Keep reading
This feels significant to me
Maybe it isn't but it feels like it is
Quote:
Don: A persistent question when considering psychic demonstrations is: how does the paranormal event happen? The answer may well lie in the area of occult theory, which is concerned with the existence of various “planes.”
After death an individual finds himself at one of these levels of existence spoken of in connection with occult philosophy, the level of being dependent on the spiritual nature or development of the person at the time of his death. The cliché that covers this theory is a heavenly “birds of a feather flock together.” When a ghost materializes into our reality, it is from one of these levels that he usually comes for his Earthly visit. In general, it is theorized that a planet is a sort of spiritual distillery, with reincarnation taking place into the physical world until the individual is sufficiently developed in the spiritual sense that he can reach the higher planes of existence, and is no longer in need of this planet’s developmental lessons.
Most of this theory was developed as a result of reported contact and communication with the inhabitants of these supposedly separate realities. I have come to believe that these levels interpenetrate with our physical space and mutually coexist, though with very little awareness of each other. A simple analogy, to which I’ve referred before, is to consider the actors in two different TV shows, both receivable on the same set, but each show being exclusive of the other. This seems to be what we experience in our daily lives: one channel or density of existence, being totally unaware of the myriad entities occupying other frequencies of our physical space. The point of all this is that our reality is not ultimate or singular; it is, in fact, our reality only at the present.
Many of the UFO reports display ample evidence that the object sighted has its origin in one of these other realities or densities, just as do the materialized ghosts. I would like to emphasize that this does not in any way imply their unreality; rather, it displaces the UFOs’ reality from ours. I’m saying the equivalent of: Channel 4 on the TV is equivalent to but displaced from Channel 3 on the same TV.
If you were told to build a scale model of any atom using something the size of a pea for the nucleus, it would be necessary to have an area the size of a football stadium to contain even the innermost orbital electrons. If the pea were placed at the center of the fifty-yard line, a small cotton ball on the uppermost seat in the stands could represent an electron of the atom. There is very little actual matter in physical matter. When you look at the stars in the night sky, you would probably see something quite similar to what you would see if you could stand on the nucleus of any atom of “solid” material and look outward toward our environment. To demonstrate an electron to you, a physicist will probably show you a curved trace of one on a photographic plate. What he probably does not tell you is that this is secondhand evidence. The electron itself has never been seen; only its effect on a dense medium can be recorded. It is possible, of course, to make accurate mathematical calculations about what we call an electron. For such work we must know some data on magnetic field strength, electron charge, and velocity. But since a magnetic field is caused by moving charges, which in turn are empirically observed phenomena, we find that the entire mathematical camouflage obscures the fact that all we really know is that charged particles have effects on each other. We still don’t know what charged particles are, or why they create an action-at-a-distance effect.
Senior scientists would be the first to agree that there is no such thing as an absolute scientific explanation of anything. Science is, rather, a method or tool of prediction, relating one or more observations to each other. In physics, this is usually done through the language of mathematics. Our scientific learning is a learning by observation and analysis of this observation. In the sense of penetrating the fundamental essences of things, we really do not understand anything at all.
A magnetic field is nothing but a mathematical method of expressing the relative motion between electrical fields. Electrical fields are complex mathematical interpretations of a totally empirical observation stated as Coulomb’s Law. In other words, our forest of scientific knowledge and explanations is made up of trees about which we understand nothing except their effect, their existence.
To a person unfamiliar with the inner workings of modern science, it may seem that modern man has his environment nicely under control and totally figured out. Nothing could be further from the truth. The leaders of science who are researching the frontiers of modern theory argue among themselves continually. As soon as a theory begins to receive wide acceptance as being a valid representation of physical laws, someone finds a discrepancy, and the theory has to be either modified or abandoned entirely. Perhaps the most well-known example of this is Newton’s “F=MA.” This attained the status of a physical law before being found to be in error. It is not that this equation has not proven extremely useful: we have used it to design everything from a moon rocket to the television picture tube; but its accuracy fails when applied to atomic particle accelerators like the cyclotron. To make accurate predictions of particle trajectories it is necessary to make the relativistic correction formulated by Einstein. It is interesting to note that this correction is based on the fact that the speed of light is totally independent of the speed of its source.
If Newton had penetrated more deeply into the laws of motion he might have made this relativistic correction himself, and then stated that the velocity correction would always be of no consequence, since the velocity of light was so much greater than any speed attainable by man. This was very true in Newton’s day, but is definitely not the case now. We still tend to think of the velocity of light as a fantastic and unattainable speed, but with the advent of space flight, a new order of velocities has arrived. We have to change our thinking from our normal terrestrial concepts of velocities. Instead of thinking of the speed of light in terms of miles per second, think of it in terms of Earth diameters per second. The almost unimaginable 186,000 miles per second becomes an entirely thinkable twenty-three Earth diameters per second; or, we could think of the speed of light in terms of our solar systems’ diameter and say that light would speed at about two diameters per day.
Einstein’s assertion that everything is relative is so apt that it has become a cliché of our culture. Let us continue being relativistic in considering the size of natural phenomena by considering the size of our galaxy. If you look up at the sky on a clear night, nearly all of the visible stars are in our own galaxy. Each of these stars is a sun like our own. A calculation of the ratio of the number of suns in our galaxy to the number of people on planet Earth discovers that there are sixty suns for each living person on Earth today. It takes light over four years to get from Earth to even the nearest of these stars. To reach the most distant star in our own galaxy would take 100,000 light years.
These calculations are made using the assumption that light has a speed. This may be an erroneous assumption in the face of new theory, but its apparent speed is a useful measuring tool, so we use it anyway.
So we have a creation in which we find ourselves which is so big that at a speed of twenty-three Earth diameters a second we must travel 100,000 years to cross our immediate backyard. That is a big backyard, and it would seem ample for even the most ambitious of celestial architects, but in truth this entire galaxy of over 200 billion stars is just one grain of sand on a very big beach. There are uncounted trillions of galaxies like ours, each with its own billions of stars, spread throughout what seems to be infinite space.
When you think of the mind-boggling expanse of our creation and the infantile state of our knowledge in relation to it, you begin to see the necessity for considering the strong probability that our present scientific approach to investigating these expanses is as primitive as the dugout canoe.
The most perplexing problem of science has always been finding a satisfactory explanation of what is called action at a distance. In other words, everyone knows that if you drop something it will fall, but no one knows precisely why. Many people know that electric charges push or pull on each other even if separated in a vacuum, but again no one knows why. Although the phenomena are quite different, the equations which describe the force of interaction are quite similar:
For gravitation: F=Gmm′r2
For electrostatic interaction: F=Kqq′r2
The attractive force between our planet and our sun is described by the gravitational equation. The attractive force between orbiting electrons and the atomic nucleus is described by the electrostatic interaction equation. Now each of these equations was determined experimentally. They are not apparently related in any way, and yet they both describe a situation in which attractive force falls off with the square of the distance of separation.
A mathematical representation of an action at a distance effect is called a field, such as a gravitational or electric field. It was Albert Einstein’s foremost hope to find a single relation which would express the effect of both electric and gravitational phenomena; in fact, a theory which would unify the whole of physics, a unified field theory. Einstein believed that this was a creation of total order and that all physical phenomena were evolved from a single source.
This unified field theory, describing matter as pure field, has been accomplished now. It seems that the entire situation was analogous to the solution of a ponderously complex Chinese puzzle. If you can find that the right key turns among so many wrong ones, the puzzle easily falls apart. Dewey B. Larson found the solution to this problem, and the puzzle not only fell apart, but revealed an elegantly adequate unified field theory rich in practical results; and, like a good Chinese puzzle, the solution was not complex, just unexpected. Instead of assuming five dimensions, Larson assumed six, and properly labeled them as the three dimensions of space and the three dimensions of time. He assumed that there is a three-dimensional coordinate time analogous to our observed three-dimensional space.
The result of this approach is that one can now calculate from the basic postulate of Larson’s theory any physical value within our physical universe, from sub-atomic to stellar. This long-sought-after unified field theory is different because we are accustomed to thinking of time as onedimensional, as a stream moving in one direction. Yet once you get the hang of it, coordinate time is mathematically a more comfortable concept with which to deal. Professor Frank Meyer of the Department of Physics at the University of Wisconsin presently distributes a quarterly newsletter to scientists interested in Larson’s new theory which explores perplexing questions in physical theory using Larson’s approach. I was interested in testing Larson’s theory and made extensive calculations using his postulate. I became convinced that his theory is indeed a workable unified field theory.
I had been pondering several interesting statements communicated through contactees by the alleged UFO source prior to discovering Larson’s work in the early sixties. Although the people who had received these communications knew nothing of the problems of modern physics, they were getting information which apparently was quite central to physical theory: first, they suggested that the problem with our science was that it did not recognize enough dimensions. Second, they stated that light does not move; light is. Larson’s theory posits six dimensions instead of the customary four, and finds the pure field, which Einstein believed would represent matter, to move outward from all points in space at unit velocity, or the velocity of light. Photons are created due to a vibratory displacement in space-time, the fabric of the field. Furthermore, the contactees were saying that consciousness creates vibration, this vibration being light. The vibratory displacements of space-time in Larson’s theory are the first physical manifestation, which is the photon or light. According to the UFO contactees, the UFOs lower their vibrations in order to enter our skies. The entire physical universe postulated by Larson is dependent on the rate of vibration and quantized rotations of the pure field of space-time.
The contactees were suggesting that time was not what we think it is. Larson suggests the same thing. The UFOs were said to move in time as we move in space. This would be entirely normal in Larson’s time-space portion of the universe.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the contactees were receiving the message that the creation is simple, all one thing. Larson’s theory is a mathematical statement of this unity.
Edited by mendocino_beano (03/08/18 11:06 AM)
|