Science catches up to the New Sun

John Watkins · 13 Dec 2008, 00:21 · from 2008-December.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: john.watkins04 at gmail.com (John Watkins)
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:21:17 -0500
Subject: (urth) Science catches up to the New Sun
In-Reply-To: <W2676413148322701229127330@webmail1>
References: <W2676413148322701229127330@webmail1>
Message-ID: <93d4039f0812121621u2d3f090atb7c7582ae99434ea at mail.gmail.com>

On 12/12/08, Son of Witz <sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org> wrote:
> Of course, I'm far too much of a knucklehead to speak well about this theories potential veracity, but I've intuited this since I was a stoned 19 year old looking at Stephen Hawkings model where he has a big sphere with a big bang on one end and a big crunch on the other.  I thought, "NO NO NO, you' have to take either pole, bring them together in the middle until they are the same point. Then you've got the Donut or Bagel theory of the Universe, where the Big Bang is the Big Crunch, and the curves of the hole are event horizons.
>
> Then I saw this AMAZING lecture by Stan Tenen, called Geometric Metaphors for Life where he extracted the same basic theory out of a very strange reading of the Torah.  Anyone know Stan Tenen? Meru Foundation.  Very interesting stuff there.  Hard for me to follow. there are some overview videos on youtube.
>
>
> he's doing work with numbers and geometry, but it's not Kaballah, or Gematria.
> he comes up with geometric models exrapolated from the letters, which describe a Torus, the shadows of which can depict every hebrew letter, and further extrapolates these Apple and Seed models that speak to this notion of Re-Genesis.  Great stuff.  Give it a look. trust me, incredibly interesting stuff, potentially VERY important. Sort of a voice in the wilderness.
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-208619888961779202&hl=en
>

Well, ok, but I still don't understand what Lilith has to do with
anything, or why Shinji Ikari gets crucified on the Tree of Life.  And
what was the Human Instrumentality Project up to, anyway?  I mean,
talk about bizarre.

(This is my way of saying this stuff is way over my head.)

> >I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time this theory has been bandied
> >about, but this sounds pretty much like the cosmology of the New Sun, except
> >it's been posited as reality:
> >
> >
> >
> >Most cosmologists believe that our universe emerged from a singularity
> >during the Big Bang. But now physicists are exploring the possibility that
> >our universe was created by the death of an earlier universe.
> >
> >Martin Bojowald and Abhat Ashtekar began researching their theory of loop
> >quantum cosmology (LQC), an approach to cosmology that combine's Einstein's
> >theory of gravity with quantum mechanics. They have modeled the birth of our
> >universe, exploring the mathematics of universe as it contracts back toward
> >its point of origin.
> >
> >Bojowald's major realisation was that unlike general relativity, the physics
> >of LQC did not break down at the big bang. Cosmologists dread the
> >singularity because at this point gravity becomes infinite, along with the
> >temperature and density of the universe. As its equations cannot cope with
> >such infinities, general relativity fails to describe what happens at the
> >big bang. Bojowald's work showed how to avoid the hated singularity, albeit
> >mathematically. "I was very impressed by it," says Ashtekar, "and still am."
> >
> >The researchers have found that when applying LQC, the universe does not
> >revert back to a singularity as it contracts. Instead of seeing a big bang,
> >the models indicate that the universe experienced a big bounce, with a
> >predecessor universe contracting as it ended and then reemerging as our new,
> >expanding universe. If the theory proves correct, it could mean that our
> >universe does not have a finite beginning and end but is, instead, part of a
> >chain of universes that expand and then contract to give way to a brand new
> >universe.
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net