An interesting observation is coming back from the few fortunate humans who have been taken aboard starships for flights in our near galaxy. The constellations as we see them from Earth are in a completely different configuration when these stars are viewed from a different point in space. While they look to us here like they are arranged on a flat plane in two dimensions, they are actually different distances away from Earth. Imagine that from, say, "the side" the stars of a particular constellation would reveal their that they exist in three dimensions physically, not just two. Thus, the Big Dipper would not look like the Big Dipper, and so on. It's totally logical when you think about it from a broader perspective.
This is a huge topic, but by definition, you are, of course, completely correct that a two-dimensional perspective would be flat. There would be left-right but no up or down. Likewise, you are correct about the three-dimensional perspective; but viewing from the Earth, there are even more factors to consider such as the behavior of light, the lenses we use for viewing, and the impression on the brain. Moreover, we would be "thinking" three-dimensionally whereas some realities are much higher so we would not see them at all. Morrnah Simeona asked me one day how many planets I use in my horoscopes. I asked her how many there are in our system. She said there are 70. I asked if some were only etheric. She said, 'Yes, don't you use them in your charts?" She actually seemed not to understand that if we don't see them, we can't calculate a position for them. Well, maybe I did not word that correctly. She would have understood that we have to see them, but she did not understand that we don't see them. Try to imagine explaining color to someone who is color blind. If you have etheric vision, you see objects that are not visible to those who lack etheric vision. Neither our eyes nor our cameras pick up what might be there but not be visible to most people.
I feel we are not yet even in kindergarten when it comes to space and how to observe it, but you infer that you might have been in a starship . . . or that you accept the accounts of those who have been in them. I have been out of body and journeyed psychically and I would say that something like Cassiopeia, as mentioned in the video, gave the impression of a being, not just a cluster of stars, but rather bright spots shining within a great being, a lady of immense beauty and grace. She indeed felt like an entity in her own right so even if each visible star were itself the center of a system, they were all part of a lady who dwells in a particular part of the Universe, somewhere between Andromeda and Earth but closer, I think to Andromeda.
Ingrid, the even broader views of yourself and Morrnah were a pleasure to read. Galileo was persecuted for being a free thinker and I appreciate that that’s not the case here and now.
An interesting observation is coming back from the few fortunate humans who have been taken aboard starships for flights in our near galaxy. The constellations as we see them from Earth are in a completely different configuration when these stars are viewed from a different point in space. While they look to us here like they are arranged on a flat plane in two dimensions, they are actually different distances away from Earth. Imagine that from, say, "the side" the stars of a particular constellation would reveal their that they exist in three dimensions physically, not just two. Thus, the Big Dipper would not look like the Big Dipper, and so on. It's totally logical when you think about it from a broader perspective.
This is a huge topic, but by definition, you are, of course, completely correct that a two-dimensional perspective would be flat. There would be left-right but no up or down. Likewise, you are correct about the three-dimensional perspective; but viewing from the Earth, there are even more factors to consider such as the behavior of light, the lenses we use for viewing, and the impression on the brain. Moreover, we would be "thinking" three-dimensionally whereas some realities are much higher so we would not see them at all. Morrnah Simeona asked me one day how many planets I use in my horoscopes. I asked her how many there are in our system. She said there are 70. I asked if some were only etheric. She said, 'Yes, don't you use them in your charts?" She actually seemed not to understand that if we don't see them, we can't calculate a position for them. Well, maybe I did not word that correctly. She would have understood that we have to see them, but she did not understand that we don't see them. Try to imagine explaining color to someone who is color blind. If you have etheric vision, you see objects that are not visible to those who lack etheric vision. Neither our eyes nor our cameras pick up what might be there but not be visible to most people.
I feel we are not yet even in kindergarten when it comes to space and how to observe it, but you infer that you might have been in a starship . . . or that you accept the accounts of those who have been in them. I have been out of body and journeyed psychically and I would say that something like Cassiopeia, as mentioned in the video, gave the impression of a being, not just a cluster of stars, but rather bright spots shining within a great being, a lady of immense beauty and grace. She indeed felt like an entity in her own right so even if each visible star were itself the center of a system, they were all part of a lady who dwells in a particular part of the Universe, somewhere between Andromeda and Earth but closer, I think to Andromeda.
Ingrid, the even broader views of yourself and Morrnah were a pleasure to read. Galileo was persecuted for being a free thinker and I appreciate that that’s not the case here and now.
Well, we are perhaps not hauled before the Inquisition and placed under house arrest, but try getting published in a peer-reviewed journal!