And now, page 2
Dulcimer said:
Non-sense? Quite. But just because it doesn't make sense does not mean it can't be real.
Do you hear yourself? You display here the classic neurosis of mainstream science today: discarding reason in favor of sensation.
Then you don't actually know what you're talking about.
Not every cheap shot that
can be taken
should be taken, if you want to convince more than ‘the choir’: you and I are both going on what the popularizers have
said about black holes (though I have studied tensor calculus to some degree, have you?). I was only remarking that I do not take it as seriously as they would like us to.
An expanding universe is a REASONable theory . . .
So, now you want to go back to
making sense. This doesn’t quite qualify as ‘bait and switch’, as it lacks the ‘bait’ part.
So scientists follow the data to empirically prove or disprove the theory.
It is to their
failure to do so that I am objecting: for example, sticking doggedly to the gravitational model in spite of not being able to find but 10% of the mass they need for a galaxy not to fly apart, to cover which they tell us of ‘dark matter’, which no-one can detect but which they know intuitively must exist (they like the intuitive when it
suits them).
I would argue that the particle types are not elemental but are forces . . .
Then do so.
. . . the elements are not forces, they are states;
. . . the four particle-types (or rather two particle-types and two quanta-types) are the four
states in which mass-energy is found in this universe, are they not? I don’t quite get your point.
. . . the three forces are positive, negative, and neutral, . . .
(I think you mean electric charge, not ‘forces’.)
You remind me of the woman watching her son march to war. "Look," she says to her neigbour, " everyone's out of step except my boy!"
Perhaps I should point out that being ‘in step’ depends on the music itself, not on numbers. Of course if some dictator decrees that the
up beat is really the
down beat, then it will be the one with the temerity to march correctly that will be taken out and shot.
Who says "Up (aries) is 8, oxygen? How does "self (capricorn) is 19, potassium" equate? What on earth does any of it mean? WHERE does the Kabbalah call "the electron or lepton +1"?
1st question: Up—towards aries-the-head or spring—is 8-oxygen by
nature’s decree: there is no ‘up’ (for us) without it (this is true of no other atom-type). This sign occurs in the alder month F (ogham’s initial sequence is B-L-F-S-N, but the first sequence of
months, beginning at yuletide, is B-L-N-F-S, given the tree-alphabet’s being called the
bethluisnion, not the
bethluisfearn): fearn the alder is numbered 8 in bardic tradition
partly because, as the wood of pilings and ferry-boats, it retains balance (being moisture-resistant) when all else is swamped by water, balance symbolized by two earthy or fourfold things (4 + 4 = 8)—VIII LaJustice is aries as
wielder of scales, not libra, the scales themselves.
[F is perhaps feh-sofit, but the simple letter at aries was originally samekh, the only letter shaped like a head: to pagans, aries or up was the Corn Spirit F sprouting out
past the tongue—out the top of the seed or Egg or round—Qabbalah however keeping its sound
on the tongue, since the round or zodiac-of-the-torso stands for the tongue inside the mouth formed by the ‘bowl’ of the surroundings (from horizon without to horizon within).
]
2nd question: Sign cancer-the-breasts points ahead or ‘out’ (towards
other), capricorn, opposite it, back or ‘in’—back towards oneself, the Shekhinah or divine presence (10th sign). Now of bardic numbering only 0-16 survives, but the rest (17-21) are easily recovered,
especially given the Marseilles trump images, which are based on them. Yod and vav are XVIIII LeSoleil and XVII L’Etoile respectively and stand for the two poles of the vowel spectrum: smug
self-satisfied smile “ee” (
y) and lips puckered to partake of mother’s (
other’s) nipple “oo” (
w). Since the consonants forming the months of the waning year (summer-fall) are the doubles, which form the ‘mouth’ or Cauldron of the surroundings (
out through
down to
in), the simples arrayed along the
bottom half of the Egg or ‘tongue’ (in other words, the tongue-
root) were the bardic vowels originally, most of which have hardened into consonants in Semitic (and elsewhere). All are simples save mother-letter alef (wheel’s center), whose place in the vowel sequence is taken by qof (for reasons we can go into some other time, if you wish). Vav points
out, towards cancer, yod
in, towards capricorn. Their numbers, 17 and 19 respectively, convert the 9-10 polarity between -1 valence and numerical +1—doubles K and G that mark the horizontal limits of the Egg
on the Cauldron as the signs on either side of libra, these being straight down from Egg’s cancer and capricorn—into a form where interaction can take place: 19 is +1 and 17 is -1 both numerically
and valence-wise, and these form the salt potassium chloride, to keep the fluid within cells. Yod-19-potassium is +1 valence electron, vav-17-chlorine -1 valence electron, symbolizing lepton (electron) and baryon (proton) respectively in that the proton is also ‘minus one valence electron’, being a hydrogen nucleus (neutrons decay once on their own, you will recall). And since the fundamental polarity is +1 versus -1, it is obvious Qabbalah got the signs right—and though TVs still ‘work’ with signs reversed, they are not
explained thereby (since the electrons flow in the opposite direction).
3rd question: It means that a sophisticated understanding of nature’s particle-types and atom-types has existed previously, that when the sound system underlying Qabbalah was formed the knowledge was
more solid than ours at present, for it unified things as no-one today has been able to—and to an amazing degree, one that suggests it speaks to our (and matter’s) origins, not simply to phenomena.
4th question: (Answered under
2nd question.)
These are your labels not Kabbalah.
Well, it
is Qabbalah itself, not just the surviving wreckage or ‘Kabbalah’ (for want of a better way to differentiate them)—though without the latter we would not
have the former, of course.
And I am still waiting for you to show the Qabbalah can " ‘predict’ some things modern physics has gotten wrong".
This is easy: Adam Qadmon. It ‘predicts’ that Upright Sentience, not ‘chance’, teleologically necessitates all change that occurs, hence that we must figure-in the eternal if we are to understand flux. Plato himself (chapter 19 of the
Republic) explained ontology’s and epistemology’s basis: there is what abides, what abides and abides not, and what abides not—in other words, the eternal, that which has finite duration, and the fleeting present instant
exhaust all the possibilities and hence define self as consisting of a knower, to know the eternal, a thinker, to opine on what has finite duration, and a doer, who though
ignorant of the present instant (it being utterly fleeting hence non-contemplatable) must act
in it. It is the estranged doer’s attempt to function as its
own thinker and knower that has gotten it into its current difficulty (mortality).
In terms of physics and chemistry in particular, Qabbalah (and the Tarot of Marseilles trumps, based thereon) predicts through its symbolic structure the basic qualities of atom-types
and the relations of spin and charge accruing to the four basic particle-types—and groups bosons (photon and meson), which like to gather in the same energy state, on the central vertical axis and puts fermions (lepton and baryon), which adhere to the Pauli exclusion principle, off to the side—all long before cyclotrons or even Planck. Does this count for nothing?
For your premise to be accepted you would need to; a) predict something, by definition, BEFORE it has been discovered . . .
I love it, setting your opponent an impossible task (unless you own a time machine, so one could jump forward in time and check it out if I
did do so): that’ll work.
