It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Universe is made of Circles, not Strings.

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aeshma
a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

Until you remember the circle you can comprehend..... its 5 toroids..... until you realize this, you know nothing. Nothing you know applies. The codex is the toroid....








posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: micpsi

Or you could just get some sand, a metal plate and a string..

But you are probably right, its better to go in blind faith, or what do you think?




posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 11:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: ROBOTNINJADRAGON
This would be Zero Dimensions(1 Circle) A point:

A circle must have a plane, which is defined in 2 dimensions, to exist.
Unless the 'circle' is seen side on, then it would be a 'line', monodimensional, and not a circle.
Otherwise any 'line' is also a circle (or any 2D structure; square, oval, triangle...) and any 'point' is also a 'line' (seen end on).

Actually, the Universe is Consciousness!
Undifferentiated potential!
The Mindstuff that is, ultimately, of which all consists!



edit on 16-1-2017 by namelesss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: namelesss

The analogy is to the dimension of the point, not the circle.

A single circle creates a single point in the center.

The purpose is the circle shows us the simplest object in each respective dimension.

With a single circle, you get a dimensionless point in the middle if you follow the pattern of removing a circle to find the dimensions. With 1 circle, you remove 1 circle, and gain the simplest 0 dimensional object. If you follow this logic through each example, it holds true. The Line is the simplest 1D object, and 2 circles connecting at a single point will always give you a perfect line between their radius. 3 intersecting Circles will always provide space for the simplest 2D shape, the Triangle. etc, and while this may not be as interesting in the lower dimensions, it continues to hold true to the higher ones.
edit on 16-1-2017 by ROBOTNINJADRAGON because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

You can step into a sphere on a plane, or further yet the toroid. Once again, if sliced horizontally and viewed in 2 d is a circle with a dot in the center, sliced vertically 2 spheres intersecting a single point, or a sphere on a plane in motion, however at the same time it's own reflection on the opposite dimension.



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 04:48 AM
link   
Impress me with something 1000's of yrs old not a couple centuries per carvings.

Strings or circles, it's a mystery.






posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

The pattern is so simple, I'm convinced it was the pattern that was used by ancient people to create some of these models themselves of higher geometric dimensions. I think it's the origin of higher dimensional geometric thinking.

Basically
1 circle gives you the simplest 0 dimensional object(point)
2 circles gives you the simplest 1 dimensional object(line)
3 circles gives you the simplest 2 dimensional object(triangle)
4 circles gives you the simplest 3 dimensional object(pyramid)
5 circles gives you the simplest 4 dimensional object(simplex)
6 circles gives you the simplest 5 dimensional object(5-simplex)
(continues etc.)

It's hard to believe this pattern has been unrecognized forever, and I wouldn't be surprised if the way these shapes were discovered was first from someone trying every combination of intersecting circles.
edit on 17-1-2017 by ROBOTNINJADRAGON because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Personally, I think the universe is made of cones -- vortices, actually. Like an ice cream cone -- pointy on the "bottom" and rounded on the "top." That's the invisible structure that becomes obvious when you hold magnets against each other. Point similar poles toward each other, and they'll roll off. Hold opposite poles against each other, and they'll slide into each other.

Same thing happens with all matter to a lesser or greater extent, as aspects of it extend "sideways" into other dimensions.


I believe it's similar to what happens with a black hole, except that the "ice cream" part of it is higher density particles jamming up at what is essentially an event horizon to create the illusion of solidity.
edit on 17-1-2017 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift

A cone can be drawn into the center of a toroid, equally it can travel to the other side emerging as a mirror image of its former self.



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift

a reply to: Aeshma

Well, the simplest 2D polynomial is a Triangle, so that must be involved in any higher dimensional. Equilateral Triangles and the Circle can infinitely represent each other, that's part of how I came to this OP.

That dynamic itself could be represented by the Universe being made of Cones.

So true or not, it can at least be added to the list of Triangles, Circles, Cones and 'Strings' as possibilities.
edit on 17-1-2017 by ROBOTNINJADRAGON because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 02:38 AM
link   
Very close, but in actuality I am not made up of full circles. I am approximately made up of a sequence of quarter-circles in a particular ratio.


edit on 18-1-2017 by More1ThanAny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 03:56 AM
link   
a reply to: More1ThanAny1


Even the microscopic realm is not immune to Fibonacci. The DNA molecule measures 34 angstroms long by 21 angstroms wide for each full cycle of its double helix spiral. These numbers, 34 and 21, are numbers in the Fibonacci series, and their ratio 1.6190476 closely approximates Phi, 1.6180339.


io9.gizmodo.com...

Approximately


Why does the ladder only twist right though?



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: More1ThanAny1

In other words the path an object will travel over time in a vortex towards the center of space. Emerging the otherside in a mirror inage of one self.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aeshma
a reply to: More1ThanAny1

In other words the path an object will travel over time in a vortex towards the center of space. Emerging the otherside in a mirror inage of one self.

Makes me think about the tornado in "The Wizard of Oz". The new series, "Emerald City", so far has being doing a good job of showing how a parallel world can be the same yet so very different.

If we did have the ability to cross dimensions, I am sure we would be very surprised at what we would find.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 12:55 PM
link   

LIBER LVIII PART I
THE UNIVERSE AS IT IS SECTION I
0. The Negative—the Infinite—the Circle, or the Point.
1. The Unity—the Positive—the Finite—the Line, derived from 0 by extension. The divine
Being.
2. The Dyad—the Superficies, derived from 1 by reflection 1 , or by revolution of the line
about its end. The Demiurge. The divine Will.
3. The Triad, the Solid, derived from 1 and 2 by addition. Matter. The divine Intelligence.
4. The Quarternary, the solid existing in Time, matter as we know it. Derived from 2 by
multiplication. The divine Repose.
5. The Quinary, Force or Motion. The interplay of the divine Will with matter. Derived from
2 and 3 by addition.
6. The Senary, Mind. Derived from 2 and 3 by multiplication.
7. The Septenary, Desire. Derived from 3 and 4 by addition. (There is however a secondary
attribution of 7, making it the holiest and most perfect of the numbers.)
8. The Ogdoad, Intellect (also Change in Stability). Derived from 2 and 3 by multiplication,
8 = 23.
9. The Ennead, Stability in Change. Derived from 2 and 3 by multiplication, 9 = 32.
10. The Decad, the divine End. Represents the 1 returning to the 0. Derived from 1 + 2 + 3 + 4.
11. The Hendecad, the accursed shells, that only exist without the divine Tree. 1 + 1 = 2, in its
evil sense of not being 1.
SECTION II
0. The Cosmic Egg.
1. The Self of Deity, beyond Fatherhood and Motherhood.
2. The Father.
3. The Mother.
4. The Father made flesh—authoritative and paternal.
5. The Mother made flesh—fierce and active.
6. The Son—partaking of all these natures.
7. The Mother degraded to mere animal emotion.
8. The Father degraded to mere animal reason.
9. The Son degraded to mere animal life.
10. The Daughter, fallen and touching with her hands the shells.
It will be noticed that this order represents creation as progressive degeneration—which we are compelled to think of as evil. In the human organism the same arrangement will be noticed.


Aleister Crowley - An Essay On Number



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 12:12 AM
link   
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

I can imagine it, i just dont know what it means. What is the opposite of our current reality. I mean space and the things that occupy it exist, it is observed as measured in time. Are photons interdimensional travelers existing in many places at once behaving so differently when alone and observed. Is the very meaning of life in the universe to observe... so that all of this may exist.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 12:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: ROBOTNINJADRAGON
a reply to: namelesss

The analogy is to the dimension of the point, not the circle.

A single circle creates a single point in the center.

Actually, is that imaginary point, necessary in the construction of the circle? The set of all points, on a single plane, equidistant from a single point, hereafter known as the 'center'.


The purpose is the circle shows us the simplest object in each respective dimension.

Is it just arbitrary that you are requiring a 2D object to define a 0D object?
In the 0D world, there are no 'circles'.
Actually, there are no 'circles' in a 3D world, the 3D representation is the sphere...

I'm thinking that all these 'circles' are a (violation of Occam) means of attempting to 'validate' (an unexplored assumption) the 'actual' existence of multidimensional space, that is not 'imaginary'.
First, imagine a 'circle'...


...3 intersecting Circles will always provide space for the simplest 2D shape, the Triangle. etc,

One can fit all sorts of 2D figures within the single circle.
One can fit infinite circles in any 2D figure.
That would mean that every point within that 2D figure would be the center point (of something!)...

Imagine...

I still do not get your arbitrary (as I continue to see it, anyway) extraneous variable of the 'circle'.
If a simple 2D object can be so used, I'd imagine that a simple(!) 16D object can be used.
But the first 'space' that you wish to define, 0D, requires a 2D space object, not 'yet' in existence until the 0D and 1D space can first be defined.
Again, unexamined assumptions lead to all sorts of ... 'creative' thinking! *__-
The unexamined assumption (as I see it) is the assumption of the actual existence (non-imaginary) of any-D space...
'Circles' and 'points' are certainly imaginary...



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 03:23 AM
link   
For any one that cares.. that what emerges on the other side may be an ant.. it entered a flower...



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: namelesss

You're missing that the circle is not the object. It's the framework the object fits into. Because all simplest shapes are made of the simplest polytopes in higher dimensions, all of these objects are actually made by Triangles, because to make the simplest (any)dimension shape, you use the simplest 2D shape as the base. They all 'perfectly' fit into circles though with each depiction that has an extra circle verses the dimension it's representing.(In 2D)

None of these objects are made of circles. They all fit perfectly into circles, depending on what dimension they are in, and there is a specific pattern to the way they 'fit' that's the connection. I'm not arbitrarily drawing these objects inside of circles. I'm connecting the radii and vertices.

The point of a single circle is equidistant from the edge of all sides. No other place in the circle has this quality, and without a frame, a point is mathematically meaningless. The radius of a circle is infinitely the center. A much more profound point.

Yes, you can fit many objects into 3 circles. You only get a Triangle when connecting the Vertices or Radii however. You also cover the maximum possible surface area for a single simple solid shape.

Short of what you may find to 'be a pattern/not be a pattern' in lower dimensions, this pattern in every dimension above 2 is significant in the way objects fit into them. They aren't just drawn in.

The simplest 4D object has 5 outer points. The simplest 5D object has 6 outer points.(In 2D) It's not a huge leap of faith seeing the outer edge points of dimensions simplest objects consistently increasing by 1, then also to note that you can perfectly match these points to an increasing number of circles per dimension.

The only reason circles are more interesting than these outer points increasing by 1 consistently, is the lines between them perfectly cross vertices and radii inside the circles.
edit on 28-1-2017 by ROBOTNINJADRAGON because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join