Final Analysis

[mkirkpatrick]

Thank you Greg for your most detailed and thoughtful post,you are right of course Greg
I did leave out dark matter!The reason being that I did not want to be too controversial?

"Dark matter"Greg,is not in our "usually accepted understanding of the physical universe"
in "our physical universe" it exists "out of phase" with "normal time and space".Dark
matter is in effect "etheric matter",it is still a product of thought,but of a differing frequency and "phase shift".

Matter that is pulled into a black hole is stripped of all its outer appearences,when the
last layer is reached,what do you suppose is left?The original "idea" of course,a thought
wave?What emerges on the other side is etheric nature,and by that nature becomes
"out of phase" with us!
tbc


regards michael.

[Graybeard]

Michael .... It appears that your 'crystallised' theory has much greater and wider support than i would have initially believed ... in fact i am stonkered ....

http://www.panspermia.org/intro.htm

Cosmic Ancestry is a new theory pertaining to evolution and the origin of life on Earth. It holds that life on Earth was seeded from space,.....etc.... It is a wholly scientific, testable theory for which evidence is accumulating.

The first point, which deals with the origin of life on Earth, is known as panspermia — ......etc.........

But in the 1920s, Russian biochemist Alexander Oparin and English geneticist J.B.S. Haldane, writing independently, revived the doctrine of spontaneous generation in a more sophisticated form. In the new version, the spontaneous generation of life no longer happens on Earth, takes too long to observe in a laboratory, and has left no clues about its occurrence. Supporting this theory, in 1953, American chemists Stanley Miller and Harold Urey showed that some amino acids can be chemically produced from amonia and methane. That experiment is now famous, and the Oparin - Haldane paradigm still prevails today.

Fred Hoyle
Hoyle
Starting in the 1970s, British astronomers Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe rekindled interest in panspermia. By careful spectroscopic observation and analysis of light from distant stars they found new evidence, traces of life, in the intervening dust. They also proposed that comets, which are largely made of water-ice, carry bacterial life across galaxies and protect it from radiation damage along the way. One aspect of this research program, that interstellar dust and comets contain organic compounds, has been pursued by others as well. It is now universally accepted that space contains the "ingredients" of life. This development could be the first hint of a huge paradigm shift. But mainstream science has not accepted the hard core of modern panspermia, that whole cells seeded life on Earth.

Chandra Wickramasinghe
Wickramasinghe
Hoyle and Wickramasinghe also broadened or generalized panspermia to include a new understanding of evolution. While accepting the fact that life on Earth evolved over the course of about four billion years, they say that the genetic programs for higher evolution cannot be explained by random mutation and recombination among genes for single-celled organisms, even in that long a time: the programs must come from somewhere beyond Earth. In a nutshell, their theory holds that all of life comes from space. It incorporates the original panspermia in the same way that General Relativity incorporates Special Relativity. Their expanded theory can well be termed "strong" panspermia.

Meanwhile on a different track, in the early 1970s, British chemist and inventor James Lovelock proposed a theory that life controls Earth's environment to make it suitable for life. The theory, which William Golding suggested he call Gaia, has gained a small but growing, sometimes cultish following. However, seen from a Darwinian perspective, the Gaia theory looks teleological. It is hard to imagine how purposeful Gaian processes that take millions of years could be discovered by trial and error. In response to such criticism, Lovelock has retreated slightly from some of his earlier bold claims for Gaia. Here we endorse Lovelock's theory at its original strength. We propose that Gaian processes are not blindly found and peculiar to Earth, but are pre-existent and universal — life from space brings Gaian processes with it. We suggest that Gaian processes are necessary for higher forms of life to emerge and succeed on any planet.

James Lovelock
Lovelock
We are calling the union of Lovelock's Gaia with Hoyle and Wickramasinghe's expanded theory of panspermia Cosmic Ancestry. This account of evolution and the origin of life on Earth is profoundly different from the prevailing scientific paradigm — the theory challenges not merely the answers but the questions that are popular today. Cosmic Ancestry implies, we find, that life can only descend from ancestors at least as highly evolved as itself. And it means, we believe, that there can be no origin of life from nonliving matter in the past. Without supernatural intervention, therefore, we conclude that life must have always existed. Although these conclusions cut across the boundaries between science, philosophy, and religion, we believe they are grounded in good evidence. In fact, new data that support many aspects of Cosmic Ancestry are coming in rapidly. In the following pages we will explain how these and other recent developments support Cosmic Ancestry:

# 19 May 1995: two scientists at Cal Poly showed that bacteria can survive without any metabolism for at least 25 million years; probably they are immortal.
# 24 November 1995: The New York Times ran a story about bacteria that can survive radiation much stronger than any that Earth has ever experienced.
# 7 August 1996: NASA announced fossilized evidence of ancient life in meteorite ALH 84001 from Mars.
# 27 October 1996: geneticists showed evidence that many genes are much older than the fossil record would indicate. Subsequent studies have strengthened this finding.
# 29 July 1997: a NASA scientist announced evidence of fossilized microscopic life forms in a meteorite not from any known planet.
# Spring, 1998: a microfossil that was found in a meteorite and photographed in 1966, was recognized by a Russian microbiologist as a magnetotactic bacterium.
# Fall, 1998: NASA's public position on life-from-space shifted dramatically.
# 4 January 1999: NASA officially recognized the possibility that life on Earth comes from space.
# 19 March 1999: NASA scientists announced that two more meteorites hold even stronger fossilized evidence for past life on Mars.
# 26 April 2000: the German team operating the mass spectrometer on NASA's Stardust mission announced the detection of very large organic molecules in space. Nonbiological sources for organic molecules so large are not known.
# 19 October 2000, a team of biologists and a geologist announced the revival of bacteria that are 250 million years old, strengthening that case that bacterial spores can be immortal.
# 13 December 2000: a NASA team demonstrated that the magnetosomes in Mars meteorite ALH 84001 are biological.
# June 2002: Geneticists reported evidence that the evolutionary step from chimps to humans was assisted by viruses.
# 2 August 2004: Very convincing photos of fossilized cyanobacteria in a meteorite were reported by a NASA scientist.

The case for Cosmic Ancestry is not yet proven, of course. At this point the best reason to notice it is that sustained evolutionary progress and the origin of life on Earth are not satisfactorily accounted for by Darwinism. We will mention some of the flaws in that theory, but our primary purpose is to present Cosmic Ancestry as a viable, new scientific account of evolutionary progress and the origin of life on Earth

What do you make of this in the final analysis ?? I have no opinion yet

greg

[mkirkpatrick]

I am gladdened and not saddened by your supporting post Greg,I am not at all surprised
that "they" found signs of life in the rock,for I maintain that all is alive,and that death is an illusion,and just a word for change.

The final analysis is about recognising the "fact" that we and all of manifested existance
is and are the result of intent ideation,crystallized thought and expressed as shape and
form.


regards michael.

[Graybeard]

.....I am not at all surprised..........
that "they" found signs of life in the rock, for I maintain that all is alive, and that death is an illusion, and just a word for change.

The final analysis is about recognising the "fact" that we and all of manifested existance is and are the result of intent ideation, crystallized thought and expressed as shape and form.

regards michael.

Michael .... To 'maintain' is one thing ... To put forward a valid theory that contributes to TOE ... which after all, is our aim ... is another.

My post on Dark Matter/Energy goes against the idea that 'crystallised thought' or 'Creativity embedded in the origin of the Universe'

My next post on 'Tran/Panspermia' supports your thread starter. But the scientists (some of them very well respected) conclude that they have no proof. So at best, they can only put forward a theory... albeit... with a great deal of peripheral supporting evidence.... but no direct evidence.

Your statement is that the 'Final Analysis' is about recognising a fact ... at the least you must explain the 'mechanisms' that lead you to this fact. If I told you so-so is a fact I would not expect you or any one else to accept unless it could be demonstrated or conceived as 'demonstrable'

This is my challenge ..... What series of events or situations led you and Ben Broere to the conclusion that creativity or some form of higher order existed prior, during, and since the Big Bang .

Where do you demonstrably see the evidence of this in the Universe today that cannot be explained by other theories at least as valid ???

What UNIQUE evidence, that points this way and no other, led you to this conclusion.??

I am willing to suspend my own opinion.

greg (puzzled)

[mkirkpatrick]

Thanks again Greg,you posed a very valid question,what proof or evidence can I offer
about these claims to ,as I see them facts????

Well the first thing of the top of my head is none!Accept it or reject,you pays your money
and you takes your choice!

On reflection though,I would add that all you really need to do is "look within yourself"?

We all have the "nature of reality" embedded within our matrix,that is why all the worlds
wisdom suggest that we look within for the answer,that is where you will find it,if what i
have written here finds a corrospondence within you,accept it,if not then reject it!

We are all products of the same idea,and our interconnected to one another,the ideas
expressed here echo that fact for me,for you who knows mate/


regards michael.

[Infinite Consciousness]

GRAYBEARD,
Re the "fact" and its mechanisms;
Quantum Physics, has established that materialism is nothing but a profound illusion - a 3d hologram in which there is no actual object - only interference waves of electro-magnetic energy that consciousness brings to life as the physical-material universe.
The Materialists Belief,
As long as mankind remains arrogant in believing his mind and consciousness is something special to the universe, he is doomed to travel the path of ignorance and eternally blinded to reality. The mind and consciousness are pure physical motions and interaction of matter. It is truly difficult for human beings to accept that they are no more important to the universe than a grain of sand on the beach.
Quantum Physics establishes that an objective physical-material universe does not exist - what does exist is an organized body of waves of energy -that consciousness brings to life as the physical-material universe we see.
The matter that the materialist believes in does not exist so obviously materialism is an illusion. There is no object. Just an Illusion.
The universe to which our consciousness is no more important than a grain of sand does not in fact come into existence without our consciousness. Without our consciousness there is only waves of interference energy no universe. So how important is our consciousness to the universe ? There is nothing more important to the universe then our consciousness because the objective universe per se does not exist without it.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

QUOTE

THE END OF MATERIALISM !

WAKE - UP !

Haven't you heard? Put your Mickey Mouse ears on... Consciousness is dead, and so is the universe. I hate to inform you___this is the absolute truth...

regards

[Graybeard]

Hi Floyd (Greytooth here )

I found your post really interesting, thank you.

Are you saying that this is the source of dark Energy ?? Is this widely known and I am just behind the times ....or is this your own theory?? I find it very good, but without a laboratory and teams of physcists how has it been proven?

Greg

[mkirkpatrick]

.....................

You are mistaken,all energy,all power,all force,absolutely all,of absolutely all,comes from
and exists by,the "notion of intent",there is only one energy in the universe mister,and
that manifests within the evolutionary cycle,we are now engaged in,and exhibits itself
via the courtesy of focussed intent from within the absolute.

Keep reading this thread mister,you may just learn something!


regards michael.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Michael, why don't you just avoid me when I'm addressing someone else, because your logic is a joke. Wake up, you can't infer an emotion into logic and extract meaning, tis logically impossible___emotion isn't logic, it's the base of logic___instinct. You must infer real objects into logic for logic to function, logically. Emotions infered into logic simply produce illogical immaginations...

You are mistaken,all energy,all power,all force,absolutely all,of absolutely all,comes from
and exists by,the "notion of intent",there is only one energy in the universe mister,and
that manifests within the evolutionary cycle,we are now engaged in,and exhibits itself
via the courtesy of focussed intent from within the absolute.

Keep reading this thread mister,you may just learn something!


regards michael.

Hi Greg, and to answer your questions. Infinite thermo-hydro-dynamic matter/motion is the source of dark motion, what you call dark energy, most physicists like Davies, Penrose and Hawking refer to as the matter/motion/energy before first star, whether big bang or actual star. It is a well known deffinition of dark matter/energy, in certain obscure writings. Most dark matter/energy statements are mere undefined exaggerations. Their and my ideas are just simple reality, something real had to create the finite universe, i.e., there had to be a real matter/motion/energy buildup/evolution to the first singularity. It's physics and pure common sense. Where else is the cold quantum wave/particle and quantimizer of such linear low entropy waves, if not in a some sort of first finite high entropy singularity? This theory I'm talking about is just a further extension of other physicist's work. I'm staying within all the laws of physics. Oh, I may make a mistake once in a while, that's true, as I'm only human. Just point it out to me. How has it been proven? Hawking calculated the entire decay of the universe[static state] back in the `70's. I'm just putting all the laws and logic of physics together, in one whole picture. My only discovery is, it can be done and how.

As far as it being widely known, nothing in the age of deconstruction is any longer widely known, but if you search, the facts are there, I assure you... You are not behind the times, it's just everybody being caught in false new-age modernism's true march to reality... Mass density slowing the speed of light has been known since the 1800's, by witnessing it flow slower through liquids___the physics is well founded. My most provocative knowledge of it was when a friend showed me a tv rock, ulexite. It's a mineral; NaCaB5O6(OH)6-5H2O, Hydrated Sodium Calcium Borate Hydroxide. This was way back in the early `60's. The piece was sawed 2 inches long and a quater inch square. It's a cloudy transparent mineral. When he put it on a letter in the newspaper, we watched the quantum packets of electrons/photons slowly raise the letter A to the surfact, just a wobbling and vibrating. The letter appeared in tack at the top surface, perfectly formed. I know from this stupid little example, a bit about physics foundations. It amazed me so much, I've been studying it ever since, and some before... Proof, I've seen it with my own eyes. Scientific proof is easy. Just shine light through a dense medium, and accurately measure it___it's been done, many, many times. As far as the rest of what I said implies, I'm only extending the laws of physics, math and logics...

sincerely,
Lloyd

Hi Floyd (Greytooth here )

I found your post really interesting, thank you.

Are you saying that this is the source of dark Energy ?? Is this widely known and I am just behind the times ....or is this your own theory?? I find it very good, but without a laboratory and teams of physcists how has it been proven?

Greg