Anonymous ID: 83fea4 July 13, 2018, 5:04 p.m. No.2147276   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>7360 >>2502

>>2147113

I agree. This looks like a collection of "brain farts" that are espousing incoherent ideas.

 

incoherent

 

(of spoken or written language) expressed in an incomprehensible or confusing way; unclear.

"he screamed some incoherent threat"

 

synonyms:

unclear, confused, unintelligible, incomprehensible, hard to follow, disjointed, disconnected, disordered, mixed up, garbled, jumbled, scrambled, muddled; rambling, wandering, disorganized, illogical; inarticulate, mumbling, slurred

"a long, incoherent speech"

Anonymous ID: 83fea4 July 13, 2018, 10:19 p.m. No.2150446   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>0961

>>2150009

It is interesting an worth the read, if you understand where is originated. It made lots of money for popular authors & Hollywood bu mocking conventioal religion) National Treasure, Matrix, et al, so I am "certain" it is legit (/sarcasm off)

 

Development

 

Three periods can be discerned in the development of Gnosticism:[60]

 

Late first century and early second century: development of Gnostic ideas, contemporaneous with the writing of the New Testament;

mid-second century to early third century: high point of the classical Gnostic teachers and their systems, "who claimed that their systems represented the inner truth revealed by Jesus";[60]

end of second century to fourth century: reaction by the proto-orthodox church and condemnation as heresy, and subsequent decline.

 

During the first period, four types of tradition developed:[60]

 

Genesis was reinterpreted in Jewish milieus, viewing Jahweh as a jealous God who enslaved people; freedom was to be obtained from this jealous God;

 

A wisdom tradition developed, in which Jesus' sayings were interpreted as pointers to an esoteric wisdom, in which the soul could be divinized through identification with wisdom.[60][note 21] Some of Jesus' sayings may have been incorporated into the gospels to put a limit on this development. The conflicts described in 1 Corinthians may have been inspired by a clash between this wisdom tradition and Paul's gospel of crucifixion and arising;[60]

 

A soteriology developed from popular forms of Platonism in which the soul ascended to union with the Divine;

 

A mythical story developed about the descent of a heavenly creature to reveal the Divine world as the true home of human beings.[60] Jewish Christianity saw the Messiah, or Christ, as "an eternal aspect of God's hidden nature, his "spirit" and "truth", who revealed himself throughout sacred history".[23]

 

The movement spread in areas controlled by the Roman Empire and Arian Goths,[62] and the Persian Empire. It continued to develop in the Mediterranean and Middle East before and during the 2nd and 3rd centuries, but decline also set in during the third century, due to a growing aversion from the Catholic Church, and the economic and cultural deterioration of the Roman Empire.[63] Conversion to Islam, and the Albigensian Crusade (1209โ€“1229), greatly reduced the remaining number of Gnostics throughout the Middle Ages, though a few Mandaean communities still exist. Gnostic and pseudo-gnostic ideas became influential in some of the philosophies of various esoteric mystical movements of the 19th and 20th centuries in Europe and North America, including some that explicitly identify themselves as revivals or even continuations of earlier gnostic groups.

 

It mght be considered as "alt-Jewish" or "alt-Christianity". It is not considered as "canonical" except by various "esoteric (i.e. mystery) religion (Jewish and Christian offshoots)

 

Some include it as "historically interesting" but not part of mainsteam Judiasm or Christianity.

 

Is is the underlying "religious/philosophic roots" of Theosophy (Blavatsky), Thelma (Aleister Crowley). Freemasonry (Albert Pike" Ariosophy (Hitler "Ayran" basis) and other occult-based movements

 

See Wiki series sections on Hermeticism and Sprituality for a broader historical view showing their common roots and teachings.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeticism

 

"Be cafeful who you follow"

Anonymous ID: 83fea4 July 14, 2018, 5:59 p.m. No.2158263   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>0262

>>2157561

Not quite correct

 

Nikola Tesla was born an ethnic Serb in the village Smiljan, Lika county, in the Austrian Empire (present day Croatia), on 10 July [O.S. 28 June] 1856.[12][13] His father, Milutin Tesla (1819โ€“1879),[14] was an Eastern Orthodox priest.[15][16][17][18] Tesla's mother, ฤuka Tesla (nรฉe Mandiฤ‡; 1822โ€“1892), whose father was also an Orthodox priest,[19] had a talent for making home craft tools and mechanical appliances and the ability to memorize Serbian epic poems. ฤuka had never received a formal education. Tesla credited his eidetic memory and creative abilities to his mother's genetics and influence.[20][21] Tesla's progenitors were from western Serbia, near Montenegro.

โ€ฆโ€ฆโ€ฆโ€ฆ..

A move to the US

Edison Machine Works on Goerck Street, New York. Tesla found the change from cosmopolitan Europe to working at this shop, located amongst the tenements on Manhattan's lower east side, a "painful surprise".[40]

 

In 1884, Edison manager Charles Batchelor, who had been overseeing the Paris installation, was brought back to the US to manage the Edison Machine Works, a manufacturing division situated in New York City, and asked that Tesla be brought to the US as well.[41] In June 1884, Tesla emigrated to the United States.[42] He began working almost immediately at the Machine Works on Manhattan's Lower East Side, an overcrowded shop with a workforce of several hundred machinists, laborers, managing staff, and 20 "field engineers" struggling with the task of building the large electric utility in that city.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla

Anonymous ID: 83fea4 July 15, 2018, 4:45 p.m. No.2167531   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>7632

>>2167130

Could you show us the formula for that? I don't remember learning about "the folding knot of fractal dimensions" in advance math classes.

 

Maybe you confused with Gordian knot (disentangling an "impossible" knot); an oxymoron and self-contradiction

 

Maths typically don't use such "poetic language" since it is invariably imprecise and ambiguous. Or maybe that is the purpose?

Anonymous ID: 83fea4 July 16, 2018, 9:06 p.m. No.2183076   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>4023

>>2180792

For someone sophisticated to intelligently discuss a Hopf Hypersphere, the concept of an event horizon should be trivial. Have you "researched" the term with Google?

 

Once you have maybe you could find another colorful graphic to signify your comprehension of the sophisticated math which defines both?

 

If not, perhaps you might provide another "pretty picture". The concept of a "lens" to view a black hole that "captures" visible light beyond the event horizon seems counter intuitive and oxymoronic.

 

Thanks for playing

 

Obviously, big words =/= big understanding

Anonymous ID: 83fea4 July 17, 2018, 2:06 a.m. No.2185056   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>5714 >>5723 >>5786

>>2184862

You better re-take Geometry 101. Meters per second is not a measure of length. Your pictures are nonsensical.

 

What are you using for your units of energy?

Is that kinetic or potential energy, They aren't the same

 

How much "information" is in a lighting bolt (exited electrons) or a bonfire (heat energy/excited electrons).

 

Define your units of mass & the speed of light then do the simple multiplication and tell is what E is, and what are the units of measure.

 

Or,,, you can spin your wheels with a sixth grade understanding of "area"

 

The speed of light squared (i.e. "to the 2nd power") is not a square - it is a number with units of measure of meters or centimeters per second - Nothing to do with "area of a square"

 

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Anonymous ID: 83fea4 July 18, 2018, 4:34 p.m. No.2203985   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>4051 >>4157

>>2198207

I would be interested to see anywhere in the scientific literature (physics; e.g. quantum mechanics) refers to tangle in space/time and any reference to a "knot".

 

Looks like someone pushing a "new theory" by misstating known physics.

 

Can you give us a quick list of the things 'discovered at "the quantum level" ( hint: look for 12 "things") and tell us where the "knot" fits.

 

What does quantum "mechanics" say about "time"?

 

Please, expose your ignorance further.

Anonymous ID: 83fea4 July 18, 2018, 4:59 p.m. No.2204223   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>4288 >>4311

>>2203679

 

Definition of elusive

: tending to elude: such as

a : tending to evade grasp or pursuit

b : hard to comprehend or define

c : hard to isolate or identify

 

Matter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter

 

Matter is usually classified into three classical states, with plasma sometimes added as a fourth state. From top to bottom: quartz (solid), water (liquid), nitrogen dioxide (gas), and a plasma globe (plasma).

 

In the classical physics observed in everyday life, matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space by having volume.[1] All everyday objects that we can touch are ultimately composed of atoms, which are made up of interacting subatomic particles, and in everyday as well as scientific usage, "matter" generally includes atoms and anything made up of these, and any particles (or combination of particles) that act as if they have both rest mass and volume.

However it does NOT include massless particles such as photons, or other energy phenomena or waves such as light or sound.[1][2] Matter exists in various states (also known as phases). These include classical everyday phases such as solid, liquid, and gas - for example water exists as ice, liquid water, and gaseous steam - "but other states are possible, including plasma, Boseโ€“Einstein condensates, fermionic condensates, and quarkโ€“gluon plasma.[3]"

 

Poster note added:

"Classical everyday phases (solid liquid gas) but under special conditions/circumstances (i.e. NOT everyday)"

 

This makes the definition "elusive" because you have to identify the specific unusual conditions/circumstances where special rules states apply. This requires a much more complex description of the parameters of those special conditions

 

Hope that helps to clear up your confusion

Anonymous ID: 83fea4 July 18, 2018, 5:42 p.m. No.2204689   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>4790 >>4815 >>4849

>>2204051

The difficulty is in trying to visualize it in layman's terms.

 

Newtonian mechanics (Laws) don't apply at the subatomic level (smaller that electron/proton/neutron). At that level things cannot be observed in any direct fashion we can "see" visually. We have to model the expected/theorized behavior , then "look" for the evidence. It basically requires all math at this level since our 5 senses can't record or "see" them. However, we can measure their effects/consequences and compare those to what we expected.

 

Both Fermi Labs and CERN conduct those experiments but "proof " is that the they behave as we expected or reconcile when they don't.

 

I personally had 4 years of serious math, electrical engineering and physics (including 1 year of quantum mechanics.). That was absolute minimum to even begin to makes sense of (early; 1970ish) quantum mechanics. The have progress far beyond that level, so that my old quantum mechanics text books are obsolete relics, and VERY incomplete.

 

Not to talk done to you, but this field has most of its "proofs" in electromagnetic theory and exotic math. A very small percentage of people bothered to spend their time on this so can't even graph the basics, which are extensive mathematical proof. It is little like speaking a foreign language know only within that math/physics "tribe". Outsider don't "speak the language" and ergo can't get a clear understanding of those conversations.

 

Sadly, a lot of misunderstanding arises in attempting to "translate" into common everyday terms and concepts. The result is a lot of willd speculation based on misunderstanding of what is actually "known'

 

Under-informed people speculate on what the science "says: and come up with dozens of uninformed speculation, they try to pass off as "insider knowledge". Net result - lots of theories with phrases laced with buzz words (like quantum, time-space, frequency, fields, etc.

 

Those who learned the terms and science can spot them is one second but debate/conversation is pointless without minimal training in math & physics.

 

If you are really serious about understanding (and I only know a small fraction) you will have to invest a lot of time with some very complex math and serious physics (Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics, electro-magnetic field theory, etc.

 

Unfortunately, most will give up in exasperation, and become victim of the charlatans with their many "theories" based upon nothing but what they "believe" wrapped in New Age "religions" with believers and followers.

 

Like Q always said "Be careful who you follow".

 

I am not looking for, nor do I want, believers and followers.

 

But, I will occasionally attempt to expose the most flagrant "quantum prophets". It normally only takes a simple question or two and watch them implode trying to explain their "mumbo jumbo.

 

The same method Socrates used to expose the Sophists.

 

BTW - I wouldn't count on any time travel or extra dimensional travel in the near future, The Hindu religion has been promising that for about 4,000 years and their country & culture hasn't progress all that much, if you remove the British East India Company (which is primarily responsible for their "modernization). American hi-tech gave them another boost.

Anonymous ID: 83fea4 July 18, 2018, 6:22 p.m. No.2205117   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>5260

>>2204790

If geometry is your interest by all means pursue it.

 

However, think you will find that at the quantum level "geometry" isn't much help to comprehension.

 

However, the opposite is likely true. Pictures and geometry are helpful to visualize small portions or simple aspects. The limitation is our visual limitation to only be able to visualize 3D objects/ Primitive but useful.

 

The mind can see "pattern" that aren't visible.

 

For instance, consider a vacuum, then draw a geometric figure to represent it.

 

Another - 1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256

You can draw that but the visualization may not be help to predict the next number in the series unless you understand the "relationship" you can "see" but can't draw on paper. This kind of stuff is to be found in Metaphysics (i.e. a philosophy discipline, idea but not physical form) but not in Physics (physical form)

 

Spirituality belongs in Metaphysics not Physics, which can be explained and proved mathematically. Metaphysics relies on beliefs and idea, and no one has shown (yet) that they have a physical aspect.

 

Nonetheless, countless people proclaim you can easily turn one into another at will.

 

Question: Has anyone yet turned lead into gold (alchemy) or straw into gold (Rapunzel). Some would suggest (via force of one's will, concentration, positive energy, etc ) that it came be done, but no evidence exists

Anonymous ID: 83fea4 July 18, 2018, 6:39 p.m. No.2205345   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>5380

>>2204288

 

The partical wave "duality" has been resolved by quantum mechanics. Your information is sadly out of date.

Is Shroedinger's cat alive or dead.

 

Is Plaank's Constant still true.

 

Is the Bozeman Constant valid at -273 degrees Celsius?

 

Does Bohr find his shells at the beach

Anonymous ID: 83fea4 July 19, 2018, 11:29 p.m. No.2218391   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>8692

>>2218195

How is the pure information structured.

 

Which specific quantum fields do you mean. There are several and different properties.

 

Of are you just talking out your ass with some words thrown together to imitate understanding?

Anonymous ID: 83fea4 July 19, 2018, 11:40 p.m. No.2218462   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>9806 >>4428 >>4500 >>4927

>>2213547

Cute pictures from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation.

 

As you surely know they are useless without the math behind them.

 

A much better site which explains the math is https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/special-relativity/lorentz-transformation/v/introduction-to-the-lorentz-transformation

 

Come back and tell us what you think of their explanation (since I'm site you are familiar)

 

If I recall correctly they were covered in jr or sr year in Electrical Engineering. Probably was jr year since I took Quantum Mechanics in senior year.

 

We should compared notes - I presume you were BSEE or Physics major?

Anonymous ID: 83fea4 July 20, 2018, 4:53 p.m. No.2225623   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>5658 >>5701 >>5753

>>2220212

The few people here that actually understand the "big words" you use also notice how you misuse the to mislead.

 

Notice that those that are overpowered by your use of that "cut & paste" level of "understanding" sprinkle with pure BS can't respond and those who see through your charade don't bother.

 

The few responses you get are idiotic questions that make no sense

 

What is sad is that you are pathetic enough to need this kind of phukery for your self-esteem.

 

Information is "structured in binary" although all form of energy are waves (i.e. frequency/wavelength). Binary is discrete and has limited ability to represent analog waves.

 

See Fourier analysis vs Fourier synthesis, The limits are illustrated in the Nyquistโ€“Shannon sampling theorem. I have cut & pasted a section that highlights that limitation.

 

<snipfrom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem

 

Sampling is a process of converting a signal (for example, a function of continuous time and/or space) into a numeric sequence (a function of discrete time and/or space). Shannon's version of the theorem states:[2]

 

If a function x(t) contains no frequencies higher than B hertz, it is completely determined by giving its ordinates at a series of points spaced 1/(2B) seconds apart.

 

A sufficient sample-rate is therefore anything larger than 2B samples per second. Equivalently, for a given sample rate fs, perfect reconstruction is guaranteed possible for a bandlimit B < fs/2.

 

When the bandlimit is too high (or there is no bandlimit), the reconstruction exhibits imperfections known as aliasing.

<snip end>

 

Short summary - Conversion from binary to digital can be "adequate approximation" if the sampling rare is high enough (fi.e.faster).

 

But the converse is not true because "an adequate approximation" can not be reconstructed because, by definition ("i.e.adequate approximation) is not granular enough,

 

QED

Anonymous ID: 83fea4 July 20, 2018, 5:52 p.m. No.2226204   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>6317

>>2225701

You ask for insight and got it (Post 2225623 - trips)

 

Now you want to play the victim card?

 

According to you, I am "barely you equal", but in your previous post you "had no ego"

 

Why no intelligent response, It should be trivial for a genius like you.

 

Why the butt hurt? Just decimate my argument.

 

My approach to life in to expose fraudsters like you. I see why you would want me to "change my approach". You feel bullied

 

The nature and tone over you many, many posts shows everyone how you operate.

 

Bombard us with YOUR superior knowledge and insight.

 

When challenged, cry like a little butt-hurt biatch, and re-emphasize that you consider me "barely equal" to you.

 

Make your case and stop crying,

 

Grow some balls, counter my argument or GTFO.

 

We don't need anymore one-side lectures from your over-inflated ego; a bully who cries if he gets hit.

 

QED

Anonymous ID: 83fea4 July 20, 2018, 8:13 p.m. No.2227432   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>2227256

This is what happens when you put your physics book into a shredder and then grab the shreds to compose a sentence.

 

Not gonna waste time countering

 

Simple Google kinetic energy and potential energy and you will see how incoherent that "statement" is

Anonymous ID: 83fea4 July 24, 2018, 7:47 p.m. No.2273188   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>2272502

I understand far better that you can imagine.

 

I would find you credible if you could coherently answer a few simple questions. That would thll me exactly how well you know the subject.

 

1) What is the geometry on a mathematical "point-in-space"?

 

2) What is formula for the square root of negative number ?( you could provide a properly labelled graph if you prefer)

 

3 What is the natural geometry of one gallon of water in open, unbounded, free space?

 

Thanks in advance for your prompt answer

Anonymous ID: 83fea4 July 24, 2018, 8:01 p.m. No.2273372   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>3542

>>2273201

Try saying that in mathematical terms, not in the language of a Voodoo High Priest.

 

Flowery nonsensical prose isn't math or geometry (a sub-field of mathematics)

 

Waiting for a sane answer to a simple question that someone with your advance knowledge should have no trouble answering.

 

Unless you are just bullshitting everyone.

Anonymous ID: 83fea4 July 24, 2018, 8:43 p.m. No.2273991   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>7335 >>7467

>>2273713

Sadly your theory is based upon a very incomplete and erroneous understanding of the basics of math and elementary physics.

 

I took several years of advanced mathematics and advanced physics (including 1 year of quantum mechanics).

 

Have in a theory is noble, but is is based upon bogus presumptions and erroneous understanding of known elementary math and physics will not magically lead you to any answer.

 

as One example, you make declarative statements about "mass" which are just a jumble of meaningless word strung together.. They do not represent the well know definition of mass. That error leads to additional errors when you try to build a theory on top of an error.

 

You cut and paste pretty pictures that don't show anything except artistry and natural phenomenon.

 

You should start with more basic math and physics and work your way up.

 

That is how Einstein, Tesla and others did. it. They didn't pull their theories out of nowhere. They began with basic true math and physics and expanded from there. You cna't "wish" your way of "theorize your way" unless tha foundations are accurate and true.

 

Yours aren't

 

You need to learn the basics fisrt of you are doomed to failure.

 

It is a little like thinking you can fly and jump off a building. No amount of theory or imagination is going to allow you to fly,

 

Do want you want - just providing some direction so you don't waste a lot of your time on a dead end you can't see.

 

BTW I notice you started earlier iin this thread with Flat Earth but bailed out on that lunacy.

 

No one comments since the kowledgeable people ignore your silliness and the others have no ideas what you are saying.

 

Last thought

 

Lose the tern "Sacred Geometry" since it sounds like just another nookie religious cult.

 

saยทcred

connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose

and so deserving "veneration".

"sacred rites"

synonyms: holy, hallowed, blessed, consecrated, sanctified, venerated, revered;

"the priest entered the sacred place"

religious rather than secular.

"sacred music"

synonyms: religious, spiritual, devotional, church, ecclesiastical

"sacred music"

(of writing or text) embodying the laws or doctrines of a religion.

"a sacred Hindu text"

Anonymous ID: 83fea4 July 24, 2018, 8:58 p.m. No.2274152   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>4158

>>2273713

This is the baic model of "quantum mechanics"

 

"Sub-atomic" particles (smaller particles that make up "atomic" particles of protons.electrons and neutrons)

 

You have to understand atomic particles before you can begin to understand the scientifically "unusual & unexplained properties" here

 

I have personally known people with (2) PhDs in physics ( different "specialties" within physics) That are puzzled with what they discovered here 30-40 years ago that are still a mystery and not fully understood

 

They worked at Fermi Labs in Illinois until a more advanced facility was built at CERN in Switzerland. ( I was a consultant at Fermi, but not in Physics research)

 

(Bill Clinton didn't want to spend the money to build it is Texas where is was planned to be. The still do continuing research at Fermi but leading edge is CERN

Anonymous ID: 83fea4 July 26, 2018, 8:37 p.m. No.2305573   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>2290463

So you can see a quantum wave.

 

When you look at or draw a magnet cna you see the magnetic field.

 

Can you see electricity (60 hz frequency) or just the effects of electricity. What is the frequency range of the normal human eye?

 

Can you see ultraviolet or infrared light?

 

What do you see inside your micropwave oven while heating something?

 

You see the microwaves?

 

What do they look like in 3D or 4D.

 

Does laser light look like a line? (It is actually a light wave)

 

My statements are intended to draw some logical thinking pout of you but you respond with nonsensical phrases that throw in some scientific sounding words.

 

The laser question was to show you your theory makes no sense. It appears to be a line.

 

How about a sound wave? Can you see those too?

Anonymous ID: 83fea4 July 27, 2018, 12:23 a.m. No.2307781   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>2307681

You are all alone here talking to yourself.

 

No one is listening, and I have given up on trying to help you.

 

Note how many people comment on your posts, and take that as an indication of how much they value your posts.

 

Turn off the lights on your way out

Anonymous ID: 83fea4 Aug. 2, 2018, 5:36 p.m. No.2420520   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>6895

>>2409603

In the last 2000 years, where are the groups that believe that particular brand of religion?

 

I see them on websites, but never hear of any practicing groups.

 

Is it is so powerful, it should displace all other religious teaching/

 

How do you explain this "hidden truth" never flourished among the people of that time.

 

The pagan Romans didn't t care about local religious practices, but what about the common people?

 

I guess the Essene didn't "push" their religion and it never went "viral"

 

Instead, dumped in an obscure cave - where were the followers?