Newton - The Last Of The Magicians

[Kangaroo Feathers]

This is a one hour video. How about giving us a short written synopsis of your understanding of its contents.

But then you can't play the "you're too scared to watch it because you know I'm right" card, and related condescending but intellectually dishonest ploys.

 

[Polymath257]

I´m sure they are to you, but for those who are spiritually - or just naturally - develloped, they are real and precise.

Then they should be able to make precise statements that can be verified. I have yet to see any.

Spiritual senses and spiritually travelling in other cosmic realms was the natural norm in ancient Shamanism as it is today for sensitive individuals who doesn´t stick their noses in textbooks all the time.

I'd say no such traveling ever happened except in the minds of those shamans. At the very least, the information gathered from such 'voyages' doesn't correspond with reality.

 

[Polymath257]

At least you thought so but in fact it can be different things you really are measuring, mostly the different atmospheric pressures in these cases.

Um, no. When measurements are taken above the atmosphere, that eliminates such pressures.

 

[Native]

Hello. I know this was not directed to me but, for what it is worth:

NASA Announces Results of Epic Space-Time Experiment | Science Mission Directorate

And it is behind the phenomenon of gravitational lensing:

Gravitational lensing

The concept of "space time" is just a human invention and nothing more. Motions in space are not time-dependent and the curvative motion in space are governed by the force of electromagnetism and NOT by "gravity"

Regarding the "gravitational lensing" this is just a normal light refraction of light in dust and gas - or at the level of seeing a distant oasis in the desert, a fata morgana.

 

[Native]

Then they should be able to make precise statements that can be verified. I have yet to see any.

But then again, you are totally ignoring the precise statements in the ancient Stories of Creation, so blame yourself for this

 

[Regiomontanus]

The concept of "space time" i just a human invention and nothing more. Motions in space are not time-dependent and the curvative motion in space are governed by the force of electromagnetism and NOT by "gravity"

Regarding the "gravitational lensing" this is just a normal light refraction of light in dust and gas - or at the level of seeing a distant oasis in the desert, a fata morgana.

Hello. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Peace

 

[Polymath257]

But then again, you are totally ignoring the precise statements in the ancient Stories of Creation, so blame yourself for this

No, I am not. There were no *precise* statements. There were rather vague statements that you like to misinterpret. A precise statement would give, say, exact velocities of the stars involved, or exact distances, or some such. Vague drawings of spirals just isn't precision.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I followed your link and found no reference to "fiery light". You really defeat your own arguments when you link to sites that do not support your arguments.

You also really defeat your own arguments when you skip questions like:

Part of your post is a quote and part is your own commentary.
What are you quoting, the ancients?
​

So, again, what were you quoting?

Hello. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Peace

Better call the universities and tell the astronomy and physics departments to go home, huh?

 

[Revoltingest]

Um, no. When measurements are taken above the atmosphere, that eliminates such pressures.

Pressure is isotropic on the scale of the measuring device anyway.
So it wouldn't affect gravimetric measurements.

Look at me....using fancy jargon!
I'm so rusty with this crap that I'm ripe for mistakes.

 

[Polymath257]

***Mod post***

Please be reminded of rule 6:

6. Illegal Activities
Advocating or discussing personal engagement in illegal activities or criminal organizations (such as hate groups or terrorist groups) is prohibited in all areas of RF. Illegal activities are defined based on United States law, and include but are not limited to: drug use, theft, piracy, vandalism, and all violent crimes. Voicing opposition to illegal activities and criminal organizations, or debating changes to current criminal law, may be acceptable at the discretion of the RF staff.

 

[Regiomontanus]

***Mod post***

Please be reminded of rule 6:

6. Illegal Activities
Advocating or discussing personal engagement in illegal activities or criminal organizations (such as hate groups or terrorist groups) is prohibited in all areas of RF. Illegal activities are defined based on United States law, and include but are not limited to: drug use, theft, piracy, vandalism, and all violent crimes. Voicing opposition to illegal activities and criminal organizations, or debating changes to current criminal law, may be acceptable at the discretion of the RF staff.

Ahh, no magic mushroom stories here.

 

[ecco]

...

Ahh, no magic mushroom stories here.

Thanks. I had no idea the warning was directed to me.

I was merely implying that the ancients may have done things that were not illegal at the time (at least to the shaman class) that would have helped them "see the cosmos".

 

[Native]

Thanks. I had no idea the warning was directed to me.

I was merely implying that the ancients may have done things that were not illegal at the time (at least to the shaman class) that would have helped them "see the cosmos".

I really don´t get it that MOD removed the nice image of mushrooms, but never mind.

Personally i wasn´t offended by it and it is truth that some tribes used "this and that" in order to get in trance. I was sort of more offended by the down-letting insinuation that this should be the general norm.

It is a written fact that such spiritual experiences of cosmos naturally have taken place and even the Bible and New Testament have several examples of this.

I´ve had some spontaneous and non demanded out-of-body experiences of cosmos and I´ve never taken any drugs.

BTW: Regarding the "fiery light" in Egyptian creation story, read here.

 

[Native]

No, I am not. There were no *precise* statements. There were rather vague statements that you like to misinterpret. A precise statement would give, say, exact velocities of the stars involved, or exact distances, or some such. Vague drawings of spirals just isn't precision.

You don´t get i do you? I´m claiming that our ancestors had a much better OVERALL understanding of the formation and the human participation in cosmos compared to modern science.
Just their cyclical view of cosmos is lightyears ahead of modern science and their strange linear perception of the Universe.
Besides this, it is a direct insult from a person who himself is ignorant to the mythical department to state that I´m misinterpreting the ancient myths.

 

[Augustus]

His mysticism was a rather tragic distraction of a brilliant mind in my opinion.

I'm not sure you can isolate the different components of his obsessions.

He wanted to understand the big questions, and identify what could be known with certainty. The religious/mystical/alchemical parts of his research were, for him, the same as his scientific enquiries.

Rather than being a distraction is was a consequence of his ambition and the scope of his thought which were key components to his genius.

 

[Native]

I'm not sure you can isolate the different components of his obsessions.

He wanted to understand the big questions, and identify what could be known with certainty. The religious/mystical/alchemical parts of his research were, for him, the same as his scientific enquiries.

Rather than being a distraction is was a consequence of his ambition and the scope of his thought which were key components to his genius.

I agree much in this. It´s more Polymath256 himself who is distracted and disturbed everythime cosmological myths are mentioned in the discussions.

To me mythological and scientifical observations are the very same when it comes to understanding cosmos and the Universe,

Ancient Myths of Creation of course deals with the cosmological and cosmogonical matters just as much as the modern cosmology.

Sadly Newton didn´t succeed to include the mythical/religious part into his science - or maybe the reglious conditions in his time wouldn´t aloud him to do so?

 

[Augustus]

But then you can't play the "you're too scared to watch it because you know I'm right" card, and related condescending but intellectually dishonest ploys.

It's actually a standard BBC documentary about the life and works of Newton, much of which is based on his own words and those of his contemporaries.

The term 'last of the magicians' is from John Maynard Keynes, who owned a number of his original manuscripts.

"In the eighteenth century and since, Newton came to be thought of as the first and greatest of the modern age of scientists, a rationalist, one who taught us to think on the lines of cold and untinctured reason.

I do not see him in this light. I do not think that any one who has pored over the contents of that box which he packed up when he finally left Cambridge in 1696 and which, though partly dispersed, have come down to us, can see him like that. Newton was not the first of the age of reason. He was the last of the magicians, the last of the Babylonians and Sumerians, the last great mind which looked out on the visible and intellectual world with the same eyes as those who began to build our intellectual inheritance rather less than 10,000 years ago. Isaac Newton, a posthumous child bom with no father on Christmas Day, 1642, was the last wonderchild to whom the Magi could do sincere and appropriate homage.

Had there been time, I should have liked to read to you the contemporary record of the child Newton. For, though it is well known to his biographers, it has never been published in extenso, without comment, just as it stands. Here, indeed, is the makings of a legend of the young magician, a most joyous picture of the opening mind of genius free from the uneasiness, the melancholy and nervous agitation of the young man and student.

For in vulgar modern terms Newton was profoundly neurotic of a not unfamiliar type, but - I should say from the records - a most extreme example. His deepest instincts were occult, esoteric, semantic-with profound shrinking from the world, a paralyzing fear of exposing his thoughts, his beliefs, his discoveries in all nakedness to the inspection and criticism of the world. 'Of the most fearful, cautious and suspicious temper that I ever knew', said Whiston, his successor in the Lucasian Chair. The too well-known conflicts and ignoble quarrels with Hooke, Flamsteed, Leibniz are only too clear an evidence of this. Like all his type he was wholly aloof from women. He parted with and published nothing except under the extreme pressure of friends. Until the second phase of his life, he was a wrapt, consecrated solitary, pursuing his studies by intense introspection with a mental endurance perhaps never equalled."

 

[ecco]

On what do you base "when heated up, a central light (Electromagnetic Force) is turned "?

On the base of the Egyptian creation myths where "a fiery light" is created when all elements came together, naming this light Amun-Ra.

BTW: Regarding the "fiery light" in Egyptian creation story, read here.

Why would I "read here"? You previously posted a link (Egyptian creation myths) to "a fiery light". I followed that link. I read through the article. I searched the article for "light". I found nothing about a "fiery light".

Now you post another link and expect me to follow it too! It's not baseball. You don't get three strikes. It's more along the lines of "fool me once"...

Maybe, in the future, you should take the time to look at the articles you link to to ensure they actually contain the information you allege they do.





ETA: After I posted the above, I decided to look at your "read here" link after all. Guess what, no fiery light. It's clear that you make up stories, post links to lend credence to them and hope no one takes the time to actually look.

Of course, you run the danger that, occasionally, someone will check your links and expose you.

 

[Native]

ETA: After I posted the above, I decided to look at your "read here" link after all. Guess what, no fiery light. It's clear that you make up stories, post links to lend credence to them and hope no one takes the time to actually look.

Of course, you run the danger that, occasionally, someone will check your links and expose you.

Of course if you don´t follow and read the links thoroughly, you run the danger that somebody may think you willfully WILL not know.

Quote from the last link above:
"Together the four concepts represent the primal fundamental state of the beginning, they are what always was. In the myth, however, their interaction ultimately proved to be unbalanced, resulting in the arising of a new entity. When the entity opened, it revealed Ra, the fiery sun, inside. After a long interval of rest, Ra, together with the other gods, created all other things. There are two main variations on the nature of the entity containing Ra".

Whether one interpret this to be "THE SUN" or to be the central light in the Milky Way, we are of course talking of electromagnetic light as claimed above.

Be more serious when you reply, please.

 

[Polymath257]

You don´t get i do you? I´m claiming that our ancestors had a much better OVERALL understanding of the formation and the human participation in cosmos compared to modern science.
Just their cyclical view of cosmos is lightyears ahead of modern science and their strange linear perception of the Universe.
Besides this, it is a direct insult from a person who himself is ignorant to the mythical department to state that I´m misinterpreting the ancient myths.

Yes, I understand that this is your claim. My position is that you are wrong in this: the ancients had a vastly *inferior* notion of the cosmos than we do.