Did anybody hear /read about Dr. Stephen M.Phillips?

[Alexander1304]

Hello all,

Dr.Phillis is specialist in what is called "Sacred Geometries".He is physicist (Ph.D) and seems to devote whole his life to demonstrate connection between "sacred geometries" of various traditions and modern science,especially superstring theories of physics.His latest book is titled "Mathematical coonection between religion and science".

 

 

Here is his website:

http://www.smphillips.8m.com/

 

From this article in his website (http://www.smphillips.8m.com/article-2.html)

it also follows that he is literal believer in Theosophy.

What do you guys think?

My point is: if he is right then,well...he should be considered one the most brilliant minids,and moreover,all our science,especially physics should be reconsidered,and be viewed from the point of "sacred geometries".Or,may be he is totally wrong.Who knows?....

What do you think?...

[michel123456]

Nonsense(s)

[rigney]

Hello all,

Dr.Phillis is specialist in what is called "Sacred Geometries".He is physicist (Ph.D) and seems to devote whole his life to demonstrate connection between "sacred geometries" of various traditions and modern science,especially superstring theories of physics.His latest book is titled "Mathematical coonection between religion and science".

 

 

Here is his website:

http://www.smphillips.8m.com/

 

From this article in his website (http://www.smphillips.8m.com/article-2.html)

it also follows that he is literal believer in Theosophy.

What do you guys think?

My point is: if he is right then,well...he should be considered one the most brilliant minids,and moreover,all our science,especially physics should be reconsidered,and be viewed from the point of "sacred geometries".Or,may be he is totally wrong.Who knows?....

What do you think?...

Be careful my friend, nuts don't just fall from trees. Is this guy asking for money to fund his research, or money to launch a new venue? Either way, be careful.

[Alexander1304]

Thanks for the reponses,guys.

Rigney,he doesn't ask for money ,but he has his website,where he demonstrate his ideas.I'm in correspondense with such scientists as Robert Foot and Maxim Khlopov,both astrophysisits.Well,I should tell them to study "sacred geometries" as direct connection to their sciences

But honestly,if this guy is right,his name should be on the top names of the world,but so far it doesn't seem to be the case...

[StringJunky]

I think it's mind-doodling metaphysical word-salad. One thing you might note is that real scientists with religious sentiments seem to keep their scientific work and faith far apart from each other...in public at least.

Edited February 22, 2012 by StringJunky

[Alexander1304]

I think it's mind-doodling metaphysical word-salad.

 

Yes,he is mostly focused on kaballistic "tree of life","platonic solids",some ancient chinese and indian geometries.But if what he is talking is true,then,well,this is revolution in our views on science/life

[michel123456]

Read this:

 

http://www.chem.yale.edu/~chem125/125/history99/8Occult/OccultAtoms.html

[Moontanman]

Thanks for the reponses,guys.

Rigney,he doesn't ask for money ,but he has his website,where he demonstrate his ideas.I'm in correspondense with such scientists as Robert Foot and Maxim Khlopov,both astrophysisits.Well,I should tell them to study "sacred geometries" as direct connection to their sciences

But honestly,if this guy is right,his name should be on the top names of the world,but so far it doesn't seem to be the case...

 

 

I am curious, I have been in personal communication with Dr. Foot as well, but I'm not sure why you mention him in this context. Is he personally in agreement with Dr. Stephen M. Phillips?

[Alexander1304]

Read this:

 

http://www.chem.yale...ccultAtoms.html

 

Thanks,michel123456,excellent article!

 

I am curious, I have been in personal communication with Dr. Foot as well, but I'm not sure why you mention him in this context. Is he personally in agreement with Dr. Stephen M. Phillips?

 

That's the point,Dr.Foot seems to be very FAR AWAY from "sacred geometry",but what I mean,that if Phillips is right,then EVERY scientist,Dr.Foot included should stady "sacred geometry" and to view their science through its prizma...

[Keenidiot]

Yeah... "if."

 

 

[Moontanman]

If frogs had wings....

[Alexander1304]

He seems so sure of himself.Frequetnly uses words "I proved"(for example,the connection between particle physics ans "Tree of Life" of Kaballa and Theosophy).And all the time brings the similarities in different "sacred geometries".I don't know what to think

[Phi for All]

He seems so sure of himself.Frequetnly uses words "I proved"(for example,the connection between particle physics ans "Tree of Life" of Kaballa and Theosophy).And all the time brings the similarities in different "sacred geometries".I don't know what to think

Mainstream scientists don't "prove" things to be true. They reach logical conclusions as to the most likely explanations, explanations supported by the most evidence. This allows them to make predictions which they can also test to check their conclusions.

[Alexander1304]

Mainstream scientists don't "prove" things to be true. They reach logical conclusions as to the most likely explanations, explanations supported by the most evidence. This allows them to make predictions which they can also test to check their conclusions.

 

Then what he says is not science,probably.What predictions does he make?Only quoting Madame Blavatsky,that in some point into the future "etheric eye" will evolve,so that humans will be able to percieve parralel universe made of shadow matter...That what he says in article 2,in the link I provided in OP

Edited February 22, 2012 by Alexander1304

[Phi for All]

Then what he says is not science,probably.What predictions does he make?Only quoting Madame Blavatsky,that in some point into the future "etheric eye" will evolve,so that humans will be able to percieve parralel universe made of shadow matter...That what he says in article 2,in the link I provided in OP

Predictions need to be testable now. "In some point into the future 'etheric eye' will evolve" is too vague to be a meaningful prediction. He needs to be able to show that, if he applies sacred geometry to a phenomena, it will result in x, and his tests need to be reproducible by others, and further his idea needs to explain things better than current understanding.

 

Are any of his claims even falsifiable?

[doG]

If frogs had wings....

Or pigs flew....

[Alexander1304]

Hello all,

I'm going to refresh discussion about Stephen M Phillips,who claims to find correlation between superstring theory,kaballah and theosophy.You know my deep dislike about the notion of "shadow matter" and "subtle bodies",especially where 2 goes together.This is what Phillips try to reconcile.The reason I opened the new thread is that I don't want to put your attention to WHOLE article(which was the point of previous article).I'll post just one piece of the article,that bothers me right now,and then will post how I try to deal with it,hoping for your help.So,please,don't read the whole article,read only the part 6 is named "The UPA as a 11-brane".

http://www.smphillips.8m.com/article-2.html

 

I must honeslty say that I don't understand much of what he say,because to I'm not so godo in neither superstring theory nor in kaballah/theosophy.But I tried to find some points in what he say,that are clearly speculatuive or not scientific.I will mark in bold the points that bother me and how I try to deal with it

 

So,let me start:

"Up till now, theorists have had to define ordinary and shadow matter as singlet representations of the other’s unified gauge symmetry group because they could not explain why the gauge symmetry group E8 appears twice in the symmetry group describing superstring forces free of quantum anomalies.

My theory provides a natural explanation of why these two kinds of matter appear in superstring theory: an 11-brane can wrap around either ten or five curled-up dimensions of the higher, 15-dimensional space. The former creates an ordinary matter superstring; this is the UPA with its ten whorls. The latter creates a shadow matter superstring, which is predicted to comprise five whorls."

 

Problem: seems just assertion.Can his claim about "

an 11-brane can wrap around either ten or five curled-up dimensions of the higher, 15-dimensional space

." be proven? Doesn't it seem as just assertion without evidence?

 

Then he goes into long talk about how "ultimate physical atom" corresponds to the "tree of life " of kaballah,but let focus on this:

 

"

If this correlation between whorls of the UPA and tree levels is correct

, then equations 3 and 9 indicate that the shadow matter superstring with five whorls created by the alternative wrapping of a 11-brane around the curled-up dimensions of S×C should have two, not three, major whorls. The significance of this may be that the three major whorls of the UPA correspond to the Supernal Triad of Kether, Chokmah and Binah, or what Theosophists call the three ‘Logoi’ (in Christian parlance — but not in Christian interpretation — the ‘Holy Trinity’ or ‘Three Persons of the Godhead’). This means that the second major whorl corresponds to the Second Logos, the so-called ‘Outpouring’ from which is the life-force that Hindus call ‘prana,’ whilst the interpretation in Section 10 of shadow matter as etheric matter means that the superstring predicted to have five whorls is the basic unit of etheric matter, the pranic energy contained within which may be one of the energy-fields of the shadow matter superstring. Lacking a third major whorl corresponding to the Third Logos, whose Outpouring is Fohat, the shadow matter superstring builds up only the subtle vehicle of physical consciousness — the etheric body, not its outer shell, which is assembled from superstrings of ordinary matter by means of the form-building forces that have their source in Fohat."

 

1.

If this correlation between whorls of the UPA and tree levels is correct

- big

if

indeed

 

2.

Lacking a third major whorl corresponding to the Third Logos, whose Outpouring is Fohat, the shadow matter superstring builds up only the subtle vehicle of physical consciousness — the etheric body, not its outer shell

 

How can he

know

that?Doesn't seem that just assertion without solid foundation?

 

Also,we can claim that all these claims are unfalsifiable.

 

This is how I try to deal with it,trying to find reasons not to take it as something serious and true.

 

I know it sounds strange,but it seems like this guy "forces" me to accept what he is writing but I try to "counter" him...

 

So,any thoughts?

Any help will be appreciated

Thank you

[Cholem Yesodeth]

Alexander1304 et al,

 

Dr Stephen Phillips is not a Theosophist. Just because he has researched into the remote viewing research of two Theosophists and has written articles and books about their ideas does not make him a Theosophist! So please try using some logic. After all, you are supposed to be students of science (sigh!).

 

Also, if one or two of you had read correctly the preface of his book Extra-sensory Perception of Quarks, you would not have made the error of reporting that he had obtained his doctorate from the University of Cambridge.

 

His statement: "an 11-brane can wrap around either ten or five curled-up dimensions of the higher, 15-dimensional space" can be proven. But the proof is too technical to be included in a website designed for scientific laypeople and for those not expert in superstring theory, such as yourself. Actually, a simplified version of this proof appeared on page 10 of Article 2. But I guess you did not understand it.

 

Of course Phillips' theory is falsifiable. His books provide a plethora of observations made by Besant & Leadbeater that serve as stringent tests of his basic hypotheses. Perhaps you should read them first before cherry-picking some minor statement in one of his research articles.

 

It is not very scientific to resort to ad hominem criticisms just because you can find so little else of significance to fault. It is also not very scientific that you should allow your deep prejudice towards the concept of shadow matter to distort your appraisal. Rather than make inaccurate speculations about his academic background and totally vacuous comments about the material in his website, why not learn from the man himself by attending his week-end seminar in November this year? Preliminary details at http://smphillips.8m.com/contact.html.

[pwagen]

Dr Stephen Phillips is not a Theosophist. Just because he has researched into the remote viewing research of two Theosophists and has written articles and books about their ideas does not make him a Theosophist!

From "article 2":

I have proved the existence of a form of knowledge about the nature of space-time, matter, and higher levels of reality that encompasses the Jewish mystical doctrine of Kabbalah, teachings of Theosophy and recent developments in theoretical particle physics.

Emphasis mine. I'd be interested to hear your definition of Theosophist, if not one who believes he has proven the very concept of Theosophy.

 

Rather than make inaccurate speculations about his academic background and totally vacuous comments about the material in his website

If the material on his website is his own, why would anybody not use it to find out more about him?

[Unity+]

If frogs had wings....

Evolution might eventually bite you in the "ass" if you aren't careful.

[Cholem Yesodeth]

Pwagen, please do not make non sequiturs. Proving the existence of a form of knowledge that encompasses some of the teachings of Theosophy does not make Phillips a Theosophist.

It was a matter not of finding more about him but of turning the lack of knowledge into a pathetic excuse for finding fault with his work. It does not wash.

[pwagen]

Even a quick glance at his site tells anyone he's not involved in real research. After all, if he was, we'd be linked to science journals, not websites with a design stemming from the late 90s.

 

Not really worth getting all wound up about.

[imatfaal]

...

His statement: "an 11-brane can wrap around either ten or five curled-up dimensions of the higher, 15-dimensional space" can be proven. But the proof is too technical to be included in a website designed for scientific laypeople and for those not expert in superstring theory, such as yourself. Actually, a simplified version of this proof appeared on page 10 of Article 2. But I guess you did not understand it.

...

 

I presume you mean this section

 

 

5. Encoding of 336 in the pair of dodecagons

Two joined dodecagons have 22 corners, where A10p10fig8.2

 

Its 24 (=1×2×3×4) sectors have 24 corners. This illustrates once more how the integers 1, 2, 3, & 4 express properties of the dodecagon. As there are 22 compactified dimensions in 26-dimensional space-time, each corner of a dodecagon can be regarded as symbolising the higher dimensions of space. The ten corners outside the root edge of one dodecagon symbolise the ten curled-up dimensions generating the ten string- like components of the superstring (see Article 2). The twelve corners of the other dodecagon denote the twelve remaining compactified dimensions. These consist of the five dimensions that define a compactified space whose symmetry generates the superstring gauge group E8 and the seven curled-up dimensions predicted by supergravity theory. The centres of the two dodecagons symbolise the two transverse dimensions of 26-dimensional strings.

 

Notice that the division: 22 = 3 + 7 + 12 of the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet into the three mothers: aleph, mem & shin, the seven double consonants: beth, gimel, daleth, caph, pe, resh, & tau, and the twelve simple consonants has a remarkable geometrical counterpart in the 22 corners of the pair of joined dodecagons. This is because the three mother letters correspond to three corners symbolising the curled-up dimensions beyond supergravity space-time that generate the three major whorls of the UPA, the seven double consonants correspond to seven corners that denote the curled-up dimensions generating its seven

 

 

This is so far from being a scientific proof that it counts against your argument. All it does is erroneously name check a couple of very hypothetical physical models - it has no tie in to these models with maths nor logic. From my rough knowledge the 26 dimensional versions of string theory do not have E8 gauge - there are some E8xE8 theories but they dont have 26 dimensions.

[Cholem Yesodeth]

pwagen:

"I'd be interested to hear your definition of Theosophist, if not one who believes he has proven the very concept of Theosophy."

 

A Theosophist is one who accepts as true all the teachings of Theosophy. On the other hand, Stephen Phillips claims that he has proved just one of these teachings. Except to those who cannot think logically, this does not imply that Stephen Phillips is a Theosophist. If you had read his research, you would know that he has rejected some of the beliefs of Theosophists like Annie Besant and C.W. Leadbeater, whilst his books has proved some of their claims. The tactic of discrediting someone's work by mislabelling or misrepresenting him is a common practice of the debunker.

 

pwagen:

"If the material on his website is his own, why would anybody not use it to find out more about him?"

 

Because it should be evident that the material on his website does not contain autobiographical details. Instead, it is about mystical and scientific ideas and their mathematical connections. But none of you seem to be able to evaluate them. But, then, the last resort of the debunker or the intellectually lazy is to discredit research by hopefully finding things about someone that can generate ad hominems.Hence, your obsession with the man rather than his work ......

[Acme]

... If you had read his research, ...

Instead, it is about mystical and scientific ideas and their mathematical connections. But none of you seem to be able to evaluate them.

...

From Phillips' 'work':

Article 7

...General discussion

 

It is clear that the Godname numbers appear too naturally in the properties of the two sets of polygons for chance to play a role. That 27 (over 50%) of the 52 numbers shown in Table 1 should appear in the analysis of this article is too many to be coincidental. ...

With all due respect, this is meaningless drivel. 'Too naturally'? Phphphphh. Can I get a scientific definition on that?

 

I propose that for the first 3 primes to appear in the first 5 Natural numbers -a Wholly 60%- and one of them to have the property of being the only even prime, is too many to be coincidental to this post. I hereby denominate Dos, Tres, and Cinco the Sacred Goddamn numbers.