Sacred geometry and the 'shape' of all things.?

Question

I was recently told that sacred geometry dicates that objects (including cells, atoms etc) appear round because everything is in constant motion. It is the constant motion and movements that causes it to look like a circle/sphere.

However, if it were possible to stop the movement - the true shape would be a square/cube. I was told this is the true natural shape of the universe.

What are your thoughts?

(I would like to learn more so I would appreciate if you could add any links to your sources.- thanks)

Answer 1

I think the use of sacred geometry in physics was limited to Kepler's attempt to use them to explain the planetary orbits, which wasn't too successful. To answer your question from a scientific perspective (after all, we are talking about cells and atoms), neither of these are necessarily round. Cells can take many shapes (e.g., spherical, rod, spiral, etc).

Atomic nuclei are modeled as being round-ish, and given the strong internuclear forces they should be roughly spherical, but I don't think we really have the resolution to be able to decisively measure a shape via experimental means. Atoms themselves (consisting of the nucleus and electron "cloud") can't really be said to be round because electron orbitals aren't necessarily round (see 1st link). The bulk of the volume of an atom (but not the bulk of its mass) is in its electron cloud. Electron orbital densities (really probability distributions) are depicted as having anywhere from spherical to very non-spherical shapes (see the link below). Does the electron orbital shape really dictate the actual shape of an atom? That's hard to say when you're working at the quantum level, however it seems reasonable to model them as spheres. "We do not know what is the shape of an atom, but we often use a sphere to represent an atom." -- see 2nd link.

So no, I doubt that sacred geometry actually has much to do with the shapes of cells or atoms or any other objects in the physical universe.

Answer 2

The concept of sacred geometry is a construct created by humans to describe what seem to be consistencies among naturally-occurring things.

The word sacred implies there is something special, spiritual or magical about the shape; as if the shape is as or more significant than the object itself.  In my opinion this is placing the cart before the horse.  It is affixing importance to the form rather than the function.

For example, the earth and other well-formed planets, stars, etc. are spherical because that's what happens when rotation occurs.  The shape is the by-product of the process that allows the object to exist to begin with.  Not all spherical objects are magical, but some important objects, due to their rotation, happen to be spherical.

I have seen books proclaiming the spiritual powers of the mandala and other such shapes.  Although such shapes may assist in relaxation during meditation, the shape has no power independent of that which the person who uses it chooses to bestow upon it.

Answer 3

Hi Riki Chick,

Well for openers, the basic composition begins with atom structure, which consist of a neculus, protrons, neturons and free electrons. These by defination are all round with no exceptions.  Our electron microscopes provide adequate defination as to atomic structure and geometric shape, which proves to be round.

For one to proclaim that because of atom spherical density distrubition they are considered non sphereical is a misnomer in that the basic spherical density of an atom does not change as when a free electron enters the orbit of an atom, another free electron is cast off maintaining a balance.  That is what causes current flow in A/C and D/C electron theory and as defined by ohms law.  

Cells, are composed of atoms and a cell can be oblong, round, flat, spiral, or any possible combination under a 3D matrix, depending on the DNA helix.

As for all being round because of motion, that is a crude attempt by someone trying to relate that all of creation is made up of different vibrations or frequencies.

In summary, all basic composition as relating to the atomic structure is round, cells and all above that level take on whatever shape dictated by the helix.

Reference being made to Sacred Geometry as the cause of roundness is true to the extent that Sacred Geometry is a set of absolute laws that reside within the Quantum Realm and do indeed define and govern all in existence as we know it. Sacred Geometry could be related to scientific notation or mathmatical formulas that define the hows and wherefores of everything that exists in the universe.

Statements discounting Sacred Geometry come from those who have no conceptiual  understanding of Quantum Theory relating to the Quantum Realm.

As for the the person who told you the natural state of the universe would be square if not in motion, is probably a direct decendent of the genius who proclaimed that the world is flat and if one sails long enough, they will most assuredly drop off the edge. Perhaps flawed DNA.  

My thoughts are, thanks for a good laugh.

The best source for expanding your knowledge on the subject matter, would be the man who helped Albert                 Einstein with his math, and that would be none other than Mr. Nicola Tesla, and who better to present the facts than our own trusted and science oriented, PBS. . . . .enjoy!

Please go to: http://www.pbs.org/tesla/ll/index.html

and read of his unified field theory and zero point energy and much much more, and I guarantee you will come away truly enlightned and informed as to the true nature of things as they are, not as imagined by some.  

Thank you once again for a truly stimulating question,

Darryl S.

NOTE: Nice hat jack, too bad they didn't have your size and the only thing smaller than the hat is your ability to comprehend what you read.

For your information I did not disagree with Riki Chick, as she expressed no predrawn conclusions on the matter, and  was asking for opinions and sources for more information, I disagreed with the people who told her that c**p.

Hope that made it a little easier for you to understand.

Answer 4

Reiki Chick:  As you can see, the two 'scientists' answering before me are not in agreement as to the shape of atoms, though they do mutually agree to disagree with your premise.

Fact is, no means exists for knowing the 'natural' shape of the universe, either in movement, or standing still.

The people who believe they know such things generally do so on faith.  Followers of the Science-Faith base their beliefs on some of the relatively few over the past century who did science and convinced others to believe what they'd concluded.

Others base their beliefs on different concepts, but they're still matters of faith.

My gut feel doesn't lead me to believe your premise, but I am as ignorant on the subject as any scientist, preacher, guru, or entrepreneurial theorist.