PDA

View Full Version : Do thoughts have mass and affinity



Michele
2009-Jul-10 Fri, 07:22
Could you please post prior threads regarding affinity. The concept that a thought could have mass is a new mind toy for me. I am not as familiar as I should be with the concept of affinity, so I would like to have more information if it is already been discussed or is available from the site here.

On the IRVA board there is the discussion about using Thought Form as a decoy. But, in my personal experience, I find that in a purely psychic perspective that I miss things that are beyond my 'ken'. Especially something unpleasant or violent or 'morally wrong' Believe me, being in a National Guard unit for 17 years provides that backdrop. I have asked myself many times 'how could I not have known this or that person was 'doing something like that'. In most, if not all cases, it was something that I myself had no personal experience with. I could not comprehend the actual details of a bad situation, only just the influence of 'something bad is happening' but I don't know how to describe it. If you are going to distract me with a Thought Form, it as to be one that I can understand.

Having been left to my own devices for the last 17 years, this is about as much as I have. I would very much like any information that is available about affinity.

Glenn B. Wheaton
2009-Jul-19 Sun, 03:38
Aloha Michele,

If you use the search function on the BBS here you can just type in “affinity” and the related posts will come up. It will be an interesting mix of discussions. I believe the subject of whether or not thoughts have mass will get more interesting over time. It has been a real chore pulling some of the outside folks back to the reality of our Universe. Thoughts may or may not have mass but I think for us here at Hrvg it is time to ask the question. It is an interesting question for several reasons. First and foremost we know that particles too small to be considered to have mass are not coherent. One of these particles is the photon and believe it or not some do believe it has mass. The problem with a scientific solution to the photon is that they can never measure it at rest. To be without mass implies that it has no mass when it is “At Rest”. The math seems to illustrate that it is extremely low mass or no mass, but there is no real proof, just a belief based on related mathematics. If the photon had mass then that whole speed of light thing becomes a bit fuzzy. It is more than likely from the science that is known that the photon does not have measurable mass by relativistic examination. But even a relativistic examination of the photon has problems. You see photons move in waves and that implies mass. Like sound waves photons can be reflected which means something with no mass can be blocked or affected by mass and that doesn’t make any sense. A simple flashlight will no doubt be the object that is the ultimate downfall of relativity.

But thoughts aren’t really photons are they? They must be something else related to the electric nature of the activity of the brain.

Thoughts do behave in a particular way though. Because of the electrical and magnetic platform that gives them birth it is far more likely that thoughts are fields that actually flash to cognizance. It is why you cannot look too closely at a thought. Thoughts have a dwell time that fades upon recognition. It is why we cannot think constantly and continuously a single thought. This would require us to bring it “To Rest” which for a brain may not be the best thing. This mimics another familiar behavior of mass in our Universe that being the need to move. Thoughts are fleeting, thoughts pass, thoughts that pass are collapsing waves. Here is the problem and it is the lack of a spectrum analyzer that can sort through the waves and show their progression to coherence. We can look at a brainwave signature but we cannot chase the electrons to word, phrase, or sentence. I believe science will ultimately have to accept that thoughts are micro bursts of electromagnetic activity. It is important to state here that the relationship between thoughts and consciousness is unclear. We like to think that computers think and they do in a fashion, but in a fashion that is without sentience. For sentience to exist there must be an interplay with consciousness, which I believe is really a dimension. Ok my brain huts now so let’s go back to affinity.

Affinity is an abstract uniquely suited for examination. We simplified examination by setting up a Roulette environment as our laboratory. There are some clues in posts here and there in the archives on how we set up or stand up affinity. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows rules that I use to create the entanglements needed to demonstrate or show affinity. Because we set up to see a certain aspect of reality as it forms, unwanted aspects lead to collapses and the objects conform to the observational perspective. The most valuable practice is rehearsal of the desired observational perspective. Let’s take Roulette a bit further. At a standard Roulette activity, you have one person “the Croupier” trying to minimize the losses and others who are trying to win based on their bets. What the game is at this level is random outcomes based on the mechanical actions of a wheel and a ball spinning in opposite directions. If one could examine all aspects such as start positions of both objects, speed, gravity, and other physical characteristics we would find out that it is only random because there is too much data for the normal human to examine to make an informed decision on where to place their bet. So it is really only random because the players cannot look. Well we have learned how to look, and what to look for. The Roulette environment is imminently entrainable. We force the collapse of the majority of chaos by using affinity to give an order based outcome.

Glenn

J.P.
2009-Jul-19 Sun, 19:39
I like it when Glenn gives away little hints as to how affinity works. He said in the post above: "The most valuable practice is rehearsal of the desired observational perspective"

So that means to me rehearsing what you wish to have happen in some future situation is the key. That leads to many questions, and also much pondering.....!


JP

Dick Allgire
2009-Jul-19 Sun, 21:28
I like it when Glenn gives away little hints as to how affinity works. He said in the post above: "The most valuable practice is rehearsal of the desired observational perspective"

So that means to me rehearsing what you wish to have happen in some future situation is the key. That leads to many questions, and also much pondering.....!


JP

Hi JP,

Rehearsal is a very important element of entrainment. There are other things involved, including environment, design, observation, execution...