Sunmaster

And there it is..... ------------------------------------ The Big Bang didn't happen What do the James Webb images really show? "The truth that these papers don’t report is that the hypothesis that the JWST’s images are blatantly and repeatedly contradicting is the Big Bang Hypothesis that the universe began 14 billion years ago in an incredibly hot, dense state and has been expanding ever since. Since that hypothesis has been defended for decades as unquestionable truth by the vast majority of cosmological theorists, the new data is causing these theorists to panic. “Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning,” says Alison Kirkpatrick, an astronomer at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, “and wondering if everything I’ve done is wrong.” [...] "Too old and too many galaxies mean the same thing. The JWST uses many different filters to take its images in the infrared part of the spectrum. Thus, it can see the colors of the distant galaxies. This in turn allows astronomers to estimate the age of the stars in these galaxies because young, hot stars are blue in color and older, cooler stars, like our sun, are yellow or red in color. According to Big Bang theory, the most distant galaxies in the JWST images are seen as they were only 400-500 million years after the origin of the universe. Yet already some of the galaxies have shown stellar populations that are over a billion years old. Since nothing could have originated before the Big Bang, the existence of these galaxies demonstrates that the Big Bang did not occur." [...] "While Big Bang theorists were shocked and panicked by these new results, Riccardo and I (and a few others) were not. In fact, a week before the JWST images were released we published online a paper that detailed accurately what the images would show. We could do this with confidence because more and more data of all kinds has been contradicting the Big Bang hypothesis for years." [...] "Readers may well be wondering at this point why they have not read of this collapse of the Big Bang hypothesis in major media outlets by now and why the authors of so many recent papers have not pointed to this collapse themselves. The answer lies in what I term the “Emperor’s New Clothes Effect”—if anyone questions the Big Bang, they are labeled stupid and unfit for their jobs. Unfortunately, funding for cosmology comes from a very few government sources controlled by a handful of committees that are dominated by Big Bang theorists. These theorists have spent their lives building the Big Bang theory. Those who openly question the theory simply don’t get funded." source: https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-didnt-happen-auid-2215?fbclid=IwAR34Oe_RTJjCNA8_Mgs5z_pj188NrQzkGWGECRpBnbMyak7Q08sMvDjwz_0

Good post. From what I understand of it and your other posts, you ask people to differentiate between the ideal of science (the incorruptible and pure methodology of science) from the more mundane, mainstream aspect of it (science corrupted by politics, business, more or less involuntary human error, lack of knowledge and understanding, would be scientists on forums), whereby the first aspires to reveal an absolute truth (or close to it), and the second is more fallible because influenced by other, less ideal factors. Some scientific interpretations (theories) are shared by millions and bundled in broad belief systems ("the material reality is the only one"), others stand out for their uniqueness (Tesla, Rupert Sheldrake). We are then asked to ignore the "impure" science and rather focus on the ideal of science, because that's where unbiased knowledge comes from. I'd be all for that, but I'd like for you and all other materialists to have the same consideration when it comes to matters of belief. There is an Ideal and Absolute Truth, and then there are countless interpretations of that truth. Some interpretations are shared by millions and bundled in broad belief systems (religions), others stand out for their uniqueness (David Icke, A. Crowley). The problem is that materialists look at the interpretations and see flaws in them or perhaps don't understand them, criticize, ridicule and dismiss them. By doing that they think that they also "debunked" the Ideal, when all they did was to attack an interpretation of it. So for me, philosophically speaking, the pure methodology of science is closely related to the Ideal of spirituality. Both aspire to reveal the ultimate truth. Both aspire to focus on the white light and not at the rainbow after the prism of the ego.

"An ignorant mind is precisely not a spotless, empty vessel, but one that’s filled with the clutter of irrelevant or misleading life experiences, theories, facts, intuitions, strategies, algorithms, heuristics, metaphors, and hunches that regrettably have the look and feel of useful and accurate knowledge…What’s curious is that, in many cases, incompetence does not leave people disoriented, perplexed, or cautious. Instead, the incompetent are often blessed with an inappropriate confidence, buoyed by something that feels to them like knowledge." ~ David Dunning

If you're looking to move away from engineering, it seems the new path is already clear in front of you: become a writer. ????

I fully agree with you @Tippaporn. I learned to co-create my reality even before reading about Seth (reading Kryon stuff for example), so what he said about it completely resonated with my own experiences. They go from small mundane ones like relying on my "parking angel" to get me a great spot even when it seems impossible, to major life changing things like moving to another country or starting a new career. I also agree with what you said about thinking like a victim and consequent cynicism. I told TBL the same thing. Feeling like a victim takes away all your personal power and I will never submit to that.

I'm pretty familiar with the Seth books and much of what he says mirrors how I see reality too. Are you really surprised though that copying that long passage didn't elicit the response you hoped for? Believe systems don't change from one day to another unless there's a catalytic event and one is ready for it. I understand what you're saying about the practical terms of ones belief systems. I used to argue my head off on this forum, trying to do what you just did with your post. It doesn't work. People will change on their own terms and in their own time, and in ways that might be surprisingly different from mine or yours. It doesn't matter. It's not our duty to initiate that change in others. Our only duty is towards ourselves and to the Self (which are ultimately the same). That's my way of putting my belief system into practice. More action and less intellectual merry-go-rounds. And that's why I stopped wasting my time trying to help those who don't want to be helped, stopped wondering if there was a Big Bang or not, stopped asking myself if my ancestors were apes or aliens. For me it's irrelevant. Again, this is my path and I don't expect it to be the same for others. If you find benefit in asking those questions, good for you, knock yourself out, but don't get depressed if you don't find any followers.

The way I see it, exploring the "outside" is fine (making our physical life more comfortable through technological advances for example), as long as we don't forget the inside. I'm far from being an ascetic and I don't believe in denying the pleasures of the body in an absolute way. Going within however, and that's my personal opinion at this point in time, should be the first priority and the ground on which the rest can flourish. I believe that all of reality is like an iceberg and it's divided in 3 section. We are at the very top of the iceberg and that's the area we're exploring. This is the KNOWN. Underneath that, above the surface, is the UNKNOWN, which we don't know yet, but can be considered knowable. The biggest part of the iceberg is under the surface and is the UNKNOWABLE. Things that will never be known because they are far beyond anything we can grasp. As an example...how humans evolved here on Earth (evolution from apes? cosmic seeding by aliens? random DNA air-drops from asteroids?), I consider unknown today, but perhaps knowable in the future. The mystery of life, consciousness and its purpose, when, how and why the universe was created (big bang? design? cosmic joke?), falls in the Unknowable. We may be inclined to believe one way or another, but we will never truly know. My whole point was that to argue about the Unknowable is pointless as it will lead nowhere. We are not the owner of our beliefs, we don't have to protect them, defend them or even fight over them. Beliefs are conglomerates of deep seated thought groups. They can be changed, adapted or completely replaced. They are NOT you. Instead, there is so much to explore in the (yet) Unknown of our psyche, which will give real benefits in our lives. Can you elaborate in what way such speculations make your life better? About the last paragraph. I can only judge this from my own experience. If that were true, I would have been thoroughly cleansed after the kundalini awakening, during which I was "bathed in pure clean waters" so to speak. Unfortunately, the shadows didn't magically disappear. As a matter of fact, I'm dealing with a big one right now, one that has developed in early childhood and influenced every facet of my life since then. The free flowing of energy was severely restricted during this important time of growing up, so other strategies had to be employed to try to balance out the missing energy. Of course, this never really worked. It is only recently that this issue came back to the front of my awareness and that enabled me to consciously face it straight on. So, I don't know, maybe for you it was as simple as looking at clean waters to overcome the dirty ones. That's great. For me however, it was a matter of rolling up my sleaves, sticking my arms deep in the dirt and bringing that restriction up to the light, examine it, accept it, love it the way it is and finally release it. This is how it worked for me.

I do at times like to theorize and ponder on some grand ideas like the birth of the universe, the emergence of consciousness, the evolution (or not) of humankind. I do also realise the futility of such endeavors and speculations. Because that's all they are at this point: pointless speculations that keep our minds busy and entertained...and distracted. What do they offer us in terms of personal fulfillment and perhaps development? Will they increase our happiness, compassion and self worth? Will they uncover the shadows that have plagued us since childhood? I sincerely doubt it. What they do is to divide us and split us into more and more fragmented groups, with no hope of reconciliation. When that happens, I simply suggest going back to basics. What are the things that are common to us all? What do we all strife for? What are the different strategies we employ to reach them? Life can be as complicated or simple as you believe it is. Which one serves you better? Let's try not to get lost in fancy intellectual masturbation and instead look deep within ourselves. Because the greatest mystery is not out there, but in here.❤ ????

Yes, you forgot those whose beliefs are not based on faith, but on direct experience.

And there it is....that annoying condescension so widespread among the materialists.

What you say is true, but it would be a mistake to think that all believers believe due to being poor, uneducated or lost. That seems to be a widespread misconception among the materialists/atheists who believe that with scientific advancements all these messy beliefs in God, higher consciousness and whatnot would simply disappear. What falls away are superstitions, not the need to explore the deeper meaning in life.

The last thing he said (that if you destroyed all spiritual knowledge and scientific knowledge today, in a 1000 years only the scientific facts would come back the same) is just an assumption. In fact, I think the opposite is true. The way science explains reality is in constant change, so what we believe is true today (in scientific terms), is very likely to be outdated in 50 years time, let alone 1000 years. History has clearly shown this to be true. Spiritual knowledge on the other hand, is not bound by time or place, because it deals with the eternal, unchanging ground of all being.

I think the greatest comfort comes from not challenging one's beliefs, to have the mystery of life neatly labelled, categorized and "explained" in easy to digest bits of data. False, science in general has NOT come to any definite conclusion as to how consciousness arises or where it can be found. It may be comforting to believe so, but in the end it's a false statement. "Some scientists believe consciousness to be purely physical". There, fixed it.

And this is a great mindset in my opinion, which I like to subscribe to as well. ????

Just had another lucid dream a few days ago. I loved it.

The first sensical thing you said. Congratulations.

You've gone completely off the rails, man. Nobody here challenged "the totality of scientific knowledge". lol

Thanks heavens we have such stalwarts of rationality and reason like you.....to keep us entertained. ????????

Oh please, the world is full of people who know more than us in all fields of life. Engineers, artists, athletes, scientists, shamans....the list is endless. Each one experiences life from a different angle, each contributes to deepen the human experience, each one in his own way. Are you really saying that anyone who knows more than you or sees more than you is automatically delusional? Come on, be serious.

I watched it now. The video is a bit too sensationalistic in the way they "expose" psychedelic treatments, but yes, they shouldn't be made haphazardly, for sure. A 65% improvement rate for PTSD with MDMA is more than encouraging though. And that's only a small part of the potential inherent in entheogenic substances. I'm optimistic.

You know, I agree with you. A respectable scientists' job is to seek truth, in whichever form it might present itself. And if their knowledge is not enough to come to a definite conclusion, an honest scientist will say "We don't know at this point in time. We don't have enough data to validate or invalidate the issue". For example, the debate among scientists whether consciousness is a product of the brain or not bound to the physical body. The problem is that a lot of "armchair scientists" pick and choose whatever is convenient to uphold their preconceived bias, while completely ignoring data that doesn't fit and then triumphantly declare the issue settled. This is contrary to the true spirit of science and any intellectually honest seeker of truth (whether they're materialists or not) should call them out for it. While I personally don't feel the need for science to validate what I already know, I understand that many do. And that's ok. In fact, several scientific branches are starting to do just that and their research is mind-blowing. You have to understand that this is by definition not a "hard science", so don't expect mathematical equations and such. Soft sciences, such as cognitive psychology for example, use different tools, yet they still conform to the scientific method of making an observation, forming a hypothesis, making a prediction, conducting an experiment and finally analyzing the results.

Just like with the example of the dog whistle sound, which needs instruments to be detected, the evidence for the higher consciousness needs "instruments" too. Those instruments can be contemplation or entheogenic substances among others. My father always told me: Use the right tools to do the job right. A lot of people though, insist on using sledgehammers to fine tune a concert piano, so to speak. And when they're being told that it doesn't work like that, they get their knickers in a twist and declare victory. ???? I beg to differ. Check out "The Spirit Molecule" by clinical psychiatrist Rick Strassman. Nobody wants you to blindly believe, quite the contrary. What we ask is to simply use the right tools for the job before declaring the issue settled. Once you do that, the answer to your second question will also become clear.

You're right, they are not remotely intellectual. ????

Excellent post. Unfortunately, it will likely be dismissed with some more pseudo scientific and pseudo intellectual chaff or not be acknowledged at all. After all, the main goal is clearly to "win" the argument at any cost and not having an honest, dispassionate discussion. To hell with credibility, dignity and objectivity....who needs those? Thanks for taking the time to comb through it. I couldn't be bothered.

Wow, people proudly declaring of being ignorant, while at the same time talking down to those who actually studied the topics at hand. Priceless ????