Robert Bramel

Here is an interesting discussion of the skull:  https://www.sequoiaparksconservancy.org/tales/the-mystery-of-the-calaveras-skull

It's especially interesting, apart from the claim that it was a human skull, that it could be millions of years old and not fossilized. Fossilization occurs in as little as 10,000 years, yet this non-fossilized skull lasted millions of years. That in itself has to be an amazing anomaly. Even at the time the skull was considered a hoax set up by miners. Evaluation of the physical characteristics of the skull suggested to scientists at the time that the skull was "no more than 1000 years old".Too bad no one got photographs as it had lain in the ground. Piltdown man is another interesting read.

Gregg Wilson

Tom,

I am in agreement with you that Darwin's theory of evolution falls short.

In the dating of things in the past, I have three caveats:

First:

The dating of organic matter through carbon-14 process is approximate at best. Exposure of the material to nuclear radiation skews the dating considerably - With some specimens being dated in the future!

Second:

I will make the claim that there was a global flood about 14,000 years ago. I base this not on mythology, or the Bible or the Sumerian texts, but on hard geological and archaeological evidence. It was actually a world wide tidal wave which traveled around the Earth somewhere between 60 times to 90 times. The how and why of it is another story.

Anyway, this caused immense redistributions of solids material with new "earth" being mixed or overladened with old "earth". This makes long term dating quite questionable.

Third:

The dating of material based on radioactive decay of mother isotopes down to daughter isotopes has a very big problem. Apparently, it has been implicitly assumed that the decay began when the material was near or on the surface of Earth.

I have made the claim that the nuclear core of a planet decays to normal matter on its surface. This means that the breakdown of radioactive isotopes began on the surface of the nuclear core - far below the surface of the Earth. There would be an immense amount of time before this material reaches the surface of the Earth. Therfore, the radioactive dating of mother to daughter decay chains is considerably off by the the current dating procedure. In essence, radioactive material thought to be incredibly old is much younger.

THe human species may go back a million years or so, but certainly not hundreds of millions of years.

Tom Chavez

Gregg, in your previous entry you stress that the Antikythera mechanism could not possibly be alien, which again provokes my suspicions about your Homo Sapiens bona fides. “Methinks the gentleman protesteth too much.” And now you again betray yourself with your alien science regarding skewed carbon-14 dating, worldwide floods, and planetary nuclear core technology. Who are you? And what have you done with the real Gregg Wilson?!

Anyway, let me take advantage of your super alien intelligence. How do you account for tidal forces which ’spaghettify’ planetary bodies? According to human physics a body near a massive object such as Sagittarius A* would experience stronger gravitation pull on the side closer to the massive object, while the far side from the massive object would experience less gravitational pull. This gradient in gravitational field strength causes tides, tidal locking, formation of ring systems within the Roche limit, and spaghettification of objects. What is your alien explanation of these effects by graviton forces?

And what is your base motive for denying human existence beyond 100 million years ago? I hope it is not some kind of alien prejudice!

Tom Chavez

Bob, in your entry on the 19th you claim (gross materialist that you are) that a truly advanced civilization would be evidenced by so-called ‘modern’ materials like “silicon dies, ferro ceramics, field-effect transistors.” 

Allow me to suggest a more subtle concept of advancement. 

Before we make a building, machine or mathematical theorem we envision a conception within our mind, just as Einstein famously performed thought experiments. The concept comes first internally, and then we may manifest it externally. Hence, we say “mind over matter.”

The production of internal plan or conception is a function of mind and intelligence. 

In yoga or Vedic philosophy, mind and intelligence are differentiated in terms of function and subtlety. The mind functions through thinking, feeling and willing. Intelligence offers a frame of reference, including values, by which we relativize order and meaning, among other things.

A child may imagine so many things, but it takes intelligence to actualize them.

indriyāṇi parāṇy āhur

  indriyebhyaḥ paraṁ manaḥ

manasas tu parā buddhir

  yo buddheḥ paratas tu saḥ

The working senses are superior to dull matter; mind is higher than the senses; intelligence is still higher than the mind; and he [the conscious self] is even higher than the intelligence.—Bhagavad-gita As It Is 3.42

A truly advanced being will operate on the level of mind, intelligence and consciousness. For example, there are reports of Marion apparitions, angels and aliens. What they exhibit is considered impossible according to our gross material science, and therefore such reports are often derided and rejected by smart guys like you. 

Histories from Mahabharata describe celestial personalities, like Ganga, who could manifest themselves in human form. Advanced technology on the subtle level affords the ability to change shape, form and bodily constitution and to quickly transport oneself through various dimensions, planets and realms. They may have the knack to pick up others' thoughts and emotions and to understand and speak their languages.

Bob, you operate on the level of gross physical materials. You say it would be trivial to produce an advanced object if you were transported back 1,000 years into the past. Okay, smart guy. What would you produce to prove that you are from the future if you were transported back 1,000 years to medieval Europe? 

Remember, if you fail to convince, you will be put into a mental asylum to live out your days. Now, tell us how you would produce silicon dies, ferro ceramics, or field-effect transistors, please! How will you explain the value of such things to your medieval contemporaries and what language would you use, since English as you know it would not be understandable? I doubt you could even produce a match, what to speak of a transistor.

Tom Chavez

Bob, the mixed message of your Nov 20th entry is not clear. First you give a URL to an article supporting the existence of human remains many millions of years old. Did you read that article carefully? It offers evidence to support the thesis that modern type humans existed in very ancient times.

Then you add your own thoughts about possibilities of hoax. Of course, materialists offer many hypotheses to explain away evidence contrary to their scientistic faith. It might have been a hoax, it might be a recent intrusion into a more ancient stratigraphic layer, it might have been anomalous dating, etc., etc. Blinded by material science they cannot penetrate illusory conceptual paradigms and their own false egoistic urge for prestige.

All conditioned persons are subject to mistakes, cheating, limited perception and illusion.

Material scientists take great care to purify their chemical reagents and calibrate their instruments. But they have little clear idea how to purify and strengthen their own materially conditioned intelligence and consciousness. Therefore, they become attached to dogmas and misleading theories, entangled in material complexities and miss the actual point of human life.

Gregg Wilson

Tom,

You are on a real tear here this morning. Once a month, I signal the mother ship and they send down new, exciting information. We use mirrors.

The Antikythera Mechanism was made of brass. This is consistent with the time period of Archimedes and he certainly had the knowledge to design such an item.

In December 2012, astronomers confirmed that there are wandering planets - not attached to a solar system. If there was a world wide flood then human civilization was 99% wiped out. We do NOT know how advanced human civilization was prior to the Great Flood - but probably more advanced than we are now. Assuming that a wandering planet passed through our solar system - quite close to Earth - then the passage past our planet would have lasted about two to three months. This would have strongly dampened gravity between the two planets. The tidal effect would have been the same as by the Moon, only many times stronger. Since the Earth rotates - once a day - the tidal wave would have passed over the Earth 60 to 90 times. There are soil layers in certain locations which show 60 to 90 layers. These layers are not hardened rock but loose - meaning they were formed geologically recently.

The Bible, including books that were banned by emperor Constantine ( ~ 400 AD.), gives timeline histories consistent with such a flood. Specifically the books of Enoch. Sumerian texts give the same history.

I wil explain how such wandering planets come into being in a later post.

Tom Chavez

Mahabharata 3: Santanu, Satyavati and Bhishma

It’s been a while since I left off the story of Santanu and his marriage to the celestial goddess, Ganga, who drowned their first seven children and then took away the eighth child, promising to return him one day. Santanu tolerated his misfortune and threw himself wholeheartedly into governing his kingdom.

Santanu was an ideal king, full of virtue, free from avarice and malice. In splendor he was like the Sun, in impetuous courage like the wind. In anger he was like the Lord of Death, Yamaraja, and in patience he was like the earth.

Under Santanu’s rule all living entities were protected, including the birds and beasts and every created being. He was so great that all other kings bestowed upon him the title “King of kings” and became peaceful and virtuous under his protection.

Santanu would often visit the banks of the Ganges, the only spot which gave him comfort. One day, about sixteen years after losing Ganga, he noticed that the river had become shallow, and was not flowing normally.

Searching for the cause the king came upon a lustrous and beautiful youth, who had checked the river’s flow with his celestial weapon. This youth was Santanu’s son, but the king did not recognize him, although he recognized the king.

The king, wondering much and imagining that the youth might be his own son, addressed the river saying, “Show me that child.” 

Ganga, thus addressed, assumed a beautiful form in person, but to spare Santanu she showed herself in a different aspect. Santanu did not recognize that beautiful female bedecked with ornaments and attired in fine robes of white, although he had known her before. 

Ganga said, “O king, that eighth son is now trained in military arts and has studied all the Vedas with his superior intelligence. He is fully conversant with the duties of a king. Accept now this child of yours, given to you by me.”

Santanu accepted the youth very happily and went with him to his capitol where he installed him as the heir-apparent. By his perfect behavior the prince soon pleased his father, the government ministers and, in fact, all the citizens of the kingdom. 

Thus, king Santanu and his son Devavratta lived most happily for four years. 

Then, one day, as the king wandered in the woods along the bank of the Yamuna River, he perceived a sweet scent wafting on the breeze. Following the scent he came upon a dark-eyed maiden of celestial beauty, the daughter of the fisher king, named Satyavati. 

Satyavati’s beauty, amiableness and fragrant scent attracted the king to get her for his wife. King Santanu approached her father and requested her hand.  

Her father said, “O king, I have long cherished a desire in my heart. I know you are truthful. If you desire this maiden as a gift from me, pledge to honor my desire and I will give her to you. I could never obtain any other husband for her equal to you.”

The monarch said, “When I hear the pledge I shall say whether I can grant it or not. If it is capable of being granted, I shall certainly grant it.”

The fisher king said, “O king, the son of Satyavati should be installed on the throne and no one else. That is my desire.”

Santanu had no inclination to agree to this. With his heart afflicted by desire he returned home to his capitol. After some time his son Devavrata perceived the change in his father and asked him why he seemed depressed and melancholy. What was the problem?

Santanu told his son that he was worried for the kingdom, that he had only one son, and what would happen to the dynasty if Devavrata should meet an untimely end on the battlefield? The dynastic line would have no successor.

The intelligent Devavrata went to the king’s old devoted minister and asked him about the cause of the king’s depression. The minister told him about Satyavati and her father’s demand.

Devavrata then went, with a retinue, to the fisher chief and begged for his daughter on behalf of his father. The chieftain informed him that although Santanu was most qualified, his one objection was that there was a rival for the throne, in the person of Devavrata himself. 

Devarata then vowed that he would never accept the throne, and that only Satyavati’s son should be the king. Satyavati’s father appreciated Devavrata’s vow and truthfulness but expressed another doubt. If Devavrata had a son, then that son might challenge Satyavati’s son for the throne.

Devavrata then told the chief of fishermen, “I have already renounced my right to the throne. I shall now settle the matter of my children. Before all the assembled witnesses I vow to remain a celibate brahmacari and to never associate with a woman for all my life.”

Hearing this, the chief of the fishermen was fully pleased and immediately presented his daughter Satyavati to Devavrata for his father, Maharaja Santanu. Then the demigods, apsaras, and assembled sages showered flowers upon Devavrata, exclaiming, “He is truly Bhishma (the terrible)!” Consequently, Devavrata is renouned in history as Bhishma, he of terrible vow.

Bhishma took Satyavati to his father and explained what had happened. His father, highly gratified, blessed his son that death would never come to him as long as he desired to live, but would only approach after first being invited by him.

(To be continued)

Al Peffley

Wow, Gregg, you got me laughing so hard tears came to my eyes! 😂

I believe the destructive planet in the elliptical orbit that you refer to causing the great flood is called "Wormwood" in the Holy Bible.

Tom, don't be too harsh on Bob. We can agree to disagree on honorable terms, can't we?

Gregg Wilson

Hi Al,

I posted (#401) an article by Pierre-Marie Robitaille, Ph. D., The Ohio State University. He gave extensive evidence that the Sun is a liquid. It cannot be hydrogen, helium, etc because these elements are entirely vapor at the temperature of the Sun. That leaves a liquid of the light carrying medium - called Elysium.

When there is a nova, it is actually a BLEVE (boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion). A nova goes on for weeks or even months. The mainstream scientific idea that a star runs out of hydrogen and heluim and therefore can longer maintain nuclear fusion released energy against the incoming gravity - subsequently imploding, forming a neutron star, then detonating fantastically is nonsense. A liquid does not implode but it does vaporize.

Given the theory that gravitation is caused by a universal flux of gravitons, that leads to the following:

When a planet, or star, has normal matter from the nuclear breakdown of the nuclear core (on its surface), it is the normal matter which causes a body to have a differential gravitational field. Gravitons entering the normal matter (of a planet or star) loses velocity as they impact normal elements or liquid Elysium. Coming back out, they lose more velocity to the normal matter (atomic elements). This creates the up and down of the body's gravitational field. The nuclear core of a planet or star completely reflects the gravitons. So, a nuclear core does not have a differential gravitational field.

When a solar system forms, with planets and a star - there is an overall, differential gravitational field. If the star undergoes a nova, its Elysium vaporizes. This will incinerate the surfaces of the planets but it will not propel the planets outward. Boiling Elysium has high temperature energy but not much mass. Planets with a nuclear core will strongly resist being pushed outward. However, the resulting neutron star will not have a differential gravitational field. With no "attraction" by the neutron star, the planets will simply wander off. This is the source of "wandering" planets no longer held within a solar system.

Presumably one of these planets passed through our solar system, close to the Earth, and caused a gigantic tidal wave on the Earth.

Tom Chavez

Al, good to see you again. I've been missing your voice here. 

Bob, sorry if I was too harsh. I just want to challenge your scientistic conceits.

Gregg, I'm still waiting for an explanation of how gravitons account for tidal forces. Wandering planets, as interesting as they may be, are not going to distract me from this question.

Tom Chavez

How old is the Universe?

In 1650 James Ussher, Anglican Archbishop and Vice-Chancellor of Trinity College in Dublin, published the exact date of creation: Sunday 23 October 4004 BC. Other scholars found similar dates: Scaliger 3949 BC, astronomer Johannes Keplar 3992 BC, and Isaac Newton c. 4000 BC.

Bishop Ussher’s date was incorporated into the King James Bible printed in 1701. Young earth creationists still hold that the earth is 6,000 years old. A 2017 Gallup creationism survey found that 38% of US adults believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years.

In the early 1900s, there was no scientific concept of the age of the universe, says Stanford University associate professor Chao-Lin Kuo of SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory. “Philosophers and physicists thought the universe had no beginning and no end.”

In 1977 scientists at the University of Chicago estimated that the universe is 20 billion years old based upon radioactive decay of Rhenium 187, which has a half-life of 40 billion years. 

In 1992 Josef Hoell and Wolfgang Priester of the University of Bonn studied the spectra of quasars and concluded that their ‘best fit’ model indicated a universe 30 billion years old. 

In 1998 Nobel laureate Adam Riess of the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore inferred from observations of very distant supernovae an estimated age of the universe of 13.3 billion years.

In 2012, based upon data from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), the age of the universe was estimated to be 13.772 billion years.

In the Sept 2019 edition of the journal Science, Inh Jee, of the Max Plank Institute in Germany, suggested an age for the universe of around 11.4 billion years.

Carl Sagan wrote, “The most sophisticated ancient cosmological ideas come from India. Hinduism is the only religion in which time scales correspond to scientific cosmology.”

Actually, Vedic time scales far exceed modern science. Srimad-Bhagavatam and other Vedic writings describe the universe cycling, from beginning to end, through partial devastations and recreations over a period of 311 trillion years. Modern estimates for the age of the universe roughly correspond to a minor sub-cycle of that period.

The universes are said to emanate in seed form from the pores of Maha-Vishnu, who reclines in yogic slumber in the maha-tattva. During his exhalation universes emanate and expand, and during inhalation they all collapse and re-enter his transcendental body.

Thus, myriad universes are created and destroyed with Maha-Vishnu’s every breath.

Maha-Vishnu is said to be an expansion of an expansion, several times removed, of the original Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa.

Gregg Wilson

Tom,

There is a gravitation flux throughout the Universe. Any graviton will travel about 3,000 light years before it collides with another graviton. Therefore, in our solar system, they travel in straight lines. For the Earth and Moon, the corridor straight between them causes a lack of gravitons traveling between the Earth and Moon, because the two bodies reflect the gravitons on the outside surfaces that are away from the two.

The Earth rotates. This means that the surface of the Earth has angular momentum. Or, if you prefer, centrifugal force. The oceans are obviously liquid, so a tidal effect occurs in the oceans facing the Moon because of the lack of gravitons coming straight down.

Beam me up, Scotty!!

Betty Weiks (Rickard)

Tom,

As I've been remembering to pray for Kalindi, this scripture came to my mind. "In his kindness God has called you to share in his eternal glory by means of Christ Jesus.  So after you have suffered a little while, he will restore, support, and strengthen you, and he will place you on a firm foundation,"  I believe in the power of prayer and using God's Word to pray over people.  I pray that each day your wife will grow stronger and stronger, so that she can relieve you of her "housewife duties." Although I'm sure you are happy to offer up your kind service as a sacrifice of love for her! ;o}

There are a few points you raised in your response to me (#582) that I would like to clarify.  First, in regard to Dr. Ravi Zacharius, you summarized his view as stated in the short video correctly. However, I noticed that you haven't, at least as far as I remember, actually stated your personal view of Christ Jesus.  Who do you believe him to be?  I thrink it is an important question to answer, if you would. You said that you "accept the validity of his teachings," but if that is true, what do you do with what he said about who he is?

I have a fundamental difference from you in that I don't really like to think of myself as "religious."  Rather I have an ongoing personal relationship with Jesus. He has had the most profound influence in my life. The works you quote from are not on my bookcase, so some of the sayings have no understanding for me. I'm sorry for that, but it doesn't mean I reject persons with beliefs other than my own.  When you quote Mahatma Gandi, "I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." you seem to be lumping alll Christians into one collective group. I didn't say "I'm right and you are wrong."  Honestly, it seems like sometimes you are more interested in being right no matter what you are talking about on this forum. I'm wondering what has happened in your life to caused you to be so critical? Unless I'm reading you wrong,  It just comes across that way to me.

Perhaps it  began with Vietnam. I am also saddened by what happened to the innocent children. For the longest time the very gift that God gave to each of us as individuals, the gift of freedom of choice, has plagued us. I don't blame God for what has happened to those children. I believe that the innocents are with him in heaven even now.  He is the only right judge, and we are not. I believe that one bad choice after another over all time has placed us into the place our fallen world finds itself today. Those choices began in the garden with Adam and Eve.

I doin't share your belief about the killing of animals. My husband is a hunter and every year he harvests game annimals and birds that are a part of our diet.  I don't like the cruel treatment of any creature.  Perhaps you have lifted out of context scriptures about eating meat. Check out the writings of Paul.  Most of his references to eating meat had to do with meat being offered as pagan idols.  He said that we shouldn't eat meat if it "offends a weaker brother."  He also said that he ate meat. All that said, our Thanksgiving dinner will include those in our family that are vegans and those that are vegetarians.  Some how we are all able to sit at the same table and love each other in spite of our differences.

I don't share the belief that you have about reincarnation. I know you will argue that with me, but I believe what God's word says about having one life to live.  It all comes down to what you believe about who Christ says that he is.

I doubt that I have caused you to change your beliefs, but I pray you will consider what I have shared with you. May you have a wonderful Thanksgiving, no matter what is on your table!

Tom Chavez

Gregg, your graviton explanation about ocean tides makes sense, to some degree. I’m still trying to wrap my mind around how to fit gravitons into a standard physics or how to perhaps replace or redefine standard concepts and entities to make a consistent alternative physics.

I will make statements below, representing my ignorance/understanding. Please comment on them or correct them from your alternative viewpoint. I am comparing gravitons to photons for the sake of expressing myself. Perhaps this is confusing me, let me know your view.

1. Standard physics considers a graviton to be a hypothetical particle, without mass like a photon. 

2. There are various ways to detect or infer the presence of photons, such as a photomultiplier tube, Compton scattering, etc. They can be described by Maxwell’s equations. 

3. There is no way to detect gravitons. How do we know they exist?

4. How do you know, or why do you think, that gravitons travel much faster than the speed of light?

5. What is the source of gravitons? Can they be generated now? Or were they only generated in the past? 

6. How do gravitons create a field of uniform flux in all directions? Light will come from a luminescent object, from certain direction but not equally from all directions. It seems that gravitons have to come equally from all directions. Is that right? (For example the cosmic background radiation is said to come from all directions, although it is not quite uniformly distributed.)

7. How do gravitons interact with ordinary matter? I think you mentioned, in reference to wandering planets, that gravitons are absorbed by the ‘nuclear core’ of planets. Can you offer more detail about that?

8. How do gravitons push ordinary objects like people, cars and feathers to create a force accelerating them analogously to conventional gravity? In other words, how do they interact with the objects? 

9. Is it that gravitons are simply hypothesized to replace conventional gravity because you consider conventional gravity obviously wrong for some reason? What is the reason that conventional gravity is wrongly conceived?

10. From a practical point of view, standard conceptions of gravity and gravitational force equations obviously work, at least in aeronautics and astronautics, don’t they? Why not just accept conventional physics?

Thanks for taking the time to consider my questions.

Gregg Wilson

Tom,

This is becoming repetative.

Gregg, your graviton explanation about ocean tides makes sense, to some degree. I’m still trying to wrap my mind around how to fit gravitons into a standard physics or how to perhaps replace or redefine standard concepts and entities to make a consistent alternative physics.

I will make statements below, representing my ignorance/understanding. Please comment on them or correct them from your alternative viewpoint. I am comparing gravitons to photons for the sake of expressing myself. Perhaps this is confusing me, let me know your view.

1. Standard physics considers a graviton to be a hypothetical particle, without mass like a photon. 

The graviton is real. It has mass and velocity. It does NOT emit light or reflect light.

2. There are various ways to detect or infer the presence of photons, such as a photomultiplier tube, Compton scattering, etc. They can be described by Maxwell’s equations. 

Light is a wave, much like a wave in the ocean, excpet it is a wave in the light carrying medium.

3. There is no way to detect gravitons. How do we know they exist?

You cannot detect them by light. You detect them by gravity. They are far too small to be detected individually. Think about a magnet.

4. How do you know, or why do you think, that gravitons travel much faster than the speed of light?

If they traveled at the speed of light, they would arrive too late at the Earth. The Earth would have moved. The solar system would dissipate.

5. What is the source of gravitons? Can they be generated now? Or were they only generated in the past? 

They are permanent and universal. They are not generated - no lifespan at all.

6. How do gravitons create a field of uniform flux in all directions? Light will come from a luminescent object, from certain direction but not equally from all directions. It seems that gravitons have to come equally from all directions. Is that right? (For example the cosmic background radiation is said to come from all directions, although it is not quite uniformly distributed.)

The gravitons travel in all directions. You only have a differential gravitational field when there is a body which reflects them.

7. How do gravitons interact with ordinary matter? I think you mentioned, in reference to wandering planets, that gravitons are absorbed by the ‘nuclear core’ of planets. Can you offer more detail about that?

They impact ordinary matter. PUSH. Neutron cores completely reflect them. They repel at the same velocity they had coming in. Which is why a nuclear core does not have a DIFFERENTIAL gravity field.

8. How do gravitons push ordinary objects like people, cars and feathers to create a force accelerating them analogously to conventional gravity? In other words, how do they interact with the objects? 

I explained already that gravitons coming down to the Earth's surface have a higher velocity than gravitons coming up out of Earth.

9. Is it that gravitons are simply hypothesized to replace conventional gravity because you consider conventional gravity obviously wrong for some reason? What is the reason that conventional gravity is wrongly conceived?

Newton did NOT say gravity was attractive. He said "No!". Explain how an attractive force would work?!

10. From a practical point of view, standard conceptions of gravity and gravitational force equations obviously work, at least in aeronautics and astronautics, don’t they? Why not just accept conventional physics?

Newton's equation does not say how gravity works. It simply enables you to calculate a final unknown if you have assumed values for all the other variables. Because gravitons finally collide with one another at about 3,000 light years distance, Newton's equation does not work  accurately at distances beyond 3,000 light years. The equation is no longer 1 / d² but 1 / d.

Thanks for taking the time to consider my questions.

Tom Chavez

Betty,

Thank you for your honest and considerate response, and your prayers for Kalindi. She is strengthening day by day.

You ask about my view of Christ Jesus. In personal terms, when I started to study and practice bhakti yoga I prayed to Jesus to protect me from going wrong. I felt and still feel his protection and blessing to proceed. I view Jesus as a pure devotee of God, as a representative of God, and as a spiritual master who taught by example and precept. He is one with God the Father and he wants us to be so also. “As you and I are one, let them also be one in Us.”—John 17.21

Some stress that one can’t approach God except through Jesus and that He is the only son of God. I take that to mean that in his historical time and place he was the only pure devotee. The Lord actually has unlimited sons, daughters and representatives. He also personally advents Himself, such as when he appeared to Moses as a burning bush. The Lord incarnates on various planets whenever there is a disturbance created by atheists; He incarnates to protect his devotees.

The name Christ comes from the Greek Christos, which is related to the Sanskrit Kṛṣta, the vocative form of Kṛṣṇa. One may invoke Christ or Kṛṣṇa, the name is the same. Kṛṣṇa is the Father; Christ is the son. They are one and they are different, simultaneously.

This age of Kali Yuga or Iron Age, is the winter of the ages, an age of ignorance and quarrel. But it has one redeeming factor. In this age the Lord incarnates in the form of His holy name. Simply by chanting or singing the names of God one can attain spiritual perfection. 

Christians chant the name of Jesus Christ, like the Jesus prayer; Hindus chant names of Kṛṣṇa; Buddhists chant names of Buddha, Jews chant names of Yahweh, and Muslims chant names of Allah. The holy names can be chanted silently within the mind, softly for private meditation or sung aloud by one or many. 

The Lord has unlimited names, but He remains always one without a second. Whatever our faith or religion, we should all unite around the world in service to Him. In the material world a name and its referent are different. Chanting ‘water, water, water’ will not quench one’s thirst. But the Lord is absolute and He is fully present in His holy names. The Lord and His name are the same. 

Jesus said, ““I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” 

When we strive for spiritual elevation we encounter opposition from others and mostly from our own minds. Stand and fight. According to Sri Caitanya, the simplest, most effective and most authorized way to transcend is to always remember and chant the names of the Lord in a humble and tolerant state of mind, offering all respect to others. 

A picture of a harinam (holy name) party in Rome follows. I will send video to your email address, since I cannot attach it here. 

You mention other topics, to which I may reply later. Thanks again for your thoughts and prayers. I sincerely appreciate them. Please excuse me if I have inadvertently offended anyone.

Happy Thanksgiving! Pardon the turkeys!

Tom Chavez

Gregg, thanks for your patience.

After Betty said that I always want to be right, I thought that perhaps I had dismissed graviton theory too quickly as alien alternative physics. I thought that perhaps graviton theory is equivalent to regular gravity from a different perspective, just as different orthonormal sets can form the basis of the same vector space. 

My question about tidal forces related to 'spaghettification' and the diagram I sent you in #589. But you took it to be about regular ocean tides. It is complicated to explain my actual question, so instead I asked for more info about gravitons, hoping that more info would resolve my doubt. 

You say gravitons cannot be detected, but they have mass and velocity. If they are not detectable how are their mass and speed measured? I asked, but you avoided this question.

You say gravitons are permanent and universal. Science works because the universe operates under laws of cause and effect. You claim that gravitons have no cause and are undetectable. Why should I believe that? 

You say gravitons are reflected by neutron cores and slowed down by passing through the earth. It seems that over time there would be considerable variation in the graviton flux due to an accumulation of such changes. Gravity would be influenced by such variation and hence would not be a consistent force in this theory. 

You claim that Newton said “no!”, that gravity is not an attractive force. Here is what he actually said, in Newton's 1713 General Scholium in the second edition of Principia: "I have not yet been able to discover the cause of these properties of gravity from phenomena and I feign no hypotheses.... It is enough that gravity does really exist and acts according to the laws I have explained, and that it abundantly serves to account for all the motions of celestial bodies." 

You ask how an attractive force would work, as if such a force were impossible.  Let me give two well-established examples.

Magnetism is an attractive force explained as a vector field which influences electric charges in relative motion and magnetized materials. This force is utilized in the action of electric motors.

In particle physics the strong nuclear force binds protons and neutrons together to form the nucleus of atoms. Most of the mass of a common proton or neutron is the result of the strong force field energy.

There is no absolute proof in science, but theories should be supported by evidence and consistent logic. Empirical evidence should come from replicable experiments which can be tested and re-confirmed or de-confirmed by others. 

Standard theories in physics, such as gravitation, relativity, and quantum mechanics, are supported by both experimental evidence and logically consistent theories. Mathematical laws have been formulated for these theories and tested repeatedly.

Bob Bramel told me that extraordinary claims should be supported by extraordinary evidence. 

So far, I have seen no solid evidence for the graviton theory, or even for the existence of gravitons, and no mathematical laws governing their behavior, what to speak of extraordinary evidence.

With Betty as my witness, I am not saying that I am right or that you are wrong. But the preponderant evidence for modern scientific theories is compelling, and the results of modern science are convincing. 

Whereas the evidence for gravitons, from what you have given me, is underwhelming. I really don’t know what convinces you about gravitons and the grand claims you make for graviton theory. Maybe you are right, and Einstein and other modern scientists are wrong.

I have tried to understand, but I just don’t see it. Sorry to be repetitive. It won’t happen again.

Linda Pompeo (Worden)

Happy Thanksgiving and blessings to everyone.  It is a day to give thanks for all we have: for the beauty of the world around us, for friends and family...and for the right to share opinions with one another.  We may not all agree on everything.....but we have all been blessed by a great and loving God.  For that I  am most thankful. 

Eat lots of pie and be joyful....for we never know if we will get another day to do so!

Gregg Wilson

Tom,

You say gravitons cannot be detected, but they have mass and velocity. If they are not detectable how are their mass and speed measured? I asked, but you avoided this question.

I did not say they cannot be detected. I said they do not emit light or reflect light. Other astronomers have detected them through observation of celestial mechanics. Their speed has lower limit (~twenty billion times the speed of light) so that aberration does not happen with celestial bodies. A number for mass is unknown.

You say gravitons are permanent and universal. Science works because the universe operates under laws of cause and effect. You claim that gravitons have no cause and are undetectable. Why should I believe that? 

Gravitons do not come into being or cease to exist. They are forever. Cause and effect does not apply.

You say gravitons are reflected by neutron cores and slowed down by passing through the earth. It seems that over time there would be considerable variation in the graviton flux due to an accumulation of such changes. Gravity would be influenced by such variation and hence would not be a consistent force in this theory. 

Gravitons do not accumulate within a body. They go back out. The gravity effect does not change unless "normal" matter of a body increases or decreases.

You claim that Newton said “no!”, that gravity is not an attractive force. Here is what he actually said, in Newton's 1713 General Scholium in the second edition of Principia: "I have not yet been able to discover the cause of these properties of gravity from phenomena and I feign no hypotheses.... It is enough that gravity does really exist and acts according to the laws I have explained, and that it abundantly serves to account for all the motions of celestial bodies." 

I quote Newton: "That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to the other, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it."

You ask how an attractive force would work, as if such a force were impossible.  Let me give two well-established examples.

Magnetism is an attractive force explained as a vector field which influences electric charges in relative motion and magnetized materials. This force is utilized in the action of electric motors.

Magnetism is "attractive" to only magnetic materials. But turn the magnet around, it is repulsive to another magnet. I will give an example where people think that a vacuum cleaner is attractive. The motor and fan push air out one end, thereby creating a vacuum within it. The outside air pushes into the the receiving end of the vacuum.

In particle physics the strong nuclear force binds protons and neutrons together to form the nucleus of atoms. Most of the mass of a common proton or neutron is the result of the strong force field energy.

Nice theory. There is no strong nuclear force. You have to prove that it exists.

Standard theories in physics, such as gravitation, relativity, and quantum mechanics, are supported by both experimental evidence and logically consistent theories. Mathematical laws have been formulated for these theories and tested repeatedly.

Or misinterpreted and only theories. Mathematics are equations, which one can calculate a final unknown if values are assumed for the other variables. The equation does not explain the how and why.

There are many scientists and astronomers who agree with the graviton flux theory.

Al Peffley

Guys, you have posted some interesting information on physics theories and proposed/observed celestial mechanics - all discussions pretty deep for my more limited educational level of accomplishment and perceived knowledge. Whatever the true elements, mechanisms and processes of gravity are it's still very useful for maintaining our existence here on the "big blue marble" in our solar system home. We are constantly learning how changes to the human body are not always healthy for mankind when our physical bodies are exposed to insitu outer space environs away from earth. If humans want to travel on extended outer space voyages we need to know how changes in gravity effect our human health and lifetime length. Gravity effects knowledge is significant to insuring the best outcomes of future manned space travel and colonization on other celestial objects in space away from our earth home. The human body is a complex living system that depends on environmental conditions present on our home planet.

May all of our classmates have a thoughtful and joyous Thanksgiving celebration with family and friends this Thursday. We have a lot to be thankful for in America, especially if you compare our personal lives and individual freedoms with civilizations and cultures of the recorded past.

My family is very grateful for the support and companionship with people of good will and loving relations that we have shared our lives with for decades. Every day is a gift (aptly called "the present") from our Creator. Each day we have the opportunity to love and share our perishable and valuable gifts with our fellow human beings. My family has benefited for centuries from the fruits of subsistance and freedom granted by our Creator. We enjoy riches that are priceless if we choose to acknowledge these benefits every day of our lives. We set aside one day a year to celebrate the generous blessings bestowed to our families and our Republic (after its conception by a very wise, respectful, humble, loving, and honorable group of human beings -- brave people who formed the framework for the most unique nation of mixed cultures and traditions in world history.)

May we always be thankful for what is good. We live in an imperfect world of human interactions and limited, God-provided resources. Many of us believe our life is divinely-granted with grace and an eternal love for us, the "created".  Our local family will give thanks to our Creator for our life blessings this Thursday over a special meal and time of family sharing. We will hopefuly not highlight our differences at this celebration, but our blessings in life from God.

I helped my family bury my brother and his wife this last Friday in the Connecticut Veteran's Cemetery. They were both 87 years old, and both of them died this year under peaceful circumstances. Their 88th birthdays would have been two weeks ago. There will be two empty seats at their joint families' Thanksgiving dinner table this year in Connecticut. "Do not regret growing older. It's a privilege denied to many." (Author unknown to me.)

May God bless you all this national holiday season. Share the love generously.

Al & Bon

Tom Chavez

Al, nice profound sobering thoughts. We are grateful for our brothers, friends and family members. We have the benefit of their association while they are with us, and fond memories when they depart. There is no loss. It’s all good. If they had never been born, that would be a loss. I hope your knee is better.

I’m grateful to be on planet Earth with all our fellow inhabitants—humans, birds, beasts, plants, etc. They are all God’s creatures and I respect each of them, to the smallest ant. By the Lord’s arrangement we all share spaceship earth, and we all have our parts to play and lessons to learn. I’m grateful for gravity, which holds me on the planet so I don’t fall up into the freezing vacuum of outer space.

Gregg, good volley. I think I found something we can agree on about gravity in common with Professor Einstein.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

Virginia Wolfe (Scheffer)

Happy Thanksgiving to all my class mates....gobble 'till you wobble!!!

Tom Chavez

Betty, here is a follow up in response to your last message.

You say that the books I quote from are unknown to you and you don’t understand the quotes. Jesus said, “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.” (John 16:12) Personally, I find these ancient texts very interesting and informative.

As you know, the Bible does not describe much of the life of Jesus, the ‘missing years’ between the ages of 12 and 30. Many think that Jesus travelled during these years to India. Evidence can be found in a book titled Jesus Lived in India by Holger Kersten. The disciple Thomas definitely lived and preached in India; his tomb is in Chennai. 

The Byzantine emperor Justinian in 553 A.D. (at the Second Council of Constantinople) banned the teachings of reincarnation from the Christian scriptures. There remain, however, certain allusions to reincarnation in the Bible. 

“When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Who do men say that I am? And they replied, Some say that thou art John the Baptist; some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the other prophets.” (Matthew 16:13-14) 

Francis Bowen of Harvard, cites a number of such Gospel passages, and remarks in Christian Metempsychosis: “That the commentators have not been willing to receive, in their obvious and literal meaning, assertions so direct and so frequently repeated as these, but have attempted to explain them away in a non-natural and metaphorical sense, is a fact that proves nothing but the existence of an invincible prejudice against the doctrine of the transmigration of souls.” 

The rebirth of saviors and prophets is clear in Christian teaching, but what about ordinary men? Do they return? The disciples of Jesus seemed to consider this possible in their question about the man who was born blind. They asked: “Who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he is born blind?” The disciples must have had reincarnation in mind, for obviously if the man is born blind his sin could not have been committed in this life. 

I did not intend to “lump all Christians into one collective group.” Gandhi’s quote referred to British Christians he met in India. He reacted to their hypocrisy and cruelty, just as Chinese reacted to the British military enforcement of “open markets” to addict Chinese people to opium. Not all Christians are like that and, in fact, there are now many native Christians in both India and China thanks to the influence of good Christians.

You suggest that I have misunderstand the Bible in reference to meat eating. The real problem is in translation from Greek to English. For example, Acts 16:34 translates, “he set meat before them.” The original Greek word used here is trapesa, table. It actually says that "he set a table before them."

The following Greek words are all mis-translated many times in the Bible as “meat.” 

‘Broma’ means ‘food’, ‘brosis’ means ’the act of eating’, ‘phago’ means ‘to eat’, ‘brosimos’ means ‘that which may be eaten’, ‘trophe’ means ‘nourishment’ and ‘prophagon’ means ‘anything to eat.’ As far as I can see, if we look at the original words, the Bible discourages and does not condone meat-eating.

Some Christians claim exclusivity based upon Matthew 14:6: “I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me.” The original Greek is: “ego eimi ha hodos kai ha alatheia kai ha zoa; oudeis erketai pros ton patera ei ma di emou.”

The Greek word erketai is extremely present tense. This, of course, changes the whole meaning to, “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one can presently come to the Father except through me”. 

Dr. Boyd Daniels of The American Bible Society confirms, “The word erketai is definitely the present tense form of the verb. Jesus was speaking to his contemporaries.” 

The Codex Sinaticus, our earliest existing Greek manuscript of the New Testament, is in the British Museum. It was written in the year 331 A.D., six years after the Council of Nicaea. We have no New Testament manuscripts from before this council. 

It is a challenge to understand the original meanings of Biblical verses. Intelligent and open-minded thoughtfulness is warranted.

Paws for Prayer

Tom Chavez

Below is a little illustration I cooked up to show time relativity. It is preliminary toward understanding time dilation, or why time speeds up and slows down. I’d like to see that figuratively, because the math is beyond me. Can someone on this forum explain? I would like to understand why space is curved, but some among us say it is not, so that may be impossible.

Tom Chavez

Mahabharata 5: The Birth of Pandu and Vidura

After the blind son was born, named Dhritarashtra, Satyavati again called Vyasadeva, this time to approach Ambalika, the second wife of his brother. When Ambalika saw Vyasadeva, she became pale with fright. 

Vyasadeva told her, “Because you were pale with fear, your child shall be pale in complexion and will be called Pandu (the pale).”

When he told this to the Queen Mother, Satyavati, she again implored him to give another child. He responded, “So be it, after this one is born,” and went away.

Ambalika brought forth a handsome child of pale complexion endued with all auspicious marks. This child, Pandu, became the father of the mighty Pandavas.

Then Satyavati requested Ambika to receive Vyasadeva for a second time, to get another son. But Ambika disobediently sent a beautiful well-decorated maid servant in her place.

The maid servant received Vyasadeva very respectfully and amiably. Before leaving, Vyasadeva told her that she would no longer be a maid servant, and her child would be fortunate, virtuous and most intelligent among men.

This son of Vyasadeva was called Vidura, the brother of Dhritarashtra and Pandu. Vidura, free from desires and conversant with the rules of governance, was actually Yamaraja, the demigod of death, born as the son of a sudrani (maid servant) due to the curse of Mandavya Rishi.

What did Yamaraja do for which he was cursed to be born as a Sudra, the son of a maid servant? This is the story.

The great ascetic Mandavya used to sit, for years together, at the entrance to his hermitage observing the vow of silence. One day some robbers laden with plunder came there, pursued by the police. The thieves hid their booty and themselves about the hermitage.

Almost immediately afterward the police arrived. Seeing Mandavya Rishi seated beneath a tree, they asked him where had the robbers gone? But the sage, observing silence, remained quiet.

The officers of the king searched the hermitage and discovered the stolen goods and the thieves. Suspicious of the sage, they arrested him along with the thieves and brought them all before the king, who sentenced them all to be executed.

The robbers and Rishi were impaled and kept without food until they all appeared dead. But by his yogic power, the Rishi maintained his life air within, and after being taken down revived his external consciousness. When the police discovered that he was still alive they informed the king, who consulted with his advisors.

The king then came before the Rishi to apologize and release him. Later, when Mandavya came before Yamaraja, Lord of death, he asked, “What sin did I commit to suffer impalement?”

Yamaraja told him that he had once, as a child, pierced an insect with a straw.

Mandavya declared, “Today be it hereby established by me that an act shall not be sinful when committed by one below the age of fourteen. Because you have ordained a punishment of inordinate severity, I curse you to be born among men as a Sudra.”

Cursed for this fault, Yamaraja took birth as Vidura, ever possessed of great foresight and undisturbed tranquillity, and devoted to the welfare of the Kurus.

Bhisma ruled and brought up the three children. Dhritarashtra was the strongest, Pandu excelled in archery, and Vidura excelled in devotion to virtue and knowledge of morality.

Next: Kunti and the Sun god.