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.

 

Duality of Nothing: Triality of Existence

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Cease thinking of light as only "bright". Light comes in many degrees and forms, even the shadow is a lesser degree of light, only existing because light casts it


Darkness is a relative absence of light, not a form of light.


Don't turn science in to a religion. Einstein wasn't Jesus, neither is Stephen, nor is Kaku.


Luckily their not !


Existence is an immeasurable interconnection. Things of the Existence can be measured, but there are no isolated systems, so stop isolating the Earth consciousness from the eternal.


Doesn't make sence, what is the earth consciousness from the eternal???


Gravity is eternal (in space and "time), and in differing degrees, all this caused by relative points of reference, that are infinite, too. Gravity is and is not always attractive.


Gravity IS always attractive.


The thought that there needs to be a big bang comes from the mind set of creationism.
[edit on 12-4-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]


It does not. The singularity is explained by M Theory, which means altough the theory isn't proven, or accepted, but that it's entirely possible that the big bang has precedents and doesn't come from some kind of bearded guy...

[edit on 12-4-2007 by DarkSide]



posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Again, the redshift is being used to calculate this.

This is basic physics and is a known phenomina. They're actually not being "squeezed" but what happens is that you're encountering them more quickly than you would if you were moving away from them. We see this as being "squeezed" although we know that there is no such compression going on.


Then Kaku should stop writing books. Now that we know it's not being squeezed, the wavelengths are not subject to shortening, therefore either there is no redshift occuring, or the definition of how and why redshift is measured needs to be revised.


Einstein's theory of relativity explains this phenomina (no, not the E=MC2 one.)


Speed is understood due to relativity, but the wavelengths are not subject to shortening, they are staying the same.


It isn't. It doesn't, as the Inverse Square Law explains. At some point you have a lot of space and only one or two photons that covers it. That's why things disappear in the distance. The inverse-square law


Things dissapear in the distance because we can't see it, for reasons I am yet to acceptand am still evaluating.


...although it's really more properly a wavicle or wave front.


It is my belief that light has waves due to sound, and sound has waves due to motion and vibration, and vibration exists because of motion and sound, and light has motion, thus creating vibration and sound, and the Existence is a harmonic symphony, synchronized simultaneously into an eternal perfection that is not contengent on Human expectation, and it always has been this way, simply waiting for Humanity to drop ego and become aware of Perfection.


Yes, redshifts, blueshifts, lateral motion.


Redshifts, blueshifts, all shifts, shifting motion in every direction, no evidence for a big bang or expansion, only degrees of energy moving through energy, some appearing more dense than others.


Three things you're not taking into account... computer assistance on this, photography, and the amount of time that astronomers have been studying the sky.


Computer assistance, photography, and study time were applied.


Better instruments means they get better measurements. You wouldn't want them to stick by an old (bad) measurement, would you?


Why must Existence be measured, categorized, departmentalized, divided, classified, and put in to little boxes? It won't fit. When will the consciousness be trusted? There is no measurement to be had, only the acceptance of eternal perfection.


Because it's all around us. There's not an 'edge'.


According to the "big bang" and the "bubble universe", there is.


Nope. It'd show in the rocks if it was that old. 4.5 billion years (subject to adjusting if we get better instruments.)


The rocks have been plants, and the plants have been rocks, the Earth was once space, though it still is, and space where there is the Earth, the Earth is made of the stars and so are the rocks, the rocks that were once plants and the plants that were once rocks, Humans have ate plants and plants have ate Humans as Humans rot in the ground and nurture their soil, energy is transmutating from form to form, when a device that is used to measure the eternity of energy is devised, then we will have the truth of how old Earth is. These measuring systems are innacurate and based on expectational derivatives, therefore they are built to only find what they want to find, that is a bias.


I think you may find that scientists don't ever mention a deity or any deities in their theories. In fact, there's no "proof test" (beyond 'this is my book of religion and it names the CORRECT deity!') that any deity had a hand involved or what the deity is.


One of the most profound scientists/physicists that physics is based on created the theory of the big bang because he believed in God: Albert Einstein. He wanted to know God's thoughts. Kaku always talks about God, many, many, many scientists talk about and believe in God. This "center" point and every thing "redshifting" away from it is either ingorance or propoganda. The only way to be able to see space expanding would be if we were the center of the "universe" and all light was moving away from us, then we would have proof of light moving away from us. Up intill now there is no proof. Blushift is measured, redshift is measured, and not even 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 of the limited "bubble universe" they've created has been measured for redshifting and blueshifting.

We are witnessing a scientific religion blooming that is based on fundamental and fanatic creationism. The pastor preaches and the sheep regurgitate without thinking. Why are we like this?


Believe me, the "I thought about it and it just makes sense" defense doesn't work here.


No defense and no offense, truth of neutrality, truth of eternity, consciousness of Existence. No attacker, no defender, only the giving and the receiving.


Well, other than there's no proof of a deity, it's a lot easier to deal with physics than it is with human behavior. Epidemic patterns depend on the behavior of living creatures,


Physics is derived of Human behaviour and Human behaviour derived of physics. There needs to be a phsychogenetic ambidextrial metamorphosis of the Human consciousness for any one to ever comprehend Existence. We are the light, no division


and none of them (or us) is as predictable as the path of a photon.


Predictability is the fault, but above opinion is accepted.

Thank you for the links


[edit on 12-4-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarkSide



Darkness is a relative absence of light, not a form of light.


Then light is a relative absence of darkness, and not a form of darkness? How can this be if we must know darkness to explain light and light to explain darkness? They are each other. Imagine a 12 inch ruler, at 1 inch there is bright light, at 12 inches there is what appears to be complete blackness, and in between from 2-11 it slowly fades. It's all the same and measured on the same scale. Why do you think black holes are black? They suck all the light in don't they? Absolute light is both "black" and "white".


Luckily their not !


Their work is repeated like so and hardly, if ever refuted.


Doesn't make sence, what is the earth consciousness from the eternal???


Separated, trying to re-member.


Gravity IS always attractive.


It is and is not. All things have their degrees, positives, negatives, and neutrals: Duality of Nothing, triality of Existence.


It does not. The singularity is explained by M Theory, which means altough the theory isn't proven, or accepted, but that it's entirely possible that the big bang has precedents and doesn't come from some kind of bearded guy...


Hypothetical stamps of theoritcal approval hold no validation in the realm of truth.

Going to take a break, thank you for the conversation, enjoying our time together



posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
One of the most profound scientists/physicists that physics is based on created the theory of the big bang because he believed in God: Albert Einstein. He wanted to know God's thoughts.


Nonsense, Einstein disagreed with the big bang theory and firmly believed in a static eternal universe a bitl ike yours. But he eventually accepted it because a static universe doesn't work with relativity.


Then light is a relative absence of darkness, and not a form of darkness? How can this be if we must know darkness to explain light and light to explain darkness?


NO!!! a dark room is just a place that contains fewer photons than a room in daylight. The reason you see light is only because your brain is constructing a mental image of what your eyes are recording. Absence isn't a place filled with "dark photons".


Their work is repeated like so and hardly, if ever refuted.


No, study the history of science, theories are validated, invalidated, modified as our understanding evolves.


Hypothetical stamps of theoritcal approval hold no validation in the realm of truth.


It is mathematically consistant, meaning it gives a correct representation of the universe
Now what equations are behind your theory of the universe?

[edit on 12-4-2007 by DarkSide]



posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarkSide



Nonsense,


Now, let's keep it civil, this isn't a court room. But if you add poopy pants after that statement, then it's all good



Einstein disagreed with the big bang theory and firmly believed in a static eternal universe a bitl ike yours. But he eventually accepted it because a static universe doesn't work with relativity.


Relativity does not require a big bang. An eternal Existence can still contain relativity. He accepted such things because people basically forced him to. They made him doubt himself because they couldn't understand where he was coming from



posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarkSide



NO!!! a dark room is just a place that contains fewer photons than a room in daylight. The reason you see light is only because your brain is constructing a mental image of what your eyes are recording. Absence isn't a place filled with "dark photons".


Can't only have it one way. Existence is a reflection. Every thing constructed must able to stand up frontwards, backwards, sideways, inverted, etc. This isn't about Human expectation, it's about Existence. Existence is omnified and must be comprehended and understood in such a way.

I'm not sure if the "NO!!!!!", is you screaming, but it'd be a lot easier to converse if we keep it calm and serene.


No, study the history of science, theories are validated, invalidated, modified as our understanding evolves.


So the construction of theories on top of hypothesis with modified guesses. The history of science is just the science of history; Existence (eternity) is timeless, experiencing memories that have already happened and re-membering experience as it (we) experience its self.


It is mathematically consistant, meaning it gives a correct representation of the universe
Now what equations are behind your theory of the universe?


How is that? How can it give a correct mathematical representation of the universe if it hasn't been named correctly yet? Or some thing that they say is measurable, yet hasn't been measured yet? It's a fancy guess. The consistency and synchronization is all around you. Look up uni, then verse, also their etymologies. There is no "one" about this existential experience, except for division. Unity is only the deviation from Omnity.

It is no theory. The equation is Existence and it cannot be equated or theorized, only accepted for what the eternal consciousness has presented.

This was surmised some months ago, it may have holes as it has not been revised, but you may like it. It may not be consummated

The Existential Being of Mathematics

[edit on 12-4-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Apr, 14 2007 @ 06:18 AM
link   
What I am saying about light is that it is only Human perception that perceives the shortening and lengthening of wavical frequencies.

The light waves themselves are not shortening, but us moving relative to them makes them appear to be shortening and/or lengthening, we're only encountering them quicker and/or longer.

This still does not constitute a big bang, if any thing it proves even more so that there wasn't one, and if you say that space is not expanding in the form of a bubble, as in there is no "edge", then light would never reach us because the scientists say that space is expanding at faster than the velocity of light! How could light keep up with space to ever get here?

Another note: Darkness is light and light is darkness, just because it's not the way that you experience "brightness" doesn't mean it's not light. There are many animals on this very planet who would think otherwise; they are nocturnal



posted on Apr, 14 2007 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
What I am saying about light is that it is only Human perception that perceives the shortening and lengthening of wavical frequencies.


Light has been studied by physicists since 100's of years. The properties of photons and light in general are, they're not fabricated by the brain. That would be like saying gravity is only human perception.


The light waves themselves are not shortening, but us moving relative to them makes them appear to be shortening and/or lengthening, we're only encountering them quicker and/or longer.


"Squeezing" was only a vulgar way of describing the phenomenon to people who don't have a ph.d in astrophysics.


This still does not constitute a big bang, if any thing it proves even more so that there wasn't one, and if you say that space is not expanding in the form of a bubble, as in there is no "edge", then light would never reach us because the scientists say that space is expanding at faster than the velocity of light! How could light keep up with space to ever get here?


If everything is moving away from the same place it does. And space only expanded faster than light for a short period after the big bang.


Another note: Darkness is light and light is darkness, just because it's not the way that you experience "brightness" doesn't mean it's not light. There are many animals on this very planet who would think otherwise; they are nocturnal


Nocturnal animals don't see darkness, they're eyes are enhanced at perceiving in low light envirronments (less photons) and/or rely on hearing,smell or sonar more than vision.



posted on Apr, 14 2007 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarkSide

Light has been studied by physicists since 100's of years. The properties of photons and light in general are, they're not fabricated by the brain. That would be like saying gravity is only human perception.


And it still has 100's of more years to be studied. I would point you in the direction of this thread. It would be a nice read, it explains how light responds to perception.The Observer


"Squeezing" was only a vulgar way of describing the phenomenon to people who don't have a ph.d in astrophysics.


Well, to treat the people like they are stupid is not the way to go. We can't sacrifice simplicity for truth, or we will have neither.


If everything is moving away from the same place it does. And space only expanded faster than light for a short period after the big bang.


Ah, no. That is not the case. First there is no big bang, and why did it slow down? Many theories and hypothesis, no proof. I was once debating this with some one who had a "Ph.D" or "doctor" in front of their name
and they told me that we can't reach the "edge" of the "bubble universe" because space is expanding at faster than the velocity of light! So, if space is now not expanding at faster than the velocity of light, then what is happening? Don't tell me... it's collapsing
I'm not trying to mock, it's just very funny... the circular arguments that they'll put up so that their theories seem infallable. Well, if space is expanding at faster than the velocity of light then... we could never see light... "wait a second.. it only did that for a while!" Well then, now what's happening, is light expanding in to nothingness? Nothingness that can't Exist... because it is nothing? No words, no thought, no color... not blackness... nothingness, it doesn't Exist! "ummm.... the universe is collapsing now... light is going in reverse, there wasn't enough light to keep going so it's collapsing on its self now"



Nocturnal animals don't see darkness, they're eyes are enhanced at perceiving in low light envirronments (less photons) and/or rely on hearing,smell or sonar more than vision.


Well, if there was no light then they couldn't see. Obviously there is light everywhere, even where it is thought not to be. So tell me, how do notcurnal animals see? Do they suck the light in? Or do they create their own light? Or do they go off of heat? Heat generated from light and light generated from heat, from motion, from sound... all interconnected and cannot be divided.

Here is an analogy.

Energy = oxygen, ball = Human perception of Existence, pin = brave "Godless" Human

If I am holding a ball, I can make a judgement that there is oxygen "inside the ball" because I have blown the ball up with oxygen, but there is also oxygen "outside the ball", the parameter of the ball acting as a shield to the outside air is only an illusion. The rubber of the ball is in contact with the oxygen on the inside of the ball and the outside of the ball, thus ultimately connecting them. The air of the outside is exactly the same as the air of the inside, it only takes the poke of a brave pin to actually experience it.

Now, see the ball as Earth, look outwards and feel your connection to eternity, because you are it.

P.s. did you read the O.P. or any of the links that were supplied? Or are you just here to push a scientific religion?

[edit on 14-4-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Apr, 14 2007 @ 02:07 PM
link   

And it still has 100's of more years to be studied. I would point you in the direction of this thread. It would be a nice read, it explains how light responds to perception.The Observer


Off topic, the video is talking about electrons not photons. electrons are matter.


Well, to treat the people like they are stupid is not the way to go. We can't sacrifice simplicity for truth, or we will have neither.


they aren't treating people like they are stupid, if they wrote it as it was people that didn't study it would not understand. You can always read the real stuff if you want to....


Ah, no. That is not the case. First there is no big bang, and why did it slow down? Many theories and hypothesis, no proof.


Well you seem so sure you know the "truth" as you call it. Why don't you hand in your theory to Harvard ?


Well, if there was no light then they couldn't see. Obviously there is light everywhere, even where it is thought not to be.


Did I say there was no light?



how do notcurnal animals see?


They only see because of moonlight/starlight, better than us because most have a reflective area at the back of their eyes that helps capture the most light possible.

Lock a cat in a pitch black room and he'll see just as much as you : nothing. But he'll still be able to get around better than you because of his better hearing and smell. Why do you think bats that live most of their lives in pitch black caves are nearly blind and use sonar? If darkness was a form of light surely they could use their eyes normally



P.s. did you read the O.P. or any of the links that were supplied? Or are you just here to push a scientific religion?


Yup that must be it



posted on Apr, 14 2007 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarkSide
Off topic, the video is talking about electrons not photons. electrons are matter.


According to a definition of "matter", it is some thing that occupies "space". Light does just that.


they aren't treating people like they are stupid, if they wrote it as it was people that didn't study it would not understand. You can always read the real stuff if you want to....


And when they don't we have fanatical religious murderers. They are treating people as if they can not understand it, thus people don't.


Well you seem so sure you know the "truth" as you call it. Why don't you hand in your theory to Harvard?


That's a possibility, things are still being consummated.


Did I say there was no light?


It was implied. If there is only light, or photons every 3 inches, then Existence would only be lit up every 3 inches, and the rest would appear to be ... non-existent, that cannot be.


They only see because of moonlight/starlight, better than us because most have a reflective area at the back of their eyes that helps capture the most light possible.


There is light always every where. They are adapt at catching a different degree of light, a less "bright" degree of light, if you will.


Lock a cat in a pitch black room and he'll see just as much as you : nothing. But he'll still be able to get around better than you because of his better hearing and smell. Why do you think bats that live most of their lives in pitch black caves are nearly blind and use sonar? If darkness was a form of light surely they could use their eyes normally


Perhaps bats were a bird that once saw with their eyes, due to some event they were restricted to caves and developed a keen since of hearing and echo location. Otherwise they wouldn't need eyes to begin with. There has obviously been some type of perceptional evolutionary mitigation. Cats are not stricly nocturnal animals. Even in a pitch black room there is still some thing that can be seen by humans, blackness.

The colors around you are from light, and all the colors are gray, take out white and there is black. Black, white, and gray, it's all of the same source... its self... the spectrum of light that creates the colorfull Existence that human beings experience, and colors that create the spectrum of light, and we really are the light experiencing its self, though not limited to light. We are vibration, motion, light, degrees of temperature, all perpetually creating each other in a cosmic musical

[edit on 14-4-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Apr, 14 2007 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
According to a definition of "matter", it is some thing that occupies "space". Light does just that.


Whatever, electrons and photons are totally different in lots of ways...






That's a possibility, things are still being consummated.


The higher you go the harder you fall



Perhaps bats were a bird that once saw with their eyes, due to some event they were restricted to caves and developed a keen since of hearing and echo location.


First of all, bats are mammals not birds.


Cats are not stricly nocturnal animals.


Not in your apartment, no, but they naturally hunt by night, like lots of felines.


Even in a pitch black room there is still some thing that can be seen by humans, blackness.


You can not see blackness or darkness. Blackness or darkness is only an image your brain forms when the photoreceptors of your eyes are not being stimulated by photons.


The colors around you are from light, and all the colors are gray, take out white and there is black. Black, white, and gray, it's all of the same source... its self...


Actually the image you see is based on red,green and blue, like your TV screen, not on shades of gray.



posted on Apr, 14 2007 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Outfinite: You're viewing light wrong. Light (that you see with your eyes) is a REFLECTION, and we (or anything that measures light) see light because it's reflected into our eyes. Light is not a compression wave like sound is.



Space itself is not lit up. If light is moving through space you WILL NOT SEE IT unless it is reflected into your eyes. The reason the sky is lit up during the day is because the atmosphere reflects some of the light that travels through it into your eyes.


Also, with the expanding-universe theory, you won't see some things blue shift (well, not as a result of the universe expanding), as was stated. Everything is moving farther away. Basically, if you look at the picture of wavelengths, you "stretch" them and make them longer. Same thing happens to electromagnetic radiation that happens to planets.


(edit: added some stuff in parentheses to clarify)

[edit on 14-4-2007 by Johnmike]



posted on Apr, 14 2007 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Now that we know it's not being squeezed, the wavelengths are not subject to shortening, therefore either there is no redshift occuring, or the definition of how and why redshift is measured needs to be revised.


I must not have expressed myself clearly. The waves (from our frame of reference) are compressed because we're encountering them more quickly (moving toward them.) This causes the color to change.


It is my belief that light has waves due to sound, and sound has waves due to motion and vibration, and vibration exists because of motion and sound, and light has motion, thus creating vibration and sound, and the Existence is a harmonic symphony, synchronized simultaneously into an eternal perfection that is not contengent on Human expectation, and it always has been this way, simply waiting for Humanity to drop ego and become aware of Perfection.


Except that sound doesn't influence it at all. More sound doesn't change the color of light (which would happen if it got more vibration) and sound doesn't change whether it's dark or light.


One of the most profound scientists/physicists that physics is based on created the theory of the big bang because he believed in God:

Einstein didn't invent the concept of the big bang. Lematre did.


The only way to be able to see space expanding would be if we were the center of the "universe" and all light was moving away from us, then we would have proof of light moving away from us.

Not really. We can see motion relative to other objects and their motion in relation to each other. Even Kaku talks about this:
scienceline.org...


Physics is derived of Human behaviour and Human behaviour derived of physics.

Gravity isn't derived from human behavior. The dinosaurs had it long before we did. So did the protozoa.



posted on Apr, 15 2007 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd



I must not have expressed myself clearly...


Cool, gotcha, I'm with you now



Except that sound doesn't influence it at all. More sound doesn't change the color of light (which would happen if it got more vibration) and sound doesn't change whether it's dark or light.


Sound does or can change and influence light. Sound is a vibration and with enough vibration we can generate heat, heat resonates light, and you can reverse that flip it upside down, inverse it etc. it's all interchangable. We speak because of vibration. Noise is because of vibration, thngs that are hot vibrate faster, things that are cold vibrate slower, when something becomes extremely hot it will begin emitting light, and light emits heat.

Sound, vibration, light and temperature are all interconnected, as every thing is.


Einstein didn't invent the concept of the big bang. Lematre did.


I stand corrected, I should have expounded. Einstein began supporting this theory, in my opinion, a huge mistake.


Not really. We can see motion relative to other objects and their motion in relation to each other. Even Kaku talks about this:
scienceline.org...


This still does not prove that space is expanding. It demonstrates eternal motion, vibration, light, and temperature once again, what I like to imagine as Existence' harmonical achromatic symphony in the grand scheme of philisophically alchemizing all aspects of it.


Gravity isn't derived from human behavior. The dinosaurs had it long before we did. So did the protozoa.


This is not exactly what I was referring to. The way that we behave because of our evolutionary adaptation to Existence and this planet will ultimately be because of our understanding of "physics", and our understanding of physics will propogate our behaviour, the more it mutates our behaviour and our evolution, the more we comprehend it, fortunately this will lead to a more peace inclined species instead of our primitive, 'expurgative of Existence behaviour' pre-"advanced" physics:

We denied (or tried to) every thing unless it was from God HIMself



posted on Apr, 15 2007 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarkSide



Whatever, electrons and photons are totally different in lots of ways...


And totally similar in a lots of ways...


The higher you go the harder you fall


Until the perils of gravity are escaped


First of all, bats are mammals not birds.


Sorry, winged creatures. Forgive my laziness, if you want every thing to be spelt out, I can do so, then we can get to the marrow and stop this diminutive nit picking. I'm a philosopher, I tend to use allegories and metaphors quite often, forgive me.


Not in your apartment, no, but they naturally hunt by night, like lots of felines.


Okay, back to the subject of light! We all know the behaviour and nature of cats is subjective to environment as are all species.


You can not see blackness or darkness. Blackness or darkness is only an image your brain forms when the photoreceptors of your eyes are not being stimulated by photons.


Well then, I'm still seeing blackness, and still the cause of light.


Actually the image you see is based on red,green and blue, like your TV screen, not on shades of gray.


Primary colors. Roy G. Biv, all understood. Thanks.

If we are going to argue and contort the topic to t.v. screens instead of understanding what is being said... then it's best we stop.

Positive, negative, neutral. Black, white, gray. Get it? Greys are not "man made" colors, they have always Existed.

Trialities of Existence and Duality of Nothing. Then the interconnection of eternity



posted on Apr, 15 2007 @ 07:12 AM
link   
JohnMike,

I comprehend the 'natural' waves of light. What I am presenting is this.

Frequency of light waves of themselves is constant, the way we perceive it is what is causing the idea of redshifting and blueshifting. It's only in our perception. This is caused of motion, motion that is eternal, motion that creates relativity. No thing will ever cease moving, and no thing will not ever cease moving. This is not evidence of a big bang, only that we can witness the source of a specific light while moving relative to the source of a specific light that is also moving. No Big bang, we're just witnessing motion and relative perception, it's every where.

Space can not be expanding at faster than the velocity of light. Space is merely energy, as is light, as is the planet, as are you, as is me, see what I'm saying? Light is every where for ever, whether the human mind is aware of unaware of its presence.

Existence is omnipotent, the potential for every thing. It is also omnipresent, it is also omniscience and omniscous. We are it and it is us, we are the creators of our reality. Existence is perfect and we are of this perfection, we are in this perfection, this perfection is in us. A thing that is Existentially imperfect would cease to Exist. We can't, we're all perfect, we're all the eternal energy. We are every thing for ever.

It is eternally expansive, no beginning and no end, thus all possibilities of your thought are true and do Exist some where other than only of your thought, and that is why they Exist of your thought and why your thought Exists of them.

And JohnMike,

Everything is not moving farther away

[edit on 15-4-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Apr, 15 2007 @ 07:14 AM
link   

And totally similar in a lots of ways...


A photon is massless while an electron is not....


I'm a philosopher, I tend to use allegories and metaphors quite often, forgive me.


Exactly, good luck passing your philosophy as science.


Well then, I'm still seeing blackness, and still the cause of light.


you are not seeing, that's my point



If we are going to argue and contort the topic to t.v. screens instead of understanding what is being said... then it's best we stop.


I'm not the one that said vision is based on black white an gray.


Greys are not "man made" colors, they have always Existed.


a color is only your brains representation of a certain wavelenght of light



Everything is not moving farther away


Evidence? You know we can all make unfounded claims...

[edit on 15-4-2007 by DarkSide]



posted on Apr, 15 2007 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarkSide



A photon is massless while an electron is not...


Light generates electricity and electricity generates light. Light occupies space and electrons occupy space, space occupies light and space occupies electrons. Light has many colors that electricity can produce, etc. etc. etc.


Exactly, good luck passing your philosophy as science.


I would say it's more like good luck trying to pass science off to philosophers, or religion off to athiests.


you are not seeing, that's my point


If I wasn't seeing, I wouldn't see blackness... have you ever heard of black lights? There are many black things that have been created because of seeing blackness, and blackness created many black things


I'm not the one that said vision is based on black white an gray.


Try mental vision, too. There's a brain to see with, and not only eyes to think with. I said all the colors together are gray. White+black=gray. Positive+negative=Neutral


a color is only your brains representation of a certain wavelenght of light


A certain wavelength of light is only your brain's represenation of a color, that is unless you are a one side brained cyclops, when you can accept this you'll become aware of every thing as light.


Evidence? You know we can all make unfounded claims...


Existence is eternal, it is not a bubble universe, it's rather silly to say every thing is moving away, you then limit the eternal possibilities and cause your self to be the center of Existence, once again knowing the limited "all" there is to know about the "universe" and it's motion... very narcissistic coming from a speck of sand in proportions to only the galaxy its self... this speck of sand that has been studying the "universe" for only a couple thousand years (and I'm giving you some there), and only recently named it the "uni-verse" (that which still makes no sense) less than a century ago

[edit on 15-4-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Apr, 15 2007 @ 08:01 AM
link   

If I wasn't seeing, I wouldn't see blackness... have you ever heard of black lights? There are many black things that have been created because of seeing blackness, and blackness created many black things


Black lights emit UV, which is light human eyes are not sensible too, they don't emit blackness



it's rather silly to say every thing is moving away, you then limit the eternal possibilities and cause your self to be the center of Existence, once again knowing the limited "all" there is to know about the "universe" and it's motion... very narcissistic coming from a speck of sand in proportions to only the galaxy its self...


Please read the previous posts again, no one said we were the center and everything was moving away from us.....

[edit on 15-4-2007 by DarkSide]




top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join