Universal Life Force
Posted 16 April 2012 - 01:13 PM
What do you call it and what is your definition?
Posted 17 April 2012 - 02:53 AM
Posted 17 April 2012 - 08:19 AM
Rather I believe that all living things have something that sets them apart from the inanimate. It is that which gives them life. In other words consider two individuals sitting side by side. From a physical point of view both are simply a collection of matter comprised of various minerals. One could go out and buy these same minerals in the concentrations present in the bodies and mix them together. The two people sitting there would be alive, and they would be looking at a pile matter on the floor in front of them. What the pile of matter lacks is that which causes life.
Yet it is not universal, rather still individual. If the first person strikes a match and burns his fingers the second will not feel the pain directly. Likewise what the second person sees is not seen by the first unless he too looks. They are two individuals. The only way for them to share thoughts or ideas is by some form of communication.
There is certainly a life force present, although I don't consider it universal. This life force is individual, I would more call it a soul. This is the force that lives on after the body dies. Maybe an analogy might be a computer program, and the body is the computer. The program runs in the body all of our lives. At death it is transferred to another computer. (Maybe the "spiritual body?) Thus, even though the human body dies the life goes on.
Posted 17 April 2012 - 11:35 AM
Ironically nothing in the uni-Verse is inanimate.............. everything vibrates to it's own frequency, which means, they are throbbing with The Universal Life Force Energy.
Posted 17 April 2012 - 07:09 PM
Everything has ENERGY and that energy you can consider originates from the Universal Life Force. The Chair you are sitting at has its own vibration. Even light has a frequency. Everything we sit on, use, see and can't see has it's own vibration.
You say that when someone hurts their finger, the other person cannot feel it. I could because my energy vibrates at a higher level and allows me to "feel" other people and their injuries.
You say that when someone looks, unless you look you will not see it. Not true. I can see what you see and maybe even more.
I call the Universal Life Force, the life force that we were created by, I call it my soul. That soul was created from a mere fraction of that Life Force and as a physical human I give it a name and I call that name God.
Posted 18 April 2012 - 10:53 AM
Thus an object in motion, be it an atom responding to its natural frequency or the rock rolling along is by my definition inanimate. The person who conciously picks up the rock and throws it however is definitely an animate, living being. Of course there are forces in nature, electrical attraction, gravity, light, etc. And certainly objects will interact with these forces according to various "laws" of physics. (Some we may not even understand yet!) But responding to external stimuli does not make an object alive, nor does it do so to the force affecting it.
To make an object animate it would need to rise above basic physical laws and in some way alter which of these laws are applied. To take the example of the roick, a rock rolling down the hill is affected by gravity. But gravity can be altered by other influences. If one throws the rock into the air gravity is "altered" to extent that external energy (the force of propelling it into the air) causes the rock to fall at a different angle. Thus forces can be manipulated by other forces.
Still these are inanimate objects. Even if the rock were exploded from the cone of a volcano, it would still be inanimate since no living being caused the event. Ongoing pressure simply reached the point where it blew! Of course one might take the stand that "God made it happen." Enter the animate. At this point the inanimate is affected by the animate, much as a man might make a concious decision to throw the rock into the air.
This is where I place the defining line between animate and inanimate objects.
When I make the statement regarding seeing or feeling another person's impressions I am referring to physically associating with that person. Of course we can sympathsize with another, on that level we can "feel" their pain or pleasure. I won't dispute that. But we cannot see through their eyes directly. If anyone can make that claim I want to meet them and conduct a simple test! I will view a highly complex subject and challenge them to draw a detailed sketch of what I am viewing. If they can successfully do so by seeing through my eyes I will have to admit my above statement is wrong.
Posted 18 April 2012 - 05:01 PM
Posted 18 April 2012 - 07:17 PM
You speak of life as something that moves of its own accord without external stimulus. I speak of life that is ENERGY. Everything is energy and that includes the radio waves that are a FREQUENCY. Frequency IS energy. Atoms have natural frequency but it still is a frequency which IS ENERGY. A rock rolling down a hill had to have EXTERNAL stimulus and no it does not have more life than one sitting there but.... it still has life. Rocks have energy. They are able to evolve. They have a frequency all of its own.
The Earth has energy, a heartbeat. It is alive.
You speak of FORCES. What are forces? Energy. Gravity? Energy. Volcano erupting? Energy. Tell me.. where does energy originate from?
Just because you can't SEE it move, doesn't mean that is not. An inanimate object has energy that IS. It doesn't have a consciousness but it does have a life force in it. Plants and animals have a higher vibrational life force, so it shifts and it grows and it moves. A rock has what you would call stagnant energy but energy it has. A tree that is cut and we make things out of the wood has a sustainable life force. Its contains that source, but it's movement, just as something were to die, it ceases to have visible movement, it becomes a energy force that just IS.
If the physical body were not made of atoms (and we won't go into the full description of how the physical body is created and moves) that vibrate, if we stripped away all that.... we would be stagnant energy or energy that just IS. You would need an external force to move you.
SEEING what others see... You didn't say seeing though their eyes directly.
You stated; Likewise what the second person sees is not seen by the first unless he too looks. They are two individuals. The only way for them to share thoughts or ideas is by some form of communication.
You don't have to conduct a test on seeing what others are seeing and seeing details. That was done by the military for years and they may still be using it. It's called Remote Viewing. I believe Skip Atwater was the best that the military found and worked with. I also can remote view.
Posted 19 April 2012 - 07:53 PM
To address your last comment first. I agree regarding remote viewing. I have even worked with a sensitive who makes that claim. And yes I have verified some of her claims, so I am not going to simply discount it.
The problem is that it is unreliable. I have seen things that she has siad that I can't explain how she did it. Even she doesn't know; it just comes to her as a thought. And I have also seen her miss to the extent that someone guessing could do better. Point is we don't know what she picks up on and why it only works sometimes. That is the subject for another topic. For now, based on what I have read the military, as have the Russians, done extensive research into remote viewing and come away with the same conclusions I have. There may be something to it, but in its current state it can't be trusted. More work needs done.
But what I was refering to above is more than remote viewing as we know it. It would be seeing DIRECTLY what another sees through his eyes. In other words, I am saying if all life is universal and connected we should be able to "tap in" to that level. Clearly though, what I see remains within my conciousness and what you see remains with you. Thus my contention that the life force, soul if you will, is not universal. Rather each of us has it confined within our own physical body. Any contact between us is simply a form of communication, be it verbally, audibly, or even if done via remote viewing.
You stated: Everything is energy and that includes the radio waves that are a FREQUENCY. Frequency IS energy. Atoms have natural frequency but it still is a frequency which IS ENERGY.
Frequency is not energy in and of itself. Rather frequency is a characteristic of some forms of energy. And yes all MATTER has a natural frequency based on its atomic structure. It has nothing to do with life (Except to the extent that living organisms generate electrical activity such as brain waves). Consider hydrogen for example Its natural resonate frequency is 1420 mHz. When one does a spectroscopic study of light from a star, for example, each element present will display its natural frequency at the appropriate point on the spectrum.
This has nothing to do with living or non-living; it only signifies that a particular element is present, and the frequency is a factor of which element it is.
Going back to the rock, its frequency would be a matter of what element it was comprised of. Silica would have one natural frequency, iron another, etc. And unless some external event were employed such as splitting its atoms, the energy would remain locked in the atomic structure.
Which doesn't mean the rock couldn't store energy. If the rock were picked up and placed on a shelf there is now stored potential energy. A given amount of energy was expended to lift it, and if it fell from the shelf gravity would release that stored energy as it fell to its original location.
But this energy has no frequency. The atoms that make up the rock do have a natural frequency, but gravity is a steady state energy (DC) thus has no frequency component present. Even if the rock were iron, falling through the earth's magnetic field, the Electric force generated would be DC with no frequency component.
Posted 23 April 2012 - 10:36 AM
The area we are concerned with here, frequency being a form of energy is the point I was debating. Clearly the article shows the level of energy in the wave does not change as frequency increases or decreases. The amount of energy present in the wave is rather a function of amplitude (height) of the radio wave. In that aspect the amount of energy present DOES change. It is the same as increasing the voltage present on an incandescent light bulb will cause the bulb to glow brighter. If that same bulb were connected across a fixed amplitude , variable frequency power source altering the frequency would have no affect on the average intensity of the light given off. This would confirm that a change in frequency does not represent a change in energy present.
I should point out that I am referring to average output. If one were to use an extremely low frequency the bulb would appear to pulse on and off on each cycle. This would give a false positive of a change. This factor is accounted for by use of the RMS (root means squared) value versus peak or peak to peak values. More complicated than I will go into here but the terms can be Googled for the math behind them!
Posted 24 April 2012 - 07:21 PM
Maybe we should get back to the original post....
What would the GV'ers call the Universal Life Force?
Edited by Seer, 24 April 2012 - 07:23 PM.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users