UFOSeek Forum

More Complications to Gravity Functions....??
Page 2 of 3

Author:  bergle [ Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: [david barclay] More Complications to Gravity Functions....??

Well i personally think its like dna knowledge...things slow down...they always have they always will...its obvious....throw a rock and see.
Theres this force that always makes things fall...ultimately, we cannot deny this limitation.
Its with us cradle to grave....
We dont even talk about it because everybody knows things loose momentum....
they then fall to earth...so...?
Do you think it possible that our constant perceptions of reality as we experience it may be holding our minds back from getting there to the reality of things because we just do not empathise?Somehow we are tunnel visioning the possibilities?
It seems related with our myopia more than scientific or logical perception...like when you follow the troubleshooting part of the instructions in order and faithfully, you come to inescapable conclusions....
Most people just go to a mechanic....hey?
Like Gurdjief says we spend our lives in a prolonged state of somnambulence with periodic episodes of wakefullness, and upon waking and interacting with the somnambulent we return back to sleeping ourselves....we live a way more by rote than by note...
It always fascinated me how physics teacher would begin by discussing actions in nature and then, slowly inexorably draw a mathematical picture that would predict certain action reaction sequences.....
But we dont really think or live that way....

Author:  Timbit [ Tue Jul 10, 2007 1:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [bergle] More Complications to Gravity Functions....??

Speaking of Creighton Mine in Sudbudy, there is more information in chapter 6 of the Unity Book. I'm from a town North and East of there and had no idea this existed. I would love to see it. I've only been underground once, and that was for a study of women in non-traditional occupations. So, they only let me go so far, which wasn't far at all (women were bad luck and seen as canaries), to where the women worked. Amazing potential in these mines.

[url "http://www.gravitycontrol.org/pdf/Unity-chaptersix.pdf"]http://www.gravitycontrol.org/pdf/Unity-chaptersix.pdf[/url]


Author:  david barclay [ Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:21 am ]
Post subject:  Re: [Timbit] More Complications to Gravity Functions....??

Most of the seedlings planted in the area got their start in this mine, as they have been growing seedlings there for the past 20 years. It should not be that difficult to get a look at the operation. There used to be some good pictures of it on the web, but a lot of the material has been removed.

Yes, its an old superstition about women and mines. Such ideas are fading though, which is a progressive step forward.

Author:  david barclay [ Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:57 am ]
Post subject:  Re: [bergle] More Complications to Gravity Functions....??


The real problem is that physics, the study of physics at the academic level is akin to learning how to dress yourself without having to wear any clothes. In other words you end up with a degree in dressing and still end up walking around naked.

There are basic ingredients missing from the recipe, sort of like trying to make a cake with flour and water. No mater how hard you work at it you ain't going to get any cake out of it.

For starters, the four dimensional space/time continuum is based on a linear perception of universe, which does not work. The universe refuses to cooperate with the linear concept, which requires a static condition of universe to be of any value.

What is so remarkable about this is that we, most of us, know that the universe is not static, but is in fact dynamic, yet the static terms derived through linear perceptions of universe are still considered valid.

This indicates that those doing the teaching do not know their stuff and have no idea what a relative universe looks like or how to describe it. This may seem absurd and to some unbelievable, but it is true.

All you have to do is check the way they measure the speed of light to realize what is going on. Meters and seconds are employed to measure the linear duration and linear distance corresponding to the transitional linear time gap of reflection over a distance of one meter, which is said to be exactly 1/299,792,458ths of a second.

From this it is assumed that light speed is the upper maximum speed limit of anything including light. Even gravity is said to be restricted by this transitional time gap even though no one is quite sure what gravity actually is.

Is gravity a wave or a particle? The debate continues, while gravity itself refuses to play the game. Gravity does not have a transitional time gap, its not in linear motion anymore than light is in linear motion. It's a shell game.

This hides the fact that hardly anyone really gets it, as both light and gravity are dynamic responses to the condition of field which is non-linearly accelerating.

Gravity is neither a wave or a particle, it's a dynamic response which is something quite different from a wave or a particle.

The big boogie is the idea that time and space can be linearly defined in terms of seconds and meters.

Author:  bergle [ Wed Jul 11, 2007 4:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [david barclay] More Complications to Gravity Functions....??

Perhaps our habits and our stereoscopic vision are partly to do with the what things get taught though....linearity is our perceptive choice...by rote and by habit...or am i making myself clear enough ?im not sure if i can elucidate it well enogh....
But the way we developed our physics IS what we ourselves project because of our perceptive abilities inherited by genetics and not actually taken through to the right conclusions because we get to a limit within our selves...The one that works for us up to now....
Add a multiversal situation and our heads cant encompass the changes...

Author:  david barclay [ Thu Jul 12, 2007 10:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: [bergle] More Complications to Gravity Functions....??

This linear concept of universe, in relation to time and space, is a fairly modern idea as the ancients knew enough to know it would not work. They knew that cubits would not cut it and left it alone.

Here's something to think about, they say the earth is roughly 5 billion years old, but with the aid of the Hubble we can view distant galaxies at roughly 14 billion light years distance, while we view others which are 5 to 10 billion light years away.

So according to the rules of the game our view of the different galaxies took different lengths of time to reach us, but we see them all at the same time and we see them at a distance.

Evidently we see them where they were, so many millions or billions of years ago, and not where they are now, which would make mapping and navigation quite a challenge.

From this we are told that it is possible to photograph galaxies as they existed billions of years ago, before the earth came into existence. If we look through a telescope we can see the past..........?

University tuition is not cheap, but that's what you get for your money.

Author:  bebop [ Thu Jul 12, 2007 4:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [david barclay] More Complications to Gravity Functions....??

As a child I had some blocks, three-dimensional blocks. Given time I was able to build something. This proved something very basic to me. From there I looked at my world in much the same manner. Time, created distance. I think that every one can understand that. Most of us have no idea how someone ever came up with the speed of light, but we can understand the speed of a car or a boat or an airplane. So we are willing to accept that the speed of light is an ok thought and with this begin to understand the size and magnitude of world around us.

Now we hear that the past, the present, and the future are NOW, thus time goes out the window. Then if we think about it, so does the “three” dimensional idea, as distance is require to go from point “A” to point “B” and with distance comes time. So you can see how easy it is fo us to think in 4D.

I have yet to hear explained, and or hopefully demonstrated, in an understandable manner, what the fifty or sixth or seventh dimensions might look like, if in fact they look at all. And God forbid if we want to go beyond the seventh dimension, so that we can have a mental grasp, visualization if you please, rather than a stumbling around in the dark.

Just above I made a mistake in a sentence, oh I’m sure I’ve made more than one mistake but this little word became a major problem for my computer. I left it there to make a point. The sentence was, “So you can see how easy it is [b]fo[/b] us to think in 4D.” My spell checker went crazy and wanted to stop all further thinking until I did something about the word “FO” as there was no such word despite the fact that it held a space and most people would think that it was just my southern accent.

Well, fo what it’s worth, there we stand with time, there is no such thing, yet in our lives it holds a very definite place. Like my computer tells me, until I justify that word we can’t go on.

Now I talk about visualizing. Well to do so we have to accept the concept of the three dimensions. The existence of the three dimensions in itself creates the forth, as I explained above.

I’m sure most of you have heard of a “Mantra.” In meditation a person is given a word that means absolutely nothing. When we close our eyes, and think this word we can conjure up no image, the word goes nowhere and we are left with no thought. So I guess what I am asking for here is a mathematical Mantra so that I can understand, nothing and nowhere, so that in turn the computer in brain will allow me to complete this strange line of thinking.


Author:  Timbit [ Thu Jul 12, 2007 5:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [david barclay] More Complications to Gravity Functions....??

Just had a lightbulb moment here. We need a lightbulb icon in this forum. I think I just got something you said David. Tell me what you think.

When I look up into the sky, I see say three planets or stars. All in the same place at the same time. They all look the same to me, but they are different because some are older and some are newer, yet they all look the same from my perspective. What I don't see is that they ARE different because they developed in their own space and (different) times. So, if what I saw is only what's available to the naked eye, the truth of what's really there would allow me to see planet 'A' at a different time than planet 'B' as they exist as unique and different from each other. The impression I have now will always remain the same no matter how many times I look at those planets. So, if I read you right, even though those planets have arrived in our present, they arrived at different times along their own development.

So, are we actually seeing their past then? If we could somehow tap into that realm with the telescope, we would be able to see their future (as it is now?)?

I'm a few cubits short a palm here, it's a difficult concept.


Author:  bergle [ Thu Jul 12, 2007 10:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [Timbit] More Complications to Gravity Functions....??

Hmmm, lets see,....
the world =4bill yrs old...
The far star system is fourteen billion yrs old...
The light has had ten bil yrs head start to get here....
The sky theoretically should be showing new stars all the time as the light finally begins to arrive here then shouldnt it?
The universe is 15 billion yrs old..the light from all the stars therein should have got here, and be still comming long ago....
ahh nuts!:x

Author:  david barclay [ Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:04 am ]
Post subject:  Re: [bergle] More Complications to Gravity Functions....??

Hi Gang........the point I was trying to make was the absurdity of it all.

When Timbit looks at the stars she sees stars.......and yes some are new and some are old relative to her point of observation, but from another perspective the new ones are old and the old ones are new.

We see what there is to see at the moment we see it, as there is no light screaming across the sky to make contact with our eye. We are quite capable of seeing things at a distance and sometimes we need the aid of a telescope or very thick glasses.

If you look at string theory they have 10 or 12 dimensions, most of which we can't see because they are all curled up...........give me a break, please. This is as bad as mass-less particles that travel at the speed of light, as mass-less particles have no mass and if they have no mass how can they be described as particles......they are invisible even to an electron microscope.

Science is a mess, with invisible dimensions and invisible particles and undetectable gravitons etc.

Yes, we can relate to the speed of a car or a bus, we can also measure the distance from the kitchen to the bedroom, which is all very handy.......but the point is that these handy terms cannot be applied on a higher level. To do so traps us into believing something which doesn't hold water, it will not work.

Page 2 of 3 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group