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.

 

Undeniable Proof of Intelligent Design.

page: 31
23
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


So that's the moon. Just looked up "spaceship moon theory" and there's a lot of interesting points raised, but that's like proving that Bigfoot is not a monkey. That leaves a huge realm of speculation to be covered and confirmed or eliminated. It does not mean that your answer is the only and best answer.




posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


So that's the moon. Just looked up "spaceship moon theory"

like proving that Bigfoot is not a monkey.

Just to be clear, you know that's not what I am saying, because the moon is comprised of predominantly earth mantle material and was formed at the same distance from the sun as the earth. I offer the "moon-seed" strange object (cornerstone?) idea, only as a secondary hypothesis to the big-impact theory, whereby the mantle material might have been pulled from the earth by a force, unto just the right size and profile to begin the whole process of evolution of life on earth up to the present day.

Sort of like this



Edit: Bump forward reference for new page (It wasn't "just the moon")


Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Barcs
 


Originally posted by Barcs

Please explain how one would objectively determine that the moon was created with the future rate of the earth & sun in mind? Obviously if it was intentionally designed, yes, but that's a guess and there's no way to objectively determine something like that.

Actually, there IS quite a lot of objective and verifyable evidence by which to determine something like that.

Here, instead of quoting and wasting hours trying to present it to you, and the readership, in bits and pieces, just read this book (below) and I invite all readers and members to check it out, you might even be astonished as the rest of the puzzle pieces start to fall together to form a picture and a type of message seemingly intended for our own recognition in the fullness of cosmic time and history.

Who Built the Moon?

Free E-Book on line
contraeducacao.files.wordpress.com...
If you wish to download the free pdf instead, just Google and you'll find it.

And don't worry if you (the reader) become a little discombobulated at the implications of this hypothesis, which in the final analysis, appears to be not just a message in a cosmic bottle intended for our own recognition, but some sort of playful joke begging an answer to the question of "how did He (the UCA) know?"

At some point, in closing the circle of observation in recognition, both left and right hemisphere, of logic, and intuition, is satisfied, and if it makes you laugh, as it does me, then I think it's fair to say that you've understood it and comprehended the larger significance and implications (that cannot be avoided).. even if only to a degree, since it's but the thinnest slice of the whole knowledge pie but a slice nevertheless which was otherwise inaccessible, residing as it did in the domain of an unknown unknown or what we didn't even know we didn't know, but now do.


“There are frustrating theoretical problems in quantum field theory that demand solutions, but the string theory ‘landscape’ of 10/500 solutions does not make sense to me. Neither does the multiverse concept or the anthropic principle,

“New discoveries tend to be intuitive, just on the borderline of believability. Later, they become obvious.”

~ David J. Gross, Nobel Prize-winning physicist.


edit on 26-6-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

I spent most of my life running away from God.

But here's the funny part. What you resist only persists..! LOL

God finds us in eternity, but we have to have the gumption and the audacity to reach out for him, and by being desperate for his love, actually find it as the buried treasure.


Life is a Mighty Joke

"Life is a Mighty Joke. He who knows this can hardly be understood by others. He who does not know it finds himself in a state of delusion. He may ponder over this problem day and night, but will find himself incapable of knowing it. Why? People take life seriously, and God lightly; whereas we must take God seriously, and take life lightly. Then, we know that we always were the same and will ever remain the same.......the Originator of this joke. This knowledge is not acheived by reasoning.
But it is the knowledge of experience."

~ Meher Baba


Although the final "answer" of "Who Built the Moon?" i.e.: that it was us, from the future, is a joke probably capable of making God Himself laugh out loud, although if Meher Baba is right, it's not entirely outside the realm of possible at some level thus allowing us to laugh right along with God at the magnitude of it all as a "shared kingdom". Hmph, reminds me of Isaac Asimov's "The Last Question",


the implication of which might be that "we" as conscious beings or as consciousness made by consciousness for consciousness to be consciously aware, are running a "sim" of some kind, from the future/past or what physicist Frank Tipler calls The Omega Point.
"I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end the first and the last." No less important, and vital however, within that context and framework as a corollary, to give things relevancy, is the statement "I am the resurrection and the life!"

Dare we live life to the full, even to overflowing? - that too is the question posed, to us, by the UCA (unknown creative Agency). Dare we have the courage to be happy, is the supreme challenge, as far as I can tell.

Best regards, and God bless,

NAM


edit on 26-6-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
You propose a hypothesis: Similarities in measurements plus the balance of other factors that sustain life on earth indicate Intelligent Design.


you are missing a critical piece of the initial proposal, which is that these "similarities" and "factors" not only promote and sustain life, but simultaneously communicate some type of symbolic meaning.

this might seem like a trivial detail, but we should remember that the plaque designed by carl sagan which was attached to the pioneer probe contained information not unlike the evidences given in this thread by NAM....and that its purpose was to communicate via symbolic gesture the nature and intelligence of our being. what you have suggested (quoted) above is merely mechanics, and you are right to say that mechanics alone are not a good indication of intelligence. however, the ability to communicate symbolically requires a certain grace beyond mechanics.

so far as we can guess, it is intelligence alone which is capable of recognizing another intelligence. mr. sagan was undoubtedly aware and unashamed of this fact. that is why they hired him.






Please explain how one would objectively determine that the moon was created with the future rate of the earth & sun in mind? ...there's no way to objectively determine something like that.


this is the "atheistic desperation" that NAM was referring to: that you would declare such a thing (expecting us to rely on your presumed expertise) without due diligence.

in the excerpted text below, from ((J Theor Biol. 2011 May 21;277(1):41-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2011.02.013 Neural control of heart rate: the role of neuronal networking.)), is shown a stochastic analysis of the human heartbeat. it is determined that a healthy heartbeat is governed by a long range chaotic attractor of fractional dimension between 1 and 2. conversely, a diseased heartbeat is associated with brownian noise.

NAM's hypothesis has many similarities to the heartbeat study. specifically, the detection of a long (long!) range chaotic signal beneath noise of a feedback oscillatory system (finely tuned orbital mechanics). if what NAM says is true, we might expect to find not only signal in the noise, but also possible correlations to punctuated epochs in the evolutionary and/or geological record.

while reading the text below, please also refer to the following quoted material from NAM:


It's very very precise and finely tuned, from initial conditions, which denotes intelligence





Originally posted by newageman the process of creation is the exact opposite of making something out of nothing. It is, on the contrary, a filtering process that makes something out of everything....anticipatory design in favor of life or it would not have had the opportunity to emerge in the first place.


in the above quote is hinted at another possible avenue of objective detection of "signal above noise". it also highlights one of the peculiar and confirmed phenomena of our own human intelligence. there is good evidence to show that our own mechanisms of perception resemble more of a "statue hewn from stone", rather than "statue built up from clay". or, in simpler terms, that human intelligence is teleologic in nature.

in the image below is shown the working of an algorithm modeled after this uniquely "intelligent" characteristic. if the perturbations within the configurations of our local cosmology are imbued with anything other than noise, we should be able to detect it thusly.




disclaimer: this post is intended as reasonable support for the OP's hypothesis. i, myself, am not in favor of any 'personalized' intelligent creator. however, that the conditions necessary for life to emerge are a priori woven into cosmological dynamics is IMHO not out of the question.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 

Or, you could be wrong.

Does it really scare you that much to be a product of chance or some alien kids ant farm?



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey580
I don't see your proof.
Can you sum up?


I can!

The Universe is really neat and some things are beautiful. The human mind doesn't understand it all. Therefore god.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 

No that doesn't scare me, although in case two I'd wonder where the alien kid got his start and in the first instance, how to explain the data as a chance occurrence (you'll have to read the book). In fact, the hypothesis I'm putting forward here for ID by the UCA (unknown creative Agency), given it's potential significance and implications for the human being, is by far scarier, and if I might add, funnier, to be on the one hand sandwiched between two eternities and on the other perched atop a mountain of cosmic evolution, funnier in the sense of the degree and magnitude of our own prior ignorance and absurdity. It's not so easy to be so... uplifted, and it sure makes all our everyday "concerns" seem rather insignificant by comparison.

Also, by virtue of our own inclusion as intrinsic to the whole process, and in closing the circle of observation in subject/object unification, it's difficult if not impossible to proclaim the whole thing to be of no significance at all, and the athropic principal is of no help and doesn't have anything to say.

Therefore it's like a double edged sword of reason tipped with humor, one side bounded by the absurdity of the anthropic principal, and the other by the UCA and ID. That's funny!



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Downward Causation

Another aspect of this (evidence for ID) is that of "Downward Causation" whereby consciousness is not and cannot merely be an emergent, epiphenomenon of matter within the context of a materialist monism (matter alone is primary), because it wouldn't be able to collapse the wave of probability in the form of matter on matter. The problem here, aside from materialist monism (which is a very cold and humorlous POV often cherished by atheists), is the idea that time and thus evolution is a purely linear process from "left to right", when the arrow of time and causation may be pointing down a vertical axis from a first/last cause in a "tangled hierarchy" (from above) and not simply across a horizontal axis from past to future, and it's also not utterly impossible that such a horizontal arrow of time and causation doesn't go in both directions.. Such a framework might even explain the apparent universal violation and reversal of the law of thermodynamics in its apparent tendency towards life and ever-increasing complexity relative to a future state of fully-informed, infinite complexity, as in Tipler's Omega Point.


Originally posted by NewAgeMan

The God Theory

"The God Theory" by Bernard Haisch
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249274834&sr=8-1

Haisch is an astrophysicist whose professional positions include Staff Scientist at the Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory, Deputy Director for the Center for Extreme Ultraviolet Astrophysics at the University of California, Berkeley, and Visiting Fellow at the Max-Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Garching, Germany. His work has led to close involvement with NASA; he is the author of over 130 scientific papers; and was the Scientific Editor of the Astrophysical Journal for nine years, as well as the editor in chief of the Journal of Scientific Exploration.

an excerpt

---------
If you think of white light as a metaphor of infinite, formless potential, the colors on a slide or frame of film become a structured reality grounded in the polarity that comes about through intelligent subtraction from that absolute formless potential. It results from the limitation of the unlimited. I contend that this metaphor provides a comprehensible theory for the creation of a manifest reality (our universe) from the selective limitation of infinite potential (God)...

If there exists an absolute realm that consists of infinite potential out of which a created realm of polarity emerges, is there any sensible reason not to call this "God"? Or to put it frankly, if the absolute is not God, what is it? For our purposes here, I will identify the Absolute with God. More precisely I will call the Absolute the Godhead. Applying this new terminology to the optics analogy, we can conclude that our physical universe comes about when the Godhead selectively limits itself, taking on the role of Creator and manifesting a realm of space and time and, within that realm, filtering out some of its own infinite potential...

Viewed this way, the process of creation is the exact opposite of making something out of nothing. It is, on the contrary, a filtering process that makes something out of everything. Creation is not capricious or random addition; it is intelligent and selective subtraction. The implications of this are profound.

If the Absolute is the Godhead, and if creation is the process by which the Godhead filters out parts of its own infinite potential to manifest a physical reality that supports experience, then the stuff that is left over, the residue of this process, is our physical universe, and ourselves included. We are nothing less than a part of that Godhead - quite literally.

More @ Brilliant Disguise: Light, Matter and the Zero-Point Field.(MUST READ!)
-------

Amit Goswami, Physicist

Originally posted by NewAgeMan




Next, by Ervin Laszlo

Science and the Akashic Field, an Integral Theory of Everything, 2004
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249275852&sr=8-1

And, his other seminal work
Science and the Reenchantment of the Cosmos: The Rise of the Integral Vision of Reality
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1249275852&sr=8-6

Ervin Laszlo is considered one of the foremost thinkers and scientists of our age, perhaps the greatest mind since Einstein. His principal focus of research involves the Zero Point Field. He is the author of around seventy five books (his works having been translated into at least seventeen languages), and he has contributed to over 400 papers. Widely considered the father of systems philosophy and general evolution theory, he has worked as an advisor to the Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. He was also nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in both 2004 and 2005. A multidisciplinarian, Laszlo has straddled numerous fields, having worked at universities as a professor of philosophy, music, futures studies, systems science, peace studies, and evolutionary studies. He was a sucessful concert pianist until he was thirty eight.

In his view, the zero-point field (or the Akashic Field, as he calls it) is quite literally the "mind of God".

Naming Hal Puthoff, Roger Penrose, Fritz-Albert Popp, and a handful of others as "front line investigators", Laszlo quotes Puthoff who says of the new scientific paradigm:

[What] would emerge would be an increased understanding that all of us are immersed, both as living and physical beings, in an overall interpenetrating and interdependant field in ecological balance with the cosmos as a whole, and that even the boundary lines between the physical and "metaphysical" would dissolve into a unitary viewpoint of the universe as a fluid, changing, energetic/informational cosmological unity."

an excert from Science and the Akashic Field, an Integral Theory of Everything

Akasha (a . ka . sha) is a Sanskrit word meaning "ether": all-pervasive space. Originally signifying "radiation" or "brilliance", in Indian philosophy akasha was considered the first and most fundamental of the five elements - the others being vata (air), agni (fire), ap (water), and prithivi (earth). Akasha embraces the properties of all five elements: it is the womb from which everything we percieve with our senses has emerged and into which everything will ultimately re-descend. The Akashic Record (also called The Akashic Chronicle) is the enduring record of all that happens, and has ever happened, in space and time."


edit on 26-6-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 

It was a rhetorical question to stress the point that you dismiss anything that doesn't include god.

You could be wrong. Maybe it isn't just the writing style.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 

and Haisch's musings are not proof of anything, it is also just an opinion.

Actually, Haisch's viewpoint and model seems to be validated and supported by the very latest discovery in regards to the mass of the Higgs Boson showing an unnatural, intelligent subtraction or limitation (cancellation) i.e.: fine-tuning, perfectly configured in favor of life, which would include by extension the earth-moon-sun system under observation as a life-support system.


Originally posted by squiz

Decades of confounding experiments have physicists considering a startling possibility: The universe might not make sense.
...
However, in order for the Higgs boson to make sense with the mass (or equivalent energy) it was determined to have, the LHC needed to find a swarm of other particles, too. None turned up.
...
With the discovery of only one particle, the LHC experiments deepened a profound problem in physics that had been brewing for decades. Modern equations seem to capture reality with breathtaking accuracy, correctly predicting the values of many constants of nature and the existence of particles like the Higgs. Yet a few constants — including the mass of the Higgs boson — are exponentially different from what these trusted laws indicate they should be, in ways that would rule out any chance of life, unless the universe is shaped by inexplicable fine-tunings and cancellations.
...
The LHC will resume smashing protons in 2015 in a last-ditch search for answers. But in papers, talks and interviews, Arkani-Hamed and many other top physicists are already confronting the possibility that the universe might be unnatural.
...
Physicists reason that if the universe is unnatural, with extremely unlikely fundamental constants that make life possible, then an enormous number of universes must exist for our improbable case to have been realized. Otherwise, why should we be so lucky? Unnaturalness would give a huge lift to the multiverse hypothesis, which holds that our universe is one bubble in an infinite and inaccessible foam.
...
The energy built into the vacuum of space (known as vacuum energy, dark energy or the cosmological constant) is a baffling trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times smaller than what is calculated to be its natural, albeit self-destructive, value. No theory exists about what could naturally fix this gargantuan disparity. But it’s clear that the cosmological constant has to be enormously fine-tuned to prevent the universe from rapidly exploding or collapsing to a point. It has to be fine-tuned in order for life to have a chance.
...
Now, physicists say, the unnaturalness of the Higgs makes the unnaturalness of the cosmological constant more significant.


www.simonsfoundation.org...

Notice the escape clause to extend the probabilty argument?

"then an enormous number of universes must exist for our improbable case to have been realized. Otherwise, why should we be so lucky?"

Why else indeed, never mind that big fat elephant in the room.

More evidence from the micro, to the macro.

Hey, instead of of just saying the hypothesis is no good and offering little if nothing else to refute it, were you to offer anything of substance and value to the thread other than atheist boos and catcalls from the stands? It would be nice to see something in refutation or rebuttal other than "you're wrong" or "you're just biased because you're a God-lover." It's getting tiring, and boring. Also, it's not about "me" at all, it's important to keep that in mind. The data and evidence speaks for itself.

Regards,

NAM



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Hey, instead of of just saying the hypothesis is no good and offering little if nothing else to refute it, were you to offer anything of substance and value to the thread other than atheist boos and catcalls from the stands? It would be nice to see something in refutation or rebuttal other than "you're wrong" or "you're just biased because you're a God-lover." It's getting tiring, and boring. Also, it's not about "me" at all, it's important to keep that in mind. The data and evidence speaks for itself.

I have offered that we don't have enough information. That is a fact that you just seem unable to accept.

The data only speaks to you because you are reading into it and coming up with assumptions. It is very much about you for this reason.
edit on 26-6-2013 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 

It's very much about me AND you for reasons that you have not or are unwilling to even begin to seriously consider, seemingly for no other reason than because of a no-God bias.

At least I'm offering up data and making an appeal to reason and a potential increase in knowledge, awareness and understanding.

As it continues to accumulate for the reader's enjoyment and consumption, you're looking more and more like a rather mean-spirited, sycophantic, atheist flag-waving naysayer, and little more.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by daskakik
 

It's very much about me AND you for reasons that you have not or are unwilling to even begin to seriously consider, seemingly for no other reason than because of a no-God bias.

At least I'm offering up data and making an appeal to reason and a potential increase in knowledge, awareness and understanding.

I've considered all of it and came to a conlusion: There isn't enough information. It isn't because god can't exist in some way but because an honest look at the info just doesn't lead there. A biased look seems to, though.


As it continues to accumulate for the reader's enjoyment and consumption, you're looking more and more like a rather mean-spirited, sycophantic, atheist flag-waving naysayer, and little more.

I'm cool with that.

Accumulate? Anyone with CT 101 under their belt has seen much, if not all, the information you have provided.

You know you started the thread saying that it wasn't about god but it really was, wasn't it?


edit on 26-6-2013 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Recap (in preparation for sharing, and comprehension of, additional data to follow soon).

from Was our solar system designed to produce humans?


The Origin of the Megalithic Yard

The starting point of our joint research was simply to consider whether Alexander Thom had been right or wrong in his identification of a prehistoric unit he called the Megalithic Yard (MY). He was a professor of engineering at Oxford University who surveyed British and French Megalithic sites over the course of half a century until he died in 1985. Thom's approach was entirely different to that adopted by any archaeologist. Looking at the scale and obvious planning involved in megalithic sites Thom had been forced to conclude that the planners and builders must have been highly skilled engineers - just like himself. He therefore carefully analysed what remained of each Megalithic site and then tried to imagine what it was the builders had set out to achieve. Once he had a picture in his mind of what he thought their plan had been, he went away to create his own solution to the assumed problem. Having drawn up his own design he then returned to compare the site layout to his own blueprint. He deduced that the builders had all been working to a common set of units based his Megalithic Yard that was 2.722 +/- 0.002 feet (829.7 +/- 0.5 mm).

Thom was viewed as an unwelcome outsider by nearly all archaeologists and even today most believe, quite erroneously, that he has been proved largely wrong.

Our starting hypothesis was that, if the Megalithic Yard were real, then it is highly probable that its apparent accuracy can best be explained by it being derived from nature rather than an invented unit. If we could identify a natural origin, then Thom was probably right - if we couldn't, the debate will continue because it is impossible to prove a negative.

It did not take to long for us to realize that there is only one aspect of nature that delivers up an near perfect means of creating measures. And that is the revolving of the Earth on its axis - something it does every 86,164 seconds. This provides the potential for creating a unit of time, which can then be used to make units of length, weight and capacity - and potentially everything else from frequency to temperature.

The most obvious way to observe the turning of the Earth is to watch the stars, which appear to pass overhead once for each rotation. They also move across the sky in an annual rotation due to the Earth's orbit of the Sun. Megalithic astronomers could not help but notice that there where 366 of the daily star movements to one annual one.

To create a repeatable linear unit from the turning of the Earth the only tools one needs is a length of rope, a few poles, a ball of clay and a piece of string.

We knew that ancient peoples from all across time have liked to create patterns where the same values work at upwards and downwards. And we had good reason to believe that early had used a 366 day calendar and a 366 degree circle. These astronomers knew that there are 366 star rises (any star such as Sirius) over one circle of the Sun, so it was logical to divide horizon into 366 parts to measure the time in 1/366th part of a day.

They measured time in the same way that all clocks did until recent times - with a pendulum. A hand-held ball of clay on a string is a perfect instrument. When stationary it is a plumb line to gauge verticals and when swinging its beats measure time with great accuracy. The only factors that have any significant effect on the beat are the length of the pendulum from fulcrum to the centreline of the weight and the mass of the Earth (gravity). The energy put into the swing by the user has no effect - if the swing is made more vigorous it just swings faster in a wider arc but the rate of beat remains exactly the same.


www.grahamhancock.com...

A frame 1/366th of the horizon angled to time a star.



This proved to be spot on. A pendulum that beat 366 times during one 366th of the Earth's turn was, much to our joy and amazement, half a Megalithic Yard in length! A circle scribed by such a pendulum would have a diameter of one Megalithic Yard. Archie Roy, emeritus professor of astronomy at Glasgow University (and a friend of the late Alexander Thom) joined us to give a public demonstration of how the Megalithic Yard is a product of measured observational astronomy.

We later refined the timing method, having realised that the Megalithic astronomers had improved their own accuracy by using the movement of the planet Venus at certain times rather than a star. Gordon Freeman, a distinguished professor of chemical physics and a much-published amateur archaeologist specialising in the Megalithic structures, was impressed with this saying; "Tying the MY to Venus path arcsecond is a major discovery. I'm an admirer of Thom, but was neutral about the MY. Now I'm a convert".

Alexander Thom had been right all along because the chances of this technique producing a perfect fit for his unit could not be a coincidence. But there was more - much more to this system. Given that the builders of these Megalithic sites some 5,000 years ago used a 366-degree circle caused us to look at the Earth itself. Taking the polar circumference as the text book 40,000,000 metres we turned it into Megalithic units and found was this:

- Earth's polar circumference = 40,000,000 metres

- 1 Megalithic degree (1/366th) = 109290 metres

- 1 Megalithic minute of arc (1/60th) = 1822 metres

- 1 Megalithic second of arc (1/6th) = 303.6 metres

Now, 303.6 metres for a second of arc may look a little boring but it is 366 Megalithic Yards. The actual figure is 829.5 mm, which is nicely with Alexander Thom's definition of 829.7 +/- 0.5 mm.

We now call this beautifully geodetic unit from the 366 system a 'Thom' (Th) to differentiate it from the arguably very slightly less accurate Megalithic Yard.

The Megalithic second of arc appears to have been adopted by the Minoan culture of Create some 4,000 years ago. The palaces of Crete were carefully surveyed by Canadian archaeologist, J. W. Graham who identified a standard unit he called 'the Minoan foot', which was 30.36cm. It follows that 1,000 of these feet make precisely one Megalithic second of arc. A decimalised version of what was already an ancient measure.

Even earlier the Egyptian culture had adopted units driven by the same thinking. They took the Megalithic Yard and made it the circumference of a circle. The diameter of that circle was called a royal cubit and the hypotenuse of a square from that diameter was called a remen.

www.grahamhancock.com...


edit on 26-6-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-6-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
Until you can prove that no other planet in our milky way does not have a similar moon,planet,sun eclipse going on I think you can say it is a coincidence.
Yes it is a wonderful thing and maybe we are really lucky to have it but to prove intelligent design it does not.


www.foxnews.com...



Astronomers discover new planets, 3 are habitable





Megalithic Yard is a fundamental number for the Sun, the Moon and the Earth. The Megalithic arc second as measured on the Earth equator is very close to 366 Megalithic Yards, while the lunar Megalithic arc second as measured on the Moon equator is very close to 100 Megalithic yards, and the solar Megalithic arc second as measured on the Sun equator is very close to 40,000 Megalithic Yards. In a book published in France and Canada in 2007 French author Sylvain Tristan[15] suggests that the numbers 366, 40 and 10 are not only fundamental to the Earth, the Moon and the Sun, but also to the human body and water. In the water-based Celsius temperature measurement system, which is directly linked to base-10 numeration, the average human body temperature is 36.6 degrees (according to Russian medicine), whereas the maximal density of water, Tristan says, is 4.0 degrees (whereas it is in fact 3.98 degrees [16]).[17] More recently Butler and Knight claimed that, on a scale where the absolute zero is defined as being minus 1,000 degrees, water boils at the temperature of 366 degrees, an "utterly remarkable" result according to the authors, which they believe points at something intrinsically fundamental in these numbers.[18]

edit on 26-6-2013 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Aside: Re: Humor of re-cognition and understanding and comprehension.


Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Therefore it's like a double edged sword of reason tipped with humor, one side bounded by the absurdity of the anthropic principal, and the other by the UCA and ID. That's funny!


Originally posted by NewAgeMan

And don't worry if you (the reader) become a little discombobulated at the implications of this hypothesis, which in the final analysis, appears to be not just a message in a cosmic bottle intended for our own recognition, but some sort of playful joke begging an answer to the question of "how did He (the UCA) know?"


How DID he know?

Which, in turn, begs the question - how did He know that we would come to know that He knew we would know that He knew that we would know..? I guess by communicating a message, like a marker, as a wink and a nod between family.

So in joining the circle (and completing Christ's joy or passion) in observation and throug the very experience of being alive, which is a very personal thing when you really think about it, and unique to each person's own spiritual (psychological) experience - we suddenly come into "an inheritance", even of eternal life that we did not work for and neither have done the first thing to ever "earn" or "deserve" (given it's breaktaking magnitude) - and if that's not funny, where the joke to be had is at the expense of all our prior ignorance and absurdity - then I don't know what is.

It's capable of breaking us up and breaking us down, to even begin to grasp the farthest reaching implications and significance of our true "predicament", but also, lo and behold, of reintegrating us (hug?), picking us up, wiping away the tears from our eyes and putting that child-like smile back upon our faces, as we at last "look up" in dismay and go, without anything else left to say - "Abba?" (the intimate and familiar "Papa" instead of the more formal, set apart).

It's hilarious, absurd, ridiculous, wonderful, but never unreasonable no matter how seemingly unreasonably reasonable the all-or-nothing proposition is to begin with.

It's all about "us" about "we". It always was and will forever be that way.

"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." "I am the resurrection and the life!"

What a joyful marvelous and triumphant evolutionary process we have been invited into and find ourselves emmersed within, already realized.

So in the final analysis all we need do or be is to be and become our truest and most authentic self as we are, because our "already always" state, is one of continual reintegration and evolutionary progress, at all levels, with complete acceptance in the joy and happiness of the Love of God that we truly are in the deepest depth of our own being where God lives in spirit and in truth, because what is "truth" but the truth of the knowledge of experience (sorrow and joy), and hey once you've "got" the joke and in epiphany once the mind and heart changes it can never go back to its original configuration, and so there's peace in gnosis, and knowledge in the knowledge of peace, and I would add, in the hilarity of epiphany as the humor of understanding and self knowledge by which we can no longer take ourselves seriously, but only God, as the infinitely intelligent all-in-all living spirit of truth and life, seriously. In humility and good-willed, good-natured humor, we then enter in, like children onto a new playgournd, or like sheep into new pasture from which we are free to freely come and go.



NAM


edit on 27-6-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


You do realize that the Moon was far closer to the Earth in the distant past and currently is receding farther from the Earth even now. Why would an Intelligent Design do something like that??????


I'm sure someone else has brought this up.....didn't realize thread was this long.


edit on 27-6-2013 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan


So in the final analysis all we need do or be is to be and become our truest and most authentic self as we are, because our "already always" state, is one of continual reintegration and evolutionary progress, at all levels, with complete acceptance in the joy and happiness of the Love of God that we truly are in the deepest depth of our own being where God lives in spirit and in truth, because what is "truth" but the truth of the knowledge of experience (sorrow and joy), and hey once you've "got" the joke and in epiphany once the mind and heart changes it can never go back to its original configuration, and so there's peace in gnosis, and knowledge in the knowledge of peace, and I would add, in the hilarity of epiphany as the humor of understanding and self knowledge by which we can no longer take ourselves seriously, but only God, as the infinitely intelligent all-in-all living spirit of truth and life, seriously. In humility and good-willed, good-natured humor, we then enter in, like children onto a new playgournd, or like sheep into new pasture from which we are free to freely come and go.


I'm not sure what this has to do with 'undeniable proof'.

It certainly seems to be more about opinion than any sort of proof.

Also, the 'megalithic yard' does not, at all, imply intelligent design other than intelligent design by humans.

I admire your tenacity, but for me I have yet to see 'undeniable proof'.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by aorAki
 

That was a "musing" on my part from what I've evaluated are some of the implications. As to the megalithic yard, stay tuned..



Originally posted by pavil
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 

You do realize that the Moon was far closer to the Earth in the distant past and currently is receding farther from the Earth even now. Why would an Intelligent Design do something like that??????

I'm sure someone else has brought this up.....didn't realize thread was this long.

Yes, I myself pointed that out on page one. What is interesting is the "signal" embedded in these relationships, which only apply, for the most part, during the epoch of earth's evolution when there are people around to notice them, which is what make them even more interesting and indicative of a type of message. More on this to follow.

Regards,

NAM


edit on 27-6-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 

Actually the distance that the moon moves away from the earth is insignificant when you take into account that the moon's orbit varies by 42,592 km every month.

I see that NAM is trying to make it into something that it is not. The distance is 38 mm per year. If we do the math:

42,592 km = 42,592,000,000 mm
42,592,000,000 mm / 38 mm = 1,120,842,105 years

If we look at the evolution timeline then the moon has been transmitting "the signal" (something on the face of the planet could have come up with the Megalithic Yard, depending on location and time of year) from the time in which multicellular life appeared on the planet and it will do so for the next 1.12 billion years.

If that is precision then I must have looked up the word in the wrong dictionary.


edit on 28-6-2013 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
23
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join