The question is so needed. So often we take what encounter to be the norm. How many of us truly question the world around us and perceive the reality of our environment and being?

The purpose of this website is to bring subjects under question. By no means is it stating the information here is a truth. Truth is personal to each of our own perspectives and our own frames of reference / experience. What is truth for on person is certainly not for another.

Some of the most important questions in life remain exactly that, questions. People seek those who they view to have wisdom but unfortunately the wisdom provided does not answer their questions. Experts are sought, yet on investigation, experts may well not have the full understanding of the subject under investigation.

For example, the purpose of science is to investigate and expand human knowledge through disciplined research. Yet the fact human knowledge is far from complete, or science would be complete and there would be no scientist. Who knows someone who literally knows everything (sarcasm aside)? Knowledge is still there to be gained. This is where experts may fail to meet others needs. It may well be that they intend not to do so, its just may be that level of knowledge and understanding is yet to be gained.

So in some respects, we muddle along blindly, the blind leading the blind. Mis-focused and stumbling along, we miss opportunities to expand our knowledge base.Because the experts’ knowledge is lacking in the area we seek guidance, so we follow what everyone else does, as that's the way it is!

Or is it...

It is time to ask oneself, what is really true, not only on an individual level but on a mass level.

Empirical evidence (empiricism) is often has a lower status to the expert in the field. Empiricism is gaining knowledge through experience. However is this is done on an individual basis, how can this be rated or measured by a scientist. It may well give the scientist a lead in what to explore in further experiments, but lacks a level of credibility as it lacks validity, it has not be observed and tested by them.

I am not wishing to negate the role of scientist, they are an important part of our society, they can only work with what they have at their disposal. Sometimes, they too are playing catch up.

So where to start. How does one view the world, your own personal little universe and more importantly yourself? This in itself opens up a whole ream of question. Who am I? Why am I here? What is my purpose? What is the point of the world? What is my role here? Are we alone in this Universe? Where does God fit into all of this? Who is God anyway? And what is my relationship with them? I feel as if I have entered into a paragraph of that great author Douglas Adams, however he had a humorous perspective of this and rightly so.

These are question that one could guarantee the majority of the world’s population has asked at some time. It’s what we need to know, to establish our purpose and our knowledge of ourselves.

Yet who can truly answer these questions?

There are many theories, some may say as many theories as there are individuals on the planet, to unify this is a challenge that many have attempted over the course of history. This I tend to agree with. Each person has a unique perspective of the world. No two people can ever have exactly the same experience of the world. Their vantage points are different, therefore their experience will be too, even conjoined twins, have different views. All we can do is share the similarities we all experience. To understand this is the key to unlocking the strife that is felt and the suffering that continues worldwide.

We are all unique and different in so many glorious ways. Yet we are conditioned to see the differences in others as their faults, instead of embracing the gifts we all share and can contribute. Yet whose advantage is this really for? Who gains from splitting people from one another? Remember a time when you disliked / disagreed with a people because they were different to you. What feelings did this bring? For the majority of people this is an unpleasant experience, yet we do this all the time. Who really is at the advantage here? Certainly not the other person as they were the recipient, as they had the feedback of this, however subtly.

Why do we often see the glass as half empty instead of half full???

So many questions – where are the answers?

So where to start? Well why not at the beginning like we all do.

We are born into this world but is that really the start of our life? We are created from the fusion of an ovum (egg) and spermatozoa (sperm). From this we grow and are considered an embryo until the 8th week where we are considered a fetus. We continue to grow until we reach 40 weeks gestation and are born into the world. Obviously this is the generalized view. But where does life start? Many laws do not consider an embryo to be viable as it cannot survive outside of the womb. Just because it cannot survive outside the womb, does this mean its life is not of value? Does this mean it is not a true life form and does not experience thoughts and feels as we do? Certainly due to the size and development these must be different but does this negate its life? An embryo may well be larger than the size of an ant, yet an ant is considered alive. Viable may well seem a harsh word but in relation to current known knowledge, science and technology, its life could not be sustained outside of the womb.

This is not a impressing on peoples choices around abortion or miscarriage; everyone makes a choice for a reason.

The point I am making is the fusion of an ovum and spermatozoa is the fusion of two live cells, which under the right conditions, grow into a human being. Whilst they may initially be cells, similar to any within your body (not in construction but invigorated with life energy) they still are alive. When do these cells gain an individual sentience that we consider unique as in that of an individual being?

Tough question??? Certainly one that’s been the topic of debate for some while.

The difficulty lies in the inability to communicate with such a being, despite its level of development. There was a time when animals were considered ignorant, unintelligent and lacking feelings, this was mainly due to having no means of conversing with them. Luckily for the animals, humans have now got a little wiser, or gained enough insight / conscious to view this as being relevant. There are those who have the ability to converse with animals and there is also the technology to show that yes, animals do have intelligence and emotion. Whether this has been done by experimentation, laboratory work or simple observation, this insight has been gained.

Now whilst it may seem I am going off topic, I can assure you I’m not. This little side sweep is merely aiming to show that over time and with greater technology and conscious these insights have been made in regard to animals. It is only time until these issues are recognised in the unborn. Most women, who have lost a child, will grief for the loss of life, why grieve for the unviable? Are these women over reacting or is an erroneous word being used? And who would be more convincing, the grieving parent or the objective law maker?

The path one takes in life is centred on choice, death is included in this.

So here I am at the start of life and I am discussing death, why how so morbid of me! My intention is not to be morbid but to question that mark in the sand. The mark that states that one is alive. Is it accurate because it is written in law, a law which varies country to country, state to state? There seems to be a lack of continuity in this, then surely a lack of mass opinion as to what is actually correct. Interesting.

A mother who has carried a child will speak of her experiences. The growing link between her and her child, the feelings, the thoughts and the intuitions. The sensations experiences, whether it be the nausea of food or the baby moving within. All these are aspects of the child’s growth and development. At what point is the button turned on and hey, life present in there! Or is it more like a computer download, each cell that grows in the child, carries that little bit more living energy that surrounds all living cells and therefore increases the life factor that little bit more.

Or maybe it’s a combination of both with a little more added in for fun. The download happens and then at a certain point, when a certain amount of cells have been created, a switch is turned on. Hey you’ve just reached this milestone! Wahey!!!

Oh if we could remember this part of our life. Our brains undoubtedly, at points, specifically the initial states, did not have the capacity or formation to do this. But if we could remember, I wonder what thoughts we would evoke? What levels of awareness would we have and how would we relate these to ourselves and the environment around us? Any memories that we formed surely would be glimpses of our experiences.

Our time pre birth and as an infant is so important in our growth and development, yet one we have such vague recall on.

This time is crucial, yet non-descript other than under the eyes of a scientist in a laboratory. But what can they tell us, only their observations. Whilst these undoubtly have their place, our own individual experience is negated. What do we truly bring to each of our experiences?

Are we pure breed and innocent when we are boon, an individual to be moulded, developed and conditioned from a blank canvas. Or is it something different. Are we imbued with a genetic code that means that we have a predisposition for a certain way of being, a disposition for certain illnesses, behaviours, even features of our own being. Is it this or is it the old nature nurture debate? Maybe it is more like the ideals centred around reincarnation, we carry past life’s karma with us to balance in our own growth and development. Hence meaning we are born a certain way and personality. Or maybe we have decided beforehand what it is we need to experience. How does that fit into what we do as a being in our own growth and development, not only throughout our childhood but our whole life.

These are some of the questions that many have asked and studied but how well do they fit in with our life.

Principally when we look at construction of matter, as in the solid world around us, we are looking at the formation of energy, compressed into a density that gives it a level of solidity. If you view any solid close enough, you will not that most of it is empty space. That which is left, dependent on what form it is present in (i.e. solid, liquid, gas) has a divergence of spacing, solids being the most compact, then liquids, then gases. This is also dependent on the molecular structure of the substance. For example a atom such as oxygen would be denser than hydrogen, this is due to it’s placing on the periodic table and the fact that Oxygen contains more sub-atomic particles than hydrogen.

When examining these sub-atomic particles it has been observed that particles react in a number of ways, they act in some respects like particle, vibrating but also like a wave (as in a light wave). This indicates that they have more than one form and the ability to change that form. Matter is in condensed energy and this formation is the results of it’s condensation. The density of the compressed energy gives it the ability to vibrate as particles do, however as matter is condensed energy, the particles are also displaying the properties of the energy from which they have come. The present with these forms of motions that resemble both solid and wave form – Energy.

This remaining vibrating or wave form energy, what space does that take up? Vibration is just that, a vibration. But what is vibrating???

These questions lead one to wonder…

Our physical bodies are made of this stuff, but what exactly is it?

We are grown by the fusion of a ovum and spermatozoa, two living cells that unite and allow us to grow. But what of their cellular structure, what is it that makes them so special to imbue life?

If we were to a situation, where we could find some idea we would need to look at the difference between life and death. One simple way to do this is comparing a dead being with a live being. Firstly by looking superficially, on the outside of a dead being, we would notice that they are immobile, they are cold, they are pale / bluish in colour, their chest does not rise and fall as in breathing, and when we listened to their heart, there was no beating heard.

When we look at a live being, even one asleep we notice that they have mobility, pinch the ear and they will respond, they may make a noise, evoke a facial expression and move. The being will be warm to touch and show colouring to their skin. Their chest will raise and fall when breathing and if listening to their chest a heart beat will be heard.

If we were to take a blood sample from the dead being we would note that the blood would be difficult to take, it would have darkened (due to lack of oxygen) and lack fluidity. However, if we took a blood sample from the life being we would find the blood to be the correct colour and composure.

If we then observed a sample of the blood cells we could then compare the difference between that of the dead and live being. The cells of the dead being would be inanimate and dull in presentation, whereas those of the live being would be animate glowing in their manner as if imbued by a shiny light.

If we examined a sample of skin cells from both the dead and live being we could make a comparison here on the differences. Again the cells of the dead being would be inanimate and dull in composition, whilst that of the living being would be animate, mobile and glowing, again in a manner as if imbued by a shiny light.

Again let’s repeat this observation with other cells from the body. We again find the cells from the dead being as being dull in colour and inanimate, whereas from the live body they are animate and glowing in manner.

So it seems that whilst on one level both bodies look very similar, there is a distinct difference. The live body has been observed to produce heat, move and have heat and respiratory rates, whereas the dead one lack this. However when we look at a cellular level the distinct difference seems to be this glow or light. Yet how can we capture this light and measure it? What is this light that is present in living cells but not dead ones? What is it’s role?

These are interesting questions, especially when we relate it to the fact we started from that two cell fusion. So if our cells are imbued with a light when we are alive, which leaves when we are dead. If our body is made up entirely of cells, then surely our body would be a mass of glowing cells. What is this? It obviously has a role as it is there when we are alive, so it must be related to how we function. Where does it go when we die? Where does it come from? What is it???

One has to ask if this is our spark to life, the essence with which we are made. It’s presence during life and absence during death seems to be a sure indication that it has a vital role in our physical body and our relationship with it.

If we observe the cells of other living beings we will notice a similarity. That during life their cells have this lightened animate quality which departs on death.

Reflecting back on a time when you lost a love one, or know of someone who experienced this. Quite often one of the expressions given is that “the light went out of their eyes” or their “eyes looked lifeless.” This glowing quality of the cells, our body as a whole, which arrives and transitions with our physical life seems to play a part in this. Is this our conscious being…

This seems to be the question that many have been debating for aeons. How plausible is it to be so.

If each and everyone of our cells holds this light, which seem to be so inextricably linked with our physical life, surely it needs some level of investigation to determine its true nature. Unfortunately, the nature has largely evaded questioning in many respects as it is unquantifiable in measurement. It is an unknown entity. In western world the main focus on living seems to be the material aspects of being. This light is immaterial in the sense that it bears no solidity, no measurable or tangible qualities. Therefore has often been overlooked or left aside as it holds such unknown qualities. However, this seems to be the vital link in our physicality and needs to be addressed.

An error that is often made is that if something is immaterial, in the sense that it is unheard, unseen, intangible etc. it is viewed as being not relevant. One could relate this to those who have what may be termed hallucinations. However, just because they are not seen by others, it does not make the situation any less real for those that experience them. Whilst this is a little side steep from the topic at hand, it is used to emphasis the reality of a situation to both those that experience the situation and those that observe. It could even be argued that those who observe are also experiencing but from their own frames of reference and their own levels of perception.

Just because something is not yet quantifiable does not make it irrelevant. As stated earlier, science is in a constant state of growth and development. If science was complete we would have all the answers. Just because we do not have the ability to measure a substance and validate its existence yet, does not mean that will always be the case. Patience is needed to understand and sometimes that takes some waiting on.

There needs to be a balance with the material aspects of life and the immaterial. Life is all about balance and to understand this is to understand the keys to existence.

Our bodies are composed of cells, formed from our very conception. These cells are formed of molecules which are composed of atoms, which are composed of sub-atomic particles, which are composed of condensed energy.

All energy vibrates. Without vibration nothing would exist. There is a point known as absolute zero, this is a mark of temperature, -273oCelcius or O Kelvin. It is theoretically the lowest point in temperature. This is the point when matter stops vibrating. If it stopped vibrating we would cease to experience it.

Why so?

We experience the world within and around us through our senses, specifically vision, hearing, touch, taste and smell. Each of our senses rely information to our brain, which is then decoded and interpreted to us. When we see something, an image of this enter our eye by means of light, travelling in light waves. This is broken down into electrical signals within the eye itself. These signals then travel along the optic nerve to the brain, where the brain decodes the information, turning this into the vision that we see each day. We have not actually touched the object only seen a visual representation of it and decoded this in our brain.

A similar account is true of hearing. When we hear a tune, the ear is actually hearing a series of notes, each of varying pitch, timbre, volume etc. This information is collected by the inner ear, again transferred into electrical signals and relayed to the brain. Where our brain interprets the signals into sounds that we understand.

Similarly when we touch something, we are not actually touching the object, only the vibratory rate of an object. If we truly touched something the item would then become part of us. The laws of adhesion and cohesion, recognise that atoms / molecule are bonded together in specific ways and their attraction to one another i.e. attracting similar molecules or dissimilar. Therefore, when something is touched what is felt, is the vibratory rate of these atoms / molecules. Each substance has its own unique qualities, therefore own unique vibratory rate.

An atom consists a number of sub-atomic particles, those of a nucleus containing protons (denoted with a positive charge) and neutrons (which have no charge). Sub-atomic particles orbiting this nucleus there are electrons (denoted with a negative charge) There are variations of this but lets understand the basics first. For an atom to be an atom it must have a balanced charge, there for neither negative or positive in charge. Therefore there must be an equal number of protons and electrons. 

If you were to view the periodic table you would see that the atoms are arranged according to their atomic number, this is the amount of protons they contain within their nucleus. The first member of the period table is hydrogen, this has 1 proton, 0 neutrons and 1 electron. The second member of the period table is helium. Helium, has 2 protons, two neutrons and 2 electrons.  Now just by seeing these statistics you can see that Helium has a lot more going on that Hydrogen. Hydrogen has 2 sub-atomic particles and Helium has 6. Bit of a difference. Helium is going to be heavier or strictly speaking have more mass.

Now an analogy we could draw from this is if we had a set of drums. Imagine you had a small snare drum and a bigger bass drum. One drum is heavier and has more mass than the other. If you hit the snare drum, it produces a high pitch noise, where if you hit the bass drum, the noise is lower. The vibrations produced by the smaller drum are higher than those of the bigger drum, because the drum is smaller. If we equate this to the atomic particles of Hydrogen and Helium, they are of differing mass, therefore, they would produce differing sounds due to their mass therefore differing rates of vibration.

So from this we can understand that all things vibrate, their vibration dependent on the size and mass of them and that temperature has a part to play in this. Some things vibrate at a high rate and others a low rate, each thing has its own rate of vibration and this is how we sense the world around us. We see, hear, smell, touch, taste the world and what we are really doing is detecting and interpreting it’s vibrations and making sense of them all with our brain. Wow! The world as we know it inside and out is based on the interpretation of vibrations. Who’d of thought!!!

So if all things vibrate, where does this light that glows within cells come from and what does it do?

Our ability to sense this energy is based on our levels of interpretation.