Bernard Carr: why science doesn't know Yuan Qi consciousness 5D noncommutative phase time-frequency

AFTER I made this video then I discovered the following question to me:
Denis Connelly October 6, 2021 at 10:44 PM
"Just posting this again in case it didn't make it. "Black holes are modeled on inward gravity and outward pressure but in reality the inward force is “intentionality” (It from Bit) as the natural resonance of consciousness! (this is why all the mini-black hole positronium research remains classified) This repression of the integer only Harmonic series and its tetrad inverse is why spectroscopy is so messed up and there is so much dispute about dark matter, etc. — meanwhile “Ironically the most spectacular sunsets… occur over the most polluted cities.” (John Barrow)" Could you expand on this? What do you think of black holes?"
I hope this video upload answers your question! Thanks. Black Holes are defined by the spatial area measurement but the "information paradox" of black holes means that in fact black holes have their information "volume" stored as a noncommutative time-frequency spinor that is entangled with 4D spacetime. Sir Roger Penrose goes into the details on this - just look up his lectures on youtube. So the whole Universe is a 5D black hole as astrophysicist Paul S. Wesson explains:
Wesson:
" ...the presence of oscillations in the vacuum have the same properties as de Broglie waves....5D field equations which in 4D has the properties of a de Broglie wave....the difference can show up as a small perturbation which leads to an effect similar to quantum uncertainty...
a "wavicle" is two simultaneous realizations of flat space, one with waves and one without.
From the viewpoint of 5D field theory, waves of de Broglie type have to be considered real. So in 5D all particles behave like photons and everything in the universe is in causal contact with everything else.
an oscillatory phase, which might (if a person is so inclined) be identified with... spiritual modes of existence...separation
between points is zero, so all of the events in the world are in (5D) causal contact. In other words, everything is occurring simultaneously. There is no plausible way to avoid the conclusion that particles which can be seen moving at speeds less than c should be accompanied by waves which cannot be seen and are moving at speeds greater than c.
de Broglie waves are better understood in 5D ...characteristic of inflationary cosmology...its 5D complex generalization...as a model for de Broglie waves. A null interval admits, in a formal sense, velocities in 3D which exceed lightspeed.
a particle not as a point but a tiny ball of trapped waves. ..some of it verging on the mystical. De Broglie waves follow automatically when the expressions for the energy of a particle [E=mc squared] and a wave [E=Planck's Constant multipled by frequency] are combined.
This, admittedly, sounds strange.
Whether one believes in a model like this that straddles physics and spirituality is up to the individual....However it is remarkable that such a model can even be formulated, bridging as it does realms of experience which traditionally have been viewed as immutably separate."

[voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang]

Physicist Roderick Sutherland on Olivier Costa de Beauregard:

I did meet him in person, back in 1987 when I was at the Institute of Poincare. He'd already retired but he made a special train trip down from where he lived in the country, to come and see me, which was nice of him. So we had a good chat about it. He's an excellent fellow and a real gentlemen and he's very careful to acknowledge everyone and the work I'd been doing in this area....

The only thing different about Costa de Beauregard that intrigued me was that he suggested the zig-zag method of solving Bell's Theorem, much the same as other people; but then he said, "But I fully agree with the Copenhagen Interpretation and I don't support realism." And this surprised me because I still can't quite understand why he felt the need to give an explanation of Bell's Theorem at all if he wasn't aiming for a realistic model underneath.

But um certainly that was what came...what I could still remember... that came out of me, that's what discussion I had with him. The same thing is reflected in several letters of exchange between him and I. He was, he was very enthusiastic that anyone would take the retrocausal idea full on, because he after all was the one who first thought of it, right back in the early 1950s. And um, so he was keen to see that people where wanting to go down that path. So he was quite encouraging, because I was quite then, of course. So he was giving plenty of encouragement.

But I was having still the exchange of letters with him even after that density model you mentioned which was published in 1998. Umm. He asked for a copy and was enthusiastic about it. And so, it was letters being exchanged even then.

[voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang]

Steven Christy
1 year ago
Hey Patrick, he's looking for clues as to the nature of the AB effect. The AB effect says that an electron is deflected when it passes near a magnetic core in which the flux is entirely contained within that core. Because the B field is entirely in the core the E field is also said to be in the core. Thus it is expected that the electron should not deflect. Experiments showed that it does, this is explained as the A vector potential existing in the space outside the core.
don storm
3 months ago (edited)
My take from this: the flux "F" from the magnets is divided in half, so F/2 in the left side core, and F/2 in the right side core. Then you can push the left side flux F/2 to 0 with a coil on the left, so that the right side flux F/2 increases to F. Shutting this coil restores the flux on both sides, so the left goes from 0 to F/2 and the right goes from F to F/2 again. Hence, the total flux change is F! (F/2 left + F/2 right), which change you can use to simultaneously energize coils on *both sides*. Here's the kicker, you only need to provide a flux change of F/2 on the left whilst retrieving the total change F using coils on both sides of the core. Your theoretical gain wil be F/2 = F(output) - F/2 (input). You can do this field switching from left to right and the other way around. This WILL work as long as your switching circuitry is very accurate and very energy efficient.
Heliarc
Heliarc
1 month ago
The primary gain is from the natural restoration of the magnetic field in its original place, after the coil is switched off.
But there is probably some gain as you are pushing it over as well.

It's easy making the circutry to press it. It's very very tricky collecting it efficiently.
I had to put this project away for awhile but I had everything for the driver for it.
I had a goal set to just maybe get 50w or something from it.

I have a feeling there is a equation out there possibly that could equate the potential energy inside a permanent magnet based off same energy a electrical magnet produces when comparing lift, or pull potential.
Tom Bearden - How the MEG Really Works
on
He never quite closed the loop and pushed it. It is a complicated process because it has to be done a very specific way and I think back in his prime they didnt have quite what is available today.

I'm not a expert in electrical componets by any means. But the MEG needs someone who is an expert to analyze it and decide what to use to close the loop.

[boceephus]

Do you have any insight into why the "vaccines" that are being pushed so hard right now have graphene in them? I watched your livestream with AlienScientist and when you talked about graphene and its abilities it peaked my interest.

[voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang]

TRANSCRIPT: Oh well, one tries to see what qualitative features there are. And nobody who deals with radiation or molecules can be unaware that in a molecule, say a hydrogen molecule, with two hydrogen atoms, even at the absolute zero temperature, those two hydrogen atoms are not sitting quietly at a fixed separation from each other, they're 'wiggle wagging'. The so-called zero point energy, a minimum, irreducible energy that can't be got rid of. And that same feature of minimum, irreducible activity, obtains for the electromagnetic field through space, and the gravitational field, this 'wiggle waggling' all the time. What we think of as smooth, simple space, is really a 'wiggly' business.
I don't know any better image for it than the look of the ocean as one comes down from a plane high above the ocean, that seems to be a perfectly smooth surface. You come down closer, you see the waves, and as you get still closer you see the waves breaking and you see foam. I think it must be the same in the geometry of space, for all our everyday experience, the geometry of space is smooth and flat. But as we examine it more closely, it must show oscillations.
And still more closely, it must show foam, a foam-like structure. And that means that down at the very smallest distances, this idea of before and after really lose their meaning. Very small distances means what? It's so interesting that Max Planck, the great German physicist who had done so much to understand radiation and set us on the track to the quantum, had, in the study of radiation, recognized a new constant of nature. And that constant, combined with the known constants of nature, the speed of light and the constant of gravitation, define a certain standard of length, certain standard of time and certain standard of mass. Planck's notation is not quite in tune with today's, but you tune it into accord with today's notation you find yourself led to a length and a mass and a time which I called the Planck length, the Planck Mass, the Planck Time. And it's at that enormously small scale, fantastically small scale, that space must have this foam-like character. Will we see any evidence of that in time to come? We surely will, but I'm not bright enough to see where the first key test will show up. I like the idea of Planck and of Karl Popper, the philosopher of science, Popper saying that the test of a scientific idea is: a) its surprise, and b) its success in surviving tests.