The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers

  • 580 Replies
  • 102386 Views
?

Theodolite

  • 878
  • NASA's Chief Surveyor
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #120 on: October 31, 2011, 01:25:04 PM »
You can edit your post, and quote more posts in it, so you dont bury your own wall of statements....



I don't see the reason why you want to use anything more complicated than this.
It's not complicated at all. You're just dismissing it without even trying to think about it. It's like with people who say maths is hard because they don't pay attention in class.

Fortunately, I never had teachers like you.


Using the simples laws of geometry (and why should it be different because we are dealing with flat surfaces), we know that any distance in square F12 = the ones in V5.

This is valid using any scale.
Of course, including a variable scale, such as that of the Mercator map or the FE map.


Can someone explain this guy that we don't need a variable scale?

FE = flat map = euclidean geometry
Incorrect.


Can someone prove of disprove that guy?

Just imagine you take a photo of FE, from space.

Then you draw a map directly from the photo.

There you have your FE map.

I'd just like to see what it looks like.
Gather round my gentle sheep, I have a wonderful spherical story for you

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12260
  • Now available in stereo
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #121 on: October 31, 2011, 01:36:24 PM »
So you don't believe the Earth is flat. You have been noted.
I'm not sure how you've reached this conclusion, but it would seem you have derived it from your rectum. It is, of course, incorrect.

Just imagine you take a photo of FE, from space.

Then you draw a map directly from the photo.

There you have your FE map.

I'd just like to see what it looks like.
Yes, that's what I've been showing you all along.

Can someone prove of disprove that guy?
lol ad hominem

Can someone explain this guy that we don't need a variable scale?
Who are you to dictate the principles of a theory you don't subscribe to?
Can someone explain this guy [sic] that we don't need gravitation for RE? Oh, wait, so people are floating? Shit, RE disproved.
That was easy.

You can edit your post, and quote more posts in it, so you dont bury your own wall of statements....
I don't think he'll listen. Watch out, though. He might tell you there was no science in your post.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2011, 01:42:50 PM by PizzaPlanet »
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #122 on: October 31, 2011, 01:46:24 PM »
You can edit your post, and quote more posts in it, so you dont bury your own wall of statements....



I don't see the reason why you want to use anything more complicated than this.
It's not complicated at all. You're just dismissing it without even trying to think about it. It's like with people who say maths is hard because they don't pay attention in class.

Fortunately, I never had teachers like you.


Using the simples laws of geometry (and why should it be different because we are dealing with flat surfaces), we know that any distance in square F12 = the ones in V5.

This is valid using any scale.
Of course, including a variable scale, such as that of the Mercator map or the FE map.


Can someone explain this guy that we don't need a variable scale?

FE = flat map = euclidean geometry
Incorrect.


Can someone prove of disprove that guy?

Just imagine you take a photo of FE, from space.

Then you draw a map directly from the photo.

There you have your FE map.

I'd just like to see what it looks like.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

?

momentia

  • 425
  • Light abhors a straight line.
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #123 on: October 31, 2011, 02:27:57 PM »
I worded my last post wrong. I meant:

If the south circle is the same as the north pole, then the circumference of the south pole = the circumference of the north pole = 0. So if you travel around a circle of radius R centered at the north pole, it will have a circumference C as a function of R. C initially increases as R increases , but since C is zero when R = radius of the earth, C has to start decreasing some point as R increases, until it is zero at the south circle.

Correct?

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12260
  • Now available in stereo
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #124 on: October 31, 2011, 02:31:11 PM »
I worded my last post wrong. I meant:

If the south circle is the same as the north pole, then the circumference of the south pole = the circumference of the north pole = 0. So if you travel around a circle of radius R centered at the north pole, it will have a circumference C as a function of R. C initially increases as R increases , but since C is zero when R = radius of the earth, C has to start decreasing some point as R increases, until it is zero at the south circle.

Correct?
There are many problems with this statement, mostly due to the fact that you're trying to describe this model as if it existed in an Euclidean geometry. No radii or circumferences change at any given time.
However, if you're just trying to visualise this in your head, then yes.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

?

momentia

  • 425
  • Light abhors a straight line.
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #125 on: October 31, 2011, 02:38:26 PM »
I worded my last post wrong. I meant:

If the south circle is the same as the north pole, then the circumference of the south pole = the circumference of the north pole = 0. So if you travel around a circle of radius R centered at the north pole, it will have a circumference C as a function of R. C initially increases as R increases , but since C is zero when R = radius of the earth, C has to start decreasing some point as R increases, until it is zero at the south circle.

Correct?
There are many problems with this statement, mostly due to the fact that you're trying to describe this model as if it existed in an Euclidean geometry. No radii or circumferences change at any given time.
However, if you're just trying to visualise this in your head, then yes.

Not really, I'm asking for the circumference of a circle C of radius R centered at the north pole as a function of R. (not the radius of
the FE, just a radius that can vary from 0 to the radius of the earth.)

In euclidean geometry C(R) = 2πR

In non-euclidean, C(R) is allowed to be different
What you are saying is that C(0) = C(Radius of the earth) = 0.

Also, what is your definition of flat?

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12260
  • Now available in stereo
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #126 on: October 31, 2011, 02:43:11 PM »
Not really, I'm asking for the circumference of a circle C of radius R centered at the north pole as a function of R. (not the radius of
the FE, just a radius that can vary from 0 to the radius of the earth.)
The Earth as a whole has no radius, and no circumference. It's a fractal.

Also, what is your definition of flat?
A surface with no general upward or downward curvature. Mountains and valleys don't count.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

?

momentia

  • 425
  • Light abhors a straight line.
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #127 on: October 31, 2011, 02:56:29 PM »
Not really, I'm asking for the circumference of a circle C of radius R centered at the north pole as a function of R. (not the radius of
the FE, just a radius that can vary from 0 to the radius of the earth.)
The Earth as a whole has no radius, and no circumference. It's a fractal.

Also, what is your definition of flat?
A surface with no general upward or downward curvature. Mountains and valleys don't count.

If you measure from the north pole south until you hit the south pole, you have the radius of the earth. If you hook a string from the north pole to yourself of a given length, walk around a circle with the string taut, you will measure a circumference. That circumference is equal to a function of the length of the string.

All non-euclidean geometries have curvature.


*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12260
  • Now available in stereo
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #128 on: October 31, 2011, 03:17:37 PM »
If you measure from the north pole south until you hit the south pole, you have the radius of the earth. If you hook a string from the north pole to yourself of a given length, walk around a circle with the string taut, you will measure a circumference. That circumference is equal to a function of the length of the string.
Ah, so you're interested in the measurements of one iteration of the loop. With this correction, yes, you are correct.

All non-euclidean geometries have curvature.
With reference to Euclidean geometries, yes. With reference to themselves, no.
EDIT: Also, that's not quite true. Consider the absolute geometry, for example.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2011, 03:21:13 PM by PizzaPlanet »
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #129 on: October 31, 2011, 03:26:33 PM »
So you don't believe the Earth is flat. You have been noted.
I'm not sure how you've reached this conclusion, but it would seem you have derived it from your rectum. It is, of course, incorrect.

Just imagine you take a photo of FE, from space.

Then you draw a map directly from the photo.

There you have your FE map.

I'd just like to see what it looks like.
Yes, that's what I've been showing you all along.

Can someone prove of disprove that guy?
lol ad hominem

Can someone explain this guy that we don't need a variable scale?
Who are you to dictate the principles of a theory you don't subscribe to?
Can someone explain this guy [sic] that we don't need gravitation for RE? Oh, wait, so people are floating? Shit, RE disproved.
That was easy.

You can edit your post, and quote more posts in it, so you dont bury your own wall of statements....
I don't think he'll listen. Watch out, though. He might tell you there was no science in your post.

You said that the phrase "Flat Earth = flat map" is incorrect. If the Earth is flat, then a map of it would necessarily need to be flat as well with absolutely no distortion on any scale. You admit that creating a map that contains no distortion is impossible, so you have proved that the Earth cannot be flat. Your attempts at skimming through wikipedia and declaring the Earth to be a fractal is even MORE baseless than the idea that Earth is flat. Try again.
You, sir, can't comprehend the idea of bottoms.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12260
  • Now available in stereo
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #130 on: October 31, 2011, 03:34:15 PM »
You said that the phrase "Flat Earth = flat map" is incorrect.
No, I didn't. Don't put words in my mouth. It doesn't help your position.

If the Earth is flat, then a map of it would necessarily need to be flat as well with absolutely no distortion on any scale.
Mechanically, yes. Optically, no. Mechanics != optics.

You admit that creating a map that contains no distortion is impossible
Wrong again. I point out that scaling a map down is impossible, and simultaneously I point out that every RE map in history has been a projection. This includes globes, so the "3d world, 2d map" argument does not apply.

so you have proved that the Earth cannot be flat.
False assumptions read to false conclusions.

Your attempts at skimming through wikipedia
Hooooold it right there. A baseless accusation in the middle of an accusation of my claims being baseless? How wonderfully hypocritical.

and declaring the Earth to be a fractal is even MORE baseless than the idea that Earth is flat. Try again.
Ah, yes, I see a whole lot support for this claim. I am convinced. Oh, wait, no, I'm not, since there is no support whatsoever. By all means, do try again!
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

?

momentia

  • 425
  • Light abhors a straight line.
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #131 on: October 31, 2011, 03:39:33 PM »
If you measure from the north pole south until you hit the south pole, you have the radius of the earth. If you hook a string from the north pole to yourself of a given length, walk around a circle with the string taut, you will measure a circumference. That circumference is equal to a function of the length of the string.
Ah, so you're interested in the measurements of one iteration of the loop. With this correction, yes, you are correct.

All non-euclidean geometries have curvature.
With reference to Euclidean geometries, yes. With reference to themselves, no.
EDIT: Also, that's not quite true. Consider the absolute geometry, for example.

Absolute geometry is not powerful enough to talk about well defined surfaces.

With "references to themselves," surfaces still have curvature. Gaussian curvature is dependent only on what unit you use to measure distance.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12260
  • Now available in stereo
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #132 on: October 31, 2011, 03:41:49 PM »
Absolute geometry is not powerful enough to talk about well defined surfaces.
I don't see how this is relevant.

With "references to themselves," surfaces still have curvature. Gaussian curvature is dependent only on what unit you use to measure distance.
Our definitions of "curvature" clearly differ.

Is there a point to this at all? You've shown a sufficient understanding of my theory, and it seems to me that now you're just poking holes in semantics (and not managing thus far).
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

?

momentia

  • 425
  • Light abhors a straight line.
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #133 on: October 31, 2011, 03:47:49 PM »
Absolute geometry is not powerful enough to talk about well defined surfaces.
I don't see how this is relevant.

With "references to themselves," surfaces still have curvature. Gaussian curvature is dependent only on what unit you use to measure distance.
Our definitions of "curvature" clearly differ.

Is there a point to this at all? You've shown a sufficient understanding of my theory, and it seems to me that now you're just poking holes in semantics (and not managing thus far).

Maybe you can clue me in on your meaning of curvature.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12260
  • Now available in stereo
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #134 on: October 31, 2011, 03:56:30 PM »
Maybe you can clue me in on your meaning of curvature.
Well, I already did, but then you claimed a non-curved surface is curved by definition. I'll just choose to agree to disagree on that one.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

?

momentia

  • 425
  • Light abhors a straight line.
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #135 on: October 31, 2011, 09:46:25 PM »
Maybe you can clue me in on your meaning of curvature.
Well, I already did, but then you claimed a non-curved surface is curved by definition. I'll just choose to agree to disagree on that one.

If you can tell me more about this surface (it's metric perhaps?), You could help your argument. But right now, it seems like you are talking about a surface with a non-zero gaussian curvature.

?

Ryan Onessence

  • 325
  • All and neither; make of it what you will
http://soundcloud.com/orin-zolis/sets/world-music-ethnic-beats/

Knowledge gained via academic means and intelligence are not mutually inclusive. Those who assume authority and superiority over conventionally uneducated persons would be wiser to keep this in mind.

“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

El Cid

  • 169
  • ...And the truth shall set you free.
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #138 on: November 02, 2011, 04:02:21 PM »
PizzaPlanet, let me teach you something I learned a long time ago.

My brother and I used to always have an argument about something.  Often, one of us would realize that the other had comitted a fatal error at the base of their argument, rendering it meaningless.  We would relish in it, when we saw this, and we would wait for the other to continue arguing, and just pretend that we didn't know that they had a wrong assumption.  Then, finally, we would say, "Oh!  Do you think that X?"  When they realized that it was not so, it was highly embarrassing, and they were put to shame.

Sometimes I would get the chance to do this, and sometimes he would.  Then, one time, I realized it was happening, except this time, he thought that he was doing it to me, but his belief was grounded in yet another wrong assumption!  I thought, "Well, jeez, this will take forever.  Forget it."  Then I told him the error he had comitted.  "Oh," he said, still somewhat embarrassed.


It seems to me that you are trying to do the same thing, but it's not working because you're giving so little information in hopes of this happenning, that no one ever really tries to rat you out, and you never get to reveal their wrong assumption.  This just makes you look like a terrible debater who doesn't really know what he's talking about.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12260
  • Now available in stereo
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #139 on: November 02, 2011, 05:08:49 PM »
you're giving so little information
In fact, I've given you thirty pages of information here, and I'm constantly providing more. If you feel that some information is missing (note: the fact that you disagree with something doesn't make it missing. Of course, I welcome debating that too, but you've claimed that I provide little information, not incorrect information [even though you likely think of both]), just ask. Make sure you've checked that the information really wasn't provided, though - you not trying to find it is not equal to me not having provided it.

If you have a look at the thread I've just linked, you will notice that there are three distinct type of RE'ers: the good ones, such as Nohlekh, who can discuss the problem with respect and understanding. He may very well think I'm a complete nutcase, but he's making valid points and actually makes the discussion challenging, since he evaluates what I say, rather than just blindly dismissing them; then there are the ones that just don't care enough, like markjo. They'll hop into a thread, ask a question that's only just been answered, and then either not post again or argue the topic for a while, only to eventually say that "they don't care" once they run out of arguments (see: The recently concluded debate about Rowbotham's education); and finally, the ones that have come here to troll, such as EmperorZhark. I've already described his behaviour in this post. It's up to you which one you'll be. However, don't expect me to cater to you if you just keep saying "nope, not enough", rather than asking specific questions and addressing what I say. This, of course, works both ways.

This just makes you look like a terrible debater who doesn't really know what he's talking about.
What makes me "look like a terrible debater" is called confirmation bias - if you try to see beyond it, you'll notice that EmperorZhark has been asking the same question over and over, dismissing all arguments as "no science here", asking if "someone could explain this guy <X>" [sic], and never even mentioning a single counter-argument. He has no case whatsoever, and yet you tell me I provide little information.

I appreciate the anecdote about your brother's and your unfair debating practices, but I believe you've targeted it at the wrong team. With what I said in mind, if you still disagree, please explain why.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

El Cid

  • 169
  • ...And the truth shall set you free.
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #140 on: November 02, 2011, 05:26:03 PM »
In fact, I've given you thirty pages of information here, and I'm constantly providing more.
That's not what I'm talking about.  You misunderstand.
You said that the phrase "Flat Earth = flat map" is incorrect.
No, I didn't. Don't put words in my mouth. It doesn't help your position.
This is the sort of thing I'm talking about.  I can see that when you quoted that phrase, you quoted, "Flat Earth = flat map = Euclidean geometry."  You said it was incorrect (again, without following up) because you were referring to your belief that a flat Earth doesn't necessarily mean Euclidean geometry, without explaining why.  Then, when jraffield1 misunderstood, taking a wrong assumption to base his or her argument off of, you said, "No, I didn't.  Don't put words in my mouth.  It doesn't help your position."  Which, of course, is true, but is anyone expected to care enough to realize that, or pursue that line of argument?  Saying things like, "It doesn't help your position" just makes you seem like a closed-minded, bad debater.

I'm not talking about the theory in general.  I realize that you have lots of information on it.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12260
  • Now available in stereo
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #141 on: November 02, 2011, 05:43:11 PM »
That's not what I'm talking about.  You misunderstand.
Quite likely so.

This is the sort of thing I'm talking about.  I can see that when you quoted that phrase, you quoted, "Flat Earth = flat map = Euclidean geometry."  You said it was incorrect (again, without following up) because you were referring to your belief that a flat Earth doesn't necessarily mean Euclidean geometry, without explaining why.
This is because I have explained my views on that point within a very short period of time before he asked about it again. Call me impatient if you will, but I assure you you'd be too after dealing with people like this for two years. A conversation cannot go on if one party is speaking whilst the other isn't listening. In an on-line debate, "listening" becomes "reading".

Then, when jraffield1 misunderstood, taking a wrong assumption to base his or her argument off of
Which, speaking from experience, he probably did intentionally. Of course, I might be wrong, but precedent shows that I probably am not. RE'ers and FE'ers alike love to take the other side's claims out of context.

"No, I didn't.  Don't put words in my mouth.  It doesn't help your position."  Which, of course, is true, but is anyone expected to care enough to realize that, or pursue that line of argument?
Well, no one here is forced to discuss my opinions with me. If they actually want to discuss, they should pay attention, yes. If they just want to come around and say "haha, you're wrong", I usually won't be wasting my time with them.
You seem to suggest that I should guide everyone by hand and act as a tutor here. I won't do that, mainly because I don't get paid for this.

Saying things like, "It doesn't help your position" just makes you seem like a closed-minded, bad debater.
Really? Because you've just said something just like that, and twice. The only difference is that instead of the ambiguous "it doesn't help your position", you've specified how it makes my position worse.
Now, I'm not saying you're a bad debater. It's just that stating our opinions on how something makes someone look doesn't make us bad debaters. In my opinion, he intentionally misquoted me, and in this particular discussion, this makes his position worse in the way that I won't bother spending too much time addressing it. Strawman arguments and poor trolls just aren't worth anyone's effort.

I'm not talking about the theory in general.  I realize that you have lots of information on it.
I'm glad, and I'll keep what you said in mind.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2011, 05:46:52 PM by PizzaPlanet »
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

?

Ryan Onessence

  • 325
  • All and neither; make of it what you will
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #142 on: November 03, 2011, 08:01:51 AM »
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51049.msg1251245#msg1251245

What kind of Earth map woul dcome with your theory?

One like the map shown in the link except with Antarctica as a continent ... all the landmasses would be the same scale to one another as a regular round earth map, only they are warped around the Arctic the same way as the map shown. Of coarse the map would have minor distortions because of this warping except the scale would be drawn more or less true to the same apparent relative size on a RE map, lets not forget the distance of continents etc and the unravelling of a globe to a rectangle is still distorted toward the poles so RE maps are still only approximate. Also the possibility that Google earth is even sketchy with consistency at different areas on the same level zoom as was suggested in this thread.

As stated in the TDT model 2.1 Australia would not appear stretched and squashed as much and the scope of the entire disk would be twice as big as the FEmap shown, this is because Antarctica exists on the middle band of the overall donut Toroid scope i.e. the ring in a vertical 2D cross-section of a torus, implied by both centre points of either circle of the donut shape. Remembering however that the middle band is distorted by the phi warped bands of space; each band is the same volume of space when moving inward and outward along the radius so the middle is actually somewhere other than the pictorially relative middle of the scope in both fig 1 and 2. (fig 1 and 2 are not able to be drawn to the shape of a Torus; in truth the donut hole/axis of a torus in fig 1 is infinitely far away always out of reach as it implodes into infinite depth so the imploversial Scope cannot be portrayed as a cross-section of Torus) As stated in section 2.1 of the TDT model, the outward Dilative Imploversial scope (DIS) depicted in fig 2. is the overt 2/3 ratio Torus of the Double Torus field when emanating from the Arctic pole (Vortexual Axis), thus a baseline of finite depth is centred on the Arctic in the lowest density of the FE cosmos i.e. the material realm. The 1/3 ratio of the non overt Inward Imploversial scope (IIS) in fig 1. deals with higher density energy and pulls light into the infinite depth of the vortating donut axis, hence day and night as the sun orbits. Along with this idea one can take a leap down the rabbit hole and ponder the idea that perhaps in the same manner as the mainstream idea that the universe exists within a black hole of a larger universe, there could very well be an entire Copernican cosmos existing in comparison with the FE at relatively quantum levels of infinite depth, of which vortates within the axis/donut hole of the FE Arctic pole/heavens.

We don't know what's beyond Antarctica because the magnetic repulsion of the perimeter of the Imploversial scope causes all matter to veer to the left or the right if anything attempts to go head on with a direct radial coarse to the perimeter; the same as two same pole magnets being pushed toward one another... the weaker one will be repelled. Even organic beings experience this because they too have an EMF Torus which is entrained to the fundamental waveform that emanates from the Arctic pole and along the horizontal-disk following the Vortexual G's as described in 1.1. The best guess is that beyond Antarctica the ocean becomes so cold and frozen that it is rigid beyond being repelled and thus an Antarctic wasteland exists beyond, this of coarse is speculation, there may be a rim world with a light source of its own where beings have the opposite EMF polarisation to those at the Arctic. Thus they are not repelled by the IIS EMF of the TDT's Antarctic envelope but instead by the Arctic Poles EMF... The ocean may be kept held in by Toroidal Aetheric EMF buoyancy on the rim world i.e. repulsed by the Antarctic's IIS; This is understood as being possible when one studies the concept of the Toroid fractal cosmos whereby matter is innately Electromagnetic when the quantum world is likewise made of micro tori with EMF's of their own (as above, so below).

Getting back on topic to your question it may actually be feasible to suggest a circumferentially wrapped landmasses on a square shaped map since Antarctica is the limit of the known world. Thereby all the continents will be set to relatively normal scale as per a RE map, with a degree of non-euclidean EA distortion on the circumferential warp of their circular wrap but not on their radial length thus no visual radial compression of landmasses further out from the Arctic would occur, an increment of graduated compensation would be applied to the progressive circumferentially adapted bands and radii of RE latitude and longitude lines i.e. indicating that each band is as voluminous as the last in the radial length but with an added scale of circumferential extent. I think It would require 2 grids with 2 colours to distinguish. one would be a regular square grid and the other would be the concentric/radial, each radial band would have a Key of its own for dividing the distance of self similar phi centric radii by the circumferential orientation to the square grids regular fixed distance.

Having humoured your question, I may now humour myself. For you see this map business is all to complicated and not a crucial element in order for the Lucid adept to tune into the FE perspective, since Lucid's accept that all possible model's are simultaneously accessible via the Macro-quantum factor they would simply pick up a RE map knowing that it provides all the necessary data to get form A - B
« Last Edit: November 03, 2011, 08:07:47 AM by Ryan Onessence »
http://soundcloud.com/orin-zolis/sets/world-music-ethnic-beats/

Knowledge gained via academic means and intelligence are not mutually inclusive. Those who assume authority and superiority over conventionally uneducated persons would be wiser to keep this in mind.

?

momentia

  • 425
  • Light abhors a straight line.
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #143 on: November 03, 2011, 08:28:29 PM »
Ryan Onessence's posts are so funny to read when you know the definitions of the words he uses.

?

Ryan Onessence

  • 325
  • All and neither; make of it what you will
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #144 on: November 03, 2011, 09:02:01 PM »
Ryan Onessence's posts are so funny to read when you know the definitions of the words he uses.

Are you saying my english is bad ? if so please explain which words I am not using corectly
http://soundcloud.com/orin-zolis/sets/world-music-ethnic-beats/

Knowledge gained via academic means and intelligence are not mutually inclusive. Those who assume authority and superiority over conventionally uneducated persons would be wiser to keep this in mind.

Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #145 on: November 04, 2011, 02:29:48 AM »
Your map is not distance-accurate.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

?

momentia

  • 425
  • Light abhors a straight line.
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #146 on: November 04, 2011, 02:28:51 PM »
Your posts are just hard to read, and often it seems like you just put in words for the heck of it.

Ryan Onessence's posts are so funny to read when you know the definitions of the words he uses.

Are you saying my english is bad ? if so please explain which words I am not using corectly

As stated in section 2.1 of the TDT model, the outward Dilative Imploversial scope (DIS) depicted in fig 2. is the overt 2/3 ratio Torus of the Double Torus field when emanating from the Arctic pole (Vortexual Axis), thus a baseline of finite depth is centred on the Arctic in the lowest density of the FE cosmos i.e. the material realm.
baseline of finite depth?
lowest density of the FE cosmos i.e. the material realm?

Quote
Even organic beings experience this because they too have an EMF Torus which is entrained to the fundamental waveform that emanates from the Arctic pole and along the horizontal-disk following the Vortexual G's as described in 1.1.
entrained to the fundamental waveform?
Not to mention that no one has noticed this huge magnetic field.

Quote
The ocean may be kept held in by Toroidal Aetheric EMF buoyancy on the rim world i.e. repulsed by the Antarctic's IIS; This is understood as being possible when one studies the concept of the Toroid fractal cosmos whereby matter is innately Electromagnetic when the quantum world is likewise made of micro tori with EMF's of their own (as above, so below).
EMF buoyancy?
Matter being innately electromagnetic (having charge or dipole moments) explains this?

Quote
I think It would require 2 grids with 2 colours to distinguish. one would be a regular square grid and the other would be the concentric/radial, each radial band would have a Key of its own for dividing the distance of self similar phi centric radii by the circumferential orientation to the square grids regular fixed distance.
self similar phi centric radii?
why phi?

?

Ryan Onessence

  • 325
  • All and neither; make of it what you will
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #147 on: November 04, 2011, 10:46:18 PM »
Your posts are just hard to read, and often it seems like you just put in words for the heck of it.

Ryan Onessence's posts are so funny to read when you know the definitions of the words he uses.


Are you saying my english is bad ? if so please explain which words I am not using corectly

As stated in section 2.1 of the TDT model, the outward Dilative Imploversial scope (DIS) depicted in fig 2. is the overt 2/3 ratio Torus of the Double Torus field when emanating from the Arctic pole (Vortexual Axis), thus a baseline of finite depth is centred on the Arctic in the lowest density of the FE cosmos i.e. the material realm.
baseline of finite depth?
lowest density of the FE cosmos i.e. the material realm?

Quote
Even organic beings experience this because they too have an EMF Torus which is entrained to the fundamental waveform that emanates from the Arctic pole and along the horizontal-disk following the Vortexual G's as described in 1.1.
entrained to the fundamental waveform?
Not to mention that no one has noticed this huge magnetic field.

Quote
The ocean may be kept held in by Toroidal Aetheric EMF buoyancy on the rim world i.e. repulsed by the Antarctic's IIS; This is understood as being possible when one studies the concept of the Toroid fractal cosmos whereby matter is innately Electromagnetic when the quantum world is likewise made of micro tori with EMF's of their own (as above, so below).
EMF buoyancy?
Matter being innately electromagnetic (having charge or dipole moments) explains this?

Quote
I think It would require 2 grids with 2 colours to distinguish. one would be a regular square grid and the other would be the concentric/radial, each radial band would have a Key of its own for dividing the distance of self similar phi centric radii by the circumferential orientation to the square grids regular fixed distance.
self similar phi centric radii?
why phi?


Ok are you sure what meant to say was that my posts are funny to read when you don't know the definitions or implied conceptualisation of the words I use. You initially implied that you knew the terminology that I use and it was funny to you. I totally understand the posts not making any sense if you don't know what my Acronyms and big words imply, this is why its best if you start from the beginning of the TDT model and take it in slowly and recap and revise what Acronyms mean when they come up later on. Of coarse your only going to do this if you really want to understand it

The Toroidal EMF I am talking of has been described in the recent post in the Edward Leedscalnin thread.

When I say Baseline of Finite depth i mean just that, the gross matter of the material realm is buffered at a threshold that doesn't get shrunk exponentially into infinite depth in the same manner to the scenario of conventionally held black hole physics. This is because the dilative Torus (Dilative Imploversial Scope DIS outward non-euclidean implosion) is overtly dominant by 2/3 at the Arctic thus the 1/3 inwardly implosive Scope (IIS) cannot drag it exponentially inward.

Why Phi? because phi is not a static measurement it is a ratio....you cant measure space as metric when dealing with it non-euclideanly.  An object on phi-centric band A. will be diminished in size by the value of phi when compared from th esame perspective with itself on band B. Hence the self-similar fractal principle of non-euclidean space where each arbitrarily represented concentric distance by phi is the same volume of space experientially speaking when travelling on the 2D depicted radii coarse inward toward the centre. The space that is expanding is the volume of the bands total circumference not the distance of radius     

Your map is not distance-accurate.
.   
That's right, my map isn't distance perfect, it doesn't even exist, I explained that its irrelevant in context of the reason for entertaining a FE perspective.. what I was implying is that the non-euclidean Toroidal space is the solution to the problem in context with the experiential reality, as was outlined again with different terms in the paragraph above i.e. size is warped referentially from one band to the next, yes, but in the immediate experiential space all distances and shapes are relatively speaking the same as metric RE expectations. So the way the FE maps distort shapes of landmass is not a representation of FE reality in this version of the TDT model
http://soundcloud.com/orin-zolis/sets/world-music-ethnic-beats/

Knowledge gained via academic means and intelligence are not mutually inclusive. Those who assume authority and superiority over conventionally uneducated persons would be wiser to keep this in mind.

?

momentia

  • 425
  • Light abhors a straight line.
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #148 on: November 05, 2011, 01:16:42 PM »
Aha, this is a funnier post to read, with more "technical" detail.

When I say Baseline of Finite depth i mean just that, the gross matter of the material realm is buffered at a threshold that doesn't get shrunk exponentially into infinite depth in the same manner to the scenario of conventionally held black hole physics.

First, nothing shrinks exponentially in a black hole. I think the word your looking for is inversely. (You don't say what shrinks. A threshold?)
Actually, in general when you say exponentially, you seem to  mean inversely. However it is hard to tell due to the lack of well defined terms. Perhaps a more rigorous treatment of the subject is in order?

Quote
Why Phi? because phi is not a static measurement it is a ratio....you cant measure space as metric when dealing with it non-euclideanly.

I meant why phi, why not 2 or pi or 10/7?
And then you say that non-euclidean spaces aren't metric, meaning that distance is ill-defined, meaning that distance doesn't exist. (which isn't true. Non-euclidean spaces and Reimannian manifolds in general have metrics)

Quote
Hence the self-similar fractal principle of non-euclidean space where each arbitrarily represented concentric distance by phi is the same volume of space experientially speaking when travelling on the 2D depicted radii coarse inward toward the centre. The space that is expanding is the volume of the bands total circumference not the distance of radius     

Non-Euclidean space is not fractal in nature. if you zoom in on a small part, it starts to behave like euclidean space of the same dimension. Perhaps you meant to say there is a singularity (at the orgin in proper coordinates) when you embed your manifold in a higher dimensional euclidean space?
« Last Edit: November 05, 2011, 01:18:30 PM by momentia »

?

Ryan Onessence

  • 325
  • All and neither; make of it what you will
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #149 on: November 05, 2011, 11:15:08 PM »
When I say Baseline of Finite depth i mean just that, the gross matter of the material realm is buffered at a threshold that doesn't get shrunk exponentially into infinite depth in the same manner to the scenario of conventionally held black hole physics.

First, nothing shrinks exponentially in a black hole. I think the word your looking for is inversely. (You don't say what shrinks. A threshold?)
Actually, in general when you say exponentially, you seem to  mean inversely. However it is hard to tell due to the lack of well defined terms. Perhaps a more rigorous treatment of the subject is in order?


Yes in the conventionally held physics of black holes it does not shrink exponentially, I meant it is believed to be compressed but this is incorrect in terms of Hyperdimensional physics. In Imploversial physics nothing is squashed by the singularity of a black hole because there is no singularity, just a point at which stuff shrinks exponentially beyond the wavelength of sensory perception, the same way as there is a finite point in a 2D picture of non-euclidean space but in theory the point is infinite in length of space. This is why at the Arctic pole the overt 2/3 DIS being the inverse of the IIS of exponential implosion inwards creates a threshold that keeps the FE disk from being shrunk exponentially inward, which would otherwise be pulled out of synchronised tessellation with the non overt IIS where they alternate at the middle band of the disk i.e Antarctica. The middle band is the point where they are equally 1.5/3 If this were not so the the effect would be that the DIS would be unpinned from its 1.5/3 ratio at the neutral pole and would imploded exponentially into the infinite depth of the IIS.

I don't use the term inverse because there are 2 Implosive factors, the DIS and IIS which are both inversions of one another and are both non-euclidean so the terminology has to take a broader stride, to avoid saying the inverse of the inverse of the inverse which would scatter ones mind to no end.  When you perceive think I m adding in words for the heck of it I am actually intentionally inculcating visual images into your mind, such as EMF buoyancy, if that term means nothing to you, you aren't exercising your imagination. it implies a threshold of gravic/levic suspension because a torus has both forces either side of the disk holding it equalibriated. The DIS and IIS are responsible for this 2-fold inverted effect. but at the rim world the IIS EMF effect is overt and emanates inward from the envelope so to smaller charges of micro tori which have the omni directional charge of a TDT from the outside of their own envelope are repulsed inward by the overt IIS EM force of the FE's TDT...So water molecules which are considered to be made of clusters of micro-tori with EM bands themselves are held in and the Gravic force of the TDT vortex as described in 1.1 keeps the ocean levelled the same way as the Earth disk is. 

Why Phi? because phi is not a static measurement it is a ratio....you cant measure space as metric when dealing with it non-euclideanly.
I meant why phi, why not 2 or pi or 10/7?
And then you say that non-euclidean spaces aren't metric, meaning that distance is ill-defined, meaning that distance doesn't exist. (which isn't true. Non-euclidean spaces and Reimannian manifolds in general have metrics)

No i mean they aren't metric in the sense of euclidean space when mapped on a 2D representation. I am under the impression that metric is depicted 2Dimensionally as cubical measurement...am I right?
Hence the self-similar fractal principle of non-euclidean space where each arbitrarily represented concentric distance by phi is the same volume of space experientially speaking when travelling on the 2D depicted radii coarse inward toward the centre. The space that is expanding is the volume of the bands total circumference not the distance of radius     

Non-Euclidean space is not fractal in nature. if you zoom in on a small part, it starts to behave like euclidean space of the same dimension. Perhaps you meant to say there is a singularity (at the orgin in proper coordinates) when you embed your manifold in a higher dimensional euclidean space?

Correct it is not fractal in nature it is perfectly self-similar in quantity of volume when travelling inward in 3D space. However what is depicted as a radial coarse inward on a 2D representation appears as arbitrary diminished-scale self-similar fractal ratios when using phi as a measurement. Most people cannot fathom the nature of non-euclidean space without a picture to illustrate so my terminology is oriented in the manner which describes the principles form a 2D representation. I think what you are experiencing as difficulty in comprehending my use of terms, is that of the words I use, you have an academic understand in context of complex mathematics. Perhaps this is where you derive your orientation of humour from. I aim to be able to explain to those who do not have academic understandings as well as those who do, you yourself have implied that you understood what I mean but that you considered what I meant to say was inverse as opposed to exponential shrinking. And I have been further concise with the difference as stated above, Imploversial physics is not the same as conventional black-hole physics   
« Last Edit: November 05, 2011, 11:27:27 PM by Ryan Onessence »
http://soundcloud.com/orin-zolis/sets/world-music-ethnic-beats/

Knowledge gained via academic means and intelligence are not mutually inclusive. Those who assume authority and superiority over conventionally uneducated persons would be wiser to keep this in mind.