Archive for dark matter

Be Fruitful And Multiply

Posted in Atheist, Bible, Hebrew scripture, prehistory, random, religion, scriptures, theology with tags , , , , , , , on December 1, 2014 by chouck017894

Be fruitful and multiply,” God is quoted as instructing Adam and Eve on the sixth day of Creation (Genesis 1:28). Simple enough. What could possibly go askew or infringe upon that intended long-range plan for human life expansion? But the original couple was blessed with sons only, or so holy scriptures tell us. Nonetheless, that commandment to be “fruitful” had to be honored.

Indeed human life would multiply by unexpected means, for Adam and Eve’s murderous son, Cain, dutifully went forth after murdering his brother Abel and personally populated the cities he built, although we are never told where he found the females. Meanwhile, back in Adam’s prehistoric domain the original couple produced their third son Seth, “…and the days after he (Adam) had begotten Seth were eight hundred years; and he begat sons and daughters” (Genesis 5:4). None of this additional “fruitfulness”, apparently, produced any fruit important enough to designate with a name. The third son, Seth, however, dutifully carried on the godly demand to be fruitful and at around one hundred and five years of age he sired a son Enos. So devoted was Seth that he continued to begat sons and daughters for another eight hundred and seven years. Now that’s devotion.

All the begatting was continued and is proudly listed through Genesis 5, right up to when the male Noah was sired by a male named Lamech who had lived one hundred-eighty-two years before that blessed event. And father Lamech, it is claimed, would live another five hundred and ninety-five years, still devotedly begetting sons and daughters. His son, Noah, of course, was also blessedly inspired and when he was only five hundred years old he begat his sons Shem, Ham and Japheth. Obviously the dedication to being fruitful also assured one of a long life.

Ahh, but by the time of Noah’s appearance (a minimum of 2989 years would have passed) only then, we are told was it “…when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them…” (Hadn’t God–who is omniscient–ever noticed the daughters of Adam, Seth and Lamech?) Anyway, it was only then that God suddenly recognized that the wickedness of man was great. God then “repented…that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart” (Genesis 6:6). But Noah, we are told, “…was a just man and perfect in his generations” (which means that he represented the prototypal levels of creative energy), and Noah walked with God” (Genesis 6:9–meaning that Noah represented the ideation of life within the Source). But God would then again “repent” after he had rashly doused the world with forty days of rain, and he then “…remembered Noah, and every living thing…” and allowed Noah’s lifeboat to touch down solid ground (matter) after the deluge.

The sons of Noah’ sons are accounted for in chapter 10 of Genesis, followed by more lists of “begatting” as well as much building of cities and nations again. But once again God, who apparently had been busy elsewhere, suddenly found that man had failed the Noahic covenant, so this time God decided to confuse the tongues of man so that they would be less companionable and ambitious. (So how has that worked out?) Then, only two short years after the Flood the ancestry of Abram was launched, which once again necessitated much begatting.

Abram–not yet renamed Abraham–was predestined to be the “seed bearer”, the progenitor and founder of God’s people. Up to Genesis 7:15, however, Sari–not yet known as Sarah–wife of Abram, had remained barren; “…she had no child” it is explained. But we should note the embedded clue here–which is that Abram and his family still dwelt in the sea port of Ur (meaning situated by the primal waters of Creation), and Abram decided to gather his rudimentary family and move on. They would probably be more fruitful if they moved on. And indeed they would. So what is being told–sacred language style? The Genesis accounts, remember, happen to cover the elementary developmental phases of Creation (personifications of elementary particles moving toward matter form). At this point of pre-physical energy, we should note, the “Israelites” have not yet even been implied, let alone claimed as ancestors. This is what is claimed as Hebrew Scriptural history.

In pre-history, pre-Hebrew Creation lessons upon which holy Hebrew texts were composed, actual scientific principles of how energy transforms into matter–or Creation–were being explained. In those ancient lessons the bearing principle, symbolized with female figures, always represented the primal energies which have involved to become active as energy substance. It is out of this elemental involvement as substance that the Life Principle may then activate that energy substance toward dense matter formations in which life with self-aware consciousness may become manifest. Until elementary particles (energy substances) are made active through polar exchange primal energies cannot be creative. Those primal energies are, to use the biblical term, barren. Think about it: isn’t it a bit strange that so many lead characters in scriptural myths had wives or mothers who were once declared to be barren? Why would they remain barren if God had demanded they should be fruitful and multiply? And isn’t it odd also that all of them became mothers of outstanding sons through God’s compassion? It is more than just peculiar that Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, Hanna, the unnamed mother of Samson, and the mother of John the Baptist were all portrayed as having been barren but miraculously made fertile to fulfill a divine purpose. In all those holy tales the male star is always a personification for the Life Principle–the savior of all life. All barren women in scriptures have their foundation in prehistory lessons concerning Creation principles. Sarah’s barrenness (Genesis 21) has a direct parallel to the account of Rebecca (Genesis 25), to Rachel (Genesiss 29), to Samson’s unnamed mother (Judges 13), and Hannah, mother of Samuel (1 Samuel).

In the process of Creation, primal energies must first involve as energy substance. In prehistory lessons this was referred to as etheric substance, the first involvement of primal energies which triggers further involvement. This etheric energy-substance, however, is not yet endowed with what the ancient lessons signified as genetic ideation. This is the primary transformational dimension of Creation energies, and represented the first phase of elemental matter. This is a strong clue as to why several scriptural female characters such as Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, et al, were said to be “barren” until God activated their potential. Every one of these “barren” women of holy writ therefore actually personify the primordial energies of Creation which have not yet been activated with genetic ideation.

From those ancient lessons of matter-life being initiated out of quantum Source, often thought of as the void, was fashioned all the mythic accounts of barren women giving birth to savior-like sons. Barren women personified the primordial energy-substance which is not yet made fecund with Creative Energy. Elementary energy-substance is then made active to involve further through four condensing configurations, which the ancient lessons typified as the four skins of matter. This primary energy-substance stage of energy involvement is where the prototype of matter-life is made active, and is therefore where the name is changed in scriptural drama (Abram to Abraham, Sari to Sarah, Jacob to Israel, etc.). These accounts of name changes are not unique to Hebrew scriptures, they were features in Pagan tales of gods also. Until elementary particles are made active through Creative Energy those elementary particles remain uncreative–or to use biblical terminology, they are barren.

Remember also, in the Abram/Sari story that the alleged five shameless (amoral) Cities of the Plain (Sodom and Gomorrah among them) had to be struck down before Sari was made capable of bearing a child. That is because the “sinful” cities represent the five primordial energy planes of involvement (the undeveloped or prototypal stages) which must be passed over in order for energy to condense and allow matter forms to be made manifest. In those prehistory Creation lessons upon which this scriptural tale was amassed, may we say, this lesson of energy represented with Sari was referred to as Creative Energy, and it is from this circumstance that the four skins of energy-as-matter are built up through Mental Matter, Astral Matter, Etheric Matter and Dense Matter. Interestingly, modern cosmological research now tells us that the universe is composed mostly of “dark energy,” “dark matter,” and dark puzzles. And to our eyes all that appears to be “barren.” Nonetheless, it all remains fruitful and continues to multiply.

Advertisements

Big Bang = Science Fiction

Posted in Astronomy, Atheist, culture, environment, life, nature, random, science, thoughts with tags , , , , , , , , , on September 22, 2009 by chouck017894

The biblical version of “beginning,” creation ex nihilo (Latin, “out of nothing”), has a strange counterpoint with the so-called Big Bang theory that has been clutched to the breasts of cosmologists and cosmogonists as virtually sacrosanct since around the 1920s.  That similarity of concept—a material universe out of nothing—has its link in Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, mathematician and astronomer who proposed a theory that came to be known, sarcastically at first, as the Big Bang.  Lemaitre’s idea of the origin of the universe was that it was from a “primeval atom” or “Cosmic Egg.”  The myths of numerous prehistory cultures had similar ideas of everything being brought forth from an “egg,” but Lemaitre explained the Cosmic Egg as “…exploding at the moment of the creation.”

Basically, the big bang and black holes and all the interlocking theories are closer to metaphysics or science fiction than documented science, but the media eats it up.   Totally ignored is the fact that the theory defies known physics principles and requires a belief in invisible and unproven “dark matter” and “dark energy” to shore up the theory.  Granted, there is much in the universe that mortal eyes cannot perceive, but space is not exactly a material object that can be warped as in Einstein’s geometric theory.  The universe, most likely, did not find it necessary to unfold through such a needlessly complicated indulgence as the bangers like to imagine.

Around the “science” of the bangers there hovers a shocking lack of explanation for the simplest phenomena associated with matter.  They remain totally mystified by such phenomena as mass, gravity, magnetism and light.  They can and do summon up complex mathematical descriptions to make a fit for any observable things, but mathematical exercises do not constitute an explanation of what we see as physical reality or how they were made manifest.  As with radical religionists, the mystery is their selling point, and it is their showmanship at telescopes and blackboards that brings the money into their coffers while those with more tangible answers have been effectively muzzled.

 There has long been a strange avoidance by the cosmology crowd against considering any other studies that could prove pertinent to their own field of interest.  They patently ignore, for example, high-energy experiments at Los Alamos National Laboratories and Sandia Laboratories in which have been observed results that show striking parallels with astronomical phenomena.  To the Big Bang advocates, those observable experiments show the heresy that suggests that the universe was initiated and shaped by electrical transference!  Worse for the bangers, there have been high-energy experiments that have reproduced the features of aurorae, sunspots, comets and similar mysteries that have constantly left cosmologists stymied.  But bangers loath the fact that the theory of a kind of cosmic circuitry better explains creative activity in the universe than does the esoteric theories of a big bang and galaxy-gobbling black holes.

Studying the behavior of electricity in gases may seem a long way from the sciences of astronomy-cosmology-cosmogony, but to watch the writhing life-like filaments in a container of plasma bears an uncanny likeness to the universal energies and their inclination for responsible life that we so yearn to understand.

  • Recommended reading: The Big Bang Never Happened: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe by Eric J. Lerner.