Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Sacred Geometry And Unified Fields from A Scientific/Metaphysical Standpoint
12-08-2016, 09:08 AM (This post was last modified: 12-08-2016 09:13 AM by Warcloud.)
Post: #21
(12-03-2016 12:28 PM)aries Wrote:  
(12-18-2015 09:33 AM)Warcloud Wrote:  
(12-18-2015 03:32 AM)Disjunctive Type Wrote:  How has he been rejected by the mainstream, when he hasn't even published a peer reviewed paper? It was an essay at a computer conference that he won a prize in.

Tesla has a unit of measurement named after him, how is that oppressing him?

Well my friend, if he's not a licensed physicist, then there would be no reason for the scientific community to even pay attention to his work for they arent his "peers." So no peer review for him! Smiling

As for Tesla, the man died in an ABANDONED building, broke, without a cent to his name when he was probably the best scientifical mind of the last century. His works were suppressed by the government and his patents were stolen and his discoveries privatized by the military industrial complex. Not to mention how his "peers" turned their backs on him.

So in light of the above you can see how well things play out in the scientific community. Makes one wonder if they will accept anyone that isnt part of their establishment. -Warcloud


Hi, I just read through the rest of this thread. And saw this.
That is not correct. He lived for 10 years in the Hotel New Yorker. Find the numbers to his floor /room. He had money. There is some total lies out there about Tesla.

Ive only watched 30 minutes of the video so far. Maybe watch the rest tomorrow maybe not......

You're right on the Hotel New Yorker part BUT he did die broke

(12-03-2016 05:13 AM)aries Wrote:  
(12-17-2015 10:24 AM)Warcloud Wrote:  

I know I keep mentioning the Hegelian Dialectic and how its proper usage provides true overstanding of the relationships between dualities, so as an example, I am dropping a link here that provides an illustrated and in depth view of the same.

The author of this video, Nassim Haramein, is the director of the Resonance Project and is a highly perceptive amateur physicist that has been blackballed by mainstream science (which is utter bs for the most part) the same way Nikolai Tesla and countless others have been in the past.

Herein, he provides a thorough and common sense explanation of the nature of matter, space and atoms, in such a way that even the layman can understand and an occultist can appreciate.

Feel free to leave a comment below. -Warcloud

You do post the good stuff. I said air at the point what connects us but I guess the correct answer was space. Damn it.

Thanks for the video.

I'll likely have to watch this over the course of 2-3 days.

Thank you... Glad you're enjoying it... I've got more, but I can pm them to you... Im done with posting up anything outside of the norm here

"You have to understand. Most people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured and so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it."
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2016, 02:43 PM
Post: #22
Tesla's problem was a total honesty combined with more faith in people than they deserved. A unique and marvelously brilliant man in so many areas, and seemingly clueless with regard to human nature as it was, because he was so enamored with what it might be.

Well, at least that's how his story seems to me anyway. His work was and still is without equal.

Magic: When you pull a rabbit out of a hat...
Magick: When the rabbit pulls you out of a hat...
In either case, you should keep a jaundiced eye on that hat...
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2016, 10:17 PM (This post was last modified: 12-08-2016 11:56 PM by Ontical.)
Post: #23
Disjunctive Type is referring to the Schwarzchild Proton paper - you can find it here

http://www.delezing.nl/uploads/artikelen...ton_a4.pdf or here http://hiup.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/...ramein.pdf

It's presented as a scientific document, so it's not possible to go into the reasoning properly without using technical language and concepts – which is a shame because I doubt that anyone with a good grasp of these concepts would need an explanation. I can try and simplify why it's wrong however.

Here is the the main problem, where it starts anyway. I wont explain yet, I will leave it out in the open for a while.

Nassim Harramein (see page 3 of the paper, as some symbols are incorrectly represented here) Wrote:We note that only a very small proportion of the available mass-energy density from the vacuum within Vp is required for a nucleon to obey the Schwarzschild condition. In fact, the ratio of the quantity of density of the vacuum in the volume of a proton, Rp = 4.98 x 10^55 to the quantity sufficient for the proton
to meet the Schwarzschild condition, M=8.85 x 10^14gm is - M/Rp = 1.78 x 10^-41 Therefore, only 1.78 x 10^-39% of the mass-energy density of the vacuum is required
to form a “Schwarzschild proton.”



Also, here is his certificate :

[Image: haramein_award.jpg]

Here is Harramein talking about the paper and the certificate:





It does sound impressive when described on the website and on videos such as this one. If you've looked at youtube comments and so forth, you'll see that plenty of people are impressed by it. In reality it is no more than a certificate for turning up at a conference in Belgium with a paper. As you can see on the AIP conference proceedings site, they will happily publish the proceedings of any conference with a science or engineering theme. The only review their publications team carry out is an editorial one.

Nassim has since removed his reponses to various scientists who have broken down his paper and debunked it, but the wayback machine has it preserved. http://web.archive.org/web/2011111019323...bob-a-thon

Here is a response video, not made by Nassim, but essentially it tries to address the many criticisms of his work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnzoxSEiW88

Here is a response to one particular blogger http://web.archive.org/web/2011111019324...-manifesto since removed from Harrameins' site.

Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2016, 04:07 AM
Post: #24
WarCloud you may be right on the broke part. Ive not looked much into Tesla in 20 odd years. Perhaps he had just enough to cover his hotel and food bill each month. I found the man fascinating when I was younger.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2016, 10:07 PM (This post was last modified: 12-11-2016 10:26 PM by Ontical.)
Post: #25
Warcloud Wrote:I know I keep mentioning the Hegelian Dialectic and how its proper usage provides true overstanding of the relationships between dualities

Here's a beginners book on Hegel's phenomenology of spirit. http://filosofia.fflch.usp.br/sites/filo...Spirit.pdf I can't find anything about overstanding, nor can I find anything about a particular dialectic, as he had several. If you mean thesis+antithesis=synthesis, then I am afraid Hegel didn't come up with that, or use it. That was Fichte.

Here's a full copy of Hegel's 'Phenomenology of Mind(Spirit)' http://www.naturalthinker.net/trl/texts/...f_Mind.pdf I searched for overstanding and found nothing. Can you perhaps point out what you are referring to?

The only academic usage I have been able to find, is a hermeneutic device, specifically Kevin J. Vanhoozer: Is There a Meaning in This Text? (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1998), 401(7). It's used as a means of 'being servant and lord of material in front of me'. But overstanding is not without understanding in this usage.

Understanding can mean 'having mastery over something' and so overstanding becomes redundant.

The only cultures and groups I have ever heard use this term frequently, are politically motivated ones, especially black seperatist, black supremecist, such as rastafarians.

From 'your dictionary' -
Quote:Verb

(third-person singular simple present overstands, present participle overstanding, simple past and past participle overstood)

(rare) to stand or insist too much or too long; overstay
to stand too strictly on the demands or conditions of.
(yachting, boat racing): to sail to the mark at a wider angle than is the normal upwind angle, to go beyond the layline
(Rastafarianism, US black subculture): to have complete or intutitive comprehension, to grok
(forestry, of a coppice): To be neglected and left uncut for too long.


Read more at http://www.yourdictionary.com/overstand#...vt6IgML.99

As I have understood Hegel, he was a huge influence on Karl Marx. Hegel is not strictly speaking, a phenomenologist in the usual sense of that term (from a first person perspective when describing experience) but was more of a noumenologist, a method that attempts to describe the experience of that which is beyond our experience, the workings of thought itself. You see, Kant said this world of thought, the noumena, can't be known as naturalistic science can never know the thing-in-itself, as it is restricted to the world of experience. What he did claim however, is that the self (sensibility and understanding) can know things before experience, we can recognise patterns, know how many lines can be drawn through a dot, that if we say 'room', we can know alot about the room before we enter it (it has doors, walls, has enough space to contain x amount of people) and so in answering Hume, who said that a priori knowledge simply didn't exist, Kant argued transcendental idealism, while at the same time merging empricism and rationalism together, resolves Hume and allows for a priori knowledge (synthetic a priori), which is morelike 'the active components of our perception'. I covered this in a previous thread titled 'On the subject-object relation of spirits'. So Hegel accepted there was a 'split' of what we can know (in experience, phenomenon) and what we can't access (noumena, the thing-in-itself, the world as it is without our perception), but instead of stopping there, systematically reinvented a rationalist dialectic. “Dialectic,” says Kant, is “a logic of illusion”, or another way of explaining it is 'dialectic is a logic that always leads to a contradiction and leads back into it's opposite'.
Fichtean/Hegelian dialectics is based upon four concepts:

Everything is transient and finite, existing in the medium of time.
Everything is composed of contradictions (opposing forces).
Gradual changes lead to crises, turning points when one force overcomes its opponent force (quantitative change leads to qualitative change).
Change is helical (spiral), not circular (negation of the negation).

That the master–slave dialectic can be interpreted as an internal process occurring in one person or as an external process between two or more people is a result, in part, of the fact that Hegel asserts an "end to the antithesis of subject and object". What occurs in the human mind also occurs outside of it. The objective and subjective, according to Hegel, sublate one another until they are unified, and the "story" takes this process through its various "moments" when the lifting up of two contradictory moments results in a higher unity.

Hegel is very complex, I don't know how this fits into physics to be honest. Hegel was a philosopher first and foremost and had a massive influence on economics and psychology, among other social sciences, even feminism.

Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-21-2017, 03:17 AM
Post: #26
The triad thesis, antithesis, synthesis (German: These, Antithese, Synthese; originally: Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis) is often used to describe the thought of German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Hegel never used the term himself. It originated with Johann Fichte.


The above proves that Hegel was the ORIGINATOR of the dialectic -Fichte just put a name to it. As for "overstanding" is concerned, it's more a play on words to help one see the bigger picture. Like when people call Nasa Nasholes or call Michelle Obama a beautiful "woman."

Anyhow, I've been busy and haven't had time to debate or check up WZ. Good info thou buddy Wink

"You have to understand. Most people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured and so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it."
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  The Scientific Method darangal 18 2,008 10-14-2015 09:08 PM
Last Post: Kobold
  My scientific essay Faust 2 826 02-24-2013 09:25 PM
Last Post: Faust

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)