It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# The Alchemical Wedding

page: 1
4
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 12:06 PM
Taken from the Quadrivium are these passages. This book contains a wealth of fascinating details and correlations found amongst some of the most inspiring realms of thought: Number, Music, Geometry, Cosmology.

This particular page is in the section on cosmic bodies in our solar system:

From the surface of the Earth, the Sun and the Moon appear the same size. According to modern cosmology this is 'just' a coincidence, but any good wizard will tell you the balance between these two primary bodies is clear proof of very ancient magic.

The size of the Moon compared to the Earth is 3 to 11 [99.9%]. What this means is that if you draw down the Moon to the Earth, then the circle through the center of the heavenly Moon will have circumference equal to the perimeter of a square enclosing the Earth. As we saw on page 78, this proportion is also present in every double rainbow you see. The ancients seem to have known about this and hidden it in definition of the mile.

The Earth-Moon proportion is also precisely invoked by out two neighbors, Venus and Mars. The closest:farthest distance ratio that each experiences of the other is, incredibly, 3:11 [99.9%]. The Earth and the Moon sit in between them, perfectly, echoing this beautiful local spacial ratio.

3:11 happens to be 27.3% and the Moon orbits the Earth every 27.3 days, the same periods as the average rotation period of a sunspot. The Sun, and Moon do seem very much the unified couple.

Some other awesome facts:

]The sizes of the Moon and the Earth square the circle.
]Radius of Moon = 1080 miles = 3 x 360 miles
]Radius of Earth = 3960 miles = 11 x 360 miles
]Diameter of Moon = 2160 miles = 3 x 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 x 6 miles
]Radius of Earth + Radius of Moon = 5040 miles = 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 x 6 x 7 = 7 x 8 x 9 x 10 miles
]Diameter of Earth = 7920 miles = 7 x 8 x 9 x 10 x 11 miles
]There are 5280 feet in a mile = (10 x 11 x 12 x 13) - (9 x 10 x 11 x 12)

Now that's a doozy.

edit on 9-8-2012 by Soloro because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-8-2012 by Soloro because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-8-2012 by Soloro because: (no reason given)

POSTING WORK WRITTEN BY OTHERS
Going forward, if you post something that is not 100% your own writing or work you must use the EX TAG, post NO MORE THAN 10% of the original (or three paragraphs, whichever is least), and GIVE A LINK TO THE SOURCE MATERIAL. If the work you are posting is not on the internet, from a book for example, you MUST give a credit for that Book ( the title), its Author and Publisher
edit on August 11th 2012 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 10:50 PM
Wow... That's pretty freaking awesome! It seems there is "something" going on out there...or, in here? Everywhere? Whether It be God, Wizards, Aliens, or the fact that impossible coincidences surround us everyday, everywhere, all the time... "Something" is definitely going on here! Thanks for sharing!

posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 03:48 PM
Huh?

The Earth is not perfectly spherical consequently no single value serves as its natural "radius". Distances from points on the Earth surface to its center range from ~ 6,300 km to 6,400 km (~3,950–3,970 mi).

Picking numbers at random perhaps?

posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 03:48 PM
What has this to do with The "Alchemical Wedding" anyway?

posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 06:30 PM

Originally posted by WhamBam
Huh?

The Earth is not perfectly spherical consequently no single value serves as its natural "radius". Distances from points on the Earth surface to its center range from ~ 6,300 km to 6,400 km (~3,950–3,970 mi).

Picking numbers at random perhaps?

^^Unnecessary nitpicking.

Sounds like you're describing natural occurrences on crustal planets ie: Mountains, volcanoes, valleys, etc. That's a perfect 'sphere' if you ask me

Besides, your symmetry "sphere" argument applies to every single spheroid in existence because nothing is perfectly spherical.

With that said, the Earth is very spherical, have you ever seen it from space? This is about relative, averaged measurements. The point is that these planets could have wound up at many different sizes, instead they ended up with the GENERAL planetary and orbital ratios that they do have, along with our measurement and mathematics systems ending up the way they did to provide as coherent and logical structure for these 'coincidences'.

Finally, the radius of earth being 6400 km, that means that the max variation for radius, 100 km, is 1.5% that of the total radius, the border of statistical significance.

posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 04:47 PM
The Earth is an oblate spheroid, flattened at the equator. The Moon used to be closer millions of years ago, and will be further away millions of years from now.

Looking for significance in totally unrelated things and coincidences is not science. It can indeed be compared to alchemy, which was a pseudo-science.

posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 10:28 PM

Originally posted by wildespace
The Earth is an oblate spheroid, flattened at the equator. The Moon used to be closer millions of years ago, and will be further away millions of years from now.

Looking for significance in totally unrelated things and coincidences is not science. It can indeed be compared to alchemy, which was a pseudo-science.

Really? It's a ssssssssssssudo science?

...hmm, a science nazi. I like people like you.

Fun to play with, with all your restrictions to belief based upon highly limited 'empirical' reasoning.

Guess what, the big bang was a coincidence.

If you cannot perceive any profundity in what was meant to be conveyed by the post, then I am sorry. If you see flaws in factual presentation, so be it, but the authoritative, superior rhetoric with very little actual factual presentation leads me to believe you're both:

TROLLS.
edit on 18-8-2012 by Soloro because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 10:39 PM
Before the debate goes on:
THERE'S NO NEED FOR IT.

Science is a very definite discipline and method of building scientific knowledge
If some procedure does not follow such method is not scientific.
Up to this point there is no adjectives nor is value per se being judged.
Alchemy is another discipline and method of building alchemichal knowledge
Whether someone prefers one to the other is completely irrelevant to the same choice made by other.
As long as the described factual difference is understood.
So, feel free to coexist in peace, dudes.

Note edit: There's also the fact that this is the Science forum, and references to Metaphysical disciplines will be better received and answered in the correspondent forum.
edit on 18/8/2012 by drakus because: a wolfy looking bug strolled around the table saying so

edit on 18/8/2012 by drakus because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 06:07 AM
An interesting fact is that the medieval alchemy gradually transformed into chemistry (a science) and contributed to the science of physics in general. It is now possible to transform one element into another - through nuclear fission or fusion. Science is there to be discovered and used, and it tells us what the world is _really_ like, instead of the imagined world of symbolism and metaphysical.

posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 12:14 PM

Originally posted by drakus
Before the debate goes on:
THERE'S NO NEED FOR IT.

Science is a very definite discipline and method of building scientific knowledge
If some procedure does not follow such method is not scientific.
Up to this point there is no adjectives nor is value per se being judged.
Alchemy is another discipline and method of building alchemichal knowledge
Whether someone prefers one to the other is completely irrelevant to the same choice made by other.
As long as the described factual difference is understood.
So, feel free to coexist in peace, dudes.

Note edit: There's also the fact that this is the Science forum, and references to Metaphysical disciplines will be better received and answered in the correspondent forum.
edit on 18/8/2012 by drakus because: a wolfy looking bug strolled around the table saying so

edit on 18/8/2012 by drakus because: (no reason given)

Aye you bring up all good points. I apology to the above posters for my hastiness in calling them short sighted.

My retorts were not meant to be perceived as denials of the factual information they presented, because what the above posters mentioned is true. There are plenty of glaring factual flaws, even glaring mathematical errors in the information from the book, particularly that passage. So, I should be saying, good observations!

It was more of jest via my frustration in that:

a) This is a passage from a book called The Quadrivium meant to simply inspire curiosity

b) The book is a mix mash of science (analytic reasoning) and the abstract.

c) Often, to see the importance of themes, whether it be ratios, visual themes, etc. we need to step away from the absolute down to the .0000000000000000000000000001th degree because anyone can play that game to take away from the potential perceived profundity of things like this.

Notwithstanding, this book actually does have a lot of great stuff. A lot of general measurements that show awesomely interesting ratios and common themes held in arithmetic, music, orbits and planet sizes of our solar system. Obviously not all of the information is totally accurate, as seen here, but there is relatively correct information that if you allow yourself to see, you will see very cool "coincidences".

I guess I don't see science as religiously as many do. It is useful, it's not the paramount, and certainly not currently.

The value of this book in terms of the abstract and the factual is actually quite good. Case in point, the last page goes over the 2012 prophecy of the galactic alignment. It makes mention of the fact that this so-called 'alignment' has been occurring every year around December 21 for quite some time, due to the current angle of the precession. I guess I should also mention that the alignment is not exact, to which, assuming that non-exactness means anything, you get the picture.

Point being, analytical understanding of things is not the absolute way to understanding, it is a useful tool for us through its understandings. After all, we are human, aren't we?

I believe this should be moved to the Books section at this point.
edit on 20-8-2012 by Soloro because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 12:23 PM
Size of Sun as seen from MY Earth is not the same as size of Moon. Moon appears noticably bigger.
?

posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 12:30 PM

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
Size of Sun as seen from MY Earth is not the same as size of Moon. Moon appears noticably bigger.
?

You must be a time traveler from many thousands of Sun cycles ago. Hello! And thank you for proving our scientific knowledge to be less than complete.

Btw I just fact checked a lot of the numbers with given measurements of planets and orbits. They're actually mostly correct. I just goofed on the Diameter of Earth part, it should say:

8 x 9 x 10 x 11 = 7920

with the diameter of Earth being between 7900-7920 miles on average.

It's almost like some one, or something, created a designer solar system.
edit on 20-8-2012 by Soloro because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 12:49 PM

I knew there was something weird with me, now it all becomes clear

Seriously though, just dug in my photo library and there tons photos of moon and very few of Sun ( during sunset and Sun appears much bigger not the moon
)) )
So i hereby promiss to shoot Sun in noon and compare to full Moon.
edit on 20-8-2012 by ZeroKnowledge because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-8-2012 by ZeroKnowledge because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

4