Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
A Link, And An Explaination Of What I Meant...

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Phillip Martin on January 28, 2003 01:00:47 UTC

http://www.youngskeptics.org/library/detail.asp?Num=402

That is a good definition of the general idea behind Akashic Records.

Akashic Records are recorded in "Akasha." Often, clairvoyants are described as being the only people able to access these records. I believe that "Akasha" is basically all time, with the exception of the current point in time. The exception is because the current point in time is being recorded, and is between future and past. The current point in time is the point at which existence exists. I also believe that the past and the future are recorded in the present, and that they can only exist at one point in time. The present exists, nothing more (essentially, the past present and future are one). The future is written in the present, but not in its entirety... ever work with computer rendering software? (Ex. Vue D'Esprit 4, which is what I had in mind with this example) The person making a picture (a certain present) tells the computer what is where and sets the conditions (a total of a few kilobits at the most), and then the computer is able to render the image, reflections and all (up to multiple megabytes). It can take a while, depending on how big and exacting the person wants the picture. The way I see it, the person is the past, telling the universe where everything was at the last point in time. The computer is the universe, itself. The future is the information the person puts into the program (what the program does to the past to make it the present), before it is the present. That may make to you think I am saying that the future exists between the past and the present, but... before the present is calculated, the future knows what is going to happen to the past in the present; the present is just a physical representation of a rendered compilation of the past and future. So, I am not saying that the future exists between the past and present, just that the future and past must exist for the present to.

I have not yet thought about this next part enough to believe it at the time of this post, so I may retract it later... I post it for your thoughts to help me decide on it:

start

The future, past, and present must all exist at one time for either of the three to exist. This would explain how the future can exist with the present. However, it would also mean that the past present and future exist at all times. Can this be? I have not yet decided. I have previously thought that there must be something in between this present and the next, maybe that is past... but that doesn't agree with something hmmm what does it not agree with... I don't have the time today to think about that, so for the time being, I don't know. It just doesn't sound right, but then again, it may agree with all of my above statements. I had also previously thought that existence must be either fluid, or sparatic. Fluid is pretty much self-explanatory, but sparatic requires some explanation. For example, there may be trillions of years (of unrecorded time, but time of the same 'length') between each instance of existence. Personally, I have much more faith in the fluid existence.

end

Question: Can a particle exist at an infinite amount of spaces between each instance of time? Is time constant, or does it go more along the lines of frame by frame (for every particle)? If time is not fluid, what 'is' when something is not the present?

I have a lot of work to do, so I was only able to post this about one aspect of what I meant by my previous post. I don't have the time for a formal reply, but when I do have time, I will reply.



Regards,

Phillip Martin

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2019 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins