Towards the physical and mathematical nature of the 4th "dimension" of space

[Menna]

Maybe we should figure out what antimatter is first.

How do you reconcile how the Cassiopaeans use the word antimatter? I think it is like their use of the word 'gravity', they don't use the word antimatter in quite the say way that we understand the word.

Base on session 28 of November 1998 it is evidence that matter in this 3D reality is rendered by the system/exists in this reality as a fact once a consciousness mind observes it - without this observation the matter only exists as potential/probability based on the possibilities set by the system in this 3D reality.

If one is walking in the beach the probability is higher based on the 3D rule set that one’s conscious mind will observe a sea shell.

This also begs the question for those conscious minds that are blind. If I touch something I can not see does this count as observation? It seems if one’s senses observe/perceive matter such as touch, smell hear this also renders probabilistic matter in this reality it doesn’t depend solely on seeing with one’s eyes

 

[palestine]

I believe in this 3D reality STO is about organizing data and reducing entropy all choices actions thoughts that are more STO are on the side of organizing data and reducing entropy more so than the other side of the equation.

How STO plays out in 4D I think your whole soul/conscousness needs to be majority STO or STO aligned…Things are more instant in 4D so the STO actions and decisions may not enter into the equation as much thoughts I think are more important

Yeah - so I think that you come to the observation that STO in 3D especially would be going throught he physical "vessel" or medium. Yesterday, the "catalyst" word came to mind, after I had a check on the Ra sessions, to see if there was anything on "the theory of relativity". I think there is and that people eager to progress and lay down a math equation may find it useful than to search for the word "math", "mathematics", "geometry", etc - because the library there is huge. From what I could see, Ra speaks of The Great Central Sun and it is not a simple concept, because it looks like "God", or "The Information Field". So, not simple in its mathematical aspect.

@Menna I believe some math-people are seeking to pierce the veil of "The" "math equation"... I have been trying to formulate the principles that are ever present in densities so that the math people could come up with an equation... If I look back at the specifi point you've raised (physicality for STO vectorization) - how to make a formula (an equation)? Assuming it's the right direction. I believe math people are, either constricted, either objectively, in a domain where pure math, pure numbers - prevail. I think we'd have to tickle their interest via something of value that their world of concept can translate. I understand so far what I believed would be of interest - appears to be of few interest. I believe it's since they already thought of those principles but that it wasn't a satisfactory starting point, for them to lay down an equation.

All the trick would be than to be able to find what needs to be translated in math, and be able to convey this spiritual basic, to math-people. I think they need to have some material that "speaks" to them in terms of "usability".

Correct me if I am wrong!

I understand you are, too, trying to speak in this context, so that I wrote on the math people and things, in a post for all, not especially regarding our conversation. I think we should come up with a precise spiritual concept that is easily translatable to math, so that scientists of the forum can follow-up straight. Otherwise, they will keep on their own strategy of research, and our contributions won't be of much help. Perhaps, forum scientists must tell us exactly what they need, in terms of participation, from people who are not accustomed to deal with numbers.

I would say, too, than to ask Laura her take on those matters, since she, a 3D human, is able to establish a connection to 6th D STO. this shows a possibility between 3D and 6th D. The matter would be to discern the steps that are required in-between. 3D > relay > 4D > relay > 6D. 6th D reaches 3D so it must be possible to qualify it a little bit. I believe Pierre's biophoton model provides a model up to The Information Field, so that proteins act as an antenna. His model extensively make sense of geometry - at the level of photons. Chirality comes to mind, too. Perhaps, the geometry aspect of the photons, in Pierre's model - is important. At least he has been able to lay down a model making sense of geometry, starting up from 3D, up to "The Information Field". Perhaps there is something of value, for math people, perhaps not.

Sorry for the long post - my intention is to encourage people to succeed mathematical findings, and I understand it is a specialized field, in which numbers and equations prevail. It is hard for people like me to think in those terms. That is because my mind has been fashioned and tailored from a different starting point than pure math. But there must be a sort of "meeting point".

 

[John G]

Yeah - so I think that you come to the observation that STO in 3D especially would be going throught he physical "vessel" or medium. Yesterday, the "catalyst" word came to mind, after I had a check on the Ra sessions, to see if there was anything on "the theory of relativity". I think there is and that people eager to progress and lay down a math equation may find it useful than to search for the word "math", "mathematics", "geometry", etc - because the library there is huge. From what I could see, Ra speaks of The Great Central Sun and it is not a simple concept, because it looks like "God", or "The Information Field". So, not simple in its mathematical aspect.

@Menna I believe some math-people are seeking to pierce the veil of "The" "math equation"... I have been trying to formulate the principles that are ever present in densities so that the math people could come up with an equation... If I look back at the specifi point you've raised (physicality for STO vectorization) - how to make a formula (an equation)? Assuming it's the right direction. I believe math people are, either constricted, either objectively, in a domain where pure math, pure numbers - prevail. I think we'd have to tickle their interest via something of value that their world of concept can translate. I understand so far what I believed would be of interest - appears to be of few interest. I believe it's since they already thought of those principles but that it wasn't a satisfactory starting point, for them to lay down an equation.

All the trick would be than to be able to find what needs to be translated in math, and be able to convey this spiritual basic, to math-people. I think they need to have some material that "speaks" to them in terms of "usability".

Correct me if I am wrong!

I understand you are, too, trying to speak in this context, so that I wrote on the math people and things, in a post for all, not especially regarding our conversation. I think we should come up with a precise spiritual concept that is easily translatable to math, so that scientists of the forum can follow-up straight. Otherwise, they will keep on their own strategy of research, and our contributions won't be of much help. Perhaps, forum scientists must tell us exactly what they need, in terms of participation, from people who are not accustomed to deal with numbers.

I would say, too, than to ask Laura her take on those matters, since she, a 3D human, is able to establish a connection to 6th D STO. this shows a possibility between 3D and 6th D. The matter would be to discern the steps that are required in-between. 3D > relay > 4D > relay > 6D. 6th D reaches 3D so it must be possible to qualify it a little bit. I believe Pierre's biophoton model provides a model up to The Information Field, so that proteins act as an antenna. His model extensively make sense of geometry - at the level of photons. Chirality comes to mind, too. Perhaps, the geometry aspect of the photons, in Pierre's model - is important. At least he has been able to lay down a model making sense of geometry, starting up from 3D, up to "The Information Field". Perhaps there is something of value, for math people, perhaps not.

Sorry for the long post - my intention is to encourage people to succeed mathematical findings, and I understand it is a specialized field, in which numbers and equations prevail. It is hard for people like me to think in those terms. That is because my mind has been fashioned and tailored from a different starting point than pure math. But there must be a sort of "meeting point".

Pierre's biophotons were confirmed by the Cs to be a fractal pattern thing. That would be a many vertices thing so often math people and larger scale working people can sort of be working on a different problem. Now you may need your photon to have conformal symmetry not just the standard U(1) photon but the full symmetry of Maxwell's equations is the conformal group so some things are known just ignored a lot.

 

[SasaM]

Pierre's biophotons were confirmed by the Cs to be a fractal pattern thing. That would be a many vertices thing so often math people and larger scale working people can sort of be working on a different problem. Now you may need your photon to have conformal symmetry not just the standard U(1) photon but the full symmetry of Maxwell's equations is the conformal group so some things are known just ignored a lot.

Ark's latest paper deals with conformal symmetry and its compactification of Minkowski space in a rather "explicit and pedagogical manner".
For those interested, here's the direct link to it:

https://www.mdpi.com/3830418

A bit more layman details about 'space arrangement' and recent general public interest in 'conformality' can be found in his latest article on Substack:

Dust, Drafts, and Conformal Symmetry — or: Why Ark Went Quiet

Let me come clean.

arkadiuszjadczyk.substack.com

FWIW.

 

[Menna]

Yeah - so I think that you come to the observation that STO in 3D especially would be going throught he physical "vessel" or medium. Yesterday, the "catalyst" word came to mind, after I had a check on the Ra sessions, to see if there was anything on "the theory of relativity". I think there is and that people eager to progress and lay down a math equation may find it useful than to search for the word "math", "mathematics", "geometry", etc - because the library there is huge. From what I could see, Ra speaks of The Great Central Sun and it is not a simple concept, because it looks like "God", or "The Information Field". So, not simple in its mathematical aspect.

@Menna I believe some math-people are seeking to pierce the veil of "The" "math equation"... I have been trying to formulate the principles that are ever present in densities so that the math people could come up with an equation... If I look back at the specifi point you've raised (physicality for STO vectorization) - how to make a formula (an equation)? Assuming it's the right direction. I believe math people are, either constricted, either objectively, in a domain where pure math, pure numbers - prevail. I think we'd have to tickle their interest via something of value that their world of concept can translate. I understand so far what I believed would be of interest - appears to be of few interest. I believe it's since they already thought of those principles but that it wasn't a satisfactory starting point, for them to lay down an equation.

All the trick would be than to be able to find what needs to be translated in math, and be able to convey this spiritual basic, to math-people. I think they need to have some material that "speaks" to them in terms of "usability".

Correct me if I am wrong!

I understand you are, too, trying to speak in this context, so that I wrote on the math people and things, in a post for all, not especially regarding our conversation. I think we should come up with a precise spiritual concept that is easily translatable to math, so that scientists of the forum can follow-up straight. Otherwise, they will keep on their own strategy of research, and our contributions won't be of much help. Perhaps, forum scientists must tell us exactly what they need, in terms of participation, from people who are not accustomed to deal with numbers.

I would say, too, than to ask Laura her take on those matters, since she, a 3D human, is able to establish a connection to 6th D STO. this shows a possibility between 3D and 6th D. The matter would be to discern the steps that are required in-between. 3D > relay > 4D > relay > 6D. 6th D reaches 3D so it must be possible to qualify it a little bit. I believe Pierre's biophoton model provides a model up to The Information Field, so that proteins act as an antenna. His model extensively make sense of geometry - at the level of photons. Chirality comes to mind, too. Perhaps, the geometry aspect of the photons, in Pierre's model - is important. At least he has been able to lay down a model making sense of geometry, starting up from 3D, up to "The Information Field". Perhaps there is something of value, for math people, perhaps not.

Sorry for the long post - my intention is to encourage people to succeed mathematical findings, and I understand it is a specialized field, in which numbers and equations prevail. It is hard for people like me to think in those terms. That is because my mind has been fashioned and tailored from a different starting point than pure math. But there must be a sort of "meeting point".

I understand that some want the micro specific equations to verify or should I say build out the concept from 3D or 1D up to 7D.

I think it’s important to note that 3D math only goes so far IMO and my hope is that my logic, experience, research, mentation and own micro equations/explanations mixed with paranormal/esoteric impressions coupled with the work give the Math/Scientists something to work with like a tool to do things “their way” I admit I am giving more of a macro overview of how things work based on my experience and learning but in this and my posts I hope there is value that can be gleaned.

The double split experiment shows partials/matter/data exist as potential and once observed by consciousness energy/vibration it is then rendered according to a probability

The system we are in is filled with entropy us individual soul/conscousnessess organize the data to reduce entropy… We gain wisdom and use free will and choose to act, speak, decide and so on in a certain way.

Consciousness is supposedly all there is and is at “the top” of creation and created everything below it and works alone…I say supposedly because I don’t think the above is true but that is what has been verified/said

The above are the bones for how the system works IMO. To get into the weeds with Math I would have had to pick a different career path at 16 years old…

 

[palestine]

Now you may need your photon to have conformal symmetry not just the standard U(1) photon but the full symmetry of Maxwell's equations is the conformal group so some things are known just ignored a lot.

I am intellectually able to follow-up up to the green text; I need the theory.

You've mentioned symetry. Pierre's model teaches about chirality, but I believe a person digging into symetry already knows the chirality aspect - so that the symetry matter is raised because of something else.

I hope you researchers can find something! Good luck!

 

[palestine]

some want the micro specific equations to verify

ah.. That is it... Verification. Matter would be to learn / understand what constitutes the "math verification" method. I could be surprized (I simply think of it as a simple equation that self-verifies itself ... while the requirement for verification may be a huge part of the math-brain process... A sort of process with fixed "ways". A jargon, a discipline, rules and things - which even directs the whole process of finding the equation, at the starting point).

To get into the weeds with Math I would have had to pick a different career path at 16 years old…

Don't you tell me! I see a gap between my possibilities and the complexity of what people here are dealing with. I am just amazed. They talk Chinese!

 

[SasaM]

I understand that some want the micro specific equations to verify or should I say build out the concept from 3D or 1D up to 7D.

I think it’s important to note that 3D math only goes so far IMO and my hope is that my logic, experience, research, mentation and own micro equations/explanations mixed with paranormal/esoteric impressions coupled with the work give the Math/Scientists something to work with like a tool to do things “there way” I admit I am giving more of a macro overview of how things work based on my experience and learning but in this and my posts I hope there is value that can be gleaned.

The double split experiment shows partials/matter/data exist as potential and once observed by consciousness energy/vibration it is then rendered according to a probability

The system we are in is filled with entropy us individual soul/conscousnessess organize the data to reduce entropy… We gain wisdom and use free will and choose to act, speak, decide and so on in a certain way.

The above are the bones for how the system works IMO. To get into the weeds with Math I would have had to pick a different career path at 16 years old…

Prolly got this the wrong way, the observation giving 'existence' to material things, but which consciousness exactly does the observation of our physical bodies when we're sleeping for example?

According to the C's, our consciousness or souls can go wherever they want during the sleep recharching processes, seemingly not being confined to our physical vehicles, so would the conclusion in those situations be that our physical bodies do not actually exist in the material realm in those instances?

Another confusing example would be the death of a physical body, when consciousness permanently left our usual material realm, where does the observation of a dead body come from in those cases?

Regarding the "lowering of the entropy".
We are also presumably STS beings living in a STS realm, determined by our FRV, and presumably there are other STS beings 'higher up' in the hierarchy of this realm feeding on us and other beings on 'lower' levels of that 'pyramidal' hierarchy, in a way increasing the entropy as they are presumably "entropic" beings.
Is the 'role' or the 'job' of conscious beings in or of this realm of ours really to lower the entropy, or more specifically is the 'job' of beings who have chosen the STS realm for whatever purpose to 'go' and 'act' against the very nature of the environment and the hierarchy they have chosen to live in, at least in this incarnation?

 

[Menna]

Prolly got this the wrong way, the observation giving 'existence' to material things, but which consciousness exactly does the observation of our physical bodies when we're sleeping for example?

I will respond to the rest of your post when I have more time.

To give an answer to the above. Material doesn’t have to constantly be observed to be rendered/anchored into this reality. Once the probabilistic system chooses a rendering that is it - it is there.

For example if you discover new land that no one else sees and the system renders 12 oaktrees for you on the plot of land you discovered as oak trees are most probable at your longitude and latitude- if you move on from that location and someone new comes 3 days later the same 12 trees will be there. For a level playing field for decision making and entropy lowering once rendered the material is in place. So if you are sleeping but you or a thing you observed or others observed exist it will still exist in the same way… (until ice age, fire, storm and so on… )

 

[SasaM]

ah.. That is it... Verification. Matter would be to learn / understand what constitutes the "math verification" method. I could be surprized (I simply think of it as a simple equation that self-verifies itself ... while the requirement for verification may be a huge part of the math-brain process... A sort of process with fixed "ways". A jargon, a discipline, rules and things - which even directs the whole process of finding the equation, at the starting point).


Don't you tell me! I see a gap between my possibilities and the complexity of what people here are dealing with. I am just amazed. They talk Chinese!

To reach an equation that can be put to reality tests, we need to understand the 'objects' going into the equation and their relations. So perhaps one of the first steps in the process, or in one way to approach the task at hands, of math formulaic description of reality would be defining and understanding the true nature of its basic constituents, or consciousness and its "units".

An example of a technical difficulty for doing so is our current 'definition' or math description of a wave, as we as conscious beings are supposedly "wave reading consciousness units". And we haven't even come to the term consciousness itself. Similarly is with the concept of FRV which according to the C's 'determines' who we are and what we see, i.e. our internal and external environment. Here the concepts of "internal" and "external" also become rather 'vague' and not really clearly 'defined' when stepping into hyperdimensional realm of inquiry, i.e. what's exactly the boundary or the 'demarcation zone' that differs what's inside in relation to what's outside when it comes to consciousness?

One of the difficulties about describing a wave in hyperdimensional terms lies in the fact that its 'known' math description already involves our 3-dim space and 1-dim time, i.e. it's kind of 'hardcoded' by our material perspective. Moreso, it does not describe the wave per se, but the effects that the 'passage' of a wave leaves on the 'constituents' of the medium through which the wave is propagating. Kind of (only) exception to this is light, which is classicaly described as a coupled electric and magnetic field oscillating along the e-m wave trajectory in perpendicular direction to it, without the need for apparent medium for its propagation. And even in that case, there are our usual space and time in the math description of that oscillating propagation.

Another 'technical' difficulty lies with the math itself. Most if not all things we know how to adequately deal with within physics and our current math framework involve 'linear behavior'. Even the most simple examples of non-linearity, like movements or motions of and in a fluid like water, described by Navier-Stokes equations (Britannica link), are not analitically solvable except when introducing some (many) approximations which in most cases make the whole thing really unrealistic. In addition, they are not adequately solvable even numerically with all our current supercomputers, the accuracy of weather forecasts attest to that. And those equations, together with Maxwell's equations of electrodynamics describing mostly linear behavior of electric and magnetic fields, are the foundation for magnetohydrodynamics, rather complex and approximate math description used to model plasma. And how that works we can see with the space weather forecasts where every now and then there's quite a surprise with what actually happens with geomagnetic field compared to what's expected to happen.

Taken all together, there is not really much to start with, even without the overlords making the things additionally difficult so to keep humanity in the dark and ignorant about the actual reality we live in. Or, perhaps more to the point and closer to truth, the overlords are actually the architects of this situation we find ourselves in. Which then makes it an act of resistance to seek and discover the true nature of our universe, the Free Will Universe of Creativity and Abundance.

 

[John G]

I am intellectually able to follow-up up to the green text; I need the theory.

You've mentioned symetry. Pierre's model teaches about chirality, but I believe a person digging into symetry already knows the chirality aspect - so that the symetry matter is raised because of something else.

I hope you researchers can find something! Good luck!

The mathematical physicist I first learned about Ark and the conformal group from talked about conformal symmetry in the context of time travel including for information.