The equation of god, sacred geometry, and some metaphysics.

[Metatron's Cube]

Maybe this is a bit off the subject of Tool, but with all the references to sacred geometry and mathematics in Lateralus, I’m hoping that some of you will find this as interesting as I did. If you are not into mathematics, or sacred geometry, you might want to skip this post.

This equation is called the equation of god my some:

e^(Ð*i) + 1 = 0
or
e to the power of (pi times one imaginary unit), plus one = zero

This equation is fascinating and beyond common sense to me, but it is proven. If you put this into a scientific calculator, you will get zero.

To explain the significance, first consider we have one symbol from every division of mathematics:

e - Represents calculus, it is the number to which its instantaneous rate of growth at that point is exactly the amount you have initially. The value of e^1 being 2.718...
Pi - Represents geometry. The proportionality constant of radius to the dimensions of a circular object.
i - Represents algebra. The imaginary unit or the square root of -1

What is amazing is that e^Pi*i equals negative one. Isn’t a number to any power supposed to be positive? e^Ð is equal to about 23.14, so why does e^Pi*i equal -1?? What does “i” have to do with e in the first place? For a somewhat lamens explanation of the proof behind this, check this link:
http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/questionCorner/epii.html

I have a guess to an esoteric meaning here, that I came up with this after seeing the proof. I have no idea whether or not I’m the first one to describe it this way or not.

e^Pi*i = -1, and if you add that to plus one, you get zero. To me, the -1 and the +1 represent black and white, or yin and yang, or being and un-being, or substance and the space between. “+1” is the absolute, the reality, the state of being, or the white fish in the Yin and Yang,. On one hand, existence is all there is, this is the ultimate reality. This is heaven, or nirvana, or enlightenment, reuniting with Atman, or whatever. In the beginning, everything that existed in the universe “was”, and there was nothing that “was not”. Everything was one, and there was no separation between anything. Christians say “all there was, was god”, a scientist would say this is the moment before the big bang, when all matter was one; without even any space between the subatomic particles themselves, the whole universe was compressed into one infinitesimal point. This point is what you could call “god”.

The -1 is that which is not, or the black fish in the yin and yang, or the Maya or world of illusion Hinduism speaks of, or the “space between” of Zen Buddhism. This is what came into being the second after the big bang, or creation, or whatever you want to call it. However, the space between is an illusion, in reality, we are all one. Since it is illusion, it is conceived of mathematical symbols, the construct we use to describe our physical world, our world of polarity and separation. Without separation, math would not exist, because there would be nothing to count, no frame of reference to measure anything against. The black fish does not exist, truly, he is just the where the white fish is not, but he allows us to see the white fish and the beautiful design of the yin and yang.

The important thing about the negative one, or the space between, or the “is not”, is that it allows us experience what is, (allows us to see the white fish). The oneness that is the underlying reality is described by Jung as the collective unconscious. It makes reuniting with oneness that much more profound. You cannot have hot without cold, sweet without bitter, good without evil. Also, if you are out in the cold for awhile, going inside where it is warm, the warm seems all the more wonderful. The illusion allows us a frame of reference from which to understand reality, we are all one, and always have been, but we cannot ever know this unless we can first experience separation. And like modern physicists predict, one day there will be another big bang, and all will be one again.

The fact that if you take the most import symbol from each branch of mathematics, put them together, and it equals negative one, just another example of the fingerprint of god that is all around us in nature. Like spirals, the fibonnaci sequence, sacred geometry, etc., the "equation of god" is more evidence of the divine that is right before our eyes.

[seeker]

it could just be an anomaly. i've heard of other nuances in mathematics... such as "1 = 0.9999..."

i might as well give the proof of that now for the sake of my argument.

x = 0.999....
10x = 9.999...
10x - x = 9.999... - 0.999...
9x = 9
x = 1

therefore:
0.999... = 1

obviously this isn't always true... every number multiplied by one equals itself, but every number multiplied by "0.999..." does not. i'm somewhat hazy in my memory of the rules, but i seem to recall there are certain ones that affect numbers that stretch into the infinite such as "0.999..." but i can't remember any specifics. if there is nothing preventing the multiplication of a whole number by such a number as we've been discussing, then that's proof that 1 does not always equal 0.999...

so is this a flaw in the mathematical system that is innately human or is it something more? if it is a flaw, this proves that the system of math is imperfect in which case the equation of god may also be just another nuance. if anyone can shed some light on this for us, please do.

[Metatron's Cube]

I dont think the equation of god is a nuance or flaw in anyway. At first it seems like it cant be true, but if you can read through the proof and understand it, it makes perfect sense. (I can barley hang in with it, and I have had college level calculus, but I dont get 100% of it and I makes me wish I kept my notes). Basicially, the i changes the form of how you figure the e^ based on its definition, which is satisfied by sine and cosine functions. Sine and cosine are closely related to pi, the rate of change of the sine function oscilates to positive and negative values in tandem with pi.

All im trying to say, is there is no flaw here, once you see it and understand the proof, there is a direct connection that makes sense. It is just crazy that such a connection exists to releate every sect of mathematics in such a direct, strange, but logical way, and it equals -1.

[the reverend]

I really dont see how this relates to god specifically and hence i dont see how it can be called "the equation of god". It relies too much on quess work and presumptions. (and, an obvious flaw in mathematics. Mathematics wasnt created by god anyway. It was created by people so obviously there will be one or two or more flaws to it.)

[Metatron's Cube]

Originally posted by the reverend
I really dont see how this relates to god specifically and hence i dont see how it can be called "the equation of god". It relies too much on quess work and presumptions. (and, an obvious flaw in mathematics. Mathematics wasnt created by god anyway. It was created by people so obviously there will be one or two or more flaws to it.)

Im not sure who called it the equation of god first, or why. Maybe its just because of its elegance and esoteric applications (for some). Note, this equation is taught in all upper level college calculus classes , and of course, there it is not called the equation of god. (My freind said he saw it in second semester college calc, I only had one semester of calc in college so we didnt get to it.) It is proven, it is programmed into every calculator, and more importantly the math behind it is very logical.

As far as the metaphysical mumbo-jumbo, those are my ideas. Dis my ideas all you want, but dont say the math is flawed, the math is proven!

[Metatron's Cube]

Originally posted by seeker
it could just be an anomaly. i've heard of other nuances in mathematics... such as "1 = 0.9999..."

i might as well give the proof of that now for the sake of my argument.

x = 0.999....
10x = 9.999...
10x - x = 9.999... - 0.999...
9x = 9
x = 1

therefore:
0.999... = 1



Thanks for the insite, but I dont think the above is a way to prove "math contains nuances". I dont understand the step where you go from
10x - x = 9.999... - 0.999... to
9x = 9

You are throwing the x back in after it was eliminated, and x is .9999999 so the last operation should read
9*(.99999999)=9 or
8.9999991 = 9 which is not true

Please explain this one to me again, it soulds interesting but Im not getting it.

[neveragain]

Exsqueeze me...........a baking powder?

I'm pretty sure TOOL has trapped you guys in a hole you'll never dig yourselves out of. Just my opinion, you guys can debate all you want.

[seeker]

ok, i'll redo it and add in all the little things i skipped. remember that the decimal numbers are infinite as notated by "..."


first, a statement of what we know:
x = 0.999....

multiply each side by 10:
10x = 9.999...

subtract x from each side (writing its value as we know it on the right):
10x - x = (9.999...) - (0.999...)

here we simplify the terms (10x - x = 9x on the left, 9.999... - 0.999... = 9 on the right):
9x = 9

simplify further by dividing each side by 9:
x = 1

finally put in 0.999... for x:
0.999... = 1



hope this clears things up. this isn't a nuance as far as the mathematical process is, the equation is solid as you can see. but where it gets strange is when you consider everywhere you might substitute 0.999... for 1. it simply isn't true (10 times 1 doesn't equal 10 times 0.999..., i.e.). to me this has a couple possibilities. either it proves the inconsistancy and therefore flawed nature of the mathematical process, or it shows that there is more to it than meets the eye. i believe there are other explanations for this apparent nuance, but i can't think of any others right now.

[TheRuleOfThree]

Actually, you just gave one more definition of infinity.

Because 0.9999.... would go on forever, you can't evaluate it without it being flawed, because it is considered indefinite. For instance, most know that you can't divide by 0 in any algebraic equation. But infinity has different definitions for that, because of the fact that it is indefinite, it isn't something that can be pinpointed. Your number that you provided (.999...) will never be certain, because any number you provide me as the "smallest" or "largest", I can come up with something that is at least one bigger.

This is another one of those interesting contradictions that math holds. There was one I read once from an interesting math journal, and though the author's name escapes me, it was rather simple and yet intruiging. Think of it this way.

In order for you to travel from point A to point B...

A---------------------------------------------B


You must first travel halfway. (C)


A----------------------C----------------------B


In order to get halfway there, you must first travel halfway between A and C (D)



A----------D-----------C----------------------B

It continues on and on, because obviously you HAVE to pass halfway anytime motion occurs between two points. But because there are an infinite amounts of halfway points, motion doesn't really exist, because you would essentially be at that one point forever, if the "halfway theorem" held true (which, again, it must.)


As far as the equation for God goes, I find that EXTREMELY interesting, and I think your explanation is very respectable as well. One question... if, in your equation, 1 represents what is, and -1 represents what isn't, what is 0? It obviously cannot represent "oneness." Because, again, that is saying that 0=1. :-)

[seeker]

Originally posted by TheRuleOfThree
Because 0.9999.... would go on forever, you can't evaluate it without it being flawed, because it is considered indefinite.

You're right, except for one thing... since the infinite number resolves itself within the equation, there is no room for a flaw. Think on the principle of imaginary numbers... they are impossible, but when they occur in a problem, they usually resolve themselves before the answer is found. The same applies here, so according to this equation, 1 = 0.999...

Am I wrong?

I have thought of another explanation for this seeming mathematical nuance: it may be the grounds for a new principle of infinite decimals. of course there would have to be more testing to make such a statement acceptable, but it's just a theory.

Anyway, forgive my lateness in responding... I've been having trouble getting into the forums lately.

[TheRuleOfThree]

Its ok.

I understand what you're saying now. Because even if the 0.999... is considered indefinite, it is the same number being used throughout the entire problem, so should therefore be consistent. Interesting.

I found a theorem a while ago that dealt the infinity issue, I'll have to pull it out. If I remember, it dealt with what we are discussing... the idea that numbers that are infinite for some reason don't act as they should, even if you apply universal rules to them. For instance, infinity divided by zero is NOT zero... it is indefinite. The theorem dealt with that, but it is odd, because we are always taught that anything divided by zero shouldn't be done, but infinity holds different qualities. You would think that it wouldn't matter, because infinity is still any one number, but oddly it doesn't hold true.

[seeker]

yes, numerical infinity is definately strange, yet it is a natural occurrence within mathematical fields. i do recall what you're talking about from my calculus classes, though i don't know what to call it. nevertheless, it makes me wonder about how it all relates to us.

i don't believe that the equation i posed is a flaw in the process, just like i don't believe the "equation of god" is a flaw. i haven't tested the latter yet or visited the site metatron posted (though i intend to) but i'm sure i'll see that it's true.

i'm going to do some research into the 0.999... equation to see what the mathematicians feel about this. i'll let you all know what i find.

[RacecaR123]

Originally posted by Metatron's Cube


Thanks for the insite, but I dont think the above is a way to prove "math contains nuances". I dont understand the step where you go from
10x - x = 9.999... - 0.999... to
9x = 9

You are throwing the x back in after it was eliminated, and x is .9999999 so the last operation should read
9*(.99999999)=9 or
8.9999991 = 9 which is not true

Please explain this one to me again, it soulds interesting but Im not getting it.

He is hot putting the x back in after it is eliminated, it is a true equation, 10x - x is the same as 10x - 1x.

10x - 1x=9.999... - 0.999......so

10x - 1x= 9x and

9.999...
- .999..
_______
9.000... therefore

9x=9 Divide by 9 on both sides (grade 11 math)

X=1

[GernBlanston]

well this is my first post on the forums because i'm a newbie. i just wanted to give my two cents on this thread in hopes of adding more to this 'ball of mud'.

i'm trying to finish up a math minor in school, and i just got done with an analysis class where we talked briefly about the whole 1 = 0.99999... thing, and, believe me, this is true in the sense that the 'limit' as n goes to infinity of the sum:

9(1/10^1 + 1/10^2 + 1/10^3 + .... + 1/10^n)

is the same thing as (nine-tenths) / (1 - one-tenth) which equals 1. this comes from the study of geometric series:

lim a(1 + r + r^2 + ... + r^n) = a / 1-r

where you factor out a 9/10 to be a and r is 1/10.

anyways, i think the important thing to get from all this math nonsense is the idea of the limit. this is what calculus is founded upon, the idea of approximating a definite value by getting infinitely close to it without actually getting there. thats how we can't really divide by zero, but we certainly can divide by 0.0000.....0001 if we wanted. so the limit as the 9's go off to decimal infinity makes 0.999999.... look an awful lot 'like' one, but they can't really be equal, unless the decimal expansion really is infinite, i.e. an infinite number of 9's back there.

i also want to add some more thoughts concerning Metatron's original post. i think of the number 0 as the most 'godly' number. i kind of think of it in a taoist way, that 0 is the great way, the tao. it is what is able to make the yin and yang definition. it is the single number which allows opposities to define each other, i.e. 0 is the midway point between any number n and its 'opposite' number -n. a zero is infinite in length (because a circle has no end). if you get infinitely far away from a zero, then it looks like just a point, a singularity, if you get infinitely close to one, you are in its empty space, in its void. if you multiply by it, it remains a numerical 'nothing', but if you divide by it, limits tell us that it's value reaches no bound. what a paradoxical number, to say the least. in set theory it is the foundation, and is an element of every number:

0 = { } ...the empty set
1 = {{ }} ...the set that contains only one element. since there is only one set that we 'know' of, then 1 must be the set that contains that originating set.
2 = {{ }, {{ }}} ...the set that contains two elements. since we have only defined two previous things, then it must include them and them only.
3 = {{ }, {{ }}, {{ }, {{ }}}} ...and so on

i don't know if any of this is interesting to anyone, but i think its fucking great. and by the way, if the 'reverend' reads this, please note that pure math is so undeniably flawless that it must have been originated by god. if you find a flaw, it is because you are a mortal, imperfect. it is not because the system is flawed, the end-user is flawed. there are right and wrong answers in math. getting right answers is sort of like walking the path towards god. when we make an error in calculation, it is the same as a 'sin'. how long has math been around and we still make breakthroughs and discoveries in the field that scratch out the bad paths that people were taking and illuminates a little more of the actual truth, revealing more about nature. but still, we're just 'approximating' god, taking the limit as man approaches god, if you will.

sorry for the ranting.

[seeker]

now that's a refreshing post. i appreciate the clarification (i can't believe i didn't think of limits!).

it's interesting to think that math is something directly created by god. i've always thought of it as an invention of man, a tool to prove himself within his other fields of study, or if not an invention per say then a discovery of a method that justifies itself within itself. that's a lot to think about.

[Divine_left]

Originally posted by Metatron's Cube


You are throwing the x back in after it was eliminated, and x is .9999999 so the last operation should read
9*(.99999999)=9 or
8.9999991 = 9 which is not true


The "x" is not eliminated. 1X is eliminated, but 9X's still remain. Haven't you ever taken algebra? Think of it this way.

Cookies represent X's. Each cookie has .999... units of food-stuff. This means 10 cookies(aka 10x) contains 9.999... units of food-stuff. Take away one cookie(1x, or .999... units) and you still have 9 cookies(hence 9x) and 9 units of food-stuff. Now all of a sudden each cookie contains 1 unit. Simple enough for ya?

I don't know where you guys went to school but I'm 16 and I have no problem understanding this concept.

[TheRuleOfThree]

One problem..


I finally figured out why the original ".999..." post aggravated me. Its a simple algebra mistake.

Its not a mistake in your thought, but the problem doesn't really show your idea very nicely. The problem is this... you said that the "infinite number resolves itself in the problem" which gives it a definite value, therefore defeating the idea of infinity. If you look at it this way...

x=.999
10x=9.99 < THIS was your first problem. You said that 10x equaled 9.999... the thing is, if it has a definite value (lets assume .999) then it is not 9.999, but 9.99. the last 9 came out of nowhere.

So..
9x=8.991

And then, resolving itself,
x=0.999

Although your "..." implies infinity, you were treating the problem as an algebraic entity that held the same value through, therefore was not infinite because it was definite.

God, that takes a lot off my chest. Hehe.

By the way, I really enjoyed the post on limits. I'm in Calculus currently in my Junior year in high school , and I didn't even THINK about limits, basically because (though I don't like to admit it) I don't understand the concept nearly as well as you do.

I agree, math is our largest proof of God. Its funny, this whole debate of "Science Vs. God" when really science is a piece of God, right?

...

^^Implies infinity. :-)

[seeker]

x = 0.999...

multiply both sides by 10 so that you don't change the value of the equation. look at each side separately... x times 10 equals 10x, right? and 0.999... times 10 equals 9.999....

you just move the decimal down a notch.

sorry buddy, but you're confusing yourself... the equation is true. i didn't come up with this myself, it's something mathematicians discussed long before i came along and snatched it from under their noses. it's good that you're analyzing the thing for yourself, but don't do it to a point that you are mislead.

[TheRuleOfThree]

No, I'm not misleading myself. Maybe I should have worded it better...

The math itself doesn't work out because the numbers you are working with, even though there are more included, change in the problem. The number that you used simple algebra on was .999, and although you added "..." to it, you added another digit later on when you said "9.999." Because of this, although the number may resolve itself, you are working with two different values, and so it doesn't work out. Yes, I understand that .999 wasn't an exact value, which is why "..." was added, but it won't work if it doesnt remain the same value throughout the problem. And again, if the number resolves itself, then it is truly not infinity. Infinity is not definite, not a number, but more of a concept. Assigning value eliminates the definition of infinity.

Again, I see what you're saying, and it does make sense. My comment is just an observation on why the algebra doesn't work.

[GernBlanston]

when you say that "assigning a value eliminates the definition of infinity" you are on the right track. the only reason 0.999.... is the same decimal expansion as 1.000.... is that the decimal part trails off indefinitely. this part of math is really cool because you start to see how the real number system was developed and why. before the notion of a real number was developed, we had the integers, ....-2,-1,0,1,2,3,.... and so on that extended from negative infinity to infinity. these are whole numbers that have solid values. next they defined some operations that can be performed on these whole numbers, one of which was division. so if you imagine what the number line looked like when there were just integers, its kind of hard to picture because there are lots of 'gaps' between numbers that were unexplained. you would have 2 and you would have 3, but was there anything between them? so, mathematicians developed division which allowed for these gaps to be filled up. this extension from the integers is known as the rationals. formally, it is defined as all numbers that can be represented as one integer divided by another. all of a sudden we could have 2.5 (5 divided by 2) or 2.75 (11 divided by 4). generally, the longer the string of numbers behind the decimal, the bigger the numbers were that you divided to get it. so, we now have whole numbers and a whole lot of ratios that fill in alot of space in between. but what about PI? what about e? what about the square root of two. these puzzling numbers created gaps even in this extended number system since their decimals trailed off indefinitely, i.e. there are no two integers such that when you divided them the result never terminates (or repeats!) its decimal. so how can a number PI or e exist if theres no way to represent it? well, theres usually a formula or algorithm to calculate it, but any time you stop the decimal expansion finitely, you've just made it possible to represent it as the division of two integers. for example if you expand PI only two decimal places then you can obviously use the ratio 314/100 to get 3.14 but this will cause errors in whatever you're calculating. so, you refine it to 31415/10000. that's better, but its still not PI. you can imagine the actual value of PI sits neatly between two rational numbers (but even that picture gets fuzzy to me). what i'm getting at and what might help out in the understanding of what it means to have a decimal never terminate is the idea of a Dedekind Cut. basically it works like this: i tell you to find a number that is as close as possible to 1 without going over and without being 1 itself. ok, you say, so you give me '0.9'. but i say what about 0.95? thats closer to one than 0.9. so you come back with 0.99, to which i reply 0.995. the point is that if you go on like this then you'll see that for every number that is said, there'll always be a number closer. except of course if you indeed did this an infinite amount of times. then we'd actually be representing 1 because there is no number to possibly lie between 1 and our 'infinite' decimal. i hope this makes at least a little sense. if you terminate the decimal, then yes you've assigned a definite value. but for the infinitely many 9's behind 0.99999...., this makes it a real number that fits neatly right up against 1 on the number line and the distinction between the two is nil.

[TheRuleOfThree]

Right, and you've just described a limit. Thats a really cool way of putting it, and I think you did the best job in explaining how it makes sense. Thank you. You are the compromise, and I mean that honestly.

"if you terminate the decimal, then yes you've assigned a definite value. "

Exactly what I attempted to say, but you nailed it right on the head.

[seeker]

this is one of the best threads i've ever participated in, thanks to everyone for making it interesting :)

[TheRuleOfThree]

Agreed.

[Chuckhawk]

f is some function and can be described with

lim f(x) = 1
x->00

A number chart for the above expression, as x gets bigger and bigger f(x) will be along the lines of .9999, .9999999, .999999999 and so on. We wouldn't say that the limit is .999..., we would say it was 1.


So in terms of calculus, 1 = .999....

I'm not sure if that added anything new to the conversation or not, but I thought I would just throw it out there.


That "equation of god" is really interesting, I'm gonna go look up some info on it.

[TheRuleOfThree]

Yea, when evaluated as an infinity it works out.

[GernBlanston]

ooh, hey i saw another cool way to do that limit thingy.

ok, so everyone knows what the decimal representation of 1/3 is right?

so you get 0.3333..... on and on

do the same thing with 2/3 and you get 0.6666..... on and on

well, add up both sides respectively....

1/3 + 2/3 = 1

0.333... + 0.666... = 0.999...

is this not obvious?

btw, check innuendocornecopria.com for a mild discussion on caesaro summability and geometric series, which is basically the answer to this problem.

[Metatron's Cube]

Originally posted by seeker


first, a statement of what we know:
x = 0.999....

multiply each side by 10:
10x = 9.999...

subtract x from each side (writing its value as we know it on the right):
10x - x = (9.999...) - (0.999...)

here we simplify the terms (10x - x = 9x on the left, 9.999... - 0.999... = 9 on the right):
9x = 9

simplify further by dividing each side by 9:
x = 1

finally put in 0.999... for x:
0.999... = 1



Sorry to start a post and then not respond to it for a month, I have been gone from home.

I agree with what a few had written about the above equation, the problem with the .9999=1 thing is you cannot subtract an infinite number from another with infinite accuracy. What is the difference between .999 and 1? .0009, in other words, where you decided to cut of the decimal. .999 is not equal to .999999999...., and that is proven in this problem. In addition, I think there is an order of operations error here, another way to solve this, and account for the infinite decimal would be:

X=.999... (times 10 both sides->)
10X=9.999...(minus x both sides->)
10x - x = 9.999... - x
(Now to solve this for x, move all x's to one side)
10x - x + x = 9.999... (simplified->)
10x = 9.999.. ->
x=.999...

I like how this problem flowed into a discussion on limits, and everyone had some great thoughts on that. GernBlanston described this well with the fact that .999.. actually equals one. Thats why a third plus two thirds equal one and not .999. The equation of god is a limit as well. Try plugging in 3.13 and other numbers close to Pi into that equation insead of pi and put it in your Ti-86. As that number approaces pi the imiginary component of the number approaches zero and the the real component approaches -1. Graphically, this would be a vertical asymptote on the both the real and imaginary number plane!

The idea of irrational numbers leads to another great sacred geometry concept. Pi, e, the square root of two, and many other numbers cannot be expressed by any number with complete accuracy. Although many irrational numbers exist, its strange that so many of the mathematical values prevalent in nature (Pi, e, the golden mean) are irrational. Its not that crazy to imagine the square root of seven is irrational, but how can something we can observe physically be inexpressible with numbers? For example, if you measure the distance across a circle with a string, then compare that string with a string that measures circumference, there are exactly Pi number of "diameter" strings in the "circumference" string, and it is always the same number of them, a little more than 3. So if it is always the same number (pi), and that number can be observed physically in comparing lengths of strings, why can we not express that in a number with infinite accuracy? Sacred geometry says that such numbers seen in nature are irrational, but physical and observable, because it eludes to the divine nature of such numbers.

This is like the wave-particle duality of photons, for those familiar with physics. Two things that seem to negate each other that are completely true at the same place, at the same time. The greatest mysteries of the universe exist in polar, contradictory dualities, similar to the duality I described in my original post of the yin and yang, and how that is mirrored in the equation of god. It can been seen again and again in mathematics, physics, and other science as well.

[flipmojo]

Finding God through math... umm ok. Interesting read though.

[GernBlanston]

you know, i don't really like posting stuff about 'maynard this, maynard that', but once i found that people here like math and shit, i signed up. i'm not saying 'me no like tool', but the worship of false idols ('maynard is god!') bothers me.

so it goes.

well, i'm definitely glad that photons were brought up by Metatron's Cube (side note: for those of you interested in sacred geometry, check out Metatron's Cube. its bizarre. you can extrapolate the images of several multiple-sided 3-d shapes in its 2-dimensional geometry).

anyways, the whole 'its a wave!' 'its a particle!' argument ('tastes great!' 'less filling!') seems kind of ridiculous because if you think about light traveling in space you can see how it can exist as a duality. ok, this is me as an armchair physicist, but think about this question: why isn't there sound in space? yeah, yeah, we've all seen star wars and there IS sound in space but.... wait. no there isn't. there can't be sound in space because space is a vacuum (george lucas is a liar! get used to it, kid). there are no air particles to carry the vibrations of sound. there is no medium to carry and transfer the signal. so how does light travel through a vacuum. well, it can because its a particle too. a photon is the signal and the medium in one packet. thats only my theory on the whole thing, but its still bizarre that light is so special in this way. i would venture to guess that its because of light's brotherly connection with pure energy. and this now gets back to some more cool equations... einstein's famous equation about energy. he found that E = mc^2 or Energy is Mass times the speed of light squared. and to try to tie this up into something else, let me quote bill hicks...

"today a man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed into a slow vibration; that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. there's no such thing as death, life is a dream and we're the imagination of ourselves. here's tom with the weather."

dood, if you can figure this stuff out on acid, then send me some more. hicks basically summed up einstein's equation in that quote, but in a comedic way (what a great guy. dag, yo).

if you want my real opinion, then i'd say that light is a gateway to higher dimensions that we can't see. what if light (waves and particles compacted into a singleton unit) is the analog to sound as we have all around us and can measure and create? but light's duality points us to a more elegant framework for sending a vibration into a space, be it a 3-dimensional, 4-dimensional or higher space. imagine being able to create a 'symphony' of light by treating a light vibration just as you would a sound vibration. ok, then maybe a 4-dimensional being would 'hear' that.

i have completed rant.