vortex based mathmatics

[apmje]

thats a 6-dimensional shape at every point in planckian space (10^-25M) the exact shape of which gives all universal parameters. If the universe has DNA, then it this is it.

Na mate...thats a gif.

[Ricky_Spanish]

thats a 6-dimensional shape at every point in planckian space (10^-25M) the exact shape of which gives all universal parameters. If the universe has DNA, then it this is it.

Na mate...thats a gif.

representation [rep-ri-zen-tey-shuhn, -zuhn-] noun

1. the act of representing.
2. the state of being represented.
3. the expression or designation by some term, character, symbol, or the like.

So: the expression of [calabai Yau manifold], by some term, character, symbol, or the like [a gif].



Next time we'll move up to 2 times table. See if you can keep your big boy pants dry and clean all week.

Here's some homework for the meantime:

If Johnny has 3 apples, and he gives one apple to kate, how many apples does Johnny have left?

[SunkLo]

3 apples because he runs her over with his car when it stops shaking and she gets out.

[mks]

representation [rep-ri-zen-tey-shuhn, -zuhn-] noun

Damn, this was the only thing I gleaned from that post.

[magma]

but until then anyone can have a theory, only the privileged nerds can get results.

true to an extent, but this is what the ultimate point of psychedelics was intended for. IF ever we're to find secrets of the universe, i reckon directly inside our brain would be a pretty good place to start.

smoke some DMT or drink some ayawaska and see what you think about vortex's and just about everything else

(disclaimer---no one should smoke DMT or do ayawaska unless they feel the need to, if people want to do it, look it up thoroughly )

I absolutely agree (especially as an ageing raver) that psychs can be a help... they offer a brilliant way of looking at a problem from a different angle... Carl Sagan, for example, talks fairly candidly about spending a great deal of his career stoned and/or reflecting on acid trips (and I have to admit to *always* having a spliff on the go when I'm trying to absorb this sort of stuff). But the brain is a source for ideas - and ideas are only useful if you can actually test them - as the manyfold "untrue", but widely-followed religions attest, it's quite easy to get your brain to a point where it is comfortable and content that it's found "Truth" - but whether that "Truth" is actually true in the outside world is another matter entirely.

Science and philosophy have been moved on a great deal by the use of psychs over the centuries, but the majority of breakthroughs are (and always will be) made sober... as Sagan noted in Pale Blue Dot; if nothing else, it really helps if you remember to write things down!

[scspkr99]

Substantiate it!!

This. Discoveries in every other area of science lead to *technology* proving the underlying science. Until that arrives, this is just people spouting clever sounding words on the Internet.

Prove it without a shadow of a doubt, like a real scientist, or accept the inevitable disrespect.

I'm not really a fan of the faux science stuff but I don't think this is how science works.

[slothrop]

It'd be fairer to say "demonstrate that your theory accounts for a wide range of observed phenomena and then make some testable predictions or accept the inevitable disrespect."

[d-T-r]

but until then anyone can have a theory, only the privileged nerds can get results.

true to an extent, but this is what the ultimate point of psychedelics was intended for. IF ever we're to find secrets of the universe, i reckon directly inside our brain would be a pretty good place to start.

smoke some DMT or drink some ayawaska and see what you think about vortex's and just about everything else

(disclaimer---no one should smoke DMT or do ayawaska unless they feel the need to, if people want to do it, look it up thoroughly )

I absolutely agree (especially as an ageing raver) that psychs can be a help... they offer a brilliant way of looking at a problem from a different angle... Carl Sagan, for example, talks fairly candidly about spending a great deal of his career stoned and/or reflecting on acid trips (and I have to admit to *always* having a spliff on the go when I'm trying to absorb this sort of stuff). But the brain is a source for ideas - and ideas are only useful if you can actually test them - as the manyfold "untrue", but widely-followed religions attest, it's quite easy to get your brain to a point where it is comfortable and content that it's found "Truth" - but whether that "Truth" is actually true in the outside world is another matter entirely.

Science and philosophy have been moved on a great deal by the use of psychs over the centuries, but the majority of breakthroughs are (and always will be) made sober... as Sagan noted in Pale Blue Dot; if nothing else, it really helps if you remember to write things down!

funnily enough, there exists something called a DMT breakthrough. it doesn't answer questions , but it certainly turns everything we know about inter dimensional travel (and the nature of vortexs'/portals) and our brain and it's role as transmitter/receiver on it's head. of course there needs to be scientific testing to bring back solid information ,(there have been some studies, but of course the illegality makes it hard for people to get constant funding....even though it already exists in your brain right now! )

another thing which makes testimony difficult is that the brain can't define what it can't understand, it can only reference it. I only mention it because it really is in a league of it;s own and isn't really comparable to normal doses of other psychedelics . IT's more than just 'tripping out' and seeing mentally projected things. the majority of it is existing independently of the person tripping which is bloody weird. But again, it provides more questions than answers, but the benefit of this is that it completely widens the reach of what could be possibly imagined as actually existing.

i know some people dont like quoting wiki, but:

The term psychedelic is derived from the Ancient Greek words psihi (ψυχή - psyche, "soul") and dilosi (δήλωση - "manifest"), translating to "soul-manifesting". A psychedelic experience is characterized by the striking perception of aspects of one's mind previously unknown, or by the creative exuberance of the mind liberated from its ostensibly ordinary fetters


for the 'psychonauts' and the Shamans ready to navigate, there are plenty of 'inner paths to outer space'. people denote the direct experience of these things as there isn't a guy in a white coat with a clip board always writing it down despite the fact these medicines have been used for thousands of years with a long line of cultural lineage.

Some things can't adequately be spoken of. This doesn't mean they should be overlooked.

[noam]

thats the intriguing thing about DMT to myself, it seems like it can be a more external-world based experience, as opposed to a wholly internal one in your head

just like in a dream where you hear someone talk you've never spoken to before and their voice upon hearing them speak is exactly like you heard it in the dream, where does your brain conjure the 'new information' from?? it is amongst the other likely possibilities that it is referencing something outside of the brain.

[scspkr99]

It'd be fairer to say "demonstrate that your theory accounts for a wide range of observed phenomena and then make some testable predictions or accept the inevitable disrespect."

much prefer this

[d-T-r]

thats the intriguing thing about DMT to myself, it seems like it can be a more external-world based experience, as opposed to a wholly internal one in your head

just like in a dream where you hear someone talk you've never spoken to before and their voice upon hearing them speak is exactly like you heard it in the dream, where does your brain conjure the 'new information' from?? it is amongst the other likely possibilities that it is referencing something outside of the brain.

yeah its a very strong sense of 'other' . I would 100% reccomend anyone who is already experienced with it, to go the traditional route with Caapi. How its done in the amazon. Doesnt have to be a tea but the Caapi vine (aywaska) vine makes things a lot more tangible. said it before--the dmt on its own is like universe via brain---where as changa/ayawaska is universe via earth via brain.

have a few stories and experiences to share but i'm not really sure if they would serve any purpose. its one of those ones where even you believe the hype you'll still be floored.

Again, im not premoting it or trying to make it sound desirable. No one should do it unless they're ready. and if they do, its a ritualized sacrament so treat it as such.

[magma]

It'd be fairer to say "demonstrate that your theory accounts for a wide range of observed phenomena and then make some testable predictions or accept the inevitable disrespect."

much prefer this

Either way, I was being flippant - I wouldn't get your knickers in a twist - my longer posts are a bit more representative of my actual views.

[scspkr99]

They were hardly twisted but it's so far from what science is that I thought it needed clarifying, especially when it's a post in response to the misrepresentation of science.

[magma]

They were hardly twisted but it's so far from what science is that I thought it needed clarifying, especially when it's a post in response to the misrepresentation of science.

Which bit did you think was "so far from what science is"?

The burden of proof is pretty engrained in the scientific method. In order to say something is "true" you have to prove it beyond doubt - until then, it's a theory (note the difference between the Theory of Evolution and the Laws of Thermodynamics, for example)... and if you tell people it's "true" you will, likely, experience disrespect in return.

"So far from what science is" seems rather reactionary when I was really just over-simplifying for the purposes of being a bit light-hearted... perhaps I've missed your point? Elaborate...

[scspkr99]

The proving it without a shadow of a doubt, like there are things that science knows to be wrong but are good enough to still be used. Newtonian physics being one of them and I believe Newtonian gravity was a law rather than a theory?

Essentially I don't think that not being able to prove something is the definition of a real or otherwise scientist or is enough to earn disrespect.

[magma]

The proving it without a shadow of a doubt, like there are things that science knows to be wrong but are good enough to still be used. Newtonian physics being one of them and I believe Newtonian gravity was a law rather than a theory?

Essentially I don't think that not being able to prove something is the definition of a real or otherwise scientist or is enough to earn disrespect.

Newton's laws *are* proven - it's just that they were only proven for a certain set of conditions (i.e. 3 dimensions)... when you try and apply them in 4 dimensions, they have no way of coping and you need Relativity. Get much more complicated/tiny and you start to need Quantum Mechanics.

None of them disproved each other - they are all "true", it's just that they are limited... but as time moves on we update them to fit more and more conditions. The dream is that we'll one day tie them all together with a grand "unified theory"... but until then, we still need to use all three depending on what we're trying to work out.

Proof is still the absolute burden - Newton had mathematical proof of his laws, as did Einstein... Darwin, for example, didn't, which is why, as a scientist, he never said "Evolution is TRUE", he only suggested it was incredibly likely to be true.

If Darwin had written the Ascent of Man saying "THIS IS THE TRUTH" he wouldn't be nearly as respected as he is... but he didn't, because he was a scientist.

[tyger]

I wouldn't get your knickers in a twist

unless you're wearing them under sandy chinos

[scspkr99]

Newton's laws *are* proven - it's just that they were only proven for a certain set of conditions (i.e. 3 dimensions)... when you try and apply them in 4 dimensions, they have no way of coping and you need Relativity. Get much more complicated/tiny and you start to need Quantum Mechanics.

None of them disproved each other - they are all "true", it's just that they are limited... but as time moves on we update them to fit more and more conditions. The dream is that we'll one day tie them all together with a grand "unified theory"... but until then, we still need to use all three depending on what we're trying to work out.

Proof is still the absolute burden - Newton had mathematical proof of his laws, as did Einstein... Darwin, for example, didn't, which is why, as a scientist, he never said "Evolution is TRUE", he only suggested it was incredibly likely to be true.

If Darwin had written the Ascent of Man saying "THIS IS THE TRUTH" he wouldn't be nearly as respected as he is... but he didn't, because he was a scientist.

Yeah I get all this and it may be that I missed your original point. My point is that if you are going to discredit bad science it needs to be done by a reasonable set of criteria. Not being able to prove someting is not worthy of inevitable disrespect as Darwin would fail that same criteria.

[magma]

Yeah I get all this and it may be that I missed your original point. My point is that if you are going to discredit bad science it needs to be done by a reasonable set of criteria. Not being able to prove someting is not worthy of inevitable disrespect as Darwin would fail that same criteria.

Which was exactly my point - if you read my longer posts, I've been pretty careful to say that I'm not badmouthing the science presented in this thread, just trying to give a sense of perspective - I'm certainly not saying that the model presented is rubbish - just that it's only one of millions (actually, nearly infinite) of possibilities suggested by General Relativity at this point in our knowledge. Picking one model to get excited about seems incredibly premature.

It's very tempting to assume that because a model works within the laws of Relativity it's "true"... but Relativity is remarkably open, it only really shows that it's possible - only one of the millions of options will be "true" for our Universe and we're a long way off deciding which one.

[scspkr99]

Yeah I agree with all of that and may have been hasty I was just concerned with the idea that science needs to be provable.