UFOSeek Forum

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

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.

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

Bebop................yes there are physical dimensions, 4 or them, but they are not linear.

The problem with the linear concept is that it attempts to define universe in relation to static terms. It is presently assumed that a one meter rule is the same length regardless of where you are, in terms of far and near, which makes us believe we can measure the distance from here to the edge of universe with a one meter ruler.

From this we further get the idea that the past is out there for all to see.

If we carry on like this we are never going to get anywhere other than where we are, because we cannot at the present time colonize any other planet in the universe. We simply don't know what we are doing or how to get on track, because we have convinced ourselves that we already know.

So why are we still using rockets?

Its a huge subject, but it has to be addressed.

Author:  david barclay [ Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:27 am ]
Post subject:  Re: [Timbit] More Complications to Gravity Functions....??


We see both past and future, not just past. You are actually looking at the future of some stars and planets and the past of other stars and planets. But you see them all at the same time. Your vision has nothing to do with light entering your eye, as your eye is a sensor, a field frequency sensor. Your eye distinguishes field frequency in the form of color spectra.

Sight is a sensory response, just like all your senses. Remembering is a sensory response to memory, its a field function just like sight.

The speed of light has nothing to do with it, you see far and near simultaneously. Just as you remember simultaneously. Otherwise it would take longer to remember some things than others depending on how recent the information was known to you.

Both past and future are real, not imaginary..........they exist just as the present exists, but you can't get from here to there, in terms of past and future, by any linear means.

Author:  bergle [ Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [david barclay] More Complications to Gravity Functions....??

David, are you aware of the Montauk Boys?The "chair",the whole time travel projec t told about by Al Beilik and others...Started in philadelphia, and then moved to Houston?They were using psychics and enhancing their powers of mind with electronic means, then sticking them in this "chair"where they controlled the focus and scope of the time jumps....They also (according to testimony)could create from pure thought , anything material they could imagine properly....(the rumoured pallet of gold bars etc)
Its a cpmlicated story, and convoluted so bad it would break a snakes back to crawl up it,but i wonder if there is some truth to it...?
The idea that time is like a tree and the various branches are in existance (representing cause and effects)simultaneously past present and future(likke looking sideways down the stack of images in a clothing store mirror....)and we can slip through the cracks to access any one of the alternates is fascinating, but kinda science fiction dont you think?perhaps theres a way to switch to other times,but it sounds pretty wierd the way they explain it.

Author:  bebop [ Fri Jul 13, 2007 6:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [bergle] More Complications to Gravity Functions....??

Berg. That is pretty much what Thelina said they were able to do. The could every alternitive both past and future.???? The agrument still stands, either there is only the NOW or there is past, present and future. I strongly believe that a gifted person cna see the past and future however which one of either of them?


Author:  bergle [ Fri Jul 13, 2007 6:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [bebop] More Complications to Gravity Functions....??


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