Energy is communication

Consciousness and energy 2/3

communication-double-torus

In the first article of this series, we began to explore the rela­tion­ship bet­ween phy­sics (ener­gy) and meta­phy­sics (conscious­ness). The uni­verse is an energy-consciousness, and more pre­ci­se­ly a frac­tal and holo­gra­phic phe­no­me­non that evolves through a syner­gis­tic inter­ac­tion of ener­gy and conscious­ness.

Energy fol­lows conscious­ness and makes it evolve because all par­ticles com­mu­ni­cate with each other. In other words, ener­gy is com­mu­ni­ca­tion, and this is the sub­ject of this article.

          

Energy is communication, communication is energy

Energy is not force

In his book Philosophiae natu­ra­lis prin­ci­pia mathe­ma­ti­ca, Isaac Newton sta­ted in 1687 the laws of motion. These are the basic prin­ciples of clas­si­cal mecha­nics, one of the foun­da­tions of which is the concept of force. A force is a mecha­ni­cal action exer­ted by an object (or part of an object) on ano­ther object (or part of an object), using a vec­tor with a direc­tion, a sense, an inten­si­ty and a point of appli­ca­tion. The set of forces applied to an object has the effect of impar­ting ener­gy to it, in the form of an acce­le­ra­tion or a deformation. 

This mode­ling goes hand in hand with the inter­pre­ta­tion of the func­tio­ning of the uni­verse that we had at the time, but this inter­pre­ta­tion has evol­ved over time. Thus, the gene­ral rela­ti­vi­ty of Einstein in 1915 made the notion of mecha­ni­cal action disap­pear. Since then, gra­vi­ty, for example, is des­cri­bed as a force that curves space-time.

For Nassim Haramein, things are dif­ferent again. All forces – which can be like­ned to mani­fes­ta­tions of ener­gy – are in a state of per­fect and abso­lute equi­li­brium inter­mit­tent­ly (half the time). This state cor­res­ponds to a refe­rence point cal­led 0 point. The notion of equi­li­brium is inherent to the notion of force, since mea­su­ring a force means deter­mi­ning the neces­sa­ry effort that must be oppo­sed to this force to reach equilibrium.

But who says equi­li­brium says imba­lance. According to this phy­si­cist, there is in fact a dyna­mic exchange of infor­ma­tion, which oscil­lates conti­nuous­ly bet­ween these two states.

            

From the notion of force to the notion of communication


« The exis­tence of this intel­li­gent and order­ly cos­mos is based on the fact that the struc­ture of crea­tion is intri­cate and com­mu­ni­cates at all levels. This com­mu­ni­ca­tion fuels a dyna­mic exchange of infor­ma­tion (…) via a feed­back loop that allows the sys­tem to learn about itself, evolve and become self-aware. »
 [1]

 
Every sys­tem rhyth­mi­cal­ly returns [2] to the 0 point, which contains an infi­nite amount of ener­gy and an infi­nite poten­tial of crea­tive conscious­ness. When it is not at the point of equi­li­brium, the sys­tem mani­fests itself in a cer­tain form. The ener­gy thus alter­nates bet­ween the inter­ior and the exte­rior, com­mu­ni­ca­ting infor­ma­tion from the 0 point to the world of forms, and vice versa.

This hap­pens because of the contrac­tion and expan­sion move­ments of the vacuum geo­me­try. Nassim Haramein tells us that « the vacuum can have infi­nite forces within it, if they are in balance [we will not] rea­lize that it is there » [3]. More than forces, the vacuum has infi­nite ener­gy, the ener­gy of the 0 point. Ultimately, with conscious­ness, only ener­gy exists, eve­ryw­here and equal­ly. We sim­ply inter­pret the com­mu­ni­ca­tion of ener­gy as pos­si­bly being the mani­fes­ta­tion of a force.

For example, accor­ding to this phy­si­cist, the strong force does not exist as such. Rather, it is gra­vi­ty that acts at the quan­tum level [4]. Although he consi­ders gra­vi­ty and elec­tro­ma­gne­tism as the only two forces that exist in the uni­verse, his theo­ry can also be inter­pre­ted as imple­men­ting a flow, a com­mu­ni­ca­tion bet­ween the vacuum and mat­ter, via gra­vi­ty and electromagnetism.

It is the double torus struc­ture of the vacuum that allows this communication.

       

vacuum-geometry

                

Geometry and communication

The geo­me­try of the vacuum is part­ly for­med by a cuboc­ta­he­dron, also cal­led vec­tor equi­li­brium by the archi­tect and inven­tor Buckminster Fuller [5]. The cuboc­ta­he­dron repre­sents the phase of equi­li­brium to which all mani­fes­ta­tions, both phy­si­cal (ener­gy) and meta­phy­si­cal (conscious­ness), return by alternation.


« Vector equi­li­brium is the true 0 refe­rence of ener­gy mathe­ma­tics. The zero pulse of vec­tor equi­li­brium is the clo­sest thing we will ever know to eter­ni­ty and God : the 0 phase of concep­tual inte­gri­ty inherent in the posi­tive and nega­tive asym­me­tries that pro­pa­gate dif­fe­ren­tials of conscious­ness. »
[6]

                 

In the cuboc­ta­he­dron, the vec­tors are all equal in length and angu­lar ratio (60°). This is the rea­son why it is pos­sible to extend this equi­li­brium lat­tice out­wards to infi­ni­ty from the cen­ter point of the vec­tor equi­li­brium. So we obtain an iso­tro­pic vec­tor matrix. The whole matrix repre­sents the geo­me­try in per­fect equi­li­brium, present at all scales, of which each point becomes the poten­tial cen­tral point of a vec­tor equi­li­brium. A condi­tion of dyna­mic fluc­tua­tion can thus mani­fest itself around each point.

What we call « geo­me­tri­cal forms » are in the end only « ener­ge­tic events ». They are arti­cu­la­ted in geo­me­tri­cal net­works when ener­gy vec­tors cross each other and enter in reso­nance. Thus, any form is sim­ply the inter­ac­tion of ener­ge­tic events.

                  

Systems are in communication and synergy


« Although the model of a mecha­ni­cal world is incom­plete, it is not total­ly incor­rect. A sys­tem is com­po­sed of sub-parts, which inter­act with each other, and gene­rate the dyna­mics we observe. However, the nature of the exchanges bet­ween these sub­parts is not neces­sa­ri­ly limi­ted to the sys­tem in which they are obser­ved or to which we asso­ciate them. 

No total­ly iso­la­ted sys­tem has ever been found in nature (des­pite this, most of the fun­da­men­tal laws of phy­sics are based on such sys­tems). Moreover, the dyna­mic rela­tion­ships bet­ween all these sub­parts gene­rate a syner­gis­tic effect (…) in which the beha­vior of the sys­tem as a whole is grea­ter than the sum of the sub­parts, and is unpre­dic­table from the beha­vior of the sub­parts. » [7]

            

According to Nassim Haramein, ener­gy arises from the exchange of infor­ma­tion in the uni­verse, which occurs at all scales. But it is pro­ba­bly the quan­tum scale that best allows us to unders­tand ener­gy. Because at this scale, par­ticles have no intrin­sic exis­tence : their exis­tence depends on their rela­tion­ship [8].

Since big things are made of small things, these rela­tion­ships exist at all scales. Dissipative struc­tures are a good example. These open sys­tems are in per­ma­nent com­mu­ni­ca­tion, exchan­ging ener­gy with their envi­ron­ment, which then becomes for them a source of cohe­rence and self-organization. However, the price to pay for gene­ra­ting this use­ful ener­gy is a large amount of non-qualitative ener­gy (entro­py).

Unlike chao­tic sys­tems, which depend only on ini­tial condi­tions, dis­si­pa­tive struc­tures are condi­tio­ned by conti­nuous fluc­tua­tions that act in syner­gy [9].

But how do open sys­tems com­mu­ni­cate ? This is what we are going to find out now.

                  

All particles communicate with each other

                 

quantum-entanglement-er-epr


In phy­sics, there is an equa­li­ty bet­ween the entan­gle­ment of two par­ticles (ER) and the space-time short­cuts, or worm­holes (EPR). This rela­tion, given by the equa­li­ty ER = EPR means, to put it sim­ply, that two par­ticles can com­mu­ni­cate with each other without any condi­tion of time or dis­tance [10].

For Nassim Haramein, this equa­li­ty applies not only to two par­ticles but to all par­ticles in the uni­verse. He came to this conclu­sion after having demons­tra­ted the frac­tal and holo­gra­phic nature of the uni­verse. Fractals allow all scales to be in com­mu­ni­ca­tion by feed­back. At the same time, each par­ticle having the infor­ma­tion of all the others thanks to holo­gra­phy, any change of infor­ma­tion is ins­tant­ly com­mu­ni­ca­ted from one par­ticle to the other [11].

                

Energy is the result of an exchange of information

By dis­co­ve­ring that the vacuum has a double torus struc­ture, Nassim Haramein has rede­fi­ned black holes. According to him, far from being struc­tures that absorb eve­ry­thing, black holes exchange infor­ma­tion. They are essen­tial­ly com­po­sed of vacuum and the­re­fore of a double torus struc­ture. The exchange of infor­ma­tion takes place bet­ween their volume and their sur­face. It is this exchange that creates ener­gy (which is cal­led mass).

According to him, the uni­verse is only com­po­sed of black holes at dif­ferent scales, lin­ked by a frac­tal law. All par­ticles are the­re­fore black holes, like for example the pro­ton. There are cur­rent­ly two values for the mass of the pro­ton, the stan­dard value and the value cal­cu­la­ted by Nassim Haramein. It is inter­es­ting to note that the dif­fe­rence bet­ween the two can be explai­ned by the way of consi­de­ring the exchange of infor­ma­tion

Thus, the frame of refe­rence for the cal­cu­la­tion of the mass of the stan­dard pro­ton is the obser­ver, which amounts to consi­de­ring the pro­ton as sepa­rate from the other ones. While the frame of refe­rence for the black hole pro­ton is the uni­verse, which is to consi­der the pro­ton in rela­tion to all the other pro­tons present in the universe.

In the first case, eve­ry­thing hap­pens as if we were taking into consi­de­ra­tion the infor­ma­tion present only on the sur­face of the pro­ton. In contrast to the second case, where we also take into consi­de­ra­tion the infor­ma­tion present in its volume, and thus the ener­gy of the vacuum it contains. This is the basis for the cal­cu­la­tion of the holo­gra­phic mass - which implies that eve­ry­thing com­mu­ni­cates with eve­ry­thing all the time — and which can be applied to any black hole [12].

             
Vacuum-information-quantum-gravity

                 

Energy flow Vs motion

Rotation Vs friction

Einstein’s field equa­tions des­cribe gra­vi­ty as a force that bends space-time. However, they say nothing about the source of gra­vi­ty. By modi­fying these equa­tions, Nassim Haramein mana­ged to explain that gra­vi­ty comes from the coor­di­na­ted rota­tion of the Planck spheres that consti­tute space-time at the quan­tum level. In his model, space-time has a fun­da­men­tal vor­tex (spin), which unfolds along a den­si­ty gra­dient from the smal­lest to the lar­gest scales. It is this cas­cade of vor­tices that explains the rota­tion of all objects in the uni­verse [13].

Our stan­dard phy­sics is based on the fol­lo­wing fun­da­men­tal assump­tion : eve­ry­thing has been spin­ning in a fric­tion­less envi­ron­ment since the Big Bang. Spin is inherent to the Big Bang, so theo­re­ti­cal­ly we do not have to take it into account in the equa­tions. Except that…

« First of all, that does not tell [us] where the ener­gy came from to gene­rate that moment of impulse. But second­ly, it is a very, very large gene­ra­li­za­tion, because what [we] look around [us] does not real­ly look like a fric­tion­less envi­ron­ment ! It’s the same thing at the ato­mic level : elec­trons have been spin­ning per­pe­tual­ly since the Big Bang at the speed of light. They have never stop­ped. That’s a lot of spin, for a long, long time ! This would be true if there was only one atom in the uni­verse, but as soon as there are even two atoms, there are fric­tions, col­li­sions, all sorts of things like gra­vi­ta­tio­nal fields influen­cing each other. Nothing like a fric­tion­less envi­ron­ment. » [14]


In his theo­ry, the phy­si­cist does not neglect the forces of fric­tion, but shows that the forces of rota­tion sur­pass them.

               

But without space, what about movement ?

So, if things seem to be run­ning in a fric­tion­less envi­ron­ment, it is only an appearance.

But isn’t the mere fact that they are in motion alrea­dy an appearance ?

double-tore-face

We have seen in the pre­vious article that space is nothing but ener­gy. What hap­pens then to motion without space ? If we take up the double torus model of Nassim Haramein, we see a move­ment in this loop, but no dis­pla­ce­ment from a point A to a point B. We could say that there is a kind of dyna­mic flow or expan­sion, but nothing that actual­ly moves. Nothing is going anyw­here, espe­cial­ly us. We are not moving through time and space. Rather, it is time and space that moves through us. Better yet, we are sim­ply in this infi­nite loop with our life expe­riences, regard­less of time and space.

Fundamentally, the per­cep­tion of move­ment actual­ly pro­ceeds from a kind of sum of many moments and events that occur in the Present moment. Thus, ins­tead of thin­king that an arrow must take a cer­tain time to tra­vel a dis­tance from the shoo­ter to the tar­get, it is bet­ter to think in terms of events : each obser­va­tion of this arrow on its path becomes an event. The moment we observe this arrow at a cer­tain point of its tra­jec­to­ry, it becomes an event. In fact, it does not move, it is just the nature of the event that changes. A bit like the pixels that turn on and off and give an impres­sion of move­ment on a still tele­vi­sion screen [15].

In the next article (coming soon), we will conti­nue to talk about ener­gy, in connec­tion with meta­phy­sics, sha­dow and light…

             


Key points

  • The uni­verse is a frac­tal and holo­gra­phic phe­no­me­non that evolves through a syner­gis­tic inter­ac­tion of ener­gy and consciousness.

  • The uni­verse is not based on forces but on dyna­mic exchanges of infor­ma­tion, which oscil­late conti­nuous­ly bet­ween equi­li­brium and imbalance.

  • All par­ticles in the uni­verse create ener­gy by exchan­ging infor­ma­tion through their double torus struc­ture. Energy is communication.

  • The struc­ture of the double torus under­lies an ener­gy flow in which nothing real­ly moves. Rather, the per­cep­tion of move­ment is a suc­ces­sion of ener­gy events.

 

                

                     

                    



Notes and references


[1] HARAMEIN Nassim, quo­ted by Resonance Science Foundation
[2] See also the article on the rhythm prin­ciple
[3] HARAMEIN Nassim, Nassim Haramein at Rogue Valley Metaphysical Library (1) [vidéo].
[4] For more infor­ma­tion, you can read the article Quantum gra­vi­ty and Schwarzschild pro­ton.
[5] Buckminster Fuller (1895 — 1983) publi­shed more than thir­ty books, coi­ning or popu­la­ri­zing terms such as « syner­gy ». He also deve­lo­ped many inven­tions, main­ly in the field of archi­tec­tu­ral desi­gn, the most famous being the geo­de­sic dome.
[6] FULLER Buckminster, Synergetics, sec­tion 440.01
[7] HARAMEIN Nassim, quo­ted by Resonance Science Foundation, op.cit.
[8] See on this topic the article Reality and quan­tum phy­sics.
[9] To unders­tand this mecha­nism, see the article on the but­ter­fly effect : from chaos to inter­de­pen­dence.
[10] For more infor­ma­tion, see the article inde­ter­mi­nism and entan­gle­ment.
[11] To learn more about the holo­frac­to­gra­phic nature of the uni­verse, see the article on the frac­tal and holo­gra­phic uni­verse.
[12] For more infor­ma­tion, see the article on quan­tum gra­vi­ty and the Schwarzschild pro­ton.
[13] To learn more, see the article What is space-time ?
[14] HARAMEIN Nassim. (September 25, 2013). Nassim Haramein Complete [Podcast]
[15] See also the article Movement and per­cep­tion.

 




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be publi­shed. Required fields are mar­ked *

©2018–2023 Ma vie quan­tique Tous droits réservés
0 Shares
Tweet
Share