Humble suggestion to consider inviting more scientists as guest attendees for Cassiopaean board sessions/discussions

D

DiscoveringTruth

Padawan Learner
I have had this thought for quite a while that I wanted to share with Laura/Ark and the Chateau crew at the cost of seeming too intrusive/inconsiderate/ungrateful.

In some of the board sessions in the past, there have been guest attendees who were physicists (friends of Ark or the QFG?) and I feel that this thing can be repeated more frequently. Since the Cs lay so much emphasis on networking, I feel the board discussions can be even more rich and beneficial than they already are if more scientists, researchers and mystics could be invited to the board sessions. Although I can understand there may be reasons for restricting the attendee list or inviting people only with very similar interests, I feel this may be a fruitful endeavor. Just like Ark/Laura/Joe/Pierre and others, experts in their fields at the forefront of research will be able to ask specific, pertinent questions that could illuminate further areas of research and progress. I got this idea from hearing podcasts of people such as Joe Rogan, Lex Fridman and Curt Jaimungal and panel discussions of physicists such as Sabine Hossenfelder who get really interesting guests - historians, mathematicians, physicists, writers, engineers, journalists, doctors, talk show hosts etc on their podcasts for free flowing, open discussions on all sorts of topics. It could help cast a wider net that would enable us to find answers to deep, intriguing mysteries.

Also since one of the interests of Ark's research is figuring out a UFT for the four fundamental forces of existence, which is perhaps a common interest shared by many other physicists, it may bring new "aha" moments for them by coming together and discussing burning questions at the board with the Cs and the crew. I know what the Cs say about the dangers of revealing UFT, you could keep cut out the sensitive parts of transcripts as per your judgement but it is an example of a field that will benefit from this exercise. Other fields of research such as health, history, paranormal, maths, etc will be benefitted in the same way.

Just a humble suggestion. This is ultimately Laura and the crew's baby and I respect that fully. I appreciate everyone's efforts and the recent sessions with virtual participants have been really cool!
 
It certainly seems like a noble idea, and one that could perhaps speed things up in the search for the truth. But observing the current state of things in the world... the reigning materialism makes the scientist not to inquire into non-materialistic questions, and those who do, with good reason prefer to remain low profile.

If a physician, if a doctor who with arguments and evidence finds that the pandemic is the biggest scam in history, even with that in his favor sees his life and career sent directly to the stake of the holy inquisition of the covid... what do you think can happen to the man who finds the formula that potentially frees us from the bonds of the material? I don't mean to be pessimistic here, I'm just trying to be realistic and based on the evidence where and when someone came close to the solution, the PTB stepped in.
 
Laura said:
You are assuming that such are waiting in line. They aren't.
Click to expand...

I would assume, conservatively, that not every good scientist or researcher has had his brain washed by the current materialistic paradigm and there may be those who are open to the idea of such a medium of communication and more importantly, gaining knowledge. People may not agree with all the research that's been done here but there may be mutual agreement on many topics. Of course, the ones who are too mainstream or have staked their reputation as material atheists wouldn't be keen but there must be many who would be interested if they knew how research is done here.

I'm more optimistic that there's deep, global interest in such topics and lines of research based on podcasts and the non-mainstream guests that have come on popular talk shows on YouTube and elsewhere. If the Cs were some lowly "dead dude" or New Age type of beings (which they are not!) then of course these type of collaborations would be a disaster but I feel that guests who attend these sessions are going to get their mind blown away by the quality of information that comes from these super advanced 6D beings.

If you Laura, were open to the idea, then such guests could be invited virtually just like they are on the Mind Matters or other sott talk radio shows. I and perhaps others would love to help volunteer our time to invite researchers (that you and others in the Chateau group follow) or to get a feel for whether they would be interested in such an endeavor. Forum members would have plenty of suggestions as well.

I'd be dying to ask Cs questions if I were a physicist like Ark. Collaboration is the easiest way to accelerate the process of knowledge acquisition. More brains = faster progress and lessons learnt for everyone.
 
Bluegazer said:
It certainly seems like a noble idea, and one that could perhaps speed things up in the search for the truth. But observing the current state of things in the world... the reigning materialism makes the scientist not to inquire into non-materialistic questions, and those who do, with good reason prefer to remain low profile.

If a physician, if a doctor who with arguments and evidence finds that the pandemic is the biggest scam in history, even with that in his favor sees his life and career sent directly to the stake of the holy inquisition of the covid... what do you think can happen to the man who finds the formula that potentially frees us from the bonds of the material? I don't mean to be pessimistic here, I'm just trying to be realistic and based on the evidence where and when someone came close to the solution, the PTB stepped in.
Click to expand...

I understand your point of view but I'm just more upbeat about the possibility of finding colinear researchers and the benefits that could be derived from such an exercise. I too used to feel that there's little interest in non-mainstream ideas until a few years ago but this is definitely changing with the diffusion of knowledge on blogs, forums, books, videos, podcasts and social media.

As to what is discovered through such an inquiry and how best to handle and share those insights is up to the wisdom of the Chateau crew and the Cs.
 
I think that letting researchers find the forum by themselves is a cosmic test. Given the level of propaganda/disinformation in this world, it is not surprising that many researchers are stuck in an endless loop of illusions. But for those who have had enough or those who were burnt by their attempt to shed light on their research, there is another way. However, the vast majority of researchers do not get to this point and even enjoy, through their ego, the taste of "being right." They are not ready to consider an alternative explanation that could upset them. Although marketing is mostly used to deceive, it can also be used in a positive way by showing the door leading to deeper knowledge, but there should be no expectation of anyone knocking on that door.

If algebra is the reunion of broken parts, mainstream science is the disassembly of united parts.
 
Laura said:
You are assuming that such are waiting in line. They aren't.
Click to expand...
Hello Laura :)

I wih you a wonderful new year to you, Ark and yours. I wanted, above all, thank you for all your work in connection with the Cs. I discovered C's sessions in Christmas 2003 and it took me so many years to begin understand and live some C's informations.

I think DiscoveringTruth's proposition is a very nice idea not only because my studies were in math and physics but because it's something I'd love to do since many yeayrs too. But I'm french and shy :)

I'm remembering how the Santilli session was like a Christmas present for me since it warmed my heart to heard answers going in my insight thinking. At this moment, I think "You"re not so full, so stupid to get these ideas, it was intuition".

Morever, with a science part to math and physics mysteries, the energy is not the same : we can feel how COVID energy drown us if we let it so and how science investigations participate to a wonderful curious energy that sustains us to our better self. Hope you can understand me, sorry for my english, I prefer write with my heart than google translate my french thoughts :)

It's clear than we could ask to great scientists if they want to participate in C's scientific session (and I'm sure, they exist) but I think that a new sight can come too from persons interesting in science (like what Pierre's doing). Since one year, I posted some questions that triggered me or some insights I got from reading C's sessions.

Discovering some truths in math and physics help to know ourselfes better, to live how our mind is structured and how it needs to be more bending to catch the 4th dimension of space. There are so many questions about the nature of the 4th dimension, in physic and in math that can blow our actual minds and open our heats to a new reality (above all during these pandemic times).

A new regard from people outside mainstream science can be benefic to scientist too ! And Ark must be here to give the mainstream opinion about these subjets. I see that in a complementary way, in a collaboration way. The truth is in evreyone and we need to work in brainstorming action to let it flow through us.

I'd be dying to ask scientific questions to the Cs about the 4th dimension of space, about the true nature of the 0 number, of the imaginary number, about Riemann's hypothesis, about the variability of the speed of light, about Maxwell's equations, about the necessity to go forward in general relativity and quantum mechanics to get the math consciousness structure and if maybe we'd need to go back to Maxwell equations to get an easier way to find it and so much...

But I'm shy (a little less now since I too my courage to write these sentences) and I'll find a way to participate at the next live sessions.

So many thanks DiscoveringTruth to post your message helping me to write mine, thanks to Laura and Ark to give us this opportunity ! I'll publish new questions on the forum soon and maybe ask in the future sessions. I always dreamed about one scientific session a month, when I discovered these Cs sessions, but I really understand the energy is requiring to do a session a month yet. And don't forget how much a session can change your live even if you're just a reader one :)

Thanks to everyone in this wonderful team and thanks Laura to make it real !

In love, Eric
 
Laura said:
You are assuming that such are waiting in line. They aren't.
Click to expand...
Dear Laura, here, you'll find some scientific questions that can be asked to the Cs in the next session according to my last post :

Q: In a session, you said that 4D reality is a visual spectrum type and that the fourth dimension is NOT related to the fifth dimension of the Kaluza-Klein theory since there is a flaw in these theories, relating to prism. As Ark, I don’t see what the prism in question is and the visual spectrum sounds like to me like the EM spectrum. What’s the nature of the prism and of the visual spectrum? Can you elaborate on this please?

Q: What is the true 4th dimension? It’s clear it’s not an extra dimension beyond the three space dimensions as mathematicians and scientists think by inertia of the 3D and neither a time dimension as Einstein thought. I think more of the 4th dimension as an inside variable of the 3D ones. You said it is an added spatial reference allowing one to visualize outwardly and inwardly simultaneously. So I adjust my idea of an internal variable to an interdimensional variable. Am I right saying that this interdimensional variable is a new version of our static number 0 as the zero time and zero space?

Q: If so, and I think so, positive numbers are for the physical reality (outward world), negative numbers for the etheric reality (inward world) and number 0 is the interdimensional variable allowing one to visualize outwardly and inwardly simultaneously. Is all that right?

Q: Once, Ark asked “what’s the closest thing in currently understood physics that corresponds to the 4th dimension because I can’t find anything that corresponds”. You answered “Exactly because it has not been hypothesized”. Is the right answer to Ark’s question: Consciousness that a 3D human sees as the number 0 as the void? The 4th dimension is not time, as thought Einstein, it’s Consciousness.

Q: You said that “all 3rd density types keep getting untracked because they have never been able to rectify the definition of space. Where does "space" begin and end. And if it does not, how is this?” My question is how do we rectify the definition of space since we discover that the nature of the 4th dimension of space, the reference of space, the Consciousness gives then a new definition of space? So, the nature of space depends of the consciousness awakening? There are two spaces, a positive one - the physical one and a negative one - the etheric one?

Q: Are the beginning and the ending of this new space, the 4D hyperspace, the same “point”, the 4th dimension, the new number 0?

Q: If the added spatial reference, the 4th dimension of space, is a dynamic number 0, and the physical space, a positive one and the etheric space, a negative one so the 4D physical-etheric space is a zero dynamic space too? Our actual vision of 3D space depends only of our positive physical space reference? The 4D hyperspace is a universal, interconnected, completely all at one reality, state where all happens at the same time?

Q: Since time is not a dimension, Einstein’s special relativity is seriously flawed as I always thought and so Einstein’s general relativity. You said Einstein's relativity correct part is the spatial one. I agree if you talk about the 3D space but now, we must go to the true nature of space, the 4D hyperspatial one. So, do we need to go backwards to Maxwell’s equations to get on the right track or do we rectify the speed of light definition and talk about frequency of light?

Q: You said that “only a very few of your third density persons have been able to understand space travel because the time reference is taken away. And, it is the biggest illusion that you have”. So, the right act to get it is replacing time reference by the added spatial reference, the 4th dimension of space using two signs of time as Ryazanov did?

Q: You said “Going out into space. You'd be confronted with reality that everything is completely all at one, yourself floating around in space!” So, if we can access the hyperspace on the Earth, we could overcome earthly gravity and float around in earthly space?

Q: At the speed of light, there is no time and no gravity. Actually, no time and no gravity as we represented on Earth? Gravity is still present and light is everywhere. In other words, light’s is negative gravity. Gravity presence is obvious, in 4D, as light. The invisible gravity on 3D is visible light in 4D?

Q: If so, Maxwell’s equations are the actual UFT? To realize this truth, we’ve to get an interdimensional sight?

Q:In the 4th dimension, Consciousness IS Matter?

Thanks a lot, Laura,
With Love,
Eric



 
EricLux said:
What’s the nature of the prism and of the visual spectrum? Can you elaborate on this please?
Click to expand...
Getting the Cs to elaborate without adding in your own research can get you a "we aren't here to hold you by the hand" type answer. When Ark via his own research thinks something like a 4,2 metric or bimetric ideas are good but perhaps needing a little tweaking, the Cs can give a confirmation of this. You kind of need to get close on your own.

EricLux said:
Q: If the added spatial reference, the 4th dimension of space, is a dynamic number 0, and the physical space, a positive one and the etheric space, a negative one so the 4D physical-etheric space is a zero dynamic space too? Our actual vision of 3D space depends only of our positive physical space reference? The 4D hyperspace is a universal, interconnected, completely all at one reality, state where all happens at the same time?... At the speed of light, there is no time and no gravity. Actually, no time and no gravity as we represented on Earth? Gravity is still present and light is everywhere. In other words, light’s is negative gravity. Gravity presence is obvious, in 4D, as light. The invisible gravity on 3D is visible light in 4D?
Click to expand...
You kind of need to put things like this into more of a math basis. Santilli had this problem too; it's hard for other humans to use your ideas if you don't do this. Ark did get that triple matrix thing of Santilli narrowed down a bit as in the 12 of a 12x12x12 is a 6x2 with the 6 coming from the 4+2 metric and the 2 adding energy to the metric (adding cotangent space to tangent space in differential forms terms Ark has mentioned more recently). The three 12s perhaps via Ark's blog relating it to a bimetric might be a bimetric+Standard Model thing (and Yang-Mills gauge theory thing perhaps in differential forms terms). What you describe sounds like dual light cones via the 4,2 metric complex domain.
 
John G said:
Getting the Cs to elaborate without adding in your own research can get you a "we aren't here to hold you by the hand" type answer. When Ark via his own research thinks something like a 4,2 metric or bimetric ideas are good but perhaps needing a little tweaking, the Cs can give a confirmation of this. You kind of need to get close on your own.


You kind of need to put things like this into more of a math basis. Santilli had this problem too; it's hard for other humans to use your ideas if you don't do this. Ark did get that triple matrix thing of Santilli narrowed down a bit as in the 12 of a 12x12x12 is a 6x2 with the 6 coming from the 4+2 metric and the 2 adding energy to the metric (adding cotangent space to tangent space in differential forms terms Ark has mentioned more recently). The three 12s perhaps via Ark's blog relating it to a bimetric might be a bimetric+Standard Model thing (and Yang-Mills gauge theory thing perhaps in differential forms terms). What you describe sounds like dual light cones via the 4,2 metric complex domain.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm not laughing at you, I'm laughing because this is awesome
I haven't touched tensor math since the year I learned about it. so I wouldn't even pretend to intrude on the discussion. It simply strikes me how the appropriate souls self-select to the task :)
 
United Gnosis said:
Sorry, I'm not laughing at you, I'm laughing because this is awesome
I haven't touched tensor math since the year I learned about it. so I wouldn't even pretend to intrude on the discussion. It simply strikes me how the appropriate souls self-select to the task :)
Click to expand...
Oh no problem. It's ridiculously messy. The only way I follow it is that it ends up with group theory eventually:

G-structure on a manifold - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

In differential geometry, a G-structure on an n-manifold M, for a given structure group[1] G, is a principal G-subbundle of the tangent frame bundle FM (or GL(M)) of M.

The notion of G-structures includes various classical structures that can be defined on manifolds, which in some cases are tensor fields. For example, for the orthogonal group, an O(n)-structure defines a Riemannian metric, and for the special linear group an SL(n,R)-structure is the same as a volume form. For the trivial group, an {e}-structure consists of an absolute parallelism of the manifold.
Click to expand...

For the Standard Model, you end up with SU(3), SU(2), and U(1) and for conformal gravity SO(4,2). I think that two copies of SL(4,R) with a volume form is used for gravity and the Standard Model. There's a bimetric paper that uses it for gravity but it doesn't address the Standard Model.
 
Hello DiscoveringTruth, this can be hard to do in terms of the "quality" of scientists. Today's universities are not conducive to open minds, additionally there is a profit from scientific work. When I was in college and I had a proposal to take a PhD, I noticed that there is a lot of emphasis on the "popularity" of published scientific articles because they dependent on the profitability of a given project. Nobody will be able to work for a long time for free, so ultimately those who have great popularity will survive the longest in the present system. This hierarchy makes it difficult to find a good scientist who has dealt with the topic honestly. I will present the story of my supervisor when he went to some prestigious European meetings of scientists on materials technology. My promoter is an expert in the field of flexible conductive pathways from graphene and nano silver. He said that he was going to this meeting with great expectations and that when he was there, he felt like at a scientific presentation by teenagers. "Scientists" boasted about their publications and encouraged people to read them, while the knowledge they presented on the topics they wrote about had basic errors - random mixing process, wrong order of delivery of materials, etc. The promoter said that probably half of these scientific records could not be recreated, although they must have been written on the basis of individual, perhaps accidental, success. He thinked that he could learn something from great scientists from French, Deutschland etc. but in the end he went back without any great knowledge profits. I'm sure that a lot of people in FOTCM are on the same level, in threads that they are interested, as people with PhD because even degree from Stanford is just a piece of paper - the knowledge that someone have is the most precious thing :-)
 
John G said:
Getting the Cs to elaborate without adding in your own research can get you a "we aren't here to hold you by the hand" type answer. When Ark via his own research thinks something like a 4,2 metric or bimetric ideas are good but perhaps needing a little tweaking, the Cs can give a confirmation of this. You kind of need to get close on your own.


You kind of need to put things like this into more of a math basis. Santilli had this problem too; it's hard for other humans to use your ideas if you don't do this. Ark did get that triple matrix thing of Santilli narrowed down a bit as in the 12 of a 12x12x12 is a 6x2 with the 6 coming from the 4+2 metric and the 2 adding energy to the metric (adding cotangent space to tangent space in differential forms terms Ark has mentioned more recently). The three 12s perhaps via Ark's blog relating it to a bimetric might be a bimetric+Standard Model thing (and Yang-Mills gauge theory thing perhaps in differential forms terms). What you describe sounds like dual light cones via the 4,2 metric complex domain.
Click to expand...
Salut John G :)
Thanks a lot for your answer. I take all the possible advices !
I'm just reading all the Cs sessions and taking notes of math/physics answers. Deeper and deeper, I do it and I notice that all is coherent in Cs answers. It's like a big invisible jewel with some light here and there. And you begin to feel the structure of the jewel.

I try to put things into more of a math basis but it's really not obvious since I'm not in a mainstream science like Ark and, in my heart, I feel the necessity to go back before Einstein's theories that are fundamentally flawed if we look for the common denominator of Einstein's theories (relativity and quantum mechanics). It's why I make the choice to not go forward in the string and others modern theories, more and more abstracts. It's clear that if we look for a UFT as a reality, consciouness and matter are one so we stand no more in a abstract description. I don't know if I'm clear and I'm really thanksfully for giving me the opportunity to be more and more clear on this subjet by your answers.

Even if you maybe don't feel it like this, there a lot of research behind my sentences and I know that even if some questions can be seen just "simple" to just get THE answer, it's really not the case my friend :)

Morever, Cs know, as Consciousness, what I really need behind my questions to progress beyond the first apparences. Maybe, it'll be your proposal of answer, maybe it'll be a clue, maybe Cs will take the occasion to a brand new perspective... We don't know what we don't know !

It's why I don't speak about specific metrics : my feeling is more in Galilean transformations with a new look about time since it's clear that time is NOT the 4th dimension. I'm feeling more and more that the 4th dimension in its reality is, in physics, Consciousness and, in maths, the number 0 but not static as we used it in science. And Cs answer on "NOT using Lorentz transformations but Galilean tranformations would be a better way" nourrish my feeling.

When we talked about 4 metric, it sounds 3-space and 1-time in Einstein way. You see how much scientific sessions will be interesting to be clear about this point for us :)

I'm aware that there are a lot of ways to get the Unified Field structure and it's really a pleasure to exchange about all these questions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom