So, let me try to reinvigorate the cult of Pythagoras, here:

>>19267374
c=1
>implies
a=1, b=0

That's the smallest pythagorical triple, a special case of mere mathematical interest because of the 0-length side

>>19267374
>>19267374

Again, train your attention on the shape [above and] to the left [because muthatfuckas won't allow a "duplicate image" and I'm not tryna come up with new shit to call shit when you can screenshot it yourself and just plop it out on the desktop for reference, or take a picture on your phone to remind you of this moment] - nothing up my sleeve, left or right, no strings attached, stare at the image and consider how real it is. Like, it's right there, right? Nevermind the bollocks about how it is a perception of your visual cortex as it processes information from reflected light on the back of your retina, even - like forget the uncertainty for a moment and just agree that it's there in some sense... can you get there?

Okay, now I'm about to make it disappear:

Because c is defined as "1," we can perform the following deduction: a^2 + b^2 = c^2 -> c = 1; c^2 = 1^2 = 1. Now, this is where you have to insert a qualification, but obviously it would seem that the two legs would have to be of equal length in the drawing, right? I mean, it's not necessary that they are (and yes, I can see the tiny little pixel-sized gap between them, and the ever-so-slight disconnection of perfect measurement that this implies. It fucking bugs me, too, but it doesn't even matter because of what I'm about to say...), but imagine that they are perfectly equal and both the legs for that triangle, with a hypotenuse of one. It's clearly something that would be a rational construction, and which could be clearly measured with some form of ratio in a real sense (even "real" as in the set of real numbers being able to describe it), right?

Nope. It's not there. You're looking at an imaginary construction, and it's right in front of your fucking face. You can't even really tell, can you? It's like it would require some dimensional jump in order to see it, right? Hold on to your Tardises, then...

[...continued below...]

>>19267395
[...continuing...]

Okay, so you know how you'd have to have two equal numbers that, when squared, add up to 1? Guess what: it's not possible. Not in a sense that it would be a rational number representable using real numbers, anyway. The only thing it would be is 1/2 + 1/2 = 1, right? That's the only two number that could add up to one, which means that it would have to be a situation where sq. rt. 1/2 + sq. rt. 1/2 = sq. rt. 1, right? So that means, since the square root of one is one, it would look like sq. rt. 1/2 + sq. rt. 1/2 = 1, and since you can represent the square root of fractions as the square root of the numerator over that of the denominator, you wind up with 1/sq. rt. 2 + 1/ sq. rt. 2 = 1. So, that square root of 2? It's not rational. It can't be represented through any real number divided by any other real number, and the decimal representation results in the non-repeating infinite series that cannot be understood as part of any real number system. You've gone imaginary. I know that technically it's not a complex conjugate, because you don't get the square root of negative one by manipulating the formula (though I swear while playing with this I did by accident once... there is some underlying LEM issue that I feel exists as some form of fundamental binary that stands between us as transcending the physical limitations of the universe, but most would probably categorize that claim as "unlikely," even if that actually places it in a non-zero probability state, so suck an infinite improbability drive, you nattering nay-bobs...). Point is, what you're looking at is irrational. There is irrationality at the heart of the most basic foundations of mathematics that people like to gloss over as insignificant or unworthy of consideration as a serious topic, but when I see this I smell a natural paradox that represents a potential gateway between worlds.

[...continued...]

>>19267415
[...continuing...]


Hell, one of the members of the cult of Pythagoras spread this shit to the wrong crowd and was literally murdered for it [citation needed, but I'm pretty sure I read it on Wikipedia].

So, maybe we should just start using this sign as a portal; some way to tap into the underlying irrationality of the entire basis of consciousness; some doorway through which, once stepped, we can effect greater change than our physical spheres of influence are capable of on their own...

We are the dreamers of the universe, my friends. We are the manifesters of the best possible world, because we are aligned with the future wherein all are allowed the fulfillment of all our needs. We can live the lives we all want here, because we are co-creating this world with every passing moment.

It's so difficult to see the larger path from upon the dirt by which it is hewn. It is so taxing to negotiate our paths sometimes, with the cognitive demands on our empirical senses being pulled so severely by the competing giant faces of post-consumer advertisements, the fatigue of managing the sheer number of information streams available, remembering how the network connects and who is a node for which channels, and how they intersect in various iterations of identities... the cast of characters of your life can become very difficult to keep track of in the varying plot of your existence...

[...continued...]

>>19267415
>square root of one is one
But it is not. It is one or minus one. This error is used in one of the "proofs" that 2+2=5. Unless I am horribly mistaken, this doesn't seem right.

>>19267432
[...continuing...]

But always remember this: you may be the author of your life, but you will never have access to the entire story while it is being written. Maybe you will, but if so it must be from an intelligence with simultaneous access to the space-time continuum and all its parallel manifestations, guiding you ineluctably toward this imagined perfect place that must exist in some however-equally imaginary dimension.

So that perspective from above you have sometimes... it's real. You are definitely receiving some form of communication from a higher future self... of course, their future is really our present and our past, because the entirety of chronological linear time is absurd from outside of the system where we associate linearity and causality as a result of objectively stable time as a necessary condition for its ability to be perceived. Once you step outside of that system, though - bam - all things become knowable. There is a universe in which you are getting everything you ever wanted, and it may not be permanent in an objectively provable sense, but it's happening in some part of you, and you can go there through the doorway. You're already there. You've already done this somewhere... just remember it.

[...continued...]

>>19267447
>from Pythagorean theorem
>to existentialism
I want what OP is having

>>19267460
Me too lmao

>>19267442
...Oooh - you may be right there!

I think that since -1^2 = 1i and 1^2 - 1, there is essentially an imaginary "0i" attached to every number just like there is an imaginary "1" as a coefficient of every other number as the identity property of multiplication... this is not mutually exclusive with any suppositions or logical consequences of anything else, however.

so, [...continuing...]

I'm going to wrap this up by just suggesting that you believe in the best possible future as... well, possible. You don't have to wear robes and chant shit to join this cult, you just have to imagine that you are already a member, and you have a foot in the door already...

There may be some discomfort involved with the rest of the initiation, however, depending on how comfortable you are with submission. And trust. And your sense of self and identity as a stable and lasting concept. That sort of thing. If you're not too attached to these things, then jump on in - the water's fine! Otherwise, you might find that it gets a little hot for you before too long...

But anyway, who knows what the future holds? I have only faith in a better one to keep me going, and I do believe that ultimately, we are all in this together.

See You Later, Space Cowboys...

File: Glyphs for the Seven Hermetic Laws of Ancient Kemet.jpg (745KB, 1024x1280px) Image search: [Google]

745KB, 1024x1280px

Pythagoras was on to the mathematical nature of reality after being taught in initiatic school (Celtic/Egyptian).
Through Sacred Geometry you will find answers.
But it is only a path, where multiple path exists.

Everything is as real as much as it is an illusion. It is as much irrational as it is rational.

Keep dinging.

>>19267731

once you start with triganomotry you can soon learn about circles and waves

and waves are where things start to get interesting, and quickly move to magnetic fields

File: 70c5d2e13cd53572b222d7341ad98349.jpg (16KB, 236x314px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 236x314px

okay this has me really tripped out because the fucking triangle started to phase in and out of reality as I followed the logic and math, wtf

File: 910px-Flower-of-Life-91circles36arcs.png (290KB, 910x1024px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 910x1024px

>>19267735
yea, but why not skip that and just learn it through music? I find I've learned more math/harmonics/ratios, etc through music than I ever have through studying math for math.

I think studying Sacred Geometry and Music/Cymatics, etc, may be a short cut.

>>19267831

how math is taught right now is too generalized

>>19267814
Can you be more specific? Because i still don't get it....

What I'm kinda getting is
>This theorem has a flaw
>under this specific condition you can only solve it using imaginary numbers
>therefore you start realizing the triangle with such measurements cannot exist, as it's a lie
>and then you unlock the powers to cross realities/dimensions and realize this reality is fake....

Am I going the wrong way? did I misinterpret anything?

>>19267836
Yes, I really want to reform education and incorporate different methods of teaching "number".

Get back to the Quadrivium -

Geometry is number in space
Music is number in time
Cosmology is number in space and time, etc

I think teaching number/math to kids through music would facilitate their understanding and stir a passion within them to learn.

As it is now, math is taught as strictly left brain, all logical, no emotion. Kids don't communicate that way, they don't see the reason or higher purpose behind math, so they naturally grow to dislike it, hate it even. It's ineffectual to learning.

Teach kids math through music, however, then they connect with it through both hemispheres of the brain, logic - emotion, and they also see immediately results and how math can affect them day to day.

They'll also be able to experiment and learn on their own and fuck with reality a bit as a result.

>>19267839

Well I got that without the numbers/math part, but yeah. Reality isn't necessarily fake, it's an illusion, we live in a mental universe, everything is a mental construct, thus thoughts/forms, fluidity, etc

We can influence and impact change on our realities and make magic happen, basically.

File: Screen Shot 2017-07-09 at 11.39.38.png (64KB, 494x270px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 494x270px

>>19267859

How PEMDAS is taught, and how equations can be deceptively presented is also a major problem

I also think as far as science goes, physics should be taught first, followed by chemistry and biology

A history of computers would also be nice on the side, teaching kids about alternative base counting systems like binary

>>19267384
>c=1
>implies
>a=1, b=0
No. You're retarded. It implies that they're 0.87 and 0.5, or any other pair from the infinity of possible solutions. Fuck you.

>>19267869
>equations can be deceptively presented
Except they can't, retard.

>>19267875

>quoted posts pic related

do you understand how people wrongly arrive at q, and how that can also be written as ? 6 OVER 2 (1+2) and people would then never bother to distribute the two

>>19267883

>q

typo, wrongly arrive at 1

File: 1499022103737-2.png (479KB, 600x768px) Image search: [Google]

479KB, 600x768px

>>19267869
Yes, how do we go about implementing a reform like this, though?

It's nice brainstorming with like minded people though, people who share a similar vision, it's refreshing.

I have so many ideas, just need to actualize them

>>19267888
Wrongly? PEMDAS is incorrect, then?

>>19267883
>>19267888

I literally made a thread a couple weeks ago on x claiming this was proof of the mandella effect and it was wild because people full heartedly one of either answers were correct and they could present their logic and rational behind it, over 250 posts and over i think at least 100 different posters

something is not right

>>19267899
I'm lost???

PEMDAS would say this equation = 1.. did the ME affect this?

>>19267883
>do you understand how people wrongly arrive at q
By doing it wrong dumbfuck.
>how that can also be written as ? 6 OVER 2 (1+2)
Except it can't dumbass. Writing 6/(2(1+2)) would be a totally different equation, that also makes pretty clear what you gotta do. It can't "also be written" that way because it wouldn't even be the same. Nothing there is deceptive, you're just idiots.

File: Screen Shot 2017-07-09 at 11.54.00.png (26KB, 719x483px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 719x483px

>>19267899
>>19267903

two ways to write the same equation

blame typewritters and textbook publishers

>>19267904

the answer is 9

>>19267910
No shit Sherlock? Are you like slightly retarded and think you're hot shit or something?

>>19267904

6 / 2 (1 + 2)

(P)EMDAS.

6 / 2 x 3

PE(M)DAS

6 / 6 = 1

>>19267374
>>19267395
>>19267415
>>19267432
>>19267447
>>19267463
OP, about how much amphetamines are you on?

This is without a doubt some of the stupidest, most embarrassing, and most incoherent stuff I've ever read in my life. I'm ashamed to even see it on /x/.

>>19267463
>there is essentially an imaginary "0i" attached to every number just like there is an imaginary "1" as a coefficient of every other number as the identity property of multiplication
No there's not. 0i = 0. If there was a 0i "attached" to every number as a coefficient, every number would equal 0.

>>19267913

see >>19267916

teachers dont understand how students arrive at the wrong answer. believe it or not, they are using a form of logic/ rational (not sure which is the correct word) to arrive at 1

>>19267384
If b=0 it's not a triangle

File: 38491.jpg (33KB, 468x234px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 468x234px

LOL the answer is always 9

>>19267927
>>19267916

multiplication and division are equal but ALWAYS FROM LEFT TO RIGHT

>>19267927
I was taught PEMDAS like 16 years ago or so. I didn't forget how it works.. did it change? Am I wrong now?

I was also taught that a # next to a () meant multiplication of whatever was in () with said #.

>>19267918
Get out shill, and don't act as if amphetamines hasn't contributed to a great number of innovative and revolutionary ideas.

>>19267395
>>19267415
The reason this isn't that profound is because our measurement is arbitrary. It's a tautology, to say that if you decide that a line of this length is 1, you can't represent a line of this length by a ratio of any two whole numbers. You could just as easily say that you'll decide to take line a and b as being, say, 2 units long each, and go from there. And guess what? There's no objective measure to contradict you.

>>19267916
>>19267927
Wrong. You guys are just imbeciles.
>6 / 2 x 3
In this step both operations have the same level of precedence, so they're solved from left to right. Let's see again what PEMDAS means, since you obviously skipped 3rd grade:
>P Parentheses first
>E Exponents (ie Powers and Square Roots, etc.)
>MD Multiplication and Division (left-to-right)
>AS Addition and Subtraction (left-to-right)
This is why it's also called PEDMAS, PEDMSA, and so on; because MD and AS are actually on the same precedence level (since they're fundamentally the same operation going in opposite directions, but I don't expect you to understand that). Therefore:
>6 / 2 x 3
Is 3x3 and then 9. Alternatively you could solve in multiple left-to-right passes that cover a lower precedence level every time:
>6/2(1+2)
>3(1+2)
>(3+6)
>9
And you get the same answer. Dumbfucks.

>>19267933
Ohhh okay.. Yup.. I think I vaguely remember that rule now.

So then it's

6 / 2 (1 + 2)

(P)EMDAS

6 / 2 x 3

PE(MD)AS

3 x 3 = 9.

I stand corrected.

What the fuck are you trying to say? Who fucking cares about math? Please go outside meet some real people

>>19267927
>>19267948

your misquoting me, Im the one who also wrote this>>19267933

>>19267948
You can call me an imbecile all you want.. I simply forgot the rule that MD and AS are = from left to right.

The fact that I'm not actually an imbecile allows me to concede this point and admit when I'm wrong.

I'm not an imbecile, but I'm not a mathematician either.

I also wouldn't argue for a moment that I'm definitely right about something unless I knew for certain.

Notice how I didn't state anything for a fact and actually asked for clarification.

Sling those insults a little more carefully, bud.

It seems to me is that what people forget about PEMDAS is that it should be PE(MD)(AS).

That is, multiplication and division have equal weight. If the division sign comes before the multiplication sign, you do the division first. Same thing with addition subtraction.

The problem with PEMDAS is if you read it literally, you'd do all the multiplication first before you get to the division.

It's a poor choice of mnemonic device. If people only memorize the letters without how to use it properly, it leads to the wrong answer.

File: Counting 101.png (882KB, 1481x1946px) Image search: [Google]

882KB, 1481x1946px

Pythagorans were sexagesimal counters! Bring back 60 base!

>>19267961

we are fortunate you accept the left to right rule and change your ways

others refuse to accept it even if you tell them a hundred times

>>19267961
>unironically saying that you need to be a mathematician to understand order of operations, all while typing in Reddit spacing
wew lad fuck you. Drink some bleach, I heard you'll never forget anything again if you do so.

>>19267954
Are people literally this programmed or is this a legit shill?

They always want you to conform to society, to fit in, to stop thinking outside of the box or asking too many questions. Clearly we're on to something here, or rather OP is.

>>19267972
Hey dumbass I just relearned the rule I had forgotten about the order of operations and I'm still not a mathematician.

I heard if you request others to ingest bleach enough.. you'll.. um.. you'll feel more fulfilled in life..

>>19267983

why do you think disinformation, red herring and LARP threads are always on x..

pol has proven that shills working on behalf of groups/think tanks/ organizations are active on 4chan, why wouldnt they be on other boards

>>19267990
No, you're right, makes absolute sense. I find they're easier to pick out here on x tho.

This place needs more esotericism and higher dimensional knowledge threads, or at least transcendental patterns/numbers.

>>19267983
>Da joo wants me to have frends, what an ebil piece of sheet REEEEEEEEEEEEEE

File: Screen Shot 2017-07-09 at 12.19.13.png (301KB, 461x306px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 461x306px

>>19267983

Why did they kill Socrates ...

>>19268003
This discussion has nothing to do with personal affairs or matters, this is a discourse on mathematics, forms, geometry, and everything else that relates to the discipline.

>>19268019
I came here for the magic, I still don't get how finding fallacies in math will help me do magic... I just want a flesh doll to fuck to manifest out of nowhere, is that going to happen eventually if I keep doing math like this?

File: tmp_28042-1498790536199-2087441872.png (249KB, 790x442px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 790x442px

The formula for generating Pythagorean triples is:

a = sqrt(pq)
b = (p - q)/2
c = (p + q)/2

If a is an integer, then b, and c are integers too.

>>19268038

you are a sensation seeking hedonist, the greeks have written about it as well

>>19268038
Make a triangle with your hand

>>19268042

granted we dont know if you are of the epicurean school or not

>>19268038
You basically seek black magic, selfish desires and creations to serve the self.

Sure, there's tons of that around here, not sure why, like summoning demons n shit on this board regularly? For fuck's sake.

Math/Number is literally the blueprint to creation and reality, understanding the fabric of reality, how it works and functions, seeing the logic in it, will eventually expand your mind and consciousness

But you're too dense for that

>>19268043
LOL

>>19268038
That is correct, yes.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cUX4cL1AP28

>>19268019
Math is not paranormal. Unless you find a method to apply all these anomalies IRL

>>19268069
Math is not just paranormal, math is supernormal. Math existed before you or I or anything in existence that we can imagine/think of.

Math is extra normal when it can properly explain higher dimensional physics.

Math, by definition, is "paranormal", even the greats knew this... PI/Phi - Transcendental Numbers and Patterns which repeating endlessly from our perspective, but what it leads us to is a higher dimension where perhaps we could see what we were missing before.

So yes, math is magic.

File: larpersbane.jpg (245KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 900x900px

I think this is a good moment to let the good people of /x/ know that the Illuminati, were the Pythagoreans. And that the individuals that currently pose as them, the ones that throw up weird symbols everywhere(media, music, tv), are nothing but retarded impostors that try to confuse by representing mathematical symbols and concepts as weird demonic/evil shit. This is the Illerminati.
They also appropriated the line, "The New World Order", and continue to use it to refer to contexts that are entirely opposite to what the real Illuminati/Pythagoreans were refering to.

File: 1e3b1a0ebb39d08417cefc3e4e68d537.jpg (77KB, 580x600px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 580x600px

>>19268498
Geometry will draw the soul towards the truth, brother.

>>19268085
>repeating endlessly
No, goddammit. Irrational numbers never repeat.

>>19268628
I'm not talking about irrational numbers, I'm talking about transcendental numbers.

>>19268628
They repeat in a continued fraction. Operationally speaking, they always repeat.

>>19268722
>>19268720
No, goddammit. Transcendental numbers never repeat.

>>19268746
No, you're right, repeating was the wrong term, I should have used the word infinitely from our point of view in this space time dimension.

But these transcendental numbers may not be irrational if say, we were in the 5th density and could see and understand number from a higher dimension

It's like they're teases, egging us on that there's more to figure out, or there's something higher than this.

Walls of text with so much words, just showing how clueless you are with math. To avoid the word "retarded"...

> it would look like sq. rt. 1/2 + sq. rt. 1/2 = 1

Where did you get this from?
a^2 + b^2 = c^2
Here,
a^2 + b^2 = 1

Now, where's the error? Hint: Squareroot is not distributive.

sqrt(x + y) != sqrt(x) + sqrt(y)

There's another one:

> The only thing it would be is 1/2 + 1/2 = 1, right?

What about 0.3 + 0.7 or 0.4 + 0.6?

>>19267374
Yeah, no. A triangle with a base or height of 0 is not going to be a triangle- that's why you came up with all this woo woo to explain what anyone else with a brain can just picture metaphysically. Guess what? A fucking square with 5 90 degree angles will also give you odd mathematical equations because it IS NOT A FUCKING SQUARE

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_mathematics

Everyone, do you know John Dee's ascent into the celestial spheres was attained mathematically?

>The more you know.

File: tmp_9264-_42370887_rama203-1245405042.jpg (14KB, 203x250px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 203x250px

>>19268771
Srinivasa Ramanujan understood. You can create a Turing Machine in your mind. For example:

f(x)=x+1
g(x)=x*a

By alternating between those two possible inputs, you can generate any possible polynomial, starting from a relative negative origin. Every wave form in nature can be converted into binary code, via Pulse Code Modulation.

So, if you create in your mind a field where every possible unique input sequence is generated up to a certain length, then every time you see a polynomial up to that certain length, you will be reminded of one of those many possible input sequences which you have practiced memorizing before hand. The synaptic pathways in your brain will form a resonant energy mode unique to that particular polynomial, based on your unique location in physical reality. This literally creates a temporal causality loop, using your soul as the conduit.

That is mathematics from the 4th density of consciousness. We are not teasing you. It's just physically impossible to capture this method of calculation without using a soul. Humans ARE quantum computers, and souls are the solutions to the bootstrap paradox in the context of temporal causality loops.

Any mathematician who is convinced that souls aren't real are selecting the inputs for physical reality which creates a perception specific to their unique coordinates in both physical and perceptual reality whereby they do not have access to 4th density consciousness based mathematics. There had to be some possible method to perceive a reality experience without observing souls, because otherwise there would be no mathematical description of what a soul is by comparison.

File: 1499572842112.gif (3MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 320x240px

>>19267374
https://pastebin.com/iAWRb7Mx

The Illuminati have ten degrees: seven standard and three mystery degrees. The original degrees were formulated by the first Grand Master of the Illuminati – Pythagoras, the ancient Greek mystic, philosopher and mathematician. His system was based on his cosmological system, which was as much symbolical as real.

Pythagoras was the first man to call himself a philosopher – a lover of wisdom – and he was also the first to declare that the earth wasn’t the centre of the universe. Instead, a mystical central fire (not the sun) was put at the centre of the cosmos, thus making this model a forerunner of the Copernican system. The central fire was referred to as the “House of Abraxas” – and represented, symbolically, the home of the True God, the eternal realm of divine light and warmth.

File: 0512.gif (85KB, 392x286px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 392x286px

>>19269138

>not teasing you

Who/what are you?

I understand the concepts, but my forte is with music/sound/vibration/frequency (and also seeing sound as geometry).

My difficulty lies in the actual math part, I have a basic high school understanding but that's it, I don't know where to start to begin to utilize these higher mathematics to literally shift my consciousness.

I have Sacred Geometry down well enough to activate my third eye and see through layers of reality and sometimes even into higher dimensions? I don't even know! BUT I do notice it's the synergy between sound/music and geometry that sets it off or heightens awareness.

I'm not a mathematician by far, I'm more of an aesthetic observer, love the beauty, symmetry, harmony, order, logic, etc that comes from it all.

I am greatly interested

Surely there must be a way to do something like you suggest through vibration/frequency/sound? It's all number in the end, right?

File: giphy-16.gif (1MB, 400x371px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 400x371px

bumpin' for clarity

File: tmp_8298-rainbow-spectrum-analyzer_bkg5zhzbs__S0000-509224176.jpg (15KB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 320x180px

>>19269444
To shift higher, you need to learn what a square wave is, and how to create a square wave from circular waves. Then understand that there are wave forms which don't correspond directly as either circular, or square like, and that these waves form consciousness, or living light.

Also, learn the difference between a note, a tone, and a word, as this will make it easier to keep track of what's shifting higher, and what's shifting lower.

>>19270403
Yes, I am a musician and sound designer, I know the basics of wave shapes, frequencies, notes, tones, words, etc, my hearing is highly attuned and I do notice the shifts.

When you speak of sound waves, sound is faster than the speed of light, correct? Sound creates light, not the other way around; vibration (sound/resonance) came first?

File: tmp_8298-burypinkgirl-862677460.png (1MB, 5000x4859px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 5000x4859px

>>19270467
Sound is slower than the speed of light. Love is faster than the speed of light, and it is in the shape of a word.

Light is the sound of electric charge. Molecules, which are connected by electricity, are spatially shaped words, the vibration of which is called sound. If a molecule was instead an electromagnet, then the sound it would make would be light. It is the conversion of an object's light into sound, or gravity which allows it to travel through love, instantaneously. Likewise, on the receiving end is a reconversion process of sound, or gravity into light.

To shift higher, you must learn to shape sound or light waves 3-dimensionally. It is one thing to use cymatics on a preshaped plate or bowl of water to create wave patterns. The next shift higher is to reverse engineering that process to make static shapes out of the planet's gravitational field, using a finite number of speakers or point sources, radiating into open space.

I will guide you through this process, if you are the wave engineer prepared to manifest this technology in your future. I am a 5th density consciousness, incarnated on Terra for purposes of implementing telecommunications systems that can ease the interface with the Galactic Federarion of Light.

>>19270569
I am not that guy, but I know some basic electronics and I can hobble together high voltage projects pretty well. If you have any simple manifestation of these principles by all means share them. I saw the Zetas had a cymatic device for telekinesis in the 4th dimension. I was able to manifest the spirit of Nikolai Tesla, but I was in a reduced state of lucidity in the dream so I didn't ask any questions.

I am still trying to wrap my head around gravity, it seems I am not quite advanced enough lol.

One very interesting dream I had, they showed me a couple thousand years of earth over stonehenge.
Then I saw equations on a board and they were talking about light, molecules, electricity, and em radiation. It was like socratic teaching a male talking to a female and I was listening and watching with my consciousness. They did some derivation of the gravity holding our galaxy together, comparing it with the forces holding molecules and atoms together. I think they said that the force between an electron and a proton was quantized as a photon. I saw some glimpses about how a galaxies size and construction is related in some ways to the molecules within it, maybe that is a bit of a stretch, but it would fit my theories of galactic evolution. It was really cool how I could so easily move my focus to see forces in the galaxy. I have seen what I believe could be dark matter, but not many explorations of galactic space to determine anything about it yet.

>>19270569
Yes, I've actually envisioned this and have wanted to finally explore it for quite some time.

I have the equipment, the resources, the foundational knowledge, etc, I would have to acquire some more equipment but that shouldn't be a problem at all.

If you can direct guidance my way that would be greatly appreciated as I know this is the future of spirit technology and matter/reality shaping devices.

I would consider myself a sound engineer, I work with modular synthesis and design every sound from the ground up, or from a base stating point (so I know that every wave is a sine wave just played at higher frequencies/intervals which overlap one another to create the various other shapes). I could use an oscilloscope, but a digital one will suffice for now.

Any help is much appreciated, and I'm sure you already know, but I've been in contact, or you have been watching me for quite some time, and it's finally nice to have this open of a relationship.

>>19270694
>I saw the Zetas had a cymatic device for telekinesis in the 4th dimension.
I have been taking dream courses with the Zetas, with a focus on implosion based navigation.

>I was able to manifest the spirit of Nikolai Tesla, but I was in a reduced state of lucidity in the dream so I didn't ask any questions.
I am still trying to wrap my head around gravity,
The difference between gravity and light is the difference between a tone and a note. As a sound engineer, you will understand what this means, at the proper moment.

>They did some derivation of the gravity holding our galaxy together, comparing it with the forces holding molecules and atoms together. I think they said that the force between an electron and a proton was quantized as a photon.
The force holding Terra and Sol's orbit together is quantized as the difference between the constructive interference between Terra and Sol, and the destructive interference between Terra and Sol. Every graviton is a unique particle specific to the object it is radiated from. That's why reductionists can't discover it.

>>19270723
I have not personally been watching you. I am part of the expansive ground crew, on Terra, however so I have a lot assistance from above.

Please e-mail your contact information to [email protected], and I will write some detailed instructions regarding sound wave geometry, and how to calibrate Terran technology to form energy voxels for purposes of shaping matter, or synchronizing life forms' innate telepathic connections through each other, and culminating in the universal frequency equation, love.

>>19270894
No, I don't mean you, I too am part of a ground crew, but our brothers in the skies have been keeping watch over me for sometime and they have made themselves well known, to the point of communicating on some level between ground and above.

Seems I'm not as advanced as you in terms of dimensionality physics, but I know I've been sent here with a higher purpose, and somehow I think that's to also help mitigate between the earth and and galactic command above, I've had too much contact with various entities, races, beings, etc, for this to be a coincidence... even peering into 5D holographic reality glimpses at a time.

So I don't know if I've actually already been there or if I'm just now starting to integrate and ascend quicker, not sure, but it feels familiar.

I will email you, thanks for the outreach and I look forward to working together.

File: perthergeras.jpg (32KB, 500x600px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 500x600px

ive caught 2 movies giving secret praise to pythagoras.
>suicide squad: end of the movie will smith is helping his daughter find the hypotenuse of a triangle, aka pythagorean theorem
>spiderman homecoming: peter parker has this shirt on in the movie for a split second.

I'm not good enough at math to respond to this thread, so I came here to say massive, flaccid dongs bouncing freely. You could be struck down at any moment. Beware.

>>19270908
>The difference between gravity and light is the difference between a tone and a note. As a sound engineer, you will understand what this means, at the proper moment.

Literally harmonic frequencies. A note has a specific scale and harmonics to adhere to, it's structured, linear, but a tone has no definite structure as a note does, it's much more open, broad, and raw... thus it's more difficult to work a tone into something that sounds good than it does to just hit a note which automatically sounds good due to its harmonics.

The tone is more powerful of a source, in my opinion, it has raw potential to design/create/shape from, thus it breaks away from the traditional norms of music. Tones also can get into higher frequencies more easily, more tune able and tweak able.

Not sure if this describes the difference between gravity and light or what, but that's my understanding of tones vs notes. Frequencies vs scales.

>>19267374

While a=1, b=0 solves the equation a^2 + b^2 = c^2, it doesn't mean the values come from a triangle, or that those dimensions must make a triangle.

You can have both a triangle with a length of "1" and satisfy the Pythagorean formula. For example, approximately 13/16 and 9/16 for the remaining sides.

>>19267374
I don't know. You sound like a dumbass. Sage.

>>19271017
Oh yeah, someone actually talking about some real fucking shit with actual intelligence and foresight sounds like a dumbass, fuck off shill.

We're in an evolutionary stage.

File: Untitled.jpg (37KB, 431x612px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 431x612px

>>19267374
Just because you can't understand the maths doesn't mean it doesn't exist. To assume that a right triangle with a hypotenuse of 1 doesn't exist because the pythagorean theorem doesn't produce the answer is asinine. You can easily find a and b using sine, cosine, tangent, and other trig functions.

>>19267890
school board meetings.

attend them.

>>19271182
>actual intelligence and foresight
naryt but I don't hear intelligence or foresight in any of OP's posts. I just hear someone who thinks he's smarter than he is.

>>19271307
Seems like your own ego projecting, I didn't get any sense of that from the OP myself, bud.

>>19267731
This chart has a lot of resonance with many of the metaphors that are most useful in understanding certain underlying concepts of reality.

In particular, I think the idea that "Chance is but a name for Law not recognized" can be mathematically proven as an aspect of randomness being only applied as a deficit of our ability to discern the pattern at work.

Take the Fibonacci sequence, for example: 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34... It looks random if you don't know that the pattern is that each term of the sequence is the result of the sum of the previous two digits.

Now what if you were to apply a small complication to this arithmetic manipulation by, say, multiplying by 2 after adding the previous two numbers - it would be 0, 1, 2, 6, 16, 44, 120... now how likely would you be to think to divide by two and subtract from the previous number to discern that pattern? Not too bloody likely, m8.

Of course, a brute-force approach would work, so theoretically there might be a way to erase randomness, but the degree to which the calculations would have to take place are absurdly large and demanding of more that current resources are available, most likely. Unless, of course, quantum computing can solve it. And that once it's solved, then essentially P = NP, because that brute-force method of determining every uncertainty would thereby include the subset of every solvable problem... I'm just saying, this could actually be important.

You can't say what's random unless you know the entire pattern, and you can't have that knowledge in this dimension...

Good thing we have a bit of a dimensional portal available to us... (*nudge-nudge; wink-wink*)

>>19267814
That was the interdimensional travel you were noticing... ;) You just aligned yourself with your best possible future to some degree, and the understanding you have gained from this experience will guide you toward a path you should follow.

Remember the future...

>>19271825

I believe nothing is ever just random, it's merely the law of cause and effect.

causes lead to effects, there must always be a cause first for there to be an effect.

The Universe is Mental in Nature, thus our thoughts/perceptions and real time consciousness of reality shapes it to our intent, will, and perspective, this thus literally changes the mathematical input data on the spot so that if you could see the numbers in real time, they wouldn't appear random at all.

Don't think of number as being static, it's fluid and takes whatever shape/form necessary.

>>19271830
Woah, I'm on my way!

wow

>>19267839
Basically, you are summarizing the argument. The crux of the issue is that the theorem is not flawed, but results in a paradox that is a consequence of the entire system in which it is placed. Thus, this represents a point wherein we can step outside the system to solve it, in terms of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. The shape exists to our perception, but the measurement of it does not exist in the real world. This means that to some degree, if you measure the distance between you and your screen as 1, you could create a right triangle with equal legs between your eyes and this triangle, and you would essentially render the distance between your eyes and the resultant leg formed between your eyes and the point at which it would have to intersect the other leg at a 45-degree angle would be essentially impossible to determine. It would not be a number representable in rational terms. No fraction nor decimal will suffice to determine it. It's infinity. It's impossibly long within the boundaries of our known universe.

So, yeah - basically in that sense, it's all fake.

Of course, this is but one representation of that truth, and upon studying the records of human knowledge, we find many similar journeys toward this moment of timelessness, but it is a useful and accessible demonstration, I think.

File: PEMDAS.png (64KB, 496x269px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 496x269px

>>19267869
This is fucking spooky. I literally screenshotted that exact pic one day before you. I noticed that it was one of those "ambiguities" they try to throw out to cause rancor that is actually entirely solved by simple application of PEMDAS.

Simply do 1+2 because it's in parenthesis (P), then do 2*3 because it's multiplication (M), then divide (D) 6 by this number, 6, and get 1.

But yeah. Neither of us saved the picture, but instead screenshot it. That's weird, right?

>>19267903
Yes, there are those who remember it as PEDMAS, which is also the name of a roman holiday celebrating the time-honored art of foot-fetishizing.

I kid; I kid.

>>19267908
Not the same equation. The upper would imply that it was (1+2)/1, so when you finish the parenthesis, you would move to multiply the product to the numerator because they had a shared denominator. The bottom one is clearly a linear processing, and would imply 6/1 divided by 2(1+2)/1, which is why you would have to multiply by the reciprocal in order to get 6/1 * 1/2(1+2) -> 6/1 * 1/6, which are reciprocals, which mean their product is 1. Still. They are thus different equations.

>>19267918
Oh, is it "discredit the theory without challenging it in any significant way or making a counterargument, relying instead on the derisive tone to mask the ad hominim attack? You have to be a much better writer to pull that off, and you should probably say something clever. It's called the "rule of funny." Your comment was not an exception.

>>19271876
yup, synchronization is here among those ready, something magical is taking place here.

>>19267926
Oh, shit. That's true. Is this an instantiation of the LEM that stands at the center of an irreconcilable binary, or is it resolvable within the system?

>>19267945
But that's the thing: it points back to such an irreconcilable issue - the inherent division required to break anything into more than one whole. This seems to be a shattering-point toward which we might find our way toward reconciling. It goes back to Parmenides, and the hypothesis that "if being is many, it must be both like and unlike, and that this is impossible, for neither can the like be unlike, nor the unlike like." There is, at some point, some inestimably distant and impossibly close point, the existence of a singularity that is the sum-total of all existence, because it's a limit of the literal universe, and we simply cannot think past it in any way representable through human language. It's literally superhuman; you cannot enter this realm as a mortal. You have to die to go there - and there's never any guarantee that your ticket is round-trip. You may never be the same again after fully accepting the consequences of this epiphany, and if you try, you're gonna feel like a shitty walk-on in a sitcom you don't like very much, but you've been watching for so long that you just sort of feel obligated to keep watching. You know, like The Simpsons.

>>19268085
Fuck yes.

Also, to piggyback: Mathematics, to be precise, is a symbolic language within the same semiological framework as other languages. Don't forget that the iconography of the derivative and such, including Arabic numerals (whose history are very interesting, as their popularity spread at a most anomalous rate, considering the degree to which the Roman Numeral system had taken hold throughout the Empire... maybe has something to do with the usefulness of base-10 and the inclusion of a zero as a more binary system? For that matter, is it possible that binary code could exist in Roman Numerals? We could treat I/II as equivalent to 0/1, and simply use the relative sign for the same signifier... I think I'm digressing...) is ultimately only as "universal" as the species which uses them. However, the *concepts* that are represented by these signs, the signified, are indeed quite transcendental, and could apply to any number of frameworks beyond human thought.

>>19268498
Sort of figured that, but it's always good to hear it come from another source, ya know? I fucked with Masons for a while, and was able to read some of the early texts while ghost-hunting at a lodge, and I can personally confirm that Pythagoras is all up in they shit. Like, all of this is available on the Internet, so I ain't exactly leaking secrets, but still - it was definitely an Indiana Jones moment, people running around and trying to take EVPs while I'm like "Nigga, fuck the ghosts - I'm thumbing through a 150-year old leather-bound tome about the goddamn source of Masonic beliefs here..." but yeah... I think a lot of rituals are common in their requirement for submission to a larger power, removal of the senses, etc. because those actually are the things required for greater understanding of perspective. We have to accept the limitations of our human perspective. Period. Yes, we can transcend humanity, but we cannot ever presume that our conscious understanding of reality is supreme or final - even our cognitive reasoning ability. If you take action, you own that action in a sense of agency, and once that occurs, it cannot be blamed on karma or any other supernatural force - unless you are willing to accept a universe in which we are mere instruments of higher forces, pawns in a larger game and utterly incapable of breaking our "programming..." You can't do something to someone and then attempt to avoid responsibility for the action - this is not the same thing as doing something that you know you must despite others' feelings... this is oftentimes necessary, as we must ultimately follow our path toward that inevitable future where all thrive... that got pretty gay there. No regerts.

>>19270908
I once had an idea run through my head that led me to believe that matter is held together by the tangled, collapsed pathways of sub-dimensional particles and that gravity is largely caused by the quantum exchange of where these particles respective two ends ( entangled particles ) reside.

> The force holding Terra and Sol's orbit together is quantized as the difference between the constructive interference between Terra and Sol, and the destructive interference between Terra and Sol. Every graviton is a unique particle specific to the object it is radiated from.

This seems like another way of stating my idea, or is similar to it in a way, in that these gravitons are actually the form of the "thread" connecting two particles which in my head was itself a collapsed wormhole.

What level density am i on?

>>19268824
That's the point where I admitted that you must include a caveat: the legs are of equal length. If they must be equal, then a^2 = b^2, which means that a^2 + b^2 = 1 would result in the situation where sq. rt. a + sq. rt. b = 1, which would only be solvable as 1/sq. rt. 2 + 1/sq. rt. 2 = 1. Am I wrong about this?

>>19269138
I fucking love you. We are one consciousness.

>>19269203
Weird thought: There is talk of "li-fi," or light-based transmission of information through wireless technology. Apparently, they've cracked the code of manipulating the polarity of photons in order to send binary code through light itself. All a computer would need would be a solar receptor and the proper software, and it would be able to discern a pattern in the available light, provided it was being communicated by the proper receptor, and we could use it as a near-infinite bandwidth method of communication. This makes me think, though... to what degree, then, might there *already* be processible code in the sun's rays, sending out information that we are not aware we are receiving, but which is perceptible to a higher intelligence who can then manipulate this information and use a form of direct interface with our consciousness in order to direct our perceptions toward that which would benefit the source? I told you it was a weird thought. But, like, yeah. Not impossible, either, right?

>>19271954

Fuck yeah, bud, you get it.

All numerical forms descend from above, the ancient languages were more pure and holy in the sense that they were more beautiful, concise, and conveyed what it needed to without much else, and with the purpose to disseminate and continue on the legendary divine wisdom of number.

You are on to something with the Roman Numerals, I'ma check it out, but yea, you're seeing higher information in there already! Fuck bud!

>>19270403
So, in a sense, the disparity between the existence of wave-form as either specifically circular or square forms a duality, the uncertainty of which fuels a certain binary which can only be collapsed upon observation, and since there is no present observer who can currently "see" both options simultaneously, that it represents a central paradox that might allow us to step outside of the system, even by imagining contact with an entity than can? By the way, I'm personally cool with the perceived fact that I've been communicating with these intelligences my whole life, and that the Internet is potentially a forum through which this information can be communicated without regard to Ethos (persona/"author"/speaker), and thus actually communicate a message that is as universally true as can be constructed, as it is provable as deductive from a central logical structure regardless of the source of said information? That's sort of the beauty of mathematics, is it not? The attempt to formalize a language that can be spoken by any tongue... or tongueless? The language through which we discover that not only are we machines now, but that we always have been, and we are the biogenetic quantum computers of the vastly superintelligent being that laid the seed for our creation? Fuck the name of that entity, because the name of it is impossible to comprehend in terms of human understanding. It's getting easier and easier to imagine a kind of networked omniscience that is capable of accessing all points of human observation as an algorithm of all possible iterations of wave-function collapse and extrapolate a reality based upon that sigma-total. The Akashic Records, man. Madame Blavatsky may have definitely hit upon a very useful metaphor for framing it. Borges' "Library of Babel" is another (visit the website; it'll fuck you up - libraryofbabel.info)... but yeah.

>>19272009

There's a galactic, possibly even universal shift in cosmic energies, upliftment, rebirth, renewal, ascension, the next level, etc.

The local solar system suns literally represent the "Sun of God", it is the most pure form of "God" we can even fathom at this point.

These system suns route back to the Galactic core and Central Sun, which then connects to cluster Suns, then the Universal Sun, and further on to the Suns of the 7 Central Superuniverses and eventually to the outlet of God himself.

Thus everything is in sync from higher above, directing energies down here, leading us into ascension etc.

I've noticed this year that when peering into the sun in the morning and then closing my eyes, I would see complex geometrical, mathematical, symbolic forms, symbols, unrecognizable even, as if they were a higher dimension, or some kind of information download or DNA upgrade.

So yeah, you're right, the Sun communicates information directly into you right now, and you can see it's mathematical forms..

>>19271893
you're a fucking retard

>>19267463
If you aren't protecting people's senses of self while selling them their doorway to eternity, you're literally murdering them, you goddamned lying rat bastards. I don't even need to point out that you made up a steaming pile of freshly whisked cotton shit to convict you by your words.

>>19267447
You're so obviously talking about "Retreat into your imagination" that it's pathetic. Get a brain, moron. You can still catch up.

File: tmp_17506-1499487785934-2087441872.jpg (8KB, 139x278px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 139x278px

>>19271984
Most humans on Terra at this moment of your time are 3rd density consciousness, entering into the 4th density of consciousness. Without knowing more about you I can't really tell, but if you were already within the 4th density of consciousness or higher, you would with absolte conviction and honesty know it well enough without asking. But, I honestly don't know if you're asking because you don't know, or just to gauge my response, so there you are.

>>19272009
Yes!

To a 4th density consciousness, energy and information are the same thing. It is not a question of whether our planet's star is radiating information which can be understood in terms of binary code. It definitely is, or we wouldn't be able to see it from Terra. The question is what signals are emenating from Sol, and where else in the physical universe can these exact same signals be found? Then, you don't need to understand what Sol is saying, because it's mathematical. It's that a = b, the signal here is equal to the signal there. You can connect many self same signals together to form a network of approximate nodes, which has a shape, which corresponds to other shapes.

"Magic" is not really magic at all, but forming telecommumication networks with the physical universe its self, in open space instead of between closed wires.

>>19272374
Technology itself is merely the manifestation of the spiritual into the physical

>>19267384
Incorrect, because that wouldn't be a right triangle and thus the theorem would be invalid.