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.

 

The Power of Motion (Is God motion?)

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


The way i can tell is by the way i feel now compared to before. Why do you think i am here? It is to pass on the good news. You do not need to suffer, no one does. I come to show that it is possible and i come across so much hate on this site.

I seen it before i knew words for it. It was only when i found videos on youtube that told of what i knew that i even had names for what happened here.
edit on 18-6-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by rwfresh

re·al·i·ty/rēˈalətē/
Noun:

The world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them: "he refuses to face reality".

If you believe your senses and your contemplation are accurately perceiving things as the actually exist than you will forever be confounded by what is actually Real.


Noreaster could dial down the arrogance a bit, but he does have a point (and thats his style, if you havent noticed
). While our perceptions of these things may be illusory (I prefer "innately limited"), what they are perceiving exists outside of the senses. Now, to make sense of this (not that that is a prerequisite, obviously), then these things that are perceived exist physically.

I may be misunderstanding, but are you suggesting that "things" are only given physicality through our senses. I tend to feel that our senses merely "make sense" (get it?
) of the physicality that surrounds us.


Don't confuse yourself. What is true is that REALITY does not require ANYTHING of the unreal me to be True. Reality is the only thing that is Real and True. It is complete and whole.


In your perspective, how are things complete and whole if we deny part of "What Is," even if that part is a limited view of what surrounds us. It would seem our perspective is a part of "What Is." Is a fish not part of What Is, simply because they never leave the water?


Prove time exists.


Time can be seen, in one way, as the relative movement between two physical boundaries/bodies. That doesnt mean it is static, but relative. The human context of this movement is innately limited, however, the idea persists throughout the physical universe and can be used to predict cycles in their relative field of influence. When we introduce movement, we introduce time. If you can move your arm, time exists as a relevant function. This is actually why it seems to be such an anomaly that two particles can exist in the same place at once(sic). I do not feel it is out of the realm of possibility that what we are looking at in the quantum realm is not affected by time, though our perception of it most certainly is. This would suggest that some parts of the universe are affected by movement/time and others are not. Of course, that is about as brief of a summary of the phenomena as one can muster! This idea alone tends to negate the OP, though it does not render either perspective less valid. We are all learning, neh?



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
The closet "thing" before the physical is energy. Just as energy is the force making up all things, movement is an even more subtle force behind the energy. It is life itself.


How does e=mc^2 work into your ideas? The equation would suggest the two are physically related.

I do see what you are saying, I just do not feel energy = life in anything other than the physical realm. I also do not feel that the physical is "all there is." Movement can not happen without time. However, this creates a much more interesting implication than if it could.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


The way i can tell is by the way i feel now compared to before. Why do you think i am here? It is to pass on the good news. You do not need to suffer, no one does. I come to show that it is possible and i come across so much hate on this site.

I seen it before i knew words for it. It was only when i found videos on youtube that told of what i knew that i even had names for what happened here.
edit on 18-6-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)


You can think in your mind what ever you like to make you feel however you like,,,,,, you are here because your parents created you,,,,, the same reason,,,, all the birds and bees,, and deer, and trees,, and mice, and fleas,, elephants and monkies. are here........ to live as a self in a place in a time,,,,,

I do not mean to show hate towards you,,, i enjoy your electronic company,,,,, I only speak words against yours if i can,, using reason, logic, rationale, intuition, caution, intellect...



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by absolutely
 


Please read this post through, my friend.

I feel like you have some really great things to say, but I can not figure out what they are. You have been told this by countless people on this board, sometimes nicely and sometimes not. You obviously want to speak your perspective and it seems we have some similar interests.

Please consider for one moment, that it is not the "idiocy" of the people you communicate with, but the language used to communicate itself. I would think that it is frustrating to spend ~2000 posts worth of time, to mostly be met with "I dont understand what you are saying." I have a lot of sympathy for the situation. Even though my words are readable, others frequently do not understand what I am trying to say. We mostly use our own perspective to determine what the other is saying, and that is faulty in many ways. However, no matter how much I read your posts, I can not make sense of most of them. And yet, I still feel like I want to. When we approach others and run into brick walls like that, the only constant in the equation is us individually. That points to the source of the errors.

I invite you to send me a U2U, and I can do my best to help you form your words into coherent sentences. I feel like you would be a very welcome addition to the board, instead of either being ignored or told you cant be understood. It would be a bit like the blind leading the blind, in a way, but I can do my best if you can. I am not trying to be insulting or anything like that, I am offering you my time. From a limited physical being whom is passing away, this is one of the greatest gifts of all.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by sinohptik
 




""This is actually why it seems to be such an anomaly that two particles can exist in the same place at once""

I thought your posts were very nice and eloquent,,, kudos....

but that quote made me think,,,,, about pinpointing a specific place,,,, can you say that a section of skin on my arm takes up the same place as the particles that make up the skin,,,, or on the smallest level everything is marked as being in a separate space... the smallest of small levels,,, this is hard for me to get at what im thinking or trying to think....... but something about,,,,, your entire body takes up as a whole unit a single space,,,,, while within your body every area there are quadrillions of particles that take up dimensions of space that are so tightly packed and condensed in space that they are miniscule in size, and they even have much relative space between them............. part of this idea is the universe exists in the way that it does because all of the energy that exists in the universe can not fit in one point,,,, so it spreads out into the most comfortable design (:puz
a path of balance and least resistance,,, and cause and effect,, and spacing,, and opposite,, and mathematical in size and mass, and force,, and scale,,,, it all meshes together .......



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
Most people refer to God as "Being". Everything is always in motion, even when it "appears" to just be staying "still". The atoms are still in motion and even at absolute zero degrees temperature, the waves of potential energy are still changing.

Everything goes back to "motion", "verb", or "action". Things are always changing form and the form is in the state of "being", "existing". Everything is movement.

Notice all of the word connected with "mov-/mot-" (movement)....

movement, motion, motivation, motive...

Movement is life. According to the Romans, everything has Anima (Soul), this is the same word in Animate, or Animation, which is movement.


When a circumstance moves you into taking an action, this is "motivation". It "moves" you. When someone is "moved" into an action, that causes another "motivation" (movement).

movement / motion / motivation is the actual force of life that most do not understand.

Yes, everything just "IS", however, what "IS"? Motion, to be and to exist is a motion as well. The nature of reality is the movement-motion-existence.

worldillusions.com has a book called HOUDINIs two odd volumes on magic and automata.
faith cannot end war.
only conversion.
when the gear changes, hang on.
i WILL convert them.
they ARE here.
i WILL convert them.
they need to change the false gears with perpetual ones.
with what saves that is me.
i will save them.
that is why they are here.
i dont have a brain though.
they are still here though.
learn this word, SEXAGEISMIC.
learn this word, ORRERY.
Now, give life to both in YOUR CREATION.
this is my word.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
but that quote made me think,,,,, about pinpointing a specific place,,,, can you say that a section of skin on my arm takes up the same place as the particles that make up the skin,,,, or on the smallest level everything is marked as being in a separate space... the smallest of small levels,,, this is hard for me to get at what im thinking or trying to think....... but something about,,,,, your entire body takes up as a whole unit a single space,,,,, while within your body every area there are quadrillions of particles that take up dimensions of space that are so tightly packed and condensed in space that they are miniscule in size, and they even have much relative space between them.............


Its pretty neat isnt it? Even "things" which appear to our scale as solid are made up mostly of "empty" space. I use the word empty very loosely! However, this relativity seems to still put specific boundaries, as we can not walk through walls, etc.

At the boundaries, it would seem though that relativity becomes null, as the speed of light (or our context of it) suggests. This starts to point to the idea that it is only the physical which is relative, and that there are phenomena that are static, but they are the boundaries to the physical. However, if this speaks to something which does not move, and is not indicative of time, then we have a static point (or a singularity). This is the idea behind where a black hole leads. The interesting part is, philosophically, if that point is unmoving and unaffected by time, then it is the same point throughout. Meaning, that singularity of all the black holes in the physical universe actually lead to the same point. It could also imply that all parts of the universe eventually (over time) lead to the same exact point.


part of this idea is the universe exists in the way that it does because all of the energy that exists in the universe can not fit in one point,,,, so it spreads out into the most comfortable design (:puz
a path of balance and least resistance,,, and cause and effect,, and spacing,, and opposite,, and mathematical in size and mass, and force,, and scale,,,, it all meshes together .......


It does all mesh together, and it is so awe-inspiring.. I would suggest though, that from a certain perspective and scale, all of the energy in the universe does exist in one point. That "one point" is the universe itself!

What do you think?
edit on 18-6-2012 by sinohptik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by sinohptik
 


"It does all mesh together, and it is so awe-inspiring.. I would suggest though, that from a certain perspective and scale, all of the energy in the universe does exist in one point. That "one point" is the universe itself! "

I think it is similar to what i was attempting to get at with my body analogy.......


the universe is a single related unit,,,, an event,,,,, it is a whole,,, a thing...

a body is a system,, all parts of the body are related in that they are conected to the whole of the body.....

the whole of the body......... as one,,,,,,,, exists in a space.........

the whole of the universe....... as one...... exists in a space........

the whole of the body has points of space within it,,,,,, from your front side to your back side,,,,, how many times can you measure a space of half that distance....... as you get smaller,,,, whats the smallest you can get,,, those small particles are small because there is almost infinite amount of space in even the smallest distances,,,,, even though it may be the smallest quantities of space.......

^^^^

same for the universe.....
edit on 18-6-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
I think it is similar to what i was attempting to get at with my body analogy.......


I think so too.


the whole of the body......... as one,,,,,,,, exists in a space.........

the whole of the universe....... as one...... exists in a space........


Then an interesting question is, what is the space?


the whole of the body has points of space within it,,,,,, from your front side to your back side,,,,, how many times can you measure a space of half that distance....... as you get smaller,,,, whats the smallest you can get,,, those small particles are small because there is almost infinite amount of space in even the smallest distances,,,,, even though it may be the smallest quantities of space.......

^^^^

same for the universe.....


Indeed, as we are an innate part of what we observe!
And perhaps, if that space all reaches infinitely, it is all towards the same singularity. I am of the mind that the universe exists as two parts, the every-thing and the no-thing that defines it. They give specific boundary to this "point." I am also of the mind that movement and time very much exist in the physical, but does not apply to the aforementioned singularity. Both are valid, and both give boundary to the Universe itself (both the physical and immaterial).

I appreciate the dialogue, thank you for your time



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by absolutely
 


I feel like I should be insulted, but Im not really sure..

Either way, as you wish. If you ever change your mind, that door is always open.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   
"Then an interesting question is, what is the space?"

The space,,, is an effect of massive ( freaking sjkfjdsfsfhfjdsjhf massive) amounts of energy and mass,,, taking up the same space,,,, like if space was your body,,,, and you tried to fit a star in there........

this is the only thing i can think of because,,,,,, energy does exist,,,,,, and it does have laws of relations with it self in all the forms it takes,,,,,,,,, so every little deviation creates a new way or section,,,,,,, but its all occurring at the same time, and very quickly,, so patterns and trends were created ( laws) of different sizes and speeds what would happen when they react,,,, relative to all thats surrounding it and what all thats surrounding it is doing and how it reacts,,,,, and repulsion,,, and gravity,,,, and orbit,,,, and combustion,,,,,

i think this is similar to the idea of the big bang,,,, which is like reverse engineering the creation of the universe,,, they believe everything stemmed from a singular point or space........ I honestly dont know what to think of it all,,,,, as far as im concerned God could have pressed the on button.......



"Indeed, as we are an innate part of what we observe! And perhaps, if that space all reaches infinitely, it is all towards the same singularity. I am of the mind that the universe exists as two parts, the every-thing and the no-thing that defines it. They give specific boundary to this "point." I am also of the mind that movement and time very much exist in the physical, but does not apply to the aforementioned singularity. Both are valid, and both give boundary to the Universe itself (both the physical and immaterial). "

hmm im na lil confused about this....... space reaches infinitely towards the same singularity? the singularity being the starting point of space and energy? or the ending point of space and/or energy? the universe is 2 parts,,,,, physical which has a nature of form/mass/force/ it can effect and be effected........... and the nothing....... the space in which the physical resides......... movement and time exist in interactions between the physical,,,,, but the singularity is almost metaphysical,(?) and so it is not effected by properties of movement or time?


"I appreciate the dialogue, thank you for your time "

of course,,, it was great thinking and talking!



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by sinohptik

Noreaster could dial down the arrogance a bit, but he does have a point (and thats his style, if you havent noticed
). While our perceptions of these things may be illusory (I prefer "innately limited"), what they are perceiving exists outside of the senses. Now, to make sense of this (not that that is a prerequisite, obviously), then these things that are perceived exist physically.


When people believe strongly in something they defend it. I am not offended by Noreaster at all. He's probably a good person who appreciates having ideas challenged and challenging others beliefs. Physicality is not real in the true sense of the word (Real). It can be argued, has been and will be. Truth/Reality are the only things that are real. Something is cannot be partially real.. or Real in one context and not in another. Unless you are deluded. I don't know how else to say it. Saying Time is not real may not be satisfying enough for many people.. But i certainly don't feel bad about it.. because we are all here supposedly existing in the ultimate Reality and we are still unsatisfied with the proof. Why? Because only Truth is satisfied with Truth. Only Reality exists in Reality. If you fragment what is real, break it down into pieces it becomes unreal. And we are the unreality. We are that delusion. The delusion is dissatisfaction.



I may be misunderstanding, but are you suggesting that "things" are only given physicality through our senses. I tend to feel that our senses merely "make sense" (get it?
) of the physicality that surrounds us.


Don't confuse yourself. What is true is that REALITY does not require ANYTHING of the unreal me to be True. Reality is the only thing that is Real and True. It is complete and whole.


In your perspective, how are things complete and whole if we deny part of "What Is," even if that part is a limited view of what surrounds us. It would seem our perspective is a part of "What Is." Is a fish not part of What Is, simply because they never leave the water?


because denial is not real. Deniers are not real. We as self are not in Reality. I understand that this is illogical and paradoxical. I get it. But from the context of Reality none of this paradox exists. So whatever longing, evolving, figuring out, dissatisfaction we "feel" is delusional. We are delusion. Not truth expressing delusion. This is tuff for anyone to accept. And honestly i don't care if people understand it, believe it, whatever. It's plain English for me.




Prove time exists.


Time can be seen, in one way, as the relative movement between two physical boundaries/bodies. That doesnt mean it is static, but relative. The human context of this movement is innately limited, however, the idea persists throughout the physical universe and can be used to predict cycles in their relative field of influence. When we introduce movement, we introduce time. If you can move your arm, time exists as a relevant function. This is actually why it seems to be such an anomaly that two particles can exist in the same place at once(sic). I do not feel it is out of the realm of possibility that what we are looking at in the quantum realm is not affected by time, though our perception of it most certainly is. This would suggest that some parts of the universe are affected by movement/time and others are not. Of course, that is about as brief of a summary of the phenomena as one can muster! This idea alone tends to negate the OP, though it does not render either perspective less valid. We are all learning, neh?


We aren't learning in Reality. But we aren't in Reality (which is Truth) so what are we learning? We hold on to the concept of time and it supports the concept of evolution, change, learning. But if it's not in the context of Reality what is it? If time is real than sure you are learning over time. if time is not real than learning and evolving is not real.

I GET that saying "it's not real" is unsatisfactory and their is a defense that it's a juvenile and stupid idea. But look around at what those on the very edge of quantum science are now saying.. look at what every gnostic tradition has said all along. We have to use the language available to us.. and saying time is not real is the most accurate description for the concept of time which we invented. People like to say God is not real. And invented concept. Sure.. And Time is next in line. Physical matter has already fallen. All man made. All seemingly real in our delusional concept of "Reality". But if we hold Reality/Truth up to their HIGHEST, most obvious and natural definition; we must admit what we call Reality is absolutely and completely delusional. Time, space, matter.. none of it Real.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by sinohptik
reply to post by absolutely
 


I feel like I should be insulted, but Im not really sure..

Either way, as you wish. If you ever change your mind, that door is always open.


pfff it is incredible how u serve urself anyways making it obvious through opposites

i told u clearly that u r unable to make a sentence, so u cant even have a wall to built upon a door



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

The space,,, is an effect of massive ( freaking sjkfjdsfsfhfjdsjhf massive) amounts of energy and mass,,, taking up the same space,,,, like if space was your body,,,, and you tried to fit a star in there........



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by rwfresh
 


I think that is an interesting perspective. One that I used to hold quite dear as well. I understand where you are coming from, in so far as I can (I choose not to minimize the true diversity of perspectives on the same "thing").

I do disagree, and its not because its paradoxical. The core of a paradox could be said to transcend duality, all the while confirming it. Mystery wrapped in an enigma, as they say.
What I am proposing in my perspective is not quite as simple as it appears. I actually found it more difficult to accept "What IS" as real, than the other way around. And I view that our perspectives are part of "What Is," though a limited part innately.

I also do not feel we invented time. We came up with a concept and context, limited by the human experience, which describes the relative movement between "things."

Really, my entire post could be whittled down to a question I asked in it; "Is a fish not part of What Is, simply because they never leave the water?"



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by rwfresh
I GET that saying "it's not real" is unsatisfactory and their is a defense that it's a juvenile and stupid idea. But look around at what those on the very edge of quantum science are now saying.. look at what every gnostic tradition has said all along.


I love that you bring this up!

While it goes slightly off topic, it is quite interesting to see the similarities through time, neh?

Individual systems all looking at the same "thing," but the perspective is influenced by our cultural story. The Truth is accessible to all who seek it in this way. This also applies to us right Now. For me, science works. For you, something else might work. But by coming together and discussing it, we can come to a greater understanding of What Is and the diversity present, regardless of if one feels What Is, is real or not.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   
"



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
that is a beautiful pic...... did you take it your self,,,,, the colors stemming off look wonderful!!


Nope, that is a picture of a real star! It is part of a series, leading up to something. The fun part about that pic specifically is when I picked it, I didnt realize it almost looked like its moving on the black background. Little surprises like that are pretty neat




I have no clue if they were created first,,, or by default of the presence of all the energy in one place ( like there was only one thing that could transpire from that point, and it did in the way it only could)

[snip]

what was the first.....


As I am sure you know, questions like these are difficult! I tend to feel that the laws were in place before hand, and everything has taken shape from the boundaries set by them. Though it is certainly possibly "someone" pressed that on button and went "OH SH#, REEL IT IN!!"



of course we should try to figure it out,,, since trying to figure out fire and how to build a better house and catch an animal more efficiently or intelligence and potential has been growing,,,, science will pave the way to where ever it is we are headed ...... I think humans were created in the creators image,,,, or the image of creation,, with the ability to create........ look at all humans have created in their own image,,, to their standards and likings and comforts....... i wouldnt have minded living in a tribe thousands of years ago, a simple life of enjoying friends, family, lover, and community,,,,, i wouldnt mind living in the potential future of our human race,, a thousand or million years in the future,,,,, what we will be creating for ourselves,,, what life would consist of,,,, what our purpose would be,,,, what we will be able to know and do...... and i dont mind living today,,,,,,


I think of many of the same things. I think we live in an important time right Now, and we are setting the course for the future. Where that leads is up to us, as a whole. I dont mind living today either. I figure I am here for a reason



its not you its me,,, but at this point i can hardly think about this^^^


Perhaps it is more fair to say it is both of us. I have been trying for quite a while to get these things in concepts that are easily accessible. It is more in refining language than the concepts themselves, and that is something I have always struggled with. I will continue to attempt to do so, regardless of it is possible. I enjoy it, oddly.


what would be an example of a "thing" not moving?


The singularity
Everything moves around it, but it is static. Much like how I see the construction of our being, though we tend to get caught up in the movement rather than the stable foundation.
edit on 18-6-2012 by sinohptik because: added link







 
4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join