|
Post by ML on Dec 10, 2018 2:39:20 GMT
Here Wes referenced the 96% universe. the unseen universe. KHAA, The: The Mother Universe, also called the Void, which is the 96% of the Universe science can't explain. This is the Home Universe of the Mother Goddess through which you travel when you enter a stargate after have 'shrunk' yourself into nano size. This is the fastest and easiest way to travel between stars, galaxies and universes. ANGAL, The: A term used by Anton Parks, describing the dimensions of the beings of Higher Order (we may call them angels, or Builders). The ANGAL has its own set of dimensions. The upper parts of the ANGAL corresponds pretty well with what I otherwise call the 96% Universe, consisting of 96% dark matter and dark energy, in contrast to the 4% Universe, which is the Universe we are currently perceiving with our 5 senseswww.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/historia_humanidad56.htm
|
|
|
Post by ML on Dec 10, 2018 2:46:32 GMT
This can be very very confusing. and i have to admit it took me something like 9 yrs (1st Thanks to Wes and later Avalon n Angeliki) to finally convince my self that i under-Inner-Over stand this 4 % equals everything that we see and perceive the rest are DARK MATTER AND DARK ENERGY which is the 96% Wes calls this the KHAA... as we see in the reference. the 100% universe therefore is the combination of the 4% (all thing we sense ) and the KHAA.. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by ray on Dec 17, 2018 20:16:36 GMT
4% equals everything we see from INSIDE the grid/matrix.
100% is everything I saw from OUTSIDE the grid/matrix.
|
|
|
Post by ML on Dec 18, 2018 18:18:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ML on Dec 18, 2018 18:23:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ray on Jan 8, 2019 17:22:44 GMT
You are saying in effect, that 68% of something is NOTHING because it does not exist.
Do you not see the lack of logic in this statement?
|
|
|
Post by ML on Jan 9, 2019 0:39:53 GMT
You are saying in effect, that 68% of something is NOTHING because it does not exist. Do you not see the lack of logic in this statement? its a meme Ray. the 68% is the DARK ENERGY which is the ASTRAL plane. -- always remember Ray.. we live in different universe's I live in a universe made of waves you live in a universe made of particles remember that? its called QUANTUM SCIENCE and we discussed the DOUBLE SLIT EXPERIMENT..i hope you remember that. There can never be inconsistencies Ray... Just listen to yourself and sometimes to others
|
|
|
Post by ray on Jan 9, 2019 2:10:00 GMT
You also seemed to have missed my former post on the WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY
Definition of Wave-Particle Duality The behaviors of the electron does not allow for it to be observable as a particle and as a wave. The two sided nature of the electron is known as the Wave-Particle Duality: The property of particles behaving as waves and the property of waves behaving as particles as well as waves. Although the duality is not very effective in large matter. The wave characteristic of the electron implicates many of the electron's particle behaviors.
Planck's Hypothesis of the Quantum Theory states that energy is emitted in quanta, little packets of energy, instead of a continuous emission. He stated that energy emitted is related to the frequency of the light emitted. Planck's hypothesis states that a quantum of energy was related to the frequency by his equation E=hν .
|
|
|
Post by ML on Jan 9, 2019 2:35:26 GMT
You also seemed to have missed my former post on the WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY Definition of Wave-Particle Duality The behaviors of the electron does not allow for it to be observable as a particle and as a wave. The two sided nature of the electron is known as the Wave-Particle Duality: The property of particles behaving as waves and the property of waves behaving as particles as well as waves. Although the duality is not very effective in large matter. The wave characteristic of the electron implicates many of the electron's particle behaviors. Planck's Hypothesis of the Quantum Theory states that energy is emitted in quanta, little packets of energy, instead of a continuous emission. He stated that energy emitted is related to the frequency of the light emitted. Planck's hypothesis states that a quantum of energy was related to the frequency by his equation E=hν . I did not miss anything Ray. I an not saying anything CORRECTIVE about any of your conclusions.... IF IT IS CORRECT to you then it is CORRECT even if everybody except you thinks its incorrect. and that applies to me too. and sorry for not replying when you ask because it does not lack in logic because it is my conclusions. If you feel the need to 'correct' me in this topic, pls dont. because i have explained it many times. its a waste of both our energies. If you feel the need to 'correct' me in other topics then you can you can simply post your opposing views and leave it at that. Just once pls. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by Henrik on Jan 9, 2019 8:39:56 GMT
From wikipedia, yeah I know, but it corresponds to what I was told in physics class way back:
"In physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energy is an unknown form of energy which is hypothesized to permeate all of space, tending to accelerate the expansion of the universe.[1][2] Dark energy is the most accepted hypothesis to explain the observations since the 1990s indicating that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate."
It is a hypothesis made to explain the accelerating expansion of the universe. Now many scientists are trying to prove that dark energy exists, but as far as I know they haven't. So this 68% which is supposedly "gone" might never have been there at all. Thus it is questionable that the numbers were right in the first place. The numbers are made later to reflect the supposed relationships, they mean nothing by themselves in isolation. Thus the image plays on our own creativity making us think that suddenly two thirds of the universe is gone, but in effect nothing happened and the mind is just playing tricks on us because it is all just word tosses made to astound.
What is said and what is heard never corresponds, never. That is "their" game and they know it well, lol.
Does the universe in fact expand? I have no idea, but it doesn't sound unreasonable that more and more "stuff" should manifest somehow. "Something" came from "nothing" anyway, over time more "stuff" should come from "nothing", right? Maybe, maybe not. The relationships between outside/inside decide the logic here, not my words, as far as I know, lol. There's always another layer, another relationship. What was supposedly observed was this expansion, not the size/weight/content of the universe itself, that was only postulated.
|
|