Howdy, Stranger!

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

• @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.

• 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.

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.