A Theory of Relativity

In a discussion just a couple days ago with my best friend for life, he expressed his thoughts on the perfect balance of the Universe… that for every positive, there must also be a negative… for every outward there must also be an inward.  What troubled my friend was the appearance of an “outward,” “positive” side of manifested energy in the material world we can observe with our senses, and the fact there has never been a discussion or theory on the inverse, “negative” side of energy, or “anti-energy.”  This is not the notion of a “separate non-material “spritual” world” which exists apart from the physical, manifested creation, but a simultaneous presence of the “negative” side of conscious energy with the “positive” side we can observe.

This “theory of relativity” my friend and I developed, different from Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, is summed up in the following way: The total of what comprises the Universe – conscious energy, has two sides – one “positive” and one “negative.”  As the positive expands, the negative contracts and vice versa.  It is this play of forces which is responsible for the fact of relativity. Why is it even necessary to propose an “outward” and “inward” movement of concsious energy?  Because we know from scientists the Universe is continuing to expand.  The problem is, this expansion cannot continue indefinitely because the eternal expansion of the Universe, without retracting back onto itself would mean it had a “beginning,” which is impossible.  Why is a “beginning” impossible?  Because the only way a “beginning” can happen is if something comes out of nothing, which is a logical contradiction and an impossibility.  Everything has its origins in something which existed previously, and this “something” which previously has always been is consciousness and energy – or to put it another way – conscious energy, as consciousness is an aspect of energy, not something separate from it since All is One. 

What we call a “beginning” is actually nothing more than a change within a cycle. A cycle has no beginning and no end.  It only has change within it, such as the change of moving out, and moving back in, like breathing.  In this theory, the Universe is breathing just as we breathe, but the time it takes between change within its cycle – the “inhale” and “exhale” of the Universe, is incredibly long.  As far as scientists can tell, the Universe has been expanding indefinitely since the theoretical “big bang.”  It is likely that “big bang” occurred when the “inhale” of conscious energy finally came to that critical point of compression when it was forced back “out,” in the “exhale,” which we now observe as a seemingly ever-expanding Universe.  The only theory which makes sense, since an ever-expanding Universe, and a so-called “beginning” is impossible, is to propose the Universe, at some critical point within its “exhale,” will then be pulled back within itself  as the Universe contracts, and conscious energy eventually comes back to a critical point in its “inhale” at which point another “big bang” will take place.  Almost certainly, the expansion and contraction of the Universe has gone on forever and will continue to go on forever.  The “big bang” we theorize was responsible for our Universe as we know it was likely only one of countless “big bangs” throughout eternity.  The only way this “expansion” and “contraction” can take place is if there is a “positive” and “negative” side to conscious energy, like two sides of the same one coin…

 

 

Posted in Creation and Evolution, Other Thoughts Tagged with: , , ,
One comment on “A Theory of Relativity
  1. John Cross says:

    Perhaps the Universe is neither expanding nor contracting, with only the elements within it moving closer to and/or further away from each other. The only way true “expansion” and “contraction” can take place is if there are limits on conscious energy and the Universe. There must be a finite “amount” of it for it to reach a critical point to explode into expansion, or the maximum point of expansion to bring it back into contraction. Also, to expand and contract requires there be a “center” from which the expansion and contraction revolves, otherwise there is no expansion or contraction, since expansion and contraction is relative. Is this “God?” – the “center” of the Universe from which all things expand and contract? This is still not an “ego god” in terms of having a “will” or a “plan,” but in order for the Universe to expand and contract, there must be a “center.” Is this the notion of “I?” Is that where it originates from? IS there such a thing as a “center” of the Universe at all?

    I question the “big bang” because in order for there to be a “big bang,” there must be a “center” of the Universe, and if there is a “center” of the Universe, then the universe is finite, because that which can be spoken of in any spacial terms whatsoever must necessarily be finite and therefore relative. If the Universe is truly without space and time, then it cannot be finite and therefore relative. Why must there be a center if expansion and contraction is true? Because all within the Universe would have to be drawn back into itself, and there is no reason for it to pull “into itself” unless there is a force within it, a “center” to pull it in, or a limit to its expansion, which would mean there is a limit of conscious energy. Conscious energy would have to be finite for the notion of an ever-expanding and contracting Universe, which also makes no sense. A “big bang” with no contraction, would imply a “beginning” without end, which makes no sense either. Something always exists to enable the “creation” of “new” things, since all which exists is a combination of pre-existing elements. That is why there can be no beginning, and there can be no end. It is also why the Universe cannot be finite, because what is finite is limited – with a “beginning” and an “end.”

    If there is no beginning and no end, and the elements within the Universe are not static, then it seems there is infinite movement within the Universe, just as there is infinite change within the Universe, but the Universe itself is neither moving nor not moving, as it is ALL and ONE. We are playing games with the ideas of in and out, expanding, contracting, etc., but the problem is, all of this is dependent on relativity. Relativity is about relationship of entities in comparison to each other, but since all entities are ultimately illusions since all forms are ever-changing and not fixed, then the ideas of expansion, contraction, etc., are all ultimately illusions. In Truth, nothing “goes” anywhere or “does” anything. All is simply ONE.

    The very notion of relativity is only possible with the notion of the “I,” the “self,” the ego. The ego is the “measuring stick” against which all things are judged and deemed “relative.” So to answer the question of relativity, we must ask the question, “what is ego?” Ego is not Reality, but is an awareness of being separate and independent of everything else, which is an illusion. The belief in separation gives rise to all notions of relativity. We cannot have relationship without ego, and ironically, it is often ego itself which is responsible for the destruction of relationships. Ego is that which appears to “create” and “destroy,” but is it consciousness which organizes energy into form, and pulls it apart through change. It is consciousness which is the aspect of energy which “separates” itself into infinite apparent “forms.”

    Ever-changing form is real, but ego is the notion one’s self concept is the Center of the Universe, and not the center of its own universe. Ego is therefore an idea of the permanence of self, not form itself. Since there is no center to the Universe, then all notions of ego are illusions. Conscious energy, as a product of its nature, organizes itself in form, and since these forms have self-consciousness when consciousness is organized in form, this gives rise to the notions of separate “entities” and “fixed” forms, yet these “fixed” forms are forever changing and transforming, and have no permanence. The fact this change is so incredibly slow to our perception gives rise to the illusion of “permanent” entities in our experience in everyday life, even if our logic and observations over time can easily demonstrate to us all forms are impermanent. The fact of form itself is “eternal” if you will, because the phenomena of form itself is simply a manifestation of consciousness.

    Consciousness is partially responsible for the fact of ego, but not ego itself, because it is the combination of energy in form being conscious of its form which is ultimately responsible for ego. It is the fact of energy being self-conscious within form that creates the notion of “self” as separate from “other.” Put another way, it is energy’s consciousness of the form it “occupies” which is responsible for all notions of “self.” Relativity, ideas, beliefs, etc., are all nothing more than creations of our egotistical minds, which inevitably judge “others” in relationship to our egos, and have nothing to do with Reality. What is Real is ONE, whole, and undivided – the Universe in which all form is “contained” if you will….

    Consciousness without energy is unthinkable. Energy without consciousness would be true “egolesssness,” but they are inseparable, as they are ONE. There is not separate “consciousness” from “energy.” There is only conscious energy. The aspect of consciousness within energy’s “forms” gives rise to self-consciousness – each “form’s” awareness of the limits of its form. A form’s awareness of the limits of its form and the limits of other forms IS EGO. And it is THIS which is ultimately responsible for all notions of relativity….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.