[N0B0DY]

Ok, I get it. All things that are, or can be, "are a movement" and this implies that without this "illusion" of movement, things cannot exist or be anything. I think Einstein as well supported this view, but like anyone else felt the need to conform to realistic ideals.

In his metaphysical assessment, he suggests that objects are spatially-extended, and when I think of this notion and correlate it to the motion created from gravitation, the referred (matter) below can be replaced with space. Then we have a two-fold relationship of time-dependent space and space-dependent objects; which in turn is suggestive to me as time being the domineering factor of creating this illusion of objects moving over time which would necessarily be inclusive of the energy-field densities because there could only really be one time-independent density which cannot exist as per the above considerations, correct?

"When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter. Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended (as fields). In this way the concept 'empty space' loses its meaning. The field thus becomes an irreducible element of physical description, irreducible in the same sense as the concept of matter (particles) in the theory of Newton. The physical reality of space is represented by a field whose components are continuous functions of four independent variables - the co-ordinates of space and time. Since the theory of general relatively implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundament part, nor can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high." - (Albert Einstein, Metaphysics of Relativity, 1950)

[N0B0DY]

"The present is what is here and now, we cannot deny that we are here and now in this present moment which is gone and a part of the past faster[in milliseconds] then we can be conscious of it, but the awareness of it is always there, and that is what our true essential nature Is."

If we extend the above-noted passage of time, to no time at all, would that erase the concept of absolute time? The implications from above are suggestive of a time-dependent consciousness.

Also, is there a source I can look at that supports awareness being different than consciousness. I'm really having trouble distinguishing the two, and how exactly does the process of awareness function whilst remaining changless - I think I would classify that state as unaware or unconscious, no?

Thanks, Drifter

[Drifter]

All "things" can be reduced to frequencies as their core essence correct?
The sine wave is a display of these "frequencies" [fields]is it not?
Human nature Dr. Einstein was very familiar with, was he not?
Anyone thought insane by ones peers, even today, would have trouble finding employment, correct?
Is it to much to consider why Uncle Albert remained quite about all that suspected?
It is relatively un-sane, from a scientific perspective, isnt it?
Time is a relative construct.
Remove the observer and only observing remains. Who is "observing", no one.

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

Ok, I get it. All things that are, or can be, "are a movement" and this implies that without this "illusion" of movement, things cannot exist or be anything. I think Einstein as well supported this view, but like anyone else felt the need to conform to realistic ideals.

In his metaphysical assessment, he suggests that objects are spatially-extended, and when I think of this notion and correlate it to the motion created from gravitation, the referred (matter) below can be replaced with space. Then we have a two-fold relationship of time-dependent space and space-dependent objects; which in turn is suggestive to me as time being the domineering factor of creating this illusion of objects moving over time which would necessarily be inclusive of the energy-field densities because there could only really be one time-independent density which cannot exist as per the above considerations, correct?

"When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter. Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended (as fields). In this way the concept 'empty space' loses its meaning. The field thus becomes an irreducible element of physical description, irreducible in the same sense as the concept of matter (particles) in the theory of Newton. The physical reality of space is represented by a field whose components are continuous functions of four independent variables - the co-ordinates of space and time. Since the theory of general relatively implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundament part, nor can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high." - (Albert Einstein, Metaphysics of Relativity, 1950)

[Drifter]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=hwyuQbIb0Xs

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

"The present is what is here and now, we cannot deny that we are here and now in this present moment which is gone and a part of the past faster[in milliseconds] then we can be conscious of it, but the awareness of it is always there, and that is what our true essential nature Is."

If we extend the above-noted passage of time, to no time at all, would that erase the concept of absolute time? The implications from above are suggestive of a time-dependent consciousness.

Also, is there a source I can look at that supports awareness being different than consciousness. I'm really having trouble distinguishing the two, and how exactly does the process of awareness function whilst remaining changless - I think I would classify that state as unaware or unconscious, no?

Thanks, Drifter

[N0B0DY]

Yes, I think perhaps we can take things more slowly so my brain can follow along, if we have any point-by-point premises to attach and the reasons thereof.

No-one observing nothing I can agree with according to my understanding and experience of what serves as the basis for unconsciousness.

That time is relative and all things are dependent upon time/motion in order to exist as is; it suggests that the absolute universe or omniverse is not. Hence, the "one" would then be categorically equivalent to none, would it not?

[Drifter]

Two but not two.
"I am That I am"
Tat Tvam Asi
Being Consciousness Bliss

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

Yes, I think perhaps we can take things more slowly so my brain can follow along, if we have any point-by-point premises to attach and the reasons thereof.

No-one observing nothing I can agree with according to my understanding and experience of what serves as the basis for unconsciousness.

That time is relative and all things are dependent upon time/motion in order to exist as is; it suggests that the absolute universe or omniverse is not. Hence, the "one" would then be categorically equivalent to none, would it not?

[Drifter]

"Disciple: Master, I have heard all that you have said and my mind is troubled.

Buddha: Bring me your troubled mind and I will fix it for you.

Disciple: Master, I have looked for my mind and I cannot find it?

Buddha: There you see, I have fixed it for you."

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

Yes, I think perhaps we can take things more slowly so my brain can follow along, if we have any point-by-point premises to attach and the reasons thereof.

No-one observing nothing I can agree with according to my understanding and experience of what serves as the basis for unconsciousness.

That time is relative and all things are dependent upon time/motion in order to exist as is; it suggests that the absolute universe or omniverse is not. Hence, the "one" would then be categorically equivalent to none, would it not?

[N0B0DY]

In the video, at the absolute level would the black background be the same as what is depicted in the animation?

I can see that the blockage in the animation is a sensory illusion that separates into two, and that the sphere could represent the one, but universally or omniversally the sphere should merge with the background, no?

[N0B0DY]

Mushin...omit the seeking. Understood, Drifter.

Thanks again.

[Drifter]

The Background and the sphere represents Awareness and sensation producing relative consciousness.
When Awareness [Father] knows Sensation [Mother] consciousness [Son/sun] is born.
The 'comming together' of the masculine and the feminine aspect as the cosmic egg from which relative-consciousness arises. A trinity synthesized by life which pervades them all.
Matter is the vehicle for the manifestation of the soul on this plane of existence and the soul on a higher plane of existence is the vehicle for the manifestation of spirit. These represent the Trinity.

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

In the video, at the absolute level would the black background be the same as what is depicted in the animation?

I can see that the blockage in the animation is a sensory illusion that separates into two, and that the sphere could represent the one, but universally or omniversally the sphere should merge with the background, no?