Although I have not been deep inside this saga, I can’t but recall that our friends have given us a quantity of information, almost on every branch of knowledge, in peculiar on physics and technology (speaking of engineering should be both reductive and misleading).

But I believe that their, let’s say, “moral” information are by far more important. It is not so strange that an engineer appraises subjects orthogonal to scientific topics, but years of practice of yoga (both from a physical point of view, and from philosophic aspects) have made me perceive, since when I was a boy, that there is a whole world worth to be explored in these directions.

For what strange a reason almost all who got in touch with this story have named it “Friendship”? Because in the behaviour of our friends friendship was their motive impulse. They were used to say “I am everybody, and everybody are me”, a concept handed down only in part from the gospel tales, that have been often corrupted for not so high purposes. Are we able to realize what this small sentence means, what deep implications it reveals? Jung has got a bit near to it, with his collective unconscious, nevertheless a vision that limits reality; Vivekananda got near to it, in his commentaries to the Mahabharata, but he too had only a partial vision. That small sentence enlightens a concept that we feel within our heart, but refuse to understand: all living entities, from microbes to luminaries, are the very same thing, because they reflect, in a way or another, a single reality, God. Even more: also the so-called inanimate entities are indeed participating in this reality (who had thought such a concept to the unknown authors of the yoga philosophy?). Therefore the dualism between the “myself” and the “outside myself” is meaningless. Dear friends (this name came involuntary) we are all the same thing, I who like to discourse on fractal analysis, the madman who explodes himself among people, he who rapes boys, mother Teresa from Calcutta, we are one and the same, that entity that the W56’s hade named Uredda (actually this name refers to something near to it).

The so-called individuality (Kant, Descartes, and so on) derives from a mistake: usually we believe to be what we think (“Cogito, ergo sum”), we believe to coincide with our sentient mind. It’s really wrong: mind is but an instrument, not our essence, that is God, as told in short by the Sanskrit sentence “Tat tvam asi”. Identifying ourselves with our mind, or, even worse, with our senses, leads us to the variety of attitudes, from the rapist to the terrorist, to the saint woman from Calcutta.

Yoga philosophy (and, to read accurately, also the Gospels) damns as baseness retiring from the world (one should read that monument of moral science that is the Bhagavad Gita), and actually friars, the ones Bruno was loving so much, do not shut themselves up into an ivory tower; on the contrary, while trying to overcome mind-induced individualism, they live together with humanity, trying to be of some help. Brother Francesco was used to torment his body, subjecting it to the worst insults, in order to resist the ill-omened influence by his mind.

The W56’s had mastered this concept since aeons, indeed they were living at ease with their bodies: they were indulging in the material pleasures of life, without letting themselves to get influenced (we are still fully in the Raja Yoga): they were using their body and their mind just like instruments, things to guard and to be attended to, but never to be seen as the quintessence of their entity, of the human, and therefore divine, nature. I don’t know whether Brother Francesco, at his times, had got in touch with similar beings, but he has perfectly staged their morality, and it has not been by chance that Bruno has always admired the Italian friar. Were I to name the book that best describes the moral of W56’s, I’d suggest Francesco’s opera omnia, may be the version sponsored by Bruno himself, in an effort to spread such concepts.

Indeed, it’s even too easy to demonstrate this truth: were we coincident with our mind and our body, what would happen, for instance, when we get drunk, and both our body and our mind are temporarily out of order? In those moment are we outside the cosmic context? What happens when a barber cuts us a lock? Although minimal, it should always be a loss of individuality (see “Metamorphoseon”, by Apuleius from Madaura). Actually the magicians of his time weren’t totally wrong, as also the W56’s were maintaining, and the precautions taken by the barber in the novel underline this fact ⁽²⁶⁾; but in this case it’s quite a different subject, it refers to physical integrity, to the khw, not to the ka. How it happens that after one dies, his hair, beard, nails, continue to grow for a while? Is it still his individuality to manage this phenomenon, or what?

Evil: a very hard concept. One of the W56’s had once told me that it is not fundamentally evil to kill a man (within certain contexts); were our civilization able to receive such an idea, first than all if should get rid of laws and judges (that actually do not exist with the W56’s – one can’t find what could be their use). But, from their point of view, evil is a really immanent concept, a challenge to everybody against himself. “Evil – they used to say – is a deflexion from human nature.” Men, as every living beings, are characterized by what we engineers name an envelope in the space of phases, in short by certain kinds of behaviour. The error that comes from a justice administrated by men consists in that a certain behaviour is declared wrong in theory, and is punished, without getting any positive result this way, on the contrary often worsening the situation. The day we’ll be able to cancel this useless appendix of the state, we’ll have made a first, short, step towards civilization.

If someone wrongs me, and I resent it, I am guilty any way, because I apply my petty apparent individuality to a phenomenon that reserves no importance on a cosmic scale. That’s why Someone said: “Turn the other cheek.” On the contrary, if I get a success, and so I am a winner, I must immediately win once again, this time against myself, in order not to get ride from what has happened. The name Bruno had given to our friends, W, comes strictly from this concept.

State: what’s it? An entity that qualifies itself (both in dictatorship and in democracy) as the emission of the sovereign people, that in the name of its subjects emanates laws (see before), applies taxes, and stands as a parasite behind the so-called sovereign people. If we think a moment on that, we may realize that it has no use at all. Even more, were all the nations to disappear from our planet, together with politicians, of whatever tendency, earthlings could believe to have made another little step forward. The W56’s had no idea of a state; someone, selected on an oligarchic principles, were dictating general rules, and that was all. When I asked whether the selection was made, say, by a computer, in order to warrant equity, my friends burst into laugh: “And why? Some among us could be interested to influence the election with malice?”. The W56’s are really light years ahead of us.

Science. As a technician, I am obviously fond of science. But science too, to the W56’s, is only an instrument, not a final goal. I may say that I’ve learnt more from some of my pet animals than from high level scientists. Our friends were of course on a privileged level, because of their unthinkable technology, but they were maintaining an attitude coherent to themselves, they were not considering science as particularly important, they were pretending to know already more than enough, and so they were making researches, but almost for the fun of it.

God, Allah, YHWE, and so on. Also on this subject the W56’s were following the classical yoga philosophy, the “Tat tvam asi” (= “You are your god”). Man is God, and the divine entity coincides with the set of all living, and all non-living entities. Care, it’s not a trivial pantheism, that doesn’t mean that there’s a god concealed inside the pebble out of my door. It means that nothing (also at levels still unknown to us) is in any way foreign to the nature of God. I repeat, I, you, Mother Teresa, the children rapist, the terrorist, we are all God. Let me use a technicality (I’m not a theologian!), God is but the envelope (in a mathematical sense) of the characteristics of whatever entity. Earth religions have got near to this concept, with different result, but unfortunately the mirage of temporal power have always bent them towards more trivial attitudes. Although they were respecting whatever creed of our planet, the W56’s were maintaining that, according to them, there is no need for rituals, of worships, of asking for grace: God is within us, we are God, eventually we should ask for a grace to ourselves (it’s even much more true than how I’ve been able to explain here).

While Bruno was dictating me his memories, in some occasion I tried to force him to afford such subjects, but he had refused to discuss them plainly. “People – he was used to answer me – do not want to understand certain things, even when they are confronted with them.”. Some of these concepts are well examined in the book by prof. Marhaba, quoted in the bibliography, but unfortunately it’s in Italian, and I fear that now it’s out of print. Of course I’m not able to offer the reader a talk with Dimpietro (I myself has seen him just once, by chance, and I regret not to have stopped him in order to spend some time in discussions). Nor may I invite the reader to a tourist trip inside the nearest base of the W56’s (as Bruno was accustomed to). Any way, I believe that it would be difficult not to share these last sentences, although he who has written them is an earthling, and not an alien from aboard his flying saucer, an earthling who has been believing such concepts since ever, being only later supported in his opinions by the W56’s. These latter were almost never speaking ex cathedra, on the contrary, during our talks, they were exerting a kind of maieutics, extracting from within ourselves concepts that we had been kept buried under tons of commonplaces and convenient attitudes. By sure, this has been the most important gift by Amicizia, although at the end it has been just the Earth side to have failed.

When I was discussing with Hans of Generalized Relativity (which I am fond of), he made me realize that the actual conceiver of Relativity had postulated absolute entities: space, time, and all of the involved fields (please refer to the talk with Galina, the Siberian physicist). Why an electric field must be such, and keep its identity in a static way? Maieutics, as usual. Before I met the W56’s, I had endeavoured a re-writing of Generalized Relativity, just in this direction. An incredulous reader might suspect that I have invented aliens to support my own ideas. Were it so, what changes?

On the contrary, let’s take a pencil and (many!) sheets of paper, and re-write Generalized Relativity in these terms: space, time, fields, are all complex entities (in the mathematical sense of the term), that may be described using quaternion algebra. He who understands a bit of complex analysis will have, may be, a small illumination: the number 4… If I apply all that to tensor analysis, I may find and infinity (not in the mathematical sense) of possible different situations. I ask the reader without a specific culture on these subject to believe that this is the only possible way out in the panorama of contemporary physics, bogged down in strange discussions about sub-particles that have not an existence of their own, because they are generated during experiments; as usual, it is useless to discuss whether these ideas are of my own, or come from outside).

Many concepts that physics presents as absolute and fundamental ones, are actually mere appearance. Not so long ago, discussing with a friend of mine, I’ve shown him that the absolute zero, and the second principle of thermodynamics may be discussed at length (years ago I have lectured at the Physics Faculty in the University of Bologna, discussing the same concepts). Nothing may be taken for granted, not even axioms. One of the messages the W56’s have taken from us is that everything must be discussed (of course, in an intelligent way). There is a funny theorem of plane geometry (see Appendix) that asserts that all triangles are equilateral ones, and it is usually presented as a paradox. On the contrary, the theorem is correct, and the mistake must be looked for inside Euclid’s “Elements”. It has been Euclid to go wrong, because he had never formalized the concepts of “internal” and “external”, therefore, according to his “Elements” this theorem is right. Yet, since centuries, we have been presenting Euclid’s geometry as an example of logical coherence. It is true that since some decades they started discussing the meaning of axioms, but, unfortunately, the discussions are limited to a few mathematicians.

Since years I’ve been going around lecturing against the idea that the speed of light in a vacuum is an upper limit to speeds, and actually speaking in relativistic terms, starting from the obvious fact that Einstein himself had never dared to state such a limit. It is true that we are not able to speed an electron inside a vacuum tube to more than a small fraction of the light speed, but as usual we are mixing causes and effects.

The relativistic c is, at all effects, and for what concerns us, the speed of light in a vacuum, but Einstein himself had stated that it was “… an experience-based deduction.”. Beyond an acceptable sentence like that, I do not believe that this equivalence may be sustained. As a TLC engineer, fond of Relativity, I state that (Shannon’s theorem) c is, in every instance, the speed of the quickest information medium available (to us, usually, the speed of light in a vacuum). If, say, tomorrow a gentleman from Mars lands here handling a walkie-talkie that uses “waves” 10 times quicker than our speed of light, from that moment c should become 10 times higher, and an atomic bomb would blast developing an energy 100 times higher.

Then, only people uncultivated in mathematics may maintain that it is impossible to make a trajectory, being in every moment with a speed less than c, with a global resulting time that suggests an higher speed; it is not the case of entering in mathematical details in here; suffice to remember that we are speaking about non-Euclidean geometry. Let me make a stupid example (often my students in engineering classes miss shamefully the answer): what is the shortest path between Roma and New York (roughly at the same latitude)? The first, obvious, and mistaken answer is a trajectory along the almost common parallel. Who knows why, on the contrary, commercial aircrafts, very keen to fuel consumption and flight times, prefer to head Northward, overflying France, nearing Greenland, then heading South-West along the shores of Canada: it’s obviously the section of the shortest circle that connects the two cities on a spherical surface (a “geodetic”, in relativistic terms). But, were I able to cheat (not really so!) I could break any record: were I able to open in front of me a straight tunnel between Fiumicino and JFK, an aircraft flying along it (under Atlantic Ocean, of course) wood exploit an even shorter flying time ⁽²⁷⁾. I repeat, it’s a rather stupid example, but I usually get astonished when my students give me the first, awful, answer. Getting back to our 12-dimensions space (remember, a number also quoted in Ummites texts!), that is a Riemann metric, I’m always able, obviously from a theoretical point of view, to find shorter paths that allow me to reduce highly the chronotopic distance between two events, giving bystanders the impression that I must have moved quicker than c (which is not necessarily true).

Were then one to re-write Generalized Relativity in the terms I’ve stated (every entity is a complex one, quaternion analysis) one should find that the very same concept of “speed” is to be taken with great care: in our usual Euclidean space, with 3 dimensions plus time, speed is defined as the first derivative of space with respect of time (let’s say 3 derivatives, because of the 3 space coordinates). From my point of view, I’d rather have 432 prime derivatives to take care of, and the three usual ones would be but 3 out of other 429 ones. I stop here, because, to get further on, I should enter details of calculus, and that is not the goal of a book like this one. I hope, any way, to have risen some perplexity in readers, and who knows if actually someone is going to take a pencil and a sheet of paper, to verify what I’ve stated.

What I may state to have apprehended (I repeat, within myself, may be under the maieutics by our friends) is that, in practise, we have to look critically to every phenomenon. I repeat, letting the W56’s support me, it is necessary to be able to use one’s thoughts, that are part of our entity, and refuse to accept at face value what our sciences and philosophy present us with. Another example: Cepheid stars. On these variable stars our astronomy has much invested in order to find distances from remote objects, assuming, without any evident reason, that some correlations were constant. Our so-called science is full of assumptions difficult to get justified, like the last one, starting from physics to astronomy, biology, and, incredibile dictu, to mathematics. Benoit Mandelbrot (he is not one of the W56’s, but just a person with an open mind) started a critical exam of mathematics, anew, indulging in those border areas that classical mathematicians had avoided.

I repeat again, to the risk of getting annoying, that this has been the main teaching from the part of the W56’s, on the subject of sciences. Both if my readers believe at what I’ve said (why should they, after all?) and if they believe that the three of us are as mad as a March hare, I invite them to take care of this suggestion. Be it from the W56’s, or from your Author’s ravings, nothing changes. It’s maieutics.

04/04/2025 ... 09:52:51           Totale pagina, n° 1384                  Pag. totali oggi, n°   86                 Online, n°  1