merkababozo
Registered Member
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What the .........
- Thread starter QuarkHead
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
mirror man
Registered Member
Actually, I'm going to put my "shiet" onto a set of videos destined for youtube. I guess I'll be able to at least put accross the data without shiysters like you being able to spin your little webs.
I know who you are. You're a fake, and you're also making liars of all your friends here who feel they have to support you. Unless you are seriously retarded, it's obvious you are talking rubbish. I've had many reviews of my book. people write me all the time and thank me for the free download, and say they find the process intriguing. That is the majority opinion. But for the record, you have no right to think of yourself as a worthwhile debunker. You're an idiot with a logic you like to use as a weapon.
Again, you can kiss my you know what. Let me put it to you another way. I am not as dumb as you are tyring to make out.
mirror man
Registered Member
I have a whole load of examples that coincide with contrary fields of light in unity. There is enough justification for a non mystical explanation, which I have highlighted in my book. The only mention of the merkaba is now in the last chapter. And I rightly ask if there is a case to make for it. Regardless of what it is, and the the spiritual connotations, this structure that is exposed is about balance. It can be used in many types of experiments, and it also implies that it sits at zero-point. Using the charts it is viable that frequency generators can mimmick this natural balance.
I don't have to prove myself anything other than what I have said.
Star of David/Merkaba structure, signifying contrary rotating fields of light in unity:
Overtones cycles expose it
Musical scales expose it
Fibonacci numbers expose it
The default nine number sequences of the Vedic Square exposes it
Dozens of other charts exposes it
The unity of clockwise and anti-clockwise, positive/negative, expansion/contraction,
dissonance/consonance, all express this one structure.
The Merkaba looks like this structure. It rotates both clockwise and anti-clockwise. It speaks of the same unity as expressed through the natural cycles shown in everyday experiments.
I don't have to prove myself anything other than what I have said.
Star of David/Merkaba structure, signifying contrary rotating fields of light in unity:
Overtones cycles expose it
Musical scales expose it
Fibonacci numbers expose it
The default nine number sequences of the Vedic Square exposes it
Dozens of other charts exposes it
The unity of clockwise and anti-clockwise, positive/negative, expansion/contraction,
dissonance/consonance, all express this one structure.
The Merkaba looks like this structure. It rotates both clockwise and anti-clockwise. It speaks of the same unity as expressed through the natural cycles shown in everyday experiments.
And your motivation for cutting and pasting this post of mine made at Physorg, is what Occidental? Are you trying to suggest your deceit here, posting other people's posts, is science at work?
I'm old fashioned in that sense. I envisage an actual scientist would think your strategy is very poor here. If you have a problem you should have the decency to highlight it under your real name, and not play anonimous judge.
Let's put it another way. Anyone aggreeing that you have the right to pretend to be me, post stuff made in the middle of useless debates with you, is the way to conduct science, then I don't see how I've lost out at all.
Why do you manage to prove me right about you being a deceitful idiot Occidental?
Lui
I'm old fashioned in that sense. I envisage an actual scientist would think your strategy is very poor here. If you have a problem you should have the decency to highlight it under your real name, and not play anonimous judge.
Let's put it another way. Anyone aggreeing that you have the right to pretend to be me, post stuff made in the middle of useless debates with you, is the way to conduct science, then I don't see how I've lost out at all.
Why do you manage to prove me right about you being a deceitful idiot Occidental?
Lui
Looks like P&M just got a whole lot worse. Good luck, Ben.
I am not as dumb as you are tyring to make out.
Glorious.
mirror man
Registered Member
Why does the Merkaba symbol denote a point of balance , or perfect symmetry within natural cycles? The mirroring of the major scale, for example, shows three minor 6th intervals through the mirror (a 666, but not related to the number of the beast, but to the point of balance and perfect symmetry between both sides of the mirror), the 45-degree angle that is the flow of the Merkaba, transferring info from one side of the mirror to the other. The Pi equation, how come the first 144 digits of this equation equal 666? And when this flow is mirrored, according to the contrary flow of the cycles, how come the mirror 144 moves also equal 666; even though at no stage during the dual flowing cycles was there ever any balance between both sides of the mirror. The 144 has been a number that sacred gematria has equated with Light, and the 666 can be shown to be a point where light/dark have a marriage point (switch over between contraction and expansion, for example).
In my opinion, we are reaching a time when there will be progress that will bridge the gap between the nature of a Creator (if there is one) and the process of natural phenomena.
The Merkaba is the marriage symbol of masculine and feminine energy. For it to sit at a perfectly symmetrical point between both sides of the dual cycles (number cycles or music cycles in their various forms, including the overtone structure), leads to a working conclusion for me, that Carl Jung was right and that the inner male/female does have a point of unity, a marriage point, and that we humans have a physical nature and a spiritual nature, whose interface is the Merkaba.
It's as simple question; why the Merkaba? Another accident? I would have really thought there was a good chance that the mirror side would have shown just gibberish, not a structure that shows how information transfers across the 4.5 axis point to the opposite side of the mirror, by accessing the perfectly symmetrical point, on which a Merkaba symbol resides, and then clockwise switching for anti-clockwise, contraction for expansion, plus for minus etc.
The Vedic Square is a grid that houses nine number sequences. Any number into infinity cycles according to one of these nine sequences. They are an alternative way of seeing Buckminster-Fuller's indig number system. It shows that the number 1 and the number 8, for example, are mirror numbers, in that their cycles flow contrary to each other. Buckminster-Fuller showed that the number 1 had a plus oneness about it, and that the numbner 8 had a minus oneness about it. This is true for the number 2 (+2) and the number 7 (-2), the number 3 (+3) and the number 6 (-3, the number 4 (+4) and the number 5 (-4). The number 9 is equated with zero, both being constants, and the sum of the plus and minus indigs.
Many prime numbers show these mirror number partners flowing together in sets, infinitley. Here's one example of this:
1/7 = .142857142857...........
142
857
This one flows in triplets, then switches over to the mirror set. The mean number between each mirror pair is always 4.5. This 4.5 is, in indig number terms, the zero point, and it transfers information from one side of the mirror to the other.
1.....4.5....8
(+1) - 0 - (-1)
All this is empirical, and together with the fact that one can find the Merkaba in all this, should mean that the claim that "religion" and "science" being like oil and water is unfounded. I would say that by observation, one would have to lean toward creation. Of course, that one event that cannot be verified as being created gets called an accident. Scientists who refute spiritual existence beware, because you do not sit on the pedestal of truth just yet!
Cheers
In my opinion, we are reaching a time when there will be progress that will bridge the gap between the nature of a Creator (if there is one) and the process of natural phenomena.
The Merkaba is the marriage symbol of masculine and feminine energy. For it to sit at a perfectly symmetrical point between both sides of the dual cycles (number cycles or music cycles in their various forms, including the overtone structure), leads to a working conclusion for me, that Carl Jung was right and that the inner male/female does have a point of unity, a marriage point, and that we humans have a physical nature and a spiritual nature, whose interface is the Merkaba.
It's as simple question; why the Merkaba? Another accident? I would have really thought there was a good chance that the mirror side would have shown just gibberish, not a structure that shows how information transfers across the 4.5 axis point to the opposite side of the mirror, by accessing the perfectly symmetrical point, on which a Merkaba symbol resides, and then clockwise switching for anti-clockwise, contraction for expansion, plus for minus etc.
The Vedic Square is a grid that houses nine number sequences. Any number into infinity cycles according to one of these nine sequences. They are an alternative way of seeing Buckminster-Fuller's indig number system. It shows that the number 1 and the number 8, for example, are mirror numbers, in that their cycles flow contrary to each other. Buckminster-Fuller showed that the number 1 had a plus oneness about it, and that the numbner 8 had a minus oneness about it. This is true for the number 2 (+2) and the number 7 (-2), the number 3 (+3) and the number 6 (-3, the number 4 (+4) and the number 5 (-4). The number 9 is equated with zero, both being constants, and the sum of the plus and minus indigs.
Many prime numbers show these mirror number partners flowing together in sets, infinitley. Here's one example of this:
1/7 = .142857142857...........
142
857
This one flows in triplets, then switches over to the mirror set. The mean number between each mirror pair is always 4.5. This 4.5 is, in indig number terms, the zero point, and it transfers information from one side of the mirror to the other.
1.....4.5....8
(+1) - 0 - (-1)
All this is empirical, and together with the fact that one can find the Merkaba in all this, should mean that the claim that "religion" and "science" being like oil and water is unfounded. I would say that by observation, one would have to lean toward creation. Of course, that one event that cannot be verified as being created gets called an accident. Scientists who refute spiritual existence beware, because you do not sit on the pedestal of truth just yet!
Cheers
Can't you at least post the link to where you are "borrowing" these posts from occidental? You've missed some of that post out. That's why taking posts out of context is for people with deceit in mind.
It's shaken you up hasn't it? You care more about confusing the issue than investigating it. I think you are damaging the image that scientists work hard for. But then people with an ego like yours don't really care about science do they? You're bigger than it right?
It's shaken you up hasn't it? You care more about confusing the issue than investigating it. I think you are damaging the image that scientists work hard for. But then people with an ego like yours don't really care about science do they? You're bigger than it right?
mirror man
Registered Member
Your science is a sitting on a throne of illusion. In your scientific method
there is no room for spirit. Any mention of such evidence is instantly dismissed by those in your position. It places you in a precarious posiiton, of being a blind man leading the blind. The service that science has evolved towards people is a blind certainty toward quantification as a means to discerning reality. You have set your own parameters, and through them cannot accept the qualititave aspects of life, calling them unscientifically verifiable. But they are verifiable scientifically, because true science is the discernment of spiritual activity.
It is only in your own little group of fellow believers that you can walk your corridors, and nod towards each other that you have it all worked out. In the real world you are becoming an elitist little group that influence the atittudes of our children. Your only come back is to criticise the war-like
religious fundamentalism, as a way to justify your views that you have the correct approach. You fail to accept that even this war-like religious fundamentalism is a spiritual problem. Your solution is to place a remedy of illusion there instead.
This "selfish gene" that your kind see as a fact, is pissed upon when one gets real and looks around at the unselfish acts that humans are capable of. But you have set the parameters so tight, that anyone criticising you will get called a "mystical poo head".
Let's weigh up the scientific facts you say there are, against the facts that humans are not only material beings but spiritual beings too, and that spirit is as scientific as any quantifiable evidence you say you have so far.
And I'll begin by exposing what evolution must come to believe if it sees itself as the only fact:
According to the CIA World Factbook, there are over 150,000 deaths per day worldwide.
According to the National Center for Health Statistics, there are over 6,500 deaths per day in the US alone.
You have a 1:119 chance (in your lifetime) of dying from "intentional self-harm", a 1:34 chance (in your lifetime) of dying from "unintentional (accidental) injuries", and a 1:22 chance (in your lifetime) of dying from "all external causes of mortality" according to the National Safety Council.
So even if science fixes death from aging or other internal causes of mortality, how is it going to prevent all of the external causes of mortality? How can science prevent "intentional self-harm", for instance?
The bigger question is . . . even if science could prevent intentional self-harm, should it? Assuming evolution accurately explains the origins of life on this earth, are those lifeforms that insist on self-terminating really a part of the fittest? Why not let intentional self-harm occur to remove the weakest of the species?
Evolution must regard suicide victims in this way. And here is the conflict between what evolution must believe, and the words of Jesus who said" the meek shall inherit the earth". Let's not assume either evolution nor spirit is true, let's discuss it anew. Why the "meek" as opposed to the urges of evolution?
there is no room for spirit. Any mention of such evidence is instantly dismissed by those in your position. It places you in a precarious posiiton, of being a blind man leading the blind. The service that science has evolved towards people is a blind certainty toward quantification as a means to discerning reality. You have set your own parameters, and through them cannot accept the qualititave aspects of life, calling them unscientifically verifiable. But they are verifiable scientifically, because true science is the discernment of spiritual activity.
It is only in your own little group of fellow believers that you can walk your corridors, and nod towards each other that you have it all worked out. In the real world you are becoming an elitist little group that influence the atittudes of our children. Your only come back is to criticise the war-like
religious fundamentalism, as a way to justify your views that you have the correct approach. You fail to accept that even this war-like religious fundamentalism is a spiritual problem. Your solution is to place a remedy of illusion there instead.
This "selfish gene" that your kind see as a fact, is pissed upon when one gets real and looks around at the unselfish acts that humans are capable of. But you have set the parameters so tight, that anyone criticising you will get called a "mystical poo head".
Let's weigh up the scientific facts you say there are, against the facts that humans are not only material beings but spiritual beings too, and that spirit is as scientific as any quantifiable evidence you say you have so far.
And I'll begin by exposing what evolution must come to believe if it sees itself as the only fact:
According to the CIA World Factbook, there are over 150,000 deaths per day worldwide.
According to the National Center for Health Statistics, there are over 6,500 deaths per day in the US alone.
You have a 1:119 chance (in your lifetime) of dying from "intentional self-harm", a 1:34 chance (in your lifetime) of dying from "unintentional (accidental) injuries", and a 1:22 chance (in your lifetime) of dying from "all external causes of mortality" according to the National Safety Council.
So even if science fixes death from aging or other internal causes of mortality, how is it going to prevent all of the external causes of mortality? How can science prevent "intentional self-harm", for instance?
The bigger question is . . . even if science could prevent intentional self-harm, should it? Assuming evolution accurately explains the origins of life on this earth, are those lifeforms that insist on self-terminating really a part of the fittest? Why not let intentional self-harm occur to remove the weakest of the species?
Evolution must regard suicide victims in this way. And here is the conflict between what evolution must believe, and the words of Jesus who said" the meek shall inherit the earth". Let's not assume either evolution nor spirit is true, let's discuss it anew. Why the "meek" as opposed to the urges of evolution?
mirror man
Registered Member
Your science is a sitting on a throne of illusion. In your scientific method
there is no room for spirit. Any mention of such evidence is instantly dismissed by those in your position. It places you in a precarious posiiton, of being a blind man leading the blind. The service that science has evolved towards people is a blind certainty toward quantification as a means to discerning reality. You have set your own parameters, and through them cannot accept the qualititave aspects of life, calling them unscientifically verifiable. But they are verifiable scientifically, because true science is the discernment of spiritual activity.
It is only in your own little group of fellow believers that you can walk your corridors, and nod towards each other that you have it all worked out. In the real world you are becoming an elitist little group that influence the atittudes of our children. Your only come back is to criticise the war-like
religious fundamentalism, as a way to justify your views that you have the correct approach. You fail to accept that even this war-like religious fundamentalism is a spiritual problem. Your solution is to place a remedy of illusion there instead.
This "selfish gene" that your kind see as a fact, is pissed upon when one gets real and looks around at the unselfish acts that humans are capable of. But you have set the parameters so tight, that anyone criticising you will get called a "mystical poo head".
Let's weigh up the scientific facts you say there are, against the facts that humans are not only material beings but spiritual beings too, and that spirit is as scientific as any quantifiable evidence you say you have so far.
And I'll begin by exposing what evolution must come to believe if it sees itself as the only fact:
According to the CIA World Factbook, there are over 150,000 deaths per day worldwide.
According to the National Center for Health Statistics, there are over 6,500 deaths per day in the US alone.
You have a 1:119 chance (in your lifetime) of dying from "intentional self-harm", a 1:34 chance (in your lifetime) of dying from "unintentional (accidental) injuries", and a 1:22 chance (in your lifetime) of dying from "all external causes of mortality" according to the National Safety Council.
So even if science fixes death from aging or other internal causes of mortality, how is it going to prevent all of the external causes of mortality? How can science prevent "intentional self-harm", for instance?
The bigger question is . . . even if science could prevent intentional self-harm, should it? Assuming evolution accurately explains the origins of life on this earth, are those lifeforms that insist on self-terminating really a part of the fittest? Why not let intentional self-harm occur to remove the weakest of the species?
Evolution must regard suicide victims in this way. And here is the conflict between what evolution must believe, and the words of Jesus who said" the meek shall inherit the earth". Let's not assume either evolution nor spirit is true, let's discuss it anew. Why the "meek" as opposed to the urges of evolution?
there is no room for spirit. Any mention of such evidence is instantly dismissed by those in your position. It places you in a precarious posiiton, of being a blind man leading the blind. The service that science has evolved towards people is a blind certainty toward quantification as a means to discerning reality. You have set your own parameters, and through them cannot accept the qualititave aspects of life, calling them unscientifically verifiable. But they are verifiable scientifically, because true science is the discernment of spiritual activity.
It is only in your own little group of fellow believers that you can walk your corridors, and nod towards each other that you have it all worked out. In the real world you are becoming an elitist little group that influence the atittudes of our children. Your only come back is to criticise the war-like
religious fundamentalism, as a way to justify your views that you have the correct approach. You fail to accept that even this war-like religious fundamentalism is a spiritual problem. Your solution is to place a remedy of illusion there instead.
This "selfish gene" that your kind see as a fact, is pissed upon when one gets real and looks around at the unselfish acts that humans are capable of. But you have set the parameters so tight, that anyone criticising you will get called a "mystical poo head".
Let's weigh up the scientific facts you say there are, against the facts that humans are not only material beings but spiritual beings too, and that spirit is as scientific as any quantifiable evidence you say you have so far.
And I'll begin by exposing what evolution must come to believe if it sees itself as the only fact:
According to the CIA World Factbook, there are over 150,000 deaths per day worldwide.
According to the National Center for Health Statistics, there are over 6,500 deaths per day in the US alone.
You have a 1:119 chance (in your lifetime) of dying from "intentional self-harm", a 1:34 chance (in your lifetime) of dying from "unintentional (accidental) injuries", and a 1:22 chance (in your lifetime) of dying from "all external causes of mortality" according to the National Safety Council.
So even if science fixes death from aging or other internal causes of mortality, how is it going to prevent all of the external causes of mortality? How can science prevent "intentional self-harm", for instance?
The bigger question is . . . even if science could prevent intentional self-harm, should it? Assuming evolution accurately explains the origins of life on this earth, are those lifeforms that insist on self-terminating really a part of the fittest? Why not let intentional self-harm occur to remove the weakest of the species?
Evolution must regard suicide victims in this way. And here is the conflict between what evolution must believe, and the words of Jesus who said" the meek shall inherit the earth". Let's not assume either evolution nor spirit is true, let's discuss it anew. Why the "meek" as opposed to the urges of evolution?
mirror man
Registered Member
Your science is a sitting on a throne of illusion. In your scientific method
there is no room for spirit. Any mention of such evidence is instantly dismissed by those in your position. It places you in a precarious posiiton, of being a blind man leading the blind. The service that science has evolved towards people is a blind certainty toward quantification as a means to discerning reality. You have set your own parameters, and through them cannot accept the qualititave aspects of life, calling them unscientifically verifiable. But they are verifiable scientifically, because true science is the discernment of spiritual activity.
it is only in your own little group of fellow believers that you can walk your corridors, and nod towards each other that you have it all worked out. In the real world you are becoming an elitist little group that influence the atittudes of our children. Your only come back is to criticise the war-like
religious fundamentalism, as a way to justify your views that you have the correct approach. You fail to accept that even this war-like religious fundamentalism is a spiritual problem. Your solution is to place a remedy of illusion there instead.
This "selfish gene" that your kind see as a fact, is pissed upon when one gets real and looks around at the unselfish acts that humans are capable of. But you have set the parameters so tight, that anyone criticising you will get called a "mystical poo head".
Let's weigh up the scientific facts you say there are, against the facts that humans are not only material beings but spiritual beings too, and that spirit is as scientific as any quantifiable evidence you say you have so far.
And I'll begin by exposing what evolution must come to believe if it sees itself as the only fact:
According to the CIA World Factbook, there are over 150,000 deaths per day worldwide.
According to the National Center for Health Statistics, there are over 6,500 deaths per day in the US alone.
You have a 1:119 chance (in your lifetime) of dying from "intentional self-harm", a 1:34 chance (in your lifetime) of dying from "unintentional (accidental) injuries", and a 1:22 chance (in your lifetime) of dying from "all external causes of mortality" according to the National Safety Council.
So even if science fixes death from aging or other internal causes of mortality, how is it going to prevent all of the external causes of mortality? How can science prevent "intentional self-harm", for instance?
The bigger question is . . . even if science could prevent intentional self-harm, should it? Assuming evolution accurately explains the origins of life on this earth, are those lifeforms that insist on self-terminating really a part of the fittest? Why not let intentional self-harm occur to remove the weakest of the species?
Evolution must regard suicide victims in this way. And here is the conflict between what evolution must believe, and the words of Jesus who said" the meek shall inherit the earth". Let's not assume either evolution nor spirit is true, let's discuss it anew. Why the "meek" as opposed to the urges of evolution?
there is no room for spirit. Any mention of such evidence is instantly dismissed by those in your position. It places you in a precarious posiiton, of being a blind man leading the blind. The service that science has evolved towards people is a blind certainty toward quantification as a means to discerning reality. You have set your own parameters, and through them cannot accept the qualititave aspects of life, calling them unscientifically verifiable. But they are verifiable scientifically, because true science is the discernment of spiritual activity.
it is only in your own little group of fellow believers that you can walk your corridors, and nod towards each other that you have it all worked out. In the real world you are becoming an elitist little group that influence the atittudes of our children. Your only come back is to criticise the war-like
religious fundamentalism, as a way to justify your views that you have the correct approach. You fail to accept that even this war-like religious fundamentalism is a spiritual problem. Your solution is to place a remedy of illusion there instead.
This "selfish gene" that your kind see as a fact, is pissed upon when one gets real and looks around at the unselfish acts that humans are capable of. But you have set the parameters so tight, that anyone criticising you will get called a "mystical poo head".
Let's weigh up the scientific facts you say there are, against the facts that humans are not only material beings but spiritual beings too, and that spirit is as scientific as any quantifiable evidence you say you have so far.
And I'll begin by exposing what evolution must come to believe if it sees itself as the only fact:
According to the CIA World Factbook, there are over 150,000 deaths per day worldwide.
According to the National Center for Health Statistics, there are over 6,500 deaths per day in the US alone.
You have a 1:119 chance (in your lifetime) of dying from "intentional self-harm", a 1:34 chance (in your lifetime) of dying from "unintentional (accidental) injuries", and a 1:22 chance (in your lifetime) of dying from "all external causes of mortality" according to the National Safety Council.
So even if science fixes death from aging or other internal causes of mortality, how is it going to prevent all of the external causes of mortality? How can science prevent "intentional self-harm", for instance?
The bigger question is . . . even if science could prevent intentional self-harm, should it? Assuming evolution accurately explains the origins of life on this earth, are those lifeforms that insist on self-terminating really a part of the fittest? Why not let intentional self-harm occur to remove the weakest of the species?
Evolution must regard suicide victims in this way. And here is the conflict between what evolution must believe, and the words of Jesus who said" the meek shall inherit the earth". Let's not assume either evolution nor spirit is true, let's discuss it anew. Why the "meek" as opposed to the urges of evolution?
Ok, we'll it's up to the moderaters here to do what they see fit. This post here by Mirror man/Occidental of physorg is a typical example of misrepresentation. Why has he come to sciforums to spread this?
This part here is a quote from another member of physorg:
It is pretty concerning to think people think this way. But it was put in an even better way by another trollster at physorg, just the other day:
I think humans had better curb this instinct of the animal self, before they ruin this planet with it.
And here we have this troll from phsyorg using posts out of context, whose only aim is to degrade another character.
I don't think you have a legal right to act this way occidental. Speak for yourself you coward. Have the guts to use your own words.
This part here is a quote from another member of physorg:
According to the CIA World Factbook, there are over 150,000 deaths per day worldwide.
According to the National Center for Health Statistics, there are over 6,500 deaths per day in the US alone.
You have a 1:119 chance (in your lifetime) of dying from "intentional self-harm", a 1:34 chance (in your lifetime) of dying from "unintentional (accidental) injuries", and a 1:22 chance (in your lifetime) of dying from "all external causes of mortality" according to the National Safety Council.
So even if science fixes death from aging or other internal causes of mortality, how is it going to prevent all of the external causes of mortality? How can science prevent "intentional self-harm", for instance?
The bigger question is . . . even if science could prevent intentional self-harm, should it? Assuming evolution accurately explains the origins of life on this earth, are those lifeforms that insist on self-terminating really a part of the fittest? Why not let intentional self-harm occur to remove the weakest of the species?
It is pretty concerning to think people think this way. But it was put in an even better way by another trollster at physorg, just the other day:
Stunning imbecility from such a manifestly idiotic plaything; after all this time, not realizing that his every move is childs-play orchestration by his masters.
When we've totally humiliated this noisome twat, we'll merely prey on another sub-human straggler - this is simply nature in action; as always, the weak and infirm are victims of their predatory superiors.
Is a tiger wrong when it kills the lame brainless, sick runt of the herd?
I think humans had better curb this instinct of the animal self, before they ruin this planet with it.
And here we have this troll from phsyorg using posts out of context, whose only aim is to degrade another character.
I don't think you have a legal right to act this way occidental. Speak for yourself you coward. Have the guts to use your own words.
Care to think on the fact that this thread is now in the Cesspool?Ok, we'll it's up to the moderaters here to do what they see fit.
mirror man
Registered Member
Check out the relationships that wavelength has to other wavelength. Plot out the harmonic series that is prevelent in material objects. Bring in musical scales, and the seven modes that are generated from them. Check out their mirrored partners, and how they interlock in a clockwise and anti-clockwise flow. Find what it is that unites the two sides of that tonal mirror. Move onto numbers, find their clockwise and anti-clockwise flows. Find out what it is that unites the two sides of the mirror. Check out the Fibonacci numbers, and mirror the flows, and find out what unites the two sides of the mirror.
These things being mapped are universally accepted by all. By mirroring the flows one does not find a chaotic representation on the mirror side, but a part of a much deeper system at play. That deeper system is something I have discovered for myself, and it does not conflict with the general understanding of the systems involved, it just gives an insight into their mirror side identity and what it is that unites the duality into one whole.
And , as I say, it is a Merkaba stucture that does so. To the right open minded person, the result is inescapable.
The Merkaba is the point of unity (perfect symmetry) between clockwise and anti-clockwise cycles, of masculine/feminine energies, of light/dark, positive/negative, marriage of the duality. If one actually gets a scrap of paper and starts plotting out the dual flows, and coming to exactly the same result and plots that reuslt on a circle and it even looks like a Merkaba, that is double confirmation.
These things being mapped are universally accepted by all. By mirroring the flows one does not find a chaotic representation on the mirror side, but a part of a much deeper system at play. That deeper system is something I have discovered for myself, and it does not conflict with the general understanding of the systems involved, it just gives an insight into their mirror side identity and what it is that unites the duality into one whole.
And , as I say, it is a Merkaba stucture that does so. To the right open minded person, the result is inescapable.
The Merkaba is the point of unity (perfect symmetry) between clockwise and anti-clockwise cycles, of masculine/feminine energies, of light/dark, positive/negative, marriage of the duality. If one actually gets a scrap of paper and starts plotting out the dual flows, and coming to exactly the same result and plots that reuslt on a circle and it even looks like a Merkaba, that is double confirmation.
mirror man
Registered Member
Can't you at least post the link to where you are "borrowing" these posts from occidental? You've missed some of that post out. That's why taking posts out of context is for people with deceit in mind.
It's shaken you up hasn't it? You care more about confusing the issue than investigating it. I think you are damaging the image that scientists work hard for. But then people with an ego like yours don't really care about science do they? You're bigger than it right?
I don't have to answer the silly comments here by you becuase it is not true. I am not belittling you, I am refusing to let you walk away smugly. Because I do consider you slightly on the smug side, and that is not a belittlement.
t's very smug to consider yourself the one who is simply pointing things out. You say I lie becuase I say I will try to ignore you. But you do not rule my life. If I want to go back on what I said it is not a lie, it is a change of mind.
So basically, the corner you'd like to put me in isn't going to be without my reasoning back to you.
You could take the lead and stop responding. I may or I may not do so. It all depends what kind of stuff you post next.
Go back to Physorg "mirror man".
No Cut and Paste posts or Plagurism (More severity than Cross posters);
(Cut and Paste means full documents/writings from other sites when a link will suffice)
No Character Assassination plots
The meaning of character assassination means that to dig around the forum archives or hunt around
the internet for "Snippets" of text written by a user on this forum to attack either themselves or their
beliefs within a post, is not tolerated.
Thread readers should be under their own investigative steam if they feel compelled to search out a
persons authenticity rather than allow the biase of others to mold their opinions through character
assassination propaganda.
If a user has provided a website URL, then readers can check out a persons "Legend" through looking at
their profile. It then should be up to the reader to create their own opinion of someones agenda or
attitude as apposed to listening to others.
The Moderator(s) to this sub-forum will attempt to remove any such attacks.
Your science is a sitting on a throne of illusion. In your scientific method
there is no room for spirit. Any mention of such evidence is instantly dismissed by those in your position. It places you in a precarious posiiton, of being a blind man leading the blind. The service that science has evolved towards people is a blind certainty toward quantification as a means to discerning reality. You have set your own parameters, and through them cannot accept the qualititave aspects of life, calling them unscientifically verifiable. But they are verifiable scientifically, because true science is the discernment of spiritual activity.
it is only in your own little group of fellow believers that you can walk your corridors, and nod towards each other that you have it all worked out. In the real world you are becoming an elitist little group that influence the atittudes of our children. Your only come back is to criticise the war-like
religious fundamentalism, as a way to justify your views that you have the correct approach. You fail to accept that even this war-like religious fundamentalism is a spiritual problem. Your solution is to place a remedy of illusion there instead.
This "selfish gene" that your kind see as a fact, is pissed upon when one gets real and looks around at the unselfish acts that humans are capable of. But you have set the parameters so tight, that anyone criticising you will get called a "mystical poo head".
Let's weigh up the scientific facts you say there are, against the facts that humans are not only material beings but spiritual beings too, and that spirit is as scientific as any quantifiable evidence you say you have so far.
And I'll begin by exposing what evolution must come to believe if it sees itself as the only fact:
According to the CIA World Factbook, there are over 150,000 deaths per day worldwide.
According to the National Center for Health Statistics, there are over 6,500 deaths per day in the US alone.
You have a 1:119 chance (in your lifetime) of dying from "intentional self-harm", a 1:34 chance (in your lifetime) of dying from "unintentional (accidental) injuries", and a 1:22 chance (in your lifetime) of dying from "all external causes of mortality" according to the National Safety Council.
So even if science fixes death from aging or other internal causes of mortality, how is it going to prevent all of the external causes of mortality? How can science prevent "intentional self-harm", for instance?
The bigger question is . . . even if science could prevent intentional self-harm, should it? Assuming evolution accurately explains the origins of life on this earth, are those lifeforms that insist on self-terminating really a part of the fittest? Why not let intentional self-harm occur to remove the weakest of the species?
Evolution must regard suicide victims in this way. And here is the conflict between what evolution must believe, and the words of Jesus who said" the meek shall inherit the earth". Let's not assume either evolution nor spirit is true, let's discuss it anew. Why the "meek" as opposed to the urges of evolution?
Hello Mirror Man. I don't know if you will remember me? We spoke on e-mail quite a few times. That is, if you are the same guy, but i assume you are, since you are the musician yes?
mirror man
Registered Member
I think actually what you have shown very clearly is how your establishment reacts and protects its own BS.
mirror man
Registered Member
Hello Mirror Man. I don't know if you will remember me? We spoke on e-mail quite a few times. That is, if you are the same guy, but i assume you are, since you are the musician yes?
Well I'm with you on most of that, and I like some of the examples you gave about the horses and cows. Now if you want a real conversation, I'm all ears. Want to know how the Merkaba, flower of life, egg of life, tube torus, natural cycles in number, Fibonacci, Phi, Pi, Harmonics, Mayan calendar grid, I-Ching hexagrams unite to show the duality of Nature married?
A
anima_kulture
Guest
I was just surfing the netz (I am a noob) looking for the lost school of Atlantis, and it led me here. What did I miss? :jason:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.