Testy, Testy....
>>>>Time is relative. Space is relative.
To what????
To all that is infinite and pure and prime and perfect which is all that is ONE (1) where everything in creation proceeds forth from.>>>>
>>Sorry, but that's not how relativity works. You may define your own system and champion its advantages, and if you're successful others may also adopt your system.>>
Give it up Bill.
Nobody can claim to champion, claim or control any system!!
Get real brother!!
Why do you insist on waving these conditional torches of light, truth and energy at me and others?
Don't you believe in the ONE source that is INFINITE and PURE and TRUE???
As for time, it's "relative to the present."
Without the infinite NOW - ie. present moment - time would not exist even as the relative illusion that it is.
As for space, it, too, is "relative to that which is infinite, formless, unrestrained" or else there'd be nothing against which to define to/from.
NO LIMITS vs. LIMITS - equates to THE ONE SOURCE that is limitless versus THE EFFECT from that ONE SOURCE which has form, limits and boundaries.
Pick up any review of Einstein's Theory of Relativity and you will find it chocked full of relative references to things which are "at rest" which, stipped bare, equates to the essence of what is motionless, formless - ie. infinite.
Take for example....
>>http://www.bartleby.com/173/5.html
Nevertheless, there are two general facts which at the outset speak very much in favour of the validity of the principle of relativity. Even though classical mechanics does not supply us with a sufficiently broad basis for the theoretical presentation of all physical phenomena, still we must grant it a considerable measure of truth, since it supplies us with the actual motions of the heavenly bodies with a delicacy of detail little short of wonderful. The principle of relativity must therefore apply with great accuracy in the domain of mechanics. But that a principle of such broad generality should hold with such exactness in one domain of phenomena, and yet should be invalid for another, is a priori not very probable.>>
So now we move to examples which attempt to present or confine Einstein's theory with restrictions and limitations - next paragraph from the same source....
>>We now proceed to the second argument, to which, moreover, we shall return later. If the principle of relativity (in the restricted sense) does not hold, then the Galileian co-ordinate systems K, K', K'', etc., which are moving uniformly relative to each other, will not be equivalent for the description of natural phenomena. In this case we should be constrained to believe that natural laws are capable of being formulated in a particularly simple manner, and of course only on condition that, from amongst all possible Galileian co-ordinate systems, we should have chosen one (K0) of a particular state of motion as our body of reference. We should then be justified (because of its merits for the description of natural phenomena) in calling this system absolutely at rest, and all other Galileian systems K in motion. If, for instance, our embankment were the system K0, then our railway carriage would be a system K, relative to which less simple laws would hold than with respect to K0>>
The key is in this ONE sentence.....
>>We should then be justified (because of its merits for the description of natural phenomena) in calling this system absolutely at rest, and all other Galileian systems K in motion.>>
Einstein's theory of relativity is can only be "justified" when there is something motionless, at rest - ie. an extention or part of all that is infinite - which can provide a point of reference against which this relativity is based.
If there isn't A POINT or SOME FORM which can be assumed to be AT REST at some time then the general theory breaks down.
This is the general essence of unity which underlies the universe which is part of His perfect order which is ONE, prime, simple and connected with ZERO gaps or points of separation for everything threads, etc.
>>But to call that system relativity is simply sowing confusion. We're back to the Humpty-Dumpty world in which words mean whatever we choose them to mean without regard to their common usage. Is that really your intent here?>>
If your world appears to be Humpty-Dumpty then that's fine, Bill. If you world does not appear to be Humpty-Dumpty, then that's fine, too. You will receive ideas, thoughts and energies which map to your particular frame of reference.
The more relative and conditional that "frame of reference" is the more time and energy you will expend trying to maintain this sense of claim or ownership to this "relative-conditional" frame of reference.
The less relative and conditional that "frame of reference" more time and energy you will have to receive and share ideas and energy with others for you aren't wasting it trying to prove, claim or defend this illusion of relativity.
I believe CWG maps to this same prime, pure track where conditions, restrictions and limitations fall away into ONE.
>>Here's just one aspect of relativity which doesn't fit with your new definition: Neither time nor space are constants. The "size" of space varies. The "duration" of time varies. And they do so according to precise mathematical relationships which have nothing to do with prime numbers. >>
I didn't say time or space were constants. I simply stated they were "relative to" that which is infinite - see above. And if you've read much Einstein you will discover very quickly that at the core what he was receiving and sharing with the world was deeply spiritual and infinite.
Relax Bill!!
Put down the ax. Bury those conditions, restrictions and limitations. For your divine soul knows NO LIMITS!!! Let your soul teach you these things which already exist. Let your soul enter into communion with your mind in ways that reveal the truth behind who you AREADY ARE to begin with!! We are all children of ONE God who is our ONE Lord God in Heaven. I know Him as Jesus Christ. Others may know Him as something else. But it's the same ONE energy.
119293!! |
