quote:Originally posted by ParaNormalIAm: 2 things we could consider about about God and the heavens is the one thing I feel they have in common according to the bible. "I am the beginning and the end." "I am the Alpha and Omega."
I don't get it... What are you saying?
With that in mind, it seems impossible to explain this.
I agree - I think... No, actually I have no idea of what you mean.
What may make it all ever more difficult to understand is that the heavens may have been recycled over and over.
Ah ha! Viola! I understand that and agree wholeheartedly. I definitely agree that the universe is eternal (ageless), and is shaped and re-shaped endlessly.
I have looked at the way scientists have constructed a model of the universe. I saw it and for some reason it reminded me of a model of a DNA strand....
You've lost me again... I do not follow that one.
The link you provided to the paper by Gill, Fluke, and Bourke from the Centre for Astrophysics and Supercomputing, Swinburne University of Technology, was interesting, although I disagree with their conclusion section. Particularly this part:
"Some of the fundamental problems that plague visualisation also plague space travel. The Universe is a large place and the laws of physics just make it that bit larger. A virtual Universe allows us to make the Universe as small as we like because we are able to bend the rules. "
How can we 'model' the universe to study it if we have no idea of what it actually looks like? The folks in the article do make a very interesting point though, and that is, "That our view of the universe is based upon what we can see." A truer word has not been uttered. Our perception of the cosmos is mired in what we can observe from our perversely limited viewpoint.
First we may wish to find out about when we do find the historical occurrence of "God" - as semantically term and common word. Then we may consider what we do mean by that expression - today? Is there still a semantic difference between the English terms/words "God" and "Universe"?!
---
We may presume that there is a higher order of all things, - like within the universe. Then there must be a higher form of "creative intelligence" present too, somewhere...
We may have reason to believe that this form of intelligence is the basis of the innermost secrets of the sun, even. And if it is in there there is a heck of a lot of it too. There. And here we are, - somehow stuck with just a few good polaroids of the surface.
But, if this intelligence exists "everywhere" - there must be an awful lot in there too. If intelligence has anything to do with brain-waves, also intelligence is nourished by electromagnetism. From what we know it is actually the Sun that carries the major part of the collected electro-magnetism we know to exist.
And, today we even get pictured models of the concentric circles of magnetism of the Sun, interacting with the "gravitational field" of the Earth. Some even picture a even bigger field, as a circumference of magnetism is encircling BOTH bodies, as "an egg shielding to yokes".
Thus there was a REALITY behind the old romantic myths about Poseidon and Gaia, continuing the galactic interaction - as the sun and the earth curessing; each and every morning and night. Thus we see the immediate reason to why the first family - "of the very first", had the right to call themselves The First Children of The Sun. Thus we find the sun depictured as a symbol by all the old Allfather-lines, wetter Inca or Aino.
Centred in all pictures of the First Universal Family was always the Earth-Mother and the Sun Father, also called The (One and Only) Allfather. Around them we see their adult sons and daughters, - in their due order and role. These idols all had names, and bore important basic ideals of the antique culture. Thus we still talk of "noble" as a principle, and a code of ethics, practised in a cultivated way of behaviour.
This pretty much rested on the functions and cultural magnitude of the Pantheons. Thus we had monumental buildings combined with the Pan-ten-ons, all depicting the "First family", also known as "Family Roy-al".
From this ring all the others came. Eventually - as they grew many and populated the land - we had all off-springs relating to their own, original home. This made all the descendants relate back, to”the original one, from which all OUR families are made”. From the few panteic descriptions still existing we find their forms and functions explained to be "eternal". Just like ethics, aesthetics, art and artistic, perennial laws and wisdom are always considered as "eternal".
---
In the midst of all the different "family-affairs", characterizing our ancient kingdoms - there has obviously been a First One of all mothers, as well as all fathers. It is a simple genetic fact that all of us - globally - "are made in his picture". Unfortunately the Bible dropped the words "and her" - to substantiate that the One and Only now only exist in the Highest of Realms; "In Heaven", as in "behind the sun".
Now, there is NO doubt to wetter or not there once was a fist of men and a first of women that had to be existing - before the rest of us have been created - in their picture. This means that most of us still look like those blokes back then, anyhow. Chimps never made that leap. We did.
---
We can even still talk - with "a whole lot of brass" - with the chimps too. A well-known zoo-keeper in Norway claims he have addressed 1000 that he have had the chimp learn, by listening to him naming all those dam things. The famous monkey, named Julius, have been the zoos most popular resident for some 20 years.
---
Since the biggest in our evolution is actually the point where something new happened in Chimpcom, and a completely different monkey occurred, - in numbers enough to create a first Pair of "hairless apes", where BOTH sexes where present and reproductive. That was re-productive.
That moment would be of the highest importance to any culture of human beings. If it wasn’t - it wasn’t a culture. And we are, - still.
So we may understand how an intelligent human being kept the memory of this precious moment, as the completed recollection of the First Family, picturing the historic reality of the start of humanity.
As the good old Boston-professor William Warren could conclude already in the 19th century; finding PARALLEL Pantheons in all ancient cultures we have to admit that the ancient cultures all related to a COMMON, existential origin.
Furthermore the ancients used to say that we all "came from the sun", - which they called "Origin of all".
Much later, during biblical times - we get a slightly mixed-up story about the old all fathers to be the "creator of all" - in terms of "everything" and not just only "everybody".
---
Thus we begot a space-cowboy that still runs around out there. And just because he was explained to dwell "behind the Sun" he still seems to be clouding our senses of perception, especially when discussing our characteristics as nature and origin, as specie.
What happened before the "waters of life occurred", is hardly recorded. Still Chimps do not keep (even) oral stories. But maybe our nucleic reactors can look into the realms of Helium, Hydrogen and Oxygen and find the principle of life, inside a drop of water.
Most of the Sun is said to be Helium. Then why is it that this first and most basic of all known elements caries a name that says;
Hel= Whole i = in um = The One (Home)
Hel = Whole ium = home/arena/cosmos.
---
We may remember that the term "Whole" also changed, to "Holy". This means that our ancient culture had a different relation to the most sacred within our history, culture and lives as human beings. Thus the question of our origin is changing - with the angle we give it.
Before we get a satisfactory answer I guess we have to understand the question, - a bit better!
Posts: 1330 | From: Norway | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Merl-Originally posted by ParaNormalIAm: 2 things we could consider about God and the heavens is the one thing I feel they have in common according to the bible. "I am the beginning and the end." "I am the Alpha and Omega."
I don't get it... What are you saying?
I was suggesting that God was without a beginning or an end like the universe.....
quote:Originally posted by ParaNormalIAm: I was suggesting that God was without a beginning or an end like the universe.....
So then you are saying that, what many associate with the term 'god' is actually the universe? OR, are you saying that the universe is 'god'? That is the part I think I am missing...
In your mind - is 'god' a deity or just another name for that which we cannot explain?
IP: Logged |
posted
At the beginning of paper 15 in the Urantia papers we find a very interesting statement. The entire paper deals with the "material creation" but it is prefaced by one statement that is apparently out of place but in fact is very much in place. Of course "God" is not the material universe Merl. Aside from the inexplicable reason for why everything was created the way it was, ie. (material and spiritual), it is quite apparent that, "God", could care less about the material part, at least insofar as life is concerned.
When dealing with such concepts as God and "eternity" we are all quite limited by not only our deficiency in language and concept to express and understand such things but also by our finiteness when trying to understand the infinite. When starting out on the bottom as finite beings and progressing towards the infinite it only makes sense that the concepts are beyond our reach and understanding. The child in first grade learning to count and add 1 +1 to reach 2 has absolutely no idea of negative numbers, base 10 systems; trigonometry; calculus; exponentials or any other such concepts nor does he even care.
The same types of problems which hamper our understanding of these higher concepts as we ascend also hamper the higher beings when trying to descend to us and explain. That not only makes sense but is logical besides. To someone who starts out from the bottom to work his way up with a current life experience of only perhaps 40 or 70 years , what hope has he to understand the experiences of someone who is perhaps a billion years old or more? There are of course more complications to this whole phenomenon.
While cut and paste is objectionable to many, there is almost no other way to convey some meanings of the higher to the lower. I have chosen just a few ideas here to attempt to express what is going on between the finite and the infinite.
PAPER 15
THE SEVEN SUPERUNIVERSES
15:0.1
AS FAR as the Universal Father is concerned -- as a Father -- the universes are virtually nonexistent; he deals with personalities; he is the Father of personalities. As far as the Eternal Son and the Infinite Spirit are concerned -- as creator partners -- the universes are localized and individual under the joint rule of the Creator Sons and the Creative Spirits. As far as the Paradise Trinity is concerned, outside Havona there are just seven inhabited universes, the seven superuniverses which hold jurisdiction over the circle of the first post-Havona space level. The Seven Master Spirits radiate their influence out from the central Isle, thus constituting the vast creation one gigantic wheel, the hub being the eternal Isle of Paradise, the seven spokes the radiations of the Seven Master Spirits, the rim the outer regions of the grand universe. >>>>>
6:0.1 THE Eternal Son is the perfect and final expression of the "first" personal and absolute concept of the Universal Father. Accordingly, whenever and however the Father personally and absolutely expresses himself, he does so through his Eternal Son, who ever has been, now is, and ever will be, the living and divine Word. And this Eternal Son is residential at the center of all things, in association with, and immediately enshrouding the personal presence of, the Eternal and Universal Father.
6:0.2 We speak of God's "first" thought and allude to an impossible time origin of the Eternal Son for the purpose of gaining access to the thought channels of the human intellect. Such distortions of language represent our best efforts at contact-compromise with the time-bound minds of mortal creatures. In the sequential sense the Universal Father never could have had a first thought, nor could the Eternal Son ever have had a beginning. But I was instructed to portray the realities of eternity to the time-limited minds of mortals by such symbols of thought and to designate the relationships of eternity by such time concepts of sequentiality.
6:0.3 The Eternal Son is the spiritual personalization of the Paradise Father's universal and infinite concept of divine reality, unqualified spirit, and absolute personality. And thereby does the Son constitute the divine revelation of the creator identity of the Universal Father. The perfect personality of the Son discloses that the Father is actually the eternal and universal source of all the meanings and values of the spiritual, the volitional, the purposeful, and the personal.
6:0.4 In an effort to enable the finite mind of time to form some sequential concept of the relationships of the eternal and infinite beings of the Paradise Trinity, we utilize such license of conception as to refer to the "Father's first personal, universal, and infinite concept." It is impossible for me to convey to the human mind any adequate idea of the eternal relations of the Deities; therefore do I employ such terms as will afford the finite mind something of an idea of the relationship of these eternal beings in the subsequent eras of time. We believe the Son sprang from the Father; we are taught that both are unqualifiedly eternal. It is apparent, therefore, that no time creature can ever fully comprehend this mystery of a Son who is derived from the Father, and yet who is co-ordinately eternal with the Father himself. >>>>> http://urantiabook.org/newbook/papers/p006.htm
PAPER 8
THE INFINITE SPIRIT
8:0.1 BACK in eternity, when the Universal Father's "first" infinite and absolute thought finds in the Eternal Son such a perfect and adequate word for its divine expression, there ensues the supreme desire of both the Thought-God and the Word-God for a universal and infinite agent of mutual expression and combined action.
8:0.2 In the dawn of eternity both the Father and the Son become infinitely cognizant of their mutual interdependence, their eternal and absolute oneness; and therefore do they enter into an infinite and everlasting covenant of divine partnership. This never-ending compact is made for the execution of their united concepts throughout all of the circle of eternity; and ever since this eternity event the Father and the Son continue in this divine union.
8:0.3 We are now face to face with the eternity origin of the Infinite Spirit, the Third Person of Deity. The very instant that God the Father and God the Son conjointly conceive an identical and infinite action -- the execution of an absolute thought-plan -- that very moment, the Infinite Spirit springs full-fledgedly into existence.
8:0.4 In thus reciting the order of the origin of the Deities, I do so merely to enable you to think of their relationship. In reality they are all three existent from eternity; they are existential. They are without beginning or ending of days; they are co-ordinate, supreme, ultimate, absolute, and infinite. They are and always have been and ever shall be. And they are three distinctly individualized but eternally associated persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit.
1. THE GOD OF ACTION
8:1.1 In the eternity of the past, upon the personalization of the Infinite Spirit the divine personality cycle becomes perfect and complete. The God of Action is existent, and the vast stage of space is set for the stupendous drama of creation -- the universal adventure -- the divine panorama of the eternal ages.
8:1.2 The first act of the Infinite Spirit is the inspection and recognition of his divine parents, the Father-Father and the Mother-Son. He, the Spirit, unqualifiedly identifies both of them. He is fully cognizant of their separate personalities and infinite attributes as well as of their combined nature and united function. Next, voluntarily, with transcendent willingness and inspiring spontaneity, the Third Person of Deity, notwithstanding his equality with the First and Second Persons, pledges eternal loyalty to God the Father and acknowledges everlasting dependence upon God the Son.
8:1.3 Inherent in the nature of this transaction and in mutual recognition of the personality independence of each and the executive union of all three, the cycle of eternity is established. The Paradise Trinity is existent. The stage of universal space is set for the manifold and never-ending panorama of the creative unfolding of the purpose of the Universal Father through the personality of the Eternal Son and by the execution of the God of Action, the executive agency for the reality performances of the Father-Son creator partnership.
8:1.4 The God of Action functions and the dead vaults of space are astir. One billion perfect spheres flash into existence. Prior to this hypothetical eternity moment the space-energies inherent in Paradise are existent and potentially operative, but they have no actuality of being; neither can physical gravity be measured except by the reaction of material realities to its incessant pull. There is no material universe at this (assumed) eternally distant moment, but the very instant that one billion worlds materialize, there is in evidence gravity sufficient and adequate to hold them in the everlasting grasp of Paradise.
8:1.5 There now flashes through the creation of the Gods the second form of energy, and this outflowing spirit is instantly grasped by the spiritual gravity of the Eternal Son. Thus the twofold gravity-embraced universe is touched with the energy of infinity and immersed in the spirit of divinity. In this way is the soil of life prepared for the consciousness of mind made manifest in the associated intelligence circuits of the Infinite Spirit.
8:1.6 Upon these seeds of potential existence, diffused throughout the central creation of the Gods, the Father acts, and creature personality appears. Then does the presence of the Paradise Deities fill all organized space and begin effectively to draw all things and beings Paradiseward.
8:1.7 The Infinite Spirit eternalizes concurrently with the birth of the Havona worlds, this central universe being created by him and with him and in him in obedience to the combined concepts and united wills of the Father and the Son. The Third Person deitizes by this very act of conjoint creation, and he thus forever becomes the Conjoint Creator.
8:1.8 These are the grand and awful times of the creative expansion of the Father and the Son by, and in, the action of their conjoint associate and exclusive executive, the Third Source and Center. There exists no record of these stirring times. We have only the meager disclosures of the Infinite Spirit to substantiate these mighty transactions, and he merely verifies the fact that the central universe and all that pertains thereto eternalized simultaneously with his attainment of personality and conscious existence.
8:1.9 In brief, the Infinite Spirit testifies that, since he is eternal, so also is the central universe eternal. And this is the traditional starting point of the history of the universe of universes. Absolutely nothing is known, and no records are in existence, regarding any event or transaction prior to this stupendous eruption of creative energy and administrative wisdom that crystallized the vast universe which exists, and so exquisitely functions, at the center of all things. Beyond this event lie the unsearchable transactions of eternity and the depths of infinity -- absolute mystery.
8:1.10 And we thus portray the sequential origin of the Third Source and Center as an interpretative condescension to the time-bound and space-conditioned mind of mortal creatures. The mind of man must have a starting point for the visualization of universe history, and I have been directed to provide this technique of approach to the historic concept of eternity. In the material mind, consistency demands a First Cause; therefore do we postulate the Universal Father as the First Source and the Absolute Center of all creation, at the same time instructing all creature minds that the Son and the Spirit are coeternal with the Father in all phases of universe history and in all realms of creative activity. And we do this without in any sense being disregardful of the reality and eternity of the Isle of Paradise and of the Unqualified, Universal, and Deity Absolutes.
8:1.11 It is enough of a reach of the material mind of the children of time to conceive of the Father in eternity. We know that any child can best relate himself to reality by first mastering the relationships of the child-parent situation and then by enlarging this concept to embrace the family as a whole. Subsequently the growing mind of the child will be able to adjust to the concept of family relations, to relationships of the community, the race, and the world, and then to those of the universe, the superuniverse, even the universe of universes. >>>>>
And yet, throughout all these years of his life in the flesh he was truly divine. He was actually a Creator Son of the Paradise Father. When once he had espoused his public career, subsequent to the technical completion of his purely mortal experience of sovereignty acquirement, he did not hesitate publicly to admit that he was the Son of God. He did not hesitate to declare, "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." He made no protest in later years when he was called Lord of Glory, Ruler of a Universe, the Lord God of all creation, the Holy One of Israel, the Lord of all, our Lord and our God, God with us, having a name above every name and on all worlds, the Omnipotence of a universe, the Universe Mind of this creation, the One in whom are hid all treasures of wisdom and knowledge, the fullness of Him who fills all things, the eternal Word of the eternal God, the One who was before all things and in whom all things consist, the Creator of the heavens and the earth, the Upholder of a universe, the Judge of all the earth, the Giver of life eternal, the True Shepherd, the Deliverer of the worlds, and the Captain of our salvation.
128:1.11 He never objected to any of these titles as they were applied to him subsequent to the emergence from his purely human life into the later years of his self-consciousness of the ministry of divinity in humanity, and for humanity, and to humanity on this world and for all other worlds. Jesus objected to but one title as applied to him: When he was once called Immanuel, he merely replied, "Not I, that is my elder brother."
182:1.9 The Master, during the course of this final prayer with his apostles, alluded to the fact that he had manifested the Father's name to the world. And that is truly what he did by the revelation of God through his perfected life in the flesh. The Father in heaven had sought to reveal himself to Moses, but he could proceed no further than to cause it to be said, "I AM." And when pressed for further revelation of himself, it was only disclosed, "I AM that I AM." But when Jesus had finished his earth life, this name of the Father had been so revealed that the Master, who was the Father incarnate, could truly say:
182:1.10 I am the bread of life.
I am the living water.
I am the light of the world.
I am the desire of all ages.
I am the open door to eternal salvation.
I am the reality of endless life.
I am the good shepherd.
I am the pathway of infinite perfection.
I am the resurrection and the life.
I am the secret of eternal survival.
I am the way, the truth, and the life.
I am the infinite Father of my finite children.
I am the true vine; you are the branches.
I am the hope of all who know the living truth.
I am the living bridge from one world to another.
I am the living link between time and eternity.
182:1.11 Thus did Jesus enlarge the living revelation of the name of God to all generations. As divine love reveals the nature of God, eternal truth discloses his name in ever-enlarging proportions.
posted
Absonite, it's been a long time since I've read the Urantia Book, which originated as a channeled message in 1953. But as I recall, the book most definately was based upon premise that extraterrestrials created the human race and are still in control of this earth.
Is that your position on what "God" is?
I would also be interested in finding out what you think the "Melchizedek thought adjustor" was, for as I recall the ET's represented in the book of Urantia deemed it necessary to convince the human race of their existance and power by using the "thought adjustor" on the human race.
What do you think that was, Absonite? A manipulation in the genetic code perhaps? Or, as many UFO researchers have suggested, an implant device administered during a UFO abduction? Mind manipulation? What?
-------------------- Live Long and Prosper Posts: 318 | From: Oregon | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
If not, (extends hand in friendship) Hi my name is Harry....
Hi Harry, no, I don't believe we've met. (Welcome to the forum) Hand accepted. Unless you're a rabid Bush supporter or want to drone on about how noble the cause in Iraq is, we'll have no problemes. Posts: 180 | From: Indiana | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by ParaNormalIAm: I was suggesting that God was without a beginning or an end like the universe..... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So then you are saying that, what many associate with the term 'god' is actually the universe? OR, are you saying that the universe is 'god'? That is the part I think I am missing...
In your mind - is 'god' a deity or just another name for that which we cannot explain?
I would like to take this one, Merl. Perhaps we err when we try to separate the "universe" itself from "God" at all. The universe is God. It acts and reacts, it does things that the human mind cannot explain, it's history is all but unknown to us. Clearly, it created all life. Bible stories aside, it might as well be God, If we actually do equate God with the universe, what difference does it make if any of us actually believe in it at all? It's existence is all around us.
And only the universe itself can say if it has any conscience presiding over it all.
quote:Originally posted by Proteus: I would like to take this one, Merl. Perhaps we err when we try to separate the "universe" itself from "God" at all. The universe is God. It acts and reacts, it does things that the human mind cannot explain, it's history is all but unknown to us. Clearly, it created all life. Bible stories aside, it might as well be God, If we actually do equate God with the universe, what difference does it make if any of us actually believe in it at all? It's existence is all around us.
And only the universe itself can say if it has any conscience presiding over it all.
That is certainly one possibility Proteus; thanks for sharing your view. I was just trying to clarify Paranormal's view so that we could talk about it.
Ultimately - you make a good point: "It's existence is all around us". Whether we believe that the universe is 'god' or the 'god' is the universe, the reality is that the universe at least, is as close to eternal as we can imagine without knowing it for certain.
That in itself is a little troublesome though, considering we don't know if it is infinite or not. Somehow, I doubt it though. In my opinion - if it did have a beginning, it has an end; therefore an infinite size is excluded. But what are we talking about when we say 'universe', anyway?
Are we talking about the vastness of the stars, galaxies, and nebulae or are we referring to the 'black stuff'. If we are considering the matter that emanated from the beginning - or the big bang, there can be little doubt that it is neither infinite or eternal, but the vacuum filled, Higgs-Field laden expanse may be something entirely different. As a possible thought experiment, consider the potential that the "black stuff" is infinite, and that the 'big-bang' was merely a bursting blemish within it; populating the otherwise empty region with matter. If this is the case, which is 'god' - the space or the matter?
This isn't a trick question, just a little mental gymnastics to expand the scope of the conversation.
IP: Logged |
you said.." I've read the Urantia Book, which originated as a channeled message in 1953."
Does it matter if you are incorrect in your opening statement? What if it was "channeled" in 1952? What about 1942? How about 1932? Does it matter? Actually it began in 1911. If you look on the last page of the appendix in Sadler's book "Mind at Mischief" published in 1929 he describes the beginning of the phenomena 18 years earlier.
So, is the time period important for any reason? First of all it definitely takes it out of the "new age" generation and completely removes it from all the clones or wannabe copycats. We now definitely know where and when it began. There is nothing like it on the planet earth. The terminology is unlike anything ever written and it definitely is not in the style of Dr. Sadler's own 52 published books. The internal consistency is unparralled and a mortal phenomenon and the facts and details contained can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Where-ever it came from it certainly did not come from here. Gene Roddenberry was quite familiar with the material and his Star-Trek series and the ideas contained all were inspired by the book. You can call it Project Blue Book if you want.
Of coursae Matthew Block and others have discovered many human sources for some of the material and the papers themselves explain that is the way revelation is produced. In other words it would make no sense to speak Chinese to an AngloSaxon who never heard of it and had no Rosetta stone in which to decipher it. Revelation and new concepts and words are only introduced within when they have found no previous human expression on Earth before.
You then continue with........
"based upon premise that extraterrestrials created the human race and are still in control of this earth. Is that your position on what "God" is?"
I really have no idea what you are suggesting here.
If you read the infintesimal bit I posted to Merl you will understand that the average alien has not much in common with such a being as "God". Simply being an alien doesn't make someone God. There is certainly enough in the Urantia papers for you to get an inkling of the Nature and Being of God. You said you had read it; or browsed it; or flipped through it, or passed by it once and noticed the name.
You then go on with.......
"I would also be interested in finding out what you think the "Melchizedek thought adjustor" was, for as I recall the ET's represented in the book of Urantia deemed it necessary to convince the human race of their existance and power by using the "thought adjustor" on the human race. "
Again, I have no idea what you are talking about here.
You have a "thought adjuster", I have a thought adjuster, most everyone does. It is simply a pre-personal fragment of God indwelling every normal mind since Pentacost. Melchizedek was an alien. The interesting phenomenon was that his thought adjuster was also the same one which indwelt Jesus. It was not a virgin adjuster. Melchizedek will most likely one day take his rightful place as head of this planet replacing Caligastia our planetary prince who went into default along with Lucifer our system sovereign. We have been in quaranteen since that event. Similar I guess to amputating a leg so that the entire body doesn't get infected. Every major religion on earth today began with Melchizedeks teachings; however distorted they might have developed. He was the for-runner for the Jesus's bestowal. He prepared the way for monotheism. He chose Abraham as his disciple. When your history /religious books speak of Abraham speaking to the "lord" it was Melchizedek.
You then go on with. "What do you think that was, Absonite? A manipulation in the genetic code perhaps? Or, as many UFO researchers have suggested, an implant device administered during a UFO abduction? Mind manipulation? What?"
I think I answered that in the above reply. I enjoy talking about the information in the revelation KT but it would be nice if we were on the same page and you were somewhat familiar with the material. Why not brush up a bit? Then again, there's always Proteus to play with.
posted
Even though I wouldn't have voted for them, it would have been nice to have Lemuria, Mu, Mars, the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot and Yeti on there, too!
-------------------- "All that we see or seem Is but a dream within a dream." - Edgar Allen Poe Posts: 341 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Absonite, it is not my intent to offend you. We simply come from different backgrounds. I spent many years in the UFO research community where the Urantia Book and many other channeled messages have been discussed at length. The French physicist, Jacques Vallee, who was one of the most recognized and highly respected UFO researchers to date had a great deal to say about the Urantia Book, it's relationship to the UFO phenomenon, and the "thought adjustors" related to channeling spirits and UFO entities.
The Pharisees took the "Oath of the Melchizedek." The Sadducees were called the "Sons of Zadok" which was still another Melchizedek branch. As I recall, Jesus didn't get along very well with either one of those groups.
-------------------- Live Long and Prosper Posts: 318 | From: Oregon | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Even though I wouldn't have voted for them, it would have been nice to have Lemuria, Mu, Mars, the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot and Yeti on there, too!
Stacy, by that same token, why not also include Santa Claus? It's clear he's mystery, too, to some of you.
-------------------- "The world is not divided into men and women. It's divided into great minds and small minds;
posted
"...consider the potential that the "black stuff" is infinite, and that the 'big-bang' was merely a bursting blemish within it; populating the otherwise empty region with matter. If this is the case, which is 'god' - the space or the matter?"
I think this is a really good description of the origins of creation as I understand it from a more mystical perspective. As to your question, I would suggest that the indications are that the infinite part is 'God' (Divinity), a timeless and formless energy. Matter is the manifestation (big bang) fuelled by the same energy which runs through all, including all of us. Therefore both the space and matter are 'God' in different form.
Consider this as a possible expansion on the theory. The [Divine] Source is often mentioned, but one must ask, "What is the Source?" It has been called by many names, such as: The Unmanifest, The Fount, All That Is, The One, The Great Mystery, The Great Mind, The Great Spirit, The Logos, The Formless One, The Infinite, The Timeless One, etc. The Source is the original "Home" of the Light. From the Source, or The Unmanifest, grows the Root of Creation. Creation is the Expression of the Source and the Expression cannot exist without nourishment from the Source. The Source, the Unmanifest, is all there is of permanence and it remains uncorrupted. Only the Source is eternal and perpetual. It is not the Source, but the Expression that is corrupted. The Unmanifest will always be as it is — the Unmanifest. It is not personalized in the way humans comprehend and perceive it to be."
Or "Creation is the dream that has forgotten there is a dreamer."
There are many similar theories from people who believe they have found the truth but unless something becomes experientially true for each and every one of us, then all of these things are just someone else's belief, someone else's truth. Any real teacher, master, guru or priest will never impose his beliefs. Their job is only to give you the tools to find out for yourself. That one tool I have found useful is: "The Kingdom of Heaven is within you". But not as a belief. But I do believe it's a good a starting point for someone who really wants to know and perhaps have tried looking outside. Outside can provide the clues on where to start looking, based on the inner experiences of others but it can never ever be true for you unless you experience it yourself. So after exhausting all outside possibilities, for someone who really really wants to know the answer, there is nowhere else to turn and look except within AS AN EXPERIMENT, not necessarily as a preconcieved belief. Ok this does not necessarily mean trusting a vision of "God" that may come in meditation and tell you the real story of creation, alien life, heaven, hell etc. Personally I don't believe any of these things matter that much except perhaps as subjects of stimulating or fun conversation or as a means to accumulate knowledge but in the end of the day knowledge is only information, not experience, unless it is knowledge borne of personal experience. For those who have experienced heaven or hell via NDE, or alien abductions or whatever, these things are the experience of those people and become part of who they are. I believe what matters is how we live our lives in relation to ourselves and others and we can only do that by changing the things that need changing within ourselves as a contribution to the 'conscious' rather than 'unconscious' evolution of the species. So many people want to 'change the world' but it can only start with the individual himself.
As Proteus said "If we actually do equate God with the universe, what difference does it make if any of us actually believe in it at all? It's existence is all around us."
Yes but I beleive that understanding this existence from an outside perspective and understanding this existence from an inward perspective are two different things. And I say that not as a general belief but as an experienced belief. I have probably accumulated as much knowledge in my life as the next person from an outside perspective, but I still 'know' very very very little through inward reflection and will likely never know 'it all'. What I have experienced is that 'Outside' (religion, government, society) tells us we must be or do this...'or else'...or do it 'because'. 'Within' only prompts us to do this or that because we 'want' to, not because we 'have to' or because 'it's the right thing to do'. To me it's the difference between 'Fearing God' and 'Loving God'.
Sorry I didn't intend to write so much. Most of this is not necessarily directed to you Merlin as it is clearly unscientific But as an aside...I recently read a book called 'The Biology of Belief" by a biologist named Bruce Lipton, a lot if which I found interesting. Have you heard of it or of him? Or has anyone else as I would like a second opinion?
-------------------- It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen. Posts: 357 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Even though I wouldn't have voted for them, it would have been nice to have Lemuria, Mu, Mars, the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot and Yeti on there, too! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stacy, by that same token, why not also include Santa Claus? It's clear he's mystery, too, to some of you.
Gads Norman, I should be wary if I were you, or the folks on this forum just might dub you as totally one dimensional.
-------------------- Live Long and Prosper Posts: 318 | From: Oregon | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
-MERL-
unregistered
posted
Oh great, Norm's back... Yeah!
Hopefully everyone could hear the sarcasm.
Take the 'moral-high-ground Abs' - just ignore him; we'll all understand.
Anassa, don't fall prey to the belief that I only find science interesting or compelling, that wouldn't be accurate. True, if we are having a logical debate, I prefer scientifically founded data, but when discussing something like the origin of the universe/life/consciousness - all bets are off. Fire away with the "mystical" - it all sounds like science to me anyway.
Consider that the 'beginning' that you describe is the result of the previous matter in the eternal universe rushing away from the 'origin', a sudden collapse in the Higgs-Field, and a rush of repulsive gravity acting as a siphon - funneling energy from an as yet undiscovered dimension. This would populate the existing universe with plent of matter one the expanse cooled enough... About 10^-35 seconds after the initial 'push'.
Just a scientific way of explaining the same potential.
posted
Merlin All from the mystic point of view from various sources much as I would prefer to write it myself but I am stuck for time.
Some teachings describe the Big Bang as the Breath of God. The theory goes that Big Bangs are actually a part of the process of the ebb and flow of the Infinite Universe, that expands until it reaches the point where all realities intersect. "As it reaches this zero point, then it continues with the same motion and collapses upon itself. It collapses until it reaches zero point again, then continuing with the same motion, it begins its expansion again on the other side. The ebb and flow of the Universe expanding and collapsing is the base vibration of the Universal Energy. This is the heart beat of ‘God’ which gives expression of the infinite in finite form. The Golden Mean is the mathematical expression of the conversion of infinite to finite. The reverse is also true. This is the mathematical equation: f = (1+ Ö5)/2 or more simply stated: 1.618 This equation is replicated throughout all of nature. It is the base of the Fibonacci series and the Fibonacci spiral that can be seen in all things."
"Eastern mysticism is consistent with the results of quantum physics. The mystics have always rejected the idea of a hidden clocklike mechanism, sitting out there, independent of human observation. The number one truth is that reality does not consist of separate things, but is an indescribable, interconnected oneness. Each object of our normal experience is seen to be but a brief disturbance of a universal ocean of existence. Maya is the illusion that the phenomenal world of separate objects and people is the only reality. For the mystics this manifestation is real, but it is a fleeting reality; it is a mistake, although a natural one, to believe that maya represents a fundamental reality. Each person, each physical object, from the perspective of eternity is like a brief, disturbed drop of water from an unbounded ocean. The goal of enlightenment is to understand this--more precisely, to experience this: to see intuitively that the distinction between me and the universe is a false dichotomy. The distinction between consciousness and physical matter, between mind and body, is the result of an unenlightened perspective For the mystic, the paradoxes of quantum physics are just another symptom of humankind's attempt to describe what can only be experienced. It is also a symptom of our inability to let go of our egocentricity, our persistent attempt to define everything in purely human terms, as if we were somehow special and separate from the rest of the universe. Epistemologically, our so-called knowledge of the world is actually only a projection or creation of thoughts. Reality is ambiguous. It requires thoughts for distinctions to become manifest. The universe is not full of separate objects, people and places. Rather, it is an unbounded field of entangled possibilities. If our day-to-day reality is but a fleeting manifestation, then the vicious misfortune and meaningless suffering of this world are not real. All experiments with subatomic phenomena show wave-particle duality; rather than a definitive, objective world indicating that reality seems to be ambiguous at the quantum level. Accordingly, what we measure in our quantum experiments are the results of our relationship with nature, not nature itself. Subatomic phenomena such as photons and electrons become definitive objects only after measurements are made with macroscopic equipment. If an electron is not a thing until it is observed by some instrument and manifests itself as a wave in one situation and a particle in another, does this not imply that reality depends on our observations and hence, ultimately, the thoughts we use to frame the world? Does this not imply that reality is created by human thoughts? Metaphysical idealism is an old and widespread belief stating that the physical world as we experience it is basically an illusion; the perception of a world of material things separated in space is said to be only an appearance. Individual things exist only insofar as we have an idea of them."
If all that is true then we are not anywhere near fulfilling our potential.
-------------------- It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen. Posts: 357 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
With quantum physics, we're right back to the old "I think therefore I am" philosophy, where the borders of hard science and mysticism become entangled and blurred.
-------------------- Live Long and Prosper Posts: 318 | From: Oregon | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
-MERL-
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by KTCat: Are you talking about the Higgs-Bosen particle, Merl? The one the Ferme lab was looking for?
No KT, I'm not. The Higgs boson is an undiscovered elementary particle, thought to be a vital piece of the closely fitting jigsaw of particle physics. Like all particles, it has wave properties akin to those ripples on the surface of a pond which has been disturbed; indeed, only when the ripples travel as a well defined group is it sensible to speak of a particle at all. In quantum language the analogue of the water surface which carries the waves is called a field. Each type of particle has its own corresponding field.
The Higgs field is a particularly simple one - it has the same properties viewed from every direction, and in important respects in indistinguishable from empty space. Thus physicists conceive of the Higgs field being "switched on", pervading all of space and endowing it with "grain" like that of a plank of wood. The direction of the grain in undetectable, and only becomes important once the Higgs' interactions with other particles are taken into account. for instance, particles call vector bosons can travel with the grain, in which case they move easily for large distances and may be observed as photons - that is, particles of light that we can see or record using a camera; or against, in which case their effective range is much shorter, and we call them W or Z particles. These play a central role in the physics of nuclear reactions, such as those occurring in the core of the sun.
The Higgs field enables us to view these apparently unrelated phenomenon as two sides of the same coin; both may be described in terms of the properties of the same vector bosons. When particles of matter such as electrons or quarks (elementary constituents of protons and neutrons, which in turn constitute the atomic nucleus) travel through the grain, they are constantly flipped "head-over-heels". this forces them to move more slowly than their natural speed, that of light, by making them heavy. We believe the Higgs field responsible for endowing virtually all the matter we know about with mass.
Like most analogies, the wood-grain one is persuasive but flawed: we should think of the grain as not defining a direction in everyday three-dimensional space, but rather in some abstract internal space populated by various kinds of vector boson, electron and quark.
The Higgs' ability to fill space with its mysterious presence makes it a vital component in more ambitious theories of how the Universe burst into existence out of some initial quantum fluctuation, and why the Universe prefers to be filled with matter rather than anti-matter; that is, why there is something rather than nothing. To constrain these ideas more rigorously, and indeed flesh out the whole picture, it is important to find evidence for the Higgs field at first hand - in other words, find the boson. there are unanswered questions: the Higgs' very simplicity and versatility, beloved of theorists, makes it hard to pin down. How many Higgs particles are there? Might it/they be made from still more elementary components? Most crucial, how heavy is it? Our current knowledge can only put its mass roughly between that of an iron atom and three times that of a uranium atom. This is a completely new form of matter about whose nature we still have only vague hints and speculations and its discovery is the most exciting prospect in contemporary particle physics.
Hope this helps to better describe what I am talking about. Some of the terms you may want to research are: Higgs-Field, Higgs-Ocean, Inflaton (not inflation).
IP: Logged |
“The massive quantum excitation of the Higgs field is also called the Higgs boson.“
I'll try to brush up on the "field" part of the mechanics again.
By the way, one of the best books I've ever read on the still undiscovered Higgs-Bosen particle was "The God Particle" by the Nobel Prize winning physicist, Leon Ledderman. I expected to be overwhelmed by equations and terms I would not understand, but instead found Ledderman's explanations simple and clear, and the basics he was discussing made understanding some of the mystery behind particle physics very accessable.
Furthermore, the guy was FUNNY! I never expected to laugh my way through a book most would consider a rather dry subject, but Ledderman not only explains particle physics in an easily understood manner, he keeps you rolling on the floor laughing while he's doing it.
It's a great book for those who have been avoiding the subject of particle physics.
They're litterally talking about the "glue" that hold the material universe together, and it is an utterly fascinating topic.
-------------------- Live Long and Prosper Posts: 318 | From: Oregon | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
-MERL-
unregistered
posted
Anassa, I found your reply most interesting until you got to the part where you said, "The Golden Mean is the mathematical expression of the conversion of infinite to finite. The reverse is also true.
This is the mathematical equation: f = (1+ Ö5)/2 or more simply stated: 1.618 This equation is replicated throughout all of nature. It is the base of the Fibonacci series and the Fibonacci spiral that can be seen in all things."
I certainly hope that this is not what anyone is truly pinning their spirituality on. The Fibonacci series has little (if anything) to do with the "golden section" or "golden mean", otherwise known as Phi. Also, the relation ship is {F(i+2) = F(i+1) + F(i)}, the formula listed above is actually the value of Phi, and it is represented as: (sqrt (5)+1)/2. The Fibonacci series actually more closely reflects phi (with a small p), and is represented mathematicaly as: (sqrt (5)-1)/2. This is a serious difference.
As a mathematician, I take issue with websites trying to connect the two, mathematically, when there is no connection. You see, in math, "close" doesn't mean a hill of beans, and only some of the Fibonacci series is close to phi, which is Phi minus 1. In other words, phi equals 0.6180339 and Phi (The Golden Section) equals 1.6180339. Now, the Fibonacci series is entirely different, but folks say that if you divide the first term by the second term you get phi or Phi... Let's take a quick look at that, shall we?
We won't bother with dividing 0 by 1 because we all know the answer.
1 / 1 = 1 (oh my, nowhere near phi or Phi)
1 / 2 = .5 (wee bit too small)
2 / 3 = .6667 (oops, too big)
3 / 5 = .6 (almost phi)
5 / 8 = .625 (oops, too big)
8 / 13 = .615 (close, but not quite)
13 / 21 = .619 (slight overshot)
21 / 34 = .617 (slight undershot)
34 / 55 = .618 (finally we are within .0001!)
55 / 89 = .617 (slight undershot)
89 / 144 = .618 (we are within .00002)
144 / 233 = .618 (same as above)
233 / 377 = .618 (same as above)
377 / 610 = .618 (same as above)
610 / 987 = .618 (same as above)
Now, take note that none of the numbers equal 0.6180339, but the later numbers are close... But, is CLOSE good enough to be considered a mathematical rule? I think not. Also, take notice that we are talking about 'phi' not 'Phi' - therefore we are still a full (whole number) or "1" short.
Now, the "Golden Spiral" is as cool as it gets, and it is represented in nature in many ways. Everything from conch shells to spiral galaxies, and tornado formation to hurricane development adhere to the natural "Golden Spiral" mathematically. It actually makes sense if you have enough math background to understand it.
Here is a link to a lovely site that has all sorts of information on the subject. It will take about a week to get through it completely; it's quite large.
Finally, as for the quantum physics references, well - it really isn't that mysterious. Quantum physics does not state that an electron is not in existence until it is observed - it states that its probability wave exists everywhere until the position of the particle form is observed... At this point, the 'sum over histories' formula collapses to the point which its positional certainty becomes nearly 100%. This is a completely different scenario.
I love physics & mathematics (hence why I chose the field as an occupation), and it pains me to see it used so incorrectly. Those studies could be such a powerful tool for those who wish to prove their beliefs, but they need to have the time, patience, and intellect to apply it properly. Otherwise, they are just hacks no different than the pyramidiots.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ParaNormalIAm: So have Americans recovered any oil? I mean from Iraq....
Nope - guess that dispells the whole "Blood for oil myth"
What will the lunatic fringe come up with next? I have a good idea, maybe they will start saying that Bush was trying to steal the garden of Eden for the Christians! Too bad the garden of Eden didn't exist in Iraq... That would have been a good one.
IP: Logged |
-MERL-
unregistered
posted
Anassa, I don't want you to think that I was trying to be mean spirited in that last post - that wasn't the plan at all... The more I thought about it, the more I began to wonder why people cling to the nonexistent correlation between Phi, phi, and theta (Golden section). It occurs to me that the pattern that develops once you get higher into the numbers is somewhat interesting, so I decided to show everyone some other interesting patterns that exist in everyday life that we rarely notice:
1 / 3 = .333
2 / 6 = .333
3 / 9 = .333
4 / 12 = .333
5 / 15 = .333
6 / 18 = .333
7 / 21 = .333
8 / 24 = .333
9 / 27 = .333
10 / 30 = .333
And it keeps repeating over and over and over... To infinity!
If you notice, the left hand column counts by 1 and the right hand column counts by three, in other words, 1/3. The same thing exists for 1/2, 1/4, 21/95, 811/3214, etc., etc... Notice that the results weren't "close" to one another, they were exact, and that is the definition of a series.
Anyway, look at something as common as "pi". Have you ever considered just how incredible it is that no matter how big the circle's diameter is, the ratio of its circumference to its radius is always "pi"? Well, no, probably not... Considering the reality that a circle, no matter how large it is, is just a circle. That's the same point I am trying to make with every number series (true number series); they mean something.
Hopefully this helps make my point a little more clear, and a little less personal.
IP: Logged |
-MERL-
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by KTCat: Thanks Merl. You've obviously got an extensive knowledge of physics.
I certainly hope so... That's what I do for a living.
“The massive quantum excitation of the Higgs field is also called the Higgs boson."
Yikes... No KT, that quote was incorrect. It isn't your fault, I know, the site that you linked to is in err. Something you have to watch on the internet is the preponderance of Wikipedia; the world's most incorrect information website. Try looking for the same information HERE .
I'll try to brush up on the "field" part of the mechanics again.
By the way, one of the best books I've ever read on the still undiscovered Higgs-Bosen particle was "The God Particle" by the Nobel Prize winning physicist, Leon Ledderman. It's a great book for those who have been avoiding the subject of particle physics.
They're litterally talking about the "glue" that hold the material universe together, and it is an utterly fascinating topic.
I've read his book, and I have viewed his work. Very Interesting.
If you are truly fascinated by the subject - try looking up "The Fabric of the Cosmos" by Brian Greene. He uses the same style of writing as Leon does, and I think you'll enjoy it.
posted
No offence taken by your answer Merlin. In fact that is why I mainly addressed my post to you in the first place. There isn't a hope in hell - if it existed for me - that I would pin my 'beliefs' - I try not to pitch my tent - on numbers per se Even though I do find now, probably 20 years late, that I have developed an interest in science, I know very little about it all and am just exploring. Guess I must be reading the wrong sources I do have a strong belief that science (without agenda) and spirituality (not religion as it stands) are intertwined and are both paths to the truth, as is the path of love of God and humanity. While the latter may be deemed a form of blind faith, if sincere, it outstrips the other two hands down. No amount of scientific data proving a God may exist, or even hundreds of hours spent in meditation without the realisation that heart is the key and the use of that realisation, are any use. I believe the role of acquiring knowledge is to lead us to that conclusion as a point from which we should live our lives. Most of us are born into one religion or another but religion has lost its way so the number of people who actually experientially live the truth of that religion are few and far between. How many of us can love their enemies? How many of us can turn the other cheek? How many of us would give our last bite or the clothes from our backs to a stranger in need? Anyway I have gone off on a tangent again. What I'm trying to say is the path of unconditional love, not human love, is the key, and many poor and uneducated people say in India can reach 'enlightenment' purely through this means. However any 'thinking' person born into a particular religion MUST question what they are being told to swallow as an unquestioning belief if they have not experienced the truth of that teaching for themselves. This means exploring all the options from as many sources as you can until something finally clicks into place. I always say that blind belief and blind disbelief are the same thing. People always want answers as to whether God exists. I say they should get off their asses and find out instead of waiting for someone else to tell them or waiting for science to come up with the proof. In the end of the day we only need to prove to ourselves individually whether God exists or not. Knowledge can lead us to the door but only the experience can open it.
-------------------- It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen. Posts: 357 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: If you are truly fascinated by the subject - try looking up "The Fabric of the Cosmos" by Brian Greene. He uses the same style of writing as Leon does, and I think you'll enjoy it.
Thanks Merl. I'll check that out. I'm curious, if you could define the Higgs field in one sentence, what would you say?
Could the Higgs field be defined as "The infinate potential of the Universe to create mass"?
Of course, unless CERN finds the Higgs Bosen particle when they fire up next year, the question is moot and we have no mass, therefore we are still just illusions.
-------------------- Live Long and Prosper Posts: 318 | From: Oregon | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
"Absonite, it is not my intent to offend you. We simply come from different backgrounds. I spent many years in the UFO research community where the Urantia Book and many other channeled messages have been discussed at length. "
KT,
you didn't offend me. you were just stating errors as if they were facts. If you spent many years in these lenghty discussions then you either weren't listening; have a bad memory or whomever was discussing the stuff had their facts and/or interpretation incorrect. I hope I have helped to get some of that straight with you now.
quote "The French physicist, Jacques Vallee, who was one of the most recognized and highly respected UFO researchers to date had a great deal to say about the Urantia Book, it's relationship to the UFO phenomenon, and the "thought adjustors" related to channeling spirits and UFO entities."
ok, why do tou spell it with an "or" instead of er?
quote" The Pharisees took the "Oath of the Melchizedek." The Sadducees were called the "Sons of Zadok" which was still another Melchizedek branch. As I recall, Jesus didn't get along very well with either one of those groups."
They both conspired to and succeeded in having Jesus crucified. They were no followers of Melchizedek since Melchizedek knew quite well who Michael was and what his beliefs were. They were quite similar and Melchizedek true religious ideas were probably indistinguishable from those of Jesus. What and who the Paharasiees and Sadducees were following had nothing to do with either Melchizedek or Jesus. They were following the Jewish laws and Jewish beliefs according to the Mosiac laws and accumulated deceptions and failed to recognize a true Messiah when he was right in front of their eyes. Not only did they fail to recognize him, they murdered him. Of course, this is very complicated in itself because he could have prevented it at any time, so there are much deeper questions and answers here.
Posts: 2197 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Merlin I had a little more time to look into this fascinating world of numbers and am still pretty much in over my head but if you reverse which numbers you divided we find that elusive 1.
Then if we pick up where you left off at 987 we find that 1.6180039 appears at the Fibonacci number 6,765, and when you keep going, by the time it gets to 63,245,986 they pretty much converge with no significant differential. Does this mean anything?
While I was doing my homework I found an interesting article on Jacob's Wheel, which attempts to see how pi could be incorporated into the Jacob's Wheel model.
Quote "One way of writing Pi is as 22/7. This suggests the 22 Hebrew letters divided by the seven spokes. Pi can also be written as 3 1/7, which represents Jacob's Wheel if you view the three rings (each comprising of 7 glyphs/mandala) as representing the Integer ……3. Each spoke is then 1/7.
Because Jacob's Wheel resonates with pi and pi is closely related to phi in theory Jacob's Wheel must contain the Golden mean spiral or spirals.
Taking Pi and Jacob's Wheel to the next level we need to introduce PHI Ø into the equation ……… Mathematically, phi Ø creates the pattern known as the Golden Mean spiral and, being another transcendental number, is related to pi.
The origin of Jacob's Wheel lies in the Sefer Yetzirah (The book of Creation) which details the coming into being of the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet.
The Golden Mean Spiral is a metaphor for Spirit. It represents the ideal. The golden mean spiral represents spiritual reunification with the divine, the essence of creation itself. The source of the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet and the 441 gates of Jacob's Wheel. The 'issue' with the Golden Mean Spiral is that it is infinite, it has neither beginning nor end, so true comprehension of this spiral is beyond humanity in its current state.
In sacred geometry, the Fibonacci sequence which gives rise to the Fibonacci Spiral is the gateway to the ethereal dimensions from the material dimension. This sequence is the product mother nature herself as she imitates the creation process of the Divine. It is infinite in the same way that our universe itself is infinite; yet, it has a starting point -- 0, which equates with our manifestation on the (material) earth plane. It is the chord that connects us to the divine light and thus ensures our inevitable reunion with that light. If you take the view that Jacob's Wheel represents 'Earth' the Jacob's Wheel becomes a tool for our spiritual progression through this spiral.
The Fibonacci Sequence is a metaphor for the imperfect human condition. Unlike the Golden mean spiral, the Fibonacci sequence has a definite beginning. It attempts to replicate the golden mean ratio (1.6180339…) becoming more successful as it progresses.
Of course, you can never actually recreate phi, since phi has no mathematical solution, it simply appears to get tantalisingly closer, ad infinitum.
But……how do we incorporate Fibonacci into Jacob's Wheel?
The numbers 21 (phases) and 3 (rings) are both Fibonacci numbers. Given that each phase is a gate formulated from a vortex of energy the spiral appears to be an integral part of the Jacob's Wheel matrix.
The first five Fibonacci numbers 0+1+1+2+3 = 7 which is the numbers of spokes on Jacob's Wheel.
The Relationship between Pi and Phi
There is evidence that the Egyptians had worked out a relationship between Pi and Phi of: Pi = 6/5ths of (Phi)**2. Another (modern) approximation that relates pi and phi is: 6/5 * phi^2 = 3.1416...
The product of phi, 1.618033988... and pi 3.141592654..., is 5.083203692, and can be found in other golden geometries such as the Golden Circle.
The product of pi, p =3.1415…, and phi, the Golden Ratio: f = (1 + v 5)/2 , can be interpreted as the circumference of a circle with a diameter of phi.
The universe – like sacred geometry and Jacob's Wheel, is in a constant state of flux. There is never a point where it stands still, it is always moving, and hence you will never have a whole number that represents the fundamental nature of these concepts.
If we look then at the number 1.
1= unity and 0 = negative.
The unity (1) comes from the negative. This is akin to the concept of the Tzemtzum. (which is a three stage process so would fit in with the three rings.)
The negative (o) has no centre -it is just a sea of nothingness until it concentrates to create a centre, then the number one comes into being. In the number 1 is hidden all the other numbers.
1/1 results in 1.
1x1 results in 1.
One cannot be changed but it can duplicate itself. Hence 1 + 1 gives birth to the number 2. 2 + 1 = 3. So now what we have is 0, 1 , 1, 2, 3 which is the start of the Fibonacci sequence. The first five Fibonacci numbers 3+2+1+1+0 total 7 which is the numbers of spokes on Jacob's Wheel.
The 1/7 represents the Fibonacci sequence within JW allowing us to move freely between the different levels of consciousness. The 3 on the other hand represents the 3 stage process of the Tzemtzum, or, of creation."
-------------------- It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen. Posts: 357 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
-MERL-
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Anassa: No offence taken by your answer Merlin. In fact that is why I mainly addressed my post to you in the first place. There isn't a hope in hell - if it existed for me - that I would pin my 'beliefs' - I try not to pitch my tent - on numbers per se
Whew... That makes me feel 100% better.
No amount of scientific data proving a God may exist, or even hundreds of hours spent in meditation without the realisation that heart is the key and the use of that realisation, are any use. I believe the role of acquiring knowledge is to lead us to that conclusion as a point from which we should live our lives.
You are preaching to the choir here, sister. If we didn't have the "search" the achievement would be worthless. It reminds me of the saying, "Without pain and anguish we would never know joy and happiness."
Most of us are born into one religion or another but religion has lost its way so the number of people who actually experientially live the truth of that religion are few and far between.
Words from my own mind... Hal-la-lou-ya! (emphasis intended)
However any 'thinking' person born into a particular religion MUST question what they are being told to swallow as an unquestioning belief if they have not experienced the truth of that teaching for themselves. This means exploring all the options from as many sources as you can until something finally clicks into place. I always say that blind belief and blind disbelief are the same thing.
That's more truthful today than at any time in history, I fear. Sadly, what 'clicks' for many people anymore is not necessarily that which makes sense - but "that which is delivered on a silver platter." People these days are too lazy, and they seek their faith like they seek dinner... Laziness takes hold and they just grab whatever is "ready-made."
People always want answers as to whether God exists. I say they should get off their asses and find out instead of waiting for someone else to tell them or waiting for science to come up with the proof. In the end of the day we only need to prove to ourselves individually whether God exists or not. Knowledge can lead us to the door but only the experience can open it.
Sounds like we possess similar beliefs. You are on top of the heap, and I am at the bottom - but we are both on the same side.
What a fantastic response Anassa, I think I've found a new friend to balance my logic with spirituality. Live is good.
IP: Logged |
-MERL-
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by KTCat: I'm curious, if you could define the Higgs field in one sentence, what would you say?
Gulp... One sentence? {Feeling the pressure}
The Higgs field is a quantum field (where all elementary particles arise as quanta of a corresponding quantum field) that differs from all other quantum fields in three crucial ways, and is the ultimate source for the Lagrangian value of all elements.
That's the best I can do with one sentence.
Could the Higgs field be defined as "The infinate potential of the Universe to create mass"?
I suppose that anything is possible... I wouldn't say that, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be said. If it were me, I would say something like... The all-encompassing field from which the universe assigns mass to the elements. Until we know for certain that the universe is the "blackness" and not "the matter" I wouldn't attribute the term 'infinite' to it. As we all know, the mass potential is finite.
Of course, unless CERN finds the Higgs Bosen particle when they fire up next year, the question is moot and we have no mass, therefore we are still just illusions.
I hear the start date is in 2007. Let's keep our fingers crossed. I don't have high hopes though... My money is 2:1 against.
quote:I had a little more time to look into this fascinating world of numbers and am still pretty much in over my head but if you reverse which numbers you divided we find that elusive 1.
Sadly, that makes the numbers 1-987 even further incorrect... Oh well, c'est la vie.
Then if we pick up where you left off at 987 we find that 1.6180039 appears at the Fibonacci number 6,765, and when you keep going, by the time it gets to 63,245,986 they pretty much converge with no significant differential. Does this mean anything?
Yes, it means that finally, when we reach the number 102,334,155, we begin to see some results. It still isn't 'exact', but at least now we are mathematically close.
I'll get back to you on the rest, I have to run for awhile.
IP: Logged |
These forums are maintained by
Atlantis Rising as a public service. The intent is to give everyone the freedom
to express independent points of view without censure or undue restriction.
However, we ask that you act responsibly in the exercise of your freedoms.
Please keep all comments in good taste and free from insult or the disparagement
of any individual or group (religious, political, racial, ethnic, sexual preference,
etc.).
For the record, the management
of Atlantis Rising wishes to make clear that any and all statements presented
on this forum represent the views of that particular writer ONLY and should
NOT be construed to represent in any way the views, opinions or policies of
Atlantis Rising Magazine or AtlantisRising.com.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
