Camron Wiltshire on The Quest for Gnosis, Defining Sacred Geometry, and 666

Via SacredGeometryInternational.com

The_Quest_For_Gnosis_Camron_4The following is my submission for former born again missionary turned gnostic apostate Gabriel D. Roberts new book, The Quest for Gnosis.

The book features various luminaries from a wide array of interdisciplinary fields such as, Graham Hancock, Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, Dr. Rick Strassman, Daniele Bolleli, Hamilton Morris, Abby Martin, Odd Edges, Peter J. Carrol, Matt Staggs, Maja D’Aoust, Jeremy Johnson, Dr. Aaron Cheak, Nick Margerrison, Thad Mckraken, Krystal Cole, Simon G. Powell, Dr. Lew Graham, David B. Metcalfe, Camron Wiltshire, and Randall Carlson.

GDR: What is the study of Sacred Geometry and how does it affect the way we see our past, present and future?

CW: First we should define Sacred Geometry. Sacred denotes something of a divine or holy nature and geometry is the combination of geo, meaning earth, with metry, meaning to measure or measurement. In other words, Sacred Geometry is the measurement of nature divine. It appears from all angles, that life as we know it plays out according to mathematical templates (ratios and proportions) embedded within nature herself, or rather, that what we experience as nature, is comprised of interwoven wave forms of self assembling and disassembling materia. Materia whose alchemical operations and interactions reveal patterns (from the latin ‘pater’ or father) that repeat throughout all perceivable scales of existence, from the, “sub-microscopic to the super galactic” as my teacher Randall Carson has described it. This “hidden architecture of creation”, serves as the template or blueprint through which the universal language of mathematics manifests into form. The systemized process of measuring reality, discerning these patterns and utilizing them to establish a harmonious rapport between elements of any art, scientific, philosophical, magical or religious work is part of the study of Sacred Geometry.

As for how this realization modifies our perspective of time and history, I’d say it’s something akin to the key to the holy city. Cryptic utterances aside, Sacred Geometry is the most potent system for comprehending the great Mystery of life and the operating system upon which it runs. Therefore all that is, has been or could be, can be best understood through the modification to our perceptual lenses this knowledge provides.

GDR: Does the concept of sacred geometry lead one to believing that the universe is an ordered construct, lending evidence to the existence of a creator, or is there more than one way to view it?

CW: “A super-intelligence is the only good explanation of the origin of life and the complexity of nature’ – Anthony Flew

“Rather than accept that fantastically small probability of life having arisen through the blind forces of nature, it seemed better to suppose that the origin of life was a deliberate intellectual act. By “better” I mean less likely to be wrong.” – Sir Fred Hoyle

Both of the above quotes mirror completely my own perspective as I tumble down the rabbit hole that is the study of Sacred Geometry. Such a feat of engineering is not random and implies some incomprehensible cosmic intelligence has set in motion this whole as above so below alembic vitrium show. Regardless of your professed faith or belief system, life could not function without the supremely complex coordination of innumerable variables throughout all visible scales of resolution. For example, ponder the fact that the following numerical cipher shows up in so many different scales simultaneously throughout our galaxy. Our planet rotates on it’s axis relative to the Sun in exactly 86,400 seconds every solar day. The Sun’s diameter is 864,000 miles with an accuracy of 99.9%. The distance from our Sun to the brightest star in the sky Sirius is 8.64 light years and the distance from it to the supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy is 864,000 parsecs. Thanks to Scott Onstott for providing such scintillating infographics and the inspiration behind this particular revelation.

864-celestial

GDR: Are instances of Sacred Geometry included in scripture proof of the ‘truth’ of the scripture in which it is contained?

CW: No, to believe so would be to commit the sin (missing the mark) of the fallacy of virtue or genetic fallacy, and falsely presume, that because scripture contains scientific truth within it, that it must follow then that the book in which it is contained is therefore sacrosanct-ified “truth” so to speak. I think this is yet another primary example of our need to revisit history with new eyes all together, especially concerning the astrotheological basis of the currently three dominant monotheistic religions. All of whose holy days of worship are devoted to certain celestial bodies. Whether or not the practitioners realize this is a different matter.

Case in point, here are a few rather curious examples of technically advanced scientific information being anachronistically encoded in scripture. Those familiar with apocalyptic judeo-christianity are likely also already familiar with the number of the beast 666. Yet most likely have never considered that within this allegory there is encoded highly evolved scientific information which unveils the meaning behind this oft maligned segment of the book of Revelation.

“Here is wisdom let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast, for it is a number of a man, six hundred three score and six.” – Revelation 13:18 KJV

How is it possible that this potent allegory could encode at least 4 scientific facts of a highly technical nature? Facts which if we adhere to the current paradigm of mainstream historical scholarship, could not have been understood by the author(s) at the time of its writing? Again don’t take my word for it, let’s begin the exegetical revelation of this encoded scripture. First of all our planet maintains an orbital velocity around the Sun (of God) which equals 66,615 (99.9%) miles per hour. Again, please don’t take my word for it, to verify this please head to your favorite search engine and type in Nasa, earth data fact sheet and access the following information located underneath the heading titled,“Orbital parameter”. You will find listed there that Earth’s mean orbital velocity equals 29.78 (km/s) Convert this into miles by multiplying by 0.621371 and the result is 18.5044 miles per second. Repeat this expansion by the same factor of 60 to receive another fascinating repetitive number sequence of 1,110.265 miles per minute. Convert this number into miles per hour by again multiplying by 60 and the result is 66,615.94 miles per hour (99.9%) Secondarily, we turn our attention from the Earth’s speed to the Moon’s size to discover the next correspondence. The Earth’s moon is 2,160 miles in diameter (99.9%). The cube of 6 or 6.6.6 equals 216. Utilizing Pythagorean addition, the zeros are understood as merely place holders denoting scale or orders of magnitude. The number essence or digital root of the figure is found in the numeric pattern preceding them. Thus ignoring the thousandth place holder which would give us 2,160 we here again we have a 666 correspondence appearing in this scripture as well as the physical geometry of our planet’s moon, commonly associated with the Virgin Mary or Isis and another divine portion of the holy trinity.

Keep in mind that the Moon rules the tides and that without it life on this planet most likely never would have evolved beyond a very simple stage of existence, if at all. The tides are the means by which primary marine life was swept into the intertidal zone which provided the impetus for amphibious life and later terrestrial life to evolve, or so the theory goes. Falling further into this magical scripture, yet another correspondence presents itself. The Moon is calibrated so that as it orbits us once a month (or Moonth), it operates much like a flywheel, stabilizing our planet’s rotation while holding our axial tilt at 23.4 ̊ relative to the plane of the ecliptic. The complementary angle produced by this alignment again yields the number of the man/beast 66.6 ̊ ( 90.0 ̊- 23.4 ̊ ) This angular relationship provides the procession (and precession) of the equinoxes and the solstices, which in turn give us the annual freezing and melting cycles of the polar ice caps. This process is critical for the yearly replenishment of the food chain via the infusion of purified and remineralized water which nourises the entire planetary ecosystem’s food chain. Finally, Carbon based life, which is a vital ingredient for all known naturally occurring life on this planet essential molecular nature is again characterized by 666. Carbon molecules are composed of 6 electrons, 6 protons and 6 neutrons. All organic life is carbon based. Carbon amazingly is a by product of the explosive death of stars billions of years previous to the creation of the earth.

For those raised in a fundamentalist interpretation of these scriptures please keep in mind that these revelations do not invalidate your faith in a higher being that loves you. Many of this mysterious architect or engineers Suns were literally sacrificed (transmuted) billions of years before our planet came into being, so that we might live. Unquestioningly there is so much more to the astrotheological Jesus narrative than previously understood. The beautiful irony here is that science is proving the existence of God/Higher Cosmic Intelligence and part of the hidden meaning encoded within St. John’s revelatory gnosis. For those subjected to a demonized and irrational view point of this segment of St. John’s apocalyptic vision I present the following advice:

“Can we be so naïve and superstitious as to ascribe evilness to a mere number? If you are scared of the number 666, or attribute it to the devil, you have simply mistaken what is being said about this number. St. John clearly informs us in Revelation that 666 is a number of wisdom and a number of man. If you fear this number, you are but fearing yourself and fearing wisdom. If there is anything beastly about this number at all, St. John is asking but one thing of you – overcome your fears.” – Claudia Pavonis

(Thank you Marty Leeds for the above quote)

Please use the following infographic to help visualize the correspondences given above.

666_Infographic_12x18Special thanks to Gary Baddeley for taking a chance on a gnostic vagabond like me and allowing me to post here.

Read more at SacredGeometryInternational.com

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Anarchy Pony

    Seconds and miles? Arbitrary units of measure.

    • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

      Arbitrary huh? 99.99999% accurate enough for you?

      Via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_time

      So a clock that runs at a constant rate — the same number of pendulum swings in each hour — cannot follow the actual Sun; instead it follows an imaginary “mean Sun” that moves along the celestial equator at a constant rate that matches the real Sun’s average rate over the year.[1]
      This is “mean solar time”, which is still not perfectly constant from
      one century to the next but is close enough for most purposes. Currently a mean solar day is about 86,400.002 SI seconds.[2]

      • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

        Regarding miles. You have to open your mind and look beyond what the text books teach you to think.

        Mile from the latin ‘mil’ means 1,000 paces. The average human pace over 1,000 people is thought to be 5.28 feet. Short of producing the confirmatory study reproducing this feat I will leave you to ponder the following.

        Not only the Great Pyramid, but also Stenehenge demonstrate encoding of the sacred unit of measure that is the mile.

        “The great pyramid encodes the size and shape of the Earth with accuracy rivalling modern satellite surveys.” -Randall Carlson from Cosmic Patterns and Cycles of Catastrophe (linked below)

        It does so with a scaling factor of 43,200 which is 1/2 of 86,400 seconds/solar day or what we experience as a line of bifurcation twice per year at the Equinoxes. The Great Pyramid is aligned so that it divides equally in half on the Equinoxes and it is actually 8 sided demonstrating that the cross quarter days are also accounted for in the equinoctial cycle.

        If you measure the peremiter of the Great Pyramid from the extant Corner socket markings you receive 3043.433 feet.

        3043.433 ft x 43,200 = 131476305.6 feet/5280 feet and you receive
        24,900.815 miles which is the Equatorial circumference of the Earth
        which is 99.998% accurate as compared with the measurement given here
        http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzcircumference.htm

        If you take the height given by John H Cole’s survey of the height of the great pyramid you receive 482.7575 feet.

        482.7575 x 43,200 = 20,855.124 ft /5280 ft and you receive 3,949.834 miles which is the polar circumference with an accuracy of 99.998% accuracy.

        Please watch the video linked to see the process by which these numbers were derived. If the mile is arbitrary why is it integrally encoded in the oldest and largest stone monument on the planet with such riveting accuracy? Also if you watch all 45 minutes of part 5 here you will see how the Parthenon also encodes the size and shape of the Earth with unparalleled accuracy in miles.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_k6uvEoAzlY&list=PLvuraN2vNapqNLVebTUzVYmG1gdGJZ9eB

        • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

          Here is the above shot of the Equinox shadowplay of the Great Pyramid. The same effect is witnessed at Chichen Itza and other archeoastronomically aligned monuments throughout the world.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            More on the eerie accuracy of the Great Pyramid in encoding the polar radius of Earth.

        • farbauti

          And these arbitrary measurement units,are hardly the basis of what was put in the text to begin with. Transposition can be understood, literal translation cannot.

          Once there was meaning put to measurement, the argument fell into the depths of the Chapel Perilous.

          Understand that.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Again, they are not arbitrary, they are embedded in the framework of solar system architecture. If you are worried about assigning meaning to life, perhaps you have already fallen into the abyss of solipsistic ignorance. Try to Understand that yourself.

      • Calypso_1

        You do realize that all these distances, ratios and times referenced are not fixed?

        • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

          Define “fixed” and then present your case Calypso. yes I understand there is fluctuation but the mean number is given above. Please present your reasoning and not just abstract blathering.

          • Calypso_1

            You stated ‘not perfectly constant’ ‘close enough’, thus in your definition of these sacred ratios there is relativity. I simply wished to clarify this was your realization .

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Actually what I stated was, “Define “fixed” and then present your case Calypso. yes I understand
            there is fluctuation but the mean number is given above. Please present
            your reasoning and not just abstract blathering.” The values given are at least 99.9% accurate. Should we split infinite hairs for evermore?

          • Calypso_1

            Accuracy is relative to the task at hand. Would you like to plot a trajectory to one of our celestial neighbors with 99.9% accuracy?

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            The task at hand? What task do you believe I am relating too and by what standards of accuracy are most scientists satisfied to achieve in order to construct new laws? 99.9% is also 66.6% if you are upside down, let the right brain lady fair guide your questing and you may find the left’s hardened arteries relaxed in her wake.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            “Research must follow in the footsteps of Nature.”-Michael Maier in Atalanta Fugiens – 1618

          • Calypso_1

            I am glad to see you moving past the 4th century BC. Keep heading in this direction & you’re going to want to study calculus!

          • Calypso_1

            Since sacred geometry, as you are presenting it, appears to make claims involving celestial architectures, it only seems appropriate that these perceptions should yield superior (or at least equivalent) results to basic celestial mechanics.
            99.9 upside down is 6.66 not 66.6. Though the attempt was most illustrative of the nature of symmetrical thought you are endeavoring at.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            You can move the dots around too, I won’t judge you. Hey look still 3 sixes ;)

    • Calypso_1

      arc seconds are not arbitrary

  • Oginikwe

    I have tried to find out why 6-6-6 for decades. I’ve asked many a phd and usually was shrugged off with “chance. Nothing magical in numbers.” I’ve asked religious people and was shrugged off with “God’s plan.Forget about it.” This is the first meaningful explanation I’ve come across. Thanks . . .a lot. Next question: I’ve not seen this number referenced anywhere else. Usually these tenets show up over and over again across the board around the world. Maybe I just haven’t come across that–does 666 show up in other belief systems?

    • VaudeVillain

      Because if I tell you a number is relevant, and if you believe me, you will invent a reason for it to be true.

      Numerology is fine and dandy, but any prophecy worth a damn is self-fulfilling.

      • Echar Lailoken

        I too fail to see the pragmatic value of this. It’s foxy though!

        Comparative religion and philosophy show that the Thinker can regard itself as mortal, as immortal, as both mortal and immortal (the reincarnation model) or even as non-existent (Buddhism). It can think itself into living in a Christian universe, a Marxist universe, a scientific-relativistic universe, or a Nazi universe — among many possibilities.

        As psychiatrists and psychologists have often observed (much to the chagrin of their medical colleagues), the Thinker can think itself sick, and can even think itself well again.

        The Prover is a much simpler mechanism. It operates on one law only: Whatever the Thinker thinks, the Prover proves.

        To cite a notorious example which unleashed incredible horrors earlier in this century, if the Thinker thinks that all Jews are rich, the Prover will prove it. It will find evidence that the poorest Jew in the most run-down ghetto has hidden money somewhere.

        Prometheus Rising (1983) Ch. 1 : The Thinker & The Prover, p. 25

        • Rhoid Rager

          this just cuts right to the heart of the human condition–what the hell to do about all of this?

          • Echar Lailoken

            Take precautions and always question?

            Don’t think… Be?

          • Rhoid Rager

            But isn’t thinking a precondition to being? Something has to be thought about to be there to be thought about more, no?

            So, with that in mind (nyuk nyuk), don’t get lost in the details? Get at least two square meals a day? Cum frequently?

          • Echar Lailoken

            Maybe?

          • Rhoid Rager

            Never commit to always being tentative?

          • Echar Lailoken

            I may or may not buy that for a dollar?

          • Rhoid Rager

            Congratulations! You’re in/not in superposition!

          • Echar Lailoken

            Perhaps?

          • Andrew

            Au contraire, being is a precondition to thinking.

          • Rhoid Rager

            Maybe for you.
            But for me: cogito ergo sum.

          • Andrew

            Descartes meant that as a proof, not a chain of causality.

            Of course if you define your self as your consciousness and not your body, then you have a point. We don’t exist when we sleep.

          • Rhoid Rager

            Proof is needed to reconcile causality. Descartes’ metaphysics contained within it an implicit expression of solipsism. Since i can only ever be certain of my own subjectivity, and my perception of the external world is mediated thru this flawed bag of flesh, then causality outside of myself becomes eerily murky.

            Who is that carries this corpse?

          • Andrew

            It’s even more solipsistic to believe that the existence of other things is caused by my thinking of them.

          • Rhoid Rager

            …and also, paradoxically, in trying to convince them of this.

          • Andrew

            I disagree.

          • Rhoid Rager

            Poor communication on my part. I fixed it.

          • Andrew

            I agree!

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            A rock doesn’t think therefore it isn’t?

          • Rhoid Rager

            how can you be certain a rock doesn’t think? how can you be certain that i think?

          • Kevin Leonard

            I’m pretty certain that some disinfo-naughts do not think.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Do you have any evidence that rocks think?

          • Rhoid Rager

            Do you have any evidence that I think?

            Subjectivity is a singularity and does not require evidence to prove. It’s its own proof.

          • Oginikwe

            Yes, you are correct. We have few memories from before we are preverbal–often if we do, they are traumatic memories. We start thinking as we start to talk. Before then, babies are learning that they are not part of their cribs and that creature who feeds us and makes us comfortable seems to keep coming back.

        • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

          Of what relevance is your post to what I’ve stated exactly? You are presuming to dismiss the evidence by presuming it is merely wishful thinking. Please be scientific in your arguments and employ a cogent argument against what I’ve stated.

          • Echar Lailoken

            If a fox walks through 1,618 yards, would it still be a fox at the end of it’s walk? Would it’s fur be eight times as long?

          • Andrew

            Apophenia.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Again you can’t just throw out a word, you have to at least try to string together a rebuttal. This isn’t twitter, you can use more than 144 characters to make a point. And yes 144 is a sacred number as well ;)

          • Andrew

            No, I can just throw out a word. ;)

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Obviously, but the challenge is to add more words and create a meaningful response. Just tossing out a single word is intellectually lazy.

      • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

        @VaudeVillain:disqus you are avoiding the information I’ve presented and dismissing it out of hand. Try to refute the presence of the numbers in our solar system architecture otherwise you are expecting that others should just believe you because you’ve adopted a quasi authoritarian tone.

        • VaudeVillain

          Numbers are a human invention which we use to describe the universe. The very premise that the numbers are inherent or undeniable is, on it’s very face, untrue.

          What’s important isn’t whether or not the math makes sense, what’s important is that it has meaning. Meaning, like numbers, is a human invention. There is no inherent or undeniable meaning to the universe, there is only that which we impose upon it.

          “666″ will appear wherever you wish it to appear, It will denote what you wish it to denote, it will mean what you wish it to mean. It need not do any more to be of use. It doesn’t matter one whit if “666″ means anything to me, or if I believe you about the meaning, or if I find in it my own, or if I find the concept silly, because *none of those changes your relation to it, or to the universe at large*. To you the Truth is in the calculus, to me it is in perspective. There is room enough in human thought for us to both be right, and wrong, and indifferent, and irrelevant, and foolish, and wise all at once.

          Good zinger on the “quasi authoritarian” thing though, that was a hoot!

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            The computers we use to communicate, they run on number, the silicon and various other elements that comprise them are intelligently orchestrated according to the logical interaction of number, the Universe in which we find ourselves embedded also demonstrates similarly the computation of number (think atomic bonds and numbers) therefore I must disagree with your belief that numbers are not inherent to the ordering of the systems of life and yes it is self evidently true, you need only count the number of the beast/man. Whether it is the dance between Venus and the Earth producing the fibonacci sequence, and geometrically the pentagon or the number of vertebrae (33) in your ladder to the heaven/spine and it’s correspondence to achieving escape velocity at Mach 33 (at 666,666 ft odd right?) it is by number and measuring that we come to comprehend the pre existing patterns which enable life to exist. You are also carbon based and so the very philosophical musings produced by our corporeal fingers here both are dependent on the inherent numerical pattern of 6 protons 6 electrons and 6 neutrons are they not? Thanks to Scott Onstott of Secretsinplainsight.com for the fantastic infographics here.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cgQNUhtmHM

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire
          • Calypso_1

            Sacred/sacral/sacrebleu! Human vertebral elements vary between 32 and 35. Other species have no such correspondence and are wholly consistent with evolutionary realities – not ‘sacred’ ones. You are worshiping means and idealizations – not truth.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            “There are normally 33 vertebrae in humans, including the five that are fused to form the sacrum (the others are separated by intervertebral discs) and the four coccygeal bones that form the tailbone.”

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertebral_column

            I was referring to humans. I am presenting information, what you do with it is your choice.

          • Calypso_1

            Right…So how can it be then that normal variation from a mean (which in itself varies according to observable principles) is a somehow ‘fixed’ ratio according to divine purpose?

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Right and if I measure the vertebrae of a thousand people and the average is 33, does this not support that the pattern being expressed coalesces around this particular term?

          • Calypso_1

            What term?

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            33

          • Calypso_1

            Vertebrae do not coalesce around terms but rather somite segmentations which are defined by drifting points of genetic stability. Are you aware of any aspects of sacred geometry or biblical numerology that provide insight into the clock and wavefront oscillatory model of cellular adhesion?

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Obscuration via jargon tends to be your default response when confronted with sublime simplicity. Tell me Calyspo. If you measure 1,000 people’s spines, or 10,000 for that matter, and the average number of vertebrae totals 33, does this not provide a healthy yard stick by which to denote the mean for our species? If that is the case, you could say that part of our innate architectural patterning does in fact coalesce or adhere around the number 33 by definition.

            Post my Noah viewing I am happy to continue the conversation but for now I must leave this simulacrum and venture into meatspace for I have a preordained date https://www.facebook.com/events/376545409153906/?ref_newsfeed_story_type=regular

          • Calypso_1

            Jargon = the limit of your knowledge base?

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Jargon = special words or expressions that are used by a particular profession or group and are difficult for others to understand.

            The ‘relevance’ of your position is still obscured by your jargon. Feel free to clarify your meaning and please try to relate to the previous points discussed.

          • farbauti

            That’s very nice deflection. Stunningly beatiful.

            You still haven’t done anything but waving your hands and made the numbers fit whatever you are positing.

            How about answering the criticism?

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            What deflection are you presuming I’ve made, what is your criticism? Where have I erred in your mind? Make a cogent and logical refutation, try to be clear.

          • farbauti

            The presumed deflection is fairly evident to anyone able to parse language, such as you yourself presume to be.

            The numbers, at the base of your argument, is not in the same context as the original message. Transmuting those numbers, to fit into a context, makes your argument look silly.

            The numbers, by themselves, have no value.

            Miles and kilometers are arbitrary and fundamentally different measurements. The meaning of text is something entirely different. There is a lack of context and information that can bring them into unity.

            Does that help?

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            When you state that miles and kilometers are arbitrary, you are presenting that you’ve not understood how they are derived nor that they have a geometric relationship to one another.

            Tell me then, why do you believe they are arbitrary exactly? Just saying something does not make it so, where is the reason undergirding your supposition exactly?

            You do realize that information is encoded and that without the cipher it will appear meaningless to the uninitiated yes? The formulaic language of physics and its attendant alphabets, symbols and codes are greek to me, I would not presume it is meaningless simply because I lack understanding.

          • farbauti

            I state that within a context, numbers will be what they are according to the apparatus it is being measured with. It is not something you should not be familiar with.

            Transmutation of those numbers will not be evidence of anything at all, at all.

            Whether something is encoded, is not the problem. Your logical/scientific method is.

            My basic point is about context. Number here, number over there, not in the same context, ohshi…

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            So how exactly is my, ‘logical/scientific’ method in error exactly? The “apparatus” being applied here is the English system of miles, and seconds.

          • VaudeVillain

            We invented numbers to describe the universe, any correlation between numbers and the fundamental operation of the known reality is not coincidental, because that’s how numbers are supposed to work.

            Look at it this way: if I do a calculation to predict some phenomena, and my prediction turns out to be false… is it the universe that is at fault, or my use of numbers to describe it?

            I’m sorry that you feel I should be more swayed by coincidences that appear when you convert wildly between measures and mathematic paradigms… but I am not. My suggestion is that you spend less time worrying about why i don’t believe you, and more time worrying about why my critique upsets you so much.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            What I am suggesting is that both geometry and mathematics are inherent to nature and that we merely discovered what was already there. The semantics around defining reality so that we can comprehend and discuss it are a moot point.

            The abstract response you gave still avoids the reality that patterning is present regardless of whether we want to admit it or not. The right brain can perceive pattern through the senses without comprehending the mathematical ordering from which they gain their substance, does this entail that the mathematical underpinning is not actually there? Of course not.

            You can avoid all coincidences as meaningless but that is a choice to avoid the reality of patterning and to presume it is without import. What ‘wild’ conversions do you assume I am making, please present your own math demonstrating your conjecture.

            I’m not worrying about what you believe, I’m simply answering your criticism of my logic. Please use logic in returning the favor is all I am asking and try to avoid projecting onto me your own irrational beliefs as to my emotional state.

            Just the facts jack :)

          • VaudeVillain

            “The semantics around defining reality so that we can comprehend and discuss it are a moot point.”

            It’s been a while since I read it, but I’m pretty sure your scripture explicitly states otherwise. The power to define what is around us, to name it and describe it, is what makes Man unique from the rest of Creation. This isn’t like ignoring “thou shalt not eat bacon”, it is expressly discarding some of the core underlining philosophical principles of the faith. Are you sure that this is the tack you wish to take?

            “The abstract response you gave still avoids the reality that patterning
            is present regardless of whether we want to admit it or not.”

            I ignore it because it doesn’t matter. Patterns are everywhere, in everything… or at least can be. We choose what patterns we see, and which we consider important. If I observe the pattern that I often sneeze before it rains, it does not make it true that it rains because I sneeze, nor necessarily that I sneeze because it will rain.

            “The right brain can perceive pattern through the senses without
            comprehending the mathematical ordering from which they gain their
            substance, does this entail that the mathematical underpinning is not
            actually there?”

            You keep assuming that the pattern exists because of the math, yet you admit that the pattern occurs even when the math does not. How do you not see the contradiction? Reality underpins mathematics.

            “You can avoid all coincidences as meaningless but that is a choice to
            avoid the reality of patterning and to presume it is without import.”

            We all ignore a thousand coincidences all the time. Just a moment ago, while I was writing this, I had a cat jump into my lap to be pet. Mere coincidence, or irrefutable evidence of some cosmic pattern? I say coincidence, and dismiss it.

            “What ‘wild’ conversions do you assume I am making, please present your own math demonstrating your conjecture.”

            Your entire analysis of the Earth’s orbital velocity, compared to the moons diameter, rounded to some finite value, arbitrarily interpreted with Pythagorean notation is the purest example of manipulating numbers until they say what you wish I have ever seen. It is nothing but wild conversions. I don’t really need to do arithmetic here, nor is there any to show: my criticism is quite specifically that you have substituted arithmetic for substance, further math does little to make the point.

            “Please use logic in returning the favor is all I am asking and try to
            avoid projecting onto me your own irrational beliefs as to my emotional
            state.”

            I’ve been using logic, just not logic that falls into your apparently narrow view of what is acceptable. As to my irrational projections… you have quite clearly accused me of dismissing your position, which I have not, while completely ignoring mine (you haven’t yet responded to any of my actual critique); you have ascribed to me several positions which I do not hold and cannot be rationally extracted from my statements, in particular that I do not believe in the existence of patterns; you have engaged in ad hominem, accusing me of striking a “quasi authoritarian” tone in my response, which is neither particularly accurate nor well-advised for a man publishing his scholarly writings about Scripture (you do see the irony, don’t you?).

            I am having a great deal of fun with this, and I’m not ashamed to admit that at this point it is largely because you have made it so easy to elicit an apparently asymmetric response with minimal effort (the kids refer to this as “trolling” these days). You seem to be having less fun.

            Facts aren’t always Facts, and Fictions can be either.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            I wonder if you actually read my article. It seems like you’ve gotten a completely different idea in your head and that is what you are attacking. I’m fine, and it’s well and good you admit you are trolling.

          • VaudeVillain

            I read it. Didn’t really understand it, and my eyes glazed over a few times when it veered into the numerology weeds. So I read it again, and I still didn’t really understand it, but I was at least able to follow the premise. Then I read it again and realized that I understood what you were saying, but that none of it meant anything to me; basically the way I feel about most church services, especially when they start talking about how great Sky Daddy is and stop talking about how to live with yourself and others in the here-and-now.

            Once I realized that little nugget, the confusion just sort of fell away. I didn’t get it because it wasn’t written for me. I’m not built to attain insight from the tireless analysis of circles in circles, to construct a world for myself where those circles foretell all things, or to search through numeric permutations for every instance where a value repeats or recurses or inverts or merely appears. It just doesn’t do it for me, what is there to say?

            Accordingly, I’ve been responding almost entirely to your replies to my comments, starting with my initial reply to someone else’s.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            I’m beginning to think you might have some baggage related to god and or the church. That is fine, but it has nothing to do with what I’ve said. Take care.

          • VaudeVillain

            Other than being an atheist… nope, not really.

          • Kevin Leonard

            We may have invented the naming of numbers, but names are symbols for something else, they are not the thing. Clearly, quantity exists. Whether you have the ability to process it or not, or whether you use different symbols to identify them, or whether you use a numerical system other than base 10 to highlight their relation to other numbers, most human children have 10 fingers and 10 toes.

            Pythagoras was not randomly assigning numbers when discovering harmony in music.

            Futher, the values he dicovered have inherent significance in other metrics. Run octaves up from 1 Hz, you will arrive at 256 Hz in 8 cycles. Make 256 Hz the musical note ‘C’, and the note ‘A’ of the same scale is 432.

            In addition to the 864 (432*2) resonances mentioned by Camron, we may find the square root of the speed of light in miles per second to be 432 with a 99.9% accuracy.

            I understand that this .1% is a problem for some of you, but shall we consider the fibonacci series which progressively approaches the phi ratio? Shall we consider perfect spheres which have no reality other than mathemetician’s minds? Let’s abandon pi, then, right? Doesn’t exist?

            Fibonacci numbers and semi-sphere’s in physical reality point to an underlying harmony that is governed by… something…

            I could invoke my human-only “naming function,” but that leads to arguments about the symbols. This argument is pointing only to the inherent numerical harmony of the physical reality along with the suggestion that the creators of measurement systems were somehow dialed in to that harmony.

            So there are 432/ 864 resonances in
            - Sun’s diameter
            - speed of light
            - musical frequencies
            - length of day
            - numerous encodings in the bible and in the metrics of the Great Pyramid.

            Adding 108 (432/4) and 216 (432/2), here are a few other’s from Scott Onstott’s blog:

            Sun 864,000 mile diameter (99.8%)
            Sun’s diameter is approximately 108 Earth diameters (99%)
            Venus 108 million km orbital distance (99.8%)
            Mars 4,320 mile diameter (98%)
            Earth 108,000 km/hour orbital velocity (99%)
            Earth 21,600 nautical mile meridian circumference (99.99%)
            Earth averages 108 solar diameters from the Sun (99.5%)
            Moon averages 108 lunar diameters from the Earth (98%)
            Moon 2160 mile diameter (99.9%)
            Saturn 108,000 km polar diameter (99.3%)
            Saturn 10,800 day orbital period (99.6%)
            Jupiter 4,320 day orbital period (99.7%)
            Jupiter 86,400 mile diameter (99.4%)
            _______________

            Totally arbitrary, right?
            If it were only one of these resonances, in isolation, I might agree… but this points to something else besides randomness.

          • VaudeVillain

            Yes, it is largely arbitrary. How do I know? Because in your ist of “meaningful” similarities, you can’t even stick to one measurement paradigm. If these numbers are so important and inherent, why do some have to be in miles and others in kilometers? Why do some of them require specific, not really related transformations, in order to appear at all. Is the diameter of the moon more spiritually relevant that the diameter of Jupiter, while the day orbital period of Jupiter is more important than Earth’s?

            How about this… what is your explanation for all of the things which can be measured, yet do not present these numbers at all? Out of an essentially infinite number of possible calculations, you have found a statistically irrelevant number of them that (sort of) feature some number you find important. I’m just not very impressed.

            Like I’ve said at least 3 times now: if this is what rings your bell, if you derive some sort of spiritual meaning from it… then go for it. I’m not going to stop you. My being unconvinced, even incredulous, shouldn’t mean much of anything to you; I’m just not that important.

          • Kevin Leonard

            Well you are right about one thing, it shouldn’t mean much of anything to me that you are incredulous. And it doesn’t. I counter your arguments not for your benefit, but for other readers who may be weighing words.

            The convergence across different measuring paradigms is, imo, at the heart of The Mystery, whether the convergence is between the metric system and the imperial, or across measurements of space and measurements of time, or even sharing base 2 data with base 10 (or others).

            “why do some have to be in miles and others in kilometers?” The answer to this question may very well reveal the answer to many questions about humanity in antiquity. Do you realize that the km to miles ratio is a fibonacci ratio? Not a phi ratio, but quite close to a 5/8.

            “Why do some of them require specific, not really related transformations, in order to appear at all.” I’m not following your question.

            “Is the diameter of the moon more spiritually relevant that the diameter of Jupiter, while the day orbital period of Jupiter is more important than Earth’s?”
            Quantifying spiritual relevance is not an activity that Sacred Geometry attempts, as far as I have come across. What the numbers point to is a certain resonance. Check out John Martineau’s “A Little Book of Coincidence” to see multiple resonances with all of the planets.

            “what is your explanation for all of the things which can be measured, yet do not present these numbers at all?” There are many, many numbers besides 432 resonances which occur throughout the study of Sacred Geometry. Robert James Moon developed a model which uncovered numerical correlates from the 5 Platonic solids which can be found in each of the elements of the Periodic table.

            432 just happens to be a popular one in the public’s consciousness because of the current movement to create music at A432 vs the standard A440. And the resonance with the speed of light.

            And here, this one is neat. If C=256, in the Pythagorean tuning, A is 432 at a 27/16 ratio. Cool coincidence that 27*16=432. That ratio doesn’t change, so the only way they could match is if C=256, which just happens to be 2^8. All nice and neat.

            This is, of course, meaningless.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Kevin we gotta get you to contribute to SacredGeometryInternational.com :)

            Cheers!

          • Kevin Leonard

            apparently i’d rather spend time with naysayers.
            but, yes. soon (ish)

          • VaudeVillain

            “I counter your arguments not for your benefit, but for other readers who may be weighing words.”

            Rest assured, they’re all gone.

            “The convergence across different measuring paradigms is, imo, at the heart of The Mystery, whether the convergence is between the metric system and the imperial, or across measurements of space and measurements of time, or even sharing base 2 data with base 10 (or others).”

            See, we have some common ground: we couch the same concept in different terms. What you refer to as “The Mystery” I refer to as “sometimes the same number shows up in different places just because it does”. We differ primarily on what this means: I believe that it means means that a numeric value can be found in various places, you believe it means… eh, something spooky, I’m still apparently not clear on the details.

            “The answer to this question may very well reveal the answer to many questions about humanity in antiquity.”

            Or, and this is just my belief, it reveals nothing about people who did not use these measurements, nor know of them, nor have any means to predict we would in the future, nor any reason to “encode” anything. I do think that it reveals things about YOU, and what YOU believe.

            (regarding irrelevant transforms) “I’m not following your question.”

            Let’s just say that you are much more fond of splitting up semi-related numbers, then performing one or two operations with them, then looking for the derived value in other, generally unrelated, places you deem important than I am. To the point that where you see a deep and meaningful connection, I see somebody massaging numbers until they can find a superficial similarity. To you this is a worthy goal, to me it is masturbatory… although I cannot discredit the possible worth of masturbation.

            “There are many, many numbers besides 432 resonances which occur throughout the study of Sacred Geometry. Robert James Moon developed a model which uncovered numerical correlates from the 5 Platonic solids which can be found in each of the elements of the Periodic table.”

            So the trick is to keep finding new patterns and imparting them with deeper meaning. Goody. I posit that you could pick any number at all, essentially at random, and do the same if you really wanted to. Having played that particular game more than enough times, I am quite sure it is possible, and quite sure it means nothing.

            “And here, this one is neat. If C=256, in the Pythagorean tuning, A is 432 at a 27/16 ratio. Cool coincidence that 27*16=432. That ratio doesn’t change, so the only way they could match is if C=256, which just happens to be 2^8. All nice and neat.”

            Congratulations, you’ve completely lost me. Does C==256 in Pythagorean tuning? If not, you’ve solved for x… which is great, but I’m pretty sure it means nothing. What does 256 being 2^8 have to do with anything? Is that also a resonant value which you just never mentioned until now?

            “This is, of course, meaningless.”

            It’s all Greek to me. Except for the Arabic parts, of course.

          • Kevin Leonard

            “Rest assured, they’re all gone.”
            Amusing. In which case, I’ll just continue to dialogue with the only person expressing interest. (that’s you, btw). If it is not the case… well, unfortunately for you, for all future readers of this thread, you will have revealed your hand.

            ” you believe it means… eh, something spooky, I’m still apparently not clear on the details.”
            There is good reason for that. It lies at the heart of gnosis. There is no room for belief in gnostic exaltation.

            ” I do think that it reveals things about YOU, and what YOU believe.”
            A: see above
            B: you place no value in intellectual curiousity? no value in exploring the interrelatedness of mathematics with the material world? no patterns in matter worthy of study?

            “splitting up semi-related numbers, then performing one or two operations with them, then looking for the derived value in generally unrelated places … I see somebody massaging numbers until they can find a superficial similarity. ”

            Let’s see what operations have been done, here. Multiplying by 2. Dividing by 2. Dividing distance to sun by diameter (same operation on both moon and earth). Applying a fraction arrived at centuries ago by an historic mathemetician. I really worked hard to find those similar numbers, eh?

            “I posit that you could pick any number at all, essentially at random, and do the same if you really wanted to”
            I’m actually more honest with myself than that. I would have loved to have a 432 resonance with Mercury, because it might lend some meaning that all of the principle planets of astrology have a 432/ Solar resonance. However, as hard as I have looked, I cannot find any 432 Mercury resonances. As soon as I start trying to do things like ‘get the phi ratio of the 3rd harmonic above C at 436 (halfway between 432 and the modern 440 pitch)’, I know I am lost. Intellectual honesty is a virtue which I highly recommend attempting.

            “Congratulations, you’ve completely lost me. Does C==256 in Pythagorean tuning?”
            Inquiring minds want to know!!
            No. This really makes it seem as if you are just giving gutshot reactions to my words, and not exploring them, unless you are thinking you are trapping me? There’s a good wiki on Pythagorean tuning. But you seem more interested in disparaging me and Camron than in seeking any answers. The base frequency of any scale can be arbitrary. A440 certainly is. A432 is not.

            “What does 256 being 2^8 have to do with anything?”
            I guess I can’t fault you for thinking my statement ‘This is, of course, meaningless.’ was ironic/satirical.

            “Is that also a resonant value which you just never mentioned until now?” It’s just nice and neat. If we use the concert pitch A440, the C using a strict Pythogorean harmony is 260.74 Hz. I can’t massage that to make it pretty. But A432 and C256… well, not everyone can recognize that numbers are beautiful, so I can’t really fault you for that.

            It is all Greek. I’m glad you see it that way. I recommend Plato’s Theory of Forms and Plotinus’ Theory of Emanations for a deeper philosophical exploration.

            Here’s another neat little tidbit for whoever is reading. Prime numbers are supposed to have no pattern, right? No way to predict when the next one will show up. No precise formula. Well, a mathematician named Stanislaw Ulam one day placed a number line around a rectangular grid and marked all of the prime numbers. What emerged, but a pattern? Does this have meaning?

            I actually find the study of Sacred Geometry to be not unlike the study of spiritual texts. If you are looking for truth, you will find truth. If you are looking for falsehood and error, you will find falsehood and error. And I will agree with you, Vaude Villain, it says as much about who is doing the looking as it does about the material itself.

          • VaudeVillain

            “Amusing. In which case, I’ll just continue to dialogue with the only
            person expressing interest. (that’s you, btw). If it is not the case…
            well, unfortunately for you, for all future readers of this thread, you
            will have revealed your hand.”

            Fair enough. I’m actually a fan of showing my hand anyway, it’s more fun to play cards with people when they’re trying to get inside of my head. I keep hoping one of them will find a way in good enough that I can get out.

            “B: you place no value in intellectual curiousity? no value in exploring the interrelatedness of mathematics with the material world? no patterns in matter worthy of study?”

            Of course that’s not the case. I just don’t place much value or stock in the explorations you and Camron have laid out. I don’t rule out the possibility that you could one day discover something truly worthwhile… I just haven’t seen any evidence of it yet.

            “Let’s see what operations have been done, here. Multiplying by 2. Dividing by 2. Dividing distance to sun by diameter (same operation on both moon and earth). Applying a fraction arrived at centuries ago by an historic mathemetician. I really worked hard to find those similar
            numbers, eh?”

            I have no idea how long it took you, or how much actual work you put into it. I’m quite certain it is more of each than I would ever bother with, if only because I don’t share this hobby with you.

            “I’m actually more honest with myself than that.”

            Good. Too many people spend too much of their time lying to themselves, in my opinion.

            “Intellectual honesty is a virtue which I highly recommend attempting.”

            I will choose not to interpret that as an insinuation that I am being intellectually dishonest and agree.

            “[Pythagorean Tuning]”
            You are correct in your estimate that I have not independently researched a single thing you or Camron has claimed. I almost certainly won’t, barring some sort of miracle that makes me more interested in the subject. I am actually tone deaf, or at least tone hearing impaired, so of all the things I *could* specifically look into, this is the one I am least able to even comprehend… every attempt that I have ever made to learn musical notation, theory, performance, or acoustic physics has been an exercise in complete frustration, and as such I pretty much just don’t bother anymore.

            “[Y]ou seem more interested in disparaging me and Camron than in seeking any answers.”

            You sought me out to engage in an argument. He decided to engage with me after I made a short reply to a specific comment. If I were particularly interested in disparaging either of you, this conversation would be taking place somewhere devoted to the subject matter, and I would have gone there for this specific purpose. So far as I am aware, you are more interested in literally every aspect of this than I am.

            “[N]ot everyone can recognize that numbers are beautiful, so I can’t really fault you for that.”

            I can see the appeal, and there are quite a few mathematical principles which I find beautiful. None of them have come up, and I’ve seen no reason to mention them. My sense of beauty tends more toward the narrative and poetic than the visual or the tonal (given the above issues, this shouldn’t be surprising), and I’m generally less interested in numbers than interesting constructs or manipulations. Limits, asymptotes, imaginary numbers… I conceive of these things as poetic expressions, and I find them beautiful. A specific value rarely does much for me.

            “Here’s another neat little tidbit for whoever is reading. Prime numbers are supposed to have no pattern, right? No way to predict when the next one will show up. No precise formula. Well, a mathematician named
            Stanislaw Ulam one day placed a number line around a rectangular grid and marked all of the prime numbers. What emerged, but a pattern? Does this have meaning?”

            See, this is interesting to me. Not because I have any spiritual need for prime numbers to have a pattern, but because the possibility of developing some way to predict very large primes is a mathematical alchemists stone. Prime numbers aren’t necessarily supposed to be any of the things you described, they just have appeared to be thus far; so much that we’ve developed quite a bit of math assuming that premise, which might not be true, including more than a few specific applications. If very large prime numbers turn out to be predictable, it blows modern cryptography out of the water.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            “You are correct in your estimate that I have not independently
            researched a single thing you or Camron has claimed. I almost certainly
            won’t, barring some sort of miracle.” and yet towards the end we see,

            “See, this is interesting to me. Not because I have any spiritual need
            for prime numbers to have a pattern, but because the possibility of
            developing some way to predict very large primes is a mathematical
            alchemists stone. Prime numbers aren’t necessarily supposed to be any of
            the things you described, they just have appeared to be thus far; so
            much that we’ve developed quite a bit of math assuming that premise,
            which might not be true, including more than a few specific
            applications. If very large prime numbers turn out to be predictable, it
            blows modern cryptography out of the water.”

            No one is trying to proselytize to you, we are simply presenting information that refutes your desire to dismiss everything stated as meaningless.

            The irony is a potential epiphany granted to you at the end here is a product of Kevin doing so. (Bless his Soul ;) So here is for science gents and open minded consideration of the nature of being, the miracle of existence and the utilization of sacred wisdom in apportioning harmony to all human affairs. Boy could we sure use it.

          • VaudeVillain

            You see that as some sort of coup? After the entire article, and two long, winding comment threads, I express interest in one thing which had not yet been mentioned and had no stated relation to anything yet discussed… good gravy.

            And a “potential epiphany”? No. I have no vested spiritual need for prime numbers to be hard to calculate. If it turns out that they are not, it won’t shatter my worldview, nor will it bring out in me some new paradigm of thought. I’m not immune to epiphany, it just isn’t likely to happen that way. Maybe if I were a different person, with different thought patterns, and different ways of seeing the world, epiphany would be on the table. It really isn’t, though.

            “So here is for science gents and open minded consideration of the nature
            of being, the miracle of existence and the utilization of sacred wisdom
            in apportioning harmony to all human affairs.”

            Harmony is Discord to the Fifth, Brother Pope.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            “Rest assured, they’re all gone.” uhh… really? Judging by the comments this thread is still kicking, you can check the shares too if you need reassurance. So do you believe that understanding the escape velocity required to leave this planet is immaterial? That a by product of natural patterning is pointless to consider let alone fathom?

            Here are a few lines from Robert Lawlor’s book “Sacred Geometry” that will help clarify my point.

            “In science today we are witnessing a general shift away from the assumption that the fundamental nature of matter can be considered from the point of view of substance (particles, quanta) to the concept that the fundamental nature of the material world is knowable only through its underlying patterns of wave forms.

            Both our organs of perception and the phenomenal world we perceive seem to be best understood as systems of pure pattern, or as geometric structures of form and proportion. Therefore, when many ancient cultures chose to examine reality through the metaphors of geometry and music (music being the study of the proportional LAWS of sound frequency) [emphasis mine] , they were already very close to the position of our most contemporary science.

            Professor Amstutz of the Mineralogical Institute at the University of Heidelberg recently said:

            Matter’s latticed waves are spaced at intervals corresponding to the frets on a harp or guitar with analogous sequences of overtones arising from each fundamental. The science of musical harmony is in these terms practically identical with the science of symmetry in crystals.

            The point of view of modern force-field theory and wave mechanics corresponds to the ancient geometric-harmonic vision of the universal order as being an interwoven configuration of wave patterns.

          • VaudeVillain

            “So do you believe that understanding the escape velocity required to
            leave this planet is immaterial? That a by product of natural
            patterning is pointless to consider let alone fathom?”

            Complete non-sequitur.

            “Here are a few lines from Robert Lawlor’s book “Sacred Geometry” that will help clarify my point.”

            Neat. I still see nothing “sacred” in this, other than that some people at some times have attributed things to some deity.

            I see it as neither coincidence nor Revelation that matter behaves consistently, including when it is part of a wave. You seem to think I reject the core concept, and I do not: I reject the idea that it means God. I also reject the idea that the system by which humans interpret and conceptualize reality is somehow inherent to reality, rather than to human perception. Numbers work the way they work because they are predicated on the universe, and because the universe is consistent… not because the universe is made of numbers.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            The non sequitur you suppose is non existent. Do you or do you not find the scientific import (dare I say ‘sacred’ science) of the speed of escape velocity also corresponding to 666 as remarkable? Of course you don’t as you’ve stated previously and you’ve made this abundantly clear above, and I quote,

            “You are correct in your estimate that I have not independently
            researched a single thing you or Camron has claimed. I almost certainly
            won’t, barring some sort of miracle.”

            Regarding your avoidance of implication regarding deity, don’t get hung up on the name, GOD or Gamma Omicron Delta, or the Universe (One Song) both are just symbols for the inconceivable, that you either allow or rebuke based on your own prejudices.

            Witnessing patterns in the unfolding of life is simply paying attention to the world you inhabit and using your universally orchestrated mind to utilize the scientific method in acquiring knowledge.

            “I also reject the idea that the system by which humans interpret and
            conceptualize reality is somehow inherent to reality, rather than to
            human perception. Numbers work the way they work because they are
            predicated on the universe, and because the universe is consistent…
            not because the universe is made of numbers.”

            Ok based on what? What evidence buttresses your attempts to avoid the reality that nature expresses patterning and that it is this patterning that produces the sense organs with which you can perceive (or deny) said patterns in the first place? Tell me that. You reject the very foundation of your physical reality and it’s obvious mathematical architecture based on what evidence?

            Again I reiterate, “Both our organs of perception and the phenomenal world we perceive seem
            to be best understood as systems of pure pattern, or as geometric
            structures of form and proportion.”

            What is God? he is length, width,height and depth” St. Bernard of Clairvaux

            Just swap out God for Universe and we should be clear.

            ”What is the Universe? it is length, width, height and depth”.

            Ok I gotta get back to work. See you on the next thread.

          • VaudeVillain

            I had a long response written, then I decided I didn’t like it.

            See you next time around dude.

          • Oginikwe

            “Rest assured, they’re all gone.”
            Sometimes we come back.

          • VaudeVillain

            Why?

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Couldn’t have said it better myself. Thank you Kevin for filling in the blanks here… and by the blanks I’m referring to the dull stares of the purposefully ignorant.

          • Rhoid Rager

            “My suggestion is that you spend less time worrying about why i don’t
            believe you, and more time worrying about why my critique upsets you so
            much.”
            That was a gratuitously rude thing to write–completely unnecessary to the formulation of a cogent argument and presumptuous about the mentality of Camron.

          • VaudeVillain

            That is not the intended interpretation, but it is a fair one nonetheless. Apologies all around.

        • Craig Bickford

          How is this an intelligent rebuttal to what VaudeVillian said? You are committing a number of fallacies here my fiend, and you are being rude.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            What fallacies exactly do you believe I have made. Rudeness is in the eye of the beholder.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Also Vaude has been a good sport, are you taking offense on his behalf?

        • Guest

          Not a big fan of criticism huh? Maybe you should publish if you don’t like people criticizing your ideas. That’s how it goes.

        • Craig Bickford

          Not a big fan of criticism huh? Maybe you shouldn’t publish if you don’t like people criticizing your ideas. That’s how it goes.

      • Oginikwe

        I think you missed what I had been asking: why 666? Why not 357 or 333 or 777 or 2, for that matter? When you study myths and legends, the same numbers show up around the world: seven and three are favorites in the oral traditions. Aren’t 2 and 5 just as relevant? Not to the old storytellers. While each storyteller gives the story their own personal twist, the core elements of the stories and those numbers stay the same.

        For many people 666 is relevant as the number of the beast: I just wanted to know why that particular number in this myth.

        • VaudeVillain

          Mathematically? Because 666 is easier to work with. Factor 6, then factor 5 (or any other prime number) and this becomes obvious. Or maybe they had some sort of Divine Inspiration… I can’t really know either way, and neither can you. Unless you were there, experiencing what really went down, of course. I doubt that you were.

          In any event, I understood your meaning, and I chose to short circuit it. Why whomever decided to focus on whichever number is, ultimately, of less import than that they did. Had “they” chosen 555 instead, it would change the details, but not the relevance or importance of the numbers.

    • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

      You are very welcome. 666 definitely shows up in Qabalistic studies. Now that your eyes are piqued you may find it in other teachings and scripture.

      • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

        Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth commence ;)

        • Rhoid Rager

          The 666 significance is fascinating, but then again there is also the arbitrariness of the imperial measurement system. Metric is now based on the speed of light in a vacuum–apparently the only constant we know of. I remember my jaw hanging open for a while when I first learned of all the weird ‘coincidences’ surrounding the Great Pyramid dimensions explained in the Revelation of the Pyramids documentary. The ‘coincidence’ of the moon being 400 times smaller than the sun and 400 times closer to earth than the sun is also amazing to think about.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Right on. Check out ‘Who Built The Moon’ by Christopher Knight and Alan Butler and Scott Onstott’s ‘Taking Measure’ if you want to continue to be astounded. Both books never cease to amaze me.

            Megalithomania has done a fantastic job presenting much of this anachronistic information from leading scholars in the field.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Qvg7VFzxxs

        • Rhoid Rager

          Nevermind about the post below. I didn’t see your comments above. I’ll sit and digest Randall Carson’s work for a while. thx.

          • drokhole

            Not sure if you’ve read it yet, but the book A Beginner’s Guide to Constructing the Universe: Mathematical Archetypes of Nature, Art, and Science is a phenomenal intro/peek/advanced look into this stuff. It’s great to have a hard copy on hand, but it can also be found online in full here:

            http://issuu.com/hunabkuproductions/docs/a-beginner-s-guide-to-constructing-the-universe—

            Gave me a new set of eyes to see the world with, and ignited a drive to explore both the natural world and human art/history/science/philosophy/etc… It helped me understand the Chinese I Ching and trigrams for the first time. Probably would be my “one desert island book.” The marginal quotes are worth the price of admission alone. Here is a short clip of the author explaining ancient Egyptian (and Chinese) math:

            http://youtu.be/Ih1ZWE3pe9o

          • Rhoid Rager

            thank you for this. i’m definitely interested. hopefully i can provide you with a good cite in the future.

          • drokhole

            My pleasure! Hope you enjoy as much as much as I did. Always open for a good rec, so drop it on me if and when the spirit moves.

      • Oginikwe

        I have a question/comment:
        “Many of this mysterious architect or engineers Suns were literally
        sacrificed (transmuted) billions of years before our planet came into being, so that we might live.”
        This seems a bit self-centered of us, don’t you think? Why are you saying that we are the pinnacle of our planet? God help us if that were to be true because God/Higher Cosmic Intelligence must have a terrible sense of humor–He/She/It/Whatever surely can do better than us and what we’ve done to this planet. Even barn swallows know not to crap in their own nests.
        ” The beautiful irony here is that science is proving the existence of God/Higher Cosmic Intelligence and part of the hidden meaning encoded within St. John’s revelatory gnosis.”
        It seems to me that the beautiful irony here is that whether or not science proves God/Higher Cosmic Intelligence exists isn’t going to make much difference in the long run other than cause more religious wars. That would be quite a Pandora’s box to open; the game of “My God is Better Than Yours” would explode and cause more harm than it does now.

        • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

          I didn’t say anything like that, I’m just stating that the carbon that provides the basis of organic life is present because of the transmutation of stars. I don’t see God in the context that would create hypocritical religions which wage war, that is all man’s doing. I have no interest in playing “my god is better than yours.” I also don’t think I’ve said anything to lead to that conclusion.

          • Oginikwe

            I’m sorry. Please accept my apologies.
            I thought those were your quotes: I must have misread.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            No worries. Thank you for being cool and considerate on this board. We get some real ass’bergers up in here sometimes and it’s nice to interact with smark folks without agendas or biases that prevent a nice philosophical discourse on life. Cheers :)

    • Andrew

      The earliest copies of Revelation have the number as 616. In Hebrew, Emperor Caligula adds up to 616, and he was emperor–a beastly man worshiped as a god–when Revelation was originally written. Later, when Nero was emperor, the number was changed to 666, which is what Emperor Nero adds up to in Hebrew.

      • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

        I’ve heard that before and I wonder then what it was encoding. Funny how anachronistic facts are presenting themselves across the spectrum of scientific disciplines, all presenting we have lost technically advanced former civilizations. Here is another example

    • Dingbert

      I once smoked this brand of Chinese cigarettes that had “666″ around the filter. That’s a belief system, right?

      Check out the WC tobacco “trademark,” too:
      http://www.cigarettespedia.com/index.php/666_Threesix_(Virginia_Cigarettes)_-_Wai_Chung(yellow)

      I’m sure some Kabbalist could find some meaning in the fact that the WC logo inside the Star of David looks like a Hebrew shin and kaf.

  • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

    Happy to address any criticism in time, must return to meatspace and watch Noah with friends. Here is a little bit of grist from Hamlet’s mill for you to enjoy (and some to fume over) in my absence. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxZ7TeRafnM

  • Gabriel D. Roberts

    It seems like a lot of the comments in this thread are having a ‘cart before the horse’ problem. The questions are posed in such a way as so assume that Camron is saying these numbers came first and therefore it MUST indicate a creator. An idea like that is a trigger to the uber-skeptic for sure, but what I feel is significant is that somebody long before we came onto the scene had already mapped these things out in units of measurement that we still use to this day. Over and over and over in ancient architecture you get the same numbers worked into the structure; numbers that mirror the measurements of celestial bodies. This doesn’t indicate that the numbers are made up to fit, but rather that individuals a long time ago had already mapped out celestial bodies and incorporated these and even ‘encoded’ these in structures and sacred texts. I don’t see why this is that hard to understand. The only question this leads us to is, “who were these people with advanced knowledge who apparently had been around before recorded history?” So it’s not, “you’re trying to make arbitrary numbers fit.” It’s more like “somebody lined this shit up and it’s across every major ancient civilization and the coincidences are eery and intriguing.”

    • Oginikwe

      That’s how I took it. I didn’t quite digest the religious overtones and was looking at it from a different point of view.

    • Echar Lailoken

      The Issue is, that the biblical mile (1618 yards) differs from the international mile (1760 yards).

      • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

        I’m not utilizing the ‘biblical’ mile you describe. I’m using the commonly held land or statute mile. I was unaware there was a biblical mile. Please provide more information about it.

  • ehmkec

    The number ’1′ shows up a lot in geometry and in the Bible. Coincidence? I think not.

21