Oct 15, 2008 05:44 PM
by Leon Maurer
On Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:33 pm ((PDT)) "richard ruquist"
email@example.com yanniru wrote:
Thanks. That helps a great deal. AS I presume is Aether Space or
Is MS then Megaspace?
Actually, in that sentence below, MS referred to "Metric Space" --
In the ABC view -- the *infinite* spin momentum of the "Absolute
Space" -- that underlies the "Aether Space" (Einstein's "total
space") -- is spinning on infinitely more than the three axis that
represent this spherical cosmos. Therefore, it has the potential of
generating infinite (triple axes spherical) universes in addition to
ours. Together, they all would be considered as the true or ultimate
However, such a truly infinite series of potential spaces could be
far beyond the reach of physical science ... That can only examine
the space between the absolute zero-point, and the largest possible
(metric space-time) gravitational field circumference.
So, for purposes of scientifically explaining this phenomenal
universe mathematically -- starting with the (near zero but still
finite) Aether Space -- we can consider ALL the fractal involved
hyperspace and metric space fields, together, as being the
"Megaspace" you refer to.
----- Original Message ----
From: Leon Maurer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: WEDconscious@yahoogroups.com; "; Theory"
<email@example.com>; Quantum Cosmology
<firstname.lastname@example.org>; "; ;"
"; Theory" <email@example.com>; bn-study
<firstname.lastname@example.org>; email@example.com; theos-
firstname.lastname@example.org; "; Mind" <email@example.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 8:09:14 PM
Subject: [WEDconsc] Re: Soul
On Tue Oct 14, 2008 2:17 am ((PDT)) "richard ruquist" yanniru@yahoo.
com yanniru wrote:
>At what number does the BEC first happen in ABC?
>In my cosmology it is #1 .
The BEC -- which is essentially a non-separateness or internal
continuity of any energy field at near zero degrees K -- would have
to be the fundamental nature of the first highest order hyperspace
field emanating out of the singularity (in absolute space) at the
beginning of cosmogenesis, (or the genesis of any field or form in
Thus, potential BEC is the inherent nature of that pre-cosmic AS
located everywhere in MS. i.e. ZPE (as well as the ZPF it generates,
which in turn, condenses into fundamental particles on the physical/
material level) -- is a BEC.
Incidentally, I don't see ABC as being that much different than your
cosmology -- (like the chicken and the egg or the seed and the
plant;-). The only major difference is that one looks at reality
from the inside out, causatively and deductively, and the other, from
the outside in, reductively and inductively. Naturally, the
different viewpoints change the conclusions. .. Like expansion
changes to compaction, cause changes to effect, etc. Thus, the
deductive view (accepting potential consciousness, matter, BEC, spin
momentum, etc., as being fundamental) can predict the reductive view,
but the latter can only infer the former.
>At what number does intelligence,
>which I believe requires form,
>first come in?
Intelligence actually requires "information" (as the basis of form).
Therefore, if the form of everything in the cosmos is based on pre-
structural information -- then intelligence must be inherent in each
zero-point "singularity" located everywhere.. . Beginning with the
origin of the cosmos, and extending through every singularity or ZPE
at the source of each particle and form -- along with all their
harmonic, fractal involved hyper-space' and metric-space' radiant
Consider, also, that the light information reflected or radiated from
any body or image in metric space is contained holograp hically in
every zero-point of that space. Apparently, we are capable of seeing
the entire holographic image surface of any form no matter from what
point in metric space we view it from. Thus, intelligence is
fundamental, holographically stored everywhere as wave interference
patterns, and is prior to the cosmology -- no matter how described or
----- Original Message ----
From: Leon Maurer <leonmaurer@aol. com>
To: SPACETIMEandCONSCIO USNESS@yahoogrou ps.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 3:19:51 AM
Subject: [WEDconsc] Re: Soul
Rybo and Yanni,
Could it be that the problem in semantics you both have is not
recognizing the differences (and similarities) between "physical" and/
or "metaphysical, " and "material" and/or "substantial" ?
Material things are physical and objective but not metaphysical, yet
both physical and metaphysical things are substantial in one degree
or another. Therefore a BEC can be both physical and metaphysical --
but not necessarial material. For instance, a metaphysical hyperspace
field is not material, but is susbstantial (or objective)
Perhaps -- for a logical (rational) universe to forever remain one
thing-in-itself -- the actual causal progression of anything between
nothing and everything, could be:
1. Formless but not forceless (insubstantial) absolute space or Aether;
2. metaphysical (subtly substantial) nonmetric, higher order
(fractally involved) hyperspacetime radiant energy fields;
3. physical (less subtly substantial) metric spacetime radiant
energy fields, And
4. physical/material (grossly substantial or solid) mass-energy
standing wave concentrations and combinations (all inorganic and
organic forms or as Einstein said, "Ponderable matter").
'Energy is space in motion." - Einstein
"The (immaterial) fields of consciousness are coadunate but not
consubstantial. " - Blavatsky
"The (phenomenal) consciousness and the matter are dependently
arising." - Buddha
"I and my Father are one." - Christ
"The Tao is an empty vessel; it is used, but never filled." - Lao Tsu
On Tue Oct 7, 2008 5:02 pm ((PDT)), "rybo6" firstname.lastname@example.org os_jbug
Yanni, communication is dependent on having common agreements of
Yanni, there are things existent as metaphysical and things existent
as physical i.e. there is metaphysical existence and there is
I think you are hung on semantic, whatever that is.
The problem is that do appear to be able to distinguish between
things of metaphysical existence and the existence things of physical
You ask new questions but your responded to none of those I asked you.
You gave contradictory statements also.
If we both agree, that we accept there exist things we call physical
aspects of universe, then gas, plasma, liquid and solid fall into
That appears to be simple conclusion to me.
On Oct 7, 2008, at 7:37 AM, yanniru@aim. com wrote:
Do metaphysical things exist?
I think you are hung up on semantics.
On Oct 6, 2008, at 3:02 PM, John Clem wrote:
Rybo, A BEC is just a state of a plasma, a gas, a liquid or a solid
which could be either physical or not.
I'm sorry Yanni, we appear to have a fundamental differrence of
In no way can a state of plasma, gas, liguid or a solid not be
considered as physical.
Physical and metaphysical are the first generalized sub-
catagorizations of Universe with a capital "U".
If we can not come to some aggreements on this then it will only make
all future communications more difficult.
A gas can kill a person or make them laugh uncontrolably.
Plasma can definitely kill any biological.
Liguids also can kill or keep biologicals alive.
Solids can have many varied affects on biologicals, so Yanni, please
do not try and tell me those four are not physical as you appear to
suggest at top of this message.
Please try and explain yourself as that kind of statement makes no
sense to me.
Its kinda of like people who say EM-radiation is not physical, oh yeah
(!) well sit out naked in sun for a long enough time to burn some
skin and then have those people tell me how EM-Radiation is not
Hey, have then stare into a bright sun, without protection, for even
shorter periods of time and then have them tell me that visibleEM-
radiation is not physical.
I think you may get my drift here.
If you want me to get yours, again, it will take a whole lot of
explaining, by you or someone, tho I doubt anyone can ever convince
me that those four, are in anyway, *not* physical.
P.S. more below but my tiime is almost out.
Ultimately I believe everything is physical. But it is convenient to
say that the known particles and forces are physical and the unknown
particles and forces, are not physical.
Well, if they exist, unknown to humans or not, then they are physical.
You should have stopped with statement, that, "ultimately I believe
everything is physical" is best answer you can give, excepting
everything that is metaphysical, then we can move on with reasonable
I gotta go now and hope you will respond to this physical and
metaphysical definning. I will try to make it to your links at next
Regarding propagation speeds being limited to less than the constant
called the speed of light c, there is a wealth of superluminal
theorires and some data.
Here is a link describing data where a pulse of light leaves a cell
filled with a gas of cesium atoms before it enters it:
http://www.aip. org/pnu/2000/ split/pnu495- 2.htm
And here is a general discussion of superluminal
light:http://www.wbabin. net/science/ faraj8.htm
So not only can light be superluminal, it can actually jump ahead in
time. Don't ask me how or why.
--- In SPACETIMEandCONSCIO USNESS@yahoogrou ps.com, rybo6 <rybo6@...>
"soul" is a micro "gas" mirror of the more metaphysical concept
of "lifes a gas". :--)
I think it is incorrect to think of Bose-Einstein Condensate as
*not* be being physical i.e.
"gas", liquids, matter, plasma are aspects of the finite physical
Gas, liquids, matter and plasma are limited to propagation speeds
ergo they are not only pure, instantaneous, metaphysically
intellectual concepts of Universe.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application