The Unavoidability of Belief within Reason

[commonsense]

Belief is use. People believe they need bigger houses, thus they take something as useless as clay, mold it into a brick and use the brick as part of the house's extension.

This isn’t belief. This isn’t need. This is desire.

False, people believe they need something in which they do not. As belief is connected to knowledge so is it connected to other aspects of the human condition such as desire. They may believe the bigger house will make them happier when in reality is may not.

What do you see as the difference between believing and thinking?

[Eodnhoj7]

Truth exists through time and space as an approximation of an ultimate truth.

Approximation of truth is not truth, at best it is an approximation.

Take the approximation of π: 3.14159... it is an approximation of π, not actually π.
An actual π is 4/√Φ which is not an approximation, but rather precise.

An approximation is part of a truth hence a truth.

This necessitates not all variables being observed as these variables are approximated through time and space.

Space and time are measurably discrete units, thus not even space and time are "approximate".
Further: space and time are reciprocal aspects of motion, thus are not separate from one another.
Again: premises can be either belief- and/or knowledge-based. Premise alone says nothing
on the dichotomy of knowledge and belief.

False, all movement is spatial. One point inverting to another point is always a point. All phenomenon are forms, and as forms are composed of spatial limits.

The premises with which we observe a phenomenon are the beliefs through which knowledge originates. This is considering there is no strict rule how to begin any premise through which we acquire knowledge.

"The premises with which we acknowledge a phenomenon are a product of the conscience from which the inquiry originates."
-fixed

And that consciousness is an extension of the universe as a variation of it.

Seek and ye shall find means if you inspire/inquire and ask the right question,
the (right) answer to that question will be inside of the (right) question itself.

The premise of any true knowledge is to first acknowledge one knows not, such to ever-inquire further. <-dynamic
It would take a "believer" to believe they already have the answer, such to never inquire further. <-static

What you fail to acknowledge is that the material which results in consciousness is also responsible for the formation of beliefs. If all is composed of "x" then belief is the result of it. The axis which you argue for are responsible for the formation of belief. If knowledge is the negation of belief, then knowledge exists through a double negation thus necessitating belief. Knowledge cannot exist without belief.

[Eodnhoj7]

This isn’t belief. This isn’t need. This is desire.

False, people believe they need something in which they do not. As belief is connected to knowledge so is it connected to other aspects of the human condition such as desire. They may believe the bigger house will make them happier when in reality is may not.

What do you see as the difference between believing and thinking?

Thinking is the definition of beliefs as the convergence and divergence of beliefs.

[commonsense]

False, people believe they need something in which they do not. As belief is connected to knowledge so is it connected to other aspects of the human condition such as desire. They may believe the bigger house will make them happier when in reality is may not.

What do you see as the difference between believing and thinking?

Thinking is the definition of beliefs as the convergence and divergence of beliefs.

Right.

Please tell me what you mean by the convergence and divergence of beliefs.

[Eodnhoj7]

What do you see as the difference between believing and thinking?

Thinking is the definition of beliefs as the convergence and divergence of beliefs.

Right.

Please tell me what you mean by the convergence and divergence of beliefs.

One belief regresses to another. For example I may believe working out 3 days a week will give me the results I desire. Upon testing that belief I may believe working out 5 days a week is better. One belief diverges to another as it actualizes. Upon one belief diverging to another, I may converge both beliefs and believe working out 3 days one week then 5 the next then 3 the next may be beneficial.

On one stage one belief progresses to another then these beliefs are combined.

Another example is that I may be inside all day and believe the sky is blue outside. I then go outside and realize the sky is dark. I go back inside. While inside I believe the sky is dark. Then I go outside and observe the sky is blue. One belief progresses to another belief and recombine where I believe the sky is sometimes blue and sometimes dark. This in turn acts as a new belief and progresses to where the sky is now grey. So one belief diverges to another and reconverges as a new belief.

[commonsense]

Thinking is the definition of beliefs as the convergence and divergence of beliefs.

Right.

Please tell me what you mean by the convergence and divergence of beliefs.

One belief regresses to another. For example I may believe working out 3 days a week will give me the results I desire. Upon testing that belief I may believe working out 5 days a week is better. One belief diverges to another as it actualizes. Upon one belief diverging to another, I may converge both beliefs and believe working out 3 days one week then 5 the next then 3 the next may be beneficial.

On one stage one belief progresses to another then these beliefs are combined.

Another example is that I may be inside all day and believe the sky is blue outside. I then go outside and realize the sky is dark. I go back inside. While inside I believe the sky is dark. Then I go outside and observe the sky is blue. One belief progresses to another belief and recombine where I believe the sky is sometimes blue and sometimes dark. This in turn acts as a new belief and progresses to where the sky is now grey. So one belief diverges to another and reconverges as a new belief.

I understand what you’re saying. I note that you have an interesting, but not completely illegitimate, usage for progression/regression and convergence/divergence.

[nothing]

An approximation is part of a truth hence a truth.

Truly not precise.

False, all movement is spatial. One point inverting to another point is always a point. All phenomenon are forms, and as forms are composed of spatial limits.

i. Not all movement is spatial: time also moves/rotates.
ii. There is no such thing as a "point" - we've been over this already.
iii. Scalar motion is space/time-invariant, thus has no "spatial" limit.

And that consciousness is an extension of the universe as a variation of it.

You can't sever yourself from consciousness, hence product of the conscience from which the inquiry originates.
The quality of the conscience can be determined by the quality of the question it can posit/address.

What you fail to acknowledge is that the material which results in consciousness is also responsible for the formation of beliefs.

There is no material, only motion.

If all is composed of "x" then belief is the result of it. The axis which you argue for are responsible for the formation of belief. If knowledge is the negation of belief, then knowledge exists through a double negation thus necessitating belief. Knowledge cannot exist without belief.

"x" is motion. Belief causes motion, not the other way around: to go in circles due to a constituency/gravity (of belief). Knowledge is the negation of belief such to cease the motion, no "double negation". Belief is only necessary as having the constituency to be negated, thus knowledge relies on the constituency of belief, thus knowledge serves to negate belief-based ignorance. The be-all end-all is not knowledge, it is consciousness. One who has no ability to inquire/question such to negate belief-based ignorance(s) is bound to suffer in time, as a function of it.

TRUTH-by-WAY-of-NEGATION
to:
o. ...ad infinitum... consciously acknowledge all BELIEF(s)
i. to TRY both: to and not to BELIEVE
ii. to TEST both: true and/or not (necessarily)
iii. to FALSIFY all BELIEF(s) NOT (necessarily) TRUE
...ad infinitum ...

Unity/Not = ±1
1 = (Φ² - Φ) = progression
Φ² = (Φ + 1) = "in between"
Φ³ = (Φ² + 2) = gravitation
π² = 16/Φ
Φπ² = 16
MC² = E

Bodies are "in between" their own gravity (of belief-based ignorance) and unity, the latter being the speed of light (photon). The axis is a constituency of the photon itself such that any/all displaced bodies both share and concern in the same constituency ie. 'you are the light of the world' is technically 'true'.

[Eodnhoj7]

An approximation is part of a truth hence a truth.

Truly not precise.

All precision in one respect results in a simultaneous ambiguity in another.

False, all movement is spatial. One point inverting to another point is always a point. All phenomenon are forms, and as forms are composed of spatial limits.

i. Not all movement is spatial: time also moves/rotates.
Time is a ratio of lengths.
ii. There is no such thing as a "point" - we've been over this already.
Then neither is there such thing as an axis
iii. Scalar motion is space/time-invariant, thus has no "spatial" limit.
[color=#404040]Scalar motion exists through a reference point.
[/color]

And that consciousness is an extension of the universe as a variation of it.

You can't sever yourself from consciousness, hence product of the conscience from which the inquiry originates.
The quality of the conscience can be determined by the quality of the question it can posit/address.
Consciousness, paradoxically, is a result of the same photons which form it.
Belief is a byproduct of physics.

What you fail to acknowledge is that the material which results in consciousness is also responsible for the formation of beliefs.

There is no material, only motion.

True, but the same physics of motion you claim results in phenomenon, such as consciousness, is the same physics of motion which results in belief.

If all is composed of "x" then belief is the result of it. The axis which you argue for are responsible for the formation of belief. If knowledge is the negation of belief, then knowledge exists through a double negation thus necessitating belief. Knowledge cannot exist without belief.

"x" is motion. Belief causes motion, not the other way around: to go in circles due to a constituency/gravity (of belief).
If belief causes motion, and "there is no material, only motion", then by default belief is the cause of progressive knowledge.

Knowledge is the negation of belief such to cease the motion, no "double negation".
Knowledge as progressive is knowledge as movement.

Belief is only necessary as having the constituency to be negated, thus knowledge relies on the constituency of belief, thus knowledge serves to negate belief-based ignorance. The be-all end-all is not knowledge, it is consciousness. One who has no ability to inquire/question such to negate belief-based ignorance(s) is bound to suffer in time, as a function of it.

And consciousness necessitates belief as instrinsic.

TRUTH-by-WAY-of-NEGATION

Negation, must be negated as well thereby leading from apophatic knowledge (truth by negation) to catophatic knowledge (truth by positive existence).
to:
o. ...ad infinitum... consciously acknowledge all BELIEF(s)
i. to TRY both: to and not to BELIEVE
ii. to TEST both: true and/or not (necessarily)
iii. to FALSIFY all BELIEF(s) NOT (necessarily) TRUE
...ad infinitum ...

Unity/Not = ±1
1 = (Φ² - Φ) = progression
Φ² = (Φ + 1) = "in between"
Φ³ = (Φ² + 2) = gravitation
π² = 16/Φ
Φπ² = 16
MC² = E

Bodies are "in between" their own gravity (of belief-based ignorance) and unity, the latter being the speed of light (photon). The axis is a constituency of the photon itself such that any/all displaced bodies both share and concern in the same constituency ie. 'you are the light of the world' is technically 'true'.


"And Jesus answered them, “Have faith in God. Truly, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, 'Be taken up and thrown into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says will come to pass, it will be done for him"

"For we live by faith, not by sight:

"But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind"
James 1:6

"And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."
Hebrews 11:6

1. Belief is acceptance.
2. Acceptance is assumption.
3. Assumption is imprinting.
4. Imprinting is repetition.
5. Repetition is continuuity.
6. Continuity is reliability.
7. Reliability is trusting.
8. Trusting is joining.
9. Joining is acceptance.
10. Acceptance is assumption.
11. Assumption is imprinting.
12. Imprinting is repetition.
13. Repetition is continuity.
14. Continuity is reliability.
15. Reliability is trusting.
16. Trusting is structure.
17. Structure is knowledge.
18. Belief is knowledge.

[nothing]

All precision in one respect results in a simultaneous ambiguity in another.

Nonsense.

Time is a ratio of lengths.

Time is an aspect of motion - lengths do not even have time as a constituency, only distances do.

Then neither is there such thing as an axis

An axis is a plane, not a point.

Scalar motion exists through a reference point.

As a reference: a static magnitude that never changes.

Consciousness, paradoxically, is a result of the same photons which form it.
Belief is a byproduct of physics.

Belief is not a conscious process. Trying/testing/falsifying belief is.

True, but the same physics of motion you claim results in phenomenon, such as consciousness, is the same physics of motion which results in belief.

I don't claim "physics of motion" results in phenomena. There are properties which precedes all consideration of physical phenomena, the latter being corollary of the properties concerned.

If belief causes motion, and "there is no material, only motion", then by default belief is the cause of progressive knowledge.

Falsifying belief is the cause of progressive knowledge.

Knowledge as progressive is knowledge as movement.

Knowledge approaches stillness, not movement.

And consciousness necessitates belief as instrinsic.

Unconsciousness necessitates belief as intrinsic.

Negation, must be negated as well thereby leading from apophatic knowledge (truth by negation) to catophatic knowledge (truth by positive existence).

Negating negation is nonsensical: knowledge negates belief, belief implies absence of knowledge.

"And Jesus answered them...

It is possible to know the Bible is man-made, thus any purported truths must stand on their own merits.
It is not possible to bear a witness of a crucifixion/resurrection which allegedly occurred ~2000 years ago.

[Eodnhoj7]

All precision in one respect results in a simultaneous ambiguity in another.

Nonsense.

True. The magnification of a particle allows it to become clear while the slide it is on becomes obscured.

Time is a ratio of lengths.

Time is an aspect of motion - lengths do not even have time as a constituency, only distances do.

False. The number of rotations of a particle in a second, results in a series of circumferances which unroll as lengths.

Then neither is there such thing as an axis

An axis is a plane, not a point.

And that plane is formed by intersecting lines resulting in points of intersection.

Scalar motion exists through a reference point.

As a reference: a static magnitude that never changes.

Through relativity any point of observation is a fixed entity. You can argue x is fixed an unmoving as everything moves around it.

Consciousness, paradoxically, is a result of the same photons which form it.
Belief is a byproduct of physics.

Belief is not a conscious process. Trying/testing/falsifying belief is.

Belief is acceptance, acceptance is imprinting, imprinting is a process. The negation of one belief is the manifestation of another.

True, but the same physics of motion you claim results in phenomenon, such as consciousness, is the same physics of motion which results in belief.

I don't claim "physics of motion" results in phenomena. There are properties which precedes all consideration of physical phenomena, the latter being corollary of the properties concerned.

Generation of a phenomena is change. Knowledge is generated.

If belief causes motion, and "there is no material, only motion", then by default belief is the cause of progressive knowledge.

Falsifying belief is the cause of progressive knowledge.

If knowledge progresses then knowledge changes as belief changes.

Knowledge as progressive is knowledge as movement.

Knowledge approaches stillness, not movement.

Stillness is infinite movement.

And consciousness necessitates belief as instrinsic.

Unconsciousness necessitates belief as intrinsic.

Consciousness is defined by acceptance of a phenomena, the imprinting of it. thus belief.

Negation, must be negated as well thereby leading from apophatic knowledge (truth by negation) to catophatic knowledge (truth by positive existence).

Negating negation is nonsensical: knowledge negates belief, belief implies absence of knowledge.

False, it is called a double negative and it exists in logic.

"And Jesus answered them...

It is possible to know the Bible is man-made, thus any purported truths must stand on their own merits.
It is not possible to bear a witness of a crucifixion/resurrection which allegedly occurred ~2000 years ago.

Possibility is not negation, only a possible negation thus not a real negation.


And your theory, as well as the charts, are man made as well. It is not possible to bear witness to them since they are unproven.

[nothing]

True. The magnification of a particle allows it to become clear while the slide it is on becomes obscured.

lol

False. The number of rotations of a particle in a second, results in a series of circumferances which unroll as lengths.

lol

And that plane is formed by intersecting lines resulting in points of intersection.

Intersecting lines represents an axes, not a plane. A plane is just a single line.

Through relativity any point of observation is a fixed entity. You can argue x is fixed an unmoving as everything moves around it.

A magnitude is not a point, it is a magnitude. There is neither "point" (which don't exist in nature) nor change to measure. Static.

Belief is acceptance, acceptance is imprinting, imprinting is a process. The negation of one belief is the manifestation of another.

Yes, accepting that which is not known to be true, hence: believed.

Generation of a phenomena is change. Knowledge is generated.

Generation may (and does) rely on a static property "acts on itself".
√Φ "acts on itself" viz. √Φ∙√Φ=Φ. The "golden ratio" never changes.
It is the only proportion in the universe which, if squared as an irrational,
gives itself (irrational) back +1 (rational) viz. Φ²=(Φ+1). This is how/why
space and time scale with one another: they rely on this ratio explicitly.
This is also why 16=Φπ² and E=MC² are two sides of the same coin:
the former precedes/begets the latter relationship. In other words:
it is because 16=Φπ² that E=MC² accurately reflects energy as matter-in-motion.

If knowledge progresses then knowledge changes as belief changes.

Knowledge does not "change" anymore than the golden ratio does.

Stillness is infinite movement.

lol - yes, if you are still going around in circles endlessly.

Consciousness is defined by acceptance of a phenomena, the imprinting of it. thus belief.

lol - such as the phenomena of having believed something to be true, while it was/is actually not.

False, it is called a double negative and it exists in logic.

lol - of a principle such as negation itself? Loopy.

Possibility is not negation, only a possible negation thus not a real negation.

lol what?
Witness=True/False
of Alive=Either/or
of Dead=False (never true)

It would take a believer to believe it is even remotely possible to bear a true witness of a dead man.

And your theory, as well as the charts, are man made as well. It is not possible to bear witness to them since they are unproven.

Truth doesn't need any help from me: it always speaks for itself.
The theory, charts and 16=Φπ² "Equation of Delight" are merely
like fingers pointing to the moon: those who concentrate on
the finger miss all the heavenly glory. 4=√Φπ reveals the 2x2
{Α∞Ω}{BEG∞END} as constituency of photon and all
physical phenomena. Thus "I am the Alpha and the Omega,
the Beginning and the End" has a practical importance. It is
not a (particular) man, but rather "the light of the world".

[Eodnhoj7]

True. The magnification of a particle allows it to become clear while the slide it is on becomes obscured.

lol

To see one star clearly requires blocking out all the others.

False. The number of rotations of a particle in a second, results in a series of circumferances which unroll as lengths.

lol

All rotations maintain a circular pattern, all circular patterns are circumferances, all circumferances unrolled are lines.

And that plane is formed by intersecting lines resulting in points of intersection.

Intersecting lines represents an axes, not a plane. A plane is just a single line.

Between two points through an axis.

Through relativity any point of observation is a fixed entity. You can argue x is fixed an unmoving as everything moves around it.

A magnitude is not a point, it is a magnitude. There is neither "point" (which don't exist in nature) nor change to measure. Static.

And any premise can be presented as a static phenomenon. Anything can be chosen as a fixed static point of measurement as this measurement results in a a series of phenomena moving around a fixed standard. Basics of relativity.

Belief is acceptance, acceptance is imprinting, imprinting is a process. The negation of one belief is the manifestation of another.

Yes, accepting that which is not known to be true, hence: believed.

You mean the rate of believers to unbelievers killing eachother in war? 100 million in 100 years compared to 270 million in 1400? The rate of murder amidst unbelievers is higher.

Generation of a phenomena is change. Knowledge is generated.

Generation may (and does) rely on a static property "acts on itself".
√Φ "acts on itself" viz. √Φ∙√Φ=Φ. The "golden ratio" never changes.
The Golden ratio can only be approximated as it continues ad infinitum. It is always changing as it is always approximated.


It is the only proportion in the universe which, if squared as an irrational,
gives itself (irrational) back +1 (rational) viz. Φ²=(Φ+1). This is how/why
space and time scale with one another: they rely on this ratio explicitly.
This is also why 16=Φπ² and E=MC² are two sides of the same coin:
the former precedes/begets the latter relationship. In other words:
it is because 16=Φπ² that E=MC² accurately reflects energy as matter-in-motion.

It does so if approximated, you cannot prove it without rounding the ratio.

If knowledge progresses then knowledge changes as belief changes.

Knowledge does not "change" anymore than the golden ratio does.

Both are always approximated thus changing.

Stillness is infinite movement.

lol - yes, if you are still going around in circles endlessly.

A wheel spinning at a rate of infinity appears still.

Consciousness is defined by acceptance of a phenomena, the imprinting of it. thus belief.

lol - such as the phenomena of having believed something to be true, while it was/is actually not.

Like the rate of believers vs unbelievers in murder at the government level? Or the "knowledge" that Pluto was once a planet? Lol.

False, it is called a double negative and it exists in logic.

lol - of a principle such as negation itself? Loopy.

The accuser is accused.

Possibility is not negation, only a possible negation thus not a real negation.

lol what?
Witness=True/False
of Alive=Either/or
of Dead=False (never true)

It would take a believer to believe it is even remotely possible to bear a true witness of a dead man.

Possible negation is not same as actual negation. Possible is possible, it is not proven. A dead man can be witnessed to by bearing his memory.

And your theory, as well as the charts, are man made as well. It is not possible to bear witness to them since they are unproven.

Truth doesn't need any help from me: it always speaks for itself.
Actually it doesn't speak for itself, as a matter of fact WTF, in the math section, openly stated you are applying mathematics most mathematicians do not follow.

The theory, charts and 16=Φπ² "Equation of Delight" are merely
like fingers pointing to the moon: those who concentrate on
the finger miss all the heavenly glory. 4=√Φπ reveals the 2x2
{Α∞Ω}{BEG∞END} as constituency of photon and all
physical phenomena. Thus "I am the Alpha and the Omega,
the Beginning and the End" has a practical importance. It is
not a (particular) man, but rather "the light of the world".

The charts don't point to anything but your own thoughts. Give me an example of someone who can repeat, ver batum, what those charts represent and mean. Give me an example of someone who understands your stance other than you. If you can't then by default your work is a subjective accusation against believers and the accuser is accused.

Your work is a series of accusations against believers, thus the accuser is accused.

[nothing]

To see one star clearly requires blocking out all the others.

Hence ambiguity is relative, not empirical.
Same is true for belief-based ignorance.

All rotations maintain a circular pattern, all circular patterns are circumferances, all circumferances unrolled are lines.

Unless terminated by a counter-rotation.
You can't represent a 2D relation in only 1D.
The best you can do is express the 2D rotation
as a linear vibration, which is merely a shadow
of what is actually there, hence information is lost.

Between two points through an axis.

Replace 'points' with 'elements of a binary'.
Replace 'through' with 'as'.
{Α∞Ω} is a plane.
{BEG∞END} is a plane.
Their cross is an axes of
{operators} and {roots}
captured by the arms/legs.

And any premise can be presented as a static phenomenon. Anything can be chosen as a fixed static point of measurement as this measurement results in a a series of phenomena moving around a fixed standard. Basics of relativity.

Relativity is a theory of measurement, not a theory of any universe being measured.
Time and space break down at the 'static' unit datum of '1', which is the photon.

You mean the rate of believers to unbelievers killing eachother in war? 100 million in 100 years compared to 270 million in 1400? The rate of murder amidst unbelievers is higher.

Both theists and atheists believe something they do not know.

The Golden ratio can only be approximated as it continues ad infinitum. It is always changing as it is always approximated.

It can be left as a precise ratio: (π+π√5)/2π=Φ thus 4/√Φ=π and 16/π²=Φ are precise ratio(s).
The continuing ad infinitum is what 'irrational' means. Progression/Gravity relies on irrationals, hence √5.

Φ¹ = 1.618... is irrational and allows for ad infinitum progression.
Φ² = 2.618... is irrational and rational (Φ+1) thus rational discretion applies.
Φ³ = 4.236... is irrational (√5+2) and allows for ad infinitum gravitation (2=duality, unity/not).

Approximating the golden ratio is not the golden ratio... it is an approximation of it.
π as 3.14159... is an approximation of π, not actually π which is a relation: 4/√Φ.

It does so if approximated, you cannot prove it without rounding the ratio.

16=Φπ² is exact, as a ratio.
v=s/t | e=t/s
Φ=16/π² (1D spatial constant, yang)
π²=16/Φ (2D temporal constant, yin)

viz. space and time rationally come together in relation to '16', hence
16=Φπ² precedes E=MC². The difference is: the latter uses an "approximated" π
whereas the former acknowledges the discretely rational integer relation.

Both are always approximated thus changing.

No they are not, neither (1+√5)/2=Φ nor 4/√Φ are approximated, they are precise.
Belief is as relatively static as an approximation is (ie. 3.14159...) whereas
knowledge is as relatively dynamic as any static becoming loosed.

A wheel spinning at a rate of infinity appears still.

lol, a wheel spinning at a rate of infinity...

Only a birotation could render the magnitude as invariant up-to infinity:
inf→֎←inf
such that whichever rotation becomes anything-but,
inf→֎←inf -1
inf+1→֎→1 unit
the wheel begins to move in the direction eased from.
Universal motion actually works in this way.

Like the rate of believers vs unbelievers in murder at the government level? Or the "knowledge" that Pluto was once a planet? Lol.

No idea what you are (trying to) reference re: murder at the government level.
Pluto is not a planet, it is a Disney character (dog) so it was always "belief".

The accuser is accused.

Requires: an actual accusation (substance of).

Possible negation is not same as actual negation. Possible is possible, it is not proven. A dead man can be witnessed to by bearing his memory.

It is certainly not possible to bear a necessarily true witness of a certainly dead man.
True/False relies on a premise(s) whose constituency is of definite construct such to concern {ALL+∞-NOT}.

Actually it doesn't speak for itself, as a matter of fact WTF, in the math section, openly stated you are applying mathematics most mathematicians do not follow.

The truth is always in plain sight: no truth is never not true.

They do not follow the math because they don't understand that numbers are both quantitative and qualitative.
A strict mathematician only deals in what they can "count", but you can't account for qualities by way of counting.
For example, the constituency of '1' discretely concerns UNITY, and nothing else. Add polarity ±1 for IS+UNITY-NOT.
The constituency of √5 is actually √(√1+2√4) wherein the 2√4 is the birotation of the photon/axes, √1 as ±1 concerns unity.
Because there are two roots and two operators (2x2 axes) along with 1 discretion, there are two valid directions/orientations.
This can be seen in a basic pentagram: from the apex, there are two valid directions to draw the pentagram: it is a matter
of discretion as to which root one chooses, the one-or-the-other. Their total constituency is the same, only inversive.

Rt1{ALL+∞-NOT}Rt2 = π
Rt2{ALL+∞-NOT}Rt1 = π
____________________
2π

(π+π√5)/2π is that: if removing the √5 (pentagram) one is left with 2π/2π or '1' discretion (concerning unity or not).

The charts don't point to anything but your own thoughts. Give me an example of someone who can repeat, ver batum, what those charts represent and mean. Give me an example of someone who understands your stance other than you. If you can't then by default your work is a subjective accusation against believers and the accuser is accused.

Pm me if you want the forum where this work is actually being discussed.
I only release bits-and-pieces here, according to what is needed at the time.

The 'the accuser is the accused' condition seems to have really dug under your skin:
not only are you relentlessly accusing me of it ... you made a thread about it
trying to argue it as a circular fallacy. It's many things at once (hilarious, yet sad)
but then again so is creation: all-knowing must entail knowing how to have
a sense of humor. People who suffer are often severed from this.

This is what 'Cain' means: to draw from ones own nature. This is why
the first progeny of Adam and Eve is Cain: he drew from his own nature,
grew enmity for his brother which culminated into desire/resolve to kill.
Abel gave up the fat of the animal (nature).

Your work is a series of accusations against believers, thus the accuser is accused.

The first victim of any belief-based ideology is the believer in-and-of it, thus
my work both explains the root of such suffering, and provides an orientation system
which can be mapped locally on the being such to ever-concern unity, instead of not.

[Eodnhoj7]

To see one star clearly requires blocking out all the others.

Hence ambiguity is relative, not empirical.
Same is true for belief-based ignorance.

Context is constant thus the stance remains.

All rotations maintain a circular pattern, all circular patterns are circumferances, all circumferances unrolled are lines.

Unless terminated by a counter-rotation.
You can't represent a 2D relation in only 1D.
Yes, unravel the circumferance into a line.

The best you can do is express the 2D rotation
as a linear vibration, which is merely a shadow
of what is actually there, hence information is lost.

False,

Between two points through an axis.

Replace 'points' with 'elements of a binary'.
Replace 'through' with 'as'.
{Α∞Ω} is a plane.
{BEG∞END} is a plane.
Their cross is an axes of
{operators} and {roots}
captured by the arms/legs.

The points and lines are real as extensions of a consciousness as real. They are real as constructs.

And any premise can be presented as a static phenomenon. Anything can be chosen as a fixed static point of measurement as this measurement results in a a series of phenomena moving around a fixed standard. Basics of relativity.

Relativity is a theory of measurement, not a theory of any universe being measured.
Time and space break down at the 'static' unit datum of '1', which is the photon.

[color=#FF0000[/color][color=#FF0000
the universe being measured is a subset of theory of measurement.


[/color]

You mean the rate of believers to unbelievers killing eachother in war? 100 million in 100 years compared to 270 million in 1400? The rate of murder amidst unbelievers is higher.

Both theists and atheists believe something they do not know.

And what do atheists believe in?

The Golden ratio can only be approximated as it continues ad infinitum. It is always changing as it is always approximated.

It can be left as a precise ratio: (π+π√5)/2π=Φ thus 4/√Φ=π and 16/π²=Φ are precise ratio(s).
The continuing ad infinitum is what 'irrational' means. Progression/Gravity relies on irrationals, hence √5.

Hence always an approximation.

Φ¹ = 1.618... is irrational and allows for ad infinitum progression.
Φ² = 2.618... is irrational and rational (Φ+1) thus rational discretion applies.
Φ³ = 4.236... is irrational (√5+2) and allows for ad infinitum gravitation (2=duality, unity/not).

Approximating the golden ratio is not the golden ratio... it is an approximation of it.
π as 3.14159... is an approximation of π, not actually π which is a relation: 4/√Φ.

Still an approximation.

It does so if approximated, you cannot prove it without rounding the ratio.

16=Φπ² is exact, as a ratio.
v=s/t | e=t/s
Φ=16/π² (1D spatial constant, yang)
π²=16/Φ (2D temporal constant, yin)

Wtf in the math section says otherwise.

viz. space and time rationally come together in relation to '16', hence
16=Φπ² precedes E=MC². The difference is: the latter uses an "approximated" π
whereas the former acknowledges the discretely rational integer relation.

Both are always approximated thus changing.

No they are not, neither (1+√5)/2=Φ nor 4/√Φ are approximated, they are precise.
Belief is as relatively static as an approximation is (ie. 3.14159...) whereas
knowledge is as relatively dynamic as any static becoming loosed.

Still an approximation.

A wheel spinning at a rate of infinity appears still.

lol, a wheel spinning at a rate of infinity...

Only a birotation could render the magnitude as invariant up-to infinity:
inf→֎←inf
such that whichever rotation becomes anything-but,
inf→֎←inf -1
inf+1→֎→1 unit
the wheel begins to move in the direction eased from.
Universal motion actually works in this way.

As the wheel rolls so space expands.

Like the rate of believers vs unbelievers in murder at the government level? Or the "knowledge" that Pluto was once a planet? Lol.

No idea what you are (trying to) reference re: murder at the government level.
Pluto is not a planet, it is a Disney character (dog) so it was always "belief".

Then you suffer from belief based ignorance. Communist atheism results in 100 million deaths in 100 years, a much higher rate than violence committed under theocratic wars. Pluto was categorized as a planet then was not. This knowledge changed where what was once known as a category is now deemed false.

The accuser is accused.

Requires: an actual accusation (substance of).

Accusation of believers being ignorant an the source of suffering.

Possible negation is not same as actual negation. Possible is possible, it is not proven. A dead man can be witnessed to by bearing his memory.

It is certainly not possible to bear a necessarily true witness of a certainly dead man.
True/False relies on a premise(s) whose constituency is of definite construct such to concern {ALL+∞-NOT}.

Through embodying his message and beliefs one bears witness to a "dead" man.

Actually it doesn't speak for itself, as a matter of fact WTF, in the math section, openly stated you are applying mathematics most mathematicians do not follow.

The truth is always in plain sight: no truth is never not true.

[color=#BF0000]False some truths are hidden within others through a regresscolor]

They do not follow the math because they don't understand that numbers are both quantitative and qualitative.
A strict mathematician only deals in what they can "count", but you can't account for qualities by way of counting.
For example, the constituency of '1' discretely concerns UNITY, and nothing else. Add polarity ±1 for IS+UNITY-NOT.
The constituency of √5 is actually √(√1+2√4) wherein the 2√4 is the birotation of the photon/axes, √1 as ±1 concerns unity.
Because there are two roots and two operators (2x2 axes) along with 1 discretion, there are two valid directions/orientations.
This can be seen in a basic pentagram: from the apex, there are two valid directions to draw the pentagram: it is a matter
of discretion as to which root one chooses, the one-or-the-other. Their total constituency is the same, only inversive.

Rt1{ALL+∞-NOT}Rt2 = π
Rt2{ALL+∞-NOT}Rt1 = π
____________________
2π

(π+π√5)/2π is that: if removing the √5 (pentagram) one is left with 2π/2π or '1' discretion (concerning unity or not).

The charts don't point to anything but your own thoughts. Give me an example of someone who can repeat, ver batum, what those charts represent and mean. Give me an example of someone who understands your stance other than you. If you can't then by default your work is a subjective accusation against believers and the accuser is accused.

Pm me if you want the forum where this work is actually being discussed.
I only release bits-and-pieces here, according to what is needed at the time.

No you can present it in public.

The 'the accuser is the accused' condition seems to have really dug under your skin:
not only are you relentlessly accusing me of it ... you made a thread about it
trying to argue it as a circular fallacy. It's many things at once (hilarious, yet sad)
but then again so is creation: all-knowing must entail knowing how to have
a sense of humor. People who suffer are often severed from this.

There goes your accusations again. The accuser is accused is circular projective reasoning.

This is what 'Cain' means: to draw from ones own nature. This is why
the first progeny of Adam and Eve is Cain: he drew from his own nature,
grew enmity for his brother which culminated into desire/resolve to kill.
Abel gave up the fat of the animal (nature).

Your work is a series of accusations against believers, thus the accuser is accused.

The first victim of any belief-based ideology is the believer in-and-of it, thus
my work both explains the root of such suffering, and provides an orientation system
which can be mapped locally on the being such to ever-concern unity, instead of not.

[nothing]

Context is constant thus the stance remains.

Context is relative, not constant. The only constant context is the "speed" of light.

Yes, unravel the circumferance into a line.

They are not the same geometry:
circumference is 2D, line is 1D.

The points and lines are real as extensions of a consciousness as real. They are real as constructs.

...your consciousness, perhaps. However (un)consciousness can be loopy.

the universe being measured is a subset of theory of measurement.

The universe does not rely on measurement to exist.

And what do atheists believe in?

There is no viable grounds upon which to assert any god(s) exist(s).

Hence always an approximation.

Are you retarded? Seriously... an approximation entails user-defined termination.
Ratios do not terminate, they are precise ratios. 4√Φ is not an "approximation", it is precise.
3.14159... is an approximation, and is not only not precise, it is meaningless as
all kinematic application of π concern the integer 4.

http://milesmathis.com/pi2.html

Still an approximation.

Wow, a second time.

Wtf in the math section says otherwise.

I don't care, and likely neither does he.

Still an approximation.

...a third time.

As the wheel rolls so space expands.

It also contracts. Both Φ and Φ³ are irrational (non-terminating) however
Φ² is both: irrational and rational (Φ + 1).
This is how/why the same Φ operation serves as both progression and gravitation
with Φ² being intermediary and allowing rational discretion.

Then you suffer from belief based ignorance. Communist atheism results in 100 million deaths in 100 years, a much higher rate than violence committed under theocratic wars. Pluto was categorized as a planet then was not. This knowledge changed where what was once known as a category is now deemed false.

The accuser is the accused.

Accusation of believers being ignorant an the source of suffering.

Again you're making accusations against me "accusing believers".
The believers are the victims, not the culprit.

Seriously, are you retarded? Do you not have discretion?

Through embodying his message and beliefs one bears witness to a "dead" man.

Thus manufactures suffering and death.

False some truths are hidden within others through a regress

lol what?

No you can present it in public.

Do you want a link to that, too?

There goes your accusations again. The accuser is accused is circular projective reasoning.

The accuser is the accused.

Look in the mirror. I'm not your scapegoat.