Spirit Into Matter - The Geometry of Life

Do you remember the THRIVE video of three years ago?

I had forgotten about it, but a post on another thread brought it back to my attention.

I've been exploring the website of the movement that started after the video, and have discovered an article, "Spirit Into Matter - The Geometry of Life" by Foster Gamble, which has references to the works of Nassim Haramein, Walter Russell, and Bucky Fuller, along with some names I didn't recognize and am now eager to check out!  

Here's the beginning of the article:

When I was a teenager, my deep concern about the global threat of nuclear annihilation set me on a life-long quest to understand the nature of energy and how we can relate to it harmoniously instead of violently.

This video is a quick summary of decades of my research, influenced especially by people like Bucky Fuller, Arthur Young, Walter Russell, Nassim Haramein and Kenneth Snelson.

http://www.thrivemovement.com/spirit-matter-geometry-life.blog#transcript

I think this is fascinating stuff.  I especially like the references to whole numbers and infinity.  

Seashore wrote:"Spirit Into Matter - The Geometry of Life"

http://www.thrivemovement.com/spirit-matter-geometry-life.blog#transcript

I like this quote from the article:

Physicists have been spending billions in tax payer money for decades trying unsuccessfully to access energy through attempting to fuse hydrogen atoms together at Sun-like temperatures in their tokamak device. They’re using the torus shape, but still using an approach of force rather than blending or resonance. At the new, large Hadron Collider in Switzerland, they have constructed the largest ever man-made torus, seventeen miles around, to reach energy levels that they hope would reveal the sub-structure of the atom and to find the hypothetical “God particle,” the Higgs boson, that is supposed to make the whole universe work. Yet, once again, the fundamental idea is crashing protons together at high speed to create a powerful splash of energy.

What if, instead, we were to take a more Aikido-type blending approach, to learn to follow the dance, to see what the universal energy flow naturally does and then go with it instead of crashing against it? What if the fundamental building block of the universe is not a “thing,” a billiard ball-type particle, but a geometry of flow, a pattern that holds true at any scale? What if, instead of creating more violence to access our energy needs, we look to harmonic resonance, to the natural amplification that happens when waves are in sync, when two systems get in tune?

I think that what is being said there presupposes an ether (space is not empty) from which to harness energy, which I believe does exist.  

The ether needs to be put back into physics.

This video is a quick summary of decades of my research, influenced especially by people like Bucky Fuller, Arthur Young, Walter Russell, Nassim Haramein and Kenneth Snelson.

http://www.thrivemovement.com/spirit-matter-geometry-life.blog#transcript

Here is a good quote from Arthur Young:

"The earlier concept of a universe made up of physical particles interacting according to fixed laws is no longer tenable. It is implicit in present findings that action rather than matter is basic. . . This is good news, for it is no longer appropriate to think of the universe as a gradually subsiding agitation of billiard balls. The universe, far from being a desert of inert particles, is a theatre of increasingly complex organization, a stage for development in which man has a definite place, without any upper limit to his evolution."

--Arthur M. Young
The Reflexive Universe

http://www.arthuryoung.com/

11/15/2014

I think that Foster has a great point. Why not get the atoms all singing in harmony instead of treating them like two opposing (American) football teams. We both know that there is so mush more to it than that but it is that harmony, that blending, that bringing together the building blocks of life that will help us to better understand forces of the universe.

Bob H.

bobhardee wrote:I think that Foster has a great point.

It was your post on another thread that got me looking into the Thrive movement again.  I went ahead and became a "Thriver Subscriber."  I'm looking forward to participating.  Here's a quote:

Saturday, November 22, 2014
Our first LIVE Interactive on-line event will be addressing your questions and following up on local and global money matters as mentioned in the blog “Is the Value of Your Money About to Change?” Please join us live to help unpack the stories and inform the most leveraged solutions.

http://www.thrivemovement.com/thrive-together

I think both Foster and his wife are great spokespersons.  

I hope people will appreciate the work of people like Nassim Haramein and the others listed in the OP more because of this video.  We need a unified theory in physics.

I'm re-watching the video this morning.  It's only about 8 minutes.  Maybe some members will have time to watch it and comment on it:



I hear him saying that the torus is the flow of energy in the universe and the "vector equilibrium" and "isotropic vector matrix" is the structure of space.  

The terms vector equilibrium and isotropic vector matrix originate from Buckminster Fuller, I believe.  Nassim Haramein uses the terms, as a student of Fuller.

And saying space has structure is a reference to space not being empty - there's energy there and it has shape.

Seashore wrote:The terms vector equilibrium and isotropic vector matrix originate from Buckminster Fuller, I believe.  Nassim Haramein uses the terms, as a student of Fuller.

Foster mentions the name Marshall Lefferts; on Marshall's website there is a page, "Vector Equilibrium & Isotropic Vector Matrix":

The Vector Equilibrium, as its name describes, is the only geometric form wherein all of the vectors are of equal length and angular relationship (60° angles throughout). This includes both from its center point out to its circumferential vertices, and the edges (vectors) connecting all of those vertices. Having the same form as a cuboctahedron, it was Buckminster Fuller who discovered the significance of the full vector symmetry in 1917 and called it the Vector Equilibrium in 1940. With all vectors being exactly the same length and angular relationship, from an energetic perspective, the VE represents the ultimate and perfect condition wherein the movement of energy comes to a state of absolute equilibrium, and therefore absolute stillness and nothingness. As Fuller states, because of this it is the zero-phase from which all other forms emerge (as well as all dynamic energy events, as will be described below).

http://www.cosmometry.net/vector-equilibrium-%26-isotropic-vector-matrix

A question in my mind is what is the difference between the vector equilibrium and the isotropic vector matrix?  

Here is Marshall's introduction of the term "isotropic vector matrix":

Structure of the Unified Field — The VE and Isotropic Vector Matrix

The most fundamental aspect of the VE to understand is that, being a geometry of absolute equilibrium wherein all fluctuation (and therefore differential) ceases, it is conceptually the geometry of what we call the zero-point or Unified Field — also called the "vacuum" of space. In order for anything to become manifest in the universe, both physically (energy) and metaphysically (consciousness), it requires a fluctuation in the Unified Field, the result of which fluctuation and differential manifests as the Quantum and Spacetime fields that are observable and measurable. Prior to this fluctuation, though, the Unified Field exists as pure potential, and according to contemporary theory in physics it contains an infinite amount of energy (and in cosmometry, as well as spiritual philosophies, an infinite creative potential of consciousness).

Being a geometry of equal vectors and equal 60° angles, it is possible to extend this equilibrium array infinitely outward from the center point of the VE, producing what is called the Isotropic Vector Matrix (IVM). Isotropic means “all the same”, Vector means “line of energy”, and Matrix means “a pattern of lines of energy”.

http://www.cosmometry.net/vector-equilibrium-%26-isotropic-vector-matrix

I had never heard the term "cosmometry" before.  Marshall defines it this way:

Cosmometry is the study and application of the fundamental patterns, structures, processes and principles that are at the foundation of all manifestation in the Universe, both physical and metaphysical. In its essence, cosmometry is about energy and consciousness — energy being that which everything physical is comprised (vibration, radiation, mass, angular momentum, etc) and consciousness being that which everything metaphysical is comprised (awareness, emotion, mind, intuition, spirit, etc).

http://www.cosmometry.net/introduction-and-thesis

I like talking about the physical and the metaphysical in the same paragraph.

Seashore wrote:I hear him saying that the torus is the flow of energy in the universe and the "vector equilibrium" and "isotropic vector matrix" is the structure of space.

Seashore wrote:Foster mentions the name Marshall Lefferts; on Marshall's website there is a page, "Vector Equilibrium & Isotropic Vector Matrix"

Additionally, Marshall has a page, "The Torus - Dynamic Flow Process."

He says this:

A torus consists of a central axis with a vortex at both ends and a surrounding coherent field. Energy flows in one vortex, through the central axis, out the other vortex, and then wraps around itself to return to the first incoming vortex. The simplest description of its overall form is that of a donut, though it takes many different shapes, depending upon the medium in which it exists.

http://www.cosmometry.net/the-torus---dynamic-flow-process

It seems that the vortex is key to physics, but mainstream physics doesn't recognize that.  Too much emphasis on particle vs. wave.

Seashore, this is a nice thread you started here  

One word about the physicists and the modern sciense, without trying to be judgmental, without being respectless about some other people's scientific work, achievements and knowledge, nor pretending I know all answers: but it is true, as stated in the quote bellow, that the (official) scientific approach is rather still being based on the three laws of dynamics, which all of them are presuming the force as the main ingredient to use when performing their experiments and calculations.

The great HC in Switzerland is, IMO, just a big waste of time, money and resources. If their aim is to realy find the "God's particle", then they just better stop with their efforts right away. That being said as theorethicaly and practicaly, the material world is infinite in both micro and macro directions - thus a hologram 'like'. As soon as their (our human) technology will be futher improved, they will always be able to find another biggest star 'out-there' or to find the smallest particle 'in-there' - there's no doubt about it.

There's no one single particle that makes the universe(s) work - it's rather they just realy "forget", as stated in the quote bellow, to involve the main ingredient in their calculations - the constant flow and change of the visible to the invisible 'world', which could be understood as harmonic resonance.

What they need is - to include the occult spiritual and esotheric knowledge to the already existing science, to change the pre-set mindset and think outside the box - and I guarantee we will be witnessing "wonder" (my presumtion is that some parts of the modern science involving secret programs already discovered this, but it has been keeped secret due to obvious and hidden reasons)

Much respect
Mall...

Seashore wrote:

Seashore wrote:"Spirit Into Matter - The Geometry of Life"

http://www.thrivemovement.com/spirit-matter-geometry-life.blog#transcript

I like this quote from the article:

Physicists have been spending billions in tax payer money for decades trying unsuccessfully to access energy through attempting to fuse hydrogen atoms together at Sun-like temperatures in their tokamak device. They’re using the torus shape, but still using an approach of force rather than blending or resonance. At the new, large Hadron Collider in Switzerland, they have constructed the largest ever man-made torus, seventeen miles around, to reach energy levels that they hope would reveal the sub-structure of the atom and to find the hypothetical “God particle,” the Higgs boson, that is supposed to make the whole universe work. Yet, once again, the fundamental idea is crashing protons together at high speed to create a powerful splash of energy.

What if, instead, we were to take a more Aikido-type blending approach, to learn to follow the dance, to see what the universal energy flow naturally does and then go with it instead of crashing against it? What if the fundamental building block of the universe is not a “thing,” a billiard ball-type particle, but a geometry of flow, a pattern that holds true at any scale? What if, instead of creating more violence to access our energy needs, we look to harmonic resonance, to the natural amplification that happens when waves are in sync, when two systems get in tune?

I think that what is being said there presupposes an ether (space is not empty) from which to harness energy, which I believe does exist.  

The ether needs to be put back into physics.

malletzky wrote:Seashore, this is a nice thread you started here  

Thanks!  

That being said as theorethicaly and practicaly, the material world is infinite in both micro and macro directions - thus a hologram 'like'.

I remember in one of Nassim Haramein's talks that he said physicists don't like infinity, and even have an expression "nasty infinity."  They don't know what to do with it.  I remember Nassim saying that "renormalization" is a way to deal with infinity, and that he thought that was a cop-out.  

What they need is - to include the occult spiritual and esotheric knowledge to the already existing science, to change the pre-set mindset and think outside the box - and I guarantee we will be witnessing "wonder" (my presumtion is that some parts of the modern science involving secret programs already discovered this, but it has been keeped secret due to obvious and hidden reasons)

Yes.

One of Kerry Cassidy's witnesses comes to mind - Richard Alan Miller.  Here's the bio she includes in the Description of her latest YouTube video on an interview of him:

An original team-member, "man-in-black," Miller's research in the field of Parapsychology & Paraphysics began as a graduate physicist working 11 years with Navy Intel.

Offering fresh perspectives on Metaphysical traditions his books, papers & articles include The Modern Alchemist; ESP Induction Through Forms of Self-Hypnosis, and "A Holographic Concept of Reality."

Richard Alan Miller has been at the forefront of many fields during his long and varied career. A solid-state physicist with graduate work at MIT, Miller was involved in groundbreaking work for cloaked agencies in the late '60s and '70s. A colleague of Dr. Stanley Krippner, Miller co-authored in 1973 the paper, The Holographic Concept of Reality - a document whose implications for psychoenergetic systems are only now beginning to be realized.

He is a Swiss mason and also belongs to O.T.O., A:.A:., and several other German Blue Lodges. He has been initiated into a number of pagan cults, including Church of All World (1974-) and Coven Camelot, Star of the North (1973-). Miller is listed in Who's Who in the World, America, and the West, and now writes for Nexus magazine and other publications...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z-LCYbys3M

Seashore wrote:

malletzky wrote:Seashore, this is a nice thread you started here  

Thanks!  

That being said as theorethicaly and practicaly, the material world is infinite in both micro and macro directions - thus a hologram 'like'.

I remember in one of Nassim Haramein's talks that he said physicists don't like infinity, and even have an expression "nasty infinity."  They don't know what to do with it.  I remember Nassim saying that "renormalization" is a way to deal with infinity, and that he thought that was a cop-out.

No, they don't like infinity, just for one obvious reason: according to the present existent laws of physics with which the scientists works and calculate, the further extension of the universe in the macro scale just doesn't fit because, at some point of extent and using the physic laws of action-reaction as a foundation of all calculations, the universe MUST slow down and eventualy stop it's extention.

The problem is - it isn't slowing down and there are even some calculations now, that the extention of the universe is actualy accelerating.

So, as they can not find an answer to the very important question, which is where comes the 'power' for the ongoing extention and acceleration, they just ignore some facts and don't like the idea of infinity

Much respect
Mall...

Seashore wrote:

I love the section showing Patrick Flanagan talking about his understanding of the true model for the atom, where the electron and proton are both formed from vortices:









He said the donuts of the electron are spinning in such a way that the energy is exiting at the equator and coming in through the poles. The proton has the exact reverse - energy coming in at the equator and exiting at the poles.  (Did I understand him correctly?)  

He said the neutron is a combination of the electron and a proton, coupled together.

Seashore wrote:I think that what is being said there presupposes an ether (space is not empty) from which to harness energy, which I believe does exist.  

The ether needs to be put back into physics.

I'm thinking of purchasing a Tom Bearden DVD.  I went to his website to read the description of his latest one, Engineering Physical Reality, and I was surprised to read this quote about Einstein:

An underlying theme of this video is Einstein's thesis that there is no empty space, as it is in fact the fields and their dynamics in which everything that is, is. There is no emptiness, and general relativity is based on this fact. Spacetime indeed is very, very active. Quantum physics for example, as Tom points out, has it as being filled with “tiny bubbles” fiercely bubbling all the time, beneath the observable state.

http://energyfromthevacuum.com/Disc36Bearden/Disc36Bearden%20index.html

I never thought of Einstein as saying there is no empty space.  I'm glad to see this interpretation of Einstein's work.

I guess we can call it spacetime instead of the ether.