The Qabalah in the Macrocosm??
-
Black holes do not exist. Just another cultural myth.
-
This video does not disprove that blackholes exist, at best it argues that modern physics simply does not understand them completely, the arguments presented find fault with current theory, but gives no explanation for the phenomena attributed to blackholes, nor what exists at the center of our galaxy and others. "It is easier to tear down than to build"; Einstein's theories are evidently incomplete, as he himself was aware, and hence his quest for a "unified field theory" which he never achieved.
-
@Aum418 said
"
Did you bother to read AC's commentary who speaks about this verse? "Purple -- the ultra-violet (v.51), the most positive of the colours. Green -- the most negative of the colours, half-way in the spectrum." I.e. both positive and negative, i.e. transcending dualities being Infinite."No, i haven't read that yet, still i don't get how green is the most negative of colours, being like you say, half-way in the spectrum? like you mention later "Red" or "Infrared" would seem the obvious opposite, unless you mean exclusively the most passive??
"..." He is “Blue ... and gold in the light of” Nuit; that is to say, the star-strewn sky which is her image reveals him. It is clear that he, having no form, save by virtue of her, cannot be known or seen."
This would seem to apply to the theoretical "Singularity",having no form save by virtue of her ?
"To seek him is merely to seek out one of the things that may be; that is, of course, as Nuit herself. His nature only appears by the “red gleam” in his eyes. His fiery light which desires to unite with her in all her forms may been seen in those organs by which he himself perceives. For so soon as we think of the eyes of Hadit, which express his Will and his wit, we ourselves begin to partake of our kinship with him, and we think at once of the fiery lust of the spirit to consume all things. "
Once again theoretically "the lust of the Singularity" also is to "consume all things" by its extreme gravitational attraction, and literally consuming all things beyond the event horizon", i mean this association is possible is it not?
-
I think the priests of astrophysics bedazzle their flock with science fiction. Black holes only exist theoretically. They're imaginary, the result of mathematical games which captured the imagination of the masses.
Personally I don't see the use of mapping fashionable science of the day onto an ancient symbol system. Except maybe for marketing purposes. Or perhaps just for the exercise.
-
@JNV33 said
"I think the priests of astrophysics bedazzle their flock with science fiction. Black holes only exist theoretically. They're imaginary, the result of mathematical games which captured the imagination of the masses.
"This is only true to the extent it is true in all fields of learning, the rule however cannot be applied unilaterally in every situation.
What proof do you have for this? Theoretical doesn't necessarily mean imaginary, at best you might say the evidence is inconclusive. You cannot disprove the theory of blackholes. -
@JNV33 said
"I think the priests of astrophysics bedazzle their flock with science fiction. Black holes only exist theoretically. They're imaginary, the result of mathematical games which captured the imagination of the masses.
Personally I don't see the use of mapping fashionable science of the day onto an ancient symbol system. Except maybe for marketing purposes. Or perhaps just for the exercise."
All systems have been periodically updated in light of new discoveries. One objective of Qabalah is a consolidation of ideas.
I would like to know what you think exist at the center of the galaxy, or do you deny the galaxy has a center?? -
"Theoretical doesn't necessarily mean imaginary, at best you might say the evidence is inconclusive. "
Theoretical does mean imaginary, especially in this case since we're talking about theoretical EXISTENCE. Regarding so-called evidence for black holes, when one considers how easy it is to misinterpret everyday things that are familiar and close up, you have to seriously question the scraps of evidence said to support this theory. And with any new unexpected observation, scientists say "Wow, we never predicted black holes would have that property!" Then they incorporate this new evidence into black hole theory. Problem: the prime evidence that black holes exist is this same "theory" that they keep fudging to match their observations.
"You cannot disprove the theory of blackholes."
'Black holes' haven't been shown to exist in the first place, so there's no need to prove they don't.
-
@Scapegoa said
"I would like to know what you think exist at the center of the galaxy, or do you deny the galaxy has a center??"
I don't know what's at the center of the galaxy. Of course the galaxy has a center. Any portion of space can be said to have a center.
-
@JNV33 said
"
@Scapegoa said
"I would like to know what you think exist at the center of the galaxy, or do you deny the galaxy has a center??"I don't know what's at the center of the galaxy. Of course the galaxy has a center. Any portion of space can be said to have a center."
This is not just some abstract center, but very specifically, through observation the rest of the galaxy has been shown to "orbit" the center, implying some kind of extreme gravitational pull towards the center, that point alone suffices for my argument, whether you choose to call it black hole/ Singularity or whatever.
-
93,
Not only do black holes exist but they are good metaphors.
Does that settle it?
IAO131
-
@Aum418 said
"Not only do black holes exist but they are good metaphors.
"All kinds of religious superstition can be good metaphor while not literally existing. Black holes are said to exist (based on questionable manipulation of admittedly incomplete equations), but nobody has ever discovered an event horizon or a singularity. Something with a strong gravitational pull does not a black hole make.
I find the level of belief in black holes to be interesting, as I suspect most astrophysicists would agree that their existence is unproven.
-
@JNV33 said
"
@Aum418 said
"Not only do black holes exist but they are good metaphors.
"All kinds of religious superstition can be good metaphor while not literally existing. "
So can many (pehaps all) kinds of science. Does anyone know what "literally [think about that word] exists"? Or are the letters, words and symbols of metaphorical language all we have?
It's just occurred to me that in the immediately post-Liber-Legis era the most commonly understood significance of "purple and green" would have been as the signature colours of the "Suffragette" movement (Women's Social and Political Union, founded October 1903). "Every man and every woman is a star"?
OP
-
@Oliver P said
"
@JNV33 said
"
All kinds of religious superstition can be good metaphor while not literally existing. "So can many (pehaps all) kinds of science. Does anyone know what "literally [think about that word] exists"? Or are the letters, words and symbols of metaphorical language all we have?
"Interesting point. A good book along similar lines is "Magic, Power, Language, Symbol: A Magician's Exploration of Linguistics" by Patrick Dunn. Still, there is a difference between the existence of a concept and the existence of a physical object.
-
@JNV33 said
"
Interesting point. A good book along similar lines is "Magic, Power, Language, Symbol: A Magician's Exploration of Linguistics" by Patrick Dunn."
Thanks for that reference; I will certainly try to find the book.
"Still, there is a difference between the existence of a concept and the existence of a physical object."
The Truth is Out There, eh? (No, Reality is [possibly] out there. The Truth is entirely In Here *).
How do you propose securely tying the existence of a mental and linguistic concept to a "physical object"?
Something like "I know this object exists because you and a number of other people say it exists and when you do, you use language that gives rise to a concept in my mind that is similar to the concept that is in my mind when I actually look at the object I presume to exist. Therefore I assume that when you look at the object an exactly similar concept is in your mind...."
There are so many holes in that that the concept in my mind at the moment is a slice of gruyere cheese (which does not, BTW, exist; I have a piece of gruyere cheese in my fridge and right now I imagine I am slicing it; but the slice does not really exist; though in the next two minutes I can make it exist....)
I'll see what Patrick Dunn has to say.
BTW. when you say "the existence of a concept" and "the existence of a physical object", are you even using the word "existence" in the same sense?
As a famous man once said; it depends on what your definition of 'is' is.
OP
-
OP, I note that you are arguing with yourself in that post, setting up a strawman. Seems to me you could invoke the same argument to support the existence of unicorns.
I'm basically a pragmatist; I am capable of making distinctions.