RE: Evolution of Man
Sam, hi,
On the Earth's shape and man's knowledge of that - yes, I was simplifying for the sake of giving just a real or hypothetical example. As we know there are very real and obvious examples in man's knowledge of paradigm shifts [just caught a typo there!], so there's no need to get into the subject of what man did know about Earth's shape.
But as an aside, yes, I know knowledge of the spherical shape didn't begin with Columbus. He knew what the ancients knew, and it was preserved knowledge by some scholars. My limited understanding is that Europe at that time had largely forgotten the world is round; Columbus re-proved it (or rather thought he had, thinking he'd found Indian islands at first). Many knew of the spherical shape - the Egyptians also measured the size and curvature by experiments along the Nile from north to south.
This forgetting and re-proving is in fact what Roger and I accept about civilisations such as that of the Indus valley millenia ago: they had science as advanced as ours and more so in some fields. So that's a knowledge of subatomic particles both in Vedic times and of quarks in the 1800s. What does present science say of that?
The phenomenon I keep coming to about those who 'believe' in hard science yet won't look at difficult facts might show up by putting these two quotes from posts above together! - You wrote (I've italicised some):
ORIGINAL: Soapy Sam
It is a fallacious argument to say that we must study the spiritual effect by making science realise that it exists. First prove that it exists, then study it.
I'd already written about such proof, which proof seems incontrovertible since the number of quarks fit precisely between the Occult Chemistry observations (by clairvoyance) of 1895 on, and modern quark theory/knowledge:
ORIGINAL: venetian
An aside to sceptics about whether hard science is 'the' truth and the esoteric is fairy loo-lah land would be from me that from 1895 Leadbeater and Besant were observing and describing every element in the table of elements in terms of how they were made up of chiral colour quarks - they saw the quarks through a special form of clairvoyance described by them and also described by Patanjali of India, and they got the number exactly right for each atom of each element according to modern quark theory.
So, er, how? This was decades before science even thought of quarks. Look up in any online search: "Occult Chemistry".
The proof is there.
You next wrote "then study it". When will science look at it and give a statement? No, it handles it by simply not looking. That's how failing paradigms behave. (But some physicists are studying it, so there's the new paradigm.)
Occult Chemistry, and the work by Leadbeater and Besant as later updated by the mathematician Steven Phillips from 1976 to now is a very good example of proof for the new 'spiritual science' paradigm, or whatever we might call it - a paradigm which includes the 'paranormal', clairvoyance as actual fact, etc. Most new advances in modern physics including superstrings was predicted decades before in Occult Chemistry observations, which continued over many decades. Apparently some are training up to perform such observations again today.
I'm just taking that as an example in order to prove a point which then reflects back onto the basic subject of the thread.
🙂
Venetian
RE: Evolution of Man
David- I would be happy to agree Annie Besant was an interesting woman, but she was no scientist. She did not see quarks. Nobody can , or ever will "see" quarks. That IS a physical impossibility. Were it done, it would be not merely an example of a paradigm shift, it would be conclusive proof that all of our contemporary theory of quantum physics iss flatly wrong. Which means chemistry is wrong. Which means biology is wrong. Computers can't work. Electronics can't work.
Now it seems to me that anyone who can believe that is delusional. Or every scientist since Maxwell is. Choose one. My computer appears to be functional at this time.
I can't help getting the impression that while you seem to expect a high standard of evidence from any claims of modern science- and you are absolutely right to do so- you are willing to uncritically accept anecdotal evidence that Besant saw quarks, that high tech ancient mines exist, that ancient spacecraft existed. Where is the hard evidence for all this?
I have had a look at the Forbidden Archeology website. I see nothing there to convince me that this man Cremo is anything other than a fantasist. I have corresponded with a lady who is a mining engineer and speleologist in the USA. She knows nothing of advanced mines found in the USA, though there are certainly shallow copper mines in the midwest presumed to be Anasazi.
Interestingly there is a new find of footprints from Mexico in an ash layer dated to 38-41,000BP. Now that IS a convincing piece of work , which I hope will be further substantiated. (I have long suspected the date of 13,000 for humans arriving in America was too young, but the evidence for earlier arrivals has been very poor till now. I'll post a link in a minute.)
It still does not support high technology.
And things really do fall down cracks in rock. There are many finds of early mammal bones for instance, from Wales. They occur in Carboniferous limestone- c 350 MY old, far earlier than we believe mammals existed.
Could be they were high tech time-travelling mice. However it's noticeable that the bones (very small) are always found in vertical fissures connected to a Triassic erosion surface. Now my guess is they fell or washed in.
The same happens with other objects.
Sorry. I may be blind. I may be sceptical. But I remain unconvinced by any of the evidence I've read. If you have better, I'd be happy to see it.
On the much travelled Annie- Even Krishnamurti, Besant's adopted son, rejected her claims regarding himself and much else. Everything I read about Besant makes me think "Shirley Maclaine" I'm afraid. (I'm a big fan of Maclaine as actor and dancer, but why does she talk such rot? Well, it brings in a lot of money...)
Actual scholars of the Vedic literature make no claims of high technology- of civilisation yes- the Indus valley was civilised when Britons were scattered bands of hunter gatherers, no argument about it- but technological civilisation? Again, I ask where is the hard evidence?
I can't comment on the literature itself, as I don't read the language and the translations seem very variable and confused. I'm interested in the 21st century Indian Space Programme for which information is available. I cannot leap from fables of flying chariots to the conclusion that India had a space programme millennia ago , of which no trace has survived, either on Earth , or tellingly, in orbit. And no, I don't think the American astronauts removed the Vedic satellites. Do you? Really?
I'm off hill climbing for a week, so I won't be around. I'll just get that link before I vamoose.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/07/05/mexico.footprints.ap/index.html
RE: Evolution of Man
Hi Soapy Sam,
Already read of the footprints found in South America from the New Scientist article published recently – so had thought it interesting, just hadn’t posted it yet but good shout.
So there will be no re-writing of History there huh! You know that evidence is gonna be met with some real vitriol from those that consider themselves scientific and/or historic experts on that region and subject – coz it’ll mean that they’ve been believing and teaching “fallacy” as you put it…were they delusional?:D
If you’d researched and read the Vedic texts SS you’d understand that they are from an oral tradition relaying far older stories regarding events that those that finally wrote them down were not privy to – vast timescales that were ridiculed by those that ‘knew’ better – the so called scientific experts (because it would cause the kind of overturning of ‘accepted facts’ that the footprints in Mexico will – but on a far, far grander scale) – who positively guffawed & laughingly derided the descriptions of the existence of the Sarasvati river, or the great industrialised ports, or even the tales of a land bridge between India and Sri Lanka…commenting on the ‘stupid’ people that believed it as – well as you put it “delusional” - all strangely now (and not quite sooo funny) – very much fact … still nobody talks about it anymore hey? 😀
If you had taken more than a cursory look at the Veda you’d know that they were not describing their own technology or ‘A Space Race’ rather some advanced beings (human I presume) within their midst – as for evidence – you must be very aware which piece of text Oppenheimer was quoting when (on detonation of the Atomic Bomb) he said “I am become the destroyer of worlds” – have you read it?
As for proof, large spreads of land dug up that have turned to black or green glass, ranges of buildings, skeletons (in interesting poses) and pottery all vitrified – any ideas?:eek:
On the general cutting of rock, thanks for the info, but how to cut & dress quartz or granite – frankly, I can read up anywhere. No, I asked you specifically about the MH Skull – it was cut against its axis – the labs at HP couldn’t figure out how it was made without shattering; as far as they’re concerned – it shouldn’t exist – any ideas? 😮
Re: Granite, my question was about the potbellied granite vases, perfectly symmetrical, long slender necks, internally perfectly & smoothly carved out potbellies (below their slender necks) – any ideas?:eek:
It is a fallacious argument to say that we must study the spiritual effect by making science realise that it exists. First prove that it exists, then study it.
– fallacious? – Come now, I’m hardly indenting to deceive ‘SS’;)
BTW, what a circular remedy you present as a solution “first prove that it exits… then study it?? – Surely you cannot prove that it exits unless do in fact study it…call me naïve but… [sm=scratchchin.gif]
As for Annie and the ‘what’ was observed: - What has Krishnamurti’s views on her views on him got to do with the diagrams that ‘V’s talking about? – That’s just laughable mate, I mean…
Charles Babbage (a good mate of Darwin’s) the renowned father (or grandfather) of the computer... Is he not the same man that invented …wait for it… “the shoe for walking on water”? Didn’t he also try to silence all organ grinders with a court action due to his hatred of street musicians… and was he not the same man that was ridiculed by ‘The Times’ & followed around by large mobs who threw dead cats at him?[:-]
Surely you must agree ‘SS’ that what someone thinks, gets wrong or even fails at (shoe for walking on water) - does not detract from what that same person achieves mate? – Irrespective of how much you ridicule or scoff at them! – So why do it?
I’ll finish on the same ‘agreeable’ note that you finished on in your post to me… something that I’ve been saying all the way through all my posts to you… but I’ll quote you as you put it far more succinctly: -
Your opi
RE: Evolution of Man
ORIGINAL: Soapy Sam
I would be happy to agree Annie Besant was an interesting woman, but she was no scientist. She did not see quarks.
You've read the literature on all this then, and looked at a few good links on Occult Chemistry? (Though no links give the detail found in the books.)
Yes, I'm being ironic. I can tell you haven't. So this is knee-jerk opinion. What's the worth of that?
Nobody can , or ever will "see" quarks. That IS a physical impossibility.
😀 Have you recently re-read Kuhn and reviewed precisely the kind of reactions the old paradigm gives to the new? Very funny for you to illustrate it so well! 😀
Now it seems to me that anyone who can believe that is delusional.
Yes, yes, enough with the standard replies of the paradigm-challenged! Heard it and read it all before, the very words. And Copernicus was delusional too.
you are willing to uncritically accept anecdotal evidence that Besant saw quarks,
Confess! You haven't read the subject, huh? That's the standard response to the new. To utter proclamations without a real look.
It's not "anecdotal" evidence as you'd know if you knew the subject. If it was nobody would have paid any attention. Besant and others diagrammed how quarks geometrically combine into atoms (as best as could be done on 2D paper) and painstakingly over decades did this for each element. For every element and also for isotopes they counted the precise number of what we now call quarks. They were not out by even one, not even when the number per atom was peculiar (not some neat round figure) and in the many hundreds as with large atoms. Spot on to the precise number for over 100 elements. You can statistically analyse that and find that the chances of it happening by guesswork are billions to one. That's true science. It really doesn't matter if your opinion is that it's impossible - because it happened. What a true scientist then does is to find out how it happened, to look at the original data.
Read Kuhn again, Sam. Not as the history of what science has done in the past, but as an on-going story. If paradigms do change (and of course they do), then we are now in what will one day be an old paradigm for this and that science. So it isn't going to be easy to recognise the new. Especially with knee-jerk refusals to even look.
For science to be respected, it needs to look. It needs to be truly open-minded. Most of the great inventors and discoverers were.
V
Edit to add:
Occult chemistry is simply a subject I'm raising to illustrate that there's solid evidence contrary to current scientific paradigms, which should move us to keep open minds. Unfortunately not a lot on the subject is online, and one has to read the books. The best is "Extra-Sensory Perception of Quarks" by Dr. Stephen M. Phillips, 1980, which a library could acquire. A recent summary of the subject in few pages is:
http://www.questbooks.net/title.cfm?bookid=485
An online page with many sources of information, online or not, is:
[DLMURL] http://www.tphta.ws/TPH_OCPG.HTM [/DLMURL]
The point to me is that it simply isn't science to proclaim, "It's delusional!" Boy, if all the great minds had reacted that way to new ideas, how would we ever have progressed? New frontiers in science must be approached in a scientific frame of mind, not in the emotional manner of one who finds it difficult to have his/her worldview challenged. Then it's sceince. Science gets the facts, and science looks at the facts clinically.
RE: Evolution of Man
To All Posters:
Please keep on topic and the conversation polite.
Love,
Patsy (with Mod anorak on.)