petrushka.googol Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 In many cultures the theme is that Light is sacred. Drill down and you find that at a granular level photons are sacred. The absence of photons implies absence of an emitter (mass). Hence mass is sacred. Matter and energy are convertible and hence energy is sacred. (E=MC2). Man is a manifestation of matter and energy and hence man is sacred. Man is a manifestation of Life and hence Life itself is sacred. Do you agree ?
Prometheus Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 We can agree that life is sacred without recourse to the rest of your preamble. 1
John Cuthber Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sacred "sacred. devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; consecrated. entitled to veneration or religious respect by association with divinity or divine things; holy." Nope. Life is not generally "devoted or dedicated to a deity or a religious purpose" and ,while it is entitled to veneration, that's not "by association with divinity or divine things". 2
swansont Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 In many cultures the theme is that Light is sacred. Drill down and you find that at a granular level photons are sacred. Who holds that photons are sacred? Is there a religion that unambiguously predicted that light behaves as photons?
petrushka.googol Posted August 24, 2015 Author Posted August 24, 2015 Who holds that photons are sacred? Is there a religion that unambiguously predicted that light behaves as photons? Is there a religion that unambiguously predicted that light does NOT behave as photons....? -1
swansont Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 Is there a religion that unambiguously predicted that light does NOT behave as photons....? Wow. That's a logical failure so stunning I can't think of a retort. 5
John Cuthber Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 Is there a religion that unambiguously predicted that light does NOT behave as photons....? Did you actually think that saying that helped, or was it a joke?
petrushka.googol Posted August 25, 2015 Author Posted August 25, 2015 Did you actually think that saying that helped, or was it a joke? The humor was subtle but frankly it was pure jest.......
swansont Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 The humor was subtle but frankly it was pure jest....... How about a serious answer, then?
petrushka.googol Posted August 25, 2015 Author Posted August 25, 2015 How about a serious answer, then? Some aspects of light were evident even in pristine cultures. People observed rainbows and saw that light was indeed made up of different colors. This was long before Newton and the prism. I agree that maybe the ancients were unaware of photons but to ascribe ignorance to early civilization based on atomic theory is unrealistic. Early cultures were aware of reflection (in mirrors) and refraction (at oasis). Maybe they could not visualize photons but then we could theorize that say a hundred years from now religion would have become more "malleable" and could accomodate what now seem as abstract concepts.
Strange Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 Some aspects of light were evident even in pristine cultures. People observed rainbows and saw that light was indeed made up of different colors. This was long before Newton and the prism. Citation needed. I agree that maybe the ancients were unaware of photons but to ascribe ignorance to early civilization based on atomic theory is unrealistic. If they were unaware of photons then they were, by definition, ignorant of that. What does atomic theory have to do with the subject? Maybe they could not visualize photons ... Some ancient Greek philosophers suggested that light consisted of a stream of particles. "Greek scientists from the ancient Pythagorean discipline postulated that every visible object emits a steady stream of particles, while Aristotle concluded that light travels in a manner similar to waves in the ocean." http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/lightandcolor/particleorwave.html but then we could theorize that say a hundred years from now religion would have become more "malleable" and could accomodate what now seem as abstract concepts. I still don't see what any of this has to do with religion...
swansont Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 Some aspects of light were evident even in pristine cultures. People observed rainbows and saw that light was indeed made up of different colors. This was long before Newton and the prism. I agree that maybe the ancients were unaware of photons but to ascribe ignorance to early civilization based on atomic theory is unrealistic. Um, what? If they didn't know about atomic theory/photons they were, by definition, ignorant of it. This is the opposite of unrealistic. edit: xpost with Strange.
petrushka.googol Posted August 25, 2015 Author Posted August 25, 2015 Citation needed. If they were unaware of photons then they were, by definition, ignorant of that. What does atomic theory have to do with the subject? Some ancient Greek philosophers suggested that light consisted of a stream of particles. "Greek scientists from the ancient Pythagorean discipline postulated that every visible object emits a steady stream of particles, while Aristotle concluded that light travels in a manner similar to waves in the ocean." http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/lightandcolor/particleorwave.html I still don't see what any of this has to do with religion... Early civilizations relied on observations made with the naked eye. Rainbows are described even in the Bible. I agree that the word "atom" comes from Greek roots and that they even theorized that light comes from a stream of particles. But then does that not substantiate my hypotheses ?
Strange Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 Early civilizations relied on observations made with the naked eye. Rainbows are described even in the Bible. What Newton demonstrated (scientifically) is that white light is made up of a mixture of colours. Obviously early people knew about colour. But where in the Bible does it say that white light can be split into colours? Or that colours can be combined to produce white light? It doesn't: the explanation provided for rainbows is: "magic". I agree that the word "atom" comes from Greek roots and that they even theorized that light comes from a stream of particles. But then does that not substantiate my hypotheses ? How does Greek speculation that light might be particulate show that photons are "sacred"?
swansont Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 "The Greeks" ≠ "many cultures" You keep extrapolating anecdotes into claims of general truth. It doesn't work that way. You have to substantiate these things.
John Cuthber Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 Rainbows are described even in the Bible. And the Bible talks nonsense about it. "And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth." Nothing to do with splitting light into components. Even less to do with photons.
36grit Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 Ya'll seem to be veering off subject. Getting all wrapped up in photons. To me this guy seems to want to know what is sacred and what is not. I know that the word light is synonmous with the word understanding in some of the religious texts that I have read, and I know that my understanding is sacred to me and the ghosts that brought it but, not anybody else. 1
Strange Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 Ya'll seem to be veering off subject. Getting all wrapped up in photons. Did you read the thread title?
DrP Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 QUOTE:"....seem to be veering off the subject" What exactly do you think the subject of this thread is then?
Prometheus Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 Ya'll seem to be veering off subject. Getting all wrapped up in photons. To me this guy seems to want to know what is sacred and what is not. I know that the word light is synonmous with the word understanding in some of the religious texts that I have read, and I know that my understanding is sacred to me and the ghosts that brought it but, not anybody else. It might be interesting to talk about the meaning of the sacred with respect to light. The myth of Prometheus springs to mind. But the OP refers specifically to photons, which implies a desire to muddy the waters of science with all this new age quantum woo. I just don't understand it: at best it annoys scientists and distracts spiritual people.
Strange Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 It might be interesting to talk about the meaning of the sacred with respect to light. Indeed. But the OP is so incoherent, is is hard to know where to start. Why does light have such important connotations? Because day drives away night and bad dreams? Because early agriculturalists realised that they needed the light and warmth of the summer sun to grow their crops. Or just because you can see what you are doing? The myth of Prometheus springs to mind. You would say that...
petrushka.googol Posted September 10, 2015 Author Posted September 10, 2015 Indeed. But the OP is so incoherent, is is hard to know where to start. Why does light have such important connotations? Because day drives away night and bad dreams? Because early agriculturalists realised that they needed the light and warmth of the summer sun to grow their crops. Or just because you can see what you are doing? You would say that... I think the power of light is evident in healing people with depression. Light is known to alleviate symptoms of depression. i guess this is because it gives us the freedom to appreciate nature in it's resplendent beauty.
swansont Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 I think the power of light is evident in healing people with depression. Light is known to alleviate symptoms of depression. i guess this is because it gives us the freedom to appreciate nature in it's resplendent beauty. More likely there is a specific electrochemical response that occurs that one could investigate. You know, science.
petrushka.googol Posted September 10, 2015 Author Posted September 10, 2015 More likely there is a specific electrochemical response that occurs that one could investigate. You know, science. Light increases levels of melatonin (derivative of serotonin (decreased levels contribute to depression)). Melatonin is related to sleep rhythms. More light = more rest.
Strange Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 Light increases levels of melatonin (derivative of serotonin (decreased levels contribute to depression)). Melatonin is related to sleep rhythms. More light = more rest. So nothing sacred, just biochemistry.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now