+- Bring4th (https://www.bring4th.org/forums)
+-- Forum: Bring4th Studies (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Science & Technology (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Thread: Central Logos of this universe ? (/showthread.php?tid=1812)
Central Logos of this universe ? - unity100 - 11-12-2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Attractor
Seems it is ...
or then again, even it may be a sub-logos.
think. the sector of existence we know in this universe, may actually be the outlying regions of the universe. even the galaxies we see in hubble deep field, may be outliers.
RE: Central Logos of this universe ? - Aaron - 11-12-2010
The universe we know already to be mind-bogglingly huge... Trying to wrap my head around the fact that all the galaxies visible by us could be outliers in the grand universal scheme is astounding. There are probably so many gravitational anomalies out there that are even larger or more exotic than this.
This bit of the page is interesting: "X-ray observations have revealed that the region of space is dominated by the Norma cluster (ACO 3627),[1][2] a massive cluster of galaxies, containing a preponderance of large, old galaxies, many of which are colliding with their neighbours, and/or radiating large amounts of radio waves."
So it's supposed that there's a lot of old galaxies around that area, just like the oldest stars are near the center of our galaxy. But then again if you read the "Debate over apparent mass" section of the article, you can see how we could be entirely off on this assumption.
I read something about the Great Central Sun (GSS for short? haha) that I really resonated with. It said that the physical manifestation of the thing isn't what's grand. If you're thinking of where the Central Sun is, you're thinking along the wrong lines. The answer to where the Great Central Sun is, is "yes". A fourth-dimensional answer to three-dimensional thinking. :p I think that the higher density manifestations of the GSS encompass the entire universe in ways that don't spatially make sense. We are all a part of it.
RE: Central Logos of this universe ? - unity100 - 11-13-2010
the logoi are not parts of any density. they are present and manifesting in all densities as told to us by Ra. there is no '4th dimensional answer' etc to it. just like how the logos of this locale is visible in 1st, 2nd and 3rd densities as the sun we see up in the sky, the great central sun should be visible and affecting all densities, even if the appearance and manifestation might change.
the only difference would be, if the mass of the central sun is too large, it may appear as a black hole, because even the light will not be able to accept it. but then, it still will be manifesting and affecting 3rd density, because the 3d vibrating light is not able to accept its gravity.
actually gravity is what makes anything classified as existing, or affecting anything else.
so, that strongest gravity center we found out, is either the central logos of this universe, or, the logos of this locale from which all these galaxies have come from.
RE: Central Logos of this universe ? - Aaron - 11-13-2010
(11-13-2010, 08:38 AM)unity100 Wrote: the logoi are not parts of any density. they are present and manifesting in all densities as told to us by Ra. there is no '4th dimensional answer' etc to it. just like how the logos of this locale is visible in 1st, 2nd and 3rd densities as the sun we see up in the sky, the great central sun should be visible and affecting all densities, even if the appearance and manifestation might change.
We're in agreement here, but it may not seem like it because I didn't explicitly mention that the logoi are present in all densities, and experience consciousness differently than incarnating beings do. :p The fourth-dimensional answer isn't the ultimate answer to where/what the GSS is, because the GSS isn't only present in fourth density. It's just an answer that gets one's thinking out of the box if they're only looking for a physical manifestation of it.
unity100 Wrote:the only difference would be, if the mass of the central sun is too large, it may appear as a black hole, because even the light will not be able to accept it. but then, it still will be manifesting and affecting 3rd density, because the 3d vibrating light is not able to accept its gravity.
That's interesting! I never really thought of the fact that it may appear physically as a black hole. But we know that black holes are stars with huge amounts of mass, so that makes sense.
unity100 Wrote:actually gravity is what makes anything classified as existing, or affecting anything else.
Funny how closed-minded we approach things like physics, huh? :p
unity100 Wrote:so, that strongest gravity center we found out, is either the central logos of this universe, or, the logos of this locale from which all these galaxies have come from.
Do you think that there are central logoi for clusters or superclusters of galaxies, as well as the central logoi for each individual galaxy? Or do you think that each individual galaxy with its own central logos revolves around the GSS, distributed in a way that is efficient for the Great Original Thought to flow through? (In the same way our neurons are laid out, in a pattern that's physically conducive to the metaphysical energy flow of thought. Thinking of one of the first pictures in this thread http://bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=90 ) The question could also be phrased: Are black holes present in the dark space between galaxies?
RE: Central Logos of this universe ? - unity100 - 11-13-2010
(11-13-2010, 01:31 PM)Aaron Wrote: We're in agreement here, but it may not seem like it because I didn't explicitly mention that the logoi are present in all densities, and experience consciousness differently than incarnating beings do. :p The fourth-dimensional answer isn't the ultimate answer to where/what the GSS is, because the GSS isn't only present in fourth density. It's just an answer that gets one's thinking out of the box if they're only looking for a physical manifestation of it.
what is this '4th dimensional answer' or '4th dimensional thinking' anyway ? is it something like 'IAM' thing that is being advocated by some sources in spiritual literature ?
just what is it ?
Quote:unity100 Wrote:actually gravity is what makes anything classified as existing, or affecting anything else.
Funny how closed-minded we approach things like physics, huh? :p
it isnt close minded, actually its elementary just like how 'there can be only one infinity - therefore all are from that one infinity'.
for one thing to be considered existing, it needs to affect other existing entities. only then it can be considered existing within a given reality.
even if the entity is in another dimension, but affecting this one very subtly through different effects, it means its still existing.
so goes gravity. actually gravity/attraction is in the basis of dewey physics, and in dewey physics the first thing to exists, is one that attracts.
Quote:Do you think that there are central logoi for clusters or superclusters of galaxies, as well as the central logoi for each individual galaxy? Or do you think that each individual galaxy with its own central logos revolves around the GSS, distributed in a way that is efficient for the Great Original Thought to flow through? (In the same way our neurons are laid out, in a pattern that's physically conducive to the metaphysical energy flow of thought. Thinking of one of the first pictures in this thread http://bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=90 ) The question could also be phrased: Are black holes present in the dark space between galaxies?
actually this was described by Ra. they said the existence follows a hierarchical expansion pattern. logos follows logos and is its sublogos, down to the individual entity manifesting incarnated in a body (us, other entities).
so, each sublogos comes from/draws energy from its own logos. so, its the former, of what you said.
black holes, ra says, are places where entities merge with 'the one creator'.
RE: Central Logos of this universe ? - Lavazza - 11-14-2010
(11-12-2010, 05:46 PM)unity100 Wrote: think. the sector of existence we know in this universe, may actually be the outlying regions of the universe. even the galaxies we see in hubble deep field, may be outliers.
Presuming the universe to be infinite in size, the concept of outlying portions of such a universe is not possible, because something with no end cannot have such terminology applied to it.
Sorry to bring infinity back in to another one of your threads, but just thought I'd submit that reminder. Or maybe we should just drop it.
More to the point of your thread- I'm not sure that Ra gave information about clusters/super-clusters of galaxies. It would be interesting to hear them speak of them. The question to my mind is, can the spirit of a logos inhabit multiple galaxies, in the same way it does with a galaxy (which has multiple sub-logoi (stars))? We might guess that as much is a reasonable assumption. If that is the case, then a galactic logos is infact a sub-logos of something larger. And, if we're speaking with infinity as context, probably the sub-logos chain goes on forever, each logos being a part of something larger. That underscores the holographic theory of reality at any rate.
Interesting find!
RE: Central Logos of this universe ? - unity100 - 11-14-2010
(11-14-2010, 02:47 AM)Lavazza Wrote:(11-12-2010, 05:46 PM)unity100 Wrote: think. the sector of existence we know in this universe, may actually be the outlying regions of the universe. even the galaxies we see in hubble deep field, may be outliers.
Presuming the universe to be infinite in size, the concept of outlying portions of such a universe is not possible, because something with no end cannot have such terminology applied to it.
Sorry to bring infinity back in to another one of your threads, but just thought I'd submit that reminder. Or maybe we should just drop it.
universe isnt infinite in size. we can calculate the boundary of it.
the possible infiniteness of this universe comes from the fact that it is expanding, and apparently rate of expansion is also increasing.
and, from the possibility of being infinite inwards, in inner planes.
Quote:More to the point of your thread- I'm not sure that Ra gave information about clusters/super-clusters of galaxies. It would be interesting to hear them speak of them. The question to my mind is, can the spirit of a logos inhabit multiple galaxies, in the same way it does with a galaxy (which has multiple sub-logoi (stars))? We might guess that as much is a reasonable assumption. If that is the case, then a galactic logos is infact a sub-logos of something larger. And, if we're speaking with infinity as context, probably the sub-logos chain goes on forever, each logos being a part of something larger. That underscores the holographic theory of reality at any rate.
Interesting find!
ra has described how existence follows a hierarchical pattern of dispersion, from logos to sub logos. described how each sublogos is a logos in turn and creates things.
actually leave aside this universe, this can be taken even further - its probably going the other way too - there are logoi for clusters of universes, and logoi for their clusters and so on.
RE: Central Logos of this universe ? - Aaron - 11-14-2010
unity100 Wrote:what is this '4th dimensional answer' or '4th dimensional thinking' anyway ? is it something like 'IAM' thing that is being advocated by some sources in spiritual literature ?
just what is it ?
It's not any kind of dogma, specific spiritual lingo, or anything. It's simply the type of answer I gave, which is from a slightly different perspective from what's considered normal.
unity100 Wrote:it isnt close minded, actually its elementary just like how 'there can be only one infinity - therefore all are from that one infinity'.
for one thing to be considered existing, it needs to affect other existing entities. only then it can be considered existing within a given reality.
even if the entity is in another dimension, but affecting this one very subtly through different effects, it means its still existing.
so goes gravity. actually gravity/attraction is in the basis of dewey physics, and in dewey physics the first thing to exists, is one that attracts.
Yep, it's a logical process to verify the existence of an object using gravity as a qualifier. But that only works up to third density. I think you're absolutely spot on when you say that for something to count as existing, it must affect something else in existence. In my understanding, that's how the universe works. But can't something exist without gravity that still affects other things in existence? What about a thought?
unity100 Wrote:actually this was described by Ra. they said the existence follows a hierarchical expansion pattern. logos follows logos and is its sublogos, down to the individual entity manifesting incarnated in a body (us, other entities).I agree with you on all those points. I was wondering about the somewhat trivial point of whether or not the hierarchical pattern goes somewhat like this: GSS, sub-logos (galactic, also simply called logos by Ra), sub-logos (planetary, such as our sun), sub-sub-logos (intelligent beings on a planet such as you or I). This is the way it's mentioned in the Ra material; but that could be due to Don not questioning about higher logoi than the galactic.
so, each sublogos comes from/draws energy from its own logos. so, its the former, of what you said.
black holes, ra says, are places where entities merge with 'the one creator'.
If that's the case, it would go possibly like this: GSS, sub-logos (logos creating a local cluster of galaxies), sub-sub-logos (galactic), sub-sub-sub-logos (planetary, such as our sun), sub-sub-sub-sub-logos (intelligent beings on a planet such as you or I).
It's even possible to speculate another logos into there as the being that maintains what's known in astronomy as a "supercluster" of galaxies. Like I said, it's kind of a trivial point though.
RE: Central Logos of this universe ? - unity100 - 11-14-2010
(11-14-2010, 02:15 PM)Aaron Wrote: Yep, it's a logical process to verify the existence of an object using gravity as a qualifier. But that only works up to third density. I think you're absolutely spot on when you say that for something to count as existing, it must affect something else in existence. In my understanding, that's how the universe works. But can't something exist without gravity that still affects other things in existence? What about a thought?
gravity, is attraction. it works in all densities.
the black holes are where creation merges with 'the one creator'. that means, it is above density/dimension. and light also cant escape it.
nothing can exist without attracting others. includes thought.
this is how it is explained to us in dewey physics that were used to explain these concepts.
you can name this 'existential' attraction or spiritual attraction, and say that gravity is a result of this. but it doesnt change - there is a force of attraction that works, for things to exist.
Quote:I agree with you on all those points. I was wondering about the somewhat trivial point of whether or not the hierarchical pattern goes somewhat like this: GSS, sub-logos (galactic, also simply called logos by Ra), sub-logos (planetary, such as our sun), sub-sub-logos (intelligent beings on a planet such as you or I). This is the way it's mentioned in the Ra material; but that could be due to Don not questioning about higher logoi than the galactic.
If that's the case, it would go possibly like this: GSS, sub-logos (logos creating a local cluster of galaxies), sub-sub-logos (galactic), sub-sub-sub-logos (planetary, such as our sun), sub-sub-sub-sub-logos (intelligent beings on a planet such as you or I).
It's even possible to speculate another logos into there as the being that maintains what's known in astronomy as a "supercluster" of galaxies. Like I said, it's kind of a trivial point though.
think about the big bang - a sudden boom outwards.
it would find stronger focus points that it would cling to, and what was reflecting from those focus point would find lesser, nearby focus points to reflect from. and so, it would branch out like the branches of a tree. there would be thicker branches, and smaller branches coming out from it.
a natural flow out.
RE: Central Logos of this universe ? - turtledude23 - 11-14-2010
I think this could be the centre our local galaxies revolve around and that there could be some centre these centres revolve around. Also someone said something about the unvierse being infinite. The universe is finite since it has space and time, it has a begining and end. I think there's lots of parallel universes all of which are "contained" in something, perhaps the unvierses even "revolve" around some omniversal "centre" (I'm using quotes because this omniverse wouldn't have the constraints of space and time).
RE: Central Logos of this universe ? - Aaron - 11-15-2010
unity100 Wrote:gravity, is attraction. it works in all densities.
the black holes are where creation merges with 'the one creator'. that means, it is above density/dimension. and light also cant escape it.
nothing can exist without attracting others. includes thought.
this is how it is explained to us in dewey physics that were used to explain these concepts.
you can name this 'existential' attraction or spiritual attraction, and say that gravity is a result of this. but it doesnt change - there is a force of attraction that works, for things to exist.
Well, thought certainly attracts circumstances! So we can say thought attracts. You're right in that we can simply rename 'gravitational attraction' to 'existential attraction' when dealing with higher density matter. That would make dewey's law of "that which exists attracts" still hold up. But can we say that higher density matter such as thought attracts with a gravitational pull? That is, does it bend space and time so as to effect other things around it?
I wonder how this ties into the concept of "spiritual mass" that's mentioned in the Ra material. I never fully understood that. Maybe we can start a new thread exploring that concept.
unity100 Wrote:think about the big bang - a sudden boom outwards.
it would find stronger focus points that it would cling to, and what was reflecting from those focus point would find lesser, nearby focus points to reflect from. and so, it would branch out like the branches of a tree. there would be thicker branches, and smaller branches coming out from it.
a natural flow out.
Visualizing what you say here, the universe branching out like a tree, it occurs to me that trees naturally branch out five ways: trunk, branch, stick (sub branch, several of these coming off one large branch), twig (several of these coming off one stick), leaf. This would correspond with GSS, cluster logos, galactic logos, planetary logos, and beings like you or I. That just seems more natural than having an extra logos for clusters of clusters of galaxies, I suppose. haha!
RE: Central Logos of this universe ? - unity100 - 11-15-2010
(11-15-2010, 03:49 PM)Aaron Wrote: But can we say that higher density matter such as thought attracts with a gravitational pull? That is, does it bend space and time so as to effect other things around it?
as per dewey, the first point to stop expanding, or reverse expanding, becomes an 'entity'. a 'thing'. exists.
if it stops expanding, it would mean that, compared to other points, it is attracting. if it is attracting, it means, its already attracting.
so, logically, any thing that exists, should attract, including thought forms, concepts.
the process of attracting events by thought, would be concentrating on that particular thought and attracting to the focus point that you are.
Quote:I wonder how this ties into the concept of "spiritual mass" that's mentioned in the Ra material. I never fully understood that. Maybe we can start a new thread exploring that concept.
the spiritual mass would be comparable to the power of gravity, attraction of the focus.
Quote:Visualizing what you say here, the universe branching out like a tree, it occurs to me that trees naturally branch out five ways: trunk, branch, stick (sub branch, several of these coming off one large branch), twig (several of these coming off one stick), leaf. This would correspond with GSS, cluster logos, galactic logos, planetary logos, and beings like you or I. That just seems more natural than having an extra logos for clusters of clusters of galaxies, I suppose. haha!
tree is a broad analogy. it wouldnt exactly hold out with the trunks. trunks are a necessity of planetary surfaces.
RE: Central Logos of this universe ? - Aaron - 11-16-2010
Thanks for panning this out with me. :p
RE: Central Logos of this universe ? - unity100 - 11-16-2010
np
.