When nested into each other, these Platonic solids determine a set of proportions which Kepler used to guide 30 years of research into the causes for the positions of the planets around the sun which he also speculated was moved by an electric fluid within his
New Astronomy .
Internal angles contained within the elementary shapes are also treated as properties of qualities rather than self-contained quantities. For example: Squares generate internal angles of 90, while triangles feature internal angles of 60 and 120 degrees. Pentagons generate internal angles of 135 and 72 degrees while hexagons generate internal angles of 120 and 60 etc.
, Kepler demonstrates the musical proportions of these numbers as functions of resonance/consonances demonstrating a model of the solar system built on the well-tempered musical scales featuring both major and minor modes. Harmonies of the World
Johannes Kepler’s 3 planetary laws unshackled physics from mysticism and relied on a musical insight outlined in his 1619 masterpiece featuring his model of the solar system above. The fact that his 3rd Law of Planetary Motion, which is still used today, was the effect of this theory should cause the sceptic to think twice before dismissing Kepler’s insight as rubbish.
Within Book Four of the Harmonies, Kepler breaks from the astrologers and statisticians dominating the ‘standard models’ of his day by outlining various verifiable weather phenomena that coincide with these “aspects” saying: “I was moved to that… only and solely by observation of the weather and study of the aspects by which it is excited. For I saw that with great consistency the state of the atmosphere was disturbed whenever planets were either in conjunction or configured in the aspects commonly spoken of by the astrologers. I saw that there was generally calm in the atmosphere if few or no aspects occurred or if they were quickly completed or concluded. Indeed I considered that this business should not be considered so lightly as the common herd of forecasters usually does.”
One of dozens examples of planetary geometries examined in Kepler’s Harmonies of the World which imposed a reasonable scientific method onto a domain long dominated by astrologers.
Later on, Kepler discusses various weather phenomena and their correlation with various geometrical configurations of the solar system saying:
“ I took account of consistent experience, not indeed concentrating in that way on snows in particular, or winds, or thunder and the other things which astrologers usually predict, but observing in general that the state of the air was disturbed in some way or other if there were aspects, for example if Mars and Jupiter were in conjunction, and were peaceful or if there were not any [conjunctions].”
Later on, German scientists Carl Gauss (1777-1855) and Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859) developed the Keplerian model of a universe of harmony even further by leading an international scientific program to chart the invisible magnetic field shaping the world which was accomplished in 1838.
In Gleismeier and Tsurutani’s brilliant 2014 study Carl Friedrich Gauss – General Theory of Terrestrial Magnetism, the authors write:
As Gauss stated in a letter to his friend Wilhelm Olbers (1781–1862), he was interested in the terrestrial magnetic field as early as 1803. This interest was greatly stimulated after meeting Baron Alexander von Humboldt (1769–1859) and Wilhelm Weber (1804–1891) in Berlin in 1828. After 1831, his major collaborator was Wilhelm Weber. Inspired by Alexander von Humboldt, Gauss and Weber realized that magnetic field measurements needed to be done simultaneously and globally with standardized instruments. This research program led to the foundation of the Göttinger Magnetischer Verein in 1836, an organization without much formal structure, only devoted to organizing magnetic field measurements throughout the world.”
Three leading scientists who fought against the Newtonian British school of empiricism during the 19th century (left to right: Wilhelm Weber, Carl Gauss and Alexander von Humboldt).
Gauss was also a forecaster of the highest order who was the first to discover the location of the asteroid Ceres in 1801 which verified an earlier forecast made 200 years earlier by Kepler who stated that the gap between Mars and Saturn would necessarily contain a planet (in this case it appears that the asteroid belt is either a residual of a former planet or the material that may someday form into a planet).
Gauss was also the first scientist to recognize the necessity for a layer of charged electrical current above the stratosphere in order to contain the radio signals passing across the surface of the globe, and would be verified by the discovery of the ionosphere in 1929.
It was also Gauss’ close friend and collaborator Wilhelm Weber who pioneered the Keplerian hypothesis of harmonic relations shaping the frequencies of space into the domain of the micro universe. In the 1850s, Weber actually became the first scientist
to measure the exact distance of an electron circling the orbit of a nucleus (which he successfully did without actually seeing the electron or nucleus).
Neither Weber, nor Max Planck, who later picked up the torch which Weber left to posterity, saw a schism between the macro universe in the large and the micro universe in the small. For these scientists, keys discovered in one domain were also valuable in unlocking doors of the other domain.
Max Planck Stands up for Truth
It is thus no small irony that Planck’s success in founding a new science in the quantum world was motivated by his commitment to Kepler’s method that trumped “the common herd of forecasters” of the 17
Where is Science Going? (1932), Planck warned of the corruption of science and forecasting caused by the spread of the statisticians and formalists who lacked a creative flexibility and love of truth needed to continue the momentum of new discoveries that had been opened up by the great minds of Planck’s generation. The old musician/scientist contrasted Johannes Kepler with his contemporary Tycho Brahe who both had access to the same date, although only one had the spark of love of truth that ushered in the creation of a new physics. Max Planck wrote:
“Kepler is a magnificent example of what I have been saying. He was always hard up. He had to suffer disillusion after disillusion and even had to beg for the payment of the arrears of his salary by the Reichstag in Regensburg. He had to undergo the agony of having to defend his own mother against a public indictment of witchcraft. But one can realize, in studying his life, that what rendered him so energetic and tireless and productive was the profound faith he had in his own science, not the belief that he could eventually arrive at an arithmetical synthesis of his astronomical observations, but rather the profound faith in the existence of a definite plan behind the whole of creation. It was because he believed in that plan that his labor was felt by him to be worth while and also in this way, by never allowing his faith to flag, his work enlivened and enlightened his dreary life. Compare him with Tycho de Brahe. Brahe had the same material under his hands as Kepler, and even better opportunities, but he remained only a researcher, because he did not have the same faith in the existence of the eternal laws of creation. Brahe remained only a researcher, but Kepler was the creator of the new astronomy.”
The Statisticians Play Dice with Truth
While it is under appreciated today, as Max Planck was saying these words amidst the rise of a new techno-feudal system of fascism in his native Germany, a pitched battle was being waged over what direction science would go in the 20
th and 21 st century.
On the one side stood Planck, Einstein, Madame Curie and other great scientists who actually made revolutionary discoveries into the universe, and on the other side stood the mathematical statisticians led by the “Copenhagen school” of Niels Bohr, Max Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli. This latter school of probability theorists correctly demanded that a new science was needed due to the anomalous data emerging in the realm of the quantum and new studies of deep space which couldn’t be explained by the “classical model” of Newtonian science.
The 5th Solvay Conference of 1927 featured an all-out battle between two opposing schools of physics over how the paradoxes of the quantum domain should be treated. On the one hand, actual creative scientists who made sincere breakthroughs such as Planck, Marie Curie, Lorenz and Einstein defended the idea of causality and truth while the new breed of statistical probability theorists of the Copenhagen School of Bohr, Heisenberg, Paoli et al asserted the contrary. Unfortunately for the 20th century, the “old guard” scientists were discarded as obsolete and naive.
The fact that this new school of statisticians never discovered anything didn’t stop them from being dubbed the victors of the Solvay Conference in 1927. In the wake of this battle, pioneering scientists like Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Mendeleyeev and Marie Curie were placed in the same category as rigid “classical” positivists of the Newtonian sect (including Ernst Mach, Bertrand Russell, Rudolph Clausius and David Hilbert) who demanded that the only definition of “truth” acceptable in the realm of science had to be mathematical perfection.
According to these anti-creative positivists, IF it could be proven that mathematical perfection were an impossible ideal, then TRUTH ITSELF had to be rejected as having any assumed existence.
By treating all scientists that believed in truth as “positivists”, a straw man was created which the young Copenhagen statisticians jumped on. Since the universe could be demonstrated to be shaped by a non-linearity and elements of uncertainty (evidenced by Kurt Gödel’s famous 1932 proof) that denied the possibility of absolute mathematical truth, it was asserted that only the science of “dice rolling” (aka: statistical probability) be permitted by scientists wishing to conduct any experimental research on reality — either of the atomic world, or even in the macrocosm. This was the context shaping Einstein’s famous statement to Niels Bohr that “God does not play dice with the universe”.
In this perversion of science, randomness and uncertainty became presumed “laws” in the domain of the quantum in the very small, while a stiff mechanistic determinism became the assumed dominant law of the macrocosm in the very large. It didn’t take long for these contrary impulses to become forced together into something called “Standard Model Cosmology” which became a soulless dead corollary to “Standard Model Quantum Mechanics” during the Cold War.
And within the insanity of the shadowland of lies that was the Cold War, the fear of nuclear annihilation increasingly swept the love of truth in science away, and the unbounded financial resources of the monstrous military industrial complex absorbed cutting edge scientific work into the classified world of black budgets and espionage with no connection to the benefit for the civilian sector or universal knowledge more generally. Scientists who didn’t conform to the new normal were increasingly purged from the scientific establishment as a newer generation of cognitively handicapped scientists emerged onto the scene, leaving nothing unaffected by their toxic irrationalism.
The Cancer Metastasizes: Economics, Ecology, and Geology Infected
All of a sudden, scientists were told to accept the deterministic rules of a universe that supposedly emerged out of nothing exactly 13.7 billion years ago, and would die a slow heat death in some linear extrapolation into the future. While this
was enforced from the top down, a fatalistic determinism was enforced from the bottom up whereby scientists had to accept that nothing could be known of the specific principles shaping the existence of protons, electrons, or other sub-atomic behavior. Every system in the universe from organisms, human economies, galaxies, and solar systems were assumed to be both rigidly closed and deterministic AND ALSO random, fluid, and irrational. fatalistic indeterminism
dualism embedded as a Trojan Horse not only derailed discoveries in atomic science (with fusion power increasingly dubbed ‘the impossible dream of forever being 30 years away’), but also in political economy and climate science.
In economics, this dualism was unleashed with the post-1971
floating of the US dollar onto global speculative markets as a new consumer society cult was imposed onto the western world. Under this new era that became known as “globalization”, economics was defined as the hedonistic pursuit of pleasure driven by atomized consumers which were likened to gas particles stochastically bumping around within an aerosol can. The macro-system (aka aerosol can) in which the “markets” were located was increasingly shaped by a new technocratic class of “scientific engineers” who would impose closed system determinism onto humanity in a bid to maximize the “perception” of freedom, with none of the actuality of it.
Forecasters in this new surreal wonderland were told that they could extrapolate present trends into the future using probability functions, but they could not think about boundary conditions shaping the invisible (albeit real) constraints shaping those very economies they sought to influence.
In climate science, computer models were imposed onto a field which once took the sun, fluctuating magnetic fields, cosmic radiation, and broader galactic environment into consideration. Instead of thinking about top-down factors like solar wind, magnetic fields, and cosmic radiation determining earth’s climate, the new generation of climate scientists trained by
Club of Rome computer models during the 1970s and beyond increasingly found themselves mentally handicapped by the acceptance of dualistic absurdities.
Chief among these absurdities was the assumption that although predicting short term weather patterns were intrinsically unknowable (beyond statistical probability functions), it was absolutely certain that the globe would heat up in a new furnace within a century.
In the geological sciences, things did not fare much better.
While real scientists were making pioneering discoveries into earthquake science by observing the magnetic and planetary/solar alignments of the solar system through the 1930s-1960s, the false dualism again asserted itself as the new era of computer modeling emerged onto the scene.
Compare the article from the July 18, 1959 edition of
Nature magazine, showcasing the new insights into earthquake forecasting, with the modern gospel of the United States Geographical Survey (which sets the standards for all “acceptable educational practices” across the trans-Atlantic):
Concepts such as those published in the 1959 Nature magazine became increasingly verboten over the years to the point that the current
US Geological Survey official website addresses the question “can earthquakes be predicted with the following answer:
“No. Neither the USGS nor any other scientists have ever predicted a major earthquake. We do not know how, and we do not expect to know how any time in the foreseeable future. USGS scientists can only calculate the probability that a significant earthquake will occur in a specific area within a certain number of years. An earthquake prediction must define 3 elements: 1) the date and time, 2) the location, and 3) the magnitude.”
Unless one is able to satisfy the impossible standards set by the priests at the USGS (demanding mathematically PERFECT results in predicting the exact date and time, exact location, and exact magnitude of an earthquake)… if there is even a slight deviation from mathematical perfection between forecast and empirical result, then it is asserted that no forecast is made. The irony of course, is that if scientists like Kepler, Weber, Gauss, or Planck actually used the standards promoted by the scientists at the USGS, then none of their discoveries could ever have been made.
Those scientists wishing to make actual discoveries in this new field of earthquake forecasting, which would do much to expand humanity’s knowledge of the cosmos and also save countless lives, would be much better rewarded eating some humble pie, spitting out some “
elastic rebound” kool aid and thinking like Kepler, Gauss, Planck and Frank Hoogerbeets.
 Kepler always maintained that magnetism was the form that this species of attraction and motion took, saying: “Therefore, as the sun forever turns itself, the motive force or the outflowing of the species from the sun’s magnetic fibres, diffused through all the distances of the planets, also rotates in an orb and does so in the same time as the sun, just as when a magnet is moved about, the magnetic power is also moved, and the iron along with it, following the magnetic force.”
The author developed some of these concepts in a recent episode of the Great Game viewable