Session date 4 July 1998 33 страница

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 33 из 85Следующая ⇒

О: Да.

В: (L) Это стоит изучить?

О: Да.

В: (L) А его идея скалярного электромагнитного звука?

О: Близко.

В: (L) Хорошо, вернемся к пирамидам. В текстах пирамид, когда они говорят о «Лодке миллионов лет», о чем идет речь?

О: Машине времени.

09.12.98
Q: (L) In the middle of the night the other night as I was going to sleep, I thought of something that you guys once said about the Denver airport, TDARM, that both sides can use airports and that the meaning was ‘much, much deeper than that.’ It made me think of what you had said before about planets and stars being windows or doorways. Is it possible that there are points in deep recesses or underground places of our planet where one can enter a portal and emerge through a portal on another planet or system. Are the centers of planets and stars the emergences of wormholes or something?
A: If utilized as such.
Q: (C) So it would have to be intentional. Is anyone utilizing them as such?
A: Maybe…
Q: (A) What is so particular about the center of a planet as opposed to the center of a snowball. Both are balls, one is just a little bit larger than the other. A planet is a big ball, a snowball is a small ball.
A: Have you ever tried to melt a planet in your hand?
Q: (A) No, because a planet is a little bit bigger than my hand. What is so particular about a planet. It is just a piece of matter like a snowball is a piece of matter.
A: Magnetic field gravity profile.
Q: (L) What is the magnetic field gravity profile?
A: Intensity and… here comes that word… density.
Q: (L) Well, off to the side, just what IS at the core of our planet?
A: Fluid crystalline gas core.
Q: (L) And what is this fluid crystalline gas core composed of?
A: Methane and ammonia.
Q: (L) How does methane and ammonia be crystalline?
A: They can be under the correct magnetic conductivity.
Q: (C) Can the condition found at the core be duplicated on the surface of the planet?
A: No.
Q: (C) So you couldn’t achieve the proper magnetic conductivity?
A: Right.
Q: (L) What is so particular about methane and ammonia that it composes the core?
A: Methane binds to the ammonium crystals.
Q: (L) Well, that’s the bizarrest thing I ever heard!
A: No.
Q: (L) Well, it’s right up there in the top ten! (C) Was that the beginning of the formation of the earth when the methane bound to the ammonium crystals?
A: No.
Q: (L) Well, how did it get there?
A: Methane collected at the core after cooling. Buoyancy is determined by gravitational profile. This is why Jupiter and Saturn, for example, both of which are less dense than the Earth, but have immensely stronger gravitational fields, have atmospheres consisting of ammonia as the dominant gas.
Q: (L) How does this very strange core in the earth relate to gravity waves?
A: Well, the wave is an integral factor of the excitation of the basic substance.
Q: (L) Are you saying that excitation of these substances produce gravity waves?
A: Excitation of the environment produces a wave of the foundational entity of that environment.
Q: (L) What is the foundational entity of the environment of this core?
A: Same as all others. 7th density.
Q: (A) I have a problem with this Saturn and Jupiter. If they are less dense, but have stronger gravitational fields. According to what I know their gravitational field is stronger because they are bigger. So, even though they are less dense, they have more mass and their gravitational field is stronger. And that is all.
A: Yes this is true.
Q: (A) Well, they said that this is true what I said…
A: How does what we said conflict with what you said?
Q: (A) What they say, if they are really gasses then the planet must be bigger, but they say it has a stronger gravity field because of that.
A: No, no, no. We did not say it has a stronger gravity field because of that. Review, please!
Q: (C) Okay, buoyancy. I guess that if we were to walk on Jupiter or Saturn we would be more or less buoyant than on the Earth? (L) Now wait a minute. We were asking about this core, and we were curious as to how this methane could be at the core because we perceive methane as being ‘fluffy,’ or buoyant… (C) But it is bound to the ammonium crystals… (L) And they said that buoyancy was determined by gravitational profile. Jupiter and Saturn have atmospheres consisting of ammonia as the dominant gas because buoyancy is determined by gravitational profile. (C) What does buoyancy have to do with the binding of methane and ammonia or with the gravitational profile. (L) That is HUGELY confusing! What is the gravitational profile of Jupiter or Saturn, for example, as contrasted to the gravitational profile of the Earth?
A: They are much stronger gravitationally.
Q: (L) Is this gravitational profile of Jupiter and Saturn related in a direct way to the ammonia?
A: Indirectly.
Q: (C) Why didn’t their ammonia bind with the methane and sink to the core?
A: Because density affects buoyancy.
Q: (L) The buoyancy of what?
A: The gases.
Q: (L) Why are they less dense?
A: Because of their size juxtaposed with their environment relative to their distance from Sol.
Q: (L) Why did the impact of the comet Shoemacher-Levy, in this ammonia environment produce superluminal effects that were measured on these instruments by these Russian scientists?
A: Ponder based upon what we have given you. Now refer to your knowledge base regarding microdynamic atomic physics.
Q: (A) I want to ask about this macrodynamics. In microdynamics we have Planck’s constant and it is very small, and this is why we have quantum jumps and quantum events in microdynamics. But there is this concept of macrodynamics, perhaps we have probability waves and quantum jumps on a macro scale. This is something which we don’t know…
A: Yet.
Q: (A) So there is something like Planck’s Constant but much bigger that converts on a macro scale?
A: Something like that. And if this is food for thought, you have been presented with a veritable feast tonight.

9 сентября, 1998

В: (L) В середине одной из ночей я собиралась идти спать, я думала о том, что вы однажды сказали про аэропорт Денвер, Межпространственный Атомный Ремолекуляризатор, что обе стороны могут использовать аэропорт, и что значение этого «намного глубже, чем кажется». Это заставило меня подумать о том, что вы сказали ранее о планетах и подземных базах и звездах, являющихся окнами или проходами. Возможно ли, что есть точки в глухомани или подземных местах нашей планеты, где кто-то может войти в портал и появиться через портал на другой планете или системе. Являются ли центры планет или звезд «проявлением проходов» или как-то так?

О: Если используется таким образом.

В: (L) Т.е. нужны намеренья. Использует ли кто-либо их таким образом?

О: Возможно…

В: (A) В чем особенность центра планеты по сравнению с центром кома снега. Оба являются шарами, один просто немного больше, чем другой. Планета – это большой шар, а снежный ком – маленький шар.

О: Вы когда-то пытались расплавить планету в своих руках?

В: (A) Нет, потому что планета немного больше, чем моя рука. Так что особенного в планете. Это просто кусок материи подобно тому, что ком снега тоже кусок материи.

О: Профиль магнитного поля гравитации.

В: (L) Что такое профиль магнитного поля гравитации?

О: Интенсивность и ... вставим слово… плотность.

В: (L) Кстати, между делом, что представляет собой ядро планеты?

О: Жидкое, кристаллическое, газовое ядро.

В: (L) И из чего это жидкое кристаллическое газовое ядро состоит?

О: Метан и аммиак.

В: (L) И как метан и аммиак кристаллизируются?

О: Они могут при определенной магнитной проницаемости.

В: (C) Могут ли условия в ядре планеты, продублированы на поверхности планеты?

О: Нет.

В: (C) Т.е. вы не можете достичь нужной магнитной проницаемости?

О: Верно.

В: (L) И что особенного в метане и аммиаке, что они составляют ядро?

О: Метан соединяется к кристаллам аммиака.

В: (L) Это самое странное, что я когда-либо слышала!

О: Нет.

В: (L) Ну ладно - топ 10! (C) Было ли начало формирования земли, когда метан связался с кристаллами аммиака?

О: Нет.

В: (L) И как он попал туда?

О: Метан собирается у ядра после остывания. Выталкивание определяется гравитационным профилем. Именно по этой причине Юпитер и Сатурн, например, оба менее плотные, чем Земля, но имеют намного более сильные гравитационные поля, имеют атмосферу из аммиака, как преобладающих газ.

В: (L) Как это очень странное ядро земли связано с гравитационными волнами?

О: Волна - это интегральный фактор возбуждения базовой субстанции.

В: (L) Вы говорите, что возбуждение этих субстанций производит гравитационные волны?

О: Возбуждение среды производит волну основополагающей сущности этого окружения.

В: (L) И что за основополагающая сущность среды этого ядра?

О: Такая же, как у всех других. 7ая плотность.

В: (A) У меня проблема с Сатурном и Юпитером. Если они менее плотные, но имеют более сильное гравитационное поле. Исходя из того, что я знаю, их гравитационные поля сильнее, потому что они больше. Т.е. даже если они менее плотные, у них больше масса и гравитационное поле сильнее. Вот и все.

О: Да, это верно.

В: (A) Ну, они сказали, что это правда, что я сказал…

О: Как то, что мы сказали, конфликтует с тем, что сказали вы?

В: (A) Что они сказали, что если они реально газовые, то планета должны быть больше, и также они сказали, что гравитационное поле сильнее из-за этого.

О: Нет, нет, нет. Мы не сказали, что оно имеет более сильное гравитационное поле из-за этого. Пересмотрите, пожалуйста!

В: (С) Хорошо, выталкивание. Я считаю, что если бы мы гуляли по Юпитеру или Сатурну мы были бы более или менее подвижными, чем на Земле? (L) Минутку. Мы спрашивали про ядро, и нам было любопытно, как метан может быть в ядре, потому что мы воспринимаем метан как «очень легкий» или всплывающий. (С) Но он связан с кристаллами аммиака… (L) И они сказали, что выталкивание определяется гравитационным профилем. Юпитер и Сатурн имеют атмосферу, состоящую из аммиака, как преобладающего газа, потому что выталкивание определяется гравитационным профилем. (С) И какое отношение имеет выталкивание со связыванием метана и аммиака или гравитационным профилем. (L) Совсем запутано! Каков гравитационный профиль Юпитера или Сатурна, например, по сравнению гравитационным профилем Земли?

О: Они намного более сильные гравитационно.

В: (L) Этот гравитационный профиль Юпитера или Сатурна как-то связан напрямую с аммиаком?

О: Не прямо.

В: (L) Почему же их аммиак не связался с метаном и не опустился в ядро?

О: Потому-что плотность воздействует на выталкивание.

В: (L) Выталкивание чего?

О: Газов.

В: (L) Почему они менее плотные?

О: Потому что их размер идет бок о бок с их окружением относительно их расстоянию от солнца.

В: (L) Почему удар кометы Шумейкеров - Леви в среде аммиака произвела эффект быстрее скорости света, который был измерен инструментами русских ученых?

О: Обдумайте, основываясь на том, что мы уже дали вам. Используйте базу знаний по атомной физике на уровне микродинамики.

В: (A) Я хочу спросить об этой макродинамике. В микродинамике у нас есть константа Планка, и она очень мала, и в этом причина, почему у нас есть квантовые прыжки и квантовые события на уровне микродинамики. Но если взять концепцию макродинамики, возможно, есть вероятность волн и квантовых прыжков на макроуровне. Это то, что мы не знаем.

О: Пока.

В: (A) Т.е. есть нечто подобное константе Планка, но гораздо больше, работающая на макроуровне?

О: Нечто подобное. И если это пища для ума, то вам дали настоящее пиршество на вечер.

12.05.98
Q: (A) At some point we were asking about this magnetic grid of the earth, and we were told that the grid lines are located about every 200 miles, and that it is a regular pattern of lines…
A: Yes, but those are primary. What happens at the poles?
Q: (A) At the poles, these lines converge, and the pattern becomes more complex, I suspect.
A: Convergence.
Q: (A) Okay, they converge at the poles, and probably go inside.
A: In atmosphere, there is undulation. At core, there is primary convergence, and that is also your doorway/bridge.
Q: (A) Core of the Earth?
A: Yes.
Q: (A) These lines that are being drawn, are they just one dimensional lines, or are they a plane that crosses the Earth along these lines?
A: Latter.
Q: (A) Well, I wanted to make sure because, when we were directed to this place and the term ‘magnetic meridian’ was brought up, and we asked the question as to where the zero magnetic meridian was located, we were told that it was at about 90 degrees East longitude which is in the Indian Ocean. Is this correct?
A: All those lovely, shimmering oceans intersect around a lovely island with really inexpensive real estate!
Q: (A) I have no idea what that means! [Laura stops and gets the Atlas and examines the area in question.] (L) Okay, the only island I can see that those lovely shimmering oceans intersect around, in the terms in which you have expressed it, is Antarctica.
A: Yes.
Q: (A) Okay, this brings us to the question about the Piri Reis map. We wanted to know the origin of this map?
A: Complex, but the origin would date back to 14,000 B.C.
Q: (A) Atlantis?
A: Close.
Q: (L) Was this map drawn when Antarctica was NOT covered by ice?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Why was it not covered by ice? (A) Because the climate was warmer.
A: Technologically achieved.
Q: (L) Why would somebody want to technologically warm Antarctica if the whole rest of the planet was available for use? What is so special about Antarctica?
A: The whole rest of the planet was available for use? Not hardly.
Q: (L) Why was the rest of the planet not available for use?
A: Ice.
Q: (A) Much of the planet was covered by ice, but not all.
A: Yes.
Q: (L) So, instead of using the areas that were NOT covered by ice, why, in particular, was Antarctica…
Q: (L) What I am getting at is: why go to all the trouble to thaw out a whole big island if it might have been easier to have been somewhere else?
A: Is it not obvious by now? Magnetic power grid physics . EM utilization. Crystals, and the like. Seeking paths to the interior? The “Poles” know best! EM generators usually employ a grid. ‘Tis for field creation
Q: (A) When you say this, you mean A grid, not THE grid?
A: Yes. Looks like a waffle iron.
Q: (A) You mean like a waffle iron that is used in transformers?
A: Okay. Why? To duplicate nature. Earth has a web, and so doeth thee!
Q: (A) Now, Earth’s grid is just an imaginary grid related to field, or just a mathematic grid… no, it must really exist….
A: Yes.
Q: (A) If it really exists, is it a field of grid, or is it a grid made out of some matter, like these waffle irons? Just field, or matter?
A: Both. The iron is attracted, not attractive.
Q: (A) Okay, I want to ask about the Whittaker papers of 1903, about solutions of wave equations, and this relates to this Bearden who is talking about anti-gravity and zero point energy devices. At some point, you told us that there was something in this. Bearden speculates that this Whittaker’s ideas were useful. I obtained copies and I am studying them, and they are quite interesting.. Is this something that is worthwhile or another red herring?
A: No. They are worth it.
Q: (A) Recently, by a strange chance, I was pointed to a guy in Brazil who wrote some papers about superluminal waves. He writes a lot of papers about it… and he even says that he believes that superluminal waves can be used technologically pretty soon. Any comment this particular guy, is he on the right track?
A: Yes.
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.
Q: (A) Sure. Now, I was thinking today about this Whittaker discovery, and whether I should work on linking it to the pentagons and hexagons. Is it the missing link? Or, did you mean another missing link?
A: Well, linking the geometric factors you speak of is wise, but there are other links missing as well.

5 декабря, 1998

В: (A) В один из моментов мы спрашивали о магнитной решетке земли и вы нам сказали, что линии решетки расположены каждые двести миль, и что это обычный рисунок линий…

О: Да, но это главные. Что происходит на полюсах?

В: (A) На полюсах эти линии сходятся и рисунок становиться более сложным, я подозреваю.

О: Сходимость.

В: (A) Хорошо, они сходятся на полюсах и возможно идут внутрь.

О: В атмосфере есть волнообразное движение. В ядре – основная сходимость, и это также ваш проход/мост.

В: (A) Ядро Земли?

О: Да.

В: (A) Эти линии, что начерчены, они просто одномерные линии, или они плоскость, что пересекает Землю вдоль этих линий?

О: Последнее.

В: (A) Ну, я хотел убедиться, потому что когда нас направили в этом место и термин «магнитный меридиан» был представлен, и мы задали вопрос, где 0 меридиан расположен, вы нам сказали, что он около 90 градусов восточнее долгота, что есть индийский океан. Это верно?

О: Все эти чудесные мерцающие океаны пересекаются вокруг чудесного острова с очень недорогой недвижимостью!

В: (A) Я без понятия, о чем это! [Лора берет атлас, и рассматривает области по вопросу.] (L) Хорошо, единственный остров, где все океаны пересекаются, и в терминах, как вы этот выразили – это Антарктида.

О: Да.

В: (L) Хорошо, это подводит нас к вопросу о карте Пири Рейс. Мы бы хотели знать происхождение этой карты.

О: Сложно. Но происхождение ведет к датам 14000 до нашей эры.

В: (A) Атлантида?

О: Близко.

В: (L) Почему она не была покрыта льдом? (A) Потому что климат был мягче.

О: Достигнуто технологически.

В: (L) Зачем кому-то технологически утеплять Антарктиду, если целая планета доступна для использования? Что особого в Антарктиде?

О: Вся планета была доступна для использования? Едва ли.

В: (L) Почему остаток планеты нельзя было использовать?

О: Лед.

В: (L) Большая часть земли была покрыта льдом, но не вся?

О: Да.

В: (L) Т.е. вместо того, чтобы использовать области, не покрытые льдом, почему в частности это была Антарктида…

В: (L) Я это понимаю так: зачем решать все эти проблемы с растапливанием целого большого острова, если это должно быть легче просто быть где-то в другом месте?

О: Разве это не очевидно? Физика магнитных силовых сеток. Электромагнитная утилизация. Кристаллы и тому подобное. Ищите путь внутрь? Полюсы – это лучшее, что известно. Генераторы электромагнитного поля обычно используют сетки. Для создания поля.

В: (A) Вы имеете в виду сетку, не модуляцию? (оригинал слово grid, примечание переводчика).

О: Да. Выглядит как железная вафельница.

В: (A) Вы имеете в виду вафельницу, которая используется в трансформаторах?

О: Хорошо. Почему? Дублировать природу. Земля имеет паутину, и вы также!

В: (A) Теперь, сетка Земли – это просто представляемая сетка, связанная с полем, или просто математическая сетка… нет, она должно быть реально существует…

О: Да.

В: (A) Если она реально существует, это поле сетки или это сетка, сделанная из какой-то материи, подобно этим железным вафельницам? Просто поле или материя?

О: И то и другое. Железо притягивается, не привлекается.

В: (A) Хорошо. Я хочу просить о работе Вайтекера 1903 года, о решениях волновых уравнений, и это связано с Бирденом, который говорит про антигравитацию и устройствах на энергии нулевой точки. Однажды вы сказали, что в этом что-то есть. Бирден размышлял, что идеи Вайтекера были полезны. Я получил копии и изучаю их, и они довольно интересны. Это что-то ценное, или еще одна «отвлекалка внимания»?

О: Нет. Она стоит того.

В: (A) Недавно, по странному случаю, я направил свое внимание на человека из Бразилии, который написал работы о волнах быстрее скорости света. Он написал много работ по этому… и он даже говорит и считает, что волны быстрее скорости света могут быть использованы технологически очень скоро. Есть комментарии по этому человеку, он на верном пути?

О: Да.

В: (A) Как насчет кватернионов? Лорд Гамильтон изобрел кватернионы, и этот Бирден говорит нам, что Максвелл написал свои уравнения, используя кватернионы, и что его оригинальная работа скрыта от нас правительством; что Максвелл знал больше, чем нам сказано. Это так?

О: Да.

В: (A) Эти кватернионы полезны?

О: Частично, отсутствует звено.

В: (A) Конечно. Теперь, я думал сегодня об открытии Вайтекера, и должен ли я работать на связывании этого к пятиугольникам или шестиугольникам. Это отсутствующее звено? Или вы имели в виду другое отсутствующее звено?

О: Ну, связывание геометрических факторов, о которых вы говорите, мудро, но есть еще одно отсутствующее звено.

07.10.99
Q: (A) Now, next question relates to the story of creation which L wrote for the website, and I was reading it and trying to make sense, to make it not contradictory, and I found that it is not easy because many of the concepts that are used during these sessions are somehow contradictory to each other or they don’t quite fit with the standard meanings of these concepts, so I wanted to ask for some explanation. First, we were told that gravity is essentially the most universal force and that it is from this that everything originates…
A: Gravity is the binder.
Q: (A) But, my question is: gravity is a term that is defined in dictionaries and encyclopedias and is a term which has a very precise meaning for physicists and mathematicians. I want to know if you are talking about the same thing or if you are using the term ‘gravity’ to describe something completely different that we know as gravity. Are we talking about the same thing?
A: Well, are you certain these “definitions” you speak of are not limited?
Q: (A) Yes, I am sure they are limited. Nevertheless, they are precisely defined concepts and you are using the same term ‘gravity,’ so I am asking if we are talking about the same thing, or if you are talking about something completely different?
A: How about a great expansion upon the same concept?
Q: (A) Okay. That answered my question. So, we are using the same thing, but for you it is more adequate or so. Now, I want to ask about mathematical modelling of gravity. The gravity that we know about is modelled by geometry of a curved space. Is the gravity that you are talking about, which is an expansion of this concept, capable of being modelled in a similar way: by geometry?
A: Geometry is the correct model.
Q: (A) Now, the question is: if gravity can be modelled in this way – geometry is the correct model – what do we need more to model also consciousness? Will it be automatically implied in such a model of gravity, or is it something extra?
A: Consciousness is contained within the expanded realization of the gravity model. The model, if completed, would give one an insight into the synchronous relationship between gravity and consciousness.
Q: (A) If gravity is modelled by curvature or torsion of geometry, mathematically, how would consciousness come out of geometry?
A: That is a broken question. What we can say is this: if one could visualize the inverted representation of the gravity geometric model, one would be squarely on the path to understanding the geometric model of consciousness.
Q: (A) Now, there are claims, more or less, shared by many scientists that quantum theory is necessary to model or understand consciousness. From what was said before, it seems that quantum theory is not necessary, that it is sufficient to have the right geometric model of extended gravity.
A: No, not extended, expanded.
Q: (A) Does that mean that quantum theory is irrelevant for understanding the modelling of consciousness?
A: Quantum first needs to be graduated from the realm of theory. Proving is a concept we should now be moving beyond. The currently imposed protocol for “proving” theories is a bit passe, we thinx. Can you imagine trying to fly a plane if you must first prove that there is a sky?
Q: (C) So, don’t try to prove quantum theory, just go ahead and use it, I guess.
A: Pretty close.
Q: (A) Are you laughing at quantum theory?
A: No. We are lauging at 3rd density scientific protocol!
Q: (A) Okay, we are coming to densities. But, before that, one more question: what is matter? How is matter built out of gravity? What forms of gravity correspond to matter in terms of the geometric model?
A: First of all, you live in a “matter” universe, from your perspective. There is an accompanying energy universe which you largely are unable to perceive as of yet.
Q: (A) But, my question was …
A: Who/what is Mandlebrot??
Q: (A) Okay, you are talking about fractals now, certainly…
A: Are we?
Q: (A) Mandlebrot is the name of a French mathematician who is famous because he discovered fractals and some laws that govern fractals and chaos. But, as to ‘what’ – some fractal images are also called ‘mandlebrot.’
A: And where does this lead, Ark?
Q: (A) That brings us to fractal properties of space time and such things.
A: What if matter were the “half-life” of energy?
Q: (C) What if energy decays into matter? Is that what they are saying?
A: Be careful of the quotemarks, they bring you to the crossroads. As in: “you take the high road, I’ll take the low road, and I’ll be in Scotland before ye.”
Q: (L) I guess that means that we are not to use the usual interpretation of ‘half-life,’ but that there is a pun, a clue intended here that is to be deciphered.
A: Look folks, we cannot just spill the secrets of all existence all over this board, but we sure can open the doorways, yeah.
Q: (L) That brings me to a little question that I want to insert here. You have said that Service to Others means ‘giving all to those who ask.’ We are asking, so why aren’t you giving all?
A: Not quite. Cannot abridge free will!
Q: (L) Well, my free will says that I want all the secrets of existence! I mean, other people are channeling sources that just dump endless answers to anything and everything…
A: Other people are channeling ________..
Q: […] (A) Now, the two main concepts that we are using are dimensions and densities. Again, you use the concept of dimension in not quite the way physicists and mathematicians use it.
A: Phi.
Q: (A) Well, I have no idea what this phi is doing here which is probably related to Fibonacci and the Golden Ratio…
A: Carbonari.
Q: (A) Yet, still there is my question about dimensions. Phi is not an integer number and we will look into it. But, what I said was that the way you are using the term ‘dimensions’ is not what physicists are familiar with in using this term.
A: The trouble here is with semantics: the general public uses that word to mean different things from the physicists!
Q: (C) Okay, phi is a Greek letter but I don’t see how that is connected.
A: No, not phi, dimensions!
Q: (A) I have tried to guess what you mean by dimensions from all the things that you have said about it…
A: Our “meaning” is closer to that of the general public definition.
Q: (A) Very good, yet you have said certain things in a context that was more related to the structure of the universe. And we were talking about dimensions also in the context of Kaluza-Klein theories. At one point, you said there are infinitely many dimensions, and at another point it was implied that different dimensions meant different universes, which would mean that there are infinitely many universes. I would like to represent these dimensions in some mathematical model. My idea was that these dimensions were like slices; and each slice is a universe and, indeed, there are infinitely many possible slices. So, that was my idea of dimensions: slices. Is it correct?
A: That is good.
Q: (A) There are infinitely many dimensions because there are infinitely many slices. Now we come to densities. There are not infinitely many densities, there are only seven. Or, are these seven just for the general public and there are really infinitely many of them as well?
A: No.
Q: (A) Good. So, there are seven densities. Now, how come, there are seven, and not three or five, or eleven? Does it follow from some mathematics?
A: What form of mathematical theory best describes the concept of balance?
Q: (L) Algebra. (A) So, I had the idea that these seven densities were related to what Gurdjieff relates to the number of laws that apply in the various densities; the higher the density, the fewer the laws that apply, which means there is more freedom?
A: That is very close. Consciousness is the key here.
Q: (A) Yes, so my question relates to the geometric model of gravity and consciousness.
A: Picture an endless octagonal… in three dimensions.
Q: (A) A lattice, you mean?
A: Okay.
Q: (A) Are these densities related to the mathematical concept of ‘signatures of the metric?’ I would like to model densities with slices of different geometric properties, in particular slices with different properties of the distance.
A: Yes…
Q: (A) There are several people who essentially think the same direction as we have been discussing… they are almost on the same track. Matti Pitkanen is one of them and Tony Smith is the other. How can these two guys have these similar ideas without having access to channeling?
A: Who said they they have no access to channeling? Some channel without knowing it.
Q: (A) Today, on this list there was a guy by the name of Boyd who talks about his shamanistic experiences in talking to rocks. He doesn’t sound whacko, but he talks to these stones on a daily basis and these stones talk to him, and these rocks have consciousness, they have memories. I wrote to him, but I would like to know if his experiences are authentic and not just his imagination?
A: That is a very broad question, which assumes limits or barriers where none may exist.
Q: (L) Is anyone able to tune into the consciousness of rocks?
A: What if they are really tuning to a consciousness through the rocks?
Q: (A) To A consciousness? Whose consciousness or what consciousness? Universal consciousness?
A: Another.
Q: (A) Another consciousness. (L) Do rocks have consciousness?
A: Refer to material re: 1st density.
Q: (L) Yes, well it has been previously said that 1st density does have consciousness… that even rocks have consciousness and can learn. That brings us back to Boyd, is he, can he, does he tune into the consciousness of rocks and/or other consciousnesses THROUGH rocks?
A: The latter is closer.
Q: (L) So, the consciousness of a rock might not be amenable to communicating.
A: Right.
Q: (L) What other consciouness might a person tune into through a rock? ANY other or a specific other?
A: Closer to former.
Q: (A) If there is consciousness, it means that there is a consciousness unit, and this consciousn unit can be within or associated with some body of some density. Can one tune to consciousness that resides, so to say, in higher densities than third, using rocks? Is it possible?
A: Close.
Q: (A) So, you can tune to dead dudes or Cassiopaeans. (L) Is the consciousness of human beings something that has cycled from minerals to plants through animals to evolve into consciousness of 3rd density mind, as we understand it?
A: In a roundabout way.
Q: (L) Was each of us, sitting here, at any point in the remote past, using time loosely, a critter, so to speak, or a plant or a tree?
A: You still be a critter, baby!
Q: (L) So, leaving out time, the stream of consciousness that makes us as individual units, branches out and extends into lower densities, or connects to them like a tree?
A: Maybe.
Q: (A) Concerning these rocks, I want to ask about this DNA phantom effect that some Russians recently discovered. They shoot with lasers into this vaccum and record photons with detectors. It detects noise because there is nothing coherent. Then, they put a little piece of DNA there. This DNA has a certain regular structure. So, the photons from the lasers scatter from this DNA molecule in a certain wavy pattern which corresponds to the internal structure of the DNA. Now, they remove the DNA and for a month or two they continue to obtain a coherent pattern from the vacuum as though something was still there. They call it the ‘phantom DNA.’
A: The “phantom” is a remnant of the consciousness residue contained within the DNA structure.
Q: (A) Where does this remnant reside? In the vacuum, in the vibrations of the vacuum, in a gravitational field that is inside the vacuum, in some nonlinear electromagnetics? Where is this remnant? What keeps it? Space itself?
A: You hit it pretty close with the last three.
Q: (C) Wouldn’t it be like leaving an impression in a cushion? (A) Yes, but this is a vacuum. (L) I guess that a vacuum isn’t what we think it is. There is something there that is not amenable to our perception. (A) So, consciousness resides in a DNA structure. (C) Well, going back to the rocks, is not all consciousness connected? (A) Yes, but the funny thing about these rocks is that they have the ability of tuning one consciousness to another consciousness so that even if, in principle, all consciousness is one consciousness, yet there are separate consciousness units, which at some level they connect, yet at our level they seem to be separate, so there is something about rocks. (C) Maybe its the fact that they are so simple. (A) Yes. But, it seems that a rock would do it, but dirt would not, so what is so special about rocks? (L) Okay, this anthropologist, Michael Harner, was doing some field work, and it says here that Harner went to the Peruvian Amazon to study the culture of the Conibo Indians. After a year or so he had made little headway in understanding their religious system, when the Conibo told him ‘if he really wanted to learn, he had to drink ahayahuasca. Harner accepted, not without fear because the people had warned him that the experience was terrifying. The following evening, under the strict supervision of his indigenous friends, he drank the equivalent of a third of a bottle. After several minutes he found himself flying into a world of true hallucinations. After arriving in a celestial cavern where a supernatural carnival of demons was in full swing, he saw two strange boats floating through the air that combined to form a huge dragon headed prow not unlike that of a Viking ship. On the deck he could make out large numbers of people with the heads of bluejays and the bodies of humans, not unlike the bird-headed gods of ancient Egyptian tomb paintings. After multiple episodes, which would be too long to describe here, Harner became convinced that he was dying. He tried calling out to his Conibo friends for an antidote without managing to pronounce a word. Then he saw that his visions emanated from giant reptilian creatures that resided at the lowest depths of his brain. These creatures began projecting scenes in front of his eyes while informing him that this information was reserved for the dying and the dead. ‘First, they showed me the planet Earth as it was aeons ago before there was any life on it. I saw an ocean, barren land, and a bright blue sky. Then black specks dropped from the sky by the hundreds and landed in front of me on the barren landscape. I could see that the specks were actually large, shiny black creatures with stubby pterodactyl-like wings and huge whale-like bodies. They explained to me in a kind of thought language, that they were fleeing from something from out in space. They had come to the planet earth to escape their enemy. The creatures then showed me how they had created life on the planet in order to hide within the multitudinour forms, and thus disguise their presence. Before me, the magnificence of plant and animal creation and speciation and hundreds of millions of years of activity, took place on a scale and with a vividness impossible to describe. I learned that dragon-like creatures were thus inside all forms of life, including man.’ At this point in his account, Harner writes in a footnote at the bottom of the page: ‘in retrospect, one could say that they were almost like DNA, although at that time, in 1961, I knew nothing of DNA.’ So, I would like to know what was the source and nature of these nearly universal visions that occurs in these shamanistic practices; the various creatures including serpents and bird-headed dudes, and so forth? What is the source of these hallucinations?
A: Be more specific.
Q: (C) In these chemically induced trances, why is there the common experience of seeing these bird-headed or serpent-like creatures?
A: While you have physicality, some part of you will maintain the connection to its roots.
Q: (L) Are you saying that all these people who say that human beings have reptilian genetics, are telling the truth? Do we have reptilian genetics?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Do we also have bird genetics?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) And that is our physical connection or basis?
A: Yes, as third density bioengineered beings, you lead the smorgasbord parade of that which surrounds you in the physical realm.

⇐ Предыдущая 28 29 30 31 323334 35 36 37 Следующая ⇒