"Space charge" is another way of saying reactive power. Breakdown occurs as a phase-to-phase (or line-to-line) discharge, when line resistance increases frequency to "resonant frequency". When resonant frequency is reached line resistance goes infinite, power factor goes to zero, reactive phase-to-phase voltage spikes and discharge occurs between phases. Earth is a multi-phase AC circuit. It helps to look at things as circuits, like an engineer instead of as a physicist. Remember, physicists give us theories - Engineers give us things that work.
I could write a thick book about how many times fake 'me's' are talking crap on YT , not about politics no more . . just back water on surface science sites , why they so afraid ?
Idea. AC breakdown is easier bc breakdown itself requires a set number of dipole oscillations for the energy to dissipate, and the regular, periodic oscillation caused by flipping (AC) provides the necessary quantity of dipole movements. DC, on the other hand, is a more brute force method, that simply uses more current. Just an idea. Ever since Edo Kahl and the structured atom model, Ive been trying to understand how EM waves, magnetic divergence, convergence, and energy work from the atom up.
Dispel all particles and see the light. The duality was a distraction. Edo and I had the same conversation when he came to my home in California to discuss his paper. I regret, he couldn't come to this understanding. But, I appreciate his efforts.
The particle model is just backwards. Matter is a crystalline structure and when you break it apart newer particles are created along the fissures in the structure. That is all there is to the particle chart, like building a house from firebricks, than breaking it apart to create all kinds of different structured dense pack patterns. Matter is a crystalline dense pack of photons and matter can be created from photons. But first you must create the structure and then you can break it apart. The Edo Kaal atomic model actually matches the solar particle abundances and suggests that the fusion that occurs in the solar atmosphere or flares bypasses helium in favor of a more stable dense packing of carbon or oxygen. There are several papers that suggest that helium is an alpha particle created from nuclear fission of unstable elements in the solar atmosphere and flares as well. The solar abundances and spectral data suggests that there is no helium created by the so called proton-proton chain, but helium is created as an alpha particle due to fission of heavier elements. Putting matter together from photons and creating heavier elements from lighter ones requires an energy input, at a fairly specific range of frequencies, to get things to align into a crystalline pattern. Even creating so called 'antihydrogen' from positrons and 'antiprotons' also requires a resonant frequency, to get the two to join into one sphere. Breaking matter apart into smaller elements does also require a vibrational energy much like the photoelectric effect. In fact in general, molecular rearrangement occurs in the infrared, electron recombination or separation from an atom occurs in the x-ray,. Far x-ray and near gamma involve atomic rearrangement, and far gamma involves positron and electron recombination or photon breakdown into electron and positrons. According to Dr. Gerald Pollack, ANY structured rearrangement requires energy input, usually at a fairly specific frequency, much like the photoelectric effect.
@@Critter145 I just bought their book, been out for less than a year. Very nice reading book. Kaal, Otte, Sorensen, and Lemming. Intro to the Structured Atomic Model.
so are the flat universe mathAmagic did it astrophysicist's today ^_~ -that's why they will Never invent any electromagnetic microSat propulsion that are capable of tapping in to & riding & locally modulated communicating on the existing abundant intergalactic burkland current webs 'magnetic river' at any speed-
I'd be extremely curious to see a video discussing what AC would look like on cosmic scales IF it were to exist on such scales. Like, how would a 60 Hz city-wide grid translate to scaled up stellar grid? Would it take years for a stellar current to switch? Could natural ACs explain things like decadal solar cycles or even thousands of years for magnetic reversals of Earth? I feel like I'm asking really naive questions here because of my limited deep understanding of AC verses DC in nature, but at the same time, I feel like if AC really is better for translating energy across larger distances, then nature probably also is already doing it, if you now what I mean. However, I've never heard AC discussed in regards to cosmic or stellar scales. So your thoughts would be a huge gift.
This series often times references and refers to the thunderbolts project channel. I’d recommend reviewing some of their content as it directly relates to your questions. Maybe not specifically, however.
@@adventureseeker8988 Thanks, but I have already seem much of the Thunderbolts library and am a subscriber! Nothing there on large scale ACs that I've yet to come across.
Tig Welding use AC for fusing Aluminium because DC blows the softer low melting point Aluminium away. DC is used for heavier metal that can hold greater heat. All heavy duty welding is DC for fusion purposes, AC is considered a much cooler process. I believe the plasma pool is the reason.
Impurities in the dielectric would cause local inductive (micro) heating and chemical effects in an AC field that would not be seen in DC. Some kinds of impurities would be worse than others. Even microscopic air bubbles should be counted. A tiny negative space is as bad as a sharp point. These confounders should be accounted in testing.
such mystery, oh my. dielectrics dont have (m)any mobile electrons, thus if you build up sufficient localized charge in them (ie. go past their polarization capacity - as determined by molecular structure of given dielectric and its physical form) then reverse polarity quicker than charges can relocate youll get micro discharges at points of contact with the conductor - in effect at lest partial dielectric breakdown, with turns into full with enough cycles. as to second part of the mystery, higher leakage in thinner dielectric layers offsets that effect slightly
But of course frequency would affect breakdown. The material would be acting as a capacitor and higher frequencies would produce a greater electric field strength.
how did tesla survive in his experiments? he increased the hertz to over 100,000 electricity at that frequency just rolls over the skin and will not penetrate into the body
Thank You Very Much👍 For All Your, Very Informative, Honest, Hard Work, Gareth❤️ -That is my Not-Crazy Person, comment. Now😁..... Does it seem a reasonable line of inquiry to imagine that; at the end of the 17th century(1800's), the inquiring minds of the world, seemed to be; investigating and researching and discovering and, I think most importantly reporting, things on, I guess you might say, 1 line of thinking or indeed reality. Then.... I cant help but wonder if the 1st and 2nd World Wars, with the unbelievable amount of change in; our interaction with the ancient parts of the world, rapid advancing tech of all sorts, completely altered governmental and other power structures, possibly amazing discoveries, and a now global(or almost) ability to control info and narratives, were the catalyst to a massive and controlled shift in what seemed to be occurring in the areas of the Worlds discovery/advancement as it was presented to, and absorbed by the general public Because.... Since then, soooo many areas of interesting research and discovery appear to have been purposefully obfuscated in the manner that they are allowed to reach Public understanding and acceptance. Archeology, Cosmology, Physics, Paleontology, etc etc etc seemed, Pre 1900, to be heading in one exciting direction. Then Post 1945, plodding along on a seperate, unexciting, almost predetermined avenue. Was it these 2 Globally Reaching Events that precipitated the......charade? Or am I painfully naive to think that it was ever any other way? Thanks again Gareth. And Thanks to all who ARE being brave and working hard to uncover the Truth❤️🇨🇦
Multipaction (or multipactor) is a resonant vacuum phenomenon which occurs at RF/microwave frequencies. It can occur in satellite transmission downlinks.
any insights on verisatiums videos and counter challenges to the hypothesis that power is delivered through the coaxial em field that emerges about the conducting element/wire? maybe you can add your 2 pence huge thanks
WAG (wild ass guess). AC uses average voltage rather than peek voltage to determine voltage. I would not only guess that you are reading the wrong numbers but also that you are looking at energy as a whole and not peek periotic energy per electron and that it is the acceleration rate of the electron found more in the high frequency that makes the difference. Again, I am making a WAG. And again, I emphasize WAG, since I read back what I wrote, and it sounds snooty, just no other way to say it.
Before you make a WAG I suggest you read the papers this is based on. Links in the description. It was a collaboration between two universities and the important point to understand is that breakdown happens at the DC value when you look at the space charge distribution. It is the averages field that is lower. Hence why it occurs closer to the surface.
A lot of the thermal breakdown is from dielectric impedance and inclusions from the field alternating back and forth on a carbon structure in the material. In the Quantum world its called SPOOKY ACTION.
Breakdown is when an insulator breaks down and allows a current to flow through it. So in the case of an insulator around a wire this might cause a short circuit. But it need not always result in a short circuit.
Theory of Everything solution (short version): Swap from Newton "real/necessary" universe over to Leibniz "contingent/not-necessary" universe as our fundamental blueprint of the universe. This includes Leibniz calculus vs Newton calculus. Anywhere Leibniz and Newton thought different. All of it. Full swap. Gottfried Leibniz "contingent/not-necessary" universe just lacked 2022 quantum physics verbiage (just match up definitions i.e. quark and Monad) and Hamilton's 4D quaternion algebra (created 200 years after Leibniz died). Lastly, our first number is NOT 1. It's 0. Our ten numbers are 0, 1, 2, 3,...9 ✅. Our ten dimensions are 0D, 1D, 2D, 3D,...9D ✅. Ask someone to begin counting. I bet they begin with 1. 1 is not the beginning. 0 is the beginning. 1D is a Line; two points; physical; matter; beginning and ending; contingent. 0D is a (point); exact location only; no spatial extension; zero size; Monad (Leibniz) Quark (strong nuclear force); necessary. Examples: What is another word for quark? fundamental particle, elementary particle. Do quarks take up space? Its defining feature is that it lacks spatial extension; being dimensionless, it does not take up space. How fast do quarks move? the speed of light (see Leibniz's Law of Sufficient Reason). What is an elementary particle example? (0, 1, 2, 3) Elementary particles include quarks (the constituents of protons and neutrons), leptons (electrons, muons, taus, and neutrinos), gauge bosons (photons, gluons, and W and Z bosons) and the Higgs boson. What is the size of an elementary particle? The elementary particles are not believed to have any size at all. As currently understood they are zero size points. Protons and neutrons (and all hadrons) are about 10−15m. Match Leibniz definitions to quantum physics definitions. Different word, same definition. Not a coincidence.
Human consciousness, mathematically, is identical to 4D quaternion algebra with w, x, y, z being "real/necessary" 0D, 1D, 2D, 3D and i, j, k being "contingent/not-necessary" 0D, 1D xi, 2D yj, 3D zk. 0D is always w (real/necessary) 1D-9D contingent/not-necessary universe has "conscious lifeforms" (1D xi, 2D yj, 3D zk)..."turning" 'time'. [In mathematics, a versor is a quaternion of norm one (a unit quaternion). The word is derived from Latin versare = "to turn" with the suffix -or forming a noun from the verb (i.e. versor = "the turner"). It was introduced by William Rowan Hamilton in the context of his quaternion theory.] [Math; 4D quaternion algebra] A quaternion is a 4-tuple, which is a more concise representation than a rotation matrix. Its geo- metric meaning is also more obvious as the rotation axis and angle can be trivially recovered. How do you make a quaternion? (Nobody is starting with 0) You can create an N-by-1 quaternion array by specifying an N-by-3 array of Euler angles in radians or degrees. Use the euler syntax to create a scalar quaternion using a 1-by-3 vector of Euler angles in radians. "Turn" to what, you might ask. 5D is the center of 1D-9D. The breadth (space-time). All things are drawn to the center, the whole. (Gravity means Nothing compared to the Strong Nuclear Force) [Contingent Universe]: 3 sets of 3 dimensions: (1D-3D/4D-6D/7D-9D) The illusory middle set (4D, 5D, 6D) is temporal. Id imagine we create this middle temporal set similar to a dimensional Venn Diagram with polarized lenses that we "turn" by being conscious. Which requires energy. 3D height symmetry/entanglement with 6D depth and 9D absorption is why we are "consumers", we must consume/absorb calories, and sleep, to continue "to turn" 'time' (be alive). 1D-3D spatial set/7D-9D spectral set overlap creating the temporal illusion of 4D-6D set. Transcending one another. 1D, 2D, 3D = spatial composite (line, width, height) 4D, 5D, 6D = temporal illusory (length, breadth, depth) 7D, 8D, 9D = spectra energies (continuous, emission, absorption) Symmetry/entanglement: 1D, 4D, 7D line, length, continuous 2D, 5D, 8D width, breadth, emission 3D, 6D, 9D height, depth, absorption [Time] According to theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli, time is an illusion: our naive perception of its flow doesn't correspond to physical reality. Indeed, as Rovelli argues in The Order of Time, much more is illusory, including Isaac Newton's picture of a universally ticking clock. Does time exist without space? Time 'is' as space 'is' - part of a reference frame in which in ordered sequence you can touch, throw and eat apples. Time cannot exist without space and the existence of time does require energy. Time, then, has three levels, according to Leibniz: (i) the atemporality or eternality of God; (ii) the continuous immanent becoming-itself of the monad as entelechy; (iii) time as the external framework of a chronology of “nows” The difference between (ii) and (iii) is made clear by the account of the internal principle of change. The real difference between the necessary being of God and the contingent, created finitude of a human being is the difference between (i) and (ii). Conclusion: Humanity needs to immediately swap from "Newton" to "Leibniz". Also from Edison to Tesla. Also the Aether guy. Our calculus is incorrect (Leibniz > Newton): What is the difference between Newton and Leibniz calculus? Newton's calculus is about functions. Leibniz's calculus is about relations defined by constraints. In Newton's calculus, there is (what would now be called) a limit built into every operation. In Leibniz's calculus, the limit is a separate operation.
As Leibniz put it: “If an ontological theory implies the existence of two scenarios that are empirically indistinguishable in principle but ontologically distinct ... then the ontological theory should be rejected and replaced with one relative to which the two scenarios are ontologically identical.” In other words, if a theory describes two situations as being distinct, and yet also implies that there is no conceivable way, empirically, to tell them apart, then that theory contains some superfluous and arbitrary elements that ought to be removed. Leibniz’s prescription is, of course, widely accepted by most physicists today. The idea exerted a powerful influence over later thinkers, including Poincaré and Einstein, and helped lead to the theories of special and general relativity. And this idea, Spekkens suggests, may still hold further value for questions at the frontiers of today’s physics. Leibniz’s correspondent Clarke objected to his view, suggesting an exception. A man riding inside a boat, he argued, may not detect its motion, yet that motion is obviously real enough. Leibniz countered that such motion is real because it can be detected by someone, even if it isn’t actually detected in some particular case. “Motion does not indeed depend upon being observed,” he wrote, “but it does depend upon being possible to be observed ... when there is no change that can be observed, there is no change at all.” In this, Leibniz was arguing against prevailing ideas of the time, and against Newton, who conceived of space and time in absolute terms. “I have said more than once,” Leibniz wrote, “that I hold space to be something merely relative.” Einstein, of course, followed Leibniz’s principle when he noticed that the equations of electricity and magnetism make no reference to any absolute sense of motion, but only to relative motion. A conducting wire moving through the field of a magnet seems like a distinct situation from a magnet moving past a stationary wire. Yet the two situations are in fact empirically identical, and should, Einstein concluded, be considered as such. Demanding as much leads to the Lorentz transformation as the proper way to link descriptions in reference frames in relative motion. From this, one finds a host of highly counter-intuitive effects, including time dilation. Einstein again followed Leibniz on his way to general relativity. In this case, the indistinguishability of two distinct situations - a body at rest in the absence of a gravitational field, or in free fall within a field - implied the impossibility of referring to any concept of absolute acceleration. In a 1922 lecture, Einstein recalled the moment of his discovery: “The breakthrough came suddenly one day. I was sitting on a chair in my patent office in Bern. Suddenly the thought struck me: If a man falls freely, he would not feel his own weight. I was taken aback. This simple thought experiment made a deep impression on me. This led me to the theory of gravity.”
Leibniz now mostly inhabits scientific history books, his ideas receiving scant attention in actual research. And yet, Spekkens argues, Leibniz’s principle concerning indistinguishability may be as useful as ever, especially when confronting foundational issues in physics. Consider the interpretation of quantum theory, where theorists remain separated into two opposing groups, loosely associated with the terms realism and empiricism. Although Leibniz’s principle can’t offer any way to unify the two groups, Spekkens argues, it might help them focus their attention on the most important issues dividing them, where progress might be made. For example, one particular interpretation comes in the form of so-called pilot-wave theories, in which electrons and other particles follow precise but highly non-classical trajectories under the influence of a quantum potential, which produces the wave-like nature of quantum dynamics. These theories demonstrate by explicit example that nothing in quantum physics prohibits thinking about particles moving along well-defined trajectories. But the theory does require the existence of some absolute rest frame, while also implying that this frame can never be detected. Many other aspects of such theories also remain unconstrained by empirical data. Hence, one might take Leibniz’s principle as coming down against such theories. On the other hand, Spekkens points out, Leibniz’s principle demands that distinct states be, in Leibniz’s own words, “empirically indistinguishable in principle,” and achieving such certainty is not easy. If several states appear indistinguishable now, future experiments might turn up measurable differences between them. So a proponent of the pilot-wave approach might agree with Leibniz’s principle, but still reject its application just yet. The aim of research, from this point of view, ought to be to seek out such evidence, or at least envision the conditions under which it might be obtained. And in this sense, Spekkens notes, Leibniz’s principle also offers some criticism of theorists from the empirical school, who object to pilot-wave or other realist interpretations of quantum theory for containing unmeasurable quantities. It implies, as he puts it, that the empiricists’ “set of mental tools is too impoverished.” After all, progress in physics often requires imagination, and creative exploration of possible distinguishing features that have not yet been measured, or even thought to exist. Progress requires scientists to “entertain ontological hypotheses, expressed with concepts that are not defined purely in terms of empirical phenomena.” Science thrives on the essential tension existing at the boundary between empirical observation and unconstrained imagination. Incredibly, Leibniz perceived that more than 300 years ago.
pa·ta·phys·ics /ˌpädəˈfiziks/ noun the branch of philosophy that deals with an imaginary realm additional to metaphysics. Pataphysics (French: pataphysique) is a "philosophy" of science invented by French writer Alfred Jarry (1873-1907) intended to be a parody of science. Difficult to be simply defined or pinned down, it has been described as the "science of imaginary solutions". Metaphysics deals with all that encompass the omniverse. Pataphysics deals with what is beyond omniverse, beyond totality, the unknown. If you want to simplify it further, Pataphysics can be considered "The personal science of God himself".
It's so disappointing to hear your new intro music just cutting short of the key climax, right at the eye! Now you just drop it flat instead of letting the last few seconds of a truly beautiful musical theme. Why? Why? Why? I used to so look forward to that part and hum it throughout the day. But now -- nothing. Big letdown. Otherwise, your show is great! I hope to see this oversight corrected. Keep it up, Matthew!
Monad (Greek for "singularity", or "alone") has the same definition as Quark (strong nuclear force): No spatial extension. Zero size. Exact location only. 6 thousand trillion trillion trillion (39 zeroes after 6k) times stronger than the force of gravity. Leibniz is our Universal Genius, not Newton. Read 📚 Monadology. Match up definitions from Leibniz's works verbiage 300 years ago with quantum physics verbiage definitions today. Different words, same definitions. Our 0D (point)/Quark (strong nuclear force)/Monad (singularity): just read what Christ and John (and Leibniz) said about Monad (also the Abrahamic Gnostics [Greek, Syrian and Persian]). Not a coincidence. Our ten numbers are 0, 1, 2, 3,...9. Our ten dimensions are 0D, 1D, 2D, 3D,...9D. 1D-9D is contingent universe. Hamilton's 4D quaternion algebra can prove Leibniz. Update first four dimensions w, x, y, z to 0D, 1D, 2D, 3D though (as opposed to the current 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D nonsense). Newton drinks his own pee. 1 is not the beginning. 0 is the beginning. 1D is two points. 0D is a representative dot in a theoretical circle (point). 1 is contingent. 0 is necessary. There is no 1 without 0. A piece of 1, no matter how small, will NEVER be 0 (without becoming 0, thus no longer being 1). What number is before 1? 0. 0D (point) is "One with Everything", literally ". with 0". 0D (point) is Monad (singularity) is Quark (strong nuclear force) is Soul (6 thousand trillion trillion trillion times stronger than the force of gravity) No spatial extension. Zero size. Exact location only.
...You then who are spiritual should worship neither the creation or the Craftsman, but the Father of Truth. -Heracleon God: pre-cosmic cosmogonic bearer of personhood. What is another word for cosmology? In this page you can discover 17 synonyms, antonyms, idiomatic expressions, and related words for cosmology, like: quantum-theory, cosmism, celestial-mechanics, cosmogeny, cosmogony, cosmography, cosmological, quantum mechanics, catastrophism, superstring and metaphysic. The Puranic cosmogony also contains stories of the dissolution of existence in the cosmic fire that emerges from the breath of Rudra (see Rudra), or Śiva (see Śiva). Wind and floods complete the work (see Vedic Cosmogony, Upaniṣd Cosmogony). From: Puranic Cosmogony in A Dictionary of Asian Mythology » “And God said, Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness". … Sus. I say that's the imposter. (Blind Fool Yaldabaoth) Can't hide his plurality. Blind Fool Yaldabaoth talks about this universe being born "from the ashes of the last" and 9D is absorption, sooo... Theoretical end to our universes. The Savior already won for us Blind Fool Yaldabaoth lost; he r dumb. Religions need to get their filthy hands off Humanity's divine biblia. That's our fundamental blueprint, you jackwagons. Our multiverse is a set of 3. Before we're here is Real/Necessary, this is Contingent/Not-necessary and we create a Simulated/Imaginary universe from here. Guess we like a universe on each side. Real > Contingent > Simulated. How do we do holographic and/or projection universe 🤔. We can prove the Aether guy was correct as well. Everything matches up with Leibniz, Hamilton, Plato, Tesla. 5 elements are Earth, Fire, Air, Water, Aether. And our Souls are the strongest Force by a ludicrous amount haha. So is there no "gravity" and it's actually called "Aether" (which our Souls make happen)? Hmm...
The known multiverse: 1) real/ necessary w, x, y, z being 0D, 1D, 2D, 3D 2) contingent/not-necessary w, xi, yj, zk (YOU ARE HERE) being 0D, 1D xi, 2D yj, 3D zk 3) simulated/imaginary (working on it) Our ten numbers are 0, 1, 2, 3,...9 ✅. "10" is not one of our ten numbers. If you think 10 comes before 0...you might be duped by Newton's logic/calculus/physics. What an absolute fraud. Newton used political power to "win" against Leibniz. And Humanity foots the bill. The scumbag, trying to "win", always wins. Edison was the scumbag vs Tesla. The M and M "Moron" scumbags vs the Aether guy. The list goes on and on. Read about Newton. Even his most significant achievement was disputed (Hooke had beef with Newton "stealing" HIS original idea). We need to reassess who we're even studying 📖. If humanity all had the correct fundamentals then we'd advance like Tesla was talking about. Who's doing this... It's like a Twilight Zone episode where Globalists are pushing fundamentally incorrect gobbledygook to keep the Plebians stupid. fundamentals = rock specifics = sand Everyone is a genius at the fundamentals. CERN so concerned with 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D 🚫 instead of 0D, 1D, 2D, 3D ✅. Derp.
The Atzmus ALIASES The God of Contradiction, Goddess of the Absurd, The Unknown Parent AFFILIATION Unknown PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION RACE Unknown GENDER Genderless (referred to as both male and female) SPIRIT OF Good, Evil, Existence, Non-Existence, Absolute Dualism, Contradiction PANTHEON Abrahamic RELATIVES PARENTS Eternal or Self-Created SIBLINGS Other Pre-existential Entities OFFSPRING God (1/2), Ayin (1/2) The Atzmus is a theoretical unknown entity believed to have existed before everything and everyone, before the primordial void of absolute chaos. Such an entity would, in fact, be Yesh and Ayin themselves in their purest and pre-existing state, when good and evil had no differences and both were one, with no gaps between light and darkness. In the beginning, there was only an Endless Void, and that void created an egg, and from that egg was born an entity, androgynous, perfect and omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, encompassing everything and everyone within itself. Such an entity would be the most basic and pure state of Existence and Non-Existence, being Acceptance and Denial, Light and Darkness, Good and Evil, united in a single pure entity and divinity. However, for reasons unknown, this entity would have split into two separate beings, one being Yesh, the Yes and the Being, while the other was Ayin, the No and the Non-Being. However, Yesh would have remained unconscious for ineffable ages, while Ayin only inhabited the empty Void in full satisfaction. But when Khaos graduated, all of Ayin's satisfaction disappeared, and when The Darkness graduated, it only got worse. And finally, the universe was tired of being nothing and so the universe said the Word, and the Word was with God, the Word was God.
"Before the beginning there was void. Nothing. No flesh. No rock. No air. No heat. No light. No dark. Nothing, save a single, perfect pearl. Within that pearl dreamed a mighty, unfathomable spirit-the One- Anu. Made of shining diamond. Anu was the sum of all things: good and evil, light and dark, physical and mystical, joy and sadness-all reflected across the crystalline facets of its form. And, within its eternal dream-state, Anu considered itself-all of its myriad facets. Seeking a state of total purity and perfection, Anu cast all evil from itself. All dissonance was gone. But what of the cast-off aspect of its being? The dark parts, the sharp, searing aspects of hate and pridefulness? Those could not remain in a state of separation, for all things are drawn to all things. All parts are drawn to the whole. Those discordant parts assembled into the Beast-the Dragon. Tathamet was his name-and he breathed unending death and darkness from his seven devouring heads. The Dragon was solely composed of Anu's cast-off aspects. The end sum of the whole became a singular Evil- the Prime Evil, from which all the vileness would eventually spread throughout existence. Though separate beings, Anu and the Dragon were bound together within the Pearl's shadowed womb. There they warred against each other in an unending clash of light and shadow for ages uncounted. The diamond warrior and the seven-headed dragon proved to be the equal of the other, neither ever gaining the upper hand in their fierce and unending combat-till at last, their energies nearly spent after countless millennia of battle, the two combatants delivered their final blows. The energies unleashed by their impossible fury ignited an explosion of light and matter so vast and terrible that it birthed the very universe all around us. All of the stars above and the darkness that binds them. All that we touch. All that we feel. All that we know. All that is unknown. All of it continues through the night and the day in the ebbing and flowing of the ocean tides and in the destruction of fire and the creation of the seed. Everything of which we are aware, and that of which we are utterly unaware, was created with the deaths of Anu and the Dragon, Tathamet. In the epicenter of reality lies Pandemonium, the scar of the universe's violent birth. At its chaotic center lay the Heart of Creation, a massive jewel unlike any other: the Eye of Anu- the Worldstone. It is the foundation stone of all places and times, a nexus of realities and vast, untold possibility. Anu and Tathamet are no more, yet their distinct essences permeated the nascent universe-and eventually became the bedrock of what we know to be the High Heavens and the Burning Hells. Anu's shining spine spun out into the primordial darkness, where it slowed and cooled. Over countless ages it formed into the Crystal Arch, around which the High Heavens took shape and form. Though Anu was gone, some resonance of it remained in the holy Arch. Spirits bled forth from it-shining angels of light and sound who embodied the virtuous aspects of what the One had been. Yet, despite the grace and beauty of this shining realm, it lacked the perfection of Anu's spirit. Anu had passed into a benevolent place beyond this broken universe- a paradise of which nothing is known and yet represents perhaps the greatest-kept secret of Creation. Longed for, but unimaginable." -THE DAWN, BOOK OF CAIN.
"Space charge" is another way of saying reactive power. Breakdown occurs as a phase-to-phase (or line-to-line) discharge, when line resistance increases frequency to "resonant frequency". When resonant frequency is reached line resistance goes infinite, power factor goes to zero, reactive phase-to-phase voltage spikes and discharge occurs between phases. Earth is a multi-phase AC circuit.
It helps to look at things as circuits, like an engineer instead of as a physicist. Remember, physicists give us theories - Engineers give us things that work.
Love your work sir.
@@t00by00zer It's not our man
I could write a thick book about how many times fake 'me's' are talking crap on YT , not about politics no more . . just back water on surface science sites , why they so afraid ?
Idea. AC breakdown is easier bc breakdown itself requires a set number of dipole oscillations for the energy to dissipate, and the regular, periodic oscillation caused by flipping (AC) provides the necessary quantity of dipole movements. DC, on the other hand, is a more brute force method, that simply uses more current. Just an idea. Ever since Edo Kahl and the structured atom model, Ive been trying to understand how EM waves, magnetic divergence, convergence, and energy work from the atom up.
Dispel all particles and see the light. The duality was a distraction. Edo and I had the same conversation when he came to my home in California to discuss his paper. I regret, he couldn't come to this understanding. But, I appreciate his efforts.
@@chrisfontenot1915 Is Edo still around? Is he still working on SAM? I logged onto the site the other day and couldnt find anything recent.
The particle model is just backwards.
Matter is a crystalline structure and when you break it apart newer particles are created along the fissures in the structure. That is all there is to the particle chart, like building a house from firebricks, than breaking it apart to create all kinds of different structured dense pack patterns.
Matter is a crystalline dense pack of photons and matter can be created from photons. But first you must create the structure and then you can break it apart.
The Edo Kaal atomic model actually matches the solar particle abundances and suggests that the fusion that occurs in the solar atmosphere or flares bypasses helium in favor of a more stable dense packing of carbon or oxygen. There are several papers that suggest that helium is an alpha particle created from nuclear fission of unstable elements in the solar atmosphere and flares as well. The solar abundances and spectral data suggests that there is no helium created by the so called proton-proton chain, but helium is created as an alpha particle due to fission of heavier elements.
Putting matter together from photons and creating heavier elements from lighter ones requires an energy input, at a fairly specific range of frequencies, to get things to align into a crystalline pattern. Even creating so called 'antihydrogen' from positrons and 'antiprotons' also requires a resonant frequency, to get the two to join into one sphere.
Breaking matter apart into smaller elements does also require a vibrational energy much like the photoelectric effect.
In fact in general, molecular rearrangement occurs in the infrared, electron recombination or separation from an atom occurs in the x-ray,. Far x-ray and near gamma involve atomic rearrangement, and far gamma involves positron and electron recombination or photon breakdown into electron and positrons.
According to Dr. Gerald Pollack, ANY structured rearrangement requires energy input, usually at a fairly specific frequency, much like the photoelectric effect.
@@Critter145 I just bought their book, been out for less than a year. Very nice reading book. Kaal, Otte, Sorensen, and Lemming. Intro to the Structured Atomic Model.
Thanks for these. I'm a complete novice on electric field
so are the flat universe mathAmagic did it astrophysicist's today ^_~ -that's why they will Never invent any electromagnetic microSat propulsion that are capable of tapping in to & riding & locally modulated communicating on the existing abundant intergalactic burkland current webs 'magnetic river' at any speed-
This was fabulous! 🤜🏼⚡️🤛🏻
It’s obviously a resonance effect based on the resonant frequency of the material
Love how the lighting currents make the logo. Awesome job
I'd be extremely curious to see a video discussing what AC would look like on cosmic scales IF it were to exist on such scales. Like, how would a 60 Hz city-wide grid translate to scaled up stellar grid? Would it take years for a stellar current to switch? Could natural ACs explain things like decadal solar cycles or even thousands of years for magnetic reversals of Earth? I feel like I'm asking really naive questions here because of my limited deep understanding of AC verses DC in nature, but at the same time, I feel like if AC really is better for translating energy across larger distances, then nature probably also is already doing it, if you now what I mean. However, I've never heard AC discussed in regards to cosmic or stellar scales. So your thoughts would be a huge gift.
This series often times references and refers to the thunderbolts project channel. I’d recommend reviewing some of their content as it directly relates to your questions. Maybe not specifically, however.
@@adventureseeker8988 Thanks, but I have already seem much of the Thunderbolts library and am a subscriber! Nothing there on large scale ACs that I've yet to come across.
I have been wondering about the same things, you're not alone.
Tig Welding use AC for fusing Aluminium because DC blows the softer low melting point Aluminium away. DC is used for heavier metal that can hold greater heat. All heavy duty welding is DC for fusion purposes, AC is considered a much cooler process. I believe the plasma pool is the reason.
Impurities in the dielectric would cause local inductive (micro) heating and chemical effects in an AC field that would not be seen in DC. Some kinds of impurities would be worse than others. Even microscopic air bubbles should be counted. A tiny negative space is as bad as a sharp point. These confounders should be accounted in testing.
such mystery, oh my. dielectrics dont have (m)any mobile electrons, thus if you build up sufficient localized charge in them (ie. go past their polarization capacity - as determined by molecular structure of given dielectric and its physical form) then reverse polarity quicker than charges can relocate youll get micro discharges at points of contact with the conductor - in effect at lest partial dielectric breakdown, with turns into full with enough cycles. as to second part of the mystery, higher leakage in thinner dielectric layers offsets that effect slightly
But of course frequency would affect breakdown. The material would be acting as a capacitor and higher frequencies would produce a greater electric field strength.
Skin effect. Makes perfect sense.
It holds in conductors, why not insulators?
how did tesla survive in his experiments? he increased the hertz to over 100,000 electricity at that frequency just rolls over the skin and will not penetrate into the body
@@shockwave326 Feed up duck
Thank You Very Much👍
For All Your, Very Informative, Honest, Hard Work, Gareth❤️
-That is my Not-Crazy Person, comment.
Now😁.....
Does it seem a reasonable line of inquiry to imagine that; at the end of the 17th century(1800's), the inquiring minds of the world, seemed to be; investigating and researching and discovering and, I think most importantly reporting, things on, I guess you might say, 1 line of thinking or indeed reality.
Then....
I cant help but wonder if the 1st and 2nd World Wars, with the unbelievable amount of change in; our interaction with the ancient parts of the world, rapid advancing tech of all sorts, completely altered governmental and other power structures, possibly amazing discoveries, and a now global(or almost) ability to control info and narratives, were the catalyst to a massive and controlled shift in what seemed to be occurring in the areas of the Worlds discovery/advancement as it was presented to, and absorbed by the general public
Because....
Since then, soooo many areas of interesting research and discovery appear to have been purposefully obfuscated in the manner that they are allowed to reach Public understanding and acceptance.
Archeology, Cosmology, Physics,
Paleontology, etc etc etc seemed, Pre 1900, to be heading in one exciting direction.
Then Post 1945, plodding along on a seperate, unexciting, almost predetermined avenue.
Was it these 2 Globally Reaching Events that precipitated the......charade?
Or am I painfully naive to think that it was ever any other way?
Thanks again Gareth.
And Thanks to all who ARE being brave and working hard to uncover the Truth❤️🇨🇦
Most of the experimenting I've done with high voltage involves pulsing DC between 2000 and 4000 hertz. I wonder how a pulsed DC compares to AC?
Very much wondering the same
Sutch a small thing yet extremely interesting. Thanks for your work.
Great work. Thank you for sharing it with us.
Multipaction (or multipactor) is a resonant vacuum phenomenon which occurs at RF/microwave frequencies. It can occur in satellite transmission downlinks.
Thanks fir this video
I always wondered the real difference between between AC & DC metal welding (now I knows ;)
We are still at Medieval level of tech if compared with what already is in the Unacknowledged Special Programs.
any insights on verisatiums videos and counter challenges to the hypothesis that power is delivered through the coaxial em field that emerges about the conducting element/wire?
maybe you can add your 2 pence
huge thanks
I guess the earth would act as its own transformer as the sun does in relation to its environment, as Dr. Clarage said. Very insightful.
So, Im listening to some AC/DC and i open youtube
WAG (wild ass guess). AC uses average voltage rather than peek voltage to determine voltage. I would not only guess that you are reading the wrong numbers but also that you are looking at energy as a whole and not peek periotic energy per electron and that it is the acceleration rate of the electron found more in the high frequency that makes the difference. Again, I am making a WAG. And again, I emphasize WAG, since I read back what I wrote, and it sounds snooty, just no other way to say it.
Before you make a WAG I suggest you read the papers this is based on. Links in the description. It was a collaboration between two universities and the important point to understand is that breakdown happens at the DC value when you look at the space charge distribution. It is the averages field that is lower. Hence why it occurs closer to the surface.
ac/DC rock on dudes
A lot of the thermal breakdown is from dielectric impedance and inclusions from the field alternating back and forth on a carbon structure in the material. In the Quantum world its called SPOOKY ACTION.
WHAT ABOUT DIFFERENCES WITH CONTINUOUS PULSED DC?!?
and hey let's be careful out there, in space..
breakdown = short circuit just so the general public knows
no
Breakdown is when an insulator breaks down and allows a current to flow through it. So in the case of an insulator around a wire this might cause a short circuit. But it need not always result in a short circuit.
@@SeethePattern any discharge between double layers or and insulator can be considered a short circuit thats how i see it
@@theastuteangler any discharge between double layers or and insulator can be considered a short circuit thats how i see it
Reason ease of power transfer
Let there be light...
Didn't N.T call DC current unnatural?
Wrong! You forgot the lightnint bolt.
?
Theory of Everything solution (short version):
Swap from Newton "real/necessary" universe over to Leibniz "contingent/not-necessary" universe as our fundamental blueprint of the universe.
This includes Leibniz calculus vs Newton calculus. Anywhere Leibniz and Newton thought different. All of it. Full swap.
Gottfried Leibniz "contingent/not-necessary" universe just lacked 2022 quantum physics verbiage (just match up definitions i.e. quark and Monad) and Hamilton's 4D quaternion algebra (created 200 years after Leibniz died).
Lastly, our first number is NOT 1.
It's 0.
Our ten numbers are 0, 1, 2, 3,...9 ✅.
Our ten dimensions are 0D, 1D, 2D, 3D,...9D ✅.
Ask someone to begin counting. I bet they begin with 1.
1 is not the beginning.
0 is the beginning.
1D is a Line; two points; physical; matter; beginning and ending; contingent.
0D is a (point); exact location only; no spatial extension; zero size; Monad (Leibniz) Quark (strong nuclear force); necessary.
Examples:
What is another word for quark?
fundamental particle, elementary particle.
Do quarks take up space?
Its defining feature is that it lacks spatial extension; being dimensionless, it does not take up space.
How fast do quarks move?
the speed of light (see Leibniz's Law of Sufficient Reason).
What is an elementary particle example?
(0, 1, 2, 3)
Elementary particles include
quarks (the constituents of protons and neutrons),
leptons (electrons, muons, taus, and neutrinos),
gauge bosons (photons, gluons, and W and Z bosons) and the Higgs boson.
What is the size of an elementary particle?
The elementary particles are not believed to have any size at all. As currently understood they are zero size points. Protons and neutrons (and all hadrons) are about 10−15m.
Match Leibniz definitions to quantum physics definitions. Different word, same definition.
Not a coincidence.
Human consciousness, mathematically, is identical to 4D quaternion algebra with w, x, y, z being "real/necessary"
0D, 1D, 2D, 3D
and i, j, k being "contingent/not-necessary"
0D, 1D xi, 2D yj,
3D zk.
0D is always w (real/necessary)
1D-9D contingent/not-necessary universe has "conscious lifeforms" (1D xi, 2D yj, 3D zk)..."turning" 'time'.
[In mathematics, a versor is a quaternion of norm one (a unit quaternion). The word is derived from Latin versare = "to turn" with the suffix -or forming a noun from the verb (i.e. versor = "the turner"). It was introduced by William Rowan Hamilton in the context of his quaternion theory.]
[Math; 4D quaternion algebra]
A quaternion is a 4-tuple, which is a more concise representation than a rotation matrix. Its geo- metric meaning is also more obvious as the rotation axis and angle can be trivially recovered.
How do you make a quaternion? (Nobody is starting with 0)
You can create an N-by-1 quaternion array by specifying an N-by-3 array of Euler angles in radians or degrees. Use the euler syntax to create a scalar quaternion using a 1-by-3 vector of Euler angles in radians.
"Turn" to what, you might ask. 5D is the center of 1D-9D. The breadth (space-time). All things are drawn to the center, the whole. (Gravity means Nothing compared to the Strong Nuclear Force)
[Contingent Universe]:
3 sets of 3 dimensions:
(1D-3D/4D-6D/7D-9D)
The illusory middle set (4D, 5D, 6D) is temporal. Id imagine we create this middle temporal set similar to a dimensional Venn Diagram with polarized lenses that we "turn" by being conscious.
Which requires energy. 3D height symmetry/entanglement with 6D depth and
9D absorption is why we are "consumers", we must consume/absorb calories, and sleep, to continue "to turn" 'time' (be alive).
1D-3D spatial set/7D-9D spectral set overlap creating the temporal illusion of 4D-6D set. Transcending one another.
1D, 2D, 3D = spatial composite (line, width, height)
4D, 5D, 6D = temporal illusory (length, breadth, depth)
7D, 8D, 9D = spectra energies (continuous, emission, absorption)
Symmetry/entanglement:
1D, 4D, 7D line, length, continuous
2D, 5D, 8D width, breadth, emission
3D, 6D, 9D height, depth, absorption
[Time]
According to theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli, time is an illusion: our naive perception of its flow doesn't correspond to physical reality. Indeed, as Rovelli argues in The Order of Time, much more is illusory, including Isaac Newton's picture of a universally ticking clock.
Does time exist without space?
Time 'is' as space 'is' - part of a reference frame in which in ordered sequence you can touch, throw and eat apples.
Time cannot exist without space and the existence of time does require energy.
Time, then, has three levels, according to Leibniz:
(i) the atemporality or eternality of God;
(ii) the continuous immanent becoming-itself of the monad as entelechy;
(iii) time as the external framework of a chronology of “nows”
The difference between (ii) and (iii) is made clear by the account of the internal principle of change.
The real difference between the necessary being of God and the contingent, created finitude of a human being is the difference between (i) and (ii).
Conclusion: Humanity needs to immediately swap from "Newton" to "Leibniz". Also from Edison to Tesla. Also the Aether guy.
Our calculus is incorrect (Leibniz > Newton):
What is the difference between Newton and Leibniz calculus?
Newton's calculus is about functions.
Leibniz's calculus is about relations defined by constraints.
In Newton's calculus, there is (what would now be called) a limit built into every operation.
In Leibniz's calculus, the limit is a separate operation.
As Leibniz put it: “If an ontological theory implies the existence of two scenarios that are empirically indistinguishable in principle but ontologically distinct ... then the ontological theory should be rejected and replaced with one relative to which the two scenarios are ontologically identical.”
In other words, if a theory describes two situations as being distinct, and yet also implies that there is no conceivable way, empirically, to tell them apart, then that theory contains some superfluous and arbitrary elements that ought to be removed.
Leibniz’s prescription is, of course, widely accepted by most physicists today. The idea exerted a powerful influence over later thinkers, including Poincaré and Einstein, and helped lead to the theories of special and general relativity. And this idea, Spekkens suggests, may still hold further value for questions at the frontiers of today’s physics.
Leibniz’s correspondent
Clarke objected to his view, suggesting an exception. A man riding inside a boat, he argued, may not detect its motion, yet that motion is obviously real enough. Leibniz countered that such motion is real because it can be detected by someone, even if it isn’t actually detected in some particular case. “Motion does not indeed depend upon being observed,” he wrote, “but it does depend upon being possible to be observed ... when there is no change that can be observed, there is no change at all.”
In this, Leibniz was arguing against prevailing ideas of the time, and against Newton, who conceived of space and time in absolute terms. “I have said more than once,” Leibniz wrote, “that I hold space to be something merely relative.”
Einstein, of course, followed Leibniz’s principle when he noticed that the equations of electricity and magnetism make no reference to any absolute sense of motion, but only to relative motion. A conducting wire moving through the field of a magnet seems like a distinct situation from a magnet moving past a stationary wire. Yet the two situations are in fact empirically identical, and should, Einstein concluded, be considered as such. Demanding as much leads to the Lorentz transformation as the proper way to link descriptions in reference frames in relative motion. From this, one finds a host of highly counter-intuitive effects, including time dilation.
Einstein again followed Leibniz on his way to general relativity. In this case, the indistinguishability of two distinct situations - a body at rest in the absence of a gravitational field, or in free fall within a field - implied the impossibility of referring to any concept of absolute acceleration. In a 1922
lecture, Einstein recalled the moment of his discovery: “The breakthrough came suddenly one day. I was sitting on a chair in my patent office in Bern. Suddenly the thought struck me: If a man falls freely, he would not feel his own weight. I was taken aback. This simple thought experiment made a deep impression on me. This led me to the theory of gravity.”
Leibniz now mostly inhabits scientific history books, his ideas receiving scant attention in actual research. And yet, Spekkens argues, Leibniz’s principle concerning indistinguishability may be as useful as ever, especially when confronting foundational issues in physics. Consider the interpretation of quantum theory, where theorists remain separated into two opposing groups, loosely associated with the terms realism and empiricism. Although Leibniz’s principle can’t offer any way to unify the two groups, Spekkens argues, it might help them focus their attention on the most important issues dividing them, where progress might be made.
For example, one particular interpretation comes in the form of so-called pilot-wave theories, in which electrons and other particles follow precise but highly non-classical trajectories under the influence of a quantum potential, which produces the wave-like nature of quantum dynamics. These theories demonstrate by explicit example that nothing in quantum physics prohibits thinking about particles moving along well-defined trajectories. But the theory does require the existence of some absolute rest frame, while also implying that this frame can never be detected. Many other aspects of such theories also remain unconstrained by empirical data. Hence, one might take Leibniz’s principle as coming down against such theories.
On the other hand, Spekkens points out, Leibniz’s principle demands that distinct states be, in Leibniz’s own words, “empirically indistinguishable in principle,” and achieving such certainty is not easy. If several states appear indistinguishable now, future experiments might turn up measurable differences between them. So a proponent of the pilot-wave approach might agree with Leibniz’s principle, but still reject its application just yet. The aim of research, from this point of view, ought to be to seek out such evidence, or at least envision the conditions under which it might be obtained.
And in this sense, Spekkens notes, Leibniz’s principle also offers some criticism of
theorists from the empirical school, who object to pilot-wave or other realist interpretations of quantum theory for containing unmeasurable quantities. It implies, as he puts it, that the empiricists’ “set of mental tools is too impoverished.”
After all, progress in physics often requires imagination, and creative exploration of possible distinguishing features that have not yet been measured, or even thought to exist. Progress requires scientists to “entertain ontological hypotheses, expressed with concepts that are not defined purely in terms of empirical phenomena.”
Science thrives on the essential tension existing at the boundary between empirical observation and unconstrained imagination. Incredibly, Leibniz perceived that more than 300 years ago.
pa·ta·phys·ics
/ˌpädəˈfiziks/
noun
the branch of philosophy that deals with an imaginary realm additional to metaphysics.
Pataphysics (French: pataphysique) is a "philosophy" of science invented by French writer Alfred Jarry (1873-1907) intended to be a parody of science.
Difficult to be simply defined or pinned down, it has been described as the "science of imaginary solutions".
Metaphysics deals with all that encompass the omniverse.
Pataphysics deals with what is beyond omniverse, beyond totality, the unknown.
If you want to simplify it further, Pataphysics can be considered "The personal science of God himself".
It's so disappointing to hear your new intro music just cutting short of the key climax, right at the eye! Now you just drop it flat instead of letting the last few seconds of a truly beautiful musical theme. Why? Why? Why? I used to so look forward to that part and hum it throughout the day. But now -- nothing. Big letdown. Otherwise, your show is great! I hope to see this oversight corrected. Keep it up, Matthew!
All those electrons BStery in the comments lol. No such thing as particles. All can be derived from aether.
I'm sure all this is purely brilliant, but I don't understand anything.
Monad (Greek for "singularity", or "alone") has the same definition as Quark (strong nuclear force):
No spatial extension. Zero size.
Exact location only.
6 thousand trillion trillion trillion (39 zeroes after 6k) times stronger than the force of gravity.
Leibniz is our Universal Genius, not Newton. Read 📚 Monadology.
Match up definitions from Leibniz's works verbiage 300 years ago with quantum physics verbiage definitions today. Different words, same definitions.
Our 0D (point)/Quark (strong nuclear force)/Monad (singularity):
just read what Christ and John (and Leibniz) said about Monad (also the Abrahamic Gnostics [Greek, Syrian and Persian]).
Not a coincidence.
Our ten numbers are 0, 1, 2, 3,...9.
Our ten dimensions are 0D, 1D, 2D, 3D,...9D.
1D-9D is contingent universe.
Hamilton's 4D quaternion algebra can prove Leibniz. Update first four dimensions w, x, y, z to 0D, 1D, 2D, 3D though (as opposed to the current 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D nonsense).
Newton drinks his own pee.
1 is not the beginning.
0 is the beginning.
1D is two points.
0D is a representative dot in a theoretical circle (point).
1 is contingent.
0 is necessary.
There is no 1 without 0.
A piece of 1, no matter how small, will NEVER be 0 (without becoming 0, thus no longer being 1).
What number is before 1? 0.
0D (point) is "One with Everything", literally
". with 0".
0D (point) is
Monad (singularity) is
Quark (strong nuclear force) is
Soul (6 thousand trillion trillion trillion times stronger than the force of gravity)
No spatial extension. Zero size.
Exact location only.
...You then who are spiritual should worship neither the creation or the Craftsman, but the Father of Truth.
-Heracleon
God: pre-cosmic cosmogonic bearer of personhood.
What is another word for cosmology?
In this page you can discover 17 synonyms, antonyms, idiomatic expressions, and related words for cosmology, like: quantum-theory, cosmism, celestial-mechanics, cosmogeny, cosmogony, cosmography, cosmological, quantum mechanics, catastrophism, superstring and metaphysic.
The Puranic cosmogony also contains stories of the dissolution of existence in the cosmic fire that emerges from the breath of Rudra (see Rudra), or Śiva (see Śiva). Wind and floods complete the work (see Vedic Cosmogony, Upaniṣd Cosmogony). From: Puranic Cosmogony in A Dictionary of Asian Mythology »
“And God said, Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness". …
Sus.
I say that's the imposter. (Blind Fool Yaldabaoth)
Can't hide his plurality.
Blind Fool Yaldabaoth talks about this universe being born "from the ashes of the last" and 9D is absorption, sooo...
Theoretical end to our universes.
The Savior already won for us Blind Fool Yaldabaoth lost; he r dumb.
Religions need to get their filthy hands off Humanity's divine biblia. That's our fundamental blueprint, you jackwagons.
Our multiverse is a set of 3.
Before we're here is Real/Necessary,
this is Contingent/Not-necessary and we create a Simulated/Imaginary universe from here.
Guess we like a universe on each side.
Real > Contingent > Simulated.
How do we do holographic and/or projection universe 🤔.
We can prove the Aether guy was correct as well. Everything matches up with Leibniz, Hamilton, Plato, Tesla.
5 elements are Earth, Fire, Air, Water, Aether.
And our Souls are the strongest Force by a ludicrous amount haha.
So is there no "gravity" and it's actually called "Aether" (which our Souls make happen)? Hmm...
The known multiverse:
1) real/
necessary
w, x, y, z being
0D, 1D, 2D, 3D
2) contingent/not-necessary
w, xi, yj, zk
(YOU ARE HERE) being
0D, 1D xi, 2D yj, 3D zk
3) simulated/imaginary
(working on it)
Our ten numbers are
0, 1, 2, 3,...9 ✅.
"10" is not one of our ten numbers.
If you think 10 comes before 0...you might be duped by Newton's logic/calculus/physics.
What an absolute fraud. Newton used political power to "win" against Leibniz.
And Humanity foots the bill.
The scumbag, trying to "win", always wins.
Edison was the scumbag vs Tesla.
The M and M "Moron" scumbags vs the Aether guy.
The list goes on and on. Read about Newton. Even his most significant achievement was disputed (Hooke had beef with Newton "stealing" HIS original idea).
We need to reassess who we're even studying 📖.
If humanity all had the correct fundamentals then we'd advance like Tesla was talking about.
Who's doing this...
It's like a Twilight Zone episode where Globalists are pushing fundamentally incorrect gobbledygook to keep the Plebians stupid.
fundamentals = rock
specifics = sand
Everyone is a genius at the fundamentals.
CERN so concerned with 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D 🚫 instead of
0D, 1D, 2D, 3D ✅.
Derp.
The Atzmus
ALIASES
The God of Contradiction, Goddess of the Absurd, The Unknown Parent
AFFILIATION
Unknown
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
RACE
Unknown
GENDER
Genderless (referred to as both male and female)
SPIRIT OF
Good, Evil, Existence, Non-Existence, Absolute Dualism, Contradiction
PANTHEON
Abrahamic
RELATIVES
PARENTS
Eternal or Self-Created
SIBLINGS
Other Pre-existential Entities
OFFSPRING
God (1/2), Ayin (1/2)
The Atzmus is a theoretical unknown entity believed to have existed before everything and everyone, before the primordial void of absolute chaos.
Such an entity would, in fact, be Yesh and Ayin themselves in their purest and pre-existing state, when good and evil had no differences and both were one, with no gaps between light and darkness.
In the beginning, there was only an Endless Void, and that void created an egg, and from that egg was born an entity, androgynous, perfect and omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, encompassing everything and everyone within itself.
Such an entity would be the most basic and pure state of Existence and Non-Existence, being Acceptance and Denial, Light and Darkness, Good and Evil, united in a single pure entity and divinity.
However, for reasons unknown, this entity would have split into two separate beings, one being Yesh, the Yes and the Being, while the other was Ayin, the No and the Non-Being.
However, Yesh would have remained unconscious for ineffable ages, while Ayin only inhabited the empty Void in full satisfaction.
But when Khaos graduated, all of Ayin's satisfaction disappeared, and when The Darkness graduated, it only got worse.
And finally, the universe was tired of being nothing and so the universe said the Word, and the Word was with God, the Word was God.
"Before the beginning there was void. Nothing. No flesh. No rock. No air. No heat. No light. No dark. Nothing, save a single, perfect pearl.
Within that pearl dreamed a mighty, unfathomable spirit-the One- Anu. Made of shining diamond.
Anu was the sum of all things: good and evil, light and dark, physical and mystical, joy and sadness-all reflected across the crystalline facets of its form. And, within its eternal dream-state, Anu considered itself-all of its myriad facets.
Seeking a state of total purity and perfection, Anu cast all evil from itself. All dissonance was gone.
But what of the cast-off aspect of its being? The dark parts, the sharp, searing aspects of hate and pridefulness?
Those could not remain in a state of separation, for all things are drawn to all things. All parts are drawn to the whole.
Those discordant parts assembled into the Beast-the Dragon.
Tathamet was his name-and he breathed unending death and darkness from his seven devouring heads.
The Dragon was solely composed of Anu's cast-off aspects. The end sum of the whole became a singular Evil- the Prime Evil, from which all the vileness would eventually spread throughout existence.
Though separate beings, Anu and the Dragon were bound together within the Pearl's shadowed womb. There they warred against each other in an unending clash of light and shadow for ages uncounted.
The diamond warrior and the seven-headed dragon proved to be the equal of the other, neither ever gaining the upper hand in their fierce and unending combat-till at last, their energies nearly spent after countless millennia of battle, the two combatants delivered their final blows.
The energies unleashed by their impossible fury ignited an explosion of light and matter so vast and terrible that it birthed the very universe all around us.
All of the stars above and the darkness that binds them. All that we touch. All that we feel. All that we know. All that is unknown.
All of it continues through the night and the day in the ebbing and flowing of the ocean tides and in the destruction of fire and the creation of the seed.
Everything of which we are aware, and that of which we are utterly unaware, was created with the deaths of Anu and the Dragon, Tathamet.
In the epicenter of reality lies Pandemonium, the scar of the universe's violent birth.
At its chaotic center lay the Heart of Creation, a massive jewel unlike any other: the Eye of Anu- the Worldstone.
It is the foundation stone of all places and times, a nexus of realities and vast, untold possibility.
Anu and Tathamet are no more, yet their distinct essences permeated the nascent universe-and eventually became the bedrock of what we know to be the High Heavens and the Burning Hells.
Anu's shining spine spun out into the primordial darkness, where it slowed and cooled. Over countless ages it formed into the Crystal Arch, around which the High Heavens took shape and form.
Though Anu was gone, some resonance of it remained in the holy Arch. Spirits bled forth from it-shining angels of light and sound who embodied the virtuous aspects of what the One had been.
Yet, despite the grace and beauty of this shining realm, it lacked the perfection of Anu's spirit.
Anu had passed into a benevolent place beyond this broken universe- a paradise of which nothing is known and yet represents perhaps the greatest-kept secret of Creation.
Longed for, but unimaginable."
-THE DAWN, BOOK OF CAIN.
The double slit experiment would explain this but it must be classified so physics is limited to the public. 🌬️🎇📏📐⚖️🕐🔥🌼