The Religion of Truth will be perceived, upon reading Book 1, to be a conservative religion rather than a New Age, Leftist or fantastic sort of religion. Someone who is interested in the idea that religion CAN and SHOULD be based in reality, will be interested in this material. The Religion of Truth seeks the evidence of the Creator where we are most likely to see it - in the Universe around us; not in dubious man-made fantasies. It is not a cult. A cult rest on dubious assumptions which may not be examined for credulity and the authoritative tyranny of a self-appointed elite whose pronouncements may not be questioned. Christianity, Judaism and Islam, like their lesser known modern brethren - are cults. Simply because they have ‘been around a long time and accepted in the main stream of societies' doesn’t alter this fact. They function exactly like cults - because they are cults. Their histories as systems demanding absolute obedience and fomenting ‘holy wars’ for the advantage of these faiths are indictments which cannot be ignored by those who claim to have integrity.
Science, too, is now a religion. It is a cult based on assumptions, many of which cannot be proven or if examined and found false; then these findings are ignored for the sake of the religion. So someone reading here will not find the Religion of Truth to be some poorly disguised appeal to science fiction. The assumptions of Science and Math are often so arcane and obscured that they discourage genuine investigation as to the veracity of their ‘self-evident’ truths.
I can give many examples of this. The histories of modern science and mathematics are a set of long, intricate and daunting trails all leading back to the Renaissance when Greek philosophy, science and mathematics were reintroduced into Western Civilization. The astonishing success of intellectual accomplishments, in the following centuries, built directly on this Renaissance, besides being unsurpassed by any other civilization in the world and being the direct foundation of the modern world; lulls people into thinking, ‘it is all correct - and always has been’.
Science is the study of natural phenomena through both observation, logical interpretation of those observations and most critically, MEASUREMENT. If a science ‘can’t measure some phenomenon’....it isn’t interested in it. Measurement is reliant on number theory. Science rest chiefly on mathematics for all its successes.
It is in mathematics where the real unseen problems first arose and were allowed to stand. These were due to the careless, or less cautious, exuberance of its second generation practitioners. During the Renaissance, the most important rediscoveries were the works of Euclid’s geometry and other famous Greek mathematicians like Archimedes and Diophantus. These became the unchallenged core of Western mathematics for the next three and half centuries (roughly 1500 to 1850).
One of the first to throw caution to the wind was the 17th century mathematician, Rene Descartes. Descartes is famous as the ‘Father of Modernism’ because he was the first to significantly build out from the original authority of the Greek works. His chief brainstorm, which started the process of dubious assumptions, was to hold that Number Theory and Geometry were matched ‘one to one’; that there was no hierarchy of abrogation between the two. ‘Abrogation’ refers to one form not requiring the other for its existence. For this idea, he may also have relied on some inferior Greek work in Number Theory sometimes called ‘Pythagorean Mathematics’ (source; Nicomachus of Gerasa). It was the basis of number theory for the ancients and it contained the false notion that ‘Geometry is abrogated in Number Theory’ (Numbers pre-exist and are independent of Geometry). So Descartes can be forgiven (maybe) for going a step further and ‘sort of’ correcting the wrong notion of the Pythagoreans by saying ‘Geometry and Number Theory are ‘EQUAL’.
But the facts are these. Geometry can be practiced without incremental measurement. It is found at work in all Universal sources. It is not reliant on humans for its existence. In fact, Euclidean Geometry formally forbids incremental (number scale) measurement. The form of a circle and a sphere occur naturally over and over in nature. It should be assumed nature never felt compelled to ‘measure things’ in order to make them. A dog tethered to a post in the backyard will run round and round and mark out a perfectly circular path in the grass. It doesn’t know it has done this and doesn’t care about knowing precisely how long the radius is. And yet, anyone could work out any precise geometrical problems in that dog-circle to make perfect hexagons, pentagons, squares, etc. because, in reality, all Geometry is, "The study all forms which are native and interior, only, - to the circle/sphere."
The circle/sphere is the abstraction of movement in all possible directions out from any given point. Every other geometrical form can be constructed within a given circle. Size of the circle/sphere is utterly irrelevant. No numbers are need to construct it. Only AFTER some form is made, can one then measure it. Similarly, no one can go out into deep space with the object of ‘measuring space’....there is nothing to measure. The act of measuring will and never has caused any form to come into existence. The truth, then is; Number Theory is abrogated in Geometry. Geometry exists independent of Numbers.
Through the centuries four separate mathematicians proved that ‘all geometry is interior to the circle/sphere, only. These were Mohr and Mascheroni who proved early on that all Euclidean Geometry could be accomplished by compass, only. In the 19th century two very famous mathematicians, Steiner and Poncelet, tried to prove the opposite was true; that all Euclidean geometry could be accomplished with unmarked straight-edge alone. This was to validate Descartes' assertion that Geometry and Number Theory are equal. They both failed and found that ‘given FIRST a primogenitor circle, then all Euclidean geometry could be accomplished with an unmarked straight-edge alone’. This is one of those true findings that mathematicians like to pretend 'never happened'. This is the proof of the universality of the circle/sphere as the source of all form. On the other hand, numbers are modeled, geometrically, as a straight line (1+1+1+1+...etc) - which is proven to be interior only to some primogenitor circle. The straight line, both in Euclid's geometry and modern math, is made the artificial 'element of discovery', while the curve is relegated as a 'form resultant of construction by the straight line'.....which is not true. Much more could be said on this, but would distract from the topic here.
But Descartes said ‘Geometry and Number Theory are equal’. In so doing, he was able to formulate Analytical Geometry. Analytical Geometry is the basis of all the mathematical disciplines that came after it! The thing is....these systems work, but what is not always appreciated is that they are ARTIFICIAL while Euclidean Geometry is NATURAL. It is fine to use these systems so long as the practitioners remember ‘they are artificial’.
Another absurdity in mathematics is that modern mathematicians use abstracted logic formats which are based on number theory relations and theorems to prove that Euclidean geometry is ‘wrong’. Again, they forget that the entirety of Number theory is actually based on Euclidean relations within the numbers themselves! This geometry is intrinsic and inseparable from the very numbers they use to prove Euclidean Geometry as non-universal! For instance, "The squares of all primes, greater than 3, are in the form of (12n+1), only." This relation is just one showing the deep fundamental relation of numbers to the geometry of a circle which divides itself naturally into 6 equal parts! There is more on this critical and fundamental 'radius to circle' relation in Book 1 of the Religion of Truth.
It is finally Carl Gauss and Riemann who, in the 19th century observed that Euclidean theorems on triangles don’t work for surveying large areas of the world (because the surface of the earth is round). I am absolutely certain Euclid wouldn’t have been surprised by this either. His work is from its outset, specified for an abstract FLAT 2 dimensional plane. Riemann went on to formulate ‘Riemann’s geometry’, the first of the 'non-Euclidean' Geometry systems, which uses postulates and theorems for curved surfaces. For science, the beauty of Riemann’s Geometry is it allows for the introduction of a 4th dimension by calling at least one of the other dimensions curved. If the reader will but picture a circle, they will realize a circle is a 2-dimensional object, so a 'curved dimension' can ‘fold’ a dimension inside itself, but be treated as a single dimension....if you finagle it right. This is what I mean by artificial. It is an outstanding tool for theoretical measurement and mathematical invention, but it will give you ‘artificial results’. Einstein was critically dependent on Riemann's Geometry to be able to formulate his work on Space-time. Space was expressed in Riemann's (curved) Geometry so that Time could be included as a 'dimension'. Without this treatment...his work couldn't be done.
Most often, this artificiality is of little consequence to the task being undertaken, but when you get to Physics and the ultimate search for the ‘Theory of Everything’ and a universal unit of measurement to quantify and qualify it, artificiality pops up as the hidden source of problems again and again. It baffles physicists because they do not know that the problem is artificial mathematics. They cannot locate the error because by the time of the proposals of such advanced and complex theories, these sneaky, prolific little artificial (and often elementary) theorems (accepted as trusted truisms) have adulterated the natural finding deep in the mathematical past of any work.
Physics manuals will tell you that trying to observe the sub-atomic world of leptons and quarks using instruments requiring light will not work. Light has to bounce off the subject and then go up through the instrument of recording to register the finding. The photons which bombard the subatomic subject are the same size (or bigger) than the targets they are suppose to observe...and so they interact with the subject(s) like a cue ball in a game of billiards or simply push them out of observation. This leaves mathematics as the last and ultimate ‘microscope’ into the subatomic world....but IF the math is artificial....it stands a high chance of giving artificial results all of which is usually, if not always, unknown and unappreciated by the physicists working out the theories or testing them. It leaves them baffled as to why things aren’t working out right. The errors in math are so deep in fundamental math education and formulations...they are no longer recognized as ‘dubious’ so Science and Math thus become a kind of religion - just like the more common religions that many in these two fields sneer at for being cults.
I will end this simply by saying what is written above, is by no means, the extent of observation of unrecognized dubious assumptions in mathematics. It is quite a consistent finding. But these are the basis here for expressing the opinion that those who have dismissed Euclidean geometry as no longer applicable in view of the great advancements made in mathematics and science....should look to their inability to ‘close on the Theory of Everything’ which they keep telling the public will be found ‘in a couple of years’. They have been saying this for over two decades now and have had to adapt 'silence' as the now customary and preferred official response when each of their current showcase theories is shot down in crank mathematics and quietly discarded ‘as if they had never existed’.
A person reading about the Religion of Truth, in Book 1, should draw their conclusions about what it might contain - based on these blogs. The religion will not tolerate anything but ‘what is true or the clearest view of what can be said about the Cosmos and our place in it'. There is far more that can be found out about the Cosmos, who made it and our place in it - than the cultic religions or science usually say on the matter. I am also quite willing to discuss and admit error when it is proven to me as well. The religion does not rely on ‘sacred dictation’. It relies on what logic tells us. No one with integrity will preserve a lie.