Imploversial Physics

Glad the Parenthesis gets the epiphany across to a mind with academic orientation of terminology as well as one without, I think this is a more understandable approach for those who don't.

Quote from: Ryan Onessence on November 18, 2011, 07:04:13 AM

Glad the Parenthesis gets the epiphany across to a mind with academic orientation of terminology as well as one without, I think this is a more understandable approach for those who don't.

BURN!

Also, how is it you can lecture us on the structure of the universe if you didn't even know what an asymptote is? It's a fairly fundamental aspect of mathematics, and is actually useful in the discussion of fractals.

As I have said before I have no intention to aspire to concrete evidence, it defeats the point of esoteric science being esoteric

New question...

What do you mean when you call the Fibonacci sequence a hypersphere? Are you referring to the radius or diameter of the hypersphere?

Quote from: jraffield1 on November 18, 2011, 11:31:32 AM

New question...

What do you mean when you call the Fibonacci sequence a hypersphere? Are you referring to the radius or diameter of the hypersphere?

Both the radius and diameter of the PEM Hypersphere (HS) and Fib alike are exactly the same in 4D space they are both PEM sequences. Its only in 3D space that one begins to express Fib numbers by contrast of the observer that has limited perceptual scope which tappers/processes finite sections of the dilative (FIb) PEM HS into the field of their own Auric TDT field via the warped compression of concentric phi which is innate of finite conscious perception. I will have mathematical diagrams that use the esoteric numerology principles to explain this, it will probably be the focus of the next section or the one after, because its non linearised material it really doesn't matter how it is arranged once the scaffolding exists which is sections 1.1. to 1.4. Just bear in mind some aspects that cannot be unfolded immediately must be contended with as notions in order to arrive at the part in which they are.

If you dint mind contending with the wording I used as I noted it all down as I recieved/retrieved it intuitively, then I will post that on the last reserved post for you to wrap your head round, most of what you now know in context of my word use at this point should be adequate to comprehend what I am describing.

Also The gif Torus I use is a mathematical depiction of phi spirals expressed.

As I have said before I have no intention to aspire to concrete evidence, it defeats the point of esoteric science being esoteric

Unless you're creating new definitions for existing words now.

No you have your words mixed up.

Occult means of the supernatural.

Unless you're creating new definitions for existing words now.

Quote from: Lorddave on November 19, 2011, 02:58:14 AM

No you have your words mixed up.

Occult means of the supernatural.

Unless you're creating new definitions for existing words now.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/occult

Here is our perspective on what you write:

You: This is how existence is structured.
Us: How do you know?
You: I perceive it as such.
Us: Yeah but how do you know?
You: The philosophical numbers don't lie. They tell us how the universe exists.
Us: But those numbers have nothing to do with the shape of the universe.
You: Yes they do.  I sense it.
Us: Can you provide any experiment or evidence of this?
You: If you can't sense it, I can't prove it to you.


So the upshot is that you are writing a religion: full of interesting words and ideas but backed up by imagination.

So if you want to convince us, then make a prediction that we can test.

Have you considered the esoteric science of exploversial physics. I believe that it represents a far more advanced theory than imploversial physics.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a religion, much of what I wrote about the philosophical side of this in the interwoven threads does away with the core facets of religion. What I am devising here is in essence an unbiased body of information which exists somewhere between religion(theosophy)/philosophy and science/metaphysics,  it is a holistic modality of facilitating the potential of accessing higher awareness and knowingness of the fundamental unity between all that is. Can I ask you Dave? have you read the Esoteric & Exoteric thread entirely?

It explains why I assume the stance I maintain in the seemingly "this is how the universe is claim" (with no evidence). The method to gain inner proof is woven all the way through my threads  all you have to do is implore it, so effectively I am not saying if you can't sense it, I cant prove it to you, I don't want to convince anybody. Rather it is yourselves whom wish to have evidence. 

What I'm saying is if your unwilling to assume the attitudes which I have suggested as a means to yield the unveiling of the mysterious, then this discussion is no longer an issue between yourselves/others who read this, and I. Instead it is between the personal relation that each have to existence...from that point onward how other relate to this material is none of my business

I write this not to convince but to inspire others to venture outside the box   

Quote from: Ryan Onessence on November 20, 2011, 04:36:08 PM

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a religion, much of what I wrote about the philosophical side of this in the interwoven threads does away with the core facets of religion. What I am devising here is in essence an unbiased body of information which exists somewhere between religion(theosophy)/philosophy and science/metaphysics,  it is a holistic modality of facilitating the potential of accessing higher awareness and knowingness of the fundamental unity between all that is. Can I ask you Dave? have you read the Esoteric & Exoteric thread entirely?

No.  I read the Esoteric (I think) thread which was one page and one major post from you.  You should link them.

Quote

It explains why I assume the stance I maintain in the seemingly "this is how the universe is claim" (with no evidence). The method to gain inner proof is woven all the way through my threads  all you have to do is implore it, so effectively I am not saying if you can't sense it, I cant prove it to you, I don't want to convince anybody. Rather it is yourselves whom wish to have evidence. 

Reality is built on perception, but only from a human perspective.  From an objective perspective, it is not.
One could believe the sky was Brown.  That doesn't make the sky brown.

yes but how you interpret brown and blue may be different to how another does. i.e colour is subjective so everyone agree's on the names for colours but if were able to look through each others eyes the colours may be different. i.e. what you call blue may be what another interpret as green

Also:
If you don't want to convince others, don't write anything down.  The only reason to write down these long posts is for you to convince someone that you're correct.  Otherwise it's rather pointless.

True, however it is not from an agenda of needing to be correct for the sake of ego gratification i.e. seeking approval. it is merely to share the insights that can yield lucidity which is for the greater good, of those who already have seen past the veil to some degree.

Quote

What I'm saying is if your unwilling to assume the attitudes which I have suggested as a means to yield the unveiling of the mysterious, then this discussion is no longer an issue between yourselves/others who read this, and I. Instead it is between the personal relation that each have to existence...from that point onward how other relate to this material is none of my business

I write this not to convince but to inspire others to venture outside the box   

By stating things as factual that aren't, you're only making yourself look foolish. 
Thinking outside the box IS a worthy goal, but that doesn't mean the box is always wrong.  Nor does it mean thinking outside of it will yield any results of value.

I have not said the box is wrong, only limited...might I suggest be more reserved with slander otherwise you will be the one who ends up on the receiving end looking foolish.

Besides, when your "thinking outside the box" is to throw around basic math terms (like pi) and call them part of the universal truth, you might as well refer to calculus as the ultimate open space.  Now THAT was thinking outside the box.

Quote from: Lorddave on November 20, 2011, 07:09:24 PM

Quote from: Ryan Onessence on November 20, 2011, 04:36:08 PM

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a religion, much of what I wrote about the philosophical side of this in the interwoven threads does away with the core facets of religion. What I am devising here is in essence an unbiased body of information which exists somewhere between religion(theosophy)/philosophy and science/metaphysics,  it is a holistic modality of facilitating the potential of accessing higher awareness and knowingness of the fundamental unity between all that is. Can I ask you Dave? have you read the Esoteric & Exoteric thread entirely?

No.  I read the Esoteric (I think) thread which was one page and one major post from you.  You should link them.

Quote

It explains why I assume the stance I maintain in the seemingly "this is how the universe is claim" (with no evidence). The method to gain inner proof is woven all the way through my threads  all you have to do is implore it, so effectively I am not saying if you can't sense it, I cant prove it to you, I don't want to convince anybody. Rather it is yourselves whom wish to have evidence. 

Reality is built on perception, but only from a human perspective.  From an objective perspective, it is not.
One could believe the sky was Brown.  That doesn't make the sky brown.

yes but how you interpret brown and blue may be different to how another does. i.e colour is subjective so everyone agree's on the names for colours but if were able to look through each others eyes the colours may be different. i.e. what you call blue may be what another interpret as green

Also:
If you don't want to convince others, don't write anything down.  The only reason to write down these long posts is for you to convince someone that you're correct.  Otherwise it's rather pointless.

True, however it is not from an agenda of needing to be correct for the sake of ego gratification i.e. seeking approval. it is merely to share the insights that can yield lucidity which is for the greater good, of those who already have seen past the veil to some degree.

Quote

What I'm saying is if your unwilling to assume the attitudes which I have suggested as a means to yield the unveiling of the mysterious, then this discussion is no longer an issue between yourselves/others who read this, and I. Instead it is between the personal relation that each have to existence...from that point onward how other relate to this material is none of my business

I write this not to convince but to inspire others to venture outside the box   

By stating things as factual that aren't, you're only making yourself look foolish. 
Thinking outside the box IS a worthy goal, but that doesn't mean the box is always wrong.  Nor does it mean thinking outside of it will yield any results of value.

I have not said the box is wrong, only limited...might I suggest be more reserved with slander otherwise you will be the one who ends up on the receiving end looking foolish.

Besides, when your "thinking outside the box" is to throw around basic math terms (like pi) and call them part of the universal truth, you might as well refer to calculus as the ultimate open space.  Now THAT was thinking outside the box.

No they are part of mentally explaining hyperdimensional principles but in reality do not exist as dimensions or codes based on those numeric values, numbers are constructs of 2D plottings in contrast all dimensions are essentially based in 3D. i.e. a circle can represent a sphere it can also represent 4 equal segments but in reality a sphere has 8 segments. also when contending that space is infinite and measureless, it is seen that maths deals with the general relativity of manifest things but in essence they are all infinite within so the numbers that are used to measure them are arbitrary when contending with the endless repetition of the macro-quantum fractal notion, as is described in greater detail  Eso/Exo Science

No they are part of mentally explaining hyperdimensional principles but in reality do not exist as dimensions or codes based on those numeric values, numbers are constructs of 2D plottings in contrast all dimensions are essentially based in 3D. i.e. a circle can represent a sphere it can also represent 4 equal segments but in reality a sphere has 8 segments. also when contending that space is infinite and measureless, it is seen that maths deals with the general relativity of manifest things but in essence they are all infinite within so the numbers that are used to measure them are arbitrary when contending with the endless repetition of the macro-quantum fractal notion, as is described in greater detail  Eso/Exo Science

No they are part of mentally explaining hyperdimensional principles but in reality do not exist as dimensions or codes based on those numeric values,

numbers are constructs of 2D plottings

in contrast all dimensions are essentially based in 3D.

i.e. a circle can represent a sphere it can also represent 4 equal segments but in reality a sphere has 8 segments.

also when contending that space is infinite and measureless, it is seen that maths deals with the general relativity of manifest things but in essence they are all infinite within so the numbers that are used to measure them are arbitrary when contending with the endless repetition of the macro-quantum fractal notion, as is described in greater detail  Eso/Exo Science

Quote from: Ryan Onessence on November 20, 2011, 11:41:58 PM

 i.e. a circle can represent a sphere it can also represent 4 equal segments but in reality a sphere has 8 segments.

I'll let someone else debate this point.

Dave now your just letting it get to you, this discussion is over ok mate, I am not debating with anyone, I simply respond to questions. I have explained how esoteric science applies the terms of 1D 2D 3D 4D in 1.3 of the OP assuming ignorance of these recalibrations to the terms does not warrant an inclination in me to debate about it within conventional terminology...

I'm not an academic type thus I speak in my own tong and extrapolate the logic as I go...deal with.
 
I'll admit wrong choice of words. What I mean is perfectly equal symmetric segments that all fit either which way evenly...you cant divide a sphere into 4 perfectly equal and symmetric parts, the first baseline amount is 8 tetrahedral segments where 1 side of each assumes the convexity of the sphere.

Dave now your just letting it get to you, this discussion is over ok mate, I am not debating with anyone, I simply respond to questions. I have explained how esoteric science applies the terms of 1D 2D 3D 4D in 1.3 of the OP assuming ignorance of these recalibrations to the terms does not warrant an inclination in me to debate about it within conventional terminology...

I'm not an academic type thus I speak in my own tong and extrapolate the logic as I go...deal with.

P.S. from here on if I have already explained stuff in the O.P's of any thread which is linked to another, I will simply ignore it and assume that you have not read it if you are unable to produce a quote regarding exactly what it is you don't get and instead appear to be firing questions/statements based on limited integration of what I have written. As such the none response signals the notion to go back and read what is relevant...I will create an index for navigation purposes and link it with my headline disclaimers.

Quote from: Ryan Onessence on November 21, 2011, 04:07:44 PM

Dave now your just letting it get to you, this discussion is over ok mate, I am not debating with anyone, I simply respond to questions. I have explained how esoteric science applies the terms of 1D 2D 3D 4D in 1.3 of the OP assuming ignorance of these recalibrations to the terms does not warrant an inclination in me to debate about it within conventional terminology...

I'm not an academic type thus I speak in my own tong and extrapolate the logic as I go...deal with.

Translation:
I'm not smart enough to refute your arguments so I'll pretend they're wrong.
 

Quote

P.S. from here on if I have already explained stuff in the O.P's of any thread which is linked to another, I will simply ignore it and assume that you have not read it if you are unable to produce a quote regarding exactly what it is you don't get and instead appear to be firing questions/statements based on limited integration of what I have written. As such the none response signals the notion to go back and read what is relevant...I will create an index for navigation purposes and link it with my headline disclaimers.

None of what you write makes any sense.  Probably because you're relying on logic with limited information. 
Kinda like looking up at the stars and assuming that they're moving around the Earth.

Hell, you seem to only be able to use basic math terms.  I bet with more education, you'll be using some funky stuff like Trigonometry, Calculus, and maybe even astrophysics.  I mean, why settle for Pi when you can have integrals too?

Quote from: Lorddave on November 21, 2011, 06:55:41 PM

Quote from: Ryan Onessence on November 21, 2011, 04:07:44 PM

Dave now your just letting it get to you, this discussion is over ok mate, I am not debating with anyone, I simply respond to questions. I have explained how esoteric science applies the terms of 1D 2D 3D 4D in 1.3 of the OP assuming ignorance of these recalibrations to the terms does not warrant an inclination in me to debate about it within conventional terminology...

I'm not an academic type thus I speak in my own tong and extrapolate the logic as I go...deal with.

Translation:
I'm not smart enough to refute your arguments so I'll pretend they're wrong.
 

Quote

P.S. from here on if I have already explained stuff in the O.P's of any thread which is linked to another, I will simply ignore it and assume that you have not read it if you are unable to produce a quote regarding exactly what it is you don't get and instead appear to be firing questions/statements based on limited integration of what I have written. As such the none response signals the notion to go back and read what is relevant...I will create an index for navigation purposes and link it with my headline disclaimers.

None of what you write makes any sense.  Probably because you're relying on logic with limited information. 
Kinda like looking up at the stars and assuming that they're moving around the Earth.

Hell, you seem to only be able to use basic math terms.  I bet with more education, you'll be using some funky stuff like Trigonometry, Calculus, and maybe even astrophysics.  I mean, why settle for Pi when you can have integrals too?

I wont be getitng more education, because its unnecessary when dealing with a holistic theory... holism balances left and right brain it doesn't need to steer off into overpolarisation of logic to explain a point. You still haven't understood that a point cannot exist in space without other points around them..hence all dimensions exist in 3D space because dimensions are fractally enfolded by one another...every point has an infinite amount of space within it its only a finite point by comparison to an observer whose perception has a finite limit.


Momentia,

Do you have more images or a term for that splicing of a sphere I would like to analyse it from other angles it looks preety well like 4 equal segments. bravo..I would like to see what shape the segments are as themselves the inner volume doesn't represent that accurately

I wont be getitng more education, because its unnecessary when dealing with a holistic theory... holism balances left and right brain it doesn't need to steer off into overpolarisation of logic to explain a point.

You still haven't understood that a point cannot exist in space without other points around them

..hence all dimensions exist in 3D space because dimensions are fractally enfolded by one another...every point has an infinite amount of space within it its only a finite point by comparison to an observer whose perception has a finite limit.

Quote from: Ryan Onessence on November 21, 2011, 07:59:49 PM

I wont be getitng more education, because its unnecessary when dealing with a holistic theory... holism balances left and right brain it doesn't need to steer off into overpolarisation of logic to explain a point.

One can not polarize logic. What are the two (or more) ends of logic?

Quote

You still haven't understood that a point cannot exist in space without other points around them

False. Take a sheet of bank paper. Put a single dot on it with a pen.
In fact that's kida the whole definition of 1 dimensional. A point. I can't help it if you're limited to just perceiving one dimension.

Quote

..hence all dimensions exist in 3D space because dimensions are fractally enfolded by one another...every point has an infinite amount of space within it its only a finite point by comparison to an observer whose perception has a finite limit.

False. Calculus proves this wrong. Remember those Asymtotes? Well the line never reaches the y axis but goes up forever. The space between the line and the axis becomes infinitely smaller. When you use calculus to find the area under the curve you find it is not infinite.
Therefore, an infinitely smaller space per dimension does not result in an infinite space overall.