Science Proves God = CHIRHO (RX) Means 'E=MC^2'

miniatus
This is no more proof of anything than seeing a cloud in the shape of a turtle proves that turtles can fly.

I've learned after many years on ATS that any thread with "proof" or "proves" in the thread title, usually doesn't prove anything.

Not saying it's not an interesting read..

edit on 10/5/2013 by miniatus because: (no reason given)

AMEN and a ^5, my brutha!!!!


-SN

reply to post by muzzleflash

So do you have any opinions on the OP or are you trying to say you don't understand what it's about?

If so I will explain in as simple a way as possible:

Try drawing MC^2 in the simplest symbolic fashion so that anyone could read it and understand it's mathematics. The ChiRho is clearly one of the best formats.

You clearly aren't familiar with the history of the phrase "Half Life 3 confirmed". It's relevant in that it's a direct reflection of this thread.

knowyourmeme.com...

Very interesting thread. And the ancients knew a great deal. Makes me wonder how much tech has been buried and in some factions hands and for how long and how much still is here that is not understood or even discovered by those searching.

miniatus
This is no more proof of anything than seeing a cloud in the shape of a turtle proves that turtles can fly.

I've learned after many years on ATS that any thread with "proof" or "proves" in the thread title, usually doesn't prove anything.

Not saying it's not an interesting read..

edit on 10/5/2013 by miniatus because: (no reason given)

Incorrect I proved it 100%.
I explained it in multiple formats.

No one has any logic based explanation why my symbolic mathematical interpretations are incorrect ?
Only insults and derision on my person rather than the SUBJECT ?

Essentially the ancients described God in exactly the same way Einstein described E.
Mathematically speaking.

And you misread my thread title, I will rewrite it so you can understand it better.

Science Proves "God=RX means E=mc^2"

Science being the scientific method, logic, etc.
Meaning I worked it out by hand from the bottom up.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

So do you have any opinions on the OP or are you trying to say you don't understand what it's about?

If so I will explain in as simple a way as possible:

Try drawing MC^2 in the simplest symbolic fashion so that anyone could read it and understand it's mathematics. The ChiRho is clearly one of the best formats.

You clearly aren't familiar with the history of the phrase "Half Life 3 confirmed". It's relevant in that it's a direct reflection of this thread.

knowyourmeme.com...

Please address the OP.

I dare you to disprove it with logic.
You cannot.

Insults are all ya'll got.
If I am wrong, explain.
Pretty simple.

reply to post by muzzleflash

No one has any logic based explanation why my symbolic mathematical interpretations are incorrect ?
Only insults and derision on my person rather than the SUBJECT ?

You went from this: E=MC^2

To this:



Using this:

X = Times = Squared ^2 = CHI/QI/KI/KEY = LINES SQUARED = Cross Bones

Light = Lines = Linear

GRAPH = GLYPH = SIGN = SYMBOL = LANGUAGE


Rho = P - R = Rowing = Row-mans (Roam) = Cycle = Turn = Rotate = Reaper/Sickle

Rho + Circle = ROTATING POINT OF MASS

----- CHI + RHO = Mass times Light^2
----- "CHIRHO = X Rotating = SQUARING THE CIRCLE "

Quote Einstein "Reading the MIND OF GOD"

Energy = Everything = GOD !
Ancient Religion = Modern Science !

And a couple of images whose functions really aren't explained at all. Actually, this whole argument you're presenting tastes a lot like a Gish Gallop.

The Gish Gallop, named after creationist Duane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time. The term was coined by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education. Sam Harris describes the technique as "starting 10 fires in 10 minutes."
The formal debating term for this is spreading.[1][2] It arose as a way to throw as much rubbish into five minutes as possible. In response, some debate judges now limit number of arguments as well as time. However, in places where debating judges aren't there to call bull# on the practice (like the Internet) such techniques are remarkably common.

In all honesty, you didn't even do it that well. Better head back to the drawing board and pull together a decent argument. I shouldn't have to explain it any further.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


So you aren't explaining how I am wrong?

You are just using a Straw man claiming I am like some other guy, without even explaining how in detail and using any examples specifically?

I explained exactly how this works.

c^2 = X = two lines crossed = Square

m = Rotating point

Disprove it.
Your insults and derision will not work here.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_of_David_theorem
en.wikipedia.org...

This actually isn't far from Walter Russel's Cosmic Clock

I am totally with the OP on this, just the E=MC^2 equation isn't perfect.

The unified theory is hidden in those symbols still!

AfterInfinity

In all honesty, you didn't even do it that well. Better head back to the drawing board and pull together a decent argument. I shouldn't have to explain it any further.

If you have the balls to argue from ignorance, you should have the honor of actually debating the points rather than just cowering in insults and personal attacks.

Please explain in detail how:
X doesn't symbolize a coordinate system?
Explain how Mass isn't a rotating point?

You have all the time you need to articulate it.

reply to post by muzzleflash


Every single post I read of yours leaves me scratching my head and wishing I'd look at authors before clicking links. I see that big battleship and know that there is going to be a bunch of incoherent babble accompanying frequent pictures on the way! Like a children's book for adults!

oh look at this, the Theorem used in a "grid" to solve a pyramid array??

demonstrations.wolfram.com/StarOfDavidTheorem/
demonstrations.wolfram.com...

The pyramid array is fibonacci as well!

mathforum.org/wagon/fall07/p1088.html
mathforum.org...

and more theory:

mathworld.wolfram.com/StarofDavidTheorem.html
mathworld.wolfram.com...

all wikipedia bibliography links btw

anon29
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

Every single post I read of yours leaves me scratching my head and wishing I'd look at authors before clicking links. I see that big battleship and know that there is going to be a bunch of incoherent babble accompanying frequent pictures on the way! Like a children's book for adults!

Awesome thanks for chiming in.

The more activity the sooner a real physicist will stumble upon this free information that hopefully will blow them away and lead them to making their own great discoveries.

It's just a matter of time before good things happen!
I will try to be patient but it can be taxing!

reply to post by AbleEndangered


You will probably really enjoy this video if you haven't seen it already:
"Revelations of the Pyramids"
Vimeo Link

It is on Youtube but I cannot find the full version that I watched a few times a year ago.

Anyways make sure to go through the whole thing, the big hitters come at the end of the film and it's extremely significant.

If you have already seen that before than oh well, maybe someone else will see the post and go check it out. It's a really good docu and worth the effort of watching.

Let me know what you think it's sweet.

reply to post by muzzleflash


I'm with you--good things are coming. Despite the doom and gloom spouted off from every orifice of the internet--good things are coming. Still though, I spent lots of time studying physics at university and have never been able to understand your musings, or even recognize the great importance this information must have to you.

I don't understand what you think you've found.

But hey, I'm no genius.

Do what you do bratha

anon29
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

I'm with you--good things are coming. Despite the doom and gloom spouted off from every orifice of the internet--good things are coming. Still though, I spent lots of time studying physics at university and have never been able to understand your musings, or even recognize the great importance this information must have to you.

I don't understand what you think you've found.

But hey, I'm no genius.

Do what you do bratha

Ok go back and start from square 1.


Replace C with "l" aka a Line symbol.
To "square this" , we make it a X symbolically.
*Thus creating coordinate system graph*.

Replace M with "P" or "R" .

Replace Alpha and Omega with " + " and " - ".

E = PX
or
E= P (l^2)

reply to post by muzzleflash


Hey, not bad! Definitively S&F.

reply to post by muzzleflash

Ok go back and start from square 1.


Replace C with "l" aka a Line symbol.
To "square this" , we make it a X symbolically.
*Thus creating coordinate system graph*.

Replace M with "P" or "R" .

Replace Alpha and Omega with " + " and " - ".

E = PX
or
E= P (l^2)

No offense, but this is completely incoherent to me.

Preach on!

AfterInfinity
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

No one has any logic based explanation why my symbolic mathematical interpretations are incorrect ?
Only insults and derision on my person rather than the SUBJECT ?

You went from this: E=MC^2

To this:

Using this:

X = Times = Squared ^2 = CHI/QI/KI/KEY = LINES SQUARED = Cross Bones

Light = Lines = Linear

GRAPH = GLYPH = SIGN = SYMBOL = LANGUAGE


Rho = P - R = Rowing = Row-mans (Roam) = Cycle = Turn = Rotate = Reaper/Sickle

Rho + Circle = ROTATING POINT OF MASS

----- CHI + RHO = Mass times Light^2
----- "CHIRHO = X Rotating = SQUARING THE CIRCLE "

Quote Einstein "Reading the MIND OF GOD"

Energy = Everything = GOD !
Ancient Religion = Modern Science !

And a couple of images whose functions really aren't explained at all. Actually, this whole argument you're presenting tastes a lot like a Gish Gallop.

The Gish Gallop, named after creationist Duane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time. The term was coined by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education. Sam Harris describes the technique as "starting 10 fires in 10 minutes."
The formal debating term for this is spreading.[1][2] It arose as a way to throw as much rubbish into five minutes as possible. In response, some debate judges now limit number of arguments as well as time. However, in places where debating judges aren't there to call bull# on the practice (like the Internet) such techniques are remarkably common.

In all honesty, you didn't even do it that well. Better head back to the drawing board and pull together a decent argument. I shouldn't have to explain it any further.

edit on 5-10-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

I wouldn't so much say that it's half truths and lies. This type of 'reasoning' isn't your standard reasoning. It may be extremely hard to follow because it seems to take leaps in the progression of linear reasoning which is the most popular form of deduction and "proofs" used in our empirical studies today, but this type of what I would refer to as abstract deduction actually sometimes can have some important information if you can dig through it or fill in the "blanks" with your intuitive mind, even if it's just a piece or two.

Just my two cents, because I have seen this before, on this website, through others in person, and my own using this technique, and there has been some interesting things that I have learned.

reply to post by 1Providence1


I would like to hear more about what it has helped you to understand.

Whoa I was looking through some quotes and look at this gem:

“Creativity is knowing how to hide your sources”
― Albert Einstein

Hmm, knowing how to HIDE your SOURCES ?

Well, he cannot hide it any more.