December 19, 1998
Laura, Frank, Ark
Q: Hello.
A: Hello.
Q: And who do we have with us this evening?
A: Timmah.
Q: And where do you transmit through?
A: Cassiopaea.
Q: I have two questions I want to ask before Ark gets started because I think they will be short. The first one is: what is up with my son? Why is he acting so much like a bully?
A: Many reasons.
Q: Can we do something about it effectively and peacefully?
A: To an extent.
Q: What would be the best course of action of the ones we were discussing earlier?
A: Level.
Q: Talk to him? Level with him?
A: Why not?
Q: Very quickly, can you give me a synopsis of the reasons for this behavior? Is he jealous of Ark, is he a portal of attack, is he reflecting his father's influence, or all of the above?
A: More 2 than 1 or 3.
Q: You mean he is being used to disrupt us in an attempt to divert, slow down or stop the 'mission?'
A: Yes. There are physiological components, too.
Q: What are the physiological components?
A: Hormonal.
Q: Can anything be done about the physiology part - is there a tea, or an herb, or a supplement that will help him? Something to ease that for him?
A: Would be unwise. Might lead to still further substance experimentation.
Q: What substance experimentation?
A: You know them as drugs.
Q: Why would giving a tea or herbal preparation lead to substance abuse or experimentation?
A: Leads one of "a tender stage" to believe the answers lie within physical solutions.
Q: So, we need to level with him, and he needs to develop spiritual and mental controls of his own?
A: Close.
Q: Can you get me any closer?
A: You must know that there are karmic issues here, therefore the rapids must be ridden.
Q: Can you tell us the nature of the karmic interaction?
A: No.
Q: Is the karma between me and my son, or Ark and my son?
A: More for you.
Q: Wonderful! Just what I needed! More on my plate! (A) What does this mean, 'further substance experimentation.' Is he experimenting?
A: Has.
Q: (L) He told me that he did, but didn't like it. Was he telling me the truth?
A: Not entirely. You have been naive before. Best not to think your offspring do not seek to deceive you. This is almost a matter of policy with them. Why would you suspect otherwise?
Q: Well, I DID think that all the care I had taken in talking to them and explaining things to them, and being open with them, sharing with them; the sacrifices and suffering they are aware of, that there would be less of that sort of thing. I guess I am living in an illusion here...
A: It is far more complex than that. Even in the most open, loving environments, karma threads its needle. It is not possible to control one's fate unless one is familiar with all, all of the energies involved. At 3rd density, you do not possess all of the tools, which are born of a higher understanding. It is somewhat akin to taking a shower while donning a raincoat!!
Q: Well, that seems to say that we have some work to do in terms of higher knowledge and these energies. Can you give some guidance in this direction?
A: You know, or have access to the guidance. You often forget, or neglect it in the passionate, emotional environment of the practicing!
Q: Any special word of wisdom for dealing with my son, or all of my children, at the moment?
A: On the very lowest rung of the ladder of navigation, losing weight would enhance self-esteem, thus softening the blow somewhat.
Q: What blow are you talking about?
A: What do you think?
Q: J___ has received a blow?
A: No.
Q: Are you talking about me?
A: More or less. It is a blow for third densities to see their best laid plans go awry.
Q: So, you are saying that any and all of my plans for my children should just be chucked out the window and I should just forget it?
A: No, of course not!! But, "your plans," negatest the acceptance of the fact that their souls have "plans" of their own!
Q: So, all I can do is get through it as best I can, and soon they will all be on their own...
A: Closer.
Q: So, I should plan for the day when they will all be out of the house. I have almost reached that point. I have stopped planning for them, I have stopped trying to shape their lives... (F) Yes, but you know, everybody who has kids goes through this, and the more kids you have, the more you go through it. (L) Well, some parents keep trying to control everything and it is just an endless, fruitless, struggle. I'm not doing to do that. I can see when a strategic retreat is advisable. (F) I have never yet seen or heard of a parent who was truly capable of seeing that the desires they had for their children would be completely realized. (L) Anything further on that subject?
A: No.
Q: Now, I THINK that my second question will be a lot quicker and simpler! If, at 4th density, there is variability of physicality, and the Lizzies, as you have previously said, are engineering new bodies for themselves to occupy in some sort of mass transition at the time of this realm border crossing; in this state of variability of physicality, why do they need to engineer new bodies for themselves? Why, in point of fact, are Lizzies, Lizzies?
A: Too many questions.
Q: Why do they look like Lizards?
A: They do not.
Q: Well, why do we call them Lizard Beings? I mean, YOU named them that?
A: We label in accordance with your familiarity. If we had called them "Drachomonoids," what would be your point of reference??
Q: What do they REALLY look like?
A: You can figure as needed.
Q: You said they resemble upright alligators with humanoid features, six to eight feet tall...
A: Yes.
Q: So, why do they look like that?
A: Biology.
Q: Does biology exist at 4th density?
A: Yes.
Q: Yet, it’s a variable physical density, right?
A: Yes, but what is your assumption here?
Q: I don't know what my assumption is. I guess that I am assuming that if it is a variable state, they could have a different biology very easily. Isn't that the case?
A: No.
Q: Can they appear as something else? Change their physicality?
A: Temporarily.
Q: When you say 'temporary,' what exactly do you mean? Temporal relates to time.
A: We have explained before that the biggest single factor regarding densities is the awareness level.
Q: The awareness level. Okay, how does that relate to them only being able to temporarily change their appearance. Is this because they can control OUR awareness?
A: Closer. Are you not yet aware that absolutely everything, we repeat: everything is an illusion?!?
Q: At some level, yes. So, still I ask, why, in the illusion in which we exist, or in which they exist... (A) They say here that everything is an illusion, and on the other hand they say there is consciousness and matter. Everything is an illusion? Even this?
A: Yes.
Q: (A) God is also an illusion?
A: Yes.
Q: (A) Illusion to whom?
A: To those not on level 7. Your learning naturally dictates your experiences. Once you no longer require something, you naturally move beyond it. However, you retain it as a function of understanding.
Q: (A) And I am also an illusion! And understanding is also an illusion! (L) Back to my question: who created Lizzies AS LIZZIES? (A) Our illusion...
A: Everything is real, therefore, illusion is reality.
Q: (L) If everything is an illusion, from what does this illusion spring, and into what space does it spring?
A: Your consciousness.
Q: (L) Where did this consciousness originate?
A: Consciousness is the absolute, the center point.
Q: (L) Where is it centered?
A: Within the access.
Q: (L) What is the access?
A: The prompt that begets energy.
Q: (L) Of what is this energy made?
A: The consciousness.
Q: (L) Was there ever a time when this consciousness did not exist?
A: No, but there never was a time.
Q: (L) What prompted this consciousness to dream up all these illusions?
A: Need for balance. Energy cannot exist within a vacuum, therefore it must pulse. Hence you have waves.
Q: (L) You say that the impetus for dreaming up all the illusions was the need for balance; that implies imbalance, and that the imbalance was existence in a vacuum...
A: No.
Q: (L) What was the impetus for the need for balance?
A: Not a need, per se, just a natural function.
Q: (L) Well, when you have a pulse, you have a wave, and if you have a wave, that implies time.
A: Therein lies the crux of your 3rd density illusion. Why assume that any given aspect of the pulse is not occurring simultaneously with any other. And if any are, all are. Until you once and for all break free from the illusion of time, you will not advance.
Q: (L) Well, back to my question...
A: No, your question cannot be answered unless you stop assuming the range of acceptable answers.
Q: (L) I am done, then. (A) This is a question about time... [laughter] You say time is an illusion, but you have said many times things about time, and I want to ask about this time. I asked whether time was to be considered as the fourth dimension, you said why not consider time as springing from the fifth dimension. Was this a joke, or was this a serious thing for me to consider?
A: Serious.
Q: (A) Okay. At another point when we were talking about gravitons, you first said that there were no gravitons, per se, but that a 'graviton' was an electron in a time vacuum.
A: Yes.
Q: (A) When you said that there are not gravitons, you meant that there are none in the usual sense of the word as implied by some physicists.
A: Yes, closer.
Q: (A) Well, in a well devised Unified Field Theory, there is a place for something we may call 'graviton,' and this something comes from, or has a similar source to an electron, but within a time vacuum. At that point I started to think of time as a kind of field - like other fields. This field has something to do with this fifth dimension. I have a hypothesis about how one can have time coming from a fifth dimension, and what a time vacuum means. This means that, where there is a time vacuum, there is no time.
A: Yes.
Q: (A) Okay, now, this is one thing. At some other point we were speaking about pentagons and hexagons and I tried to be tricky and when it came to pentagons, I wrote a mathematical formula, a symbol for a pentagon, and then there was the question of signs. We needed five signs. I asked you whether there should be four pluses and one minus, or 3 pluses and two minus. The answer was that there should be 3 pluses and two minuses in a pentagon. Now, what about a hexagon? What should I put in a hexagon? Three pluses and three minuses, or four pluses and two minuses?
A: Four and two.
Q: (A) That is what I hoped for, however, I see a certain discrepancy between this pentagon, because if I start from five dimensions, and I try to build something such as a time field from one plus and one minus, I use one dimension, which is like a light dimension in this five dimensional space, then I end up with two pluses and one minus, which has nothing to do with anything that we know in physics. For me there is a contradiction between three pluses and two minuses and the fact that I need to build time as an extra field. What to do? I don't know. What should I do?
A: When we said "spring forth" from 5th dimension, what interesting possibilities does this pose?
Q: (A) You get what we may call a time form and this time form is sometimes like any other physical field. So, of course the different possibilities that I can mathematically model: time form, time vacuum, different times, time loops, and other things. These are interesting possibilities that I have, provided I use something similar to Kaluza-Klein. Did I miss something?
A: It is not that you miss something, it is merely that you have not yet found the something.
Q: (A) What is this something?
A: Tetrahedron.
Q: (A) Okay, at some point we were talking about a 3 dimensional matrix, 12x12x12. I was wondering where this 12 comes from, and I was thinking that 12 is 2x6 and I was supposed to be looking at hexagons, and a hexagon represents 6 dimensions, four pluses and two minuses. If I add to this 6 energies corresponding to 6 dimensions, then I have 12 dimensions, and this would account for number 12. Is this correct?
A: Yes.
Q: (A) Now, this all has something to do with gravity, and at some point you said that all this gravity/anti-gravity business is just the way, and that the main goal is to attain higher knowledge. What is this higher knowledge; what kind of higher knowledge?
A: You are on the path.
Q: (A) I want to ask about Ruggerio Santilli. He was here, talking to you, using his own terminology. You were answering using some of his terminology. Several times I tried to understand his work, but I simply cannot. Is this something wrong with me?
A: No.
Q: (A) What should I do about this? I have all these papers he wrote which I collected, and I really wanted to study them and understand, but whenever I started, I had to stop because I do not understand. He is using undefined terms.
A: Undefined terms take shape when fine tuned. Ruggerio Santilli is considered a rogue in the field of physics because he strays from convention. His dreams direct his research. But this is not such a bad thing. It frees the conscious mind from the prisons so revered at your density level. Best to lovingly fine tune the work of the dreamer, thus giving it substance in the realm of convention.
Q: (L) How does one go about lovingly fine tuning the work of a dreamer? (A) This is not the point. The point is that he is writing mathematics - and what he is writing is NOT mathematics. He is not able to define his terms; neither he nor his friends who write for him. So, it is not mathematics, it is dreaming. I like reading dreams, but when it is a mathematical paper with a formula... (L) So, the next obvious question is how to convert this into mathematics?
A: Is tricky, but requires patience in the form of removing and reworking the mathematical units that do not fit.
Q: (A) He has this obsession with using variable units... iso-units... and he has this view of gravity that is similar to the view of some other Russian physicists... and, according to him, space-time is flat. It is just a flat space with an iso-unit - a deformed unit. This is contrary to Einstein where space-time is curved, and you have worm-holes and all kinds of topological features. But, for Santilli, space-time is a flat space with time. Is he right in this?
A: And flat cannot curve?
Q: (A) If something is flat, it cannot have a hole, or a wormhole... if it is flat, it is flat. It cannot get a hole which is connected to the other hole.
A: What if the "hole" is parallel to the plane of the flat curve, rather than perpendicular?
Q: (A) In Einstein's gravitational theory and cosmology, we are told that the universe is closed, so it looks like a spherical surface... it cannot be a spherical surface...
A: That assumes only one universe. Not interconnecting ones of variant natures, and therein lies the fault with Einstein's theory. However, there is a void of known substance to Einstein's Unified Field Theory. Why do you suppose he embarked upon that path to begin with? It was to serve as a merger between his hypotheses. Its completion was made secret.
Q: (A) Okay, we have this material world, and the spiritual world, and mathematics is supposed to help us to bridge these two worlds. I know how to describe the material world, fields, particles, waves, quantum waves, with mathematics. But, I want to know what mathematical concepts are needed or should be used to describe this other part, the spiritual part. Now the only thing I know about this spiritual part is that we were told that consciousness is the purest form of energy. Should the mathematical concepts used to describe energy also be used to describe consciousness? Or, is something else needed?
A: Well, you certainly get there by utilizing mathematical concepts.
Q: (A) Well, we certainly have to get there by utilizing mathematical concepts, however my question is: WHICH mathematical concepts? What should they look like? Which direction? I have NO IDEA how to mathematically model consciousness and how to bridge it to the physical world. How to do it? Give me a starting point, if you please.
A: What starting point do you seek?
Q: (A) Okay. Point to me a paper, a book, somebody, some idea, that will put me on the track. I have no idea at all how to go beyond the physical world using mathematics. I can dream... (L) Do the same terms that describe the physical world also describe the spiritual world, but with maybe a sort of twist?
A: Mathematics is the great unifier.
Q: (L) Are you saying that mathematics ITSELF, is the expression of the spiritual world?
A: Bridge.
Q: (L) Well, since all is an illusion, it would seem to me that the mathematics that describe the physical world would be, at the same instant, describing the spiritual world - only, perhaps, a mirror image.
A: Illusions only fit their own realms, as needed. Why do you have infinity?
Q: (A) Well, because we have natural numbers, and we can easily prove that there are infinitely many natural numbers.
A: But this is the desperate attempt to superimpose a linear scale upon that which is, by nature, really cyclical.
Q: (A) Okay, do you say we have to get rid of infinity? We should count 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0? Or something like that? We don't NEED infinity? No, probably not, because the question was about consciousness... and not we are prodded to think about infinity - everything is cyclical. Okay, just a while ago I was asking about this plane, and a plane is infinite, contrary to a sphere which is finite and cyclical. You said that the plane is good and the sphere is bad. So...
A: No.
Q: (A) But a plane, by itself, is infinite - that's how we came to infinity, because we had an infinite plane...
A: What is a circular plane?
Q: (A) What?! A disc. Sometimes we ask them questions and we get answers to other questions... Last question: I am in a general state of desperation because there are so many things to learn, so many paths to follow, so many things to be investigated, so many theorems to prove, so many mathematical concepts that can be developed, and so many things beyond mathematics and physics that need to be investigated, crop circles, for instance, that I really don't know where to start. I don't want to go in a maze that goes nowhere... What to do?
A: When confronted with such a quandary, it is best to simply do, without prejudice, nor fear of error. Let the path create itself, in other words. And, on that note, good night.
End of Session
Laura, Frank, Ark
Q: Hello.
A: Hello.
Q: And who do we have with us this evening?
A: Timmah.
Q: And where do you transmit through?
A: Cassiopaea.
Q: I have two questions I want to ask before Ark gets started because I think they will be short. The first one is: what is up with my son? Why is he acting so much like a bully?
A: Many reasons.
Q: Can we do something about it effectively and peacefully?
A: To an extent.
Q: What would be the best course of action of the ones we were discussing earlier?
A: Level.
Q: Talk to him? Level with him?
A: Why not?
Q: Very quickly, can you give me a synopsis of the reasons for this behavior? Is he jealous of Ark, is he a portal of attack, is he reflecting his father's influence, or all of the above?
A: More 2 than 1 or 3.
Q: You mean he is being used to disrupt us in an attempt to divert, slow down or stop the 'mission?'
A: Yes. There are physiological components, too.
Q: What are the physiological components?
A: Hormonal.
Q: Can anything be done about the physiology part - is there a tea, or an herb, or a supplement that will help him? Something to ease that for him?
A: Would be unwise. Might lead to still further substance experimentation.
Q: What substance experimentation?
A: You know them as drugs.
Q: Why would giving a tea or herbal preparation lead to substance abuse or experimentation?
A: Leads one of "a tender stage" to believe the answers lie within physical solutions.
Q: So, we need to level with him, and he needs to develop spiritual and mental controls of his own?
A: Close.
Q: Can you get me any closer?
A: You must know that there are karmic issues here, therefore the rapids must be ridden.
Q: Can you tell us the nature of the karmic interaction?
A: No.
Q: Is the karma between me and my son, or Ark and my son?
A: More for you.
Q: Wonderful! Just what I needed! More on my plate! (A) What does this mean, 'further substance experimentation.' Is he experimenting?
A: Has.
Q: (L) He told me that he did, but didn't like it. Was he telling me the truth?
A: Not entirely. You have been naive before. Best not to think your offspring do not seek to deceive you. This is almost a matter of policy with them. Why would you suspect otherwise?
Q: Well, I DID think that all the care I had taken in talking to them and explaining things to them, and being open with them, sharing with them; the sacrifices and suffering they are aware of, that there would be less of that sort of thing. I guess I am living in an illusion here...
A: It is far more complex than that. Even in the most open, loving environments, karma threads its needle. It is not possible to control one's fate unless one is familiar with all, all of the energies involved. At 3rd density, you do not possess all of the tools, which are born of a higher understanding. It is somewhat akin to taking a shower while donning a raincoat!!
Q: Well, that seems to say that we have some work to do in terms of higher knowledge and these energies. Can you give some guidance in this direction?
A: You know, or have access to the guidance. You often forget, or neglect it in the passionate, emotional environment of the practicing!
Q: Any special word of wisdom for dealing with my son, or all of my children, at the moment?
A: On the very lowest rung of the ladder of navigation, losing weight would enhance self-esteem, thus softening the blow somewhat.
Q: What blow are you talking about?
A: What do you think?
Q: J___ has received a blow?
A: No.
Q: Are you talking about me?
A: More or less. It is a blow for third densities to see their best laid plans go awry.
Q: So, you are saying that any and all of my plans for my children should just be chucked out the window and I should just forget it?
A: No, of course not!! But, "your plans," negatest the acceptance of the fact that their souls have "plans" of their own!
Q: So, all I can do is get through it as best I can, and soon they will all be on their own...
A: Closer.
Q: So, I should plan for the day when they will all be out of the house. I have almost reached that point. I have stopped planning for them, I have stopped trying to shape their lives... (F) Yes, but you know, everybody who has kids goes through this, and the more kids you have, the more you go through it. (L) Well, some parents keep trying to control everything and it is just an endless, fruitless, struggle. I'm not doing to do that. I can see when a strategic retreat is advisable. (F) I have never yet seen or heard of a parent who was truly capable of seeing that the desires they had for their children would be completely realized. (L) Anything further on that subject?
A: No.
Q: Now, I THINK that my second question will be a lot quicker and simpler! If, at 4th density, there is variability of physicality, and the Lizzies, as you have previously said, are engineering new bodies for themselves to occupy in some sort of mass transition at the time of this realm border crossing; in this state of variability of physicality, why do they need to engineer new bodies for themselves? Why, in point of fact, are Lizzies, Lizzies?
A: Too many questions.
Q: Why do they look like Lizards?
A: They do not.
Q: Well, why do we call them Lizard Beings? I mean, YOU named them that?
A: We label in accordance with your familiarity. If we had called them "Drachomonoids," what would be your point of reference??
Q: What do they REALLY look like?
A: You can figure as needed.
Q: You said they resemble upright alligators with humanoid features, six to eight feet tall...
A: Yes.
Q: So, why do they look like that?
A: Biology.
Q: Does biology exist at 4th density?
A: Yes.
Q: Yet, it’s a variable physical density, right?
A: Yes, but what is your assumption here?
Q: I don't know what my assumption is. I guess that I am assuming that if it is a variable state, they could have a different biology very easily. Isn't that the case?
A: No.
Q: Can they appear as something else? Change their physicality?
A: Temporarily.
Q: When you say 'temporary,' what exactly do you mean? Temporal relates to time.
A: We have explained before that the biggest single factor regarding densities is the awareness level.
Q: The awareness level. Okay, how does that relate to them only being able to temporarily change their appearance. Is this because they can control OUR awareness?
A: Closer. Are you not yet aware that absolutely everything, we repeat: everything is an illusion?!?
Q: At some level, yes. So, still I ask, why, in the illusion in which we exist, or in which they exist... (A) They say here that everything is an illusion, and on the other hand they say there is consciousness and matter. Everything is an illusion? Even this?
A: Yes.
Q: (A) God is also an illusion?
A: Yes.
Q: (A) Illusion to whom?
A: To those not on level 7. Your learning naturally dictates your experiences. Once you no longer require something, you naturally move beyond it. However, you retain it as a function of understanding.
Q: (A) And I am also an illusion! And understanding is also an illusion! (L) Back to my question: who created Lizzies AS LIZZIES? (A) Our illusion...
A: Everything is real, therefore, illusion is reality.
Q: (L) If everything is an illusion, from what does this illusion spring, and into what space does it spring?
A: Your consciousness.
Q: (L) Where did this consciousness originate?
A: Consciousness is the absolute, the center point.
Q: (L) Where is it centered?
A: Within the access.
Q: (L) What is the access?
A: The prompt that begets energy.
Q: (L) Of what is this energy made?
A: The consciousness.
Q: (L) Was there ever a time when this consciousness did not exist?
A: No, but there never was a time.
Q: (L) What prompted this consciousness to dream up all these illusions?
A: Need for balance. Energy cannot exist within a vacuum, therefore it must pulse. Hence you have waves.
Q: (L) You say that the impetus for dreaming up all the illusions was the need for balance; that implies imbalance, and that the imbalance was existence in a vacuum...
A: No.
Q: (L) What was the impetus for the need for balance?
A: Not a need, per se, just a natural function.
Q: (L) Well, when you have a pulse, you have a wave, and if you have a wave, that implies time.
A: Therein lies the crux of your 3rd density illusion. Why assume that any given aspect of the pulse is not occurring simultaneously with any other. And if any are, all are. Until you once and for all break free from the illusion of time, you will not advance.
Q: (L) Well, back to my question...
A: No, your question cannot be answered unless you stop assuming the range of acceptable answers.
Q: (L) I am done, then. (A) This is a question about time... [laughter] You say time is an illusion, but you have said many times things about time, and I want to ask about this time. I asked whether time was to be considered as the fourth dimension, you said why not consider time as springing from the fifth dimension. Was this a joke, or was this a serious thing for me to consider?
A: Serious.
Q: (A) Okay. At another point when we were talking about gravitons, you first said that there were no gravitons, per se, but that a 'graviton' was an electron in a time vacuum.
A: Yes.
Q: (A) When you said that there are not gravitons, you meant that there are none in the usual sense of the word as implied by some physicists.
A: Yes, closer.
Q: (A) Well, in a well devised Unified Field Theory, there is a place for something we may call 'graviton,' and this something comes from, or has a similar source to an electron, but within a time vacuum. At that point I started to think of time as a kind of field - like other fields. This field has something to do with this fifth dimension. I have a hypothesis about how one can have time coming from a fifth dimension, and what a time vacuum means. This means that, where there is a time vacuum, there is no time.
A: Yes.
Q: (A) Okay, now, this is one thing. At some other point we were speaking about pentagons and hexagons and I tried to be tricky and when it came to pentagons, I wrote a mathematical formula, a symbol for a pentagon, and then there was the question of signs. We needed five signs. I asked you whether there should be four pluses and one minus, or 3 pluses and two minus. The answer was that there should be 3 pluses and two minuses in a pentagon. Now, what about a hexagon? What should I put in a hexagon? Three pluses and three minuses, or four pluses and two minuses?
A: Four and two.
Q: (A) That is what I hoped for, however, I see a certain discrepancy between this pentagon, because if I start from five dimensions, and I try to build something such as a time field from one plus and one minus, I use one dimension, which is like a light dimension in this five dimensional space, then I end up with two pluses and one minus, which has nothing to do with anything that we know in physics. For me there is a contradiction between three pluses and two minuses and the fact that I need to build time as an extra field. What to do? I don't know. What should I do?
A: When we said "spring forth" from 5th dimension, what interesting possibilities does this pose?
Q: (A) You get what we may call a time form and this time form is sometimes like any other physical field. So, of course the different possibilities that I can mathematically model: time form, time vacuum, different times, time loops, and other things. These are interesting possibilities that I have, provided I use something similar to Kaluza-Klein. Did I miss something?
A: It is not that you miss something, it is merely that you have not yet found the something.
Q: (A) What is this something?
A: Tetrahedron.
Q: (A) Okay, at some point we were talking about a 3 dimensional matrix, 12x12x12. I was wondering where this 12 comes from, and I was thinking that 12 is 2x6 and I was supposed to be looking at hexagons, and a hexagon represents 6 dimensions, four pluses and two minuses. If I add to this 6 energies corresponding to 6 dimensions, then I have 12 dimensions, and this would account for number 12. Is this correct?
A: Yes.
Q: (A) Now, this all has something to do with gravity, and at some point you said that all this gravity/anti-gravity business is just the way, and that the main goal is to attain higher knowledge. What is this higher knowledge; what kind of higher knowledge?
A: You are on the path.
Q: (A) I want to ask about Ruggerio Santilli. He was here, talking to you, using his own terminology. You were answering using some of his terminology. Several times I tried to understand his work, but I simply cannot. Is this something wrong with me?
A: No.
Q: (A) What should I do about this? I have all these papers he wrote which I collected, and I really wanted to study them and understand, but whenever I started, I had to stop because I do not understand. He is using undefined terms.
A: Undefined terms take shape when fine tuned. Ruggerio Santilli is considered a rogue in the field of physics because he strays from convention. His dreams direct his research. But this is not such a bad thing. It frees the conscious mind from the prisons so revered at your density level. Best to lovingly fine tune the work of the dreamer, thus giving it substance in the realm of convention.
Q: (L) How does one go about lovingly fine tuning the work of a dreamer? (A) This is not the point. The point is that he is writing mathematics - and what he is writing is NOT mathematics. He is not able to define his terms; neither he nor his friends who write for him. So, it is not mathematics, it is dreaming. I like reading dreams, but when it is a mathematical paper with a formula... (L) So, the next obvious question is how to convert this into mathematics?
A: Is tricky, but requires patience in the form of removing and reworking the mathematical units that do not fit.
Q: (A) He has this obsession with using variable units... iso-units... and he has this view of gravity that is similar to the view of some other Russian physicists... and, according to him, space-time is flat. It is just a flat space with an iso-unit - a deformed unit. This is contrary to Einstein where space-time is curved, and you have worm-holes and all kinds of topological features. But, for Santilli, space-time is a flat space with time. Is he right in this?
A: And flat cannot curve?
Q: (A) If something is flat, it cannot have a hole, or a wormhole... if it is flat, it is flat. It cannot get a hole which is connected to the other hole.
A: What if the "hole" is parallel to the plane of the flat curve, rather than perpendicular?
Q: (A) In Einstein's gravitational theory and cosmology, we are told that the universe is closed, so it looks like a spherical surface... it cannot be a spherical surface...
A: That assumes only one universe. Not interconnecting ones of variant natures, and therein lies the fault with Einstein's theory. However, there is a void of known substance to Einstein's Unified Field Theory. Why do you suppose he embarked upon that path to begin with? It was to serve as a merger between his hypotheses. Its completion was made secret.
Q: (A) Okay, we have this material world, and the spiritual world, and mathematics is supposed to help us to bridge these two worlds. I know how to describe the material world, fields, particles, waves, quantum waves, with mathematics. But, I want to know what mathematical concepts are needed or should be used to describe this other part, the spiritual part. Now the only thing I know about this spiritual part is that we were told that consciousness is the purest form of energy. Should the mathematical concepts used to describe energy also be used to describe consciousness? Or, is something else needed?
A: Well, you certainly get there by utilizing mathematical concepts.
Q: (A) Well, we certainly have to get there by utilizing mathematical concepts, however my question is: WHICH mathematical concepts? What should they look like? Which direction? I have NO IDEA how to mathematically model consciousness and how to bridge it to the physical world. How to do it? Give me a starting point, if you please.
A: What starting point do you seek?
Q: (A) Okay. Point to me a paper, a book, somebody, some idea, that will put me on the track. I have no idea at all how to go beyond the physical world using mathematics. I can dream... (L) Do the same terms that describe the physical world also describe the spiritual world, but with maybe a sort of twist?
A: Mathematics is the great unifier.
Q: (L) Are you saying that mathematics ITSELF, is the expression of the spiritual world?
A: Bridge.
Q: (L) Well, since all is an illusion, it would seem to me that the mathematics that describe the physical world would be, at the same instant, describing the spiritual world - only, perhaps, a mirror image.
A: Illusions only fit their own realms, as needed. Why do you have infinity?
Q: (A) Well, because we have natural numbers, and we can easily prove that there are infinitely many natural numbers.
A: But this is the desperate attempt to superimpose a linear scale upon that which is, by nature, really cyclical.
Q: (A) Okay, do you say we have to get rid of infinity? We should count 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0? Or something like that? We don't NEED infinity? No, probably not, because the question was about consciousness... and not we are prodded to think about infinity - everything is cyclical. Okay, just a while ago I was asking about this plane, and a plane is infinite, contrary to a sphere which is finite and cyclical. You said that the plane is good and the sphere is bad. So...
A: No.
Q: (A) But a plane, by itself, is infinite - that's how we came to infinity, because we had an infinite plane...
A: What is a circular plane?
Q: (A) What?! A disc. Sometimes we ask them questions and we get answers to other questions... Last question: I am in a general state of desperation because there are so many things to learn, so many paths to follow, so many things to be investigated, so many theorems to prove, so many mathematical concepts that can be developed, and so many things beyond mathematics and physics that need to be investigated, crop circles, for instance, that I really don't know where to start. I don't want to go in a maze that goes nowhere... What to do?
A: When confronted with such a quandary, it is best to simply do, without prejudice, nor fear of error. Let the path create itself, in other words. And, on that note, good night.
End of Session
Last edited:
