Quite obviously, - these principles were only relying on experiments done in dead matter. - No one has ever thought it necessary to perform physical research in particular in living organisms. - The assumption is that it would be utterly pointless.
- Here on Earth there are minerals - ;inanimate things - which I related to here as dead matter, - plants, animals, and humans. - Though physics is supposed to relate to them all it practically deals with the inanimate alone for obvious reasons. - No one can accurately measure the energy produced by chemical reactions and tell if this is really exactly what the muscle got in actuality in order for its functioning. The same is of course true elsewhere too. - Such things are not considered or tested.
- The contemporary prevailing materialistic view believes there nothing else than physical matter. This is altogether untrue. - Plants have a higher element unknown to so called materialistic “science”. - This element is also said to consist of two parts. - Without this they would not be plants, - they would be dead matter, - inanimate things. - Animals also have this and another one above it, - and humans also have what they have above this too. - “Death” is the departure of this element all three of them (- plants, animals and humans) have as I said - in collaboration of course with the other ones above it (as mentioned) too if these are there. - (That is is the case of animals and man) Contemporary science may its own definitions of death which will apparently ever miss the point.
The first element I referred to is supervising the physical body. No physical living being here on this plain can be a living being without it. - It is what discriminates living matter from dead matter. - It ever affects your body. you could not perform a single action living here on Earth as you do without it. - For this purpose it must obviously affect the physical plain (your body, or the body of an animal or a plant) from outside the physical plain. - That is to cause something to be different than it was within the physical plain (the physical world) while not being part of it.
In other words, - as it seems - we could say energy has somehow been affected as to alter its level or route. The changes are likely to be fine, - perhaps very fine, - I guess. - But the law of conservation of energy (or of conservation of mass and energy) could not be said to hold, - in its relating to the physical plain alone assuming its exclusive existence which would mean a system closed in the physical plain is closed altogether. It could be true when not relating to effects originating in what you might call higher worlds - but there is not half a second when - relating to a living organism - (- a plant, an animal or a human) it would be possible for such effects not to take place, - unless it is no longer a living being. - So in a way this is all rooted in a misunderstanding.
Of course this is not easy to examine. Not with the common tools used today by those calling themselves “scientists”. There is the question of how to investigate. If you initially negate the possibility of existence of all that is outside of what you imagine to be all of reality you seem to deprive yourself of the possibility to become knowledgeable about it. - Since the tools you would be willing to use would be altogether meaningless for this purpose. The ability to gain what is necessary here lies within man. - External tools thought of as generally the exclusive means for the scientific investigation involved are not expected to do here. - It is much harder to attain the necessary abilities than to sit in a university and listen to what they teach. Far more worthwhile too. - But it is not like academic studies, - no one can tell you that if you sit and learn for so and so years you will get this or that. - It is not like this. - One practices but the results might appear when they would, - or they might not, - perhaps. - It is altogether different. - But this is the true way. - Contemporary science, - at its current state, - with all the obvious benefits it might bring us - which are not to be put away, - is much of a waste of time and seems to be running severely in a ridiculous and wrong way. - I got quite further than what this post was to be about, - but it was necessary to relate to the means by which knowledge is to be attained. - This world is generally going all the wrong way. - And since resources will not be dedicated to bring us to see what is necessary in order to change the path - things seem to continue as everyone might expect.
Accept what you will. - But the means by which science attempts to gain its knowledge ought to be considered, - in a truly rational way, - and not relying on prejudices. - This is not all and this is not enough, but this post is not aimed at changing the world. Just notice what I said about the law of conservation. This was the intended issue here.
Written on October 6th 2024
