Ancient Greek Atomic Science Was About Mothers and Their Babies [sciencetechnology-center.blogspot.com]
After weeks of pestering, we finally give in and let George build a vortex cannon - with surprisingly spooky cup flying results. For more information on the physics behind this head on over to www.urn1350.net to listen to the full podcast!
Once upon a long time ago, living in ancient Egypt had its good times as well as its bad times. Some scribe wrote that during the good times, kindness within the family seemed to increase the ability of Egyptians to get the most out of life. Egyptian pyramid builders had to know about the stuff of geometry and the scribe figured out that there were two sorts of geometry. One sort was about lifeless things like stone pyramids and the other sort was about living feelings. The feeling stuff was different, because it could be used to think about ideas that went on forever, while the lifeless stuff did not. The living geometry was used to try and figure out about the feeling stuff belonging to the geometry that went on forever. They called that the sacred geometry of the immortal soul.
We know a bit about this subject because it was used to describe the meaning of ancient Egyptian paintings that were painted during the 1st Kingdom of Egypt. Egyptian writings in stone tells us that about 4000 years ago a terrible drought wiped out the 1st Kingdom and one hundred years later the people restored government back into existence. However, new rules applied, the geometry used to explain mercy, compassion and justice had to be used to put those ideas into political law. We might refer to the people doing this as belonging to a sort of mystery school. Some Greeks, including our old school friend Pythagoras, went to Egypt to learn more about the secrets of these Mystery Schools.
After a while several Greek Universities were set up to figure out more about the eternal mysteries and the ancient Greeks added more good stuff ideas to those of mercy,compassion and justice, including love, freedom, and truth. In geometry all of these ideas had to balance each other in order to correctly solve political and scientific problems. Things got more and more complicated and the universities decided to invent a science devoted to the living stuff as well as the logic about the dead stuff. Their life-science was known as the Science for Ethical Ends. The idea of good and evil was sorted out. Good was about the health of the universe and evil was figured out to be the destructive property of unformed matter inside the atom. Those Greeks were getting so clever they figured out a way to measure how much the earth weighed and how far away it was from the sun and they had figured out some pretty incredible stuff about atoms.
Pythagoras learned about The Music of the Spheres, that as the moon and stars moved about they sang a sort of song that could be heard by the atoms moving about within humans. This sort of musical communication between celestial bodies and small atoms is well known today and it's a bit like the communication force that shatters a wine glass when singing a high note. The moon could be considered to influence the female fertility cycle and therefore the celestial music might represent a science to explain a mum's love and compassion for children.
All the ethical stuff had to be put into a medical science to guide ennobling government so that humans could learn how to evolve to become good enough to act for the good of the spiritual universe. Spiritual in that ancient science referred to modern day spooky holographic stuff, anyhow, by being good, that is, by caring for the holographic environment, humans could become godlike and avoid extinction from the evil residing within the atom. This science was called The science of universal love and its teachers were called Saviours, saving humanity from atomic evil. It was taught throughout Italy during the 1st Century BCE and Cicero the Roman Historian complained that it was not suitable for Roman rule.
The science of universal love was a strange idea about a whirling force that pulled little bits of material stuff together to make worlds, which we know today was an attempt to explain the effects of gravity. As well as d oing this the whirling force, called the Nous, was thought to evolve intelligence in the universe. It was thought that when the Nous had created parts of the universe it went away to create more parts, leaving humans to evolve as part of universal creation. The idea of good being for the health of the universe and that humans could, in some mysterious way, become responsible for such goodness became a source of intense study for several hundred years, until the Romans burnt down the Great Library of Alexandria and most of the ancient scrolls were lost
Attempts to rediscover the lost science became known as the Renaissance. Things got into a fine old pickle causing the greatest scientific mix up imaginable. The Knights Templar dug up some of the ancient scrolls from underneath a temple in Jerusalem and decided that Jesus Christ was the greatest teacher of the lost science, and hundreds of years later The President of America Thomas Jefferson wrote his own Bible about it . The East India Company sent Charles Darwin on a voyage to find the secrets of evolution and he came back to write that the universe was ruled by the same scientific laws that governed the running of steam engines. Albert Einstein thought that was a great idea and science became so ridiculous that it became impossible to even think scientifically about the magical importance of a young mothers love for her child.
The world had gone chasing after money, the silly science that we got stuck with, is falling into a mess causing a global economic confusion. Recently the ancient science of spiritual reality has been photographed working within the human DNA and we appear to be in danger of changing into some form of robot ruled by bits of endless governmental forms to fill out. All around the world scientists are trying to measure the loving forces that come into play between a mum and her baby. Einstein's steam engine law, considered that when all the heat in the universe gets lost into cold space all life must be destroyed, is no longer considered to be a complete picture of everything. The female loving force does not allow for that to happen at all.
The amazing thing about the new science struggling to emerge from a world of greed is that a new medical science has been created by some of the world's greatest scientists. A mother's love and compassion is so essential to future human survival that not only are the ancient mysteries being upgraded into a new science but as mothers become aware of their importance, the magical song of life can now be measured by delicate instruments. Already plans are in existence based upon a mother's lullaby to her babe, to be put into a computer game quite the opposite to the existing computer games of violence and destruction, so that the leaders of commercial gain might be able to balance their enterprises.
Professor Robert Pope
Related Ancient Greek Atomic Science Was About Mothers and Their Babies TopicsQuestion by B's Knees: Are science and religion in conflict or is there a compromise? I think Science and religion can stregthen each other, for example, Evolution theory and creation theory can go hand in hand. While Christian accounts give the outline of how God created the world, science tells exactly how it was done. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" - Albert Einstein. Best answer for Are science and religion in conflict or is there a compromise?:
Answer by mtchndjnmtch
Can't have one without the other.
Answer by Rasputin
One commonality I see is that both eventually require a leap of faith. Science can take you much further back in the creation of the earth, for example, but there comes a point where it too runs out of answers.
Answer by pat from ohio
It was once considered heresy in the church to claim that our solar system is heliocentric, how wrong they were back then. Religion has no role in science. The biggest difference is that religion attempts to make the "evidence" fit their hypothesis and science will look at the evidence before coming to any conclusion...there is no compromise
Answer by aaron.brake
I think the two are separate entities, and most of the time are completely separate from each other, some science leaks into religion (the nature of man/universe/etc), some religion leaks into science (cosmological argument), but for the most part religion deals with the noumenal, and science with the phenomenal.
Answer by Gee
Neither Science, nor religion is the whole picture. Science is incomplete, and religion is inconsistent. And they are both only parts of the whole. [add] To those of you who are staunchly married to either science or religion, let me make a subtle point. If your devotion is science: You must be aware that science is not a finished product and that there are forces, phenomena and concepts that we are only now just beginning to comprehend. Do you seriously think that the theories of today will remain unrefined as our understanding grows? To those devoted to Religion: I can only say that religion, like many things in life, evolves. Many of the religions of today bear little resemblance to their origins. Consider that when you pray to your god/s tonight.
Answer by John R
Science and religion address two entirely different spheres. Seeking scientific proof of religious dogma only shows a weakness of faith.
Answer by sluggy
There cannot be a compromise because although you can find some parts of religion which do not conflict with some aspects of science, there are many outright contradictions where one or the other must be false. In your example of creation and evolution you can avoid conflict only because they cover two different areas, how life began and how it changes. If you were to look at creation and the scientific theories of how the universe and life arose there is no way to avoid contradiction.
Answer by Happy HollyDaze
I tend to agree with Einstein on that quote--though I know many others will not. I think Einstein meant that no matter how many things can be proved scientifically, there are still those things that no one can explain. I agree with you that science and religion can strengthen each other. For instance, I believe in evolution, but also believe that was in God's plan. I suppose I'll receive hate mail for this answer.
Answer by phoenixstripes2002
Perfect example is the book Angels and Demons by Dan Brown (author of the Da Vinci Code). It signifies the ordeal between Science and Religion.
Answer by Deb D
I think faith can be strengthened by knowledge. It is science that brought many atheists to know God, and become Christian. Further, I believe God prefers us to make an educated decision to know and follow him. After all, he gave us a brain. ;)
Answer by Century25
Science is based on theories that require repeatable, proven facts. Religion is based on.. really nothing. That is why it is called "faith" based. If you believe in the word of someone that wrote down something centuries ago.. that is your choice. But.. there are no data to back it up.
Answer by MJR
If you want to throw around Einstein quotes, here is another one: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." --Albert Einstein, 1954 The conflict between science and religion is at the epistemological level. Epistemology is the philosophy that seeks to discover how humans acquire knowledge. Religion holds that faith is an acceptable means of acquiring knowledge. That is, knowledge that can be ascertained without use of the senses. Science holds that knowledge flows from the senses. Wether you believe that science is evil, science is reconcileable, or that science is the only truth, depends wholly on your faith. Because faith does not require evidence of the senses, your decision was made psychologically, thus there is really no way to convince you of anything other than the conclusions that you have come to internally.
0 comments:
Post a Comment