Some Interesting "New Science" Reading

RainmanTime

RainmanTime

Super Moderator
Some Interesting \"New Science\" Reading

Convergence - An Online Book of New Science Melding With Old Spirituality

Now, I am not claiming that I accept everything that is here (there are MANY pages to read). However, some of what I have read rings true, especially the growing notion that our "laws" of physics are far from complete and accurate.

I do tend to believe that much of our knowledge today that is codified/classified as "ancient mysticism" has its roots in real science that simply became "lost in the stories". Who knows what kind of advanced knowledge may have been housed in the now-destroyed Library at Alexandria, Egypt?

Kind Regards,
RainmanTime
 
Re: Some Interesting \"New Science\" Reading

I am reading the Prologue now....but this looks like interesting reading. I am a very slow reader, so it will take me some time, but perhaps we can have some discussions in this thread?

I will post any thoughts I have about it!
 
Re: Some Interesting \"New Science\" Reading

Ok...here is a thought, just out of the prologue:

Was it a natural mistake for Einstein to assume that light couldn’t travel faster than “c” if it was believed to be traveling through total empty space, free of any type of energy?

If light (or anything for that matter) was travelling faster than c, would it be visible? Since our vision is operated by light going through a process in our eyeball, if something (even light) is travelling through our eyeball faster than c, would that process still work? That is to say, prehaps there is something that exists travelling faster than c, but we can't percieve it because we can't see it?
 
Re: Some Interesting \"New Science\" Reading

Friend Rainman Time EarthTR125.0121

Well, Well, Well at last people is starting to notice. When that topic was first discussed here in this forum several persons jumped to our throats in defense. However, it is good that there are new posters with an open mind.

Once we had discussed extensively that mayhaps the precepts of old religion are, as you plainly said before, could be what little remains of an ancient science. Suppose the world has been home for more other advanced civilizations that somehow lost their grip and unavoidably fell to a several periods of dark ages. In this descent, many nations would have turned barbarous and would have lost finally their understanding regarding all things scientifical. Then the little centers that remained with a good understanding of science would be looked at as magical. With this new magical power, which in truth is science, they would bring about goods and would ask for nothing in return save alligiance.

Then by having created dogmatic beliefs surrounding the scientifical/magical truths they had created inadvertedly a new kind of control...Religion.

The other day I was contemplating with some of my colleagues and we reached several conclusions. When some one engages into magical or metaphysical studies several precepts are very congruous with those laws that abide in the physical universe. Also, the notion that vibrations, vocalizations and the uses of light all relate quite well to many aspects of also the physical sciences.

Finally, many of the magical constructs employed in magical activities and diagrams corresponds to many geometrical corollaries of euclidean math. All this amounts to one thing, magic and science are but one thing and the same. Science, the one we are discovering, Magic and Religions, the secrets of the past shrouded in symbols.

Until later becomes now.
 
Re: Some Interesting \"New Science\" Reading

Since our vision is operated by light going through a process in our eyeball, if something (even light) is travelling through our eyeball faster than c, would that process still work? That is to say, prehaps there is something that exists travelling faster than c, but we can't percieve it because we can't see it?
Click to expand...

Exactly! In an earlier thread here (even before I found Mr. Wilcock's site), I made the same point about Einstein's going-in assumption: We have no choice but to believe that what our senses tell us is truth (paraphrased...someday I will find and save the exact quote). Some seem to think he was a "religious absolutist" on this point, but he caveated this assumption quite well, IMHO. He was simply defining his assumptions, and any scientist knows assumptions are subject to revision as new data comes in.

Well, new data has been streaming in for quite awhile now. And still there are people who hold that any (ANY!) revision to Einstein's General Relativity is sacrilege (Ptolemy/Copernicus anyone?). The plain and simple facts are that our senses can tell us partial-truths, or can lie to us altogether. If they didn't, then the form of entertainment we call magic, based on illusion, would hold no power of interest!

You keep going Iridium! I get the feeling this is going to develop into a very nice discussion indeed.

Kind Regards,
RainmanTime
 
Re: Some Interesting \"New Science\" Reading

Finally, many of the magical constructs employed in magical activities and diagrams corresponds to many geometrical corollaries of euclidean math. All this amounts to one thing, magic and science are but one thing and the same.
Click to expand...

I'm with ya', Transient001! Just to share where I'm coming from:

I've studied the Qabalistic Tree Of Life, from a scientific standpoint, ever since my early college days in '81. I have come to many conclusions of how this architecture aligns with the physical and non-physical structures of our universe. Rather than try to share them all (I have a website for that), let me just share two that I think are pertinent to understanding ourselves and how we relate to our universe:

1) The architecture of the physical human body is a direct instantiation of the Tree Of Life (see my body-tree map on my website .) This understanding supports Genesis 1:27, which states that our creator(s) created us in "their own image and likeness." As a corollary to this that I am also fairly sure of, but with less objective evidence, I also believe our non-physical structure (i.e. our "software") also follows this same architecture.

2) The three pathways on the Tree Of Life that emanate upward from the bottom sphere (10-Malkuth) represent the "matrix" of how we interpret physical reality. We know them better as Mass, Space, and Time. My corollary to this understanding is that each of these paths is also tripartate in nature; hence, my belief that Time is a 3-dimensional vector quantity, not a scalar as we have always assumed.

Thoughts? Kind Regards,
RainmanTime
 
Back
Top