Hmm. Granted I haven't read the whole thing yet either, but so far it sounds like a rephrasing of fairly standard material. Allow me to translate.
>The term "space people" means beings coming from a different
>planet or another geographical point outside the Earth,
>in such a manner that they must traverse space.
When he says "space people" he means creatures that are real flesh and blood creatures like you and me, but who just happen to be from a
different planet, or star. As oppossed to say...angels, or demons, or "spiritual" creatures that could be better described as living in a
space, as opposed to just somewhere else in this
>There are several beings on the Earth standing higher on the ladder
>of development than the humans.
There are however, creatures on Earth which aren't merely "space people."
>These being are on parallel planes on the Earth
This seems out of place. First all, he's jumping ahead of himself, because he hasn't described any dimensions yet. Second, it doesn't follow (in
my mind) that "extra dimensional beings" would be "on earth" but confine themselves to the "parallel planes" he's speaking of...but if he
doesn't mean "extra dimensional" it's add that he would say that they are higher up on the ladder. (Implying more spiritually evolved.) The
phrasing is poor. When reading this sort of material, I really think it would be convenient if people would just stick to more mathematical
descriptions for these things instead of mixing in phrases that were thought up by science fiction authors. "Parallel plane of earth" is just a
fancy way of saying saying that:
--There are three "dimensions" plus time. You're comfortable with that.
--Ok...now add a fifth "spatial" dimension.
--Populate that dimension on both sides with "copies" of the "three dimension plus time" universes that you're familiar with.
--(This means that there are a whole bunch of "earths" in a line along that fifth dimensional axis.)
Or...to put in another way, if you think of "three dimensions plus time" as one "thing" (basically a
) then this fifth dimension is really just a great big long line of those
"things" next to each other, with ours just one of many, somewhere in the middle.
"Parallel plane" is science fiction-ese for "those other things."
Anyway...all of this may sound terribly complicated, but it really isn't. Ask any programmer to explain to you what an array is, and once you
understand, ask him to show you a four or five dimensional array. That's all we're doing here. We're saying that "The Universe" is an array, but
that it happens to be comprised of more dimensions than we happen to see, and that some of those dimensions contain "data" that is layed out in a
slightly different manner.
>but the nature of these planes are
>often invisible to each other.
Well, yes. We generally only see in three dimensions.. Of course we can't see those other "planes" and they, presumably, can't usually see
>To see the most of the nature on Earth, one must in addition to
>the 4 dimensions of the orthodox science (height, length, width
>and time), add another 2 dimensions,
Remember I said he was jumping ahead of himself? This part should have come first. He's saying that the universe is "bigger" than our famliiar
3+time dimensions. I think modern physics says 11 dimensions. This guy only appears to be concerned with two extras, at the moment. We have the
familiar names: "height" "width" "time" etc. He's just giving names to some new ones.
But, while we're here, re-read the first sentence. "To see most of the earth." Think about that. Remember I said "we can't them, and they can't
see us?" But...if the universe is layed out as we're describing, the whole idea of there being a whole bunch of "Earth's" is really just our
perspective, based on the fact that we can't see out of our silly little thre or four dimensional box. If you were able to perceive all of those
dimensions simultaneously, you would likely perceieve "all those Earth's" as a single, five dimensional object. "Most" of the Earth is invisible
to us, simply because we're only paying attention to a single one of the "planes."
>namely the energy dimension and the microidic density.
Two important things here. First, remember the "fifth" dimension I mentioned earlier? Same idea, but he's calling it an "energy" dimension.
Ok. Second...notice that he's referring to one as a "dimension" but he calls the other one a "density?" This is classic new-age nomenclature.
We'll get to the details in a moment, but just for now think of the "density" as only sort of being a "dimension" in the mathematical sense, but
more strongly resembling a range of frequency. For instance...you have low frequency light, like red. You also have high frequency light, like blue.
You might think of the range of "frequencies" as being in a line, thus constituting a "dimension." But...this one happens to function diferently,
so we're going to call it "density" instead of "dimension" to make it easier to differentiate.
>Microidic density (prubunsic) means the unatomic particle the,
>microid which is the smallest particle in the universe and of
>which there are 7 main groups in our universe.
Don't worry about the names for now. The important part is the "7 main groups of the universe" part. Remember my light frequency metaphor above?
Well...with visible light you have red, orange, yellow, green, blue, "indigo," and violet. That's seven different "groupings." The strange thing
about light though...is that even though the frequency may change gradually, if you look at the spectrum you'll tend to see these very obvious
"groupings." If you look at the top edge of yellow, and compare it to the bottom edge of green, you'll see what appears to be a fairly rapid
change...even though the actual frequency of the light isn't all that different. Within "blue" there are a whole bunch of actual number
frequencies...but they all kind of look "bluish."
This "Microidic density" that he's talking about works in basically the same way. There is a range...and any point along the range might be a
certain numeric "frequency" but all the same, if you look at it from the outside, there will tend to be a visible "grouping" along its length.
This is what I was referring to when I said earlier that the "data in the array is layed out differently." For example...if I have a simple two
7 99 99 99 99
6 88 92 81 84
5 53 67 72 59
4 50 45 47 43
3 37 32 44 34
2 38 29 27 42
1 15 11 12 10
You'll look at it and instantly realize that it's not just a random bunch of numbers. There is structure. The left-most column in numbered
sequentially, and each of the rows generally contain bigger numbers, correspinding with the higher row number. Numbers in the fourth row (fourth
density) are generally larger than numbers in rows one through three. Etc. The universe is layed out similarly, and some dimensions contain different
sort of structure than others. You can see this plainly in our perspective of "time." You'll often hear that time is a dimension, but obviously we
perceive it in a very different manner than the three spatial dimenions we're familiar with. Imagien for a moment being a one-dimensional creature,
sitting on the "11" and able to see only the 15 on one side of you, and the 12 on the other, and being able to move left and right along that row
only. Naturally, all of the above talk of "columns and rows" would seema little odd to you, and you would have no sense of any sort of "layout"
to your universe, even though it's perfectly obvious to us, being able to observe both dimensions simultaneously.
The universe works the same, and there are more dimensinos than we can perceieve, some of which carry structure.
Anyway...I could continue, but does anyone care?
My advice would be to have a physicist sit down at the ouiji board with these people and let him ask the questions. If the material is accurate,
someone with a lab and a particle accelerator and so forth would probably be in a better position to make use of the information.
[edit on 6-8-2005 by LordBucket]