Theos-Talk Archives (March 2006 Message tt01144)

Cass, 

Cute?   I thought you'd be much more appreciative and ready to intelligently 
discuss this topic than that.   ;-)   

But, I'm afraid I'll have to agree with Chuck -- since I also can't make 
heads or tails of what the posting is actually saying.   It seems to answer the 
questions intelligently, and not incorrectly... But it sounds like a Master who 
never explains further than the questioner already seems to know based on the 
question asked -- thus leaving out all the actual details so the student can 
find them for themselves.   Anyway, I'll try to answer your direct questions 
below a bit deeper since you already know some of the background of the ABC 
theory.
 
In a message dated 3/19/06 11:49:18 PM, silva_cass@yahoo.com writes:


> Quite cute Leon, is the below posting science fiction?
> 
Maybe... Maybe not.   


> Now, I want to ask about mathematical modelling of gravity. The gravity 
> that we know about is modelled by geometry of a curved space. Is the gravity 
> that you are talking about, which is an expansion of this concept, capable of 
> being modelled in a similar way: by geometry?
> 
I have no idea how gravity can be modeled, other than as an 
attractive/repellent force that first expanded all the coenergetic fields and separated the 
original primal zero-point into infinite zero points at the centers of all forms 
of physical matter... And then, tries to pull them back toward each other with 
an equal and opposite force depending on the mass of the particles or bodies 
made up of them. Therefore Gravity acts as if it were a rubber band connected 
to the paddle and the ball in the toy game of that name. 

The geometry, then, would probably be spherical or vortical -- since each 
point is spinning.   Thus, by the way, also accounting for "curved space" -- 
since all forms would be on the surfaces of those speherical fields.   This is the 
way I pictured it when I drew up my circular chakrafield drawings of how it 
all began.   

For a picture of this, visualize Einstein's rubber blanket with the Sun 
pressing down into it the size of a basket ball and forming a vortectical surface 
around which the planets, the size of bb's, ball bearings, billiard balls, 
baseballs, etc., rotate around it at various levels depending on their mass.   
It's their centrifugal force of roation that prevents them from fallinto the Sun.

Imagine playing paddle ball with you standing on a rotating turntable on the 
floor of a spinning space station such as in the film 2001.   Following the 
track of that ball relative to your hand on the paddle might give you some idea 
of the geometry of gravitation.   

Other than those visualizations, I have no idea how to picture such geometry 
except the way I symbolized it in 2d on my "chakrafield" web page.   
Unfortunately, the actual geometry is multidimensional and thus cannot be described 
fully outside of a 3-D computer animation.   While I have the algorithm that can 
produce such a moving picture, I haven't yet got the facilities, or skills 
necessary to program it.   

I hope that answers your question a bit better than the gobbledy gook below. 

> A: Geometry is the correct model.
> Q: (A) Now, the question is: if gravity can be modelled in this way - 
> geometry is the correct model - what do we need more to model also consciousness? 
> Will it be automatically implied in such a model of gravity, or is it 
> something extra?
> A: Consciousness is contained within the expanded realization of the gravity 
> model. The model, if completed, would give one an insight into the 
> synchronous relationship between gravity and consciousness.
> Q: (A) If gravity is modelled by curvature or torsion of geometry, 
> mathematically, how would consciousness come out of geometry?
> A: That is a broken question. What we can say is this: if one could 
> visualize the inverted representation of the gravity geometric model, one would be 
> squarely on the path to understanding the geometric model of consciousness.
> Q: (A) Now, there are claims, more or less, shared by many scientists that 
> quantum theory is necessary to model or understand consciousness. From what 
> was said before, it seems that quantum theory is not necessary, that it is 
> sufficient to have the right geometric model of extended gravity.
> A: No, not extended, expanded. 
> 
> (clip)



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]