Thread: Let's Study Sacred Geometry

Geometry has always been present in art. Using examples in art is just not gonna get you anywhere.

And I will explain the concept of the golden number. What is the number that, minus one, equals its inverse?

At a quick glance, you can see it's a number between 1 and 2. You can put that concept in an equation, and you get:

x - 1 = 1/x
solving the equation:
x² - x - 1 =0

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

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

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

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

the information xei is only a click away. just visit the website I posted.

The site was full of anecdotes, not evidence, and contained information which I personally know to be completely wrong.

For example: "many crop circles include ellipses instead of circles, which are impossible to construct adequately with ropes". This is complete and utter rubbish, it's a very well known mathematical result that you can construct an ellipse extremely easily using a loop of rope and two fixed points.

the other is an image of a crop circle in the form of mandelbrot

Okay. What is the Mandelbrot set?

Originally Posted by Xei

Okay. What is the Mandelbrot set?

Why are you asking when you already know?

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

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

What exactly is there to argue about?

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




ps. anyone can wiki it





ANYWAYS



More fun pictures




Sacred Geometry can more or less be summed up with one word, harmonics

The sounds of Jupiter! Why?
Why not?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3fqE01YYWs

Originally Posted by juroara

That is not what planet's orbits look like

Originally Posted by ThreeLetterSyndrom

That is not what planet's orbits look like

I assume the mean orbit means something different than just orbit

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

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

Why are you asking when you already know?

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

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

What exactly is there to argue about?

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

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

Okay, that's fine.

Originally Posted by Xei

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

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

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

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

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

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

why wouldn't other universes be just as beautiful?

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

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

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

Originally Posted by juroara

I assume the mean orbit means something different than just orbit

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mysticism doesn't mean magical.

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

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

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

Originally Posted by juroara

I assume the mean orbit means something different than just orbit

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

This is funny.

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Xei

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Xei

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

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

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

---

@ juroara:

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

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

Originally Posted by Kromoh

@ juroara:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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