You have probably heard t
hat heaven is a higher level of frequency rather than a far away place. So you can reach to heaven by raising your own vibration so that you are at resonance with the heavenly vibration. So we experience a reality that we resonate with. If you vibrate at a low frequency level, you will experience hell etc. All this is good except for the fact that somewhere, the physics of vibrations and resonance went through the window. People turned it into a metaphor for things like 'if you feel love, joy etc, then you experience the heaven within you since love and joy etc are associated with heaven". So the heaven is reduced into a mere sentiment that only a psychologist or even a psychiatrist is interested with!
In the phrase 'higher frequency' many people are more captivated by the word 'higher' than by the word 'frequency'. That was the reason they liked the idea that heaven is up there in the sky. This meant the heaven is a 'higher' place. When we learnt that the earth rotates and that we sometimes face 'downwards', it became clear that 'up' is not any 'higher' than the 'bottomless pit 'down' there. So people invented another place for heaven that retains a notion of 'higher'. Unfortunately this eagerness to have a 'higher' place corrupted the original intent of forming a vibrational idea of heaven.
At first, analogy was drawn from radio or TV receiver. Your TV 'experiences' a station that resonates with it. This is litteral resonance and the 'heaven' vibration too must be litteral. So your TV has its own kind of vibrations that are 'sympathetic' or not to the incoming signal. If the TV was an hologram and we get connected to it like in a virtual reality, you can see that we could almost already create planes of (virtual) realities using this simple TV technology. You move from one to another by simply tunning the the TV. This highlights how easy to understand 'planes of reality' using the idea of frequency levels. Also note that in the TV, a 'good' or 'bad' channel has nothing to do with its places in the bandwidth. 'Higher vibration' does not make Aljazeera good, joyfull or truthful. 'Frequency level' is just like a 'location'. Same was the case in the original idea of heaven as 'another level of vibration'.
DeBroglie Waves
The theosopher went ahead to suggest a realy good idea. Quantum mechanics suggest that particles are actually waves. So the theosopher only added the idea that there are debroglie waves of all manner of frequencies and that the waves we see are of a specific band widht. Hardly does the theosopher moves beyond this before dividing into the subjective, irrelevant world, like a typical new ager. He waves a hand over science and logical underpinnings like a numbskull.
The problems with the simplistic debroglie waves analogy are many. One of them is that he is not making it clear what is the equivalence of a radio transmitter and a radio receiver. We are only seeing an equivalence of radio waves. We see objects because light bounce off the particles. The ability of the photon to bounce off an electron does not depend on its debroglie wavelength( or frequency ). It depends on its charge, spin etc. If a photon of a certain frequency approaches an electron of any debroglie wavelenght, the photo will bounce off with any frequency, provided that the electron does adjust its wavelenght in the process. Therefore we are actually able to see debroglie waves of all manner of wavelengths. We are not 'tunned' to a narrow band width as in a TV receiver.
Vibration Explanation Of Charge
Since whether or not light bounces off an electron depends on its charge rather than its debroglie wavelength (light is electromagnetic wave), we must find a way of linking charge to vibration if we are to apply the idea of resonance to explain planes of reality. Fortunately, it is very easy to do that! In fact we end up with a theory of electromagnetism that is easy to understand (maistream science cannot explain electrostatic force rationaly).
Consider two balls immersed in some fluid. Both the balls vibrate by rythimically expanding and contracting. (Like heart beat). If both the balls vibrate at synch, i.e. both expand at the same time and contract at the same time, the two balls repel each other. This is because a push transmitted by fluid is stronger than a pull. However, if one of them vibrates at 180 degrees out of synch, i.e. one is contracting when the other one is expanding, both the balls experiences an attractive force. This is because the push from one ball is canceled by the pull from the other without there being a similar cancellation from the sides of the balls that are facing away from each other.
This type of electrostatic force requires that the frequencies of the charged particles be exactly the same. If one of them vibrates at another frequency, then both balls will experience an alternation of repulsion and attraction. For the theory to explain the ekectrostatic force well, the charged particles must sharply discriminate other frequencies. This is is easily achieved if the charged particles vibrates in a series of harmonic frequencies. So one plane of reality will actually be composed of a set of harmonics that are all an interger multiple of some fundamental frequency.
This vibration in a set of harmonic frequencies is also a good idea as it then is evidenced by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Infact it gives us some insight.This is to say that I can go on to suggest that this charge vibration is the generator of the debroglie waves themselves! Mainstream theory don't have the source as in what vibrates to create the waves. Then I will use the Pilot Wave Interpratation of quantum mechanics. Specifically, the idea of sharply discriminating frequencies (hence wavelenghts, hence momentums) is very symmetrical to the idea of sharply discriminating position of the particle. We discriminate other positions by increasing the uncertainty of momentum (hence wavelengths). This is done by superimposing several waves so that they cancel themselves everywhere except where the particle is found. Similarly, we discriminate other momentums by imposing several (to and fro ) momentums to the particle. Remember that when one charge vibrate at a different frequency from the other, it begins to experiences a to and fro motion. So at a given instace, it (say particle B) experiences a force from the other particle (say particle A), that depends on how much its frequency deviated from the frequency of the particle A. Ultinately, this force varies sinosuidaly with the frequency deviation from particle A. So the frequency here begins to act exactly like a spatial location. To cancel forces at all other frequencies except the desired frequency you have only to superimpose several harmonic waves on A. Thus the manner in which we confine a particle to a certain momentum is exactly the same as the manner in which we confine it to a certain location.
All this explains why Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle can be expressed both in the position space and in the momentum space. But more importantly, it shows that the 'frequency space' is exactly like the usual space we see in. We can confine a plane of reality sharply into a certain bandwidth and make this bandwidth as narrow as we wish (this means making that reality not to interact with other realities even that vibrate very close to it). In Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, we say that we can make the momentum as certain as we wish by mathematicaly doing in the momentum (frequency) space, the same thing we do in the usual space to make its position as certain as we wish.
Entry And Exit From Other Frequency Levels
A question now arises as to why things cannot simply alter their frequency levels an disappear. But consider that a similar question can be asked of the spin of subatomic particles. Why can't ekectron spin at a different rate? The particles seem to spin as though spinning is their intrinsic property! Spinning is not any different from vibration. Infact a vibration can be seen as a spin as seen from side way. That is why we talk of angels in vibrations or describe them using sine waves.
NeverthelessI can still explain why things don't seem to disappear by using conservative laws, especially the law of conservation of momentum. This law can be enforced by ensuring that every time an object e.g. a billiard ball stops moving a similar billiard ball must begin to move on the spot to carry on the momentum. We observe this as though the moving ball is stoped by the going ball that is hit.
Now consider the way debroglie relationships relate momentum of a particle to its wavelength. The law of conservation of momentum translates to the law of conservation of wavelength (hence frequency). So if it is true that for every object to increase its momentum, a similar object on the spot must reduce its momentum, then if an object increases its wavelength, a similar object must reduce its wavelength. So whenever an object disappears, a similar object appears on the spot. This swap is too fast for us to see. So we think that objects never disappear.
An analogy is made in the case of temperature. An object cannot increase its temperature without getting in contact with an already hotter object. When it does that, the hotter object must reduce its temperature. But the analogy is not perfect. The vibrating realities are not pure thermodynamic systems. They are more akin to quantum fluctuations than thermal flactuations for otherwise the vibrations would reduce with time.
Comments
THE LION: where is heaven?
THE HORSE: heaven is not a place but a state of vibration.
But love is the strongest vibration. So perharps heaven is love! So heaven is unconditional love. If I am feeling some unconditional love, then I am in heaven!! When more questions are asked, we have the same same old joker card: 'it is beyond understanding'.
But does this changing 'heaven' into a metaphor realy answers the question of where heaven is? It doesn't. It is not showing us where someone goes when he dies. It isn't showing us if and how a dead person can keep on loving. It glosses over details and ignore questions. Why haven't physicists observed a particle being acted upon by love? Physicist have identified only 4 forces that are at work in this universe.
One may now unleash the joker card: 'it is beyond the understanding of a scientist'. But it make no sense! The claim was that love is something mystical. So if he gets to the lab while feeling some 'unconditional love', sure he should demonstrate to the scientists that something 'beyond their understanding' is taking place. Scientists should observe some force at work, and then misunderstand it as a fifth force when in reality, it is love permeating the organs of the 'awakened' guy.
It is just as naive as a Christian saying that heaven exists up there in the sky and when the scientists objects by saying that the earth revolves round the sun but we don't see heaven, the Christian answers by saying: 'it is beyond the understanding of scientists'.
But my approach is different. It doesn't brush aside the objections of a scientist by trying to put them on a 'lower' level of understanding. For instance, scientists say that love is not something mystical, however you may feel it. It ultimately comes down to interplay of EM forces. They say so because such is what they observe, while the new age claims demands that we should observe something mysterious at work. Yes, even it should be OBVIOUS! The new age is still squarely in the flat earth saying 'beyond there be dragons', while thinking that the edges of the earth is 'beyond the reach' of scientists!!
So if love is EM forces, it cannot be our hope for ab afterlife in heaven, at least not without explaining the science which the new ager asks us to ignore even when we can rationalize, like I have done above. It asks us to live only in the wishfull thinking cantilevered by our subjective feelings even when they lead us to conclusions that contradict facts!
My explanation for EM forces is that there are levels of EM forces and that our consciousness incarnates in various EM forces. So love can be just EM forces without getting destroyed when we die. I go into the details aiming even to test them scientifically. This cannot be answered by the 'love does it all' any more than we can answer what visual cortex does by 'feeling unconditional love'. Love is being uncongruosly over stretched to do what it actually doesn't: EXPLAIN, and what it does:MOTIVATE is belittled.
Love does not EXPLAIN the universe. It MOTIVATES actions of PERSONS in the univers. Therefore the ability to feel love does not obviate the need to study, think and understand.
Good, In no way does existence of such an entity obviates the need to study, think and understand the world, both the seen and the unseen. If anything it invites someone to try to close exermine our organs carefully, to see if they are indead permeated by some unseen entity.
So 'pull out your microscope'. Will you, at some point, 'see' love, or will you only 'see' EM forces and chemical reactions. Such are the questions that I am interested with. I am not onlly interesred with how love (and other things) appear to me and to individuals. When I see you, I only see your behaviour. Same applies when I see a stone. I only experience myself feeling love. But I am also interested with other things and other people.
Suppose 'love' permeates a stone or a missile . How will it behave? Will it boomerang from hitting the innocent target? If not, then what is the difference between 'love' and 'hatred' in such a case? Or perharps we should say love does not permeate inanimate objects?But you say again 'it is infinit'. I see a risk to returning to the same same 'God' like that of christians. He is said to have unconditional love 'beyond comprehension'. But also he will hurl some of his adversaries to eternal torment for messing with his rules such as 'though should not galp some alcohol'. Ask them how can a loving being do such, they tell 'we cannot fully comprehend God'.
You see this phrase 'you cannot fully comprehend' is used like a joker card. It brash a side any objection at any time. It is an 'answer it all'. It is a great loop hole to escape being cornerd. That is why they love it so much! Pleas donnot be drawn to such.
The reason why you cannot make me understand 'love' is pettier than you may think. It has nothing to do with our limited understanding. I cannot come into your body and then listen to you point and say 'this feeling is unconditional love' and 'this feeling is the conditional love' the way you would differentiate a mango from an orange if I came to your room. It is not that the mango is any easier to understand. But we could do that for love and I guess it is very easy. That is why I came to understand what the word ''love' means in English without being an English person.
But people wanted more from love. They say oh! That must not be love because it doesnt make me look like Yahweh, able to divide the seas and bring down fire. So love must be something else, something 'incomprehensible'.
But any way, whatever love is, we are faced with questions that cannot be answered by feeling some love. That is why we study science etc. You don't even get to know that you have thalamo-corticothalamic circuit in your skull by sitting somewhere and feeling. I mean the head doesn't feel like anything. That is why you think that love comes from the heart. In reality, love comes from the brain! It is just like we don't realy see using eyes. Without the brain, we cannot see.
But there is no difference between takling the question of why we don't see ashtar sheran and tackling the question of why we dont see thalamo-cortico-thalsmc circuit. If you keep reading my blogs, you will understand!! In both case, we must use science. How does Ashtar communicate to your head? These are questions that are largely ignored. How is heaven 'near' without being seen? Vibration was suggested to bring some sense to this. But unfortunately the metaphor for 'love' created a read herring.
You must know that even if love is good, it can also be used in a bad way, like anything good. It has been used to cloud and obviate the need to seek knowledge and understanding before we buy into such concepts as 'ashtar' etc
We see things move other things. A stone moves another stone. The hand moves a stone etc. Love, on the other hand is seen to come as a motive of a person. Love is inconceivable without a person. If you think you can conceive one, then I am sure it is a misconception! You move the hand to hold a child because you love them. Love is a motive behind motion in such a case. All motions are not motivated by love. If love moves things in and of itself, then if I punch your nose, it is still love! Doesnt love moves the universe? Love becomes 'everything' and loses its meaning! But love is wgat motivates a person. You move to a stadium because you love the game. Love presupposes persons or a 'person vs a thing' that are involved in it. I haven't seen love in the mid air acting upon things. I only see people acting, people who claim to love, though at times drawing daggers and stubbing other pple, lol!
I am not saying love is a metaphor nor am I talking only of man vs woman love. I am saying that the talk of 'strong love', 'vibration of love', 'falling in love', 'love make the world go round' are metaphors, and not very good metaphors as they obviate the need to understand things. It leads one to say 'I feel love, therefore I understand it all'.
Some pple wanted the prime-mover of the universe to be something that only a psychologist is interested with. Unfortunately, 'love' became their toying ground.
I think you are again speaking metaphorically. That is poetry, like saying 'love makes the earth goes round'. Like saying 'you fall in love' etc.
Those are metaphors and poetries that I am cautioning against. You can use vibration metaphoricaly. But don't obviate a literal undestanding of it, nor attempt to understand the univerrse, both the seen and the unseen.
I do love, and I know love so well for I was loving since the time I can remember. I feel love, sometimes even a little bit too much. But it doesn't make anything irrelevant. It makes everything else relevant. I mean if I love you, you become relevant! To you pple, alongside 'everything else' becomes irrelevant when you love them?? How about eating, sleeping, taking bath, sweeping the house, cooking etc. Do they become irrelevant when you begine to feel love?
Let me hope you are talking metaphors. If I take it literally I feel you have s mountain to climb.😆