taratai said:I don't have any research to give you to follow, but i can at least give my thoughts on the matter.
As we get closer to a planet, the gravity increases. If planets have consciousness we can assume the planet's consciousness of us also increases the closer we get to it. The closer we are, the stronger it pulls us to get closer with us. We can say that there's an interaction of the planet and any object within its gravitational field.
So, would it be far-fetched to say, that gravity is the effect of a consciousness interacting with other objects? Or, going to the core, we could say that gravity is the effect of a consciousness interacting with other consciousness, and that is what we perceive as a planet dragging the space object closer to itself.
Two space objects drag themselves closer to each other, because the consciousness behind each of them tries to interact with the consciousness behind the other object.
Living creatures on the planet affect the planet with their consciousness, and the planet affects the creatures living on it with hers. The creatures will react to the state of the planet even if everything seems to be fine, and the planet will react to what the creatures on it do and how they feel.
If there is a human-cosmic connection, if humans really do affect the planet with just their consciousness and mental state, wouldn't this explain why?
Then, if gravity is the effect of consciousness, what is really matter? If matter is "half-life" of energy, then matter isn't really something of its own. Matter is an effect of something else that we perceive as matter, just as a wave on the sea is perceived as something of its own. But it's still the same sea.
And just like each wave needs a vibration in the sea to be created, matter would need a vibration in the "sea" of energy to be created. Matter is also always accompanied by gravity, which means there's a consciousness behind it, interacting with other consciousness.
So, would that actually make matter a wave in the "ether" of the universe (whatever it is), created and sustained by the vibration of accompanying consciousness, which can interact with other consciousness, which we perceive as gravity?
That's all i have. Maybe it will be helpful.
This is going in the right direction IMO.
It has been stated that a completed UFT takes consciousness into account.
May 27th 1995 said:Q: (L) What is the thing that collapses the wave function?
A: ?
Q: (L) Is it consciousness?
A: Yes...
Q: (L) There is more. Can this consciousness be expressed... (T) We are trying to get from a third density concept to a fourth density concept where there is no physicality, per se. At fourth density they don't have a problem with going at the speed of light and disintegrating, because it doesn't exist there...
A: Close.
Q: (T) So, for us to try and think of this in third density...
A: Variable physicality is the key.
Q: (L) What makes the physicality variable?
A: Awareness of link between consciousness and matter.
Q: (L) What is the link between consciousness and matter?
A: Illusion.
Q: (L) What is the nature of the illusion? (T) That there isn't any connection between consciousness and matter. It is only an illusion that there is. It is part of the third density...
A: No. Illusion is that there is not.
Q: (L) The illusion is that there is no link between consciousness and matter.
A: Yes.
Q: (T) The illusion is that there is not a link. In third density... (L) I got it! (T) Don't disappear on me now! [Laughter] The relationship is that consciousness is matter.
A: Close. What about vice versa?
Q: (L) Just reverse everything. Light is gravity. Optics are atomic particles, matter is anti-matter... just reverse everything to understand the next level... it can't be that easy. (J) Wait a second: gravity equals light, atomic particles equals optics, anti-matter equals matter? It is all about balance. (L) And the answer must always be zero.
A: And zero is infinity.
Q: (L) So, you are saying that it is not that there is a link, the illusion is that there is separation. There is no difference, they are the same?
A: Yes.