Dacia Iluministă

We previously asked how many dimensions the universe has. We received several answers, including zero, one, five and infinity. All ingenious, but wrong. Here’s one highly imaginative comment we received from a correspondent in Finland:

Here are my calculations.

I was thinking that the universe should have a center somewhere. The zero and the infinite are not proper centres, they are just points through which the circle of existence (negative and/or positive) goes. We need to find the center between these two. The center point between zero and infinity cannot be given any precise location using normal methods to calculate distances. The calculation would be impossible since in mathematics you cannot add or subtract anything from the infinite (or the result would always be infinite).

Therefore we need one more imaginary number. Let’s call it “G”. G marks the imaginary center point between zero and infinity. The Gpoint is also an imaginary dimension, or a portal leading into one, in a same fashion as the zero is the portal between the negative and the positive universes. The G dimension combines the qualities of the zero and the infinite. It cannot be given an exact location, so it’s actually nowhere like the zero. But at the same time its location is infinite, since infinity divided by 2 is still infinity. It is also the communication link between the two, in the same fashion as the zero is the communication link between the negative and positive universes.

Also the G-point is outside of the positive and negative universes, since if you try to give the “middle number” between zero and infinity, you couldn’t define it as either + or -, because zero and infinity are both without polarity. The G-point is also outside of zero and infinity, yet also included in them, since it is the center point, the “average” between them. This “G” would then be the fifth dimension of the universe, uniting the four others. The four elements, earth, water, air and fire united by the fifth element, the spirit. Logical.

Maybe the molecules in the G dimension should be called “spirit molecules” (and light would be the communication method between them)? An ingenious proposal that fits in well with the ancient idea of the Quintessence, but it introduces an utterly speculative mathematical entity. The answer is in fact based on rigorous, existing mathematical knowledge.

So, how many dimensions does the cosmos need to be complete? No scientist has ever asked this basic question. For centuries, they all simply assumed that there were three dimensions of space and one of time, and that these were absolute i.e. had independent existence even if there were no objects in the universe. This is the basis of the enormously successful Newtonian physics paradigm that dominated Western scientific thinking until the advent of electromagnetism, relativity and quantum mechanics. The only person who dared to challenge the Newtonian orthodoxy was the brilliant Illuminatus Leibniz, who described space and time in relational terms. Without any objects in the universe, Leibniz argued, space and time would not exist i.e. they are not mysterious substances but simply ways of describing relations between objects. If someone says that he is sitting in the same seat that he was occupying ten minutes ago he is describing his current space and time coordinates in relation to his previous space and time coordinates. No one ever provides absolute space and time coordinates. How would you even begin? Does the universe have a perfect cosmic clock that has been ticking since the beginning of time that someone can consult? Is there a perfect cosmic map with a dead centre that someone can use to identify their absolute spatial location?

With Einstein came the realisation that space and time were fused together in 4-dimensional spacetime. Even now, virtually no one comprehends the sheer scale of the revolution ushered in by Einstein. Some scientists still assert that Einsteinian physics is merely a development of Newtonian physics. Only people with no grasp of philosophy could make such a stupid statement. Einstein’s theories represent an irrevocable break with the conceptual underpinning of Newtonian physics. As Einstein himself recognized, his ideas fall firmly into the relational, Leibnizian camp.

Yet still we talk of 4 dimensions. Why 4? Why not any other number? Why not the 11 dimensions of M-theory? What is the theoretical basis of any calculation of the number of dimensions the universe must have? No scientist has ever had a clue. So, we received from some brave souls the following answers to our question: 0, 1, 5, 8, 10 and infinite dimensions. We will return to the choice of eight later in the article since this deserves special attention. As for the other choices, zero and infinity were logical “guesses” given that we had been discussing the importance of these two numbers. Five was chosen by a few people for various reasons. For one thing, it fits in well with the idea of the Quintessence, the Fifth Element and the symbol of the pentagram (of great symbolic importance to the Illuminati), hence is suitably mystical and esoteric. The choice of visionary hip hop Pho’ was ten – the number of the Pythagorean tetraktys – and he illustrated it with the following diagram:

http://www.disclose.tv/action/photopreview/27373/Emanations_Tetraktys/

Now, this would indeed be the ideal number from the Illuminati’s point of view. At every sunset in the time of Pythagoras, the members of the Illuminati made the declaration: “I swear by him who has revealed to our soul the divine tetraktys.” But, unfortunately, ten is not the right answer. However, Pho’and the rest are in the best of company with their choices. They were seeking a number that was “right” in terms of some principle of beauty, elegance, mystical suitability, or some inherent quality of the number itself that raised it above other numbers. This would be termed a numerological approach to the problem. Pythagoras himself started off using exactly this type of thinking. Consider the following remarks by mathematician Marcus du Sautoy in his book The Music of the Primes:

“The origins of mathematicians’ interest in this infinite sum came from music and went back to a discovery made by the Greeks. Pythagoras was the first to discover the fundamental connection between mathematics and music. He filled an urn with water and banged it with a hammer to produce a note. If he removed half the water and banged the urn again, the note had gone up an octave. Each time he removed more water to leave the urn one-third full, then onequarter full, the notes produced would sound to his ear in harmony with the first note he’d played. Any other notes which were created by removing some other amount of water sounded in dissonance with that original note. There was some audible beauty associated with these fractions. The harmony that Pythagoras had discovered in the numbers 1, ., 1/3, .…made him believe that the whole universe was controlled by music, which is why he coined the expression ‘the music of the spheres.’

“…Ever since Pythagoras’ discovery of an arithmetic connection between mathematics and music, people have compared both the aesthetic and the physical traits shared by the two disciplines…As Pythagoras discovered, it is not just in the aesthetic realm that mathematics and music overlap. The very physics of music has at its root the basis of mathematics. If you blow across the top of a bottle you hear a note. By blowing a little harder, and with a little skill, you can start to hear higher notes – the extra harmonics, the overtones. When a musician plays a note on an instrument they are producing an infinity of additional harmonics, just as you do when you blow across the top of the bottle. These additional harmonics help to give each instrument its own distinctive sound. The physical characteristics of each instrument mean that we hear different combinations of harmonics. In addition to the fundamental note, the clarinet plays only those harmonies produced by odd fractions: 1/3, 1/5, 1/7,…The string of a violin, on the other hand, vibrates to create all the harmonics that Pythagoras produced with his urn – those corresponding to the fractions ., 1/3, .,… “Since the sound of a vibrating violin string is the infinite sum of the fundamental note and all the possible harmonics, mathematicians became intrigued by the mathematical analogue. The infinite sum 1 + . + 1/3 + .… became known as the harmonic series.”

As Du Sautoy indicates, Pythagoras was in thrall to the relationship between music and mathematics. It made perfect aesthetic sense to Pythagoras, a proud and skilled devotee of the lyre, that the universe should be of the nature of some majestic symphony by the Supreme Composer. How elegant, how beautiful, how right! Indeed how could it possibly be otherwise? Music represented order and harmony, the organisation of chaos into something glorious and inspiring, something inherently beautiful that could fill humanity’s souls with the most divine of feelings, that could raise their gaze to the highest things.

“Mathematics and music are God’s languages. When you speak them…you’re speaking directly to God.” –Rebecca Goldstein

So, the Illuminati became the first true students of music, and they sought to understand the Divine Mind as that of a cosmic musician who composed the finest melodies and harmonies, who provided perfect songs for soloists, choirs, orchestras, and for the Dionysian Chorus that gave musical form to the great tales of Greek tragedy. The Illuminati have never abandoned their appreciation of music, which is why we use so much of it on our website. Music, proper music, should be everywhere. Instead, we get shopping mall muzak. Pythagoras taught that the cosmos obeyed a mathematical law called Harmony, which ensured right relations between everything. The essence of harmony is that harmonious numbers can be written as ratios: 1/2, 3/2, 4/3 etc. Such numbers are literally rational. What could be more natural than that the cosmos was rational and harmonious, full of right proportion?

And then Pythagoras made a shattering discovery. Using his own famous theorem that in a right-angled triangle the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides, he calculated what the hypotenuse would be for a right-angled triangle with sides one unit long and got the answer √2. No matter how hard he tried, he could not express the hypotenuse in this case as being in harmonious ratio with its sides. In a “3, 4, 5” triangle, the ratio of the respective sides to the hypotenuse could be written as 3/5 and 4/5. But what about 1/√2? Ugly, unacceptable! √2 wasn’t any kind of harmonious number. Instantly, the whole edifice of Harmony collapsed. There were patterns in the world that weren’t rational i.e. capable of being expressed in terms of ratios. They were irrational. It was to resolve this crisis that Pythagoras devised one of the most profound and powerful ideas of all time: the Completeness Theorem.

This said that Harmony was but a subset of Completeness, hence not the full truth of the cosmos. Only mathematical completeness could reflect the essence of the cosmos. After all, how could incompleteness ever suffice? By definition, it would always be incomplete. The cosmos must be complete in a mathematical sense. If it were not then there would be bizarre holes and gaps everywhere, reflecting the incompleteness. The cosmos would be like a partially constructed building: no one could safely live in it. The foundations might collapse at any time. If it were incomplete, the cosmos would be unstable. Inexplicable oddities, arising from the incompleteness, would abound. It would be impossible to analyze these. The cosmos would be a bizarre mixture of things that made complete sense and other things that were utterly baffling. Nothing would be predictable because incompleteness might rear its end at any instant.

Pythagoras’s Completeness Theorem was dialectically refined over the years. It is now expressed in the following terms:

1) The cosmos prefers no number over another. It does not exclude any number or discriminate against any number. To say that any number is “forbidden” by nature is absurd. Any theory based on anything less than the full set of numbers is by definition incomplete. Any such theory cannot properly describe the cosmos. Science, because it excludes zero and infinity, is formally incomplete and can only be complete once it embraces these two numbers.

2) All numbers are in fact infinite in “depth”. The number 1 may seem to be finite, but it can be written as 1.0 followed by an infinite numbers of zeroes. All irrational numbers are infinite and all rational numbers can be written in infinite form (just as we illustrated with 1). Therefore the entire cosmos can be mapped with infinite exactitude. There are no gaps anywhere in the cosmos described by the full set of numbers, and every number is infinitely precise. Nothing can exist outside the full set of numbers. There is no room for anything else. Only the full set of numbers allows a full description of existence. Imagine if there were a full set of numbers between 1.0 and 1.4 and between 1.5 and 2.0. What about the gap between 1.4 and 1.5? Imagine there were no numbers there – just an empty space. This would mean that anything that was smoothly flowing between 1.0 to 1.4 would come to a complete stop at 1.4. How would it bridge the mysterious gap to 1.5? In this little gap, the rules of the cosmos would be completely different. Physics would operate differently. Nature would operate differently. Calculus, the most important technique in physics and mathematics, would fail.

Calculus is based on the ability to reduce the distance between two points to zero, and this is possible only because there’s an infinitely small gap between any two adjacent points designated by infinitely precise numbers. If there were gaps between any numbers or they weren’t all infinitely precise, calculus wouldn’t work. Mathematical functions would break down. It wouldn’t be valid to draw a line between two points if there was a mathematical lacuna between them. The cosmos would be unstable and would unravel.

3) The cosmos must be stable, hence numbers must provide a rocksolid platform. This means that no matter what mathematical operation is performed on them, they must resist instability. The full set of numbers must be stable under any global mathematical operation performed upon them, whether it be rotation, inversion, addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, raising them to a power, taking the mirror image etc. If any mathematical operation performed on an apparently full set of numbers resulted in something catastrophic then it would be proof that the proposed full set of numbers was in fact incomplete.

4) Nothing can exist outside “complete” mathematics. All possibilities are accommodated. There is nothing else. Complete mathematics specifies everything. Any theory that does not use complete mathematics is incomplete and cannot offer a full description of everything. Only complete mathematics provides the framework for a Grand Unified Theory of Everything. Once completeness has been established, nothing can exist outside it. Everything that is knowable is contained within the system. Everything that exists is contained within the system.

5) To establish a Grand Unified Theory of Everything, the first task that must be accomplished is to describe the complete mathematics upon which it will be based. This is a task for mathematical logic, not for scientific experiments. No physicist, or indeed modern mathematician, has ever addressed the issue of complete mathematics.

6) The single most important aspect of complete mathematics is the question of dimensionality. How many dimensions are required to accommodate all conceivable numbers, to a depth of infinity, so that not a single point anywhere cannot be mapped to a unique number of infinite precision? Only once the issue of dimensionality has been definitively resolved can any Grand Unified Theory of Everything be constructed. M-theory, science’s latest attempt at a Grand Unified Theory is based on 11 dimensions, but there is absolutely no theoretical basis for this number, hence M-theory, which remains a “work in progress” is certain to collapse in due course.

Humanity has always wanted to know everything, to peer into every dark corner of the cosmos, to resolve every riddle, paradox and mystery. Pythagoras’s Completeness Theorem, based on defining mathematical completeness, is the foundation of Absolute Knowledge. The Completeness Theorem asserts that it is impossible for anything to exist outwith the framework of complete mathematics. Everything that can happen will happen in terms of complete mathematics, and nothing else. Anything that is not forbidden by complete mathematics is compulsory. There are no mysterious forces outside complete mathematics. Nothing can exist outwith complete mathematics. God himself can’t escape complete mathematics, despite what the Abrahamists say. When Pythagoras declared, “All is number”, this was his reference to his Completeness Theorem.

Mathematics specifies all that can exist, every form that the arche (the fundamental substance of existence) can take. There is quite simply nothing else. And, because human beings understand numbers, they can therefore understand the cosmos. As above, so below. Every corner of the cosmos obeys exactly the same mathematical laws. Any mind that grasps complete mathematics grasps everything. At that point, when you truly understand complete mathematics and all of its implications, you are capable of achieving gnosis and entering into union with the Divine Mind. But gnosis isn’t just the “scientific” grasp of complete mathematics, it’s also to feel it, to BE IT.

Imagine providing a perfect mathematical description of Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata in terms of a combination of basic sine waves. You have accomplished the scientific task. You have broken down all of the apparent complexity into something simple. You have understood how these sounds are assembled. You have measured their shape, frequency, wavelength, amplitude, pattern. You have understood so much. Yet at no point have you felt it. It is when you have tears in your eyes as you listen to the music that you have achieved gnosis regarding that piece of music. You are no longer looking at the music from outside. You are inside it. You are it. It reflects your will. It is your soul singing. Gnosis is about knowing the cosmos from inside and outside.

We can give you the “outside” perspective. But you must provide the inside perspective for yourself. Only you can. No one can do it on your behalf. You must internalise it. You must feel it. You must become one with the cosmos, feeling every part of it, sensing every part of it, comprehending every part. And then you are Abraxas, the True God. You have become God. Literally.

Plato asserted that what appears as “learning” is in fact “remembering”. The soul, before it became incarnate in the body, existed in the realm of Ideas where it was surrounded by the perfect “Forms” i.e. by the contents of Absolute Knowledge (in Plato’s view). In this domain, the soul perceived everything as it truly is rather than as the pale copy or shadow of truth that we encounter in the mortal world of imperfection. The right questions can draw out this latent, forgotten knowledge of Absolute Truth. We are already imbued with everything we need to know but our mortality has obscured it, has transformed the perfect originals into inaccurate copies and simulacra that present only a distorted version of reality.

Imagine photocopying an old picture on an old photocopier and then photocopying the copy. Then keep doing this a thousand times, forever photocopying the copy of a copy of a copy etc. In the end, the “copy” you are holding in your hand may look nothing like the original thanks to all the blurring, errors, smudges and imperfections inherent in the copying process. You need to see past the simulated truth of the inaccurate copies to the real truth of the original. Only then can you attain true wisdom.

Human beings are already the embodiment of complete mathematics. We are written in mathematics. We don’t need to be expert mathematicians in any conscious sense in order to have an intuitive grasp of mathematics. For most of us, our consciousness gets in the way of our grasp of mathematics. Like Plato’s souls, we become confused in the world of space and time. Yet every time we catch a ball, we are carrying out an extremely complex mathematical operation that most of us wouldn’t have the vaguest idea how to describe in mathematical equations. We just “do it” – we don’t think about it. It is internalised, intuitive, and we have a supreme grasp of it. Autistic savants can perform mathematical wonders faster than computers without having the vaguest idea of what they are doing. The answer just leaps out at them. How? From where? They are like Platonic souls hardwired into the perfect Mathematical Forms. They “see” mathematics without understanding it consciously. They don’t need to.

Most people love music and it is when they are listening to their favourite songs that they come closest to appreciating mathematics. Music is audible mathematics. Schopenhauer described music as a direct copy of the cosmic Will. It moves us so much because it is actually tuning us into the pulse of the dialectic itself, of the teleological desire to grow, to strive, to develop, to go forward, to revel in the life force. (Schopenhauer is absolutely right: music is mathematical, just as the cosmic Will is in space and time.) So, don’t imagine that you have to be a mathematical genius to “get it”. Everyone gets it one way or another. It’s built in. We can access it intuitively. We are all autistic savants in this regard, if we did but know it. We just need to dig deeper to reveal that side of our inner selves.

Listen to music. Relax. Have some wine (or another drug of your choice). Think of numbers, shapes, patterns, geometrical figures. Imagine yourself walking through a Platonic domain of perfect squares, triangles, circles, hyperbolas, parabolas, cubes, spheres, cylinders, enormous numbers, some clear as glass, some in the colours of the rainbow, some glowing, some translucent, some flashing. Imagine yourself in a rowing boat on a fast-flowing river of numbers. In a strong wind of numbers. Standing atop a mountain of numbers. You are immersed in an ocean of numbers. Numbers are imprinted on everything. Existence as we know it consists of formlessness and form fused together. “Minded energy” provides the formless part, and mathematics the form. The interaction between the arche and mathematics is so close, so intimate, that it becomes impossible to say where one ends and the other begins. So, mathematics can be validly identified with the arche, in accordance with Pythagoras’s inspired insight that “all is number”. The arche might be called mathematical energy, the mathematical part taking the role of elementary rational mind, from which human minds, with human consciousness and reason, ultimately emerged.

The universe is made of formless energy sculpted into form by mathematics. Mathematics is Pygmalion sculpting his perfect woman – Galatea – and then bringing her to life by imbuing her with mind and consciousness. Life, mind and consciousness are mathematical in origin. Eternal life is made possible by mathematics. Souls are mathematical entities. God is the apex of mathematical possibility. God is the Monad, the Whole, the One: the cosmos alive, conscious, and free to do absolutely anything it wishes.

Mathematics at some level is alive, and it is trying to solve its own cosmic equation. The force that keeps it going is the dialectic. Mathematics is like an enormous computer that will never stop calculating until it has provided the answer to “life, the universe, and everything.” The amusing answer, provided by Douglas Adams in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, is “42”. The real answer is Abraxas. God is the final mathematical solution of the cosmos. Adams made the fascinating suggestion that the ultimate question of life was being constructed via a planetary computer/mind: Earth. In fact, both the question and the answer are provided not by a planet but by the cosmos itself. The ultimate question is: “What is the maximum potential of existence?” The answer is God. The cosmos evolves from maximum potential to maximum expression of that potential. Every human being grows from a fertilized egg to a baby to a youth to an adult – from potential to actualisation. The supreme human lives are those in which the adults squeeze out every last drop of their potential in concrete and glorious achievements that dazzle the world. Are you making the most of your potential? Are you turning it from lead into gold? Are you an alchemist, or one of the unenlightened on your knees to a fake God? Abrahamism destroys potential; Illuminism and meritocracy are all about transforming all human potential into golden achievements. Under Illuminism, Earth will become a 24-carat golden nugget, the supreme treasure of the universe.

“There is naught in heaven or upon earth that is not in man. And God who dwelleth in Heaven, He also is in Man.” –Paracelsus

The Illuminati want to release human divinity. That is the Great Work – the magnum opus – of which the alchemists spoke.

******

“Everything of any importance is founded on mathematics.” –Robert Heinlein

The following diagram is one of the most important you will ever see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Imaginary2Root.svg

It contains seven of the nine most significant numbers. 1, -1, i, -i, and 0 are plainly visible. The circle contains the number pi and the circle is a symbol of the number infinity. The absent numbers are e (the base of natural logarithms and from which the exponential function is obtained) and the golden ratio (phi). Note that many mathematicians consider Euler’s Identity (eiπ + 1 = 0) as the most beautiful in mathematics because it expresses a relationship between five of the most crucial numbers in a supremely elegant and compact manner.)

Consider how the diagram is constructed:

1) It begins with zero, the origin, a dimensionless point. Extend that dimensionless point to the east to make a one-dimensional line of positive numbers. Extend it to the west to cater for negative numbers. The positive and negative numbers make up the so-called “real” number line. Why aren’t the real numbers complete? Because if we perform the mathematical operation of squaring the real numbers, half of the universe vanishes since all of the negatives become positive. There is a catastrophic flaw in the real numbers. How is this remedied?

2) We extend zero to the north to make a one-dimensional line of positive imaginary numbers, and we extend it to the south to make a line of the negative imaginary numbers. We have gone from a one dimensional line of real numbers to a two-dimensional plane of complex numbers (complex numbers comprise a real part and an imaginary part). Now what happens when we square this universe? The negative real numbers disappear as before, but now they are replaced by the squared imaginary numbers since the square of an imaginary number is negative. But if the imaginary numbers have become real negative numbers, what takes the place of the imaginary numbers? Haven’t they now disappeared en masse too? No, because they have square roots too (of complex numbers), indicated by the blue dots in the above diagram.

In terms of the complex plane, we now have completeness. But if we describe the complex plane as an x-axis and a perpendicular x(imaginary)-axis (labelled as xi), what about the y and z equivalents (yi and zi)?

3) So, we do exactly the same thing for the y and z axes. Thus we get a six dimensional space x, xi, y, yi, z, zi that we can designate as 6D(3r3i) where r stands for real numbers and i for imaginary numbers. This is our complete mathematical space, stable under any mathematical operation. Our previous mathematical designation of 4Di was wrong for the simple reason that we had included only one imaginary axis rather than matching up one to each of the x, y and zaxes. 4Di was short of two imaginary dimensions, hence incomplete in the two directions where they were absent. 4Di had the right shape because in the context of calculating the distance between any two points, it allowed three zones to be generated: real distances, imaginary distances and null distances. These three zones constitute the essence of Einstein’s special theory of relativity. But they are so much more than that. They are the basis of God, the mind, the soul, the afterlife. The “null zone” – outside space and time – is the province of religion. The “imaginary zone” – inside space and time – is the province of conventional science. The “real zone” – where the speed of light is always exceeded – can be considered a kind of mirror image of the imaginary zone.

Consider the following properties of entities moving at subluminal speeds (below light speed) and those at superluminal speeds (above light speed):

Subluminal.

a) Can never be accelerated to lightspeed.
b) Would need infinite energy to attain light speed (and would gain infinite mass).
c) Travel forward through time.
d) Time runs more slowly forward as lightspeed is approached. Distances shrink.
e) Time runs forward faster and faster as zero speed is approached.
f) Cannot escape a black hole.
g) As they lose energy, they approach zero speed.
h) Go slower and slower until they lose all kinetic energy.
i) As they lose energy, they travel slower through space and faster (forwards) through time.
j) As they gain energy, they travel faster through space and slower (forwards) through time.
k) In their own frame of reference, they have real mass, experience real distances and real time. (In contrast, photons that exist in the null zone have zero mass and experience zero distances and zero time.)

Superluminal.

a) Can never be slowed down to lightspeed.
b) Would need infinite energy to attain light speed (and would gain infinite mass).
c) Travel backward through time.
d) Time runs more slowly backward as lightspeed is approached. Distances shrink.
e) Time runs backward faster and faster as infinite speed is approached.
f) Can escape a black hole.
g) As they lose energy, they approach infinite speed.
h) Go faster and faster until they lose all kinetic energy.
i) As they lose energy, they travel faster through space and faster (backwards) through time.
j) As they gain energy, they travel slower through space and slower (backwards) through time.
k) In their own frame of reference, they have imaginary mass, experience imaginary distances and imaginary time. (In contrast, photons that exist in the null zone have zero mass, and experience zero distances and zero time.)

Neither subluminal nor superluminal particles can cross the light speed barrier i.e. a superluminal particle can never slow down to light speed, and can never cross into the subluminal speed zone. By the same token, a subluminal particle can never speed up to light speed and can never cross into the superluminal speed zone. Thus we can imagine the speed of light to be equivalent to the surface of a mirror, and the superluminal zone to be the reflection of the subliminal zone, where everything is back to front – particles lose energy as they speed up rather than gaining energy and time goes backwards rather than forwards. It is impossible for anything to pass through the mirror to the reflection. And is a reflection real in any case? Or is the superluminal zone simply describing what we would get if we ran the movie of life backwards, erasing everything that ever took place?

******

Therefore, 6 is the “magic” number that describes the minimum number of dimensions required to provide the framework for complete mathematics. Six is one of the most special numbers. It’s the first “perfect” number (its three divisors 1, 2 and 3 add up to 6). Also, 1x2x3 = 6. Also, 6 is the number of the first three levels of the tetraktys, and the fourth level may be considered the cosmos that is constructed from those fundamental upper levels.

In an Order 6 magic square, each column, row, and major diagonal adds up to 111. All six columns added together equal a certain esoteric number of immense power, as do all six of the rows added together, as do all the numbers between 1 and 36. The number in question is none other than 666.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_square

Apart from being one of the numbers associated with Abraxas, 666 is the number of light, of the sun, and of Lucifer. Now you know why Christians call it the Number of the Beast. Something of an irony given that they are the ones who choose to worship the Devil – Yahweh/Allah/Christ/Satan. One of the earliest and most potent symbols of the Illuminati was the one imprinted on the gold signet ring of Solomon, his great ring of power, said to be imbued with the highest magic. This symbol is the so-called “Seal of Solomon”, based on the hexagram, the six-pointed star.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_of_Solomon

Note that the Seal features a circle around the hexagram, the circle being the symbol of both “nothing” and its twin, infinity. The Seal also contains a central hexagon (another symbol of 6) and six satellite equilateral triangles (symbols of 3). And it contains 6 individual monads. Above all, it contains two large, interpenetrating equilateral triangles that comprise the hexagram. The triangle pointing upwards is the “masculine” one, while the one pointing downwards is the matching feminine one. Male and female coming together creates the cosmos.

This is exactly like the 3D domain of real numbers coming together with the 3D domain of imaginary numbers to form the 6D cosmos. The Seal of Solomon is the perfect symbol of the 6D universe, with the real and imaginary numbers fully interpenetrating each other. The six lines of the hexagram, the six apexes of the hexagram and the six dots (monads) make up 666. It was the Seal of Solomon that the Christians found so abominable. It was identified with Simon Magus, the true Christ whom the Christians regarded as the Antichrist/Beast, and whom they believed would return to the world prior to the “true” Second Coming. In those early Christian times, members of the Illuminati often marked their right hand with the sign of the Seal.

The Book of Revelation: 13:16-18.

16 He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads,

17 and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

18 Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man: His number is 666.

In the Middle Ages, the Seal became associated with Judaism in what is now known as the “Star of David”. Before that, the menorah, the seven-branched candelabrum, was the unambiguous, quintessential symbol of Judaism. The Jews have completely hijacked the hexagram symbol, meaning that it is rarely used by the Illuminati in the present day. It is because of the links between the Seal of Solomon and the Star of David that the Illuminati were accused of being secret Jews by those clueless people who understood nothing of the history of the respective symbols. It infuriates the Illuminati to be linked with Judaism in any way given that one of our central goals is to remove Judaism, Christianity and Islam from the map of world religions. Yet, time and time again, people contact us to accuse Adam Weishaupt of being Jewish or to say that we are all Jewish bankers working for Goldman Sachs etc. We don’t reply to anyone who talks such arrant nonsense. It’s astounding that people who are utterly out of the information loop still think they “know something” and can run their half-baked, absurd ideas past us. They should bear in mind what Pythagoras said: “Either be silent or say something better than silence.” In other words, have something of merit to say, or don’t say anything. Free speech shouldn’t be about mindlessly blurting out the first thing that comes into someone’s head. Make sure you are a person who weighs your words, or others will judge your opinions to carry no weight at all.

The 6D(3r3i) mathematical space is based on two sets of complementary dimensions, three real and three imaginary, inextricably intertwined with each other. “3” is of course another supremely special number, the number of the trinity, the triad, the dialectic (thesis, antithesis and synthesis). It is the first male number and represents harmony since it equals 1 (the monad = unity, the number of Reason) plus 2 (the dyad = diversity, otherness, the first female number) i.e. 3, the triad equals harmony = unity + diversity. And 6 = the number of Creation since it equals the first female number (2) plus the first male number (3) + 1 (the supreme monad). So, if the three real dimensions (designated by x, y and z) are at right angles to each other and create an edgeless cube that extends infinitely in all directions to completely fill “real space”, where do the three imaginary dimensions (which we may label as xi, yi and zi) fit in? There’s no room!

But if we say that the y-axis is at right angles to the x-axis and the xi-axis is also at right angles to the x-axis in the same plane then we are effectively saying that there is a certain relationship between the y-axis
and the xi-axis. We can extend this thinking to show that the z-axis is related to the yi-axis and the x-axis to the zi-axis:

The mapping of imaginary axes to real axes thus becomes:

xi <=> y; yi <=> z; zi <=> x

In other words, we can imagine the three imaginary dimensions being fitted exactly over the three real dimensions, but at a different orientation according to the mapping we have just described. It’s an arrangement that is both breathtakingly simple and breathtakingly complex. In some sense, all real numbers of one dimension (e.g. the xaxis) are also imaginary numbers of another dimension (e.g. the ziaxis). Thus all numbers are dual entities, both real and imaginary, and it is this duality that underpins the two “separate” dimensions that we call space and time.

******

Astonishing as it may seem, the essence of Einstein’s special theory of relativity is contained within the simple diagram we showed earlier. Consider the following pairs of coordinates (P1 and P2 we shall call them), where the second coordinate of P1 and P2 is an imaginary number:

a) P1 (2, 3); P2 (5, 5)
b) P1 (4, 1); P2 (6, 7)
c) P1 (1, 1); P2 (6, 6)

For a), the distance (d) between P1 and P2 is (using Pythagoras’s Theorem):

d2 = (5-2)2 + (5-3)i2 = 9 – 4 = 5, so d = + √5 or – √5 (since a quadratic equation has two roots, one positive and one negative).

For b) d2 = (6-4)2 + (7-1)i2 = 4 – 36 = -32, so d = + (√32)i or – (√32)i

For c) d2 = (6-1)2 + (6-1)i2 = 25 – 25 = 0, so d = +0 or –0 = 0

So, the distance between any two points in the diagram will be either (+ real number) or (- real number) or (+ imaginary number) or (- imaginary number) or zero. Nothing else is possible. If we flood this 2D(1r1i) “world” with formless energy, some will flow into the domain of positive real numbers, some into the domain of negative real numbers, some into the domain of positive imaginary numbers, some into the domain of negative imaginary numbers, and some into the zero zone. Nothing else is possible. The zero zone is the domain of massless particles such as photons. All distances in this zone are zero.

Any points that lie on lines that strike the x-axis at an angle of 45 degrees (or 90 + 45 = 135 degrees, or 180 + 45 = 225 degrees, or 270 + 45 = 315 degrees) will exist in the zero zone. Even if P1 is (0, 0) and P2 (infinity, infinity), the distance between the two points will still be zero. In other words, a particle could travel from P1 (0, 0) to P2 (infinity, infinity) and yet not travel any distance! (hence it would take no time to make the journey). Such particles are exhibiting one of the central paradoxes of existence: they move and yet don’t get anywhere since they always cover zero distance. They could traverse every point in the universe in no time without covering any distance. Such is the supreme mystery of the zero zone.

Note that the whole diagram could be covered with 45, 135, 225 and 315-degree lines, meaning that every point in existence is connected to the zero zone. The whole cosmos has a link to the zero zone. Here, everything is interconnected outside space and time. This is the cosmic information channel that bypasses all materialistic limitations. Nothing can pass from the real zone to the imaginary zone because the zero zone is an impenetrable barrier between the two zones. You can only enter it if you have zero mass.

So, this simple diagram with one real axis and one imaginary axis is a perfect model of the mathematics of special relativity. If the 2D(1r1i) world (corresponding to the x and x-imaginary axes) is simply scaled up (to accommodate the equivalent y and z 2D worlds), we obtain the full 6D(3r3i) cosmos. But the principles remain exactly the same and everything that is true of the 2D space is true of the 6D space.

Hence our simple 2D world of one real and one imaginary axis shows how a zone can be created within that world in which everything is linked to everything else by zero distance. From this unique perspective, the whole cosmos is in fact a zero-dimensional singularity like that at the centre of a black hole or the Big Bang. And yet this singularity exists within a vast cosmos where any two points can also be separated by anything other than zero distance. In one and the same cosmos, we have everything separate and everything connected. Both statements are simultaneously true. So much for Aristotelian logic. Now you see why only dialectical logic suffices in these extreme conditions.

Imagine holding a needle sideways in front of you. You clearly see its whole length. Then rotate the needle until you only see its point. The cosmos operates the same way. From some angles you see it as a substantial object, yet there is an angle where it becomes almost invisible – a singularity. Everything depends on the angle. From the viewpoint of the needlepoint, it is connected to everything! This domain, outside space and time, is where our afterlife is guaranteed. The part of us – our mind/soul – that has the perspective of the needle tip cannot die. It is immortal. It is linked to everything else. It is linked to God.

At this very instant you are linked to everything that has ever been, and everyone who has ever lived, and to God. You are in direct contact with any of your loved ones who have died. The only reason you don’t know it is that your consciousness is trapped in a certain time-space perspective. When you achieve gnosis – enlightenment – your perspective instantly switches to that of the needle point and you are at one with the cosmos.

Can you begin to see the light? It’s all in the mathematics. Mathematics is reality. Mathematics guarantees that part of us – our essence, not the mortal part of space and time – is immortal. If you accept Einstein’s special theory of relativity you have virtually accepted the existence of an afterlife, of souls, of God. Isn’t that amazing? Atheistic scientists have wilfully ignored the astonishing ramifications of one of their own key theories. They are DETERMINED not to see God, such is their slavish devotion to materialism – which has become their strange, hopeless religion.
__________

7/8

If a stationary observer is holding a ruler and is observing another person moving at constant speed with regard to him, holding the same type of ruler, he will notice that the other person’s ruler appear to have shrunk, and the faster the other person goes, the greater the shrinkage becomes. The degree of contraction can be calculated by a Lorentz transformation:

Equation A.

Lm = Lr.√(1-(v2/c2))

Where Lr is the length of a ruler at rest and Lm is its “moving” length when travelling at velocity v. The speed of light – the “natural speed” of the cosmos, the speed by which everything else is defined, is designated as c.

Using Equation A, when an observer called Jill is travelling at 0.866 of the speed of light, then the ruler she is holding appears to Jack, a stationary observer, to be only half its normal length i.e. a 30 cm ruler would appear to be only 15 cm long, although still showing 30 divisions.

If Jill could travel at the speed of light then the length of her ruler would appear, to Jack, to shrink to zero. (That’s what you get if v = c in Equation A: Lm = Lr.√(1-(v2/c2)) = Lr.√(1-(c2/c2)) = Lr.√0 = 0) That’s one way of explaining why no human will ever attain light speed: you would literally vanish, not just theoretically but actually. At the speed of light itself, it can be said that relativity vanishes and is replaced by the absolute. In the domain of the absolute, nothing can have any physical dimensions! We have crossed the mystical barrier from r > 0 to r = 0.

At light speed, all distances are zero, whether measured by a hypothetical observer “travelling” at that speed, or any observer in any other frame of reference. Of course, at light speed, the idea of travelling anywhere ceases to be meaningful. You are simultaneously everywhere.

Above light speed, the ruler would have an “imaginary” length since v is greater than c, hence √(1-(v2/c2)) becomes the square root of a negative number, and the square root of a negative number belongs to the domain of so-called imaginary numbers, the astounding significance of which we shall highlight shortly.
__________

The Time Equation:

Equation B.

Tm = Tr/(√(1-(v2/c2)))

When an observer called Jill is travelling at 0.866 the speed of light, then the clock she is holding appears, to Jack, a stationary observer, to count time at only half its normal rate i.e. the passage of one second for him, takes two seconds for Jill. Her time is flowing more slowly than his; Jill’s time is expanding, dilating, taking longer to flow. Since Jill’s clock counts time twice as slowly then one year of her time is equal to two years of Jack’s time.

If Jill could travel at the speed of light then her clock would appear, to Jack, to have completely stopped; her time would be passing infinitely slowly. (That’s what you get if v = c in Equation B: Tm = Tr /(√(1-(v2/c2))) = Tr /(√(1-(c2/c2))) = Tr /0 = ∞. Jill’s clock shows no movement. No time passes. That’s one way of explaining why no human can ever attain light speed: you would literally leave time, not just theoretically but actually. In the domain of the absolute, nothing can experience the passing of time as we understand it, since clocks do not tick! We have crossed the mystical barrier from r > 0 to r = 0.

At light speed, all clocks take an infinite time to tick, whether measured by a hypothetical observer travelling at that speed, or any observer in any other frame of reference. Above light speed, the clock would start counting imaginary time since v is greater than c, hence √(1-(v2/c2)) becomes the square root of a negative number.

(Note that whereas the term √(1-(v2/c2)) was used as a multiplier in Equation A, it was a divisor in Equation B. This shows that the length contraction and time dilation effects work in the opposite directions, in a directly proportionate manner: as length contracts, time proportionately dilates. It is this perpetual balance between space and time that ensures that no matter what speed an observer is travelling at, he will always obtain the same measurement for the speed of light: time and space continually adjust themselves to ensure that result.)
__________

The Mass Equation:

Equation C.

Mm = Mr/(√(1-(v2/c2)))

Travelling at 0.866 of the speed of light, Jill’s mass would double. At light speed, her mass would be infinite! This is the usual reason given for explaining why no human can ever attain light speed. It would require all the energy in the cosmos: Mm = Mr/(√(1-(v2/c2))) = Mr/(√(1-(c2/c2))) = Mr/0 = ∞ (Above light speed, Jill’s mass would be “imaginary” – the most effective diet in the cosmos, perhaps.)

Once again, we see zero and infinity representing the limiting cases of scientific equations. However, unlike in the case of black holes, scientists do not assert that the laws of physics mysteriously fall apart at this “infinity/zero” point where the speed of light reigns. They are quite happy to admit that gluons, gravitons and photons can sensibly exist at this point. In other words, scientists, for reasons known only to themselves, accept dimensionless existence in this context, yet in the very similar context of black holes they say that there’s something wrong with the equations rather than simply acknowledging that mass (a property of dimensionality) can be converted into masslessness (a property of dimensionlessness).

The logic of black holes would seem to imply that dimensional particles with mass are subjected to such enormous compression in the black hole singularity that they are converted into dimensionless particles without mass i.e. a black hole singularity is “made” of massless, dimensionless particles such as photons, gluons and gravitons. Not a single scientist to our knowledge has ever proposed such an obvious thing, and many of the most renowned of black hole scientists confess that they have no idea what a black hole is made of i.e. what becomes of all the massive particles that have been crushed together, what new form they take. Instead they continue to talk about there being something wrong with black hole theory since it gives birth to infinities. But it’s precisely when infinity appears in an equation that we are being shown that the gap between r > 0 and r = 0 can be bridged.

******

One of the radical consequences of Einstein’s relativity theory, is that the earth can once more be defined as the centre of the universe, if that’s what we choose. Any frame of reference is as valid as any other. We choose to say that the sun is at the centre of our solar system because it yields a much simpler way of understanding and tracking planetary motion, not because the sun actually is the centre of the solar system in any absolute sense. We could make any planet the centre if we wanted. We could make the moon or an asteroid the centre, but these would result in far greater complexity.

Returning to the extraordinary enigma posed by Einstein’s special theory of relativity, if photons, in their own terms, are stationary and outside space and time then how come, in our terms, they are anything but? We perceive them as travelling at 300,000 km per second i.e. they are travelling very rapidly through space. How can both views be right? This is the central paradox of relativity. There is no single perspective from which to view the universe. The view you have of the cosmos is completely different depending on whether or not you have mass and what speed you are travelling at. Time and space aren’t fixed, aren’t absolute, but are dependent on mass and speed. Massless particles don’t experience space and time from their perspective, particles with mass do. Similarly, particles travelling at light speed don’t experience space and time from their perspective; particles travelling at any other speed do.

The particular speed that particles travel at relative to light speed determines how they experience space and time. There is no absolute space and time. Relative to a stationary observer on planet earth, a person moving at close to light speed will seem to live in a world in which time passes much more slowly and a ruler will measure much shorter distances than on earth. Yet, amazingly, the person moving at near light speed can claim that it is the person on earth who has the short ruler, and may also believe that it is the person on earth who has the slow clock (though this turns out to be false: the moving person will have aged less than the stationary person). Such is the mystery of relativity. (If you are interested in delving further into some of the incredible time puzzles of relativity, Google “The Twin Paradox”.)

John Gribbin, in Schrödinger’s Kittens and the Search for Reality, provides a summation of the main points we have raised: “So what happens when we push this time-dilation business to the limit? Getting back to the original question that Einstein asked about light, how does the Universe ‘look’ to a beam of light (or a photon, if you prefer), or to a person riding on a light beam? And how does time flow for a photon?

“To answer the second question first – it doesn’t. The Lorentz transformations tell us that time stands still for an object moving at the speed of light. From the point of view of the photon, of course, it is everything else that is rushing past at the speed of light. And under such extreme conditions, the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction reduces the distances between all objects to zero. You can either say that time does not exist for an electromagnetic wave, so that it is everywhere along its path (everywhere in the Universe) at once; or you can say that distance does not exist for an electromagnetic wave, so that it‘touches’ everything in the Universe at once.

“This is an enormously important idea, which I have never seen given due attention. From the point of view of a photon, it takes no time at all to cross the 150 million km from the Sun to the Earth (or to cross the entire Universe), for the simple reason that this space interval does not exist for the photon. Physicists seem to ignore this remarkable state of affairs, because they know that no material object can ever be accelerated to the speed of light, so no human (or mechanical) observer is ever going to experience this strange phenomenon. Perhaps they are simply so stunned by what the equations say that they have not fully thought out the implications. As I hope to persuade you, though, this curious behaviour of space and time from the point of view of photons may help to resolve all the outstanding mysteries of quantum physics.”

Even Gribbin hasn’t gone far enough in highlighting the infinitely strange world of the photon. In its frame of reference, not only does the photon not experience the passing of time or the traversing of any distances, it has no mass, no size, no dimensions. All photons are exactly the same in these respects. How can one photon be distinguished from another? None can be individuated in time because no time passes, and none can be straightforwardly individuated spatially because there are no distances between them to be measured.

Moreover, is it valid for Gribbin to say, “From the point of view of the photon, of course, it is everything else that is rushing past at the speed of light”? Gribbin is treating a photon as if it is an ordinary observer located in space and time, but it isn’t. It’s not in time at all, and all distances experienced by it are zero, so how can anything be “rushing past” it? Rushing from where to where, and in what time? If, as Gribbin says, “…you can say that distance does not exist for an electromagnetic wave, so that it ‘touches’ everything in the Universe at once,” there is nothing left that can rush past it. Given that Gribbin is an excellent writer and scientist, this example shows how easy it is to get confused by relativity. But, to his immense credit, Gribbin has realized the critical importance of viewing existence from the point of view of photons. Therein lies the key to mind and religion.

Returning to the central point, doesn’t this bizarre world of photons sound exactly like the dimensionless r = 0 domain, outside space and time? In fact, there’s only one difference. Despite being so hard to define in terms of any concrete existence, photons do possess real energy in the physical world.

What is the conclusion? When dimensionless, purely mental energy is converted into dimensional energy, it appears initially as massless, sizeless, unindividuated “particles” such as photons. The link between thought and light (electromagnetic radiation) is a close one, and the differences are exceptionally subtle.

One of the keys to establishing the reality of the r = 0 dimensionless domain to skeptical scientists is to show how it can realistically give rise to dimensional existence. We have now done so. Light is the bridge between the dimensionless and the dimensional. Light is a hybrid of the dimensionless and the dimensional, with one foot in each domain. Light, although part of dimensional reality, also exists in a twilight zone of dimensionlessness where one photon cannot be readily distinguished from another. Light might be said to be “physical thought”. Photons may be like brain cells in a cosmic brain, blazing with illumination. Enlightenment is therefore almost a literal rather than merely metaphorical expression.

In a black hole singularity, time doesn’t pass and there is no distance between any particles within the singularity. Light can’t escape from the singularity. Imagine that all of the countless black holes in the universe sucked in all of the matter around them and then came together in one vast, cosmic black hole. This Super Singularity would contain everything in the universe. It would be the reverse of the original Big Bang Singularity from which everything emerged in the first place. It would be timeless, spaceless, dimensionless. It would be the r = 0 Genesis Singularity, the most remarkable entity in existence – God in himself, as Absolute Idea.

We are used to thinking of black holes as being created by processes of collapse, leading to extraordinary concentrations of mass in little or no volume. However, there is another way to form a black hole that scientists never mention. In the hypothetical case in which a particle with mass were accelerated to light speed, time would stop, distance would vanish and it would acquire infinite mass (and hence be infinitely dense since it occupies zero volume). Are those not exactly the same characteristics as those of black holes? So, our existence is in some sense bounded by black holes. If enormous entities with mass collapse catastrophically, black holes are the outcome. If any mass is accelerated to the hypothetical maximum of light speed, black holes are the outcome (since an infinite mass would be concentrated in zero volume). Mass and black holes go together. Black holes are concerned with what happens when mass has been compressed so much that its “dimensional integrity” has become unsustainable and it’s starting to enter the dimensionless domain.

Our universe is a bizarre hybrid of the infinite and finite, the dimensionless and the dimensional, r > 0 and r = 0. If mass is the essence of r > 0, thought is the essence of r = 0, and light is the bridge between the two domains. In the centre of black holes, light cannot escape and mass is no longer recognizable in dimensional terms. Physicists are unable to say what a black hole singularity is made of. Light, mass, dimensionality and dimensionlessness, infinity and finitude all come together in black holes, the dimensional portals to the dimensionless domain.

But there’s something else to think about. Light can’t escape from a black hole, but nor can it escape from its own domain. If (from its perspective) it exists in a domain of zero dimensions, to where can it escape? It has nowhere to go. When we say that light can’t escape from a black hole, we’re talking about light relative to our perception of it, but, relative to itself, light is unaffected by a black hole since light is outside space and time. It is everywhere at once.
__________

4/8

Now we are going to undertake something radically ambitious: to attempt to explain Einstein’s special theory of relativity in a reasonably simple form. You can’t expect to understand the universe unless you have some sort of feel for what Einstein said. We will be providing a unique interpretation of his theory, revealing the underlying reality that he missed.

Einstein uses little more than high school mathematics, but don’t be deceived: his equations are awesome in their implications. Even if you find the equations trivial, you will never find the interpretation of the equations trivial. They truly reveal the Mind of God.

Einstein’s great achievement was to place on a firm scientific and mathematical footing what mystics had long known, but hadn’t been able to express in well-defined terms. The beauty of mathematics is that it can be absolutely precise. With an astonishingly successful theory such as quantum mechanics, no one disagrees with the mathematics. What they argue over is how to interpret the mathematical equations, to describe what the equations mean in terms of reality. So, although mathematics can’t unambiguously provide all of the answers – due to the difficulty in translating mathematics into non-mathematical language – it can provide a uniquely accurate framework in which to attempt to provide the answers. Words, intrinsically, do not have sufficient accuracy; only equations do.

Language is an imprecise tool. It’s all too easy to misunderstand what someone has said. Words are loaded with ambiguity. Mathematics provides precision, but it does not provide unambiguous meaning. We have to apply that final layer, but at least mathematics gives us a platform with which we can all agree, even if we disagree over the next steps. In contrast, conventional religions provide no commonly accepted platform – do Muslims, Jews and Christians worship the same God, as some of them claim, or three utterly different gods, as others claim? It is impossible to define anything in conventional religion and impossible to reach any rational conclusions. That’s why “faith” plays such a critical role. “Believing” is what you do when you haven’t a clue how to analyze something mathematically.

But even scientists and mathematicians can have problems with reasoning. Even they can succumb to “common sense” that blinds them to the truth. Brilliant scientists, for example, refuse to accept dimensionless existence where physical dimensions shrink to zero and time stops, and infinite quantities which they believe would somehow tear nature apart or render it incomprehensible. Yet, over and over again, the mysteries of life are seen to revolve around zero and infinity, which are just the flip sides of each other. But while science recoils from them in horror, modern mathematics takes them in its stride (although, historically, even mathematicians found them far more problematic than ordinary mathematical concepts).

It’s often thought that mathematics deals with the hypothetical and physics with the real, but one thing is becoming relentlessly clearer: mathematics, the queen of science, is more real than physics. Physics is deceptively real i.e. it is more closely associated with our common sense, with the evidence of our senses, and less with true reality. It is the other way around with mathematics. When physics comes closest to true reality, as in relativity theory and quantum mechanics, it is astonishingly mathematical and counter-intuitive. Common sense simply vanishes – it can’t help you at all in relation to relativity and the quantum world. If you can’t get beyond your common sense, you will never understand these subjects. Why haven’t physicists cottoned on yet? It is mathematics, not physics, that defines the laws of nature.

In other books in this series, we discussed how quantum particles are so astoundingly small, so much smaller than any human mind could ever conceive, so close to being dimensionless, to being “nothing”, that they cannot be properly understood unless it is recognised that they flicker between dimensional and dimensionless existence. We showed that infinity rears its head spectacularly in the case of black hole singularities and the Big Bang singularity, neither of which can be fully understood by physicists since singularities involve division by zero, thereby producing a result of infinity, at which point the laws of physics are said to collapse.

Now it’s time to discuss another example of zero and infinity appearing in science, perhaps the most bewildering and profound example of all since, paradoxically, it involves an entity that we recognise as finite. With this entity, zero, the finite and the infinite come together in an astonishing way that may define the nature of existence. We are talking about one of the most bizarre phenomena of all – the speed of light.

The unique status of the speed of light is the centrepiece of Einstein’s special theory of relativity. Although the mathematics of the speed of light can be described with tremendous accuracy, the “meaning” of light speed defies any straightforward interpretation. It might be said that all of the problems that bedevil fundamental physics flow from a failure to comprehend light.

Einstein’s theory says nothing less than that all photons are, in their frame of reference, outside space and time. They don’t experience the passing of time and they don’t experience the traversing of any distances. The universe, for photons, is a mystical dimensionless point. Even if there were an infinite number of photons, they would all inhabit this inconceivable singularity beyond the reach of time and space.

Can you begin to see? The realm of light, as described by Einstein’s supremely well tested equations, is astonishingly similar to what we have described as the r = 0 dimensionless domain: the realm of the mental. Immediately, the profoundest of questions arises. Are light and thought the same thing? Are photons, when considered from the correct perspective, mental rather than physical? When the sun shines on us, are we being bathed in the “thoughts” of the sun as well as its light? If photons do not experience space and time, and they do not have any mass, how else would you characterise them except as some sort of mind-like entities?

Yet no scientist would ever claim that photons are mental. Why not? Isn’t that what Einstein’s equations hint at? How can photons be real, physical entities if an infinite number of them can inhabit a timeless, massless domain of zero size? Descartes famously defined thinking substance (“res cogitans”) as non-physical, without extension. What would he have made of photons? In their own frame of reference they too are without extension.

Scientists don’t ponder such questions. They are too scared of where this train of thought leads – to religion, to souls, to God. Rather than take a God’s-eye-view of the universe, they lock themselves into safe, common sense territory. They ignore how the world looks to a photon and focus on how the world looks to us. And thus they have turned away from understanding how the cosmos truly works.

The reality is that human beings are children of two domains – the dimensional and the dimensionless, r > 0 and r = 0. The attempt by science to restrict us to the r > 0 domain, the material domain of solid objects with mass, is the most catastrophic misjudgement imaginable, and actually refuted by science itself which consistently points to the inescapable reality of dimensionless existence.

It is that fateful error that has sundered science from religion. It is that fateful error that must be corrected to get the human race back on track.

******

The key equations of Einstein’s special theory of relativity are known as Lorentz transformations. They provide a mathematical means for calculating how mass, distance and time are related between different frames of reference.

In terms of the special theory of relativity, any observer moving at constant speed in a straight line can consider himself at rest and that everything else is moving relative to him. Any such observer, no matter what speed he is moving at, will always get the same answer when he measures the speed of light.

Relativity has astounding consequences. If one observer holding a 30 cm ruler is travelling at 99.9% of light speed, a stationary observer would observe that same ruler to be much shorter than if he himself were holding it. But since the person travelling at 99.9% light speed can consider himself stationary then the same is true the other way around. So which of them actually has a shortened ruler? The answer is that neither does and both do. Each of them has a 30 cm ruler from their own point of view. If they came together, they would each agree that they had a 30 cm ruler. It’s only when they’re moving at near light speed with regard to each other that they start to radically disagree about the length of the ruler.

So, is length contraction a real phenomenon or just an elaborate illusion? If both observers are holding 30 cm rulers, and both agree about that when they are together, surely it’s ridiculous to say that their rulers shrink relative to each other when they are moving apart at high speed. But that’s exactly what happens. “Reality” changes according to the speed you’re travelling at. Rulers that measure a certain length in one frame of reference measure a completely different length in a second frame of reference when viewed from the first frame of reference, and the effect gets more pronounced as the relative difference in speed of the two frames of reference increases. Isn’t that astounding? Common sense tells us that things have definite, fixed dimensions: relativity says they don’t. Physicist David Bohm wrote, “The new order and measure introduced in relativity theory implies new notions of structure in which the idea of a rigid body can no longer play a key role. Indeed, it is not possible in relativity to obtain a consistent definition of an extended rigid body, because this would imply signals faster than light.”

All of this is true except in one domain: the unique frame of reference of the speed of light itself. Here, all rulers always measure zero distance. No such thing as a 30 cm ruler is physically possible in this frame of reference. All observers, no matter what speed they’re travelling at, will always agree that a hypothetical ruler being carried at light speed will always measure zero distance. That result is built into Einstein’s equations. Everything is measured with respect to the speed of light except the speed of light, which is measured with respect to itself, making it a unique reference frame. This is an example of one of the great enigmas of existence: self-reference. So often, paradoxes reduce to situations of self-reference. When a Cretan says, “All Cretans are liars,” is his statement true, false, or undecidable? Godel’s famous Incompleteness Theorem is the logical consequence of the enigma of self-reference.

In a self-referential frame of reference, zero and infinity come to the fore. So, all distances between photons are zero, their mass is zero, and time passes infinitely slowly i.e. time has stopped. And consider this paradox: given that speed = distance divided by time, if time never passes then no matter what distance is covered, the time elapsed is always zero, hence we are dividing by zero, hence the speed of a photon always equals infinity, in its own frame of reference. But equally, since all distances experienced by a photon are always zero, then no matter what time elapses, the speed of a photon will always be zero. So, what is the speed of a photon in its own frame of reference? Is it zero or infinity, or somehow neither and both? Is it simultaneously all possible speeds from zero to infinity? Such is the enigma of light speed. The mystery is compounded when we add in the result employed by Einstein that the speed of light in a vacuum is finite and invariant for all observers in any frame of reference other than that of light itself.

Self-reference continues to baffle scientists, philosophers, mathematicians and logicians. They have all failed to understand why. It’s because self-reference is the province of zero and infinity, the two numbers that cause conventional “laws” to collapse. A computer would go into an infinite loop trying to solve a problem of selfreference. It would never halt. In such a system, everything outside the self-reference is reduced to zero – it does not exist. It is nothing. Over and over again, the mystery of existence reduces to the mystery of infinity and zero. Everything that is most profound is contained in these supremely mysterious numbers.

We ourselves are units of self-reference. That’s what the “self” is. We live permanently inside our own minds. Strictly speaking, we can never prove the existence of anything other than our own thoughts. “I think therefore I am” could equally well be stated as: “Only my thoughts exist. There is nothing other than my thoughts. All of ‘reality’ is but my thought, created by my thought.” We break out of the infinite loop of self-reference – known philosophically as solipsism (from Latin solus “alone” + ipse “self”, meaning the theory that the self is all that one truly knows to exist), by assuming that an external world exists and that other minds exist. But we can never prove this.

If the centre of our existence – our self – is an infinite loop in some sense then how can it ever die? Sure, on its infinite journey it can take on many forms – different outward appearances (the self as phenomenon), but it can never perish as it is in itself (the self as noumenon). It is an immortal, transcendental self.

Zero and infinity, the flip sides of each other, are at the heart of existence. Everything else is defined with respect to them. The finite can exist only in relation to the infinite. That is the key to comprehending the cosmos. The self – a unit of self-reference – is born of infinity and, like energy, can be neither created nor destroyed. It endures eternally, as all infinities do. Self-reference in tandem with the universal property of mind cannot help but give rise to selfawareness and consciousness.

Hegel describes the critical event where one unit of self-reference encounters another such unit. At that stage, each is forced to concede that it is not alone, that the universe is not solipsistic. If the universe were solipsistic then one unit of self-reference would be able to control all other units of self-reference since they would be nothing but its own creations. If it can’t control them then it can conclude that a) it is able to create things of which it has no knowledge and over which it has no control (implying a kind of insanity) or b) these things of which it has no knowledge and over which it has no control actually have independent existence i.e. the universe consists of many and not one. So, the unit of self-reference comprehends that it is not alone. And then, as Hegel so brilliantly illustrated, it is plunged into a life or death struggle to avoid being “negated” by this rival. We arrive at the famous master-slave dialectic. Before “death” arrives, one of the units of self-reference submits to the other and becomes the other’s slave. From then on it struggles to be equal to the “master”. The master, meanwhile, has nothing but contempt for the cowardly slave.

The master-slave dialectic goes on every single day in our contemporary world. Every day, the Old World Order remain the masters, and the rest of us remain their slaves. Why? Because we do not have the guts to overthrow them. We are pathetic cowards. Six billion of us; six thousand of them, and yet we do nothing. If that’s not a definition of cowardice, what is?

Do you dream of being an eternal slave? If not, wake up and buckle up. It’s time to fight to be human, to no longer be the master’s slave. The OWO can easily be swept aside. Their wealth can be removed from them by the will of the people and then they will be rendered powerless, like Samson without his hair. What will these six thousand do against six billion? Do you think hedge fund managers will be manning the barricades and grabbing the nearest Kalashnikov?

These people are sustained by the illusion of power (represented by money) not by real power – the ability to personally fight and defeat others in mortal combat. At the dawn of humanity, the most violent men were the masters. They would literally kill you if you dared to fight them. Now the masters are the Wizards of Oz, ruling by tricks and deceptions. They can be defeated by nothing more strenuous than pulling back the curtain. The real horror is this – only the Illuminati are prepared to pull back the curtain. The rest of the human race are terrified. Why? Because if they do draw back that magic curtain – both infinitely heavy and infinitely light – then they will have no choice but to take responsibility for their lives. They will have to be creators rather than followers. They will have to be decision-makers rather those who obey orders. In other words, they will have to look in the mirror and for the first time ask themselves the biggest question of all: is being a slave all they are truly capable of?

Make no mistake, the world economy will temporarily collapse if the OWO are overthrown. That is inevitable since the world economy is theirs, completely defined by them. But if the people have the guts and the merit, they can rebuild it incredibly quickly. Look at two of the world’s greatest powers: Germany and Japan. At the end of WWII, both nations were in ruins, their people horribly traumatized and demoralised. Their economies were destroyed, millions were dead and wounded, the cities had been reduced to smoking rubble, they were under occupation by their enemies. The situation simply could not have looked any bleaker and more desperate. These nations could have sunk into centuries of despair. But they didn’t. The people of both countries were clever, resourceful and talented. They worked incredibly hard and in a matter of years they were back to being leading nations of the world once more. The fall of the OWO will certainly cause economic hardships for a time, but nothing in comparison with what the Germans and Japanese endured and overcame just a few decades ago.

Truly, there is nothing to fear. Just as adversity brought out the best in the German and Japanese people after the war, so it will bring out the best in all of the world’s people when they have no choice but to build the world anew after the end of the OWO’s reign.

******

Consider these remarks about mathematics:

“Mathematics compares the most diverse phenomena and discovers the secret analogies that unite them.” –Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier

“Everything of any importance is founded on mathematics.” –Robert Heinlein

“Mathematics and music are God’s languages. When you speak them…you’re speaking directly to God.” –Rebecca Goldstein

“One cannot understand…the universality of laws of nature, the relationship of things, without an understanding of mathematics. There is no other way to do it.” –Richard Feynman

“I believe that mathematical reality lies outside us, that our function is to discover or observe it, and that the theorems which we prove, and which we describe grandiloquently as our ‘creations,’ are simply the notes of our observations.” –Godfrey Harold Hardy

“The mathematician’s patterns, like those of the painter’s or the poet’s, must be beautiful; the ideas, like the colours or the words, must fit together in a harmonious way.” –Godfrey Harold Hardy

“Obvious is the most dangerous word in mathematics.” –E. T. Bell

“Mathematics as we know it and as it has come to shape modern science could never have come into being without some disregard for the dangers of the infinite.” –David Bressoud
__________

3/8