## Relativity?

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

### Re: Relativity?

davidm wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:20 pm
ken wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 6:00 am If there is no one correct answer or if you do not know what the one correct answer is, then just say so. So we can move on.
There are MULTIPLE CORRECT ANSWERS -- as has been explained to you! As has been show you -- you can easily work out the math! -- in the case of a spaceship traveling at 90 percent the speed of light to Alpha Centauri relative to the rest frame of earth, earth observers will report that the ship takes about 4.5 years to arrive at AC. From the perspective of the ship's crew, the time is only about 2.2 years (as measured by the ship clock) and the ship is NOT therefore going faster than light because the distance between earth and AC is length contracted relative to the earth frame!

Has an actual person experienced this, observed this, and reported this back?

Or, is what you are proposing here what would supposedly happen?

If you are open to other possibilities, then we can look at and discuss this in more detail. BUT, if as you are proposing, THAT IS THE ANSWER, then you do NOT appear to be open to any thing else.

If any one else does NOT propose they ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER, like is shown here, and wants to look at this further, then I am more then happy to discuss.
davidm wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:20 pmMore: observers in inertial frames moving relative to one another will typically disagree on the temporal order of events! In one frame events A and B happen simultaneously; in another frame A happens after B, and in yet a third from frame B happens after A! Who's right? They ALL are! This is because of the question of what "really happens" is relativized to a frame and has no universal frame-independent meaning.
Is this another one of those, "THAT IS THE ANSWER", and thus there is nothing more to look at and discuss points of view that you have and maintain onto?
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

### Re: Relativity?

Walker wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 8:38 pm
Ken wrote:I do NOT look at and follow theories. I look at what IS and observe that.

By what observations do you know that the earth revolves around the sun, other than the observation that someone told you?
From what is observed from other perspectives.

I look from ALL perspectives, and NOT just from the ones within this head.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

### Re: Relativity?

thedoc wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:10 pm
Viveka wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:57 pm In response to the bolded: Seriously? Whenever I move out of a room with a clock the clock stops working?
As has been stated numerous times, clocks will measure different times when moving relative to each other, why is that so hard to understand.
WHY? Because if human beings state that it takes four years to travel a distance of four light years, traveling at the speed of light, then do not also state that it takes no time at all.

WHY do you human beings state contradictory things and expect others to understand?

If it takes four years to travel a distance, then it takes four years. NOT no time at all. If it takes no time at all, then it does NOT take four years. What IS actually true can be discovered, learned, seen, and understood from the a Universal perspective, if any one is really interested.

I have already alluded as to WHY it APPEARS to take no time at all, for the travelling observer AND WHY it APPEARS to take four years for some others. But as long as some people insist that it actually takes no time at all and that it takes four years, depending on their perspective, then we have yet to clear up the contradictions being exposed. BEFORE we can seriously look at and discuss the actual reasons for the APPARENT differences we need to remain open and stop thinking and stating things like "THAT IS THE ANSWER".

What CAUSES a clock, like a digital watch, which is programmed to change at certain intervals and has the exact same continual power source, to supposedly slow down when traveling faster than another one with the exact same mechanisms and power source?
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

### Re: Relativity?

davidm wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:43 pm
Viveka wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:39 pm
davidm wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:31 pm

Oh! Now Einstein is a liar! Do you think it's because he was a Jew?

Also, the rest of what you wrote is your usual gobbledygook.
I have nothing againt Jews. And my gobbledygook is actually quality stuff that you can't argue against so you post one word replies like 'No.'
Throughout this thread, as anyone who has read it can see, I have posted long and thoughtful responses.
Your statement here could be said to be seen as a very relative to you only perspective (or some others).

I am some one.
Thus, one, of anyone.
I see you have posted responses.
I, however, do NOT see what you see.
'Long' and 'thoughtful' are very relative words.
I see that you have read what others have written, and that you have posted those views in your own words.
To Me, 'thoughtful' implies putting some sort of your own thought into it.
I do NOT see that you have posted any thoughtful responses, in relation to relativity, at all really.

What I also see is you just trying to praise and uplift your own self.
But, as some of us observe, absolutely every thing is relative to the observer anyway.
So, what I see is NOT necessarily what you and others see and vice-versa.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

### Re: Relativity?

davidm wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:14 pm
Viveka wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:50 pm Crackpot is ad-hominem.
No, it isn't. Another thing you don't know is what "ad hominem" means.
What does 'ad hominem' mean, to you?
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

### Re: Relativity?

Viveka wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:30 pm
davidm wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:23 pm The clocks in the different inertial frames become unsynchronized because of the constancy of the speed of light. That is, the light in the moving frame relative to the rest frame does not obey Galilean additivity -- if it did, the two clocks would remain in synch!
Now you're saying that light isn't synchornized because of the constancy of the speed of light. If I have two clocks, one right beside one another with no movement whatsoever, and the each clock consists of a beam of light reflecting up and down perpendicular to two mirrors above and below each other, would it not have the same time due to the invariancy postulate? Now, put one of those clocks on a train, and leave the other at an embankment totally still. Would they not show the same time due to the invariancy posutlate? Remember that the light clocks are "c/2pi" and depend upon the speed of light reflecting itself. Thus, because of the invariancy of the speed of light, the clocks will always be synchronized regardless of relative motion and so on.
The light clock when moving becomes out of sync with the "non-moving" light clock because when the light in the light clock returns back to its starting point the clock has moved somewhat, so the light would take longer to return back to its starting point. So, if the light clock is moving as fast as the speed of light, then the light in the light clock could not return back to its starting point as it would always be trying to catch up to the clock itself.

A reason why human beings suddenly jumped to the conclusion that time, itself, stops at the speed of light and that they would age much slower traveling closer to the speed of light is because of this scenario.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

### Re: Relativity?

davidm wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 11:46 pm Predicted fucks to be given by either Ken or Viveka after they read your link (if they do): ZERO.
Once again making assumptions and jumping to conclusions.

Thus the very reason you have been unable to move forward with Me.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

### Re: Relativity?

thedoc wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:11 am Viveka and Ken will probably deny this as well.

Another one making assumptions.

The very reason WHY people have NOT even been able to grasped onto what I have actually been saying is because of these constant assumptions.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

### Re: Relativity?

Viveka wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:59 am
davidm wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:41 am Told ya! Zero understanding, and no fucks given!
I'm making a serious attempt to understand SRT as you understand it. I have posted a long post, but please, do not ignore it. I'm interested in what you have to say; I haven't fully claimed anything except for what I believe SRT is, and somehow trying to disprove it using its own ideas. I will accept I am wrong if I can get some idea of how it works and how I am wrong instead of laughter or ignoring my posts.
I hope my explanation of what they are trying to say helps. What is said about the light clock appears accurate. But do not let that deter your underlying view of things. It is only from people who see things differently that new theories are derived. Not that I suggest making new theories, but I am just stating what happened previously and how new things are discovered.

The laughing at you, and I, the trying to ridicule us, and the ignoring of some of our posts is just their way of trying to feel better about themselves. They "fight" for relativity being absolutely true, yet absolutely and totally ignore the fact that other people are at different stages of seeing and knowing things. Absolutely every thing is relative the observer/person.

They also ignore the fact observers/people see thing differently, have different ways of learning and understanding things, and that it takes different amounts of time and different amount of ways for people to learn and come to understand different things.

They are also only laughing at others who have not yet come to understand what they have specifically read up on and made sure they have gained an understanding of, what was in fact obtained by others doing all the work. What I have also noticed, and which should also be noted, is that they do not laugh at and try to ridicule themselves when they in fact do not yet know and understand things, which to others is already known and which is plainly obvious to see and understand by them.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

### Re: Relativity?

Walker wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:24 am
Ken wrote: I do NOT look at and follow theories. I look at what IS and observe that.
If all the books said that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, would you believe them?
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=22827&start=255#p336869
Did you read what I wrote? There is only 16 words there. Even when I simplify things and explain them more succinctly what I write still gets taken out of context and misconstrued in some (almost unbelievable) way.

What is written in books is just an observation, itself, of what IS. I do not really care what any and/or all books say. I look at them and observe them for what they really are.

I said, I look at what IS and observe that.

Do you understand what this means? Can you understand what this means?

As for believing any thing or not, have you ever seen Me before write, I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing? If so, then WHY would you write that sentence with the word 'believe' in it?

If you have not seen Me write that sentence before, then now you know that I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing.
Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

### Re: Relativity?

I think the main problem with relativity is confusing distance traveled with speed. If I have a light-clock and another light-clock is ticking faster, it doesn't mean the speed of light has changed for both, it means the distance traveled differs. Thus how can a light-clock function as a meaningful clock whenever it changes its distance travelled but not its speed? If we relied upon a light-clock to tell us time, I don't see how the light-clock is a real manifestation of a real time. No one would age any differently because of a sundial. Likewise, with the light-clock, only if its speed of light changed would time itself truly change.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

### Re: Relativity?

uwot wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:22 pm
ken wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:55 amWould not the time it would take, to the observer on earth, also depend on how fast the ship is travelling?

For simplicity are you able to imagine the ship travels at the speed of light, from lift off from earth to landing on another planet, and so do you agree that it appears to take four years, to an observer on earth, for the ship to travel to a planet four light years away? If so, then how long does it appear to take for the observer in the ship?
It's really not that complicated. Whatever the ship is doing has no effect on Earth's orbit.
Obviously.
uwot wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:22 pm It will continue to go round the Sun 4 times.
Obviously.
uwot wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:22 pm During those 4 years, if the ship travels at the speed of light, nothing will happen to it. Every atom will be travelling in a straight line, and no interactions between them can take place,
Obviously.
uwot wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:22 pmbecause the exchange of photons, which is the basis of everything that happens, cannot take place.
But there is still the exchange of photons happening. You even agreed previously that photons are moving in all directions throughout the Universe.

Why are you now saying that the exchange of photons can not take place?
uwot wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:22 pm In other words, because no change happens, no time passes for anyone on the ship.
But, if, as according to you, the exchange of photons is the basis of every thing that happens, and, photons are exchanging, which surely they must be if photons are traversing the Universe from all angles, then;
1. why are you now saying no change happens?
2. because of no change happens to people on a ship no time passes also?

Also, just as obvious is the fact that I am yet totally unable to get some people to just use imagination and look at a thought experiment.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

### Re: Relativity?

davidm wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 4:30 pm
ken wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:55 am
thedoc wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 2:34 am

To the observer on Earth it will take 4 years, for the observer on the ship, it will depend on how fast they are traveling.
Would not the time it would take, to the observer on earth, also depend on how fast the ship is travelling?

For simplicity are you able to imagine the ship travels at the speed of light, from lift off from earth to landing on another planet, and so do you agree that it appears to take four years, to an observer on earth, for the ship to travel to a planet four light years away? If so, then how long does it appear to take for the observer in the ship?
Why do you keep asking this same question over and over, when it has been repeatedly answered?
Because you are not providing imaginative and thoughtful responses. You are only providing "text book" responses, which ultimately could very well be wrong.

If we do not delve into further and past what has already been written down, then we do not get to look at, see, and understand newer things.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

### Re: Relativity?

davidm wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 4:34 pm 'To repeat, for the final time: No ship can travel at light speed. It can get arbitrarily close, but not achieve light speed.
That is true, hitherto. And, if that is the final time you are going to repeat THAT ANSWER, and thus do not want to look further afield, then I guess you will not be discussing this any further, am I right?

As I have explained AT LEAST TWICE NOW, if the ship were traveling at 90 percent of the speed of light, from the standpoint of earth it would take something a bit over four and a half years for the ship to reach Alpha Centauri. From the standpoint of the ship's crew, they would arrive at AC in about 2.2 years.

[/quote]

How could the ship travelling at less than the speed of light arrive sooner than light that left at the same time?

When they landed and looked back at earth, what date, on earth, would they be looking at?

What does "From the standpoint of the ship's crew" actually mean?

How much would the ship's crew have actually aged?
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

### Re: Relativity?

Lacewing wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pm
Lacewing wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 6:01 am If so, please explain why it applies to all people but not to you.
ken wrote: Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:53 am Did you assume, think, or believe that what I said would apply to all people but not to me?
So, I asked you some clarifying questions, and now you jump right into asking me if I assume, think, or believe
Is there some thing wrong with Me counter-clarifying?

Is clarifying really seen as being such a bad thing?
Lacewing wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pm-- rather than noticing/acknowledging the role that your communication plays in creating confusion (or revealing intent) that needs to be clarified. I will try to show you some examples in this post...
But I did and do notice/acknowledge the role that My communication plays in creating confusion. I actually intend on creation some confusion here, in this forum, so then by the way people respond I can show, with proof, of how the Mind and the brain work, which is what I have partly been doing.
Lacewing wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pmYour statement "Surely you understand that I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing", sounds like a very absolute statement, doesn't it?
I surely hope it does. That is the exact way that I wrote it and was hoping it would sound like. I would hope people did NOT see it in any other way than the way I wrote it, and, if they saw it as ambiguous in any way, then I would hope that they would ask Me for clarity BEFORE they made and assumptions and/or jumped to any conclusions. Could it be seen in any other way than a very absolute statement?
Lacewing wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pm It could be taken as applying "in general" or "in this instance". You did not specify that detail when you said it.
Ah here we go, so you did take it that it could mean different things. And, unfortunately still NO clarifying question.

If you had noticed, by the way I write, I intentionally use words to define as close as possible to what I actually mean. I am just learning how to do this in the shortest and most succinct way I possibly can. I did NOT use words like "in general", nor "in this instance", nor "at the moment", nor "at certain times", et cetera, et cetera because I meant ALWAYS, FOREVER, ALL THE TIME, CONSTANTLY, et cetera, et cetera. I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing. FULL STOP.

Now, can that be read, taken, and/or understood in different ways?

If it can I am really interested in being informed so.

Do you, and others, NOW fully understand that I, from a certain past date, NEVER neither believe nor disbelieve any thing?

Lacewing wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pmFrom what you've responded, I'm thinking that maybe your response was applying only to "this instance". Is that correct?
Not at all.
Lacewing wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pm Or do you (and have you previously indicated that you) neither believe nor disbelieve any thing... in general?
I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing EVER.
Lacewing wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pm
ken wrote: Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:53 am 'views', by their nature, can and do change. Whereas, 'beliefs' can not. Only during or after the dismissal of a belief, the belief returns to a view, when then be changed.
So here you're making up the definitions and distinctions and how they work, do you realize?
Yes, of course. I do it all the time. BUT I use a dictionary as a reference to base those definitions and distinctions upon, and how I make those words work. In fact, it will be found that how I gained a clear and big picture of how human beings and the Universe works and how EVERY thing fits together perfectly to form a perfect picture was mostly because of the definitions that have already been made up and have already been given to words, which can very easily been seen and proven in the dictionaries that already exist. The big and full picture of Life is seen (with) in the words, and their definitions, which already exist.

Do you realize EVERY person makes up the definitions and distinctions of words and how they work?

If not, then just take notice next time when a person states some thing like, "But that is not what [any word added here] means". It is human beings who make up the definitions and distinctions of words

There is NO word in the Universe that HAS A meaning in and of itself. ALL words are made up, and then given definitions BY human beings. The meanings given to a word are based on those made up definitions.

By the way when, and if, you take notice when a person, even if you catch your self doing it, you might also notice just how many disagreements, disputes, and fights are caused just solely because of the varying and different definitions each person has distinctively given to words. While looking into this you might also notice just how often a person, even one's self, does NOT know what the actual written definition of a word is. For example, I have to look in a dictionary the definition of a word on average about five or six times on each response I write, but this is getting a lot less frequent now. But when I first came here it felt like every five word I read I had to turn to a dictionary to understand better what was being said. By the way I am not the best one as an example of this because of how slow and simple I actually am. I am just very thorough and write very intentionally. I also would NEVER say what a word means, but I do write "What a word once meant, or was once defined as, ...", which by the way can be completely contradictory to how that same word is used generally in the days of now.
Lacewing wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pm Whereas, I could say that beliefs change all the time, without ever being "dismissed" and going through a view period. Beliefs can morph to and fro constantly.
Yes you could. If you did, then I would question it by asking some thing like, "But how could a belief form if not coming from a previous view? Do you, can you, believe some thing without ever having some form of experience it?" If so, then how? At present I can not see how some thing could be believed without it coming from some sort of previous experience. The information, from an experience, is transferred into the brain through any or all of the five senses, which is what forms, or produces, a view, almost instantly. From that information, (or view of things), we then decide what to do with that view, that is whether to believe or not believe the view, or just keep it as a view, for the moment.

I do not dispute nor disagree the beliefs people choose to have can change, and can change quite frequently, nor do I disagree that beliefs can morph to and fro constantly. If that is what people choose to do, then that is their prerogative. I am any one to say what human beings can do or not do, but I will question you about "HOW could a person change a belief if they are holding onto and/or maintaining it?" What I observe is people ONLY believe some thing if it is, to them, true, right, correct, and/or accurate. Do you know of any person who would have or maintain a belief if it were NOT true, NOT right, NOT correct, and/nor NOT accurate, to them? If you do not know of any person who would do that, then it is easy to imagine and see that while a person is believing, (or not believing which may also be the case), some thing to be true, et cetera, then they must be holding onto or maintaining that belief, and therefore could it even be possible to change that belief, at that very instance? Because if that it were true, which is what they are believing at that given moment, then WHY would they want to change it anyway?
Lacewing wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pm I think people are like oceans... and one day they may think and believe or respond one way, and another day they may think and respond another way. It could depend on all kinds of things... but they can very firmly believe it in the moment.
Yes that is very true. In fact it can and does happen hourly and some times minute by minute not just daily or more. BUT that does NOT disagree with, detract from, nor refute what I see.
Lacewing wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pm
ken wrote: Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:53 am I made this distinction after I discovered, while talking to some people with relative power, of how destructive the power of belief can actually be. I decided then that I was not going to believe nor disbelieve any thing again.
Now, notice how your statement sounds absolute here.
But My statement was meant to sound absolute from the outset.
Lacewing wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pm So, please clarify, do you or do you not -- in general -- believe or disbelieve any thing?
Thank you, from the deepest sincerity, a clarifying question.

I NEITHER believe nor disbelieve any thing, IN GENERAL, ALWAYS, FOREVER MORE, et cetera. FULL STOP.
Lacewing wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pm Is your view that other people -- in general -- believe or disbelieve things more than you do?
Yes. Some people even believe, and thus insist, that human beings HAVE TO believe things. These people actually believe that a human being can NOT exist without believing some thing.
Lacewing wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pmAlso, are you aware that some people here are trying to do for you, what you are trying to do for others?
What is it that they are trying to do for Me, what I am trying to do for others?

And, who are those people?
Lacewing wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pmWhen you appear to be telling people how something "is"... and they question you about that... the issue is NOT simply and automatically because they haven't asked enough clarifying questions of you.
I like that you used the word "appear". I do not recall telling people how some thing "is". Could you please provide some examples of when I have supposedly done this? I am not saying that I have not. I just do not recall doing that. When, and if, you do, then we can look at if I have actually done that or it just "appears" that way. Some times I write in a way that can appear to be NOT what it actually IS. I do this for effect.
Lacewing wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pmThe issue can be that you incorrectly think you know how something "is", or the issue can be that there is an inconsistency in what you communicate.
I totally agree that there is inconsistency in what I communicate.

I some times do this on purpose;
to strengthen people's assumptions and beliefs. And,
to show the actual amount of times people do NOT ask for clarification, and thus will just proceed along, basing things on the assumptions and/or beliefs that they already have gained from previous experiences.

I also from the outset have proposed I am here to learn how to write more succinctly in order to express what I one day want to express, so there will at times be inconsistencies. I am very far from a learned person, who knows how to communicate at all really. I am just learning how to.

I also see people see far more inconsistencies in what I write then what is actually there. But how much truth is in this last sentence will come to light soon enough.

To find out if I incorrectly think I know how some thing "is", then we need the examples of when I have done it. Then we will be able to find out what the actual truth IS.
Lacewing wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pm I don't think it is up to other people to "work through" what someone says to such a degree... as if the content is so important to be understood. There are countless eyes and minds seeing more than a single view can fathom.
From what I observe and notice is if a person is completely open, and not supposing they KNOW any thing, then they would and do 'work through' what others say, to find, see, and understand what the actual truth. The people who just accept what others say are the ones I found to be the believers. If people think, assume, or believe that the content of what another is saying is not that important to be understood, then so be it. It seems far easier to accept what one already believes to be true and to believe what one already accepts to be true, then it is to try to understand another one.

I agree there are more eyes seeing more than a single individual person can. But there is One single view, which can fathom ALL. That view is made up of ALL views. From this vantage point ONLY is the view point from which I talk about. The best way to gain the advantage to see from the single unified perspective of Everything is to listen to and learn from others. What each and EVERY one has to say is as IMPORTANT as the next. We ALL can learn from each other, no matter how seemingly unimportant, or unwanting to be heard, what another has to say.
ken wrote: Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:53 amThe reason I say, what I say, is to evoke feelings to people, and then watch the reaction. What will be observed is people instantly start assuming. People then write assumingly,
You realize that you write assumingly too, correct?[/quote]

I am sure I have. And when it was pointed out to Me when I did I instantly acknowledged My mistake, and then concentrated harder on not doing it again. When it is pointed out to Me when I do it, then I can be made aware of it. As I have said before, 'I do not want to assume', which obviously does not mean that I do not do it. I can easily choose to neither believe nor disbelieve some thing but it is harder I found to never assume any thing. The awareness needed for that is above my ability yet. That is why I write, I do not want to assume.

Lacewing wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pm And you realize that you are not the only one aiming to evoke feelings and reactions, yes?
Yes. But do you realize I do NOT do it to, what is commonly referred to as, "hurt" another's feelings. I just do it to cause a certain response?
Lacewing wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pm
ken wrote: Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:53 amI want to show how the brain has stopped what the Mind already sees and knows.
I think a lot of people understand this, Ken. My question for you... repeatedly... has been: "Do you see this as a problem... as something to be overcome or fixed... and if so, why?"
It does not have to be overcome nor fixed. Human beings can carry on the way they are now. The pollution and wars caused by greed will inevitably fix any "problems". Nature, naturally, looks after Itself, after all. If human beings are 'to much', 'to out of balance', or 'to out of sync' with Nature, then I am sure the "problem" will eventually be gotten rid of fixed.
Lacewing wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pm There appears to be an undercurrent to your writings that suggests we are not where we should be. Is that what you think?
Not at all. We are EXACTLY where we are meant to be. I just allow my human being tendency of impatience to come through some times, more than I like to be honest, and thanks to you I am being made aware that it is happening to much. Thank you.

The personal fear is I will not finish expressing this before this body stops breathing and pumping blood. The other personal fears I have of being mis/judged, taken out of context, being misconstrued, and/or misunderstood prevents me from working on this and expressing more. My inner most knowing, however, KNOWS that it does NOT matter one bit if this body does not finish expressing this. One day, some time, some one will. So it will be done.
Lacewing wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pm
ken wrote: Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:53 amI also actually did not even give the impression people are not seeing the actual truth of Life. I said they are distorted and/or blinded from it because of, the reasons given.
Those two statements can easily be seen to be saying the same thing -- even if you see them as saying something different.
Thanks again for highlighting this out to me. I do not instantly see what others see and I need the feedback to learn more.
Lacewing wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pm So, yes, it could be reasonably said that you DID give the impression, even if you didn't intend to.
What My intention was is what is important, to Me anyway, so without clarification from Me My intention can be completely lost. Thus the importance of learning how to express as best I can. I thought I had explained clearly enough that, obviously, the truths of Life are HERE staring at us all. So, we ALL can obviously see the actual truth of Life, and that it is only our distortions and blindness that is stopping us from seeing It. The distortions and blindness coming from the assumptions and beliefs. But I obviously need how to better phrase this. Once again thank you for showing Me this.
Lacewing wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pm Being distorted and/or blinded MEANS not seeing. Again we go back to... are you speaking "absolutely", or are you saying "sometimes"?
Thank you for the clarifying question. When we are assuming and believing, then we are being distorted and blinded from reality (the truth of Life), so the answer is 'some times'. But the blindness and distorted viewing happens 'absolutely' at those times, (of believing and assuming).
Lacewing wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pm Are you sometimes saying absolutely, and sometimes saying sometimes?
Neither.
Lacewing wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pm
ken wrote: Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:53 amThe truth of Life is all around. People are looking at and seeing it all the time. But they are distorting that view or being blinded from it completely because of the way they are thinking.
So are they seeing it all the time, or are they being blinded from it completely?
The clarifying questions is really refreshing.
Lacewing wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pmWhich is it?
Human beings are ABLE to see the truth of Life completely when they are truly or completely open. AND, they are being blinded from it completely when they are believing, and are being blinded from it somewhat (or distortedly) when they are assuming. 'Beliefs' cause a complete blindness of the truth of Life whereas 'assumptions' cause a distortion, or distorted view, of it.
Lacewing wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pm If by "seeing it all the time", you mean "they have access to it", then it would help for you not to use such absolute phrases that contradict so much else of what you say.
Thank you for the feed back, it helps tremendously. But I do not see that My absolute phrases necessarily contradict what else I have said. If the actual apparent contradiction/s are brought to light, then I could either show there is no contradiction or I could be shown otherwise and will have to acknowledge that and correct the mistake/s.
Lacewing wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pm Speaking "absolutely" could be a tendency of someone who wants to proclaim "how it is". Do you see?
Yes that is very easy to see. But like I said just before I do not recall ever saying "how it is". If I recall correctly, it was some one else who says, "that's how it is". I have been questioning them about that.
Lacewing wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pm
ken wrote: Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:53 am
Yes, agreed.

Which if people have noticed what I have been writing from the outset in this forum, the Truth IS what is agreed upon and accepted by ALL.
That's not what I said,
WHAT, is not what you said?

WHAT, do you think or assume I am saying that you said?
Lacewing wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pmand I don't agree that there is some unified total truth that must be agreed upon and accepted by all.
You do NOT have to agree with any thing at all. AND, there is NO THING that I am aware of "that must be agreed upon and accepted by all". The fact is I have been saying the very opposite of that.
Lacewing wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pm For me, truth -- on the human level -- is an evolving vast field, to be experienced vastly. Beyond that, there is no such thing as truth -- it is only associated with human thinking.
Fair enough. You can think, see, assume, and/or believe any thing you want to. ONLY you what is right for you. Is this correct?
Lacewing wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pm
ken wrote: Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:53 am Do you agree that that SPIRIT might also be in every moment I write?
Absolutely!

Spirit is wild and free and all things. Any of us can be sages at times... and demons at others... and so on. Isn't it all there, and aren't we all of it? Why wouldn't we be?
What is the 'it' and who or what is the 'we', you are referring to here?

ken wrote: Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:53 am one day soon, hopefully, you will be able to see that I am NOT writing from the perspective that you have really been thinking I have.
And perhaps you will see that there's more to you than you realize there is? I think there's much more to all of us than we realize... on lots and lots of levels.[/quote]

Who and what that 'more' is I just would love to be able to express, succinctly.
Lacewing wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pm
ken wrote: Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:53 am what I want to, eventually, show is that SPIRIT that you talk about. I just do it in a roundabout way. I just need to show ITs existence from a scientific, religious, philosophical, spiritual, thoughtful, and emotion way so that I do not put any one off "side". A challenging and fairly slow process, but a very doable one.
To me, this sounds like a laborious physical/mental effort to define something that is beyond definition...
The defining part has already been done and the evidence for this is easily accessible. The 'how to express this', without being misunderstood by any one, is the laborious effort part.

What are you basing your "beyond definition" quote on, exactly?

If you really sat there and took the time to think about that question, what is your most honest answer?

I will await your reply, then give what I see is the answer and allow you to respond to that.
Lacewing wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pmand that's why all the distortions and inconsistencies happen.
When, and if, there are any distortions and inconsistencies in what I write, then I am the first one who wants to be made aware of them. I can not correct that of which I am unaware of. So please point them out to Me at your first opportunity to. I will be the first one to acknowledge and them and correct them.
Lacewing wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pm The human mind and ego cannot contain and rule spirit.
I could ask you to clarify what is the 'human mind' exactly, but at the moment I will not.

But I agree wholeheartedly that wrong thinking, like assuming and believing, tries to contain and rule Spirit, but they can NOT.
Lacewing wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:43 pm Spirit is beyond the human mind's concepts. Spirit is demonstrated through being. Words get in the way. Words are just for play.
If Spirit is as you are proposing here, then Spirit can do MUCH MORE than what human beings, at the moment, can conceive. So, what you conceptualize as being "beyond definition" may in fact NOT be.