Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
you have yet to say anything beyond (to simplify)
"I think you're talking codswallop, here's why.... blah blah blah blah blah"
when you can go beyond this.....I'll be interested
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The principle of vibration
- Thread starter zenzero
- Start date
you have yet to say anything beyond (to simplify)
"I think you're talking codswallop, here's why.... blah blah blah blah blah"
when you can go beyond this.....I'll be interested
skydivephil
Active Member
Funny how none of you science-skeptics comment on my posts, yet here is another which I'm sure you'll ignore because like the other one, it is evidence.:yes:
I wish I could locate where this is from (it is from my notes on my PC) sorry!
Here is your AUM
Beauty exists in music and the universe. Humans will never know what existed before the Big Bang, but we do know what exists after the explosion. In 1965 at Bell Laboratories in New Jersey, two radio astronomers, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, developed a well-calibrated-hypersensitive, 20-foot horn-shaped antenna. The antenna was designed to detect radio waves bounced off echo balloon satellites.
No matter where they pointed this antenna at the sky, they heard the same hum. This was not their expected result. Penzias and Wilson thought they had made a mistake. They even considered the possibility that it was due to "a white dielectric substance" (pigeon droppings) in their horn. Their puzzling findings were published in a famous paper, Excess Antenna Temperature at 4080 Mc/s. Penzias and Wilson were radio astronomers, with expertise in electronics rather than cosmology.
It soon came to their attention through Robert Dicke and Jim Peebles at Princeton that this unexpected noise, this background radiation, had been predicted years earlier by George Gamow as a relic of the evolution of the early Universe. Penzias and Wilson had, in fact, accidentally discovered the Cosmic Background Radiation, the fingerprint of the early Universe, the echo of the Big Bang. In 1978 Messrs Penzias and Wilson were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for their discovery.
The Cosmic Background Radiation is a residual vibration from the explosion of the Big Bang, vibrating at a frequency of 4080 Mega Hertz (4,080,000,000 Hertz). All vibrations can be interpreted as sound. Octaves are defined as the lower frequency being half that of its higher frequency. For example, A 3 = 440 Hz and one octave above is A 4 at 880 Hz. Twenty-two octaves below The Big Note (4,080,000,000 Hertz), is calculated to be 972.75 Hz. This is slightly lower than B 4 at 987.77 Hz and somewhat higher than B Flat 4 at 932.33 Hz, in equal-tempered tuning. Therefore, the Universe is resonating at a tone a little flatter than B, as defined by standard tuning.
Physicists think that time began with the Big Bang. Today, just about every scientist believes in the Big Bang model. The evidence is overwhelming enough that in 1951, the Catholic Church officially pronounced the Big Bang model to be in accordance with the Bible. The Tibetan Gyuto Monks perform Buddhist ceremonies while chanting on one fundamental note. Their refined chanting technique enables each member of the choir to sing a three-note chord, exciting the harmonics of the fundamental drone note. A listening to their recording for Windham Hill Records reveals that the monks are droning on a note slightly flatter than B, exciting all the overtones above. Their valve-less brass horns are designed to play this note as the fundamental partial. The Gyuto Monks have been resonating the Big Note for the past 500 years at the Gyuto Monastery in Lhasa, Tibet, now living in exile in Dharamsala, India.
There is no explanation as to why the monks drone on that particular note. Penzias and Wilson's Nobel Prize winning discovery was an accident. The Big Note is an incredible combination of science, art and religion.
"Everything in the Universe is made of one element, which is a note, a single note. Atoms are really vibrations, you know, which are extensions of the BIG NOTE, everything's one note. Everything. The note is the ultimate power..."
- Spider Barbour from Frank Zappa's Lumpy Gravy, Part II © 1968
First off your wrong when you presume physcists think time started with the big bang. They now recognise that in order to state that one needs a quantum theory of gravity and the two best contenders we have LCQ and string theory both assume there was a time before the big bang. Even if both of these conjectures are wrong we cant says time started at the big bang until we get the right quantum gravity theory.
Big Bang or Big Bounce?: New Theory on the Universe's Birth: Scientific American
Second off what onearth is the connection between the CMB and some monks chanting ? You cant just mention them in the same paragraph and then presume they are linked. This seems yet another example of mystics tryingto to imply that someone elses sucesful prediction is their own. Problem is they always do so after the fact. Why dont you new agers stop trying to steal someone elses discovery and try and make some predictions for the next set of sceintific questions? For example one of the biggest question in physics is where is all the anti matter? Real scientists are trying to answer this question, pseudo scientists just steal the language of the answer affter its been discovered usually without understanding it.
skydivephil
Active Member
i think thats very accurate, you are talking codswallop. But there is a real reaosn why I say that, its because you dont provide any evidence to back up your claims. Fore xample you claim that
"We see this in science.... no matter how much we split sub atomic particles
more appear....."
Ive asked you to justify that staement. As far as Im aware there no evidene of an internal sturcture to quarks and indeed we have no ability to cut these particles, so I ask you for evdience to justify that statement. Instead you attack the questioner with an ad homien like when you said
"One would have to assume said individual is deeply unhappy or perhaps they are psychotic in some way, or perhaps they just like berating others, perhaps they were "burned" by a religion and now, filled with anger, have to get back at others..."
if you knew anything about logic you would know my motives have no bearing on the evidence for your claims. So Ill ask you again , where's the evidence?
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
I thought that many sub atomic particles only exist, due to the observer observing them,....
quarks are indivisble ? I thought there were strings......
still though, you are not actually saying anything constructive...
its just picking apart things....
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Your post was entertaining and almost made sense right up to the last paragraph and this final nugget. From this conclusion, I clearly understand that you don't actually have the foggiest idea what you are talking about.
If ZenZero really understood what you are talking about, I would be somewhat dismayed as well as highly entertained and greatly surprised.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Well, to be fair, SkydivePhil, I AM a modern mystic who does not support this nonesense in any way, shape or form. To my thinking it is little more that abstract pattern matching that is then projected outwards.
Drivel in; drivel out.
I have suggested some studies into electromagnetic properties that might open some interesting doorways. No one seemed to think there was much to the idea however.
That is the part that stands out to me as well. Honestly, I never, ever want to come across the way some of the folks in this thread do. Oddly, that puts me against the very concept of a mystic, so I am actually redefining far more aspects of reality than even I had originally considered. Go me, eh?
Last edited:
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
bottom line though...
science deals with matter...
it does not deal with the non corporeal....
so frankly science has its place....and thats that...
until science crosses that threshold.... it going to remain limited
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
And that is all the more reason to remain highly skeptical of the claims of those who have no recognized credentials.
I think that in retrospect, what I am trying to tell the "dreamy" writers in this thread is to pay attention to what they are saying. The point is that ludicrous, unsubstantiated and half-baked claims act as lightning-rods that draw ridicule.
Last edited:
You have spoken of this many times and always I've been intrigued, but never asked any questions. In what way are you a modern mystic? This is not really pertaining to this thread so if you wish to PM me, I would love to talk to you about your experience.
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
And that is all the more reason to remain highly skeptical of the claims of those who have no recognized credentials.
of course
but I think it is safer to examine things like chakras for instance...
that have been used by millions for millenia...
of course its always good to be skeptical....
everythign in this forum is after all opinion based really....
once we forget this, we are lost.....
interpretation is everything, even in science..is it not
imaginaryme
Active Member
A) God created man in his image.
B) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
A+B=C) Man is the word made flesh. Our conceptualization is based on language - the word - and perception of reality is largely just that - words. The particular phraseology of this first passage of John reflects back to the Kybalion - THE ALL is both in all, and the summation of all. A typical wisdom also mentioned in the Kybalion is the wisdom of the wise man is spoken only when the student has the ears to hear. This is not so much, It's a secret and you'll never understand as much as a person must first attune to such a sound before it can be heard. Despite both being algebra, one does not proceed directly from College Algebra to Linear Algebra; first one must acquire the symphony of the calculus. On a wider scale, the actuality of god is quite real to many people; the unnecessary tension occurs when people confuse the shadow with this actuality - even at the highest level currently knowable of the Kybalion, THE ALL cannot actually be THE ALL, for THE ALL is but a Name. A Name is a limit - the "actuality" cannot currently "exist" for we limit existence with death. Such things don't die - as all religions agree, the tao is eternal.
But yes, for the cohesion of society, the concept is far more important than the actuality; for the tao, THE ALL, these things exist far beyond current conception. We are a society grown in the comfort of Jesus (or similar - shall I dare - idols) by verbal and oral tradition and custom. My method of expressing this is by saying that Gwyneth Paltrow is greater than god - but in concept, not in actuality - for it is a lure to challenge this fool with idolatry. For I have deeply considered such subjects, and what raises Gwynnie above other gods is animation. It's not as crazy as it sounds. In our realm, I am an effect far beyond her cause; so the tangibility between us is similar to man to idol - yet the technology allows one to see her as an animated force, distinct from my self. We cannot directly experience THE ALL as such things (animating force) because - as it has been said - names and concrete perceptions are limiting factors.
There is a very good reason for saying no god is greater than tao. Ever see a taoist on a crusade?
And I would have been content to say I worship Gwyneth Paltrow - I thought that was crazy enough to illustrate what I know (if I know anything) is not something one can "convert" to - until I considered the idiocy of Scientology. But a hidden trap remains for those who would blindly eradicate such things. It seems every religion holds a pathway to conceptualizing THE ALL for the initiate with the ear to hear. Religion itself is a toolset to help the practical mind, the engineer within, to understand - let's say the grand harmonics - without; that resonate in the environment.
I mean, I like 50 Cent, but if I listen to him all day... and ain't no Country and Western playing in the house of ellen.
imaginaryme
Active Member
In the freaking mathematics. Do you just not wanna agree? Did you check out that Calabi-Yau Space I posted with you in mind? If I post a link to an hour long video, you gonna watch it? It comes from Dawkins pad on youtube - so it must be "atheist-safe."
How about some more numerology with my magic number four? The cosmic string. The nucleus of an atom. The Earth. The Universe. these four things are equally divided by twenty orders of magnitude - ten to the twentieth power - so the string is to the nucleus as the Earth is to the Universe. Now, it the nucleus of the atom was the size of an orange, the electron circles around the cheap seats if we set the orange at the fifty-yard line. That's big; but nowhere near "Earth to Universe" big. It has long been known that the proton consists of two up and one down (or is it the other way round? I think that's it) quarks - but it is now presumed that something like 98% of the proton actually contains... well, empty space. Yet space ain't empty.
Found it. A Universe from nothing, by Lawrence Krauss. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
Highly recommended. Krauss is a lively and entertaining speaker - the hour flies by. The only unfortunate thing is Dawkins and his agenda - A Universe from nothing is obviously a way to say "no creator need apply," but Krauss covers it by saying, in the beginning - there was vibration.
And listen to some dang Doors. Maybe you'll hear somethin'. Rock on. :jam:
ericoh2
******
And all I'm asking you to do is not attack ideas because science can't/hasn't proved them. When has anyone on here asked you to believe anything, we are simply discussing possibilities. You attack Gurdjieff after reading a few words on Wikipedia even though you don't have a clue about the depth of his teachings. Now why would you attack something you don't understand if you're so open to possibilities? If you want to attack an idea you better have more knowledge on the subject than a 2 min. read on wikipedia. If not than at least keep your mind open until you have done some in depth research. And yes we shouldn't believe anything we do not have personal experience with. I do agree with that.
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
In the freaking mathematics. Do you just not wanna agree? Did you check out that Calabi-Yau Space I posted with you in mind? If I post a link to an hour long video, you gonna watch it? It comes from Dawkins pad on youtube - so it must be "atheist-safe."
How about some more numerology with my magic number four?
And listen to some dang Doors. Maybe you'll hear somethin'. Rock on. :jam:
how is 6 god
7 not god
and 8 the universe??
imaginaryme
Active Member
Forgive my honesty. I would not insist that everyone has an agenda without displaying mine - the last paragraph. And for the last nugget - this is Science vs. Religion. Call me Cato. Carthage must be destroyed -
And god must live on! But, as I have said - god is - and that's essentially all there is to god that presently concerns humanity. That there is something, forget god, call it THE ALL; something that is eternal, unchanging, and unites us all. This is an imperative here at The End of Time - as I have also tried to explain, time does not work like we think it does. Yet linear time, cause and effect, left to right, yesterday towards tomorrow; this is the way we understand the river to flow - the river of time. And we are all about to find out that our "river" is merely a current in the ocean of what time actually is. It's all there - it's all over the freaking place, the writing's on the wall - the thing I call entropic time is appearing in the physics. This is a concept of which I would swear the atheist has a somewhat instinctive understanding. Causality cannot dictate morality. Theists know this and ascribe such a directive to God. Atheists would swear by reason - yet eugenics seems entirely reasonable. And in case no one is paying attention, screening for genetic birth defects is the first step backwards towards eugenics...
And I do ramble.
imaginaryme
Active Member
Did I mix it up? Eight is in the series... Six is the number of not-god (I'm not gonna say satan... but there it is) Seven is the number of god. Well, I grew up in and remain surrounded by a Christian society. Seven is all over the place, chakras, principles and planes in the Kybalion, seventh heaven, lucky sevens... all of that.
And six is the number of the beast, which is probably derived from a desire to separate Christianity from Judaism and its six-pointed star. Nine I equate with the universe because nine is the largest number and the universe is finite - kinda. See, when we go from nine to ten, we go from one digit to two - 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 - and that's it. After that, we combine digits. Mathematically, of course, nine is insignificant; but in numerology, conceptualization matters. Like how bad things happen in threes. On the field of battle, the first smoke lit with the match draws the attention of the enemy sniper, the second sets up his aim, the third costs somebody his skull; numerology is a wholly practical magic.
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
Did I mix it up? Eight is in the series... Six is the number of not-god (I'm not gonna say satan... but there it is) Seven is the number of god. Well, I grew up in and remain surrounded by a Christian society. Seven is all over the place, chakras, principles and planes in the Kybalion, seventh heaven, lucky sevens... all of that.
And six is the number of the beast, which is probably derived from a desire to separate Christianity from Judaism and its six-pointed star. Nine I equate with the universe because nine is the largest number and the universe is finite - kinda. See, when we go from nine to ten, we go from one digit to two - 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 - and that's it. After that, we combine digits. Mathematically, of course, nine is insignificant; but in numerology, conceptualization matters. Like how bad things happen in threes. On the field of battle, the first smoke lit with the match draws the attention of the enemy sniper, the second sets up his aim, the third costs somebody his skull; numerology is a wholly practical magic.
well as you rightly say 6 is the hex agram or star of david....
so essentially you are saying the Jews worship satan:sarcastic
this is problematic as I really do enjoy the symbol of the pentagram within a hexagram
Last edited:
imaginaryme
Active Member
Covered the numbers... to understand the Bible, I'm thinking one benefits from having the perspective of the context. To be able to visualize both the life of the nomad who often stopped to work the land, and to see what is differentiated with the knowledge of the time-space continuum. Meaning, obviously, there is much direction provided by the text which no longer applies. But what of the sun? For the farmer who can only toil by its light, whose only calendar is its cycle; the sun is of all-consuming importance. It has long been seen as the eternal flame - the "living expression" of the elemental fire. For ourselves, all energy is largely solar energy. This is conceptualized in biomass - not the ecological version but the wider entropic one. Entropy does not deny life, entropy demands life... and I'm lecturing (agenda
)...Now we know something beyond a limited earthbound perspective. The Apollo missions, the Voyagers, we know of a different energy in cosmic rays - we are peeking beyond the veil - but we are still largely restricted to being "under the sun," as we live on Earth. If Ra should take a nap, eight minutes later, a shout would be heard around the globe; and soon after, we'd all be done. We are still not quite "new." But hey, the Christians like to say how the Bible is all about the accurate prophecy; I'm just seeing ones that haven't be ready to be previously expressed. It's kinda my job - "prophet" is not so much about divine entitlement as in being able to take what is already known and to use it to discover what is likely to occur. But this likelihood is not to be expressed in answers as in questions.
Are we ready for entropic time? That is my question.
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
Covered the numbers... to understand the Bible, I'm thinking one benefits from having the perspective of the context. To be able to visualize both the life of the nomad who often stopped to work the land, and to see what is differentiated with the knowledge of the time-space continuum. Meaning, obviously, there is much direction provided by the text which no longer applies. But what of the sun? For the farmer who can only toil by its light, whose only calendar is its cycle; the sun is of all-consuming importance. It has long been seen as the eternal flame - the "living expression" of the elemental fire. For ourselves, all energy is largely solar energy. This is conceptualized in biomass - not the ecological version but the wider entropic one. Entropy does not deny life, entropy demands life... and I'm lecturing (agenda
Now we know something beyond a limited earthbound perspective. The Apollo missions, the Voyagers, we know of a different energy in cosmic rays - we are peeking beyond the veil - but we are still largely restricted to being "under the sun," as we live on Earth. If Ra should take a nap, eight minutes later, a shout would be heard around the globe; and soon after, we'd all be done. We are still not quite "new." But hey, the Christians like to say how the Bible is all about the accurate prophecy; I'm just seeing ones that haven't be ready to be previously expressed. It's kinda my job - "prophet" is not so much about divine entitlement as in being able to take what is already known and to use it to discover what is likely to occur. But this likelihood is not to be expressed in answers as in questions.
Are we ready for entropic time? That is my question.
I dont see how that justifies getting rid of the commonly held idea that
"nothign is new under the sun"
is essentially a way of saying everythign has already been done...
You have to rember of course in hermetcism especially, as you seem comfortable with that.... the sun of course would NOT be the Sun. The sun would represent certain "Sun like" attributes, the cosmic flame as you mentioned, the mediator at the heart of it all, the saviour..... etc....
This would be more akin to the Aten, which arguably although symbolised by a "solar disc" was not a movemnt centering around sun worship, as many have mistaken.
A prophet is one who as entered a certain form of consciousness...prophetic consciousness.... what you are expressing you are, is a sooth sayer! You read the bones...and draw conclusions.... do not confuse the two.... that is unless you are in divine contact to draw your conclusions.... which is possible....
I am sure this is really appropriate for a science thread....lol:sarcastic