Hi Justin,
thanks for answering. I see the problem in using terms which are genuine terms of physics. An example:
  You said: "brown has a very similar wavelength to regular yellow".
  "Wavelength" is a strictly physical term (though you can see the length of a water wave or sth similar). Certain wavelengths of colors can only be given of pure spectral colors. Brown isn't a spectral color. If analysed with a spectroscope, a pool of different wavelengths will be the result.
  If you would have said that brown seems to you to express a similar feeling/mood/whatever I really would have not this problem! At times, I'm painting, and some years back I was obsessed with colors, every color is something special for me and there are so many! But, I hope you get my point, genuine physics' terms can only be understood in their -of course- physics'-meaning or they must be explicit given another meaning.
  It's the same with "range of vibration which is like from sound to cosmic rays", you made no difference between material waves and electromagnetic waves. Why you use the term "vibration" at all? I can understand terms like "we resonate to each other" or "to get tuned to each other", because it's easy to get the connection with music. So, is it therefore you use the term "vibration"? I guess it is the music-implication of vibration what makes it so attractive to use it. If one dimension has a vibration rate one octave higher than another dimension, are they more in harmony than two dimensions with a minor-secunde-difference? Then the musical-vibration- analogy would make sense.

You know, there's nothing to say against that all is one field. But I try to figure out if to speak of "dimensions with different vibrations/frequencies" says more than just "different dimensions".

Finally, I'm the last one to say that truth is only to find in physics. Far from that. I only try to get the message! I'm an explorer just like you and have to deal with the language problem. So let's work to speak clearly and don't mix consciousness things up with physics' terms. The sceptical natural scientists are waiting for exactly this to discredit anyone who uses it wrongly though one wants to say insightful things. It would be a pity, and I don't want that to happen.

Yes, I read all of Bruce's books, and to interprete that gravity theory I'm not expert enough! And I just started to read Rosalind McKnights books. Good vibes to you,
Spooky

  Quote:


 

Spooky2 wrote, Quote:

The sceptical natural scientists are waiting for exactly this to discredit anyone who uses it wrongly though one wants to say insightful things. It would be a pity, and I don't want that to happen.

 Well frankly my dear, i don't give a damn  
Besides, i don't think too many scientist peruse this site without already having some kind of belief in the afterlife....

 And being human like the rest of us, even though scientists, there is still a tendency for what Bruce and many others have outlined, "belief can and does often block perception" and it applies just as much to them.  I definitely don't feel responsible for others beliefs, or lack thereof.  Lol you might care, but that doesn't mean i should. 8)

Peace

It seems to me that Quantum Mechanics and String Theory are examples of how physics is inching closer to a better understanding of Wider Reality. I can't say for sure because I can't do the math to understand these theories, if in fact anyone can really understand them anyway, but I wonder if in the not too distant future whether the vocabulary of physics will indeed merge with that used for Wider Reality. Just a thought.

Bob