RLT: What is the Spirit?

[sillysally]

Whoa Nelly! You just took me there Lorrina.

Since we all come from stars then it makes sense. We all be light, do you think we came from our sun or some other distant star?

[Wick]

Whoa Nelly! You just took me there Lorrina.

Since we all come from stars then it makes sense. We all be light, do you think we came from our sun or some other distant star?

Its one thing to have a body which incorporates iron, oxygen, carbon, etc. formed in the cores of stars. These material components do indeed give us form. But our light is older than stars. What's more, starlight is not coherant in nature. The light observed through the experiments of Popp and others would seem to indicate that the light that lights organisms is in fact coherent. This is in itself a remarkable fact.

Furthermore, I suspect that these coherent lightforms which enlighten all organisms in the universe are older than starlight. I suspect that these old biopotonic energy sources organized disorganized matter from dead stars to build a home in which they (we) could dwell.

And now we are here.

Wick

[austintorn@aol.com]

But our light is older than stars.

Isn't the conversion of hydrogen into helium (or something like that) what makes the stars shine?

[sillysally]

Its one thing to have a body which incorporates iron, oxygen, carbon, etc. formed in the cores of stars. These material components do indeed give us form. But our light is older than stars. What's more, starlight is not coherant in nature. The light observed through the experiments of Popp and others would seem to indicate that the light that lights organisms is in fact coherent. This is in itself a remarkable fact.

Furthermore, I suspect that these coherent lightforms which enlighten all organisms in the universe are older than starlight. I suspect that these old biopotonic energy sources organized disorganized matter from dead stars to build a home in which they (we) could dwell.

And now we are here.

Wick

So are you implying that we are the light at rest? Is that what your RLT is all about?

[Wick]

Isn't the conversion of hydrogen into helium (or something like that) what makes the stars shine?

In a sense, I suppose that's true. Hydrogen is "burned" into helium, which in turn is "burned" into carbon, into oxygen, into neon, into silicon, into sulphur, into magnesium, eventually even into iron. The heavy elements are the "ash" that remains when the "burning" we call fusion is complete. Iron is where it stops in most stars.

Occasionally, a supernova goes off releasing huge amounts of energy in a few seconds and causing massive heat and particulate collisions that give rise to the other elements. These events are the shiniest of all.

But the "burning" is not really the source of the light. The light is something more basic than the "burning" of hydrogen or helium. Light is what we see when space moves. As atoms of hydrogen fuse together, casting off various particles in the process, they ruffle the surface of space. This causes the space to oscillate which jostles other particles of matter floating on that surface. Space moves matter and matter moves space.

In that sense it is not the burning that causes the stars to shine. Rather the burning causes the space in and around the star to move, to propagate a wave that moves away from the star as an energized wave of space...and as the space wave propagates away from the star, those oscillations of space eventually reach you and jostle the tissues in your eye, causing you to see the star is shining.

Space moves matter. Matter moves space. Perhaps that is the fundamental expression of RLT.

But in RLT, light is not the motion of the space wave that spreads out from the star to your eye. Space is space and matter is matter. Light is simply that matter which intersects space at right angles. In the process of making this intersection, the particle of intersecting matter leaves no trace of itself in the 3-space. Light is like a rock that intersects the smooth surface of pond. The rock leaves no part of itself upon the surface. All it leaves is the energy/disruption which forms into a ripple. Particles of matter which pass through the 3-space form an energy/disruption which forms into a spherical ripple. The best example of this is the CMBR. This light is not caused by matter. Scientists suggest that CMBR is the remnant of light that formed in the universe before matter had yet come to exist as matter. RLT does not agree with this interpretation. Instead RLT suggest simply that because the universe moves through 4-space, it passes through particles of resting light which penetrate the surface we call space, causing it to "ripple".

Wick

[Wick]

So are you implying that we are the light at rest? Is that what your RLT is all about?

Yes.

But light is tricky. What we call light right now is our perception of space moving in certain ways. What light really is, is a particle of matter that passes through the 3-dimensional surface of space.

Imagine driving down the road. Now imagine that your windshield is not glass but a cohesive surface of water. Now imagine that marbles are floating at rest at various levels at windshield height. As you drive, you may have the sensation that you are at rest and that marbles are pelting through your windshield of water. You would see the ripples forming on your windshield and might think that someone is throwing marbles at you. But really you are the one doing the moving. The marbles, floating at rest, are simply passing through the surface.

There is a kind of cohesive light that all biological entities radiate. A very low level light that Popp (a highly respected biophysicist) has detected in living systems. The exact source of that light has yet to be determined. We have guessed that it originates in DNA, but that is far from sure. This light is coherent. I would argue that it is light at rest which organizes matter on the moving surface of space.

Don't know if this makes sense, Sally. I wrote this in a hurry. Apologies.

Wick

[labelwench]

Hello Wick,

We have a new forum member named Paradigm who has posted his theory with us.

The following exerpt is from his .pdf document of 22 pages. It rather seems to me like you two fellows might have some common ground to discuss.

I enjoy your postings and the way in which you remain consistent, concise, and try to find the 'fit' for each of us. You seem to recognize that we all need an idea 'fine-tuned' for the best fit.

Hope you find this quoted part of some interest and/or application.

As ever,

Labelwench

What is assumed to be empty space is composed of the emission (radiation or energy or light) of everything. Emission travels through interaction with emission, and can be detected as wavelengths. These wavelengths are constructed from the convergence of different levels of emission. Establishment physics does not ask, let alone answer, the question of how the detected wavelengths are constructed. Emission disperses as it travels across the Universe through encountering the decreasing density of impacting emission. This results in the detection of the increasing wavelength of the emission from galaxies and stars.

We do not see through an otherwise empty space. We see with space in the sense of the emission of objects, in the form of their image, traveling through the emission that is space and impacting upon our retinas and being processed by our brains. The idea that the space between us couldn’t be composed of matter, because we wouldn’t be able to see through it, is another example of naive realism.

As emission travels through interaction (absorption and emission) with emission, its speed is relative to the density of the emission through which it travels. It could not possibly have a specific speed throughout the Universe as claimed by establishment physics. If you measured the speed of light at a distance above the surface of the Earth, where the emission field is less dense than at the surface, it would be greater than at the surface.

Taken from The Theory Of Everything As The Paradigm Of Science thread.

[labelwench]

I offer no 'science', just a wild and crazy thought formulated from all that I read and contemplate as I travel from thread to thread in this forum.

All tangible things that we are able to perceive, are like ourselves, beings of light-at-rest. Properties of light, that we are only now beginning to understand, assume form. (Not unlike the manner in which static electricity gathers unto it, minute particles which become the form we deem 'dust bunnies'.) These forms are of incredible diversity and range greatly in complexity, and I refer here, not only to dust bunnies, lol...

As structures of light, we can still function and travel through and upon the medium of the surround, which is also light, not unlike the way in which we may travel on and through water, depending on the means and energy employed.

As the energy which holds the form in place is expended, the form 'dies', or erodes, or decays, or transforms (water e.g.), and is recycled into another form eventually.

Energy thereby is neither created or destroyed, merely 'borrowed'.

Too off the wall?

As ever,

Lorrina

[Wick]

I offer no 'science', just a wild and crazy thought formulated from all that I read and contemplate as I travel from thread to thread in this forum.

All tangible things that we are able to perceive, are like ourselves, beings of light-at-rest. Properties of light, that we are only now beginning to understand, assume form. (Not unlike the manner in which static electricity gathers unto it, minute particles which become the form we deem 'dust bunnies'.) These forms are of incredible diversity and range greatly in complexity, and I refer here, not only to dust bunnies, lol...

As structures of light, we can still function and travel through and upon the medium of the surround, which is also light, not unlike the way in which we may travel on and through water, depending on the means and energy employed.

As the energy which holds the form in place is expended, the form 'dies', or erodes, or decays, or transforms (water e.g.), and is recycled into another form eventually.

Energy thereby is neither created or destroyed, merely 'borrowed'.

Too off the wall?

As ever,

Lorrina

Not at all off the wall. Although I suspect the light associate with an organism is not as constrained as matter. Remember that light is 4-dimensional in nature, which means that it can only show a cross-section of itself when it appears in a 3-dimensional environment.

Regards!

Wick

[Wick]

Current concerns about the safety of cell phones and wireless phones would seem to indicate that something is at work in the low-level, non-ionizing radiation produced by these devices. Some research would seem to indicate that cancers in the head and neck may indeed increase in persons who use cell phones frequently.

Going upon the assumption this thread suggests--namely that our spirits are organized, cohesive, coherent light--it stands to reason that other forms of light (even low-level, non-ionizing radiation) might interfer with the natural process associated with our lightform. Currently nobody studies these connections because we assume that all light emitted from the body is a waste product arising from material processes. We don't even consider that perhaps the material processes are a waste product of the instrumentality of light. In time, I think we will find that the lightform in us is indeed impeded or otherwise affected by all kinds of electromagnetic radiation within their vicinity.

We need to start considering how the electromagnetic environment is effecting the processes of our organism and the organism's organizer (the lightform in us).

Regards!

Wick