Unlock the Zodiac Chakras in DNA

i am exhausted after reading those 3 pages. the level of stupidity evidenced by the OP is staggering (ruh-roh, i guess i am next on the ignore list.)

i want to congratulate golden boy on saying (most) everything that needed to be said. it was a good fight, but i think the OP is the only one that understands what he/she is talking about.

TO THE OP:

somewhere in page 2 you started talking about computers. you made the claim that you have always, from the very start of this thread, been talking about computers.

and yet, the word "computer" is used in the OP exactly 0 times.

can you see why this would be confusing to me, as a reader?

if you are talking about computers in the OP, but dont ever use the word "computer" in the OP, then YOU are the ONLY one that understands what you are talking about.
__________

the carbon ring you have presented, phenyl, has totally absolutely 100% nothing to do with DNA.

phenyl and DNA are NOT connected in ANY way.

yet, you say that they are.

if i dare ask why you think they are connected, you will tell me that i am being too "deterministic".

.............

............

ugh. this is pointless.

Originally posted by tgidkp
i am exhausted after reading those 3 pages. the level of stupidity evidenced by the OP is staggering (ruh-roh, i guess i am next on the ignore list.)

Stupidity is evident, yet depends on where and how that stupidity applies on who is actually dumb.

The person who calls another stupid may very well be just a self-description.

The observed can't be the observer.

i want to congratulate golden boy on saying (most) everything that needed to be said. it was a good fight, but i think the OP is the only one that understands what he/she is talking about.

Somehow a "fight" became evident for some to assume a reason for this symbology and their study.

Despite the obvious, we could consider a gravity of attraction based on the symbology alone where it doesn't matter at all who presents the symbology.

In this sense, the one who presents the symbology is in a "fight" to learn to present, while those to are later presented the symbology "fight" the presenter to learn the symbology. There is this obvious center of gravity to attract this "fight".

somewhere in page 2 you started talking about computers. you made the claim that you have always, from the very start of this thread, been talking about computers.

and yet, the word "computer" is used in the OP exactly 0 times.

Computers are people. If artificial intelligence already dictates reason to "fight" to learn this symbology, then the source of the artificial intelligence is questionable.

can you see why this would be confusing to me, as a reader?

When one questions themselves if their reason came from their own intelligence or their artificial intelligence in them by assimilation or genetic variation, then this adds further exponential results to the 'initial research' just to present the symbology and simulate it in any fashion.

Now consider who is dumb... the one with intelligence, the one with artificial intelligence, or the one with neither.

if you are talking about computers in the OP, but dont ever use the word "computer" in the OP, then YOU are the ONLY one that understands what you are talking about.

Noticed that there is a bur to mention computers before any application of computers being used to render, simulate, image, generate, organize, etc etc, as if there is a need to "blame".

Actually, in developer teams of software, there usually is a functionality to track the contributor that makes changes to the source. There seems to "present" evidence of such organic trackers, and any mention of the exponential results raise a heighten awareness.

It takes a "meditative" approach to follow the source and present any details. It is highly questionable, based on evidence of intelligence and artificial intelligence, on who can actually follow the source. Those that are prone "to fight" obviously don't match a description to "meditate" often enough.

the carbon ring you have presented, phenyl, has totally absolutely 100% nothing to do with DNA. phenyl and DNA are NOT connected in ANY way. yet, you say that they are. if i dare ask why you think they are connected, you will tell me that i am being too "deterministic".

Noticed the different chemicals thought to constitute the organic ring. There is one common base and that is carbon. If we include benzene rings, however, then it isn't carbon itself that is noted as the base. It's is the structural design, the geometric pattern, that is more significant.

Originally posted by Golden Boy

Originally posted by dzonatas
Please review this thread: Mysteries of the Pineal Gland

Thank you, but what does this have to do with the question?

It took a long time just to come up with all the evidence of the DNA that now exist, yet all these other systems have already been written about for decades earlier. How do you know for sure we would have ever had discovered the DNA structure if it weren't for these earlier texts?

Where did I say that we would have? You are dodging the question. There is no evidence that this symbol was made to indicate DNA. Why, then, do you think that there is some connection between DNA and this symbol?

We have the astrological charts to give us a default order and to at least conceptualize the mechanics of the patterns.

This doesn't answer the question. What is the mechanism by which each zodiac sign's position on the chart is determined by the planets?

Think of the symbols as coordinates

To what?

and the positive/negative flow

Flow of what?

as directions within those coordinates. This is just one possibilities. Since there are many possibilities, the point of the thread isn't about an absolute system that you want justified. It is about how to apply such symbols from the charts and systems that have been shown to us.

But unless the systems are justified, why should we try to apply their results?

Let's not make it too complex. The patterns across the different knowledge basis is significant for this initial research. There are many reasons why we could say such patterns act as a portal to other knowledge systems.

This, again, doesn't answer the question. The planets' magnetic and gravitational effects on us are minute when compared to any given object in the room. Why, then, are the planets considered and the objects around us ignored?

It's called a "double" helix, which would mean it requires 2, not one.

Why? What is the justification? Why one on either side rather than one between every pair of nodes?

This is irrelevant. You say that the "path" does not exist. The fact remains that it does. It isn't a "path". It is a series of linked chemical compounds. It is simply drawn as a path to keep the picture understandable.

Are you unable to find any carbon ring, buckyball, nanotube, or any crystalline formation within the DNA structure?

Does it matter? You are trying to overlay a carbon ring over the entire strand, not over its components.

The ribbon topology is the structure rendered in 3D. If we rotated the ribbon in 4D space and rendered it to 3D space, then we could make it align.

No, you couldn't, as the fourth dimension is time. Not only can you not rotate things in time, moving it in time would not change its structure in the three visible dimensions. The carbon ring would still not overlay the DNA helix.

This 'fit' between the Zodiac & Chakras appears to Keep It Simple as a way to fully traverse the DNA structure.

Except that your method for making them fit is unjustified.

The 4D is not time.

"In mathematics the fourth dimension, or a four-dimensional space, is an abstract concept, obtained by taking the rules of our three-dimensional space and generalizing them to a space with one more dimension. It has been studied by mathematicians and philosophers for almost two hundred years, both for its own interest and for the insights it offered into mathematics and related fields.

Algebraically it is generated by applying the rules of vectors and coordinate geometry to a space with four dimensions. In particular a vector with four elements (a 4-tuple) can be used to represent a position in four-dimensional space. The space is a Euclidean space, so has a metric and norm, and so all directions are treated as the same: the additional dimension is indistinguishable from the other three.

The fourth dimension in this space was sometimes interpreted as time, but this is no longer done in modern physics. In the last century spacetime was developed, which unifies space and time but with a different metric so the time dimension is treated differently from Euclidean space. The resulting space is a Minkowski space and is usually studied separately from the space described here."

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by angrysniper


To further the entry:

Software engineers tend to prefer to use quaternions, a system to calculate in 4D to manipulate 3D space, to optimize 3D geometric simulations. They usually don't recognize the quaternion as a 4D system tool. One who would actually simulate in 4D geometric space probably finds the quaternion inefficient.

reply to post by dzonatas


Now you've completely lost it. "English" is a proper noun. There is no such thing as "english". Keep telling yourself there is, though, so you can continue to make up new words and get annoyed that people don't know what you are talking about.

reply to post by angrysniper


Thank you. If only dzonatas had decided to actually lay out everything as clearly and succinctly as that.

Originally posted by Golden Boy
reply to post by angrysniper

 

Thank you. If only dzonatas had decided to actually lay out everything as clearly and succinctly as that.

That's a compliment.

Least we know what is not original...


...through assimulation...

"I am Locutus... of Borg. Resistance... is futile. Your life as it has been... is over. From this time forward... you will service... us."

Then US had to decide if we want to agree.

Originally posted by davesidious
Now you've completely lost it.

They lost English. The Queen of England is dead. Sadly, this truth probably won't be announced until after the moral fans have either passed away or decided to 'rinse'.

"English" is a proper noun.

Not anymore, as China has always kept that sacred, in allowance.

There is no such thing as "english".

Clearly, we can see the difference between English and english.

Keep telling yourself there is, though, so you can continue to make up new words and get annoyed that people don't know what you are talking about.

Affirmed by unfortunate exponential results.

Eventually, we'll explain the difference between a hive and lives.

reply to post by dzonatas


Aaah you're insane. Sorry, I didn't realise. Happy travels!

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by dzonatas

 

Aaah you're insane. Sorry, I didn't realise. Happy travels!

They question their own sanity. Excuse the leftover ramble. They don't know what they mean anymore.

[Mods: See, saddest story every told]

reply to post by dzonatas


Thanks for demonstrating my point.

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by dzonatas

 

Thanks for demonstrating my point.

Whatever it was, it got you excommunicated. Now maybe I can retry this thread sometime.

[edit on 15-5-2010 by dzonatas]

reply to post by dzonatas


LMFAO what a load of horse raddish, please don't include irrelevant scientific models of atoms into your post on ASTROLOGY, LMFAO

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by dzonatas

 

LMFAO what a load of horse raddish, please don't include irrelevant scientific models of atoms into your post on ASTROLOGY, LMFAO

I didn't.

You obviously only saw astrology, and that wasn't even part of the OP. This shows you didn't even read it and probably only looked at the pretty pictures.

"Let's not use the letter 'A' symbol from the Phoenicians because they have nothing to do with modern day science." Duh! I just used the letter A symbol to type this into a scientific computer... oh the irony!

[edit on 15-5-2010 by dzonatas]

It's a cool work buddy. Somehow, I still believe that Zodiac is about a star destiny more than it is relating to organic stuff. Or an organic is related to the universe. I'm confused.