Archive for atoms

Things Unseen

Posted in Atheism, Atheist, belief, culture, faith, humanity, Inspiration, life, naturalism, nature, random, religion, science, thoughts with tags , , , , , , , , , on February 18, 2010 by chouck017894

There is an unfathomable amount of creative activity swirling everywhere around us that we cannot personally perceive but which science opens to us a somewhat broader understanding.   Even so, the unknown remains vast.  We scrawny human beings still have to work around the fact that we are limited physical beings and, as an example, even those persons privileged with perfect eyesight see only vibrations between 450 trillions of red light and 750 trillions of violet light.  And those with “perfect” hearing actually hear only vibrations within the 32,000-33,000 range.  That is like hearing only one small tonal chord in the vast symphony of Creation.  Dogs, cats, and other animals—even insects—often have certain better physical senses than we embody.  So we should stop pretending that we are the undisputed masters over nature or that we are the darlings of a humanlike Creator, and face up to the reality that the how and where we fit into the universal diversity of “existence” is extremely limited. 

With only our personal aware consciousness to appraise universal consciousness from this dense matter perspective, the bulk of Creation’s dynamism cannot be perceived.  There are whole dimensions of creative action that exist beyond our limited awareness.  It was noted in The Celestial Scriptures that it is with our physical senses that each of us stays constantly in touch with the truth of the universe, although the illusion of our matter-being tends to cause us to respond to it inappropriately (selfishly) rather than respond with responsible coexistence. 

Through science research we know that transitional levels of energy exist.  Atoms were once thought to be the ultimate building blocks of all energy forms.  But after exhaustive research there was found to be even more minuscule energy levels that are apparently activated from the quantum level—a level, it was found, that is influenced by how it is observed.  What this seems to suggest is that an awareness we term consciousness is present even in quantum causation.  But that all-encompassing creative consciousness should never be thought of as a humanlike being complete with humanlike feelings, prejudices and weaknesses as the practice of religious escapism commonly chooses to picture it. 

Electric force is one of the fundamental forces of Nature, but only recently have researchers identified a physical phenomenon of electric force that they refer to as electromagnetic rotation.  With this new awareness of this phenomenon there is presented to mankind a means of better understanding how the smallest building blocks in nature interact to form gases, liquids and solids that make up the material world we know.  An interesting feature of electrostatic rotation is that when it is induced without the occurrence of friction the result is the initiation of spin.  And it is spin that is used in quantum mechanics to explain phenomena at the nuclear, atomic, and molecular domains.  This could lead to a deeper understanding of the fundamental properties of matter, which, unfortunately, holy “revealed” writings have never been able to explain. 

So man’s scientific inquiry into the unseen workings of the universe is not exactly an irreverent indulgence as fundamental religionists often claim.  It is really more of a determined attempt at expanding man’s awareness which confirms humanity’s close relationship to all that is created.  Delving into Creation’s wonder-workings therefore expresses man’s will to expand spirit as opposed to religious indulgence which appeals only to each person’s ego.  Ego, we should remember, always identifies itself as centrally positioned in every situation.

Human disposition must learn that it is only when ego can look upon its intimate relationship with all things without a commitment to the temporary physical senses that one’s potential “divine” nature begins to open up.  Yes, this sounds like religious rhetoric: but the subtle difference is that the religious message is always bound up with sectarian centralism.  This awareness of our close interreltatedness with all things that are seen and unseen is the key held out by all the wise spiritual leaders and classic philosophers when they have counseled man, “Know thyself.”

Basis of Holy Trinity Concept

Posted in Atheist, belief, Bible, culture, enlightenment, history, prehistory, random, religion, science, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , on October 3, 2009 by chouck017894

The concept of a trinity or triune involvement responsible for Creation is a feature in all religions in some way.  The religions that have evolved through the millennia have clouded and lost the more ancient understanding of the creation process as they were once taught and which became presented and personified as a “trinity” in a holy mystery.  Modern science helps us understand the genius in prehistory cultures that recognized what truly constitutes the three-in-one within the creative Source.   Those three aspects of holy mystery are recognized today in physics and are called the three families of elementary particles.

The basic particles of all matter as defined in atomic chemistry are electrons, protons, and neutrons.  These constitute the three-in-one that serve as the nucleus that activates as elementary substance.  The electron is the smallest unit charge of negative electricity.  Together with the proton and neutron, it makes up one of the fundamental particles of which all matter is composed.  In the simplest nucleus, that of the hydrogen atom of mass 1, the nucleus consists of a single proton which has a positive charge of electricity that is equal in magnitude to that of an electron.  The neutron, the third part of the nucleus, is an uncharged particle.  These three particles must be present together to activate into elementary substance, the basis of all matter: allegorically “one god subsisting in three persons and one substance.”   Thus in Christian rearrangement this accounts for the “three persons” where Jesus allegedly commanded his disciples to go out and baptize “in the name of the father and of the son and  of the holy spirit.” (Matthew 28:19)

Molecules, those minute particles that move about as a singular whole, were once thought to be the fundamental particles—or building blocks of matter.  It was eventually determined, however, that molecules were made up of atoms.  Looking further into atoms, science then discovered that the atoms were nuclei with electrons around them.  From this discovery the understanding arose that nuclei were composed of neutrons and protons.  But even these were discovered not to be the smallest elementary particles, but that neutrons and protons were themselves built out of quarks.

The quark of  physics is a miniscule set of fermions having an electrical charge, and this is thought to be the fundamental particle of the universe.  The word “particle,” unfortunately, tends to be interpreted as a singular thing with quantity.  But a fundamental particle is more representative of what may be termed a trace point of eternal energy involvement.  This is not something that can be regarded as “god” or a divine being, although it is the ever-circling of energy within itself out of which is projected the kaleidoscopic colorings that we see as the complexity of the universe.

Actively involving out of and with quarks, the neutrons and protons arise much like polar energies.  These, in turn, involve and transform as nuclei with electrons around it.  These elementary particles are not yet what could be considered defined form, but only a unity of primal energy with the potential of forming into energy-substance.  All three aspects within the primordial conditions gather as potential form that is capable of emanating as a force, and this is then capable of exerting itself with four distinct properties of involvement necessary for material manifestation—allegorized in Genesis as four rivers out of Eden.  The unlimited potentiality held within the elementary particle was represented as three eternal, interacting, and inseparable aspects that ejaculate as energies of Creation.  This is ancient knowledge upon which claims were made for “revealed” information in sacred texts.  In the New Testament, for example, the unverifiable character of John is alleged to have said, “…there are three that bear record in heaven, and these three are one.  And there are three that bear witness in earth, and these three agree in one.”  As we have seen, the three-in-one is indeed recorded throughout the universe, and indeed the three creative principles do bear witness in the projected energy that defines Earth, and thus confirms they agree in one.

  • Information is abridged from The Celestial Scriptures: Keys to the Suppressed Wisdom of the Ancients.

Time and Nothingness

Posted in Atheism, Atheist, belief, Bible, Christianity, culture, logic, prehistory, random, religion with tags , , , , , , , , on July 25, 2009 by chouck017894

Many people in what we regard to be prehistory were knowledgeable of the atomic structure of the universe.  Symbols of atomic energy have been found the world over dating from what we regard as prehistory.  Also there are passages from the Vedas, for example, the most ancient sacred writings of Hinduism, that allude to beings with such understanding.  And in cultures such as the Celts, Gauls, Mayans, and others there were what we might term “initiates” who demonstrated their comprehension of atomic structure.

As late as the fifth century before our Common Era (CE), the Greek philosopher Leucippus spoke of the atom and the “corpuscular universe.”  So too did the fourth century BCE Greek philosopher Democritus, whose name is associated with the  first exposition of the atomic theory of matter according to which all matter is composed of single, indivisible atoms.  His theory was that the atoms, the space within which they move, and their motions within that space, are eternal.  This would mean that there is no point at which it can be said to have served as a “beginning.”

Both religion and science pursue the theory that if the fundamental “law” of the universe can be discerned, and the initial condition of the universe could be discovered, then all purpose for Creation would be known to man.  What is steadfastly ignored is the fact that neither time nor space function as a principle of  Creation: they are effects, and the fundamental “law” and initial condition they seek is to be found in the eternal now.  Because the potentiality for everything has always existed within the primal energies we think of as Source, and which religion insists upon personifying as “God,” it is only the  fundamental energy particle active as Source that could ever authoritatively announced “I Am.”

In other words, Creation’s energies could never have evolved ex nihilo, out of nothing. Energy can exist without manifesting as form, but energy cannot be generated out of a state of non-existence.  As Stephen Hawking has proposed, much to the dismay of cosmologists and religionists, there really could never have been a point “t=O” to mark a “beginning.” 

A “Big Bang” does not explain the beginning  of Creation: the only thing that theory can be said to demonstrate is that energy is creative.  Energy has to be active in some capacity if anything like a “big bang”  could be initiated; it simply could not explode unless there was activity present to fuel it.  Religionists, of course, will say that it was “god” who stirred up the whole mess.  But any pre-schooler has common sense enough to ask, “Then who created god?”

We are faced with the reality that is always up to each individual pattern of energy as to where it wants to begin to measure the timely circle experienced as Creation.  To define Creation in terms of a time when everything “began” is an attempt to impose limitation upon that which is without limits.  That has left science in the awkward position of never having been able to explain what it is that we experience as time.  Indeed, science and religion simply accept that time just emerged ex nihilo, out of nothing.  That idea got kicked in the head when Albert Einstein introduced to the world the theory of relativity.  The paradoxes of special relativity was that time can be measured at a different rate by two clocks in different situations.  A clock moving in outer space, as compared to a stationary one on Earth, will measure involvement with Creation  forces differently.  That little discovery changed forever man’s concept that time was something constant, unalterable, and observed identically everywhere in the universe.  The indistinct qualifications of what constitutes “time” therefore casts serious doubts on any timescale that religionists claim from “revealed wisdom,” and even clouds the timescale that cosmologists theorize in an attempt to deduce the exact “time” of the imagined “big bang.”

Maybe we should rethink our concept of time.  Age-old concepts of  “time” did not regard time as a linear measure as we have been conditioned to regard it, but thought of it as a broadly arked, ever-shifting energy flow in which we each reflect our relationship with quantum activity.