Love me a bit of the platonic solids Fascinating forms. My feeling is that if there were to be a single primordial substance out of which all gross matter arises, known as the aether, then for it to give rise to forms it would have to differentiate itself from itself and sacred/balanced geometry would surely be part of that evolutionary process.

The fact that these forms seem to be found at every scale suggests to me that it is more likely to be part a potential unified theory than either relativity or quantum physics. The other thing that can be found to be at work at all scales is electromagnetism - I believe gravity and the other fundamental forces will one day be united under a single framework (though I suspect N.Tesla actually discovered this during his career), which may for simplicity come under the banner of 'electricity'.

Sacred geometry is the fingerprint of god, electricity is the breath of god.

Here’s a little something I wrote in my spare time. Also interesting what you say about sacred geometry possibly underlying a potential unifying theory, I really resonate with this idea, gonna meditate on it later on today while tripping.

In depictions of Rosicrucian initiation you will often see sacred geometric figures inside of other sacred geometric figures (similar to fractals), and in Europe these sacred geometric forms usually hold within them Hebrew letters representing different spiritual planes, levels of consciousnesses, or spiritual beings. This is because in this illumination we find everything is a thought form from the mind of God, and we find that these thought forms have a pattern behind them. I do not use the term God to define an all-mighty divine spirit, but rather as an archetype for the reality creating collective consciousness within us (if you do not understand this concept familiarise yourself with Plato’s Theory of Idealism, the works of theoretical physicist David Bohm and physicist Philipp Lenard, and the unexplainable phenomena of quantum observation aka quantum intelligence). The current term we use for these thought patterns is coined as sacred geometry. Scared geometry is a universal science (language) behind the patterns of creation at every level. Whether it is how different spiritual planes are created, the consciousness level of spiritual beings, or the subtlety of our bodily forms and physical reality, everything has a pattern to it. So no matter what belief system you work with, they will all use sacred geometry, because at essence, sacred geometry is a representation of the patterns that manifest reality, formed from the thoughts of God. God being the timeless collective consciousness of all, the thoughts being energetic signals and frequencies, namely collectively everything. This forms the blueprint of what manifests as reality, and this blueprint, these patterns, are geometrical in form. And sacred geometry are those specific blueprints of great mathematical and symmetrical beauty as the harmony of life and creation.

Understanding Platonic (and Archimedian) solids is fundamental to getting anywhere with just about anything [worthwhile], IME. Sacred geometry has been incredibly helpful to my personal development and I'd heartily recommend to anyone who hasn't looked into it to proceed with its study forthwith.

Bon voyage! This discussion just made me remember a memory I had, my first proper closed eye vision, during a prayer in primary school assembly haha. Saw the vesica pices and two spirals unwinding from the central point. Come to think of it, I'm sure I saw something similar when I took my first three inhalations.. the glass pipe unwinding in two spirals before my eyes.



The only bit of your writing I 'disagree' with is the use of the word 'pattern' and 'blueprint', and would substitute in 'framework' and another word perhaps which I can't quite think of. Pattern and blueprint feel too precise, pre-determined, static.. something more dynamic and associated with spontaneity would be more appropriate maybe? I don know. Sacred geometry feels like its an outcome of a dynamic process rather than a starting point? Like a power or force is applied to a substance and the resulting form is the sacred geometry; like raw heat and pressure to carbon forming diamond.

or use an electrical arc and get buckyballs - an Archimedean solid in miniature!

Yes I do like ‘framework’ or possibly ‘pillars’ over blueprint, possibly ‘fractal’ or ‘fractal nature’ or something along those lines instead of patterns?

All you've done so far in your 'doubting' has been stating the obvious.
No physicist, or scientist, with any basic understanding of reality thinks that any theory is a complete model for reality. Science never has and never will offer a complete model for reality, that's not what it is how it works. All science does is offer what works.

Everyone agrees that quantum mechanics and relativity are incompatible. As well, no one doubts there is much more to the fundamental forces, such as electromagnetism, that we currently understand. What's your point? You still haven't offered anything beyond the obvious.
Every model ever invented in every discipline by DEFINITION is incompatible with another, they are MODELS. You choose one model over another on what is more useful than the other to describe a particular phenomenon and provide or predict given information.
Partly this is fundamentally due to the very mechanism of human perception. We see reality in terms of function over what it actually IS. There are practically an infinite number of ways to perceive any source of information, there is only a finite number of USEFUL ways to perceive that information. Science is useful because its pragmatic. Science offers what WORKS. With an infinite amount of information, and an infinite number of ways to perceive that information, what is useful is to perceive it in the simplest way to provide what works. That is what a model is. This is something fundamentally we cannot separate from, and must be accepted, to be ignorant of this is only to be deluded.



Neither is it established in ones mind by your own irrational assumptions, a bit ironic don't you think? Actively participating in what you accuse everyone else of doing. You can't offer any validity or useful criticism for what you think is true, at the same demonstrating you don't even understand what you claim to be against? And you expect people to take you seriously?
You might convince those eager to believe in ideologies, manipulating them with profound sounding speech, but you won't convince anyone capable of independent thought.



Entitled, arrogant, and defensive of your own blissful ignorance. It's appalling really. You resist learning about the very nature of reality because it challenges your preconceived ideas and beliefs. You resist the very mechanism necessary for uncovering the truth.

The proof is in the pudding, no one with your kind of attitude has ever produced anything worth of value, people with your attitude produce only cults and ideologies. Science works because it produces results. It doesn't claim to explain everything and neither is it required to.

A talented scientist can back up his intuitions through experiment and rigorous dissection. He is able to vet his intuitions and his ideas by challenging it from every possible opposing view and every other possible explanation. If the intuitions are true, they will stand up to all of this. As a result, of this novelty is born. This is how it works. Anyone who has ever accomplished anything has done it this way. Whether it be art, or science. This kind of attitude requires constant effort self-criticism and constant challenging to one's basic assumptions. Clearly, you lack this entirely. Blaming the the whole world and the imaginary oppressive 'priesthood of science' for not recognizing your ideas is not an equivalent of this.

Further, towards your 'intuitions' you haven't offered anything resembling an original thought. Only what appears to be the regurgitated nonsense that comes out of 'electric universe' or 'Tesla conspiracy' internet forums and youtube videos. It's no different to flat-earthers. It's not the equivalent of learning physics. All you will ever be is a mouthpiece of other peoples ideologies unless you actually take the time to learn from the basic fundamentals, build a strong foundation so you are able to think critically.

It's not the oppressive dogmatic 'priesthood of science' that is unable to recognize your true genius, brilliant intuition and and impressive scientific insights. Spare me, disgraceful to anyone who's actually walked the walk. Look to yourself before you point the finger at the entire world.

This is escalating a bit.

The amount of knowledge generated by modern science is so vast, that it is practically impossible for a normal human being to know about everything.

Most scientists find an X-amount of publications on their own field in their inbox each day and have to struggle to filter out the relevant ones.

There are so many very smart people around the globe, doing research everyday in the same fields and working on the same theories, that the romantic idea that someone alone in an attic can formulate some revolutionary new idea, like a century ago, is not very realistic at all.

And even a century ago, that is not realy how it actually went.

But the problem with this is ofcourse that it all seems to lead up to the "appeal to authority fallacy".
Something that also goes very much against the "spirit" of science.

I don't see any other solution to this problem than simply to pick your battles.
A man alone against the whole scientific community is a bit like that weird old spanish dude on his donkey, pretending to be a knight.

My advice would be to pick one particular claim that puzzles you and follow a course on the basics first, and then the next level and so on, until you know everything about it.

Because basically all the knowledge is available. And that is why putting faith in science in the end is different than the appeal to authority fallacy.

I agree.

Mindilusion you have a pragmatic approach and xxs has a dogmatic approach. I don’t think either view is ignorant, they are just as very different as can be. From what I gather xxs is saying in a nutshell, that because we change models completely every few centuries there’s a pattern of forming theories based on limited knowledge and understanding, so ultimately, they cannot be correct. Which is fundamentally true. However, where I believe xxs is wrong is calling science a Priesthood. It is not based on faith but rather peer reviewed work and replicatable experiments.

What I believe you are saying Mindilusion, is that you agree current models are not perfect, but they fit practical use just fine for now, and the models will evolve in time. But where I believe you’re incorrect is saying you need thorough education on a subject to have an opinion. This might be true to delve into the analysis of details, but sometimes not being very educated on a subject and bringing in a third perspective viewpoint is exactly what a theory needs to progress. As an avid chess player I very much resonate with this ideologue.

I’m not saying xxs is correct, and on some of his ideas I disagree but other ideas he has brought I think have some intrinsic value. Personally I try to walk the middle-path between pragmatic and dogmatic to keep my mind as open as possible whilst adhering to current models. But Mindilusion to try and convince someone else of a way of thinking (which you’re clearly taking the effort to do) attacking their way of thinking is not how to go about it (no matter how frustrating it is for you), you have to make the other person come to their own conclusions, not tell them how it is. This will be only met with resistance most of the time.

I'm more of a 24-cell man, myself.

If you re-read my polite response to you, you will see the first thing I wrote was "I know, no one claimed they were an absolute truth" - not myself nor anyone else in the thread claimed they were absolute truths.



So what is the Big Bang theory then? Space-time, blackholes, dark matter, and a whole plethora of metaphysical abstractions that have zero connection to reality except in the minds of academics and mathematicians. They are clearly attempts by man to try and grasp at some ultimate mystery, a mystery as they have imagined it and defined it to be, in advance, inside their imaginations.

Those theories are hardly the definition of 'pragmatic'. They are fantasies. Only relativity theory has the slightest connection to reality with mathematics that appears on paper at least to correlate to reality somewhat.



If you're going to attack me personally then I'd recommend reading your own post before you submit it. You contradicted yourself. Preconceived ideas and beliefs.. yet you just presumed to know that one can learn about the very nature of reality [through science]. What you said is also polar opposite to what you quoted of Planck.



Now who has preconceived ideas and beliefs? You only see what you expect to see according the standards you have identified with in advance. Like most scientific intellectuals you demand proof according to your own system of belief/examination whilst simultaneously excluding other possibilities of approaching truth to be secondary.

Despite what you wrote it is you who has the issue, not me. I see the value in science but I also see where the line is drawn, you do not. The theories I mentioned in this post all step over the line from the domain of science to the domain of the metaphysical. That is fine if people want to speculate and imagine, but it is not fine when it becomes dogma that then dictates the entire paradigm of science. That is not pragmatic science at all.

As you have defined in advance what you expect to see your mind is closed, not open. So who are you to say or be the guide as to what has or is of value to mankind? If a saint sat next to you on the bus and he spoke, you would not hear him.



I'm more inclined to trust the writings and thoughts of a man who practically invented the 20th century, who by all accounts was a true scientific genius, than trust the abstract daydreams of Einstein. You are aware that relativity wasn't an original thought to him either, right? You talk of pragmatic science.. compare the two men and tell me again, who was the more pragmatic! Ridiculous.

Plasma cosmology and an electrical approach to astrophysics makes far more sense than the gravitational/relativistic one we use at present. It doesn't have to invent abstract nonsense like blackholes or space-time to explain what we can actually see. Without those abstractions there is NO way gravity can be used to explain what we actually observe. Electromagnetic forces are available, powerful enough, the observable evidence supports the hypothesis, and so on. Pragmatism..



Never said I was a genius. And of course there is a priesthood of science. You want to pretend that money, power, politics, personal greed and ego doesn't affect the direction or status quo of the science world? Seriously?

I’m unsure if you are aware that this model was derived from light frequency. When photons have a large wavelength we observe the colour red, as wavelengths get too long we cannot perceive them, they become infrared and beyond. When photons have a short wavelength we observe the colour purple, as wavelengths get too short we cannot perceive them, they become ultraviolet and beyond. When an object is accelerating away from you, as the object gets further away the light takes longer to reach you, thus, the wavelength gets longer. Remember, this only applies if an object is accelerating away from you, not if it is traveling at the same speed as you. Stars have been observed to have a red hue, but none of the chemical reactions in them cause a red colour, and the further away the star is the more red it is. Physicists concluded that the only explanation for this phenomena is that stars must be accelerating away from each other. By logic, if you bring the stars backwards in time, there would be an initial point, most likely an explosion.

I’m not saying the model is absolute truth, but the evidence points towards a Big Bang, unless there are any other suggestions explaining the accelerating distance between heavenly objects?

Why not both? I don't think I'm being stuck to the surface of the planet by electrostatic forces. They feel different. At the same time, I can see where there is a place for large-scale plasma currents in astrophysics, because we know that our local star emits a constant stream of charged particles. The question is how are the charges being balanced and what is driving the flow of charge?

Any explanation of this is as much of an abstraction as theories about black holes or whatever, so where does that leave us? If you can point me towards a single electric universe video that isn't pseudoscientific gibberish, I'd very surprised/impressed/grateful.


Having studied a science discipline at university, I can confirm there were egotistical pr*cks present in approximately the same proportion as the rest of society.

All of that rests of the assumption that red-shift is to do with Hubble expansion or the movement of stellar objects. It makes a reasonable fit but again that doesn't make it anything more than a good looking assumption. This is where the cumulative error creeps in again because we're talking (theoretically) about distances beyond comprehension that we can not measure accurately let alone physically measure, it is all inferred, and we then pile on more bells and whistles.. again the paradigm has become such a tangled web - how on earth can anyone hope to attack let alone disprove such a web scientifically?

Halton Arp was shunned for making observations that didn't fit the prevailing cosmological paradigm, specifically to do with red-shift, and that was decades ago. His competing ideas may have been wrong but the dismissal of his observations was pretty disgraceful. If someone of his stature inside science couldn't even put forward observations which were inconsistent with prevailing ideas thus meriting further investigation.. what hope is there for anyone else to challenge the paradigm?

I’m aware how objective observation and evidence is utterly dismissed because it doesn’t fit the academically accepted paradigm. Archeologists and historians are the most notorious, just because they have PhD’s doesn’t mean they aren’t incredibly naïve and ignorant, I’d even go as far as saying, just plain stupid. Being a homeopath I see this behaviour in chemistry too. So it doesn’t surprise me this happens in physics, I will look into this. The human ego is far too inflated for our own good. I mean shucks isn’t this the fundamental principle behind ‘the war on drugs’. Our understanding of everything is still very elementary.

When you point out things like the incomprehensible distances, it makes me think twice. And yes I did mention the Big Bang is an explanation, but I also said is there anything better?

There's some alternative ideas, like the steady-state theory which implies a universe without beginning or end and which may have continuous on-going matter creation. I personally find that idea more attractive despite being incomprehensible to the intellectual mind; infinite space and no time seems more reasonable than the warping of space and a 'beginning', in my opinion.

The thing with distances works the other way too at the subatomic scale. We're at the very limit of accuracy and integrity with regards to what we can actually observe - inferred observations through the lens of mathematical frameworks may look good on paper, but it really tests ones faith in the process and procedures when you can't do experiments or observations at a more tangible human scale. The further we go from the human scale the more things bleed into the metaphysical or ontological realms, and it does then become a matter of faith one way or another.

Ultimately science doesn't exist inside a box separate from reality. At some point it has to bump up against the metaphysical and try to integrate with that side of things. The how can't be separated from the why. That's a major issue I have with the Big Bang theory as it tries too hard to compartmentalise the how away from the why. As McKenna said, "just give us one free miracle and we'll explain the rest!".

Mindlusion,

I completely understand the frustration, I agree with you on the intellectual points and I agree it is hard to talk with someone that takes a seemingly irrational position and doesn't even consider the possibility they might be wrong, but we all must respect the attitude of this forum and not resort to personal attacks and offenses. Please reconsider your post.





Your argument is based on faith, because you have no evidence to back up your dismissal of relativity and quantum physics, you even say yourself you DONT want to learn about it, you just somehow "know" it's wrong. Isn't that the faith you are criticizing? Science is the exact opposite, It is not based on faith, it is based on reproducible evidence, on accurate predictions which can be checked over and over again with many different experiments, on mathematical models that can help us interact with the world, regardless of the faith of the experimenter.

I'd like to repeat a question I made earlier.

Despite pointing at others for it, it seems you have an impenetrable dogma, which is, "special relativity and quantum physics are wrong". Everybody else here is basically saying "if they are shown wrong by experimentation/data, then we will happily update our models". If that is not the case and you are not dogmatic about it, then please do tell me, what kind of evidence would it take for you to change your mind?

Are we even talking about God anymore? I'm finding it difficult to jump into the discussion, there's seem to be more attacking than discussing. I'll just do a stand-alone post, putting in my theory...

I always found it odd how we've made huge advancements in mostly everything except religion. When it comes to religion we seem to be stuck in the past. Perhaps we don't know enough to make a conclusion or even a hypothesis that's on the right track. Perhaps we need to advance in other fields to narrow down if there is a god or if there isn't, and what this god could even be. Is there only one god? Multiple gods?

Some of you touched upon what I believe in, how we ourselves are the gods of the universe. Maybe not directly, but indirectly.

Say god is real, does "he" exist in our universe, or in a separate place outside the universe, or both? If he exists in this and only this universe, throw everything I'm about to say out the window. If he exists in this universe and another or just another universe, would you say the universe he originated from is the original universe and the original life? If that's the original universe, could you say that this universe is merely a simulation of that universe? If we're not in the original, then this must be a simulation of the original? Or can we say god exists outside this universe and his universe is nothing like ours, but since he's existing that must be life? If he's in the original life, this must be simulated life?

If you say we're in a simulated universe created by god, does that mean that we're able to simulate a universe or is that power unique to god? Some say one day we'll be able to simulate life, so maybe it isn't unique to god.

Let's say we do one day simulate a whole universe. What will the species in that universe think? That they were created by a god, just like we do? But we specifically know who created that simulated universe, it was us. Perhaps the god we are looking for is us. Perhaps humans are the end all be all, even if life exists on other planets, who is to say it hasn't evolved to be considered human?

Now, even I could see how biased this viewpoint is. It's extremely narcissistic, but that's how my reality has always been. One man or woman will never be able to tell you something in definite answers when it comes to things like this, but we could piece together our theories to create a connected theory.

All I know is, whenever I find an answer, a million questions are created and I'm thrown into a vicious cycle of what the hell is this place, and the only way out is to obtain more knowledge through every field of study.

If god exists, then "it" does not exist within our current universe. Or rather, then it is not directly part of the content of this universe. God may be the ink and paper with wich the code of the universe is written, but it is not included in the code itself.

Why would that be so?
Because that would contradict the way our universe works.

If god would make things happen here, then god would have to be a physical phenomenon. It would need to have physical properties.
While the whole notion "god" exceeds all things physical.