Another look at the solar system

[Virgo]

Hi,



,Kevin

[Virgo]

Kevin

[Lhug-Pa]

Hi Virgo

Didn't watch the whole thing yet, but it makes sense so far, considering that I already knew that the Sun is not stationary.

And it's said that our Sun (and all the Stars in our galaxy) revolve around a Central Sun that is at the center of the Milky Way galaxy.

[Virgo]

Hi Virgo
And it's said that our Sun (and all the Stars in our galaxy) revolve around a Central Sun that is at the center of the Milky Way galaxy.

Our Sun revolves around the center of the Milky Way, completing it's orbit once every 230 million years.

Kevin

[dharmagoat]

Nassim Haramein represents pseudoscience at its worst. What is this doing on a Buddhist forum?

[Lhug-Pa]

That part I wasn't aware of, Virgo. But it's an interesting apparent fact that I'd like to look into.

Which part are you referring to Dharmagoat?

Like I've said, I didn't watch all of both vids yet, but I'm curious about what you're referring to specifically here.

Might as well watch the rest real quick here....

[dharmagoat]

Which part are you referring to Dharmagoat?

Of course the planets revolve around the sun, and of course the sun is moving through space. The rest is baloney.

[Lhug-Pa]

Perhaps, Dharmagoat.

But I wouldn't necessarily write it off just like that.

For example, there are things which 'official science' accepts which are bullpucky; and there are things that 'official science' rejects that are actually true.

[dharmagoat]

For example, there are things which 'official science' accepts which are bullpucky; and there are things that 'official science' rejects that are actually true.

What? You mean science is fallible?

[oushi]

For example, there are things which 'official science' accepts which are bullpucky; and there are things that 'official science' rejects that are actually true.

What? You mean science is fallible?

Science tends to discard things it cannot grasp, so the end view is somehow narrow.

[dharmagoat]

Science tends to discard things it cannot grasp, so the end view is somehow narrow.

Science has not discarded general relativity or quantum physics.

I will politely decline yet another "yes it is, no it isn't" styled religious debate.

[oushi]

Science tends to discard things it cannot grasp, so the end view is somehow narrow.

Science has not discarded general relativity or quantum physics.

No, science created it.

I will politely decline yet another "yes it is, no it isn't" styled religious debate.

Nothing to argue about. If you think that science is honest, then why shouldn't you believe in it?

[underthetree]

Science tends to discard things it cannot grasp, so the end view is somehow narrow.

Science has not discarded general relativity or quantum physics.

No, science created it.

I will politely decline yet another "yes it is, no it isn't" styled religious debate.

Nothing to argue about. If you think that science is honest, then why shouldn't you believe in it?

You don't 'believe' in science. Science is just verifiable facts. I can't stand this idea that science and religion are somehow playing on the same field. The heliocentric solar system wasn't invented by some heiratic cabal of 'scientists,' it was pieced together from the results of many, many years of meticulously gathered information and observation.

Sorry to go off on one but I've recently had this nonsense parroted by one of my kids' teachers - who isn't even a creationist, just someone who doesn't know what 'theory' means.

[Lhug-Pa]

Now I'm not saying that everything Nassim Haramein is saying here is true; nonetheless, the western mindset tends to get dominated by left-brain-hemisphere thinking which tries to separate everything into neat little compartments. This is why contemporary materialistic science isn't as objective as it would like to think.

For example the Scientific Method is great, and can be applied to both the Microcosm and the Macrocosm; however 'official science' often leaves many factors/variables out their hypothesis & experiments, either intentionally because of money, or simply out of sheer close-mindedness.

More balanced cultures didn't/don't separate Religion and Science, as both are related to Self-Knowledge, not only some external reality 'out there' somewhere. More open-minded scientists are starting to see that ancient Eastern science has more to it than materialists would like to think.

Some examples of Science and Religion going hand-in-hand:

Tibetan Medicine, Ayurveda, Indian Astrology, Tibetan Astrology, Kalachakra Astrology, etc.

Cultures who didn't separate Science and Religion knew that the Earth rotated around the Sun long before Europeans figured it out.

And look how advanced Ancient Khemet was in architecture, mathematics, medicine, surgery, writing, philosophy, astrology & astronomy, etc. They certainly didn't separate Religion and Science.

[Norwegian]

You simply do not understand what science is.

[oushi]

Now I'm not saying that everything Nassim Haramein is saying here is true; nonetheless, the western mindset tends to get dominated by left-brain-hemisphere thinking which tries to separate everything into neat little compartments. This is why contemporary materialistic science isn't as objective as it would like to think.

For example the Scientific Method is great, and can be applied to both the Microcosm and the Macrocosm; however 'official science' often leaves many factors/variables out their hypothesis & experiments, either intentionally because of money, or simply out of sheer close-mindedness.

More balanced cultures didn't/don't separate Religion and Science, as both are related to Self-Knowledge, not only some external reality 'out there' somewhere. More open-minded scientists are starting to see that ancient Eastern science has more to it than materialists would like to think.

Some examples of Science and Religion going hand-in-hand:

Tibetan Medicine, Ayurveda, Indian Astrology, Tibetan Astrology, Kalachakra Astrology, etc.

Cultures who didn't separate Science and Religion knew that the Earth rotated around the Sun long before Europeans figured it out.

And look how advanced Ancient Khemet was in architecture, mathematics, medicine, surgery, writing, philosophy, astrology & astronomy, etc. They certainly didn't separate Religion and Science.

[Lhug-Pa]

You simply do not understand what science is.

It literally means "To Know", and is basically defined by the Scientific Method.

The Gnostics called themselves Gnostics because they knew that Gnosis includes both inner and outer Knowledge, and that the two are not separate. The Phoenician Tree of Life for example has Malkuth (the physical dimension) in the middle, with the more material forces 'below' (Klipoth), and the Spiritual forces 'above'; and as can be seen by looking at the Tree of Life, Malkuth is just as much a part of the Tree of Life as Kether (the Spiritual Crown of the Tree of Life) is. So there's no reason to try to separate the mundane and the supramundane.

Anyone who studies Dependent-Origination can at least appreciate this.

And I'm not saying that Kabbalah and Gnosticism are perfect, but what the Ancients in general had going on—at least before the onset of the Kali Yuga—was a lot better than the pollution, materialism, big pharma, nuclear bombs, military-industrial-complex, Monsanto, etc. that we have now.

It is a fact that much of official science leaves factors & variables out of its hypothesis' and experiments due to pressure & money from the corporations, bankers, big-pharma, military-industrial-complex, governments, etc. If this were not the case we would be using cleaner energy; and would not be bathing in, drinking, & eating synthetic-chemicals.

[underthetree]

And I'm not saying that Kabbalah and Gnosticism are perfect, but what the Ancients in general had going on—at least before the onset of the Kali Yuga—was a lot better than the pollution, materialism, big pharma, nuclear bombs, military-industrial-complex, Monsanto, etc. that we have now.

Organized humanity has always had all those things if you think in terms of equivalents. It's just been a question of scale. read, for example, the Old Testament as a historical document.

Anyway, why is are people so keen for Gnosticism etc to explain the material world, when they reject the attempts of science to explain the spiritual world?

[catmoon]

Whoop de doo, he seems to have discovered that phenomena look different when viewed from different frames of reference. Pretty elementary stuff really.

[dzoki]

For example, there are things which 'official science' accepts which are bullpucky; and there are things that 'official science' rejects that are actually true.

What? You mean science is fallible?

Science just like any other area of human activity is prone to mistakes and mistaken notions even, and I am sorry to say, but it seems to me that some branches of science - physics and astrophysics - have become a bit like religion lately. For example the dark matter hypothesis - so much money is thorwn at it, yet the other scientific hypothesis dealing with gravity and structure of our universe alternative to the dark matter hypothesis are in general ignored and laughed at by the establishment. Yes, it MUST be a dark matter and dark energy and dark whatever - eventhough there is actualy no proof of its existence.