'Knowledge' and 'Belief' as Primordial Antitheses

[nothing]

They are real as extensions of consciousness as consciousness is real, so are the constructs through which it operates.

...extensions of your own (un)consciousness, perhaps. Local boundary condition.
Lines are useful mathematical constructs/devices, not actually constituency of the universe.

"Let there be lines," and there was lines.

I am not talking about angular velocity, I am talking about rotations.

You were talking about circumference, which is 2D.
A velocity is only 1D: a magnitude.
An angular velocity / acceleration is 2D: two magnitudes.
viz. you can not "unfurl" a 2D acceleration as a 1D velocity:
they are not even the same geometry. At best you will get a linear "vibration"
determined by the "rotations" given a period.

They are relative as the fixed point of measurement.

c (speed of light) is not relative: it is absolute.
Light "travels" from/to anyone/anything at the same "speed".

I recommend to you the work of Miles Mathis, he dug right into Relativity
and shows where it is correct and where it is not:

http://milesmathis.com/index.html
Excerpt from a paper on the ether:

What Einstein did is solve the riddle of how light can go c relative to everything. He did it by doing all the math from the point of view of outside measurers. He showed that all their measurements would be thrown off by the idea, and that this would cause time dilation and length contraction and mass increase and so on. Well, he was right. It does throw off all our measurements. But the question remains, what is really happening beneath our measurements? The standard model now takes this question to have no meaning. It is considered to be a metaphysical question. But it is not a metaphysical question. It is a valid mechanical question, and it still has an answer. Because the value for c is constant, we can answer this question, just as we were able to answer the question about simultaneity. And in both cases we must disagree with Einstein.

This is the imperative for setting the speed of light c to 1 wherein photons are not actually moving,
they are merely being carried by the progression (expansion of the universe in all directions).

Potentiality is not actuality.

Beliefs can be potentially wrong, thus actually not knowledge.
Beliefs can be potentially right, and yet actually not knowledge.

In both cases, belief is actually not knowledge. Make the two one, yea?

Implication is possibility not actuality.

lol what ?

A displaced and not displaced body necessitates a dualistic stance.

Hence the {ALL∞NOT} binary preceding the photon:
NOT Displaced = Photon
ALL Displaced = Everything Else

Duality only applies if/when displaced from unity, else not.
This is why the book of Genesis begins pre-displacement.

Remember: Φπ² is 1D electric (image) and 2D magnetic (likeness)
The Hebrew word for 'GOD' is elohim:
el - leader, towardsness
oh - conduit
im - expanse
wherein the 'im indicates plurality "Let us make Adam... in our image and our likeness... male and female... "
viz.
Φ = masculine 1D
π² = feminine 2D

Actuality it ie entirely empirical. If I empirically look at the sky and see the stars, then focus on one star with a telescope, the increase in clarity of one star resulted in the percievably ambiguity of another.

Your own subjectivism is not a grounds for empiricism.

Implication is not actuality, it is possibility. Belief based ignorance can result in one believing in the correct premise possibly as well,

Believing in a correct premise is not knowledge, it is still belief. It becomes knowledge if/when no degrees of uncertainty.
I may believe it is 72.6 degrees outside, not having measured, and possibly get it right. I didn't know until it was measured.

Explanation is description.

It is more than description, as description is not explanation.

They are extensions of the binaries then.

They are not extensions of anything: they carry/impart binary information.
The conscience is meant to do this according to discretion.

Scriptural reference necessitates a degree of belief in the metaphorical nature of scripture.

Not merely: it can be known to which degrees such literature is valid/invalid.

Negation is a falsification, one is a synonym of the otherl

...of a belief previously held to be true/possible.
Falsifying all false beliefs tends towards all-knowing.

False, as belief based ignorance "implies", according to you, an absence of knowledge it only states a possibility thus it is simultaneously possible for belief based ignorance to be correct.

Belief-based ignorance is correct: the correct root of human suffering.

Actually the chart is made up...you created it and have no proof to back it up.

Again: whatever is true doesn't need help from me.

And this logic included double negation.

There is no 'double negation' anywhere.
Space and time are discrete units, thus
discretion is (of) absolute (magnitude).

This would be the '1' in/of both
(1+√5)/2 and Φ²=(Φ+1).
The former is "irrational" thus never terminates.
The latter is both, thus "terminates" according to discretion.

The truth is in plain sight. It is a matter of perception,
hence knowledge is not the most important thing: it is conscience.
This is why yoga focuses on enhancing perception, not god.

Thus the bible can contain truth statements.

Can, and does.

False, they are simultaneously mediated through eachother and are connected.

Only according to discretion, thus may have a {BEG/END}.

Inspiree by a higher power is the answer, a higher power which can neither be disproven or proven as evidence is a subset of this power.

If some "higher power" can neither be proven nor disproven, its potency lies only in those willing to merely "believe".

Actually your stance is a set or beliefs as it is not proven.

The truth doesn't need help from me - it's ever-present.

Under your own definition your charts are idol worship as they are graven images.

No they are not, though I understand your wishing them to be.

Graven images implies that which can not be improved upon:
fixed, without blemish, unsurpassable etc.

None of this applies to the work that I do: to the contrary,
it reached where it is by constantly improving upon itself.

The accuser is accused you are pointing fingers at Islam when the numbers actually show higher rates of murder among non believers.

I use Islam because the adherents call themselves "believers" thus no accusation need be made.
There is no "numbers" that show higher rates of murder (as if that is the only form of suffering) among "non believers".
Are you just pulling whatever serves your own interest out of your own ass such to deny the reality?
Muslims have been killing both each other and non-Muslims for 1400 years
based on one single false premise/testimony and one bloody mess of a book.
Believer vs. unbeliever. "Kill the unbelievers!" That's the reality.

Athiesm is a stance of negation, it holds no beliefs.

Atheism purports there is no viable basis upon which to assert a god(s) even exist(s).

The accuser is accused, in accusing believers to manifest beleif based ignorance you follow the same accusation. Your statistics about belief based violence are false in face of a system absent of belief.

Is that all you are going to do now? Throw around that accusation?
You are sounding more and more like a child throwing in a tantrum.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything: belief is not a person, it is a state of being.
Islam is not a person, it is a collective state of being, based on a false witness.

Pathologically pointing fingers elsewhere is similarly childish
and demonstrates cognitive dissonance and/or inability to confront
the reality of the destruction caused by supremacist belief-based states
such as Islam. There is no better example to illustrate the problem of belief.

[Eodnhoj7]

They are real as extensions of consciousness as consciousness is real, so are the constructs through which it operates.

...extensions of your own (un)consciousness, perhaps. Local boundary condition.
Lines are useful mathematical constructs/devices, not actually constituency of the universe.

"Let there be lines," and there was lines.

Lines are an extension of consciousness, thus real through the consciousness as real.

I am not talking about angular velocity, I am talking about rotations.

You were talking about circumference, which is 2D.
A velocity is only 1D: a magnitude.
An angular velocity / acceleration is 2D: two magnitudes.
viz. you can not "unfurl" a 2D acceleration as a 1D velocity:
they are not even the same geometry. At best you will get a linear "vibration"
determined by the "rotations" given a period.

If a particle rotates x rotations given a second, the rotation of the particle results in a distance much in the same manner where a hand on a clock, while rotating, travels a distance.

They are relative as the fixed point of measurement.

c (speed of light) is not relative: it is absolute.
Light "travels" from/to anyone/anything at the same "speed".

Actually it has been found to change speeds:

https://www.livescience.com/29111-speed ... stant.html



I recommend to you the work of Miles Mathis, he dug right into Relativity
and shows where it is correct and where it is not:

http://milesmathis.com/index.html
Excerpt from a paper on the ether:

What Einstein did is solve the riddle of how light can go c relative to everything. He did it by doing all the math from the point of view of outside measurers. He showed that all their measurements would be thrown off by the idea, and that this would cause time dilation and length contraction and mass increase and so on. Well, he was right. It does throw off all our measurements. But the question remains, what is really happening beneath our measurements? The standard model now takes this question to have no meaning. It is considered to be a metaphysical question. But it is not a metaphysical question. It is a valid mechanical question, and it still has an answer. Because the value for c is constant, we can answer this question, just as we were able to answer the question about simultaneity. And in both cases we must disagree with Einstein.

The measurement of light within a near perfect vacuum would have to occur through an observable reference point which in itself is subject to light. Light would thus both have to be instantaneous, as the reference point through which the light moved must be seen, and subject to change. Light, as self referential would manifest both one instaneoud speed and many speeds considering it is both the fixed focal point and object of change.


This is the imperative for setting the speed of light c to 1 wherein photons are not actually moving,
they are merely being carried by the progression (expansion of the universe in all directions).

A person who is still in a car moving 60mph is still moving 60mph.

Potentiality is not actuality.

Beliefs can be potentially wrong, thus actually not knowledge.
Beliefs can be potentially right, and yet actually not knowledge.

A belief as correct is knowledge. Belief and knowledge both share the same nature as subject to a process of imprinting.

In both cases, belief is actually not knowledge. Make the two one, yea?

Implication is possibility not actuality.

lol what ?

If something is implied is necessitates an "ought" not a cause, thus a possibility of what may occur.

A displaced and not displaced body necessitates a dualistic stance.

Hence the {ALL∞NOT} binary preceding the photon:
NOT Displaced = Photon
ALL Displaced = Everything Else

False, I can choose any variable as a fixed point of measurement.

Duality only applies if/when displaced from unity, else not.
This is why the book of Genesis begins pre-displacement.

The duality as synthesized results in unity.

Remember: Φπ² is 1D electric (image) and 2D magnetic (likeness)
The Hebrew word for 'GOD' is elohim:
el - leader, towardsness
oh - conduit
im - expanse
wherein the 'im indicates plurality "Let us make Adam... in our image and our likeness... male and female... "
viz.
Φ = masculine 1D
π² = feminine 2D

Actuality it ie entirely empirical. If I empirically look at the sky and see the stars, then focus on one star with a telescope, the increase in clarity of one star resulted in the percievably ambiguity of another.

Your own subjectivism is not a grounds for empiricism.

False, all empiricality starts with the subjective senses.

Implication is not actuality, it is possibility. Belief based ignorance can result in one believing in the correct premise possibly as well,

Believing in a correct premise is not knowledge, it is still belief. It becomes knowledge if/when no degrees of uncertainty.
Belief lacks uncertainty, as a matter of fact there is no knowledge which exists on it's own terms without belief. The number 1 for example, is strictly accepted as is, it is neither proven nor disproven.


I may believe it is 72.6 degrees outside, not having measured, and possibly get it right. I didn't know until it was measured.

You still need to believe the senses are correct as sometimes they are decieved.

Explanation is description.

It is more than description, as description is not explanation.



Description is representation, representation is reflection, reflection is copying, copying is change, change is particulation, participation is the summation to an apex phenomenon, an apex phenomenon is an explanation as a category.

They are extensions of the binaries then.

They are not extensions of anything: they carry/impart binary information.
The conscience is meant to do this according to discretion.

Scriptural reference necessitates a degree of belief in the metaphorical nature of scripture.

Not merely: it can be known to which degrees such literature is valid/invalid.

All truth as existing through degrees is all knowledge as subject to change and particulation.

Negation is a falsification, one is a synonym of the otherl

...of a belief previously held to be true/possible.
Falsifying all false beliefs tends towards all-knowing.

Tends towards it but is not it. You have no proof your theory explains anything.
It references the same thing again and again, negate belief.

False, as belief based ignorance "implies", according to you, an absence of knowledge it only states a possibility thus it is simultaneously possible for belief based ignorance to be correct.

Belief-based ignorance is correct: the correct root of human suffering.

Potential knowledge is ignorance.

Actually the chart is made up...you created it and have no proof to back it up.

Again: whatever is true doesn't need help from me.

And this logic included double negation.

There is no 'double negation' anywhere.

Not not belief is a double negative. Negative times a negative is a positive. Etc. All examples of double negation.


Space and time are discrete units, thus
discretion is (of) absolute (magnitude).

[color=#

This would be the '1' in/of both
(1+√5)/2 and Φ²=(Φ+1).
The former is "irrational" thus never terminates.
The latter is both, thus "terminates" according to discretion.

The truth is in plain sight. It is a matter of perception,
hence knowledge is not the most important thing: it is conscience.
This is why yoga focuses on enhancing perception, not god.

And I am a literal yoga master. It does not result in all knowing awareness.

Thus the bible can contain truth statements.

Can, and does.

False, they are simultaneously mediated through eachother and are connected.

Only according to discretion, thus may have a {BEG/END}.

Inspiree by a higher power is the answer, a higher power which can neither be disproven or proven as evidence is a subset of this power.

If some "higher power" can neither be proven nor disproven, its potency lies only in those willing to merely "believe".

False, nothing can be proven or disproven as there is no standard definition as to what proof consists of....it is relative.

Actually your stance is a set or beliefs as it is not proven.

The truth doesn't need help from me - it's ever-present.

Strawman. I said what you state as truth is not proven, as a matter of fact it can be negated.

Under your own definition your charts are idol worship as they are graven images.

No they are not, though I understand your wishing them to

Graven images implies that which can not be improved upon:
fixed, without blemish, unsurpassable etc.

None of this applies to the work that I do: to the contrary,
my work reached where it is by rejecting such fixation
and pushing boundaries beyond the orthodoxy.

Your work? I thought it existed beyond you and did not need you?

The accuser is accused you are pointing fingers at Islam when the numbers actually show higher rates of murder among non believers.

I use Islam because the adherents call themselves "believers" thus no accusation need be made.
There is no "numbers" that show higher rates of murder (as if that is the only form of suffering) among "non believers".
Are you just pulling whatever serves your own interest out of your own ass such to deny the reality?
Muslims have been killing both non-Muslims for 1400 years based on one single false premise/testimony.
That's not even considering Muslims killing Muslims based on the same. That's the reality.
And non beleif in atheism has resulted in worse numbers..."ass"...someone has a touched nerve .

Athiesm is a stance of negation, it holds no beliefs.

Atheism purports there is no viable basis upon which to assert a god(s) even exist(s).

Atheism is a negation of beleif in a higher entity.

The accuser is accused, in accusing believers to manifest beleif based ignorance you follow the same accusation. Your statistics about belief based violence are false in face of a system absent of belief.

Is that all you are going to do now? Throw around that accusation?
You are sounding more and more like a child throwing in a tantrum.

There goes the projection.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything: belief is not a person, it is a state of being.
Islam is not a person, it is a collective state of being, based on a false witness.

And this state of being is humanity itself.

Pathologically pointing fingers elsewhere is similarly childish
and demonstrates cognitive dissonance and/or inability to confront
the reality of the destruction caused by supremacist belief-based states
such as Islam. There is no better example to illustrate the problem of belief.

False, the numbers prove atheism as more threatening than Islam. You keep bringing Islam up as if you have some magic theory that somehow negates Islam and will cause the world to change. In reality the theory is a response to Islam and Beliefs.

[nothing]

Lines are an extension of consciousness, thus real through the consciousness as real.

Just because you imagine something does not make it real. It's the same with belief.

If a particle rotates x rotations given a second, the rotation of the particle results in a distance much in the same manner where a hand on a clock, while rotating, travels a distance.

Rotation is not a distance, it is a magnitude about a period.
In the case of a clock, because the speed never changes, it is a scalar magnitude.
If you are thinking of the circumference again, again that is 2D. A magnitude is 1D.

Actually it has been found to change speeds:

i. Speed of Light May Not Be Constant, Physicists Say
ii. "Some scientists are a bit skeptical, though. Jay Wacker, a particle physicist at the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, said he wasn't confident about the mathematical techniques used, and that it seemed in both cases the scientists weren't applying the mathematical tools in the way that most would."
iii. The entire "virtual particles" and cult-of-quantum is nonsense

The measurement of light within a near perfect vacuum would have to occur through an observable reference point which in itself is subject to light. Light would thus both have to be instantaneous, as the reference point through which the light moved must be seen, and subject to change. Light, as self referential would manifest both one instaneoud speed and many speeds considering it is both the fixed focal point and object of change.

Light would not have to be instantaneous, it is only "seen" if/when
i. traveling at the (direction of the) observer/instrument
ii. either in the eye and/or in the instrument measuring it.

A person who is still in a car moving 60mph is still moving 60mph.

The progression is 60mph and the person is a photon. In reality, 60mph is actually just '1'.

A belief as correct is knowledge. Belief and knowledge both share the same nature as subject to a process of imprinting.

No it is not. A belief as correct is a belief not known to be true, rather merely believed.
It is believed because there are yet one or more degrees of relative uncertainty (ie. unknowns).

Knowledge is not a lottery: you either know, or you do not.
You don't get the money until you match all the numbers.

If something is implied is necessitates an "ought" not a cause, thus a possibility of what may occur.

You can not get an "ought" from an is, including is implied...
You can only get an "ought not" from an is.

False, I can choose any variable as a fixed point of measurement.

That includes relatively arbitrary/meaningless ones.

The duality as synthesized results in unity.

The unity as desynthesized results in duality.

Belief lacks uncertainty, as a matter of fact there is no knowledge which exists on it's own terms without belief. The number 1 for example, is strictly accepted as is, it is neither proven nor disproven.

Belief contains uncertainty. How are you so upside-down about this?
All knowledge concerns the negation of what would otherwise be (all) belief-based ignorance.

The number 1 is rational. It can be expressed as a ratio of integers, and even irrationals.
One can prove only '1' irrational number, if/when squared, gives itself back (irrational) plus 1 (rational).

x²-x-1=0
x=Φ

You still need to believe the senses are correct as sometimes they are decieved.

No you don't, you can know to what degrees they are not and/or limited.

Description is representation, representation is reflection, reflection is copying, copying is change, change is particulation, participation is the summation to an apex phenomenon, an apex phenomenon is an explanation as a category.

You use definites like a heroin addict uses syringes.

All truth as existing through degrees is all knowledge as subject to change and particulation.

lol what?

Tends towards it but is not it. You have no proof your theory explains anything.
It references the same thing again and again, negate belief.

Tends towards is all that is needed/intended:
orientation given a scalar rotating base of time
naturally brings one to unity as a function of time.

Potential knowledge is ignorance.

Ignorance is potential knowledge. Knowing one knows not (all) is ever-potent.

Not not belief is a double negative. Negative times a negative is a positive. Etc. All examples of double negation.

"not to" is an orientation, not a negation.
To know not... is a knowledge (tree)
not to... is an orientation
believe... is a tree.

And I am a literal yoga master. It does not result in all knowing awareness.

I know not to believe that LOL.

False, nothing can be proven or disproven as there is no standard definition as to what proof consists of....it is relative.

Much can be proven/disproven, no "standard definition" (whatever that may be) is needed.

Strawman. I said what you state as truth is not proven, as a matter of fact it can be negated.

I endeavor not to prove anything 'true', rather let the truth speak for itself.

Your work? I thought it existed beyond you and did not need you?

The truth doesn't need me, it's always there in plain sight.
I don't consider what comes to me as "mine", though my efforts
to put it in a format such to establish an orientation system
for "believers" who know not why they are suffering
to ever-cease their own suffering from within themselves
and live life in joy and bliss, rather than fear and hatred.

And non beleif in atheism has resulted in worse numbers..."ass"...someone has a touched nerve

Are you borrowing my rhetoric again? It's okay, you can play with it.
It is interesting to me to witness how people deal with enmity.

Atheism is a negation of beleif in a higher entity.

In its place, the belief there is viable basis upon which to assert there is a god.
I may assert there is no god to believe in, yet neither be a theist nor atheist.

There goes the projection.

I'll take that as a 'yes'. I understand it is all you have.

And this state of being is humanity itself.

And humanity is suffering, hence CKIIT addressing 'from whence human suffering?'.

False, the numbers prove atheism as more threatening than Islam. You keep bringing Islam up as if you have some magic theory that somehow negates Islam and will cause the world to change. In reality the theory is a response to Islam and Beliefs.

What numbers? You keep saying "the numbers" as if its deity. I see no numbers.

If you "believe" atheism is more threatening than Islam, you are delusional.
Islam is the global root of Nazism/fascism/socialism. Hitler was/is as the archetypal dictator warlord
who used political subversion and subjugation to establish a military state which perpetually
wages holy war "jihad" against "unbelievers" until the entire world is ruled by only Islam.
This is "globalism" and the Muslim Brotherhood controls just about all media. The key:
Islam is rooted in the Canaanite mentality of scapegoating their own crimes onto "Jews"
thus by studying the substance of the accusations Muhammdans make against Jews, one may find
that the substance of those accusations are actually owing to the House of Islam.
This includes the COVID-19 retaliation against China for declaring Islam an infection illness (=true).
Thus the Muslim Brotherhood/Khazarian Mafia blames the U.S. and Jews for their own crimes against humanity.

I know the origins of the Qur'an, Islam and an accurate account of the historical "Muhammad".
I know that what Muslims are being indoctrinated to "believe"by their own leaders is
both egregiously false and incredibly divisive/destructive "us vs. them".

How many Muslims know Mecca did not exist in the time of Muhammad - that they are being lied to by their own leaders?
All mosques' qiblas constructed ~100 years after the death of Muhammad are facing Petra and not Mecca. How many Muslims know that?
How many Muslims know the Qur'an is evolved from Syriac (not Arabic) Christian (not Islamic) strophic hymns (not "revelations")?
What is the gravity of "believing" a single (man-made) book, a single (dead) man, a single "belief"-based ideology is/are the most supreme objects?

The gravity of their ignorance is contained in the shahada - a necessarily false witness.
"BELIEVER vs. UNBELIEVER"
If: shahada=True, conflict=perpetual
If: shahada=False, conflict=not perpetual

Your pointing fingers at others is not going to derail the focus:
no other ideological state on the planet (including "atheism")
has done anywhere near the damage Islam has done to humanity.

[Eodnhoj7]

Lines are an extension of consciousness, thus real through the consciousness as real.

Just because you imagine something does not make it real. It's the same with belief.

It is real as an imagined entity.

If a particle rotates x rotations given a second, the rotation of the particle results in a distance much in the same manner where a hand on a clock, while rotating, travels a distance.

Rotation is not a distance, it is a magnitude about a period.
In the case of a clock, because the speed never changes, it is a scalar magnitude.
If you are thinking of the circumference again, again that is 2D. A magnitude is 1D.

If a car goes in a circle it travels a distance. The same applies for a clock hand, it travels a distance.

Actually it has been found to change speeds:

i. Speed of Light May Not Be Constant, Physicists Say
ii. "Some scientists are a bit skeptical, though. Jay Wacker, a particle physicist at the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, said he wasn't confident about the mathematical techniques used, and that it seemed in both cases the scientists weren't applying the mathematical tools in the way that most would."
iii. The entire "virtual particles" and cult-of-quantum is nonsense



http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/R ... light.html
https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/is-th ... owing-down
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/spe ... -after-all

The measurement of light within a near perfect vacuum would have to occur through an observable reference point which in itself is subject to light. Light would thus both have to be instantaneous, as the reference point through which the light moved must be seen, and subject to change. Light, as self referential would manifest both one instaneoud speed and many speeds considering it is both the fixed focal point and object of change.

Light would not have to be instantaneous, it is only "seen" if/when
i. traveling at the (direction of the) observer/instrument
ii. either in the eye and/or in the instrument measuring it.

It would have to be instantaneous from a fixed point of reference. Light in a pure vacuum leaves light as self referential as it is own fixed point measuring change against itself.

A person who is still in a car moving 60mph is still moving 60mph.

The progression is 60mph and the person is a photon. In reality, 60mph is actually just '1'.

Lol....No.

A belief as correct is knowledge. Belief and knowledge both share the same nature as subject to a process of imprinting.

No it is not. A belief as correct is a belief not known to be true, rather merely believed.
It is believed because there are yet one or more degrees of relative uncertainty (ie. unknowns).

A belief that is correct reflects with knowledge. I may believe the sky is blue, walk outside and find it blue. The belief is thus correct.



Knowledge is not a lottery: you either know, or you do not.
You don't get the money until you match all the numbers.

False, one can know in grades.

If something is implied is necessitates an "ought" not a cause, thus a possibility of what may occur.

You can not get an "ought" from an is, including is implied...
You can only get an "ought not" from an is.

Implication is what ought to occur.

False, I can choose any variable as a fixed point of measurement.

That includes relatively arbitrary/meaningless ones.

It doesn't matter as a system of thought eventually builds around it from continual analysis.

The duality as synthesized results in unity.

The unity as desynthesized results in duality.

Thus knowledge is trinitarian: constant as synthesizing contexts (absolute/relative/synthetic)

Belief lacks uncertainty, as a matter of fact there is no knowledge which exists on it's own terms without belief. The number 1 for example, is strictly accepted as is, it is neither proven nor disproven.

Belief contains uncertainty. How are you so upside-down about this?
All knowledge concerns the negation of what would otherwise be (all) belief-based ignorance.

The number 1 is rational. It can be expressed as a ratio of integers, and even irrationals.
One can prove only '1' irrational number, if/when squared, gives itself back (irrational) plus 1 (rational).

That proof is a tautology, one thing expressed through many, of 1. Prove or disprove one without going in circles...you can't.

x²-x-1=0
x=Φ

You still need to believe the senses are correct as sometimes they are decieved.

No you don't, you can know to what degrees they are not and/or limited.

False, one may have the senses tricked and still believe to have known the trick.
For example one may see a mirage, believe it as a mirage, only to find that the water which appears is in fact water. One may believe the mirage, the trick, is universal when in fact sometimes water just exists.

Description is representation, representation is reflection, reflection is copying, copying is change, change is particulation, participation is the summation to an apex phenomenon, an apex phenomenon is an explanation as a category.

You use definites like a heroin addict uses syringes.

The accuser is accused.

All definitions progress to a further definition and cycle back to the original definition.

All truth as existing through degrees is all knowledge as subject to change and particulation.

lol what?

A --> ((A-->A)=B) --> ((A-->A-->A)=C)....

The progression from one variable to another results in a tautolog where one phenomenon exists as a grade of another. This gradation is the inversion of a variable from one unit into another.

Tends towards it but is not it. You have no proof your theory explains anything.
It references the same thing again and again, negate belief.

Tends towards is all that is needed/intended:
orientation given a scalar rotating base of time
naturally brings one to unity as a function of time.

Actually it doesn't.

Potential knowledge is ignorance.

Ignorance is potential knowledge. Knowing one knows not (all) is ever-potent.

Infinite potentially is infinite not all knowing.

Not not belief is a double negative. Negative times a negative is a positive. Etc. All examples of double negation.

"not to" is an orientation, not a negation.
To know not... is a knowledge (tree)
not to... is an orientation
believe... is a tree.

Straw man. I said "not not", not "not to".

And I am a literal yoga master. It does not result in all knowing awareness.

I know not to believe that LOL.

The accuser is accused.

False, nothing can be proven or disproven as there is no standard definition as to what proof consists of....it is relative.

Much can be proven/disproven, no "standard definition" (whatever that may be) is needed.

False, if proof exists as knowledge, and knowledge is definition, then a definition of proof must exist. There is no universal definition for proof.

Strawman. I said what you state as truth is not proven, as a matter of fact it can be negated.

I endeavor not to prove anything 'true', rather let the truth speak for itself.
You are right, that is why I am speaking.

Your work? I thought it existed beyond you and did not need you?

The truth doesn't need me, it's always there in plain sight.
I don't consider what comes to me as "mine", though my efforts
to put it in a format such to establish an orientation system
for "believers" who know not why they are suffering
to ever-cease their own suffering from within themselves
and live life in joy and bliss, rather than fear and hatred.

Absence of belief results in fear and hatred.

And non beleif in atheism has resulted in worse numbers..."ass"...someone has a touched nerve

Are you borrowing my rhetoric again? It's okay, you can play with it.
It is interesting to me to witness how people deal with enmity.

So you claim enimity?

Atheism is a negation of beleif in a higher entity.

In its place, the belief there is viable basis upon which to assert there is a god.
I may assert there is no god to believe in, yet neither be a theist nor atheist.

Absence of believing in God(s) is the definition of atheism.

There goes the projection.

I'll take that as a 'yes'. I understand it is all you have.

I will take that as you projecting again...the accuser is accused.

And this state of being is humanity itself.

And humanity is suffering, hence CKIIT addressing 'from whence human suffering?'.

And it gives no proof it is belief. I may suffer from a disease, belief or absence of it will not change it....actually belief through a placebo effect has been found to ease suffering.
If anything belief alleviates pain and suffering. It can physical negate pain through the placebo effect or act as a means of alleviating an existential crisis.

False, the numbers prove atheism as more threatening than Islam. You keep bringing Islam up as if you have some magic theory that somehow negates Islam and will cause the world to change. In reality the theory is a response to Islam and Beliefs.

What numbers? You keep saying "the numbers" as if its deity. I see no numbers.

270000000 deaths over 1400 years vs 100,000,000 over 100.

If you "believe" atheism is more threatening than Islam, you are delusional.
Islam is the global root of Nazism/fascism/socialism. Hitler is the archetypal dictator warlord
who used political subversion and subjugation to establish a military state which perpetually
wages holy war "jihad" against "unbelievers" until the entire world is ruled by only Islam.
Wow...you believe Hitler is a muslism....is this a joke?



This is "globalism" and the Muslim Brotherhood controls just about all media. The key:
Islam is rooted in the Canaanite mentality of scapegoating their own crimes onto "Jews"
thus by studying the substance of the accusations Muhammdans make against Jews, one may find
that the substance of those accusations are actually owing to the House of Islam.
This includes the COVID-19 retaliation against China for declaring Islam an infection illness (=true).
Thus the Muslim Brotherhood/Khazarian Mafia blames the U.S. and Jews for their own crimes against humanity.

I know the origins of the Qur'an, Islam and an accurate account of the historical "Muhammad".
I know that what Muslims are being indoctrinated to "believe"by their own leaders is
both egregiously false and incredibly divisive/destructive "us vs. them".

How many Muslims know Mecca did not exist in the time of Muhammad - that they are being lied to by their own leaders?
All mosques' qiblas constructed ~100 years after the death of Muhammad are facing Petra and not Mecca. How many Muslims know that?
How many Muslims know they Qur'an is evolved from Syriac (not Arabic) Christian (not Islamic) strophic hymns (not "revelations")?
What is the gravity of "believing" a single (man-made) book, a single (dead) man, a single "belief"-based ideology is/are the most supreme objects?

The gravity of their ignorance is contained in the shahada - a necessarily false witness.
"BELIEVER vs. UNBELIEVER"
If: shahada=True, conflict=perpetual
If: shahada=False, conflict=not perpetual

Your pointing fingers at others is not going to derail the focus:
no other ideological state on the planet (including "atheism")
has done anywhere near the damage Islam has done to humanity.

So the accuser is accused. Your theory is just a response out of your anger towards Islam, even when the numbers state Islam is not the biggest threat to Global Stability.

If you "believe" atheism is more threatening than Islam, you are delusional.
Islam is the global root of Nazism/fascism/socialism. Hitler is the archetypal dictator warlord
who used political subversion and subjugation to establish a military state which perpetually
wages holy war "jihad" against "unbelievers" until the entire world is ruled by only Islam.

The Accuser is Accused. You keep talking about delusion and then claim Hitler is a Muslim. I can't make this up. Your real colors shown through .

[nothing]

Wow...you believe Hitler is a muslism....is this a joke?
The Accuser is Accused. You keep talking about delusion and then claim Hitler is a Muslim. I can't make this up. Your real colors shown through

Will only address this, as it establishes a precedent for the rest.

I neither claimed nor believe Hitler was a Muslim. You literally did make that up.

Adolph Hitler never learned who the real "Jews" were until the very end:
the Muslim Brotherhood. They project all of their own crimes onto Jews,
but are the real "Jews" hiding behind accusations against the same.

Muhammad is the archetypal Nazi genocidal warlord
who also establishes a global precedent for state-sanctioned pedophilia.

It is actually your own colors that shine through given you are willing to overlook
such egregious crimes against humanity on account of pursuing enmity-based rivalry
such to point fingers at atheists. I will simply let it speak for itself.

[Eodnhoj7]

Wow...you believe Hitler is a muslism....is this a joke?
The Accuser is Accused. You keep talking about delusion and then claim Hitler is a Muslim. I can't make this up. Your real colors shown through

Will only address this, as it establishes a precedent for the rest.

I neither claimed nor believe Hitler was a Muslim. You literally did make that up.

Islam is the global root of Nazism/fascism/socialism. Hitler is the archetypal dictator warlord
who used political subversion and subjugation to establish a military state which perpetually
wages holy war "jihad" against "unbelievers" until the entire world is ruled by only Islam.

Adolph Hitler never learned who the real "Jews" were until the very end:
the Muslim Brotherhood. They project all of their own crimes onto Jews,
but are the real "Jews" hiding behind accusations against the same.

Muhammad is the archetypal Nazi genocidal warlord
who also establishes a global precedent for state-sanctioned pedophilia.

It is actually your own colors that shine through given you are willing to overlook
such egregious crimes against humanity on account of pursuing enmity-based rivalry
such to point fingers at atheists. I will simply let it speak for itself.

I look at the numbers....270 million over 1400 years and 100 million over 100 years. Islam is not the supreme threat to a moral order not considering culture, rooted in the word "cultivate", for hundreds of years was built around a theocracy. Did you ever meet a Muslim family in real life? They are more moral than most westerners.

So your stance, to fight Islam, is to talk about photons and phi? Really? I can't make this stuff up. It appears the root of your suffering is Islam.

[nothing]

So your stance, to fight Islam, is to talk about photons and phi? Really? I can't make this stuff up. It appears the root of your suffering is Islam.

Eod to hell with your tacit accusatory disposition: I am not fighting Islam.
I have found the root of human suffering to be BELIEF. Sorry if you disagree.
I didn't and do not choose for Muslims to call themselves "BELIEVERS" - they call themselves that.
So when I am trying to find a solution to the problem of

FROM WHENCE HUMAN SUFFERING?

when, as I did, and do, find it to be BELIEF I then ask: where is BELIEF?
The Jews are BELIEVERS that the Torah is the perfect word of a god.
The Muslims are BELIEVERS that the Qur'an is the perfect word of a god. (What is the difference, if any?)
The Christians are BELIEVERS that the Gospels/Bible is the perfect word of a god. (What is going on here?)

There are inductive means to rationally weigh the substance/gravity of such beliefs
should they serve as a root of impetus: irrational belief begets irrational fear,
irrational fear begets irrational action, irrational actions implies one not accounting
for ones own actions. I account for my own, both in whole, and as upon weighing that of others.

Anyone who defends an ideology headed by a (dead) polygamist pedophile genocidal warlord
is not a conscious human being. My intention is for people to be conscious, such to know
that it is possible to know that it is impossible to bear a true witness of a dead man.

So forgive me for disregarding your apologetics: they deny the suffering every single human being
that has been abused by such ideologies, and the first victim of that abuse is the
BELIEVING MUSLIM. If you cared about your suffering, you would know the gravity,
but given you know not even the degree, thus gravity of your own ignorance,
neither could you calculate it for others that suffer, and have suffered, and shall
so long as they are so BOUND TO BELIEVE, never-knowing from which tree they even eat.

[Eodnhoj7]

So your stance, to fight Islam, is to talk about photons and phi? Really? I can't make this stuff up. It appears the root of your suffering is Islam.

Eod to hell with your tacit accusatory inclining: I am not fighting Islam.
I have found the root of human suffering to be BELIEF. Sorry if you disagree.
I didn't and do not choose for Muslims to call themselves "BELIEVERS" - they call themselves that.
So when I am trying to find a solution to the problem of

FROM WHENCE HUMAN SUFFERING?

when, as I did, and do, find it to be BELIEF I then ask: where is BELIEF?
The Jews are BELIEVERS that the Torah is the perfect word of a god.
The Muslims are BELIEVERS that the Qur'an is the perfect word of a god. (What is the difference, if any?)
The Christians are BELIEVERS that the Gospels/Bible is the perfect word of a god. (What is going on here?)

There are inductive means to rationally weigh the substance/gravity of such beliefs
should they serve as a root of impetus: irrational belief begets irrational fear,
irrational fear begets irrational action, irrational actions implies one not accounting
for ones own actions. I account for my own, both in whole, and as upon weighing that of others.

Anyone who defends an ideology headed by a (dead) polygamist pedophile genocidal warlord
is not a conscious human being. My intention is for people to be conscious, such to know
that it is possible to know that it is impossible to bear a true witness of a dead man.

So forgive me for disregarding your apologetics: they deny the suffering every single human being
that has been abused by such ideologies, and the first victim of that abuse is the
BELIEVING MUSLIM. If you cared about your suffering, you would know the gravity,
but given you know not even the degree, thus gravity of your own ignorance,
neither could you calculate it for others that suffer, and have suffered, and shall
so long as they are so BOUND TO BELIEVE, never-knowing from which tree they even eat.

Belief is the root of Islam, to attack the root of Islam (and calling it nazism), is to attack Islam itself. Your deluded. You even stated Islam is the root of Nazism, thus by default Hitler's root being in Islam...which is beyond absurd given his occult practices.


You fail to take into account the positive input many Faiths have given the world. Algebra from the Muslims, The Big Bang from the Catholics, Zero from the Maya and Hindu, Philosophy from Western Pagans (Aristotle, Plato, Socrates).

All Faiths are variations from the source. The fullness of the faith is graded by its fullness towards truth. Given the miracles of the Orthodox and Catholics, Christianity seems to be the forefront.

[nothing]

Belief is the root of Islam, to attack the root of Islam (and calling it nazism), is to attack Islam itself.

I'm undermining the root of belief itself. If Islam is corollary, it was/is a part of the problem, and not any solution.
"Believer vs. Unbeliever" is not a religion, it is a division, thus Islam is not 'peace' but the inverse: perpetual conflict.

BELIEF is the inversion factor.

If/when a problem militarily believes itself to be the only solution, that is Nazism.

Your deluded.

The accuser is the accused.

Also, *You're

You even stated Islam is the root of Nazism, thus by default Hitler's root being in Islam...which is beyond absurd given his occult practices.

Islam is certainly the root of Nazism.

Both Hitler and Muhammad were insane, thus such is their shared root. They both committed mass methodical genocide.

Unless you disagree? Are either one of these two figures to be regarded as imitable? An exemplary role model, for all of humanity? For all of time?

You fail to take into account the positive input many Faiths have given the world. Algebra from the Muslims, The Big Bang from the Catholics, Zero from the Maya and Hindu, Philosophy from Western Pagans (Aristotle, Plato, Socrates).

What is "positive input"? Algebra was taken from the Hindu region, the Big Bang is a theory (and is actually false), Contributing Zero is the same as contributing nothing, and I don't know what a "Western Pagan" is, except some politically charged label. The Greeks were intelligent esp. with proportion and retroductive analysis, but they were not infallible.

All Faiths are variations from the source. The fullness of the faith is graded by its fullness towards truth. Given the miracles of the Orthodox and Catholics, Christianity seems to be the forefront.

Truth is ever-approached by knowing all that is not.
All faith-mandated states are deviations from the source.
The emptiness of the faith is graded by its deviation from truth.

[Eodnhoj7]

Belief is the root of Islam, to attack the root of Islam (and calling it nazism), is to attack Islam itself.

I'm undermining the root of belief itself. If Islam is corollary, it was/is a part of the problem, and not any solution.
"Believer vs. Unbeliever" is not a religion, it is a division, thus Islam is not 'peace' but the inverse: perpetual conflict.

BELIEF is the inversion factor.

If/when a problem militarily believes itself to be the only solution, that is Nazism.

Your deluded.

The accuser is the accused.

Also, *You're

You even stated Islam is the root of Nazism, thus by default Hitler's root being in Islam...which is beyond absurd given his occult practices.

Islam is certainly the root of Nazism.

Both Hitler and Muhammad were insane, thus such is their shared root. They both committed mass methodical genocide.

Unless you disagree? Are either one of these two figures to be regarded as imitable? An exemplary role model, for all of humanity? For all of time?

You fail to take into account the positive input many Faiths have given the world. Algebra from the Muslims, The Big Bang from the Catholics, Zero from the Maya and Hindu, Philosophy from Western Pagans (Aristotle, Plato, Socrates).

What is "positive input"? Algebra was taken from the Hindu region, the Big Bang is a theory (and is actually false), Contributing Zero is the same as contributing nothing, and I don't know what a "Western Pagan" is, except some politically charged label. The Greeks were intelligent esp. with proportion and retroductive analysis, but they were not infallible.

All Faiths are variations from the source. The fullness of the faith is graded by its fullness towards truth. Given the miracles of the Orthodox and Catholics, Christianity seems to be the forefront.

Truth is ever-approached by knowing all that is not.
All faith-mandated states are deviations from the source.
The emptiness of the faith is graded by its deviation from truth.

I really haven't read it, don't really care. What is this other forum?

[nothing]

Real / rational numbers can be seen as a means for "quantifying" nature.
Imaginary / irrational numbers can be as a means for qualifying nature,
Real/Imaginary and/or Rational/Irrational being of reciprocal nature.
These are thus as primordial imagine and likeness (Adam/Eve) resp.

space = s
time = t

s/t x t/s = 1

r = rational
i = irrational

r/i x i/r = 1

etc.

Unification of Space and Time
π ≠ 3.14159...
π = 4/√Φ
π² = 16/Φ
e = MC²
16 = Φπ²
1 = Φπ²/16
1 = 16/Φπ² x Φπ²/16 = ∞s/t
_________________________________
viz. 16 = Φπ² is
the rational precedent
to Einstein's e = MC².

What Φ is to image (yang-space),
π² is to likeness (yin-time) thus
whereas
Quantification is Grounded in Space,
Qualification is Grounded in Time
wherein π is in temporary relation
to Φ as a mixed ratio s/t.

Correction of π from the approximated 3.141... to the precise ratio of 4/√Φ will uncover light
as being in a fixed relation to √5 = √(√1+2√4) wherein π² = (8√5-8) is as a null harmonic octave.

[Eodnhoj7]

Real / rational numbers can be seen as a means for "quantifying" nature.
Imaginary / irrational numbers can be as a means for qualifying nature,
Real/Imaginary and/or Rational/Irrational being of reciprocal nature.
These are thus as primordial imagine and likeness (Adam/Eve) resp.

space = s
time = t

s/t x t/s = 1

r = rational
i = irrational

r/i x i/r = 1

etc.

Unification of Space and Time
π ≠ 3.14159...
π = 4/√Φ
π² = 16/Φ
e = MC²
16 = Φπ²
1 = Φπ²/16
1 = 16/Φπ² x Φπ²/16 = ∞s/t
_________________________________
viz. 16 = Φπ² is
the rational precedent
to Einstein's e = MC².

What Φ is to image (yang-space),
π² is to likeness (yin-time) thus
whereas
Quantification is Grounded in Space,
Qualification is Grounded in Time
wherein π is in temporary relation
to Φ as a mixed ratio s/t.

Correction of π from the approximated 3.141... to the precise ratio of 4/√Φ will uncover light
as being in a fixed relation to √5 = √(√1+2√4) wherein π² = (8√5-8) is as a null harmonic octave.

Image and likeness are synonyms, you are basically saying they are the same thing.

[nothing]

Image and likeness are synonyms, you are basically saying they are the same thing.

Image and likeness are not synonyms... they are a conjunct co-operative coupling.
From the apex of a pentagram down there are two valid roots such to approach.
If traversing both with simultaneity, they "meet" at a "point" in the midst of the pentagram,
thus the measure to this point from either approach is equal, thus relatable to one π
thus 2π both implicitly and explicitly concerns the same as a "coupled" birotation.

Image and likeness thus captures the cooperation of line and curve as readily as
4/√Φ captures a rational/irrational relation in the same way:
a radii of 1 (rational) expands as a 2² = 4 axes from the center of any "point"
and meets the circle described by C = √Φ, thus 4/√Φ = π, thus the same describes
the structure of a photon (ie. light). If/when squared, (8√5-8) describes the condition.

e = MC²
π = 4/√Φ
(8√5-8) = 16/Φ
16 = Φ(8√5-8)
16 = 16

This co-creative relationship is preserved in/as 1 = Φπ²/16
wherein both Φ and π² are sitting on a rational base,
thus "rationable" despite each their own being "irrational"
unless if/when they are "squared" viz. Φ² = Φ + 1 such to produce
the rational '1' that composes the rotational 2x2 axes
(hence the {Α∞Ω}{Beg∞End} assignment) which concerns both:

all light, as s/t = 1, and
all not, as s/t ≠ 1, thus

the latter is any/all displacement(s) from the former
(ie. light and not light viz. some relative degree of "darkness").

This is how/why Einstein's e = MC² is merely a "shadow" of the more illuminated 16 = Φπ²
wherein the latter is a (the) rational precedent of the former. In other words:
it is because 16 = Φπ² that e = MC² is a valid matter-to-energy coupling. 16 = Φπ² is thus rational space-time unification,
which, if/when allowing the primordial Adam and Eve to serve in/as caricature, also the unification of
image and likeness: the same property(s) ascribed to the creator of the universe (according to the same account).

[Eodnhoj7]

Image and likeness are synonyms, you are basically saying they are the same thing.

Image and likeness are not synonyms... they are a conjunct co-operative coupling.
From the apex of a pentagram down there are two valid roots such to approach.
If traversing both with simultaneity, they "meet" at a "point" in the midst of the pentagram,
thus the measure to this point from either approach is equal, thus relatable to one π
thus 2π both implicitly and explicitly concerns the same as a "coupled" birotation.

Image and likeness thus captures the cooperation of line and curve as readily as
4/√Φ captures a rational/irrational relation in the same way:
a radii of 1 (rational) expands as a 2² = 4 axes from the center of any "point"
and meets the circle described by C = √Φ, thus 4/√Φ = π, thus the same describes
the structure of a photon (ie. light). If/when squared, (8√5-8) describes the condition.

e = MC²
π = 4/√Φ
(8√5-8) = 16/Φ
16 = Φ(8√5-8)
16 = 16

This co-creative relationship is preserved in/as 1 = Φπ²/16
wherein both Φ and π² are sitting on a rational base,
thus "rationable" despite each their own being "irrational"
unless if/when they are "squared" viz. Φ² = Φ + 1 such to produce
the rational '1' that composes the rotational 2x2 axes
(hence the {Α∞Ω}{Beg∞End} assignment) which concerns both:

all light, as s/t = 1, and
all not, as s/t ≠ 1, thus

the latter is any/all displacement(s) from the former
(ie. light and not light viz. some relative degree of "darkness").

This is how/why Einstein's e = MC² is merely a "shadow" of the more illuminated 16 = Φπ²
wherein the latter is a (the) rational precedent of the former. In other words:
it is because 16 = Φπ² that e = MC² is a valid matter-to-energy coupling. 16 = Φπ² is thus rational space-time unification,
which, if/when allowing the primordial Adam and Eve to serve in/as caricature, also the unification of
image and likeness: the same property(s) ascribed to the creator of the universe (according to the same account).

Image is representation https://www.yourdictionary.com/image
Representation is likeness: https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... esentation

And as synonyms https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/image

[nothing]

Image is representation https://www.yourdictionary.com/image
Representation is likeness: https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... esentation

And as synonyms https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/image

i. Your (over-)use of definites (ie. " is ") is obnoxiously crass
ii. I don't regard online "dictionaries" as having anything to do with nature

One thing I've noticed about the truth: people hate it.
Either that, or they hate someone else having (found) it.
It reminds me of Cain and Abel: Cain must compare himself to others ie. his own brother
and try to measure the value of the offerings made by either, such to find his own poor
(yet, only by comparison) such to grow enmity and desire to spill blood.

This tendency seems innate to/in all who are rooted in hatred, rather than love of truth,
yet their hatred is naught but a measure of their own separation from truth.
The same: light as c = 1/1 being the cosmological constant, the "progression"
whereas c ≠ 1 is anything and everything severed from the same
to some particular degree(s). These degrees are naught but
the gravity of ones own ignorance, as owing to
the constituency of their own body
in lacking a conscious knowledge
of their own (belief-based)
ignorance.



√1 = +1, -1
Let 1 be unity.
Let -1 be not unity.
√+1 = 1 (real) and in unity
√-1 = i (imaginary) and not in unity
(-1)(-1) = (not not unity) = unity = 1.