Quick Notes on the Real Origins of Humankind and the God Concept

Haven’t pieced these thoughts together yet. Just note taking. But thought it better to copy and paste here rather than not. (I am literally sitting on hundreds and hundreds of pages in various places on my phone or hard drives that have not yet made it to the Transcendence Diaries. So in order to prevent that from continuing to happen, this — though perhaps tending to lead to some confusion in reading comprehension — shall be the fix, quick copy and pastes when a lack of time necessitates. I can always come back later and edit or amend).

Yes still studying… No not that, that, that or that. BUT this: So it turns out that the Abrahamic Torah/Bible/Qur’an stories of Genesis, Creation, the Flood, Moses, the Tower of Babel and hundreds of others are copied literally word for word from ancient Sumerian texts written thousands of years before. Maybe this was already common knowledge (?), but i honestly had no idea… Mind blown. This is not “Jewish oral history of their ancestors written down by scribes”, nor the “word of God (capital G) transcribed by man”, but rather ancient stories (true or not is arguable) from clay tablets written between 4000 and 2700 BC in Sumer. And there are tens of thousands of these being translated still… It ALL seems to go back to and originally come from the Sumerians. (Modern day Iraq…. Go figure).

And yes, undoubtedly the first humans to do just about everything — writing, advanced math, create the alphabet, astronomy, physics, human history, astrology, ad infinitum — were people of color.
Which makes me wonder…is THIS one of the reasons why, as we are growing up in the West, are we taught the later versions of these inventions by the Romans or the Greeks or the Hebrews? As in “has it been a conspiracy all this time to misinform people just WHO created and discovered everything? To be more exact, to HIDE the fact that it was actually people of color…?
OR… Is it simply due to the fact that this is fairly new data and “we” just didn’t know all this when we were in school? I mean this IS fairly new data… Many of these clay tablets are still being translated today….
I’d venture to say its a little bit of both probably.

For example we know that the entire book of Genesis was taken from two different sources, which were written over 500 years apart (500 BC and 1000 BC approx.) but both told very similar stories… So ancient Jewish scribes and then modern scholars spliced the two together to create one fluid though confusing work. Hence the repeated passages of many of the stories AND the many contradictions.
But they’ve now traced these stories back to their origins — as far back as 2700 BC — nearly 5000 years ago, 2000 years earlier than when we thought they were written. Amazing. All from the Sumerian culture (which then turned into the Babylonian culture etc), and all written down in the three different alphabets and languages that the Sumerians slowly evolved over time — first cuneiform, then eventually the more advanced Phoenician (phonetic) alphabet that so many cultures used as their starting ground for their own language and alphabet.

We have always been told that the Hebrews / Israelites eventually discovered writing and when they did they started writing down their oral history. “The Gods created human beings from clay and earth”, “created woman afterwards from the rib of man” = Sumerian. “Moses abandoned by his mother in a basket sealed with pitch and let loose in a River to be adopted by a Queen…” = ancient Sumerian. “The plagues of blood etc” “The flood that killed off nearly everything on earth” = Sumerian. But now we are learning that they were in fact just writing down these stories that had been around for thousands of years before; furthermore even their alphabet and language is largely based on Sumerian. The numbers. The letters. The months of the year. It’s crazy.

Now here’s where it becomes “Matrixy”. In all of these original stories, the Sumerian ones, they claim that what they are saying is TRUE. We are told that these are all “myths”… Some believe that. Others more orthodox — Jewish, Christian and Muslim– believe them to be actual history. But they are NOT Jewish history. That we can be sure of. (I know. That opens up a whole shelf of cans of worms for a LOT of people who NEED this to be Jewish history, especially Christians and Muslims)….

At some point the Jews DID start focusing in on this idea of “one god instead of many” — most likely gotten from the Persian Mede people and their Zoroastrian religion (first known stories of “one good god versus one evil god). So they’ve now got this monotheistic ideology going… But the stories they’ve adopted all speak of “gods” — as in multiple gods, i.e. “The gods who created mankind”. Even the Jewish biblical Genesis story of creation has more than one god in it. “We” “us” “let us make them in our image” etc. But the Jews liked this idea of ONE god just as persian Zoroastrianism did. So they began changing the stories to reflect that it was ONE god who was doing all these things. But the stories they are all taken from all refer to a “group of gods” “who come from the sky in spaceships” etc. And this is where they claim to have gotten all their knowledge and technology etc.

Besides elaborate written histories and explanations they also drew tens of thousands of pictures to show their history — our history. They show things like the entire solar system w all ten planets (most of which we wouldn’t “discover” until modern optics in at least the 1500s onward). And yes this is why many are still searching for this mysterious tenth planet — Nibiru — because they even knew about Jupiters moons and Saturn’s rings. Things we didn’t know about till 4500 years later.

Furthermore these gods are giant, like twice the height of humans. They have space helmets on and space suits and they are often depicted in space ships. Jet propulsion is even discussed. It’s all quite mind boggling.

The kings of Sumer all lived to be 900 to thousands of years. Sounds familiar right?

Of course at some point “the powers that be” of both Israel (the priestly order of the temple) AND then Rome did away with all this talk of multiple gods who came from the sky and genetically created mankind. They transformed these historic stories of origin into a more esoteric “wrathful vengeful judging god figure who sees everything and only they (the rabbis/priests) can communicate with etc and created all these laws that most people still believe in today.

But in reality that was just a power-grab to control the masses through fear and we most likely have very good logical rational sources now for where we come from, why we were made, who made us, etc. And it has nothing to do with the “God” of Israel or Catholicism or Christianity or Islam. He at least was a very useful tool being passed down through the ages becoming all the more powerful as larger and larger empires used “him” (who was really “them”) to gain control of land money people and resources.

Which of course begs us to now ask “so when we are in church or synagogue and praying, just who the hell are we praying to?!?”

Does Matter Come From Mind? Or Mind Come From Matter?

A note: The post below is based on a variety of information sources and data taken from throughout human history and studied and researched over the last 25 years. The reader is assumed to have already encountered and studied the majority of this information. If one encounters something that they’re not familiar with, a suggestion might be to take a note of it and continue reading.
 
 Two things. We’re already familiar with evolutionary theory and with creationism. The new form of creationism that’s received a lot of fanfare over the last 10 years is something they now call intelligent design. Creationism and intelligent design usually refer to both humanity and the world in general being created by some sort of a divine being capital D such as a god or goddess.
 
 Of course there is also another theory of creationism and that is what it has now come to be known as the ancient alien theory of creationism which posits that rather than a singular God that created the entire universe, a collection of extraterrestrial beings from another world other than Earth actually created humankind. In the most popular theory about ancient alien creationism is that the human race was created as a slave race by extraterrestrial beings (simply meaning “not of this earth”) who came from Sirius B star system. We could call them “Siriuns”.
 
 This theory is an old one. I first heard it proposed back in 1995 when we are still but children and have continued to study it over the last 20 years. There is a ton of evidence, if one is looking for it, and depending on one’s perspective, that portends to prove this ancient alien theory may be accurate. And there are a variety of different theories out there proposing that humankind was created by extraterrestrials or aliens, each with their own idea of from which star system these extraterrestrials originally came. Where they were from or where they currently live now is important, and indeed is fascinating to research and contemplate. But it’s not the main theme of this post.
 
 Number one: Here’s an important point. Even if we were to assume that this is true – that the human race is nothing but a slave race created by more advanced extraterrestrial beings and we have now evolved beyond a slave mentality and beyond even remembering our origin – this still does not exclude the idea of an even more divine being creating the entire universe. This would’ve just happened before that time period. Someone or something still would have had to create not only the universe but the extraterrestrials who created human beings. So regardless of which theory one chooses to believe in — a God created human beings or extraterrestrials created human beings, it still does not solve the ultimate question, i.e. How did the universe itself get here and who or what might have created it?
 
 We now assume, the majority of us at least, that the entirety of the known (and unknown?) universe is approximately 15 billion years old. Of course this exact figure is also arguable; everything is. But that’s not the question at hand either.
 
 Number two: The real question ultimately is this: can mind ever come from matter? As evolutionary theorists propose? Or can matter only come from mind?
 
 It is easy to be an evolutionist. The majority of intelligent people on earth now tend to believe in it. Theoretically it makes sense. And there appears to be an ever growing body of physical evidence to support it. On earth that is. Especially on earth. Fossil records etc. This is something most evolutionists seem to totally miss: almost all evidence regarding evolution theory is based on earth based life forms and materials — an infinitesimally small piece of the total universe. They totally miss the rest of the much larger picture — the hundreds of billions of other galaxies and star systems in the world we live in.
 
 Granted, in the greater known universe, in the world of astro-physicists, a simple reading of the history of radio waves that permeate the seeming “empty space” of the universe reveals that it has been expanding — a fact that can be viewed as “evolutionary” to a certain degree. Scientists take this rate of expansion and reverse it and this is how they come to decide how long the universe has been existence. It’s just the rate of expansion times the distance covered in reverse. Eventually they reach a point where everything in the entire universe is all crammed together no bigger than the size of an atom. Before that…?
 
 Well that’s where we get the idea of the so called Big Bang. The idea that matter itself just mysteriously and miraculously bursted into being from nothing. This is where evolutionary theory hits it’s arch nemesis, namely logic. Because we all know that nothing can come from nothing. Matter cannot come from nothing or nowhere. It can only come from something. This is how and from where Thomas Aquinas got his “a priori” / “first cause” argument. So at least according to some, it’s an impossibility to consider that all of this something came into being from nothing.
 
 Others persist in asserting that they believe that matter can indeed miraculously come forth from absolutely nothing at all. The operating word here being “believe”. Because at this point (in human history at least) we don’t have any evidence to support either theory. The truth is we human beings simply do not know what happened before the universe began expanding. We don’t know how IT — that tiny microscopic ball of matter that expanded exponentially into everything in the known and unknown universe including ourselves — got here, or how IT came into being, or what it was before it was. We just have theories.
 
 But beyond this argument of matter coming into being from nothing is another deeper question. The one posed before: can mind or consciousness come from matter? We have been speaking of matter. Not life. Remember, scientists postulate that it was the universe itself that first came into being 15 billion years ago. Not life. The star at the center of our solar system, what we call “the sun” (curious that we have a name for all these different stars in the universe when in reality they don’t really have names…), has only been in existence for 4.6 billion years. The earth for only 4.5 billion. The earliest life forms that we know of, simple single-celled microbes, for approximately 3.5 billion years. And human beings? Approximately only 200,000 years.
 
 Why is this important? Because human beings, out of either ego or limited knowledge and ignorance, are the only life forms that we humans currently know of so far in our research that have “mind” or consciousness, i.e. an awareness of being. And we don’t know of any other instances where mind has come from pure unconscious matter. From a purely logical point of view it seems unlikely, mind coming from matter.
 
 Indeed it was this quote, by philosopher Harry Palmer, that first inspired me to read all his works and then take all the Avatar Courses: “The miracle is not that there is consciousness in the universe, but that there is a universe in consciousness”. For whatever reason this made sense to my young mind at the time. I had always thought of us as being inside the universe. As parts and pieces of it. Operating inside of it. It was only then that I began to contemplate the idea that even the universe itself must be inside of consciousness, because after all the universe is just more matter and anything material at its origin must come from some form of consciousness. Matter does not just originate out of nothingness.
 
 Sure it breeds from itself. Evolutionarily speaking, matter begets more matter, as we’ve seen from studying the evolution of life on earth and even non living matter in the near and far away universe. But initially this matter must have come into being from some form of consciousness. A mind or consciousness could not have emanated originally from lifeless matter. Or could it?
 
 That really is the question. And the truth is we do not as of yet have the answer.

Spiritual Fulfillment and Enlightenment Versus Religion

Nine times out of ten when you tell someone that you’ve had numerous spiritually fulfilling experiences or have achieved enlightenment you’re statement will be met with a doubtful scoff. A cynical laugh and a brush off. You might even encounter anger or righteous indignation by the mere mention of it. After all, true spiritual enlightenment is nearly impossible but for a few select souls; like the Dalai Llama. People are more than willing to believe that the Dalai Llama or the so-called “Buddha” had spiritual enlightenment experiences. But a regular ole normal person? Impossible. And yet the majority of people on planet earth, even those here in the West, still profess to believing in a god and belonging to a religion — many even attend a church regularly. But they find the idea of enlightenment, true spiritual fulfillment very hard to believe in. Especially in others. Why the disconnect?

For one thing, there seems to be a thick line separating what people believe about “God” and how people think about spiritual enlightenment. Perhaps in days past, religion and spirituality used to be tied together, like next of kin. But in modern times, they seem as estranged as Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman. Existing in different worlds and for completely different purposes. Religion in today’s world seems more to address one’s morals and ethics, along with a sense of community and social status, than it does one’s spiritual fulfillment. Once a person starts on the path of the seeker, searching for truth and spiritual fulfillment, they seem to leave the major religions of the world behind and enter into an alternate world more akin to the esoteric and supernatural. But why? When did religion cut the cord from simple spiritual fulfillment? And what exactly is spiritual fulfillment? What is enlightenment for that matter?

There are countless misconceptions about spiritual fulfillment and enlightenment in human mass consciousness. Erroneous assumptions or flat out lies in the form of myths, legends and fairytales that have been indoctrinated into human hearts and minds for centuries and some even for millennia. Very little of what has been written in the way of religion or spirituality is true or even of any use. One learns this fact very quickly once on the path. Almost all of these false facts and erroneous conclusions with very few exceptions come from and are promoted by one form or another of what we call “the world religions”.  No matter where we live on planet earth, there is at least one or more “god legends” that is commonly promoted by one or more of these religions. No one, no matter where they happen to be born and grow up on planet earth, is immune from it. Because we are aware that over the last five thousand years human beings have believed in no less than one to five thousand different “gods” — bearing over ten thousand different names by some accounts, it is ironic that each generation is well aware of the numerous “false gods” that humankind “used to believe in”, but they still persist in believing that the NEW god that they believe in NOW is the “one true god” — not one of those old-fashioned “false gods” of the past. This is red flag number one. It’s a presumptuousness that is both sad and laughable.

This is not to say that true spiritual fulfillment or enlightenment is not possible, for as many can and have attested to through the ages right through to today, it certainly is possible. For some it is easy. For others it seems a bumpy, rocky, long and challenging road. This difference probably has more to do with the beliefs a person holds, whether consciously or unconsciously, than anything else.

One of the first questions we need to ask is, is a “god” even necessary to achieve true spiritual fulfillment or enlightenment? Ask a Buddhist and they will reply “no”. Ask someone who practices any of the Big Four major religions of the world — Judaism, Christianity, Islam, or Hinduism — and they will emphatically reply “Yes, absolutely. A god is absolutely necessary”. To them, spiritual fulfillment or enlightenment has more to do with their god and their religion than anything else. They go together. One can’t exist without the other. Their religion is their spiritual fulfillment. The god of their chosen religion — whether deliberately chosen or indoctrinated — is the focus of, reason for and cause of their spiritual fulfillment. Which begs another question: is practicing a religion and/or worshiping a god the same as what we refer to as “spiritual fulfillment and enlightenment”? The answer seems to be both yes and no.

For some, practicing a religion, believing in the tenets of a particular religious faith, is less about spiritual fulfillment or enlightenment in the here-now than it is about achieving that state of being in the “after life”. They freely admit and proselytize that the life that we currently inhabit in the here-now on planet earth, in these minds and bodies, is meant to be one of sacrifice in order to achieve spiritual fulfillment and enlightenment in the future, after one passes on and dies. This has always struck an odd chord for me personally. There seems to be a major disconnect in this particular belief, even though it is one that is shared by billions of people. Why would we be here if the only purpose was to suffer and struggle through it with nothing to look forward to but the end of it all?

If we examine this belief and the possible origins of it, it is clear that it has very solid and practical applications. When the world’s religions were first formed, life WAS hard, challenging, full of suffering and struggle. The promise of true happiness and fulfillment in the afterlife if one just persevered in this life offered hope. That hope kept people alive, at least long enough to procreate and continue the perpetuation of the species. An important role duty of any living thing. If one is raised to believe that life has no purpose other than struggle and suffering, with no promise of anything at the end of the road, why go on? Why even bother to live until tomorrow? But if one is led to believe from an early age that all one need do is persist in living life to their best ability for as long as they are here and THEN they will be REWARDED with an eternity of infinite bliss and fulfillment in an “afterlife”, then they just might stick around and give it a go. At least long enough to procreate.

But of course, that’s not the only requirement. There’s a catch. Besides sticking around, one is also asked to “believe as we believe, follow these specific sets of rules and laws AND defend them, even to your death if need be” and THEN “you will most certainly be rewarded with an afterlife of eternal bliss and the fulfillment of your greatest dreams and aspirations”. For this, human beings are offered the most outlandish rewards in the “afterlife”, ranging from “seventy-two virgin girls to serve your every wish and command”, to “giant houses one streets paved with gold that sit upon the clouds of heaven”, to “becoming one with God the almighty”. This is a second practical reason for and application of fostering in people a belief that true spiritual fulfillment comes “not in this life, but in the afterlife”: the ability to control those people through heavy indoctrination while they are alive by holding out a reward in the afterlife for them that is just out of reach.

Promote a few men among them to a higher status to act as watchdogs and overseers — priests, bishops, cardinals, rabbis, imams — and a pyramid-like hierarchy of control is made easily possible, where the few can control the many. Throw in some early indoctrination of some form of punishment — either in this life, such as banishment from one’s society, torture or death, or in the afterlife, such as “an eternity in hell” — and along with the reward factor, this control is made even easier.

Now spiritual fulfillment and enlightenment in THIS life, here-now, is no longer even desired or contemplated. Everyone is so concerned with this “eternity in an afterlife” that they’ve completely let go of one of the most rational and reasonable human considerations: personal happiness and fulfillment here-now. This is a misconception about life that has plagued humankind for thousands of years, ever since the first major religions were formed; and most don’t even give it a second thought.

But some do. In the modern times that we live in, at least in areas of the world where it is politically allowed — such as in democracies and republics, some people began to contemplate these belief systems taken for granted for so long and by so many and came to conclude that they were implausible at best, downright false propaganda at worst. Ideas such as existentialism — the idea that only what we are able to see, touch, hear, taste, smell or measure in the here-now is all that is; everything else is illusion — began to pop up. Ideas such as agnosticism — the simple notion that we don’t know what we don’t know but are open to anything if at some point it should become clear to be true to us; and even atheism — a sort of anti-religious faith that is just as unreasonable and illogical as religious faith is when it is broken down — a determined belief that one is SURE that a god does not exist. (talk about silly: non-religious people bad mouthing religious people for believing that “God definitely exists” when they are sure that “a god doesn’t exist”. Both flying by the seat of their pants on nothing but faith and faith alone, sure of themselves for no other reason than they want to be, neither of them with any proof to back up their claim. But these are all important steps on the path to spiritual fulfillment and enlightenment.

Most people are often religious as children, atheists when they reach their teens or twenties, and eventually settle into a comfortable agnosticism once they mature. But some reach further. The quest for true spiritual enlightenment.

Breaking the shackles of religious belief based purely on indoctrination, or fear of a torturous afterlife, is a major step, an important one, a necessary one if one is to ever achieve true spiritual fulfillment or enlightenment. But one needn’t throw out the baby with the bathwater, though one can hardly blame them if they are want to do so at first. It’s a predictable first step — once given the freedom to do so, that first illuminating moment when one realizes that the door to the jail cell is no longer locked, some just run out, never look back and never stop running. They stay in perpetual resistance to being held down and controlled by indoctrinated beliefs that make no logical sense to them. But what of spiritual fulfillment and enlightenment? Ahhhh, that’s the baby, lying there in a puddle of water struggling for each breath after it’s been tossed out and abandoned. Ask any atheist or agnostic about spiritual fulfillment or enlightenment and they’ll tell you that “it’s all a crock of bs”. They “believe in the here-now”. Happiness is to be created by each individual on their own terms in whatever way they desire. And for them, if it serves them, let it be. Not everyone desires spiritual fulfillment or enlightenment. Some are content with just being here, with being alive. And in a way that kind of state of being is an enviable one.

But what about those of us who do long for something more? Once we recognize that the door to the cell is no longer locked, must we too run and never look back? Freeing ourselves of religion and the suffocating false beliefs and illogical assumptions of them does not necessarily imply that we no longer desire true spiritual fulfillment. The fact of the matter is that religion and spiritual fulfillment CAN go hand in hand. But one just doesn’t necessarily equal the other, nor is one required for the other, and vice versa. They are entirely separate animals. Moreso than most religious folks would care to admit. That is why the idea of spiritual fulfillment and enlightenment is so rarely brought up in religious circles.

In fact, after decades of study, research and practice, one begins to realize that though spiritual fulfillment is quite possible through the practice of any one of the numerous world religions that dominate human consciousness at this time or any other time throughout our history, it may be easier to achieve withOUT the practice of a religion at all. For a myriad of reasons. As noted above, spiritual fulfillment and enlightenment is NOT necessarily the number one goal of the world’s major religions in the first place. Some of them freely admit this. Their goal instead is to offer such things in an alleged afterlife.

One also realizes eventually along the path that almost everything that has ever been written about the nature of “god’ or divinity or enlightenment is made up. Especially the stuff of religion. A good rule of thumb: whoever wrote it most likely made it up. Or they’re simply passing on ideas that someone else made up. Many claim that they’re simply acting as a vessel for a “god”, that everything they’ve written was not only divinely inspired, but actually written BY a god. By THE God. It’s an astounding reality when you step away from it for a moment. That an entire race of beings can become so indoctrinated by a belief that they can accept such an outlandish claim. Especially when you sit down and actually read the things that this God supposedly wrote.

Another good rule of thumb: if you know more about the mechanics of the universe than a God who claimed to write through humans, chances are no such thing happened. And such is the case with the sacred writings of the so called “holy books” of all the world’s major religions. The first book of the Bible, Genesis, a holy book of both the Christian and Jewish faith has TWO known authors, two different stories of the “creation of the world” story, two different stories of Noah and the Ark, etc etc. (Yes, of course there’s a possibility that “God wrote through” two different humans, telling the same story, just in case one of them died before they finished publishing. But let’s not speak of possibilities here.) The simple truth is that we all now know more than God supposedly did just two-thousand years ago. And the same goes for the Bagadvagita, the Hindu holy book. That’s an even more outlandish story. Flying monkeys and talking elephants. And the same goes for The Qu’ran. Talk about man creating god and then projecting his own culture and its beliefs onto this god in order to exert power over others. That book is a veritable dictionary entry for man-made religious mumbo jumbo. But so too are the rest of the so called holy books of the world’s major religions. None are exempt from the ridiculous factor. Except for one.

The Tao Te Ching. But by most people’s accounts this is no longer a sacred book of one of the major religions of the world. Perhaps it’s too intelligent. Too rationale. Too modest. Too non-fiction to be considered “truth” by religious people. (irony deliberate). It doesn’t claim to know everything or to be able to solve all the worlds problems. But it is one hell of an intelligent work. Definitely the most sacred, deep, and truthful. And at one time Taoism was considered a world religion. Now it’s shoved into the “non-theist camp” along with Buddhism. For whatever reason most people consider religion to equate “believing in a God”. Though that’s not true either. Scientology is allowed to be called a religion for God’s sake. There’s another one of those red flags.

This idea that a god wrote holy books through human hands may fly for some… indeed we all know deeply religious people; many who I respect and admire greatly. There is a strong desire in human consciousness to believe in a force or entity more powerful than us — it is a temptation that we all succumb to in our weakest moments — AND to be told what to do and what to believe. It is certainly easier than figuring these things out for ourselves. (There’s real work involved in that.) So throw them a book and tell them “god wrote it” and they’ll come running. They’ll devour it. The “Holy Bible” is the best selling book of all time in the history of the human race. There is a logical practical reason for this, as noted above. But what are they running to? What are they devouring? Is it true spiritual fulfillment? Is it enlightenment? Or is it simply the promise of rewards at a later date? In the afterlife? Or is it simple comfort? Belonging to something bigger? A sense of community? A pat on the back with an implied message that “you’re alright, you’re a good person because you believe”. These are powerful motivators. So powerful in fact that they can lead someone off the path of spiritual fulfillment and enlightenment and smack into a church pew every Sunday.

Many will tell you that true spiritual fulfillment or enlightenment isn’t possible in this life. Some will be very religious. Some will be atheists. They will be highly skeptical if you relay to them that you believe that YOU’VE experienced it yourself. For whatever reason, there seems to be a belief floating around, quite solidly, in mass consciousness that “enlightenment is hard”. Why? Perhaps because life was so hard for we humans for so long… (consider how recent this current stage of peace, freedom and ease of the modern world is in the very long history of humankind…) Or perhaps it’s because the major religions of the world have pounded it into consciousness with such persistence for so long that people started to believe it. If spiritual fulfillment and enlightenment is hard, then we need a religion to get there. Along with that need comes a dependance on that religion

Consider for a moment how Tibetan Buddhists for example believe that they must “give up all material possessions and pleasures and isolate themselves from the rest of society and meditate for hours everyday for years” in order to achieve enlightenment. This of course is a ridiculous notion. Completely made up. By someone, human, at some point in history. And then passed down and perpetuated through the ages by others. Not a bit of truth to it. And yet millions adhere to this belief. The same is true for Sikhs. They even go so far as to change their name. Many sects of Hinduism such as Krishna devotees have similar beliefs. They give up literally everything material for the promise of spiritual fulfillment and enlightenment.

This is not to say that it doesn’t work. It may work. It may not. But it does illustrate how solidly this belief that “enlightenment is difficult to achieve” is planted in mass consciousness. People tell themselves that because enlightenment is so difficult to achieve, if I go to great lengths to achieve it and sacrifice a lot, then surely I may possibly achieve it. When all along it’s right in front of them. In front of all of us. More on that in a few. But first…

Let us remember, regardless of who it is that is telling us that “spiritual fulfillment and enlightenment is hard to achieve” or what they are or where they come from, it doesn’t matter. Because, again, that’s just their belief. And one person’s beliefs have nothing to do with another’s. They’re not applicable. Not relevant. Entirely unimportant. That’s an important something to recognize and never forget. Maybe the most important. Many of us on planet earth are free to believe whatever we want to religiously. But some still are not afforded that liberty. Regardless of what position one is in — because of where they live or how they were raised — it is still just as important to remember: no one can tell another what the truth is regarding spiritual fulfillment or enlightenment. It’s all bullshit unless it rings true to YOU. Some may have to fake it. Just to stay alive. Think modern day Islamic societies, (not all of them), where religious beliefs are forced upon their citizens whether they like it or not. Or think The Middle Ages or The Dark Ages, where professing to not being a Christian meant torture, imprisonment or death.

The greatest irony of them all is that a few hundred years before that, the exact same people who were torturing others for NOT being Christian — the Roman Empire disguised as “the catholic church” and all it’s minions, Spain for instance — were doing the exact opposite: torturing and murdering others for BEING a Christian. If that doesn’t open one’s eyes and shed light on just how full of shit the whole system is, then nothing will. Let them be. Enlightenment is not their thing. Being told what to do and doing it in order to feel good about themselves is more important to these individuals than spiritual fulfillment or enlightenment. Walk away and wish them peace and a good life.

The truth is that there is no one-size-fits-all magic formula to spiritual fulfillment or enlightenment. No spell or incantation, no prayer or ritual, no practice or meditation that is foolproof if you only do it properly and do it long enough. Anyone on the path who is honest with themselves will attest to this in a quiet moment of vulnerable peace and truthfulness. Spiritual fulfillment and enlightenment is up to each individual. It may look and feel a little different to each of us. Each may come to it from a slightly different path. But in the bigger picture it always seems to vibrate the same message and generate the same general ideas: unconditional love, peace, acceptance, tolerance and compassion for others… a knowing that all is well, that time is relative, that we are all one, all part of the same thing, whatever that may be, that we are all made of the same stuff, all here for a purpose and yet no purpose. The infinite all that is. The I Am of the I Am. Here before it all. Still here. Here after it’s all gone. Creation embodied. Living breathing pulsating vibrating creation energy. This is the stuff of enlightenment. But usually not the stuff of religion. That’s an odd conundrum.

No matter where a person comes from and how they got there, every attempt to recount what true spiritual fulfillment and enlightenment is, sounds and feels relatively the same. It’s uncanny but also refreshing. No matter what time period they lived in or what culture they existed in. Some include a “god”  — some form of divinity — in their telling of it; some don’t. Some choose instead to believe that “we are all God”. Most do actually. That God is both separate from us and yet we are all a part of It, a piece of it; tiny fractional particles of some kind of divinity, a “divine force”. This is what has been recounted by those who have sought true spiritual fulfillment and enlightenment. Almost always the same.  And usually quite removed from anything that remotely resembles the major religions of the world. It seems there is a wide chasm between spiritual fulfillment and religion or even what religion portends to offer.

Again, not to dismiss the possibility of the two going hand in hand. Certainly possible. I personally have experienced moments of pure spiritually fulfilling bliss and enlightenment through a variety of ways. More often than not, I did NOT have these experiences through the “study” of spiritual material or religious works, nor through the practicing of religion per se. The first few were from mind enhancing drugs, or hallucinogens; LSD, mushrooms, etc. An easy way to access those areas of the brain where such experiences seem to take place, granted. Soon after, I longed to have the same experiences without the use of medicinals, for I felt that if it were possible with the use of said chemicals then it should also be possible without them. If not, then perhaps it wasn’t really enlightenment at all, but just a momentary mental state created by a drug. Let’s face it, cocaine, heroine, marijuana and many pharmaceuticals can also create within the human mind relative states of “bliss”. Not necessarily “enlightenment” per se, that’s for sure. But some very groovy feelings. So off I ventured looking for an even purer, cleaner, truer enlightenment.

The next few times I had the experience of what I would genuinely refer to as “enlightenment” was while using the Avatar tools, after a few days of being on an Avatar Course. No hallucinogens or mind altering drugs. No chemicals. Just a profound desire to achieve enlightenment — as in I really wanted “it” and I was willing to do whatever it takes — and a willingness to be as open minded and vulnerable as one possibly could, like bamboo as opposed to oak. These experiences were even more “spiritually fulfilling” and powerful than the ones I experienced previously, more enlightening. Cleaner. Those experiences of enlightenment that we have on hallucinogens seem to open our hearts and minds to the possibilities of these states, of this knowledge, this knowing. But when we come down, as the drug slowly withdraws from our system, though we never forget what we experienced, it is difficult to hang onto that state of being. It becomes a memory. Rather than a way of being. With Avatar, I have found that simply using the tools and given the right environment I could achieve that state of being repeatedly.

The next time I experienced true spiritual fulfillment or enlightenment — and perhaps the most powerful experience thus far in my life — was actually in a church. (Yes, shock… Tell me about it. I was the last person in the world to expect that.) It was certainly not what I was expecting. By then I had already developed the ability of discerning the difference between intuition and mind chatter, and made it a practice to always listen to my intuition. I was told to go in a church as I was walking by it. So I did. I sat there for a few minutes, looking around, admiring the architecture, at first a totally intellectual experience. All from the mind. Within minutes I felt chills all over my body, a state of pure bliss, of feeling more love, more beloved, than I ever have before. It was ecstasy. (Better than the drug Ecstasy. Much better… truly. And I don’t say that lightly.) A voice whispered in my ear, “This is how much God loves you Ed. God loves you so so much…” This went on for quite a while. The same words, over and over, slightly different wording, but the same intention. Ten minutes or more. I bathed in it. I was not scared. I was enraptured, in heaven. In love. Filled with joy. Tears slowly streamed from my eyes. There was no denying it. This was a truly supernatural enlightenment experience. A few minutes later I came to realize that I had been sitting there for a half hour or more — I probably looked ridiculous to any onlookers — my head was bowed, drooling slightly, tears pouring down my cheeks.

I had many more spiritually fulfilling enlightenment experiences after that in that same location, hearing voices — not really voices as much as messages. There is just something special there. God speaks. His presence is there. It’s an otherworldly experience. One no one who occasions the place takes lightly. This is why I have always contended that those who do not believe in God or a Divine Force or enlightenment or anything else supernatural feel this way because they simply have not had any experiences like this. They have every right not to believe. They’ve never had any to believe. They’re trapped in their mind. Attempting to think it through. Never realizing that enlightenment is not a think-it thing. It’s a feel-it thing. One can’t think their way to enlightenment. Book reading may be interesting. But it doesn’t get us anywhere. You’d have a better shot at experiencing true enlightenment from sitting on a hilltop in a beautiful locale for a few minutes or hours and just meditating on the nature of the universe than you would from reading a book. This is why I don’t blame those who don’t believe; never judge them. They’re simply acting on what they know.

But I’ll tell you this. If one desires to experience enlightenment, it is possible. And chances are, they will. If one longs to know God, to know the nature of the Divine, it is possible. And chances are, they will. Because it is. It’s an isness. I sometimes wonder if not all things are possible, if not all things that the mind can conceive are a potential isness. If we just allow them to be. After all, it is we who are creating what we are experiencing. Long for Divinity enough and there’s a good chance that you’ll take actions to one day experience it. You’ll create the belief and through that, the experience.

 

New Cosmos Big On Visuals But Something Missing


We’re three episodes into the global premier of the eagerly anticipated remake of Carl Sagan’s scientific documentary masterpiece, Cosmos. Word of it spread quickly through the various worlds of the literati and public alike. Over thirty years have passed. So…. Not only have scientific discoveries evolved, almost exponentially, leaving much new to cover, but so too has the technology used to create such a bold broad and far reaching work.

To aficionados and purists of course the original was perfect, without flaw and incapable of inspiring nothing but praise; certainly no complaints. But still… Curiosity is easily drummed up when contemplating a project of this size, with the big budget FOX would surely allot to it, not to mention having animation funny man Seth McFarland on board (?!?!) and the new narrator and guide for this remake would be celebrity physicist Neil degrass Tyson.

Being only three episodes in one could easily forgive the slightly humdrum pace at which the show is traveling thus far. Perhaps they’re saving the good stuff for later? Breaking out the big guns once the series catches on with a few more million viewers? But it’s not just the slow pace at which the show’s storyline is moving. With a seemingly infinite treasure trove of cash at their disposal the producers of the series have certainly spared no expense on breathtaking visuals and computer generated graphics and animation; but that seems to be, so far at least, the best aspect of the show.

Where Sagan’s Cosmos seemed primitive and quaint in the visual effects department at times — downright cheesy even, especially now, every episode left the viewer feeling inspired enthralled and captivated. More than anything though one walked away feeling educated, over-educated usually — with a ton of new knowledge to digest. So much so that it is common to find that anyone who has seen Cosmos has seen it numerous times. Usually more times than they can count. That was half the fun of the show. Trying to keep up with Sagan’s brain and his insatiable appetite to soak in every fact and ounce of important science data that had ever been discovered or postulated in the history of humanity. His enthusiasm for science and learning inspired us all to feel that same thirst. This is one of the many reasons why the man –a scientist mind you — became such a celebrity in his time, and a legend today.

The new Cosmos is not only slow but it also seems geared towards a less intelligent and curious audience. The science behind the science, the details, the math and equations, even the practical applications for said discoveries are all but gone in this new version. The script wiped clean of anything remotely mentally challenging or even intriguing. It’s as if the purpose is more to wow the audience into believing that science is “cool” without explaining any of the actual science itself. Names are dropped here and there, completely out of order and context — which is maddening for those who are familiar with the timeline of science’s greatest discoveries, and probably frustratingly confusing for those who don’t, but the exuberant raw passion and admiration Sagan seemed to have for these masters of human potential seems lost on Tyson. As if it’s all old hat to him.

There’s nothing particularly offensive or annoying about Tyson, but there’s also nothing particularly appealing either. Whereas Sagan could coax a drunken sailor to get excited about some of the most complicated scientific theories and equations ever invented with nothing but the sparkle in his eye and his soothing voice at once sonorous and excited, Tyson seems relatively tame if not downright bored half the time talking about the same matters. As if he’s either been there done that too many times already or he simply just isn’t as interested in the subject matter as Sagan was when discussing the same things.

So far the viewer finishes each episode feeling not much more than “meh… It was okay…”, but certainly not enraptured or on fire or ready to pop another one in immediately afterwards. The original Cosmos to many is a downright spiritual experience. No matter how times they watch it. Something very special and magical was created there that stands all by itself and alone in the annals of filmmaking. A concise but hefty 13 volume collection of boundless knowledge expressed and presented with excitement and reverence. The new Cosmos so far at least is an adequate passers by explanation of only the very basic ideas science has offered us through the years. Lukewarm tea without much flavor, sweetener or spice.

Whether this was done on purpose or not is more of an industry question. Perhaps the producers and the network felt that for audiences used to The Simpsons and American Idol, this was the best way to serve it. Almost hypnotically slow and filled with animation. We really don’t know. Choosing Seth McFarland — God love him for the hysterics of Ted — as an executive producer may have also played a role in why the show seems relatively bland to connoisseurs of the original series.
The man is after all a jokes writer, not a scientist nor even a science documentary producer.

Another factor that one finds a bit disturbing is the none too subtle atheistic view the show so far seemingly means to promote. It was no secret that Sagan was an agnostic at best. He stated as much quite early towards the end of the original series, though delicately respectfully. In this new age when certain cretinous minds are hellbent on forcing everyone to unnecessarily but unequivocally choose between believing in a God or not, the new Cosmos seems to be upping the ante on trying to prove that science displaces God somehow, when in reality we may just be discovering the intricacies of how the Divine Force has things worked out and coming up with our own names for these very natural systems in His/Her/It’s master plan. Either way, it’s an entirely unnecessary point to be making regardless; the exploration of spiritual, cosmological and theological ideas doesn’t really belong in a show extolling the virtues of scientific achievement. The sharpest minds understand that science and religion are not in competition with one another any more. Together though they are in fact creating some marvelous discoveries. And one day I believe will make THE most marvelous one of them all. In time.

Don’t get me wrong regarding the new Cosmos though. This show is still better than most anything else on TV but for PBS or HBO. It just isn’t the original. Nor an adequate update to it. I’ll still look forward to each new episode for the next few weeks at least. You can’t really get a subject matter closer to my heart than what this one explores. And who knows, it may just be gearing up and get really good once it gets going. I hope so. We need more television like this in America right now.

One very positive aspect of the show, (McFarland be damned for he’s one of the worst offenders in this arena), is that it isn’t filled with rampant gratuitous sex, violence and vulgarity like nearly everything else on modern American television. One cannot get through a half hour of TV during prime time today without more fucks cocks cunts balls bloody corpses axes through the head and naked bimbos riding alleged tough guys than one would normally encounter in an entire lifetime just ten years ago. Our grandparents — thank God they’re dead– wouldn’t recognize this nasty wicked and violent world we live in today. Why on earth today’s writers and producers think that adding the word fuck cock or dick to every sentence somehow makes a show funnier is beyond me. Frankly I believe the opposite is true. The shock and offensiveness of this new trend takes away from the viewers ability to be amused. This is one thing at least viewers of the new Cosmos don’t have to worry about. At least not yet anyway.

Exploring Other Dimensions

Try to picture this in your mind’s eye…. Yesterday was my weekly mentoring session with this new little guy for his Lenten Confirmation — he’s 15 years old; I’ve never mentored anyone during their Catechism classes on the way to Confirmation; it was a fairly challenging proposition for me at first; but so far it’s been pretty easy and dare I say rewarding for both of us; (more on this in another post…) So while in the car and driving, I noticed someone on a bicycle on the sidewalk to my right. There was a red light up ahead, so I slowed down and eventually came to a stop. The bicyclist zoomed ahead of all of us who were in cars. I was listening to NPR in the car. So within seconds I completely forgot about the person on the bicycle. Instead focusing on what I was hearing on the radio. A few minutes later the light turned greed and those of us in cars started accelerating again. Within a minute or two I noticed myself whizzing past this guy on a bicycle again. Like whoosh! One minute he whizzed past us and was ahead of us and in the next minute he appeared to be traveling in slow motion as we sped past him so fast. Pretty soon he was completely out of site. And soon after out of mind.

The event made me contemplate for a moment there… how quickly he seemed to be traveling when we in cars were stopped… and yet how slow he seemed to be traveling when we whizzed past him; it was as if he weren’t even moving. He literally seemed to be stationary due to how much faster cars travel compared to someone on a bicycle. It made me consider for a moment how subjective “speed of travel” is, depending on how we are traveling. When we’re walking we do FEEL like we are moving, like we are making forward progress. We start off in one place and eventually end up in another place. So too when we are on a bicycle. It’s only when someone on a bicycle passes us while we’re walking do we realize how slowly we are traveling. And the same goes for being in a car versus being on a bicycle. On that bicycle we really feel like we’re getting somewhere. Depending on how fast we are going, we even feel the speed at which we are traveling… the resistance of the wind against our face and body. And yet as we glance at the cars whizzing past us we can tend to feel like for a moment that we are crawling… just barely moving.

Each mode of transport is a little world unto itself. Often times we don’t even notice the other people in the other worlds. When we’re walking — like say down a street or avenue in Manhattan — we notice things. Lots of things. Things on the ground. Stores and restaurants to our right and left. Other people walking. Even what other people are wearing. But we don’t tend to notice the people in the world of bicyclers. We may catch a glimpse of them as they whiz by us for a moment, but they’re going to fast for us to notice much about that world that they’re presently in. So it goes when we are driving in a car. We might never even notice all the people on the streets and sidewalks who are walking. They’re moving too slowly. And we’re too preoccupied with everyone else who is driving along the road with us. It all depends on where our attention is. And if you’re doing something, anything, it’s best if THAT is where your attention is. That’s a given. It wouldn’t be safe to be driving in a car and place the majority of your attention on the world of the people who are walking.

I found this line of thinking, heading down this path of thought, to be an interesting metaphor for exploring other dimensions. We currently take for granted that the universe that we live in has at least three dimensions. up and down, side to side, front to back — to simplify it. Some people claim that “time” is another dimension. To me that’s semantics. Not necessarily essential or relevant to the subject. Yet the existence of a fourth dimension has been pondered for eons. And not just a fourth, but many many more besides just the three that we presently are pretty positive exist. The reason we are so sure that at least three dimensions exist is because we can see them. We live in them. It doesn’t take a high IQ or a degree in rocket science to verify that there are at least three dimensions in the known universe. But many people doubt the existence of additional dimensions besides these three that we can see.

It was about 20 years ago when I first learned of all the science that was being collected about the so-called fourth dimension. There are tens of thousands of books on the subject. For younger folks, books are like the internet printed out on paper. One assumes Googling the phrase “the fourth dimension” will reveal tens of thousands of websites on the subject. Explaining the idea of it from a scientific viewpoint was easier than I expected. It took a few reads and some contemplation, but after a while I could begin to envision what the fourth dimension was like. The key to it is to realize that it is neither above or below us, neither in ahead or behind us; instead it is just “larger” than us, so to speak. As in we are INSIDE of the fourth dimension, but unable to see it because we are trapped inside of the third dimension and thus limited by the confines and constraints of only being able to see third dimensional reality. But that doesn’t imply that we are not INSIDE the fourth dimension.

Proponents of such theories go on to propose that there may be other beings, like us, unlike us, we really don’t know… who live in the fourth dimension. Living in the fourth dimension presumes that they automatically therefore also live in the third dimension. Just as we automatically also live in the second and first dimensions. Thus these beings in the fourth dimension can see us, but we cannot see them. This immediately helps to justify the idea of angels and spirits — beings who are something else besides “human” and live “somewhere else” or in “another world”. Some people don’t quite understand that no one is saying that angels or spirits live in THIS dimension but just in a “place” that we haven’t yet discovered yet. Let’s face it. We’ve explored this world extensively. And sure, those who have studied astronomy understand that there is still plenty of space in the universe that exists out there that we just haven’t been able to see yet or even detect because it is just so far away from us that light being emitted from it hasn’t even reached us yet. That makes sense. And indeed there may be places WAY out there that contain other forms of life. In fact I’d offer that it’s a given. There are probably an infinite number of life forms somewhere out there in THIS dimension, but they’re just really far away.

But what about beings who may live really close to us — in terms of distance — but just not in THIS dimension, and THAT is what makes it impossible for us to see them? Perhaps they can see us. But we just can’t see them. If angels and / or spirits (as in the souls of those who were once human but no longer possess a physical body) exist, there’s a good chance that they don’t live a million billion miles away from HERE, but rather just live in a different dimension, a higher dimension if you will, or a larger dimension better put. (Higher implies height. As in two dimensions. The old fashioned way of looking at ideas such as “heaven”. But we now know there really is no such thing as up and down in this world. It’s more like the universe is infinitely high and infinitely low, seemingly going on forever in any direction. Pointing up may indeed get you “somewhere”, but only to a certain extent. After that, say once past the atmosphere of earth and the orbit zone and then you’re not really pointing “up” anymore; you’re pointing “out”. That’s an important distinction.) If there is a heaven, it’s probably not “out there” somewhere. It’s probably right HERE, but just in a larger dimension, one that we can’t readily see or measure.

In order to mathematically proof Super String Theory to be a valid explanation of how the universe works, scientists had to add more dimensions to the known universe than the three that we presently know about. Some used ten, others came up with eleven, and from what I understand still others came up with twelve dimensions that had to exist in the universe in order to create equations that proofed out in order to make Super String Theory a valid idea. If one is unfamiliar with the concept, I would encourage you to Google it and study it. It basically just breaks down the atomic world into an even smaller world where matter is not composed of matter as much as it is composed of energy that exists INSIDE of atomic matter. The energy waves inside of atoms are represented by wavering strings… They aren’t really strings at all, but vibrating energies. But if we were to view and measure them with machines, the energy they emit would appear like vibrating strings. Hence the name. Many scientists now hold the Super String Theory to be a valid one and take it for granted as a viable explanation of how the universe works and what it is composed of. It’s wild stuff.

But even more interesting is this new idea that there invariably must be at least seven to nine other dimensions in the universe — all around us — besides the three that we’re accustomed to believing exist. To me the proposition makes perfect sense. It opens up the potential for all these other seemingly mythical ideas that humanity has come up with through the millennia to be possibly true; things like heaven or the spirit world, or the angelic realm, or the world of entities. We no longer can dismiss these ideas as being mere fairy tales because “we know there is no place in the universe where these other worlds can be”… Now we know that they might not be HERE and just “really far away” (which seems rather preposterous), but they might be HERE but just in larger or smaller dimensions that we can’t yet see.

The exploration of this subject reminds me of the difference between being in the world of the walking versus the world of the driving. Sometimes totally unaware of each other except mildly and through our periphery vision… Our awareness and our attention on totally different things, different smells and sights and sensations. Both existing simultaneously side by side, but both just busy doing their own thing. Only bumping into each other on occasion — such as when a pedestrian (someone in the world of walking) walks into the street when he isn’t supposed to and get’s hit by a car; or when a car veers off the road accidentally and onto a sidewalk. Perhaps this is precisely what happens when someone claims to see a spirit or an angel in this world. WE immediately think they’re out of their mind. But…

This might also explain the world of mystics and psychics and mediums who claim to be able to see the future or speak with other beings or life forms on “the other side”. What we sometimes call “astral traveling”… We’ve certainly collected enough data to believe that such things are possible. Edgar Cayce, Ruth Montgomery and John Edward are all great examples of this. Their penchant for being accurate too often to believe they are lying or have some trick up their sleeves. Perhaps there are ways to tap into our Intuitive Mode of consciousness and transcend being trapped only within the confines of this dimension and make our way into other dimensions where these other beings exist. In fact one would have to assume that’s exactly what is happening. Take them at their word. Communicating with beings who exist in other dimensions besides the third… Beings who can see and hear us, but we can’t see or hear them.

I believe it is only a matter of time before we are able to confirm this scientifically. For most people, this is what is needed for them to believe something. Scientific proof. Think about how long it took humanity to believe that the earth revolved around the so-called “sun” and not vice versa. But in the meantime, I don’t believe that we need scientific proof before we begin exploring this matter more and beginning to practice trying to do it. Like everything else, it’s most likely something that we just need to start practicing on a regular basis in order to begin to get proficient at it. We just need to commit and then allocate a set amount of time to it and begin. When you think about it, isn’t that what we are doing when we pray? Attempting to communicate with someone/something from another dimension…? So in fact many people are already doing this already. Maybe just haven’t ever thought about it in that respect before.

I will begin to view prayer in this light, and further start practicing this communication with and exploration of other dimensions… Will share what I discover here from time to time when there is something to share. More later.

 

 

Facts and Anomalies Regarding the Speed of Light

– Light travels at a speed of 186,000 miles per second — it circles the earth 7 times in one second. Explains thunder following lightening by a few seconds. A light year is 6 trillion miles (6,000,000,000,000), the distance light travels in one year.
– Because light does not travel instantaneously but st a precise constant we can ascertain how old a star or galaxy is or was when we are looking at it based on how far away it is. Allowing us to look far back into the past. We see the crab nebula as it was 6500 years ago. The galactic core of our own milky way galaxy 26,000 years ago. The Andromeda Galaxy our closest neighbor 2.5 million years ago. In other words we have no idea what these objects look like NOW. Only what they looked like back then. Because of how long it takes light to travel. Its a catch 22. Though it’s fast, the speed of light still limits our ability to see things in the universe as they actually appear now.
– Moving at the light speed time slows down time compared to regular earth speed. So a person ages much slower if traveling at rhe speed lf light. And what may seem like four days to a light speed traveler may indeed be 40 years to someone on earth. But the closer to light speed we travel the more mass is needed to get to that energy till the mass reached is infinite– making it impossible.
– Two alternatives have been posed. One would be creating a worm hole by zapping a large amount of energy using lasers into an exact point in space to break a hole in it and then going to a diff place in the universe. Also we may be able to travel at warp drive– using the warping of space-time, space expanded behind the ship and contracted in front of it, creating a bubble around the ship propelling it faster than the speed of light in order to get to remote places in far away space.
– Communication between earth and Neil Armstrong on the moon took 2.6 seconds between each transmission because it takes the radio signals traveling at the speed of light 1.3 seconds between earth and the moon. – Light from the sun takes more than 8 minutes to reach earth. – 44 minutes for the probes that are exploring Mars. -2 hours to talk to the Cassini probe at Saturn. -Over 29 hours to talk to voyager 1 now heading out of the solar system which is 10 billion miles away.
– We’ve recently learned that Light is not in fact the fastest thing in the universe. Space now is. Because we know that space itself is expanding, space in the outermost reaches of the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light. Mind boggling.
– Our light horizon or limit — the farthest
we can see light in the universe due to how far things r that we can not see the light of is 13.5 billion light years. So that’s the farthest we can see in the universe though it might be bigger than that. Way bigger.
– In fact some theorize that the universe may be ten to one hundred times larger than current estimates; other theories postulate that there may be more than one universe, that the current model that we now believe we live in may be just one out of many. The simple truth of the matter is that due to our current technological limitations in seeing beyond light that is too far away from the earth for us to ever see, no matter how old it may be, at present we can never know how large the universe really is nor have a definitive knowledge of how many other stars or galaxies may exist in the universe besides the ones we are already aware of.

 

What happens when a star dies?

via Facebook
Get this: after a star like our sun dies it eventually becomes too dense and heavy to sustain itself against gravity, so it implodes and then explodes (a super nova), releasing the most powerful energy in the universe for a split second. But it doesn’t cease to exist. Matter is still left. It then turns into a small 20 foot neutron star, the densest things in the universe. One cubic centimeter of a neutron star, the size of a sugar cube, weighs as much as all the cars in the United States.