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.

 

"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 23
39
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 




Thank you dissecting my post. I made a crucial error when replying. It was not meant towards you as it was intended for another. I appreciate your words and understand them, as you would have when reading them, as if directed at you. There is a lot of truth out there. I am glad that we have a community like this to open up freely with our ideas and thoughts. To discuss them and be given the opportunity for growth. I am no one to judge another, however I am able to come away from every situation as a learning tool. There is much to know and so little time to gain this knowledge. I again applaud those that broke away from the norm and brought us many new and exciting ideas and inventions. Just as we all bring something to this existence. I meant no harm.




posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by squandered
If you drill down into me to find the indivisible 'grain' (say total energy) you'll find the same grain that grain that existed during the big bang - which has never moved.


So that bang still rings in your ears, I get it.


The weirdness about quantum theory is the human.


Since you don't know quantum mechanics, why do you presume to talk about it?



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Sorry dude, but I have a good education, you might have heard about this brilliant concept

Ooooops, buddhasystem said the 'e' word. Now we're in trouble...


edit on 17-2-2011 by Bobathon because: ...



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by squandered
Quantum healing is pet favourite of mine.


Yes, but have you heard about transcendental chakra theory?
For starters, look at that diagram.



When you start adding sacred geometry to the numbers, according to quantum principles and vibratory perception at subliminal levels, you'll start seeing how things relate to each other (you can easily look it up on the web). Then, with time, based on this geometry, you should be able to identify space-time vortices in real life. In everyday language, people call it "I have that feeling that somebody's looking at me". In fact, nobody's looking but you are in the vicinity of a vortex and thus connected to other sapient beings (in a tenuous way, of course) -- that's what gives you the sense of somebody's presence. There are just so many weird experiences which people call "paranormal" whereas they are not, it's either a stationary or transient vortex. Look, if you read most insurance policies in fine print, you'll find that "mysterious disappearances are not covered" (no I'm not kidding). Insurance being a serious business, they have to admit they can't explain stuff but they are not willing to underwrite. I mean people claim they see ghosts, but there are no ghosts, this is laughable, there are vortices created by chakras that give a person an appearance of the ghost or can cause Poltergeist.

The vortices are where inherent frequencies of nature reside, and emanate from, giving energy to surrounding space. But there are a few different kinds. Ancients called them "places of power", each place corresponding to a specific chakra. Ancient Greek discovered one on Mount Olympus (no there is no Zeus there, just a vortex). With due meditation effort, once you find such a place, you should be able to look deeply inside the atom, or vice versa, exercise remote viewing of Venus, for example. I don't promise you that's easy, coz it's not.

Examples abound. In astronomy, there are a few different classes of stars. Conventional science has problems explaining the detail of their genesis and connection. With quantum chakra theory, it is clear that each star has a specific chakra associated with it, which explains different spectral characteristics and different degree of space warp around each star. It's all about finding resonance with surrounding space. And then, it scales down to quarks in a fractal manner. Observe "colors" of chakras! These map onto what scientist routinely call "color field" in SU(3) theory. If you don't believe me, look at that page. You'll see that SU(3) is used in QCD. Hence the gluon exchange the scientists talk about is simply morphing chakras, which explains the strong interaction.

You can learn a lot with an open mind.


edit on 17-2-2011 by buddhasystem because: typo


I'm pleasantly surprised. You put my understanding of the science into some context. I was headed that way. It is frightening to release yourself into an unknown resonance. Next time I try to mediate myself into a particle of which the universe is made, and try to expand my consciousness, I'll know that energy is organised in complex ways.

The overhanging problem for me is that I can probably realise the essence of energy, how it manifests and how it can be controlled, but by the same circumstance (and shared stream of consciousness) so can others and we can do it because the situation allows us. If my dreams are right, get used to weird solar activity as well as massive leaps in scientific knowledge, as 'needs must'.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by squandered
I'm pleasantly surprised. You put my understanding of the science into some context. I was headed that way.


Glad to hear that!


It is frightening to release yourself into an unknown resonance.


Then don't. Chakras are not something to be messed with, you can easily get hurt.


Next time I try to mediate myself into a particle of which the universe is made, and try to expand my consciousness, I'll know that energy is organised in complex ways.


Don't go into mediation with preconceived notions. Just realize that there are a multitude of chakras and you belong to all of them, i.e. you don't reside in any one given point at a given time. Then, let the energy flow between the chakras.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


"Don't go into mediation with preconceived notions. Just realize that there are a multitude of chakras and you belong to all of them, i.e. you don't reside in any one given point at a given time. Then, let the energy flow between the chakras."

You always do have preconceived notions. I'm talking about letting all else fall. I'm not talking about interacting with your thoughts, but to see them for what they are - just to recognise and let them vanish on their own.

My energy will be as compromised as now if I am driving for a conclusion. That's not meditation.

I stand corrected.

Meditation is where you find the truth, as it stands... conscious awareness
Contemplation is where you collapse the "isness" into your own purpose

There are different concepts of mediation. I keep it as simple as possible, BUT I find it works very well to stop and mediate any time I learn something interesting. Mindfulness is key. You gain better answers when you ask questions and don't interrupt the process of finding answers. Otherwise why ask?

[edit] "Just realize that there are a multitude of chakras and you belong to all of them, i.e. you don't reside in any one given point at a given time. Then, let the energy flow between the chakras."

That's deep. This is an example of something I can investigate through meditation - you already understand the process of realisation.
edit on 17-2-2011 by squandered because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 


It's obvious the author is just fudging equations to get what he wants. If you read the page it begins with the "proof" that e=mc^2, which is why I mentioned it, then goes on from there. If you obviously cannot see how horrible the mathematical arguments are education failed you.

Hey everyone, check out this marvelous crank site: www.spaceandmotion.com....



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 04:46 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 


The only failed aspect of this thread is your weak barrage at critiquing. Horrible really? You come armed with a slew of adjectives, and yet you choose horrible? Must be cranky this morning. It appears as though all your continuing education entails is digging yourself a hole.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 


Lol, without showing how the formulas connect you can literally show anything you wish. Hell, if you're really disingenuous you can even "prove" 1=2. Would you call that a revolutionary theory too?

You're right though. It's not horrible. It's insane dribble. The jokes on me because I actually looked through the page hoping to find something new. Maybe I should just do as the others do and ignore the idiotic math that keeps getting posted and not even bother commenting on it.
edit on 18-2-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 


Or just leave altogether, and provide your ignorance elsewhere. Your presence turns this into a playground debate anyhow, and I'm not big on frolicking in the sand... That's unless you have a private beach and hot girlfriends. Until then...



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 


No, I will not. For someone who hates trolling you sure do a good job at it. Way to keep the higher moral ground. Now show me math which is not just--insane--and that explains why he's what he's doing or you go away. Merely equating equations that have the same dimensions is not scientific.
edit on 18-2-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 


You're the antithesis of scientific. Now compare our post counts on this thread alone. It doesn't matter how redundant you are... You're still spouting off trash talk.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 
All your posts seem to be directed towards complaining about other people on the thread. Why not talk about the topic instead? I'd like that.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 


Oh really? The only ones who I've trashed is Rodin and other charlatans, and this idiotic VBM. If you can't give me a link about how this "scientific theory" relates to anything at all, continue making this thread personal. I've constantly been asking for that but neither beebs could provide nor can you. Who's resorting the trash talk now, eh? Consider me a bored individual with no life.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bobathon
reply to post by Americanist
 
All your posts seem to be directed towards complaining about other people on the thread. Why not talk about the topic instead? I'd like that.


Perceptions can be misleading as in your case.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 05:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 





posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by Americanist
 


Oh really? The only ones who I've trashed is Rodin and other charlatans, and this idiotic VBM. If you can't give me a link about how this "scientific theory" relates to anything at all, continue making this thread personal. I've constantly been asking for that but neither beebs could provide nor can you. Who's resorting the trash talk now, eh? Consider me a bored individual with no life.


I just did a fine job of summing up you and your crew...

www.abovetopsecret.com...


This relates from intervals of light and music to the actual surface structure of our table of elements. At least this is not a MAC truck where if you don't see it, you run the risk of getting smacked dead on the street. This is a considerably more subtle framework, and if you don't comprehend it... Doesn't really matter in the end.
edit on 18-2-2011 by Americanist because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 


So you keep saying how it relates to these things. How so? Can you make any predictions with this? Or is this basically a non-falsifiable hypothesis? I hear all these great things about how it relates to numbers and colors of the structure of atoms. But can you actually show the relationship? Or can only sophisticated and classy posters like yourself understand because you have an unorthodox view of reality?



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Bobathon
 


Granted, this is a character that can walk into your trap and still come out clean...



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by Americanist
 


So you keep saying how it relates to these things. How so? Can you make any predictions with this? Or is this basically a non-falsifiable hypothesis? I hear all these great things about how it relates to numbers and colors of the structure of atoms. But can you actually show the relationship? Or can only sophisticated and classy posters like yourself understand because you have an unorthodox view of reality?


In order to relate to you we'll have to get this straight... Energy as "ether' is woven into matter. When you're willing to entertain this thought, there's enough instruction within our thread to see the machinery behind it.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join