The way to the Unified Field - 5

[EricLux]

In the last exchanges that we have had, these last weeks, on space, time, relativity, the nature of light and the constancy of its speed, the nature of the 4th "dimension" of space and the imaginary number i, we have arrived at a core of central questions whose mathematical translation would allow us to advance towards the reality of the Unified Field, of THE formula of physics and mathematics because, without a doubt, at this level of mathematics and physics are ONE.

If I were to find myself in the presence of the C's, here are the questions that I would submit to them in order to advance on the Path of Knowledge. Knowing that They are us in the Future, I remain convinced that these questions will reach them during the next session of the Cs, one way or another:

· Is the Riemann hypothesis about the Zeta function accurate? Has it been proved? If yes, by whom? If not, is the revision of the concept of the number i the simplest way to prove it?

· Why is there no observation of the variation of the speed of light, according to Einstein's theory, even with frequency ? Because he locked the evidence of such a variation by his assumptions at the base of his theories? Because we are not aware that this variation is linked to the nature of time? Because the collective planetary consciousness is not ready for such an observation?

· You said that speed of light varies with frequency : Is the frequency you are talking about that of light or a new type of frequency characterizing the 4th "dimension" of space? Indeed, you have confirmed to Ark that the 4th "dimension" is of a frequency nature.

· What is the nature of the 4th "dimension" of space? You said (November 14, 1998) that we had not made a certain assumption in physics that would have allowed us to find it : is this 4th "dimension" the frequency of the observer's consciousness (1), the 3D speed of light which is thus revealed as the frequency of light when we are in 4D (2) or the Ether as a new spatial reference (3)?

Now that we have this Gordian knot to move past, I'm going to dive into what @Bluegazer pointed out to me to dig deeper into the nature of Ether as the interface between information and manifestation and to encounter the quaternions which should shed more light on what lies behind the presence of the imaginary number i.

Thanks very much for all your messages and contributions, Eric ​

 

[EricLux]

We have come to realize, after the last exchanges, that Maxwell's equations are crucial to find the way to the Unified Field. We even questioned the need to reinterpret them, following the advice of the C's regarding the concept of illusory time in 3D. We even considered that the key to overcoming Einstein's theory, which is only valid spatially (he appeals to linear time as the 4th dimension of space, whereas the 4th dimension of space is not really a dimension but rather a spatial reference to which to relate the structure of space, its very definition, and, moreover, the very essence of this new spatial reference has nothing to do with linear time but rather with energy or even consciousness; Finally, he makes the central assumption that the speed of light is constant in a change of reference frame and the C's confirm that the speed of light varies with the frequency even if the nature of the latter has not yet been really elucidated) was to go back to Maxwell's equations to find what had been locked at their level.

Perhaps then, by unlocking, we will be able to release something that will allow us to consider the variability of the speed of light, according to a frequency to be identified. This will then allow us to reveal the presence of a new spatial reference (different from the spatial reference as a random origin of Galilean reference frames) and to be able to envisage a mathematical description of the 4th density via its 4 dimensions. First step of reconquest towards the Unified Field

To do this, we call upon the clues left by the C's, like little pebbles on the way to find our home, our House, the 7th Density.
​

December 5, 1998

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.

It therefore appears necessary to look at quaternions in order to realize the junction, the bridge between 3D and 4D. Maxwell knew more than we think : this can also be translated by the fact that through his equations, he had grasped something that we did not perceive and not necessarily something that he hid from us or did not say voluntarily.

Because we know well, by working on ourselves, how much the state of mind of a reader is different from that which wrote and even more when centuries separate the two. This is why on this point, the help of the C's is essential.

Maxwell wrote about twenty equations to unify electric and magnetic phenomena via the quaternions. A few years later, Heaviside as an electrical engineer reworked them so that they were understood by his colleagues. For that, he truncated them, modified them and it is what we call today Maxwell's equations, although strictly speaking, we should name them Maxwell-Heaviside. It would be good to get closer to the C's to know if it would be wise to return to Maxwell's original equations or if a "simple" reinterpretation of the Maxwell-Heaviside equations is enough to take the path of the unified field.

Quaternions are the generalization to 3D space of complex numbers (a+ib, with i²=-1) which belong to 2D space. Note that when Hamilton looked for the generalization of complex numbers to 3D space, he expected to find 3-term supercomplex numbers. What was his surprise to realize that the numbers sought had to have 4 terms (it furiously recalls the 4 dimensions of 4D space while 4D space has above all 3 dimensions and a spatial reference). Question for the C's : are quaternions sufficient to mathematically describe 4D reality or should we use octonions to take into account the double movement between 3D and 4D? A part of the answer :
​

APRIL 23, 2022

Q: (Ark) Okay, I’m already getting out. What about quaternion algebra? Is it relevant to wave reading units?
A: Absolutely
Q: (Ark) Yes? What about octonions? Are they better or worse? They are non-associative. Ooo!
A: Better

While waiting to understand a little more on the subject, I leave you with these two posts which will show you how useful quaternions are for understanding a little more the dynamics of 3D space.

Session 23 April 2022

Have you had a chance to read the Wave Series yet? I saw that you were given the links to the books in your intro thread. You will find a LOT of information in those books. Also, if you are so inclined, any sites like Above Top Secret, etc., along with many ideas in various areas, have been...

cassiopaea.org

Session 23 April 2022

Have you had a chance to read the Wave Series yet? I saw that you were given the links to the books in your intro thread. You will find a LOT of information in those books. Also, if you are so inclined, any sites like Above Top Secret, etc., along with many ideas in various areas, have been...

cassiopaea.org