Author Topic: Expanding Earth~Binary Solar System~Electric Universe  (Read 13133 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jenifer Johnson

  • Third Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 514
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • IRIS
Re: The Big (head) Bang
« Reply #40 on: June 03, 2009, 05:35:27 PM »
I don't know Jenifer,

Personally, I believe that we gain more perception and awareness by extroverting vs introverting?

Introvert creates mass and confusion... extrovert creates space and vision.  Sometimes we can't see the forest through the trees?

I agree.

The only point I was trying to make is, if trying to understand the universe is mind blowing, then trying to understand one's own inter psyche is also mind blowing.

Most people are afraid to look inter, for fear of what they might find.

Offline wag

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 10423
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: The Big (head) Bang
« Reply #41 on: June 03, 2009, 06:21:44 PM »
I don't know Jenifer,

Personally, I believe that we gain more perception and awareness by extroverting vs introverting?

Introvert creates mass and confusion... extrovert creates space and vision.  Sometimes we can't see the forest through the trees?

Yes, and the other part is that we really are who we see in the mirror.  It is in the mirror where we confront our most powerful truth.
Nobody gets paid to tell the truth.

Offline wag

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 10423
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: The Big (head) Bang
« Reply #42 on: June 03, 2009, 06:34:06 PM »
point I was trying to make is, if trying to understand the universe is mind blowing, then trying to understand one's own inter psyche is also mind blowing.

I don't see a valid if/then there.  There are those who try to understand the universe without interest in understanding themselves, and of course, visa versa.
Nobody gets paid to tell the truth.

Offline Jenifer Johnson

  • Third Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 514
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • IRIS
Re: The Big (head) Bang
« Reply #43 on: June 03, 2009, 08:21:16 PM »
I don't see a valid if/then there. 

The topic of the thread is the big head bang.



I was relating to Liz's statement "This reminds me of when I was a kid, I would contemplate, where does the universe end?"  which is mind blowing for a child to trying to answer these questions.

When I was a kid and looked in to a mirror, I tried contemplating who I was and understand the other direction (the end of one's inter self) which is as mind blowing, as trying to understand were the universe ends.

Offline E_T

  • Lieutenant Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1580
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: The Big (head) Bang
« Reply #44 on: June 03, 2009, 08:24:52 PM »
I agree.

The only point I was trying to make is, if trying to understand the universe is mind blowing, then trying to understand one's own inter psyche is also mind blowing.

Most people are afraid to look inter, for fear of what they might find.

I understand now.

As for soul searching... sometimes we are our worst critic while at the same time, in denial or totally oblivious to our faults?  Aside from our traits... I know who I am.
Rest satisfied with doing well, and leave others to talk of you as they will.
Pythagoras (BC 582-BC 507) Greek philosopher

Offline Jenifer Johnson

  • Third Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 514
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • IRIS
Re: The Big (head) Bang
« Reply #45 on: June 03, 2009, 08:39:39 PM »
When I was young, it was more of, I'm alive,  who am I, where did I come from, why am I here, how did I get here (a conscious being), what is the purpose of life, on and on.

Offline WindRiverShoshoni

  • Group Major
  • *
  • Posts: 1431
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: The Big (head) Bang
« Reply #46 on: June 03, 2009, 10:25:32 PM »
I believe in a creator but don't have a name for him ... after all he has never named himself other than through the scribes and pharisees.

Oh, but He has ~ the scribes and pharisees knew the name "ALLAH," as I showed in a recent post about "72 Names of God Jewelry" being sold through the Jerusalem Post.  But the scribes and the pharisees did not allow anyone but the Cantor in the Synagogues to speak that Name, and hid it from the gentiles, calling it "The Most Holy Name of God" and the "Secret" Name of God.

ALLAH has also named Himself The Gracious, The Merciful, The Benevolent, The Loving, The Real, and The First and The Last, The Everlasting, The Eternal, The Majestic, The Omniscient, The Omnipotent, The Just, The Creator, The Holy, The Light, The Upright, The Giver of Life and The Taker of Life (each is one word in Arabic), The Most High, The Sublime, The Subtle, The Wise, The Aware, The Forbearing, The Requiter, and many other Names denoting His Attributes ~ we know 99 Names of God in Arabic, all apprehensible to humanity.

"God" is simply an English word ~ it's not Hebrew or Aramaic ~ that's used as a name for Him.  It would be more accurate to use "The God," which is what you will find in some writings from Arabs who do not have a good command of idiomatic American English.  There's only One, there is no other "god," there is only The God, by whatever name He might be called.

But He does actually Name Himself, with at least 99 Names that we know about, and each one of those Names cannot be credibly applied to any human being.  There is no man or woman who could credibly be called "The" Wise, for example ~ even Solomon, who many consider the wisest man who ever lived, and who is often called "Solomon the Wise," would be referred to as "The Wise Man" and could never be named "The Wise" without some qualifier to identify him.  God, however, is The Wise, and "The Wise God" would be redundant and would imply the existence of some other "god" who was not wise, which is a contradiction in terms ~ "wise" is certainly a necessary attribute of anyone's conception of "God."

I do not have a problem with people referring to the universal consciousness by any name they choose to refer to IT actually, as the universal consciousness has no gender ...

I agree.  His use of masculine pronouns, as well as His use of the royal "We," give people an opportunity to mislead themselves.  But as you say, nothing in this universe of dualities is "like" Him, and indeed, He says "And nothing made is like Him" in the Qur'an.  But seriously, who could actually imagine God to be "The Just" in any way like men are "just," and who could imagine God to be "The Loving" in any way like men are "loving"?

Not that there aren't men (and women) who think they're God, contrary to all the evidence against the proposition ...

So for the sake of clarity, I'll reword your sentence:

The Universe does not exist separately from God; it is a direct expression of God.


I maintain the original sentence is correct as God is only an individual name from a long list of 'names' introduced by 'man'.


The sentence is in English, which uses "God" as a name for The One Consciousness that is distinct from human consciousness.  The same sentence in Arabic would use ALLAH, which is also syntactically singular and not possibly a collectivity or an aggregate as "universal consciousness" ~ which by being "universal" would include human consciousness as well as any consciousness that we are unable to detect ~ would be.

Our consciousness is not God, ALLAH, or ____ (whatever name anyone might call Him by in whatever language, all of which refer to the same One).  He created it in His image, and it is the human faculty by which we may KNOW Him, directly, but it is not Him, a "part" of Him, an "emanation" from Him, His "essence," or anything of similar description, it is something that He created for us as part of our human nature.  It is a "phenomenon" just like every other created thing, part of this phenomenological universe that can reach beyond it to Him, and through which He manifests ~ makes concrete and "real" in phenomenological terms something of His Attributes.  The creation is a manifestation of His Attribute "The Creator," and likewise with everything else we can perceive with all of our human faculties.

That people call Him by names other than those by which He has named Himself, and that people use pronouns other than those He uses to refer to Himself, or decline to use any names or pronouns at all, has no effect on Him, does not change Him in any way, does not necessarily "misrepresent" Him, diminish His importance, obstruct any effect of His Presence, or in any other way change the Creator/created relationship an iota.  That people forget, mispronounce, misconstrue, falsify, abuse, or otherwise diminish the value to themselves of what He has said to us (or anyone else), similarly has no effect on what He has said.  These things may have an effect on human functionality, on human affairs, on human life, on humanity as a whole or in part, or on our ability to realize and make manifest our human nature, but they don't change His reminders at all, they are still an integral part of our continuing consciousness whether we notice them or heed them or not.

And the "correctness" of the reworded sentence, or its lack of correctness, has no bearing on the inexplicit character of the original sentence.  You prefer the name "The Universal Consciousness" to any other name that may be in current use in one or another language, because ~ as you said ~ those "other names" connote some belief structure from which you think the names inseparable.  That does not make that choice a good one, it is simply one you think avoids the associative difficulty, and you haven't thought of a better one that cannot be understood as other than a singularity.

What we're talking about here is not the realities, but communication and miscommunication of commonly perceived realities.  The original sentence is dual, a second statement purporting to explain the meaning of the first.  Each statement attempts to convey a conceptual cosmology, and each is intended to convey a rational understanding of the same cosmology viewed from a distinct conceptual perspective.  I'm showing how the words themselves, as well as the implied union of the two, not only fail to convey their distinguishable conceptions but also convey a false cosmology by their combination.  It's a communications failure, not a contradiction of either concept. viz:

"The Universe does not exist separately from The One" is true.
"The Universe is an expression of The One" is true.
"The expression of the One is The One" is not true.

In other words, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God," is not true ~ and it's not what the Hebrew says anyway.

When the muslims no longer had to fight to survive and started dabbling in Greek "theology," or "the study of divinity," which Muhammad had warned us not to do, they ran into the same confusion ~ they argued over whether the words of the Qur'an were "created" or "not created."  No one, apparently, had the temerity to mention that before God said "Be!", the Word did not exist.  Had anyone mentioned it, the "theologians" would have countered that there was no "before" with God until He created the creation by saying "Be!," just before they lopped off his head.  That was the character of the times, just like in Rome during Constantine's reign and thereafter in Dark Ages Europe.

It's still that way in orthodox Talmudic Judaism ~ a Jew who asks the question "After the Great Flood, how did animals who could not swim well and far reach islands in the Mediterranean?" gets "excommunicated" if not killed outright.  Asking that question, as St. Augustine did, is considered "heresy."  Another "heresy" is to ask "What is God by His very nature incapable of doing?" ~ asked by Thomas Aquinas.  Those don't seem like "heretical" questions to me, but then I'm not a priest who has to have "an answer for everything" in order to maintain some kind of coercive power over other people.  Besides, I think I can answer them, although certainly not for someone who thinks the King James Version is entirely God's original Word and literally true from the first "In" all the way to the last "Amen."

But questions that I can answer, with His Knowledge that God has allowed me to overtake, I try to answer in terms that cannot be misunderstood, with plain and established meaning, no misleading "double meanings," no "mysteries," and no ambiguity.  I much prefer to use His Words (or an English rendering) when I know those that answer a question.

And I would not use "The Universal Consciousness" as a name for Him for reasons that I hope I've made clear.  That's all I've been talking about here.

That is the reason why we need to be taught how to 'listen' to our inner spirituality, our spirituality was 'given' for the express reason to be able to listen to the messages meant to guide us ... not the written words of man.

And this is why I understood immediately what you intended to convey with that sentence.

But it does happen to be the case that men have transcribed some of God's Words, as the Hebrew Scriptures say would happen after the Messiah of Israel came and went, and to which Jesus referred.  Those Words were memorized by thousands of people, and transcribed at the time they were first heard, and that transcript is still with us today, exactly as it was over a thousand years ago ~ unlike the Hebrew Scriptures, the transcriptions of which were lost during the Babylonian Captivity along with the Hebrew language itself, and "restored" by Ezra from "inspiration" that he himself said might not be exact or in the original order, and then translated from a reconstructed Hebrew, and Aramaic, into Greek and Latin, from them into German, and from there into English, in so many "versions" that Biblical scholars can't even count or even find them all.

The Children of Israel didn't take very good care of their books, unfortunately for them and for every European who lived during the last two thousand years.

For someone to have heard the word BE they were listening, but then went on to abuse that knowledge by introducing the holy books to totally confuse man. What should have been 'taught' was the true way of the universal intelligence and how 'we' as individuals could interpret the messages from within.

We are that word "Be!"  We know He said it only because He told us He did.  He gave us the Books, or rather He allowed Moses to repeat to the Children of Israel the 4,444 Words that He spoke directly to Moses, and allowed Muhammad to recite His Words that Muhammad "heard" as if they were written on his heart, and allowed others to recite some of His other Words, each in the language of their people.  Then the "priests" took over and told the people what they wanted to tell them about what God had said.

But an interesting thing happened, as nearly as I have been able to determine at some time during the Twentieth Century.  People have started hearing those same Words from within.  This happened fourteen centuries ago as well ~ after they had been heard and transcribed, people who had heard them would hear them from within whenever something they encountered needed to be understood and was explained by some of those Words, and people who had never heard them before recognized them when they heard them the first time.  That stopped back then, but it's started again in our time.

That may be what you're hearing, but then again, God's Words are not the only things that get "inspired" into our consciousness.  The only way to know is to look at the transcripts and see whether you recognize them or not.  The Talmudic zionists have made it next to impossible to do that with the Hebrew transcripts, and "scholars" and "translators" have glossed over some of the Arabic words with "technical" (read: "priestly") meanings, making it sometimes difficult to do, in a few places, with the Arabic transcripts.

I posted what I "imagined" I read in pictorial representations of some ancient tablets found in a basement of a pyramid in Egypt some time in the early Twentieth Century ~ did any of that seem familiar to you?  If any of it made sense to you, then you might want to take a look at a translation of the Arabic Qur'an to see whether any of that makes sense to you.

I disagree with this as I believe the Intelligent universal consciousness does not have human weaknesses such as Mercy, revenge, Forbearance, Wrath, Love, et al, nor do I believe we are made in his image as he has no 'image', but rather we have his 'word' instilled via our DNA.  The universe is not a mirror it is more like a magnet.

Those are not "weaknesses," they are strengths of human nature ~ except revenge, "wrath" (or "anger"), and such things which are vulnerabilities of human nature.

But pick another word than "image" ~ of course, God cannot be "pictured."  But creation does well and truly reflect His Attributes that He has told us about, and we are undeniably that part of creation that is seen as God, or at least a "Supreme Being," by all creatures and some people, whether in another person or in the mirror.  And His Word is definitely "installed" in our DNA.  The world is an attraction, that's for sure ~ it's designed for our enjoyment, and He tells us to enjoy it.  But a "magnet" to which we might be irresistibly drawn?  I don't think so.

We're "irresistibly drawn" to eating, breathing, resting, and (most of us) to reproducing, but beyond "curiosity," I don't recall being particularly interested in most of what we see in the world today.  For many years now, everything I have "wanted" has come to me, without effort on my part.  Maybe I'm the "magnet" for those things, it sure has seemed like it sometimes.  There are some things that I have thought from time to time might be interesting to have, just to see what I could do with them ~ like a million dollars or a lawyer in the family ~ but I'm quite aware of how much trouble I could get myself into with either of those, and haven't really "wanted" them.

But when we needed a lawyer with a bar license, three showed up; when I want to talk to a lawyer, I can call any of them at home or wherever, and never have any of them charged me a dime, and two of them have paid me for my time; I never wanted a computer in the first place, and bought a cheap C=64 because I was asked to learn about computers, did, and refused to even think about "upgrading" ~ my first Windows machine dropped in my lap, the second was a gift, and now we have ten on our LAN with a block of permanent IP addresses to run Web servers with, and whenever we needed money to buy this or that component, it came to us.  Two acres in town with a house and outbuildings, forty acres of wilderness at the end of a road ~ required the effort of filling out paperwork.  I think Jesus said something about "the birds of the air" ~ we've been living like that for the better part of forty years and have never been hungry unless we wanted to be.  I listen to a neighbor telling me about the goings-on in town ~ of which I've seen nothing ~ and it's obvious that I'm living in another world, and that one isn't the least bit attractive, it's no "magnet" at all.

If I'm not living in the Kingdom of God, I'm definitely camped on the border.  And I'm certainly not alone.

I do have a "simultaneous multiple universes" theory to "explain" what I'm seeing and experiencing, but it's nowhere near ready for prime time.  Your post reminded me that electrons appear to scientists to flash into and out of existence, but I don't think they actually do that.  I think it's possible that they just change phase, and some people see (and experience) one phase and other people see (and experience) the other, and it's what we consciously experience that constitutes the world we live in.

How can we forget this major iniquity of mans words ... the very beginning of their deception and their 'guidance'.

I think we're not on the same page.  My mistake ...

It's too dark here.

Offline Jenifer Johnson

  • Third Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 514
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • IRIS
Re: The Big (head) Bang
« Reply #47 on: June 03, 2009, 11:34:42 PM »

What should have been 'taught' was the true way of the universal intelligence and how 'we' as individuals could interpret the messages from within.

Exactly, It is the difference between being taught how to think instead of what to think.  Dogma is inherently a barrier to the truth, because it will alway need force in order to get everyone to comply. Any form of dogma, will always break down to the pressure of critic (truth).

Offline Jan Robertson

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 2406
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • AKA Mystica. All things are connected
    • View Profile
Re: The Big (head) Bang
« Reply #48 on: June 04, 2009, 08:52:11 PM »
if trying to understand the universe is mind blowing, then trying to understand one's own inter psyche is also mind blowing.

Most people are afraid to look inter, for fear of what they might find.

Absolutely! However the FEAR is not from oneself but from religion, and sadly it's a fear not 'recognized' as fear, it's more like they'll become evil/be a sinner if they do attempt to understand 'truth'.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

Offline Jan Robertson

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 2406
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • AKA Mystica. All things are connected
    • View Profile
Re: The Big (head) Bang
« Reply #49 on: June 28, 2009, 10:45:11 PM »
From Thunderbolts of the Gods.....

As the series continues, these two segments of Part 5 present a first glimpse of planetary formations seen in the ancient sky, exhibiting a variety of plasma discharge structures. In these segments we see for the first time, some of the hidden relationships of the three-dimensional forms to each other, as the planetary configuration evolved through contrasting phases of stability and alignment, displacement, and violence. [snip]

* COMMENT.... The ancients saw a vastly different sky than we do today ... terrifying and mysterious, the plasma displays led to our first foray into religion and formed our beliefs and faiths from country to country.

Follow this series and it will reveal the similarities of the religions and the 'Gods' and how they formed the mainstay of the biblical characters.....

Part (a):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyhKl-XywtY

Part (b):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Hws24yDcv8

Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

Offline preearth

  • Private First Class
  • *
  • Posts: 25
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets? Expanding Earth.
« Reply #50 on: May 23, 2010, 05:25:15 PM »
When Worlds Collided.

Heaven and PreEarth were planets, a binary system orbiting the Sun. This happy arrangement continued for countless years, until, some unfortunate circumstance caused Heaven to collide with PreEarth, forming the Earth.

We investigate the evidence that the Earth is the child of such a collision. We show that the planets Heaven and PreEarth were of similar size and mass. We show that many of the Earth's topographical features, such as mountain chains and ocean basins, were created during the collision. We show that certain hard to explain features of the Earth, such as its magnetic field, can now be more easily understood. And, in establishing all this, we uncover a new theory on the origin of the Moon.

Much of PreEarth's crust survived the impact and is today the continental crust of the Earth. Although broken and contorted, giant pieces of the ancient crust acted as ships floating on a newly molten interior, insulating, and protecting, life from the fires below. Heaven itself, together with its crust, if it had one, disappeared into the interior of the PreEarth, never to be seen again. If we put the broken pieces of PreEarth's crust back together, we obtain the following map.



This map is a flat representation of part of a globe. Hence, some distortion is inevitable.....

Read the rest here: http://preearth.net/

The whole idea of the theory is summarized by this animated GIF:



The impact area was that within the circle.

Pangea (considered as a land area on PreEarth) was outside the circle.

The collision caused PreEarth to expand in size. It was this expansion in size that caused the continents to spilt apart and break up into what we now call continents.

Offline ChrisPDX

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 1249
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets? Expanding Earth.
« Reply #51 on: May 23, 2010, 10:39:22 PM »
Interesting, but highly unlikely.

If another body that big collided with the Earth, we would be like the asteroids circling between Jupiter and Mars. A belt like that.
Boo!

Offline Leonidas

  • Sergeant Major
  • *
  • Posts: 419
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets? Expanding Earth.
« Reply #52 on: May 24, 2010, 03:13:35 PM »
I have one question.

What state of solidification was the planets when according to the theory have collided?

 
Strange times are these in which we live when old and young
are taught in falsehoods school.

And the one man that dares to tell the truth is called at once a lunatic and fool
                                         Plato

Offline preearth

  • Private First Class
  • *
  • Posts: 25
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets? Expanding Earth.
« Reply #53 on: May 25, 2010, 07:16:50 PM »
If another body that big collided with the Earth, we would be like the asteroids circling between Jupiter and Mars. A belt like that.

That is rather unlikely. To blast a planet apart takes a huge amount of energy

The collision has to be at very high speed to overcome the gravitational pull of all that mass.

Offline wag

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 10423
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets? Expanding Earth.
« Reply #54 on: May 25, 2010, 07:44:28 PM »
Did the jews coalesce from 2 medium sized tribes -- Yhids and Semites, or was it just an expansion of one tribe?
Nobody gets paid to tell the truth.

Offline ChrisPDX

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 1249
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets? Expanding Earth.
« Reply #55 on: May 25, 2010, 10:33:31 PM »
Did the jews coalesce from 2 medium sized tribes -- Yhids and Semites, or was it just an expansion of one tribe?

LOL! 
Boo!

Offline preearth

  • Private First Class
  • *
  • Posts: 25
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets? Expanding Earth.
« Reply #56 on: May 28, 2010, 03:27:45 AM »
I have one question.

What state of solidification was the planets when according to the theory have collided?

 


It is being assumed that both planets were solid.

Offline Leonidas

  • Sergeant Major
  • *
  • Posts: 419
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets? Expanding Earth.
« Reply #57 on: May 28, 2010, 06:23:23 AM »
Then think again what you suggesting, having in mind the physical laws and the velocity of the planets.
Strange times are these in which we live when old and young
are taught in falsehoods school.

And the one man that dares to tell the truth is called at once a lunatic and fool
                                         Plato

Offline preearth

  • Private First Class
  • *
  • Posts: 25
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets? Expanding Earth.
« Reply #58 on: May 29, 2010, 03:34:31 PM »
Then think again what you suggesting, having in mind the physical laws and the velocity of the planets.

Yeah,... all these things have been addressed in the paper.

Offline preearth

  • Private First Class
  • *
  • Posts: 25
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets? Expanding Earth.
« Reply #59 on: May 30, 2010, 04:37:38 PM »
The opening of the Atlantic.



Cool animation, eh?

From:
http://preearth.net/