Jump to content


Click to shop at Zamnesia
Photo
- - - - -

The world will end in 2060, according to Newton




  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#1 3407LOVE

3407LOVE

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 137 posts

Posted August 31 2013 - 08:13 PM

The world will end in 2060, according to Newton

Published: 18 June 2007

His famously analytical mind worked out the laws of gravity and unravelled the motion of the planets.
And when it came to predicting the end of the world, Sir Isaac Newton was just as precise.
He believed the Apocalypse would come in 2060 – exactly 1,260 years after the foundation of the Holy Roman Empire, according to a recently published letter.


Luckily for modern scientists in awe of his achievements, Newton based this figure on religion rather than reasoning.

In a letter from 1704 which has gone on show in Jerusalem's Hebrew University, Newton uses the Bible's Book of Daniel to calculate the date for the Apocalypse.


The famous scientist

The note reveals a deeply spiritual side to a man more usually regarded as a strict rationalist. Newton, known as the founder of modern physics, secured a royal exemption from ordination in the Church of England – something normally expected of academics in his day – so he would not have to follow its teachings.

But he confidently stated in the letter that the Bible proved the world would end in 2060, adding: "It may end later, but I see no reason for its ending sooner."

Continuing in a decidedly sniffy tone, he wrote: "This I mention not to assert when the time of the end shall be, but to put a stop to the rash conjectures of fanciful men who are frequently predicting the time of the end, and by doing so bring the sacred prophesies into discredit as often as their predictions fail."

The exact words from the Book of Daniel that inspired his prediction are not clear.

But he got at least one thing right – in another document, he interpreted biblical prophecies to mean that the Jews would return to the Holy Land before the world ended.

Scroll down for more...

The letter is on public display for the first time
The letter is on public display for the first time


Newton, who died 280 years ago, wrote that the end of days would see "the ruin of the wicked nations, the end of weeping and of all troubles, the return of the Jews (from) captivity and their setting up a flourishing and everlasting Kingdom".

Yemima Ben-Menahem, one of the curators of the exhibition, said: "These documents show a scientist guided by religious fervour, by a desire to see God's actions in the world."

#2 3407LOVE

3407LOVE

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 137 posts

Posted August 31 2013 - 08:35 PM

NOTE: this article has no references i wrote it long ago [decades] and is the result of many diverse sources of info ... i cannot 40 years after the fact take time to 'back-engineer' the references i have found such requests in past posts on other forums to be too time consuming, my research is going forwards not 'back-engineering' what i have already written, just one article can take sevaral days, i dont have that kind of time. I am not attempting to prove anything in my writing ! you take it or leave it as is ... and if truely interested one might do their own homework on the subject. I started in 1971 as an interest with no exapectation of haveing to documant all sources. It remains copyrighted under the title 'cricket songs' 2003 never published. Experts on popualation/climate change can provide details but I will be honest it is for me a hassle to backtrack on anything I write ... i have been asked by a mod to provide details on this article, there is no copyright infringment on my posts as I am the author of much of what i post holding the copyrigts in my name. Again an interested person will find their own sources the MIT study I refer to I heard of back in 1978 ... there is no link i can find online and though population was a major concern in 1971 with the united nations it has become a non issue in politics since then ... draw your own conclusions there !

Overpopulation - Why The Maya Fell


The basic scientific truth and physical reality about life is that everything consumes energy and discharges waste ... one scientist likened humnas to a bacterium in a petri dish ... the dish representing the limited space and resources on eartrh the stratum [glucose] representing the resources ... the bacterium eats all the glucose until its gone and then it dies, once it dead another organsim comes [mould] to eat the dead bateria.

Most texts on archeology state clearly, with insurmountable evidence, that the reason for the downfall of all the major civilizations on earth was “overpopulation”. The result of overpopulation is pollution ... water-pollution, ground-pollution, air-pollution, .... noise-pollution; including; radio-frequency, sonar-frequency, thought-wave frequency, .... neon-light pollution, and space polluting which now reaches into heaven itself ...

One of the travesties of this earth's demise is light pollution ...
peoples minds need to understand how important the night sky
is to our development as spiritual beings ... shamans and Christ alike told of us the importance of the night sky and star-gazing ... Christ said when the end comes we must watch the sky because from there will come our salvation.

The overpopulation of the earth is the planet's single greatest threat to specie survival, and reducing human-population would solve many of the problems that so many attempt to solve without acknowledging the underlying cause of all the worlds ills. A study of a computer-model of the globe (done at M.I.T.) reveals that the maximum occupancy of the planet is 3.1 billion. The population will soon reach 8 billion, that is the problem. This study examined how much "inhabitable land is available for human development .... inhabitable lands means excluding polar regions, mountain-tops, deserts, and any other land "not inhabitable" by humans, while leaving room for all other species of life on earth ... many of these species requiring vast tracks of land to survive as did the buffalo which were exterminated to make way for agriculture. We need to be aware that at least 2/3rds of lands inhabitable to man need to be set aside for wildlife to survive.

Accordingly the social impact of overpopulation it seems is perhaps that as (human) population increases the value of life goes down, and social ills, violence, and abuses increase.
When people had to walk 5 miles to their nearest neighbor weren't they more appreciative when they got there after risking life and limb in a snowstorm to make it?
Historically War, Pandemic, or "Soy-lent Green" (Cannibalism) is where over-population leads ...... There seems no other way out, except not to go there in the first place ... "preventative medicine".

The pictures of animals stacked together in cages like sardines are disgusting! The physical torture and abuse ... Do people realize that this is a reflection of "US" ? .............. We are also animals staked together like sardines in urbanized high-rise settings ... the condition of factory-raised animals is only a symptom of our own condition.
Still worse (in my mind) than the ill-treatment of domestic-animals is the extermination of "wild" species as human population swells removing habitat needed for their survival. Archeology teaches us that overpopulation has been the doom of every civilization which preceded this one, for me this is the most powerful truth,.

If we are all ONE being ... and those animals stuffed together in cages represent US in our high-rise apartments, condos and townhouses. In Canada the population issue is almost invisible, being the most sparsely populated country on earth, but dare to step out into the world and it's just like those animal cages. In Mexico drinking water wells are often dug only 5 feet from sewage tanks due to the proximity limitations of property lines.


I invite the world to do the math (as I did) … only 2 people on earth turns into 2.1 Billion after only 20 cycles of procreation, at 8 children per family.
2 x 8 = 16 ...... 8 male 8 female, ..... 8x8= 64 ... 32 x8 = Etc. = 17 billion in as little as 400 years.
I chose the number 8 realizing this is a middle number as many families in developing nations (without contraception) have up to 14 children. In 21 cycles the number is almost 17 billion. This can take as little as 400 years without contraception.
My grandmother had 13 children, when asked why she had so many, she answered, "I didn't know how to stop". Contraception was illegal (in Canada too) until very recently.
30 million people in Mexico City, the entire population of Canada .... take all the people stacked on top of one another and spread them out FLAT on the land and one source (of pop-stats) claims that (in 1994) there was less than one square foot of inhabitable land per person.


The instinct to procreate needs to tempered with the intelligence to control population.

In the book of Enoch, Enoch states that the reason the world needed to be destroyed with a Biblical "FLOOD" is not too much "EVIL" but rather too many people (OVERPOPULATION), he says there was no room left on earth for the wild animals. Sumerian tablets give the same reason for global destruction; saying that population became so great that the Gods could no longer sleep due to the noise of mankind. An echo of our present day situation. Jesus said that the days would come when people would say "BLESSED ARE THOSE WOMEN WHO NEVER GAVE BIRTH" (Mat. 24:19, Luke 21:23). It is most likely that Christ was also referring to OVERPOPULATION when he said this.

To some extent industry has actually HELPED the earth support such massive populations as we have today ... making available materials for building upwards instead of horizontally ... the industrial mining of steel and metals, & the excavation of rock for concrete have made it possible to stack people on top of each other rather than spread out upon the earth as it would be with natural materials like wood, which would quickly deforest the entire earth to support a population like today's.

Vegetarians claim that if everyone (8 billion) were vegan it would create more land for agriculture because of all the land needed for livestock feed ... they do not say where to put all the displaced animals which are part of the creator's extended being and (I believe ) integral to our own fulfillment.
More over much of the data they present seems erroneous in many other ways as well ... the very "factory" farms they complain about are NOT taking up MORE land .... but less, much of the feed which animals are fed with is not desirable for human consumption and would be discarded as waste if not fed to animals ... this is especially true in undeveloped countries where the ONLY feed these animals get is what we call garbage ... if the hunter-gatherers that are left in countries like Africa converted to Veganism they would have to deforest more jungle to grow crops just as white people exterminated buffalo to grow wheat on the prairie plains .... more species would be driven to extermination.


Some New Age Spiritualists claim that this industrial Society is toxic .... yet any overpopulated society creates toxic waste, a mountain of excrement is as toxic as a mountain of lead, moreover the natural world has many toxic dangers .... tribes which lived in areas with high lead content in the soil had high birth-defect rates ... many plants contain the same cyanides which factories emit ... mercury, strychnine, a multitude of organic medicinal plants containing many potential poisons, volcanoes (like Krakatoa 1883) which emit more toxic gasses (same as industrial types) than an industrial society can in many decades, same with forest fires, and a myriad of other natural sources of pollution .... which can easily far outweigh any industrial society, the one thing these disasters do is to control human population.

Two "New Age" friends of mine said they don’t contribute to the world’s evils cause they use wood stoves instead of being on the power grid ...
yet all the data sources I have encountered (David Suzuki as well, I believe) all say that the #1 source of toxic air pollution is wood burning for heat and cooking this constitutes (remembering ,,,,,,) about 60% of all air pollutants and contain the worst toxic elements Creosote, Sulphuric/Di-Sulphuric Acids, Cyanides, Etc.
So these wood burners are not part of the solution statistically they are part of the worst cause of the problem, hydro-electricity is CLEAN energy and Canada is blessed with an abundance of it.

I often think that perhaps the best way to ensure specie survival of earth's animals would've been to reduce human population to less than 3 billion by the year 1950. Preserving and studying Mayan Codices when America was discovered rather than destroying them (gold Leaves melted down by Vatican) would’ve given this world a better chance a realizing what needed to be done, in time to do it.

About 1981 I was in Palenque during a conference called “La Mesa Redunda” a meeting of archeologists/anthropologists working on the Maya culture, during which a revelation hit everyone, the US government has released aerial photos of the whole Yucatan/Chiapas area taken with new technology which can see right through jungle foliage and through a certain amount of soil as well.
The pictures shoed ruins everywhere, not just around temple areas but everywhere from the edge of the mountain range all the way to the coast, it was one big city. Overpopulated to the max. a city which dwarfs the Los Angeles megalopolis by far. This to me was reproof that overpopulation was the major cause of their demise, later I also found evidence of severe climate change around the same time. So famine resulting from population and crop failures were the likely cause of their fall.
Before this I had been suspicious that the white man’s genocide was the cause, but now I lean more towards the cause being the same dilemma humanity faces today … too many people.

#3 *MAMA*

*MAMA*

    Perfectly Imperfect

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,405 posts

Posted August 31 2013 - 09:22 PM

Posted Image

#4 penguinsfan13

penguinsfan13

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 12,278 posts

Posted August 31 2013 - 09:22 PM

Damn i read 3 or 4 paragraphs of that last post before thinking where the hell are the mayans...then i went back to the heading and saw it was maya not mayan

#5 Vanilla Gorilla

Vanilla Gorilla

    Go Ape

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 12,999 posts
  • LocationDown Under

Posted September 01 2013 - 12:00 AM

Nah, in 2060 all the Mayans just get wiped out again

#6 BlackBillBlake

BlackBillBlake

    Hip Forums Supporter

  •  Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,569 posts

Posted September 01 2013 - 04:41 AM

The overpopulation of the earth is the planet's single greatest threat to specie survival, and reducing human-population would solve many of the problems that so many attempt to solve without acknowledging the underlying cause of all the worlds ills. A study of a computer-model of the globe (done at M.I.T.) reveals that the maximum occupancy of the planet is 3.1 billion. The population will soon reach 8 billion, that is the problem. This study examined how much "inhabitable land is available for human development .... inhabitable lands means excluding polar regions, mountain-tops, deserts, and any other land "not inhabitable" by humans, while leaving room for all other species of life on earth ... many of these species requiring vast tracks of land to survive as did the buffalo which were exterminated to make way for agriculture. We need to be aware that at least 2/3rds of lands inhabitable to man need to be set aside for wildlife to survive.


Over population is maybe the biggest single problem, I agree with that.
However, it isnt one that gets talked about much, or that those in power are interested in even discussing.

The difficulty is how to reduce the burden of over population in a humane way. We cant just have a cull of human beings, as we are having in the UK at the moment of badgers.:eek:

The only answer I can think of is to restrict the number of children people have. The Chinese have been doing that for some time. But as soon as you mention it to a lot of people, they get very uncomfortable. We even spend billions and invest scientific rescources in helping those who cant have children naturally to become pregnant. Largely on the grounds that everyone has the right to reproduce.
It would only be in an authoritarian state that any control could be introduced. No one in a democracy would stand on a ticket of restricting human breeding. Not yet anyway.

Unless people can be persuaded to voluntarily limit the number of kids thay have, it doesnt seem likely that any steps will be taken to solve this.
Its a tricky problem.
But maybe nature will intervene, or even man made disaster.

#7 themnax

themnax

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 20,026 posts
  • Locationa small green planet in a distant galaxy

Posted September 03 2013 - 11:49 PM

people are always coming up with another one of these aren't they.
it is one of those persistant urban myths, principally perpetuated by folowers of christianity who are more ardent then knowledgable. that there will come some epic moment when they have pushed their infallable all powerful god, to such despiration as to find no other solution to the harm their own imperfections have caused.

christians are so full of this ego, that they can't possibly mistake gods chosen messanger, the way their predicessors did, that they are completely blinded to the possibility, even probability, that they not only can but have, and have more then once.

a date is found in some forgotten tomb, it comes and goes, and another dusty forgotten tomb is found, that sets forth a formulae, that comes up with yet another date.

all these words, all these distractions, they have little or nothing to do, either with true spirit, nor the workings of reality.

my nation is the imagination

this is the dawning of the age of zootopia

and thank god i'm not quite human

=^^=
.../\...


#8 3407LOVE

3407LOVE

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 137 posts

Posted September 09 2013 - 01:17 AM

Over population is maybe the biggest single problem, I agree with that.
However, it isnt one that gets talked about much, or that those in power are interested in even discussing.

in 1971 it was top of UN agenda after a study at MIT
saying max pop is 3.1 after that all bio-systems crash into mass-extinction.


:2thumbsup:
Posted Image

#9 Jimmy P

Jimmy P

    bastion of awesomeness

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,495 posts

Posted September 09 2013 - 01:32 AM

The estimated number of people our planet can sustain varies greatly, but around 10bn seems to be the most commonly accepted number.

It seems to me that in a world of 7bn people, there sure is a lot of unused space, even in countries with very dense populations. I never expected there to be so much untouched nature in Japan, for example.

If we could stop being such assholes to each other and tried to focus our energy on how to sustain ourselves rather than kill each other, we should be able to comfortably sustain a very large population. Just look at what they are doing with technology; making barren areas fertile, building islands.. Imagine all that money spent on bombs and drones and development of new weapons being spent on projects to improve the quality of life for all.

Of course, that would be boring, unprofitable, and not apt to get anyone elected..

#10 BTS

BTS

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 583 posts

Posted September 09 2013 - 01:38 AM

lol
Posted Image




Click to shop at FS Books