Re: the notion of counter-intuitiveness in relativistic physics

Le 11/08/2024 à 10:55, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :

Most of Nostradamus's "predictions" are so vague and unclesr that you can interpret them any way you like. However, there is one that stands out:
 L'an mil neuf cens nonante neuf sept mois
Du ciel viendra un grand Roy d'effrayeur
Ressusciter le grand Roy d'Angolmois
Avant après Mars règner par bonheur.
 Lines 2 to 4 are as unclear as everything else that Nostradamus wrote, but line 1 is interesting, as it gives a very precise date, the 7th month of 1999, far in the future for Nostradamus, but fairly recent for us. What could it refer to? For the simple-minded  fantasists he could be predicting the death of Hassan 2, King of Morocco, but if you ask what event of July 1999 could Nostradamus possibly have predicted, the only rational answer is the eclipse of the sun on 11th August 1999. In his time there was enough astronomical knowledge and methods of calculation to predict an eclipse in 1999. Before you object that August is not the 7th month, bear in mind that the Gregorian calendar was introduced some time after Nostradamus.
 Drifting even further from the topic, today "nonante" is regarded as typical of Belgian French, but apparently it was more widely used in Nostradamus's time.

 

For now I think it is very likely that Nostradamus is a crook, contrary to what Stinker Python says.
I add this: To the question, master, how to interpret your prophecies? Nostradamus answered: First, you must destroy them.
Two possible interpretations.
1. It is bullshit for suckers, you must burn it.
2. First, you must destroy the text which means nothing in itself.
Which would mean that textually, word for word, the text is incomprehensible and completely idiotic.
Let's take the last word here "happiness", Nostradamus did not write "Bonheur" but "Bon heur".
As he wrote the word resurrect, which can be cut into "resusci-ter". We then take "Heur" and "Ter" and we have "heurter", etc...
We can then obtain other texts, but it is indecodable given the number of possible permutations and the absence of any other indication. In any case, it is certain that nothing should be taken literally or word for word.
R.H.