Originally Posted by TnT

Eric,

It's like you want to have it both ways. You seem to want to say that spiritual experiences and the like can't be measured and detected with the senses. And yet, demonstrable.

Yes, indeed. The effects of the non-visible can show up in the visible. There's really no division. Perhaps the invisible can be detected too, but the evidence for it is not accessible to me at this time.

My experience tells me that these experiences are private, personal and emotional. I can compare notes with others. We can perhaps come close to agreeing on certain features of them. But we can't KNOW someone else's experience in the same way that we can in a scientific activity.

Just remember that millions of people have had these sorts of experience for thousands of years, and a great tradition of "compared notes" and teachings exists in many cultures. You need to give allowance for this, in addition to what your own personal experience tells you. From what you have said, these experiences have not "told" you enough to show you that the material/physical structure is not all that you are, and that the ideology based on this idea is limited or even "false" (because all limited dogmas like vandal's or those of other fundamentalists are false). But it is your quest and journey, and you can say to me "it's been fun," but your journey has just begun; if not in this life, then beyond. So yes, I hope it WILL be fun! You have a long journey ahead of you, and I am just a pesky joker showing you that the rabbit hole is deeper than you now think! It's up to you how far you want to go.
http://youtu.be/zrbksYzmmNU

Furthermore, just because someone has a "white light" near-death experience, doesn't prove anything at all. No matter how passionately they tell me the story.

That doesn't mean it shouldn't tell you anything. "Prove?" Maybe not. I don't have to "believe" anything anyone tells me. But to me these stories are credible, and I listen. There's no way I believe they are all made up or delusional, even if I know their story doesn't "prove" anything.

And as for the secret, if "remote viewing" were demonstrable and easy to perform, even by a select few of folks, they'd be in HUGE demand.

It may not be "easy," and yet, if you read the article I linked, you know it was performed by ordinary people with no training. There is just no basis for concluding that because demand is not as "high" as you suppose, that remote viewing is not demonstrable. You have to decide that based on the evidence, not based on popular demand. Science is not a popularity contest! Actually, psychics are in huge demand, even though the culture that you subscribe to, and which deceives almost every well-educated (mis-educated) person in this culture, strongly denies and even represses them. There is strong resistance to this kind of phenomena and ability, and yet it remains quite popular whenever and wherever it is offered. I know that from personal experience; believe me.

You owe it to yourself to continue to read this thread, and learn from my posts and a few others (even Dr. The Rani's, occasionally). Why remain in a point of view that limits you so deeply? It is truly up to you.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You owe it to yourself to continue to read this thread, and learn from my posts and a few others (even Dr. The Rani's, occasionally). Why remain in a point of view that limits you so deeply? It is truly up to you.

I must say, Eric, you're awfully sure of yourself and the "Truth" (with a capital 'T') of all this, aren't you. Verging on arrogance at times. Thanks for the condescending lecture.

Reminds me sometimes of the mom who came to her son's graduation from Army Basic Training. She said excitedly as the graduating unit marched by the reviewing stand, "Oh, look!! Out of all those fine soldiers, my Johnny is the ONLY one in step!"

Originally Posted by TnT

I must say, Eric, you're awfully sure of yourself and the "Truth" (with a capital 'T') of all this, aren't you. Verging on arrogance at times. Thanks for the condescending lecture.

Reminds me sometimes of the mom who came to her son's graduation from Army Basic Training. She said excitedly as the graduating unit marched by the reviewing stand, "Oh, look!! Out of all those fine soldiers, my Johnny is the ONLY one in step!"

Not the response I wanted from you

No, I wasn't arrogant or condescending. After all, I only called myself a joker. I was answering your questions and responding to your points as carefully as I could. You did after all ask me, a while back, for my views. And I am relating not what I know, so much as the knowledge (or "Truth") that millions of other people know too; as you admitted before about the community of mystic-minded folk. It is not especially about what I know, or that what I know is anything unusual, or something to be proud or arrogant about.

You don't seem to respond to my points very often; I do try to make them as easy to understand as I can. If you have insights that might come out in your replies, they might be useful in some way. But that might not happen if you don't respond in a comprehending way. So, get in step!

The only hope is to open you up to the idea there are other points of view. That's about all any of us (including you) can do about the things we know and want to share. I don't think it's condescending to share what one knows. What else can you do with it?

And I don't see how saying that it is your quest and journey, and that it's up to you, is arrogant and condescending.

It IS fun, and it's up to you.

You asked about my model. I have been developing models of the spiritual journey lately; based on earlier ones, of course. And they are truly fun; at least I think so! Take a look if you haven't already. Nothing to "believe" or "prove" here though.

http://philosopherswheel.com/tarot.html
http://philosopherswheel.com/toccata.htm

And of course, you can find out just where you are in your philosophy quest by taking my questionnaire (and let me know where you are)
http://philosopherswheel.com/questionnaire.htm

Are there patterns that cut through physical and metaphysical realms?

Hermetic science says so. As above, so below. This is not "science," according to Vandal. There is no empirical scientific proof for such patterns. But the correspondences can be amazing.

Rags brought up the periodic table of modern elements recently, using it as a model for posters here. I was radioactive cesium compared to vandal as the most active oxidizing agent flourine. No, that's not science. But maybe boomers (prophets) are like dominant, radioactive elements, giving away their ideas, while Xers (nomads) are like oxidizing agents that release explosive energy when combined with boomers.

But it's interesting that the periodic table resembles the chakras, which I discuss in the context of Bach's amazing Toccata in F (see article link). The pattern cuts through physical and metaphysical; chemical and alchemical.

First of all, you may know there are 7 major chakras or soul/consciousness centers in your body, according to hermetic, tantric and new age philosophy, running from spiritual at the top to physically-oriented at the bottom. In the periodic table there are 7 levels too, with lighter elements in the top level and heavy ones at the bottom.

"Periodic" means that the elements run in a series of 7 cycles. Chakra means "wheel."

Furthermore, the chakras are generated by two currents, one yang and one yin. Alchemy calls them coagulating and dissolving; or active and receptive, male and female. The periodic table is arranged with elements that give away electrons (reducing agents) on the left (yang), and elements that take away or receive electrons (oxidizing agents) on the right (yin).

In modern metaphysical psychology, the left brain is considered yang or dominant, and the right brain is considered yin or receptive.

I am amazed to discover that the parallel does not end there. As the Toccata illustrates with its 2 themes, the "manifesting" or yang current is dominant in the lower chakras, while the "liberating" or yin current is dominant in the higher chakras, according to chakra experts. So that's symbolically "why" the lower, heavy yang metals on the chart are most active, and the lighter yin elements higher on the chart are most active.

This is also shown in the two chakra currents, as represented in the contra-revolving six-pointed star tetrahedron symbol for all the ancient elements (The Seal of Solomon/Star of David, prime symbol in The DaVinci Code; also called the Merkabah or chariot of ascension). This symbol is built from one triangle pointed up (liberating), and the other triangle pointed down (manifesting). This is also the chariot theme in the Toccata, heard 7 times, with 7 triangles in each repeat.
http://youtu.be/U6fgRfrTb78?t=3m27s

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Are there patterns that cut through physical and metaphysical realms?

Hermetic science says so. As above, so below. This is not "science," according to Vandal. There is no empirical scientific proof for such patterns. But the correspondences can be amazing.

In other words, no evidence. Just a bunch of made up crap based on superficial analogies.

Rags brought up the periodic table of modern elements recently, using it as a model for posters here. I was radioactive cesium compared to vandal as the most active oxidizing agent flourine. No, that's not science. But maybe boomers (prophets) are like dominant, radioactive elements, giving away their ideas, while Xers (nomads) are like oxidizing agents that release explosive energy when combined with boomers.

But it's interesting that the periodic table resembles the chakras, which I discuss in the context of Bach's amazing Toccata in F (see link above). The pattern cuts through physical and metaphysical; chemical and alchemical.

First of all, you may know there are 7 major chakras or soul/consciousness centers in hermetic, tantric and new age philosophy, running from spiritual at the top to physically-oriented at the bottom. In the periodic table there are 7 levels too, with lighter elements in the top level and heavy ones at the bottom.

What happens to your analogy when physicists figure out a way to create element #119?

What about alternative tables that don't use rows for the periods?

"Periodic" means that the elements run in a series of 7 cycles. Chakra means "wheel."

It can easily be argued that there are eight or nine periods including the actinides and lanthanides as individual sequences based on their shared properties.

Furthermore, the chakras are generated by two currents, one yang and one yin. Alchemy calls them coagulating and dissolving; or active and receptive. The periodic table is arranged with elements that give away electrons (reducing agents) on the left (yang), and elements that take away or receive electrons (oxidizing agents) on the right (yin).

Hydrogen (on the left) does both.

In modern metaphysical psychology, the left brain is considered yang or dominant, and the right brain is considered yin or receptive.

I am amazed to discover that the parallel does not end there. As the Toccata illustrates with its 2 themes, the "manifesting" or yang current is dominant in the lower chakras, while the "liberating" or yin current is dominant in the higher chakras, according to chakra experts. So that's symbolically "why" the lower, heavy yang metals on the chart are most active, and the lighter yin elements higher on the chart are most active.

This is also shown in the two chakra currents, as represented in the contra-revolving six-pointed star tetrahedron symbol for all the ancient elements (The Seal of Solomon/Star of David, prime symbol in The DaVinci Code; also called the Merkabah or chariot of ascension). This symbol is built from one triangle pointed up (liberating), and the other triangle pointed down (manifesting). This is also the "chariot theme" in the Toccata, heard 7 times.

Made up gibberish to force an analogy.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

In other words, no evidence. Just a bunch of made up crap based on superficial analogies.

Yup, just as I said you would say.

What happens to your analogy when physicists figure out a way to create element #119?

they won't; I predict!

Made up gibberish to destroy an analogy!

What about alternative tables that don't use rows for the periods?

Still has 7 levels.

Left and right are switched, and less clear; but the cyclic nature of the table is even clearer. The yin/yang principle doesn't change no matter how you represent it in a table.

Chakras are spirals. The chakra currents are spirals.

More elements on the bottom layers; fewer at the top. Fits metaphysical pattern perfectly.

It can easily be argued that there are eight or nine periods including the actinides and lanthanides as individual sequences based on their shared properties.

No it can't. They all still have 6 or 7 rings.

Hydrogen (on the left) does both.

Yes, the crown chakra is connected to everything. It is the original atom, like Kether (crown) of the kabbalah Tree of Life. Or the alchemical marriage.

Made up gibberish to force an analogy.

Ah, but so beautiful; but folks like you can't appreciate it. Oh well; you're missing out.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yup, just as I said you would say.

Because you know you are just bloviating.

they won't; I predict!

We'll need to mark that one down. Eric makes an actual, verifiable prediction that can definitively be tested. Only problem is that any work on such elements is probably a decade away at least.

Made up gibberish to destroy an analogy!

Analogies be definition are already broken.

Still has 7 levels.

No. They didn't.

Left and right are switched, and less clear;

Meaning that your analogy didn't work.

but the cyclic nature of the table is even clearer.

No. They don't match your original claim about matching chakras.

The yin/yang principle doesn't change no matter how you represent it in a table.

Yeah. It's real hard to find dichotomies in large sets of things. [/sarcasm]

Chakras are spirals. The chakra currents are spirals.

Your actual words: First of all, you may know there are 7 major chakras or soul/consciousness centers in your body, according to hermetic, tantric and new age philosophy, running from spiritual at the top to physically-oriented at the bottom. In the periodic table there are 7 levels too, with lighter elements in the top level and heavy ones at the bottom.

The alternative tables do not have lighter elements at the top and heavier ones at the bottom.

More elements on the bottom layers; fewer at the top. Fits metaphysical pattern perfectly.

The alternative tables do not have tops and bottoms.

No it can't. They all still have 6 or 7 rings.

1- Period 7: Although the rarity of many of these elements means that experimental results are not very extensive, periodic and group trends in behaviour appear to be less well defined for period 7 than for other periods. Whilst francium and radium do show typical properties of Groups 1 and 2 respectively, the actinides display a much greater variety of behaviour and oxidation states than the lanthanides. Initial studies suggest Group 14 element flerovium appears to be a noble gas instead of an other metal, and group 18 element ununoctium probably is not a noble gas.[18] These peculiarities of period 7 may be due to a variety of factors, including a large degree of spin-orbit coupling and relativistic effects, ultimately caused by the very high positive electrical charge from their massive atomic nuclei.

2- You just claimed that there are seven chakras and the periods of the table match them. How can there then be only six rings? How does that match your seven chakras?

Yes, the crown chakra is connected to everything. It is the original atom, like Kether (crown) of the kabbalah Tree of Life. Or the alchemical marriage.

But helium is also in the first period and it doesn't act like both sides of the periodic table!

You are just making shit up as you go along.

Ah, but so beautiful; but folks like you can't appreciate it. Oh well; you're missing out.

Why not the seven samurai?
Seven days of the week?
Seven deadly sins?
Seven colors of the rainbow?
Seven wonders of the ancient world?
The seven dwarfs?
The seven exits out of Hogwart's?
The seven players of a quidditch team?
The seven Lords of Valar?
Seven innings in high school baseball?
Seven words you can never say on television?
Seven seas?
Seven layers of the Earth in Islam?
The seven lucky gods of Japanese myth?
The seven solar system objects visible to the naked eye?
Seven cervical vertebra of most mammals?
The seven SI base units?

There is nothing special about the coincidence of seven rows on a typical periodic table and there being seven chakras in many traditions.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Because you know you are just bloviating.

And proud of it.

Hey, you are so keen on debunking my analogies; it must mean you are afraid they may have some merit! In that case, you might look at my websites; they are amazing!

We'll need to mark that one down. Eric makes an actual, verifiable prediction that can definitively be tested. Only problem is that any work on such elements is probably a decade away at least.

Yup. My analogy will hold for a while. When it doesn't, I can always point out that some chakra practitioners hold that there are 8 main chakras!

Of course the thing to keep in mind, even if more than 118 elements are created, meaning that the table will be less neat and symmetrical, it is NOT really another "level" or period unless this new element has 8 rings in its electron cloud!

Analogies by definition are already broken.

Definition by analogy is already broken.

No. They didn't.

Uh, yes, they did.

Meaning that your analogy didn't work.

The yin yang principle still holds and is explained in the legend for the charts

No. They don't match your original claim about matching chakras.

They match the cyclic nature of chakras.

Yeah. It's real hard to find dichotomies in large sets of things. [/sarcasm]

Not so hard; males and females can be of any size.

Your actual words: First of all, you may know there are 7 major chakras or soul/consciousness centers in your body, according to hermetic, tantric and new age philosophy, running from spiritual at the top to physically-oriented at the bottom. In the periodic table there are 7 levels too, with lighter elements in the top level and heavy ones at the bottom.

The alternative tables do not have lighter elements at the top and heavier ones at the bottom.

There are also planets charts. The planets match the chakras. They are considered outer (heavy) and inner (light) (in chakra theory) but are always depicted the same way as in your spiral charts.

The spiral charts depict the correspondence with the fact that the lower chakras deal with "outer" or physical matters and the higher chakras deal with "inner" concerns. The chakras are a spiritual journey going from without to within. You of course are stuck in the outer ring. And your charge will decay!

You like to reach for extreme examples to debunk my correspondences. There is probably a good reason why the 7 layers chart is used often ("typical" in your words) and the 7 spiral charts are not.

The alternative tables do not have tops and bottoms.

The spiral can be seen as spiralling up. I did not make up their use of the word "spiral." That word is fundamental to chakra theory too.

1- Period 7: Although the rarity of many of these elements means that experimental results are not very extensive, periodic and group trends in behaviour appear to be less well defined for period 7 than for other periods. Whilst francium and radium do show typical properties of Groups 1 and 2 respectively, the actinides display a much greater variety of behaviour and oxidation states than the lanthanides. Initial studies suggest Group 14 element flerovium appears to be a noble gas instead of an other metal, and group 18 element ununoctium probably is not a noble gas.[18] These peculiarities of period 7 may be due to a variety of factors, including a large degree of spin-orbit coupling and relativistic effects, ultimately caused by the very high positive electrical charge from their massive atomic nuclei.

The outer ring still holds.

According to kabbalists, there is large agreement about the nature of the higher levels; more variety of thought about the lower ones. Hey, just another analogy discovered!

2- You just claimed that there are seven chakras and the periods of the table match them. How can there then be only six rings? How does that match your seven chakras?

Because each level has the number of rings that match the chakras, going from the first level, highest chakra (one ring) to the 7th level, lowest chakra (7 rings)

But helium is also in the first period and it doesn't act like both sides of the periodic table!

But hydrogen does. None of the noble gases do. They are like the backbone or Shushumna; the grounding pedal note. It is fundamental to chakra theory that there is a central channel that is neither yin or yang; to the kabbala too.

You are just making shit up as you go along.

I'm enjoying making new discoveries all the time. You don't make discoveries; you just parrot what the scientists tell you.

Why not the seven samurai?
Seven days of the week?
Seven deadly sins?
Seven colors of the rainbow?
Seven wonders of the ancient world?
The seven dwarfs?
The seven exits out of Hogwart's?
The seven players of a quidditch team?
The seven Lords of Valar?
Seven innings in high school baseball?
Seven words you can never say on television?
Seven seas?
Seven layers of the Earth in Islam?
The seven lucky gods of Japanese myth?
The seven solar system objects visible to the naked eye?
Seven cervical vertebra of most mammals?
The seven SI base units?

There is nothing special about the coincidence of seven rows on a typical periodic table and there being seven chakras in many traditions.

Yes indeed; the 7 planets and 7 colors also match the 7 chakras. That's a key point in my Bach, Chakras, Tarot website I already linked.

The point is, that's pretty special that there are so many ways that seven is demonstrated. There were 7 levels of metals in the alchemists' table which were already matched to the chakras and the planets (hey, both words have 7 letters, as does the word toccata). The periodic chemical table thus already matches the alchemical original. Seven naturally appears often because it matches the 7 chakras, which are the fundamental layers of the human embodied soul. I already wrote that essay too:
http://philosopherswheel.com/sacrednumbers.html
Thanks for adding to my list. You might enjoy that website I wrote; it might add more ammunition to your debunking campaign against the number coincidence.

J.K.Rowling did a good job of designing her school according to alchemical wizardry traditions. The Coat of Arms is designed similarly to the quincunx or mandala formation that depicts the five elements (we discussed that topic before). The four schools match the four elements, four creatures around the Throne of God, etc. Two of the evangelical creatures are even the same!



The "fourfold world" with the sacred center is depicted in my table here:
http://philosopherswheel.com/toccata.htm#imperial

I didn't see the "7 exits" in the wikipedia article on Hogwart's, but it may be there I dunno.

Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings are known as typical "hero's journey" stories, and so are the chakras, the tarot, Bach's Toccata in F, and the "thousand" other "faces" of the hero in mythology and modern stories.

Here is a great summary of the hero's journey (both of the above stories are included):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SB_Q1gFsvIw

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

And proud of it.

Hey, you are so keen on debunking my analogies; it must mean you are afraid they may have some merit! In that case, you might look at my websites; they are amazing!

Afraid? Hardly. I laugh my ass off at your rantings.

Yup. My analogy will hold for a while. When it doesn't, I can always point out that some chakra practitioners hold that there are 8 main chakras!

Of course you can. That's a clear sign that the whole idea is just made up nonsense from the get go.

Of course the thing to keep in mind, even if more than 118 elements are created, meaning that the table will be less neat and symmetrical, it is NOT really another "level" or period unless this new element has 8 rings in its electron cloud!

None of the orbitals of the electron clouds are rings at all. You were basing this whole idea on the idea that electrons are in rings around the nucleus? Laugh my ass off.

Definition

by analogy is already broken.

Uh, yes, they did.

No, they didn't.

The yin yang principle still holds and is explained in the legend for the charts

Without seven levels and having electronegativity spread throughout the tables, your initial analogy doesn't fit at all.

They match the cyclic nature of chakras.

No. The properties appear cyclic because we arbitrarily chose to arrange the elements by size of charge in the nucleus. We don't have to arrange them that way.

Not so hard; males and females can be of any size.

Caenorhabditis elegans has two sexes but no females. Your so called universal principles are shown to be imaginary when faced up to the actual diversity and complexity of nature.

There are also planets charts. The planets match the chakras. They are considered outer (heavy) and inner (light) (in chakra theory) but are always depicted the same way as in your spiral charts.

The spiral charts depict the correspondence with the fact that the lower chakras deal with "outer" or physical matters and the higher chakras deal with "inner" concerns. The chakras are a spiritual journey going from without to within. You of course are stuck in the outer ring. And your charge will decay!

New Age gobbledygook.

You like to reach for extreme examples to debunk my correspondences. There is probably a good reason why the 7 layers chart is used often ("typical" in your words) and the 7 spiral charts are not.

I know exactly why the grid format is favored over the others. How come you, in your infinite wisdom, can't figure it out?

BTW: There is no seven-spiral chart. The alternatives have one spiral.

The spiral can be seen as spiralling up. I did not make up their use of the word "spiral." That word is fundamental to chakra theory too.

Each chakra is supposed to be its own vortex or whirlpool.

The outer ring still holds.

According to kabbalists, there is large agreement about the nature of the higher levels; more variety of thought about the lower ones. Hey, just another analogy discovered!

And if the seventh period was an ideal progression you would have claimed the analogy fit. No matter what information I show, you will claim it still fits. Perfect proof that your idea is useless. It explains absolutely everything and thus explains nothing, just like creationist ideas.

Because each level has the number of rings that match the chakras, going from the first level, highest chakra (one ring) to the 7th level, lowest chakra (7 rings)

The electrons are not in rings at all.

But hydrogen does. None of the noble gases do. They are like the backbone or Shushumna; the grounding pedal note. It is fundamental to chakra theory that there is a central channel that is neither yin or yang; to the kabbala too.

See. With your limited knowledge you made one claim, then you completely change your claim when confronted by information that refuted your original claim. You really are just making this up as you go along.

I'm enjoying making new discoveries all the time. You don't make discoveries; you just parrot what the scientists tell you.

You aren't discovering anything. You are just making up an analogy. That isn't discovery.

Yes indeed; the 7 planets and 7 colors also match the 7 chakras. That's a key point in my Bach, Chakras, Tarot website I already linked.

There are eight planets. There are only seven colors in a rainbow because of the language you grew up with.

The point is, that's pretty special that there are so many ways that seven is demonstrated. There were 7 levels of metals in the alchemists' table which were already matched to the chakras and the planets (hey, both words have 7 letters, as does the word toccata).

Only in English. How cosmically universal can it be if the seven letters is true in one language only?

The periodic chemical table thus already matches the alchemical original. Seven naturally appears often because it matches the 7 chakras, which are the fundamental layers of the human embodied soul. I already wrote that essay too:
http://philosopherswheel.com/sacrednumbers.html
Thanks for adding to my list. You might enjoy that website I wrote; it might add more ammunition to your debunking campaign against the number coincidence.

Yes. There are lots of lists of things that have seven entries. Of course we could have written a list with five, four, six, three, or eight as well. The fact that there is such a large list demonstrates that any "connection" you see is due to coincidence only. But your confirmation bias always rejects the idea of coincidence.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Afraid? Hardly. I laugh my ass off at your rantings.

YOu're afraid of facing the truth at how ignorant you are.

None of the orbitals of the electron clouds are rings at all. You were basing this whole idea on the idea that electrons are in rings around the nucleus? Laugh my ass off.

Laugh, but that's what the chemistry books call them. Electrons fill up empty slots, or they are given away, etc. on each level.

No, they didn't.

Uh, yes, they did.

Without seven levels and having electronegativity spread throughout the tables, your initial analogy doesn't fit at all.

It fits perfectly. Alkali metals are yang and halogens are yin.

No. The properties appear cyclic because we arbitrarily chose to arrange the elements by size of charge in the nucleus. We don't have to arrange them that way.

You have to arrange them that way, from positive, through transition, to negative, to neutral noble gas. You claim to be a chemistry teacher? What crap are you teaching?

Caenorhabditis elegans has two sexes but no females. Your so called universal principles are shown to be imaginary when faced up to the actual diversity and complexity of nature.

Sex is a universal principle in biology and physics. If you can dredge up an exception, it only proves the rule.

New Age gobbledygook.

Which corresponds to the periodic table.

BTW: There is no seven-spiral chart. The alternatives have one spiral.

If you can't see that there are 7 turns on that spiral, then that's proof you are blind.

Each chakra is supposed to be its own vortex or whirlpool.

That's right, and it whirls because of the currents that shift back and forth in spiral fashion at each level.

And if the seventh period was an ideal progression you would have claimed the analogy fit. No matter what information I show, you will claim it still fits. Perfect proof that your idea is useless. It explains absolutely everything and thus explains nothing, just like creationist ideas.

It's still a very ideal progression.

The electrons are not in rings at all.

But that's what they call them. There are so many electrons at each level: 2,8,8,18,18,32,32

See. With your limited knowledge you made one claim, then you completely change your claim when confronted by information that refuted your original claim. You really are just making this up as you go along.

New discoveries. You make no discoveries; you just spout propaganda.

You aren't discovering anything. You are just making up an analogy. That isn't discovery.

I am discovering connections and correlations.

There are eight planets. There are only seven colors in a rainbow because of the language you grew up with.

You said yourself there were seven visible planets. You called them "visible objects," but that's the ones. Sun,Moon,Mercury,Venus,Mars,Jupiter,Saturn.

Only in English. How cosmically universal can it be if the seven letters is true in one language only?

Because it's neat, that's why.

Yes. There are lots of lists of things that have seven entries. Of course we could have written a list with five, four, six, three, or eight as well. The fact that there is such a large list demonstrates that any "connection" you see is due to coincidence only. But your confirmation bias always rejects the idea of coincidence.

I explained the correlation between chemistry and alchemy regarding the seven levels of both their metals/elements. And planets and colors are rather important compared to the other stuff. But yes, lots of other things have seven.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

YOu're afraid of facing the truth at how ignorant you are.

Says the guy who claims that electrons can travel at the speed of light, that protons are made of leptons, that there is a boson field, and that electrons occupy rings around nuclei of atoms.

Laugh, but that's what the chemistry books call them. Electrons fill up empty slots, or they are given away, etc. on each level.

I thought you said you understood quantum mechanics? How come you don't seem to understand what the levels for electrons actually are?

Uh, yes, they did.

No, they didn't.

It fits perfectly. Alkali metals are yang and halogens are yin.

But noble gases are the furthest right on the table, not halogens.

You have to arrange them that way,

No, you don't.

from positive, through transition, to negative, to neutral noble gas.

Really? How come the alkali earth metals (second column) are typically more positive than the alkaline metals (first column)? Why do many of the non-metals to the right of the transition metals often form positive ions? Why does aluminum, to the right of the transitions, almost always form a positive ion? Why is it more positive than the alkaline and alkaline earth metals?

You claim to be a chemistry teacher? What crap are you teaching?

I teach actual chemistry, not your superficial, misunderstanding of the concepts, version.

Sex is a universal principle in biology and physics.

The vast majority of organisms on this planet reproduce asexually. And physics? What kind of bullshit are you spewing now?

If you can dredge up an exception, it only proves the rule.

You think that is the only exception I could find?

BTW: You don't seem to understand what the term "proves the rule" actually means.

Which corresponds to the periodic table.

If you can't see that there are 7 turns on that spiral, then that's proof you are blind.

So is there seven spirals like you originally claimed or is there one spiral like I pointed out?

That's right, and it whirls because of the currents that shift back and forth in spiral fashion at each level.

So, not a wheel or a cycle at all then?

It's still a very ideal progression.

You really don't understand why a single idea that can explain all possible results of a test is useless do you?

But that's what they call them. There are so many electrons at each level: 2,8,8,18,18,32,32

Laugh my ass off. That is a hyper-simplistic thing that we teach to elementary and middle school students because the truth is much more difficult and typically too abstract for minds at that age.

BTW: The actual number of electrons for each primary level are 2, 8, 18, 32 and with a probable total of 50 for the next level. Your list clearly demonstrates that you don't actually understand how quantum mechanics and the typical periodic table fit together. The number of elements in a period and the level of the electrons in those elements (assumed to be ground state) don't actually match. The transition metals in period four, have their "last" electron in level three orbitals. The actinides of period six, have their "last" electrons in level four orbitals.

New discoveries. You make no discoveries; you just spout propaganda.

Propaganda? What is a boson field? Are protons made of leptons? Can electrons move at the speed of light?

I am discovering connections and correlations.

No, you are succumbing to your confirmation bias and ignoring the fact that it is all coincidental.

You said yourself there were seven visible planets. You called them "visible objects,"

Because I know the difference between a planet, a moon, and a star.

but that's the ones. Sun,Moon,Mercury,Venus,Mars,Jupiter,Saturn.

Two of those aren't planets and you left off Earth, Uranus, and Neptune.

Because it's neat, that's why.

Made up, got it.

I explained the correlation between chemistry and alchemy regarding the seven levels of both their metals/elements. And planets and colors are rather important compared to the other stuff. But yes, lots of other things have seven.

So you choose to ignore the possibility of coincidence because you want there to be a deeper connection. Your "discovery" is just wish expression, nothing more.

Eric, please stop, you are just making yourself look like a fool.

Originally Posted by Odin

Eric, please stop, you are just making yourself look like a fool.

It sure would be nice if the quality of posters here would improve. You 3 guys are pretty pathetic.

You are God.



On Being God

I started and defined this thread; it concerns the relationship between science, religion, philosophy and turning theory; uh, that's obvious from the title. When I do that, as in my posts above, and Odin says I shouldn't do it, it shows something about his state of mind, and not about mine.

But be that as it may, recall a few pages ago I posted the PBS TV series " Closer to Truth," and the host Robert Kuhn was asking the basic philosophical question "why is there something rather than nothing." It's a good route to unmask your unexamined assumptions. Folks like Vandal and Odin just have lots of them. They are content to live in ignorance (and they are on my ignore list ). But I agree with Socrates: an examined life is more worth living. So I was thinking about this question this morning.

So, why is there something rather than nothing? The answer is easy if you take the question in what Mr. Kuhn calls the moral sense. The answer is, there's something rather than nothing because it's a lot more interesting that way; it's better that way; it's more fun for there to be something rather than nothing.

So, the real this question asks is not why; that answer is as easy as pi. No, the real thing that's got you bothered is the question "how is there something rather than nothing?" How the universe comes about is unknown, so it seems like a miracle. As Sheldrake says, the scientists try to answer this question, and end up saying "give us one free miracle (the big bang) and we'll explain the rest."

Folks like Vandal and Odin prefer deterministic causes. To explain something, you find the cause. And this means something specific that was an earlier cause. But this just postpones the answer; puts it back in a never-ending series. What caused the cause, then? And how can you narrow down the cause? No, the whole situation is the "cause." Determinism explains nothing; although mis-educated and tech-oriented people fall for it hook, line and sinker, don't they!

So we're back to the "moral" answer. Love makes the world go round. It is love that drives the galaxy and the stars; it is love that is the energy that binds and powers the universe. The universe is like musical vibration; it's like rhythm and harmony, which exists because it is beautiful and lovely, like music. Philosopher Alan Watts says this. That's what string theory says too. And the string theorists say that Pythagoras was the first string theorist. And as he showed, TnT's vaunted mathematics is related to harmony and rhythm too; what else?

And btw that's why correlations and analogies are significant. They are rhythms and harmonies too. And Bach is best.

So, love is the first cause; love is the how.

So is love, "God?" Does that mean you have to postulate a supernatural dictator, a Super-Daddy, an anthropomorphic Father to explain it? That's like the right-wingers who say that any alternative to the "free market" is "socialism." It's a strawman. No, it doesn't have to be that sort of mythological construct. Love is something you can feel; you know it exists. You can call it "God" if you want, if you postulate it as the "explanation."

But it's considered by many to be a vague concept. Can you measure love in an operationally-defined empirical experiment?

Yes you can, according to Arthur Aron:
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb...ove8-2010feb08

So then, it's dopamine and other "chemistry" that drives the universe, right? Love is something that happens in your brain. So does that mean love is explained by the brain? Does that mean love is "caused" by the brain?

We just demolished "cause," so no. It is a matter of interpretation. Does love explain what happens in the brain, or does the human brain explain love? Is love as an explanation anthroporphic too? Or at least, something we share with marmosets, but not stars and atoms? For a spiritualist like me, the former seems correct. To a materialist like Odin, TnT or Vandal, or most posters here, or most mis-educated people today, the latter seems correct. But no matter how much you can measure love, it is still a question of interpretation. It is your philosophy, and not science, that decides.

Originally Posted by The Rani

This is interesting:

Google Glass hack allows brainwave control

We can already predict its application in wartime

Just to show Eric how many different ways we can choose to draw the periodic table:

The parallels between chakras and chemical elements are parallels between the principles; how you illustrate them is secondary.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The parallels between chakras and chemical elements are parallels between the principles; how you illustrate them is secondary.

You said that the seven levels of the periodic table matches the seven chakras. How can there be such a match if we can draw the periodic table without seven levels?

BTW: Still waiting for an answer on a couple of questions. Can electrons move at the speed of light? Are protons made up of leptons? What is the boson field? How exactly are electrons in rings around nuclei?

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

You said that the seven levels of the periodic table matches the seven chakras. How can there be such a match if we can draw the periodic table without seven levels?

Because chemical elements have 1-7 rings. I guess they call them shells these days. Oh oh, do not cite this:
An electron shell may be thought of as an orbit followed by electrons around an atom nucleus. Because each shell can contain only a fixed number of electrons, each shell is associated with a particular range of electron energy, and thus each shell must fill completely before electrons can be added to an outer shell. The electrons in the outermost shell determine the chemical properties of the atom (see Valence shell). For an explanation of why electrons exist in these shells see electron configuration.[1]...
The electron shells are labelled K, L, M, N, O, P, and Q; or 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7; going from innermost shell outwards....
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tm...ron_shell.html

BTW: Still waiting for an answer on a couple of questions. Can electrons move at the speed of light? Are protons made up of leptons? What is the boson field? How exactly are electrons in rings around nuclei?

You tell me, expert.

You are a bozo(n)

I guess you can get away with making stupid arguments like this because dupes like Odin will bow to your every word.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Because chemical elements have 1-7 rings. I guess they call them shells these days.

See, you don't actually understand quantum theory at all.

Oh oh, do not cite this:
An electron shell may be thought of as an orbit followed by electrons around an atom nucleus. Because each shell can contain only a fixed number of electrons, each shell is associated with a particular range of electron energy, and thus each shell must fill completely before electrons can be added to an outer shell. The electrons in the outermost shell determine the chemical properties of the atom (see Valence shell). For an explanation of why electrons exist in these shells see electron configuration.[1]...
The electron shells are labelled K, L, M, N, O, P, and Q; or 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7; going from innermost shell outwards....
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tm...ron_shell.html

Once again, this is the hyper-simplistic stuff we teach to non-scientists. In truth, an electron in energy level three, sub level p, will overlap electrons in levels one and two.

From your source: Although it is commonly stated that all the electrons in a shell have the same energy, this is an approximation. However, the electrons in one subshell do have exactly the same level of energy,[5] with later subshells having more energy per electron than earlier ones. This effect is great enough that the energy ranges associated with shells can overlap (see Valence shells and Aufbau principle).

This means that rather than there being seven energy levels for electrons of ground state atoms there are in fact nineteen levels on the current periodic table. Are you going to claim some sort of mystical significance to the number nineteen?

BTW: I thought you said Wikipedia was a biased source and wasn't to be trusted? Now you cite it as a source? Hypocrite.

You tell me, expert.

You repeatedly claimed that electrons can and do travel at the speed of light. You were wrong, nothing with mass can move at the speed of light.

You claimed that protons and neutrons were made of leptons. You were wrong, protons and neutrons are made of quarks and gluons, neither being a lepton.

You claimed that interactions with the boson field gives particles mass. You were wrong, there is no such thing as the boson field, there is the Higgs field however.

You claimed that electrons are in rings around the nucleus of an atom. You were wrong, the shape of orbitals occupied by electrons are not rings or even shells. The s orbitals are spheres but p, d, and f orbitals are nothing like that. The terminology of ring and shell is a holdover from before scientists really understood what was going on. It's the same thing that happened with describing a particle's spin. They don't actually spin, but we use the word for the property because we have no analogous term for what is actually going on.

Pretenders like you hear the word ring, shell, or observation and just assume that scientists mean what you think the word means.

You are a bozo(n)

I guess you can get away with making stupid arguments like this because dupes like Odin will bow to your every word.

No. It is just obvious to them that I know way more about these topics than you do. They can tell that you are just pretending to be knowledgable.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

See, you don't actually understand quantum theory at all.



Once again, this is the hyper-simplistic stuff we teach to non-scientists. In truth, an electron in energy level three, sub level p, will overlap electrons in levels one and two.

From your source: Although it is commonly stated that all the electrons in a shell have the same energy, this is an approximation. However, the electrons in one subshell do have exactly the same level of energy,[5] with later subshells having more energy per electron than earlier ones. This effect is great enough that the energy ranges associated with shells can overlap (see Valence shells and Aufbau principle).

This means that rather than there being seven energy levels for electrons of ground state atoms there are in fact nineteen levels on the current periodic table. Are you going to claim some sort of mystical significance to the number nineteen?

BTW: I thought you said Wikipedia was a biased source and wasn't to be trusted? Now you cite it as a source? Hypocrite.

Baloney. I'll take Princeton over you any day.

You repeatedly claimed that electrons can and do travel at the speed of light. You were wrong, nothing with mass can move at the speed of light.

They don't have mass.

You claimed that protons and neutrons were made of leptons. You were wrong, protons and neutrons are made of quarks and gluons, neither being a lepton.

I made no such claim, dork.

You claimed that interactions with the boson field gives particles mass. You were wrong, there is no such thing as the boson field, there is the Higgs field however.

You can just refer to the source I cited. I believe it over you. You don't have any real ability or knowledge.

You claimed that electrons are in rings around the nucleus of an atom. You were wrong, the shape of orbitals occupied by electrons are not rings or even shells. The s orbitals are spheres but p, d, and f orbitals are nothing like that. The terminology of ring and shell is a holdover from before scientists really understood what was going on. It's the same thing that happened with describing a particle's spin. They don't actually spin, but we use the word for the property because we have no analogous term for what is actually going on.

Pretenders like you hear the word ring, shell, or observation and just assume that scientists mean what you think the word means.

Irrelevant arguments and nitpicking that don't deserve a response.

No. It is just obvious to them that I know way more about these topics than you do. They can tell that you are just pretending to be knowledgable.

You don't really know a damn thing. You are just a vandal that steals souls.

As soon as Element 119 (perhaps more likely 120) is discovered there will be some element, however transitory in its existence, with 8 electron shells. There are now 118 known elements, most of the heaviest synthetic.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Baloney. I'll take Princeton over you any day.

I quoted from your source. You just didn't bother to check to see where "Princeton" got their information.

Try hitting the link at the bottom that says "Full Article."

Tada!

Wikipedia.

They don't have mass.

Go to Google and type in "mass of electron."

Tada!

9.1 x 10^-31 kg

I made no such claim, dork.

Go to post #1734.

Tada!

Your words: Subatomic means within atoms. Within atoms, are protons, neutrons and a "cloud" of electrons. Then, within these are smaller subatomic phenomena called quarks and leptons and others.

You can just refer to the source I cited. I believe it over you. You don't have any real ability or knowledge.

The source you cited was Wikipedia. You just didn't bother to read the rest of the article including the parts that showed why your analogy is based on your misunderstanding the terminology.

Let's go look at your post #1734 again.

Your words: And they apparently only get mass when they pass through the boson field, according to my most materialist post I made above.

Can you provide a link to any site that claims there is such a thing as "the boson field?"

Irrelevant arguments and nitpicking that don't deserve a response.

In other words, a detailed understanding of the structure of atoms renders your analogy more ridiculous than it originally appeared.

You don't really know a damn thing. You are just a vandal that steals souls.

Care to actually refute any of these things I've pointed out here or are we just supposed to take your ignorant word for it?