| Author |
Message |
   
Lth
Member
Post Number: 88
Registered: 06-2010
| | Posted on Sunday, December 19, 2010 - 12:56 pm: | 
|
> Then you didn't read the German quote I posted. It seems clear to me. |
Hector
Member
Post Number: 633
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2010 - 02:56 am: |
|
If I'm not mistaken, contiguous belts like our material belt and the expansion belt do rotate in opposite directions, one rotates clockwise and the other one, counter-clockwise. If that's the case, it could be quite possible that one belt expands while the other one compresses. |
Smukhuti
Member
Post Number: 489
Registered: 06-2009
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2010 - 03:18 am: |
|
Hi Thomas,
I am no German expert, but after checking those lines, it appears to me that the 2nd and 3rd sentence refers to a process that happens rather than the process that is happening right now. I feel that "Das Universum als Ganzes" in the first sentence means the whole Universe including the ram belt and not just MUB. Maybe some German speaker can confirm this definitively.
If, Universe here is meant as the Universe up to and including the ram belt, then the Universe simultaneously going through a continuous speed expansion phase (we are well within 47.6 trillion year mark of beginning of deceleration - at about 46 trillion years) and deceleration of the expanding ram belt contradict each other.
Now, there is a reason why I feel that "the entire Universe up to and including the ram belt" is meant:
*** Unofficial, unauthorized translation *******
1. Die Anfangsexpansion erfolgt 47,6 x 10 hoch 12 Jahre lang mit 147facher Lichtgeschwindigkeit und ergibt die Erstausdehnung von 7 x 10 hoch 15 Lichtjahren.
2. Die verlangsamte Expansion dauert 107,9 x 10hoch12 Jahre lang und erzeugt die Restausdehnung von 1,4 x 10 hoch 15 Lichtjahren.
3. Somit betragt die gesamte Expansionsausdehnung wuhrend 155,52 x 10 hoch 12 Jahren insgesamt 8,4 x 10hoch15 Lichtjahre.
1. The initial expansion in 47.6 x 10^12 years with 147 times light speed results in the initial expansion of 7 x 10^15 light years.
2. The slowed expansion takes 107.9 x 10^12 years and produces the residual expansion of 1.4 x 10 ^ 15 light years.
3. Thus, the total expansion expansion during 155.52 x 10^12 years is of 8.4 x 10^15 light years.
**************************************
Guido calculates the maximum amplitude of the Universe by adding the expansion in the first 47.6 trillion years at constant speed with decelerated expansion in the subsequent 107.9 years. Then, further ahead in the article, he added this expansion value (8.4 x 10^15 LY) to the size of the Universe that is formed just after the first non-plus ultra explosion (about 14*10^63 LY).
Would someone calculate the resultant radii increase of a concentric sphere by adding the initial radius of the outer sphere with the radii increase of a inner sphere or vice-versa? Obviously not. Either,
A) Guido has added the initial radius of the inner sphere(MUB) with the delta increase of the same inner sphere (MUB), or,
B) Guido has added the initial radius of the outer sphere (ram belt) with the delta increase of the same outer sphere (ram belt).
Why I am rejecting probability A is because the initial radius value of 14*10^63 LY is in no comparison with the size of MUB and hence cannot be MUB.
Probability B is the only option if and only if the ram belt expands by 8.4 x 10^15 LY which, in turn, is only possible if contraction of ram belt starts on or after 47.6 trillion years and not effective now.
The thing that is unknown here is that we are not sure if the expansion of 8.4 x 10^15 LY is wholly contributed by the MUB or evenly/proportionally distributed between the 7 belts.
Moderators, please reject my previous post 488 in this thread
Salome.
Suv
|
Mahigitam
Member
Post Number: 299
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2010 - 09:39 pm: |
|
Contact Report 143, Sunday, the 22nd of March 1981
"In the interior center of the Universe is the real Ur-Core, which grows with each fall-back of the Creation, so of the whole Universe, doubling itself in size...
Irregular decrease in speed, which amounts to 147 times the speed of light in its starting point and expansion point..
Ur-Space Belt itself is that part of the Universe from which the expansion of the Creation occurs..
Mass of the entire Creation grows, always doubling itself in size..
Central core - binds the existing Universe to itself and prevents too great of an expansion..
Central core represents the central sun of the Universe, while the Ur-Space and the Ur-Core carry out their existence as a central universe-galaxy..
Other than the Ur-Core and the Central core, all other belts of the Universe are usable for all life forms and are passable if they have the necessary means for it..
Creation Belt which still expands at 147 times the speed of light.."
I dont understand it either, i want to put my head into the mystery of Creation after i have read everything about Creation in german material.hope my above post adds something to the discussion
What a thing is relationship, if we closely observe, relationship is much more subtle, more swift than lightning, more vast than earth, for relationship is life - Jiddu Krishnamurthy
|
Mqhassan
Member
Post Number: 111
Registered: 06-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2010 - 09:30 am: |
|
Hello Everybody,
I had presented a graph that shows clearly how the expansion process happens and differs between the Material Belt and the Creation belt.
Uploading it again so we can discuss this graph
in the forthcoming letters
The Creational belt is still expanding at 147C (noting that the values for the speed of light differ) and will reach a minimum value of 336.2 Km/s in the Mateial belt at 107.9 trillion years (17T)into Creation while the Creational belt reaches that value at 155.52 trillion years (24.5T), where the two curves meet to have a common value. From there expansion stops and a contraction phase begins. (Hence every layer is expanding at its value for the speed of light which changes with time ! )
Salome
Mohammed |
Smukhuti
Member
Post Number: 491
Registered: 06-2009
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2010 - 09:48 pm: |
|
"Creation Belt which still expands at 147 times the speed of light"...that suggest that the entire span of the expanding Universe up to and including the ram belt is contributed by the expanding MUB i.e. it expand from 2.7465 *10^15 LY to 11.1465 *10^15 LY that pushes the ram belt outward by 8.4 * *10^15 LY . I would rather ask Billy regarding this in the next round.
Salome.
Suv
|
Ramirez
Member
Post Number: 539
Registered: 06-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2010 - 09:51 pm: |
|
Greetings Mohammed,
With the above diagram and numbers .... does that mean,
If the universe is conceptualized as an egg shaped bubble it's outer shell (expansion belt) would eventually radiate outwards 107.9 trillion light years measured from the central core of the egg .... is that correct ?
That's rather a lot of space to explore.
Then within the same Creation exist millions, billions .... who knows ???? or more such universes suspended in a void which at a guess is composed of vibrational particle matter layers even finer than the superfinematerial of spirit level which is the so called mental/mentalism/all in all/universal consciousness level the spirit or spiritform Creation is composed of.
Like individual cells which make up an organism.
This void comprises the substance of the Absolute Absolutum within which Creations exist.
Then there are .... how many Creations existing within the Absolute Absolutum ?
As above so below. We and our surrounding universe exist within a Creation, yet Creations exist in the same way within a finer realm the Absolute Absolutum and it is this realm Absolute Absolutum which apparently has always existed seemingly without any begining, an exceptionally difficult concept to grasp 
Cheers.
|
Abdiel
Member
Post Number: 5
Registered: 11-2010
| | Posted on Friday, December 24, 2010 - 05:08 pm: |
|
The scientists found evidence that show that this universe originated from another univere.
This support the teory of Billy Meyer that say that this universe originated from an UR-Universe.
source: http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3706 |
Abdiel
Member
Post Number: 6
Registered: 11-2010
| | Posted on Saturday, December 25, 2010 - 09:57 am: |
|
Another source about this subject is this web page in Spanish.
http://www.mysteryplanet.com.ar/site/?p=2529 |
Edward
Member
Post Number: 1967
Registered: 05-2002
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2010 - 01:32 am: |
|
Hi Shawn and Hector...
Just a supplement.
It would be best to say, that it is also dependent on One's writing STYLE (and
preference).
One that is more Evolved in Writing would write in a more Styleful,
Respectable, Dignified and with Reverence manner(/fashion).
"IT", is to many writers, expressed very HARSH; when speaking of a 'subject'
when the mentioned can be expressed with more Subtitle Accentuation.
Thus, we do not per se have to....define Creation as an 'IT'!
Creation HERSELF, should be treated with, as I mentioned: Respectable,
Dignified and with Reverence.
We should NOT make Creation sound like a 'Cousin IT'(of the Addams Family!).
But, again: everyone their own preference!
As you can notice, there is MORE Logic to the mentioned than One would assume.
Edward. |
Proficus
New member
Post Number: 1
Registered: 10-2010
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2010 - 04:42 pm: |
|
It seems to me when some people speak about the Creation, they somehow 'see' it as a person or 'godlike' entity with gender.
Nothing would be further from the truth.
The Creation is the biggest mass of Energy (Spiritual, Fine-Material or Course-Material) in the Universe.
The Creation is the universal-consciousness which is in everything, from the biggest galaxy down to the smallest fish on the bottom of the ocean.
It's absolutely balanced between positive and negative and absolutely neutral towards everything which exists inside its Universe.
The Creation has ITS laws and ITS recommendations which are valid for all and everything in its Universe.
The Creation is such a vast entity that only merely the very basics can be grasped.
It's much more important for the human on this Earth to focus on his / her evolution in the present in total self-responsibility.
My two cents.
Jacob (phaethonsfire) |
Jacob
Member
Post Number: 527
Registered: 01-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2010 - 06:27 am: |
|
This has nothing to do with preference, the Creation is simply not a he or she, nor can be addressed like that.
The Creation is an 'IT' in the lack of a better word.
When I call the Creation 'IT', this is not out of lack of respect for the Creation, its because as a simple human being I cant grasp, anything more then the very basics which are known to us through the spirit teachings/lessons.
Writing about the spiritual teachings, the Creation, its laws and recommendations, the spirit and everything related should be free of any personal preference, style, influences and opinions, no matter how the truth sounds.
Any influence like that, how small ever can lead to corruption and falsification of the truth and teachings.
Address the truth as it is, not as you want it to be.
Jacob
Salome,
Jacob
Saalome gam naan ben uurda, gan njjber asaala hesporoona!
|
Edward
Member
Post Number: 1969
Registered: 05-2002
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2010 - 09:47 am: |
|
Jacob....
If you read my/the previous postings on this subject you will know that I
mentioned: Expression - Figure of Speech -; and NOT saying that Creation IS
Female or otherwise.[I am fully aware of Creation's composition...]
If anyone thinks otherwise, and are not sure of the case, than, they should
just ASK what is meant.
This has NOTHINK to do with Falsifying the Teachings or whatever! That is
quite far fetched.
If you (or whomever) want to call Creation an IT...that is YOUR preference!
NOT mine.
If IT is your Truth (or whomever), so-be-it.
I am NOT saying that the female aspect SHE....is my Truth, as I mentioned:
Expression - Figure of Speech - (if you can comprehend?), that is all. It
should not be blown out of proportions, as some individuals would like to see
it.
I would rather Express Creation in a much more Subtle Accentuation. STILL
within the framework of - Respectable, Dignified and with Reverence -; surely
not related to the word IT. Again: if others prefer otherwise, that is their
choice.
Edward. |
Sitkaa
Member
Post Number: 406
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2010 - 01:04 pm: |
|
Creation can be seen as many things, as Jacob pointed out, depending upon one's perspective. For instance, my perspective on creation may differ somewhat from someone else's, even though it is completely amenable and agreeable to what perspective it mirrors. Here is how I see it:
The creational impetus originates through the process of love.
Through this Creation develops a framework, a set of universally creative natural laws, and reaches back into itself and finds love.
Through this, Creation relates. It relates to itself, to what it has been, to what it becoming. It relates wholistic scales with subsets of itself. The concepts of time and space develop thereby.
Through various (lawful) processes, such as mirroring and growthful breathing, and concepts for which I know not names, creation sequentially develops the multitude of physical universes.
And Creation always relates, yet again, and again, and again, again and again.
In relating to itself, it comes to conceptually recognize itself, and using the impetus of the creative process, life as we know it arises,
Life which is ever striving for further growth, further understanding, further evolution, further creation.
At least for me, love is the commonality throughout the entire development of the paradigm. I spose Creation is something fun upon which to ponder, but there is more to it than that, for we carry a sense of the original impetus of creation within ourselves, love. By plumbing the depths of love we learn about the process of creation, the purpose of life, and even the relatively unique flavor of our own perceivable reality. In considering such ponderances we can soon figure out that the existence of a creative entity, or a god, is only yet another perspective, and not the whole enchilada.
Lachen und Leben.
: )
|
Jacob
Member
Post Number: 529
Registered: 01-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2010 - 04:44 pm: |
|
To use a figure of speech with the spiritual teachings is very dangerous because it can and will cause confusion amongst the people who seek the truth and are just starting to confront themselves with the truth about the Creation, especially when it comes to non-native German people who often have to fall back on the English language, which is incapable of truly properly translating the teachings and fully reflect the meaning of the teachings.
It has nothing to do with preference, its has merely to do with the absolute fact that the Creation is an IT, which is a fact which no-one can change.
The word 'she' in English is linked to the female gender no matter how you put it, and therefore just as unfit as the words 'Him' or 'He' when the Creation is concerned.
I am not saying you would be consciously falsifying the truth, but the improper use of words can and will cause corruption of information which can lead to major problems very easily.
Isn't it very obvious why there are so little English translations of the teachings? Because (if you can comprehend..) its virtually impossible to translate properly and 100% accurate from German to English especially with complex matter like the spiritual teachings.
Too often on this planet teachings have been fully corrupted because people change it, no matter if their intention was malicious of begnin.
Salome,
Jacob
Saalome gam naan ben uurda, gan njjber asaala hesporoona!
|
Edward
Member
Post Number: 1970
Registered: 05-2002
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2010 - 10:42 pm: |
|
Jacob....
As I mentioned, if someone does not understand or is confused, he/she can just
ASK!!
And, you inform them the details what you are referring to. Simple as that.
If anyone misunderstands it all...and goes about with this 'misunderstanding',
than..it is his/her fault: Not Mine or anyone else whom expresses in the same
manner.
And many individuals whom have been here from the start...know what we are
talking about. And the Newbees, will just have to be informed with the details
as they go along.
IT being defined within the FIGU materials or whatever, I make not problem of.
Even, other individuals here whom I have known would define or express the IT
with more Subtleness. Teachers I have known, English as well as the Dutch
Language have the same view as I mentioned of the concerning. You can not call
everything an IT. You address to an individual as HE or She, and NOT an IT. As
a kid and even in the workplace, if some did wrong or whatever, someone would
say: IT(that THING)...did it [HET, heeft het gedaan]! Which is very Insulting
for an individual. So, we have to take heed that IT can have a Lesser Value,
to some people. And the teachers would say, you write/talk in a more Subtle
Accentuation format. Which is quite Logical. As you study Writing, you
encounter the mentioned. And become a much more Conscious Skilled writer/
talker.
Someone once mentioned here, that Billy also Expresses Creation with HER,
female Expression. And I think I even encountered/read Billy talking in such
fashion in the past. And I was not surprised. People in the previous
generations DO talk and Express in such manner(; when talking about certain
subjects). That is just the way they were brought up; even family talked in
such fashion. Thus, it is quite common to talk/write in such Subtle
Accentuation manner.
Thus, the Teachings and other related information utilizing the IT would be
beneficial in the writing format(FIGU materials), and if One wishes to utilize
it as they wish. Which would be the case, now....in the FIGU literature; the
diffusing here of.
So, you see, there are individuals whom have the same approach as I. Billy,
included! Thus, let us keep the Literature as it is, and let the individual
Express.....as they wish, themselves.
Let us just take a Positive approach, Jacob. Let us not be so Negative!
So, let us not "start a storm in a small glass of water", as they say.
As long as you inform/teach the individuals the most detailed format of (The)
Creation, you can avert any misunderstandings.
Apologies for making this a LONG one....
Edward. |
Cpl
Member
Post Number: 539
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2011 - 12:56 am: |
|
"She" is not always representative of the female gender in English, or other languages for that matter. "She" when used for things is referring to their passive or receptive nature or characteristics; the feminine aspect of being, unrelated to sex or gender. An energy can have an active or a passive nature, or way of expression.
When Billy refers to Creation as "She" he is obviously referring to its passive, receptive aspect. Creation as a "He" would obviously be its active outgoing aspect. These aspects are not represented by the use of "It" and obviously have nothing to do with sexual gender.
Many objects in many languages are given a male or female reference that has nothing to do with gender or sex. It is to do with the associated characteristics of the form. It is when we are not looking at or talking about any such characteristics, as when looking purely objectively or scientifically, that we use "It", and this may be very or most often. It just depends.
People understand these things; and as long as there are other people like Jacob to remind ones of the fact we are not dealing with a literal female or male entity certainly no confusion will arise. Care does need to be taken to see that these forms are used correctly, but then that always goes for language, because words are just used to convey ideas.
"Writing about the spiritual teachings, the Creation, its laws and recommendations, the spirit and everything related should be free of
any personal preference, style, influences and opinions, no matter how the truth sounds."
I fully understand and support your good intent here Jacob, but to take away "personal preference, style, influences and opinions," would leave one with nothing to say and no words to use.
A speaker or writer cannot evade their own preference, style and opinions. This goes for Billy and the Plejaren too. They have their style and their way and preferences which are created by what they are. Their's is very left brain, scientific and rational and that is fine; and they may be the best to explain these things, but they cannot escape, neither can any human being, the preferences and styles that make up their being and manner of expression.
All that communicate have these to contend with and they are different for each person in the universe.
HAPPY NEW YEAR all!
Chris
Use to the full both your heart and your head; and never lose either.
|
Smukhuti
Member
Post Number: 497
Registered: 06-2009
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2011 - 10:38 am: |
|
Hi Sitkaa,
Somehow your posts always contain the theme of 'love'. I mean there is nothing wrong with love, but explaining everything through the perspective of love appears kind of weird.
I could not understand your perspective of Creation, but it is possible that someone's perspective of Creation is totally wrong.
Saalome.
Suv
|
Earthling
Member
Post Number: 491
Registered: 05-2008
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2011 - 06:18 pm: |
|
fwiw, the title of this thread is "The Creation ITself", not "The Creation HERself".
random passage fm the GOT: -
"In all things in your life, refer to the clear evidence of the activity (existence) of the primal wellspring of all vitalities (Creation), of ITS laws and recommendations and of ITS appearance (nature), so that you may always see quickly what is the real truth and what is untruth; you alone have the might to determine (decide) what is truth and what is untruth, because you are the judges of this."
Notice, it does not say 'of HER laws and recommendations and of HER appearance ...'
I think the Prophets use 'it' and not 'her' for logical reasons, not folly or personal preference influenced by culture.
"And if you turn and follow the laws and recommendations of the primal wellspring of all vitalities (Creation), then your inner world (consciousness) will be open and will recognise the truth of all truths, therefore you will also recognise that the true prophets are not liberators (angels) and not envoys of fabulated (invented) gods and tin gods, but that they are people of your kind (human beings) as you are yourselves, and that their knowledge and their wisdom has not been disclosed to them by gods or tin gods, rather that they fathom out (work out) everything themselves by learning the laws and recommendations of the primal wellspring of all vitalities (Creation) and of its appearance (nature) in sageness (intellect); and truly, you cannot match one another in your and their knowledge and in your and their wisdom, because you are the blind ones and the true prophets are the seeing ones, even though they do not raise themselves up above you (threaten you), but place themselves as equal with you in contentment (modesty); truly, you should think that over." |
J_rod7
Member
Post Number: 1387
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2011 - 06:49 pm: |
|
@
Mr ed,
When you post whatever is your opinion, you should say that is your own.
You do the forum (and your so-called "newbies") an injustice to express your opinions as if there were any truth in them.
Jacob has told you very clearly: "To use a figure of speech with the spiritual teachings is very dangerous because it can and will cause confusion amongst the people who seek the truth and are just starting to confront themselves with the truth about the Creation..."
What part of Confusion do you fail to understand, ed?
@
~~ TRUTH finds WISDOM finds LOVE finds PEACE -- Find What You Seek ~ Rod
|
Edward
Member
Post Number: 1971
Registered: 05-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2011 - 11:58 pm: |
|
Hi Chris....
Quite RIGHT you are. This was my point, also(; between the lines: at least
SOMEONE is do some THINKING... ).
You understand what it is all about! Very Perceptive of you.
Yes, you too: Happy New Year....with Good Health and Positive prospects...; to
all out there....
Edward. |
Sitkaa
Member
Post Number: 407
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2011 - 02:54 pm: |
|
Dear Suv,,
Thanks for your comment. I wouldn't want to appear abit weird ;)
From what I experience, love is the most simple and grounding of things, so it makes sense to me to understand things in terms of love. And it doesn't hurt.
Especially when considering the development of a creation story, love is always an agreeable aspect, and sometimes a central tenet. This is because love is so fundamental to creation, and to life. What is love? In the context of Creation, love is the reason for it all.
But this is how I see things, I spose. Still I feel subtle glimmers of mutual understanding when I hear of other perspectives that recognize the fundamental nature of love, even though it might be abit weird to think that everything else is nice, but relatively superfluous.
Lachen und Leben.
: )
|
Johnnybalmain
Member
Post Number: 123
Registered: 11-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2011 - 03:56 pm: |
|
Hi Proficus,
Good to know that you are still around.
Would it be fair to say in your opinion that if you like Creation to a human brain then each human would be the equivelent of a cell or spark in that brain. Therefore being a part of the whole.
Peace John |
|
