Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: comments/ramblings

Expand Messages
  • genometric
    Ok, I get the SS idea. SS0 would be the void. SS1 would be the universe, SS2 galaxies, SS3 solar systems, SS4 planets?, SS5 people? SS6 atoms? Would that be
    Message 1 of 19 , Dec 10, 2004
      Ok, I get the SS idea. SS0 would be the void. SS1 would be the
      universe, SS2 galaxies, SS3 solar systems, SS4 planets?, SS5 people?
      SS6 atoms?

      Would that be the right progression?

      If SS0 were the void, the way you describe it, there would be
      rotation. That belies that something is governing the void as well. I
      see the void as infinite chaos. An infinite jumble of frequencies and
      awareness of those frequencies. That is SS0 and the quantity 0 is
      everything, but represents nothing. If the awareness is to organize
      the chaos of frequencies, then it goes on from SS1 since there lies
      the beginning of labeling quantities and categorizing them. My theory
      is that this universe is awareness(God). The awareness, which we are
      a part of has made order out of the chaos by labeling the chaotic
      energy frequencies that exist in the void. If a frequency is not
      labeled, it is an unknown part of The Chaos. Once the frequency is
      labeled, it can become part of The Order as long as the awareness
      which labeled it chooses to categorize the frequencies based on their
      value, which is labeled according to the wavelength of that
      frequency. So, it would be the same awareness for each universe in
      the void. And basically, we have two choices for ourselves, since the
      complete awareness(God) has the ability to do the same. It is the
      choice to either flow into the chaos and just be nothing, or, to
      organize the frequencies and create order. If you create order by
      choice, then you have a means to set up laws. You have the ability to
      know outcomes of situations and set up cyclic systems that are
      predictable, yet have an infinite amount of variables. That gives you
      the idea that new things are always happening, but, things can happen
      numerous times, given the same set of variables.

      Max
      --- In hameltech@yahoogroups.com, Dell Coleman <decoleman@p...> wrote:
      > In Smith's formulation time is a field with a contribution from all
      the
      > rotating masses (inertial and newtonian)
      > Since you can do a /dt operation with respect to any time
      component
      > (or may a partial deriviative) you can see the
      > motion in all the component slices. So you can conceive of a slice
      of
      > time associated with a give time field generator
      > The universe is the biggest, galaxies smaller, solar system
      smaller,
      > planets smaller, wave forms smaller yet. You can view this
      > as a stack of time-field containers. Smith defines the tempic field
      in
      > terms of spin or rotation and one revolution is a fundamental unit
      > The time for a galactic rotation is something like 250 million
      years (I
      > didnt look it up). Galaxies must be rotating around the center of
      the
      > universe, if Smith's notion holds true. I've been looking for a
      number
      > for the rotation time of galaxies around the universal center but
      cant
      > find it. It has to be many billions of years per rotation. If we
      look at
      > SS0 the container of universes, universes will be rotating around a
      > center of spin and one rotation would likely be in the many
      trillions of
      > years. So that is why SS -1, SS -2 and SS -3 ... SS -n , the God
      > spaces, would need a _long_ attention span ...
      >
      > DC
      >
      > genometric wrote:
      >
      > >
      > > I have to respond to this because I am not quite understanding
      this
      > > smith space concept. The stack of embedded feild spaces...
      > > Is this like certain wavelengths that determine the size or scale
      of
      > > objects? I wasn't really getting the concept of the nature of the
      > > spaces was such that it would take a god-like being to take
      interest
      > > in them. Not quite sure what you mean by that...
      > > I do understand the correllations of the Smith Spaces and what I
      was
      > > saying about perceivable values.
      > > Also, about the millions of levels below us and only three above
      us.
      > > I don't think the direction actually matters, only the frequency
      and
      > > it's position in relative to the other frequencies. I am saying
      there
      > > are points on a scale, much like the Chakra system and the levels
      of
      > > awareness that they hold. The lowest and highest chakras are the
      > > portals into other dimensions of awareness. The Chakras have their
      > > own color and sonic frequencies like on a piano scale. The lower
      > > chakras of decreased awareness make up the lower notes while the
      > > higher notes have a higher awareness therefore higher awareness.
      Once
      > > you reach the Crown chakra, to go higher, you must change octaves.
      > > You have to change dimensions. So, there is a factor of direction,
      > > above and below, left or right, forward or backward. In order to
      > > eliminate direction, you could use spheres, because they are
      > > everywhere at once, therefore eliminating the need of a limited
      lower
      > > dimensional scale. This way, the dimensions can coexist without
      there
      > > being the conflict of direction. Instead of being above, below,
      front
      > > bact etc., they are just outward expansions. Pulses of awareness
      > > eminating outwards from the zero point.
      > > In the void there is awareness. The void is infinite. If the
      > > awareness in the void chooses to manifest it's awareness in an
      > > outward spherical pulse, it does so. Seeing these bubbles from the
      > > within the void, no matter how far they expand, they will always
      look
      > > the same size. The void, since it is infinte, has an infinite
      amount
      > > of direction, time and space, yet since it is the void, none of
      those
      > > factors actually exist until they are manifested by the awareness
      in
      > > enclosed spaces seperate, but within the void. :P
      > > The amount of space, or frequencies within those Universes, is
      > > relative to perception.
      > >
      > > Whoah, had to stop that because I thought my head might explode.
      > > But I will go back to the number scale and the zero detail. Like I
      > > was saying, we just use numbers to give value and definition to
      > > quantifiable space. Even if we didn't have numbers there would
      still
      > > be the space and the quantities. If everything is made up of
      > > frequencies on a scale of notes, the notes and the spaces are
      > > quantifiable values. Therefore, dimensions, which are levels of
      > > spacial awareness are like octaves which have no inherant numeric
      > > value, only inherant quantitative value. I don't know why, but in
      > > order for us to make sense of quantity, we must label the
      quantities
      > > with numbers, or colors, or frequencies. Now I know why, because
      > > without the labeling, it is all chaos. It is much like a filing
      > > system. If you didn't label the files, you wouldn't know what the
      > > file was until you looked in it. Then you would have all this
      chaos
      > > of uncategorized and unorganized files. There would be no way to
      tell
      > > them apart and you couldn't identify them which means you can't
      use
      > > them efficiently and reliably. This, in truth would be chaos and
      > > order in a perfect analogy. That is the order out of chaos. In the
      > > void, there is the infinite chaos of the individual universes. No
      way
      > > to tell them apart from looking at them from the void. They are
      all
      > > the same on the outside. This would be the chaos. In these
      > > containers, the jumble of unidentfiable frequencies that are
      > > everywhere, all the time, infinitely, can be experienced in
      > > seperation from the rest of the chaos. This would allow the
      awareness
      > > to label them, categorize them and create a working systemical
      > > database. In essence, to create a harmony and balance out of the
      > > chaos of infinite imblanace. But then again, I don't know for
      sure,
      > > what I'm offering is just a theory.
      > >
      > > -Max
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Header Codes
      > > 11111: Theory, untested Hamel ideas
      > > 11112: Building and balancing, progress
      > > 11113: David Hamel reports
      > > 11114: Non-hamel mysteries and energies
      > > OT: "Off Topic"
      > >
      > > Post message: hameltech@yahoogroups.com
      > > Subscribe: hameltech-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > > Unsubscribe: hameltech-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > > List owner: hameltech-owner@yahoogroups.com
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > *Yahoo! Groups Sponsor*
      > > ADVERTISEMENT
      > >
      <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=1291jk578/M=295196.4901138.6071305.300117
      6/D=groups/S=1707208735:HM/EXP=1102829305/A=2128215/R=0/SIG=10se96mf6/
      *http://companion.yahoo.com>
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
      ------
      > > *Yahoo! Groups Links*
      > >
      > > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
      > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hameltech/
      > >
      > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > > hameltech-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > > <mailto:hameltech-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?
      subject=Unsubscribe>
      > >
      > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
      > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
      > >
      > >
    • Dell Coleman
      Max, Very close --- The hierarchy isnt fixed exactly since some other place may have spin generators we dont have. Vortexes and cyclonic systems might be in
      Message 2 of 19 , Dec 11, 2004
        Max,

        Very close --- The hierarchy isnt fixed exactly since some other place
        may have spin generators we dont have. Vortexes and cyclonic systems
        might be in the stack if you are under/near one. It's harder to
        characterize matter but atoms and electrons have spin.....
        SS0 is nothing-at-all, undifferentiated nothinginess. No chaos, even the
        old "nothing is something" doesnt work. I'm happy enough to start from
        there as Smith does when he says the Creator induces a spin. The section
        on spin centers makes it clear that one spin will induce a counter spin,
        and so multiple universes get created.

        DC

        genometric wrote:

        >
        > Ok, I get the SS idea. SS0 would be the void. SS1 would be the
        > universe, SS2 galaxies, SS3 solar systems, SS4 planets?, SS5 people?
        > SS6 atoms?
        >
        > .....



        > Max
      • genometric
        I would like to see some of Smiths work, so I can get a feel for what he is really saying and see if it makes any sense to me. To me it seems that SS0, the
        Message 3 of 19 , Dec 11, 2004
          I would like to see some of Smiths work, so I can get a feel for what
          he is really saying and see if it makes any sense to me. To me it
          seems that SS0, the nothing-at-all just seems like nothing at all
          because there is no light, therefore no perception. I think the void
          is the chaos, but you don't feel it because you cannot perceive
          within the void, unless you have an anchor, or a sphere to move
          around in. Not to move around inside the void, but to move around
          inside the sphere because it has boundries, thereby allowing the
          awareness to create other things such as spin. After it manifests
          itself as a sphere, it duplicates and creates the vesica piscis. It
          divides like a cell, but doesn't divide completely, unless it wants
          to create a seperate universe. So, there is this nothingness and the
          awareness of that nothingness. The awareness creates light so that it
          can see the chaos and start to make order from it. I don't see how
          something can come from nothing. I believe that there is no such
          thing as true nothingness. It doesn't make sense to me that the
          awareness in SS0, the nothing-at-all space, manifests something out
          of nothing. I would think there has to be some transformation or
          orginization of things that are already there, but so chaotic that
          nothing ever forms.

          -Max
          --- In hameltech@yahoogroups.com, Dell Coleman <decoleman@p...> wrote:
          > Max,
          >
          > Very close --- The hierarchy isnt fixed exactly since some other
          place
          > may have spin generators we dont have. Vortexes and cyclonic
          systems
          > might be in the stack if you are under/near one. It's harder to
          > characterize matter but atoms and electrons have spin.....
          > SS0 is nothing-at-all, undifferentiated nothinginess. No chaos,
          even the
          > old "nothing is something" doesnt work. I'm happy enough to start
          from
          > there as Smith does when he says the Creator induces a spin. The
          section
          > on spin centers makes it clear that one spin will induce a counter
          spin,
          > and so multiple universes get created.
          >
          > DC
          >
          > genometric wrote:
          >
          > >
          > > Ok, I get the SS idea. SS0 would be the void. SS1 would be the
          > > universe, SS2 galaxies, SS3 solar systems, SS4 planets?, SS5
          people?
          > > SS6 atoms?
          > >
          > > .....
          >
          >
          >
          > > Max
        • Dell Coleman
          Max See http://www.rexresearch.com/smith/newsci~1.htm there are more references in the posts of the last two weeks Cheers, DC
          Message 4 of 19 , Dec 11, 2004
            Max

            See

            http://www.rexresearch.com/smith/newsci~1.htm


            there are more references in the posts of the last two weeks

            Cheers,

            DC


            genometric wrote:

            >
            > I would like to see some of Smiths work, so I can get a feel for what
            > he is really saying and see if it makes any sense to me.
            >
            > -Max
          • genometric
            The concepts are interesting, but I would like to see a little better sourcing. I have not personally seen anything that would lead me to believe there
            Message 5 of 19 , Dec 11, 2004
              The concepts are interesting, but I would like to see a little better
              sourcing. I have not personally seen anything that would lead me to
              believe there actually are other advanced beings who are just giving
              us this knowledge. I am just not accepting the ideas that things are
              just being created. To me it makes more sense that all frequencies
              already existed, but were unidentified by awareness until there was
              light. Then, from there they are organized and put to use by
              awareness to form structures. Basically, the awareness weaved the
              coherent fabric we now perceive as our universe out of the infinite
              chaos of frequencies.

              -Max

              --- In hameltech@yahoogroups.com, Dell Coleman <decoleman@p...> wrote:
              > Max
              >
              > See
              >
              > http://www.rexresearch.com/smith/newsci~1.htm
              >
              >
              > there are more references in the posts of the last two weeks
              >
              > Cheers,
              >
              > DC
              >
              >
              > genometric wrote:
              >
              > >
              > > I would like to see some of Smiths work, so I can get a feel for
              what
              > > he is really saying and see if it makes any sense to me.
              > >
              > > -Max
            • esa juhani ruoho
              ... nature spoke to him, for he listened to nature, whilst in nature. must seem quite difficult to use intuitive faculties unconsciously when we re most of us
              Message 6 of 19 , Feb 14, 2007
                --- In hameltech@yahoogroups.com, Dell Coleman <decoleman@...> wrote:

                > > - Somehow I would like to get out there and touch it. When we are
                > > earthbound it limits the ability to observe with clarity. I remember
                > > someone talking{writing?}about Victor Schauberger and how he sort of
                > > meditated up his ideas.

                nature spoke to him, for he listened to nature, whilst in nature. must
                seem quite difficult to use intuitive faculties unconsciously when
                we're most of us stuck inside a concrete box, looking at a plastic
                box, and pressing squares. however, nature never changes so if you
                actually are looking for what schauberger and russell gleaned from
                nature, go and meet some trees! .. ohwell
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.