Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

ADM.10 c DROP BELOW.

124

Comments

  • As I stated before.. in order for EDL to know if Polaris moves at different speeds around that circle.. he has to be able to chart its position during daylight and night. Maybe there's something to what EDM refers to at looking at the dusk and dawn when theoretically he could see both his Sundial and the Polaris Telescope with its accompanying Polaris position.. and he tries to take the same time every day and compare the movement of Polaris around the circle compared to his crosshairs. But that still is too complicated considering what we know about daylight savings time. And it would ONLY show Polaris's relative position throughout the year at a theoretical single time of each day and it would be different. But would this knowledge even make Orval Irwin say that it was the thing that EDL was most satisfied, excited, and proud about? Orval said that EDL saw that the times sped up and slowed down for each quarter of the circle if my understanding is correct.. throughout the day.. not throughout the year. Maybe I'm misunderstanding here.. but I've put in quite a bit of thought on it when I read it. I can quote it.

    "Ed could hardly wait to tell about his scientific discovery, which was next on the tour. He proudly pointed to an eight-inch hole near the top of a 12 foot slender stone column. A few feet away there was a shorter column, also with a smaller hole near the bottom. In both holes, wires crossed horizontally and vertically. At night, you could look through the holes and see the North Star.

    After much observation and careful study, Ed discovered the North Star was not true north. According to his observation, he discovered that at different intervals the North Star would appear in each of the four quarters that the crossed wire created. Ed was right. Because Earth is like a top that wobbles while it spins, the north star does not remain perfectly north. It's gradually moving throughout the years due to the motion of the earth."


    Orval's last sentence also seems naive to me.. as he's now referring to the 26,000ish year precession cycle or the obliquity of the ecliptic. EDL was ONLY about 5 or 6000 years late for that discovery... as the Babylonians discovered it before the Greeks. It was no new "scientific discovery" made by EDL. SO I call total BS and idiocy on Orval Irwin for making that statement. He also makes other strange statements here about Polaris not being "true North". No sh**! Everyone knows that Polaris isn't in the dead center of his circle and cross-hairs. That's why he carved an "eight inch hole" in the stone to watch Polaris travel around the outside of the circle.. whereas the center of the circle is "true north". I say Orval did not understand ED's discovery.. or he's purposely misrepresenting here what it was. His accounts of precession of the earth is not new, the Greeks even have a star map that shows the circle it makes in its 26,000 year cycle.

    @OH Gee "1""1",
    The Law of Inverted squares ONLY seems applicable in relationship to Polaris if EDL had a way to measure the intensity of light shifts of Polaris throughout the day and/or year. It's interesting angle that I appreciate the thought on.. but as usual.. you throw shit out there with no complete thoughts. Then you go back to bragging about your incredible superhero intellect.

  • OH GEE!,
    Maybe you'd dare to complete a whole chain of thought and logic how the law of inverted squares relates to the Polaris Telescope? I double dog dare you to link together a complete hypothesis of how EDL would have used this.

    Is your shotgun mind capable of this amount of focus required to string together ALL the steps.. or is that knowledge TOO dangerous to share with us .. as we might die of radiation poisoning?

  • However, your understanding of the Polaris telescope likely is very naive and flawed. Polaris makes one revolution around the outside of his stone cone hole in 24 hours roughly.. not in 365.24 days. I am familiar with the fact that they say the earth speeds up and slows down at different points of its yearly orbit. I did allude to the fact that someone else already told me that as well. That was their theory.

    2. As I said above, Polaris makes that "circle" every 24 hours.. not every 365.24 days.

  • @Gardener,
    Wow.. started off super cool and I was totally digging it.. but those conclusions.. WTF?!! I've got to ponder that one.
  • edited December 2017

    @Gardener,
    Wow.. started off super cool and I was totally digging it.. but those conclusions.. WTF?!! I've got to ponder that one.

    Yep! Once you fully grasp this one, there are more...

  • @Gardener,
    One thing that I thought of yesterday is light traveling through water in the telescope. Wouldn't there be a natural bend of the rays.. as Newton showed with prisms?
    angle of incidence = angle of refraction

    Therefore, if the telescope was rotated at 5 degrees and light enters at that angle.. assuming the surface of the lense is rectangle which it likely isn't.. but the design of the telescope would still put the light at the back of the telescope anyway.. then doesn't the light bend 5 degrees as it passes from air to water?
    If that's the case.. then a straight light beam would normally hit the side wall of the telescope.. but with refraction.. hit the back of the telescope at a 5 degree angle to it. Or when we see a straw bend in water and air.. is it the optical illusion only in our eyes the way they are designed? It's been too long since I studied optics in Physics to remember.
  • Gardener,
    I watched the first video again.. and it does seem to deal with the angle of refraction of water by saying you would have to change the angle to 10 degrees instead of 5. He just didn't mention why other than the speed of light in water is different than in air.

    Man, still trying to wrap my mind around it. Harder without actually doing the experiment myself.
  • @Gardener,
    One thing that I thought of yesterday is light traveling through water in the telescope. Wouldn't there be a natural bend of the rays.. as Newton showed with prisms?
    angle of incidence = angle of refraction

    Therefore, if the telescope was rotated at 5 degrees and light enters at that angle.. assuming the surface of the lense is rectangle which it likely isn't.. but the design of the telescope would still put the light at the back of the telescope anyway.. then doesn't the light bend 5 degrees as it passes from air to water?
    If that's the case.. then a straight light beam would normally hit the side wall of the telescope.. but with refraction.. hit the back of the telescope at a 5 degree angle to it. Or when we see a straw bend in water and air.. is it the optical illusion only in our eyes the way they are designed? It's been too long since I studied optics in Physics to remember.

    Refraction, Snell's law...
    Happens when light travelling through a media of different density. When light enters the water, it changes the angle once and then it continues straight, because the water is a constant density and that density doesn't change. As you know, liquids are not compressible, therefor constant density.
  • Man, still trying to wrap my mind around it. Harder without actually doing the experiment myself.

    ...take your time ;)
  • yeah, but when you say it "changes angle once and then continues straight".. do you mean.. if the angle of incidence is 5 degrees.. it refracts to another angle.. let's say 10 degrees.. and travels straight along that 10 degree angle .. or goes back to the 5 degree angle. I think what Snell's law means is.. that if going from air to water to air.. the angle would be something like 5 degrees in air.. 10 degrees in water.. and back to 5 degrees in air... unless of course the surfaces were not all parallel.
  • edited December 2017
    @CONSTITiTION just needed to add something.
    See here: http://scienceprimer.com/snells-law-refraction-calculator

    The angle of incidence is important by refraction.
    So if i am not mistaken we are talking about 5 degrees angle of attack/incidence.

    Index of refraction of water is 1.33 at 20 degrees.

    At that 5 degrees incidence angle, the actual refraction angle is negligible - non existent.




  • yeah, but when you say it "changes angle once and then continues straight".. do you mean.. if the angle of incidence is 5 degrees.. it refracts to another angle.. let's say 10 degrees.. and travels straight along that 10 degree angle .. or goes back to the 5 degree angle. I think what Snell's law means is.. that if going from air to water to air.. the angle would be something like 5 degrees in air.. 10 degrees in water.. and back to 5 degrees in air... unless of course the surfaces were not all parallel.

    @CONSTITiTION i hope the above post made it clear.
  • edited December 2017
    @CONSTITiTION I've never visited and I don't have the book. My way of researching is very random but mostly based on meditation and observation of artifacts (mainly because I like art). I rarely indulge into ciphers & numbers, however... as I already said, coming back to the ADM stone, I found a connection with this monument:



    Now, for those of you who enjoy maths & ciphers here's something juicy that I had overlooked in the past. Wikipedia says:
    The particular drawing on the pediment of the gate, with two overlapping triangles and Latin inscriptions, recapitulates the title page in the posthumous 1677 edition — which differed from the title page of the first edition — of the alchemical book Aureum Saeculum Redivivum (1621) by Adrian von Mynsicht (known also as Madathanus).
    The relevant part of this book is just a few pages. I read it and it's all highly symbolic/ciphered. Anyway, what's interesting about it is that straight from the preface it presents an enigma which seems similar to Ed's writing on the stone "ADM.10c".

    The enigma is said to be the name of the author (who allegedly discovered the secret of Nature, and the key to the forces of the universe) which is "fully contained" in some roman numerals: "M.DC.XIII"

    It seems to me that Ed ....either mimicked the enigma contained in the book...or he offered the solution of the book's enigma by encoding his own name according to the book's cipher in the "DROP BELOW" string. That could very likely be the key to Ed's own cipher.

    Here are screenshots to the enigma from the book (in english, french, and the original book in latin):







    PS: note that in the french version the numerals are MDCXII instead of MDCXIII. Also note that the English version says "2 dead ones, and 7 living ones" while the French versions says "11 dead ones, and 7 living ones".

  • RB,
    That pic seems to point to the Uranus planetary symbol.. or combination of Mars (rotated) and Sun. Have to study closer.
  • @CONSTITiTION the symbol is the alchemical symbol for MARS or IRON. Remember how in my other thread I highlighted how the symbol of "Royal Arch Masonry" seems to have the planets Mercury (Male / Wisdom), Venus (Female / Beauty), the Sun, and Mars (Strength) on an arc: when Wisdom & Beauty are opposing each other the Sun gains Strength. However, rather than being symbolic those words illustrate the position of actual magnetic fields/vortices - I pointed out in fact how the top-ring of the flywheel seems to be shaped like the Mars orbit relative to the Sun.

    I'm pretty sure it's all about this Royal Arch thing.

    As far as I understand, when the flywheel is put back together with the missing pieces and rotated it generates a vortex, a master-vortex.

    This master-vortex in turn generates 2 other counter-rotating sub-vortices of pure Male & Female energy. These vortices exist either in the surrounding space or, more likely, on the base of the flywheel itself (...I am just about to finish a long study on the symbolism of the Tree of Life, which is not a tree at all, which seems to confirm this).

    If these source-points for Male & Female are tapped into and if they are directed against each other, with the flywheel being in the middle, the magnetic field between these three points (or presumably on top of the flywheel itself?) is stretched and becomes a Vescica Pisces, that is a vagina-shaped magnetic womb. This magnetic vagina (lol) autonomously gives birth to a third form of energy, a sort of three-phase magnetic current (the holy trinity ?). Could this be the real story behind an allegorical virgin-birth of Christ?

    I'm still debating on whether or not water (diamagnetism/dielectricity) is involved, and checking some other speculations made by Stride involving the 5-magnets array and a pyramid to be put on top of the flywheel.

    I wonder what everyone thinks about this??

    I need to meditate.
Sign In or Register to comment.