A bullet in the brain on a WWI battlefield. Pretty traumatic, but EVERY death is traumatic, a blod clot in the lung or an aneurism in the brain or starving to death on a raft in mid-Pacific. What's the difference? No death is natural, they're all unexpected and they're all violent.

Each death is different. A death by asphyxiation does not incur the same field disruptions as death by a bullet. Even the location of the bullet will be important as to how various fields are influenced.

Every atom has a supporting field this field is vortical because it is infinitely linked to other energy and needs to manifest in shapes that permit this. All things large and small are supported by these fields. We observe external fields created by matter and recognize magnetism, electromagnetism and gravity - yet we fail to realize matter itself is created by yet another field on a higher level.

A hydrogen atom evolves into a helium atom and on up through U238. We have evidence of these field developments in the isotopic variations. Why should there be any variety to the same element? How is it that an atom can support various levels of particles? Here we must return to the field. As an atom evolves, its structures make it more capable of resonating with a larger part of its sponsor field /vortex. So it becomes an isotope. Eventually it will become another more complex element.

After all, if evolution is present in organisms it must be a fundamental component of energy itself. Atoms must be capable of evolution. It makes far more sense than the random particle interaction theories that have circulated for the past hundred years. Stable elements indicate that their atomic side can support greater mass, and unstable elements must jettison anything it cant support. This, too, is scientific evidence that an atom can not just hobbled together pell-nell, but must conform to certain field restrictions and inherent limitations on what it can support.

Who knows what atomic elements we will encounter on other worlds? What particular field relationships spur evolution of an atomic structure far beyond Uranium?

But back to the point. All organs, have their own fields. If someone was shot in the heart they will not incur these distortions in the brain but in the heart. So they may suffer heart attacks in lieu of a brain tumor. There is a difference. If they died in a fire and asphyxiated they may be one of the unlucky kids left in a car on a hot day.

But let's take it a bit further. The shock of any violent action has repercussion to the perpetrator of these acts as well, especially if their act is sponsored by a strong imbalanced wavetrain.

If a judge condemns a young girl to die in Salem in 1617, and he shouts "Burn witch burn!" with hatred and feels no remorse for his actions - he may end up the child in the car. And if the young girl hated this man with all her being - guess who the child's mother might be? You guessed it, "the witch". And now she has set up to care for, and LOVE, her worst enemy and he has set up to love the person he despised and had burned. As this cycle progresses the outcome is in the air. She may get back to the car in time and save her baby, or not - depending upon how many times this awful experience has been already regenerated and compensated for.

Folks wonder how these horrible things can happen. Folks wonder about post-partum depression and blame it all on hormones. Why should one woman experience no post partum depression and another suffer from it for months or even years!? Hormones are the physical manifestation of these distorted fields. Each woman is different and has different relationships with their children. Some more positive and some more negative. Depending on the child's relationships there may be a hundred and one different negative pasts with the mother, father and siblings. The rate of dysfunctional families is mute evidence to these unrecognized pasts. We must go back to simple magnetics again.

Frequency relationship allows two signals of the same level to converge - this allows for like-minded positive relationships to manifest - but we also have positive and negative attraction at work and so we also draw to us those folks we have the least positive relationships with! At work, at home, here at the zone! Purgatory is not in some fiery pit - it is right in front of us and we all live with constant feedback from our past actions - in this life and any others.

From a surface level it's all random. I don't believe in random. I believe in scientific principles at work 24/7 which govern our thoughts, actions, relationships and every breath we take. And where no physical links exist, we must look to the non-physical. We must de-occultize anything relating to fields or energy. Science has been a constant process of de-occultizing natural phenomenon. Today, we'd ALL be burned as witches and warlocks for dealing with electronics, talking of far off worlds we cannot visit. Our cell phones, laptops, and ipods burned alongside us as tools of deviltry and dark magicks.

These fields I describe are as natural as an emf field or gravity. We still have to measure them and find means to analyze them. it may take another 25, 50, 100 perhaps 200 years to develop equipment which can prove the existence of these fields. But too much evidence points to the existence of these fields - much as we have cosmologists suggesting a completely unknown dark matter composes the largest part of the universe. Are cosmologists practicing witchcraft for proposing some unseen, unknown "dark matter" as the propellant for galaxy movement and acceleration?

Of course not.

Stewart Edward White, a prolific western and adventure tale author from the turn of the last century, had it right back in 1937 when he dabbled in telepathy, channeling with his wife and wrote the following for "The Betty Book" and yet it is as applicable today as it was in 1937:

The history of all progress in knowledge is a "de-occultization." Fully
half of the things we do daily as a matter of course would, even as
recently as two centuries ago, have been considered magic, without
explanation except as the product of occult forces and knowledge. The
continuity of history is unbroken in that respect. If we should learn
anything at all from the past, that one thing should stand out for us as
invariable. The superstition of the past is the science of the present,
the proverb of the future. The order of events is always the same. First
a few people observed or did things which were denied or denounced
vehemently by the old school as crazy or maleficent or supernatural.
Exact knowledge overtook these things and found them to be harmonious
examples of natural law.

The uses of humanity absorbed them and they became commonplaces of
existence, thoroughly de-occultized, adopted into the body of usual
mental life. This has happened over and over and over again with
unvarying regularity. One of the most fascinating of scientific byplays
is to backtrack through history picking up at random marvels and
miracles, stripping them of warping legend, and explaining them in the
light of what we now know. They became not the less marvels and miracles,
if you please, but de-occultized. It should be added that all cannot be
so explained. The unsolved residue is not the more-or less-improbable for
that. Perhaps our grandchildren's progress will show this unexplained
residue as simple as we have found some of the miracles that dumfounded
our ancestors.

There are two things that this history of de-occultization, as I have
called it, has taught us. One is, the extraordinary initial opposition
that always meets the process. A combination of man's conservatism,
dislike of being jarred loose once he has settled down to his
satisfaction, a greater dislike of being proved mistaken, an intellectual
pride in his achievements so far, and a rooted suspicion of the one who
walks apart, have all contributed to this attitude. The principle of the
telescope is so much a commonplace of today that the very children catch
and accept the idea; yet Galileo was branded as a madman, imprisoned, and
only just escaped martyrdom. So certain were the scientists of his time
of their reasoning according to "immutable physical law," that they
refused to look through the telescope! They knew already what they would
see! Joseph Thompson reported a mountain with snow under the equator, and
died of a broken heart under the weight of scientific ridicule heaped
upon him. Science PROVED by the "immutable law of physics"-as then
understood-that, no matter what the altitude, snow could not exist at
such a latitude: only it does! Darwin was fought with savage ferocity.
Langley was laughed to death. Why the bitterness? If these things, and
all the others were not so, why rend and tear in attacking them? Answer
that as you will, it is the history of progress; just as de-occultization
is the invariable result.

He hits the nail right on the head. Fortunately for Stewart, he already had thirty books to his name when he wrote this and they were very down to earth books at that. So he was then just considered a rich eccentric not a cracked pot.

In nature, all organisms die of predation, disease, parasites, starvation or accident. It's no different for us. The causes of death are always identical, we just give them different names because we tend to think malaria is natural but getting hit by a meteor during surgery is not. If all deaths are identical, then it doesn't matter.

All deaths are not identical. That is quite evident. Death is death but some folks die in their sleep and others suffer horribly for years beforehand. What is the determiner? Fate? Chance? Gods? Genetics? I want to know the why, how and what if's regading these disparities. I'm led to believe in a very scientific cause for the differences.

However, if you'd like to see some of these ideas developed in a somewhat more rigorous fashion, look up Rupert Sheldrake and his "morphic resonance". RS is a biologist who observes that once something happens anywhere for the fiirst time, it starts happening frequently in other places. For example, a trash bacterium invades a fermenting vat, and suddenly it starts to plague the industry all over the world. Or sheep in Scotland learn to cross a a livestock barrier by rolling (instead of walking) over the narrow slots, and suddenly farm animals all over the world pick up the trick. Sheldrake's thesis is that once something happens, even if due to random or accidental causes, it propagates a change in a universal (distance is irrelevant) morphological field that makes it easier to happen somewhere else. Sort of a "disturbance in the force".

He claims he originally developed the idea to explain embryological development, that is, cell differentiation in an embryo is guided by a morphological field which operates at the quantum level to create tissues and organs at the macro level.

I hope I haven't created a Frankenstein with this post.

Rupert Sheldrake is fine as far is it goes, but he doesn't go nearly far enough. Waking sleeping cats and feeling that you're being stared at, are parlor trick science that somewhat diminishes the whole field concept. He also mentioned the big bang and so I know he's working off a finite-paradigm. And even so, some folks want to burn his books as if he were preaching witchcraft.

All material things both generate and are supported by fields - because energy is all interlinked. An atom is not an island unto itself. It is just a visible part of a bigger structure we can't yet identify. We now know our world is not the only world but is part of a vortex we call a galaxy. And we see walls of galaxies that form yet another vortex. We can assume that this goes on and on forming structures we can't begin to conceive - though we can grope around with what's observable and make some educated guesses.

As for the Frankenstein monster - I think what would be monstrous is if we refused to contemplate things based on prejudice and comfortable complacency. I think your post helps spur thought and debate - and that is very healthy for science.

"Fire bad!....Fields Good!"

;-)