It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nassim Haramein's Delegate Program

page: 9
17
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Your investigative research skills are apparently lacking.

Here is the wiki article on Sacred Geometry again

And, if you can't understand the quote you have provided, why is that the quote you provided? Its not that difficult of a paragraph to understand...

You are purposely letting your preconceptions bias your investigations and search for knowledge/wisdom.

You too, buddhasystems.

Sacred Geometry is not some 'new age crap'. While there is plenty of 'new age crap', one must use individual discretion when investigating into each claim.

Vicarious research, and repeating hear-say and grape vine rumors is not sufficient in this information age.

Sacred Geometry is about as ancient and widspread as religion/philosophy/occult/mysticism gets...


Sacred geometry is the geometry used in the planning and construction of religious structures such as churches, temples, mosques, religious monuments, altars, tabernacles; as well as for sacred spaces such as temenoi, sacred groves, village greens and holy wells, and the creation of religious art. However, in sacred geometry, symbolic and sacred meanings are ascribed to certain geometric shapes, and certain geometric proportions. According to Paul Calter, ...in the ancient world certain numbers had symbolic meaning, aside from their ordinary use for counting or calculating...plane figures, the polygons, triangles, squares, hexagons, and so forth, were related to the numbers (three and the triangle, for example), were thought of in a similar way, and in fact, carried even more emotional baggage than the numbers themselves, because they were visual.[1]


This is why things like cymatics and the Phi ratio are must haves for any physical systems. And why sound and geometry and color are all fundamentally linked.


Pythagoras found that a string stopped halfway along its length produces an octave, while a ratio of 2:3 produces a fifth interval and 3:4 produces a fourth. Pythagoreans believed that these harmonic ratios gave music powers of healing which could "harmonize" an out-of-balance body. This belief has been revived in modern times.


Intelligent Design theory could be considered hand in hand with sacred geometry.

The universe is not random, however much we think our free will to be unrestricted.




posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
Sacred Geometry is about as ancient and widspread as religion/philosophy/occult/mysticism gets...


I think that was the point of buddhasystem's earlier post about reverting to the middle ages. I thought we were making progress? But some people look at what some non-scientists believe and think we're reverting to worse than the middle ages, like maybe to the dark ages.

I read that whole wiki article on sacred geometry, and the additional information in it that you posted didn't say why some geometric shapes were "sacred". Yes there's a lot of geometry in nature, but that's natural geometry, I don't see why anyone would call that sacred.


Pythagoras found that a string stopped halfway along its length produces an octave, while a ratio of 2:3 produces a fifth interval and 3:4 produces a fourth. Pythagoreans believed that these harmonic ratios gave music powers of healing which could "harmonize" an out-of-balance body. This belief has been revived in modern times.
I think good music can make us feel good and that may aid in helping the body's healing systems work more efficiently.

But this doesn't inspire me to worship triangles. However I am inspired to listen to good music and appreciate that it can invoke positive emotions which may aid my health. I see this as natural and not supernatural however.


Intelligent Design theory could be considered hand in hand with sacred geometry.

The universe is not random, however much we think our free will to be unrestricted.


I don't think a failure to believe in sacred geometry is the same as saying the universe is random. The universe is obviously not random. The question to me seems to be whether we believe what happens in nature is due to natural processes, or to supernatural processes. The geometric patterns that occur from natural processes are truly amazing, even a snowflake is an amazing work of hexagonal art. But I think we can understand the natural processes that result in snowflake formation without invoking supernatural explanations.

[edit on 14-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


You are somehow not getting the point... even though you have answered the dilemma yourself.


I read that whole wiki article on sacred geometry, and the additional information in it that you posted didn't say why some geometric shapes were "sacred". Yes there's a lot of geometry in nature, but that's natural geometry, I don't see why anyone would call that sacred.


It's sacred simply because it IS NATURAL. Thats it.

It is the geometry that is a fundamental aspect of the universe.

Why can't that be sacred and natural?

It sounds to me like this is outside your 'comfort zone', so you seek to associate it with religion and superstition, when it is simply just natural.

You are such a fundamental upholder of 'Science' - it is the epitome of human achievement in many peoples beliefs... but are you aware that many of the most influential people in the development of 'western society' - people like Descartes, Plato, Pythagoras, I am sure the Founding Fathers, Freemasons(square and compass? the divine Architect...), Rosicrucians, etc etc. regarded geometry as 'sacred'?

If the foundational aspects of the universe shouldn't be considered 'sacred', I'm not sure what should be.

How can you consider this to be 'reverting to the middle ages'?


But this doesn't inspire me to worship triangles. However I am inspired to listen to good music and appreciate that it can invoke positive emotions which may aid my health. I see this as natural and not supernatural however.


You are dangerously close to using a straw man fallacy in your statement here. You are also conflating the idea of idolatry with occult and esoteric knowledge. Have you thought about why, perhaps, music and vibrations can make you feel so intensely?

I suggest it has something to do with Cymatics, which I have mentioned several times before - and I assume you are intimately familiar with the concepts.

Chalking ideas we don't understand up to superstition and supernatural worship is dangerous, and barely scientific. Especially with our limited knowledge of physics...

I don't think you can just choose to not believe in 'sacred' geometry - if indeed there is merit to the ideas in SG that have flourished throughout history.

If correct, it is as unarguable as gravity and 2+2=4.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 11:01 PM
link   
From Britannica.com on Albert Einstein:

Einstein would write that two “wonders” deeply affected his early years. The first was his encounter with a compass at age five. He was mystified that invisible forces could deflect the needle. This would lead to a lifelong fascination with invisible forces. The second wonder came at age 12 when he discovered a book of geometry, which he devoured, calling it his “sacred little geometry book.”



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Point in Case. Nice quote.


Some historical context for geometry(I just found this, have not gotten past the intro yet, might not until next week)

Here is the intro:

In the nineteenth century, geometry, like most academic disciplines, went through a period of growth verging on cataclysm. During this period, the content of geometry and its internal diversity increased almost beyond recognition; the axiomatic method, vaunted since antiquity by the admirers of geometry, finally attained true logical sufficiency, and the ground was laid for replacing, in the description of physical phenomena, the standard geometry of Euclid by Riemann's wonderfully pliable system. Modern philosophers of all tendencies — Descartes and Hobbes, Spinoza and Locke, Hume and Kant — had regarded Euclidean geometry as a paradigm of epistemic certainty. The sudden shrinking of Euclidean geometry to a subspecies of the vast family of mathematical theories of space shattered some illusions and prompted important changes in our the philosophical conception of human knowledge. Thus, for instance, after these nineteenth-century developments, philosophers who dream of a completely certain knowledge of right and wrong secured by logical inference from self-evident principles can no longer propose Euclidean geometry as an instance in which a similar goal has proved attainable. The present article reviews the aspects of nineteenth century geometry that are of major interest for philosophy and hints in passing, at their philosophical significance.


plato.stanford.edu...



edit to add:

Point in Case? or is it Case in point... haha

[edit on 14-6-2010 by beebs]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
It's sacred simply because it IS NATURAL. Thats it.

It is the geometry that is a fundamental aspect of the universe.

Why can't that be sacred and natural?

It sounds to me like this is outside your 'comfort zone', so you seek to associate it with religion and superstition, when it is simply just natural.


According to the dictionary, sacred refers to religion. I don't seek to associate sacred with religion, that's the definition of sacred:

www.merriam-webster.com...


Sacred:
1
a : dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of a deity "a tree sacred to the gods"
b : devoted exclusively to one service or use (as of a person or purpose) "a fund sacred to charity"
2
a : worthy of religious veneration : holy
b : entitled to reverence and respect
3
: of or relating to religion


I don't see anything that refers to the word "sacred" as meaning "natural". The Wiki article also talks about the religious aspect.

If we want to talk about "natural geometry", then why not call it "natural geometry"? I wouldn't argue with that.


Originally posted by beebs
How can you consider this to be 'reverting to the middle ages'?

See the definition of sacred. Contrary to your claim it doesn't mean religious or superstitious, it does.

If you referred to "natural geometry" I wouldn't be complaining about the use of the word "sacred" or talking about the middle ages


I suggest it has something to do with Cymatics, which I have mentioned several times before - and I assume you are intimately familiar with the concepts.
I'm familiar with waves. Cymatics is about waves right? But if someone called it "waves" they might not sell as many DVDs as they do by calling it something like "cymatics"? Well I guess it's better to make up a word instead of trying to take an existing word like "sacred" and say it means something besides what the dictionary says.


Chalking ideas we don't understand up to superstition and supernatural worship is dangerous, and barely scientific.

Then please stop using the word sacred because that's exactly what you are doing by using the word sacred in front of geometry.

[edit on 15-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

www.merriam-webster.com...


Sacred:
1
a : dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of a deity "a tree sacred to the gods"
b : devoted exclusively to one service or use (as of a person or purpose) "a fund sacred to charity"
2
a : worthy of religious veneration : holy
b : entitled to reverence and respect
3
: of or relating to religion




Why did you leave this out?

5 a : unassailable, inviolable b : highly valued and important < a sacred responsibility >


When one is seeking the definition of a word or phrase in context, one must keep reading in the dictionary. Words often have many nuances.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Fine. Natural Geometry. Are you happy? Can you now all of a sudden employ your rational faculties into the investigation of the concepts?

Now that we are free from the immense limiting factors of the term 'sacred', perhaps now this subject is 'worthy' of your study?

Why can't nature be sacred, or worthy of worship anyways?

Would you lump all indigenous spirituality in the same category as 'religion'?

Just because they see nature as 'sacred' - instead of a mysterious 'god', they should be associated with organized religion?

----

And regarding cymatics... Dude, come on.

"Something to do with waves"?!?

And a made up word? So now we call scientific terms with greek origin 'made up'?

Do I need to spoon feed you information?
wiki cymatics

How you have been discussing and antagonizing in this discussion - without proper knowledge of cymatics - is beyond me...

This behavior is highly ignorant, if you ask me.

I don't know how many times I have mentioned cymatics in this thread...

If you didn't know what it was, you can't just brush it aside thinking you know physics.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
wiki cymatics


From the above:

Cymatics (from Greek: κῦμα "wave") is the study of visible sound and vibration, a subset of modal phenomena.


I believe I've read that sound technology is probably what was used to build the pyramids.

I am gathering that sound and vibration are exciting areas of research in science and technology.

It may be that 528Hz heals DNA.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Why did you leave this out?

5 a : unassailable, inviolable b : highly valued and important < a sacred responsibility >


When one is seeking the definition of a word or phrase in context, one must keep reading in the dictionary. Words often have many nuances.


Yes and when I take all of those definitions in context, it's clear to me that even that definition has religious origins/overtimes. I have used the word sacred according to that definition before and I was well aware of the religious overtones when I did.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Fine. Natural Geometry. Are you happy? Can you now all of a sudden employ your rational faculties into the investigation of the concepts?

Now that we are free from the immense limiting factors of the term 'sacred', perhaps now this subject is 'worthy' of your study?

Sure, geometry has always been a fascinating subject to me and finding it in nature is awesome. And I'm well aware there is geometry in nature as this photo shows:



This is why I don't get quite as excited as some people when we see shapes on Mars, just because there's a shape is not a sure sign that aliens made it.


Why can't nature be sacred, or worthy of worship anyways?

Would you lump all indigenous spirituality in the same category as 'religion'?

Just because they see nature as 'sacred' - instead of a mysterious 'god', they should be associated with organized religion?
Some people are in awe of God, some people are in awe of nature, and some people use the words "God" and "nature" interchangeably. I would say anyone who isn't in awe of nature doesn't appreciate the vast scale or complexity of it.

But regarding worship, see what Einstein had to say about three styles of religious belief in 1930:

Einstein's_religious_views


In a 1930 New York Times article, Einstein distinguished three styles which are usually intermixed in actual religious belief. A poor understanding of causality causes fear, and the fearful invent supernatural beings. The desire for love and support create a social and moral need for a supreme being; both these styles have an anthropomorphic concept of God. The third style, which Einstein deemed most mature, originates in a deep sense of awe and mystery. He said, "The individual feels [...] the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves in nature [...] and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole." Einstein saw science as an antagonist of the first two styles of religious belief, but as a partner of the third style.


So I think "worship" would be more associated with the first two styles of religion which Einstein called less mature, and "awe" associated with the third style does seem more mature. But I don't consider "awe" being anything like "worship".

----

And regarding cymatics... Dude, come on.

"Something to do with waves"?!?

And a made up word? So now we call scientific terms with greek origin 'made up'?

Do I need to spoon feed you information?
wiki cymatics

How you have been discussing and antagonizing in this discussion - without proper knowledge of cymatics - is beyond me...

This behavior is highly ignorant, if you ask me.

I don't know how many times I have mentioned cymatics in this thread...

If you didn't know what it was, you can't just brush it aside thinking you know physics.


Thanks for spoon feeding me the information but I had already looked up that link before I posted and in fact if you follow that link to the origin of the word cymatics it takes you to this page:

Hans Jenny (cymatics)


Hans Jenny (1904–1972) was a physician and natural scientist who is considered the father of cymatics, the study of wave phenomena.

In 1967, Jenny published the first volume of Cymatics: The Study of Wave Phenomena.


So when the father of cymatics publishes a book called "The Study of Wave Phenomena" is it really ignorant to say cymatics has something to do with waves? And was the term used before 1967?

He could have just titled his book "The study of wave phenomena" right? Because that's what it is.

[edit on 15-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Why did you leave this out?

5 a : unassailable, inviolable b : highly valued and important < a sacred responsibility >


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
. . . even that definition has religious origins/overtimes.


Different people have different feelings about religion, for sure. Also, religion is one thing when it's "organized religion," and it's something else when it's just an individual beholding the vast universe.

But "highly valued and important" can have a place in secular thought and knowledge, as well.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Why did you leave this out?

5 a : unassailable, inviolable b : highly valued and important < a sacred responsibility >


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
. . . even that definition has religious origins/overtimes.
Different people have different feelings about religion, for sure. Also, religion is one thing when it's "organized religion," and it's something else when it's just an individual beholding the vast universe.

But "highly valued and important" can have a place in secular thought and knowledge, as well.
If you are denying that sacred geometry refers to religion, you should read the wiki information about it:

Sacred geometry


Sacred geometry is the geometry used in the planning and construction of religious structures such as churches, temples, mosques, religious monuments, altars, tabernacles; as well as for sacred spaces such as temenoi, sacred groves, village greens and holy wells, and the creation of religious art. However, in sacred geometry, symbolic and sacred meanings are ascribed to certain geometric shapes, and certain geometric proportions.


Now when you click on that "sacred meanings" link, it says this:


Sacred

Holiness, or sanctity, is in general the state of being holy (perceived by religious individuals as associated with the divine) or sacred (considered worthy of spiritual respect or devotion; or inspiring awe or reverence among believers in a given set of spiritual ideas). In other contexts, objects are often considered 'holy' or 'sacred' if used for spiritual purposes, such as the worship or service of gods.


So I'm finding the argument that sacred doesn't refer to religion to not be very persuasive. As I said even the definitions of sacred that don't say religion, imply it.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Different people have different feelings about religion, for sure. Also, religion is one thing when it's "organized religion," and it's something else when it's just an individual beholding the vast universe.

But "highly valued and important" can have a place in secular thought and knowledge, as well.


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
If you are denying that sacred geometry refers to religion, you should read the wiki information about it:

Sacred geometry


Sacred geometry is the geometry used in the planning and construction of religious structures such as churches, temples, mosques, religious monuments, altars, tabernacles; as well as for sacred spaces such as temenoi, sacred groves, village greens and holy wells, and the creation of religious art. However, in sacred geometry, symbolic and sacred meanings are ascribed to certain geometric shapes, and certain geometric proportions.


Now when you click on that "sacred meanings" link, it says this:


Sacred

Holiness, or sanctity, is in general the state of being holy (perceived by religious individuals as associated with the divine) or sacred (considered worthy of spiritual respect or devotion; or inspiring awe or reverence among believers in a given set of spiritual ideas). In other contexts, objects are often considered 'holy' or 'sacred' if used for spiritual purposes, such as the worship or service of gods.


So I'm finding the argument that sacred doesn't refer to religion to not be very persuasive. As I said even the definitions of sacred that don't say religion, imply it.


There are other applications for the term, such as the way the term is used in previous posts, such as:


Originally posted by Mary Rose

The above is referring to “Chapter 4 The zero point field.”

The last paragraph:

The science of sacred geometry claims that everything in our universe has an underlying invisible geometric structure following a fundamental principle. Contemporary scientists now use sacred geometry to explain how physical reality is constructed from the omni present and all-pervasive background energy of the physical vacuum.





Originally posted by Mary Rose
I have found an MP3 of an interview of an emissary for the Resonance Project on a website for Conscious Living Radio.

He said in Haramein's theory, there is nothing separate; everything is part of a greater whole. Haramein's exploration of this concept took him into geometry.

There was a second guest for this interview who talked about sacred geometry.

Michael said that these presentations for Haramein's theory are interactive - there is discussion among the attendees and the presenter about how the theory applies to various occupations. He used the example of energy healing - understanding the physics of it.




Originally posted by Mary Rose
I've located another emissary named Jeffrey Allen on the web. Here is what he had to say:

"The first time I watched Nassim's DVD presentation, I was glued to the screen! I had been using sacred geometry for healing and manifestation for years. I knew it worked, but Nassim was describing HOW it worked and tying it together with ancient teachings. I was fascinated and intrigued!




posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Different people have different feelings about religion, for sure. Also, religion is one thing when it's "organized religion," and it's something else when it's just an individual beholding the vast universe.

But "highly valued and important" can have a place in secular thought and knowledge, as well.



I believe I need to restore the context of this protracted discussion. Here's an excerpt from one of the member of Haramein's cult, which I subjected to a modicum of ridicule:


The first time I watched Nassim's DVD presentation, I was glued to the screen! I had been using sacred geometry for healing and manifestation for years


You would be really untruthful even to yourself if you tried to interpret this piece as anything but occult. Sure, Haramein has his audience among new age type of folks. He and his works just don't have anything to do with science.

I mentioned in this thread that protons (which he loves so much to theorize about) aren't elementary objects but in fact rather complex systems themselves. The fact that he used that sort of particle to try to demonstrate that strong interaction is fundamentally gravity is one of many things that "manifest" him as quack scientist.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


You are the epitome of the embittered status quo wanna be scientist who can't handle the fact that a great mind such as Haramein is not afraid to challenge the status quo.

New age has nothing to do with his work, but yet you emphatically categorize anyone that likes him as one. Stereotypes much. The fact is that you'll find people of all walks of life at his delegate program.

Instead you ridicule, demean and criticize Haramein and anyone that enjoys his information.

Get off your high horse and check your ego at the door, missy.

BTW - you have brought nothing to the table by way of debunking his work. Instead, it's more of the usual my way is better than your way.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by OnTheFelt
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


You are the epitome of the embittered status quo wanna be scientist who can't handle the fact that a great mind such as Haramein is not afraid to challenge the status quo.


a) I'm not an embittered "wanna be"
b) did you read Haramein's papers?


New age has nothing to do with his work, but yet you emphatically categorize anyone that likes him as one.


Well if new age babble is posted here as some kind of argument that Haramein is the real deal, it really is a fair game.


Instead you ridicule, demean and criticize Haramein and anyone that enjoys his information.


But of course! That is exactly what he deserves by writing pseudo-science nonsense and hawking it to unsuspecting folks.


Get off your high horse and check your ego at the door, missy.


I'm not a missy and I like my ego, so thanks but no thanks.


BTW - you have brought nothing to the table by way of debunking his work. Instead, it's more of the usual my way is better than your way.


Please try and read my posts. I did take time to actually read Haramein's bu11sh!t paper.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Regarding the use of geometry in science and technology, there is something called "biogeometry." From the website of Dr Ibrahim Karim:

BioGeometry® is a science that deals with the Energy of Shape; it uses shapes, colours, motion, orientation and sound to produce a vibrational quality that balances energy fields. BioGeometrical shapes are two or three-dimensional shapes specially designed to interact with the earth’s energy fields to produce balancing effects on multiple levels on biological systems. They were developed and patented by Dr. Ibrahim F. Karim, D.Sc. in Cairo, Egypt, during research since 1968.

To understand the effects of BioGeometrical shapes on the human energy system, we have to recognize that the human body has an energy field around it, which has its own north-south axis. As we move around, the angle formed between our individual axis and that of the earth is constantly changing, and this in turn either strengthens or weakens our energy field. The positive range is very small, vulnerable most of the time, and is a major factor affecting our health and well being. BioGeometrically balanced energy, however, considerably strengthens our energy fields to such an extent that we are not detrimentally affected by changes of orientation. In fact, it appears to cancel obvious energy interactions predicted by currently accepted physical laws.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Here is a fun video produced by AlienScientist in which he speaks of a video on sacred geometry that he is planning to make. He mentions also that he makes videos on anti-gravity, which I mentioned in a previous post in relation to Haramein's work:




I also anticipate more videos from AlienScientist on Haramein's paper.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Again, you insist on bringing the occult into the discussion of what is (supposedly) physics, or a poor attempt at same.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join