Saturday, January 07, 2006

language creates boundaries.

language creates boundaries. yes it does.
the physicist says that nothing can go faster than the speed of light. that means that it would take four years to go to the nearest star at the speed of light. to go to the farthest known reaches of the universe at this speed or less will take millions of years. vastly inconcieveable amounts of time to justify space exploration for a species that lives eighty years at best.
the language that we use to create these values is made up of math, physics and calculus that hasn`t changed much in centuries.
inside of the last century, with the emergence of quantum mechanics, the attempt to measure energy states of matter, we have seen new terminology that suggests a vastly different view of the makeup of space, time and matter it`s self. even hallowed values such as the speed of light and conservation of energy are coming under scrutiny from people tired of the restrictions of established physical restraints.
these people are developing new theories and ways of discussing concepts and asking why not instead of saying because........said so.
maybe the theories are wrong.
why would we question the theories?
we are seeing some strange things in the sky is why.
people are seeing lights, disks and other flying objects that are defying known laws of physics and are consistantly being seen, filmed and photographed doing what it is they`re not supposed to be able to do.
the reports of these craft are documented as far back as records go in history, but just recently the average person has had access to digital photography equipment that until about 5 years ago only the professional photographer could justify owning.
we now have an irrefutable digital record of these objects in the hands of the general population, and so it`s natural that a new language has to be developed to describe what is being seen.
anti-gravity, electro-gravitics, zero-point energy, cold fusion. all taboo and impossible according to the established scientific model. yet some if not all of these things are in trials in labs around the world.
we haven`t been able to see these things in action because science is big business. if conventional research funding (money you and i pay in taxes.) gets out of old school hands and into the cutting edge, where the new language is asking questions, then many people will lose high-paying research jobs. so they keep saying it`s impossible as the u.f.o.s fly by the window.
when we change our language we change our lives, our technology and the future of humanity.
when do we get started?
the moment we start asking how to do things, and believing we can find solutions.

2 comments:

anu said...

Hi Dr Alistair, you have such an interesting blog. I really enjoyed reading it.

What is so striking is the way you analyse and come to conclusions. It all appears so simple and easy when i read your posts.

Even the technical subjects you discuss of energy, light and stuff.

Thank you for sharing. I am fascinated to read that you are a hypnotherpist too. I can so easily connect with what you are saying. In India, it is not easy to find the right therapist.

BTW, Dr Alistair, have you read the Seth books? (channeled by Jane roberts)

Oh and Happy new year to you and your loved ones:)

dr.alistair said...

anu, thanks for your kind words. energy, and light are easy to understand. we deal with them every day. it`s the codified language that some use to describe things that can be difficult to understand. it may actually confuse them too.
i haven`t read the seth books but i am aware of them and other chanelled information. prophetic works have been with un as long as we have been conscious. it is part of our nature as conscious beings to be in communication with higher knowledge in all it`s forms. i feel that it`s, in some ways, a dialog with our own d.n.a. this is my opinion. there may actually be disincarnate beings seperate from our spirit of awareness. the religions of the world, and writers such as jane roberts characterise our conscious experience that way. my personal experience and viewpoint is that our perceptions are generated in our minds and projected onto what we characterise as reality. i get into a bit of trouble from the theological types who have the need for it to be a seperate god that does all this. i take a simpler, more direct approach. the physics tends to point that way.
a movie that came out recently summed it up for me. it`s called "what the bleep do we know". it delves into the quantum mechanical model of consciousness and raises some points that i tend to agree with.
thnks again for posting.
let me know what you think.