math proofs

[Clark stewart]

curious,
this is very illuminating to say the least..
but, why are the tetrahedrons back to back, when esoterically they would be
interconnected in a star tetrahedron.
and would it not be more...logical to imprint the star tetrahedron into a
sphere, why are we still using cubes as a reference for building are math
models..?

why not rebuild with harmonics for understanding each
level/density/dimension, so , the ratio would be enscribing each geometry,
as did kepler in his platonic model of eather. then figure this according to
phi in a dynamic sense(multi-d), or as bearden said in scalar geometry..
so we have a resonance field factor for each ratio, not just two
tetrahedrons within a cube, which really only seems to describe one ratio..?
this number /constant could also be conclusive , as the nineveh const was
for celestial time keeping.
therefore we could have a common 'key' that is applicable to each level that
would work for each level to computate any given sub-set of a over-tone, or
time frame..
a master 'key', if you will..?

mind you , this is like a freestyle that david talked about in a club one
rare night, that i am just going off my own sense/channel of my small
understanding..
looking for fellow seekers of a cosmic code of understanding uniformity to
unity..

humbly,
clark
__________________________________________________ _______________________
get your private, free e-mail from msn hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

[Rod Johnson]

clark,
i do not follow you in most of this. in terms of sequential physics,
tetrahedrons are part of a matrix construct. that means they are a part of a
greater whole bound within a specific geometry. within that whole are
fundamental and primary relationships between octahedrons and tetrahedrons.
to realize their significant aspects you must become familiar with the
natural space matrix as a geometry. the esoteric sacred geometry is not a
very revealing model of matrix concepts. face to face tetrahedral structures
model a vector field as a volume that represents a photon quantum space. the
6.66 relationship is ratio of that photon space volume to an energy
measurement in cartesian coordinate terms. blackbody radiation is quantified
in a cubic frame-reference. plank inadvertently discovered that the energy
relationship is always 2/3 of the measurements.

rod deebokonon

-----original message-----
from: clark stewart [mailto:fudoshin09@...]
sent: friday, june 15, 2001 10:59 pm
to: asc2k@yahoogroups.com
subject: [asc2k] math proofs

curious,
this is very illuminating to say the least..
but, why are the tetrahedrons back to back, when esoterically they would be
interconnected in a star tetrahedron.
and would it not be more...logical to imprint the star tetrahedron into a
sphere, why are we still using cubes as a reference for building are math
models..?

why not rebuild with harmonics for understanding each
level/density/dimension, so , the ratio would be enscribing each geometry,
as did kepler in his platonic model of eather. then figure this according to
phi in a dynamic sense(multi-d), or as bearden said in scalar geometry..
so we have a resonance field factor for each ratio, not just two
tetrahedrons within a cube, which really only seems to describe one ratio..?
this number /constant could also be conclusive , as the nineveh const was
for celestial time keeping.
therefore we could have a common 'key' that is applicable to each level that
would work for each level to computate any given sub-set of a over-tone, or
time frame..
a master 'key', if you will..?

mind you , this is like a freestyle that david talked about in a club one
rare night, that i am just going off my own sense/channel of my small
understanding..
looking for fellow seekers of a cosmic code of understanding uniformity to
unity..

humbly,
clark
__________________________________________________ _______________________
get your private, free e-mail from msn hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.


to unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
asc2k-unsubscribe@egroups.com



your use of yahoo! groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/