Philosophy and Grammer Police of the 2-D Universe

[lizzie]

GC said: What about Toto? One could argue that he represents unreserved love but that is because Dorothy loves the dog without expecting anything in return. I would suggest that it is about accepting somebody for what they are, that is about being non-judgmental. There is no judgement or punishment and reward in the Universe for it would be The All judging The All. You neither love them nor hate them; they are just what they are

Wow, GC. I liked the part about marrying the right and left brains.

JL said: If you take the zero as being a representation of a sphere, you can see that the pattern generated from the phi sequence is like a description of the motions, or stages of that sphere. If you take a look at how the numbers seem to mirror themselves at its zero stage, it's possible to imagine the sphere (zero) oscillating back and forth, inside and outside of itself. So here, uncovered in nature's own number progressions, we have the I-O sphere doing it's inside-outing, just as described on Treeincarnation.com.

In other words, what you are seeing as individual numbers in the phi sequence are really sections of what is a unified array of spheres represented numerically as zeros. Maybe someday the logic used in traditional mathematics will be put on its head with a 'proof' that 0 > N (where N is the set of all natural numbers).

I wonder if the numbers are intended to actually show the “Zero Point” where the VM turns itself inside out.

JL said: You must be thinking that 12 digits and 12 spheres around one central sphere are not the same, and that we are missing the central one in the phi sequence. But the VE and the jitterbug are not the same, in order to make a VE do anything (i.e. 'do the Jitterbug'), the central sphere needs to be removed.

Junglelord said: The expanded jitterbug (VE) represents a sphere in convex form while the contracted (octahedron) represents the concave spaces between spheres. To have such beautiful geometric models reflected in the patterns of nature's numbers is mind boggling, but there's still a lot more to be uncovered.

This is what allows the VE to collapse symmetrically into an octahedron, it allows the model to oscillate in and out, for Fuller, these 'pumping' models (and subsequently the jitterbug arrays) represented the fundamental dynamism of nature and became the peak achievement of his explorations in Synergetic's. It's also interesting to note that Fuller identified the VE-Jitterbug as representing "a sphere at equilibrious, ergo zero energized, ergo unorbited and unspun state

So it can turn itself inside out; so it can jitterbug; in order to collapse into an octahedron and return to cubeoctahedron, it needs to have a hole (a zero point) to "disappear" into and pop back out.

http://www.treeincarnation.com/inside-out-universe.htm

Junglelord said: The expanded jitterbug (VE) represents a sphere in convex form while the contracted (octahedron) represents the concave spaces between spheres. To have such beautiful geometric models reflected in the patterns of nature's numbers is mind boggling, but there's still a lot more to be uncovered.

It reminds me of the the intersticial spaces in lung tissue and how they change shape as we breathe.

Junglelord said: I have the keys to set the society free. I instantly saw a wonderful Alchemisty Story.
That I had the keys to teach the young minds with the truth, sold as "fiction".

That indeed I could learn and then use the 12 Leverage Prinicples in a very subverse way. LOL.

Gotta love it! And you could make a fortune selling the most wonderful (truthful) and fun books as well.

[junglelord]

4-D Spin Domains, Jitterbugs and Casting Out Nines.
Mayan Calander Knowledge, with 8 fingers on your hands and 2 thumbs.


The VE Volume is both 20 and 9.
20 is the Whole of the Half Mirror Metric System.
This allows 3-D analysis.

9 Fully Mirrors the Universe Itself.
This allows 4-D analysis.
This means the Universal Frequency Harmonic Constant.

That is the secret to all harmonics.
Cast Out the Nine.

If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.

— Nikola Tesla

Now I know what he was talking about.


The Rodin Coil Vortex Magic Cube.
Frequency are 1,2,4,8,7,5
Angle are 3,9,6

9 is the upper Zero.
The piviot point of the frequency phase, +4, -4
8 is infinity octave.
Invoke Multiplication by Division.
Frequency is = to N - 1
7 is the note scale

I got really flamed by Toto for making the Vortex Math thread, about how it made a totaly obsene jesture for a EU forum.


That is No Where.
I am Now Here.
In Too Me I See.


I understand Tesla 100% even his cryptic clues.
F me.

Conclusion

Getting back to the original application of synergetic number, where the volume of the VE (the whole) is given the appropriate value of 9, we can now see good reason why ancient cultures used calculations that we're intimately tied to the number 9. Perhaps they were aware of the importance of starting from the whole and knew that there was no synergy possible from using a system which compounds 1's upon 1's as our modern understanding has classically required.

The original connections between synergetic geometry and the Mayan calendar are continuing at this moment and there are a fair amount of correlation's appearing, I'm not as well versed in the mechanics of the Mayan calendar to give anything substantive at this moment. However, I will say at this early stage, it is looking to be a description of what Fuller called a 'Jitterbug' transformation. The calendar seems to be describing the volumetric growth from an octahedron (concavity) into the vector equilibrium (convexity), the ancient Maya most definitely had some advanced knowledge about the nature of time, and it's amazing to have that now tying into our modern understanding of synergetic geometry. This is an area which may give us the opportunity to understand the nature of time from a new perspective. At this early stage, it seems as though time is not linear, but rather an 'omni-directional' and an exponential growth in volume.

It's clear to me that now we need to reevaluate and update our classical understanding of number. We need to use conceptual tools more suitable to the reality we find ourselves in. Without getting into too much philosophy, I would like to explain that these explorations have, for me, revealed some significant insights. One such observation is that all number (and by definition all 'things') beyond the illusion of division, are fundamentally related to nine, nothing, the cypher - or sphere, the epitome of unity and fundamental to all 'things'. Look at some of the numbers we've come across here and notice some of the subtle symbolism they suggest. Like the number 1.8. To me, it suggests that in order to have a singular entity, represented here by the number 1, there must always be this 'everything else' aspect, represented here by the 8, which corresponds to our symbol for infinity turned to it's side. So on one side of the decimal we see singularity, the other side suggests infinity, and the two combined bring us back to 9 - nothingness, or the 'whole'.

We can broaden our understanding of what is meant by no-thing-ness, by saying that all of the meanings underlying our communications and interactions are non-weighable and non-detectable to physical instruments. There is no quality of thing-ness to any of the meanings which we experience. It has been said that all meaning is angle, like the way we use ratios to see relationships between many different aspects of life. And that these relationships - like angles - are not things in themselves.

To put it another way, we are the 'sensing mechanism' which can understand the meanings which life presents to us and that this nothingness is the interconnected metaphysical reality which we experience. This unified whole is always reflected in each of the parts, and funnily enough, if all numbers are divisions of nothing, you may be right to observe that 'all is none'.

[junglelord]

The Synergetic Ratio explains the Blaze Labs Ultra Cosmic Radiation Frequency as 7.4 X 10^42 HZ
ie it explains why the constants appear in the first place that constructs this harmonic.
This Harmonic Key is Evident as the brainwave of both the Earth and People in Meditation.
The Schumann Resonace, 7.4HZ
Alpha Brain Waves (staring out into space) 7.4HZ

the .4 must come from the oscillations between 9 and .45 (20 and 1)


The corresponding VE Volume Number relationship of 20 and 9 is the key connecting 3-D to 4-D
This is the conversion prinicple that allows the prediction of Spin Domains all the way up to the Great Attractor in Virgo.
This is how the Mayans predicted things they could not see.


The Decimal Metric System is 2-D and like the Heaviside EM dumbed down 4 equations of vectoral sums is again 2-D.

Maxwell made it very clear that EM is 4-D. Quaternions deliver this.
Maxwell made it clear as did Faraday that the EM fields are Mechanical Fields.
That is the gyroscope.
If you can see the atomic charge VE gyroscope matrix and apply the universal cycle,
you can see it at any scale. It will of couse scale perfect due to this inherit relationship of the VE.
That is what Harmonics is all about. A universal harmonic coupling device must represent the Structural basis of the Fractal and Holograpic Functions that we observe in all forms. The Golden Spiral.


Frequency is 4-D found within the 2 spin rotating magnetic field of the aether unit.
The source of this is 5-D, the Gforce of APM, the I/O Hyper-Sphere.


The ratio 20:9 is the key to duality.
20/9 = 2.2222
the relationship between all possible things (all the parts) and of the whole, is infinite duality, or infinite complementarity; and furthermore that relationship is a ratio and is numeric. Duality is a ratio, 20:9.

Another aspect to this is that dividing any normal number by all of those 2's gives us a number which is then a synergetic number and can be shown to always have an additive value of 9. From me, this number seems to work like an infinitely precise cutting tool, except instead of splitting the numbers apart, it seems to work in reverse, i.e. bringing them back together and showing the numbers to be related to the whole, 9.

There is always an inside to the outside...720
therefore Unity is plural and at miniumum 2.
The I/O Hyper-Sphere.
0^2 = 2

Synergetic Ratio

Looking back at the synergetic number series from 9 to 0.45 (20 to 1) there is more to be explored. Adding each number to itself and continuing on until a whole number is reached reveals another pattern. The table below shows the number of places it takes consecutively summed synergetic numbers to synchronize i.e. to reach a whole number. Again, notice the mirrored effect which is produced from the centerpoint at 4.5,

0.45 20 places to synch
0.9 10 places to synch
1.35 20 places to synch
1.8 5 places to synch
2.25 4 places to synch
2.7 10 places to synch
3.15 20 places to synch
3.6 5 places to synch
4.05 20 places to synch
4.5 1 places to synch
4.95 20 places to synch
5.4 5 places to synch
5.85 20 places to synch
6.3 10 places to synch
6.75 4 places to synch
7.2 5 places to synch
7.65 20 places to synch
8.1 10 places to synch
8.55 20 places to synch

This is showing us more evidence that the vector equilibrium (the whole) is intimately tied to the number 20. But we can reason that this is not just because it takes 20 tetravolumes to fill the volume of the VE, but that 20 is the maximum amount of numerical permutations possible within this synergetic sequence, before a whole number is reached.

If we continue with this reasoning we can say that the whole, numerically represented as the number 9, can only be subdivided into a maximum of 20 different parts. In that case, I think we can say that the ratio between the whole and all of the possible parts within that whole is a ratio of 20 to 9 (20 : 9) , where 20 is all of the possible increments within the whole.

As it turns out, that ratio is very significant, we can take it as 20 divided by 9, which is equal to 2.2222222222222222... . What we're actually saying is that the relationship between all possible things (all the parts) and of the whole, is infinite duality, or infinite complementarity; and furthermore that relationship is a ratio and is numeric. Duality is a ratio.

Another aspect to this is that dividing any normal number by all of those 2's gives us a number which is then a synergetic number and can be shown to always have an additive value of 9. From me, this number seems to work like an infinitely precise cutting tool, except instead of splitting the numbers apart, it seems to work in reverse, i.e. bringing them back together and showing the numbers to be related to the whole, 9. As Fuller would say, "Unity is plural and at minimum two." Again, this relationship may have something in common with the 'glitch' we saw when exploring 0²=2.

[junglelord]

If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.

— Nikola Tesla

3-9-6 are the Magnetic Angle
1-2-4-8-7-5 are the Electric Frequency
A Harmonic Doubling Circuit. It will double forever. The Ultimate Step Up Transformer.

Frequency and Angle

[lizzie]

Junglelord said: Like the number 1.8. To me, it suggests that in order to have a singular entity, represented here by the number 1, there must always be this 'everything else' aspect, represented here by the 8, which corresponds to our symbol for infinity turned to its side. So on one side of the decimal we see singularity, the other side suggests infinity, and the two combined bring us back to 9 - nothingness, or the 'whole'.

Would it be correct to say that in the figure 8, the one side represents the 99.99% (the infinite) and the other side the .01% (the singularity - the finite) with the center point (cross point) of the figure 8 representing the 0 point – the nothingness?

We are leaving the world of matter and entering the world of frequencies.

[junglelord]

The crossover is the .01%.
The two spheres are the 99.99%
the two zeros, just look at it.


The crossover is where the Now Here Exist from the No Where of the two zeros.

Pulsed by the Gforce which is the I/O Hyper-Sphere Frequency of c^3.
The 2 spin rotation magnetic field of the aether unit are the two zeros,
forward frequency and backward frequency of c^2.
The center point is the Now Here of frequency c^1.
Developed by the power of the Gforce, the source of all spin when imposed on the Conductance of the Aether.
In Too Me I See the Harmonic relationship of c.

[lizzie]

Junglelord said: The crossover is where the Now Here Exist from the No Where of the two zeros.

Pulsed by the Gforce which is the I/O Hyper-Sphere Frequency of c^3.
The 2 spin rotation magnetic field of the aether unit are the two zeros,
forward frequency and backward frequency of c^2.
The center point is the Now Here of frequency c^1.
Developed by the power of the Gforce, the source of all spin when imposed on the Conductance of the Aether.
In Too Me I See the Harmonic relationship of c.

Oh I see the cross over is the .01% - the here now, the c^1 freqyency
The two eights (eyes or zeros), the 99.99% of the no where, are the 2 spin rotation magnetic field which has a forward & backward frequency, the c^2.

The Gforce (the Harmonic Ninth) is theI/O hyper-space frequency, the c^3.

(I hope you understand your true gift -- the ability to explain the most complex ideas in relatively simple language. At least I think I can grasp in an intuitive way most of what you are trying to say.)

[soulsurvivor]

Cyclic number wheel - nine pointed Mandalog

JL, what, if any, significance would there be in seeing a "0" "7" angle in the western sky in September 2004?
Surface inside color of this angle was same as color on number 81. Background surrounding outside color was same as color on number 72.
And thanks for any help on this.

[soulsurvivor]

I don't have a good working concept to explain why, but I am fully involved in removing myself from systems. It's as though it's a need that stems from a basic primal instinct. My self image is that I am a giant warrior that's strong and standing on both feet, equally male/female, able to withstand anything within the universe without being completely destroyed. I am eternal. I have no need for support systems.

Hi Soulsurvivor,
There you go again, speaking like an ancient Greek.
The high-lighted part is a synopsis of the Iliad.

gosh GC, you're blowing me away here. I've never taken the time to read the Iliad or the Odessey. I somehow skated through school without it being required reading. hmmm, perhaps it's "time" I did some reading.

[junglelord]

Cyclic number wheel - nine pointed Mandalog

JL, what, if any, significance would there be in seeing a "0" "7" angle in the western sky in September 2004?
Surface inside color of this angle was same as color on number 81. Background surrounding outside color was same as color on number 72.
And thanks for any help on this.

I can only point back to the Basic Template we have discovered.
I would imagine a crossover between the two cycles is what you saw.
It seems to be a 0 crossover as it were.

[Grey Cloud]

I don't have a good working concept to explain why, but I am fully involved in removing myself from systems. It's as though it's a need that stems from a basic primal instinct. My self image is that I am a giant warrior that's strong and standing on both feet, equally male/female, able to withstand anything within the universe without being completely destroyed. I am eternal. I have no need for support systems.

Hi Soulsurvivor,
There you go again, speaking like an ancient Greek.
The high-lighted part is a synopsis of the Iliad.

gosh GC, you're blowing me away here. I've never taken the time to read the Iliad or the Odessey. I somehow skated through school without it being required reading. hmmm, perhaps it's "time" I did some reading.

If you have no been taught Homer then you have no baggage to throw overboard. Ditto with Plato.
At school I point-blank refused to read Shakespeare. Given that my school was an English Grammar school... Turns out I was correct. To me the evidence is overwhelming that 'Shakespeare' was written by Francis Bacon. The works are chock-full of esotericism and alchemy. Even turns out that Bacon had Athene as his muse, just as I do. Also turns out that Athene carried a spear which, when shaken, produced a light which banished the darkness of ignorance.
The concept of the Warrior is not just Greek, it's world-wide. A warrior's prime foe is his- or herself. Set your own standards and live them. Others can kill your body but only you can allow them to alter your Will.
(I wouldn't bother with the Odyssey as its exoteric story is quite boring, and the esoteric story is very esoteric from what I recall). But if you want to read one of the best psychology books ever written then the Iliad is the one. The Iliad is about as far from the miserable Jungian/Freudian mentally crippled humanity model as it is possible to get.

[altonhare]

Hi Alton,
You wrote:

The universe is composed of concrete objects that were here before any consciousness was ever present and will continue to exist long after we're all dead.

Can you offer any evidence that the Universe existed before consciousness? I only ask because it appears to fly in the face of what every great thinker on every continent, throughout recorded history has maintained.
And where did consciousness come from if it was not already in the Universe?
P.S.
I agree that the Universe will continue to exist long after our bodies are dead.

My mistake, I was not clear. I should have said:

The universe is composed of concrete objects that exist independent of any particular conscious observation and continue to exist in the absence of any particular conscious observation"

Thank you for letting me clear that up.

[altonhare]

Pure hypocrisy ! a complete lack of self knowledge.

-Plasmatic

Bless you for rounding up some of JL's self-contradictions. He objects to 2-D! But his theory relies on a 2-D string! He objects to the "sloppy use of definitions" but he refuses to define words like energy, dimension, wave, etc. etc. He has no integrity.

Postby junglelord on Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:48 pm
I have spent almost a year in fasting and prayer and searching the heart and mind of God.
It has been worth every moment. I believe that fasting is really important.
This will bring clarity.

PS I will take all the special hugs I can get.

I am so fortunate to know God in this intimite way....or
In-Too-Me-I-See.

- JL

This, in addition to almost everything else in this thread, has said it all. This forum is not about science but religion and reification. You eschew modern physics and make all the same mistakes. Worshiping concepts and nothingness.

So what happens with that 99.99% that everyone ignores?????
Is the universe understood by knowing only the .01%?

-JL

Here again we see the same fallacious thinking GC expressed in other threads. This is a common mistake made my mathematicians because they do not think about anything physically, they just crunch numbers. When JL talks about the 99.99% of space an "object is" he is committing the same error as John Doe:

John Doe puts his brother Jack in a box and measures this Jack-in-the-Box to have length 1, width 1, and height 3. He calculates the volume as 3. Then his brother comes out and John measures each part of Jack to calculate his volume as 2. Wow, the Jack-in-the-box was 33% space!

Actually, no fraction of the "Jack in the box" was space. There was Jack and around him was a box. There are two objects. The box encloses a region of space equal to 3. Jack encloses a region of space equal to 2. The difference indicates the distance between Jack and his box. Take this analogy to the atom.

However you personally picture the atom, let's take JL's "ball and toroid" picture. The ball has a volume and the toroid has a volume. There is distance between the ball and toroid. Lets say the distance from one edge of the toroid, through the ball's center, to the other edge of the toroid is 1. If we put this atom in a box with width/length/height equal to 1 we calculate a volume of 1. Lets say the radius of the ball is .5. Its volume is (4/3)*PI*(.5)^3~0.524. Say the toroid has a radius of .2 so the distance between the surface of the ball and the toroid is .3. The volume of the toroid is 2*pi*(.2)*pi*(.2)^2~0.158. The volume occupied by the atom, then, is 0.524+0.158~0.682.

Volume of Box (1) Minus Volume of Atom (0.682) ~0.318

Is an atom 31.8% space because we put a box around it? Or a sphere around it? Or anything else? Junglelord reveals his ignorance on even the most basic aspects of physics every time he talks about how much "space" we are "composed of". You can extend this analogy down to the smallest objects there are. Is anyone on this forum really going to listen to the physics of someone who blatantly understands nothing about physics? A number-cruncher and a mystic? A self-contradictory hypocrite who complains about "2-D"-ness but believes that an ubiquitous quality (mass) is 2-D? Does that make sense? Who complains about sloppy definitions and yet poses none of his own? Someone who accuses others of not using our brains correctly, but confesses outright to brain damage and memory loss? You listen to him in earnest, a twisted knot of contradiction wrapped in an exciting package?

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Alton,

The universe is composed of concrete objects that exist independent of any particular conscious observation and continue to exist in the absence of any particular conscious observation"

Steady now, I almost agree with that.
That the Universe exists independently of my or your observation of it - yes.
This has been chewed on by philosophers for several thousand years. The Greeks obviously and also Berkeley and Leibniz spring to mind.
Not sure where consciousness comes from or originates from in your view of things. Do you view the Universe as conscious or consciousness itself?
Also not sure where your concrete objects fit in. You seem to be implying concrete metaphysical objects (metaphysical in the sense of beyond perception or beyond the physical).

[altonhare]

Hi Alton,

The universe is composed of concrete objects that exist independent of any particular conscious observation and continue to exist in the absence of any particular conscious observation"

Steady now, I almost agree with that.
That the Universe exists independently of my or your observation of it - yes.
This has been chewed on by philosophers for several thousand years. The Greeks obviously and also Berkeley and Leibniz spring to mind.
Not sure where consciousness comes from or originates from in your view of things. Do you view the Universe as conscious or consciousness itself?
Also not sure where your concrete objects fit in. You seem to be implying concrete metaphysical objects (metaphysical in the sense of beyond perception or beyond the physical).

Feels nice to be approaching productive communication . Lets make sure we get the definitions right to insure it keeps up.

Universe: A shorthand notation for a listing of everything that exists. Exist is defined in my other thread, named after it.
Concrete object: Shape and location.
Concrete Concept: A relationship between two or more concrete objects

Anything that has identity can be distinguished from that which it is not. I can distinguish the table from the air surrounding it or from whatever background there happens to be because it has shape i.e. identity.

Consciousness doesn't "come from" anywhere, it's an incorrect question. I perceive something, therefore I'm conscious, therefore consciousness exists. It's axiomatic. Since consciousness exists it is in the listing that "universe" refers to.

Something cannot come from nothing nor vice versa (identity). Therefore to speak of the "creation" or "destruction" of the universe is an immediate self-contradiction. Only class 2 existents (dependent concretes) can be "created" by definition. Class 3 existents cannot because they are concepts, not objects. This is a matter of internal consistency (verbs may only proceed concrete nouns, standard English) and avoiding absurdity (we can only imagine concrete nouns to perform actions, people walk, chairs fall, but justice doesn't punish and love doesn't jump). Class 1 existents cannot be "created" because they are continuous entities and the only way to "create" such a thing is for it to appear out of nothing. This avoids violating the axiom of identity.

Therefore, to talk of a "first creation" of any existent is illogical since a "creation" of the universe is illogical and universe is a shorthand for all existents. This is why I say it is incorrect to ask "where consciousness comes from". I presume you mean "Where did X originate, i.e. first come into being, i.e. first created" when you say "Where does X come from?". If that's incorrect I apologize and ask you to clarify and I'll try to address the correct interpretation.