Interesting

[Ed Hurst]

That much I agreed with. It's more than just a timescale; we are taught not to see things Creation does that don't fit the materialistic model. We are taught to call them "aberrations" instead of something outside the habits which Creation follows at its own whim. But in one of his talks he was distinctly moving toward Buddhism in ways not consistent with our message. We can focus on the overlapping ideas, though.

Edit: I found a copy locally that I can use.

[jaybreak]

Edit: I found a copy locally that I can use.

Good to hear, Ed.

I noticed, trawling through some of the related videos, that Sheldrake's theories tie into the electric universe cosmology, a view that Eric Dollard somewhat adheres to (not sure how closely). I think I linked you to some of Dollard's videos before, Ed.

I'm not qualified to say how robust the electric universe theory is, but it's interesting reading nonetheless. There's lots of poo-pooing that cosmology from official scientific circles, which makes me think there's something to it. It's much more easily understandable to laymen, which might be why the Einstein-based industry we have now eyes it suspiciously: if there's the universe's mechanisms aren't as arcane as we once thought, they'd be out of a job. On the other hand, electric universe cosmology would gain popular support regardless because it is more easily understandable, which doesn't necessarily speak to its robustness as a predictive model.

The two theories aren't necessarily incompatible, either. The EU theory takes into account gravity, but it's much less emphasized from the classical Einsteinian model. That classical model, too, has plenty of gaps in terms of large scale predictions. Astrophysicists talk about "dark matter" and "dark energy" to jump that gap, when the EU theory already offers an explanation. Just, I don't know, go explore that and incorporate it into Einstein? There's no reason other than self-interest or ego to not do that.

Another catch is that the EU model leaves it open to consider the universe as a living thing, where the classical model considers physical laws to be more constant. That's probably the biggest impediment.

[Ed Hurst]

At first blush, I suppose the EU theory is missing a bunch of theoretical work that takes into account other factors. In other words, it's better than the mainstream, but it's too simplified to explain things. At any rate, I don't dig into such things too deeply simply because I have no interest in the purpose they claim to serve. I do believe living organisms communicate in part through electrical flows, and I believe the electromagnetic energy fields are only a symptom of the presence of moral energy. Heart-led communion will generate electromagnetic fields, but that energy is not the whole picture.

I do like Sheldrake's image of habitual forms. That makes sense to me.

[jaybreak]

At first blush, I suppose the EU theory is missing a bunch of theoretical work that takes into account other factors. In other words, it's better than the mainstream, but it's too simplified to explain things. At any rate, I don't dig into such things too deeply simply because I have no interest in the purpose they claim to serve. I do believe living organisms communicate in part through electrical flows, and I believe the electromagnetic energy fields are only a symptom of the presence of moral energy. Heart-led communion will generate electromagnetic fields, but that energy is not the whole picture.

I do like Sheldrake's image of habitual forms. That makes sense to me.

There's a free ebook that puts the EU model in everyday language, mostly, that I'm about halfway through reading. You can download it here. There's some basic introduction to electro-magnetism and how it works that I was able to understand, so it's worth the price. I want to get the paperback but it's overpriced for some reason. It looks like the author went through a publisher that does print on demand books, but it's based in the UK, so I think that contributes to the high price.