Science Thread
Amelius Publishing House Discussion Board: Questions and Answers: Science Thread
As I have an interest in the Science aspects of TTL I thought it might be useful to have a special thread just for science questions and discussions.
As Questions and Answers has many explanations of the science aspects I also thought this topic heading would be suitable for this thread.
Any opinions/comments?
Love,
Colin
Colin, I would like to contribute some discussion topics to this thread, I am especially interested in your commentary on the "hormone crisis" as this one is the most complex . . . it reminds me of the episode of the original Star Trek televison program where Spock is playing chess on a three-dimensional multi-level board :-O . . . Live long and Prosper
The Edulight and Altering Eden: The Feminization of Nature
Science at its most brilliant peak of usefulness . . . . but will we have the presence of mind to recognize the VALUE or the DANGER of that usefulness???
Imagine, it is dusk in the third world, night falls quickly. Around the equator where two billion of us live, danger is in the darkness and most stay where they are. The curtain of night falls . . .making the world small around what ever light there is: the light might be a single incandesent bulb, or a candle or the glow of a rare (or sadly, not so rare) television. In the third world, there are very few reading lights for young people or for anyone, imagine the world that COULD be opened to them if (in their Scramble for Survival world) they might be given the MEANS to use the literacy skills the developed world is helping to offer them. Literacy can make a very great difference in the world that is coming but when is there time to read?
There is a product that has been developed that holds out a very special promise . . . light in the darkness. It is called the Edulight. Here is an excerpt from a Candian newspaper newspaper article (from earlier this year).
_________-------^*^ -------__________
Throwing Light on Reading
A new gizmo could help literacy in Third World
By Kelly Egan
The Third World would be better educated, Glen MacGillvray is convinced, if it could only see better.
To that end, the Petawawa businessman has come up with what he calls the Edulight, a self-contained system that uses solar power and new lighting technology in a small reading lamp.
For about $100, the unit comes with a bill-sized solar panel, recahargeable batteries and a lighting unit with six tiny lights. The bulbs last a life time and the only maintenance required, perhaps every five years, is new batteries.
The potential market is enormous. The United Nations estimates that one third of the world's poopulation, or two billion people live without access to electricity.
"Hundreds of millions of people live within 500 kilometres of the equator and don't have access to lights" said Mr. MacGillvray. But they have access to the sun.
"I think we can make a real difference with these things. Think what a difference 40,000 hours of reading could make".
"We're hoping we can generate some political will so that our government sees the sensibility of light as a form of foreign aid".
Godspeed, Glen MacGillvray
_________-------^* ^ -------__________
Altering Eden: The Feminization of Nature
A book published in Oct. 1999 that proposes that chemicals let loose into our natural environment are acting as hormonal "disruptors" in human and in animal populations
By Deborah Cadbury ISBN 0-312-24396-0 St. Martin's Press
BOOKJACKET TEXT
According to scientific evidence compiled world wide, the prime suspect in these worrying findings is the increased exposure to chemicals that can mimic the female hormone estrogen and other hormones.
Indeed, man-made chemicals like DDT, PCB and other "hormone disruptors" have become soaked into our environment from their use in countless modern products, from plastics to pesticides. Only now is the full impact of their extensive use coming to light. Believed responsible for genital abnormalities and cancers accross a wide range of species, these hormone-disrupting chemicals may pose a threat not only to our human potential, but to our very survival.
Through extensive interviews with fertility experts and scientists world wide as well as members of the chemical industry, Deborah Cadbury provides a balanced, cogent, compelling argument that propels us toward a distrubing conclusion.
It is worth noting that the very beginning of the story of this discovery starts with a man named Niels Skakkebaek who is a scientist in Denmark (at an institution which he help found . . . the Department of Growth and Reproduction at the Copenhagen University Hospital). This man's perserverance and dedication has provided us with an early warning but it remains to be seen whether we will be able to translate what he is talking about into something an average person can really understand. Most people do not really know how to react when you tell them that sperm counts are falling rapidly all over the world (the average sperm count declined dramatically from the 113 million per milliliter of semen in 1940 to 66 million per milliliter in 1990*). . . or that the crocodiles in Florida's Lake Apopka are all "changing sex" because of pesticides or the estrogen-laced urinary effluent of the millions and millions of birth-control pill popping women in eastern Canada and New England is leaching into the water aquifer deep underground on that side of the continent. :-O
Over to you Colin, or anyone else who would like to comment.
* to be accurate, it must be noted that A 50 per cent drop in sperm counts does not correspond to a similar decline in human fertility. This is because there is is no simple relationship between the number of sperm produced and whether or not a man is infertile.
(my footnote) This causes me to think that women must be more than eggs and men more than wriggling bullets of DNA. Who gets born and when may be where the real action is . . . hmmm, still pondering this.
Hello Jim,
Your points on hormone infected waste water is extremely poignant. I hasten to add that it is not just the hormones used by millions of women that are a problem and not just in one or two areas.
If one examines some of the occurrences for example in viruses becoming increasingly immune to antibiotics and compare that to the amount of hormones and antibiotics fed daily to the animals then slaughtered by the millions to feed those who still feel dead animal flesh is a suitable vehicle from which to attain 'life', and the millions of tons of waste water and solid matter from these millions of animals that is also infecting ground water, evaporated and falling as rain water, reabsorbed back into the food chain in our crops water and on and on - the mind fairly staggers at the concept.
Governments do not care of course as the large multi-national corporations are the ones using the products to maximize earning potential by being able to grow an animal from birth to slaughtering size within the shortest time and as free from money loss causing disease as possible - and who are also the source of income for most politicians.
There is no 'conspiracy' here of course, it is just an accumulation of abuse that has now gotten out of hand and which is getting worse. As everyone turns a blind eye to such things and either is afraid to examine them or realizes that there is essentially nothing that can be done save in each individual's daily existence - the situation will unfortunatley only get worse.
In some ways it can be likened to many, many cities around the world that border our oceans that build large sewers to carry effluent as far out into - and beneath - the ocean as their available technology makes possible in the strange belief that if it is carried far away enough it will not have an effect on that city. Sort of 'passing the buck' being carried to the extreme.
It is scary and not often available in news mediums as it is so scary. Every country practices censorship in this regard.
Solutions: I haven't got a clue of any workable ones.
For myself I can only avoid consuming rotting animal flesh, focusing my intake of nutrients on as organic as possible plant matter, filtering water as best I can, staying as far away from allopathic medicine (read here the real 'alternative' medicine as it has only been around for less than 100 years) as is possible, and in not being afraid.
I know it is all essentially - in consideration of the long-term - not relevant, as in a few million years we will no longer be on this planet and when Father has no use for this planet any longer it will simply cease to exist and we will go on in an existence where such aspects will not have any meaning to us.
With apologies to the 'doomsayers' - we will never be able to destroy the planet, we will only be able to make it very difficult to live here.
For now though - and for the near future at least - it does mean that our children and grandchildren and their children - of course essentially 'Us' again - will have to suffer through it.
Hello All,
In going over sections in the Books regarding distances, the nebulae and such in TTL pages 168-169 and the answers to questions in Q&A - Supplement 1 questions 31 and 32 and Supplement 2 question 51, I had some thoughts I wanted to discuss for viability.
The calculation mechanism used for such vast distances is of course a Light Year and through this astronomers calculate the length of time as being based on how many years a distant object's light can reach us.
My first thought then revolves around this length of time.
If an object that is visible to us is say far enough away that astronomers calculate it is 15 Billion light years away, and the light we are seeing left that object 15 Billion years ago - Does that object still exist in our time?
If we could somehow view the location of that object in our version of 'real-time' - would it still be there?
As is stated in TTL, only our Mother Sun's star system contains drifting accumulations of darkness and as these accumulations of darkness are cleansed through interaction with the light they would conceiveably cease to exist and may have already done so. Although unsure of exactness of distance, I recall that the closest 'star' to us is roughly 4.5 light years away. Meaning that there are no stars closer. And yet there are stars that are only a little - respectively - farther away. I view this discrepency - that while our closest neighbor is 4.5 light years away, that neighbor has numerous neighbors that are only a million or two million light years away - as showing that potentially any light we see at night may come from objects that simply do not exist anymore and did not exist when the Truths were given to us.
Does this sound plausible?
Another thought has to do with the explanations given for the distant nebulae and the majority being an optical illusion. This struck me while studying 'animal camoflage' - much of which is done with body cells especially in the case of the octopus and chameleon. They do not really change color but they adjust the configuration or condition of certain surface cells that cause different parts of the color spectrum to be either absorbed by the skin or reflected.
This is also true in the case for example of a butterfly's wings. The cells on the surface of the wing will only allow certain colors to be reflected and that is the color we see. Polar bears can be another example as they are not really white but through a certain configuration of their 'fur' - polar bear fur is hollow and without any white pigment and are actually more of a yellow color than white - what gets reflected is the white of the surrounding snow.
To apply this to comments in the Books then that the optical illusion of the nebulae can be applied to a soap bubble as an example of analogy - a bubble of 'soap' is of course actually only water held together through the viscosity of the soap. As the 'hold' offered by the soap is slightly tenuous and a pure mix of the two elements is not possible, the soap does not stay in one place and is not in equal thickness. The 'rainbow' pattern or shimmering colors seen then in a soap bubble are caused again by different colors being reflected as the 'soap' changes in consistency and as it 'moves' around the surface of the water. This also causes 'reflections of reflections' which can show the same object/struck by light at a different angle/and at a different consistency to appear to be a different object and different color. To add to this, the part of the color spectrum reflected is different with a bubble depending on whether the 'inner' surface of the bubble or the outer surface.
(Could this difference in spectrum reflected by the outer surface be a possible explanation as to why we will never be able to see any of the other Mother Suns or star systems - in that God has decreed that the relected light/energy from the other Mother Suns/star systems that could reach us is not at the specific wavelength that our 'human' eyes can 'see'as opposed to the invisibility of our 'homes in the spheres' being due to different vibration)?
With magnification also at times being thrown in for good measure due to the properties of water, I can see more clearly now - barring of course a re-examination with new viewpoints added - how the vastness of space described in science and astronomy can be in error.
Any thoughts?
Dear Colin,
As you will remember, TTL also mentions “an important factor” still ignored by the scientists studying the dynamics of the universe.
I have always intuitively felt that this “important factor” is closely bound up with the time/light year/distance calculations – in fact, in Q&A it is quite directly stated that “the enormous distances the scientists come up with are distorting the image of the universe surrounding our galaxy” (Question no. 31, Supplement I)
This would mean that it is useless for us to wreck our brains with the question whether any object observed now still exists out there, some X billion light years away in time… In fact, all the “objects” we can see are but reflections of objects contained in our own galaxy. Easy to understand how difficult it is for the scientists to grab hold of anything at all out there, considering they still know relatively little even about our own solar system. Just think about the mystery of the hole in the ozone layer of the Earth’s atmosphere – it has not yet been discovered exactly how it arises; many theories have been formulated. Some believe it has always been there, ever expanding and contracting; others are certain it has come about because of polluting gases etc.
So how can we pretend to give any certain answers on the nature of the universe beyond our own planet, let alone beyond our galaxy?
We now have an important clue, brought about by Peter Kjærulff and concluded, I believe, directly from the information given in TTL and Supplements: Time is no dimension.
Think about the implications of this statement… It totally alters a few things hitherto considered facts, e.g. the Theory of Relativity – and perhaps – perhaps this simple “revelation” is the “important factor” we have hitherto been living in blind ignorance of… (Nah… really! That would be too stupid!!! ;-))
It is thoroughly logical that time is no dimension, if we think about it: the other three dimensions known to us consist of measurable, linear dimensions: height, width, depth. How on Earth can TIME indeed be defined as a fourth dimension???? Can we measure time with a physical metre? No, we cannot… Time is an abstract, and if it can be “measured” by watches, this is only because we have invented a machine – the watch – which is able to indicate the fragments of time passing in a “material” way – by imitating the “circular” course of the day, just like the old-fashioned sun clocks – or by counting the elapsing seconds and minutes by means of a regular impulse electronically forwarded by a microchip, as in digital watches.
Indeed, isn’t it stated in TTL that “Time in the supersensible as well as in the temporal sense is a term denoting the sequence of events”? (Commentary, ch. I, shortly after the second footnote of the chapter.)
If time had been a dimension, TTL would probably have told us so.
Where does it leave us, then, that time is no dimension?
It is impossible to answer your question whether a faraway object would still exist when we receive visual notice of its existence, for the simple reason that the very base of the concept of perception (time = fourth dimension) is a distorted point of departure. Notwithstanding that a great number of astrophysicists have given much thought to the matter, the problem is illusory.
Rather, we would benefit more from studying the nature of our galaxy. Even today astrophysicists disagree upon the pending question of the nature of the centre of the Milky Way. As other TTL-readers to, I believe “Pistol Star” to be our mother-sun, and in fact several scientists confirm this – whereas others still cling to the “black hole” hypothesis, as they have not yet “seen” what is actually there.
Colin: …Although unsure of exactness of distance, I recall that the closest 'star' to us is roughly 4.5 light years away. Meaning that there are no stars closer. And yet there are stars that are only a little - respectively - farther away. I view this discrepency - that while our closest neighbor is 4.5 light years away, that neighbor has numerous neighbors that are only a million or two million light years away - as showing that potentially any light we see at night may come from objects that simply do not exist anymore and did not exist when the Truths were given to us.
Does this sound plausible?
Well, it rather does, if we stick to the traditional view. What strikes me about your information that the neighbours of that “closest star” (whatever its distance from our galaxy) would be so much closer to the “closest star” – as if our galaxy is surrounded by a huge, empty space, before other stars or galaxies begin to appear on the horizon to form a sort of “outer rim”.
This vision corresponds to the information given in TTL:
1) None of the other three galaxies can be observed from the planet Earth, nor will they ever be. (They are simply too distant for us to see or even guess at; unless we have read TTL and know they are there, we won’t know of their existence – this answers another of your questions. No, I do not think it has anything to do with the quality of the soapbubble reflections or/and the spectral properties of the reflected light, if we cannot see the other galaxies. The light reflected from our galaxy is just a higher frequency of the darkness, anyway – it is material. The “real” light cannot be perceived by the human, material eye).
2) All the “galaxies”, nebulae, stars that can be “observed” from the Earth or by spatial telescopes, however sophisticated they may be – are but reflections of our own galaxy (or parts of same) – often very distorted reflections, sometimes seemingly “floating”, moving about in the universe in irregular patterns and orbits, etc. (See Q&A no. 51, Supplement II).
Now, I will not begin to discuss the physics involved with the viscosity and other aspects of common soap bubbles – in fact, as you say yourself, TTL states that the image of the soap bubbles should be considered only an example of analogy, nothing more – but it certainly renders the idea of the irregular design and behaviour of the accumulations of the darkness. If the universe surrounding us is so bewildering, this fact alone should be enough to convince us that the darkness reigns out there – or, at least it reigns where our limited perception is concerned. In fact, the on-going search for the “missing matter” tells us something about the desparate state of affairs of modern astrophysics. Jim recently sent me an article covering the latest discoveries – as we have known for many years, only a small part of the existing matter in the universe can be accounted for. The rest simply continues to elude the scientists – and this is of course because of the higher oscillation rate of the finer matter. But this matter is still material matter - only, it cannot be measured or observed by the instruments currently at our disposal. Or to be more precise, it never can be measured by any earthly instrument – as, in fact, earthly instruments tend to be manufactured of physical matter… The only way to discover the truth about the “dark matter” as it is inappropriately called (it actually is so luminous that we cannot perceive it) – is to come up with the right hypothesis of its nature. Or, more simply, some of the astrophysicists might conveniently read TTL – and try to continue from there.
Colin: … With magnification also at times being thrown in for good measure due to the properties of water, I can see more clearly now - barring of course a re-examination with new viewpoints added - how the vastness of space described in science and astronomy can be in error.
Yes, this is another way of associating images with images. There are so many aspects, really. For instance, when visualizing the soap bubble image, my mind always automatically discards the actual soap bubble as an example – rather, my thoughts prefer to concentrate on a phenomenon we can often observe in nature: have you ever seen when some wild plants emit a sort of foam? I do not remember the name of the plant, I can only remember when, as a child, I would wonder about that foam…or perhaps it is an insect creating the foam as a sort of protection, when hiding on the plant? Anyway, my favourite way of imagining the soap bubble effect of the accumulations of darkness is exactly like that: huge clusters of more or less uniform bubbles of varying sizes, but thousands and thousands of them. Some bubbles catch the light in one way, some in another – some don’t catch any light at all because they are in the shadow area of the planet. Also, they may break, thus causing the light-point to “explode” and disappear – as might a supernova…
Much more to think about here, eh…! I have a feeling that we will develop this thread much further.
Love,
Ulla
Hello Ulla,
Interesting contribution. I agree that there is much to discuss in this thread.
I can't say I agree with you on a couple of points. One, of course, is that I feel there is no possibility that it could ever be "useless" to question anything or to examine anything. It is stated so often in the Books that 'human beings must themselves .....," that I feel it is mandatory to do so. To be blunt I am surprised you would even make such a suggestion.
Neither was I "pretending to give answers" but rather evoke discussion. While I have read in the forum, posts from some putting themselves forward as sort of 'absolute TTL experts' something that is of course impossible, I prefer to pose questions from my own desire to check my views against the incredible well of intelligence available from others. This holds also for "interpreting what does not need interpreting" or for using writings from 'third party's' to be used as sort of a 'checks and balances' of TTL - especially if those other writings contradict what is written in TTL.
So, on to the discussion and apologies for the length.
I would first like to comment on your statement about our Mother Sun being at the center of our Milky Way galaxy and I quote mostly from the Commentary to Ardor's Account in TTL - aptly entitled "SEEK AND YOU SHALL FIND."
As it states on page 169:
"A Star System (a Milky Way) shaped as an elliptical ring moves along with and rotates AROUND each Mother Sun." [note here that it does not say a planetary system moves along with and rotates around a Mother Sun]
Note it says "(a Milky Way) moves along with and rotates around each Mother Sun." Thus, our galaxy CANNOT possibly have a "Mother Sun" at the core as it is clearly stated that our Milky Way galaxy rotates 'AROUND' the Mother Sun of our universe.
On page 6 of TTL it is written:
"But from these Mother Suns, all the globes of the universe were hurled out and formed."
On page 168 we find "And since the four star systems, directly or indirectly, stem from the mother globes, this applies to all suns (i.e. stars) and planets within these four systems, with the exceptions due to the incursions of darkness on the globes in that star system to which the earth belongs."
I would like to go over TTL pages 167 - 171 because these pages are so relevant.
On page 167 it states: "For this reason God conceived and developed the plan for the four star universes or star systems."
What I read here - and which may be the error of translation I mention below - is that the "plan" was for four "Star Universes" or collections of galaxies - not for a single galaxy as being the sum total of stars in a "universe."
Again from page 169: "EACH STAR SYSTEM WAS DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY SPUN OFF OR EJECTED BY ERUPTION FROM IT'S MOTHER SUN. (THE GLOBES AND SUNS THAT ORIGINATED DIRECTLY FROM THE MOTHER SUN HAVE THEN AGAIN, THROUGH SPIN-OFFS OR ERUPTIONS, SUB-DIVIDED INTO SMALLER GLOBES - AND SO ON). CENTRIFUGAL FORCE HAS CAUSED THE GLOBES OF THE STAR SYSTEMS TO MOVE IN ELLIPTICAL RATHER THAN CIRCULAR ORBITS AROUND THEIR MOTHER SUN AT ONE FOCUS AND AN IMMATERIAL CENTER OF FORCE (INVISIBLE TO THE HUMAN EYE) AT THE OTHER FOCUS."
Then on page 170:
"ALL SUNS, EVEN THE MOST DISTANT NEBULAE, THAT CAN BE OBSERVED FROM THE EARTH BELONG TO THE SAME SYSTEM, WHOSE MOTHER SUN - ONE OF THE FOUR - WILL SOME DAY BE SEEN FROM THE EARTH, THOUGH PROBABLY NOT UNTIL THE INSTRUMENTS OF OBSERVATION HAVE UNDERGONE CERTAIN ALTERATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS."
And most telling on the same page:
"The system of suns and planets to which the earth belongs is located in the inner part of the elliptical ring of the "Milky Way", and it moves TOWARD the immaterial center of force." - (and thus AWAY FROM our Mother Sun).
Next from Q&A, Second supplement page 75 question 51: "huge accumulations of darkness exist at several places in the ether around the galactic system of the earth (Milky Way)" and "And radiation-images of the star-globes WITHIN THE REGION OF THE ACCUMULATIONS OR OF THE NEBULAE are caught and reflected in these accumulations" and at the top of page 76: (and there seems to be a translation error in my copy in this sentence ".....which are few in number [again I note here that it does not say there is only 'one' but rather "few in number" suggesting there is in fact more than 'one'] in relation to the enormous numbers which the nebulae display in the telescope" the error of course relating to an inanimate object being able to perform a 'display' and perhaps someone with the original Danish can assist here as it would seem that a correction of the grammatical error here should be "...in relation to the enormous numbers of nebulae displayed in the telescope." And notwithstanding the direct quote of the final sentence "The nebulae are therefore an optical illusion." - this final sentence is countered by the preceding sentence and all of the other places noted above in that the nebulae do exist but the number of those nebulae is in error and it is the excess shown that are illusory.
I feel this tells us:
1. There are other nebulae - just not as many as we think of course - and the reflections that confuse astronomers come not just from our own Milky Way but the numerous other nebulae as well.
2. Our galaxy is only one of many that revolve in orbit around the Mother Sun to which we belong.
3. That Mother Sun is NOT at the center of our Milky Way galaxy but rather at the center of the system that the nebulae - including our own - revolve around.
So rather than the core of darkness at the center of our 'Milky Way' being the center from which calculations of distance are made and from which everything else radiates from - or for that matter the 'Pistol Star' which is not at the 'center' even of our galaxy, but also, as with our sun, is just one of many revolving around the core of darkness at the center of our Milky Way galaxy which, in its turn, revolves around our Mother Sun.
We are actually moving away from our Star Universe's Mother sun and toward the "Immaterial Center of Force" at the 'other end' of our elliptical path.
Our galaxy then is only one of many, all revolving around our Star Universe's Mother Sun - again not as many as imagined or viewed through optical devices but still only one of many.
We are not at the center of the universe and the Core of Darkness at the center of our Milky Way is NOT one of the four "Mother Suns" and neither are any of the 'stars' within our Milky Way galaxy.
I am of the opinion that perhaps there is another translation error involved in the English copy here that generates confusion - and quite probably that confusion comes from my own reading of the English copy. It seems a contradiction to me that perhaps stems from what a 'Star System" is. At one point, a Star System is a collection of galaxies and at another point it is only one galaxy. Perhaps Mr. Kelleman as a member of Amelius Publishing and one most conversant with both the Danish original and the English translation (among other translations) can clarify for us if the Danish original uses the same terminology for both explanations of "Star Universe" and "Star System."
Perhaps the error is the limiting of perception here. To me the "system to which the earth belongs" refers to the universe of our Mother Sun - a universe containing several galaxies of which our Milky Way is but one but which can also be read and understood as meaning that there is only one. However, as this second concept - only one - is contradicted in so many other passages, a limited perception or only cursory examination could draw one to believe that our minor galactic system is the sum total of the Star Universe of our Mother Sun.
As to your mention of Light and Darkness:
Note on pg. 168 first paragraph: "Spiritual beings are able to see the cores of Darkness of the globes, as well as the BRIGHTER, MORE RADIANT CORONA OF THE LIGHT." Here we have confirmation that it is the Light and not the Darkness that is brighter. This also is explained in the description of the difference between Light and Darkness involving explanation of the oscillation frequencies as explained on page 162 and again on page 167 where it is explained that it is the 'more rapid and more ethereal-astral oscillations of the Light' that 'is (are) not visible to earthly eyes, and clarifying the 'size' of the particles as noted on page 163.
On 'Time' being the "Fourth dimension" it of course cannot be as is clearly pointed out in TTL and does not need a 'third party' interpretation. The "Fourth dimension' is the Transcendental as is clarified in the footnote on page 162 (and on the front cover as "A MESSAGE TO MANKIND FROM THE TRANSCENDENTAL WORLD") in the commentary regarding the particles of light and darkness - "as soon as the particles escape human sense perception, they take the forms of the four-dimensional world" and again in the footnote - "....are in this case located on the boundary between the three- and four-dimensional worlds, and may manifest themselves on either side of the boundary."
The Fourth dimension then is one that we cannot perceive as it "..escapes human sense perception." I feel as you do that the use of time in physics as a description of the fourth dimension is erroneous and stems from physicists 'searching' for a plausible explanation to clarify their inability to accurately understand the 'Transcendental' and refusal to accept that there may be something that exists that they cannot measure. Like most scientists (seemingly), the strengthening of the analytical centers of their mind seems to have limited their ability to 'accept' what they cannot analyze.
I was confused at first by your use of the 'word'- 'supersensible' - rather than 'transcendental' as is used so often in the Books but the next sentence does clarify for me that it is the 'Transcendental' - "Spiritual beings measure time in terms of time-periods and not in terms of earthly years." Since only "spiritual beings" can perceive both the transcendental and the earthly it is easy for me to see how one that has not been presented with the knowledge contained within the Books could and would try to explain the fourth dimension using another 'invisible' - time.
Ulla, I hope we can have more of our friends comment on our points and I am so happy that you took the time. As always, my views are open to contradiction and correction with my greatest appreciation for such correction.
Love,
Colin
Hello All,
I have another 'burning' answer quest.
In TTL, page 6, it is written:
"By Thought and from the Light, God formed and created four mighty suns, and in their fiery bosoms He laid down numerous forms of life."
Thus we have here confirmation that we are not "alone" as it were.
My 'quest' then is in hearing from others their opinions of this statement.
To me it means that although in our universe there are no others - in the other three universes there are forms of life that were not tainted by the intervention and experimentation with Darkness from our Eldest brethren. To carry this further, as our limited development is a direct result of the mentioned intervention and experimentation, is it possible that the 'forms of life' in the other universes are not only superior but further along the road to our Father's Kingdom?
Is it possible that while in our true homes preparing for a future life, we are aware of these other forms of life and that this awareness is then brought 'down' to the earthly plane and is the direct cause of the prevalant belief that there is other life in the universe (flying saucers and such frivolousness)?
Can the immense numbers of people who believe in 'aliens' etc., be recalling memories from their time at 'home' while incarnated?
When we are then freed from the bondage of this tainted earthly existence, will we be joined as family with these other forms of life or - if it is the case that these other forms of life are more what God intended as his 'children' - do our 'true' forms more closely resemble these other forms of life?
Love,
Colin
Hello Colin (and everybody else),
Space – what a fascinating subject.
I would like to comment a couple of things and to place an illustration in this thread in order to perhaps make it easier for some to understand how the Mother Sun Systems look like, with its Galaxies, Nebulae etc.
But let us begin with the linguistic matters first – the terminology – in order to avoid any misunderstanding now and in the future. Colin, you wrote:
”I am of the opinion that perhaps there is another translation error involved in the English copy here that generates confusion – and quite probably that confusion comes from my own reading of the English copy. It seems a contradiction to me that perhaps stems from what a 'Star System' is. At one point, a Star System is a collection of galaxies and at another point it is only one galaxy… Perhaps…can clarify for us if the Danish original uses the same terminology for both explanations of ’Star Universe’ and ’Star System’."
Yes, the Danish original uses the same terminology for both explanations of ”Star Universe” and ”Star System”. But I must admit that I am not too fond of it. As an ”old” hobby astronomer, I would have preferred that the words ”Galactic system” (or ”Mother Sun System”) should have been used throughout chapter 3 in the Commentary when it is about a ”Star System” as a collection of galaxies. This would have avoided misunderstandings. But, and this is important, we must not forget that Toward the Light – with its explanations of the Universe – was given to mankind in 1920. At that time the scientists, not to mention the general public, was rather ignorant of the Universe. Maybe the Youngest felt that it would be easier for people back then to understand this complicated ”Universe question” if they used words that were already established, for example ”Star System” and ”Milky Way”? So regarding this, there is no error in the English translation. But you are absolutely right, Colin, this ”wrong” terminology can cause some confusion and contradiction.
I would like to comment a few other things.
You wrote:
"… Thus, our galaxy CANNOT possibly have a ’Mother Sun’ at the core as it is clearly stated that our Milky Way galaxy rotates 'AROUND' the Mother Sun of our universe.”
Right.
"For this reason God conceived and developed the plan for the four star universes or star systems."
This means the four Galactic Systems. (See the illustration below.)
"The system of suns and planets to which the earth belongs is located in the inner part of the elliptical ring of the "Milky Way", and it moves TOWARD the immaterial centre of force." – (and thus AWAY FROM our Mother Sun).
(See the illustration below.)
Regarding the Nebulae, there is neither a translation error nor any other error in Q&A, Second supplement, question 51 page 75. But maybe the last sentence could have been clearer. You wrote:
".....'which are few in number… in relation to the enormous numbers which the nebulae display in the telescope' the error of course relating to an inanimate object being able to perform a 'display' and perhaps someone with the original Danish can assist here as it would seem that a correction of the grammatical error here should be '...in relation to the enormous numbers of nebulae displayed in the telescope'."
I wish I could have explained the following in my native language (Swedish) J, it would undoubtedly have been somewhat easier. It is a rather difficult question to explain. I will try though:
It is not the numbers of nebulae that is the key point here. The main point is, that it is the nebulae that ”shows” (reflect, throw back, mirror) the globes, ”which [the globes] are few in number in relation to the enormous numbers which the nebulae display in the telescope”. So in this case an inanimate object is in fact able to perform a ”display”, even though it may sound strange. The last sentence: "The nebulae are therefore an optical illusion" could perhaps have been written in a somewhat clearer way; for example: ”The nebulae reflect globes, but not all of these globes exist. The nebulae are therefore causing an optical illusion.”
However, it is not entirely wrong to just say: "The nebulae are therefore an optical illusion", but it is easy to misinterpret this sentence, since it could be understood as if the nebulae does not exist.
I hope my words could be of some help.
Love,
Robert
Perceptions of the Universe
Dear everyone,
Wow! Great!! Thank you for the drawing, Robert, finally the nebulae have cleared in my weary mind.
Admittedly, I had not correctly understood the structure of the universe, thus displaying my terribly limited perception. Over the years I have repeatedly returned to this very topic, as I felt there was something wrong – either with my perception, indeed, or with the book’s explanation. As the latter would hardly be the case, meanwhile I chose to take what I read quite literally. This was the best I could muster until a few days ago, when Robert managed to explain the universe with such total clarity.
As it is, there are a few reasons why I have not hitherto been able to consider the cosmic realities any differently. I will outline these reasons, in the hope that others with the same kind of “perception problem” may benefit from my account. And perhaps even Colin will then understand, perhaps even forgive, my “limited perception” and shake his head a little less contemptuously.
Crikey, man, it’s human to err! Did you never understand anything wrong, yourself? We live and we learn, isn’t that so? Or does this apply only to those who have not yet comprehended everything in TTL 100%? We are all different – or, as the book puts it:
However, the fact that the children of God developed in various ways, though all created potentially alike, is due to the peculiar, individual and cryptic nature of the free will.
The free will, a gift from God to each of His Children, is a reflection of His Will—an abstraction, whose inherent inner nature is known but to God.
Endowed with a free will, some of God's Children pursued the intellectual development of the mind, searched the cosmic laws, and strove to perfect their knowledge of the infinite abstractions of Thought; others devoted their efforts more to the worlds of beauty and emotion (the arts of colour, form, and music, poetry, and so forth).
Hence: By the choice of their own free will God's Children, though originally equal and alike, have become different in being, have become individualities.
(Commentary, the end of chapter 2)
I believe this also goes for human spirits – those of us who are so much more limited than both the Youngest and the Eldest. We all have our stronger and weaker points… of perception, etc. Also, some of us use irony, thus not always being understood by everyone else – as in the case where I state that it is “useless” to worry about certain issues: please note the three dots following the sentence – they end in a smile. To be more precise, in :-P - this kind of “foolish” smile.
In the following I shall outline the reasons for my peculiar perception – it has much to do with words.
Actually, there is a small error in the translation – or rather, there are two – of the Commentary’s Chapter 3. An error, however, which cannot really be defined as such. Let me explain.
As Colin points out, the very last sentence of the chapter goes:
"The system of suns and planets to which the earth belongs is located in the inner part of the elliptical ring of the "Milky Way", and it moves toward the immaterial center of force." - (and thus away form our Mother Sun).”
A more direct translation from Danish would have been:
“The solar and planetary system to which the earth belongs is located in the interior part of the elliptical ring of the “Milky Way”, and is moving towards the immaterial centre of force.”
(Danish: “Det sol- og planetsystem, hvortil jorden hører, findes i den indre del af “Mælkevejens” elliptisk formede ring og bevæger sig hen imod det immaterielle kraftcenter.”)
- as indeed we find it in the other translations of VML. Swedish and German being more similar to Danish in their sentence structures, in these languages is has not been necessary to “tamper” with expressions (“Det sol- och planetsystem till vilket Jorden hör…” and “Das Sonnen- und Planetensystem, zu dem die Erde gehört…”), and in Italian it is also “Il sistema solare e planetario a cui appartiene la terra…”. I do not have the Spanish translation handy at the moment, so I cannot give you the Spanish translator’s perception of the case.
Now, I perceived the solar (and planetary) system to which the Earth belongs to be our local solar system, consisting of the Sun and the planets Mercury, Venus, Mars, Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus and Pluto (though there is some discussion as to whether Pluto really is a planet or just an astroid). This would be the astronomical definition of a solar system – I think you agree with me on this. Moreover, I felt that my perception was scientifically confirmed, when I first saw the actual position of the slight speck that is our solar system within our local galaxy, as illustrated by this picture:
“Galaxy NGC 253”
- where the blue dot would correspond to the location of our solar system, had this been our (rather similar) galaxy.
If we compare the above image with Robert’s excellent drawing, there certainly is a striking similarity, isn’t there? Is this just a coincidence? Do such coincidences exist on a cosmic level – or has this particular convergency been created merely to confuse people such a myself? ;-) [Legenda: ironically meant.]
Another problem arises when we talk about a “star system”. While I quite easily – yes! I arrived at this conclusion with my own limited brains!!! – concluded that a “star system” would mean a galaxy, I even mused at the difficulties of Johanne Agerskov’s guide, when trying to explain to her the make-up of the universe. In fact, the word “galakse”, galaxy, is never mentioned in VML – and this is of course due to the fact that in 1920 when VML was published, the term “galakse” was not yet commonly used in the Danish language. We would use the expression “milky way system” or “milky way” or “star system” to define the concept “galaxy”, which was not yet well defined.
Since then the word “galakse” has been fully integrated in the Danish language, as in many others. Or, as I mused, perhaps “Milky Way” was mentioned every time with quotation signs, because this ancient expression would be more correctly termed “galaxy” – only, J.A. did not know the word.
So, as you can see, my limited perception centers around more subtle nuances of the text – words. (“Words” are rather more my domain of perception, eh! Must be because I’m a woman. *Flutter of eyelashes…*) And actually I do not “overinterpret” the terms; rather, I take them literally.
It is clear – even to me – that a “star system” is a “galaxy” – which can also be defined a “milky way (system)”. However, the expression “galactic system” is nowhere mentioned in VML. The expression “star system” can be translated into “sideral system” – but personally I do not think I would turn it into a “galactic system”, as in fact this expression may cause confusion. What is a galactic system? It may mean “a system of galaxies”, of course. And this would have made matters quite clear from the outset! Or??? We may in fact meet the expression “galactic system” also when speaking of just one galaxy… which rather complicates matters. Going deeper into the meaning of “star universe”, besides meaning a galaxy, it can also more vaguely mean “all that the universe contains”, the entire universe. But you will not find this expression used anywhere nowadays, except in contexts including Hollywood. Modern astronomy does not use the term, as indeed a “star” is a quite well defined object, although there are many categories of stars – and the universe contains many other objects besides stars.
So, what is the problem? It is a question of choice of words! I quite forgot to consider Johanne Agerskov and her role as intermediary, entirely trusting her ability to convey Leo’s explanations… But as we know, what was to be explained could only be explained through her perception and vocabulary, as we may read in Supplement I, 28, as regards the expression “can be seen”:
“The mother sun is visible to the naked eye, but only by means of strongly amplifying observation instruments it will some day in the future be possible to “see” or indicate which star is the right one.
The expression: can be indicated or pointed out from the Earth would – in this case – have rendered a more precise exposition of the actual circumstances than the one offered by the expression “seen”, as from the form of the sentence one may get the impression that the mother sun is not visible to the naked eye, which is absolutely the case. (Cf. the information regarding the vocabulary of the intermediary – the medium – and the synonyms, given in the Postscript of TTL…).” [translated by usq, as I do not have the English Q&A at hand].
Love,
Ulla
Thanks to the ultimate explanations of Ulla and Robert, even me (and I consider me one of the devotees who follow the world of beauty and emotion..) was able to see clear. FINALY! THANKS A VERY LOT ALSO TO THE OTHERS...
Kisses
Susi
Subject: The center of our galaxy
I agree that the Pistol Star is not the center of the milky way. The center must be found in one of the foci of an ellipse. During the last few months I have been studying this subject quite intensely and think that it now is possible to point out the dark matter core of the mother sun. I'll try to explain my thoughts in an article which will follow soon. The core is shining brightly towards the southern sky and had it's culmination about the 3/3. Sadly it's not visibel from the northern hemisphere.
Regards Jørgen Degn (degn2@mailme.dk)
Remember to visit
http://www.vandrermodlyset.dk
you'll will find translations of TTL in english, spanish, russian, french and italian.
In my opinion the term "milkyway" equals "milkyway-system". I found many proofs for this argument both in TTL, QAA and some of the unpublished letters by Johanne Agerskov.
To illustrate my view of the elliptical system around the mothersun, see below:
Regards Joergen Degn (degn@mailme.dk)
Please feel free to comment on this very interesting and highly relevant issue