|
Post by Reefs on Sept 14, 2020 0:11:48 GMT -5
Not trying to answer for Gopal here, but that's not how it works. What you are basically asking Gopal to do is to create in your reality, which can't be done unless you allow that. And your skepticism is not allowing that. Your beliefs are blocking it from manifesting. You see, Tenka used to troll Enigma with this question "You say anything is possible, so tell me, can Marie give birth to a tank?" to which Enigma wisely replied, "Anything is possible". To Tenka that was a cop-out, and maybe it was, I don't know. But you see, manifesting something in your own reality is one thing, other creators being able to recognize what you've manifested is quite another. A shared reality is not an objective reality. Your task somewhat assumes an objective reality. You know the saying, seeing is believing. But in a personal creator context, the reverse, i.e. believing is seeing, is even more true/important. I don't know if that was actually the case, but it has been said that the indigenous people of South America didn't see the Spanish Armada coming and anchoring right before their shores because they had no concept of a huge boat or ship with sails so they literally didn't see that coming, for them it didn't exist, even though it was right there. In the same way, it is often impossible for people to see the misdeeds of people they love or admire, even though they misbehave right under their noses. They just can't see it and also can't be convinced of it, even if you show them evidence because according to their own reality-forming beliefs, it cannot be. And so (for them) it doesn't exist. This also works the other way, people can't see the good deeds of people they are convinced are rotten to the core. So if, in the unlikely case that Marie should actually give birth to a tank or that Gopal should manifest some gold cubes for you, LOA will actually make sure that you and Tenka won't be around to witness it or even hear about it, because it would go absolutely counter your core beliefs about reality. I've seen some very odd *** in my life, and I'm open to the possibility that things are not as they seem. I'm also open to the possibility that someone could manifest a block of gold in front of me in the so-called material world. I've just never seen it, so if I had to make a bet, I'd guess it's not going to happen, but that's not the same as being 100% certain it cannot happen. I'd honestly love to be pleasantly surprised. Are you saying that everyone around you has to be 100% certain that you will manifest something, before you can do it? Every day, people get surprised or see things things they have never seen before. Come on guys! Do it! I will pawn the golden cube and send you 50% of the money. If it seems like an extraordinary thing to you, then the likelihood that it is going to manifest is close to zero, especially if you want to use it in order to prove a point. When it feels like no big deal, like the next logical step, that's when you are ready to manifest gold bars in your hands. So, you are not ready yet. You can test this with different more ordinary topics, like parking spaces, your pets or the weather. I'm not saying you have to be 100% certain, someone next to you who is 100% certain can influence you into it, but your core beliefs need to allow for it. Most of our core beliefs are unconscious anyway (and shared by others and absolutely necessary in order to make this shared reality possible), we don't even know that we have such beliefs until they get challenged in some way. And what a dumb deal, 50%!? Why do we need you at all?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2020 10:12:10 GMT -5
I did not understand what you are talking now. I think Gopal has seen something significant, but maybe only one side of the coin, 1/2 of the picture. The ND people here talk about the flow of the universe and there being no SVP. But Gopal says, I can visualize, use LOA and manifest. But maybe what you ~chose~ to manifest was going to happen anyway. So you have tuned in-to what was going to happen, was going to manifest, but you think you have manifested what was already going to occur. You see 1/2 of the picture. Over 45 years ago I saw a cartoon in psychology. There were two mice, one saying to the other. We have the experimenter trained. Every time we push this bar, he gives us a pellet. You are right, I am not doing anything, All That Is is doing! But I am asking you to do to KNOW the fact of how All That Is does the creation. If you see something in your mind's eye, that reality soon will be projected in your reality. Once it's projected, stop your influence at your inner world, you will experience the reality you created for some duration and then it starts to fade away and then you would be soon seeing in your older reality where you were before.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2020 10:14:35 GMT -5
... I told her "If you see something in your mind's eye, you are going to manifest it. ... Really? Okay, the astrophysicist said that heavy metals are created in star explosions. Please, use your power to manifest a cube of solid gold on the desk/table in my motel room here. Let's make it 1 inch on each side. I will be so happy if you can prove to me that this kind of manifestation is possible. I am talking about what I have seen! I can't talk about what I haven't seen! I am talking about creating your experience. If you see something in your mind's eye, you would be soon projecting that reality in your experience.
But the difficult part is to feel as if it is real. But If you can feel, then you would definitely see the infinite will be orchestrating the events to create your desired reality.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2020 10:23:21 GMT -5
Really? Okay, the astrophysicist said that heavy metals are created in star explosions. Please, use your power to manifest a cube of solid gold on the desk/table in my motel room here. Let's make it 1 inch on each side. I will be so happy if you can prove to me that this kind of manifestation is possible. Not trying to answer for Gopal here, but that's not how it works. What you are basically asking Gopal to do is to create in your reality, which can't be done unless you allow that. And your skepticism is not allowing that. Your beliefs are blocking it from manifesting. You see, Tenka used to troll Enigma with this question "You say anything is possible, so tell me, can Marie give birth to a tank?" to which Enigma wisely replied, "Anything is possible". To Tenka that was a cop-out, and maybe it was, I don't know. But you see, manifesting something in your own reality is one thing, other creators being able to recognize what you've manifested is quite another. A shared reality is not an objective reality. Your task somewhat assumes an objective reality. You know the saying, seeing is believing. But in a personal creator context, the reverse, i.e. believing is seeing, is even more true/important. I don't know if that was actually the case, but it has been said that the indigenous people of South America didn't see the Spanish Armada coming and anchoring right before their shores because they had no concept of a huge boat or ship with sails so they literally didn't see that coming, for them it didn't exist, even though it was right there. In the same way, it is often impossible for people to see the misdeeds of people they love or admire, even though they misbehave right under their noses. They just can't see it and also can't be convinced of it, even if you show them evidence because according to their own reality-forming beliefs, it cannot be. And so (for them) it doesn't exist. This also works the other way, people can't see the good deeds of people they are convinced are rotten to the core. So if, in the unlikely case that Marie should actually give birth to a tank or that Gopal should manifest some gold cubes for you, LOA will actually make sure that you and Tenka won't be around to witness it or even hear about it, because it would go absolutely counter your core beliefs about reality. That's not quite true. You don't have to bother about other's choice. You simply create your reality and other people will act like it's their own choice. They do not even know that you created it!
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 14, 2020 10:24:35 GMT -5
I think Gopal has seen something significant, but maybe only one side of the coin, 1/2 of the picture. The ND people here talk about the flow of the universe and there being no SVP. But Gopal says, I can visualize, use LOA and manifest. But maybe what you ~chose~ to manifest was going to happen anyway. So you have tuned in-to what was going to happen, was going to manifest, but you think you have manifested what was already going to occur. You see 1/2 of the picture. Over 45 years ago I saw a cartoon in psychology. There were two mice, one saying to the other. We have the experimenter trained. Every time we push this bar, he gives us a pellet. You are right, I am not doing anything, All That Is is doing! But I am asking you to do to KNOW the fact of how All That Is does the creation. If you see something in your mind's eye, that reality soon will be projected in your reality. Once it's projected, stop your influence at your inner world, you will experience the reality you created for some duration and then it starts to fade away and then you would be soon seeing in your older reality where you were before. I think Bashar describes that as an 'echo'. It's like a test to see if you are really ready for the change. If you respond to the echo just as you always did, then you are not ready for the change. If you respond differently, then you are ready.
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Sept 14, 2020 11:01:49 GMT -5
Fascinating. I think of the photon, the light particle. It has no mass and yet it has momentum. It travels at one speed, but yet possesses discrete varying levels of energy. How is that possible? And when high energy matterless photons collide, they create electrons and positrons, matter and anti-matter appear. This is like magic, the realm of the imagined. Magic is real. Light can travel at lower speeds but the energy differential is the frequency of oscillation (of the propagating e/m waves), which is different and can be independent from the speed at which the wave propagates. Photons travel at different speeds? Interesting. The wave length of light equals C, the speed of light divided by the frequency of the light wave, the higher the frequency the smaller the light wave and the higher the energy, but the speed of light, C, never changes. The frequency of light is C, it's speed divided by the wavelength.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 14, 2020 18:38:16 GMT -5
Light can travel at lower speeds but the energy differential is the frequency of oscillation (of the propagating e/m waves), which is different and can be independent from the speed at which the wave propagates. Photons travel at different speeds? Interesting. The wave length of light equals C, the speed of light divided by the frequency of the light wave, the higher the frequency the smaller the light wave and the higher the energy, but the speed of light, C, never changes. The frequency of light is C, it's speed divided by the wavelength. This is the way I understand it: C is the maximum speed at which the wave front propagates in a vacuum, and this can be slowed depending on the medium the light is passing through. (that article is concerned with extreme cases, the effect is prosaic). The fields that comprise the wave (e, perpendicular to m) oscillate at different frequencies that we perceive as different colors. The front-propagation and the wave frequency can (as far as I understand) be interrelated in various ways, but can also vary independently. One diagram and terminology I've seen to depict this in terms of photons is as " wave packets", but I was never comfortable with that idea, so I never tried to master what they were presenting. Remember, too, that radio and radar waves are the same, fundamental phenomena as light: electromagnetic waves. When you change the frequency on a radio, you're tuning it to the oscillation of the fields, which propagate from the source to the radio, at the speed of light, through air.
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Sept 14, 2020 19:34:46 GMT -5
Photons travel at different speeds? Interesting. The wave length of light equals C, the speed of light divided by the frequency of the light wave, the higher the frequency the smaller the light wave and the higher the energy, but the speed of light, C, never changes. The frequency of light is C, it's speed divided by the wavelength. This is the way I understand it: C is the maximum speed at which the wave front propagates in a vacuum, and this can be slowed depending on the medium the light is passing through. (that article is concerned with extreme cases, the effect is prosaic). The fields that comprise the wave (e, perpendicular to m) oscillate at different frequencies that we perceive as different colors. The front-propagation and the wave frequency can (as far as I understand) be interrelated in various ways, but can also vary independently. One diagram and terminology I've seen to depict this in terms of photons is as " wave packets", but I was never comfortable with that idea, so I never tried to master what they were presenting. Remember, too, that radio and radar waves are the same, fundamental phenomena as light: electromagnetic waves. When you change the frequency on a radio, you're tuning it to the oscillation of the fields, which propagate from the source to the radio, at the speed of light, through air. In a vacuum the speed of light is constant. Traveling through different mediums light slows down based on the refractive index of the medium it is traveling through. My point about light speed is that even though momentum is dependent on velocity and mass, a photon's momentum has nothing to do with mass or changes in velocity which is quite unusual for a particle.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 15, 2020 4:29:42 GMT -5
This is the way I understand it: C is the maximum speed at which the wave front propagates in a vacuum, and this can be slowed depending on the medium the light is passing through. (that article is concerned with extreme cases, the effect is prosaic). The fields that comprise the wave (e, perpendicular to m) oscillate at different frequencies that we perceive as different colors. The front-propagation and the wave frequency can (as far as I understand) be interrelated in various ways, but can also vary independently. One diagram and terminology I've seen to depict this in terms of photons is as " wave packets", but I was never comfortable with that idea, so I never tried to master what they were presenting. Remember, too, that radio and radar waves are the same, fundamental phenomena as light: electromagnetic waves. When you change the frequency on a radio, you're tuning it to the oscillation of the fields, which propagate from the source to the radio, at the speed of light, through air. In a vacuum the speed of light is constant. Traveling through different mediums light slows down based on the refractive index of the medium it is traveling through. My point about light speed is that even though momentum is dependent on velocity and mass, a photon's momentum has nothing to do with mass or changes in velocity which is quite unusual for a particle. Seems to me that applying the idea of momentum to a "particle" that has no rest mass is somewhat of a misconception, although, as the photon does have energy, I guess they could contrive some sort of equivalent in one formulation or another. heh heh .. I recall arguing with 'dusty a few years back as to whether photons carried kinetic energy. I honestly don't know if the energy of light is effected by the refractive index (my intuition says yes), but I do know that the energy of an electromagnetic wave - of which light is a variety - depends on the frequency of oscillation of the underlying e/m fields, which is one facet of what I was originally responding to.
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Sept 15, 2020 8:45:31 GMT -5
In a vacuum the speed of light is constant. Traveling through different mediums light slows down based on the refractive index of the medium it is traveling through. My point about light speed is that even though momentum is dependent on velocity and mass, a photon's momentum has nothing to do with mass or changes in velocity which is quite unusual for a particle. Seems to me that applying the idea of momentum to a "particle" that has no rest mass is somewhat of a misconception, although, as the photon does have energy, I guess they could contrive some sort of equivalent in one formulation or another. heh heh .. I recall arguing with 'dusty a few years back as to whether photons carried kinetic energy. I honestly don't know if the energy of light is effected by the refractive index (my intuition says yes), but I do know that the energy of an electromagnetic wave - of which light is a variety - depends on the frequency of oscillation of the underlying e/m fields, which is one facet of what I was originally responding to. DeBroglie's equation says the momentum of a photon is Planck' constant divided by the wavelength.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 15, 2020 10:13:44 GMT -5
I know her! But I don't go with her with these three step process. Holding the feeling as if it's real in our mind's eye(Most toughest one and that's what people are failing to create the reality in the way they want) is more than enough, Infinite is going to orchestrate that soon. But also this way of changing the reality is not going to be permanent for us, this would be collapsed soon and reality will pull us back to the line in which we are already in. It actually has become 5 steps now. So, the theory keeps changing slightly, hehe. Are you also familiar with the 17 seconds and the 68 seconds rule A-H used to teach? Because what you are describing there, holding a thought for a longer period of time, is similar to that. And I am assuming that you are talking about applying will power and that's why it won't last, right? When I say universe is alive, I don't mean to say I can know other people are real, I meant to say that universe is creative, intelligence. Is 'alive' real? That's not quite true. You don't have to bother about other's choice. You simply create your reality and other people will act like it's their own choice. They do not even know that you created it! Well, that certainly would make you God! I'd agree with that only under one condition. And that condition is that this only works as long as the other gives you his undivided attention. Because then you can direct his focus and basically have control over what he is manifesting in his reality. However, the moment he fully withdraws his attention from you, all your influence is gone. You can see this scenario perfectly playing out with the mainstream media vs. the alternative media these days. The vast majority used to be spell-bound by the mainstream media and so these entities could do as they pleased. Nowadays, a lot of people are defecting and withdrawing their attention from these large news organizations and so their influence on people's minds and lives is crumbling.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 15, 2020 10:54:10 GMT -5
Seems to me that applying the idea of momentum to a "particle" that has no rest mass is somewhat of a misconception, although, as the photon does have energy, I guess they could contrive some sort of equivalent in one formulation or another. heh heh .. I recall arguing with 'dusty a few years back as to whether photons carried kinetic energy. I honestly don't know if the energy of light is effected by the refractive index (my intuition says yes), but I do know that the energy of an electromagnetic wave - of which light is a variety - depends on the frequency of oscillation of the underlying e/m fields, which is one facet of what I was originally responding to. DeBroglie's equation says the momentum of a photon is Planck' constant divided by the wavelength. Ah, yes, google is our friend. ... and he backed me up.
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Sept 15, 2020 11:53:49 GMT -5
DeBroglie's equation says the momentum of a photon is Planck' constant divided by the wavelength. Ah, yes, google is our friend. ... and he backed me up. Only problem is DeBroglie's not derived from Maxwell's equations, but rather Planck's and Einstein's.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 15, 2020 12:46:53 GMT -5
Ah, yes, google is our friend. ... and he backed me up. Only problem is DeBroglie's not derived from Maxwell's equations, but rather Planck's and Einstein's. Problem? the general statement that the energy of the light depends on the wavelength of it holds regardless of which formulation you use.
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Sept 15, 2020 13:21:10 GMT -5
Only problem is DeBroglie's not derived from Maxwell's equations, but rather Planck's and Einstein's. Problem? the general statement that the energy of the light depends on the wavelength of it holds regardless of which formulation you use. That's true if light were only a wave, but we're talking about a photon, a particle.
|
|