Image Credit: Infowars…
Image Credit: Infowars…You need to be a member of Ashtar Command - Spiritual Community to add comments!
Comments are closed.
Image Credit: Infowars…
~How the Law of Vibration Works~By Mieko Sawatari • Everything in the universe has electromagnetic fields and electromagnetics frequencies. Including thoughts and feelings. •What you feel, whether good or bad, determines the frequency at which you…
Read more…Turquoise Light Energy Healing with Archangel Haniel With Melanie Beckler Turquoise Light energy is profoundly healing for mind, body and spirit. Relax, breathe, and allow yourself to be blessed in a waterfall of Turquoise Light as Archangel…
Read more…Message from Yeshua and Mary Magdalene - Embrace Your Divinity Greetings, Beloveds, I AM Yeshua. I AM Mary Magdalene. Together we embrace you with Eternal Love and Respect. This is a time of all times; this is a time of all measures to bring you…
Read more…Solar Flares Rocking Our World - But Enjoyment Is The Key !Blossom Goodchild & The Federation Of Light Blossom: Hello. Good morning. Can you talk to us about these massive solar flares that are heading our way, their effect and perhaps, the…
Read more…
Comments
Of course if an ancient man, who coined 'chi', hears a claim that chi is a 'quantum coherent biofield', he won't say 'wow! That is physical'! The 'physicality' misnomer was not yet existent in those days. Neither was 'science' seemed to oppose such views in those days. So there was no need for the answer 'science cannot explain this' as a way to wade off a sceptic trying to use 'science' to undermine chi. So the one who conceived 'chi' could not have meant 'what no scientist will ever discover no matter what, no matter what time in future'. This definition will not be wise! 'Science' and 'scientific method', stance and paradigm changes from time to time. We should avoid such definitions as 'not explicable by science' etc
BTW coherent biophotons are natural lasers!
It is a tragic error to think that by saying 'physical', physicist has observed a thing about the entity and, in an objective manner, note that it has a certain property. The concept 'physical' is not like 'density'. We cannot observe anything common between a stone and a 'field' so it warrants the same label, 'physical', apart from the two being capable of affecting the visible things. In other words, we know not much about 'field', and calling it 'physical' does not help us understand anything more about it, than, for instance, we had called it 'siritual'.
-
1659
-
1660
-
1661
-
1662
-
1663
of 1726 Next