That brought up an associated thought. The Cs said that everyone reached 7D at the same 'time'. But I was wondering how that can happen in the context of a cycle where there are always new beings 'moving up' into densities. It's not like 3D empties when all go to 4D and so on, so how might that work? Also, how long does that process of all ending up in 7D take?
The way I read "everyone" in that context was the Soul Family of 6D souls that are ready to graduate to 7th. At the same 'time', those from 5D graduate up to take their place etc.
It's like having endless games of chess, and each time the game ends, you mash up the board and pieces and make new ones out of them. Then after doing that a few trillion times, you ask in one specific game "how old is this board and pieces"?
Yep. The more I learn, the more I'm getting the impression that the concept of time is not only wrong, it's so wrong that it's "not even wrong" - ie. a subjective interpretation of reality that cannot be outright called "wrong".
Yet, the concept is so 'baked in' to our experience of being human that it's almost impossible to have any kind of discussion about existence without referencing it. Thinking 'outside the box' and imagining that every event in the Universe is simultaneous, one way to look at it might be something like quanta of energy frequency levels arranged in a spiralling geometry, with the seven main quanta as the densities. It's impossible to say that the 'movement' from one quantum to the next takes '
x number of years' or so forth, because that movement is purely subjective, and may fluctuate 'down' or 'up' depending on choices made by any individual or cooperative "wave reading consciousness unit(s)".
So, what is the meaning behind a statement like "One Grand Cycle is approximately 309,000 years"? Well, we generally define a year as one complete orbit of the Earth around the Sun. There's reason to suspect that the last 309,000 Earth orbits have not been equivalent, so that throws the 'timing' out right there. However, if we assume 309K roughly equivalent orbits, the next question is "why 309K orbits and not 300K? or 200K? or 150K?"
We can approach this question similarly to that of the fundamental physical constants, I think. The Universe is "fine-tuned" for life, so we might imagine the Grand Cycle as an event that optimises the learning process at all levels of density. It might not have 'always been' 309K years, but in the current conditions of the Universe, or simply just this sector of space, ~309K years might be appropriate. Kind of like a teacher that checks in on their newbie students regularly, and their graduating students infrequently.
Are you not imagining the big bang as the beginning of a cycle? And if you are, then would you think that Earth would be much older than we think (not younger), just like "the universe", since it stretches back to previous "incarnations" prior to the big bang? Or are you trying to connect the "grand cycle" (309,000 years) to the big bang model? If so, I think the grand cycle is just a tiny cycle within the overall history of the cosmos.
I think the big bang theory is entirely wrong. The whole concept is based on the observations that the Universe seems to be expanding. Yet, many of the predictions in the model are contradicted by other observations, such as equal distribution of galaxies at the theoretical edges of the Universe, and the fact that the supergalactic cosmic structure looks like a mesh or fabric. The materialist assumptions that underpin the Standard Cosmological Model don't seem to allow for much open-mindedness regarding Intelligent Design, and thus the possibility of manifestation of a 'fully-formed' Universe which 'always existed'. So why are there phenomena like the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation that appear to be big-bang-like effects, and why do galaxies appear to be "moving away" from each other?
To answer those questions, I think we need to look at what "movement" might actually mean in a spatial geometry that reinterprets 'time' as an objective metric. If something is "moving", it is actually in multiple places at once, although (osit) in different energy/frequency states. Similar to the way different amino acids (spatial-energy/frequency states) form the shape of a protein when sequenced correctly, if that makes any sense. So how do such 'spatial-energy proteins' manifest in the first place? This is where information, gravity and choice come into the picture, osit.
Perhaps the CMBR
et al are effects of the manifestation of the Universe - ie. if you want star system A here, you need to have EM radiation and dust cloud B over there. If you want to prevent paradoxes such as two events of the same energy/frequency and location, you need a balance of gravity waves that keeps the Universe constantly expanding. Dunno, just throwing in possibilities here, but I think a coherent model needs to be built without using 'time' as the underpinning of our most foundational physics.
From a more metaphysical angle, it's also true: every state of the universe is a revision of the previous state. But again, we trace those state transitions and "time" them.
I see where you're going with this, and think the crux of your point is that states need be 'addressed' in such a way that they are 'locatable' spatially. If so, I agree, but it also seems possible that certain types of state changes may be quantum in nature - ie. only one before/present/after state is actually manifest, and other states only exist as possibilities. Such types of quantum state changes (micro- or macroscopic) might not be 'locatable' as they occur as a consequence of choice, and unchosen states may become the oft-referenced "dream in the past".
Now, it could be asked, "How do we know the Universe doesn't keep a numerically-sequenced 'dream journal' keeping track of all choices ever made?", which is pretty much the "Does the Cosmic Mind remember everything in the history of the Universe?" question.
I think the Information Field might fulfil this function - up to a point. However, there's always the question as to the meaningfulness of any specific information, and I tend to think that information without any relevance to any mind in the Cosmos would simply 'disappear'. One could think that the "first Universe, first galaxy, first star, first planet etc." would be relevant information to keep, if only for a certain 'nostalgia value' and perhaps it is, through actual existence? ie. this Universe is the First Universe, the First Galaxy is still spinning, the First Star is still shining merrily somewhere etc. etc.
This starts to get into deeper archetypal notions of Last/First, Death/Birth etc, which are harder to think about without explicit reference to time and probably heads in an off-topic direction, so I'll leave it there for the moment.
.
...