Einstein Friday

 

Albert Einstein has been a hero of mine since I was a kid, along with Leonardo da Vinci.  (Something in my brain just told me they’re the same person – I will have to ask Sweetie if I’d mentioned whether or not Albert was actually Leonardo, reincarnated… I don’t recall right now.)

Anyway, Albie, as he likes to be affectionately called, was one of our guests at Christmas.  I’m a bit of a math / physics nerd myself, so having a conversation with Albie is always great fun. 

The first thing I asked him was, “Are we ever going to get this string theory thing figured out?”

Well yes, indeed!  But!  (I use a lot of exclamation points when writing as Albie, because he’s so enthusiastic.)  The problem with our system is, we don’t have all the numbers.  We must discover more numbers, and we must discover the formulas to describe a fourth dimension and as it acts upon the reality we experience when incarnated.

Albie, what do you mean, more numbers?

He showed me a line of numbers:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Then he showed his hands reaching in between and under the space these whole numbers describe.  Immediately I went to decimals/fractions and got slapped down.  No!  We’re not talking about pieces of these whole numbers here.  We’re talking about the spaces between these numbers which is not currently described in our numerical system. 

This is because our numbers resulted from us lining up objects – say, apples.  1,2,3 apples in a row.  Now, you cut up an apple.  You don’t have 1,2,3,4, you have ½, ½, 2, 3  That’s the limitation of our current form of expression. 

He then shows me ice on the surface of a pond.  You see one thing.  1.  Ice.  That’s a whole number.

Then he says, “You must see more, the patterns that repeat between the numbers,” and he shows me something I’m quite familiar with – fractals.

Fractals are repeating patterns in nature – the universe is full of them.  Physicists can spend their entire careers investigating and testing fractal formulas.  Thousands of experiments have borne out that fractal patterning has something, a key something, to do with how life perpetuates itself.  It’s like searching for the key to power the perpetual motion machine.

So we’re on the right track here.

 

Albie says, “You must look closer,” and we zoom in upon the ice to see the crystal patterning that makes up the substance of the structure.  The pattern is feathering, curling, spiraling, building upon itself infinitely.  (This is not real ice made of finite molecules he’s showing me, but as we look closer and closer, we find this pattern of creation repeats.)

“The problem with your numbers is, we don’t have enough of them to describe this pattern.  Our numbers can only look at the surface, our three-dimensional formulas can not describe the repetition of the pattern in great enough detail that it will make sense to our brains.

“So what we need is more numbers?”

“Yes.  Our number system is base 10.  (The numbers start repeating after 9) – what we need is a base 1,000.  This means we have completely new, single-digit figures to describe 10-999, before we start with double-digits.  We must change our thinking.

“Are we working on this?”

“Oh yes, I am working quite closely with physicists,” and he shows me himself whispering in their ears, waking them up from a dead sleep with ideas.  “The ones in California are doing quite well, but the ones in Switzerland are doing better.  They have a computer and they are working on the numerical system with base 100.  Once the computers are able to describe the patterns, the human mind will begin to intuitively understand it.  We have to *imagine* it is possible, and then we will understand.”

This reminds me of the Einstein quote on the poster of Albie I had in my bedroom as a teenager:  “Imagination is more important than knowledge.”

And the second, “Peace cannot be kept by force; it may only be achieved through understanding.”

Hmmm.  I know someone else who likes to talk about imagination, peace and understanding. 

“One more important thing you are missing:  a fourth dimension.”  Albie explained this to me by showing me a two dimensional line graph we commonly use in school, then adding the third line which symbolizes the third dimension.  This is still familiar to many of us who enjoy formulas used to describe a vector in space.

But then, Albie adds another line, right at the centre, which seems to turn the whole graph inside out. 

“This is the fourth dimension.  There are more dimensions, but you need to have at least four dimensions and base 1000 integers to be able to comprehend the fractal creation pattern you’re attempting to describe with string/M theory.”

Then Albie goes on, and this is my favourite part:

“Don’t worry, soon (how soon?) we will be teaching this formula to children.  For a few decades, this concept will be considered to be something only the highest minds in physics can wrap around, but then, we will begin teaching this to children, and you know what we will discover?

Children have an intuitive understanding of the concept of the infinite.  Children will learn in a day what grown men struggle to understand for years.  And you know who will be especially adept at the new math?  Young girls.

Really, Albie? 

(I gotta say, I felt personally vindicated by this.  I actually had a teacher tell me I shouldn’t try to keep up with my male friends in quantum mechanics, because they were “unusually intelligent” – the implied statement being that I was not as smart as my friends.  This pissed me off so much that I dropped the class; but the thing was, I *knew* I understood the nature of the physics he was trying to teach, and I was asking him questions he didn’t know how to answer.  I knew that the theories he was teaching as fact were fundamentally incorrect, and in fact, a few of these theories have been disproven in the past ten years.)

“Young girls,” Albie continued, “Have a unique advantage of having especially keen minds between the ages of 10 and 14.  This is the best time for them to learn physics theory.  This is because the brain is still agile, and yet not distracted by the body in the way young boys are.  Hormones that kick in for young boys affect and distract the mind much more than young girls in this time of their lives.  Girls will be the future of physics one day.”

 “This is why at this age, so many young girls feel they are not good at math – this is because they intuitively sense the flawed nature of the system we try to teach.  Their minds rebel against it, refuse to incorporate contradictory information.” 

Albie flashed to a shot of me at 16, bent over my calculus books.  I had a terrific struggle with calculus and was in fact failing the class for the first two months.  But, I had an excellent teacher who inspired me to work hard, and I used to go to the library for two hours every day and write out the formulas over and over.

One day, something in my brain clicked, and I intuitively understood all the concepts at once.  From that day forward I loved calculus, and I finished the class with 98%.  My beautiful teacher even allowed me to retake tests I’d failed earlier in the semester, so that my final grade would reflect my *current* understanding of the subject.

“This moment,” Albie showed me the day I *clicked* “is when you set aside your intuitive understanding of the fourth dimension.  When you set that aside, all the relationships make sense, and you can isolate and admire this small part of the fractal we dance with in our daily lives.”

The trouble with setting aside this intuitive understanding is that when physicists progress to the point of attempting to describe the nature of the universe and all creation, they have only at their disposal the tools which describe our limited experience of the universe during incarnation which is but a tiny portion of our existence.

“You must forget everything you learned in school.  Then the real learning may commence!”

 

That’s our first Albert Einstein Friday folks.  Next week, George (former Harrison) will begin his contributions.

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Einstein Friday

  1. Pingback: John Lennon Friday: Lennon in Heaven II | Just a bit psychic

  2. Pingback: Pythagoras, Einstein and Numerology | Just a bit psychic

  3. Hi Kate,

    I know this is an older post, but could you help clarify something? Is the information you wrote what Einstein “said”? As in, do you get the words exactly? Was he giving you a simplified analogy with the “base 1000” stuff?

    I only ask because it makes no sense to me, mathematically, to say we need base 1000 integers. Any number in base 10 can be converted to any other base — it’s trivially easy and tells you nothing about the nature of the number itself. Base “X” is just a convention for how we choose to write out or represent a value.

    Also, I believe the most current version of M-Theory already models the universe in 11 dimensions (10 spatial and 1 for time, with the spatial dimensions above 3 all being compact & curled up on themselves microscopically).

    I’m sorry if I sound overly skeptical. I’ve enjoyed reading many of your posts here, and many posts from Erik on the Channeling Erik blog, but I guess I’m still not 100% “with it”. There’s so much interesting info that seems spot on and just “makes sense”, but there’s other stuff that just doesn’t click with me at all (e.g. the math in this post, or the interdimensional Bigfoot on Erik’s blog).

    It’s certainly not your job to convince me or anyone else of anything, but would you mind clarifying this a bit for me?

    Thanks!

    Like

    • I am SO GLAD that you commented! Thank you! It is fantastic to have a proper mathematician read these posts.

      So how it works is they will give me the “energy” of their communication. On the highest level of my consciousness, I understand it completely. But when I drag myself back “down” to reality I have to filter the words through my working understanding of physics, which is the equivalent of 1st year university, almost 20 years ago.

      I greatly appreciate your comment and question because it brings this discussion up to the next level.

      What he literally did was take two whole numbers and show me the space between them, the non-linear space – and this is how I could best explain it. I’m not sure which entry it was, but I recently posted a comment anticipating this exact question: does he give me the literal formulas?

      No, he gives me concepts appropriate to my level of understanding and development. If I sat down in a crazy state of meditation and wrote out equations exactly as he gave them to me, I wouldn’t understand them, and if I passed them on to you there might be an error in a symbol or something – even a small one – and it could throw off the whole thing.

      This is why it’s best he’s feeding this inspiration to the actual petiole doing the work.

      Have you ever asked him to come to you and give you a brain download of a cool new concept? If you are interested, I suggest you try it. Call it an experiment! Just ask him for an inspiration, out loud, and then forget about it. Give it a few days or a week and see if you’re struck with any new ideas. 🙂

      It would be fantastic if you were able to interpret things on a higher intellectual level – it drives me nuts when other psychics talk about quantum
      mechanics and it seems like a misinterpretation of actual accepted theory, and I fully acknowledge my own limitations in the field.

      Like

      • Hi Kate,

        Thanks for answering my question!

        What you say makes a lot of sense. It sounds like the intuitive mind can make the connection and access information, but the “rational” mind still needs to process and interpret it. Perhaps this is why so many seers throughout history have communicated “visions” or messages that sound, well, insane. Yes, I’m sure many were suffering from psychosis, but I’m also guessing that some were receiving information from a genuine source but just couldn’t put it into words.

        I myself am not a mathematician or physicist, just interested in the material. I dabbled a little in college, but my current understanding is enough to realize just how much is missing from “popular physics” (since it tries communicate complex mathematical information in English), and to realize just how little I really understand of it myself! (Perhaps someday I will be able to put in the time to really dig in and learn some of the math and physics more deeply).

        So, I’m guessing he was referring to new classes of numbers (or other mathematical objects) being discovered and worked with, and the analogy of “a higher base” was used to communicate that idea of “more types of objects” existing as subsets of already known larger sets.

        Fascinating stuff!

        And I agree with you that “quantum mechanics” seems to have become a synonym for “something new and weird”! It seems to me that quantum mechanics is weird and amazing enough just within it’s “limited” scientific definition without tacking on everything-in-the-world-unexplained-or-“spooky” to it.

        Like

      • the crazy part was, it made more “logical” sense when I read that book, than when my chemistry prof was attempting to answer my questions… (which is when that infamous “you’re not as smart as your male friends” comment occurred.)

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s