Part 1
Well before coming into Schumann Resonances exclusively, I've been a study of comparative religions. I have made a study of spiritual traditions. I have been studying esoteric traditions ever since the start of puberty.
None of that has been necessarily interesting, until the closure of the Piscean Age, in 2012. Now that we are in the inception of the Aquarian protocol, there's a huge push to understand the "new age" metaphysics and philosophies.
There's a huge push by people to understand the esoteric...and yet no one's been trained in it.
Alot of tech is being impounded towards the cause of exposing "the energies coming in." A new age narrative is being pushed out into the masses. Due to a decided lack of understanding of these traditional schools, largely people have been inventing a spiritual narrative to make-up for it.
We are at a point in history, where the society is turning inside-out. Alot of people are starting to see the world as it really, truly has been. Many of these wisdom traditions are being labeled "obsolete", or not relevant.
Literally, people are making up traditions on the spot. Folks claim to be channels, or to get guidance from some Star Race, or Celestial overlord.
Not much has truly changed: humans still work towards their servitude through adopting the techniques and tools of the oppressors.
One of the ways the oppressive forces keep people in bondage is through the rhetoric. None more damaging to the humans than the phrase "rising frequencies."
As I have stated previously, multiple times, "rising frequencies" are not a friend to the human. It is the AI hive-mind technologies which require ever-rising frequencies.
Frequency is a count of peak events. Whenever the phrase "frequency" shows-up, a person should naturally ask: frequency of what? What is peaking?
Nowhere in any spiritual texts, or the sacred texts of wisdom traditions is anyone ever told that the adherent needs to raise their frequency. There is a HUGE con job coming with "raise your frequencies" s a practical instruction.
This notion is not found in any scripture of the Bible; not the Veda; nor the Upanishads; nor Theosophical teachings; nor Buddhist; nor Taoists; nor Shinto; nor the Pythagoreans; etc.
If you feel this adage is somehow a traditional teaching, please show me where. The fact that this phrase has NOT been a traditional teaching is exactly why people are flocking to this phrase, as if it has a built-in intelligence to it.
Where does the idea of "rising frequencies" come from, if this is not a traditional instruction of spiritual growth?
Let's examine where the notion of rising frequencies comes from.
_
Moore's Law.
Moore's law is a term used to refer to the observation made by Gordon Moore in 1965 that the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit (IC) doubles about every two years.
Moore’s law isn’t really a law in the legal sense or even a proven theory in the scientific sense (such as E = mc2). Rather, it was an observation by Gordon Moore in 1965 while he was working at Fairchild Semiconductor: the number of transistors on a microchip (as they were called in 1965) doubled about every year.
Moore went on to co-found Intel Corporation and his observation became the driving force behind the semiconductor technology revolution at Intel and elsewhere.
How Does Moore’s Law Work?
Moore’s law is based on empirical observations made by Moore. The doubling every year of the number of transistors on a microchip was extrapolated from observed data.
Over time, the details of Moore’s law were amended to better reflect actual growth of transistor density. The doubling interval was first increased to two years and then decreased to about 18 months. The exponential nature of Moore’s law continued, however, creating decades of significant opportunity for the semiconductor industry. The true exponential nature of Moore’s law is illustrated by the figure below.
A straight-line plot of the logarithm of a function indicates an exponential growth of that function. The figure is courtesy of Intel Corporation, see Moore's Law (Intel.com).
** Source: ( https://www.synopsys.com/glossary/what-is-moores-law.html )
Cramming More Components onto Integrated Circuits
The integrated circuit was only six years old in 1965 when Gordon Moore articulated "Moore's Law," the principle that would guide microchip development from that point forward. Moore was Director of Research & Development at Fairchild Semiconductors, the same firm where Robert Noyce had conceived the integrated circuit in 1959. (Noyce and Moore were among the founders of Fairchild.) In the years immediately following Noyce's breakthrough, the applications for the new technology were primarily of interest to the military, but as engineers continued to refine the devices, integrated circuits showed a propensity to steadily grow in complexity while dropping in price. Observing these trends, Moore published a paper entitled "Cramming More Components onto Integrated Circuits" in the April 19, 1965 issue of the trade journal Electronics.
In that paper, Moore famously predicted that the number of components it was possible to fit into a state-of-the-art microchip would double approximately every year for the next ten years, a principle that would become known as Moore's Law. He also presciently anticipated the potential applications of these ever-more powerful chips:
"Integrated circuits will lead to such wonders as home computers[,] … automatic controls for automobiles, and personal portable communications equipment." Further, microchip-based technologies would become "more generally available throughout all of society, performing many functions that presently are done inadequately by other techniques or not done at all."
The "law" — a term Moore did not use — described an operating principle and commitment rather than a force of nature. It predicted that integrated circuits would continuously improve because of developers' dedication to continuously improving them. Still, it has proved remarkably accurate. According to the law, by 1975 a state-of-the-art microchip should have been capable of containing up to 65,000 transistors. The actual count for a new series of memory chip released that year was 65,536 — Moore had been accurate to within a single percentage point over the span of a decade. The precise rate of growth the law called for would be tweaked over the years, but its basic premise of steady, predictable improvement would continue to the present day. One historian has called it "the metronome of modern life."
Moore's Law proved fundamental to the operations of countless technology companies, but none more than Intel, which Moore founded with Robert Noyce in 1968. The law's importance, however, was not apparent when it was first published in an ephemeral trade journal, and for a long time neither Intel nor Gordon Moore owned an original copy. In 2005 Intel announced a $10,000 reward to the first person to provide one in mint condition.
After a British couple won the reward, an Intel spokesperson declared, "We're delighted to at last have an original copy of the April 1965 edition of Electronics Magazine. … Dr. Moore's article established a theory that has underpinned advancements in the semiconductor industry over the past 40 years and is the basis of our continued research and development at Intel."
** Source: ( https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/history/virtual-vault/articles/moores-law.html?wapkw=moore%27s%20law )
_
The inception of the new age is a concision of the traditional.
The Aquarian Age is not the same as the new age. The assimilation of the human, by the "sentient" technology is the very essence of Zeus defeating Kronos.
I'm going to be looking at rising frequencies for the red herring that this phrase is. Why are "rising frequencies" not a friend for the humans.
This is Part 1 of Rising frequencies and Shifting timelines. Neither of these is what you're being led to believe.
_
Patreon: ( https://www.patreon.com/posts/69379740 )
Wordpress: ( https://vertearbustosschumannresonanceharmonics.wordpress.com/2022/07/21/21-july-2022-rising-frequencies-and-moores-law/ )
Comments