"The formation of gravity would be analogous to Lucifer's betrayal" simply does not need a disproof or a counterexample. It is merely an empty statement and can be disregarded has having no truth value worth proving, disproving, or using as any kind of foundation for a scientific prediction.

Challenging somebody to contradict it is an empty challenge. Nobody can contradict it, just as nobody can prove it, nobody can claim that it means anything at all.

Do I have to materialize my previous posts which state that this does not pretend to scientific respectability and bash your skull in with it? Also, where did I ask anyone to contradict the claims?

....




........














............










I'm so sorry, science. Come here, I'll give you a hug and we'll forget all about the bad man and his heaps of dumb.

All,

Whenever reading or listening to something like this and you start busily nodding your head, check yourself and start looking for confirmation bias. After you see what you're doing (which, I might add, we all do) you'll have no concerns about tossing useless stuff aside.

I haven't read the book, I'm not trying to be mean, I just suspect that this applies after reading a few of the posts here.

I do have a problem with your claiming that there is any kind of intellectual respectability at all in Bingelli's ramblings.

Not only does he trivialize the science of the things he so pointlessly analogizes, he also ignores or trivializes the theological and literary meanings of those same things, and so produced a book that is, if such a thing were possible, worse than useless.

I object to it, not only on the grounds of scientific respectability, which it lacks beyond dispute, but to its absence of literary and intellectual respectability in all dimensions.

1) Why are you quoting me as if I directed that question at you and why did you simultaneously remove my name from the quote?
2) Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, uh, your opinion, man.

Just because it's a false statement doesn't mean it can't be contradicted. Kinda means it should be contradicted. But in contradicting you have to assume a level of knowledge on the subject to whom is being contradicted, otherwise you're only successful to the extent that the truth has been spoken, but the other person may be going "nuh uh, that's not true", because someone willfully unwilling to learn something isn't likely going to change their minds no matter what.

The reason I said it couldn't be contradicted is that it has no truth value. It is not true, and it is not false; it is merely empty. Trying to say what it means for gravity to be like the fall of Lucifer is like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall.

I'd rather deal with assertions that are susceptible to contradiction, but Bingelli's ramblings are devoid of those.

So are the ramblings of Karl Marx, but I'll be damned if it isn't fun to contradict everything he says anyhow. This is much the same.

See, that’s the crux.

I think, there is analogy between the big bang, and human male orgasm. Just think about all these particles being shot after explosion, and life is forming. 9 months of pregnacy is equivalent of billions of years of universe.

Every planet is a symbol of an eggcell, and the meteors with aminoacids on them are the sperm.

Am i scientist now?

oh, i forgot. GOD created all of this to look similiar.

I found the paralell you gave there between photons and medieval angels to be interesting anyway.

I wanted to talk about the concept of gravity, as relates to lucifer and 'evil', because I found that interesting as well.

The traditional interpretation of the figure of lucifer (and by this I mean the older, not the contemporary) was, as most mythological figures, a multi-faceted one. As a composite the figure was most strongly reminiscent of the interaction between spirit and matter, symbolised on several levels - and bear with me while I deviate or skip to the next paragraph :) - such as human consciousness, as we might see in the figure of loki, the trikster god who was as much a hero of the eddas as a villain, or the greek prometheus. On another level we have consciousness and life itself, such as the buddhist avalokiteshvara or the greek eros, who in the orphic hymns is a creation god - again similar to the role of vishnu in the hindu vedas - who then later is relegated to the human counterpart of that binding force between aspects of the universe - that is, symbolically love, the binding of two into one - as cupid, son of venus/aphrodite (and this makes clearer the association of lucifer, the 'bright star of the morning' with venus, who in pre-mithraic times was often depicted as a male figure also).

In this role of binding and interaction we also see similarities with lucifer with the sanskrit term fohat - or agni, fire - again spoken of as a physical and spiritual force, as the vehicle and messenger of divine will, taking the role of accreting matter to itself, of forming that matter into spheres and sending it into motion, in much the same way as we would understand electromagnetic and gravitational activity, so in this respect the parallel could be made.

However, it is not entirely accurate to me, as fohat (and indeed eros/vishnu) are conceptualised as spiritual, or rather, psychological forces with physical effects. If matter/mass itself is considered as the medieval alchemists did - symbolising the earth in some ways by the colour black and representing 'evil', furtherest from the purely spiritual - then gravity would be the higher spiritual aspect of that mass, the same as magnetism could be considered in relation to electricity, so the analogy breaks down, but is interesting none the less.

It’s sad, isn’t it :| ?

And, for many members of this forum, its done in a vacuum.

:D