The fundamental differences between modern Judaism and Judaeo-Christianity are found in the original poor articulations of Zoroastrian concepts in Judaism and the more studied Neo-Platonic articulations applied in Early Christianity, both Judaeo and Gnostic. We will go into these in detail later and they are very important. The problem is the origins of these religions are exceedingly complex and lost to history because the earliest texts and histories were willfully and diligently destroyed by the Church upon its ascendancy as the ‘supreme religion of Rome’ after the Nicene Council. One can also only wonder how many texts covering this very subject were in the Alexandrian Library only to be lost to the several fires, calamities and censorship of those early centuries. But evidence enough exists from such finds as the Nag Hammadi collection to show an intense ferment of divergent ideas from the West and the East most often couched in Hellenistic stylings, if not actual substance of systematic logic.

What is most important, is to understand there were probably TWO important sources combining to form the original Christianity, which are not normally acknowledged. These are;

1) Independent Greek logical investigation of the Cosmos (i.e. Plato and Euclid) and

2) Greek Study of Persian Zoroastrian Cosmology (unknown Greek Scholars).

The addition of Judaism to Christianity was a deliberate and cynical adulteration of the original ‘magnificent work’. It happened when the new religion first made its way into Roman Palestine where it was seen as a possible tool of subversion of Roman rule by religion by the Temple Elite. Most importantly, it was then further altered by the low Greeks who were the first missionaries of this religion to the West - Paul ( a Greek Pharisee and later Nazarene) and his disciples, who quickly realized they could use the new religion for their own benefit instead of for the Temple elite. In essence, the religion was hijacked - twice. Later, this Jewish version (Nazarene/Pauline Christianity) was further adulterated by folding into it Mithraic practices as a spur to attract converts from Mithraism. The end result was Judaeo-Christianity which then set about destroy all records and evidence of Mithraism, Gnostic Christian sects and any thing which might betray the official story of how Judaeo-Christianity came to be. The greatest secret which needs to be disposed of was the original and more pure Religion of Truth which

So to unravel this Dark Age mess and to find the compelling elements of Original Christianity, or the Religion of Truth, we need to go back to the beginning and look at first, Greek Geometry and then its application to Nature and the Cosmos and then its application to Zoroastrian Cosmology. Because truth can be discovered independently by different people dedicated to seeing ‘what is really there’, it is quite possible to rediscover this original religion and be close on the mark to its original articulations.

CHAPTER 2

GREEK MATH.

Geometry was well understood by the Greeks as the ‘study of all Universal Form, both concrete and abstract’. The work of Euclid is carefully concerned only with Geometry and most importantly, the method of proofs for the statements. Other Greeks would, and did, consult the same study and used the methodology of high and absolute integrity proofs. These include famously, Archimedes and Apollonius but also Plato who used geometry and its systematic logic to illustrate and establish his dialog style of logical argument concerning human relations and morals. A generation of his students founded what is known as Neo-Platonic Philosophy. These ancient scholars DID use that geometry and its methodology of systemic logic to write texts studying theological/cosmological ideas. It was the very hallmark of ‘Greek Thought’ and one might add, it was highly admired and often imitated by writers from other cultures with varied results in style and substance ranging from the sublime to ridiculous, as is often seen in the Gnostic texts of Nag Hammadi.

Euclid’s Geometry begins with Formlessness (a point), then the smallest form (a line) and builds up to the most complex forms depending on utter proven consistency of construction. It is referred to as ‘absolute’ geometry, meaning, if one part of it is found to be wrong....the whole thing is wrong. In two thousand years since, NO ONE has found an error in the actual geometry and it is still used, today, in describing General Space in Astrophysics. Some readers here may refer to the ‘other geometries’ like Riemann’s Geometry and to Gauss’s finding of standard application of Euclidean geometry to survey in the 18th century were wrong (i.e. rectilinear line-of-sight triangles in earth survey did not sum to 180 degrees ‘EXACTLY’). But this is only because Euclid was writing abstract concepts of rectilinear triangles in a flat (2 dimensional) space. They would no more work for Euclid were he to apply that geometry to a sphere in his day....and he KNEW this even as he wrote his geometry. To this can be added another very important observation that, as far as I know, I never seen anyone comment on. Mathematicians often disguise their method in order to preserve their own prestige and safeguard their livings by obscuring ‘how they arrive at some mathematical discovery’. The French Mathematicians, Fermat, was one of these coy individuals, for instance. If everyone knew how to find something out for themselves, why would they need to consult (and pay) the ‘original expert’?

Euclid’s SECRET was that there are ONLY TWO simple lines which may be used as ‘elements of discovery’ to comprehend all aspects of form. These are the simple curve and the simple straight line. A simple line does not change direction. There are no others...in the entire Universe. And guess which one Euclid used in his book ‘Elements’ to describe form? It was the straight line and he implied (but never stated) that the curve was the result of infinite straight lines converging. THIS IS FALSE. It doesn’t affect his geometry (which is absolute) because this is omitted in the a priori’ section of his Geometry (the definitions). This falsehood is STILL allowed to stand in modern mathematics, because it makes an artificially easy ‘one-to-one’ match up with numbers (Measurement). It is a fudge...an error of convenience - But it is a BIG one.

Euclid’s geometry was all about the description of FORM, without any reliance on MEASUREMENT. Modern (Analytical) Geometry is based on discovery of form by RELIANCE on measurement. So the error is allowed to proliferate in all the modern maths. That is why mathematicians will often say that mathematics is ‘artificial’ but remarkably good at describing the Universe. The part that describes the Universe is the part that is ‘pure geometry - without measurement’ and the artificial is the ‘cheating method of discreetly measuring some form’. In Euclidean Geometry, only two tools are allowed....a compass and an UNMARKED straight edge (to forbid discreet measurement). This is a hard-cast Euclidean rule - NOT to be violated.

The TRUTH IS - It is the curve which is the primary element of form, not the straight line. This has been proven 4 TIMES in the History of Western Mathematics. First, in the 16th and 17th centuries by the mathematicians Mohr and Mascheroni, working independently of each other found that all of Euclid’s geometry could be worked with the compass, ONLY. Later, in the 19th century, two very prominent European mathematicians, Poncelet and Steiner, sought to prove the opposite; that all of Euclid’s Geometry could also be accomplished with ‘a straight edge, only’. They both failed. Their independent findings were that, “FIRST GIVEN A PRIMOGENITOR CIRCLE, all of Euclid’s Geometry could THEN be accomplished with a straight edge only”. The supreme takeaway from these people’s work is the straight line is an ‘interior, only (dependent) element to the circle (curved line)’. It is astonishing that this TRUTH is all but unknown among the general population of the modern world. The straight line is an inferior and dependent line to the curve! But it is made the artificial ‘superior’ element of discovery, because it is convenient (critical) for purposes of measurement, the reason is that it geometrically mirrors the mono-directional single dimensional number line of arithmetic. It is a calibration of numbers and form, but an artificial one.

I include another observation here which has great importance later on. I include it here first because it is a fundamental facet of Geometry, but is never commented on. It is the nature of dimensions in measuring and describing the Universe. The word ‘dimension’ simply refers to the ‘measurement of a distance’. It is not about ‘spinning doors in Space and spooky music’. A dimension refers to the ability to apply a straight ruler in a mono-direction for comparative distances. The Greeks quickly found this Universe to be 3-dimensional by the following means.

The introduction of another well-known term, usually very poorly defined in academic institutions, is necessary. That is ‘Right Angle’. In school, children learn that a right angle is ‘90 degrees’...which means nothing, geometrically. A right angle REALLY is ‘two intersecting lines, whose opposite extremes are MOST different from each other’. For instance, a line (or ruler) which has the opposite extremes of ‘East and West’ is MOST DIFFERENT from a line whose opposite extremes are ‘North and South’. A line which is only ‘Different’ like NE and SW...is a slope. The slope may be described and mapped by comparison of measurements along two rulers which are ‘most different’ to each other. This is the basis of Cartesian system of mapping and coordinates.

The maximal number of ‘most different (right angle) straight line rulers’ in any give location in space are three; Horizontal, Vertical and Depth (forward and back). Any attempt to place an additional ‘right angle’ in a 3-dimensional group of right angle rulers cannot be done. These extra inclusions would only be slopes to the maximal existing three. This straight-forward observation is the basis to the understanding of a 3-dimensional Universe. But the Greeks were puzzled by the notion that time could also be measured and was deemed critical to the common practical and technical calculations. They cautiously theorized that ‘Time’ was the 4th dimension...but could not prove this and so left it as a cautionary. It was to try to include time in his Special Theory of Relativity which caused Einstein to seek out the help of Riemann’s Special Geometry. Riemann’s non-Euclidean geometry concerns a geometry of curves and this leads to an observation about the nature of dimensions that no one, as far as I know, has ever articulated in Geometry. It is this....

“In order to measure in a lower dimension, you need to do this with tools and methods from a higher dimension. For example, ‘To measure a straight line (one dimension) you need a compass, which is a tool of 2-dimensions’. To measure 2-dimensional forms perfectly, you need a tool of 3-dimensions. Euclid disallowed the use of a 3rd dimensional tool and as a result, the Greeks had three impossible constructions: The Squaring of a Circle, the Trisection of an Arbitrary Angle and the Construction of the Enneagon (9-sided regular polygon).”

This baffled mathematicians for centuries because all three seemed ‘so reasonable’ - even necessary, to accomplish. What was not understood is, you can easily accomplish these...with a 3-dimensional compass. For those curious, imagine a regular compass which has a disc (wheel) where the pencil would normally be and you would mark on the disc where you start measuring a curve and where you stop. You would set the compass at the center of the circle to measure the radius to the circumference and roll the wheel along the curve, measuring the amount of rotation on the wheel. A 2-dimensional compass measures straight lines. There is no tool for measuring curved lines. You need a 3-dimensional compass to do that. That was the self-limiting factor, even flaw, in Euclidean geometry. And the critical lesson missed all these centuries was that YOU HAVE TO MEASURE THE DIMENSION BELOW - BY MEANS FROM THE DIMENSION ABOVE.

]]>

First, we need to know what the Universe is. The Universe is, “The collection of ALL Forms, both concrete and abstract.” Geometry tells us that Form is, “That which is bounded by extremes; that these extremes are ALWAYS in pairs and these pairs are ALWAYS opposite.” Equal distant between these extreme pairs - is the CENTER, which is FORMLESS. A concrete form is that which is tangible; like a table or a mountain and abstract form is that which is intangible, but nevertheless real; like the temperature of Space or mathematics, itself.

Science is based on observation and most importantly, MEASUREMENT. Units of Measure are any agreed upon forms which may be used to compare other forms for relative magnitude; like ‘How many hands tall is a horse?’ All forms can be measured by some smaller ‘unit of measure’. Most importantly, FORMLESSNESS, having no extremes, itself, cannot be measured by any unit of measure BECAUSE - it has no extremes. Think of the center point of a circle. You can measure how big the circle is and all sorts of forms within, but there is no means of measuring the true center point of the circle, because however small you make the unit of measure, the center point will always be in the middle between these extremes. That is an important aspect of Formlessness and it is just as real as the properties of Form. Be aware that abstracts of Form - can be measured but Formlessness - cannot.

Form rises out of Formlessness. Formlessness is not ‘nothing’. It is Formlessness. It has no extremes. It is unmeasurable. Formlessness is a real thing. Just as the ‘point’ is a formless location in Space. The Universe of Form is from Formlessness. The one attribute of our experience as Creatures of limited awareness that we can comprehend as possible in the Formless as well is AWARENESS. Just as we see the evidence of Formlessness in the center of all forms, we see the evidence of FORMLESS AWARENESS in the Mathematics that describes and created the entire Universe of Form. This is because before a thing can be actual, it must first be possible. Mathematics is the study of all True Universal possibilities. Mathematics studies ‘the Universe possible’ and Physics studies the ‘Universe actual’.

The units of measurement for time are among the most important tools as far as science goes, at least they are the most consistently critical measurements. What do ‘Units of Time’ measure? They measure the relative speed of the displacement or non-displacement of forms in space. “The train took two hours to go from Kansas City to Joplin.” or, “ I waited 3 hours at the station, but the train never showed.” They can also be used to measure abstract displacements. For instance, how long it takes to type this sentence or how long it takes to read it.

The abstract form of Time, like all forms, is bounded by extremes. These extremes are ‘the Past and the Future’. What we call the present of ‘Now’ is our formal ‘point’ of true awareness of the Universe around us. Like a formless center (or any point) you can’t measure ‘absolute Now’. You can only approach towards it. No absolute unit of measure exists for time because a point in time is formless. There are units of measure based on the familiar ‘circuits around the sun, or less familiar pulses of an electron. Time is a mono-directional dimension of measure because you can measure from one arbitrary extreme to another, as you do with a line, but it does not measure in ‘all directions’. In fact, the word ‘dimension’ simply refers to measurement in one direction. The three classical Euclidean single dimensions of Space are that of a straight line (monodirection), LENGTH can be combined where two intersecting dimensions measure AREA while three intersecting dimensions measure VOLUME. Time has been treated like a dimension, but does not fit the fundamental criteria of these Classic Euclidean dimensions. This is not a trivial observation.

The classical dimensions are all lines of measurement at right angles to each other.

So a line whose opposite extremes are North-South is MOST DIFFERENT to a line whose extremes are East-West and both of these dimensions are at right angles to another line whose extremes are Up-Down (away from and towards gravity). In this picture, you can see that curves can also be at right angles. This is what led to Riemann’s considerations in Non-Euclidean geometry. But it is impossible to have more than 3 lines which are all at right angles to each other. Inserting another line into the intersection, only shows a line that is ‘Different’ but not ‘most different’. It is called a ‘slope’ and is measurable by the other 3 intersecting right angle dimensions. So the inclusion of Time can not be considered a fundamental dimension as are these three. The Greeks were cautious about this. They wanted to use Time as a fundamental dimension but warned there was no actual proof of this. They were right to be so cautious.

Enter Riemann, Bolyai and other mathematicians and eventually physicists who sought ways to fully incorporate Time as a dimension through applications of non-Euclidean maths. Basically, it is this, if you look at a curve it is a single monodirectional line, but it incorporates 2 dimensions within it. Think of a circle and you have measurements of both width and height (area). If you can justify the curve as a single dimension you can either ‘hide’ or you can fold another dimension into your work. This is how Einstein, for instance, got Time into his Theory of General Relativity - through a mathematical devise called the ‘Einstein Tensor’ based off of Riemannian Tensors (hidden dimensions).

The unspoken problem, buried deep in fundamental mathematics, is that a curved and a straight line ‘are not the same thing’. They are mutually exclusive elements. They are like oil and vinegar. Shaking them does not make them merge to become the same thing. Modern math is based on them being ‘reflections or extensions of each other’. It is why all mathematics is blithely expressed in terms of the straight line (the number pi, for instance is the number of translation for curve to straight line) as the most fundamental form while the curve is a derivative form of the straight line. This is an error and a big one. I won’t go into it here, though. I mention this only to help the reader understand perceptions of Time, be they from Physics or Philosophy. It helps explain where science could go wrong without knowing it and why they reach conclusions that they do, and what they miss.

As I wrote, Time is a form whose extremes are Past and Future and whose formless center is the Present (NOW). For each of us, throughout the Universe we are ‘formless points’ of Now. To each of us it seems that we are the center of the Universe, even as we know this is not true. That is the geometry of Form playing out in our sense of Awareness. As an exercise, try imagining the smallest, purest awareness of ‘now’ within yourself. This is something of what is done in meditation. Our own pasts are others’ futures and our own futures are others’ pasts. Our perception of the present is already our past when we stop to think about it. As you are reading this sentence, for instance, the act of reading the first word is in your past when you get to its last word. You cannot pinpoint your ‘Present’. It is enough for most people to simply know they are in it and aware of it. But how well aware of your present are you? That is the fundamental question of philosophy, religion and even science. It consumes us all in one way or another - be it in the bland disregarding of it all together and stuffing low experiences, drugs alcohol and material down a black hole of vague emptiness inside all the way to the delicate sensibilities of gifted musicians, artists, philosophers, aesthetics, scientists etc, as they try gain that clearer view of reality. It is all about the perception of Now within each of us.

So the key to understanding time is to understand the Formless Now of which we, personally, are continually aware and which constitutes who we are and what we call ‘the present’. It is the closest we get to the Formless Now from which the entire Universe of Form arose. Why? Because geometry, again, tells us Formlessness gave birth to Form and the point is Formless, just as the circle is the UNITY and the center POINT is the UNIT they are ‘one and the same’. Each point in a circle has exactly the same formlessness as every other point, including the center point. Your Awareness of the Present is as close as you can get to the Formless Eternal Now that gave rise to the Universe. And that Universe must also be described in terms of that fundamental relation - because there are no other terms.

Modern science and mathematics have lost sight of this, however. They have focused all their teaching, training for the last few centuries on Form and have disregarded Formlessness - even as a possibility. It is a maxim of Science that if they can’t measure a phenomenon, it is of no interest to them. BUT YOU CAN’T MEASURE FORMLESSNESS....which is a fundamental (and forgotten) maxim of Mathematics! But you must include Formlessness if you truly want to find ‘the Theory of Everything’.

So to the form of Time we have the two extremes Past and Future and the Center which is present. Each of us experiences time as a ‘point’ which has the same form as the center point - it is formless. It is from this beginning, that we can know all there can be known about time. Just as Geometry builds up from the ‘formless location in space’ (a point) to all the intricacies of form that present themselves in the Universe. Why should the form of Time be put to a different set of standards from all the other forms in the Universe?

A line is, ‘a similar series of points’. When you are concerned with one point on the line...and then another...the first point doesn’t disappear. It is still there. It is the same with time. The ‘now’ that you experienced years ago or 5 seconds ago....is still there. To you it is ‘in the past’. You are ‘now’ in the past of your own future as you read this. At some future now you will remember reading this during a past now. There is no measure of just what a ‘now’ is. Some theoretical physicists try to postulate a minimal unit of ‘now’, but they haven’t been successful to date, and I don’t expect that they will be, since ‘now’ is appreciation of a formless location in space. Postulating the minimal unit of time is the modern equivalent of trying to answer how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It is taken quite seriously by many people.

It is an unrecognized and important facet of Geometry, that you cannot measure the dimension from the same dimension. A straight line is considered to be a ‘one to one’ match with the number line (1+1+1+1+1.....). The problem for geometers is, you can’t know anything about the relations of a one dimensional line....except....you apply the compass, which is a tool of TWO DIMENSIONAL discovery ( a circle has both horizontal and vertical dimensions intrinsic to it). Once you apply the compass, you can find the middle of any line and any number of intricate numerical relations can be found and proved. But without the compass...you can unlock NOTHING about the intrinsic relations within a line. Something of the same sort again happens with 2 dimensional constructions. Three famous ‘impossible’ constructions, the Squaring of a Circle, the Trisection of an Arbitrary Angle and the Construction of an Enneagon (9-sided regular polygon) are IMPOSSIBLE, not because ‘they can’t be done’...but because you need a THREE DIMENSIONAL compass, - which is disallowed in Euclidean Geometry. Once you have that tool, they are easy.

Do you see what is going on? You need to examine the intricacies of forms of a lower dimension with tools from a HIGHER one. That there are only 3 dimensions, as I showed above, confuses people when they read modern physics or math books, which talk about multiple higher dimensions. I put it to you that these are tricks of modern math. They are not classical dimensions but symbolic ones or adulterated ones, as with the use of tensors. In the end, despite all protestations, all the theoretical play ends up having to be expressed or held prisoner to the conditions of the original Euclidean 3 dimensions.

Why do I say this? Because there are only 3 true dimensions to the Universe of Form. The so-called ‘4th dimension’ of Time...is actually the higher FORMLESSNESS from which all Form has been derived. This is why the Greeks wisely refused to call Time a ‘dimension’. Each unmeasurable appreciation of Awareness you have experienced, do experience and will ever experience are simply the state of Formlessness of Now.

Far-fetched? No one is capable of saying what the form of the Universe is, because the distances over which it exists are incomprehensibly vast. This Universe is so vast that light over the course of 14 billion years....has yet to reach the other side! The stars and galaxies one sees through telescopes are images of things as they existed up to millions and billions of years ago....Some do not exist anymore...but we see them in our Now. We still see their ‘now’ even as many ‘are no more’. When you throw in the notion that light probably travels in a curved path, instead of the straight line physicists rely on for their theories, we may even be seeing our own galaxy from billions of years ago as a distant object through a telescope because the light has traveled around the entire universe and returned back to where it originated! Except you wouldn’t know it was your own galaxy, because it would have changed! This is grossly simplified, but the entire Universe is moving - constantly. What you are generally looking at in the night sky isn’t necessarily in the place where you see it in relation to us here on Earth - now. Not only is the vastness of the Universe a barrier to knowing ‘what is really going on’ but so is the vastness of removal in time between Universal events and their observation here.

But we do have Geometry which is the study of form and it has one great advantage, namely, it doesn’t rely on measuring. In fact, it nearly forbids it. “A circle is a circle is a circle.” Size has nothing to do with the form of a circle. The same can be said of Time. It is a form. Form comes from Formlessness. The center of each and every form in the universe is ‘formless’ as well. The Universe of Form ‘swims’ in an ocean of boundless Formlessness. It is the one consistent thing throughout the entire Universe. Formlessness is the same on Earth as it is on the other side of the Universe...and every other part of the Universe. THAT is the common (and ignored) link to all this. There is one other incredibly important thing about our own Awareness and Formlessness no one comment on; Awareness is the ONLY universal property we can envision as being potentially Formless.

So, putting it all together, Formless Awareness is Aware of All ‘beyond time’ (which is a form). There is NO TIME in Formlessness. There is no movement, no displacement in space, etc. Time is only the local observation of displacement of forms in the Universe. Neither is time even a fundamental dimension of the Universe. If all movement stopped, Time would stop, but the Universe of frozen forms in space...would still be there. Time is how we creatures of form in the Universe conveniently mark the limitations of our Awareness. Our awareness is minutely focused down to a wee tiny portion which we call ‘reality’. That is what Form does. It individualizes the experience of awareness. If we were Formlessly Aware....we would know everything NOW - beyond time. That is the secret of the Universe....it was created to INDIVIDUATE the experience of Awareness for all creatures of Form within it.

We can’t say a lot about Formless Awareness, because every time we do, we bound it up with extremes and create it as a grand form in our own formal image. Whether you are talking about Zeus, Allah, Yahweh, or whatever, I am bound to point out that ALL these gods are created in the image of humans each displaying the limits of form (good-bad, jealous-loving, etc. i.e.). They are false idols. An idol based on false ideas is no less false than one of stone. THIS is actually the benchmark of how you can determine that some religion is false. The Creator of the Universe CANNOT be a creature of form. That is a profound contradiction.

We can say, however, that to Formless Awareness the Universe doesn’t have a past, present and future. It only has a now. It sees the Universe of Form as a complete creation. Its beginning and end are NOW....which means....the beginning and end of the Universe as we understand it - ‘never happened’ because they exist both together in the NOW of Formless Awareness. That is the neatest trick of creation...we only THINK there was a beginning of the Universe because we are inside the Universe possessing only narrowly focused awareness. To the Formless Now Awareness....the Universe always ‘is’. So a dinosaur that fell into quicksand millions of years ago, to the Formless Awareness is every bit as much alive ‘now’ as you are to it. All our births and deaths are ‘already done’.

The thing is ‘we don’t know that’. This is not some kind of Calvinist predetermined Universe. It is simply saying the Universe, to Formless Awareness, is One Thing ever Now just like Formless Awareness is. Our lives and choices are the result of our passions, determinations and laziness to accomplish or not accomplish the actions we do in life. We don’t know what these will turn out to be, because of the narrow focus of our individuated awareness. We are intensely engaged in the game we play. But, metaphorically, ‘billions of years ago’ (there really is no way to say this properly) Formless Awareness SEES us doing what we do today...and will continue to see us doing it billions of years from now. This is how It SEES not just us, but everything that is in the entire Universe. It is always PERFECTLY ‘NOW’ to Formless Awareness.

]]>

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

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

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

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.

]]>

Although both try to take credit for civilization,

These two religions are now rotting on the vine and need to be replaced by a search for Truth. The

This latter notion provides a very intriguing and comforting idea....that the original Christianity, if it was based on 'what is really true', would be easily revived since the word '

The Religion of Truth published here claims to be that original Christianity by virtue of discovery methods available to the Greeks

The Religion of Truth, Book 1, may be the most important small book you have ever read. It is formatted in the same manner as the old gospels....broken into chapters which can be read a little bit at a time and thought about. Unlike the gospels, which can't stand too much scrutiny, Book 1 is meant to be read, rigorously debated and argued over....it is a tough little book, very capable of taking on 'all comers' who think they can poke holes in it. I believe it is possibly the closest any book has ever come to 'Telling the Truth of the Cosmos'.

]]>