Thread: Let's Study Sacred Geometry

Originally Posted by ThreeLetterSyndrom

That is not what planet's orbits look like

I assume the mean orbit means something different than just orbit

You seem to have a remarkably geocentric view of the universe. Why should our solar system be so special?

All of those geometric constructions within orbits... what are they relevant to? You can probably subtend any arbitrarily large circle with an error of less than 1% if you're allowed to choose any convoluted set of polygons like those.

Why are you asking when you already know?

A man decided he would like to see if he can create music based on crop circles. He found a program that can create music based on an image. So he grabs a few crop circle images of interest, and uses that to base his music of.

I posted about it because the creation of music based on geometry relates to Sacred Geometry. As many people are well aware of the videos on youtube showing how sound creates geometry. Why not the other way around? So I searched online to try to find if anyone has tried to 'listen' to geometry. That was the best I could find.

What exactly is there to argue about?

Or is it, if I don't answer your question you're going to make another post about how ignorant I am because I didn't answer your question? I feel like I'm in a school playground being triple dared by a 12 year old boy.

So, to be a little more concise: you don't know.

Okay, that's fine.

Originally Posted by Xei

That seems a rather bizarre way to think about it. Which first principles would lead you to derive that form of the equation?

As far as my knowledge goes the golden ratio is defined so that the ratio of a section of a line to the longer section of the line equals the ratio of the longer section to the total length of the line, which leads directly to

x = (1 + x)/x => x2 - x - 1 = 0

Why would you start from "the number that, minus one, equals its inverse"

The geometric deduction is just an application of the arithmetic definition. What I mean is that, the inverse of 1.61803399 is 0.61803399. It is the only number to have such property.

Where is that useful though? I assume it is or it wouldn't be used to derive phi... just interested.

Originally Posted by Xei

Where is that useful though? I assume it is or it wouldn't be used to derive phi... just interested.

"Useful" is a very relativistic concept. It is the only number to have a very interesting property. Any mathematician you ask loves this property.

In nature, ratios only serve for a very uncertain comparison. There is not a definition of "useful" in mathematics.

---

@ juroara:

I'm not trying to criticise, but it's very easy to come up with several geometric figures once you know the real distance. It's very easy to see figures and geometric constructions based on a few objects. If the growing distances between planets doesn't follow a rule of sorts, the not's not really relevant - just fact. But, as I said, the artistic importance is undeniable.

Also, remember that planet orbits are tridimensional - not in the same plane.

Originally Posted by Xei

You seem to have a remarkably geocentric view of the universe. Why should our solar system be so special?

All of those geometric constructions within orbits... what are they relevant to? You can probably subtend any arbitrarily large circle with an error of less than 1% if you're allowed to choose any convoluted set of polygons like those.

so unless you see how A relates to B you don't see any relation?

the relationship has gone over head, because it is not a relationship that one is meant to see

the beauty of Sacred Geometry is that everything is within a much larger picture, a larger picture that is reflected in the smaller picture. Which is why the Egyptians would say, As above so below. Sacred Geometry is about unity. And the beauty of unity.

a geocentric view of our universe? Im not sure why you would say that from merely posting two pictures.

why wouldn't other universes be just as beautiful?

So, to be a little more concise: you don't know.

first answer me this, why did you ask in the first place?

the answer is the reason why I do not care to answer you at all.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Just that.

Just, Kromoh is a word to denote that you believe something has less value.

Just a dog.

Just a friend.

Just geometry.

If you aren't interested in Sacred Geometry, why are you posting here?

Finally - you made a mistake in your OP. The point does not define the first dimension. The point defines dimension zero. You need two points to form the first dimension (a line); three points to form the second dimension (a plane); four points to form the third dimension (space); and so on.

why did you end there? why didn't you also tell me how the point has no length, no width or height?

when the single point in Sacred Geometry is symbolic for God and transcendent consciousness, are we still talking about the same thing?

Originally Posted by juroara

I assume the mean orbit means something different than just orbit

'mean' (in that context) means average. In other words, thats what it would look like if you averaged the planet's various distances from the sun during their true elliptical orbit and drew a circle with that average as the radius.

So far, all you've really managed to demonstrate is the human ability to invent patterns within any data set. The mean orbit pictures are the perfect case in point. The mean orbit of the planets is not a real physical thing, it is a set of data that humans have created. No significant physical phenomena happen in the circles around the sun described by those pictures, and the various geometric ratios that have been applied to them don't even relate to each other in any meaningful way.

I mean really, Kepler tried to fit the planetary orbits into some significant geometric framework hundreds of years ago and failed; and he was a genius. If there is anything to find there, do you think you would do better than him?

Actually, that question doesn't really matter because I remember that you are only interested in geometric mysticism. What this really means is that you don't even care to know the significance if there really is any, you just want to be able to marvel at the great mystery of it all, and imagine fanciful possibilities. You don't really want to study anything because you know that once you find out the real reasons behind all of this magic you perceive in the world, you'll realize that it is all very ordinary and simple.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

@ juroara:

I'm not trying to criticise, but it's very easy to come up with several geometric figures once you know the real distance. It's very easy to see figures and geometric constructions based on a few objects. If the growing distances between planets doesn't follow a rule of sorts, the not's not really relevant - just fact. But, as I said, the artistic importance is undeniable.

Also, remember that planet orbits are tridimensional - not in the same plane.

Art isn't the reason why people study Sacred Geometry. It's why people USE it, but they're not really studying it. It's why I haven't posted merely art as an example. It's not really important.

I understand what you're saying. But this isn't just any geometry. You can't just draw a triangle or a square willy nilly where ever you want. Every shape is there for a reason. And often, as with crop circles, it takes many steps before you can create that geometry within the 'rules' of Sacred Geometry.

The real Sacred Geometry isn't two dimensional. Nor is it static. But not everyone is a tech wiz to make real time three dimensional models.

If there is a relationship in the static image, then I assume there still is a relationship in the actual orbit. Why wouldn't there be?

does anyone here know for certain whether or not there is? then who here can say no?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

So far, all you've really managed to demonstrate is the human ability to invent patterns within any data set.

why do we have data? except to find a pattern?

No significant physical phenomena happen in the circles around the sun described by those pictures, and the various geometric ratios that have been applied to them don't even relate to each other in any meaningful way.

I understand what you mean. But the pictures themselves admitted to be derived from the mean. Who ever created the images understood those were the means, was it still important to them?

I mean really, Kepler tried to fit the planetary orbits into some significant geometric framework hundreds of years ago and failed; and he was a genius. If there is anything to find there, do you think you would do better than him?

Most people can't even hand draw the real Pattern of Life. It's a three dimensional pattern, with never ending circles going to and fro. Most people would need a computer program to draw this geometry for them. Maybe if Kepler was born today, with todays computers, he could have drawn his geometric framework. Maybe his only limitation was the tools he had.

Actually, that question doesn't really matter because I remember that you are only interested in geometric mysticism. What this really means is that you don't even care to know the significance if there really is any, you just want to be able to marvel at the great mystery of it all, and imagine fanciful possibilities. You don't really want to study anything because you know that once you find out the real reasons behind all of this magic you perceive in the world, you'll realize that it is all very ordinary and simple.

mysticism doesn't mean magical.

mysticism means direct knowledge. it means knowing first hand. not marveling at something because you don't understand it. so its quite the opposite.

the 'magic' that you are describing is simply my belief in unity. My belief in unity is there regardless of how things work. But really, how things work has only fortified my belief in unity.

Sacred geometry is the future of science thanks to the emerging field of nanotechnology.

Originally Posted by juroara

I assume the mean orbit means something different than just orbit

I remember learning that the planets follow the line of an oval, rather than a perfect circle...

This is funny.

The OP doesn't understand anything about geometry. To understand something liked fractals would actually take something more then looking at pretty pictures and making some philosophy about it.

To understand fractals you would need to understand what a complex number is. To understand the universe you would need to understand atleast some mathematics.

P.S. Its a shame because geometry in mathematics gets more interesting at the higher levels like being able to work in higher dimensions or on non flat surfaces.

Originally Posted by juroara

why did you end there? why didn't you also tell me how the point has no length, no width or height?

Uh... the definition of the word "point" specifically states that a point has no dimensions(length, width, height, etc.). Points are imperceptible, there are no real-world instances of points. They are mathematical constructs humans defined when the need for identifying locations arised.

I can only surmise he "ended there" because he thought you knew what points are, considering you talk about them at length.


Also, about the mean orbits:

3
5
16
18
23

I just picked five numbers arbitrarily. Fifteen seconds with a calculator will tell you that the mean is 13. 13 is totally unrelated to those numbers. If I wanted a different pattern, I could tell you the median is 16, that the mode is nonexistant, and that the range is 20. I can also say that the first number is 3, the second is 5, the fourth is 18, that the fifth is 23, that the last is 23, that the lower quartile is 4, that the upper quartile is 20.5(depending on which method for calculating it you use), that the first number is an approximation of pi, that the first two numbers are prime...

I can literally go on forever. All of these are derived from some sort of equation or pattern that I chose. There are ways for me to arrive at virtually any number I please from this data set. Same goes for the planets. The mean of the orbits is extremely misleading; the only reason I can think of to actually make a chart of it would be to help someone get a grasp on how far a planet is from another planet at a random time(which ends up being wildly inaccurate 90% of the time due to constant motion).

Juorara, if you stopped being so theistic about things, you'd see the real beauty about geometry - the things logic can construct alone, by the principle of non-contradiction. But nah, you have to go all the way to put some "god" into it. Human beings love to do that. Geometry is just geometry, but add two spoons of god in it, and it all turns so much more special for people like you... Geometry is just geometry, meaning, it isn't anything else but geometry. I never said geometric isn't beautiful or interesting, I just said there is no reason to imbue it with theism. Logic alone makes sure that the universe doesn't need any god to exist.

Originally Posted by juroara

why did you end there? why didn't you also tell me how the point has no length, no width or height?

I was only correcting you on a tiny mistake. You said the point forms the first dimension and I corrected your mistake. It was completely unrelated to the discussion. I'm not here to talk about god.

Also, I don't know how advanced you are in maths, but you should know that points do not exist - they are just a simplified method to facilitate calculations for us - a mathematical model, so to speak. One thing must have all fundamental dimensions, for it to exist - length, width, height, mass, position, speed, etc etc.

Originally Posted by The Cusp

Sacred geometry is the future of science thanks to the emerging field of nanotechnology.

Not really. Geometry is the future of science. Sacred geometry was just something a bored believer made up - pure philosophy. Atomic models being perfectly symmetric is just a representation.

Originally Posted by juroara

If you aren't interested in Sacred Geometry, why are you posting here?

To refute it???

when the single point in Sacred Geometry is symbolic for God and transcendent consciousness, are we still talking about the same thing?

There you go. Symbolic. Symbols. Philosophy. Sacred geometry is to geometry as Dan Brown is to truth.

Originally Posted by juroara

so unless you see how A relates to B you don't see any relation?

A mathematical relation implies two things being related. If the cute solar system drawings don't relate to one another, then they don't have any real meaning. Atomic orbitals relate to one another, but because there are rules defining those - electroweak rules. The position of planets in the solar system doesn't follow any rule - there is no force or law telling if a planet should be closer or farther. They are just in the position they are due to occasion - "luck", as one would say. Studying distances between planets will not give you any further insight on geometry.

a geocentric view of our universe? Im not sure why you would say that from merely posting two pictures.

Not two pictures. Your whole thread. The whole Sacred Geometry. Your whole opinions. Human beings love to think the universe was specially made for them. Big news: it was not. We are not special, we are not god creations, we are not beautiful - we are just a bunch of matter like any other.

Sacred geometry is the future of science thanks to the emerging field of nanotechnology.

Right... when has 'sacred geometry' ever been used in that field? Or any other field?

What's the goddamn difference between sacred geometry and bog bloody standard geometry anyway? Come on now, I want a specific answer.

Uh... the definition of the word "point" specifically states that a point has no dimensions(length, width, height, etc.). Points are imperceptible, there are no real-world instances of points. They are mathematical constructs humans defined when the need for identifying locations arised.

Interestingly that's not true, and there's not really any reason why it should be true.

Quarks and leptons are points, and both constitute the vast majority of matter in our common experience (they make up the protons and neutrons in atomic nuclei and the electrons which surround them).

Originally Posted by Xei

Quarks and leptons are points, and both constitute the vast majority of matter in our common experience (they make up the protons and neutrons in atomic nuclei and the electrons which surround them).

But I thought those particles had mass...?

Yes, they have mass. They don't have volume. Do you find that contradictory?

In common experience, things with volume have mass, but you have to remember that volume is really only due to the separation of the points within the object. It's not as if mass is a homogeneous quantity spread through objects, like invisible butter.

You have to bear in mind that mass is just a constant used to describe the behaviours of objects in physics. All mass really is is a mathematical description of the tendency of a point to resist moving (intertia), or a tendency to accelerate towards other masses (gravitation).

Originally Posted by Xei

Yes, they have mass. They don't have volume. Do you find that contradictory?

In common experience, things with volume have mass, but you have to remember that volume is really only due to the separation of the points within the object. It's not as if mass is a homogeneous quantity spread through objects, like invisible butter.

You have to bear in mind that mass is just a constant used to describe the behaviours of objects in physics. All mass really is is a mathematical description of the tendency of a point to resist moving (intertia), or a tendency to accelerate towards other masses (gravitation).

Ah, I see.

Originally Posted by Xei

Quarks and leptons are points

I don't mean to go against you, as I actually agree with a lot of what you've said, but that statement is arguable. It hasn't been proved that subatomic particles are points. They can be considered points, indeed. Maybe it is just humanly impossible to determine their dimensions, but I believe they do have one. I agree with:

Points are imperceptible, there are no real-world instances of points. They are mathematical constructs humans defined when the need for identifying locations arised.

A point is a part of what I like to call ideal system - mathematics is based on ideal situations. A good model, but just that - a model.

I think there is some evidence to suggest it. But I mainly believe it because it would be extremely elegant if reality was just the moving of coordinates according to simple mathematical relationships, like Conway's Game of Life.

There's no evidence that they have dimensions anyway, and there's no reason to believe fundamental particles should have volume, or that the whole concept of volume should have any meaning other than the distance between fundamental particles, so I tend to employ Occam's razor here.

Originally Posted by Xei

Right... when has 'sacred geometry' ever been used in that field? Or any other field?

What's the goddamn difference between sacred geometry and bog bloody standard geometry anyway? Come on now, I want a specific answer.

Sorry dude, your ignorance is way beyond my ability to fix.

If you really wanted to know, you'd research it yourself. Clearly you have no interest in learning anything on the subject, and trying to explain it to you is not worth my time.

Originally Posted by The Cusp

Sorry dude, your ignorance is way beyond my ability to fix.

If you really wanted to know, you'd research it yourself. Clearly you have no interest in learning anything on the subject, and trying to explain it to you is not worth my time.

That was completely unnecessary. Xei is right. Sacred Geometry uses concepts of quantum physics, but not the opposite. Therefore, sacred geometry isn't the future of quantum physics, but the opposite. If a field uses concepts of science, but doesn't retroactively contribute to that science, then it is a field of philosophy - as in, a field based on interpreting things from scientific data. Your fallacy is in taking cause for consequence. Xei is right, independent of Sacred Geometry having meaning or not. It has nothing to do with ignorance or interest on the subject. Just wanted to let you know. For someone who can't even express himself, you sure have a lot of strong opinions.