Are We Ready?

[Learner]

[font=Roboto, arial, sans-serif]My awakening through scientific knowledge lead me to the Law of One. It's been a while since I've gained the scientific understanding on why the speed of light does not limit how fast we can travel, how we have misunderstood gravity, why the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating, and how the particle and wave property of matter are integrated with each other. But how come I have not able to let others to understand what I can? I assume it's because I have not understood it clearly enough to explain it others. But as my understandings grow deeper, I also wonder, "maybe we are just not ready?"[/font]


[font=Roboto, arial, sans-serif]Just look at the last great leap in human's understanding of the physical world, Einstein's theory of relativity -- what concrete application did it bring to us? It brought us a limitation: the idea that nothing travels faster than the speed of light - making other intelligence unreachable to us; and it brought out the nuclear age, the world got to witness the terror of nuclear weapons. [/font]
[font=Roboto, arial, sans-serif]If knowledge is power, and with great power comes great responsibility -- does it mean if we have not learned to act responsibly, we will be deprived of the knowledge?[/font]

[font=Roboto, arial, sans-serif]I feel the knowledge I have will be ready for the world when the world is ready to receive it. Otherwise it will just be limited to a small group of people who are ready. [/font]

[font=Roboto, arial, sans-serif]Are you ready? Is the world ready? How long will it take to be ready?[/font]

[font=Roboto, arial, sans-serif]When the world is ready, the transformation will be fast.[/font]


[font=Roboto, arial, sans-serif](excerpt from http://goo.gl/qb8VqH)[/font]

[The_Tired_Philosopher]

Define: Ready.

What is Ready to a spiritual being?

[Learner]

Define: Ready.

What is Ready to a spiritual being?

I do not know the definition of Ready other than what I already said in the context of my question.

Define: spiritual being.

For a person who is consciously aware of his spiritual part of the self, maybe Ready means this: 
to quote Ra's analogy of the poker game (50.7), when someone is ready, they are able to 

lay their pleasures, their limitations, their all upon the table face up and say inwardly: “All, all of you players, each other-self, whatever your hand, I love you.”

They are ready when they know the game:

This is the game: to know, to accept, to forgive, to balance, and to open the self in love. 

But how does the readiness manifest itself through actions in daily life, I'm not sure. I think it's different for each individual.

[Learner]

This seems to be a little test to see how ready we are. ;-)

https://plus.google.com/u/0/117663015413...zJmzJAiyid

[Aion]

We are ready when we dare to believe and wonder. The lack of momentum is due to a lack of interest.

[Parsons]

I don't understand why I should believe something is a UFO when it is clearly not. I saw a legitimate 'UFO' once, but I've seen many things that I initially thought could have been a UFO that I carefully researched and realized were not.

Is it beneficial to believe something is a UFO even after someone has clearly explained why it is not?  I'm sincerely asking, not spewing rhetoric.

[Aion]

Something can only be a UFO so long as it is unidentified.

[Parsons]

I appear to have answered my own question. Rather than try to 'debunk' for other people something that is obviously (to me) not a UFO, I will present information that can either be rejected or accepted.

So in this instance, I will say that I have quite a bit of experience with identifying astronomical phenomenon including missiles/rockets. This has all the earmarks of being a missile test. I have one instance of seeing an actual UFO and believe there are legitimate UFO sightings. I also believe there are cover stories made up (eg, the Phoenix Lights). However, I don't think this is the case in this instance. But of course, use your discernment and believe what you want to.

[AnthroHeart]

Ready to meet a light being.
Not ready to be abducted.

[Stranger]

[font=Roboto, arial, sans-serif]My awakening through scientific knowledge lead me to the Law of One. It's been a while since I've gained the scientific understanding on why the speed of light does not limit how fast we can travel, how we have misunderstood gravity, why the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating, and how the particle and wave property of matter are integrated with each other. [/font]

Would you mind sharing your insights?  I'd love to hear your answers to these questions.

[Learner]

I don't understand why I should believe something is a UFO when it is clearly not. I saw a legitimate 'UFO' once, but I've seen many things that I initially thought could have been a UFO that I carefully researched and realized were not.

Is it beneficial to believe something is a UFO even after someone has clearly explained why it is not?  I'm sincerely asking, not spewing rhetoric.

Do you think my post implied that you "should believe something is a UFO when it is clearly not"? I do not know how you reached that conclusion. Did you read the link provided and its comments? 

https://plus.google.com/u/0/117663015413546257905/posts/SzJmzJAiyid

[Learner]

[font=Roboto, arial, sans-serif]My awakening through scientific knowledge lead me to the Law of One. It's been a while since I've gained the scientific understanding on why the speed of light does not limit how fast we can travel, how we have misunderstood gravity, why the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating, and how the particle and wave property of matter are integrated with each other. [/font]

Would you mind sharing your insights?  I'd love to hear your answers to these questions.

Which area are you more familiar with that you want me to start? Do you want a very high level popular-science explanation, or nitty-gritty physics details?

[Stranger]

I am interested in all four areas equally. You can start closer to higher level with conceptual-intuitive explanations without calculus, but assuming a reasonable level of intelligence on my part

[Parsons]

Do you think my post implied that you "should believe something is a UFO when it is clearly not"? I do not know how you reached that conclusion. Did you read the link provided and its comments? 

https://plus.google.com/u/0/117663015413546257905/posts/SzJmzJAiyid

I've had instances where people have posted a video of an UFO, someone clearly identifies for them, yet they insist on continuing to reject the identification. I was more asking in general what I should do when encountering situations like this, not necessarily in this specific case.

I don't want to interrupt the process of anyone. And I certainly don't want to contribute to a cynical atmosphere where people are afraid to post videos of potentially legitimate UFOs. So my (general) conclusion is to simply provide info impartially as possible in the future when it comes to identifying UFOs.

[Learner]

I am interested in all four areas equally.    You can start closer to higher level with conceptual-intuitive explanations without calculus, but assuming a reasonable level of intelligence on my part

Ok. I will start with a key understanding that's the basis to explaining all four areas. This is not the starting point where I gained my understanding, but I think it maybe an easier starting point for others. If I'm not effective, please let me know, I will see if I can approach the explanation another way.

The 4D Nature of Space (1/2)

To me, Ra's saying of us moving from 3rd density to 4th density (3d->4d) has an additional correspondence, it also means we are moving from knowing our space is 3 dimensional to realizing it's 4 dimensional. Yes, our space (not spacetime) is 4D (in fact, based on Ra's explanation of spiritual evolution, we can assume space has even more dimensions, as string theorists already theorized. However, 4D phenomena are what we have already interacted and observed physically at a collective level, probably not with higher dimension ones -- I think that's one reason Ra said that the earth is already 4d). 

This 4th dimension is no different than the 3 that we can observe, conceptualize, and perceive. It's just a 4th Cartesian dimension, with the same property as the other three, i.e. each dimension is perpendicular to the others in the Cartesian coordination system. But how could something be perpendicular to all three 3D axis? It's impossible to picture. The the question inevitably comes to: "if there is another dimension, where is it? how come we cannot see it?" And the answer is: currently, most of us are NOT able to perceive this dimension with our senses directly. However, we are able to detect the existence of this dimension indirectly, through our scientific observations and knowledge. 

The idea that there is something there that we just cannot perceive/observe is very hard to accept, even for myself, once I realized the existence of the 4th dimension. This dimension is not small or curved like how Brian Greene described in his TV series "The Elegant Universe", that's not the reason we cannot see or feel it. We simply cannot see it because we are not able. We have not evolved to the point to perceive/experience it. 

I myself cannot picture/imagine space being 4D, even though I believe it is true. I can only consider its property and effect through deductive thinking, for example, by considering what a 3D phenomenon would appear to a 2D creature. Before I proceed further, I'd suggest you to try picturing 4D, thinking about the properties of a 4D space, such as what would a 4D object looks to us who can only perceive 3D? I find the following links helpful:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension  I found the figure on the right showing how to expand dimensions from a point helpful
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesseract  Can you identify all 8 cubes in the left figure and understand why there are 8?

https://plus.google.com/u/0/s/%234D%20john%20baez  I found many posts here fascinating, not neccessarily helpful. Don't all those rotating figures remind you of something?  ...Plato solids? the scared geometry? 

If the space is 4D and we can only perceive 3D, then we can interact with only the cross section of a 4D object that intersect with our 3D space, and when viewed from a distance, what may appear to be 3D to us may only be the projection (mathematically speaking) of a 4D object onto the 3D space we can perceive. So Plato's allegory of the cave is not only figurative, but also descriptive. 

One may think, if I know the space is 4D, and know what 4D object would appear to me, then I can directly perceive and experience 4D, right? Not so. This NPR story helped with my understanding: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story...=128977924
The lady was born cross eyed, so she was not able to experience 3D, even though conceptually she knows she lived in a 3D world. Only after she had her eyes corrected in her 40s, she's able to experience 3D for the first time. Her description of experiencing the 3D snow fall was so moving it brought me to tears. Her story also got me thinking: we can experience 3D because our two eyes gives us stereo vision -- no wonder the pineal gland/foresight that supposed to lead one to spiritual awakening is call the "3rd eye", for if 2 eyes give you 3D vision, then logically 3 eyes would give you 4D vision! :-)

I believe some people on earth now can experience 4D sometimes, they just don't know what it was. Some were the people whom Ra called having a "dual activated body". But this is just my interpretation. I think certain awakening experiences people had, some induced by psychedelic drugs, were 4D experiences. But I personally never had any such experiences, so I'm only speculating.

So far I haven't given you any scientific evidence that the space is 4D, I want you to be able to consider it before continuing, because the more you are familiar with it, the easier you may understand my explanation later. When I read Ra Material for the first time, I didn't automatically accept anything it said to be true. I paid special attention to see whether it'd contradict what I know to be true while others don't, such as the space being 4D. I found following that made me trust Ra more:

4.4 Questioner: Then at this point there is a focusing of energy that is extra-dimensional in respect to our dimensions. Am I correct?
Ra: You may use that vibratory sound complex. However, it is not totally and specifically correct as there are no “extra” dimensions. We would prefer the use of the term “multi” dimensions.

I interpret this as Ra indicating space has more dimension than we think it has, thus it's not "extra". We only think it's "extra" because we thought it was only 3. Ra's answer corrected our distortion without breaking the law of confusion.

52.10 Questioner: ... Then the energy would be taken out in time/space and you would re-enter space/time at the end of this energy reversal. Am I in any way correct on this?
Ra: I am Ra. You are quite correct as far as your language may take you and, due to your training, more able than we to express the concept. Our only correction, if you will, would be to suggest that the 90° of which you speak are an angle which may best be understood as a portion of a tesseract.

I think Ra couldn't be more clear on this. A tesseract is a 4D cube, so Ra was saying the 90 angle was with regard to a 4D space, not the 3D one that Don would naturally assume. Again, a good answer without breaking the law of confusion.

Lastly, let me cite what I consider to be a supporting physical evidence for 4D space: quasicrystals. It's discovery won the Nobel prize in 2011. "Mathematically, quasicrystals have been shown to be derivable from a general method that treats them as projections of a higher-dimensional lattice." According to  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasicrystal
Because quasicrystals implicates space is 4D or higher, its discoverer were afraid to present it for many years, and was treated as a laughing stock for a while in the community until natural quasicrystals were finally discovered.

OK. I've dumped a lot of related material here. I hope you can take time to digest them. If you are still interested and when you feel ready, I will continue and show how I deduced scientifically that the space is 4D and where our misunderstandings lie, which lead to the answers to the four areas I mentioned before. Also, feel free to ask questions on what I've presented so far. 

[Stranger]

Learner, everything you've said makes sense. the 4th dimension could be the "vibrational frequency" that is often spoken of, which would allow things to vibrate in and out of our perceptual range. it is said that particularly skilled individuals are able to change the frequency of objects (including their bodies) and thereby make them disappear and reappear elsewhere in 3d. Is that what you mean?

I am very interested to hear more of your discoveries.

[anagogy]

While I think 3D representations of 4D objects (like the tesseracts shown on that wikipedia page) are interesting, I feel there is something fundamentally distorted about every 3D depiction of a tesseract.  You can "represent" higher dimensions conceptually in 3D, but you can't see them in 3D, so it is a misconception for someone to look at a tesseract depiction on a 2D plane, like a computer screen, and say, "ah this is what a 4D cube looks like!"

First off, all the connecting lines need to be the same "length" for it to be a true hypercube. And of course, all the angles would have to be 90 degrees perpendicular to one another.  This, alone, simply cannot be shown in 3D.  And the same problem for the "rotations" they attempt to show mathematically.  I have no solution for this problem, aside from stepping away from trying to understand the 4th dimension tangibly, and instead try to only see it from a conceptual/intuitive standpoint.

Another issue I have with 4D representations:  It is often assumed that a 4D object entering our plane would start off smaller, and once it had intersected our plane at its greatest diameter it would then be at full size, and again, as it passed through it would shrink until it disappeared.  This is how it is commonly visualized for a lower dimension, such as a 2D plane, if something like say, a 3D sphere, were to intersect that plane.  The 2D beings would, theoretically, see a point appear that gradually grew into a line of whatever the diameter of the sphere was.

I have an intuitive feeling, however, that this is wrong, and that the actual appearance in 3D would instead be a gradual fading in of the object, rather than a growing/shrinking type phenomenon.  

Interesting that we see this very appearance with things like ghostly apparitions, and UFO's...

In reality, I suppose it could appear in a variety of ways as it intersected our plane, depending on the shape and type of material of the 4D object.

[Learner]

Learner, everything you've said makes sense.  the 4th dimension could be the "vibrational frequency" that is often spoken of, which would allow things to vibrate in and out of our perceptual range.  it is said that particularly skilled individuals are able to change the frequency of objects (including their bodies) and thereby make them disappear and reappear elsewhere in 3d.  Is that what you mean?

I am very interested to hear more of your discoveries.

No, that's not quite what I mean. The 4th dimension is not a "frequency", the so called "vibrational frequency" may be related to movement in the 4th dimension, but it does not represent the nature of that dimension physically. 

The 4th dimension is no different from the other 3. Cartesian dimension is just a mathematical way to describe space. Saying space is 3 dimensional means that our space can be fully described with 3 Cartesian dimensions; we can easily describe and sense this physically by observing our movement with respect to 3 axis from the same origin that are perpendicular to each other. By saying space is 4D we simply mean that 3 Cartesian dimensions are not enough to fully describe the space in which we exist, we need a 4th dimension to fully described it. This 4th dimension is not special, it's just we cannot experience all 4 dimensions at the same time, so it is hard for us to perceive it.

The 4th dimension is not a particular dimension that we cannot experience, it's just that we can only experience 3 dimensions at a time in a 4 dimensional space. Let's use a 3D analogy: consider an ant without stereo vision walking on the surface of a balloon. To the ant, the world is 2D, even though it is moving on something that is in fact 3D. We are very much like 3D ants crawling on a 4D balloon (the similarity is more than you think -- I will explain in my later posts). We can experience only 3 dimensions at a time, but we are in fact moving through all 4 dimensions at all times. 

It's my understanding that the "virbrational frequency" you speak of is likely related to movement in the direction of the dimension we cannot experience, creating the effect of something being in and out of our perceptive range.  It involves two concepts I have not yet explained, I will jump ahead myself to give my understanding here without providing supporting evidence. 

The first concept has to do with what can we perceive. If we see in 3D is everything in the 4D space around us projected the 3D section we can perceive, then the world would look very confusing to us. The common understanding is that we can only observe the part of the 4D object intersect with our 3D "plane". Using a 3D analogy, consider a CT scan image of a certain section of our body. The cross section of 3D body in a CT scan is analogous to our 3D perception of the 4D world. (There is one caveat, the intersecting "plane" we use to gather our 3D perception is not flat -- this I will explain in later post in detail.) None the less, the idea that there are parts of the 4D space that we cannot observe at a time is correct. 

I personally do not know if one can change the "vibrational frequency" of the self or other to make them disappear or reappear else where, though I seem to be able to explain this with my understanding of physics. Just like we can reconstruct a 3D body scan by moving each CT scan along the length of the body, we can observe other parts of 4D space not visible to us by moving along the un-perceivable dimension. The second concept is about producing movement in the 4th dimension.  Well, just like moving in the 3D space, movement requires a change in energy. From Quantum Mechanics, we already the formula for energy: E=hf, where h is the Plank's constant and f is the frequency (e.g. of a photon). So the higher the frequency, the more the energy.  What you described is akin to saying that some human are able to raise their energy level in such a way that they could observe objects that most cannot in our ground energy state. As to raising their energy enough to disappear from the visible plane of the ground state then lower their energy to reappear else where, I guess that's theoretically possible, but I don't know if or how it could happen.  

I personally do not like people using scientific terms to describe spiritual matters, especially before I was awaken to spirituality. To me then it indicated that those who use these terms had no clear scientific understanding of the terms and were using them to make themselves look sophisticated. Now I have a less judgmental view of it for I can see the correspondence, for example, "quantum healing" has nothing to do with healing at the quantum level as we understand it now, but is related to the true nature of quantum which is again 4th dimensional. I still feel that without the correct physical understanding, using these terms introduces distortions to people of spiritual pursuit. However, I want to let go my judgement because recognizing these correspondences in my pursuit of knowledge has been an enlightening experience for me.

I will continue my explanation to the 4 areas soon when I get some time to sit down and write.

[Learner]

While I think 3D representations of 4D objects (like the tesseracts shown on that wikipedia page) are interesting, I feel there is something fundamentally distorted about every 3D depiction of a tesseract.  You can "represent" higher dimensions conceptually in 3D, but you can't see them in 3D, so it is a misconception for someone to look at a tesseract depiction on a 2D plane, like a computer screen, and say, "ah this is what a 4D cube looks like!"

First off, all the connecting lines need to be the same "length" for it to be a true hypercube.  And of course, all the angles would have to be 90 degrees perpendicular to one another.  This, alone, simply cannot be shown in 3D.  And the same problem for the "rotations" they attempt to show mathematically.  I have no solution for this problem, aside from stepping away from trying to understand the 4th dimension tangibly, and instead try to only see it from a conceptual/intuitive standpoint.

I agree that not all tesseract depictions on a 2D plane are how they would look like in 3D because the edges along the unseen dimension are also drawn. 

The 4D Nature of Space (2/2)


Consider how we perceive objects with our eyes: each of our eyes produces a 2D image that is a projection of what's in front of us in 3D. Our eyes produces two slightly different images from two perspectives, and our brain processes them to produce the sensation of 3D to us. Because we have the freedom of movement in 3 dimension, we can observe 3D objects from all angles and perspectives, the 3D images produced by our brain are verified and confirmed by our experience.
Our eyes can also see objects that is at distance away from us in the 4th dimension, but only in a limited range (which will be explained in later posts). But because we don't have the experience of moving and observing with freedom of movement in 4 dimensions, we simply consider objects we observed that are off in the 4th dimension to be in our 3D space. Therefore, even though the tesseract has to be distorted to be represented in 2D, I still find some 2D drawings helpful. 

Consider the tesseract drawn below on the left:

  

Initially I had trouble identifying all 8 cubes in there, I had trouble realizing that the outer cube that encompass all the other 7 cubes is also part of the tesseract. I had to think deductively using what we know again: consider how to build a 3D cube from its 2D counter part, a square. We need to use each side of the square to form another one perpenticular in the 3rd dimension, then use the edges of the 4 newly formed squares to for another square parallel to the original one in the 3rd dimension (note: this last square has no edge on the 2D surface where we started). 

Similarly, to construct a tesseract, we start with a cube, then imagine extend each square face of the cube to the 4th dimension to form another cube, and finally, one face from each of the 6 cubes forms another cube that's parallel to the original one but is located completely off at the 4th dimension.

What's interesting to me is that the two cubes that are not touching teach other and whose location is only different in the 4th dimension appears to be inside/outside each other. If you consider the 2D presentation of its 3D counter part, a cube, drawn above on the right, it makes sense. From a particular perspective, a cube can be seen as a square within a square with corners connected by lines (we rarely see this perspective since we usually exam cubes very closely so the inner square is about the same size of the outer one and can be hardly seen). It is known that objects located at a 3D distance away from us may appear to be inside of something that's closer to us (or appears to be small as it is commonly known, e.g. vanishing horizons). By the same logic, we can deduct from the examination of a tesseract, that objects which are located off a distance in the 4th dimension from us may appear as outside of us (not as an individual, but outside the 3D environment we call Earth that we are confirmed to, such as the distance galaxies). This confirms what I ready knew of my own understanding. 
Similarly, some objects that are not located in the same 4th dimension as us may also appear to be inside of us. But what does that mean? If I hold a pebble in my hand and I cut it open, is inside of the pebble in a different 4th dimension than the outside? No, it's only inside in the 3D sense. It's when we take anything and look inside into its atomic structure, we are begin to look at something that's a distance away in the 4th dimension. I have not given enough evidence to support this claim, but to consider it maybe helpful for future understanding.

So when we observe phenomena in the cosmos and at the atomic level (quantum level), we are not only looking at something that's in 3D distance away from us, they are also located at a different 4D position. Not realizing that is one of the reasons we find so many astronomical and quantum phenomena puzzling. Note that when we observe the phenomena in both of these cases, very far and very near, we can only use indirection means such a light and electromagnetic waves. Thus this is directly related to what I will explain later, the nature of light, and why light does not limit the speed of travel.

[Learner]

Now let's look into why the speed of light is not the limit of how fast an object can travel. First, let's review why we currently believe that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. 


Special Theory of Relativity Re-examined -- Part 1



The speed of light, c, as the upper limit for the speed of travel arises from the Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. The Special Theory of Relativity is essentially an interpretation (currently the most accepted one) of the Lorentz transformation of Maxwell's Field Equations. Maxwell's Field Equations (MFEs) are four equations that define the laws of electromagnetism. Since it is assumed that laws of physics remain the same whether a body is at rest or in motion -- this is called the Principle of Relativity -- people were surprised to find that Galilean transformation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_transformation), which had worked well with Newtonian mechanics and laws, cannot transform MFEs correctly. Instead, MFEs must be transformed with a type of transformation called the Lorentz transformation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation) for the Principle of Relativity to hold. The mathematical form of Lorentz transformation was know without the precisely defined coefficients before the Theory of Relativity.



Many physicists had tried to explain why MFEs need to be transformed by Lorentz transformation. Einstein approached it this way: he started with two simply assumptions: 1) that the Principle of Relativity must hold everywhere, and 2) that the speed of light is the same/invariant in all reference frames (i.e. the speed of light is measured to be the same regardless whether something is moving or stationary). The first assumption is a widely accepted principle, and the second assumption is an assertion, something that is assumed without proof or explanation as to why. With these two assumptions, Einstein was able to derive the Lorentz transformation with mathematically defined coefficients. It is then assumed that because Lorentz transformation is correctly derived, then the assertion (that the speed of light is invariant in all reference frames) and subsequent transformation formula must be correct. The interpretations/implications of Einstein's derivation of Lorentz transformation are collectively called the Special Theory of Relativity. Some of the implications include that not only space (e.g. spacial coordinates) but also time is changed in the transformation, resulting length contraction and time dilation when something is travelling at closer to speed of light; that time is inseparable from space in defining physical laws, thus the term spacetime. 


The denominator of the scale factor in the Lorentz transformation derived by Einstein is sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), where c is the speed of light and v is the speed of travel of the moving object/reference frame. Since for the formulation to be meaningful, v cannot be equal to c for that would result in a zero in the denominator, and v cannot be greater than c for it would result in square root of a negative number, therefore, the conclusion is that v cannot be greater than c, thus the implication that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Another important implication of SR is the mass-energy equivalence equation E=mc^2. I consider it to be the only verifiable implication of SR, which unfortunately also brought in the terror of nuclear weapons to the mankind. Despite some difficult-to-acceptable implications, such as that time runs at a different rate when something is moving at a very high speed, and that there is no such thing as simultaneity, SR has become widely accepted. Questions about the theory, from its derivation to its implications have always existed, but were mostly ignored by the mainstream scientific community. Some of the problems with SR can be found here: http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/#specrel


What I have come to understand is that while Einstein's assumptions, derivation and result are mathematically correct, their interpretations are not. This is largely because SR, unlike Newtonian physics laws, is not derived from physical observations, but purely from mathematical formulations. Secondly, at the time of development of SR, we have not made many observations into 4D phenomena to consider its existence. While we hold the math to be true, we have not fully understand its physical implications. Starting with Einstein's assertion regarding the speed of light, c, the error with this assumption is not that c is invariant but that c is the speed of light. My understanding is: c is not a speed, it defines the geometric property of light that corresponds to speed in certain cases. This will be examined in detail later.



My research has shown that the reason MFEs need to be transformed with Lorentz transformation is the result of the 4 dimensional nature of our space and the dynamics of our 3D environment within the 4D space. 


Firstly, while SR concluded that time is also relative just like spacial coordinates, thus broke all our previous notion of simultaneity and such, we have failed to realize it simply means that the time we used in defining Lorentz transformation is not time as we believed it to be, but (another dimension of) space. There is no 4D spacetime, but 4D space and time. 



When I say that we have misinterpreted space as time, I meant it this way: there is nothing wrong with our concept of time, the problem arises from how we measure it. Consider this hypothesis: we measure time through changes observed, and ultimately, we measure change of time by through our change in space. Specifically, these changes are related to the changes in position in the 4th dimension, the dimension that we do not experience with our senses. Everything on earth, regardless whether they are moving or staying at different 3D locations, share the same location in the 4th dimension, or that their relative location in the 4th dimension does not change. At the same time, everything on earth are also moving at a constant rate in the 4th D together, therefore everything experience the same consistent changes in the 4th D at the same rate. Therefore we had no problem measuring time this way: as we know, Newtonian physics works.


However, when we looking into thing that very large (cosmic scale) or very small (quantum scale), we start observing observing things that located at different 4D positions and changing at different rate in the 4D. MFEs which defines electromagnetism are laws arise from interactions of particles (electrons, etc.) at the atomic level that manifested on the Newtonian scale. They open the insight into interactions of objects that are located in different 4D positions where the rate of change in the 4th D will no longer be consistent for all. Therefore, understanding the Lorentz transformation of MFEs will help us further understand the 4 dimensional nature of space and our relationship to it.

p.s.

per my understanding stated above, I felt validation when I saw Ra's use of "/" in time/space, space/time. To me, Ra uses the "/" when stating something that's the same but viewed from different perspectives, such as love/light. For I already understood what we perceive as time is actually space, so what Ra refers as space/time, I understand it meaning the 3D space/reality that we perceive; and time/space refers to the space/reality beyond 3D that we currently understand as time. 

[Dekalb_Blues]

Here is a rough musical representation metaphoric of the minimum required level of sentient Terran synchronization with authentic cosmic designs of non-futile action in the present crisis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVOB9W3k92g (earnest-beginner level)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmGah3p9ym4 (intermediate)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lzy_WrH8v7U (advanced)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AjFN4uD3h4 (transcendent, earnest-beginner next-level-deep)

Here, similarly metaphorized, are patterns representative of the majority of Mankind's actual level of such mastery at the present:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87cUqFA3mnw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi8beYR1iBQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3iqlw-NrPI


Of course, it goes without saying that the spiritually advanced über-beings who have been drawn to the teachings of Messenger Ra are in the uppermost-percentile (psychoanthropologically speaking, of course, with special reference to the sociology of elite cosmometric knowledge typical in this kind of galactic whatsit), and effortlessly and spontaneously make beautiful music in harmony with the Great Design, altruistically for Duty and Humanity and the Greater Glory of the One Infinite Creator, yet:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SeMYQ8DUtY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-sgw9bPV4A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ex_2AEf358M 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQqK1CjE9bA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye3ecDYxOkg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfYfOgRCbIQ



Using the Christian religious metaphor allegorically for the purposes of this post:

http://www.saintstupid.com/pledge.html  

[Learner]

Here is a sign that we are getting ready.

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/186568...review.htm

[BlatzAdict]

[font=Roboto, arial, sans-serif]My awakening through scientific knowledge lead me to the Law of One. It's been a while since I've gained the scientific understanding on why the speed of light does not limit how fast we can travel, how we have misunderstood gravity, why the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating, and how the particle and wave property of matter are integrated with each other. But how come I have not able to let others to understand what I can? I assume it's because I have not understood it clearly enough to explain it others. But as my understandings grow deeper, I also wonder, "maybe we are just not ready?"[/font]


[font=Roboto, arial, sans-serif]Just look at the last great leap in human's understanding of the physical world, Einstein's theory of relativity -- what concrete application did it bring to us? It brought us a limitation: the idea that nothing travels faster than the speed of light - making other intelligence unreachable to us; and it brought out the nuclear age, the world got to witness the terror of nuclear weapons. [/font]
[font=Roboto, arial, sans-serif]If knowledge is power, and with great power comes great responsibility -- does it mean if we have not learned to act responsibly, we will be deprived of the knowledge?[/font]

[font=Roboto, arial, sans-serif]I feel the knowledge I have will be ready for the world when the world is ready to receive it. Otherwise it will just be limited to a small group of people who are ready. [/font]

[font=Roboto, arial, sans-serif]Are you ready? Is the world ready? How long will it take to be ready?[/font]

[font=Roboto, arial, sans-serif]When the world is ready, the transformation will be fast.[/font]


[font=Roboto, arial, sans-serif](excerpt from http://goo.gl/qb8VqH)[/font]

It's more like there is a force actively since the times of babylon trying to disrupt and prevent the awakening, a lot of people already know much i feel, though of course it may not be enough or it might. the glass is either half empty or half full.

i would like to posit to you an old native american saying as above so below. Ra talks about how cancer arises as a result of unresolved anger. The physical manifests in accordance with the internal energetic vibration.

The same thing is happening in the world. The changes you see can be inextricably linked to the world vibration as a whole. 


Additionally that EM drive that NASA came out with suggests to bounce microwaves off of each other and then it exits a small opening to generate thrust.



If you understand electronics, the cellphone operates also within the same range of microwave frequencies and this contraption which came out before the announcement of the EM drive works on the exact same electromagnetic principles.


I would posit further that the whole reason why NASA is starting to admit it now is because there is a growing alternative news media. Do you think Nasa would have announced the EM drive the same day they got it working? I doubt it, they are being forced to release it to stay on top of who is the generally accepted source of information.