by David Wilcox
Rather than read through the whole book (all 536 pages of difficult and convoluted “reasoning,” I randomly took passages and commented on them using what I believe are arithmetic and scientific principles and applying what I know or believe to be true to the immediate conjecture.
Introduction (by James V. Hart), page xx:
1) It is not my purpose to comment on all the extraordinary experience that we all agree to call the “real world” — is an emanation into the three-dimensional space of an invisible parallel universe. We cannot claim a full understanding of the “real world” without taking account of the hidden realm that it emerges out of.
2) Precisely because it is an emanation — and therefore in some senses like an illusion of a hologram — the “real world” is not a fixed and firm, immutable construct that can be changed only by direct physical or mechanical action. Sometimes it behaves more like a lucid dream that can be changed by the power of thought and imagination.
3) “Thoughts” are therefore “things” and we should be aware that our thoughts can manifest tangible effects in the “real world.”
In one sense these are very modern, twenty-first-century ideas that David is exploring here — ideas at the cutting edge of the disciplines such as quantum physics and consciousness research. But what draws me to all of them are the ways in which they also resonate deeply with ancient wisdom traditions, reminding us that the truth is always true and indivisible, wherever — and whenever — it is expressed.
This partial summary contains assumptions to which I take exception.
I, too, believe that thoughts manifest themselves — but only through our actions; only through what we DO to make them happen.
And I have reasons for believing this.
The theoretical and unproven conjectures of “modern twenty-first-century ideas” in quantum physics, for instance, may or may not become part of proven science. Their basic premise has been around for about a century and, so far, proof of any kind has been elusive.
Meanwhile, proven science — all of proven science — has shown over and over that the matter and energy in the universe is stable when looked at from a single well-defined point of view; that there is no known or observed process that increases or decreases the total mass+energy. All our proven and objective science (physics, chemistry, and atomic physics) says that physical, chemical, and atomic interactions are conservative in that the results equal the inputs — always!
Thus, according to proven science, so far we have NOT been able to discover a single way to make more or less than what we started with. This thinking started with Sir Issac Newton and his contemporaries and has resulted in an amazing array of accomplishments that were considered fantasy before that.
We now communicate almost instantaneously across vast distances. We sent 23 men to the vicinity of the moon and brought them — and hundreds of pounds of lunar material — back home again. And we sent robots to all eight planets in our solar system and sent color photographs and scientific information back to earth. We even sent a robot on a trajectory that may have escaped our solar system and continues to fly off into the unknown.
All of this was sparked by a realization that the universe has inviolate rules and, because we had the curiosity and patience to explore those rules, we’ve accomplished more technological advances in the last 200 years than in the previous 2000 when, for the most part, we were ruled by ancient wisdom.
Thomas Edison imagined the light bulb. Over 500 failures and marginal successes later, he and his employees produced a light bulb that was less than 5% efficient. And this bulb was almost a miracle to the world’s population! Today, I have LED bulbs which use far less energy and produce far less heat.
Starting in 1803 (only 215 years ago), a french mathematician started a chain of ideas that led, eventually, to modern air conditioning and refrigeration. It wasn’t the ideas themselves that made a refrigerator; it was hard work, trial and error, and teamwork that made the things that keep yesterday’s leftovers from spoiling and me from sweating in the heat of Arizona’s desert climate.
There is absolutely no evidence for me to believe that my mind can create anything without using a physical body and physical tools and an understanding of what I’m doing. There is no evidence of any kind that anyone has manifested anything out of nothing. And there is absolutely no evidence that the “real world” is anything but the real world and that the universe is everything that is — by definition if by nothing else.
I just finished five novels about a place where magic is pervasive. I was entertained by them, but I was well aware that they were fantasy novels; that, like fairies and goblins and Star Wars characters, these things, if they exist, are not here and not now but somewhere else and not within our grasp although they are quite clearly available in our imaginations.
As to “ancient wisdom,” I, again, have something to say.
Let us first separate “wisdom” into knowledge, insight and intellect.
Knowledge is things that we know about. An example would be the science behind the air conditioner. Before 1803, not one soul knew about the Carnot cycle. Nobody had invented anything better than an ice box, swamp cooler, or putting things in cold water to keep them cold — nobody!
Pythagoras was probably more insightful than I am, but, even though he discovered that the squares of the two sides of a right triangle are equal the square of the hypotenuse, I know that too. I also know calculus and have personally (through the use of my computer) discovered the first 30 million prime numbers. I know far more about Pythagoras’ specialty than he did back then when he was working without connection to more than a handful of contemporaries and antecedents. He didn’t have the schooling I have had. He didn’t have the information I have.
I know when Carnot first published because I looked it up on my computer. I have the world’s knowledge at my fingertips, a few keystrokes away.
Socrates taught Plato who taught Aristotle. They were brilliant men. But they were starting almost from scratch when it came to knowledge. They deduced that heavy things fall faster than lighter things. They didn’t experiment, so they died still believing this even though we know today it isn’t true. You know. I know. We all know. We even have an equation that tells us how fast things will fall and we know to consider wind resistance.
These ancient scholars and all their contemporaries had incredible insight and intellect. What they didn’t have was knowledge. No amount of insight or intellect could make up for this deficit.
They didn’t know about paleontology because it hadn’t been discovered yet. They didn’t have Newton’s laws. They didn’t know about entropy. They knew a little about astronomy but they didn’t have our modern tools and so their astronomy was crude and often speculative. They didn’t have a clue about genetics and inherited genetic factors. Their “knowledge” was sometimes wrong. And their histories were often biased and sometimes even fictional.
So, early in the book, and without any preface to speak of, we run into the concept of a world behind our “real world,” a world of more dimensions and more possibilities and different science. If there were unexplained physical anomalies, if things in my immediate vicinity arrived or disappeared without explanation, if there were ANY evidence to lead me to this conjecture, I might want to entertain the possibility. Since I don’t even consider the imaginings of theoretical physicists to be “science,” I can’t even use that as an inducement to begin to willingly suspend my disbelief.
“Ancient wisdom” doesn’t prove anything in and of itself. While “miracles” and “magic” were acceptable concepts in the ancient world, there’s a good reason that magicians are now called “illusionists.”
And I’ve convinced myself over many years that prophesy is a way to get ordinary people to accept the otherwise unacceptable and to subvert them into helping to make the prophesy or parts of the prophesy occur. I consider prophesy a pernicious and destructive influence on the average human mind.
Prophesy is what turned the racism of the Old Testament into the nightmare (on both sides) of the current Middle East. Prophesy turned the kind, egalitarian, humble, and generous philosophies of Jesus into the mind-numbing ignorance and subservience of the Dark and Middle Ages in Europe.
So, having rejected the fundamental premise of this book, it probably doesn’t make sense for me to soldier on. Nevertheless, I will try something the author actually wrote rather than just accepted from a colleague.
I turned, randomly, to page 50 where I found a
“Close-up view of peculiar bronze sculpture in Vatican Court of the Pinecone, suggesting a cracked egg and hidden machinery underneath.”
I’ll concentrate on the photograph and hope I don’t have to traverse through all these occult and mysterious artifacts and symbols. Let me say now (again) that imagination isn’t reality and never will be reality except through hard work and physical effort. We’re looking at art and not “proof” of some other reality.
“Obviously, the early Church fathers felt the Pinecone [sic] was an extremely important symbol if they placed it so prominently in the Vatican. Further clues may be found in the Bible — where Jesus said, “The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be filled with light.” (Matthew 6:22) The court of the Pinecone also has an enigmatic “sphere within sphere” sculpture at the center. Various images seem to be conveyed, including the shell of an egg cracking open, the possible idea of two planets colliding together, and the concept of hidden gears and machinery being exposed under the surface of the spheres. The two spheres are offset from each other by ninety degrees, and various physics models have suggested we must make an angular turn like this — what they call an “orthogonal rotation” — to enter into higher dimensions. Intriguingly, this sculpture also looks like a stylized eye — which fits with the idea of the pine cone representing the pineal gland or “third eye.”
This “Sphere within a Sphere” or “Sfera con Sfera” is one in a series of sculptures by Italian artist Arnaldo Pomodoro, born 23 June, 1926. Pomodoro started creating these orbs in the early 1960s. According to Vatican.com, “it symbolizes the fragility and complexity of the world.”
While we can imagine all kinds of other things about this work and its sister works scattered around the world in prominent places including the United Nations Headquarters building, its placement with the Pinecone was probably chosen for artistic rather than symbolic reasons. The Pinecone was a fountain created some time in the Middle Ages and moved into Vatican City in the Sixteenth Century. Nobody knew there was a pineal gland when it was created — or when it was moved to its current location in 1608. The original fountain in all probability represented the fertility and tenacity of nature rather than something otherworldly.
The two works are what they are and symbolize something different, however slightly, for every viewer. That is the nature of art. The inferred meaning often comes after the fact in ways the originator couldn’t possibly have imagined or understood, let alone implied.
Randomly, I turn to page 111:
When will the Golden Age Arrive?
When we go back to our excerpt from the Mahabharata in The Secret Doctrine, we come across a tantalizing clue: The ancient Hindu scriptures gave us a precise time window for when the Golden Age would arrive. They associated this with a rare conjunction of planets in the solar system, thus allowing us to calculate an exact date.
As it is said, “When the sun and moon and the lunar asterism Tishya and the planet Jupiter are in one mansion, the Krita (or Satya) age shall return.”
No calculation is presented in Blavatsky’s book for when this may occur, but Geoff Stray presents an informed opinion in his book Beyond 2012.
In The Way to Shambhala, [Edwin] Bernbaum says that the golden age will come when the Sun, Moon and Jupiter all meet in the same quadrant as the Tishya constellation (which is part of Cancer). The next time this happens will be on July 26, 2014, according to my astronomical software [CyberSky]….
This goes on in great detail, using a combination of astrology and science to discern when some miracle will happen.
On July 26, 2014, according to the on-line OnThisDay:
- Taghrooda wins the King George VI and Queen Elizabeth Stakes
- The Chinese government suspends the operations of a Shanghai meat dealer and has makes arrests after the company sold out-of-date meat to fast food chains, including McDonalds and Kentucky Fried Chicken
- While Israel rejects long-term ceasefire that does not include destroying the Hamas tunnels, they agree to 12 hour ceasefire; Palestinian death toll in the Gaza Strip now exceeds 1000.
In other words, nothing exceptional happened then or since besides Donald Trump winning the US Presidency and Brexit.
For me, the Golden Age started shortly before I was born and continues even now. I’ve never been seriously hungry, let alone starving. I’ve never personally known war, famine, or pestilence. I live in my own house (OK, I share ownership with my ex-son-in-law and a bank) in comfort with air conditioning, running clean water, almost effortless disposal of sewage and waste and all the amenities I could hope for including a cell phone which knows where I am at all times and can tell me the fastest or shortest way to get anywhere I choose to go and connects me to almost everyone else and vast libraries of knowledge at the push of a button or a few spoken words.
The royal families of the people who wrote those predictions couldn’t possibly have even imagined such luxuries as I have — every day, ordinarily, as a rule, not an exception.
To imagine that we aren’t already in the Golden Age is to be deaf, dumb and blind. This, for me, is a failure of the author’s imagination! Furthermore, this march toward an idyllic existence was brought about not by “ancient wisdom” or astrology or the conjunction of planets but by dedicated resistance to such ideas by scientists and engineers who sought the truth through trial and error rather than divine inspiration or mystic “enlightenment.”
I move on, to a page marked with a post card, presumably one important for me to read.
Page 256 (incidentally 28):
Spiraling Currents of Time
Kozyrev also found that the flow of time does not push through space in a straight line — it spins, or twists, as it moves along: “time possesses not only energy but also a rotation … which it can transmit to a system.” This means that the flow will manifest as a rotating movement once you see it affecting a gyroscope, beam balance, pendulum or any other system — just like what we saw in Dr. Aspden’s experiment with the magnetic rotor. A scientific word for “spinning” or “twisting” is torsion. {not really, I interject, spinning or twisting is rotation and torsion is force applied to change rotation}….
OK, I got the gist of this argument and I have studied this subject for over 20 years and have arrived at my own, independent conclusions. All I have to offer is my own experiences in the laboratory and classroom studying physics.
I reject time being the reading of a cesium clock. However accurate it is at rest, it isn’t accurate under acceleration. I believe this because:
All proven chemical and physical phenomena require outputs to equal inputs. There is no known or observed process by which we can get more or less energy+matter. E=mc2 says that you neither lose nor gain total energy+matter even in atomic reactions. Time is both a component of energy and a sequencer of events. So far as we know, there are three arbitrary and indistinguishable dimensions filled with a unique ordered set of energy and matter and a monotonic, one-way sequencing of the configurations of this matter and energy within these three dimensions.
Everything else is speculation with no science to back it up.
Take snapshots a nanosecond apart. What you observe is continuous, contiguous, similar and congruent. Nothing has moved more than a foot from where it was. What “twist” would time provide? It merely ran along sequencing events — even small ones within individual atoms and big ones such as supernovae. It can’t go “sideways” or backward. It can’t even slow down or speed up. As I understand time, it must sequence these similar, congruent and equal “realities” with no changes in total energy+matter. If you slow time, energy diminishes. If you speed up time, energy increases.
Ironically, I do believe speeds are relative, even the speed of light. According to my theory, encountering anything in its vicinity changes the speed by re-emitting the energy within the new contextual framework and adjusting the wavelength of the new electromagnetic energy to preserve energy and wave continuity.
Remember that for every force, there’s an equal and opposite force. For any mass to accelerate forward, an equal amount of energy is spent pushing mass (maybe exhaust gasses) in the opposite direction. So overall, there’s no gross acceleration, merely local accelerations in opposite directions.
I could imagine testing my hypothesis in some apparatus which is an evacuated tube made into a low-pressure wind tunnel with a controlled light source and receiver and ways to switch the direction of low-pressure flow. By my theory, the light should travel a bit faster with the flow of air than against it.
Back to the writing, the processing of both a top and the earth is due to rotation of the system. In the case of a top on earth, the “down” at the equator changes at 15 degrees per hour or 4 minutes per second. “Up” doesn’t stay up. In 12 hours, it will still be pointing at the center of mass of the Earth, but that means it will be turning to try and preserve rotational inertia.
There is nothing eerie or supernatural about science. It is what it is and, as far as I know, doesn’t require six dimensions or astrology to explain what’s going on.
Page 347, again taken purely at random:
Decoding the 260-day Tzolkin Cycle
It took years of detective work for me to track down the answer of why the ancients were so interested in these cycles — and I only found the answer late in 2009, while I was putting the research together for this book. Professor Robert Peden, from Deakin University’s School of Sciences in Australia, crunched the numbers and wrote up his discoveries in 1981 — but never published the results. It didn’t actually appear online until 2004 — but it answered all my questions beautifully. In short, the tzolkin is nothing less than the ultimate cycle that links all the planetary orbits, and their geometry, together with one single common denominator — or at the very least Venus, Earth, the Moon, Mars and Jupiter. Furthermore, it is the only cycle that is under a hundred years in length that can do this — with an accuracy better than one day in one hundred years.
If this is confusing, let me explain how it works. Take fifty-nine txolkin cycles and add them up. This is almost the same length of time as forty earth years, with 99.6% precision. Forty-six tzolkins equal 405 lunar months, at 99.7% accuracy. Sixty-one Venus years is 137 tzolkins, with 99.2% precision. Three tzolkins give you one Mars year — at 97.2 percent accuracy. And, lastly, 135 tzolkins add up to eighty-eight Jupiter years — with 99.7 percent perfection. I was really blown away when I saw this — and hardly anyone who writes and lectures about the Maya calendar knows about it. In regards to this counting system, Peden quotes Coe in 1966.
How such a period of time ever came into being remains an enigma, but the use to which it was put is clear. Every single day had its own omens and associations, and the inexorable march of the twenty days acted as a kind of fortune-telling machine, guiding the destinies of the maya and all peoples of Mexico.
Peden explains this further in his own words.
Two hundred sixty was more accurate than 360 days in tracking the moon. [It] was able to satisfactorily track Venus and Mars. [It] is the best choice to track Jupiter and is the only choice that can simultaneously track all five cycles … these factual astronomical derivations are ipso facto sufficient to demonstrate the astronomical base for the Mesoamerican calendrical system.
Well, this at least gives me some information that I can use for a change — and I can check it.
Here are my findings:
The number that actually fits Wilcock’s expectations is the average synodic month, the average time between full moons. The synodic month varies because the speed of the Earth in its orbit around the Sun varies. While the moon’s orbit of the earth is even (causing a constant siderial {measured by the stars} month), the time to the next full moon varies, producing different times between full moons. While, in the long run, the average synodic month is quite close to fitting this fanciful yardstick, it fails in the short run.
The claims by the original author (Peden {who got some of it from Coe}) were taken without any checking at all. In some cases, they were off by over an order of magnitude.
I could go on and try to find some numbers that fit and don’t have the planet on the opposite of the solar system from its expected place. The 41.998 orbits of the Earth are quite close to an even number, though not the 40 orbits suggested by the book. But why bother? This is all astrology and the only bodies that I believe have a significant impact on the Earth are the Moon and the Sun. This is written in the tides and, consulting your tide book will give you a good idea when the Sun and Moon are working for or against each other in influencing the local sea level.
There are small gravitational interactions between the planets which might, eventually, result in harmonics of a sort. Neptune and Pluto have an almost perfect 3:2 ratio between their orbits, but Pluto’s orbit is unusually eccentric. That there are harmonic interactions isn’t far fetched in and of itself.
This chapter doesn’t check sources or numbers and it relies on astrology which has adherents but no real credibility in science and little in statistics to back it up.
To see if astrology has any validity, I suggest a double blind where “forecasts” are given to the right persons half the time and the wrong persons the other half. Would people know? Maybe we could have a group that always got the “right” one, a group that always got the “wrong” and two that were mixed half the time. Each end of day, they would rate their forecast. What would we find? Has it been done?
Again, almost at random, page 402:
Neptune
By June, 1994, Neptune’s Great Dark Spot, a circular feature in the southern hemisphere like the Great Red Spot on Jupiter, had disappeared. By March or April 1995, it had reappeared in the northern hemisphere. NASA said that this new spot was a “near-mirror image of the first spot previously imaged by Voyager 2.” This also led NASA scientists to say that “Neptune has changed radically since 1989.” Two years later, NASA wrote of “a looming mystery”: The newly migrated spot “appears to be trapped at a fixed latitude” in its new position in the northern hemisphere. This appears to have been caused by a perfect geometric shift in the grid, as the new northern latitude was the same as the southern. By 1996, less than a year.
Scientists believe that there’s considerable methane, ethane, and ethyne in the equatorial regions of Neptune. The red spot would be a slightly heavier but still light gas. Since these gasses are light and far away from any liquid or solid, they move up and down as well as along lines of longitude and latitude. I would imagine that they are hypersensitive to even minor temperature changes. And, of course, everything is very cold out there in the outer regions of our solar system but influenced by some source of heat within the planet, which would balance a high gravity against boiling temperatures (of the compressed, cold, light gasses) and no terrain to speak of.
Neptune’s atmosphere is composed of: 80% molecular hydrogen
18.5% helium
1.5% methane
1.5 parts per million hydrogen deuteride
with traces of water ice, ammonia hydrosulfide and methane ice.
It’s simpler and lighter and deeper than our own thin covering of atmosphere. While the atmosphere of Earth is less than 0.0001% of its mass, as far as we know, the atmosphere of Neptune is many times the mass of the Earth and, because it is lighter, takes up an even greater volume than our nitrogen-based air. The atmosphere of Neptune is over a million times the mass of our atmosphere but in lighter and colder gasses. I would suppose the hot core of Neptune would contain a deep ocean of hot (by Neptune’s standards) but condensed molecular hydrogen around a hot but small solid core.
There’s a 300-year storm raging on Neptune’s big brother, Jupiter, so a pair of semi-stable storms on Neptune don’t surprise me. Rather, I think all the excited words from NASA were PR calculated to raise the public’s flagging interest in their almost lifeless bureaucracy that has become risk-adverse and unimaginative.
I was with my 9-year-old daughter at a Planetary Society gathering to watch the first pictures ever to be taken of Neptune and Triton as they arrived in Pasadena, California. We discovered another gas “giant” (although not so big) with unexpected rings (although not complete). I was a member of the Planetary Society for many years before and after that event. Neptune wasn’t featureless, but the colors were blue with white clouds. It’s composed of light, simple gasses, of course, and little else but in massive quantities.
These other worlds may inflame our imaginations, but we’re not used to them yet. In time, they will become more ordinary and less mysterious just like the deep oceans, high mountains and polar regions of our own world.
I turned, randomly, to page 451 to read about rumors of UFOs leaked by the Indian Government after performing tests on their nuclear weapons.
I take UFOs to be unidentified by definition and so do not believe the many stories about aliens within them.
Besides, it would be horrendously costly to fly from another planet in our own solar system, let alone fly from another solar system. The motivation could not be conquest or robbery.
I’m content to wait until an alien being decides to approach me. Then I will greet him or her or it with as much respect and goodwill as I can muster. If they’re real, our only hope is that they are well-meaning. The movie Independence Day was exciting but entirely unrealistic. If aliens show up, we had better know how to make nice with them, cow-tow to them, or find a deep hole to hide in.
I find About the Author on page after 534.
About the Author
David Wilcox is a professional author, lecturer, filmmaker, musician and researcher of ancient civilizations, consciousness science, and new paradigms of matter and energy.
Sounds somewhat like me; a jack of all trades, the difference being that I haven’t published a thing except a poem or two.
I’m a bit jealous, but I KNOW that he’s cheated to get where he is. He picked up stuff from all over and cobbled it into a book that sort-of has a theme, except the premise and conclusions are nonsense and the data often faked or changed to enhance its impact.
Furthermore, he doesn’t check his sources and he doesn’t doubt or check his conclusions. He directs the outcome to one he wants and believes his readers want, whether the conclusion is warranted or not.
I decided to read more than a paragraph or two and started at the start of Chapter 11: It’s About Time.
When I got to page 222, I again threw up my arms in despair. This guy was just making stuff up that sounds scientific.
He talks about all kinds of diverse reactions and interactions being expected to be smooth and “bell curved.”
At 16, I took chemistry and this wasn’t bell-curved at all. You heat a combustible material until you overcome the binding energy of the existing molecules. Then and only then can the components reassemble into an oxidized configuration and give off the differences in binding energy. The process is “jerky” and it happens because of the nature of chemical reactions; because of changes in energy within the materials, absorbing and later emitting energy as the reaction takes place.
At 17, I took physics and this wasn’t bell-curved either. If you accelerate a block of wood on a wooden surface, you first need to overcome static friction, so you stretch the rope with successive weights until the block springs forward. And, because the dynamic friction is less than the static friction, the rope now contracts like a spring, accelerating the block much faster than expected and thus decreasing the pull on the rope to less than an equillibrium. So, under normal conditions, this results in jerky motions that take a while to dampen out, not a smooth bell curve, either.
And, much later, I learned that nuclear reactions aren’t smooth either.
So, Wilcock set up a fictional straw dog.
But his obfuscations don’t end here. He arbitrarily moves smoothly from talking about shapes of changes in energy being congruent and simultaneous while being different processes miles apart to attributing this to some arbitrary and capricious changes in time and seeing this as effecting a psychological feedback system run by the human mind.
What I see is the normal and natural predilection of humans to see congruent patterns in random data — such as constellations in stars, fluffy bunnies in the clouds and all kinds of things in Rorscach tests.
So while he sees small fluctuations in time creating patterns, I see human imagination creating patterns.
And, while all the experiments were about fluctuations in energy and the progression of a scientific test, his conclusions were about fluctuations in time, a conclusion which I find to be unwarranted, even given all his other assumptions.
On page 338, I find another version of harmonics between the planets’ relative mean orbits.
Mercury two nested pentagons Venus
Venus two
nested pentagons Earth
Earth two nested
pentagons Mars
Mars two nested pentagons Ceres (Asteroid
belt)
Venus three nested pentagons Mars
Ceres three nested
pentagons Jupiter
……………………………………..= 1.88854 calc……….. = 2.334 calc
I figured the geometric ratios asked for by two and three nested pentagons.
The ratios between the orbits should at least be the same and they aren’t; nor do they match the claimed standard by the reliability claimed. This is another declaration that doesn’t hold up, although it isn’t all that far off from a constant ratio of average orbital radii between planets. Still, it isn’t anywhere near perfection.
I’ve seen this particular Medieval geometric “model” of the solar system several times, but this is the first time I’d seen a modern “scientist” take it as fact without checking.
The idea of harmonics between the planets is a good one, but it won’t be found by geometry but by the harmonics caused by periodic perturbations of nearby orbits caused by gravitational interactions — as in the 2:3 ratio between the orbits of Neptune and Pluto: 165 years:248 years = 2:3.006.
There are retrograde planets and retrograde moons. The more we know, the less “perfect” the universe is discovered to be. Man’s notion of “Intelligent Design” is being refuted again and again by paleontologists, astronomers, and even honest Biblical scholars. It was a story people told themselves to explain the unknown to themselves and others. As modern knowledge expands, a lot of these stories have been replaced by new stories based on things we’ve learned (or guessed — right and wrong) using modern science and technology.
If there are any real harmonics in the solar system between neighboring planets besides Neptune and Pluto, I couldn’t find them. What you will find is a clear correlation between orbital periods and average distances from the Sun. This is due to the Universal Law of Gravity: g=Gm1m2/d2
So we have a particular orbital velocity based on the square of the distance from the Sun. And, once again, science triumphs over superstition.
The idea of “perfection” in the solar system was started because of Christian theology, because if God created everything 4004 years before He sent Christ to save our souls, it would, almost of necessity, have to be perfect in some way. It isn’t. The more we learn about our Universe, the more varied and inconceivably vast we start to realize it is.
The only “perfections” I know about are the various versions of an invisible perpetual motion machine: the atom and, on the other end of the size spectrum, the inconceivable enormity of the Universe which is at least 27,600,000,000 light-years (a light-year being equivalent to 5,878,625,373,200 miles which makes the universe at least 162,250,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles) across and may actually be much larger.
sextillion
……quintillion
………..quadrillion
………………………trillion
……………………………. billion
…………………………………..million
Beware: the British use a different system for large numbers. A British billionaire is a thousand times richer than an American billionaire. Our 162 sextillion is only 162,000 trillion in parts of Britain.
On page 341, the side of a perfect 5-sided star inscribed in a circle of diameter 13 units is indeed 12.364 units! The only problem is that there are 12.369 synodic (meaning average visible) months in a year by my calculations. However, I have to admit that he is close this time.
I would suggest readers take each page of this book with a lot of skepticism. Just because it sounds amazingly well-researched doesn’t mean it was. He definitely didn’t check a number of his “facts” before publishing.
Dave's World 