Closing the circle

Now, at the latest, we have reached the decidability that the material world must be an imaginary world. And we, who perceive the material body instead of ourselves as the spirit, are wrongly perceiving what is nothing other than dreaming. Although the subject of dream is addressed more directly in the Eastern religions, we also find passages in the Bible that refer to the dream:  

  • Ps 39,6: Surely everyone goes around like a mere phantom;  in vain they rush about, heaping up wealth without knowing whose it will finally be.
  • Col 2,17: These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.
  • Eph 5,14: This is why it is said: “Wake up, sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.”
  • Sir 34,3: The dream face is only a reflection, the image of an face instead of the face itself.
  • 1 Cor 13,12 : For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
  • Sir 40,7: When he is saved, he wakes up and wonders of his fear of nothing. 

Come back to philosophy and remember Plato’s cave parable as well as the well-known saying of Socrates: “I know I don’t know anything.” If in wakefulness the true knowledge is anchored, in a dream we have only an illusionary knowledge. In this respect, Socrates must have known that he was in a dream. With the knowledge of the dream, he was also aware that he in the dream knows nothing, but that real knowledge is anchored in him.

And finally, we come to the often-mentioned statement of the Spiritual science that we live in a world illusion (Maya). What we perceive is an imagination – that is, an illusion. The Circle is closed. Because all areas – science, Religion, Philosophy and Spiritual Science – come to the same statement.

Strictly speaking, the circle shown is not an absolute circle, but a spiral. Finally – and fortunately – we are not illusions but a spirit that can only dream of illusions as if they are real, even if they aren’t. Because we can become aware of the fact of the illusions and also because we ourselves are the creators of the illusions, we can also detach ourselves from them. In the first step, this is done by overcoming matter. In the second step – quasi at the end of universal time – matter is then completely dissolved again by being transformed up into the spiritual.

The universal space that had to be inflated and thus created for the illusions (for the dream) is then emptied again in order to shrink back to the point (reverse effect of the big bang). However, matter does not disappear into nothing, but is spiritualized to flow into the higher dimensions: to where there is the pure spiritual beeing. So there is no real nothing from which any energy has arisen. It just doesn’t make sense. It makes more sense to say that energy has always been there and can be transformed consciously or specifically.

It’s not so that Steven W. Hawking is the only significant scientist to leave the option open that the material world can be an imaginary world. So, one of the fathers of quantum physics, Erwin Schrödinger, has brought his view of the world to debate by saying the following:

The perceived multiplicity is only sham, it does not exist in reality.
Erwin Schrödinger: My World View, Hamburg-Vienna 1961, p. 40.

Once again the basic assumption of physics. So far, physics has assumed that the material world arose from nothing, at least from nothing that is zero in energy terms. One helps oneself with the idea that there are so-called energy fluctuations that allow matter-antimatter to emerge by chance and out of the blue and can be dissolved again shortly afterwards. Here, however, the antimatter in the energy must weigh the same amount and have negative energy so that the energetic sum is zero at any time. Despite everything, this thought contradicts the statement that nothing can arise from nothing (first big question mark).

The energy of the whole must result in zero energy at all times according to the previous ideas of physics. However, as early as 1964, two physicists, Val Fitch and James Cronin, found that the formation of approximately one billion of these matter-antimatter pairs results in an excess of one particle of matter, which falls under the name asymmetry of the universe. The second big question mark is now how to reconcile this asymmetry with the energy conservation law. I haven’t heard a plausible answer so far. Or where has the negative energy gone with the large excess of matter?

Now the so-called inflation theory of physics assumes that that nothing has to be put into an excited state. Then it should have been possible that the particle aggregation could take place faster than the pair destruction. With asymmetry, we do not necessarily need these conditions. Nevertheless, it is very questionable how the nothing can energize itself (third big question mark). It is more logical to think that energy has always been there and that intelligent energy has brought about this excited state, which my study shows in several ways.

In the meantime, physics requires the existence of dark matter and dark energy based on observations. It therefore speaks of dark, because it is not visible / measurable / ascertainable, but it does exist. The proportion should be as follows: dark energy = 73%, dark matter = 23%, ordinary matter = 4%. The demand for dark energy suggests that energy has always been there. How can we still maintain the basic assumption that at the beginning of the universe the energetic sum was zero and therefore must still be zero? Because at least the dark energy would have partially to be negative and therefore subject to a constant process of annihilation, because it would face its positive energy at any moment. Everything very questionable!

Perhaps it should be mentioned that physics has come to the realization that the so-called vacuum is not empty. It is permeated by a so-called photon network of virtual photons. These virtual photons are also called messenger particles. Without these photons or messenger particles, there could be no interaction between the material building blocks. Each virtual building block is constantly swirled around or absorbed and emitted by these virtual photons. This in turn means that this photon network must be very present. It has to perform a kind of preservation function. After all, these messenger particles constantly maintain the interaction of the building blocks of matter. And yet these photons are still viewed as virtual particles that are subject to any random fluctuations in energy. From a statistical point of view, such a photon if it must constantly swirl around an atomic building block and thereby if it must represent a certain energetic basis, is unlikely to stay at a certain location because of it is random character. So we have another big question mark (fourth big question mark) in the model of physics, which is based on random energy fluctuations and on the thought that there was no energy before the world was created.

The term ‘virtual particles’ is also intended to indicate that these particles have no real meaning. However, we can already see that they must have real meaning by the fact that they are responsible for the interaction of the material building blocks. In addition, the electrostatic polarizability of the virtual particle flows can be measured using the so-called Lamb deviation and the so-called Delbrück scatter. The Delbrück scattering is the scattering of photons on photons. This means that the seemingly virtual particles are no less real than the atomic and subatomic particles. So if you can add up one and one, you know that physics with the so-called photon network or with the so-called quantum fields describes nothing else than the ether, a part of the ether or a preliminary stage thereof. Physics probably does not name the ether because it had once rejected it, although Einstein revised this rejection in 1922. The ether wasn’t really refuted with the Michelson-Morley experiment. Only the wrong idea of ​​the ether was refuted. Back then it was seen as something static and mechanical, which it is not.

The fact that there is zero-point energy – at an absolute temperature of 0 degrees Kelvin, the atoms still have energy, hence the name zero-point energy – and that this is obviously a preservation factor shows that it is an unchangeable foundation that best meets the criteria of a reality (e.g. durability).

Especially in modern physics, the idea is raised that the energy continuum of the vacuum is a deeper and more fundamental being. What we find would be surface phenomena such as ripples or bubbles on a still ocean, which are conjured up into being by the activities of the spirit.

At this point I would like to quote Prof. Dr. Claus W. Turtur, who makes a great contribution to space-energy research (conversion of space-energy): “… With this we recognize the zero-point waves as a more fundamental source of all being and all beings. Not the matter, but the zero point waves define the objects of our world. They exist everywhere in our universe, in immense quantities. Wherever they are stimulated to increase to a next higher quantum state, they manifest themselves as material objects:

– Electromagnetic zero-point waves |0> EM are then increased by a quantum level to light particles, i.e. to photons |1> EM .
– zero-point-matter-waves |0>G become analogous by increasing by a quantum level to material particles, i.e.g. to elementary particles |1> G .
Thus, matter as well as light can be recognized in its nature, as nothing more than excited zero-point waves (electromagnetic zero-point waves or material zero-point waves). …”