Spiritual Blogs

Comments

• 

  Roaring Lovely November 28, 2016 at 6:11pm

  Also a back and fort motion creats litchenberg-like figures.:) it is accompanied by othorgonal spinning. Infact, it is birkeland currents. Btw luminiferous aether is more like plasma than water etc. As such, it can be the matter-antimatter potential or the so called dirac sea. The vibrations of charges in it constitutes the so called displacement currents as explained by James Clerk Maxwell in his electromagnetic wave theory of light. It is interesting that this way of explaining light makes the light signal presicely like neural signal! I will elaborate latter.
• 

  Feather Winger November 28, 2016 at 2:33pm

  She loves to spin, that´s for sure...she loves to create.  I see pure creative intelligence...it is truly amazing how the universe works..
• 

  Roaring Lovely November 28, 2016 at 11:36am

  You mension some realy good things. I was just thinking like that this morning. Infact, I am planning to write next blog. I will touch on creation in aether. I will back up what you say a bit from phyc. Particles are information recorded in aether. where we think there is particle is just a portion of aether that is spinning, hence z-pinching the aether to form a denser, toroidal particle. This technique is closely similar to that of recording information in quantum cubits via what they term 'penning trapping'. The plasma is penning traped in a magnetic field.
• 

  Feather Winger November 28, 2016 at 8:29am

  I find that when I think about ether that I get more questions than answers....I am very curious how the universe creates itself. It is also easy to program ether, for example we can tell it what to do  and even tell it to repeat this at certain times in the day.  Ether holds information easily like in the morphogenic field ...much of our memory is outside of us.  Then there is the way that ether took on qualities to become the elements of air, fire, water and earth.  These are the fundamental qualities of the universe that creates everything else.  They do many functions, for example the fire element is light, digestion, sight, intelligence, electricity and more..  Most things are combinations of the elements. I can spend hours thinking about how these elements interact and how one thing changes into another..
• 

  Roaring Lovely November 28, 2016 at 7:29am

  The 'answer' is neither in the mind, aether, god, heart, bible, science, books, within, without etc. Rather it is in some healthy combination of all these, plus some other sources we are yet to imagine.
• 

  Roaring Lovely November 28, 2016 at 7:10am

  The verdict? If we are to make science more spiritual, spirituality too must be wrestled from deluded gurus who think that they have answers to all questions, God thought to being one of them.
  
  We should stop making spirituality a means for provided answers to all question, whether through 'the answer is in the bible', 'the mind', 'the heart', 'within', 'the aether' etc. Rather, we should leave epistemology open.
• 

  Roaring Lovely November 28, 2016 at 6:55am

  "scientists need a more romantic approach"
  
  Well, Wallace thornhill, the founder of 'electric universe' do have a very good attitude towards spirituality, though he is very physically minded. He insist that science will provide answers to some spiritual issues. But he says that physics must first be wrestled out of the hands of deluded mathematicians who thinks that God is one of them!
  
  You must also understand that to a scientist, wresling with puzzles is as satisfying as finding the answer. Nothing is more boring to a scientist than answer-it-all concepts such as 'god', aether etc. We need not make aether such. So some romanting relationship with aether, so we may woo her for cheap answers to all questions is not very fancyfull in science.
• 

  Roaring Lovely November 27, 2016 at 6:46pm

  Then seeking understanding of forces of nature, such as gravity, magnetism etc by considering inteveining medium is not necesarily indirect approach of any sort. You still need this understanding of aether even if you can talk to aether or things like that, if you truely want to understand the universe completely. Rather phyc need to also consider the mechanical-like properties of aether. These two considerations, are not aproaches to the same issue. It is also important to ensure that you rule out the possibilities of deceiving yourself thinking that your talking to aether. Physics is very important!
• 

  Roaring Lovely November 27, 2016 at 6:33pm

  Yes, it is not necesary to presuppose a fundamentaly dead universe so we may do science. This approach leaves a heap of phenomena unanswerable. We move, and so motion is in universe. We block light and so objects in the universe block light. We have temperature and so objects are worm. It is not clear at all as to why when it comes to things related to personality, such as consciousness and even love etc, we must not understand the universe from the light of the things we experience in ourselves. Rather, once we notice that we are a thermodynamic ensemble, it should become legitimate to seek a deep understanding of thermodynamics through the light of what we experience within.
• 

  Roaring Lovely November 27, 2016 at 6:33pm

  Yes, it is not necesary to presuppose a fundamentaly dead universe so we may do science. This approach leaves a heap of phenomena unanswerable. We move, and so motion is in universe. We block light and so objects in the universe block light. We have temperature and so objects are worm. It is not clear at all as to why when it comes to things related to personality, such as consciousness and even love etc, we must not understand the universe from the light of the things we experience in ourselves. Rather, once we notice that we are a thermodynamic ensemble, it should become legitimate to seek a deep understanding of thermodynamics through the light of what we experience within.