“Nothing was around,” said Hawking, who fortunately elaborated on this point. “The Euclidean space-time is a closed surface without end, like the surface of the Earth,” said Hawking, referring to the four-dimensional conceptual model that incorporates the three dimensions of space with time. “One can regard imaginary and real time as beginning at the South Pole, which is a smooth point of space-time where the normal laws of physics hold. There is nothing south of the South Pole so there was nothing around before the Big Bang.” At least, there was nothing around that humans can currently experience or conceptualize.
Since there is no way to measure time prior to the Big Bang, Hawking concludes that simply nothing existed prior to the Big Bang. In his interview with deGrasse Tyson, Hawking also spoke about the questions he would ask of Sir Isaac Newton, were he able to do so by some twist in space-time. “Is the solar system stable? And what happens to a star that cannot support itself against its own gravity?” Hawking wondered. The stability of the solar system is of particular interest to residents of Earth.
Hawking has offered some pessimistic assessments of the near-future of our planet. He predicts that the Earth will become a ball of fire within the next 600 years while also warning humanity that we have less than a century to leave Earth before it becomes uninhabitable. He also warned about the existential dangers of artificial intelligence. “Computers can, in theory, emulate human intelligence, and exceed it,” he said in 2017. “Success in creating effective AI, could be the biggest event in the history of our civilization. Or the worst. We just don’t know. So we cannot know if we will be infinitely helped by AI, or ignored by it and side-lined, or conceivably destroyed by it.”
“Consciousness creates reality”
Physicists admit the Universe is immaterial, mental, and spiritual
“Consciousness creates reality.” This statement has changed the scientific and medical landscape, and alternative media outlets around the world have and continue to explore its meaning and implications for out future. Countless scientists study this idea and how it might be correlated with the nature of our reality.
It raises the question, what is consciousness?
Consciousness includes a number of things. It’s how we perceive our world, it’s our thoughts and intentions, it’s being aware, and so more.
“Looking for consciousness in the brain is like looking in the radio for the announcer.” –Nasseim Haramein, Director of Research for the Resonance Project
“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” – Max Planck, the theoretical physicist who originated quantum theory, which won him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918
“It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.”
– Eugene Wigner, theoretical physicist and mathematician
The notion that “consciousness creates reality” raises so many questions. Does this mean we as individuals (and on a collective level, as one human race) can shape and create whatever reality we’d like for ourselves? Does it mean we can manifest a certain lifestyle, and attract certain experiences? Does it happen instantly? Does it take time? How do we do it?
We know so little still. Although we might not be able to answer these questions with scientific certainty, we do know that yes, a correlation between consciousness and our physical material world does indeed exist in some way. The extent of that correlation is still poorly understood, but we know it’s there, and we know it must have some sort of significance.
According to RC Henry, a professor of physics and astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, in a 2005 essay:
A fundamental conclusion of the new physics also acknowledges that the observer creates the reality. As observers, we are personally involved with the creation of our own reality. Physicists are being forced to admit that the universe is a “mental” construction.
Pioneering physicist Sir James Jeans wrote: “The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.
The Science Behind the Statement “Consciousness Creates Reality”
The quantum double slit experiment is one way we can see how consciousness affects the physical material world. One potential revelation of this experience is that “the observer creates the reality.” A paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Physics Essays by Dean Radin, PhD, explains how this experiment has been used multiple times to explore the role of consciousness in shaping the nature of physical reality.
In this experiment, scientists use a double-slit optical system to test the possible role of consciousness in the collapse of the quantum wave-function. They had predicted the ratio of the interference pattern’s double slit spectral power to its single slit spectral power would decrease when attention was focused toward the double slit as compared to away from it, yet instead foundthat factors associated with consciousness “significantly” correlated in predicted ways with perturbations in the double slit interference pattern. In other words, scientists affected the results of the experiment just by observing it.
“Observation not only disturbs what has to be measured, they produce it. We compel the electron to assume a definite position. We ourselves produce the results of the measurement.”
Although this is one of the most popular experiments used to posit the connection between consciousness and physical reality, there are several other studies that clearly show that consciousness, or factors that are associated with consciousness, directly affect our reality. A number of experiments in the field of parapsychology have also demonstrated this.
Sure, we might not understand the extent of this connection, and in most cases scientists can’t even explain it. However they are, and have been observed time and time again.
Other examples we’ve written about include government sponsored psychokinesis experiments, the global consciousness experiment, intelligence agency remote viewing experiments, thoughts and intentions altering the structure of water, the placebo effect, teleportation studies, and more. You can find more details about those specific experiments here.
How We Can Incorporate This Information Into Our Lives and Use Consciousness to Transform the World
Change requires action, but the place within ourselves that we take action from makes a big difference in the outcome.
Modern day science, especially quantum physics, has been catching up to ancient mysticism and concepts deeply ingrained in various cultures throughout the ancient world. One great example of this is the fact that everything is energy, and nothing is solid. You can read more about that here.
“We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts we make the world.” – Gautama Buddha
“Broadly speaking, although there are some differences, I think Buddhist philosophy and Quantum Mechanics can shake hands on their view of the world. We can see in these great examples the fruits of human thinking. Regardless of the admiration we feel for these great thinkers, we should not lose sight of the fact that they were human beings just as we are.” – Dalai Lama (source)
A great example of quantum physics meeting ancient wisdom can be seen in the fact that Nikola Tesla was influenced by Vedic philosophy when pondering his ideas of zero point energy. You can read more about that here.
So why is this relevant? Because new physics is finally discovering that the observer shapes the reality. The way we think and perceive could significantly impact our lives and the world around us.
“No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.” – Unknown
If we look at the world and examine it on a collective level, what do we see? How do we perceive it? Right now, the masses believe a ‘normal life’ means going to school, paying bills, raising a family, and finding a ‘job’ within the current paradigm to support yourself. Many people on the planet are not resonating with this experience, however. They want change. We’ve been repeating and perceiving our reality this way for a very long time, as though we are drones trained to accept things the way they are; to not question what is happening in our world and to continue on with the status quo, only caring for ourselves and our own lives. As Noam Chomsky would say, our consent has been manufactured. If we continue down this path and continue to perceive and view reality as “this is just the way it is,” we will, in essence, prolong that type of existence and experience for the human race without ever changing it.
In order to create and manifest a new reality for ourselves, our thought patterns and the way we perceive reality must change. What changes the way we perceive reality? Information. When new information emerges it changes the way we look at things and, as a result, our reality changes too, and we begin to manifest a new experience and open our minds to a broader view of reality.
What’s also important about teachings from new physics is that, if consciousness creates reality, that means change starts within. It starts with the way in which we are observing the outer world from our inner world. This touches on the earlier point of how we perceive our reality. Our perception of the external world might very well be a reflection of our inner world, our inner state of being. So ask yourself, are you happy? Are you observing, perceiving, and acting from a place of love? Or from a place of hate or anger? All of these factors are associated with our consciousness and observation; the one (or the many) who are doing the “observing” might significantly impact the type of physical world the human race manifests for itself.
What do you think?
We are indeed the observers, and we can create change and break patterns to open up new possibilities, all through the way in which we observe ourselves, others, and the world around us.
I believe that the human race is in the process of waking up to a number of different things at once, and as a result, the way we perceive and “observe” the world around us (on a mass scale) is shifting drastically. So if you want to help change the world, change the way you look at things, and the things you look at will change.
“There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.”
Lord Kelvin made this statement in 1900, and was proven wrong only five years later when Einstein published his paper on special relativity. The new theories proposed by Einstein challenged the current framework of understanding and forced the scientific community to consider new ideas about our world. This stands as a great example of how things that once were regarded as truth can and do change.
“Be the change you wish to see in the world.” – Mahatma Ghandi
“Lord Kelvin’s statements bares with it the voice of paradigms past. . . . We knew that the Earth was flat, we knew that we were the centre of the universe, and we knew that a manmade heavier-than-air piece of machinery could not take flight. Through all stages of human history, intellectual authorities have pronounced their supremacy by ridiculing or suppressing elements of reality that simply didn’t fit within the framework of accepted knowledge. Are we really any different today? Have we really changed our acceptance towards things that won’t fit the frame? Maybe there are concepts of our reality we have yet to understand, and if we open our eyes maybe we will see that something significant has been overlooked.” – Terje Toftenes (source)
A proposed theory of gravity does away with dark matter, even as new astrophysical findings challenge the need for galaxies full of the invisible mystery particles.
For 80 years, scientists have puzzled over the way galaxies and other cosmic structures appear to gravitate toward something they cannot see. This hypothetical “dark matter” seems to outweigh all visible matter by a startling ratio of five to one, suggesting that we barely know our own universe. Thousands of physicists are doggedly searching for these invisible particles.
But the dark matter hypothesis assumes scientists know how matter in the sky ought to move in the first place. This month, a series of developments has revived a long-disfavored argument that dark matter doesn’t exist after all. In this view, no missing matter is needed to explain the errant motions of the heavenly bodies; rather, on cosmic scales, gravity itself works in a different way than either Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein predicted.
Instead of hordes of invisible particles, “dark matter is an interplay between ordinary matter and dark energy,” Verlinde said.
To make his case, Verlinde has adopted a radical perspective on the origin of gravity that is currently in vogue among leading theoretical physicists. Einstein defined gravity as the effect of curves in space-time created by the presence of matter. According to the new approach, gravity is an emergent phenomenon. Space-time and the matter within it are treated as a hologram that arises from an underlying network of quantum bits (called “qubits”), much as the three-dimensional environment of a computer game is encoded in classical bits on a silicon chip. Working within this framework, Verlinde traces dark energy to a property of these underlying qubits that supposedly encode the universe. On large scales in the hologram, he argues, dark energy interacts with matter in just the right way to create the illusion of dark matter.
In his calculations, Verlinde rediscovered the equations of “modified Newtonian dynamics,” or MOND. This 30-year-old theory makes an ad hoc tweak to the famous “inverse-square” law of gravity in Newton’s and Einstein’s theories in order to explain some of the phenomena attributed to dark matter. That this ugly fix works at all has long puzzled physicists. “I have a way of understanding the MOND success from a more fundamental perspective,” Verlinde said.
Many experts have called Verlinde’s paper compelling but hard to follow. While it remains to be seen whether his arguments will hold up to scrutiny, the timing is fortuitous. In a new analysis of galaxiespublished on Nov. 9 in Physical Review Letters, three astrophysicists led by Stacy McGaugh of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, have strengthened MOND’s case against dark matter.
The researchers analyzed a diverse set of 153 galaxies, and for each one they compared the rotation speed of visible matter at any given distance from the galaxy’s center with the amount of visible matter contained within that galactic radius. Remarkably, these two variables were tightly linked in all the galaxies by a universal law, dubbed the “radial acceleration relation.” This makes perfect sense in the MOND paradigm, since visible matter is the exclusive source of the gravity driving the galaxy’s rotation (even if that gravity does not take the form prescribed by Newton or Einstein). With such a tight relationship between gravity felt by visible matter and gravity given by visible matter, there would seem to be no room, or need, for dark matter.
Even as dark matter proponents rise to its defense, a third challenge has materialized. In new research that has been presented at seminars and is under review by the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, a team of Dutch astronomers have conducted what they call the first test of Verlinde’s theory: In comparing his formulas to data from more than 30,000 galaxies, Margot Brouwer of Leiden University in the Netherlands and her colleagues found that Verlinde correctly predicts the gravitational distortion or “lensing” of light from the galaxies — another phenomenon that is normally attributed to dark matter. This is somewhat to be expected, as MOND’s original developer, the Israeli astrophysicist Mordehai Milgrom, showed years ago that MOND accounts for gravitational lensing data. Verlinde’s theory will need to succeed at reproducing dark matter phenomena in cases where the old MOND failed.
Kathryn Zurek, a dark matter theorist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, said Verlinde’s proposal at least demonstrates how something like MOND might be right after all. “One of the challenges with modified gravity is that there was no sensible theory that gives rise to this behavior,” she said. “If [Verlinde’s] paper ends up giving that framework, then that by itself could be enough to breathe more life into looking at [MOND] more seriously.”
The New MOND
In Newton’s and Einstein’s theories, the gravitational attraction of a massive object drops in proportion to the square of the distance away from it. This means stars orbiting around a galaxy should feel less gravitational pull — and orbit more slowly — the farther they are from the galactic center. Stars’ velocities do drop as predicted by the inverse-square law in the inner galaxy, but instead of continuing to drop as they get farther away, their velocities level off beyond a certain point. The “flattening” of galaxy rotation speeds, discovered by the astronomer Vera Rubin in the 1970s, is widely considered to be Exhibit A in the case for dark matter — explained, in that paradigm, by dark matter clouds or “halos” that surround galaxies and give an extra gravitational acceleration to their outlying stars.
Meanwhile, in the 1970s and 1980s, some researchers, including Milgrom, took a different tack. Many early attempts at tweaking gravity were easy to rule out, but Milgrom found a winning formula: When the gravitational acceleration felt by a star drops below a certain level — precisely 0.00000000012 meters per second per second, or 100 billion times weaker than we feel on the surface of the Earth — he postulated that gravity somehow switches from an inverse-square law to something close to an inverse-distance law. “There’s this magic scale,” McGaugh said. “Above this scale, everything is normal and Newtonian. Below this scale is where things get strange. But the theory does not really specify how you get from one regime to the other.”
Physicists do not like magic; when other cosmological observations seemed far easier to explain with dark matter than with MOND, they left the approach for dead. Verlinde’s theory revitalizes MOND by attempting to reveal the method behind the magic.
Verlinde, ruddy and fluffy-haired at 54 and lauded for highly technical string theory calculations, first jotted down a back-of-the-envelope version of his idea in 2010. It built on a famous paper he had written months earlier, in which he boldly declared that gravity does not really exist. By weaving together numerous concepts and conjectures at the vanguard of physics, he had concluded that gravity is an emergent thermodynamic effect, related to increasing entropy (or disorder). Then, as now, experts were uncertain what to make of the paper, though it inspired fruitful discussions.
The particular brand of emergent gravity in Verlinde’s paper turned out not to be quite right, but he was tapping into the same intuition that led other theorists to develop the modern holographic description of emergent gravity and space-time — an approach that Verlinde has now absorbed into his new work.
In this framework, bendy, curvy space-time and everything in it is a geometric representation of pure quantum information — that is, data stored in qubits. Unlike classical bits, qubits can exist simultaneously in two states (0 and 1) with varying degrees of probability, and they become “entangled” with each other, such that the state of one qubit determines the state of the other, and vice versa, no matter how far apart they are. Physicists have begun to work out the rules by which the entanglement structure of qubits mathematically translates into an associated space-time geometry. An array of qubits entangled with their nearest neighbors might encode flat space, for instance, while more complicated patterns of entanglement give rise to matter particles such as quarks and electrons, whose mass causes the space-time to be curved, producing gravity. “The best way we understand quantum gravity currently is this holographic approach,” said Mark Van Raamsdonk, a physicist at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver who has done influential work on the subject.
The mathematical translations are rapidly being worked out for holographic universes with an Escher-esque space-time geometry known as anti-de Sitter (AdS) space, but universes like ours, which have de Sitter geometries, have proved far more difficult. In his new paper, Verlinde speculates that it’s exactly the de Sitter property of our native space-time that leads to the dark matter illusion.
De Sitter space-times like ours stretch as you look far into the distance. For this to happen, space-time must be infused with a tiny amount of background energy — often called dark energy — which drives space-time apart from itself. Verlinde models dark energy as a thermal energy, as if our universe has been heated to an excited state. (AdS space, by contrast, is like a system in its ground state.) Verlinde associates this thermal energy with long-range entanglement between the underlying qubits, as if they have been shaken up, driving entangled pairs far apart. He argues that this long-range entanglement is disrupted by the presence of matter, which essentially removes dark energy from the region of space-time that it occupied. The dark energy then tries to move back into this space, exerting a kind of elastic response on the matter that is equivalent to a gravitational attraction.
Because of the long-range nature of the entanglement, the elastic response becomes increasingly important in larger volumes of space-time. Verlinde calculates that it will cause galaxy rotation curves to start deviating from Newton’s inverse-square law at exactly the magic acceleration scale pinpointed by Milgrom in his original MOND theory.
Van Raamsdonk calls Verlinde’s idea “definitely an important direction.” But he says it’s too soon to tell whether everything in the paper — which draws from quantum information theory, thermodynamics, condensed matter physics, holography and astrophysics — hangs together. Either way, Van Raamsdonk said, “I do find the premise interesting, and feel like the effort to understand whether something like that could be right could be enlightening.”
One problem, said Brian Swingle of Harvard and Brandeis universities, who also works in holography, is that Verlinde lacks a concrete model universe like the ones researchers can construct in AdS space, giving him more wiggle room for making unproven speculations. “To be fair, we’ve gotten further by working in a more limited context, one which is less relevant for our own gravitational universe,” Swingle said, referring to work in AdS space. “We do need to address universes more like our own, so I hold out some hope that his new paper will provide some additional clues or ideas going forward.”
Video: Erik Verlinde describes how emergent gravity and dark energy can explain away dark matter. Ilvy Njiokiktjien for Quanta Magazine
The Case for Dark Matter
Verlinde could be capturing the zeitgeist the way his 2010 entropic-gravity paper did. Or he could be flat-out wrong. The question is whether his new and improved MOND can reproduce phenomena that foiled the old MOND and bolstered belief in dark matter.
One such phenomenon is the Bullet cluster, a galaxy cluster in the process of colliding with another. The visible matter in the two clusters crashes together, but gravitational lensing suggests that a large amount of dark matter, which does not interact with visible matter, has passed right through the crash site. Some physicists consider this indisputable proof of dark matter. However, Verlinde thinks his theory will be able to handle the Bullet cluster observations just fine. He says dark energy’s gravitational effect is embedded in space-time and is less deformable than matter itself, which would have allowed the two to separate during the cluster collision.
But the crowning achievement for Verlinde’s theory would be to account for the suspected imprints of dark matter in the cosmic microwave background (CMB), ancient light that offers a snapshot of the infant universe. The snapshot reveals the way matter at the time repeatedly contracted due to its gravitational attraction and then expanded due to self-collisions, producing a series of peaks and troughs in the CMB data. Because dark matter does not interact, it would only have contracted without ever expanding, and this would modulate the amplitudes of the CMB peaks in exactly the way that scientists observe. One of the biggest strikes against the old MOND was its failure to predict this modulation and match the peaks’ amplitudes. Verlinde expects that his version will work — once again, because matter and the gravitational effect of dark energy can separate from each other and exhibit different behaviors. “Having said this,” he said, “I have not calculated this all through.”
While Verlinde confronts these and a handful of other challenges, proponents of the dark matter hypothesis have some explaining of their own to do when it comes to McGaugh and his colleagues’ recent findings about the universal relationship between galaxy rotation speeds and their visible matter content.
In October, responding to a preprint of the paper by McGaugh and his colleagues, two teams of astrophysicists independentlyargued that the dark matter hypothesis can account for the observations. They say the amount of dark matter in a galaxy’s halo would have precisely determined the amount of visible matter the galaxy ended up with when it formed. In that case, galaxies’ rotation speeds, even though they’re set by dark matter and visible matter combined, will exactly correlate with either their dark matter content or their visible matter content (since the two are not independent). However, computer simulations of galaxy formation do not currently indicate that galaxies’ dark and visible matter contents will always track each other. Experts are busy tweaking the simulations, but Arthur Kosowsky of the University of Pittsburgh, one of the researchers, working on them, says it’s too early to tell if the simulations will be able to match all 153 examples of the universal law in McGaugh and his colleagues’ galaxy data set. If not, then the standard dark matter paradigm is in big trouble. “Obviously this is something that the community needs to look at more carefully,” Zurek said.
Even if the simulations can be made to match the data, McGaugh, for one, considers it an implausible coincidence that dark matter and the visible matter would conspire to exactly mimic the predictions of MOND at every location in every galaxy. “If somebody were to come to you and say, ‘The solar system doesn’t work on an inverse-square law, really it’s an inverse-cube law, but there’s dark matter that’s arranged just so that it always looks inverse-square,’ you would say that person is insane,” he said. “But that’s basically what we’re asking to be the case with dark matter here.”
Given the considerable indirect evidence and near consensus among physicists that dark matter exists, it still probably does, Zurek said. “That said, you should always check that you’re not on a bandwagon,” she added. “Even though this paradigm explains everything, you should always check that there isn’t something else going on.”
A recent article in Scientific American has reported the discovery that fractal patterns and the golden ratio have been discovered in outer space for the very first time. Researchers from the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa have been studying a specific kind of stars called RR Lyrae variables using the Kepler Space Telescope. Unlike normal stars, they expand and contract, causing their brightness to adjust dramatically, and in so doing create pulsations.
But the pulsations aren’t random or arbitrary. They are pulsating in accordance with the golden mean. We have seen the golden ratio turn up in nature all the time, but this is the first time it has ever been identified in space.
“Unlike our Sun, RR Lyrae stars shrink and swell, causing their temperatures and brightness to rhythmically change like the frequencies or notes in a song,” Dr Lindner, the lead Researcher, explained. It’s the ratio between this swelling and shrinking that is so important.
They have been studying the pulsations of these stars, and several of them have been pulsating frequencies nearly identical to the Golden Ratio. These specific stars are called “Golden RR Lyrae Variables.”
“We call these stars ‘golden’ because the ratio of two of their frequency components is near the golden mean, which is an irrational number famous in art, architecture, and mathematics,” Dr Lindner said.
The Golden Mean
The Golden Mean or Ratio, (1.61803398875…) is a pattern that is absolutely essential to the understanding of nature, as its found in everything from sunflowers, to succulents, to sea shells, and is commonly referred to in the study of Sacred Geometry.
The Golden Ratio was essential to Da Vinci’s Vitruvian Man, can be found in studying the Pyramids of Egypt, the Parthenon, and several researches believe they have correlated it to the understanding of the human genome and unlocking the codes in our DNA.
The Golden Ratio or Divine Proportion, when plotted numerically, creates a sequence that emerges what we can see as a Fractal Pattern. Metaphysicians and Modern Physicians for the last 15-years have been avidly suggesting that the study of fractal patterns can lead us to a greater understanding of the Universe, and a Unified Field within it that very likely may be at play in structuring the Universe.
“The golden stars are actually the first examples outside of a laboratory of what’s called “strange nonchaotic dynamics.” The “strange” here refers to a fractal pattern, and nonchaotic means the pattern is orderly, rather than random. Most fractal patterns in nature, such as weather, are chaotic, so this aspect of the variable stars came as a surprise.” Reported an article in Scientific American.
These RR Lyrae variable stars are at their youngest over 10 billion years old and their brightness can vary by 200 percent over half a day. This makes it a bit challenging to study from Earth due to our day-night cycle. It’s the variation itself causing this mathematical phenomenon.
Plato had theorized that the Universe as a whole is simply a resonance of the “Music or Harmony of the Spheres.” This new study may provide deeper insights to pairing the Philosophies & Spiritual Sciences offered throughout the ages with modern Astronomy, and how we may understand the underlying elegance of nature as a whole.
While some of these stars pulsate with a single frequency, observations confirm that others pulsate with multiple frequencies.
“Just as flamboyant rock stars deliver pulsating rhythmic beats under their song melodies, so, too, do these variable stars,” said Dr Lindner.
Harvard University scientists believe they have found evidence that an ancient Earth exists inside of our Earth
According to a group of researchers from Harvard University, there is evidence of remnants of an ancient Earth hidden under the top layers of our planet.
A group of researchers from Harvard University believes they have found enough evidence to support the idea that there is an ancient Earth existing inside out planet. By ancient, we mean at the time our planet formed, billions of years ago.
The team of researchers believes that a previously unexplained isotopic ratio from deep within the planet might be leftover materials from an ancient Earth prior to colliding with a gigantic celestial body that eventually lead to the creation of Earth’s moon. Harvard scientists believe that this could be the remnants of an ancient Earth that existed 4.5 billion years ago, before the collision mentioned above.
The creation of Earth’s Moon and its origin are among some of the greatest scientific mysteries of science. While we are still unsure as to how the moon formed, there are several scientific theories which attempt to explain the formation of Earth’s ‘natural’ satellite. Among the theories, the most widely accepted one suggests that the Moon formed some 4.5 billion years ago when our planet collided with a celestial object the size of Mars called ‘Theia.’ According to this theory, the heat generated by the cosmic collision melted the planet causing debris to fly off, eventually creating the moon we see today.
However, according to Harvard scientists led by Professor Sujoy Mukhopadhyay, there is enough evidence to suggest only part of the Earth melted and that an ancient part still exists within Earths mantle. In other words, this means that parts of the ancient Earth, before the formation of the moon still exist below our feet, untouched for billions of years.
“The energy released by the impact between the Earth and Theia would have been huge, certainly enough to melt the whole planet. However, we believe that the impact energy was not evenly distributed throughout the ancient Earth. This means that a significant part of the impacted hemisphere would probably have been completely vaporized, but the opposite hemisphere would have been partly shielded, and would not have undergone complete melting.” –Professor Mukhopadhyay.
In order to come to this conclusion, the team of scientists analyzed the ratios of noble gas isotopes located deep within our planet’s mantle, and compared the results to isotope ratios located much closer to the surface. Their study showed that 3He to 22Ne ratio from the shallow mantle was much higher than the equivalent portion located deep within our planet’s mantle. This discovery led scientists to believe they came across two entirely different materials: Those belonging to an ancient Earth and those belonging to the new Earth.
“This implies that the last giant impact did not completely mix the mantle, and there was not a whole mantle magma ocean,” said Professor Mukhopadhyay.
More indications supporting their theory come from the analysis of the 129-Xenon to 120-Xenon ratio. Thanks to material which was brought to the surface from deep within our planet’s mantle demonstrated to have a much lower ratio than the average found near the surface. Since 129-xenon is produced by the radioactive decay of 129-lodine, the isotopes showed that the formation age of this ancient part of Earth’s mantle belongs to the first 100 million years of our planet’s history.
“The geochemistry indicates that there are differences between the noble gas isotope ratios in different parts of the Earth, and these need to be explained. The idea that a very disruptive collision of the Earth with another planet-sized body, the biggest event in Earth’s geological history, did not completely melt and homogenize the Earth challenges some of our notions on planet formation and the energetics of giant impacts. If the theory is proven correct, then we may be seeing echoes of the ancient Earth, from a time before the collision,” said Professor Mukhopadhyay.
“This exciting result is adding to the observational evidence that important aspects of Earth’s composition were established during the violent birth of the planet and is providing a new look at the physical processes by which this can occur,” said Professor Richard Carlson of the Carnegie Institution Department of Terrestrial Magnetism.
Our solar system has moved into a part of space where the energy is different. The video below details what this difference is about from the perspective of interstellar science. According this, we are moving out of a magnetic anomaly and into a region where the energy of the galaxy can access our solar system, suggesting that the Galactic Waves referred to by Cobra can now reach us.
As you will learn, the three shields are magnetic fields that prevent charged particles from impacting Earth . Watch the video to understand why we are about to raise our frequency due to this added energy.
SCIET Theory proposes that all objects in space are surrounded by quantum layers. These layers are only a Planck length in thickness, so it takes trillions of them to add up to an inch. The thing about these quantum layers is that they’re each the result of their own relationship to the Earth, and they have been here since the planet formed billions of years ago. Everything that is on Earth, whether it moves or sits still, exists in this ocean of quantum layers. It is responsible for the evolution of the nervous systems of animals and plants systems too. Animals move around on the Earth, and plants have everything move around them while connected to the Earth.
The Quantum layers have strict rules about how they interact with other quantum layers. For instance, if two quantum layer surrounded objects move toward one another, the layers will overlap and if aligned properly, they will share information in a way that is very similar to how overlapping electric waves match to increase the power of a motor. The layers around the Earth rely on the axis for their alignment and any structure built on the surface is affected by this alignment. Few structures take this into account, but it is taught to Freemason Architects, who are careful to build according to its rules. These structures are connected to the Earth, and those that generate a strong reaction to the quantum layers of the Earth contribute their excess energy to the grid lines or meridians that run along the surface of the planet. People who are aware of this make an effort to use these buildings for rituals to affect the energy in these meridians. This is called Gridwork and both white and dark practitioners do this.
Pyramids are specific examples of structures that interact with the quantum layers and generate quantum energy. The key to understanding what is called Pyramid Power is that it generates a negentropic field when properly aligned. The great Pyramid at Giza is famous for its effects, but all pyramids have the same qualities. What is different about Giza is its mass, it is very large and this is critical to its purpose, its size is calculated to affect the entire planet with its negentropic field. More about this later.
The Giza Great Pyramid is multipurpose, it resonates with the Earth to generate an incredible negentropic field, and that field can be used for a variety of purposes, geo stabilization, agriculture, food preservation, energy production, and as a way to strengthen a body and its connection to spirit. The negentropic field not only affects its surrounding area, but it also extends throughout the planet and into space as well.
Form Resonance
The Giza Pyramid functions require us to examine why it was built, who built it, and the primary purpose that justified its construction. Its mass and shape are clearly pivotal to its reason for being here.
The size would have much to do with its ability achieve the goals of those who constructed it. At 470+ feet, the Pyramid is not just large, it is break-the-bank HUGE. Certainly, its size means that there was more than a Pharaoh’s ego behind its construction.
SCIET Theory offers insights about this. The quantum layers that surround Earth are aligned to the axis, and this means that any variance from the vertical north/south axis would create distortions in the quantum layers. This is important because the Pyramid uses the interaction between the Earth’s quantum layers and its own mass-related layers to generate a nested negentropic field.
Christopher Dunn built a great case for the Pyramid being a tunable resonator, but he did not talk about how it works with gravity or the fields of the planet.
The upper view shows the Pyramid from the top down. The descending edges are aligned with the equatorial circumference so that the incline creates a steadily enlarging enclosure. In SCIET Theory, this would increase the magnitude of the effect.
The Corner illustration shows the Giza Pyramid in profile looking straight at a corner, from this angle we view the widest appearance, with the 51°51″ sides compounded to about 42 degrees to produce the effect above. What we are looking at is a SCIETsphere system that nests around the entire structure. The SCIETorbital capacitance spheres (SCIETspheres) are created by the interaction of the earth’s gravity with the aligned mass of the pyramid. Alignment to magnetic north would prevent lines of force from creating disturbances to the subtle fields being focused.
The Side angle is 51º51′ which is the Phi angle meaning that the corners are compounded Phi and enable a complete enclosure of the structure by SCIET spheres in a specific though gradual increase due to the acceleration of gravity as illustrated in the Corner view..
Obviously, this illustration is not a scientific analysis, but it is interesting to see that the top of the spheres are above the point of the Pyramid, in effect surrounding it like a halo. Look at the effect below the plateau’s surface, there is a tremendous effect underneath the Pyramid.
Ancient stories tell of tunnels and chambers below the Pyramid, supposedly for living quarters to house the people who built and used it for spiritual purposes.
The creation of nested spheres must have some special rules if the Great Pyramid is the best example. For instance, the most obvious way to create nested spheres, if that were their only intention, would be to use a forty-five-degree angle for the edge angle.
The Pyramid uses a 51°51′ slope for some good reason. It cannot use the idea illustrated on the right because the formation of the spheres relies upon the exact elevation of the edges in relationship with the earth’s planetary fields. Using the illustration on the right we can see two views that highlight the issue. The upper view shows the steady enlargement of the spheres while the lower one demonstrates two ideas that apply here. The first is the idea that the topmost level of the pyramid creates a convergence of all the nested gravity spheres because they all share it at the fusion of the upper polarity
The second idea shown in the bottom view is that the lowered apex forces the nested spheres to specific convergence more like a lens created by the slightly flattened sphere.
In combination, these ideas suggest that the apex crystal was able to establish a hyper-frequency field that was amplified by the entire pyramid.
When you add these ideas to the work of Donne and Petrie it becomes more obvious than ever that the Great Pyramid of Giza is a planetary quantum frequency resonator tuned to its exact location on the planet through material proportion and position. Donne’s work shows that the interior passages allowed chemical energy in the form of electricity, gases, and fluids to be managed for some purposes related to resonance.
Considering the notion that the apex had such an important role in the overall function of the Pyramid it must have been the focus of technological innovation. It is possible that they had numerous special purpose apex crystals in addition to the standard environmental effects.
When in operation the pyramid must have greatly strengthened the hyper frequency effects not only at its vertical axis but through the earth’s gravity layers that surround and power it.
Present-day archeology in Egypt and throughout the world is too beholden to political power to consider any explanation not consistent with the status quo. However, by this analysis, it seems probable that the Great Pyramid is an artifact of a civilization with a profound mastery of nature, not just of the Nile valley but of the Earth and stars also.
Why they built it will only be known when we too have such a grasp of nature.
It often occurs to me as I am doing some daily chore that there has to be a better way to explain what the SCIET is and what it means. This afternoon it happened again as I was driving my daughter home from school.
It’s like a road!
Now I must stop and clarify. The SCIET that I am talking about on this web site is a force of nature, describable variously as a mathematical form, a method of understanding and the source of consciousness itself.
When I say it’s like a road, I’m referring to the experience of consciousness.
Why a road? Because it has a direction and a perspective that is appropriately illustrative. Think of a long highway across the plains, a road that stretches to the horizon both in front and to the rear. Straight as an arrow with telephone poles evenly spaced one after another. You drive forward passing the poles as they grow from tiny lines aside the shimmering point that marks the road’s distant future. Passing them as they retreat in the rearview mirror to become again tiny lines disappearing into a gray haze where the sky and land meet
We experience the world by moving through it, facing forward. It is this experience that is transferred into our minds as a continuous memory of daily life. So when we close our eyes and remember where we have been, what we get is a recording of what we have had in front of us, or more generally what our sensory system has experienced.
Like traveling down a road our sensory system travels in time with each moment being steadily approached before passing into the past or behind us. Our grasp of the future is similar to the distant road ahead, it may end just beyond our vision or we may turn off, it only represents our view of where we are going.
Our sensory Perspective Bubble
If you have ever traced over a photograph of a house or room you would notice that our perspective is spherical rather than linear.
We are each at the center of our own sensory perspective bubble, a bubble determined by the range of our senses and ability to model the world around us from them. The visual bubble is enormous, the sound bubble much smaller and the bubble that is defined by reach smaller still.
When I say bubble I would mean for you to have an image of a soap bubble that floats on top of a surface. The problem with this image is that we face a single direction and so half of the bubble is excluded from our direct sensory input.
We can think of it as a bubble, but we only use half of it , the part in the front. We face forward, or perhaps I should say, our sensory system faces forward.
