Paradoxes of Traditional Mineralization Theory & the Ancient Lattice System

[sagaistrue]

That's your citation?

Let me show you: the Earth itself is coupled to the value of π.

Let the Earth’s orbital period be ERAS.
The golden ratio is denoted by Φ ≈ 1.618.

We find that:
Φ ≈ the square root of (5π divided by 6)
and
5π ≈ 6 multiplied by Φ squared.

Calculating with the orbital period:
ERAS divided by 5π ≈ 365.24219 divided by 15.7079633 ≈ 23.252 (23 degrees 15 minutes 12 seconds)
ERAS divided by (6 multiplied by Φ squared) ≈ 365.24219 divided by 15.707544 ≈ 23.25266 (23 degrees 15 minutes 16 seconds)

The Earth’s orbital motion causes the Sun to appear to move about 1 degree eastward relative to the stars each day, so we treat one day as equivalent to 1 degree.

Obliquity ranges:

- The obliquity of the ecliptic (Earth’s axial tilt) varies from about 22 degrees 00 minutes to 24 degrees 30 minutes.

- The obliquity of the Moon’s orbit varies from about 18 degrees 00 minutes to 28 degrees 30 minutes.

- The mean value for both is 23 degrees 15 minutes.

Cycles of variation:

- The ecliptic obliquity cycle is about 41,000 years.

- The lunar orbital obliquity cycle is about 18.61 years.

This is evidence of planetary field coupling.

If you insist on pursuing absolute precise data, you may look into the parity non-conservation theory.

By the way, consider why you can think and chat so comfortably on Earth now

 

[DaveC426913]

Let me show you: the Earth itself is coupled to the value of π.

Let the Earth’s orbital period be ERAS.
The golden ratio is denoted by Φ ≈ 1.618.

We find that:
Φ ≈ the square root of (5π divided by 6)
and
5π ≈ 6 multiplied by Φ squared.

Calculating with the orbital period:
ERAS divided by 5π ≈ 365.24219 divided by 15.7079633 ≈ 23.252 (23 degrees 15 minutes 12 seconds)
ERAS divided by (6 multiplied by Φ squared) ≈ 365.24219 divided by 15.707544 ≈ 23.25266 (23 degrees 15 minutes 16 seconds)

The Earth’s orbital motion causes the Sun to appear to move about 1 degree eastward relative to the stars each day, so we treat one day as equivalent to 1 degree.

Obliquity ranges:

- The obliquity of the ecliptic (Earth’s axial tilt) varies from about 22 degrees 00 minutes to 24 degrees 30 minutes.

- The obliquity of the Moon’s orbit varies from about 18 degrees 00 minutes to 28 degrees 30 minutes.

- The mean value for both is 23 degrees 15 minutes.

Cycles of variation:

- The ecliptic obliquity cycle is about 41,000 years.

- The lunar orbital obliquity cycle is about 18.61 years.

This is evidence of planetary field coupling.

Numerology. This just gets better and better.

If you insist on pursuing absolute precise data

:comes to a science site, says "don't trouble me with your data ways":



This is a joke, right? You're yankin' our chain. You're winding us up.

What haven't we covered? Ley lines, numerology, crystallography, ancient aliens... Are you checking them off in order? Or just throwing darts at the chart:

 

[sagaistrue]

Numerology. This just gets better and better.






:comes to a science site, says "don't trouble me with your data ways":



This is a joke, right? You're yankin' our chain. You're winding us up.


What haven't we covered? Ley lines, numerology, crystallography, ancient aliens... Are you checking them off in order?

View attachment 7594

Einstein himself once said:
"Space and time are not conditions in which we live, but modes in which we think."

Modern physics has long moved beyond the old reductionist paradigm. The most advanced theories, from relativity to quantum gravity, are built on the fundamental truth that time and space are inherently coupled and cannot be understood in isolation.

Your criticism of "numerology" and your insistence on single-dimensional data only reveal that you are still trapped in an outdated, fragmented way of thinking. The deeper, integrated patterns of the universe require a perspective that considers time, space, and their interplay as a whole.

To put it simply: even by the standards of probability theory, the odds of life emerging by pure chance are effectively zero. This only reinforces that the Earth is a precisely tuned system, not a random accident.

So please also consider why you are able to speak here.

 

[DaveC426913]

To put it simply: even by the standards of probability theory, the odds of life emerging by pure chance are effectively zero. This only reinforces that the Earth is a precisely tuned system, not a random accident.

Ah. So your darts are now zeroing in the God and Creationism part of the table.

Did you want to shoot for some New Age Bollocks, there at the bottom?


You are pulling our leg.

 

[sagaistrue]

Numerology. This just gets better and better.






:comes to a science site, says "don't trouble me with your data ways":



This is a joke, right? You're yankin' our chain. You're winding us up.

What haven't we covered? Ley lines, numerology, crystallography, ancient aliens... Are you checking them off in order? Or just throwing darts at the chart:

View attachment 7594

Have you ever actually seen the real structure of an element at the microscopic level?

 

[exchemist]

Einstein himself once said:
"Space and time are not conditions in which we live, but modes in which we think."

It seems Einstein never said this. It was the authors of a book about Einstein that said it, attempting to describe how relativity makes space and time no longer absolute:
QUOTE
Earliest source located that attributes this to Einstein is the 1975 book The Nature of Scientific Discovery: A Symposium Commemorating the 500th Anniversary of the Birth of Nicolaus Copernicus edited by Owen Gingerich, p. 585. But long before that, the 1944 book Einstein: An Intimate Study of a Great Man by Dimitri Marianoff and Palma Wayne contains the following quote on p. 62: "But Einstein came along and took space and time out of the realm of stationary things and put them in the realm of relativity—giving the onlooker dominion over time and space, because time and space are modes by which we think and not conditions in which we live." It appears from the quote that the authors were giving their own description of Einstein's ideas, not quoting him.
UNQUOTE

From: https://yquotes.com/albert-einstein/45642/

 

[Pinball1970]

Let me show you: the Earth itself is coupled to the value of π.

Can you show me a scientific reference to back up any of your claims? So, a published paper, a chapter from a university textbook/reference book, a note or two from a recognised journal.
THAT is a scientific citation that actually means something.

 

[sagaistrue]

Ah. So your darts are now zeroing in the God and Creationism part of the table.

Did you want to shoot for some New Age Bollocks, there at the bottom?


You are pulling our leg.

View attachment 7596

Do you know why you can speak in such a sarcastic and ironic manner now? Because the universe is inherently based on the coupling of yin and yang fields. And your stubborn mindset? It's also a result of the instability of Earth's field!

 

[Pinball1970]

Einstein himself once said

Was Einstein a geologist?

 

[sagaistrue]

Can you show me a scientific reference to back up any of your claims? So, a published paper, a chapter from a university textbook/reference book, a note or two from a recognised journal.
THAT is a scientific citation that actually means something.

If I were a tenured professor or a mainstream academic, I’d already be boxed in by the system — and I would never have had the eyes to see this pattern in the first place.

I came here to present a perspective with an open, inclusive attitude for exchange — not to get sidetracked and bicker endlessly.

 

[sagaistrue]

It seems Einstein never said this. It was the authors of a book about Einstein that said it, attempting to describe how relativity makes space and time no longer absolute:
QUOTE
Earliest source located that attributes this to Einstein is the 1975 book The Nature of Scientific Discovery: A Symposium Commemorating the 500th Anniversary of the Birth of Nicolaus Copernicus edited by Owen Gingerich, p. 585. But long before that, the 1944 book Einstein: An Intimate Study of a Great Man by Dimitri Marianoff and Palma Wayne contains the following quote on p. 62: "But Einstein came along and took space and time out of the realm of stationary things and put them in the realm of relativity—giving the onlooker dominion over time and space, because time and space are modes by which we think and not conditions in which we live." It appears from the quote that the authors were giving their own description of Einstein's ideas, not quoting him.
UNQUOTE

From: https://yquotes.com/albert-einstein/45642/

Thank you for being so meticulous. You are truly a master.

 

[Pinball1970]

If I were a tenured professor or a mainstream academic, I’d already be boxed in by the system

Why do you think that? Do you know many academics?

 

[DaveC426913]

Do you know why you can speak in such a sarcastic and ironic manner now? Because the universe is inherently based on the coupling of yin and yang fields. And your stubborn mindset? It's also a result of the instability of Earth's field!

So, no responses then. No defense. No logic or data.

Back to the drawing board?

 

[DaveC426913]

I came here to present a perspective with an open, inclusive attitude for exchange — not to get sidetracked and bicker endlessly.

But you haven't said anything - except make vague hand-wavey gestures at half a dozen woo items. Do you think if you just drop "ley lines" and "ancient aliens" into a discussion you're not going to be called out as a pot-stirrer?

You don't even have the conviction of your own claims. You throw them out and then forget about them. It really is like you're throwing darts at a board of woo labels.

In short, you are behaving like a troll.

 

[DaveC426913]

Has anyone read the classic 1001 Arabian Nights?

This whole thing with Saga reads like that - but for pseudoscience.

"I propose ancient aliens."
"How do you support that??"
"To understand that, you will have to understand the energy of bronze relics."
"What about bronze relics?"
"Ah! To understand that you will have to understand crystal lattices!"
"Well how do you defend..."
"Ah! But you will first need to know the numerology of the Earth and Moon!"
"And how..."
"First, let me tell you about ley lines..."

And so on, for a thousand and one nights, so that her head does not come away from her neck.

 

[exchemist]

Thank you for being so meticulous. You are truly a master.

Yes, we get a lot of alleged Einsten quotes on forums like this one, most of which are things he never said. People like to claim Einstein's authority for all manner of things, some sensible, some crazy, so I do try to police the use of his name a bit.

 

[sagaistrue]

Yes, we get a lot of alleged Einsten quotes on forums like this one, most of which are things he never said. People like to claim Einstein's authority for all manner of things, some sensible, some crazy, so I do try to police the use of his name a bit.

I actually don't want to use Einstein as an example, but I also don't want to be unjustly smeared.

Look at my ID. Saga is true.
Why do you think you’re even here to argue with me?
Is it because of the creations of the ancients?
So you have lost your creative ability, right?
And you only stumbled upon the creation of the name "Google" by chance!
You can't even do that!

The Great Sphinx is simply a basic form of symbolic encryption formed by the triple combination of human beings, the Leo constellation and lion worship. I suppose you cannot understand this either.

The ancients were already doing what they could to reduce entropy. Do you really think you are superior today?

The following is my reply to a netizen

Acknowledging individual differences is a reality we all have to face. But individual differences do not represent a hierarchy of life levels. Essentially, all lives are equal. So there’s no need for you to be so stubborn here, and I’m not going to argue with you any longer.

 

[Pinball1970]

. I suppose you cannot understand this either

I don't for one but that's because it's gibberish.

 

[sagaistrue]

I don't for one but that's because it's gibberish.

The "knowledge" you defend is merely a collection of speculations. Among these "mineralization theories", which one has ever provided concrete evidence to resolve the paradoxes we face? Especially the genesis of rich ore deposits in plate fracture zones.

I even suspect you haven't thoroughly studied even the mainstream scientific hypotheses. I express my views with a questioning attitude, unlike those who speak with absolute certainty!

If you don't like it, you can choose to remain silent. After all, your behavior can't solve the problem. I have already proposed an exploratory line of thought.

 

[Pinball1970]

merely a collection of speculations.

No science actually works, you are using now to post to me.