Quantum sound theory or the unified field of everything...

Originally posted by madmac5150

Originally posted by Bedlam
First, "universe" does not mean "one song". It's from Latin, uni versum, "turned into one thing".

Second, sound is vibration in a medium, usually air. It doesn't go through vacuum. So once the Big Bang expanded enough to be tenuous, that's it for sound propagation. There is no sound in space.

Third, there are no "vibrational levels", that's theosophy, not science.

Fourth, there's no "vibrational or harmonic level" of water. Harmonic means something that's a multiple of a fundamental frequency. But theosophy has snagged it and tried to attach "harmony" to it, and that's a misuse. Water does have qm vibrations, but these are IR and microwave frequencies, not sound.

And no, you can't vibrate H2O into something like wine, which has hundreds of organic molecules in it, and probably more inorganic. Sound certainly won't do it.

The term "density" refers to the amount of something per volume, or per area in some cases. It is not co-identical with "alternate reality", which is a New Age misuse.

But our universe is not a vacuum... too much matter. We are also talking about God... imagine a pure voice but at a trillion decibels...

At the start of time, when the Big Bang happened, the energy density was so high, there wasn't even light or electrons, protons or neutrons. It was only when things expanded a bit, that the temperatures and electromagnetic energies were low enough for protons and electrons to form. Then there were photons, gravity, light and electromagnetic fields.

Originally posted by LastStarfighter

In the beginning was the Word-->by definition a word is a sound-->background cosmic radiation.

background cosmic radiation != sound

At all.

reply to post by stormcell


The expantion of the universe is SPEEDING UP, so there was no big bang.

I should add to the discussion that some posters are taking what looks like a KJV quote from John 1:1 and interpreting it literally.

Logos means a lot of things, and there are hundreds of interpretations of John 1:1, ranging from jellybean to heretical. I'd say a majority of people I run into that actually read the thing for meaning interpret "logos" in this verse to mean Jesus, and not a verbal utterance.

Certainly not one that you can hear through a vacuum.

eta: for example, it's as grammatical to translate the koine to "From the first, the concept was with the God, and was of the God, and the concept itself was a God"

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by madmac5150

 

Alchemy has more than one meaning. It's the same general process all around, but its intentions cover a broad spectrum of applications. Everything from material transmutation to spiritual transmutation.

From what I have read, alchemy is a triad of disciplines involving 1. The spiritual 2. The Physical 3. Time; the transmutation of these 3 things being the alchemists goal.

I started reading this today: History of alchemy and gnosis ,and the story is fascinating. It is also fascinating how all 3 major religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) have a role in the history of alchemy, ( Gnostics, Sufis, Kabbalists )... AND how the religions of antiquity (Egyptians et al) have a great deal more to do with modern religions than we realize. Fascinating.

reply to post by madmac5150


Here ya go!!



Decoding the Language of the Universe Through Cymatics
timberwolfhq.com...


Ep1 The Sounds of the Universe (Cymatics & More)



The History and Development of a Cymatic Theology

Science and Religion
Creation
Music and the Human Body
The Cymatic Brain
Music and Plants
www.cymatictheology.com...


Cymatics – The Science of the Future

By Peter Pettersson, translation Yarrow Cleaves
blog.world-mysteries.com...

reply to post by Wolfenz


There went the rest of my day, thanks!

I do actually appreciate the reading material... thanks again. My first impression is absolute fascination; gonna spin my brain into it for awhile...

Originally posted by Bedlam

Density of what? Vibrations of what? How did you measure these densities or vibrations?

Is it a volumetric or areal density? What's the specific gravity?

It is difficult to measure something not exisiting (manifesting) in the physical realm, by means of physical instramentations. It goes against the primary diffinitions of the scientific theory. Something (in fact upwards of 95% of "things") can exist but not be manifested physically in order to be measured by current observative scientific technology.

This is where a fully physically thinking scientist will not be able to grasp what is true.

HEB 11:3
"By faith we know the world was created by the relevatory thoughts of God (word/logos/thoughts) so that, that which is seen (exists; manifested in the physical realm) came from (is sustained by) that which is unseen (does not exist in the physical realm)."

Dark matter, Anti-matter, subspace multiverses ect. are all theoritcal physicists' attempt to explain the "unseen" (up to 95% of the energy needed to sustain observed physics) observations of science without the simple explination of the existance of God.

Only faith can bring the true understanding of a universal theory, because both a physical (existant in the physical realm, can be tested, measured) and a spiritual (non-existant in physical realm, cannot be tested or measured by physical intratments) realm exist and make up what is "real" in life during these ages we are living through when combined.

God Bless,

Originally posted by Bedlam
I should add to the discussion that some posters are taking what looks like a KJV quote from John 1:1 and interpreting it literally.

Logos means a lot of things, and there are hundreds of interpretations of John 1:1, ranging from jellybean to heretical. I'd say a majority of people I run into that actually read the thing for meaning interpret "logos" in this verse to mean Jesus, and not a verbal utterance.

Certainly not one that you can hear through a vacuum.

eta: for example, it's as grammatical to translate the koine to "From the first, the concept was with the God, and was of the God, and the concept itself was a God"

edit on 24-5-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

Excellent point and accurate greek translation to a degree.

Logos = relevatory thought of God.

Thoughts that reveal the nature of the thinker. They can be expressed in words when written or spoken, and they can be expressed in actions when seen. Your thoughts (forehead) are made known through your words (mouth) and actions (right hand).

God Bless,

Originally posted by ElohimJD

Originally posted by Bedlam

Density of what? Vibrations of what? How did you measure these densities or vibrations?

Is it a volumetric or areal density? What's the specific gravity?

It is difficult to measure something not exisiting (manifesting) in the physical realm, by means of physical instramentations. It goes against the primary diffinitions of the scientific theory. Something (in fact upwards of 95% of "things") can exist but not be manifested physically in order to be measured by current observative scientific technology.

This is where a fully physically thinking scientist will not be able to grasp what is true.

HEB 11:3
"By faith we know the world was created by the relevatory thoughts of God (word/logos/thoughts) so that, that which is seen (exists; manifested in the physical realm) came from (is sustained by) that which is unseen (does not exist in the physical realm)."

Dark matter, Anti-matter, subspace multiverses ect. are all theoritcal physicists' attempt to explain the "unseen" (up to 95% of the energy needed to sustain observed physics) observations of science without the simple explination of the existance of God.

Only faith can bring the true understanding of a universal theory, because both a physical (existant in the physical realm, can be tested, measured) and a spiritual (non-existant in physical realm, cannot be tested or measured by physical intratments) realm exist and make up what is "real" in life during these ages we are living through when combined.

God Bless,

As always my friend, you are insightful

Which is why I started looking at alchemy... a melding of science and spirituality. Modern science has lost its way, because science leaves out the spiritual... to me it is like trying to watch a foreign film without subtitles ie. you can infer a lot through observation of facial expressions, body language and the like... (science is essentially observation) you may get an idea of the plot, but without the nuances of the spoken language (observable yet unintelligible) a lot is going to be missed through misinterpretation... if that makes any sense at all.

Originally posted by ElohimJD
It is difficult to measure something not exisiting (manifesting) in the physical realm, by means of physical instramentations. It goes against the primary diffinitions of the scientific theory. Something (in fact upwards of 95% of "things") can exist but not be manifested physically in order to be measured by current observative scientific technology.

Then how do you know it has a density at all, much less a different one (than from what, I'm not clear). And how do you know it vibrates? Maybe it doesn't. And what's vibrating?

If you can't measure it, and you can't objectively observe it, then you're talking about something that doesn't exist, right? How do you ascribe physical terms to it? You can't know. It might not exist at all, since you can't perceive it in any way.It would be more straightforward to say it isn't there at all.

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by ElohimJD
It is difficult to measure something not exisiting (manifesting) in the physical realm, by means of physical instramentations. It goes against the primary diffinitions of the scientific theory. Something (in fact upwards of 95% of "things") can exist but not be manifested physically in order to be measured by current observative scientific technology.

Then how do you know it has a density at all, much less a different one (than from what, I'm not clear). And how do you know it vibrates? Maybe it doesn't. And what's vibrating?

If you can't measure it, and you can't objectively observe it, then you're talking about something that doesn't exist, right? How do you ascribe physical terms to it? You can't know. It might not exist at all, since you can't perceive it in any way.It would be more straightforward to say it isn't there at all.

These are all valid and correct scientific rebuddles to what was presented and I fully understand your need to know these things to believe the theory. It is the normal, natural, scientifically sound reaction to the post I crafted.

Science tries to observe it, and theorize around it, they claim it is "strings" that are vibrating, other scientists claim different frequencies/densities; and they are far more adapt at answering your scientific questions using scientific answers then I am. To me all science starts with God's word, so I am not a good source to answer your inquiries to your needed physical scientific level, regarding that area of the theory involving the "unseen"(unmeasureable).

It cannot be known scientifically (though observations).

It requires faith.

HEB 11:1
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for (known in the mind) the evidense of things unseen (not in physical realm)"

No man can give faith to you, I cannot proove it to your mind, it comes from the same source as all things in life; the relevatory thoughts of Alimighty God (word).

In time all will be known and understood regarding nature in the physical realm and God's plan and purpose for it, but this age is not that time, unless God calls you out of this age for a purpose according to His will (ecclesia = called out ones).

God Bless,

Originally posted by ElohimJD
It cannot be known scientifically (though observations).

It requires faith.

But what if you're deluding yourself, and it's all just wishful thinking?

At any rate, I'm more curious about vibrations and densities. Water has a different density than alcohol, meaning it weighs more for the same volume. But using "density" to denote "alternate reality" seems as apropos as using "flatus" to describe "cheesecake". I've never understood how "density" got hijacked by New Agers (and that is exactly where it comes from) to mean "dimensionality" or whatever they're trying to mean by it. If they know themselves.

Also, vibration has a very specific meaning, but none of them are "niceness" or "preferability", as in "higher vibration". Higher vibrations are what you get when the bearings are going out - maybe Heaven's a realm of imminent mechanical failure.

People who can positively state that something has some sort of vibration when they can't possibly measure that or know in any way whether it vibrates or not puzzle me.

Originally posted by madmac5150
reply to post by Bedlam

 

I will have to look into that, thanks

Did you ever look at eckankar? They think the sound of God is "Hu". They spend a lot of time sitting around going "hu" trying to get there. We used to have a small conclave of eckists at Ga Tech.

reply to post by madmac5150

By speaking the word "Let there be light", speaking implies voice, voice implies sound... so, from an esoteric standpoint God created order out of chaos by the sound of his voice, his voice generated the sacred vibration that spun matter into existence. Could the "Taos Hum" be the echoes of God's voice? Is the "Big Bang Hum" the echo of God's voice at the moment of creation?

Love your thread - love your conjoined thinking

Yes - perhaps the one song universe was started with god's say so - but for me -usually - what precedes my words are my thoughts.......and that's an electro-chemical process

I think the combination started it all.

BTW - you're expressing a perspective on the creation that has been with me for a long time - thanks for verbalising it.

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by madmac5150
reply to post by Bedlam

 

I will have to look into that, thanks

Did you ever look at eckankar? They think the sound of God is "Hu". They spend a lot of time sitting around going "hu" trying to get there. We used to have a small conclave of eckists at Ga Tech.

I have, actually. One of the first things I noticed was the mention of the Sufi, so this could be seen as a modern Sufi following. The Sufi, as I understand, is sort of like a Gnostic Muslim; an Islamic Alchemist. Definitely a lot more territory to cover.

Originally posted by madmac5150
I have, actually. One of the first things I noticed was the mention of the Sufi, so this could be seen as a modern Sufi following. The Sufi, as I understand, is sort of like a Gnostic Muslim; an Islamic Alchemist. Definitely a lot more territory to cover.

They used to put up flyers that said "How do you know there's a heaven? We can show you how to go there and see for yourself before you die!", which was sort of interesting, I'll admit.

Most people know Jesus spoke in parables. But, in fact, the whole bible is a parable. It contains truths that are valid on many levels. There really isn't just one right interpretation of things in the bible.

Take that saying: "God said, Let there be light."

Yes, it implies "Sound" creates "Light", and "Sound" precedes "Light".

This is unusual to the normal experience. We know when there's a thunderstorm, we see lightning first, then we hear the thunder. So, from a personal experience of worldly phenomena, this truth is hidden from mankind.

Our experience says the reverse, "Light" comes before the "Sound"..

However, today, scientists are beginning to understand the truth. In fact, light "travels faster" than sound. So, the light arrives at our location before the sound gets there. But, in the actual creation process, the winds clap together first, creating the sound, then the light is created after the clap. It's just that we, being far away from the origin of the phenomena, see the reverse happen.

So, sound comes before light.

Then again, scientists have only recently found, in the last few decades, that sound actually "creates" light. It doesn't just occur before light, it creates light, just as the bible says. The phenomena is called "Sonoluminescence". So, hey, how did the authors of the Bible know that?

We only now discover these things. The Bible is 2000 years old. How did those scribes have a clue, what they were writing about?

If you ask any non-believer, he will give you the standard dismissive argument, "It's just a coincidence."

reply to post by SQUEALER


Um, no. Lightning isn't created by "winds clapping together creating light".

And the sound part of sonoluminescence isn't what makes the light either. Sound makes bubbles, when the bubble collapses, the gas inside is compressed, and heats to luminescence.

I don't see Genesis as a physics text. YMMV