Forumul Scientia

Diverse => Critici ale paradigmei curente in stiinta => Subiect creat de: sandokhan din Aprilie 28, 2008, 12:39:01 p.m.

Titlu: Despre codul Da Vinci/F. Bacon - I. Newton - London Royal Society
Scris de: sandokhan din Aprilie 28, 2008, 12:39:01 p.m.
Dupa ce membrii cultului Brotherhood of the Sun (Akhenaton Sun Cult) au fost exilati din Egipt, au reusit sa se infiltreze la Ierusalim, aducand cu ei cultul pagan al Soarelui; Essenieni de la Qumran erau membri ai cultului lui Akhenaton, ei continuand linia genealogica a lui Cain mai tarziu prin dinastia Merovingiana; Koppernigk, Galilei, Newton si Kepler facand parte din aceeasi organizatie secreta, in care adorau Soarele...

Desi D. Brown pretinde ca a cercetat continutul operei sale literar/stiintifice in mod detaliat, CldV nu include cateva teme extrem de interesante...

~Imediat dupa sosirea lor in Tara Sfanta, cavalerii Templieri au intreprins mai multe calatorii misterioase in Eritreea de unde au recuperat Chivotul Legamantului (Ark of the Covenant); acesta fiind depozitat intai in Franta iar apoi, in Scotia; puterea lor financiara/politica crescand imediat la un nivel superior statului/bisericii; cavalerii Templieri erau un element constitutiv important al conspiratiei initiate de kaballah pentru a crea un imperiu financiar/bancar--acest scop a fost indeplinit 500 de ani mai tarziu prin dinastia Rothschild
~Dinastia regala iudaica a parasit Ierusalimul in anul 66-67 e.n. cu destinatia Franta, odata ce devenise clar faptul ca rascoala pregatita indelungat (incendiul Romei in 64 e.n. a fost pornit de conspiratori cabalisti, deghizati in crestini) nu va destabiliza imperiul Roman astfel incat poporul lui Israel sa devina liber din nou; aceasta fiind de fapt povestea adevarata despre SanGraal/dinastia Merovingiana; omul care a pus capat rebeliunii a fost Vespasian
~O organizatie mult mai puternica decat Priory of Sion, 'parintele' acesteia a fost Rozacruce (Rosenkreuzer) din care faceau parte Giordano Bruno, Nicolas Copernic, Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton
~Francmasoneria /conspiratia cabalista/ doreste sa instaureze un haos general /razboi-colaps economic-si altele- din care sa rezulte un fel de dictatura mondiala, conducatorul, patriarh al bisericii universale si lider politic, fiind un descendent direct al regelui David; CldV face parte din pregatirea /sau conditionarea/ psihologica-sociala necesara pentru indeplinirea acestui deziderat

Secretul din spatele cartii lui D. Brown, Codul Da Vinci este tocmai faptul ca nu mentioneaza deloc cine a fost de fapt Jose Maria de Escriva, fondatorul Opus Dei (1928 ), originea sa etnica si organizatia conspirativa din care facea parte...

Despre 'manuscrisele' /documentele/ de la Nag Hammadi

However; the Nag Hammadi writings are of 'Gnostic' origin which were written during the first to fourth century A.D.
The Gnostic heretics did cherish both the Old and New testament Scripture, but re-interpreted them in terms of a mythological Gnostic Redeemer. Gnosticism gave rise to the writings of a number of totally spurious apocalyptic books, false gospels and epistles that incorporated their own mysticism.
Gnosticism was a movement that vigorously contended with Orthodox Christianity for supremacy. Writings by the early Church Fathers show how widespread and influential Gnosticism was; and it was combatted as a lethal threat to the proclamation of the Gospel. The bishops pointed out the great gulf between Biblical Christianity and Gnosticism, even though the Gnostics made use of Biblical text. It is obvious that Paul, the Apostle, knew of the false ideas of Gnosticism, and spoke out against such doctrines several times in the Scriptures.

So, what are we to make of the Nag Hammadi library? Should some or all of the scrolls be in the Bible? To put it simply and bluntly - absolutely not! First, the Nag Hammadi scrolls are forgeries. They were not written by whom they claim. The Apostle Philip did not write the gospel of Philip. The Apostle Peter did not write the acts of Peter. The gospel of Thomas was not written by the Apostle Thomas. These scrolls were fraudulently written in their names in order to give them a legitimacy in the early church. Thankfully, the early church fathers were nearly unanimous in recognize these Gnostic scrolls as fraudulent forgeries that espouse false doctrines about Jesus Christ, salvation, God, and every other crucial Christian truth. There are countless contradictions between the Nag Hammadi library and the Bible.

While the Nag Hammadi library was an exciting find, the only 'value' in the Nag Hammadi library is that the scrolls give us insight into what early 'heretics' taught and practiced. Recognizing the false doctrine that plagued the early church will help us better to understand it and refute it today.

Often called the secret or hidden gospels, they are in fact neither. Only four have the name “gospel” attached to them and they in no way resemble the richness and historicity of their four counterparts in the New Testament. Many Church Fathers, of which Saint Irenaeus (A.D. 125–203) is the best example, wrote volumes refuting the writings of the Gnostics of the mid-second century who they quite correctly saw as subverting the beliefs established by Christ and the Apostles. The texts found at Nag Hammadi are either based on the earlier heresies or are Coptic translations of them. Since the oldest text did not appear until around AD 150, we are not talking about two systems that developed side by side as the Gnostics would have it. The organized, monolithic, hierarchical Church had predated these writings by several decades, perhaps even a hundred years. Therefore the so-called hidden gospels represent the effort of a group of dissidents and malcontents bent on subverting the traditional beliefs established by Divine Revelation.

Si Leonardo da Vinci facea parte din aceeasi conspiratie...San Graal sau Holy Grail referindu-se de fapt la continuarea liniei genealogice Cain - Prezent...el este autorul faimosului giulgiu de la tot el i-a pacalit pe toti oferind in public cea mai sinistra imagine posibila...pentru ca in 1504 Leonardo picta de fapt DOUA tablouri diferite, unul fiind cel al lui Monna Lisa (dupa ce Raphael a vazut acel tablou a realizat un sketch care prezinta detalii diferite de ceea ce se poate observa la Louvre), iar celalalt fiind de fapt un tablou initiatic terifiant, substituirea fiind facuta de da Vinci cu ingeniozitate...pentru ca simturile publicului sa fie adormite si sa nu realizeze ce privesc de fapt...chipul fara sprancene si fara seamana foarte bine cu cel din tablourile Bacchus si St. John the Baptist...o continuare a ideilor si practicilor celor din Brotherhood of the Sun...

( (

Koppernigk (N. Copernic cu numele latinizat), adoratorul Soarelui:

In regard to his cosmology, Copernicus consistently appealed to the 'harmony' of his system, but it was a harmony ennobled by a sun that he personified, and, some say, deified, way beyond what we now know as its ability to convert helium into hydrogen. Copernicus writes:

In the middle of all sits Sun enthroned. In this most beautiful temple could we place this luminary in any better position from which he can illuminate the whole at once? He is rightly called the Lamp, the Mind, the Ruler of the Universe: Hermes Trismegistus names him the Visible God, Sophocles' Electra calls him the All-seeing. So the Sun sits as upon a royal throne ruling his children the planets which circle round him. The Earth has the Moon at her service. As Aristotle says, in his On Animals, the Moon has the closest relationship with the Earth. Meanwhile the Earth conceives by the Sun, and becomes pregnant with an annual rebirth (De Revolutionibus, Of the Order of the Heavenly Bodies 10).

Karl Popper shows the origin of these cultic ideas:

Copernicus studied in Bologna under the Platonist Novara; and Copernicus' idea of placing the sun rather than the earth in the center of the universe was not the result of new observations but of a new interpretation of old and well-known facts in the light of semi-religious Platonic and Neo-Platonic ideas. The crucial idea can be traced back to the sixth book of Plato's Republic, where we can read that the sun plays the same role in the realm of visible things as does the idea of the good in the realm of ideas. Now the idea of the good is the highest in the hierarchy of Platonic ideas. Accordingly the sun, which endows visible things with their visibility, vitality, growth and progress, is the highest in the hierarchy of the visible things in nature.Now if the sun was to be given pride of place, if the sun merited a divine status.then it was hardly possible for it to revolve about the earth. The only fitting place for so exalted a star was the center of the universe. So the earth was bound to revolve about the sun. This Platonic idea, then, forms the historical background of the Copernican revolution. It does not start with observations, but with a religious or mythological idea (Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, p. 187).

Popper couches his critique of Copernicus in rather polite terms, but essentially he is saying that Copernicus' brainchild had all the earmarks of originating from pagan sun-worship. As Wolfgang Smith notes:

In the Renaissance movement championed by Marsiglio Ficino, the doctrine came alive again, but in a somewhat altered form; one might say that what Ficino instituted was indeed a religion, a kind of neo-paganism. Copernicus himself was profoundly influenced by this movement, as can be clearly seen from numerous passages in the De Revolutionibus (The Wisdom of Ancient Cosmology, p. 174).

Upon reading Copernicus' De Revolutionibus, one is struck by the preponderance of philosophical and humanistic arguments that he brings to his aid. As J. D. Bernal notes: '[Copernicus'] reasons for his revolutionary change were essentially philosophic and aesthetic,' and in a later edition he is more convinced that the 'reasons were mystical rather than scientific' (Science in History, 1st edition, London, Watts, 1954; 2nd edition, 1965). Overall, Copernicus presents about five-dozen arguments, at least half of which are solely philosophical in nature. Although the other half of his argumentation depends more on mechanics, these also have philosophical appendages to them (e.g., his view that the universe is infinite and therefore cannot have a center). Very few of his arguments are based on his own personal observations, since Copernicus merely reworked the observations of his Greek predecessors. In fact, Copernicus concludes that because the Greeks did not detail their cosmological models more thoroughly, history (and God) have called upon him to provide the long-awaited documentation of true cosmology.

Titlu: Re: Despre codul Da Vinci/F. Bacon - I. Newton - London Royal Society
Scris de: sandokhan din Aprilie 28, 2008, 12:41:33 p.m.
Cea mai buna documentare despre London Royal Society si cum rosicrucienii (F. Bacon si I. Newton) au inventat "stiinta" moderna...

The science of manipulation
As the power of religion began to wane, another mental prison cell was created. We call it, rather bravely, ‘science’. Not real science.

So through the Freemasonic networks, the Royal Society was formed, yet again in London, under a royal warrant from Charles II in 1662. It was the world’s first assembly of scientists and engineers, and it was to be the dominating influence on the direction of ‘science’. Virtually all the early members of the Royal Society were Freemasons who knew that that direction was flawed and untrue. No doubt the same applies today. Some familiar names are about to appear again. The ‘father’ of the Royal Society, who was said to be its inspiration before he ‘died’ (or moved locations), was Francis Bacon, the top Rosicrucian, translator of the Bible, and architect of Freemasonry. The Royal Society stalwarts also included: Isaac Newton, the Rosicrucian Grand Master of the Priory of Sion, who became a fellow in 1672; Lord Moray, a Scottish Freemason; Elias Ashmole, one of the first registered Freemasons; and Andrew Michael ‘Chevalier’ Ramsey, a leading light of Freemasonry, who was admitted to the Royal Society without any scientific qualifications whatsoever. Another fellow was John Byrom, a Freemason and member of the Cabala Club, also known as the Sun Club. In 1984, more than 500 of his papers were found in a house in Manchester and they included information about sacred geometry, architecture and cabalistic, Freemasonic and other alchemical and esoteric symbols. Ashmole, an alchemist and Rosicrucian with many esoteric contacts in Germany, was a close friend of Charles II and a Knight of the Order of the Garter, that premier order of ‘chivalry’ headed by the monarch. He wrote a book with Arthur Dee (the son of Dr John Dee), who was personal physician to the Tsar, Ivan the Terrible. When Ivan died, Dee’s manipulation installed the Romanov dynasty on the Russian throne. Ashmole was extremely well connected and maintained close contacts with the ‘Invisible College’ which met in Oxford from 1650. Just such a group was proposed by Francis Bacon in his book, The New Atlantis. This ‘Invisible College’ included the famed scientist Robert Boyle, another Grand Master of the Priory of Sion, and Sir Christopher Wren, the architect behind St Paul’s Cathedral in the City of London, the financial centre of the Black Nobility and the Babylonian Brotherhood. Both were Grand Masters of the Rosicrucian Order. St Paul’s, and the rebuilding of the City in general, was made possible by the Great Fire of London in 1666 and how interesting that both Wren, the architect who designed St Paul’s Cathedral on a former site of Diana worship, and Robert Hooke, one of three city surveyors after the fire, were both members of the Royal Society and high initiates of the secret societies. The new City of London was built to a Masonic street plan with the design of the buildings based on the knowledge of the energy grid in that area and how best to manipulate it.

The Royal Society was - and is - more than a grouping of scientists. At its core it is a secret society controlled, indeed created, by the Brotherhood to limit the vision and breadth of scientific and spiritual understanding. For confirmation of that, look at the esoteric initiates behind an organisation which denies the esoteric. This becomes even more obvious when you consider the background of another group of esoteric initiates who merged into the Royal Society. They called themselves the Lunar Society because they met once a month on the night of the full Moon. Among its members was Benjamin Franklin, the high level Freemason, Rosicrucian, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, and closely connected to the Freemasons behind the French Revolution. More of him in the next chapter. Other Lunar Society members were Erasmus Darwin, the grandfather of Charles Darwin, the man who would be used to promote the belief in this world-is-all-there-is science and the survival of the fittest via natural selection. I don’t think that even Darwin believed that, certainly not at the end of his life, but the image, the myth, has prevailed. Anyway, the idea that Charles Darwin ‘discovered’ the theory of natural selection and survival of the fittest is ridiculous. His grandfather, Erasmus of the Lunar Society, wrote a book called Zoonomia in 1794 in which he outlined the very same opinion. Josiah Wedgwood of the Wedgwood pottery empire, was another Lunar Society member and his daughter married Erasmus Darwin’s son, Robert Darwin, and became the mother of Charles Darwin! This same bloodline produced Thomas Malthus, who’s sickening racist creed has been used by Adolf Hitler, Henry Kissinger and endless other frontmen for the Brotherhood to justify the genocide of ‘lesser’ races to maintain the genetic purity of the human blood stock - the reptile Aryans. Malthus, an Anglican clergyman, said that disease and appalling living conditions for the masses were essential to stop over-population and the dilution of the master (white) bloodlines. This is just one of his little gems of wisdom:

“We are bound in justice and honour formally to disclaim the right of the poor to support. To this end, I should propose a regulation to be made declaring that no child born... should ever be entitled to parish assistance... The (illegitimate) infant is, comparatively speaking, of little value to society, as others will immediately supply its place... All children beyond what would be required to keep up the population to this (desired) level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the deaths of grown persons.” The economist, John Maynard Keynes, whose principles have dominated modern economic policy, thought Malthus to be a genius and Darwin and his circle believed him to be a master of logic. The population control policies of this century have been inspired by the genocide principles of Malthus, as I expose in .. .And The Truth Shall Set You Free. Again the Scottish connection appears. Six of the members of the Lunar Society were educated in Edinburgh and so was Charles Darwin. Another major voice was the Frenchman, Rene Descartes, born in 1596 and called: “the father of modern philosophy” . Descartes was educated by the Roman Catholic branch of the Babylonian Brotherhood, the Jesuits. He called himself a Roman Catholic all his life and yet his books were placed on the Catholic Index of Forbidden Books. His views would later be expounded by Isaac Newton. Both of them were fascinated by the esoteric and alchemy. Here we can see that the same force which created the religions of the ancient world, also designed the new ‘science’.

The Bacon legacy

One of the most important men of this entire era was the Rosicrucian, Francis Bacon. His influence was colossal. He was the Grand Master of the Rosicrucians in England, a major force in the creation of Freemasonry, the ‘father’ of modern science, and the possible author of the ‘Shakespeare’ plays. He was also a member of a secret society called the Order of the Helmet, dedicated to the worship of the goddess of wisdom, Pallas Athene, who was portrayed as wearing a helmet and holding a spear.8 Researchers and investigators like Manly P. Hall, the renowned Freemasonic historian, have little doubt that Bacon was born from a liaison between Queen Elizabeth I, the ‘virgin queen’, and her lover Robert Dudley, the Earl of Leicester.9 He was brought up by Nicholas and Anne Bacon and would become the most influential man in the country, overtly and covertly, with the title of Viscount of St Albans and the role of Lord Chancellor of England. (This was the Bacon role, you might say.) If Bacon was the son of Queen Elizabeth (El-lizard-birth), he was of a reptilian bloodline, and this would explain his rapid rise to prominence in politics and the secret societies. He worked secretly through the underground channels, among them the Inns of Court, the centre of the Brotherhood controlled legal profession which is based on the former Templar lands in the now aptly named, Temple Bar, in London. It was a time of great conflict and upheaval as the Brotherhood sought to use the church as a vehicle for widespread war and chaos. One of their frontmen for this was Martin Luther, a product of German secret societies and a Rosicrucian. His personal seal was a rose and cross. In 1517, this professor of theology at Wittenberg University listed 95 complaints against the Vatican for selling pardons to raise money to build St Peter’s Church.

It was also under the influence of Bacon and other esoteric magicians like John Dee and Sir Francis Walsingham, that the spy networks across Europe, now known as British Intelligence, were created. British Intelligence was formed by the reptilian bloodlines of the Babylonian Brotherhood and British Intelligence would later create American Intelligence and similar networks throughout the expanding British Empire, which are still at work today. The CIA was created by Elite members of British Intelligence during the presidency of the 33rd degree Freemason, Harry S. Truman, the man who officially ordered the bombs to be dropped on Japan. He took his advice from Bill Donovan, the head of the CIA’s predecessor, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), which was peopled entirely by Knights Templar according to Bill Cooper, a former operative with US Naval Intelligence. Walsingham was posted as ambassador to France to expand the spy networks and it was no surprise when a French Intelligence agent told me that British and French Intelligence are the same organisation. It certainly makes the cover up of Princess Diana’s murder easier. The intelligence agencies of the world, at their peaks, are esoteric, black magic secret societies working to the same Agenda - global control. John Dee was the Queen’s astrologer, a Rosicrucian Grand Master, a black magician, and a secret agent for the new intelligence network. He appears to have had a copy of the Book of Enoch from some source or other and he, and the psychic Edward Kelley, developed a written language they called ‘Enochian script or cipher’ from communications with the angels - reptilians. Dee signed his reports 007- the same, of course, as James Bond, the stories written by a 20th century agent of this same British Intelligence, Ian Fleming, a friend of the black magician, Aleister Crowley. Dee travelled throughout Europe manipulating, gathering information and oiling the networks. One of his haunts was Bohemia and he was closely associated with Emperor Rudolf II of the reptilian Habsburg dynasty, another occultist. Dee was among the influential voices who were orchestrating a policy of British expansionism which became the British Empire. While in Prague, Dee gave Emperor Rudolph an illustrated manuscript written in code and claimed to be the work of Roger Bacon (Roger, not Francis), the 13th century Franciscan monk who upset the church authorities with his views and ideas.

In this John Dee-Francis Bacon circle were all the leading figures of Elizabethan society, including Sir Walter Raleigh. It may have been Francis Bacon who communicated some of the secret knowledge ‘for those who have ears’ in ciphers and symbolism in the works called the Shakespeare plays. He, like the writers of the Old and New Testaments and the King Arthur ‘Grail’ stories, was a high initiate of the secret mysteries communicating through code and hidden meaning. Manly P. Hall says that Bacon indicated that he was the true author in a series of codes. His esoteric number was 33 and on one page in the first part of the ‘Shakespeare’ play, Henry The Fourth, the name ‘Francis’ appears 33 times. Bacon also used watermarks in paper to transmit his symbols, as did the Rosicrucians and secret societies in general. These included the rose and the cross and bunches of grapes - the vine, the bloodlines. Bacon also used Tarot symbolism in his codes, including the numbers 21, 56 and 78, which are related to divisions in the Tarot deck. In a Shakespearean Folio of 1623, the Christian name of Bacon appears 21 times on page 56. The term Rota Mundi frequently occurs in the early manifestos of the Fraternity of the Rose Cross. Rearrange the letters in Rota and you get Taro, the ancient name for the tarot cards.’7 Shakespeare is known as the Bard. A Bard was a Druidic initiate of the secret knowledge and, the Concise Oxford Dictionary tells me, there is another definition of bard... “a slice of bacon placed on meat or game before roasting”. The famous Globe Theatre in London where the plays were performed was built according to the principles of sacred geometry and the last ‘Shakespeare’ play, The Tempest, included many Rosicrucian concepts. It is equally possible that the ‘Shakespeare’ plays were written by another initiate of Elizabethan society, Edward De Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, who also fitted the bill and some believe even more so than Bacon. The idea that the world famous plays were written by an illiterate from Stratford-upon- Avon called William Shakespeare is patently ridiculous and, like so much accepted ‘truth’, does not survive the most basic research. Shakespeare, the ‘Bard’, grew up in Stratford, a town with no school capable of communicating such a high degree of learning. His parents were illiterate and he showed a total disregard for study. Yet the plays were written by someone with a great knowledge of the world which could be gleaned only from a fantastic range of books and personal experience through travel. Shakespeare had no such library, not that he could have used it if he had, and he is never known to have left the country. Bacon had just such a library and travelled widely to many of the places featured in the plays. Where did Shakespeare acquire his knowledge of French, Italian, Spanish, Danish and classic Latin and Greek? Answer, he didn’t. Ben Jonson, a close friend of Shakespeare, said that the ‘Bard’ understood: “small Latin and less Greek!” But Bacon and DeVere were learned in these languages. Shakespeare’s daughter, Judith, was known to be illiterate and could not even write her name at the age of 27. It really makes sense that a man who wrote so eloquently would have a daughter who could not write her signature. There are only six known examples of Shakespeare’s own handwriting, all signatures, and three of these are on his will. They reveal a man unfamiliar with a pen and a hand that was probably guided by another. His will included his second best bed and a broad silver gilt bowl, but nothing whatsoever to suggest that he wrote or owned a single work of literature! Nor is there one authentic portrait of Shakespeare. The differences in the depiction of him by artists confirm that no-one has any idea what he looked like. Yet the power of conditioning and accepting the official line attracts millions of people to Stratford from all over the world to see the home of the man who didn’t write the Shakespeare plays! This is only one small example of how the official fairy story called ‘history’ is used to control current behaviour and perception. What else in history isn’t true? Just about everything. Behind the Shakespeare plays was the hidden hand behind most historical events of significance - the Brotherhood networks. And nothing sums up the attitude of this group better than the words Bacon/DeVere wrote for the witches in his play, Macbeth: “Fair is foul and foul is fair.”

As Manly P. Hall, the Freemasonic historian, wrote of Bacon: “He was a Rosicrucian, some have intimated the Rosicrucian. If not actually the Illustrious Father C.R.C. referred to in the Rosicrucian manifestos, he was certainly a high initiate of the Rosicrucian Order... those enthusiasts who for years have struggled to identify Sir Francis Bacon as the true “Bard of Avon” might long since have won their case had they emphasised its most important angle, namely, that Sir Francis Bacon, the Rosicrucian initiate, wrote into the Shakespearean plays the secret teachings of the Fraternity of R.C. and the true rituals of the Freemasonic Order, of which order it may be discovered that he was the actual founder.“

One of his first acts as King James I of England and Scotland was to award a knighthood to Bacon, and James would later appoint him Solicitor-General, Attorney- General, Lord Keeper of the Great Seal and, in 1618, Lord Chancellor and Baron Verulam. Later Bacon was prosecuted on corruption charges and retired from official public life. In those early years under James I, there was a wonderful opportunity to circulate the suppressed knowledge of the ancient world if that was really the motivation of the James-Bacon esoteric underground.

The Scottish clans introduced Freemasonry to their blood brethren in France and I should mention one man in this regard, Andrew Michael Ramsey, a tutor to the Scottish Stuart pretender to the throne, Bonnie Prince Charlie. Ramsey was born in Scotland in the I 680s and was a close friend of Isaac Newton, the Grand Master of the Priory of Sion. He was a member of many Elite groupings, including a sort of Rosicrucian society called the Philadelphians (named after the city from where the American War of Independence was orchestrated) and the French chivalric Order of St Lazarus. Many of these Elite groups give their initiates esoteric names and Ramsey’s Brotherhood name was ‘Chevalier’. He was a significant factor in the spread of Freemasonry and he is particularly remembered in Freemasonic circles for two versions of the same speech he made in December 1736 and March 1737. It became known as Ramsey’s Oration and in it he charted some of the history of Freemasonry. He confirmed that it was derived from the mystery schools of antiquity which worshipped Diana, Minerva and Isis (Semiramis). He said that Freemasonry had its origins in the Holy Land at the time of the Crusades (the Knights Templar) and did not originate with stone masons. Ramsey said that ‘our Order’ (the Templars) had formed an intimate union with the Knights of St John of Jerusalem (Malta) and from that time: “our lodges took the name of Lodges of St John”. In France, Freemasonry, with Ramsey’s keen support, spawned a particularly important strand, a fusion between Freemasonry and the Jacobite movement which became known as Grand Orient Freemasonry.

Titlu: Re: Despre codul Da Vinci/F. Bacon - I. Newton - London Royal Society
Scris de: sandokhan din Aprilie 28, 2008, 12:43:26 p.m.
Mai multe detalii despre London Royal Society:

It is a fact that the early development of FreeMasonry in Britain was linked to the House of Stuart. It emerged from the traditional grading of medieval stonemasons by degrees of proficiency. This symbolic concept of ritualised Masonry evolved during the reign of Charles I. The earliest trace of free or speculative Masonic Lodges dates from around 1640. The Order was mainly involved with the structural acquisition of knowledge in unexplained science, much of which had been preserved in Scotland since the time of the Templars and Cistercian monks.

In Stuart England, the Masons at the time of Charles I and Charles II were students of philosophy, astronomy, physics, architecture, chemistry, and other advanced learning. Many were also members of the Royal Society known also as Invisible College when it was forced underground at the time of Cromwell. The Society was created under Charles I in 1645 and received its Royal Charter by Charles II in 1662 after the Restoration. Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton, Robert Hooke, Christopher Wren, and Samuel Pepys were early members. To accomplish what they did the members of the Royal Society, as the Templars before, must have had access to very special knowledge. Most of them, in addition to their important knowledge in their fields of competence, were also interested in alchemy and in the study of old religious history. Newton was at the same time president of the Royal Society and Grand Master of the Prieuré de Sion.

Christopher Wren was Grand master of the Rosicrucians as had Robert Boyle and Sir Francis Bacon before him. Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the USA, have also been Grand Master in their time. All of them were very interested in Hermetic Alchemy and the Sacred Craft. They were known as scientists, but the discoveries they claim were not always their own; they owned a lot to the study of ancient research. As an example, it is known that the Law of Gravity associated with Newton’s name has its true source in Pythagoras’ writings. (4)

After Cromwell’s death, Royalty was restored in England with Charles II. In 1662 king Charles II granted a Royal warrant to the 'invisible college' that became known from that time as the Royal Society. It was the first assembly of scientists and engineers in the world dedicated to understanding the wonders created by the 'Great Architect of the Universe'. This assembly is credited as having been part in the creation of an age of enlightenment, and in the foundations of the industrial society of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. It is believed that the Royal Society is basically Masonic and Bacon’s child and, more precisely, that it results from the ideas released during the definition of the Second degree of FreeMasonry. From the beginning the members were expected to attend weekly meeting (with the absent fined) to discuss scientific subjects, at the exclusion of politic and religion like it is the case now in the Masonic lodges. Most early members and founders were Masons.

Soon the Royal Society became well known and all the great men of the time wanted to join. This included Sir Isaac Newton, who became its president later on.

Titlu: Re: Despre codul Da Vinci/F. Bacon - I. Newton - London Royal Society
Scris de: sandokhan din Aprilie 28, 2008, 12:46:01 p.m.
Teoria adevarata a presiunii aetherice (gravitationale) in care credea de fapt I. Newton:

In Newton's student notes on Descartes a rather Aristotelian downward impulsion of gravity is compared with the centrifugal force of the (Cartesian) solar vortex:

Gravity is a force in a body impelling it to descend. Here, however, by descent is not only meant a motion towards the centre of the Earth but also towards any part or region... in this way if the conatus of the aether whirling about the Sun to recede from its centre be taken for gravity, the aether in receding from the Sun could be said to descend.

His belief at that time was that, to quote Westfall, ‘gravity (heaviness) is caused by the descent of a subtle invisible matter which strikes all bodies and carries them down'.17 His student notes showed him mulling over the design of a perpetual-motion engine to harness the downward flow of the gravity-ether.18 Later on in the 1670s he was to write to the Royal Society about its properties.

Some early notes by Newton on lunar theory appear on two folio sheets of his copy of Vincent Wing's Astronomia Britannica, published in 1669. They described how a terrestrial vortex, carrying the Moon round, was 1/43rd of the strength of the solar vortex. The pressure of the solar vortex deformed the lunar orbit within the terrestrial one, thereby accounting for certain known inequalities in its lunar motion. His notes queried whether the Earth's ‘endeavour of receding' from the Sun might affect the Moon's orbit, ‘unless the moon also shares in the same endeavour.'

The Ether theory published

In the following decade, and deriving from his alchemical studies, Newton came to develop his views on the workings of the gravity-ether. As communicated to the Royal Society in December of 1675 and written up in their History, it went as follows:

So may the gravitating attraction of the earth be caused by the continual condensation of some other such like aetherial spirit, not of the main body of phlegmatic aether, but of something very thinly and subtilely diffused through it, perhaps of an unctious, or gummy tenacious and springy nature.

A second gravity-ether hypothesis was proposed by Newton to Robert Boyle in February 1679, wherein ‘ye cause of gravity' was to be found, not as earlier in a flux of downward-rushing particles, but in a static gradient of texture in an aether, from grosser particles above to subtler ones below. The gradient extended to Earth's centre:

from ye top of ye air to ye surface of ye earth and again from ye surface of ye earth to ye centre thereof the aether is insensibly finer and finer.

Any body suspended in this aether-gradient would ‘endeavour' to move downwards. Two points should be noted about this second aether-gravity model communicated by Newton: if the 1675 version encoded an inverse-square principle, as was averred a decade later, then that principle has here been dispensed with; and, its gravity-field clearly continued down through Earth's crust as far as Earth's centre, a matter which remained equivocal in the earlier version.

At the outset of his 'Principia,' Sir Isaac Newton took the greatest care to impress upon his school that he did not use the word 'attraction' with regard to the mutual action of bodies in a physical sense. To him it was, he said, a purely mathematical conception involving no consideration of real and primary physical causes. In one of the passages of his 'Principia' (Defin. 8, B. I. Prop. 69, 'Scholium'), he tells us plainly that, physically considered, attractions are rather impulses. In section XI. (Introduction) he expresses the opinion that 'there is some subtle spirit by the force and action of which all movements of matter are determined' (see Mod. Mater., by Rev. W. F. Wilkinson); and in his third Letter to Bentley he says:

 'It is inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else which is not material, operate upon and affect other matter, without mutual contact, as it must do if gravitation, in the sense of Epicurus, be essential and inherent in it. . . . That gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance, through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else by and through which their action may be conveyed from one to another, 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.

At this, even Newton's contemporaries got frightened -- at the apparent return of occult causes into the domain of physics. Leibnitz called his principle of attraction 'an incorporeal and inexplicable power.' The supposition of an attractive faculty and a perfect void was characterized by Bernoulli as 'revolting,' the principle of actio in distans finding thus no more favour then than it does now. Euler, on the other hand, thought the action of gravity was due to either a Spirit or some subtle medium. And yet Newton knew of, if he did not accept, the Ether of the Ancients. He regarded the intermediate space between the sidereal bodies as vacuum. Therefore he believed in 'subtle spirit' and Spirits as we do, guiding the so-called attraction. The above-quoted words of the great man have produced poor results. The 'absurdity' has now become a dogma in the case of pure materialism, which repeats, 'No matter without force, no force without matter; matter and force are inseparable, eternal and indestructible (true); there can be no independent force, since all force is an inherent and necessary property of matter (false); consequently, there is no immaterial creative power.' Oh, poor Sir Isaac!

Newton's Principia had one major problem, however. How could two objects attract each other across a vacuum? This was a theory like that of Aristotle's, but now a stone did not have just a 'natural tendency' to fall to Earth, far more incredibly it had a 'natural tendency' to be attracted to every other object in the universe. Descartes had a rational explanation for why stones fell to Earth and why planets orbited the Sun. Newton's theory, however, was based on some magic power of matter to be attracted to all other matter and this was anything but rational.

How did Newton answer the critics who asked: how is action at a distance possible? He did not try to. Rather he said that he was explaining how things worked but not attempting to explain why they worked that way. For some this was good enough, for others this was such an unsatisfactory state of affairs that they had to reject Newton's theory.

And the sticking point was that Newton had no mechanism for the action of gravity, indeed he had dispensed with the Cartesian ether as a mechanism of action. Gravity was effectively 'spooky action at a distance' which upset people no end. Even Newton was bothered a bit by it.

In fact, we have written evidence, that Newton used a pushing gravity hypothesis in the first place in order to arrive at the inverse square law. Here is a letter from Newton to Halley, describing how he had independently arrived at the inverse square law using his aether hypothesis, to which he refers as the 'descending spirit':

....Now if this spirit descends from above with uniform velocity, its density and consiquently its force will be recoiprocally proportional to the square of its distance from the centre. But if it descended with accelerated motion, its density will everywhere diminish as much as the velocity increases, and so its force (according to thr hypothesis) will be the same as before, that is still reciprocally as the square of its distance from the centre'