Beyond Light Speed: A Tenet Nosce suggestion

[Conifer16]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484

Maybe this is experimental data on the other reality the earth is creating(4th density)? In David wilcock's work he postulates that if something were able to pass beyond the speed of light then it would move into time space. However I seem to remember reading at some point that he also suggested that moving beyond TSOL would send what ever did it into the 4th density. Also ever noticed how speed of light in acronyms is SOL the name of our sun. Just thought that was a little funny Anyway I welcome discussion by more Learned peoples on this subject.

Thanks,
Conifer16
Adonai Vasu Borragus

[CarlS]

Here are the 2 quotes I liked about your linked article:

"Neutrinos sent through the ground from Cern toward the Gran Sasso laboratory 732km away seemed to show up a tiny fraction of a second early."

And...

"But for now, he explained, "we are not claiming things, we want just to be helped by the community in understanding our crazy result - because it is crazy"."


Now as a registered crazy person (been admitted to the hospital for thinking like a smarty pants) the answer is simple in it's complication.


Since Neutrino's are capable of changing to other types and the fact they are sending these particles into the Earth the said Neutrino's are then not traveling at the speed of light. They, being capable of changing, begin to travel at the speed of dark which takes many times longer but comes with the added bonus of arriving a tiny bit earlier so they can explain themselves to the masses. Of course the path they travel and the places they go will change them in the process, the stories they come back with will surely amuse those with an open mind.


There was a nice picture of Einstein in the article. One of his quotes I enjoy is "Imagination is more important than knowledge."


If your mind is open to the travels of the Neutrinos then they may jump in as a Neuron into you, take you for a ride down the rabbit hole and leave you seeing tracers, sparkles and pitch blackness in the process. Or just scramble your entire concept of relativity and changes your perception of life to the point of not caring because if you do people will call you crazy.

[zenmaster]

In David wilcock's work he postulates that if something were able to pass beyond the speed of light then it would move into time space. However I seem to remember reading at some point that he also suggested that moving beyond TSOL would send what ever did it into the 4th density.

David got the idea from Larson, and he is correct. But in Larson's system, the natural datum IS the speed of light. Everything is inherently expanding outwards at unit speed ©. Interestingly, the photon has no freedom to counter this expansion - it can just move orthogonally to it, for example as a vibration. However, gravitating things (things with mass) do move in direct opposition to this expansion, cancelling it out. So the gravitating observer is measuring a non-moving particle that they're moving away from at 'the speed of light'. That where we get the notion of 'light speed'.

Each Density has its own space/time and time/space, and each higher density subsumes the lower. The only light speed we are familiar with is 1st density, however.

[Conifer16]

Zen do you understand the theories of Dewey Larson? I have trouble reading his work and if you do understand what he is saying it would be of great help to me if you could summerize what that is. I get the whole three dimension of space and three corresponding dimensions of time, but I get the impression that there is more to it then just that. Am I right?

Thanks,
-Conifer16-

[Tenet Nosce]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484

Maybe this is experimental data on the other reality the earth is creating(4th density)? In David wilcock's work he postulates that if something were able to pass beyond the speed of light then it would move into time space. However I seem to remember reading at some point that he also suggested that moving beyond TSOL would send what ever did it into the 4th density. Also ever noticed how speed of light in acronyms is SOL the name of our sun. Just thought that was a little funny Anyway I welcome discussion by more Learned peoples on this subject.

Thanks,
Conifer16
Adonai Vasu Borragus

My impressions on this is that the "speed of light" is relative to the densities. Being as the earth is now in a fourth-density environment, there is a new constant. As we are in a transition phase, the "old" constant still applies to some degree.

I am taking this observation to actually be a result of "bleedthrough" effects of fourth density. Hopefully, this discovery will lead to some real scientific investigation into the densities.

Or maybe not. At the very least, I take scientific discoveries to be a reflection of events going on in time/space. So for example, a neutrino traveling "faster than the speed of light" might imply an emerging ability to send information from the future to the past. I actually experimented with this a few days ago in More Positive But Less Harvestable, as you noted.

---

Zen do you understand the theories of Dewey Larson? I have trouble reading his work and if you do understand what he is saying it would be of great help to me if you could summerize what that is. I get the whole three dimension of space and three corresponding dimensions of time, but I get the impression that there is more to it then just that. Am I right?

Thanks,
-Conifer16-

The Reciprocal System of Theory by Dewey B. Larson www.reciprocalsystem.com/isus

http://www.llresearch.org/transcripts/is...ook_1.aspx

Questioner: Speaking of the rapid change that occurred in the physical vehicle from second to third density: this occurred, you said, in approximately a generation and a half. Body hair was lost and there were structural changes.

I am aware of the physics of Dewey B. Larson, who states that all is motion or vibration. Am I correct in assuming that the basic vibration that makes up the physical world changes, thus creating a different set of parameters, shall I say, in this short period of time between density changes allowing for the new type of being? Am I correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.

Questioner: Is the physics of Dewey Larson correct?

Ra: I am Ra. The physics of sound vibrational complex, Dewey, is a correct system as far as it is able to go. There are those things which are not included in this system. However, those coming after this particular entity, using the basic concepts of vibration and the study of vibrational distortions, will begin to understand that which you know as gravity and those things you consider as “n” dimensions. These things are necessary to be included in a more universal, shall we say, physical theory.

Questioner: Did this entity, Dewey, then bring this material through for use primarily in the fourth density?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.

http://www.llresearch.org/transcripts/is...ook_2.aspx

Questioner: I will make a statement that I have extracted from the physics of Dewey Larson which may or may not be close to what we are trying to explain. Larson says that all is motion which we can take as vibration, and that vibration is pure vibration and is not physical in any way or in any form or density, and the first product of that vibration is what we call the photon or particle of light. I am trying to make an analogy between this physical solution and the concept of love and light. Is this close to the concept of Love creating light?

Ra: I am Ra. You are correct.

http://www.llresearch.org/transcripts/is...ook_2.aspx

Questioner: I may be backtracking a little today because I think that possibly we are at the most important part of what we are doing in trying to make it apparent how everything is one, how it comes from one intelligent infinity. This is difficult, so please bear with my errors in questioning.

The concept that I have right now of the process, using both what you have told me and some of Dewey Larson’s material having to do with the physics of the process, is that intelligent infinity expands outward from all locations everywhere. It expands outward uniformly like the surface of a bubble or a balloon expanding outward from every point everywhere. It expands outward at what is called unit velocity or the velocity of light. This is Larson’s idea of the progression of what he calls space/time. Is this concept correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This concept is incorrect as is any concept of the one intelligent infinity. This concept is correct in the context of one particular Logos, or Love, or focus of this Creator which has chosen Its, shall we say, natural laws and ways of expressing them mathematically and otherwise.

The one undifferentiated intelligent infinity, unpolarized, full and whole, is the macrocosm of the mystery-clad being. We are messengers of the Law of One. Unity, at this approximation of understanding, cannot be specified by any physics but only become activated or potentiated intelligent infinity due to the catalyst of free will. This may be difficult to accept. However, the understandings we have to share begin and end in mystery.

Questioner: Yesterday we had arrived at a point where we were considering colors of light. You said: “The nature of the vibratory patterns of your universe is dependent upon the configurations placed upon the original material or light by the focus or Love using Its intelligent energy to create a certain pattern of illusions or densities in order to satisfy Its own intelligent estimate of a method of knowing Itself.” Then after this you said that there was more material that you would be happy to share, but we ran out of time. Could you give us further information on that?

Ra: I am Ra. In discussing this information we then, shall we say, snap back into the particular methods of understanding or seeing that which the one, sound vibration complex, Dewey, offers; this being correct for the second meaning of intelligent infinity: the potential which then through catalyst forms the kinetic.

This information is a natural progression of inspection of the kinetic shape of your environment. You may understand each color or ray as being, as we had said, a very specific and accurate portion of intelligent energy’s representation of intelligent infinity, each ray having been previously inspected in other regards.

This information may be of aid here. We speak now nonspecifically to increase the depth of your conceptualization of the nature of what is. The universe in which you live is recapitulation in each part of intelligent infinity. Thus you will see the same patterns repeated in physical and metaphysical areas; the rays or portions of light being, as you surmise, those areas of what you may call the physical illusion which rotate, vibrate, or are of a nature that may be, shall we say, counted or categorized in rotation manner in space/time as described by the one known as Dewey; some substances having various of the rays in a physical manifestation visible to the eye, this being apparent in the nature of your crystallized minerals which you count as precious, the ruby being red and so forth.

Questioner: This light occurred as a consequence of vibration which is a consequence of Love. I am going to ask if that statement is correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This statement is correct.

http://www.llresearch.org/transcripts/is..._0307.aspx

The one known as Dewey [1], in speaking of how his learning as a physicist affected his own thoughts about spiritual matters, chose to describe the way he saw the “new man” as an ethical biological unit. The “old man,” he said, “was simply a biological unit.” It worked from instinct, it made its choices, and it protected that which was its own and saw to the survival of itself and its family unit. However, when one moves into the new definition of self that is the conscious self, that self that is aware of itself as a soul, the word that is added is “ethical.” An ethical biological unit is one who does look to the honors, to the duties, and to the love that is theirs to judge and deem appropriate and choose.

How true it is that one must, at some point, make a positive choice or the choice will simply make you and that choice may be a choice in which all of the old unconscious patternings of what the one known as Eckhart Tolle called the “pain body” may be thriving in glorious health. So it is well to take hold of the decision-making process, especially in such deep matters as right livelihood and self-healing, and to move through the most conscious effort possible of gazing within the self, moving the self to the best-judged center of self that can be found, and from that point, asking the self, “What do I love and where is the love pulling me? What do I honor and how can I [give] honor to those things that I do so honor? What are my just and fair responsibilities and how can I best fulfill those?”

http://www.llresearch.org/transcripts/is..._0228.aspx

It is against this backdrop that we would speak of space/time and time/space. We wished to establish this background before we spoke of the Reciprocal System of Physics created by the one known as Dewey. [3] In questioning the Ra group concerning the nature of reality the one known as Don used the language of the system of physics created by the one known as Dewey when asking his questions, and the ones of Ra responded accordingly.

Through this instrument we can only be general about the nature of the system of physics known as the Reciprocal System. However, the central equation of this system of physics is an equation that can be written in two ways, hence the term “Reciprocal System.” V stands for velocity in this equation. S stands for space, and T, for time. The equation is written either, v=s/t or v=t/s.

[Conifer16]

This is what I was trying to get at. Sorry if my post didn't make sense.


[Begin Quote]
I am taking this observation to actually be a result of "bleedthrough" effects of fourth density. Hopefully, this discovery will lead to some real scientific investigation into the densities.[End Quote]

---

Oh and thanks for the links.

[Tenet Nosce]

This is curious though:

http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/isus/

2. The physical universe conforms to the relations of ordinary commutative mathematics, its primary magnitudes are absolute, and its geometry is Euclidean.

I thought that Einstein proved that the physical universe is NOT Euclidean... hmm... so wait would that mean perhaps that variations from non-Euclidean geometry are a result of "bleedthrough" from other densities?!

If I recall correctly, the high degree of permeability between densities is somewhat unique to this Logos, and in many ways an innovation over earlier creations.

Questioner: Now, there are several general concepts that I would like to be sure that we have clear before going into this process and I will certainly adhere to the requests that you have just stated.

When our Logos designed this particular evolution of experience It decided to use a system of which we spoke allowing for polarization through total free will. How is this different from the Logos that does not do this? I see the Logos creating the possibility of increase in vibration through the densities. How are the densities provided for and set by the Logos, if you can answer this?

Ra: I am Ra. This shall be the last full query of this working. The psychic attack upon this instrument has, shall we say, left scars which must be tended, in our own opinion, in order to maintain the instrument.

Let us observe your second density. Many come more rapidly to third density than others not because of an innate efficiency of catalysis but because of unusual opportunities for investment. In just such a way those of fourth density may invest third, those of fifth density may invest fourth. When fifth density has been obtained the process takes upon itself a momentum based upon the characteristics of wisdom when applied to circumstance. The Logos Itself, then, in these instances provides investment opportunities, if you wish to use that term. May we enquire if there are any brief queries at this space/time?

Questioner: I was interested specifically in how this very first division showed up in this octave. I was interested to know if it made the transition through first, second, third, fourth, etc. densities? I would like to take the first mind/body/spirit complexes and trace their experience from the very start to the present so that I could better understand the condition that we are in now by comparing it with this original growth. Could you please tell me precisely how this came about as to the formation of the planets and growth through the densities, if that is the way it happened, please?

Ra: I am Ra. Your queries seem more confused than your basic mental distortions in this area. Let us speak in general and perhaps you may find a less confused and more simple method of eliciting information in this area.

A very great deal of creation was manifested without the use of the concepts involved in consciousness, as you know it. The creation itself is a form of consciousness which is unified, the Logos being the one great heart of creation. The process of evolution through this period, which may be seen to be timeless, is most valuable to take into consideration, for it is against the background of this essential unity of the fabric of creation that we find the ultimate development of the Logoi which chose to use that portion of the harvested consciousness of the Creator to move forward with the process of knowledge of self. As it had been found to be efficient to use the various densities, which are fixed in each octave, in order to create conditions in which self-conscious sub-Logoi could exist, this was carried out throughout the growing flower-strewn field, as your simile suggests, of the one infinite creation.

The first beings of mind, body, and spirit were not complex. The experience of mind/body/spirits at the beginning of this octave of experience was singular. There was no third-density forgetting. There was no veil. The lessons of third density are predestined by the very nature of the vibratory rates experienced during this particular density and by the nature of the quantum jump to the vibratory experiences of fourth density.

Questioner: Were there any other circumstances, biases, consequences, or plans set up by the Logos other than those we have discussed for the evolution of Its parts through the densities?

Ra: I am Ra. Yes.

Questioner: What were these?

Ra: I am Ra. One more; that is, the permeability of the densities so that there may be communication from density to density and from plane to plane or sub-density to sub-density.

Questioner: Then as I see the plan for the evolution by this Logos it was planned to create as vivid an experience as possible but also one which was somewhat informed with respect to the Infinite Creator and able to accelerate the progress as a function of will because of the permeability of densities. Have I covered accurately the general plan of this Logos with respect to Its evolution?

Ra: I am Ra. Excepting the actions of the unmanifested self and the actions of self with other-self, you have been reasonably thorough.

Questioner: I assume, then, that twenty-two is the greatest number of archetypes. I also ask is it the minimum number presently in use by any Logos to Ra’s knowledge?

Ra: I am Ra. The fewest are the two systems of five which are completing the cycles or densities of experience.

You must grasp the idea that the archetypes were not developed at once but step by step, and not in order as you know the order at this space/time but in various orders. Therefore, the two systems of fives were using two separate ways of viewing the archetypical nature of all experience. Each, of course, used the Matrix, the Potentiator, and the Significator for this is the harvest with which our creation began.

One way or system of experimentation had added to these the Catalyst and the Experience. Another system if you will, had added Catalyst and Transformation. In one case the methods whereby experience was processed was further aided but the fruits of experience less aided. In the second case the opposite may be seen to be the case.

---

This is what I was trying to get at. Sorry if my post didn't make sense.


[Begin Quote]
I am taking this observation to actually be a result of "bleedthrough" effects of fourth density. Hopefully, this discovery will lead to some real scientific investigation into the densities.[End Quote]

---

Oh and thanks for the links.

It made sense to me, but I sensed you grasping a bit for the language. I was well on my way to being a physicist before changing my major to biology and philosophy. Glad to be of service.

I went and deleted my thread on this subject so as not to dilute the conversation. If I may make a suggestion- which is entirely up to you to employ- it would be to change the name of this thread to "Beyond Light Speed". You may do this by editing your first post. Or not, such as may be your preference.

[zenmaster]

Zen do you understand the theories of Dewey Larson? I have trouble reading his work and if you do understand what he is saying it would be of great help to me if you could summerize what that is. I get the whole three dimension of space and three corresponding dimensions of time, but I get the impression that there is more to it then just that. Am I right?

I've studied it over the years and understand the basics. The 3 dimensions are mathematical only, expressed as scalar magnitudes. Only 1 of those dimensions has an affect on what we perceive as our conventional reference system of 3 (X,Y,Z) dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time. Larson referred to our conventional (observed) system as "extension space".
Take a look at "Nothing but Motion".

---

My impressions on this is that the "speed of light" is relative to the densities. Being as the earth is now in a fourth-density environment, there is a new constant. As we are in a transition phase, the "old" constant still applies to some degree.

There is no new constant. We can not measure anything "vibrating" over 1D using 1D apparatus.

I am taking this observation to actually be a result of "bleedthrough" effects of fourth density. Hopefully, this discovery will lead to some real scientific investigation into the densities.

It's a 1st-density measurement.

[Tenet Nosce]

My impressions on this is that the "speed of light" is relative to the densities. Being as the earth is now in a fourth-density environment, there is a new constant. As we are in a transition phase, the "old" constant still applies to some degree.

There is no new constant. We can not measure anything "vibrating" over 1D using 1D apparatus.

I am taking this observation to actually be a result of "bleedthrough" effects of fourth density. Hopefully, this discovery will lead to some real scientific investigation into the densities.

It's a 1st-density measurement.

According to your understanding, what would cause these neutrinos to be detected traveling faster than the speed of light by 1D apparatus?

[zenmaster]

This is curious though:

http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/isus/

2. The physical universe conforms to the relations of ordinary commutative mathematics, its primary magnitudes are absolute, and its geometry is Euclidean.

I thought that Einstein proved that the physical universe is NOT Euclidean... hmm... so wait would that mean perhaps that variations from non-Euclidean geometry are a result of "bleedthrough" from other densities?!

Larson is imposing a Euclidean reference system on the universe in order for his math relations to work out. It's not 'inherently' Euclidean, obviously. It's fine to impose any geometry as a tool as long as you understand its limitations. If you read various physics papers about N dimensions, for example, scientists know there are not inherently N dimensions - however, for theoretical investigations one must 'draw a line in the sand' in order to establish a framework for entities within the system to be depicted and relate in some manner.

---

According to your understanding, what would cause these neutrinos to be detected traveling faster than the speed of light by 1D apparatus?

Experimental error, most likely. For example, bad calculation of distance.

[Tenet Nosce]

Experimental error, most likely. For example, bad calculation of distance.

What makes error the most likely explanation? Scientific breakthroughs are happening all the time. Nearly a day goes by that I don't read an article that overturns previous dogma. So why not the speed of light? Kind of sounds fitting for the times.

Obviously, such a result needs to be confirmed and reconfirmed, though I will give the folks at the CERN the benefit of the doubt for now. Time will prove these findings to be true or false.

If true, then time will have proven itself to be nothing more than a projection of the mind. Sounds like the perfect paradox to herald a new age.

[zenmaster]

Experimental error, most likely. For example, bad calculation of distance.

Keep in mind that neutrinos and photons are quite different in how they interact with the local environment. There is effectively more distance for travel when a photon has to propagate through material.

What makes error the most likely explanation?

Because it is the most simple.

Scientific breakthroughs are happening all the time. Nearly a day goes by that I don't read an article that overturns previous dogma.

We can and often do frame knowledge any way we want to feel justified in our desires. One such framing is the depiction of close mindedness in light of new data. When in fact those who came after are most of the time entirely dependent on those who came before.

So why not the speed of light? Kind of sounds fitting for the times.

Many discoveries and current events have been selectively framed as being 'fitting for the times'. This is like the opposite of dogma: the unbridled use of the intuition, pareidolia, masking as open mindedness and insight. Grasping for such confirmations of bias tends to be a form of regressive coping behavior, like a security blanket.

If true, then time will have proven itself to be nothing more than a projection of the mind. Sounds like the perfect paradox to herald a new age.

How would this prove that time is nothing more than a projection of the mind?

[drifting pages]

This has been happening for 2 years now they have done more then 16.000 experiments and checked the calculations of distance measurement and time, they did all that and now are asking the world wide community to disprove it

[zenmaster]

This has been happening for 2 years now they have done more then 16.000 experiments and checked the calculations of distance measurement and time, they did all that and now are asking the world wide community to disprove it

Well we can certainly appeal to how fastidious they were in their research. I wouldn't think that the goal is to 'disprove it' so much as trying to explain it using the current theoretical base. Neutrinos only weakly interact with matter, and probably only under special circumstances. Remember, matter equals 'space' - that's how light is slowed down and why a vacuum is important.

[Tenet Nosce]

Keep in mind that neutrinos and photons are quite different in how they interact with the local environment. There is effectively more distance for travel when a photon has to propagate through material.

I will have to review this as I don't recall off the top of my head how neutrinos (supposedly) propagate.

Because it is the most simple.

The "most simple" description of the function of the universe would be: Love. Which equation does "Love" fit into?

There is a law within the density which you now know as the physical. This law is visible within the physical illusion as cause and effect. There is no action without a reaction. Nothing that happens has not been caused. That which you do is reflected in experience. This is karma.

This is a law. The law does not become abrogated. There is a higher law, and this is the Law of Love. If you invoke this law, this law will dissolve the karma. Yet you invoke this through action. In meditation, you align yourself with all that there is. You have brought into your consciousness the Creator. Yet karma is that which is in the physical, and to dissolve karma, there must be action of a final kind which resolves the reaction. This action partakes of love, but love-in-action.

According to my understanding, Einstein's theories require us to deduce some very NON-SIMPLE conclusions about the universe. To the point where Einstein himself was not really satisfied. General relativity still needs to be reconciled with quantum physics, as I am sure you well know.

Also, there is currently no mathematical representation of consciousness in any theory of physics that I am aware. If light = consciousness, and that light/consciousness is something that entities can exchange information with, then scientists would really need to rethink everything they consider to be "physical law".

We can and often do frame knowledge any way we want to feel justified in our desires. One such framing is the depiction of close mindedness in light of new data. When in fact those who came after are most of the time entirely dependent on those who came before.

Pardon, but who is "we"? You and me? People in general? Or are you a scientist? If so, what kind? I am just trying to get a feel for where you are coming from.

Scientists are supposed to be skeptical about new data that overturns previous theories. I understand this. I also observe many in the scientific arena being just as dogmatic as some religious fundamentalists. It is actually quite humorous to me, and ironic. Science and religion... unified by dogmatic thinking... the ultimate "security blanket" if you ask me.

Many discoveries and current events have been selectively framed as being 'fitting for the times'. This is like the opposite of dogma: the unbridled use of the intuition, pareidolia, masking as open mindedness and insight. Grasping for such confirmations of bias tends to be a form of regressive coping behavior, like a security blanket.

Are you also a psychologist? Because you may wish to take a look at the way you are painting others with broad brush strokes. Generalizing, using words like "unbridled", "masking", "grasping". Using technical terms rather than speaking in plain english. This is dissociative behavior, typically used when one would like to put some "distance" between themselves and another, as a result of feeling threatened or attacked.

Confirmation bias works in all directions. In my particular case, I do not have any stake in the outcome being one way or another. I don't "need" neutrinos to behave a certain way. I wasn't "expecting" scientists to detect neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light. So it is no skin off of my nose. I just think it is interesting.

How would this prove that time is nothing more than a projection of the mind?

Let's see.

Special relativity postulates that there is no absolute frame of reference. I would conjecture that there IS an absolute frame of reference, and that frame of reference would be the Logos (consciousness/mind) in which we live, move, and have our being.

Special relativity also postulates that the speed of light is the same relative to all frames of reference. Again, overlooking the special case of the observer being the Logos, who existed prior to the creation of light, which itself was birthed out of LOVE.

These two postulates form the basis of the concept of mass-energy equivalence. This concept also postulates the speed of light in a "vacuum" which does not really exist. If consciousness/mind permeates the entire universe, then consciousness/mind is the medium through which light propagates.

Since the principle of causality rests upon the acceptance of the "vacuum" as "nothingness"- if the "vacuum/nothingness" is a fabrication of the mind, then the mind's conception of causality is flawed and the only reason events APPEAR to have causality is because we are viewing events with our own limited mental faculties.

Theoretical Breakthrough: Generating Matter and Antimatter from Nothing

The scientists and engineers have developed new equations that show how a high-energy electron beam combined with an intense laser pulse could rip apart a vacuum into its fundamental matter and antimatter components, and set off a cascade of events that generates additional pairs of particles and antiparticles.

IF a "vacuum" can be ripped apart into more fundamental components, and used to generate particles, THEN the common concept of a "vacuum" as "nothingness" is a fabrication of the mind. If there is no such thing as "nothingness" then any conception of time which is built up upon such a fabrication is an extension of that fabrication.

We ask you to realize that we are speaking on the level of a causality that is far beyond the causality of worldly things.

Questioner: Yes, I have a question. I would like to know if there is a vibrating vortex at the center of what we perceive to be a particle?

We are those of Q’uo, and are aware of your query, my brother. To respond to your query directly is almost impossible, for to us there is no particle involved. From our point of view we would say that the energies of space and time are mismatched in a certain way which causes the oscillation of which you have been speaking and creates the visible worlds or the manifested worlds. When the mismatch between space and time is won by time, then the inner planes or the unseen realms are created by this incredibly quick oscillation.

However, my brother, to the best of our understanding there is no particle involved, no mass, but simply dynamic tension betwixt space and time as components of velocity.

General relativity builds upon these conjectures by postulating various non-Euclidian geometries. These are anything but simple. So Occam would be rolling over in his grave with these.

I could go on...

[drifting pages]

I don't particularly identify with the Ra, "theories ? truth ? whatever you wanna call it"

But anyway you know when they talk about 8D as compact into creator, as unknowable mystery etc, well that is is the vacuum or nothingness or void, science, Buddhism, Tao and etc describes.

This is the (from my perspective) so called ONE, the One just BE, there is no more experience or awareness, causality, time change everything breaks. Awareness dissolves because it is truly ONE now.

Yet here i am.

That is why everything is called illusion from certain beliefs systems, There is the unknowable that dreams infinite dreams within itself, infinite reflections and points of view....

In the end nothing is truly proven because there is nothing to prove, only dreams, experience to partake right NOW.

Or so i feel.

sorry for going off-topic but i have been trying to bridge some Ra concepts and this looks like a good opportunity.

IT is the unknowability of existence that allows consciousness to explore any reality that is possible, because TRUTH COMPLETE is uncertain, other then awareness.

I don't known many things (ha) but this is my guess why state of being and thought matters.

[zenmaster]

Because it is the most simple.

The "most simple" description of the function of the universe would be: Love. Which equation does "Love" fit into?

Love fits into all equations, because all equations depict relationships and any possible relationship is provided by love. Love is a principle which is outside of space and time. So can only be described AND experienced through a state of being capable of understanding it. The closest thing we have using our condition is an unconscious feeling or intuitive notion. For me, love is sort of like the vehicle for the vehicle of consciousness. From our point of view, it's like a 'lease' or opportunity.

According to my understanding, Einstein's theories require us to deduce some very NON-SIMPLE conclusions about the universe. To the point where Einstein himself was not really satisfied. General relativity still needs to be reconciled with quantum physics, as I am sure you well know.

Also, there is currently no mathematical representation of consciousness in any theory of physics that I am aware. If light = consciousness, and that light/consciousness is something that entities can exchange information with, then scientists would really need to rethink everything they consider to be "physical law".

There certainly have been many attempts to represent aspects or portions of consciousness mathematically.

We can and often do frame knowledge any way we want to feel justified in our desires. One such framing is the depiction of close mindedness in light of new data. When in fact those who came after are most of the time entirely dependent on those who came before.

Pardon, but who is "we"? You and me? People in general? Or are you a scientist? If so, what kind? I am just trying to get a feel for where you are coming from.

People in general. That is the condition we all have, including both you and me. The expressions are slightly different based on what one needs to learn. But we tend to re-use the same valuing memes left by other pioneers in order to depict our current biases. No, I am not a scientist.

Scientists are supposed to be skeptical about new data that overturns previous theories. I understand this. I also observe many in the scientific arena being just as dogmatic as some religious fundamentalists. It is actually quite humorous to me, and ironic. Science and religion... unified by dogmatic thinking... the ultimate "security blanket" if you ask me.

Scientists also observe many in the scientific arena being just as dogmatic as some religious fundamentalists. Religious people do the same. Such viewpoints are just steps to learning about the self. And, yes, they also find it quite humorous and ironic. But if you look into both science and religion, there is nothing about the purpose of science which is dogmatic and nothing about the purpose of religion which is dogmatic (in the pathological or regressive sense). The scientific method is based on creating relationships from observation. The religious ceremony is about connecting to the creator.

Many discoveries and current events have been selectively framed as being 'fitting for the times'. This is like the opposite of dogma: the unbridled use of the intuition, pareidolia, masking as open mindedness and insight. Grasping for such confirmations of bias tends to be a form of regressive coping behavior, like a security blanket.

Are you also a psychologist? Because you may wish to take a look at the way you are painting others with broad brush strokes.

What do you mean broad brush strokes in the manner of the security-blanketed, dogmatic science and religion?

Generalizing, using words like "unbridled", "masking", "grasping". Using technical terms rather than speaking in plain english. This is dissociative behavior, typically used when one would like to put some "distance" between themselves and another, as a result of feeling threatened or attacked.

Its actually just yet another way to explain the condition that is currently happening. The "unbridled" term I got from Ra, as I felt it was an apt depiction of hyper-intuitive behavior where blanks in cognition are allowed to be filled by unconscious desires i.e. in the manner here or here. The "masking" term was used because any meme which we inflate as "truth" is necessarily temporary. The so-called open minded person who is the would-be purveyor of truth (for example, some conspiracy) and therefore some kind of "liberator", is often just parroting what they are compelled to do based on valuing-meme identification. They do not see the hole which they have dug from the attachment to their borrowed ideology. For them it is entirely appropriate or fitting to what they perceive to be the actual situation and righteous. The "grasping" necessarily follows from the attachment, for one can not fully see any brand new condition of being which they are drawn to for some reason. "grasping" is an apt word because it does describe this new condition of learning. We tend to move in stages from apprehension (grasping), to comprehension to understanding. Yes, all of us - hence the broad-generalization brush strokes.

Speculation and the intuition always leads the way to a new condition, new knowledge not only about the external world but the internal as well. And we continually, without fail, unconsciously project one on the other (because one is ultimately the other - i.e. time/space = space/time, or "as above, so below").

Confirmation bias works in all directions. In my particular case, I do not have any stake in the outcome being one way or another.

We necessarily have a stake in an outcome when we connect it with a hope. Such is the nature of hope. Hope does just that, it creates a stake for some type of gain. I will say it again, we necessarily have a stake in an outcome when we have a hope for some outcome or event.

How would this prove that time is nothing more than a projection of the mind?

Let's see.

Special relativity postulates that there is no absolute frame of reference. I would conjecture that there IS an absolute frame of reference, and that frame of reference would be the Logos (consciousness/mind) in which we live, move, and have our being.

Special relativity also postulates that the speed of light is the same relative to all frames of reference. Again, overlooking the special case of the observer being the Logos, who existed prior to the creation of light, which itself was birthed out of LOVE.

These two postulates form the basis of the concept of mass-energy equivalence. This concept also postulates the speed of light in a "vacuum" which does not really exist. If consciousness/mind permeates the entire universe, then consciousness/mind is the medium through which light propagates.

Since the principle of causality rests upon the acceptance of the "vacuum" as "nothingness"- if the "vacuum/nothingness" is a fabrication of the mind, then the mind's conception of causality is flawed and the only reason events APPEAR to have causality is because we are viewing events with our own limited mental faculties.

Theoretical Breakthrough: Generating Matter and Antimatter from Nothing

The scientists and engineers have developed new equations that show how a high-energy electron beam combined with an intense laser pulse could rip apart a vacuum into its fundamental matter and antimatter components, and set off a cascade of events that generates additional pairs of particles and antiparticles.

IF a "vacuum" can be ripped apart into more fundamental components, and used to generate particles, THEN the common concept of a "vacuum" as "nothingness" is a fabrication of the mind. If there is no such thing as "nothingness" then any conception of time which is built up upon such a fabrication is an extension of that fabrication.

We ask you to realize that we are speaking on the level of a causality that is far beyond the causality of worldly things.

Questioner: Yes, I have a question. I would like to know if there is a vibrating vortex at the center of what we perceive to be a particle?

We are those of Q’uo, and are aware of your query, my brother. To respond to your query directly is almost impossible, for to us there is no particle involved. From our point of view we would say that the energies of space and time are mismatched in a certain way which causes the oscillation of which you have been speaking and creates the visible worlds or the manifested worlds. When the mismatch between space and time is won by time, then the inner planes or the unseen realms are created by this incredibly quick oscillation.

However, my brother, to the best of our understanding there is no particle involved, no mass, but simply dynamic tension betwixt space and time as components of velocity.

But you can not prove it is a projection of the mind. The mind is creating the theories. There would first have to be a practical theoretical base for how the mind works (the mind-body problem) in order to associate experience and mind. If we understood how the mind works, we would at the vary least understand how 2nd density works, since that is the first manifestation of the mind principle. Up to this point, most of the theories of the mind are soft-science related (psychology) or philosophical.

General relativity builds upon these conjectures by postulating various non-Euclidian geometries. These are anything but simple. So Occam would be rolling over in his grave with these.

Yep, and scientists know this. Yet it is difficult to remove complexity. Complexity is entertaining. Eventually the epicyclic system of theory we currently use (with some success, of course) will become too insufficient, possibly by a dogmatic scientist working in earnest.

[Tenet Nosce]

There certainly have been many attempts to represent aspects or portions of consciousness mathematically.

Attempts that have been taken seriously by the scientific community? Can you give some examples so I can check them out?

People in general. That is the condition we all have, including both you and me. The expressions are slightly different based on what one needs to learn. But we tend to re-use the same valuing memes left by other pioneers in order to depict our current biases. No, I am not a scientist.

I see what you are saying. This makes more sense to me now.

Scientists also observe many in the scientific arena being just as dogmatic as some religious fundamentalists. Religious people do the same. Such viewpoints are just steps to learning about the self. And, yes, they also find it quite humorous and ironic. But if you look into both science and religion, there is nothing about the purpose of science which is dogmatic and nothing about the purpose of religion which is dogmatic (in the pathological or regressive sense). The scientific method is based on creating relationships from observation. The religious ceremony is about connecting to the creator.

The purpose of both appears to be to ascertain truth. Something about the process seems to lead many astray. It appears in both cases to lead to attachment to a particular conception of truth. Both processes seem to make it too easy for a seeker to become attached to certain ideas, or to feel that they have arrived at the "ultimate truth" of some kind.

It isn't made plain to seekers that one truth will lead to a greater truth will lead to a greater truth, and so on.

For example, in every generation since the advent of the scientific method, some bozo out there declares that science has reached its limits and that "we know everything there is to know". In every generation since Jesus, some bozo out there has been declaring that Armageddon is upon us. And so on...

The scientific method is based upon a false idea of an objective observer. Religious rituals have been manipulated in order to reinforce a feeling of disconnect to the creator. (For example, the doxology following the Lord's Prayer in the Christian liturgy changes the entire ceremony from an invocation to an evocation.)

The "purpose" of science and religion seems to have become lost in the "process" of science and religion. Seekers in both camps have a tendency to place undue "faith" in the process and selectively ignore the countless examples of where the process has failed.

What do you mean broad brush strokes in the manner of the security-blanketed, dogmatic science and religion?

It appeared to me that you were tossing me into the camp of others who claim that because a scientific discovery is "fitting for the times" that it should be accepted without reservation. I may have projected this on to you, however if so your words were not clear in this respect. I am an individual and belong to no camp. That is where the "broad brush stroke" comment comes in.

As for the "security blanket" piece- it is as I described before. Many scientists feel that the "scientific method" is so sacrosanct- so perfect- that any failure to arrive at the truth must have been a failure to apply the scientific method properly. I don't observe scientists turning the scientific method upon itself in order to arrive at an improved methodology.

In the religion department, we can use as an example the "security blanket" of those who "just pray to Jesus" over and over again despite their prayers not being answered. They have absolute "faith" in Jesus- ascribing powers to him that do not exist.

In both cases there is the security blanket of false "faith" which, ironically, reinforces the belief in a faulty process every time it fails. Instead of taking the failure as an opportunity to improve the process, the seeker takes it as an opportunity to "renew their faith".

Does this address your question, or did I misunderstand it?

Its actually just yet another way to explain the condition that is currently happening. The "unbridled" term I got from Ra, as I felt it was an apt depiction of hyper-intuitive behavior where blanks in cognition are allowed to be filled by unconscious desires i.e. in the manner here or here.
The "masking" term was used because any meme which we inflate as "truth" is necessarily temporary.

I see. That makes more sense. If I may make an observation, sometimes your posts leave many blanks for the mind to fill in with projections. It might improve communications with others to provide the kind of details you offered above- especially when using words that can be taken in several different contexts.

The so-called open minded person who is the would-be purveyor of truth (for example, some conspiracy) and therefore some kind of "liberator", is often just parroting what they are compelled to do based on valuing-meme identification. They do not see the hole which they have dug from the attachment to their borrowed ideology. For them it is entirely appropriate or fitting to what they perceive to be the actual situation and righteous.

And so, am I to assume that this above paragraph is your depiction of myself? If so, this seems to be a recurring distortion in our communications.

This thread was intended by Conifer16 and myself to be a discussion of this new observation- not as an exposition of truth by self-appointed "liberators" of humanity.

The "grasping" necessarily follows from the attachment, for one can not fully see any brand new condition of being which they are drawn to for some reason. "grasping" is an apt word because it does describe this new condition of learning. We tend to move in stages from apprehension (grasping), to comprehension to understanding.

Well this makes more sense. I took "grasping" to mean as in "grasping at straws" in the sense of desperately holding on to a perception despite clear evidence to the contrary. It appears you are using "grasping" as a necessary stage to comprehension and understanding.

Yes, all of us - hence the broad-generalization brush strokes.

OK. Well again, it might improve communication if you were to more readily point out where your own mind might be "filling in the blanks" in addition to pointing out when this occurs in others. Your fixation on identifying bias appears to be your own bias.

[zenmaster]

There certainly have been many attempts to represent aspects or portions of consciousness mathematically.

Attempts that have been taken seriously by the scientific community? Can you give some examples so I can check them out?

What is the "scientific community"? There are various fields of research, as well as independent investigators.

Here's a few :

http://www.calresco.org/links.htm
http://sites.google.com/site/unifiedcomplexity/
http://indigo.ie/~peter/integral.html

Scientists also observe many in the scientific arena being just as dogmatic as some religious fundamentalists. Religious people do the same. Such viewpoints are just steps to learning about the self. And, yes, they also find it quite humorous and ironic. But if you look into both science and religion, there is nothing about the purpose of science which is dogmatic and nothing about the purpose of religion which is dogmatic (in the pathological or regressive sense). The scientific method is based on creating relationships from observation. The religious ceremony is about connecting to the creator.

The purpose of both appears to be to ascertain truth. Something about the process seems to lead many astray. It appears in both cases to lead to attachment to a particular conception of truth. Both processes seem to make it too easy for a seeker to become attached to certain ideas, or to feel that they have arrived at the "ultimate truth" of some kind.

It isn't made plain to seekers that one truth will lead to a greater truth will lead to a greater truth, and so on.

You can't hand hold, or learn for someone, or hand them subjective experience on a plate without damaging infringement. There are stages and lines of development. Support groups exist for the initial stages, then the umbilical chord must be cut and one's life must be more self-determined. Rejecting what brought us to that point of recognition is inharmonious and wrong - it also tends to be necessary. We must magnify many things about our learning experience, after the fact, in order to eventually find out just what occurred - to fit those experiences more appropriately into our worldview and to take ownership of them.

For example, in every generation since the advent of the scientific method, some bozo out there declares that science has reached its limits and that "we know everything there is to know". In every generation since Jesus, some bozo out there has been declaring that Armageddon is upon us. And so on...

Of course. There will always be examples of this type to be found and help up as failures in light of something more encompassing or sufficient. People are 'at' different stages in development.

The scientific method is based upon a false idea of an objective observer.

Untrue. It is based upon observation, in general, and experiment. Replication of results is key. The notion of an 'objective-experience box', materialsm, reductionism, etc. is not inherent to the method. Wiber points this out in his system here as the 'right-hand' theorists.

Religious rituals have been manipulated in order to reinforce a feeling of disconnect to the creator. (For example, the doxology following the Lord's Prayer in the Christian liturgy changes the entire ceremony from an invocation to an evocation.)

Sure, this is because at certain levels, we are simply not capable of accepting a divine aspect of ourselves. It is only possible when put into specific terms. On the other hand, life here tends to start out with an undifferentiated connection with creator and creation - the 'participation mystique'. So tend to have three stages of development as one individuates: pre-personal, personal, and transpersonal.

The "purpose" of science and religion seems to have become lost in the "process" of science and religion. Seekers in both camps have a tendency to place undue "faith" in the process and selectively ignore the countless examples of where the process has failed.

Sure, because it is completely irrelevant to learning. It should be selectively ignored. When we are ready, the information becomes available. To treat the information as 'new' is ironic. It's merely the tired drama of Plato's Cave allegory.

What do you mean broad brush strokes in the manner of the security-blanketed, dogmatic science and religion?

It appeared to me that you were tossing me into the camp of others who claim that because a scientific discovery is "fitting for the times" that it should be accepted without reservation. I may have projected this on to you, however if so your words were not clear in this respect. I am an individual and belong to no camp. That is where the "broad brush stroke" comment comes in.

You are an individual, but absolutely do belong to a camp. Welcome to society - you are borrowing part of it to use for your mind until you are capable of actually learning on your own.

As for the "security blanket" piece- it is as I described before. Many scientists feel that the "scientific method" is so sacrosanct- so perfect- that any failure to arrive at the truth must have been a failure to apply the scientific method properly. I don't observe scientists turning the scientific method upon itself in order to arrive at an improved methodology.

The methodologies that scientists employ when conducting their research are at their discretion and prone to error. The scientific method is not the core of the problem. Rather, the limitations exist in society as lack of philosophical or epistemological foundations. I'm fairly certain we have a while to go before the general method is the limiting factor or something that is steering us away from discovery.

In the religion department, we can use as an example the "security blanket" of those who "just pray to Jesus" over and over again despite their prayers not being answered. They have absolute "faith" in Jesus- ascribing powers to him that do not exist.

Jesus is the transcendent principle. The idea is a constellating force for impressing the idea of 'love' and salvation on our consciousness. It is an aspect of spirituality and a lesson to those who wish to learn about it in the manner provided. Consider that when they ascribe powers that do not exist, they are learning about the principles of those powers through the imagination. Still we continue to progress and eventually that which was projected outward and no longer needed for support will be discarded.

In both cases there is the security blanket of false "faith" which, ironically, reinforces the belief in a faulty process every time it fails. Instead of taking the failure as an opportunity to improve the process, the seeker takes it as an opportunity to "renew their faith".

It's a lesson where faith is renewed in slightly different ways until entropy casts 'faith' in a new light, and it is rediscovered as yet another, higher principle.

Does this address your question, or did I misunderstand it?

Seems fine to me.

Its actually just yet another way to explain the condition that is currently happening. The "unbridled" term I got from Ra, as I felt it was an apt depiction of hyper-intuitive behavior where blanks in cognition are allowed to be filled by unconscious desires i.e. in the manner here or here.
The "masking" term was used because any meme which we inflate as "truth" is necessarily temporary.

I see. That makes more sense. If I may make an observation, sometimes your posts leave many blanks for the mind to fill in with projections. It might improve communications with others to provide the kind of details you offered above- especially when using words that can be taken in several different contexts.

Possibly, but I think the posts would then become too wordy, cumbersome and lacking adequate space for questions for clarification. There tend to be two sides to a dialog and my limited responses often reflect a restraint based on what I myself have been able to understand as what actually has been intended or claimed.

The so-called open minded person who is the would-be purveyor of truth (for example, some conspiracy) and therefore some kind of "liberator", is often just parroting what they are compelled to do based on valuing-meme identification. They do not see the hole which they have dug from the attachment to their borrowed ideology. For them it is entirely appropriate or fitting to what they perceive to be the actual situation and righteous.

And so, am I to assume that this above paragraph is your depiction of myself? If so, this seems to be a recurring distortion in our communications.

No. It is one stereotypical depiction of a meme that is rampant among fanatical seekers wishing to enlighten but who are absorbed in their own projections.

This thread was intended by Conifer16 and myself to be a discussion of this new observation- not as an exposition of truth by self-appointed "liberators" of humanity.

Indeed, and then there were tangential questions related to dogma, scientific method, limitations, etc. There is a general direction, one well studied, with regards to the opposition to that which seems to imprison or restrain the evolution of consciousness be that aspect spiritual, emotional, social, mental, etc. These are projections which serve as learning experiences for the person doing the projection. So you have the irony of this embedded projection system that Ra calls 'the dance'.

The "grasping" necessarily follows from the attachment, for one can not fully see any brand new condition of being which they are drawn to for some reason. "grasping" is an apt word because it does describe this new condition of learning. We tend to move in stages from apprehension (grasping), to comprehension to understanding.

Well this makes more sense. I took "grasping" to mean as in "grasping at straws" in the sense of desperately holding on to a perception despite clear evidence to the contrary. It appears you are using "grasping" as a necessary stage to comprehension and understanding.

The apprehending stage is one where the information is not integrated, but treated as if it were so. A concept is often overextended due to its perceived potential power to serve as an explanation. 'Knowledge is power'. This over-extension is a meme and there is a bandwagon effect as people resonate with the particular themes. There is immense dishonesty involved. There is an immoral consequentialist mentality involved. There is a stifling affect on polarization involved, as Ra pointed out.

Yes, all of us - hence the broad-generalization brush strokes.

OK. Well again, it might improve communication if you were to more readily point out where your own mind might be "filling in the blanks" in addition to pointing out when this occurs in others. Your fixation on identifying bias appears to be your own bias.

Yes it is my own bias at this time due to the perception that identifying bias, in various forms, is key to promoting balance and consciousness.

---

Off topic somewhat, but fascinating due the notion of that there must be limited analogs of all 'logoic' principles (such as 'free will', space/time, 'mind', etc) existing in lower densities with respect to their more complex or further developed instantiations in higher densities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem
It also fits into the philosophy of panexperientialism.

[JeiaRaManuk]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/22...77014.html


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-23/pa...ay/2912450


Thoughts from Facebook:

Elizabeth Cherkasova. maybe it's not that something is going faster than the speed of light, but it's just light speeding up? I see a great rise in energy soon... these are our thoughts speeding up becoming more absolute. Eventually we will fall free into infinity when we can be outside of time...

Elizabeth Cherkasova. We are only following what the ancient created for us! Remember that when we look into the deep space we are observing the past! So technically past exists ahead of us and behind us... Makes you wander, doesn't it? So we are also happening to someone's observation deep in space, ahead... not behind, but really we are on the same time line and events are happening there, at least some because what we see alive might be already dead!

[Tenet Nosce]

Speculation and the intuition always leads the way to a new condition, new knowledge not only about the external world but the internal as well. And we continually, without fail, unconsciously project one on the other (because one is ultimately the other - i.e. time/space = space/time, or "as above, so below").

OK... so speculation is part of the process... in which case it is helpful to speculate with others as long as everybody knows that the discussion is speculation, and not exposition. Would you agree? It just seems to me like speculating to myself would lead to more false conclusions. This is why I am conversing with others in a forum.

What would be the point of a forum, if not for people to share ideas and speculations with one another? I don't see anybody attempting to teach/learn in this thread from some self-ascribed position of "authority" or "understanding" which others do not possess. With the possible exception of yourself.

Also... from another angle... I have long been following scientific developments with the hypothesis that breakthroughs in science and technology (space/time) are a reflection of happenings in time/space. In other words, leaps forward represent latent abilities that are still repressed/denied by humanity.

Telephone being sound at a distance (clairaudience). Television being sight at a distance (clairvoyance). The Internet being telepathy or group mind. However I am fairly clear that these are just a reflection of what is going on in time/space. So, yes, kind of like Plato's Cave. Was I giving the impression that I did not realize this... or?

We necessarily have a stake in an outcome when we connect it with a hope. Such is the nature of hope. Hope does just that, it creates a stake for some type of gain. I will say it again, we necessarily have a stake in an outcome when we have a hope for some outcome or event.

Right, OK. But what I am saying is that I don't have a "hope" whether or not this discovery is confirmed by other scientists. I will neither be "elated" if they confirm it, or "disappointed" if they don't. I wouldn't be surprised if it were confirmed, however.

I do "believe" in the doctrine of densities as promulgated by Ra and others, and fully expect this to be scientifically validated at some point. But it is not a "hope" that I am emotionally invested in one way or the other. So I guess this is where I got confused with your reply because it appeared to me that you were insinuating that I am emotionally invested in a particular outcome.

But you can not prove it is a projection of the mind. The mind is creating the theories. There would first have to be a practical theoretical base for how the mind works (the mind-body problem) in order to associate experience and mind. If we understood how the mind works, we would at the vary least understand how 2nd density works, since that is the first manifestation of the mind principle. Up to this point, most of the theories of the mind are soft-science related (psychology) or philosophical.

Who me? I won't be able to prove anything! But yes, as you say, the mind is creating the theories. The mind created the notions of "absolute speed of light" and "no absolute frame of reference" by which we are building up our physical theories about time.

If the postulates are not true, then the conclusions are not true. Specifically the conclusion that "time" is intrinsic to space itself, and unidirectional. I do see what you are saying above, but we already have the theoretical base of which you spoke. Projection, confirmation bias, and so on. The mind fabricates concepts (postulates) which have no basis in reality. Then the mind draws conclusions from those postulates and builds up an entire science based upon a faulty proposition- in this case the notion of physical time- and then doggedly defends its viewpoint when confronted with evidence to the contrary.

So in this sense, it seems to me that science would do well to be more informed by psychology and philosophy. Since science was born from these, and not the other way around. As you said:

Rejecting what brought us to that point of recognition is inharmonious and wrong - it also tends to be necessary.

I agree. Up until this point, science has taken the arrogant position of styling itself as separate and independent from psychology and philosophy. Even going so far as to attempt to reduce all psychological phenomenon to nothing more chemical processes in the brain. This is absurd, in my opinion. I accept it as all "part of the process" but the process involves eventually accepting that which was previously rejected. Science appears to be on the precipice of just such a maneuver.

According to my understanding, this maneuver is not a "hope" but an inevitability. Thusly, "time" will eventually bring us to the understanding that "time" is merely a fabrication of our own mind. This is the sense in which I made the statement. In other words, isn't it ironic/funny/curious that the purpose of "time" appears to be to bring us to an understanding of timelessness.

Many years ago I did write a final paper for a Philosophy of Space and Time class. The hypothesis was that the perception of time is a result of the mind interacting with the physical world, and not an intrinsic property of the physical world itself. Being an undergraduate, I had no means of really testing such a hypothesis. However, what I did was use examples from documented meditation experiences demonstrating a commonality whereby those meditating describe a feeling of "timelessness" once they are able to move beyond the realm of thought. Stop the thinking- stop the perception of time. Well, it was at least an idea!

A similar phenomenon appears to be happening in all sciences. For example, biology is built upon "cell theory" which in itself has never been proven. Yet the vast majority of biologists take it to be fact. To the point of flat out ignoring evidence to the contrary, i.e. if it disproves our theory, it must be false. I mean... really? These are scientists?

On a near daily basis, I read articles about scientific discoveries that "overturn previous theories" or "were not predicted by the prevailing theory" or "will rewrite the textbooks" and so on. Both the frequency and the significance of these findings continue to increase. This leads me to speculate that, in fact, we are approaching a "nexus point" which will be reflected in time/space by some sort of new fundamental understanding of the universe, which pretty much invalidates everything we previously thought was true.

Yep, and scientists know this. Yet it is difficult to remove complexity. Complexity is entertaining. Eventually the epicyclic system of theory we currently use (with some success, of course) will become too insufficient, possibly by a dogmatic scientist working in earnest.

It could happen that way. Or not. What is irksome to me is when scientists "cling" to Occam's Razor when it suits their purpose, i.e. supporting established dogma, but are quick to toss Occam aside when a more simple, elegant theory is proposed that causes their own beliefs to be challenged.

Let's bring this into the present discussion.

A discovery that either (a) particles can actually travel faster than the speed of light, or (b) the speed of light is not constant, would resolve all manner of longstanding confusion in physics. This along with letting go of the notion that there is no absolute frame of reference would allow for the emergence of a much more simplified theory that doesn't need to posit all manner of non-Euclidean geometries in order to explain.

Now, having pointed out this potential discovery, you come in and proclaim that this observation is:

Experimental error, most likely. For example, bad calculation of distance.

Well, OK. Maybe so. But then you invoke Occam's Razor saying that it would be the most likely explanation because it is the most simple.

Well, OK. Maybe so. But IF this discovery is true, THEN it would actually simplify our understanding of physics, and not make it more complex.

Therefore, in my mind, the most "likely" explanation is that the scientists actually observed something real. And yes, it does "seem fitting" because it would "make sense" that the theories of relativity and quantum physics be resolved at some point so that humanity may move forward in our thinking.

I really don't see that as being a heavily biased statement. All I was saying is that I wouldn't be surprised, and pointing to some quotes from various L/L channeled entities seem to support such a view.

There was/is no "hope" entering into my psychological equation here. So if "bias" is built upon "hope", then your seeing "bias/hope" where there actually was none must be your own projection. If you are "hoping" that "identifying bias, in various forms, is key to promoting balance and consciousness," then in doing so, you are actually adding more bias to the conversation.

Why not allow others to discover their biases on their own? If making mistakes, and deluding oneself is all a necessary part of the process, as you say, then why do you interfere with it by pointing out others' biases when you have not established a relationship whereby the other has given you permission to do so? Is it not infringement to offer psychoanalysis where none was requested?

[Tenet Nosce]

Off topic somewhat, but fascinating due the notion of that there must be limited analogs of all 'logoic' principles (such as 'free will', space/time, 'mind', etc) existing in lower densities with respect to their more complex or further developed instantiations in higher densities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem
It also fits into the philosophy of panexperientialism.

In which sense are you using the term instantiation?

This is interesting though... we know that 1D entities have no choice, but matter can and does tend to express itself in certain ways... so in some sense this is akin to the first distortion of consciousness. Radioactive decay is one example. Also periodicity of the elements can demonstrate this.

For example, the body needs iodine in order to operate the pineal and thyroid gland. If iodine is insufficient, these glands will begin to accumulate fluorine present in the water supply leading eventually to calcifications.

There was also some finding not too long ago about a totally unexpected observation of matter... meh I can't remember it I will fill this in when I find it.

EDIT: OK here is the article:

New Driving Force for Chemical Reactions

ScienceDaily (June 9, 2011) — New research just published in the journal Science by a team of chemists at the University of Georgia and colleagues in Germany shows for the first time that a mechanism called tunneling control may drive chemical reactions in directions unexpected from traditional theories.

The finding has the potential to change how scientists understand and devise reactions in everything from materials science to biochemistry.

The discovery was a complete surprise and came following the first successful isolation of a long-elusive molecule called methylhydroxycarbene by the research team. While the team was pleased that it had "trapped" the prized compound in solid argon through an extremely low-temperature experiment, they were surprised when it vanished within a few hours.

"What we found was that the change was being controlled by a process called quantum mechanical tunneling," said Allen, "and we found that tunneling can supersede the traditional chemical reactivity processes of kinetic and thermodynamic control. We weren't expecting this at all."

Moreover, said Allen, "the observed product of the reaction, acetaldehyde, is the least likely outcome among conceivable possibilities."

In quantum mechanics, particles can get to the other side of the barrier by tunneling through it, a process that seemingly requires imaginary velocities. In chemistry, tunneling is generally understood to provide secondary correction factors for the rates of chemical reactions but not to provide the predominant driving force.

"What we discovered here is that tunneling can dominate a reaction mechanism sufficiently to redirect the outcome away from traditional kinetic control. Tunneling can cause a reaction that does not have the lowest activation barriers to occur exclusively."

Matter does not have consciousness, but it does have identity. So it would seem to me that the 1D analog of free will would involve somehow the ability of matter to somehow deny its own identity, or appear to become something that it is not. What would that be? Maybe it has something to so with this tunneling phenomenon..?

---

EDIT: LOL! See I can't make this stuff up. I just went over to sciencedaily to try and track down that article and this is what I find:

Hints of Universal Behavior Seen in Exotic Three-Atom States

ScienceDaily (Sep. 23, 2011) — A novel type of inter-particle binding predicted in 1970 and observed for the first time in 2006, is forming the basis for an intriguing kind of ultracold quantum chemistry.

In the seventeenth century Isaac Newton derived the classical force laws used to calculate the force between two objects. Calculating the behavior of three-body groupings such as the Moon/Earth/Sun system was much harder; indeed Newton never succeeded.

Now, these researchers have extended their work and demonstrated that the "three-body parameter," used to describe how the three participating bodies interact, varies in a consistent way regardless of the atomic species used.

"None of the experts in three-body physics had expected this kind of universal behavior to show up in these 3-atom systems," Julienne said. "This behavior came as a big surprise." And the universality, in turn, might suggest the existence of some new kind of ultracold chemistry at work.

These trimers are quantum objects; they have no classical counterpart.

This kind of universality was totally unexpected.

"Now things have become reality, things we did not even dream about five years ago."

See... how is it that this "just so happens" to be on the front page of sciencedaily and it "just so happens" to be relevant to what I "just so happened" to be writing about? This kind of stuff "just so happens" to me all the time.

Are you saying this just some kind of delusion I am under due to my bias or...? I am just making things up and seeing significance where there is none? I am just "hoping" that the whole of physics, chemistry, and biology are going to be overturned so I just "see it happening" due to confirmation bias?? My mind is attempting to "make sense" or "discern a pattern" where there really is none? Or..?

[drifting pages]

Tenet do you know http://www.physorg.com/ ?

I like that site, there are categories for every area of science etc.

[zenmaster]

Speculation and the intuition always leads the way to a new condition, new knowledge not only about the external world but the internal as well. And we continually, without fail, unconsciously project one on the other (because one is ultimately the other - i.e. time/space = space/time, or "as above, so below").

OK... so speculation is part of the process... in which case it is helpful to speculate with others as long as everybody knows that the discussion is speculation, and not exposition. Would you agree? It just seems to me like speculating to myself would lead to more false conclusions. This is why I am conversing with others in a forum.

Speculation is also what prompts specific propositions. Scientists often start with a speculation from what their intuition and experience may suggest is a viable line of research.

What would be the point of a forum, if not for people to share ideas and speculations with one another? I don't see anybody attempting to teach/learn in this thread from some self-ascribed position of "authority" or "understanding" which others do not possess. With the possible exception of yourself.

Indeed that is the point of the forum, to share things. Now who has a self-ascribed position of authority or understanding? Seems like, yes, projection again.

Also... from another angle... I have long been following scientific developments with the hypothesis that breakthroughs in science and technology (space/time) are a reflection of happenings in time/space. In other words, leaps forward represent latent abilities that are still repressed/denied by humanity.

But isn't that obvious? What is not known is in the unconscious, which is latent potential by definition.

Telephone being sound at a distance (clairaudience). Television being sight at a distance (clairvoyance). The Internet being telepathy or group mind. However I am fairly clear that these are just a reflection of what is going on in time/space. So, yes, kind of like Plato's Cave. Was I giving the impression that I did not realize this... or?

Plato's cave was in reference to the 'undue faith' remark.

We necessarily have a stake in an outcome when we connect it with a hope. Such is the nature of hope. Hope does just that, it creates a stake for some type of gain. I will say it again, we necessarily have a stake in an outcome when we have a hope for some outcome or event.

Right, OK. But what I am saying is that I don't have a "hope" whether or not this discovery is confirmed by other scientists. I will neither be "elated" if they confirm it, or "disappointed" if they don't. I wouldn't be surprised if it were confirmed, however.

Me either.

I do "believe" in the doctrine of densities as promulgated by Ra and others, and fully expect this to be scientifically validated at some point. But it is not a "hope" that I am emotionally invested in one way or the other. So I guess this is where I got confused with your reply because it appeared to me that you were insinuating that I am emotionally invested in a particular outcome.

No, was not insinuating that. I wonder why you created such an idea?

But you can not prove it is a projection of the mind. The mind is creating the theories. There would first have to be a practical theoretical base for how the mind works (the mind-body problem) in order to associate experience and mind. If we understood how the mind works, we would at the vary least understand how 2nd density works, since that is the first manifestation of the mind principle. Up to this point, most of the theories of the mind are soft-science related (psychology) or philosophical.

Who me? I won't be able to prove anything! But yes, as you say, the mind is creating the theories. The mind created the notions of "absolute speed of light" and "no absolute frame of reference" by which we are building up our physical theories about time.

If the postulates are not true, then the conclusions are not true. Specifically the conclusion that "time" is intrinsic to space itself, and unidirectional. I do see what you are saying above, but we already have the theoretical base of which you spoke.

Not really. They're not cause-effect observations like physical principles.

Projection, confirmation bias, and so on. The mind fabricates concepts (postulates) which have no basis in reality. Then the mind draws conclusions from those postulates and builds up an entire science based upon a faulty proposition- in this case the notion of physical time- and then doggedly defends its viewpoint when confronted with evidence to the contrary.

The mind has its own reality which is changable, yes.

So in this sense, it seems to me that science would do well to be more informed by psychology and philosophy. Since science was born from these, and not the other way around. As you said:

Rejecting what brought us to that point of recognition is inharmonious and wrong - it also tends to be necessary.

I agree. Up until this point, science has taken the arrogant position of styling itself as separate and independent from psychology and philosophy.

Not really. Those disciplines are simply not yet amenable to being expressed in theoretical terms, so there is an inherent disconnect. We have no math for the mind yet. But there are people working on it.

Even going so far as to attempt to reduce all psychological phenomenon to nothing more chemical processes in the brain. This is absurd, in my opinion. I accept it as all "part of the process" but the process involves eventually accepting that which was previously rejected. Science appears to be on the precipice of just such a maneuver.

It will get there eventually. It's not easy work and we are fortunate to have these people solving the problems involved. You see, they have to use both intuition and intellect, and mostly spend a lot of time and effort, in order to create something workable. While, from the backseat of their car, we can just speculate and finger point and be in dismay at how arrogant they seem to be.

According to my understanding, this maneuver is not a "hope" but an inevitability. Thusly, "time" will eventually bring us to the understanding that "time" is merely a fabrication of our own mind. This is the sense in which I made the statement. In other words, isn't it ironic/funny/curious that the purpose of "time" appears to be to bring us to an understanding of timelessness.

It's constant irony and makes things even more compelling and understandable.

Many years ago I did write a final paper for a Philosophy of Space and Time class. The hypothesis was that the perception of time is a result of the mind interacting with the physical world, and not an intrinsic property of the physical world itself. Being an undergraduate, I had no means of really testing such a hypothesis. However, what I did was use examples from documented meditation experiences demonstrating a commonality whereby those meditating describe a feeling of "timelessness" once they are able to move beyond the realm of thought. Stop the thinking- stop the perception of time. Well, it was at least an idea!

That's a very old idea that goes back millenia. And as you found out, it's a philosophical idea still, even though it has practical relevance in our subjective understanding. Most scientists realize this.

A similar phenomenon appears to be happening in all sciences. For example, biology is built upon "cell theory" which in itself has never been proven. Yet the vast majority of biologists take it to be fact. To the point of flat out ignoring evidence to the contrary, i.e. if it disproves our theory, it must be false. I mean... really? These are scientists?

If someone bothers to demonstrate a successor theory with better explanatory power, there may actually be more attention paid.

On a near daily basis, I read articles about scientific discoveries that "overturn previous theories" or "were not predicted by the prevailing theory" or "will rewrite the textbooks" and so on. Both the frequency and the significance of these findings continue to increase. This leads me to speculate that, in fact, we are approaching a "nexus point" which will be reflected in time/space by some sort of new fundamental understanding of the universe, which pretty much invalidates everything we previously thought was true.

Has been happening throughout history. In retrospect it was obvious. We learn what we are ready to learn and no less or no more.

Yep, and scientists know this. Yet it is difficult to remove complexity. Complexity is entertaining. Eventually the epicyclic system of theory we currently use (with some success, of course) will become too insufficient, possibly [overturned] by a dogmatic scientist working in earnest.

It could happen that way. Or not. What is irksome to me is when scientists "cling" to Occam's Razor when it suits their purpose, i.e. supporting established dogma, but are quick to toss Occam aside when a more simple, elegant theory is proposed that causes their own beliefs to be challenged.

e.g. "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"

Let's bring this into the present discussion.

A discovery that either (a) particles can actually travel faster than the speed of light, or (b) the speed of light is not constant, would resolve all manner of longstanding confusion in physics. This along with letting go of the notion that there is no absolute frame of reference would allow for the emergence of a much more simplified theory that doesn't need to posit all manner of non-Euclidean geometries in order to explain.

Now, having pointed out this potential discovery, you come in and proclaim that this observation is:

Experimental error, most likely. For example, bad calculation of distance.

Well, OK. Maybe so. But then you invoke Occam's Razor saying that it would be the most likely explanation because it is the most simple.

Indeed it is.

Well, OK. Maybe so. But IF this discovery is true, THEN it would actually simplify our understanding of physics, and not make it more complex.

No neccessarily true. It would explain some holes in current theory, which itself is based on overly complex epicycles. So a more complex, variable light speed, as a patch to the current system of theory, is by no means a pointer to simplification.

Therefore, in my mind, the most "likely" explanation is that the scientists actually observed something real. And yes, it does "seem fitting" because it would "make sense" that the theories of relativity and quantum physics be resolved at some point so that humanity may move forward in our thinking.

Right, at some point there probably will be some form of measurement that will improve our understanding of physics.

There was/is no "hope" entering into my psychological equation here. So if "bias" is built upon "hope", then your seeing "bias/hope" where there actually was none must be your own projection. If you are "hoping" that "identifying bias, in various forms, is key to promoting balance and consciousness," then in doing so, you are actually adding more bias to the conversation.

You: "Hopefully, this discovery will lead to some real scientific investigation into the densities."
Me: "It's a 1st-density measurement."
You: "You are seeing bias/hope" where there actually was none.

Gotta love it.

Why not allow others to discover their biases on their own? If making mistakes, and deluding oneself is all a necessary part of the process, as you say, then why do you interfere with it by pointing out others' biases when you have not established a relationship whereby the other has given you permission to do so?

Now I am 'interfering'? Not much I can say except 'too bad for you', life goes on.

Is it not infringement to offer psychoanalysis where none was requested?

It seems that you are confusing psychoanalysis, which is a form of therapy, with using psychological terminology in characterizing various observed behavior.

---

Off topic somewhat, but fascinating due the notion of that there must be limited analogs of all 'logoic' principles (such as 'free will', space/time, 'mind', etc) existing in lower densities with respect to their more complex or further developed instantiations in higher densities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem
It also fits into the philosophy of panexperientialism.

In which sense are you using the term instantiation?

A manifestation, but on the ontological level of what that vibration provides for a manifestation.

This is interesting though... we know that 1D entities have no choice, but matter can and does tend to express itself in certain ways... so in some sense this is akin to the first distortion of consciousness. Radioactive decay is one example. Also periodicity of the elements can demonstrate this.

But we do not know that 1D entities have no choice. This is because we do not understand what it means to choose, because we do not yet understand free will.

"This begins with first density which is the density of consciousness, the mineral and water life upon the planet learning from fire and wind the awareness of being. This is the first density."

"The spiraling energy, which is the characteristic of what you call “light,” moves in a straight line spiral thus giving spirals an inevitable vector upwards to a more comprehensive beingness with regards to intelligent infinity. Thus, first dimensional beingness strives towards the second-density lessons of a type of awareness which includes growth rather than dissolution or random change."

Since we can measure randomness, we can see deviations from this in particle behavior. This is what Conway and Kochen observed.

fire and wind, mineral and water are symbolic 'elements' having their characteristics derived from the space/time or time/space relationships which define them.

Matter does not have consciousness, but it does have identity. So it would seem to me that the 1D analog of free will would involve somehow the ability of matter to somehow deny its own identity, or appear to become something that it is not. What would that be? Maybe it has something to so with this tunneling phenomenon..?

Matter has consciousness at the level of 1D consciousness. It could be that instead of denial, it is recognition or acceptance, since that seems to be key to the growth process. The tunneling could very well be an aspect of such non-random or unpredictable behavior.

See... how is it that this "just so happens" to be on the front page of sciencedaily and it "just so happens" to be relevant to what I "just so happened" to be writing about? This kind of stuff "just so happens" to me all the time.

hint: it "just so happens" to everyone. Some people choose to emphasize it more than others, possibly to magnify its significance enough from the background in order to eventually learn something from it.

I am just making things up and seeing significance where there is none?

I honestly can't tell you what is significant for you. That's for you to determine.

[Tenet Nosce]

But isn't that obvious? What is not known is in the unconscious, which is latent potential by definition.

It is obvious to you and me... just apparently not to everybody, least of all many scientists. Materialism is still the dominant paradigm in science, and it is completely absurd. What is worse, materialism is actually a minority view. Science has been pushing materialism onto humanity for long enough, and it is way past the time where science itself has demonstrated materialism as untenable.

I wonder why you created such an idea?

No you don't.

Not really. They're not cause-effect observations like physical principles.

"Cause-effect observations" might be based on an entirely incorrect understanding of causality. That is what is on the table here with this type of potential discovery. This is on top of other evidence which suggest that information CAN travel from the future to the past. There is of course, quantum entanglement which has yet to be explained by the prevailing theory.

Not really. Those disciplines are simply not yet amenable to being expressed in theoretical terms, so there is an inherent disconnect. We have no math for the mind yet. But there are people working on it.

I don't agree. I think those disciplines are inherently amenable to being expressed in theoretical terms. Moreover, there is evidence of actual historical periods in history where certain cultures had succeeded in expressing a cohesive view of science, philosophy, and religion. These views were deliberately distorted and separated as a means of controlling the masses.

And yes, we do have the math for the mind. It is called gematria. Of course, according to the mainstream view this is nonsensical, archaic, and superstitious.

It's not easy work and we are fortunate to have these people solving the problems involved.

It has been deliberately manufactured for it to be "difficult" by those who seek to gain a financial and/or military advantage over others by the process of compartmentalization and nondisclosure. If scientific research were occurring in a truly collaborative environment, it would be much easier for this process to occur.

You see, they have to use both intuition and intellect, and mostly spend a lot of time and effort, in order to create something workable. While, from the backseat of their car, we can just speculate and finger point and be in dismay at how arrogant they seem to be.

Right. Again compartmentalization. I would also add elitism. As an undergraduate I was "advised" by my professors that I would not be "permitted" to speculate on such "advanced" concepts until I sufficiently demonstrated adherence to the established dogma. This is a problem.

That's a very old idea that goes back millenia. And as you found out, it's a philosophical idea still, even though it has practical relevance in our subjective understanding. Most scientists realize this.

Right. I wasn't presenting it as an original idea. I don't know about "most scientists" however my philosophy professor deemed it quite unacceptable to enter into any "serious" discussion of space and time.

If someone bothers to demonstrate a successor theory with better explanatory power, there may actually be more attention paid.

Oh c'mon dude! You know how this works. There is little to no money available to demonstrate these successor theories, and many of them have been deemed laughable right off the bat. Zero-point energy being a stereotypical example.

Has been happening throughout history. In retrospect it was obvious. We learn what we are ready to learn and no less or no more.

No, I don't think so. "We" are not all in the same place, and so what happens is that those on the forefront have to wait around for everybody else to stop dragging their heels and/or croak until we can move forward. In many cases throughout history, as I am sure you know, people were even PUT TO DEATH for challenging the prevailing paradigm. And yes, even in today's world there are enough examples of fringe scientists who suddenly croak right before they were about to come out with their new ideas.

You appear to be selectively ignoring those who are consciously interfering with the process.

e.g. "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"

Exactly... which is still being "discussed and debated" 40 years later when it is self-evident. WHY do we have these great leaps forward? Because somebody else is in the background consciously trying to apply the brakes. Once the resistance becomes too great to bear, humanity is "allowed" to lurch forward again, with all the appurtenant confusion of progressing in fits and starts rather than in an evenly balanced way.

No neccessarily true. It would explain some holes in current theory, which itself is based on overly complex epicycles. So a more complex, variable light speed, as a patch to the current system of theory, is by no means a pointer to simplification.

I don't think so. I am not even sure why you are arguing this, as it appears that you already know where this will lead as do I.

There is no such thing as a "vacuum". Nothingness does not exist. Light is all there is. Beyond light, there is mind. Mind is the medium in which light travels.

I am extremely certain that the above paragraph is true. I did not make it true. The Creator made this true. What the Creator made true is not "biased". It is simply true. Science, philosophy, and psychology would all do well to begin from the acceptance of truth, rather than the denial of it.

Right, at some point there probably will be some form of measurement that will improve our understanding of physics.

What is would take is acceptance of the truth that some things are beyond measurement. In other words, an abandonment of materialism.

You: "Hopefully, this discovery will lead to some real scientific investigation into the densities."
Me: "It's a 1st-density measurement."
You: "You are seeing bias/hope" where there actually was none.

Gotta love it.

Right. I hope this discovery will lead to some real scientific investigation into the densities. Not: I hope this finding is true. It doesn't matter to me whether or not this particular finding is true. I am "hopeful" that this finding will act as a catalyst for scientists to more deeply research into this area of knowledge. But even with that, "hopeful" is the wrong word because it is actually inevitable. So I will rephrase:

"Inevitably, this discovery will lead to some real scientific investigation into the densities."

Now I am 'interfering'?

Well, we are continuing on this side discussion which is taking our mind and energy away from discussing the finding itself- which would likely be more productive for all parties involved.

[zenmaster]

My impressions on this is that the "speed of light" is relative to the densities. Being as the earth is now in a fourth-density environment, there is a new constant. As we are in a transition phase, the "old" constant still applies to some degree.

Uh oh. Could your speed of light fantasy wish-fulfillment of a new constant be incorrect? Hey, who cares. What matters is if you resonate with what you want to see manifest, regardless of reality.

The Michelson-Morley experiment shows that the experimental outcome of an interference experiment does not depend on the constant velocity of the setup with respect to an inertial frame of reference. From this one can conclude the existence of an invariant velocity of light. However it does not follow from their experiment that a time-of-flight is reference frame independent. In fact the theory of special relativity predicts that the distance between the production location of a particle and the detection location will be changed in all reference frames which have a velocity component parallel to the baseline separating source and detector in a foton time-of-flight experiment. For the OPERA experiment we find that the associated correction is in the order of 32 ns. Because, judging from the information provided, the correction needs to be applied twice in the OPERA experiment the total correction to the final results is in the order of 64 ns. Thus bringing the apparent velocities of neutrino's back to a value not significantly different from the speed of light. We end this short letter by suggesting an analysis of the experimental data which would illustrate the effects described.

[Conifer16]

How can any of us know what the speed of light is in other densities?

-Conifer16- Adonai Vasu Borrugas

[zenmaster]

How can any of us know what the speed of light is in other densities?

-Conifer16- Adonai Vasu Borrugas

'Light' is 'consciousness'. 'Light speed' is necessarily a first density phenomenon and measurement. According to Larson, that speed is a measurement of the scalar expansion of the universe. The speed does not change any more than gravity does or the relationship of space and time changes.

Beyond the physical, the 2d 'photon' vibration subsumes the 1D photon vibration and has properties we associate with 'mind' - a connection to time/space. It's what provides sufficient complexity in order for life to form - aggregates can be made, it binds, connects, reinforces a pattern.

the 3d 'photon' is self awareness... etc

In 3D, we can't measure anything above 1D. There are no 1D tools to do this. The measuring instrument itself must be at the same density as the object of measurement or higher in order to provide any information at all on what is going on within that density.

[Tenet Nosce]

New test finds neutrinos still faster than light

LONDON, Nov. 18, 2011 (Reuters) — A new experiment appears to provide further evidence that Einstein may have been wrong when he laid down that nothing could go faster than the speed of light, a theory that underpins modern thinking on how the universe works.

[Whitefeather]

New test finds neutrinos still faster than light

LONDON, Nov. 18, 2011 (Reuters) — A new experiment appears to provide further evidence that Einstein may have been wrong when he laid down that nothing could go faster than the speed of light, a theory that underpins modern thinking on how the universe works.

I think that neutrinos are unities of time created/resulting when unities of space enters Earth atmosphere. They would fulfill an equation between space gravity and Earth gravity.

Whitefeather