It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# Sacred Geometry in 3D

page: 1
15
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 12:25 PM
The following is a look into how the universe may have constructed itself spatially starting from the simplest possible beginning, a 0 dimensional point.

When I started this project, I wasn't expecting to find so many connections with ancient geometry. They just sort of fell into place. Hence the name of the thread title.

I used one simple rule as I was conceptualizing this: Creation by Association. In order to create something new, it must be created using previously existing knowledge.

So just how does the only thing in existence create everything else starting only with itself? For the answers, I looked toward mathematics and geometry.

It all starts with one. A single point. The only possible thing it can do with itself at this point is to split into two. So it does that and in so doing creates the first dimension which we can imagine as a straight line.

Since we have the knowledge for 2 now, we'll create a second dimension. Instead of a straight line, the points must connect to each other via a curve perpendicular to the first dimension. Since the points are mirror images of each other, in order to connect properly the connection is a circle twisted 180 degrees. North/South, positive/negative duality. Since it's only two dimensions it would be a figure 8 for now.

Two new points shoot out to fill the 2nd dimension, but they aren't fully connected to the existing points. In order to do this a 3rd dimension is created, which is perpendicular to both the 1st and the 2nd.

But it's still incomplete. Not all points are connected to each other on all 3 dimensions. So the 4 new points forge connections like the two original points.

When I tilted my perspective view and saw this flower design, I got a rush of excitement. If you've studied sacred geometry at all, you'll recognize this right away. "Could it be?" I wondered. I knew I was on to something at this point. And so I continued to duplicate this model in 3 dimensions, which from here on I will simply refer to as "spheres". But first I'd like to show you something else which I found quite fascinating.

This simple model by itself gives us the blueprint for the octahedron, the cube, and many other polys.

The 6 points form an octahedron, and the additional intersections form a cube.

If you create a circle connecting the points of the octahedron and another circle connecting the points of the cube, the circle of the cube is slightly smaller. This difference is the exact same as what you get from the vesica pisces. See the following picture (note: the cube is rotated for the sake of this example).

Next, if you connect all 14 outer points as one shape, you get a rhombic dodecahedron. This shows up a LOT in the geometry. It's extra special too, because it's a perfect space filling polyhedron. In other words, you can clump a bunch of them together without having any space left in between. Honeybees use this geometry as well.

The dual of the rhombi is the cuboctahedron, aka vector equilibrium. The cuboctahedron is formed where the vectors of the cube and octahedron intersect.

From the cube we get a star tetrahedron, and from that we get an inverted star tetrahedron, which itself forms a smaller octahedron half the size of the first one.

We now have our first potential fractal, along with Metatron's cube... although it's just as much an octahedron as a cube. The inner cube isn't actually a cube at all, it's the octahedral part of the inverted star tetrahedron.

I could go on, but instead I'm going to move on to expanding the model by the fibonacci sequence in 3D.

The reason I'm using the fibonacci is because it's the simplest associative sequence. 1 1 2 3 5 8, etc. That's just one dimension though. In 3D, things grow a bit faster.

The fibonacci sequence approximates Phi, or the golden ratio. This is a ratio of equilibrium. But since it's also an infinite number, that means perfect equilibrium can only be approximated - which is good for us because that means we don't have to worry about the universe ending any time soon. If the universe were to reach equilibrium, it would stop. And if it could, it would have done so already.

I'm going to expand the model inward rather than outward. You can't create something from nothing, so the only thing that exists must split.

The first step is easy. We divide the first two fibonacci numbers, 1/2. 6 spheres fill the larger sphere and connect in an octahedral formation. Those familiar with sacred geometry will recognize this as the Seed of Life.

Next we shrink the spheres by 2/3. This gives us room for 13 more. 19 spheres now fill the boundary creating another familiar design, the Flower of Life.

These 19 spheres are in an octahedral formation as you can see in the following graphic.

Wasn't a picture of the Flower of Life found in Egypt near the pyramids?

An interesting little tidbit: The Seed of Life connects in 19 places octahedrally, or 27 if you count the cube connections as well. The Flower of Life can also be created with 27 spheres in a cube configuration.

The next sequence is 3/5 which connects the octahedral and cube geometries (Metatron's cube again), and it just keeps on going from there.

People are still trying to figure out why the universe is expanding faster rather than slowing down. Well perhaps the answer lies in this model. The outer boundary remains unchanged. The universe as a whole isn't really expanding at all. It's the smaller parts which shrink, duplicate, and then spread out to fill the space. We're shrinking along with them, which gives the impression that the universe is expanding. Also, the apparent expansion is exponential since it's a mathematical sequence. That's why it's speeding up instead of slowing down. Furthermore, while the universe may be getting closer to equilibrium, as I mentioned above, equilibrium is represented as an infinite number, therefore it will approximate equilibrium forever.

Another thing this model predicts is the star tetrahedral geometry of planets, although it's more of a cube/octahedron combo than a star tetrahedron. In fact the whole universe would appear to have this geometry, not just the planets. Self-similarity is a logical consequence of association. So a fractal universe is likely.

I have plenty more information, so depending on the response I get, I may or may not choose to share more. I realize not everyone cares about this stuff. For me however, it's turned into an obsession.

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 12:30 PM
A little off topic but the New Jerusalem depicted in the book of Revelation is not cubic. A cubic structure does not satisfy all the conditions set forth to define it. It is actually a tetrahedron. If you notice also that its qualities listed were all tetrahedron crystals of Jasper.

I have a post about it somewhere complete with AutoCAD drawings, I may have to dig that up.

Entire Post

[edit on 2-2-2009 by ben91069]

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 12:37 PM
reply to post by Kruel

Thank you for this information, which I find of interest lately, since I read a book called "The Genesis Prayer," and that I started a thread about. I'm not quite sure what to think of it all, but while in school, for some odd reason, geometry is something I always excelled at, without ever having to study.

I look forward to more of your posts.

Could be you do not know the answer to this, but when I was in my Kabbala phase back in the 70's I recalled reading that Presbytarian churches often have a roof line that lines up with the Kabbalistic tree. Any truth to this that you know?

[edit on 2-2-2009 by Enthralled Fan]

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 01:16 PM
Seriously impressive, most of it way over my head, but still very interesting. IMO geometry is an expression of energy, depending on it's resonance, therefore, the more it resonates, the more complex the shape becomes. I see examples of this all over the place, but the biggest possible example I could give would be the storm on Saturn's pole.

I'd bet my left nut that there is one on every planet and each pole (a geometric shape, not a hexagon) and we can only see it on saturn due to it's denser atmosphere, I read there was one on Jupiter aswell, although I don't have the source to back that up, it was from someone on here, but they always get the benefit of the doubt.

Either way, interesting theory and one that could open up many new doors, always made sense to me, everything from one.

EMM

p.s. matrix traveller has some interesting views on a similar thing to this, may not agree with him on everything, but he's an interesting guy.

"People are still trying to figure out why the universe is expanding faster rather than slowing down. Well perhaps the answer lies in this model. The outer boundary remains unchanged. The universe as a whole isn't really expanding at all. It's the smaller parts which shrink, duplicate, and then spread out to fill the space. We're shrinking along with them, which gives the impression that the universe is expanding. Also, the apparent expansion is exponential since it's a mathematical sequence. That's why it's speeding up instead of slowing down. Furthermore, while the universe may be getting closer to equilibrium, as I mentioned above, equilibrium is represented as an infinite number, therefore it will approximate equilibrium forever."

This is frickin beautiful btw.

[edit on 2-2-2009 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 01:21 PM
Hey

Hope this helps

gotta love fractals..

Wanna see a sacred mathmatcail equatoin? the gives you the reason why you have the pictures you show?

1+1=3

Great little read s+f

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 02:19 PM
Most of what I know about divine geometry comes from watching Nassim Haramien's lectures, but it was definitely interesting and a great introduction. I especially liked his presentation on the Jewish tree of life, and how when multiplied around it's axis, it creates a perfect tetrahedron, the "flower of life"

Pictures:
www.ka-gold-jewelry.com...

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 04:15 PM

Originally posted by Kruel

It all starts with one. A single point. The only possible thing it can do with itself at this point is to split into two. So it does that and in so doing creates the first dimension which we can imagine as a straight line.

I am thinking from my "2 sided" box here.....

For a "point" to be a "point" it must be observed from another "point".

Simple 3D and geometry. A point on a screen, a page, a star etc..as viewed by the viewer who isn't the "point".

So it can't start with "one" can it? Two or None perhaps?

Interesting stuff

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 07:45 PM

Originally posted by nerbot
I am thinking from my "2 sided" box here.....

For a "point" to be a "point" it must be observed from another "point".

Simple 3D and geometry. A point on a screen, a page, a star etc..as viewed by the viewer who isn't the "point".

So it can't start with "one" can it? Two or None perhaps?

Interesting stuff

Good "point" hehe.

I tend to think of the origin as more of a thought or feeling such as "I exist", rather than an actual physical object. The observer would be observing itself, just not in any way that could relate to our senses. If we were to disconnect from all our senses, we would still know that we exist. Imagine starting out like that.

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 07:58 PM

Originally posted by theresult
Hey

Hope this helps

gotta love fractals..

Wanna see a sacred mathmatcail equatoin? the gives you the reason why you have the pictures you show?

1+1=3

Is that because there's 1 enclosing the 2? (I'm thinking in circles)

I finally watched that Nassim vid other day... I like how he thinks outside the box. His geometry is also familiar to mine. He seems to be fascinated with tetrahedrons and the cuboctahedron, while I'm more partial to the rhombic dodeca since all other forms are contained within it. I'd be interested in comparing models with the guy... I'd bet there's a lot of similarities.

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 10:55 PM

Originally posted by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
I'd bet my left nut that there is one on every planet and each pole (a geometric shape, not a hexagon) and we can only see it on saturn due to it's denser atmosphere, I read there was one on Jupiter aswell, although I don't have the source to back that up, it was from someone on here, but they always get the benefit of the doubt.

You may be right. Those pictures of the hexagons at the poles on Saturn are very telling.

Though something I should mention about the hexagon... all these shapes form hexagonal geometry from the cube corner perspective: octahedron, cube, rhombic dodecahedron, cuboctahedron, icosahedron, dodecahedron, and more. Take a look:

So even if different planets exhibit different shapes, they may all still share the hexagonal geometry.

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 03:21 AM
Hey there really nice thread

I do have some problems, "not debunking"
just going to add my twist abit with regards to the shapes ect..

You said in a post befor that we are looking kinda at ourselfs and you are correct but there is a bigger picture to why we see the shapes in geomitry.

I hope you can understand what im about to try to explaine>

mathmatics is a mesurment of any given object to get a result "ha" or to theorise about any given "object" "2d or 3d"..

Selfreplication / symmerty / infinity

Now the reason we have such crazy words is becouse we are alive!

Yes i know we are alive but then one asks "why"... dont bother asking why or who becouse that will point you at = infinity

The universe is a alive and thats why we are..a selfreplication of the awareness of the universe.

Every alien is a selfreplication of the universe "manisestation" its not about shapes its all about understanding the loop.

we see loops for a reason ; ) called being alive... Keep seeing the loop = alive

No loops = dead

kinda simple
well for me it is! 20 years i think i did kinda well lol

1+1=3 and thats a fact

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 03:26 AM
reply to post by Kruel

The reason for 1+1=3 is you need to be here to use math...

the universe calcualted you to see the equation itself..

Think of math as a object Not a tool!! very big mistake.. dont aply math understand what infact math is as a value..

the universe calculated you into being = (x+y+)whatever=you=inifinty ect

thats why we get shapes ; ) and symmerty and infinity

we are the anomly or the "odd number" gives rise to "we can see" the other side of the equation = loops / geomitry /

dont need to be smart.. just aware

like the wings of a butterfly

:edited:

The only problem im having in my research is what infact the construct of the eqaution of life infact is!!!

and yes im trying to find the mathmatical eqaution of life itself.. sounds silly i know but im half way there... maybe in another 20 years i will see it

[edit on 3-2-2009 by theresult]

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 12:31 PM
Wish I could give this more than one star Kruel. THIS is why I love ATS! This is the kind of thread I come here day after day for. Thank you.

That expressions of sacred geometry are the 'path of least resistance' through which the development of 'form' had to travel is beyond fascinating. Evidently, this is precisely the reason why sacred geometry is so sacred - it represents the fingerprint of the 'architect' or divine creative force.

Originally posted by maus80
Most of what I know about divine geometry comes from watching Nassim Haramien's lectures

I was going to suggest Kruel contact Nassim Haramien. He may even be interested in this project.

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 12:37 PM

Originally posted by theresult
we see loops for a reason ; ) called being alive... Keep seeing the loop = alive

No loops = dead

1+1=3 and thats a fact

Yup!

"alive" is movement. Doesn't matter how you look at it, whether in 3 dimentions, spiritually, mathmatically or whatever, and we are smart enough to use knowledge for what's behind us and creative thinking for what's ahead. Without infinity there must be a fixed "point" as a maximum future or maximum past, but we can ALWAYS go further.

and I had to throw THIS one in here:

1+1 can also equal 4....from a graphical perspective....

a single line (1) and two crossed lines (+) and a single line (1) makes 4 lines.

...lol

Originally posted by Kruel
It all starts with one. A single point. The only possible thing it can do with itself at this point is to split into two. So it does that and in so doing creates the first dimension which we can imagine as a straight line.

What if...

point 1 and point 2 are on the "X" axis right...

Our viewpoint is also on the "X" axis like this:

viewpoint ----------- point1 ---------------- point2

Do we not still just see a single point?

Like I said it relies on US being in a different dimension to view it.
I understand what you said about existance rather than a purely physical perspective, but without perspective (eg: past, present, time, being etc) even our simplest thoughts would be incomprehendable....fuzz.

Maybe the answer to the big question is paradoxical and that there is no real such thing as a "singular" except from a second perspective.

I love stuff like this and making my brain work is always worthy of a star..
...cheers...nerb

[edit on 3/2/2009 by nerbot]

[edit on 3/2/2009 by nerbot]

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 02:14 PM
Check this out. David Wilcock's "Shift of the Ages" explains in scientific terms all the sacred geometry stuff, the Pyramids, etc:

Hyperdimensional Crystals in planets
divinecosmos.com...

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 09:08 PM
reply to post by Kruel

I think you are on to something here as recently I have been thinking the solar system,galaxies and the universe are contained within a pyramidal octahedral,and that all matter is being squashed to fit into this matrix .I don`t know why this may be,it could be the shape of gravity,although I don`t know if that is possible.Recently I peruased some info on net about developments on darkmatter and it occurred to me there also that dark matter could be visible gravity.In black holes this dark matter is escaping to somewhere else ,possibly a universe with a higher gravity than ours.Does this sound credable are we living in only one universe of many all contained in an invisible pyramidal octehedral,our universe existing in a flat plain in the centre of this octehedral forming the disc formation that is evident every where we look in space.It would then mean that the smallest atoms would be visiblably forced to conform to this structure.Interesting I noticed the helium atom conforms to this pattern,while other atoms seem to rebel and form different shapes but all with the same sort of symetries.May be the hadron collider will reveal these patterns and then we will have a better understanding .Until then,I enjoyed the info.

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 10:30 PM

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by Kruel

I think you are on to something here as recently I have been thinking the solar system,galaxies and the universe are contained within a pyramidal octahedral,and that all matter is being squashed to fit into this matrix .I don`t know why this may be,it could be the shape of gravity,although I don`t know if that is possible.Recently I peruased some info on net about developments on darkmatter and it occurred to me there also that dark matter could be visible gravity.In black holes this dark matter is escaping to somewhere else ,possibly a universe with a higher gravity than ours.Does this sound credable are we living in only one universe of many all contained in an invisible pyramidal octehedral,our universe existing in a flat plain in the centre of this octehedral forming the disc formation that is evident every where we look in space.It would then mean that the smallest atoms would be visiblably forced to conform to this structure.Interesting I noticed the helium atom conforms to this pattern,while other atoms seem to rebel and form different shapes but all with the same sort of symetries.May be the hadron collider will reveal these patterns and then we will have a better understanding .Until then,I enjoyed the info.

Something that appears in the model is that the microscopic and macroscopic conform to the simpler geometries while the more complex shapes form somewhere in the middle (perhaps where we exist). The octahedral/cube matrix does seem quite fundamental so if something isn't in that form, it will exist in a form that results from the combination.

Concerning black holes... Nassim put it quite nicely when he talked about how the light from our universe never keeps on going. It eventually curves back in on itself from all the gravity. Sounds a lot like a black hole. Also if you consider how much more gravity there is in a black hole that would mean that it contracts space. So what may appear to be a black hole with finite size from the outside would appear quite massive from the inside. It makes me wonder if we're inside a black hole and outside of it is another universe. It also doesn't require matter to be squished together into a point, as the space is what's being contracted.

As far as matter we can't see... there's also the possibility that it's a part of another set of dimensions. One of the things in my model which I noticed was the potential for 4 dimensional and 6 dimensional space to exist. While the waveforms are separate between dimensions and only connect in certain places (ie. they wouldn't be visible from most perspectives), gravity still interacts regardless and so you would see the effects of this.

I am wondering more and more if gravity is a vector and not a wave. That could explain why it hasn't been detected yet and how it could interact across dimensions. It contains no duality that we know of, unlike the electromagnetic spectrum which we know to be two dimensional. We can't see gravity, only it's effects.

I think much of the confusion arises over the apparent accelerating expansion of the universe which hasn't yet been reconciled with entropy in conventional models, and so they invented dark matter to help explain it... however, as I mentioned above, the universe as a whole isn't expanding at all. Contraction, duplication, equilibrium.

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 04:49 PM
Theoretical physicist Stephen Phillips has proved the equivalence of the Tree of Life, the Sri Yantra and the I Ching table of 64 hexagrams:
smphillips.8m.com...
Article 39 & Article 40 (Parts1-4)
He has discovered what the polyhedral Tree of Life is
smphillips.8m.com...
how it embodies the dynamics and structure of superstrings (Articles 22, 24, 44, 47 (Parts 1 & 2)) and how various sacred geometries embody the interval pattern between the notes of the seven types of octave species (Articles 26 & 39).

He has also discovered the Tree of Life basis of the human skeleton and the acupuncture points of the 14 human meridians (Articles 32 & 33).

Finally, he has demonstrated in a rigorous, mathematical way how the 64 codons of mRNA and the 64 anticodons of tRNA have their basis in the sacred geometries of various major religions, as well as having their counterpart in the pattern of intervals between the notes of the seven musical scales (Article 47, Parts 1 & 2).

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 10:54 PM
Very impressive. Reminds me of this thread about the flower of life.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
But its not as impressive since I was basically just regurgitating something I had read. Plus this is alot more detailed and not so much story telling. That entire shrinking universe theory you said is pretty incredible.
Blew my mind.

Keep up the good work. Very impressive.

[edit on 11-3-2009 by Wisen Heimer]

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 01:13 AM
I for one am fascinated by sacred geometry. So keep sharing. I am interested in your avatar as it clearly takes metatron's cube past the seven platonic solids.

Do you have any info on it?

top topics

15