It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Putting into perspective the millions (or billions) of galaxies

page: 2
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: crowdedskies

originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
a reply to: crowdedskies

It was a suggestion, not a criticism. It's all good, you'll find out one way or the other. Good luck.


Thanks for the suggestion. I may have read your post too fast.

I will read on the ants. I am sure it is worthwhile.

I remember spending hours as a child watching large numbers of ants walking in opposite directions and how they always made contact with each other as if to give some information on the place they had just left to the ones heading towards it.

Even in adulthood these ant scenes stayed in my mind and left me wondering if we as humans were missing out on something. You have provided me the best possible link on this phenomenon. I think whatever I find will be loaded into my spiritual filing system


I need to find the science article, but some researchers found out that ants actually can count the number of steps they took to leave the colony. How they keep direction is another question. Maybe this is what gets communicated to each other when they touch antennas.




posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kratos40

Actually, this is very true. Recently, astronomers mapped out the distribution patterns of galaxies in our universe. It surprisingly looked very similar to the patterns of neural networks in our brains. Do a search on ATS and you will find the illustrations.


As we are on the subject of patterns, could I quickly say a few words on the fact that Astrology (blacksheep of the Astronomy family) also looks at patterns in Space in order to ascertain the patterns in the psyche.

Sadly majority of people think that astrologers believe that planets exert influence on people. That is pure BS . Astrologers have always been using the movement of heavenly bodies as a means of tracking the subtle urges in the psyche and their consequences on the individual's environment. I should know . I have studied it for over 30 years.



edit on 2-1-2016 by crowdedskies because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kratos40


I need to find the science article, but some researchers found out that ants actually can count the number of steps they took to leave the colony. How they keep direction is another question. Maybe this is what gets communicated to each other when they touch antennas.



Oh sh.... During the last 20 years , I have an almost daily exercise which involves guessing and then counting how many steps to my car usually parked about half a mile away in a different location everyday. Am I turning into an ant. Seriously !!

I devised that exercise for a reason that I am not too sure myself.

Another thing that I do regularly is to count the seconds in my head for about a minute and see how out of sync I am with a digital timer. These days I can count up to 5 minutes in my head to within a second.


edit on 2-1-2016 by crowdedskies because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-1-2016 by crowdedskies because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Actually about 15 years ago Scientist thought the Universe was about 40 light years wide and 13.7 billion light years old.

Today we talk about it being about 92 billion light years wide and 13.8 billion light years old.

That does not mean that science has a grasp of the situation but only as far as we can see.

Case is point is the matter that given the Universe is 13.8 billion years old we can only see to that distance in relation to the size of the Universe. But when it is said that the universe has been solved in age with respect to size in relation to more than twice the size in 15 years and .1 of age in the same time? An issue in consideration is what will be considered in say 500 years, in relation to comprehension?

Some disagree and suggest reality has nothing to do with consciousness.


That does not by any actually a valid consideration to what we comprehend today.

But it is important to keep an open mind this is very relevant to training as it is a really bad idea to treat absolutes as such. The problem in this regard is that rationally we are humans and general, really have very little information about all of reality. This is where one can consider such a behavior in relation to the proverb of, "going down the rabbit hole".

Understanding that was is known about reality is limited to perhaps 4%. Its like understanding how to make a computer when you have been given all the raw materials to make one.

Its important to stay grounded as the brain is a fascinating product of nature but by no means is it perfect and neither is anyone else upon this planet.

The human brain learns things by developing neural connections. And in relation to considering absolutes the activity of doing so causes the brain to and for all intense and purpose the idea. That what you have decided to accept is to your brain, the truth. Again the problem is that respectively, truth is limited to cases where we understand everything about an environment.

Having said that...

I have been on the internet since AOL was operated from a garage which by no means or says anything about me except my age and one more thing....

Take a number 2 pencil with a copper top to hold the eraser. Place the copper top as close to your forehead between the eye brows. Again without actually touching your foreheads upon the same line as the center of the brow. move the pencil vertically and then back down. Do this for 1 minute.

Learn everything you can about Mindfulness Meditation which is available on the internet for free to understand.

Consider reality in any perspective you prefer to relate to but again it is very important to understand. That developing this way is a process that can take a life time.

Altogether and in emphasis a point being that knowledge when imposed upon by the conclusion of the idea that an absolute has been reached? In actuality generates stagnation and to unrelated to a truth that constitutes reality as what in reality it is.

For me a simply way to understand this in meditation is that we and in relation to matter, are made of both particles and waves . While we understand much about the particle aspects we really understand very little in anything about what happens to the wave state due to the existence of consciousness.
edit on 2-1-2016 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 09:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: crowdedskies

originally posted by: namelesss
First, you present two opponents, a 'macro' "vs" a 'microcosm'!
That "vs" presents them as opponents, different things, individual, unique.


You really are looking too much into words. Everybody here will know what I meant by using "versus". I meant : one as opposed to the other. It is a bit like saying Microcosm on the one hand and Macrocosm on the other . I could also say me versus my mirror image. Does it mean that I am fighting my reflection?

Words define our Reality.
Words define premises in a discussion, like this, which is what they did!
The words that you offered were offered in the implication that they are inherently different, 'oppositional.
So much that you even juxtaposed them as you did!
That is what the words say!
Perhaps you might re-craft your sloppy statement, if the words that you used do not reflect your 'intent'.

"A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged; it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and time in which it is used." -Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.


You are also looking too much into the word "perspective".
The rest of your post does not really say anything other than playing with words.
I wonder if you are capable of coping with metaphors let alone symbols.

The rest just sounds like a desperate ad-hom attack because I disturbed some 'belief' or other egoic bit, and you don't like what I said, and this.... is the only way that you can express your 'unhappiness', because you have no intellectual, philosophical refutation.
Other sites offer a thumbs down for such common occurrences! *__-
You offered no 'refutation', or even an understanding of anything I offered!
You're choking on your own words...
So, I'll just move on before I disturb you further...



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: namelesss

in Genesis with respect to the Holy Bible, God allowed man to label the animals but God did not insist that God be labeled as, God did with animals.

It would seem that in Genesis and even in respect to the accounts of Moses, God did not want to be labeled.




edit on 2-1-2016 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Which brings up an issue as to the relevance of,"Labels" beyond what we generally understand.


edit on 2-1-2016 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 10:04 PM
link   
It is in comprehension possible that orienting oneself to an absolute in such a way that neural connections form in support of such a conclusion.

That such individuals are in potential.....

Experiencing some form of disorientation given what we today understand about reality and in relation to our ability to understand, what relates beyond, that interpretation.

A rather relevant point of Wisdom is that, "I do not know".
edit on 2-1-2016 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 10:11 PM
link   
As a child I thought about a similar belief to your own. Everything from small to large, orbits one another, electrons around atoms, planets around stars, stars around galaxies. Perhaps its a closed loop but it just might end in a loop where the largest returns into the smallest.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: glend

Perhaps what we were and in relation what we are and in relation to what we will be is what we are.

With respect to all things relatable as well as in respect to us but in relation to an angle or orientation.

in consideration to the idea that each of us have a very specific path that leads in the same direction.

So specific labels as we generally consider it could actually fail to function as related to valid interpretations of what actually exists.
edit on 2-1-2016 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

My goodness Kashai, your the embodiment of Zen. Trouble is, I could never understand Zen.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: glend

Might I suggest you then develop the sensation you have experienced, given you tried what I offered. In the sense of replicating the experience without the pencil and in meditation.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

I would find that difficult because when meditating I don't think, just observe, and that evaporates the physical into nothingness so what remains is emptiness.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: glend

Thinking about nothing actually takes up space and time in relation to the brain being able to process.

It means that in relation to what is going on and in respect to what is considered in relation to interconnectedness
information is being processed.

If we consider emptiness in relation to not all reality but our ability to ability to comprehend it?

Perhaps emptiness has more to do with what we do not understand, rather than what actually exist.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 12:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: namelesss

in Genesis with respect to the Holy Bible, God allowed man to label the animals but God did not insist that God be labeled as, God did with animals.

It would seem that in Genesis and even in respect to the accounts of Moses, God did not want to be labeled.

Religiously speaking, to 'label' God is idolatry, to erect an image, even in the mind.
One of the clearest messages in the book is "We Are that We Are!"
No 'name' was proffered!



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 04:23 AM
link   
a reply to: crowdedskies

You are not the first to believe that contact will be "telepathicaly". But nobody will believe it is something other than a hoax, or mental illness, till they physically show up and say hi.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 07:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

if you try to think about nothing then the brain remains active. But if you just observe, both the body and brain will eventually go to sleep from boredom. Allowing the observer to remain in the emptiness. Emptiness at least in Buddhism is regarded as the true state of nature. Its devoid of all the causes and effects that the human brain attaches to everything, so emptiness is not nothingness nor voidness, but in simpler terms, a projection (maya the illusion), that we witness.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: glend

My focus in meditation is very similar and thank you for that.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 04:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: crowdedskies

originally posted by: darkbake
What is so bad about supporting science?


Too much support make scientists go off course and put blinkers on.


Sorry, I'm not the type to attempt to correct others, but I've seen this, what I believe to be an error, about 5 times in recent months around here, of course I could be wrong, but... I believe you mean "blinders". Not blinkers.

Nice thread, I enjoyed reading it. Thank you. I apologise if I was mistaken in my assumption.

As far as the topic at hand, I can only hope we will find the answers before we destroy our civilization. I Think we can, I Think we can... I KNOW we can!



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3n19m470

originally posted by: crowdedskies

originally posted by: darkbake
What is so bad about supporting science?


Too much support make scientists go off course and put blinkers on.


Sorry, I'm not the type to attempt to correct others, but I've seen this, what I believe to be an error, about 5 times in recent months around here, of course I could be wrong, but... I believe you mean "blinders". Not blinkers.

Nice thread, I enjoyed reading it. Thank you. I apologise if I was mistaken in my assumption.

As far as the topic at hand, I can only hope we will find the answers before we destroy our civilization. I Think we can, I Think we can... I KNOW we can!


Sorry I stick with blinkers (see below definition from the Oxford Dictionary). You must be american. We say colour you say color; we say labour , you say labor..

Definition of blinker in English:
noun
1 (blinkers) chiefly British A pair of small leather screens attached to a horse’s bridle to prevent it seeing sideways and behind and being startled.
Example sentences
1.1Something which prevents someone from gaining a full understanding of a situation: we are having a fresh look at ourselves without blinkers

I do not mind your attempt to correct but in this case we are both correct.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join