•
•

Pseudoscience 'coincidences' that we are living in a fractal hologram (self.conspiracy)

d8_thc が 投稿

All of this is revealed after new research by Nassim Haramein and the resonance project who has solved quantum gravity.

It explains the occult, it explains spirituality - it is essentially a 'middle path' for science/spirituality - and it's all got mathematical evidence. /r/holofractal for more.

Physics

Ancient Knowledge / Occult

全 52 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]untimeliness 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Can't upvote this enough. The best part is that the international community has already confirmed all of this as being fact but they are keeping it under wraps because of the implications for the fossil fuel oligarchy.

Thanks for posting.

[–]axolotl_peyotl [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

One of my favorite subjects submitted by one of my favorite redditors...can't go wrong!

Keep up the brilliant work my friend.

[–]Waiting42Witnesses 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

sim theory is one of my favs, thanks for the buffet of info.

[–]Rockran 0ポイント1ポイント  (12子コメント)

So you've listed a bunch of coincidences, but where does the 'living in a hologram' part come into it?

[–]d8_thc[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

This is Nassim Harameins unified field theory.

It's very hard to compress down to a post, which is why I posted these 'pointers' or 'evidence' so that people can jump into the rabbit hole.

Essentially, the claim is that the proton is a black hole. It contains the mass of the universe in vacuum fluctuations. When you apply the well known holographic principle for a black hole, meaning the surface encodes the volume, you go from the mass of all protons 1055 grams, to the mass of a proton, 10-24 grams.

So although the mass of the universe is really in each proton, from outside the event horizon we are only getting a few of the vacuum fluctuations, which happen to equal the proton rest mass.

Dividing a proton sphere by a planck length diameter sphere and multiplying by the planck mass, we yield the 1055 grams. To deduce the rest mass:

We figure out how much mass would be on the outside plancks:

Surface Plancks on proton : 4.71 * 1040

Surface Plancks times planck mass: 1.02656 * 1036 gram

That is the mass of the 'surface horizon' of the proton.

Now all we have to do is divide by the plancks that would fit inside:

2 * (surface horizon mass / planck units in volume)

this is a generalized holographic principle equation

2 * (1.02656 * 1036 gram / 1.2804 * 1060) = 1.603498 * 10 -24 grams

This solves proton confinement, which is the strong nuclear force, and it does it on the quantum scale as planck fluctuations - quantum gravity.

There is a geometry to the 'vacuum' which is the fractal 64 tetrahedron matrix. There are plenty of resources on this at /r/holofractal

For a good thread showing the differences in the standard model vs the holofractal model, check out this thread.

[–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–]Waiting42Witnesses -1ポイント0ポイント  (8子コメント)

    Rockan doesn't accept mountains of evidence!? dies

    [–]Rockran -1ポイント0ポイント  (7子コメント)

    Except it's not of that.

    [–]Waiting42Witnesses 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

    ofcourse, and the lens* isn't curved, until it is and then it's a misunderstanding on the presenter's part. Is your whole life deny til ya die?

    [–]Rockran -1ポイント0ポイント  (5子コメント)

    and the len isn't curved

    Len?

    [–]Waiting42Witnesses 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

    What was more shocking, my typo or you using it to dodge your skeptical nature?

    [–]Rockran -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

    A clarification isn't a dodge.

    If I were trying to dodge, i'd stop replying t

    [–]Waiting42Witnesses 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

    if you were trying to disengage, you'd stop. if you were trying to sidestep things so you didn't have to answer, that's a dodge.

    [–]Rockran -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

    What were we discussing again?

    [–]Waiting42Witnesses 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    lol exactly. Atleast you're being more open in that nature, Rocky. In that, I'm proud of you.

    [–]Chegbu_Von_Jogbu 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I am sorry my English is not good can you please summarize so I may understand

    [–]_420CakeDay -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Did you never access your primary directive? Remember, the earth was destroyed, we are living out everyone's memories in a visual museum on a planet as you know in Orion's belt. Last time we were hacked was (our time) about 2000 years ago, the hacker made some guy walk on water, bring people back from the dead, change water into booze. Then the same hacker put a virus in fleas on rats and let them multiply in Europe. He's a real jerk as aliens go

    [–]onemananswerfactory 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

    That a sci-fi book you're writing...?

    [–]_420CakeDay 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    No, but I should. It's easy to write non-fiction history. Making up things like 9/11, that's when it's to hard to do on your own.

    [–]Vornnash [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

    Take dmt, you will see something like fractals.

    [–]d8_thc[S] [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

    And what seems to be the information of the Universe pre-form.

    A post on this

    The fractal holographic unified physics theory and it's explanations for morphic resonance, spirituality/breakthrough consciousness experiences.

    [–]AutoModerator[M] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.

    I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

    [–]HaltNWO -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Can you cite where you got the mass of universe? I've seen drastically different numbers and they're changing all the time. Just seems like you're cherry-picking data or just making stuff up.

    [–]high-priest-of-slack -3ポイント-2ポイント  (24子コメント)

    Where are all the "skeptics" who show up and question everything? How can a speculative post like this, making wild claims and with little reasoning to go on, have garnered so many upvotes? Most of the new queue is at zero right now and yet this has somehow received 11 upvotes in 30 minutes?

    Expect to see a lot more threads like this as long as people keep spreading the truth about Flat Earth. Did you like the 'photos' of Antarctica from space that were all over /r/space recently?

    [–]Waiting42Witnesses 2ポイント3ポイント  (20子コメント)

    it's almost like OP did his homework so well, all they got is character insults and nothing to refute the information presented.

    [–]high-priest-of-slack [スコア非表示]  (19子コメント)

    You're another one of those accounts that shows up to derail comment threads and yet contributes very little, /u/Waiting42Witnesses. I notice that you responded in less than 3 minutes to a comment which was not directed at you.

    The information presented is rather simple to refute: most of those numbers are not based on any physical observation at all, and are not valid or accurate whatsoever. None of them are independently reproducible. We can start with "the mass of the known universe" which is definitely not a quantity that we can measure at all. Others such as the mass of Cygnus X-1, what a proton looks like "blown up to the universe", and the radius of our universe are simply unknown and currently unknowable values.

    It's not coincidental that the theoretical numbers line up; they are all pseudo-science myths created by occultists who believed in the power of numerology. They made the numbers line up, partly as their signature, partly to show anyone who has eyes to see. Heliocentrism is all based on the singular lie that the Earth is a ball of 25,000 statute miles in circumference; this is demonstrably untrue, the entire cosmology that the heliocentrist hoaxsters have concocted falls apart.

    [–]d8_thc[S] [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

    Mass of the universe here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

    Cygnus X-1 is one of the most studied black holes in existence.

    Wiki lists it's mass and radius values as deduced by the Schwarzchild equation.

    what a proton looks like "blown up to the universe", and the radius of our universe are simply unknown and currently unknowable values.

    It's math. If we have 1055 gram proton mass (divide a proton charge radius sphere with a planck length sphere and multiply by planck mass) and then this proton's diameter is blown up to the diameter of our Universe, the resulting mass energy is the cosmological constant.

    Implicating perhaps not the universe sprang from nothing for no reason, but that a proton escaped a mother universe and instantly inflated from going from equilibrium to no external pressure.

    [–]HaltNWO [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

    It says the mass is 1053 kg...

    [–]d8_thc[S] [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

    Kilograms. Extremely close to the given number, considering we're talking about a number with ~55 zeroes.

    And starting here, and using the holographic principle, we yield the proton rest mass, exactly, which has 24 decimal places.

    Here is a 1052 kg which yields the exact 1055 grams

    [–]HaltNWO [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    So you just pick whatever number fits your conclusion? That's not scientific at all. It's a cool hypothesis, but if it just relies on rough approximations and no peer review, it's still got a LONG way to go.

    [–]high-priest-of-slack [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

    So what you're saying is that these numbers, which can't be independently reproduced as observations, are the same, so this means everything is a hologram?

    That seems like a huge jump. Can you address the fact that we can't reproduce those numbers as observations? Or can you address that even if the numbers were true, and the same, that it does not imply a holographic universe?

    [–]d8_thc[S] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    What do you mean they can't be independtly reproduced?

    Do you have a proton you can blow up to the size of the Universe?

    That isn't how physics works. Nobody asked Karl Schwarzchild to make a black hole because he solved Einstein's field equations with an infinity.

    that it does not imply a holographic universe?

    Have you researched the holographic principle?

    Are you meaning to tell me that if we go from the mass of the observable universe, a number with 55 zeroes, to the mass of a proton, with 24 decimal points, it's a coincidence?

    Do you know the probability of the holographic principle doing that by accident?

    [–]Waiting42Witnesses [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    Did the high priest of slack talk down to me? Also, i just got on, though 3 minutes does seem to be a magic number between my haters. Also, since I do nothing but derail, comfirmed professor, I will end this converasation with this, tl;dr ya hater hiding under an aluminum hat professor. You're saran wrap bob, see through as all get.

    [–]KingKha [スコア非表示]  (8子コメント)

    Heliocentrism is all based on the singular lie that the Earth is a ball of 25,000 statute miles in circumference; this is demonstrably untrue, the entire cosmology that the heliocentrist hoaxsters have concocted falls apart.

    What experiment could I do that would prove the Earth is flat?

    [–]high-priest-of-slack [スコア非表示]  (7子コメント)

    Find any place you'd like and compare your observations to the expected curvature of the Earth.

    If you can find any curvature at all, please share it with me, but so far no one has been able to provide any independently reproducible proof of curvature.

    [–]KingKha [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

    According to that, If I'm six feet above the surface I should be able to see for 3 miles. If I'm standing on a beach, the horizon is about 3 miles away. I don't see any evidence there. I live near Cambridge, and the Bedford level experiment is very reproducible.

    Could you provide me with independent and reproducible proof of non-curvature?

    [–]WadeWilsonforPope [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    Oooh I thought of another one!

    http://i.imgur.com/vOBjkff.jpg

    This is during a lunar eclipse. You can see the curvature of the Earth on the moons face. I believe it was Pythagoras that first postulated this.

    Or another easy way of figuring out that the world is round is to simply sail a ship away from shore. If the Earth were flat you would see the ship simply get progressively smaller but we know that the ship will start to dip below the horizon, this would not be possible in a flat earth scenario.

    Maintaining orbit over a flat earth would be impossible, you are essentially falling so fast around the planet you perpetually fall around it. Spaceships dont just sort of hang out up there they are moving incredibly fast.

    [–]high-priest-of-slack [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

    According to that, If I'm six feet above the surface I should be able to see for 3 miles.

    Not quite. That would be the limit of your vision, if the Earth were actually a ball. That would be as far as you could see from that height, because at that point the curvature of the Earth itself would occlude your view of anything.

    There are so many examples of being able to see farther than 3 miles, both on land and at sea, that I can't imagine you're taking this seriously if you're asking me to provide one for you. That's why I said it was reproducible proof for you: go outside and find a place you can see farther than 3 miles.

    [–]KingKha [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

    Not quite. That would be the limit of your vision, if the Earth were actually a ball. That would be as far as you could see from that height, because at that point the curvature of the Earth itself would occlude your view of anything.

    Not really. If my eyes are six feet above the surface, the surface becomes impossible to see beyond three miles because of the curvature. But I can still see something that is above the surface. If a friend and I are both six feet tall, he would have to be almost 11 miles away before he was entirely hidden by the curvature of the earth. The derivation is here.

    So yes, you can see further than three miles, because things stick up out of the surface.

    You're not taking this seriously if all you're saying is "You should be providing your own proof." I'm genuinely willing to be convinced, but so far you don't even seem to understand your own argument.

    [–]high-priest-of-slack [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    Lol at this deceptive behavior, attempting to find errors by misunderstanding my argument when presented in general and then applying specifics. Sure, we can get as specific as you'd like, we can include all of those factors.

    It doesn't change the fact that all across the world, from land and from sea, we can see much further than any calculation of the expected curvature of that given point would allow.

    Your aggressive argumentation combined with deceptive techniques leave me unconvinced that you are genuinely interested in this.

    [–]WadeWilsonforPope [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    Have to take into account elevation and refraction.

    http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~aty/explain/atmos_refr/horizon.html

    [–]WadeWilsonforPope [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment

    At the point chosen for all the experiments the river is a slow-flowing drainage canal running in an uninterrupted straight line for a six-mile (9.7 km) stretch to the north-east of the village of Welney. The most famous of the observations, and the one that was taught in schools until photographs of the Earth from space became available,[1][2] involved a set of three poles fixed at equal height above water level along this length. As the surface of the water was assumed to be level, the discovery that the middle pole, when viewed carefully through a theodolite, was almost three feet (0.91 m) higher than the poles at each end was finally accepted as a new proof that the surface of the earth was indeed curved.[3]

    [–]Kandiflipz [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

    I don't know anything about flat earth theory. But why would you say the earth isn't 25000 miles around. It changes here and there due to the oblate spheroid shape, but it's on average 25000 miles.

    What is your backing behind saying this is not provable.

    [–]d8_thc[S] [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

    Wait.

    This stuff is pseudoscience, but the Earth is flat?

    I don't even want to go down that rabbit hole.

    [–]Waiting42Witnesses [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

    he's the head mod of topminds in disguise man. don't bother, he won't do anything but defame and derail while accusing you of that very thing. Thus his defame of me, and statement tying your post to a theory he knows most his colleges at the collage get a good laugh out of. He's a bitch, treat him as such.