It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by NiNjABackflip
reply to post by NewAgeMan
Cool video. It is a neat way of looking at it.
I'm not the most apt in space matters, but it seems that it would be impossible. Wouldn't the vortex need some sort of force or propulsion to push it behind the solar system the way the video shows? If there was wind or air in space yes it seems this would be the case, but you can't use a propeller in space.
Just a thought.
If you think of whitte light as a metaphor of infinite, formless potential, the colors on a slide or frame of film become a structured reality grounded in the polarity that comes about through intelligent subtraction from that absolute formless potential. It results from the limitation of the unlimited. I contend that this metaphor provides a comprehensible theory for the creation of a manifest reality (our universe) from the selective limitation of infinite potential (God)...
If there exists an absolute realm that consists of infinite potential out of which a created realm of polarity emerges, is there any sensible reason not to call this "God"? Or to put it frankly, if the absolute is not God, what is it? For our purposes here, I will indentify the Absolute with God. More precisely I will call the Absolute the Godhead. Applying this new terminology to the optics analogy, we can conclude that our physical universe comes about when the Godhead selectively limits itself, taking on the role of Creator and manifesting a realm of space and time and, within that realm, filtering out some of its own infinite potential...
Viewed this way, the process of creation is the exact opposite of making something out of nothing. It is, on the contrary, a filtering process that makes something out of everything. Creation is not capricious or random addition; it is intelligent and selective subtraction. The implications of this are profound.
If the Absolute is the Godhead, and if creation is the process by which the Godhead filters out parts of its own infinite potential to manifest a physical reality that supports experience, then the stuff that is left over, the residue of this process, is our physical universe, and ourselves included. We are nothing less than a part of that Godhead - quite literally.
[What] would emerge would be an increased understanding that all of us are immersed, both as living and physical beings, in an overall interpenetrating and interdependant field in ecological balance with the cosmos as a whole, and that even the boundary lines between the physical and "metaphysical" would dissolve into a unitary viewpoint of the universe as a fluid, changing, energetic/informational cosmological unity."
Akasha (a . ka . sha) is a Sanskrit word meaning "ether": all-pervasive space. Originally signifying "radiation" or "brilliance", in Indian philosophy akasha was considered the first and most fundamental of the five elements - the others being vata (air), agni (fire), ap (water), and prithivi (earth). Akasha embraces the properties of all five elements: it is the womb from which everything we percieve with our senses has emerged and into which everything will ultimately re-descend. The Akashic Record (also called The Akashic Chronicle) is the enduring record of all that happens, and has ever happened, in space and time."
Anyway, this idea and the paradigm shifting reframe involved, has given me an idea, as it relates to this motion as part of an interconnected comic evolutionary process, a metaphysical re-frame if you will regarding a fundamental aspect of our reality.
Ok, here goes..
For anything to "happen" or to occur, there must be motion. This is self evident.
But in order for something to have occurred, there must be a record of it, at some level, of having occurred in the first place.
Thus, I contend that the motion, while a necessary pretext to all action/events/occurances in spacetime is also simultaneously the means by which the recording of that action is stored. In other words that what we're looking at in the video of the OP is a type of cosmological recording device, with the motion as a first/last cause and the historical vortex as the wake left behind in the vacuum of space, the record of everything that happened. Again, it's the historical record not simply of the Earth as a separate system but also in regards to EVERYTHING that system contains as an interconnecgted and interdependant occurrance (happening) in spacetime.
More specifically I am referring to the process by which the earth and everything in it, including we ourselves, leaves a record in the Zero Point Field aka the Akashic Record/Field, which is also the "embodied" in the vacuum of spacetime itself (same diff).
My first inkling that the deceptively simple "Let there be light" might actually contain a profound cosmological truth came in early July 1992. I was trying to wrap things up in my office in Palo Alto so that I could spend the rest of the summer doing research on the X-ray emission of stars at the Max Planck Institute in Garching, Germany. I came in one morning just before my departure and found a rather peculiar message on my answering machine; it had been left at 3 a.m.by a usually sober-minded colleague, Alfonso Rueda, a professor at California State University in Long Beach. He was so excited by the results of a horrifically-long mathematical analysis he had been grinding through that he just had to tell me about it, knowing full well I was not there to share the thrill.
What he had succeeded in doing was to derive the equation: F=ma. Details would follow in Germany.
Most people will take this in stride with a "so what?" or "what does that mean?" After all what are F, m and a, and what is so noteworthy about a scientist deriving a simple equation? Isn't this what scientists do for a living? But a physicist will have an incredulous reaction because you are not supposed to be able to derive the equation F=ma. That equation was postulated by Newton in his Principia, the foundation stone of physics, in 1687. A postulate is a law that you assume to be true, and from which other things follow: such as much of physics, for example, from that particular postulate. You cannot derive postulates. How do you prove that one plus one equals two? The answer is, you don't. You assume that abstract numbers work that way, and then derive other properties of addition from that basic assumption.
But indeed, as I discovered when I began to write up a research paper based on what Rueda soon sent to Garching, he had indeed derived Newton's fundamental "equation of motion." And the concept underlying this analysis was the existence of a background sea of light known as the electromagnetic zero-point field of the quantum vacuum.
an excerpt from the abridged article by Haisch called Brilliant Disguise: Light, Matter and the Zero-Point Field
Originally posted by PapagiorgioCZ
It's been seen by me. LOL
I know people always want an accompanying description, but the video speaks for itself.