Re: Nothingness
Warren York ( infonet@home.com )
Mon, 16 Aug 1999 11:21:56 -0500
Steve Crowl wrote:
>
> I am glad someone got the message. I, personally, will discount any unified
> theory that does not account for the lower astral plane. I have evidence
> that it is predominately physical and, therefore, should be included in any
> unified theory of the physical.
=======================================================================
Warren writes:
Hello Steve, Your point is understood but your choice of words must be
chosen to fit the occasion. The word "astral plane" is due only to lack
of knowledge to explain the phenomena involved with it. It is like
saying
to an ancient explorer, That is not a "Wheel of Fire", it is a "UFO". It
does not mean the phenomena does not exist, it only indicates the level
of understanding involved. Don't laugh, we are still doing the same
thing
today when we say I found a graviton, tachyon or even a top Quark. Now,
science accepts theses words but once you understand what the actual
phenomena is, a new word will emerge to describe it in more detail.
There are a few exceptions but still there are exceptions. I agree
any GUT should explain ALL phenomena and our GUT of Light does also.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve wrote:
> I should also mention that any unified theory that fails to include the
> physical processes of "creation" that precede the manifestation of physical
> light will also be discounted by me.If you have seen the unified theory
> in physical light, then you have seen it in the "creation" processes
> preceding light, also.
======================================================================
Warren writes:
Again in agreement but I find it is not necessary to extract everything
the first day or one will never get started in grasping the concept. I
have already stated our GUT of Light explains the "Creation" process.
I have even put it under it's own label to be explored in detail when
the time is right. I do not feel to release ALL knowledge at one TIME
is safe. Man must understand things in stages. If you do not understand
what comes before you will not graps what follows. The same in school.
One must take the basics before you can the the higher levels of lets
say the subject of Math. As far as "Creation Genetics": Creation
Genetics
is explained within our GUT for the word "Creation" is linked to my
work where the word "Genetics" is linked to George's and others out
there.
George's genetics involves his "Life Crystals". That is his work and not
my work. I extracted the "Creation" part of the work from our GUT by
simple observation. George does not have the "Creation" information or
if he does, it is in a much different wording. He could not for it is
linked to our equation of which he has no credit too. To give you an
idea of what "Creation Genetics" is, I will say this. It is linked
directly to light and is templet data encoded much like a hologram
process but natural. This actual process is George's but the link
is direct from Light which is what our GUT is all about. I can show
the actual process and even the encoding and decoding method nature
uses. George at first thought it was what is called the "Master Gene".
The actual DNA data is more composite than is known. What makes it
"Creation" is that anybody can create their own templet at will. This
is a dangerous thing. This is not what George has shown. I am not
talking from theory but first hand with supporting data not in any of
Georges work. I would even go as far as to consider this beyond Alien
Technology. The idea can be presented without giving the know how and
it is just as valid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve wrote:
> I have also had a working "unified theory" for ten years. I have not
> mentioned it too much for the same reason you did not. My theory works
> perfectly and can be used to guide, the more physically inclined, physics.
>
> I am a mechanical engineer and understand only basic physics. However,
> what I have learned from my unified theory, can further physics research for
> many hundreds of years. If a theory works, it doesn't "matter" what it is
> based on.
>
> Good luck,
>
> Steve
>========================================================================
Warren writes:
I would like to hear your theory for one. Please do not remain silent.
One person here said they did not want to post their work on Keelynet
so they could lay claim for it later. Keelynet is like getting it
published. It is on record in the Keelynet archives as your work in your
own words and it is dated. What a better way to link your work from
others as your own. I even posted my theory was first published in 1994
which means I had a working theory before that date. It is important to
have your work recorded. Someday it might prove out. The world is
changing and there are better ways now to do things or get things
accomplished.
Also, try not to tell the artiest how to paint his picture. There are
no rules of acceptance or rejectance when it comes to an art form.
Science guidelines are not the same as freedom of speech which means
Keelynet allows expression of ideas and thoughts not restricted to
blessed doctrine which is obviously not complete. Get the word out and
post your theory. I just would like to hear it. I did not say I wanted
to pick at it. Science will do that for you. Get it expressed be it
right or wrong. Put it on record. That goes to everybody else no matter
what the subject may be. What Jerry is doing with Keelynet is a blessing
to the silent thinkers. Warren