Be a Supporter!

SS - The Math of God

rated 3.58 / 5 stars
Share Links:

Click on an icon to vote on this!

Credits & Info

Jun 20, 2011 | 11:40 AM EDT
  • Daily 3rd Place June 21, 2011

If you liked this, check these out!

Author Comments


This week, we dive back into the Sacred Geometry pool to talk about spirals and sequences that all life strives towards, and at the end we look at the 2nd informational unraveling of the Fruit of Life.

Links and Sources (Remove the Spaces)

Twitter - @itsJordanD
Facebook - ages/Spirit-Science/21023 8862349944

http://www.floweroflife.o rg/spiral01.htm

Face on Mars riusly/cyd/city.html
http://www.bibliotecapley nd.htm

Geometry of Music
http://www.sciencedaily.c om/releases/2008/04/08041 7142454.htm
harmonic_nature/sacred_ge ometry.php
http://www.spiritofmaat.c om/archive/jan4/williams.



Rated 5 / 5 stars


But someone could make 1024 digits of the following code?(Once you figure out the pattern)(It's not that easy, pretty much thinking)


Or break, somehow, the number 4294967296 into, for example, how the number 16 can be broken in 2^4 then 2^2^2.

This is somehow of a test...


Rated 2.5 / 5 stars

Proof and philosophy doesn't sit well with me.

While a lot of the geometry stuff is very old knowledge, it's still interesting and you illustrated them well, however the spiritual fluff you throw in there at times kind of disappoints me. To me it looks like you have used a rather sneaky tactic of using cold hard mathematical proofs to push much less grounded religio-spiritual hypothesis. It's like saying "Hey, here's a bunch of interesting proven maths. Now here's a philosophical hypothesis which must be true because that mathematical stuff I talked about earlier was true."
I just ask people not to jump on the bandwagon and blindly accept that this guy must know what he's talking about because he knows a lot of facts. A little scepticism and reading some peer reviewed research should be done before accepting anything as true. I guess that goes for what I'm saying too.

Also, the rating accompanying this comment is no reflection on the flash. I merely gave it 5 in order to post my comment. To be perfectly honest I don't know what to rate this as.

People find this review helpful!


Rated 3.5 / 5 stars


What I find interesting is you're digging into knowledge we've known for a long time, but since it was generally figured out by scholars (who were typically of a religious caste), it was branded as "religious" or "sacred". The universe is a constant cycle of chaos and order overtaking each other, and in biology we're taught basic shapes nature evolved to min/max space usage (eg: branchings on trees, crystaline structures, etc.)

However, I'm not quite sure I buy what you're selling on all of this being some finger pointing towards evidence of intelligent design or higher planes of being (which I'm still unsure on whether you're pointing towards that, b/c you jump around A LOT during your presentations). But, it is interesting what you've put together. I think some of it is just noticing patterns in nature. Natural laws, like physics, etc, will determine that things like fingers with equi-length digits are fail compared to phi digits, because leverage would cause increased stress fractures, and plus the fingers would not be able to fold / curl up as they do in our hand to form a grasping fist for tool manipulation.

I agree that there is basic mathematics (well, not so basic depending on how much math a person has had) which dictates how things have evolved. Nature and the universe are dictated by physics and math, so obviously we're going to notice patterns in how life evolved, given that all life had the same universal rules to evolve with (chemical reactions, physics, so forth).

I'm still not sure how this leads to higher planes of existence. I guess I'm still on the fence. You sort of sound like one of those folks that dug up a lot of scientific mathmatical info in order to sound like you know what you're talking about ("see, all of this is pure science and math, which cannot be disputed!"), and then overlaying and drawing corollaries to theories you want to believe in ("and thus, it cannot be disputed that we can be psychics and travel interdimensionally with just our minds!") No offense, but there's a lot of crack-pots out there that know an awful lot about science to support their bunk theories (eg: infinite perpetual motion/energy engines).

I keep waiting for the part where you ask folks to send you $19.99 + s&h to buy two magnetic rings which folks can wear to be "immortal". EG: Kevin Trudeau was pushing a lot of factually-based diet and nutrition information in some books a while back, but also loaded them down with a lot of bunk, like Alex Chiu's immortal magnet rings. Of course, he turned out to just be some get-rich-quick person that just lumped a bunch of info into a book to make money. Most of what he pulled was actual science, but then he dipped into Homeopathy and some other questionable quackery. So, pardon me if I'm wary of folks pushing science for their own agendas.

People find this review helpful!


Rated 5 / 5 stars

Holy Balls

This is just plain awesome. This is the first time I've posted in over a year and this vid is definitely worth it. I just had a braingasm from all the information there. It all makes so much sense now!


Rated 5 / 5 stars


Any simpler versions???
Sorry, I'm extremely terrible in mathematics & calculations & it's hard to catch up especially some religious references. My head hurts... (really, it hurts)

Ok, well...
It is good to know. New things for me to think about and some digging to be done, bunch of interesting stuff. Thank you.