Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Isaac Newton predicted that the world would end around 2060

page: 2
23
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 08:42 AM
link   
I heard of this in 2009 and it seemed WAY more plausible than the 2012 end of the world theories. Isaac Newton was a smart, smart man. We should take what he says very seriously, as without the work he's done in the past many of the things we enjoy today would simply not be possible...2060 he said, no sooner, no later. There was a great TV documentary about it on the History channel years ago, I suggest someone tries finding it. It was filled with great detail.




posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 08:48 AM
link   

sirhumperdink

Korg Trinity

mekhanics
Great article I came across and I'm here to share the information. Well worth the read.


O.k. let's put this into perspective.

Sir Issac Newton is best known to people for his work and discoveries in Math / Optics / Gravitation / Politics... What many people don't know or is generally overlooked, he was also a person whom was deeply religious and a boarder line oculist.

He was an obsessive alchemist and deep believer in a bible code.....

I'm not taking anything away from his clearly free thinking brilliant mind... Luckily for Sir Issac Newton, History has favored him and his incredible scientific discoveries were not overshadowed by these rather surprising pursuits.

Peace,

Korg.

edit on 12-12-2013 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)


but only because the procession of time allowed the wheat to be separated from the chaff or we would be holding his blunders in as high regard as his successes
look how many brilliant minds before newton espoused the theory of aether
edit on 12-12-2013 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)


The irony in that is the Aether may actually exist as in Quantum foam or if you like a spin foam network.

But I hear what you are saying and you are right!

Peace,

Korg.



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Korg Trinity

sirhumperdink

Korg Trinity

mekhanics
Great article I came across and I'm here to share the information. Well worth the read.


O.k. let's put this into perspective.

Sir Issac Newton is best known to people for his work and discoveries in Math / Optics / Gravitation / Politics... What many people don't know or is generally overlooked, he was also a person whom was deeply religious and a boarder line oculist.

He was an obsessive alchemist and deep believer in a bible code.....

I'm not taking anything away from his clearly free thinking brilliant mind... Luckily for Sir Issac Newton, History has favored him and his incredible scientific discoveries were not overshadowed by these rather surprising pursuits.

Peace,

Korg.

edit on 12-12-2013 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)


but only because the procession of time allowed the wheat to be separated from the chaff or we would be holding his blunders in as high regard as his successes
look how many brilliant minds before newton espoused the theory of aether
edit on 12-12-2013 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)


The irony in that is the Aether may actually exist as in Quantum foam or if you like a spin foam network.

But I hear what you are saying and you are right!

Peace,

Korg.


yes and no but mostly no as aether was considered to have different properties than theoretical quantum foam (i have my own theories on the matter but i dont know $h*# yet so im just going to shut up about that)



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 12:44 PM
link   

winofiend
reply to post by CosmicDude
 


Pretty sure he's wrong.

This ol' thing will keep on spinning.. with or without hairless apes making noise.


Yep. Three billion years from now people (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) will still be predicting the end of the world.



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 06:18 PM
link   

CJCrawley
He may well have made this prediction, but it was based on the delusional belief that the Bible is God's instruction manual for mankind...and that his particular interpretation of it was the correct one.

Certainly not from his work as a scientist.


Concerning the Bible whom should I trust, a Godless atheist with no accomplishments or the founder of calculus and physics?

I'll go with the founder. The Bible has stood the test of time. In particular the fulfillment of the prophecy of the rebirth of Israel is amazing enough for me to take it seriously.



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by SevenThunders
 


That's not a very good basis; I'm sure some of the people involved with the British Mandate had an interest in seeing biblical prophecies manifest. It would be really impressive if none of them had head of the Bible, and it happened anyway.



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Samtzurr
reply to post by SevenThunders
 


That's not a very good basis; I'm sure some of the people involved with the British Mandate had an interest in seeing biblical prophecies manifest. It would be really impressive if none of them had head of the Bible, and it happened anyway.


It's pretty convincing to me since no other culture destroyed in the way Israel was, has ever been restored to their homeland. Also if you look at the wars they fought to survive, there were some Old Testament style miracles going on in several of the battles.

Moreover recall that the UK was essentially at war with the founders of Israel. They really didn't want it to happen, though Harry Truman did. I would rather think that God arranged for people favorable to the Jews for one brief period in their history, after the holocaust, and thereby fulfilled his plan for this nation.



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 10:15 PM
link   

SevenThunders

Samtzurr
reply to post by SevenThunders
 


That's not a very good basis; I'm sure some of the people involved with the British Mandate had an interest in seeing biblical prophecies manifest. It would be really impressive if none of them had head of the Bible, and it happened anyway.


Moreover recall that the UK was essentially at war with the founders of Israel. They really didn't want it to happen, though Harry Truman did. I would rather think that God arranged for people favorable to the Jews for one brief period in their history, after the holocaust, and thereby fulfilled his plan for this nation.



you clearly have no idea what you are talking about
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by mekhanics
 


The world wont end in 2060, or anytime soon.

You need to wait another two billion years.

A lot of humans may get killed in wars and natural events, but that keeps happening on earth from time to time.

The "end times" stories are delusional, and are not from Jesus Christ.
edit on 13-12-2013 by GargIndia because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by GargIndia
 


Did you read the article?




2060 A.D. would be more like a new beginning. It would be the end of an old age, and the beginning of a new era



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by mekhanics
 


It would be neither.

Any day can be a new beginning for ignorant people.



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 06:41 AM
link   
i'll be gone by 2060,
someone tweet me what happened?



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by GargIndia
 


Indians believe there is a circle in every millennium. Did you know that?



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 09:36 AM
link   

sirhumperdink

NowanKenubi
reply to post by sirhumperdink
 


(we still have flat earthers)
edit on 12-12-2013 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)


Really? Proof? I'm not usually one to call out on things, more of a overall discussion type; but quite an extraordinary claim today to say we -still- have flat earthers when we have satellite images, sail and fly across the globe non-stop.

Now that that is out of the way ...

What is saddeningly true these days is what you see in some of these responses, and shows you in all threads to take people with a grain of salt. People jumping to the conclusion without reading the thread or article and saying basically 'world is not ending, nothing to see here folks, move on' shows how little respect people have for discussion, each other, and themselves. They aren't concerned with the meat of the discussion, just a title, assumption, and to feel 'cool' by putting out a quick canned response of believed superiority.


One poster is right, any day can be a new beginning. Every day is good enough for people to change how they treat each other. Every moment you make the decision to be respectful or crass. Though; one must respect the paradigm of the herd mentality; or those fearful of solitary change ... that a mass change gives them the courage and strength to do so, and it snowballs into a worldwide shift. This is how I see a mass change much more plausible than a slower one. It fits current proven human nature. It starts with the (hu)man in the mirror, to change the world and make it a better place ... but people are so accustomed to being bad, they need to be led and see others following before they alter their disposition and actions.

These predicitions for me are fun thought experiments, nothing more; but being extremely negative or dismissive I feel does no good without meat to your side of the debate. Bring more to it please
Good discussions are healthful to the mind.



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   
He actually predicted it would be 49 years (one "jubilee") after the Jews regained control of Jerusalem...aka 2016.



posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 08:18 AM
link   

sirhumperdink
well sensed is certainly a good term to use since it requires external input and pretty much all external input received would have been faith based


There is the idea that if something is not physically and objectively measurable + repeatable + predictably -- all three of those things -- that there is no validity to it. But plenty of people have experiences and observations which are as real and valid to them as anything is to anybody, regardless of the lack of predictable or repeatable nature of it. Some of those people are scientists. Assuming that someone is brilliant in a whole list of ways but then a complete and utter moron in some other way is ridiculous, but that's what the current 'culture of scientism' appears to do about nearly every most brilliant founding scientist of the past, who wasn't part of the modern nothingness-cult.

There is also the idea that if someone believes something that clueless onlookers don't have the capacity to perceive and/or understand, that they must believe this based on "faith." And our modern culture teaches faith as an irrational emotional stubbornness based on an intellectual exposure to some idea for which the believer has absolutely no experiential evidence whatsoever. This is another completely misguided, modern cult-of-nothingness notion which in fact has as much 'faith required evidence-less assumption' involved than the one they're assuming about.

Plenty of things people believe are based on personal experience. Often a lifetime of a variety of personal experience. The experience may not be of that-specific-thing or it might not be objectively measurable, but it may still be a belief system borne of experience, not assumption. And by the way their assumption may be completely wrong, but that doesn't mean that it is without 'indicative' experiential-evidence for someone as its source.

Yes, there are people who are genuinely stupid. And there are people who make intellectual-emotional assumptions without any intelligent discretion or "personal experience" as their evidence source, but usually those are the ones trying to stuff something down your throat at high volume so they are recognizable. People who quietly go about their own way in something, often in a lifetime of something, are usually not virulent-idiots, they are just people who have some kind of ongoing experiential reasons to have developed whatever belief system they have.

By assuming that people believe things "solely based on faith," one is basically invalidating even the possibility that they might have had any personal experiential reasons to come to such ideas or conclusions.

It's a shame, as it requires history's cult-of-nothingness victors currently rewriting nearly all past -- as well as many modern -- scientists into people who mysteriously are reasonable and evidence-based in every way except the-thing-our-current-cult-doesn't-believe-in.

Now to apply this to the specific topic,

1 - he may have had experience with the synchronicity elements of certain elements of geometry/math to give some credence to other things using the same sorts of logic. In other words there may have been to him observable evidence for these elements functioning in past situations, indicating there might be something to their predictions of future.

2 - there are many pieces of sacred-geometry type info that happens to be in "the bible" as well as in many other places. To believe something about a certain element which happens to be reflected there does not necessarily indicate a belief in that religious doctrine. Your average jewish qabalist might tell you there is something special to the number 666, but its presence in the bible doesn't make him a christian.

Ironically, the above is actually the same mistake religion itself makes: assuming that the conglomerate (and political) collection of ideas in one book somehow makes the religions promoting doctrines based on parts of it to "own" it all. Like how christ is appended to the name jesus like it's his surname. As if "christ" does not reflect nearly every major religion that ever was. Mithra was a christ, Buddha was a christ, Krishna was a christ. Because the word isn't someone's name, it is the word-name for "the sun, the son, the christ" and represents a divine energy which humans can carry in varying doses and degrees. The primary religion stemming from the Council of Nicea was busy making Jesus into a patentable commodity available only through their quasicorporation, so it was marketed differently. Concepts like reincarnation and the understanding of "the christ energy" which various tiny groups (they were all tiny groups originally) had even when they were jesus fans, those ideas or interpretations were excluded as part of the doctrine. But anything which it includes -- e.g., some ref to numbers (which are fascinating) -- which has some underlying validity, is taken to support the edifice of a doctrine that has nothing whatsoever to do with them. It is understandable that religion would attempt to do this but why non-religious people insist on using the same silly paradigm, essentially, is a mystery. A person could be interested in and believe in a ton of things that are technically in the bible, without necessarily buying the official or modern version of that larger doctrine at all.

In other words, you could believe in sacred geometry, or numerology, or prophecy, all of which are in the bible (in positive ways I might add), without necessarily believing that a) Jesus was 'a christ' or, even if you did, believing that b) Jesus was the only human allowed to be christ for all time {meaning we change the christ concept from one innate to earth-sun-spirit and instead make it the trademark commodity of The Church, and hence we also dismiss every other christ our species ever had or will have}. A person could believe jesus was A christ, and believe in reincarnation, and still have great adoration and respect for that figure and history, without necessarily believing the official doctrine.

The point I am making is that theological beliefs are not like being pregnant or dead where it's either/or. Any person including our most brilliant scientists may have exposure to, and experience with, any number of things and may have decent experiential evidence for coming to the theories they have. This may include elements that are found in one or more religious books. That does not make them "exactly like that bozo on another thread ranting about how you'll burn in hell if you're gay" or whatever.

It seems to me that we ought to do our most brilliant founding scientists at least the respect of granting them "the benefit of the doubt" here -- that even if their theories are wrong, that they probably had SOME kind of personal, experiential evidence or study to make their belief systems more than just irrational idiocy they believed for no good reason whatever.



posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by RedCairo
 


Newton may be a great person and a great scientist, but predicting "end of world" is entirely different matter.

God has endowed humans with intuition and discretion, the faculties that give the human ability to understand natural laws, and the natural world.

Some humans have these faculties better developed than others.

"Science" is nothing but knowledge of the natural world. The Universe has a structure, and that structure can be expressed mathematically. This is by design.

However the predictions can be made when the soul reaches beyond metal faculties - beyond the realm of mind. This is not an area of scientists.

Newton may have been influenced by Christian beliefs as any other person of that time. The date of 2060 is completely arbitrary and without merit. Nothing significant will happen in that year or around it.





new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1   >>

log in

join