was like a child at Christmas. I can't ask questions directly to the C's yet, however, I feel that the answer to go beyond Einstein's assumptions and theories is around these questions :)

Thanks again for your help, Eric from Paris
 
If I had to throw out a guess on the above, I would say it is because of our level of awareness in general. If I understand this phenomena correctly, quantum mechanics that is, IF there's a correlation between the event observed and the observer, then the level of awareness of what is possible for the observer also plays a role in what is actually being observed.

I am thinking of the double slit experiment, the waves and the particles situation. Which would take it beyond the mere level of awareness of the observer, but the level of awareness of the observer about its own averseness and the implications. That is to say, it's not just what we think is possible, and what we expect, but how aware we are of how our own awareness plays a role in what we see, but also how aware are we about our wrong beliefs and wishful thinking.

Not being a physicist nor a mathematician, that is my best guess at why a variation in the speed of light hasn't been observed, reality is also being shaped by our expectations of it. There's also the fact that science, or its institutions, can be very dogmatic in what information it allows to be questioned, the speed of light being a constant is probably one such unquestionable "fact", as such, if an observation was made about it, that would contradict the dogma, it was probably buried.

My two very, very humble cents.
Thank you Alejo for your answer that I totally share: I am convinced that, once relativity is corrected from its a priori, we should find quantum mechanics naturally, in fact, even an expanded quantum mechanics since it integrates a variable speed of light, but that will be for future messages :)

I am also convinced, and this resonates strongly, with the content of your message that for this to become a reality, we will have to reach a critical mass in consciousness (I remember the extract of a C's session evoking lost planes that were seen or not depending on the beliefs of the observers). We are exactly in the same case here.

If I can impulse this new reality, at my level, I will be the happiest.

As said to Maat, I can't ask questions to the C's yet, if you ever have the opportunity to ask, at least, that question, I would be happy to hear the answer because I am wondering how a variable speed of light can manifest itself :)

Thank you Alejo for your humble answer that warms my heart more than you think, Eric
 
If I had to throw out a guess on the above, I would say it is because of our level of awareness in general. If I understand this phenomena correctly, quantum mechanics that is, IF there's a correlation between the event observed and the observer, then the level of awareness of what is possible for the observer also plays a role in what is actually being observed.

I am thinking of the double slit experiment, the waves and the particles situation. Which would take it beyond the mere level of awareness of the observer, but the level of awareness of the observer about its own averseness and the implications. That is to say, it's not just what we think is possible, and what we expect, but how aware we are of how our own awareness plays a role in what we see, but also how aware are we about our wrong beliefs and wishful thinking.

Not being a physicist nor a mathematician, that is my best guess at why a variation in the speed of light hasn't been observed, reality is also being shaped by our expectations of it. There's also the fact that science, or its institutions, can be very dogmatic in what information it allows to be questioned, the speed of light being a constant is probably one such unquestionable "fact", as such, if an observation was made about it, that would contradict the dogma, it was probably buried.

My two very, very humble cents.
Actually, the hidden hand/controller know exactly how Metaphysic work. They just don't want to tell us about it instead giving the scientific version of it. Science is one of the 6 temples of control. Basically work with carrot and stick mechanism. If you endorse the cabal version of science you gain prestige and money otherwise you are an outcast. I had this discussion with ark a bit about inquisition in science not long ago. Elite scientist usually are also mason members. You get cushy job in prestigious university, getting research grant, published in prestigious journal, paid as guess speaker, etc. If you are not one of them you probably work in lesser university/community college, you basically can't/ have no chance to argue with elite scientist from ivy league about your ideas. If you make too much noise you will be fired or dead from unnatural dead (as confirmed by C). It is very top to bottom command just like medical jobs (if you are still wandering why covid genocide occurring and our greatest doctors all fall in line with the cabal propaganda)
 
27, August 2022 :

Q: (Ark) I have question. It's not about hyperdimensional being but about hyperdimensional physics. I am coming to the session of 14 November 1998 where I was asking about the relation between 4th density and 4th dimension. And the answer was that yes indeed, 4th density is experienced in 4-dimensional reality. So, I got curious about this 4-dimensional reality. I was asking if it was any kind known in physics under the name of Kaluza-Klein theory. But the answer was that no, it's related to visual spectrum. And then, there came the term, this is related to a prism. Now, visual spectrum, I am associating with the frequency of light. And so, my question - which I should have asked then, but didn't - is: Is 4th dimension indeed a frequency?
A: Yes
Q: (Ark) If it is a frequency, I would like to know what kind of geometry has this 4th-dimensional reality? Is there such a concept of a distance there, for instance?
A: No
Q: (Ark) Well, there is something more general than distance. For instance, there is a degenerate metric. Is there a metric there? Metric tensor?
A: Yes
Q: (Ark) Well, if it is not a distance but it is a metric tensor, does it mean it is degenerate so that there is zero distance between two different points?
A: Yes
Q: (Ark) Okay, that's what I was suspecting. But the next question is whether 5th density requires 5-dimensional reality?
A: No
Q: (Ark) So 5th density requires what?
A: No space, no time
Q: (Ark) If there is no space and no time, what’s there?
A: Pure information in units
Q: (Ark) Alright. Next question: Is the speed of light constant?
A: No
Q: (Ark) Does it vary with frequency?
A: Yes
Q: (Ark) Are there discrete dimensions rather than continuous?
A: Somewhat.
Q: (Ark) Somewhat. Okay. Is Planck's constant a constant?
A: No
Q: (Ark) Aha (L) Oh geez. That's a can of worms.​
...

So I decide to open the can of worms :)

I wonder about the nature of the 4th "dimension" of space. In the session above, Ark guessed that it was a frequency. Is it the frequency of light or, more globally, the electromagnetic frequency itself, the frequency of Gravity?

In parallel, during the same session, the C's confirmed that the speed of light is variable, depending on the frequency. I then wondered why such a variation was not observed for more than a century and connections started to be made:​
  1. Does the fact that we always have a constant speed of light, despite the different frequencies used, come from the fact that Einstein, through his hypothesis of constancy of the speed of light, by changing the Galilean frame of reference, locked, froze the motion of light itself and thus confined the experimental observations to their 3D level?​
  2. Does the translation of the 4th "dimension", as a frequency, within the 3D manifest itself as the speed of light? Thus, by realizing what is the nature of the 4th "dimension" of space, we will be able to observe, finally, in the experiments, a variable speed of light while still being in 3D? It is the frequency of light that we interpret, in a mechanical way, in 3D, as a speed in the classical sense in space-time whereas the frequency is in the instant and does not propagate, in the classical and mechanical sense?​
  3. If we place ourselves in 4D, then we will have to work with the frequency of light because space and time having disappeared, the notion of speed (in the mechanical sense) has no more reason to exist? If we speak of the speed of light, it's the speed of its wavefront (not a speed in the mechanical sense, in space and time) and therefore, we must speak of its frequency?​
  4. To be even more precise, we cannot speak of the speed of light as we speak of the speed of an object, in the sense of classical mechanics. To find the Unified Field, THE formula of Physics, do we have to go back to classical mechanics and optics to realize that we have missed something: for example, in our approach to optics, we implicitly make the assumption that the speed of light is EXACTLY the same as the speed of a material body as used in classical mechanics?​
  5. Is the fact that Einstein's theories of relativity are only valid spatially, only in 3D, due to this implicit assumption that light has a mechanical speed?​
  6. Wouldn't the framework that unifies classical mechanics and wave optics be the EM through Maxwell's equations that we have to reinterpret to avoid attributing to light characteristics that are not its own but those of classical mechanics and material bodies?​
  7. By realizing that the speed of light is not a speed in the classical sense, in the sense of the 3D of material objects, we become aware that we have to go beyond this basic concept and orient ourselves towards something that is related to the nature of light itself: is it the conceptual leap that makes us go from the notion of speed that we no longer need in optics because there is no material reality to which it can be attached to, to the notion of wave that is the basic element of a 4D reality?​
  8. Realizing that the concept of 3D speed of a material body does not apply to light allows us to go beyond Einstein's approach and directly into 4D which is the domain of light?​
  9. This amounts to saying that in classical mechanics, there is no 4th "dimension" of space or, more exactly, that there is a 4th "dimension" of which we are not aware because the spatial unit is constant for the 3 dimensions? To understand the nature of this 4th "dimension" of space is to go beyond our approach to classical mechanics, our approach to 3D space and to set in motion a concept that is fixed because it does not exist, by making it alive, dynamic and therefore variable.​
  10. The question arises: what hypothesis have we not made that would have allowed us to get our hands on the nature of the 4th "dimension" of space? Wouldn't the fixed constant concept that we are looking for so much be the speed of light that Einstein considers constant whereas if we consider it variable, it is then found through the concept of frequency?​
  11. The variation of the unit allowing us to pass from 3D to 4D is that of the speed of light? For a 3D view, we will speak of variable speed to describe the presence of 4D and for a 4D conscious being, we will speak of frequency. The variation of the 'unit of space and time' that we are looking for comes down to the awareness that the concept of 3D speed in the sense of a material body does not apply to light and that we can only apprehend it, from 3D, as a variable speed of light in the sense of a dynamic that is not apparent in classical physics (mechanics)? Through the variability which makes us go from 3D to 4D, there is a movement which has nothing of 3D ! And this movement can only be apprehended through the notion of frequency. That of the unit of time and not linear time?​
The answer will be in metaphysic so be patient with me.

I wonder about the nature of the 4th "dimension" of space. In the session above, Ark guessed that it was a frequency. Is it the frequency of light or, more globally, the electromagnetic frequency itself, the frequency of Gravity?

In parallel, during the same session, the C's confirmed that the speed of light is variable, depending on the frequency. I then wondered why such a variation was not observed for more than a century and connections started to be made:

Energy is the result of desire to create by consciousness. In a state of total purity we call it unity, if impure called it love (for us still in material world). Light is basically love at certain vibrations/ frequency. Imagine the ether as a big ocean. the lower part is dense while the top lighter. By doing service to others you remove your soul impurities enabling you to rise your frequency enabling you to enter higher realm (Density). Now a celestial object like a planet or star are living entities and living being/lower soul like us are the cells. Think of planet/star as condensation/ bubble in the sea of ether. Your soul are attached to the planet /star receiving energy from your cakras. As you are aware everything is in motion through the wave so the planet will receive different frequency of energy depending the location/density in the ether. Planet and soul natural progression is toward pure light / coming home as we are currently experiencing realm border crossing between 3 to 4 D. The grand harvest/rapture is just a mechanism to ensure that our soul have high enough/proper frequency to keep progressing/match with the planet on the way home. Some of us who aren't ready for higher energy intake of 4D will just have the reincarnate again in the outer rim 3D while those who graduate take a little step closer to the bright central sun of the galaxy. Basically higher frequency energy intake is like a higher octane fuel that you need to create/mold more complex ideas (more compact waves). If you are free of any attachment/pure (6D or higher) you can swim around in the ether through time or space like inserting an idea in a dream (basically jump around or change shape as needed).
In metaphysic distance is measure in frequency differences. We called that gravity which is the differences between our planet frequency to the ether (it isn't the function of mass). Example: How do you explain the jump of earth gravity from 0.8 G pre Kantek event to 1G within short period of time? The answer is not because we got a little more water in earth crust (negligible to the total size of the planet so it can't possibly contribute to 25% increase in gravity). The answer would be the darker high tech aryan soul that being airlifted to our planet compare to the native. Within short period of time they began the exploitation of their new homeworld. If you have a difficult time conceptualizing exploitation of others just watch indian movies like dances with wolves, etc. You can see when the white settlers came in they took land and start killing the natives (including bison). The once happy peaceful tribe start fighting back the white invader. This state of suffering increase separation which lower the overall frequency of the planet thus increasing gravity/denser. Darker soul love separation/suffering as it is more hospitable to their nature/ frequency. Terraforming of a planet is being done through ideas adjustment. The main reason the cabal always want to control the narrative.
Our earth science is totally made up, other races in the galaxy use metaphysics so basically this should answer all your other questions.
 
Quel dommage, je ne suis pas assez intelligente pour comprendre tout ce que tu écris de si intéressant mais c'est toujours un plaisir de te lire...

What a pity, I'm not smart enough to understand all the interesting things you write but it's always a pleasure to read you...
 
Don't overthink it. You are a kind and loving woman so you already know all about it. Basically just talking about the science of love. I keep on getting attack or banned if I write about it in simple spiritual/psychological term. Probably bad at explaining things. Sorry
 
If I had to throw out a guess on the above, I would say it is because of our level of awareness in general. If I understand this phenomena correctly, quantum mechanics that is, IF there's a correlation between the event observed and the observer, then the level of awareness of what is possible for the observer also plays a role in what is actually being observed.

I am thinking of the double slit experiment, the waves and the particles situation. Which would take it beyond the mere level of awareness of the observer, but the level of awareness of the observer about its own averseness and the implications. That is to say, it's not just what we think is possible, and what we expect, but how aware we are of how our own awareness plays a role in what we see, but also how aware are we about our wrong beliefs and wishful thinking.

Not being a physicist nor a mathematician, that is my best guess at why a variation in the speed of light hasn't been observed, reality is also being shaped by our expectations of it. There's also the fact that science, or its institutions, can be very dogmatic in what information it allows to be questioned, the speed of light being a constant is probably one such unquestionable "fact", as such, if an observation was made about it, that would contradict the dogma, it was probably buried.

My two very, very humble cents.
"If I had to throw out a guess on the above, I would say it is because of our level of awareness in general. If I understand this phenomena correctly, quantum mechanics that is, IF there's a correlation between the event observed and the observer, then the level of awareness of what is possible for the observer also plays a role in what is actually being observed."

I perfectly agree with what you say. In order to observe this variability of the speed of light, it must already be accepted as possible, realistic at the level of the collective planetary consciousness. This reinforces the feeling that the theory of relativity symbolizes the end of an era, that of classical physics : light appears as a reality whose extension exceeds the 3D and whose characteristics cannot be described simply within the 3D. While we observe a relationship between the observer and the observed event (with the taking into account of the consciousness of the observer, the latter is no longer only an observer but now assumes the status of an actor since he takes part in reality in a conscious way), at the microscopic level in quantum mechanics, light would be revealed as the way for a quantum action at the macroscopic level. To do this, we need to understand the exact nature of the 4th "dimension" of space.

"I am thinking of the double slit experiment, the waves and the particles situation. Which would take it beyond the mere level of awareness of the observer, but the level of awareness of the observer about its own averseness and the implications. That is to say, it's not just what we think is possible, and what we expect, but how aware we are of how our own awareness plays a role in what we see, but also how aware are we about our wrong beliefs and wishful thinking."

On this point, I also agree with you and that is why I feel more and more that the exact nature of the 4th "dimension" of space requires taking into account the conscious observer in the scientific approach, the positioning of the observer's consciousness as the basic reference that structures and defines the space of observation. The speed of light appears constant in the eyes of the scientists, in the eyes of their consciousness because the consciousness is then passive as simple observers, as witness. What is missing here is what makes reality a unity, a whole: an active consciousness. Thus, the 4th "dimension" of space appears as the window to the reality of consciousness.

"Not being a physicist nor a mathematician, that is my best guess at why a variation in the speed of light hasn't been observed, reality is also being shaped by our expectations of it. There's also the fact that science, or its institutions, can be very dogmatic in what information it allows to be questioned, the speed of light being a constant is probably one such unquestionable "fact", as such, if an observation was made about it, that would contradict the dogma, it was probably buried."

I can only agree with your observations. What I feel with the speed of light and the 4th "dimension" of space is that, at this level, we enter the non-linear reality where everything is connected. I feel that it's at this level that we move from speed to frequency, we change dimension by realizing that speed is part of a larger framework, that of a frequency.

This is where I am, Alejo, in awakening my consciousness by reading the C's sessions. I will read them, over and over again until I connect all the current clues until it becomes clear 😊

Thanks again!

Eric
 
I perfectly agree with what you say. In order to observe this variability of the speed of light, it must already be accepted as possible, realistic at the level of the collective planetary consciousness. This reinforces the feeling that the theory of relativity symbolizes the end of an era, that of classical physics : light appears as a reality whose extension exceeds the 3D and whose characteristics cannot be described simply within the 3D. While we observe a relationship between the observer and the observed event (with the taking into account of the consciousness of the observer, the latter is no longer only an observer but now assumes the status of an actor since he takes part in reality in a conscious way), at the microscopic level in quantum mechanics, light would be revealed as the way for a quantum action at the macroscopic level. To do this, we need to understand the exact nature of the 4th "dimension" of space.
I think I agree in principle, although the point I was trying to make was more along the lines of: Before we understand the nature of the 4th dimension, we need to understand our own nature, or the nature of the observer and how that changes the observed event.

Perhaps put another way would be, the acquisition of knowledge has to be symmetrical in both directions, outer and inner, so that the knowledge may be assimilated, otherwise reality won't change. Does that make sense?

I think we inhabit a reality, but what we perceive as reality is deeply tainted if not formed entirely, but our interpretation of it, we create the reality we inhabit not by wishing it to be so, but by perceiving it in a specific way. So long as that remains, I think reality won't change.

I think that could be one of the reasons why the speed of light hasn't been observed other than was we expect to observe it as.

I hope the above was clear.
 
I think I agree in principle, although the point I was trying to make was more along the lines of: Before we understand the nature of the 4th dimension, we need to understand our own nature, or the nature of the observer and how that changes the observed event.

Perhaps put another way would be, the acquisition of knowledge has to be symmetrical in both directions, outer and inner, so that the knowledge may be assimilated, otherwise reality won't change. Does that make sense?

I think we inhabit a reality, but what we perceive as reality is deeply tainted if not formed entirely, but our interpretation of it, we create the reality we inhabit not by wishing it to be so, but by perceiving it in a specific way. So long as that remains, I think reality won't change.

I think that could be one of the reasons why the speed of light hasn't been observed other than was we expect to observe it as.

I hope the above was clear.
Alejo, it is extremely pleasant to read this answer because it allows me to go further in what I wish to share with you, @Laura, @Brandon, @Ark and those who have been thinking deeply about physics, math and the structure of the Unified Field.

I have always been attracted to the theory of relativity since college in Montpellier: something abstract and unreal resonated in me about it and, at that time, I had not yet started to work on myself. This happened in the years that followed and it is, from then on, that I dug more and more into the subject of the emergence of Einstein's special relativity. I cannot say if it is what I felt through the study of this theory that impelled the personal work on myself. It is clear that it contributed to it.

Something seemed unreal to me in these transformations of time, of space, in this call to infinity when the speed of the object is almost the speed of light (already, in the interpretation of Maxwell's equations, light is reduced to an electromagnetic wave whereas it is, in fact, only a mode of manifestation of light in our reality. This is extremely reductive and participates in the fact of interpreting what we perceive according to the belief systems that we carry on the reality that we inhabit. It is legitimate : we have the unfortunate tendency to interpret what we perceive through what we already know. So it is difficult to welcome novelty in this way) : wouldn't the speed of light, finally be the speed of circulation of information, of consciousness and therefore characterize our limit of perception?

I spent years reading what had led to the emergence of this theory, in parallel with my work on myself : I came to the conclusion that the Einsteinian approach was only valid spatially and that there was a problem with our interpretation of linear time. In other words, I was not satisfied with the fact that time is considered as the 4th dimension of space. This did not resonate with me. I felt that this theory was the translation of the limit of our classical concepts and that's why we had all these notions of infinities and transformations.

I came to the feeling that what we perceive is deeply linked to the nature of the observer itself, that we had to put our finger on what really perceives in us, at the base, our consciousness. But what is consciousness? What is time? What I felt through the act of perception is this meeting between the external reality and our internal reality. I was lost because this has never, to my knowledge, been described by scientists : how to take into account our inner reality when classical physics is based on a passive observer, therefore without consciousness, simple witness of the reality he perceives.

It became more and more obvious to me that what we perceive as reality is deeply linked to our state of consciousness, to our inner life. However, we are inscribed in a set of human individualities which also participate, at their level, to a perception of the terrestrial reality. The one does not go without the other, by taking into account the consciousness, we leave the linear domain, the domain of separation.

The more we change, the more we accept what we are deeply, the more we become, in consciousness, "complete", the more our external reality moves and changes. There is clearly a link between our inner reality and our outer reality as if there was a mirror between the two and a permanent interaction between the two. This is why I said that the Einsteinian approach characterizes the limit of the classical approach in physics : with this theory, we exhaust the 3D concept, the spatial approach. To go further, we must take into account what gives life to the notion of space, what allows it to change form, to change its internal structure. There is there a hidden life, a movement that we do not perceive, still, of the space in the approach of Enstein. It is a limit of our perception of space which will be exceeded only when we take into account the interior life of the observer who will not be thus any more an observer but an actor with whole share because it acts, in conscience, on the reality which it lives.

My feeling is that the "resolution" of the Einsteinian knot opens us the doors of the Unified Field because everything is already potentially inscribed there. It's a door I've been knocking on for years and it's starting to become a window :-)

It's in this respect that I entirely agree with you on the fact that we identify our external reality with our perception. Thus, to go beyond, we must change our perception and take into account those of all other human beings on the planet. The planetary vibration evolving for decades, it's to this that we owe our reflections, our realizations on the subject and the fact that we impulse the way towards the 4D reality.

Alejo, when the density is different, we perceive another speed of light (in water, for example). Why wouldn't it be the same with a reverse curvature? What blocks us is to ask ourselves what would be a reality where speed of light is perceived greater than that which defines our 3D perception : precisely, the blockage is based on our concept of linear time. It no longer has a reason to exist, we enter into simultaneity, into the moment.

This is why I study the roots of this theory, without necessarily going into all the derivations that are made of it. Access to the Unified Field boils down, for me, to Maxwell's equations and their interpretation. This is what the study of the emergence of the special theory of relativity teaches me. At the same time, the study of non-Euclidean spaces took place...

When I read that the C's said that the 4th "dimension" of space made it possible to apprehend, simultaneously, the outside and the inside, I realized that I was on the right track! It's clear that I suffered because questioning the basics of physics through a change of inner life is not easy.

We must review our interpretation of Maxwell's equations, review why Einstein was led to make his hypothesis of the constant speed of light, why the measurements seem to prove him right... it's only through this inner work that we will perceive the limits of our concepts, why we have locked the variability of our perception and therefore of 4D reality to perceive only a projection of it as a 3D reality. This is why I said that the apprehension of the 4th "dimension" of space passes by taking into account the observer and his conscience. How to translate it physically and mathematically when we don't know what the nature of consciousness is?

I hope the above is clear, Alejo.

I couldn't thank you enough for talking with me about this point and bringing me to verbalize everything that I work alone in my corner when I have time. This allows me to mature the various questions on this subject that have been teasing me for more than 20 years and, who knows, one day I will be able to ask them to the C's during a classic or scientific session. Or, in the meantime, someone else this speaks to does :)

Thank you again, Alejo.

Sincerely, Eric.​
 
I'm far from understand all what you write, but I remember this regarding constants not so constant in the book of Rupert Seldrake, The Science Delusion. Here is the quote regarding light, sorry, it's in French, but this chapter can be read in part here in English.



There is also those Wiki (different content depending the language) :

Salut Maat :-)

J'avais déjà entendu parler de variation de la vitesse de la lumière vers les années 1925-1926 lorsque Miller effectuait des mesures pour mettre en défaut la théorie d'Einstein. Je n'étais pas au courant de ces arrangements de définition afin de ne plus parler de variations telles qu'évoquées par ce très grand chercheur, Rupert Sheldrake.

Quant à la variation de la vitesse de la lumière, plusieurs facteurs étaient avancé: température, localisation de la mesure, période de la mesure... à la vue du témoignage de Rupert dans son livre, j'ajouterais, comme facteur, la conscience collective. En cas de crise, de guerre, de choc psychologique, la conscience planétaire change et, avec elle, le magnétisme terrestre. cela rejoindrait les éléments que nous avons partagé avec @Alejo dans ce fil de discussion.

Pour moi, il est évident que la vitesse de la lumière varie : il suffit de regarder ce que nous observons dans l'eau, dans un milieu d'une certaine densité (le diamant, par exemple), la vitesse de la lumière diminue. Il n'y a donc pas de raison pour que cela ne soit pas le cas lorsque la densité est plus faible que l'air (le vide et l'air ayant quasiment la même densité).

La clé qui pourrait nous conduire à mettre en évidence une telle variation serait la nature du vide lui-même. Pour Einstein, la vitesse de la lumière est constante dans le vide. Qu'est-ce que le vide? A quel niveau d'observation? N'existerait-il pas plusieurs niveaux de vide? Avons-nous les instruments adéquats pour mesurer de tels vides car comment mesurer quelque chose que nous ne connaissons pas ou dont nous n'avons pas conscience? Cela nous entraîne dans le domaine quantique qui commence à évoquer, sans détour, les variations au sein du vide quantique. A l'époque d'Einstein (même s'il est un des pères de la mécanique quantique, à travers son explication du phénomène photoélectrique (prix Nobel 1921)), en 1905, la mécanique quantique venait à peine d'être découverte après l'hypothèse du quantum de Planck pour expliquer la distribution de l'énergie au sein du corps noir. Les scientifiques n'avaient alors aucune conscience de la réalité du vide quantique.
**​

Hi Maat :-)

I had already heard about variations in the speed of light around 1925-1926 when Miller was making measurements to challenge Einstein's theory. I was not aware of these definitional arrangements so as not to speak of variations as evoked by this very great researcher, Rupert Sheldrake.

As for the variation of the speed of light, several factors were put forward : temperature, location of the measurement, period of the measurement... in view of Rupert's testimony in his book, I would add, as a factor, the collective consciousness. In case of crisis, war, psychological shock, the planetary consciousness changes and, with it, the terrestrial magnetism. This would be in line with the elements we shared with @Alejo in this thread.

For me, it is obvious that the speed of light varies : just look at what we observe in water, in a medium of a certain density (diamond, for example), the speed of light decreases. There is no reason why this should not be the case when the density is lower than air (vacuum and air having almost the same density).

The key that could lead us to highlight such a variation would be the nature of the vacuum itself. For Einstein, the speed of light is constant in a vacuum. What is the vacuum? At what level of observation? Wouldn't there be several levels of vacuum? Do we have the adequate instruments to measure such vacuums because how can we measure something we do not know or of which we are not aware? This leads us to the quantum field which starts to evoke, without detour, the variations within the quantum vacuum. At the time of Einstein (even if he is one of the fathers of quantum mechanics, through his explanation of the photoelectric phenomenon (Nobel Prize 1921)), in 1905, quantum mechanics had just been discovered after Planck's quantum hypothesis to explain the distribution of energy within the black body. Scientists were then unaware of the reality of the quantum vacuum.​
 
How to translate it physically and mathematically when we don't know what the nature of consciousness is?
It's a great question, one I am not nearly qualified enough to answer... but what I do know about consciousness, is that the first place to begin to understand it is within.

There's also the fact that, some of these limitations are there for a purpose, like linear time or the conventions of it. And while it is a great idea to push against it conceptually, I am not sure we need to get rid of it entirely to move towards 4D, I do think that most people in the planet, never consider this as such.. yet all are doing what they need to do, roughly speaking, to move in that direction, in regular 3D existence.

I would say however, that some of your questions, though they're beyond me, are very interesting and should be explored further, and what you're doing.. networking about it, is the best way to get there IMO.
 
Back
Top Bottom