It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by OneisOne
Originally posted by favouriteslave
Originally posted by TheOneElectric
reply to post by Valtor
Hidden hand said that the negative Harvest was for those who are working for the negative harvest. There was to be/will be a positive harvest as well. Go back and re-read.
I have no clue if hidden hand is valid or not, a lot of what was said has shown not to be correct...but it felt...well it felt like it was going in the proper path.
Can you give me a link to that thread please?
Thanks!
Hi favouriteslave, I see that this request was over looked. I did a post with that info here.
That post has the different harvest types listed with links to the original threads and a link to The Law of One, Ra Material.
Please note that Hidden_Hand made wrong predictions in the thread. I firmly believe that the Hidden_Hand material is just a retelling of The Law of One, with the predictions thrown in for flair to create a sense of urgency on the material. Also, Hidden_Hand links the "harvest" to the classic date of December 21, 2012.
OiO
Originally posted by TheSilentwalker
reply to post by adraves
One: list is irrelevant apart from your own private joke (though funny at that, I may add).
Two: Acceptance indeed... Where's your lock? Acceptance is most probably what you miss so much right now...
Still inlophiedit on 12-9-2011 by TheSilentwalker because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by TNTarheel
reply to post by OneisOne
Thank you, One
It seems, each time I come to this thread, I learn something new.
I am fascinated with the discussion regarding Pi/Phi. Most of it is far above me but I learn.
Originally posted by pepsi78
reply to post by buddhatrance
You can't take sides, and you cannot chose, no one is forcing anyone to chose.
That site is part of elitist agenda, numerology crap like they understand the nature of the universe, like little robots. Freaking robots. Numbers are not important, what is important is the meaning, that cannot and will never be calculated. I'm not saying numerology and calculations are bad, if it is an addiction then it is bad.
I would like to mention that one side is incomplete without the other, so you can't chose one over the other.
Too much love and you become vulnerable, too afraid and you hit the other extreme, you are too closed.
The only one to chose is god.
edit on 12-9-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by TheSilentwalker
reply to post by adraves
Aww, that is why I added 'funny' you see. I do like your 'list'.
As for 'acceptance', you are not there yet. Indeed, except is in the code — at least that one is not a flaw like the two others in the equation... *sigh* Acceptance might just be the khi
As for the lock, I might just answer straight —a funny notion to me— however, please do dive in it if you're so inclined: check Socrated The Python that once appeared on Love Hysteria.
And obviously, this calls for a big wink.edit on 12-9-2011 by TheSilentwalker because: (no reason given)
It should be obvious that π is not “wrong” in the sense of being factually incorrect; the number π is perfectly well-defined, and it has all the properties normally ascribed to it by mathematicians. When we say that “π is wrong”, we mean that π is a confusing and unnatural choice for the circle constant.
What is really going on here is that, at its core, π is half of something. It’s the something that is fundamental, not π.
Are you serious?
Of course. I mean, I’m having fun with this, and the tone is occasionally lighthearted, but there is a serious purpose. Setting the circle constant equal to the circumference over the diameter is an awkward and confusing convention. Although I would love to see mathematicians change their ways, I’m not particularly worried about them; they can take care of themselves. It is the neophytes I am most worried about, for they take the brunt of the damage: as noted in Section 2.1, π is a pedagogical disaster. Try explaining to a twelve-year-old (or to a thirty-year-old) why the angle measure for an eighth of a circle—one slice of pizza—is π/8. Wait, I meant π/4. See what I mean? It’s madness—sheer, unadulterated madness.
Originally posted by TheSilentwalker
reply to post by adraves
I do. However it is worth an ear or an aching foot.
Originally posted by TheSilentwalker
reply to post by adraves
White rabbits are cute indeed. Let's not get lost in taste(s) here, will you? It was marked as a wink, remember?
That said, if within 24hrs Open does not pitch in, I shall spill some beans. He has been warned.
Thrice...
Originally posted by OneisOne
Regarding Pi.....
No, really, pi is wrong/
It should be obvious that π is not “wrong” in the sense of being factually incorrect; the number π is perfectly well-defined, and it has all the properties normally ascribed to it by mathematicians. When we say that “π is wrong”, we mean that π is a confusing and unnatural choice for the circle constant.
What is really going on here is that, at its core, π is half of something. It’s the something that is fundamental, not π.
Are you serious?
Of course. I mean, I’m having fun with this, and the tone is occasionally lighthearted, but there is a serious purpose. Setting the circle constant equal to the circumference over the diameter is an awkward and confusing convention. Although I would love to see mathematicians change their ways, I’m not particularly worried about them; they can take care of themselves. It is the neophytes I am most worried about, for they take the brunt of the damage: as noted in Section 2.1, π is a pedagogical disaster. Try explaining to a twelve-year-old (or to a thirty-year-old) why the angle measure for an eighth of a circle—one slice of pizza—is π/8. Wait, I meant π/4. See what I mean? It’s madness—sheer, unadulterated madness.
And look..... same graphic as on the Oct28 site...... hmmmm..... Some special angles, in degrees.
OiO
What is really going on here is that, at its core, π is half of something