March 22, 2008 at 12:59 am #27837
-I notice a big deal in western Alchemy with the pineal gland, and David talks about this. He also shows the trend of greater outer vision with little inner wisdom to support it. I am stealing a line from Jsun on that one.
Fun stuff hope you enjoy.March 23, 2008 at 3:09 pm #27838
Yes I liked the part on the pineal gland. I did look at the whole vedeoplay. It started out good but then it dropped in quality to pehaps one of the lowest levels.
At the end they speak about the polar shift and give hints on that it might happen 2012. Then they say it have infact already started to shift and the other person says yes the chandler woble betwean that and that date.
This is totaly wrong. Yes the chandler woble hapened betwean this to days. It happens all the time. The earth is mechanically wobling around its rotation axis all the time. It was nothing that happened just once it happens just now to.
Then this is a complete mixture betwean different things. When the geologist and the physicist speak about that the eart poles have shiftet and perhaps we are on or way to another shift right now. Then they are talking about the magnetic field and that the magnetic south and north poles will shift. It happens beacase something is changing inside the earth perhaps in the inner ironised parts. And right now the magnetic field is changing in streangth and are becoming weaker and weaker. Perhaps it becomes wery weak and turn around and shift poles in the futures.
This again has nothing to do with the chandler woble that is the physical earths movements around its own rotation axis. So they are not knowing what they are talking about.
They also say that it now is proven that the inner structure of the universe is a dedokaeder. I think this is bulshit to. It is I asume a theory in teoretical physics but not a prove thing. Who did prove it and how was it proven.
THe desciption of the general relativity is wery weak. They descibe the pedagocical pictures about the gravitational field. From the comon picture that shows a 2 dimensional curved surface around the earth and that this is the gravitational field. It doesnt seems that they understood this generalisation of the descripion of the curved time space from the general realitivity.
The end of the film when they descibe the word from hoolywood movies as it is real things descibed in them is just to funny.
Bulshit things I say.
Just to put togheter things that suits your thesis and then speak about it as a thruth is just boolshit.
S DMarch 23, 2008 at 5:07 pm #27840
You should e-mail him and tell him. But I would frame it in a question and less in a demonizing tone.March 24, 2008 at 1:28 am #27842
Yes good. I´ve got realy disapointed thats why the thone. I also think if a person have a message to the word it should be worked through even in the details, Otherwise there is no reason to belive in you. If you tell something amasing but people are able to find errors in it, then it´s not thrustworthy and thats why the bulshit word. Why then belive in the rest of it?
S DMarch 24, 2008 at 10:39 am #27844
So much fire from our cold Swedish friend. This is not a case of roid rage is it? :)Would you burn a library down because you found one book you did not like? Like a Library take what information you feel you need.March 24, 2008 at 4:55 pm #27846
I can see both sides to your arguments.
I agree with you Dog about not throwing the baby out with the bath water;
at the same time, you’ll have to forgive SD–we scientific types tend
to get really riled up and defensible when we smell scientific inaccuracies,
since it acts as a source of misinformation about the field we
spend our lives in.
Unfortunately the New Age community is particularly bad at this.
They have some relatively important things to say, and because they
fear that they won’t be taken seriously they add “scientific hearsay”
into a lot of their canon to try to add some credibility. The problem
is, they never check their sources to find out how accurate it is–and
more often than not, it is completely wrong. Of course all this
inaccurate information just then makes the rest of their stuff look less
credible, because if certain things are clearly false, then it casts
the other stuff into immediate doubt.
Of course, this can sometimes create a vicious circle where they add
even more scientific hearsay to try to add more credibility, and so on.
The unfortunate result is that if there was any good legitimate information,
it has become buried and/or discounted by the fact that they poisoned their
material with wrong stuff.
It would, of course, be better if the enlightened truths they obtained, they
just stated as is–without trying to add something external. Oh well.
In the case of viewing or reading any of this New Age stuff, I think the
best approach is just to consider it “fiction” to begin with . . . just a
source of entertainment. Then, if in some small part, something seems
to resonate within, then use it as a tool to open additional awareness.
In this way, of neither complete acceptance or complete rejection, the
complete truth may be found.
StevenMarch 25, 2008 at 1:31 pm #27848
Hello Dog and Steven
I think about the way Steven describes below.
It isn´t so that I not like what he talks about (David W). Bur when mixing science with spiritual things you realy need to know what you are talking about. You realy need to know both fields. Otherwise you will just make people not belive in you.
There was more in the movie also. For instance he speaks about the looking glas. An aparture that makess it possible to see into the future. And he says that the libyan Khadaffi gave the looking glas to Saddam Husein and thats why the US army had to take him away, the war. Or something like this.
If people just can tell you everything without you checking if there is some kind of thruth in it they can just tell you anything and you will belive it.
For me when listening to new things. I think this might be true or it might not, but perhaps there is somthing in this that I didn´t know before. I also check if it resonates with the things that I know. If you then tell me bullshit things. Then I think this person is not thrustworhy. He is nothing to belive in. I can still listen to what he had to say but I am much less willing to belive hem. So it is. I not longer see him as a peron with qualified knowledge.
If I not like a book? Or more like if I read a book with big error in it I no longer thrust just that author. But I can still read other books from the library.
Swedich DragonMarch 25, 2008 at 1:56 pm #27850
I understand sceintists are driven by emotions, polotics, economics, and religion, they are people like anyone else. I did not think less of SD I just thought it would help to talk to David direct instead of emotionaly dumping on this forum. Just lending my perspective and trying to answer his question, from my perspective. Not argueing against any point he made, or for any points David made. Just sharring my perspective on how to approach information in general.March 25, 2008 at 2:14 pm #27852
The library was a metaphor for an individual. For me it is not so much the logic loop holes(as no one can be completely “right” or “wrong”), but the emotional garbage, that will make me distance my self from some ones material.March 25, 2008 at 11:06 pm #27854
I had a vision of a minor, and a thought that every minor has to individualy judge if the gold in any mine is worth the effort and costs. I think that relates to this topic.March 26, 2008 at 3:01 am #27856
Is this guy David W famous?
S DMarch 26, 2008 at 11:29 am #27858
I would not consider him Famous. Then again, that viedeo was found in the most viewed catagory on Google video. So maybe he is a secret famous person. Like Alex Jones. Evry one knows them but no one wants to talk about it outside the inter web. I have noticed that there is a growing diconnect between the medias portrayal of who, or what is popular vs what is actualy popular behind closed doors on the inter web and in peoples lives. The most viewed videos on google video is pretty telling.March 26, 2008 at 3:06 pm #27860March 26, 2008 at 4:33 pm #27862
Although I would like to watch this movie, I don’t have time right now, and probably won’t within the next few days. I can contribute a link though to an article that you might find interesting and that I think could be relevant.
The table of contents says page 22, but type in page 24 if you want to get to the correct page. The article is “Crowley, DMT, and Magick” by Blair Mackenzie Blake.
PeaceMarch 27, 2008 at 2:11 pm #27864
Here is some explanation of the movements of the geographical north pole, defined by the rotation axis. Chandler Woble. From wikipedia
The North Pole, also known as the Geographic North Pole or Terrestrial North Pole, is, subject to the caveats explained below, defined as the point in the northern hemisphere where the Earth’s axis of rotation meets the Earth’s surface. It should not be confused with the North Magnetic Pole.
The Earth’s axis of rotation and hence the position of the North Pole was commonly believed to be fixed (relative to the surface of the Earth) until, in the 18th century, the mathematician Leonhard Euler predicted that the axis might “wobble” slightly. Around the beginning of the 20th century astronomers noticed a small apparent “variation of latitude”, as determined for a fixed point on Earth from the observation of stars. Part of this variation could be attributed to a wandering of the Pole across the Earth’s surface, by a range of a few meters. The wandering has several periodic components and an irregular component. The component with a period of about 435 days is identified with the 8 month wandering predicted by Euler and is now called the Chandler wobble after its discoverer. This “wobble” means that a (fixed) definition of the Pole based on the axis of rotation is not useful when metre-scale precision is required.
The Chandler wobble is a small motion in the Earth’s axis of rotation relative to the Earth’s surface, which was discovered by American astronomer Seth Carlo Chandler in 1891. It amounts to 0.7 arcseconds (about 15 meters on the Earth’s surface) and has a period of 433 days. This wobble combines with another wobble with a period of one year so that the total polar motion varies with a period of about 7 years. The Chandler wobble is an example of the kind of motion that can occur for a spinning object that is not a sphere; this is called a free nutation. Somewhat confusingly, the direction of the Earth’s spin axis relative to the stars also varies with different periods, and these motions (caused by the tidal attraction of the Moon and Sun) are also called nutations, except for the slowest, which is the precession of the equinoxes.
A picture of chandler woble since 2005
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.