'Knowledge' and 'Belief' as Primordial Antitheses

[Eodnhoj7]

Image is representation https://www.yourdictionary.com/image
Representation is likeness: https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... esentation

And as synonyms https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/image

i. Your (over-)use of definites (ie. " is ") is obnoxiously crass

Those definitions are grounded in the dictionary.



ii. I don't regard online "dictionaries" as having anything to do with nature

One thing I've noticed about the truth: people hate it.
The dictionaries are grounded in the meaning of words. These meanings are the definitions of the words themselves.

The accuser is accused. Your hatred of the truth reflects the nature of definition as being beyond your control. The words are synonyms and as synonyms lead from one point to another.

Either that, or they hate someone else having (found) it.
It reminds me of Cain and Abel: Cain must compare himself to others ie. his own brother
and try to measure the value of the offerings made by either, such to find his own poor
(yet, only by comparison) such to grow enmity and desire to spill blood.



This tendency seems innate to/in all who are rooted in hatred, rather than love of truth,
yet their hatred is naught but a measure of their own separation from truth.
The same: light as c = 1/1 being the cosmological constant, the "progression"
whereas c ≠ 1 is anything and everything severed from the same
to some particular degree(s). These degrees are naught but
the gravity of ones own ignorance, as owing to
the constituency of their own body
in lacking a conscious knowledge
of their own (belief-based)
ignorance.



√1 = +1, -1
Let 1 be unity.
Let -1 be not unity.
√+1 = 1 (real) and in unity
√-1 = i (imaginary) and not in unity
(-1)(-1) = (not not unity) = unity = 1.

[nothing]

Those definitions are grounded in the dictionary.

And what is that grounded in?

The dictionaries are grounded in the meaning of words.

As according to... itself?

These meanings are the definitions of the words themselves.

" "

The accuser is accused.

Thanks for the forewarning, I'll know
to take the substance that follows
as your own.

Your hatred of the truth reflects the nature of definition as being beyond your control.

You couldn't have dug it up any better.

The words are synonyms and as synonyms lead from one point to another.

Words are words,
synonyms are synonyms,
they do not "lead"
to "points" unreal.

[Eodnhoj7]

Those definitions are grounded in the dictionary.

And what is that grounded in?

Common usage.

The dictionaries are grounded in the meaning of words.

As according to... itself?

Actually yes, the dictionary defines itself through the dictionary.

These meanings are the definitions of the words themselves.

" "

The accuser is accused.

Thanks for the forewarning, I'll know
to take the substance that follows
as your own.

Your hatred of the truth reflects the nature of definition as being beyond your control.

You couldn't have dug it up any better.

The words are synonyms and as synonyms lead from one point to another.

Words are words,
synonyms are synonyms,
they do not "lead"
to "points" unreal.

Words are a medial phenomenon which exist as a means to further phenomenon.

[nothing]

Common usage.

To what degree (if any) should "common usage" weigh in on truth value?
Could not "common usage" reflect a "common misunderstanding"?

Actually yes, the dictionary defines itself through the dictionary.

Then let it concern itself.

Words are a medial phenomenon which exist as a means to further phenomenon.

That is not a property of words, but more generally of space and time, thus
application of the same to words is phenomenally shortsighted viz.
replace 'words' with 'musical notes' to see why. The words/notes themselves
are not all which composes the constituency of effective communication:
how many/few, which and/or which not, when/where to pause,
to place emphasis, to leave open-ended or to close off etc.
are as integral to the overall effect as mere words with "definitions".

A thing is defined as/by what it is limited to/by, such as concerning online
"definitions" from "dictionaries" as undisputed dictum. Perversion of language,
as with nations, begins from the top-down due to corruption and negligence
by way of changing the meaning of words to mean something entirely different
from the etymological root of the word. I found this to be overwhelmingly true
when reading the Qur'an: the roots are Syriac with Arabic imposed on top
and things like the 72 "pure" or "virgin" names of god became virgin women
(houri) as if heaven is a celestial brothel. Sexual degeneracy has a tendency
to wildly distort perception: so much so that things like rape
are justified, thus believed to be holy acts as sanctioned by a

" BELIEF "

-based god.

[Eodnhoj7]

Common usage.

To what degree (if any) should "common usage" weigh in on truth value?
Could not "common usage" reflect a "common misunderstanding"?

Words are defined by their usage. Meaning is use.

Actually yes, the dictionary defines itself through the dictionary.

Then let it concern itself.

Dictionary is part of the dictionary.

Words are a medial phenomenon which exist as a means to further phenomenon.

That is not a property of words, but more generally of space and time, thus
application of the same to words is phenomenally shortsighted viz.
replace 'words' with 'musical notes' to see why. The words/notes themselves
are not all which composes the constituency of effective communication:
how many/few, which and/or which not, when/where to pause,
to place emphasis, to leave open-ended or to close off etc.
are as integral to the overall effect as mere words with "definitions".

Words exist as phenomena which are part of reality. As part of reality they are real.

A thing is defined as/by what it is limited to/by, such as concerning online
"definitions" from "dictionaries" as undisputed dictum. Perversion of language,
as with nations, begins from the top-down due to corruption and negligence
by way of changing the meaning of words to mean something entirely different
from the etymological root of the word. I found this to be overwhelmingly true
when reading the Qur'an: the roots are Syriac with Arabic imposed on top
and things like the 72 "pure" or "virgin" names of god became virgin women
(houri) as if heaven is a celestial brothel. Sexual degeneracy has a tendency
to wildly distort perception: so much so that things like rape
are justified, thus believed to be holy acts as sanctioned by a

Words are derived from meaning, meaning is use. Words are defined through their usage.

" BELIEF "

-based god.

[nothing]

Words are defined by their usage. Meaning is use.

Words are no more defined by their usage
than musical notes are defined by theirs:
definition may only applies to limit(s).

s/t = 1 = light (without displacement)
s/t ≠ 1 = displacement (particular matters)

Any/all s/t phenomena is defined by
its particular displacement(s) from unity
according to the constituency of the body.

The same is true for all bodies,
broad-spectrum to include words
whose "body" is the etymological root
capturing the defining characteristics
of the permutation.

Dictionary is part of the dictionary.

What insight !

Words exist as phenomena which are part of reality. As part of reality they are real.

The words are real, man.

Words are derived from meaning, meaning is use. Words are defined through their usage.

Words are rooted with/by meaning, local use is local meaning,
and one can no more change the etymological root of a word
than they can change their own biological grandparents.

[Eodnhoj7]

Words are defined by their usage. Meaning is use.

Words are no more defined by their usage
than musical notes are defined by theirs:
definition may only applies to limit(s).

s/t = 1 = light (without displacement)
s/t ≠ 1 = displacement (particular matters)

Any/all s/t phenomena is defined by
its particular displacement(s) from unity
according to the constituency of the body.

The same is true for all bodies,
broad-spectrum to include words
whose "body" is the etymological root
capturing the defining characteristics
of the permutation.

Dictionary is part of the dictionary.

What insight !

Words exist as phenomena which are part of reality. As part of reality they are real.

The words are real, man.

Words are derived from meaning, meaning is use. Words are defined through their usage.

Words are rooted with/by meaning, local use is local meaning,
and one can no more change the etymological root of a word
than they can change their own biological grandparents.

Words are defined by their relationship to other words and as such their meaning changes in accords to their usage. Their is no constant meaning other than the context of usage. For example a descriptive word such as "red" means color, yet this color can mean a variety of things such as an apple or car.

Meaning is the direction of one word to another with this directional nature acting as the process of definition itself.

[nothing]

Words are defined by their relationship to other words and as such their meaning changes in accords to their usage. Their is no constant meaning other than the context of usage. For example a descriptive word such as "red" means color, yet this color can mean a variety of things such as an apple or car.

Meaning is the direction of one word to another with this directional nature acting as the process of definition itself.

Color is not an object(s).

Meaning precedes direction, the latter relying on the former.
It is because one has means one may seek/find.
If not means, seeking/finding has no impetus.

[Eodnhoj7]

Words are defined by their relationship to other words and as such their meaning changes in accords to their usage. Their is no constant meaning other than the context of usage. For example a descriptive word such as "red" means color, yet this color can mean a variety of things such as an apple or car.

Meaning is the direction of one word to another with this directional nature acting as the process of definition itself.

Color is not an object(s).

Color is an object, ie "objective", when percieved from multiple vantage points.

Meaning precedes direction, the latter relying on the former.
It is because one has means one may seek/find.
If not means, seeking/finding has no impetus.

B is a "means" to C, as it is the manner is which A is directed to C.

[nothing]

B is a "means" to C, as it is the manner is which A is directed to C.

A, B and C are letters - they have no intrinsic rationality.
Numbers do: root operations produce a local conjugation.

√1 = +1, -1 = ±1
1 = Unity
-1 = Not Unity
-(-)1 = Not Not Unity = Unity = 1
____________________________
To know all that unity is not
is the same as all-knowing.

s/t = 1 = Unity (undivided)
s/t ≠ 1 = Not Unity (implies beg/end)

ALL / NOT <-primordial binary
CAUSATION / CESSATION <-primordial binary

Α / Ω <-local discretion √1 viz. +1, -1
Beg / End <-location in space/time

Pentagram:
1x Local Discretion (±)
2x Local Operators: {ALL / NOT}
2x Local Roots: {TO KNOW / TO BELIEVE}
___________________________________
{to know all (thus) not to believe} tends towards all-knowing god-or-no-god
{to believe all (thus) not to know} captures any/all belief-based ignorance(s)
causing/sustaining and/or otherwise impeding on the cessation of any/all forms
of suffering (of human origin).

"BELIEVER vs. UNBELIEVER"

Because it takes a believer to ever believe evil is good / satan is god,
all eaters of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil are "believers"
thus suffer/die accordingly. Adam could not account for his own actions
thus "believed" his own actions were a fault of the woman. This is the hijab,
the niqab and the burqa - the original sin of Muhammadan men religiously
blaming the women for the actions (ie. rape) of (and by) the man.

[Eodnhoj7]

B is a "means" to C, as it is the manner is which A is directed to C.

A, B and C are letters - they have no intrinsic rationality.
Numbers do: root operations produce a local conjugation.

√1 = +1, -1 = ±1
1 = Unity
-1 = Not Unity
-(-)1 = Not Not Unity = Unity = 1
____________________________
To know all that unity is not
is the same as all-knowing.

s/t = 1 = Unity (undivided)
s/t ≠ 1 = Not Unity (implies beg/end)

ALL / NOT <-primordial binary
CAUSATION / CESSATION <-primordial binary

Α / Ω <-local discretion √1 viz. +1, -1
Beg / End <-location in space/time

Pentagram:
1x Local Discretion (±)
2x Local Operators: {ALL / NOT}
2x Local Roots: {TO KNOW / TO BELIEVE}
___________________________________
{to know all (thus) not to believe} tends towards all-knowing god-or-no-god
{to believe all (thus) not to know} captures any/all belief-based ignorance(s)
causing/sustaining and/or otherwise impeding on the cessation of any/all forms
of suffering (of human origin).

"BELIEVER vs. UNBELIEVER"

Because it takes a believer to ever believe evil is good / satan is god,
all eaters of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil are "believers"
thus suffer/die accordingly. Adam could not account for his own actions
thus "believed" his own actions were a fault of the woman. This is the hijab,
the niqab and the burqa - the original sin of Muhammadan men religiously
blaming the women for the actions (ie. rape) of (and by) the man.

The relationship of letters necessitates a rationality that is a phenomena in itself. It is the letters, as parts thus ratios of words, that necessitates them as rational entity. A ratio is that which is a part of something, it is a relationship of parts.

[Eodnhoj7]

False, all time is a series of rotations. As a series of rotations they exist as circumferances (ie x number of rotations is x number of circumferances). As circumferances they unfurl to lengths. Time is a series of lengths (ie "length" of time).

Circumferences apply only to 2+ dimensional objects. Scalar motion is not multi-dimensional, thus concerns not the circumference of anything.
Further: circles are two-dimensional, whereas scalar magnitudes are one-, thus your "unfurling" neither does nor can apply.

What we need is a one-dimensional "length" such to serve to capture/measure distance, a temporal duration.
This is why we take the diameter of the circle to be √5: it grounds into both space and time via:

Φ = (1+√5)/2 as 1D yang-space
π² = (8√5-8) as 2D yin-time

and further thus concerns all Φ-based phenomena (such as ourselves) given (1 + √5)/2 = Φ, wherein '1' concerns unity, and /2 introduces the UNITY+∞-NOT dichotomy. Enter: photons and the operators={Α∞Ω} roots={BEG∞END} axes. Photons do not have a velocity independent of the progression, thus UNITY=TRUE ({BEG∞END}=FALSE) always and NOT=FALSE ({BEG∞END}=TRUE) is the "flag" for all displaced matter 'NOT' part of the progression carrying the photons (ie. light). This is atoms, particles etc. and the entire 'physical' cosmos. The /2 describes the birotation of the photon which may only be spinning in two apparent directions: =TRUE and =FALSE concerning unity which we perceive as clockwise and counter-clock-wise.

The only difference between a photon at unity and "everything else" is the {BEG∞END} flag. Null/false for photons, true otherwise.
Time is only a temporal measure of displacement, whereas space is a spatial measure of actual placement according to (dis)placement.

To know/believe all approaching know/believe all necessitates an absence of knowing/believing all as "approaching" necessitates a potential "more". This potential "more" necessitates that not all is known or believed.

This is the same as saying necessitates that displacement exists. "To know one knows not is a knowledge-in-and-of-itself."
This is thus the same as saying necessitates that a person acknowledgement their own displacement(s),
including acknowledging their own "roots" (which concerns the roots of the photon {BEG∞END}).

False, an "approach" necessitates an absence of all.

'NOT' (to believe).

A negation of gravity/displacement acting on a body is equivalent to their approaching unity.

Tree of Living: to KNOW
Tree of G/E: to BELIEVE
ALL∞NOT is concerned by the photon {Α∞Ω} concerned by any/all displaced bodies.

No. Any definition results in a simultaneous ambiguity.

A proper definition serves towards disambiguation, not ambiguity.

Photons are a fixed measurement point as an extension of the observer. A beginning measurement point can be reflected in electrons, consciousness, number etc.

Consciousness and light are not independent phenomena. The beg/end axes of the photon is null/false, everything else =true.
This is how/why light is a datum: one unit of space over one unit of time (and/or vice versa) is the "measure". One anything/everything,
including discretion/choice, such as "to be... or not to be...".

Absence of truth is seperation.

Belief-based ignorance precedes absence of truth: to know not not to believe, thus absent the untruth of the belief endorsed.

Belief may occur with something true as with something false. The same occurs with knowledge.

This is an egregious betrayal of knowledge.
True knowledge can not be false, rather only false knowledge can be believed to be true.

Gravity pulls phenomenon togetner.

Gravity doesn't "pull" anything at all - it is not even a force such to "pull".
Gravity is an inward acceleration - a motion, not a "pulling" force.

Then an absence of belief, thus knowledge (according to you), is determined by photons. The photons are necessary for belief to exist. Reducing everything photons necessitates photons as self referentially aware as the universe working itself out.

Knowledge (ie. negation of belief) is determined by the discretion (or not) of the being, not the photons.
The photon carries binary information by way of the birotation, hence {Α∞Ω}: is/not, in/out, to/from etc.
The photon contains (as a constituency/property of itself) the capacity to relate binaries, hence consciousness does as well.
All binaries concern the {Α∞Ω} axis of the photon. All displaced bodies concern the {beg/end} axis of the photon.

Then tell me where my pains are and how much rate. You can't.

It's not a rate, it's a root: beliefs are like fruits which come from some tree.
Every belief thus is like a fruit from a fruit tree, and all trees have roots,
thus all beliefs have roots. Trying/testing/falsifying all beliefs entails
observing the roots of all beliefs, including ones held of ones own being
such to find if the roots are in fertile soil (or not).

Thus pain/suffering is owing to a particular root. Acknowledging the root
and understanding/comprehending how/why it is culprit, is the same as
approaching all-knowing, including how to cease suffering of self/other.

The photon has operators {Α∞Ω} and roots {BEG∞END} as they may concern any displaced body,
the latter having their own internal axes which both implicitly/explicitly concerns photon/light/progression.


*A = Discretionary Consciousness
±A = {Α∞Ω} Operators
√±A = {BEG∞END} Roots

Yet scripture says "to turn the other cheek" and "he who lives by the sword dies by the sword".

I don't believe in scripture. However I know living by the sword entails dying by the sword, as multiplicative reciprocity predicts the same.

True.

Some have suffered, but suffer not longer.

And what is a false premise? Belief is an act of assumption, assumption imprinting...all knowledge is known through an act of imprinting.

Any premise that is not true, such as: a particular book is the perfect word of the creator of the universe (thus premising one exists).

{Is+/-Not}

viz. binaries double as roots if/when given a definite(s) premises,
thus roots serve as "points" such to measure human suffering.

أَشْهَدُ أَنْ لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا ٱللَّٰهُ وَأَشْهَدُ أَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولُ ٱللَّٰهِ
"I bear witness that there is no deity but God, and I bear witness that Muhammad is the messenger of God."

Exodus 20:16 (KJV)
"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."
-10 Commandments (in stone)

Is it possible to bear a true witness of a dead man?

{Yes+/-No}

"BELIEVER vs. UNBELIEVER"
1400 years = ~270 000 000 "unbelievers" killed by "believers".

Between the two, only one is capable of ever "believing" war is peace.

The unfurling occurs through a series of circumferances unwound to form a line. Each rotation, as a distance a point travels until it reaches its origin, results in a circumferance. This circumferance, as a 2d circle or 2d loop, unwinds to form a 1d line. A series of circumferances results in a series of lines thus making each line, as one of many unwound circumferances, as a ratio of the summation of lines.

[Eodnhoj7]

A line is 1 dimensional. Are you saying 2 dimensional objects do not exist?

"Lines" do not exist. Neither do "points". These are mathematical constructs, not real phenomena of nature.

A circumferance unfurled is 1 dimensional

An angular velocity is not the same as a linear one:
they are different geometries entirely. Angular momentum
requires 2 dimensions and can not be arbitrarily reduced to 1
without loss of information (reduced to a simple vibration).

Photon is a relative point of measurement, any variable as fixed or unmoving can be applied through relativity.

Photons are not relative, they have an absolute/discrete datum of '1' in/of v=s/t=1.
This is why Φ is a spatial constant whereas π² is a temporal constant.
1 = Φπ²/16 is the equation of light/photon, hence "Equation of Delight".

No, any potentiality is a lack of actuality.

As in any/all beliefs not actually known, hence potentially true/false.

Approaching knowledge necessitates potential knowledge thus an absence of knowledge.

Belief-based ignorance implies an absence of knowledge.

No, good and evil observes a dualism between the one good and many goods (as a deficiency is good hence evil) thus results in a state of defintion as a relation of parts. This state of definition is knowledge.

Believing in (ie. to know) good and evil creates the displacement(s) experienced as a relative dualism.
Duality only applies to a displaced body which concerns duality (ie. us vs. them) rather than unity.

Any clarity in one respect is ambiguity in another. Magnifying a star is an example, as one star is magnified so a decrease in the other observable stars occurs.

The ambiguity would be local to the one perceiving, not empirical.

Belief based ignorance does not proceed an absence of truth as in one respect it is an absence of truth. In another respect ignorance is an absence of knowledge not always relegated to belief. A blind man may simply be ignorant of color and have neither beliefs nor disbelief about it.

This doesn't even make sense: do you mean *precede?

In any case, all belief-based ignorance implies an absence of truth.

Categorization results in false knowledge, Pluto as a planet then not as a planet is an immediate example.

No discernment/discretion results in no knowledge.

One phenomenon moving to another is a relative pulling.

Relative description, not an explanation. Actual science must be able to explain, not merely describe.

If photons contain the binaries then by default binaries, due to your axis, are roots for binaries.

They are "messengers" of binaries, all of which concerns a definite {IS+/-NOT} which transcends even the photon.
All binaries implicitly/explicitly concerns the {IS+/-NOT} binary. If allowing '1' to be 'UNITY',
+1=Unity, -1=NOT, hence {+ALL UNITY / -NOT UNITY} is equivalent to {IS+/-NOT} as 'UNITY' cancels / is shared.

Operators: {ALL+/-NOT} concerned by all {Α∞Ω}
Roots: {to KNOW-/+to BELIEVE} concerned by all {BEG∞END}

"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End"
is thus 'TRUE' from the level of the photon (ie. light) onward.

Thus pain cannot be proven as it can be falsified.

Negated, not "falsified": the root can be falsified as 'irrational', hence
irrational beliefs leading to irrational fears/actions (impetus) are negated.

Φ = 1.618... irrational
Φ² = (Φ + 1)... irrational + rational
Φ³ = (√5 + 2)... irrational + duality

Φ = concerns universal progression/expansion (corollary: conscious knowledge)
Φ² = in-between (inference)
Φ³ = concerns universal gravitation/collapse (corollary: of ignorance)

Hence: Conscious Knowledge of Ignorance Inference Theorem (CKIIT)

The root of pain as belief can be falsified in light of pain (physical) not being subject to belief, second pain cannot be measured through objective testing thus as untreatable is falsifiable. You cannot prove pain therefore pain is falsifiable. Emotional pain can only be reduced to belief.

Not all pain is belief-based ignorance, but all belief-based ignorance is pain
as endured/suffered over/as a function of time according to the gravity of.

No it doesn't, that measurement is applied through a made up chart.

I didn't "make up" (1+√5)/2 as this is what the universe relies on to function.

±1=Unity (and Not) viz. progression-/+gravitation
Binary: UNITY={Is/Not}
If: Unity=Is,
then: must-be-photon.
If: Unity=Not,
then: not-a-photon.
(ie. ALL particular displacements from unity) viz. physical cosmos.

viz.
{IS/NOT} can be expanded with {ALL}
{ALL that IS/ALL (that is) NOT} reduces into
{ALL+/-NOT} viz. the birotation of the photon
reflected in/as the {Α∞Ω} axis.
{BEG∞END}=False=Photon (NOT displaced from unity)
{BEG∞END}=True=All Else (ALL displaced from unity)

etc.

The universe employs a logic that is infallible.

Actually your "light of the world" comment necessitates a degree of belief in scripture as well as the metaphorical usage of the tree of good and evil.

I don't see it from the perspective of
(because it is in the Bible, it is true) but rather
(because it is true, it is in the Bible) hence
whatever tends to be true tends to stand
the test of time according to truth value alone,
rather than any belief-based authority.

False, everyone suffers due to entropy. Death manifests suffering and everyone dies.

Other way around: suffering manifests death.

strawman, the book is "inspired" by a Creator according to many stances. As such it is open to human expression without contradiction.

It's not, is the problem. It would take a "believer" to believe it is, is the problem.
The solution is knowing what it actually is "inspired" by (ie. its real roots).

Actually if the man is saved and reached salvation, according to the beliefs of that stance, the man is still alive. Second to bear a true witness of a dead man is to respect his memory as an act of witnessing, thus it is possible to bear true witness of a dead man.

Wow@all

"according to the beliefs..." there's the problem again.
"to respect his memory" the constituency of which is entirely imagined, thus belief-based.

Exodus 20:4 (KJV)
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth

heaven above = psychology (thoughts)
earth beneath = emotions (feelings)
water under = motor-instinct (rituals)

You may as well renounce your humanity if you're going to believe/argue
it is possible to bear a true witness of a dead man. It's actually called

'IDOL WORSHIP'

and enmity/hatred is a predominant form of it. That is why Muhammadans kill
over ridicule of their idol: they worship his image/likeness according to their own.

100 million in 100 years, under communist atheism, is a much higher rate.
The believer rate is much lower at 192,857.142857 per hundred years.

Pointing fingers elsewhere is exactly what Adam did to get kicked out of Eden.
Everything reduces into the same pathology: point fingers at others and is
precisely what the Muhammadan ideology is rooted in: blame the Jews,
the Christians, the atheists, unbelievers, infidels, the West, the Zionists etc.

Atheists believe something they do not know to be true, thus are not
indifferent from "believers". You might as well add them to the count.

Your premise is false, thus you hold incorrect beliefs, the accuser is accused.

lol what?

What premise, and what accusation? Are you salty over my finding
that you to have satisfied this condition in the past (and here) ?
It just follows naturally: those who can not face what is in themselves
blame/accuse/scapegoat onto others of the very same.

As phenomena which are constructs of consciousness, and consciousness being real, the lines and points are real as extensions of consciousness.

[Eodnhoj7]

They are real as extensions of consciousness as consciousness is real, so are the constructs through which it operates.

...extensions of your own (un)consciousness, perhaps. Local boundary condition.
Lines are useful mathematical constructs/devices, not actually constituency of the universe.

"Let there be lines," and there was lines.

I am not talking about angular velocity, I am talking about rotations.

You were talking about circumference, which is 2D.
A velocity is only 1D: a magnitude.
An angular velocity / acceleration is 2D: two magnitudes.
viz. you can not "unfurl" a 2D acceleration as a 1D velocity:
they are not even the same geometry. At best you will get a linear "vibration"
determined by the "rotations" given a period.

They are relative as the fixed point of measurement.

c (speed of light) is not relative: it is absolute.
Light "travels" from/to anyone/anything at the same "speed".

I recommend to you the work of Miles Mathis, he dug right into Relativity
and shows where it is correct and where it is not:

http://milesmathis.com/index.html
Excerpt from a paper on the ether:

What Einstein did is solve the riddle of how light can go c relative to everything. He did it by doing all the math from the point of view of outside measurers. He showed that all their measurements would be thrown off by the idea, and that this would cause time dilation and length contraction and mass increase and so on. Well, he was right. It does throw off all our measurements. But the question remains, what is really happening beneath our measurements? The standard model now takes this question to have no meaning. It is considered to be a metaphysical question. But it is not a metaphysical question. It is a valid mechanical question, and it still has an answer. Because the value for c is constant, we can answer this question, just as we were able to answer the question about simultaneity. And in both cases we must disagree with Einstein.

This is the imperative for setting the speed of light c to 1 wherein photons are not actually moving,
they are merely being carried by the progression (expansion of the universe in all directions).

Potentiality is not actuality.

Beliefs can be potentially wrong, thus actually not knowledge.
Beliefs can be potentially right, and yet actually not knowledge.

In both cases, belief is actually not knowledge. Make the two one, yea?

Implication is possibility not actuality.

lol what ?

A displaced and not displaced body necessitates a dualistic stance.

Hence the {ALL∞NOT} binary preceding the photon:
NOT Displaced = Photon
ALL Displaced = Everything Else

Duality only applies if/when displaced from unity, else not.
This is why the book of Genesis begins pre-displacement.

Remember: Φπ² is 1D electric (image) and 2D magnetic (likeness)
The Hebrew word for 'GOD' is elohim:
el - leader, towardsness
oh - conduit
im - expanse
wherein the 'im indicates plurality "Let us make Adam... in our image and our likeness... male and female... "
viz.
Φ = masculine 1D
π² = feminine 2D

Actuality it ie entirely empirical. If I empirically look at the sky and see the stars, then focus on one star with a telescope, the increase in clarity of one star resulted in the percievably ambiguity of another.

Your own subjectivism is not a grounds for empiricism.

Implication is not actuality, it is possibility. Belief based ignorance can result in one believing in the correct premise possibly as well,

Believing in a correct premise is not knowledge, it is still belief. It becomes knowledge if/when no degrees of uncertainty.
I may believe it is 72.6 degrees outside, not having measured, and possibly get it right. I didn't know until it was measured.

Explanation is description.

It is more than description, as description is not explanation.

They are extensions of the binaries then.

They are not extensions of anything: they carry/impart binary information.
The conscience is meant to do this according to discretion.

Scriptural reference necessitates a degree of belief in the metaphorical nature of scripture.

Not merely: it can be known to which degrees such literature is valid/invalid.

Negation is a falsification, one is a synonym of the otherl

...of a belief previously held to be true/possible.
Falsifying all false beliefs tends towards all-knowing.

False, as belief based ignorance "implies", according to you, an absence of knowledge it only states a possibility thus it is simultaneously possible for belief based ignorance to be correct.

Belief-based ignorance is correct: the correct root of human suffering.

Actually the chart is made up...you created it and have no proof to back it up.

Again: whatever is true doesn't need help from me.

And this logic included double negation.

There is no 'double negation' anywhere.
Space and time are discrete units, thus
discretion is (of) absolute (magnitude).

This would be the '1' in/of both
(1+√5)/2 and Φ²=(Φ+1).
The former is "irrational" thus never terminates.
The latter is both, thus "terminates" according to discretion.

The truth is in plain sight. It is a matter of perception,
hence knowledge is not the most important thing: it is conscience.
This is why yoga focuses on enhancing perception, not god.

Thus the bible can contain truth statements.

Can, and does.

False, they are simultaneously mediated through eachother and are connected.

Only according to discretion, thus may have a {BEG/END}.

Inspiree by a higher power is the answer, a higher power which can neither be disproven or proven as evidence is a subset of this power.

If some "higher power" can neither be proven nor disproven, its potency lies only in those willing to merely "believe".

Actually your stance is a set or beliefs as it is not proven.

The truth doesn't need help from me - it's ever-present.

Under your own definition your charts are idol worship as they are graven images.

No they are not, though I understand your wishing them to be.

Graven images implies that which can not be improved upon:
fixed, without blemish, unsurpassable etc.

None of this applies to the work that I do: to the contrary,
it reached where it is by constantly improving upon itself.

The accuser is accused you are pointing fingers at Islam when the numbers actually show higher rates of murder among non believers.

I use Islam because the adherents call themselves "believers" thus no accusation need be made.
There is no "numbers" that show higher rates of murder (as if that is the only form of suffering) among "non believers".
Are you just pulling whatever serves your own interest out of your own ass such to deny the reality?
Muslims have been killing both each other and non-Muslims for 1400 years
based on one single false premise/testimony and one bloody mess of a book.
Believer vs. unbeliever. "Kill the unbelievers!" That's the reality.

Athiesm is a stance of negation, it holds no beliefs.

Atheism purports there is no viable basis upon which to assert a god(s) even exist(s).

The accuser is accused, in accusing believers to manifest beleif based ignorance you follow the same accusation. Your statistics about belief based violence are false in face of a system absent of belief.

Is that all you are going to do now? Throw around that accusation?
You are sounding more and more like a child throwing in a tantrum.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything: belief is not a person, it is a state of being.
Islam is not a person, it is a collective state of being, based on a false witness.

Pathologically pointing fingers elsewhere is similarly childish
and demonstrates cognitive dissonance and/or inability to confront
the reality of the destruction caused by supremacist belief-based states
such as Islam. There is no better example to illustrate the problem of belief.

See lines are real because consciousness is real response.

[Eodnhoj7]

Lines are an extension of consciousness, thus real through the consciousness as real.

Just because you imagine something does not make it real. It's the same with belief.

If a particle rotates x rotations given a second, the rotation of the particle results in a distance much in the same manner where a hand on a clock, while rotating, travels a distance.

Rotation is not a distance, it is a magnitude about a period.
In the case of a clock, because the speed never changes, it is a scalar magnitude.
If you are thinking of the circumference again, again that is 2D. A magnitude is 1D.

Actually it has been found to change speeds:

i. Speed of Light May Not Be Constant, Physicists Say
ii. "Some scientists are a bit skeptical, though. Jay Wacker, a particle physicist at the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, said he wasn't confident about the mathematical techniques used, and that it seemed in both cases the scientists weren't applying the mathematical tools in the way that most would."
iii. The entire "virtual particles" and cult-of-quantum is nonsense

The measurement of light within a near perfect vacuum would have to occur through an observable reference point which in itself is subject to light. Light would thus both have to be instantaneous, as the reference point through which the light moved must be seen, and subject to change. Light, as self referential would manifest both one instaneoud speed and many speeds considering it is both the fixed focal point and object of change.

Light would not have to be instantaneous, it is only "seen" if/when
i. traveling at the (direction of the) observer/instrument
ii. either in the eye and/or in the instrument measuring it.

A person who is still in a car moving 60mph is still moving 60mph.

The progression is 60mph and the person is a photon. In reality, 60mph is actually just '1'.

A belief as correct is knowledge. Belief and knowledge both share the same nature as subject to a process of imprinting.

No it is not. A belief as correct is a belief not known to be true, rather merely believed.
It is believed because there are yet one or more degrees of relative uncertainty (ie. unknowns).

Knowledge is not a lottery: you either know, or you do not.
You don't get the money until you match all the numbers.

If something is implied is necessitates an "ought" not a cause, thus a possibility of what may occur.

You can not get an "ought" from an is, including is implied...
You can only get an "ought not" from an is.

False, I can choose any variable as a fixed point of measurement.

That includes relatively arbitrary/meaningless ones.

The duality as synthesized results in unity.

The unity as desynthesized results in duality.

Belief lacks uncertainty, as a matter of fact there is no knowledge which exists on it's own terms without belief. The number 1 for example, is strictly accepted as is, it is neither proven nor disproven.

Belief contains uncertainty. How are you so upside-down about this?
All knowledge concerns the negation of what would otherwise be (all) belief-based ignorance.

The number 1 is rational. It can be expressed as a ratio of integers, and even irrationals.
One can prove only '1' irrational number, if/when squared, gives itself back (irrational) plus 1 (rational).

x²-x-1=0
x=Φ

You still need to believe the senses are correct as sometimes they are decieved.

No you don't, you can know to what degrees they are not and/or limited.

Description is representation, representation is reflection, reflection is copying, copying is change, change is particulation, participation is the summation to an apex phenomenon, an apex phenomenon is an explanation as a category.

You use definites like a heroin addict uses syringes.

All truth as existing through degrees is all knowledge as subject to change and particulation.

lol what?

Tends towards it but is not it. You have no proof your theory explains anything.
It references the same thing again and again, negate belief.

Tends towards is all that is needed/intended:
orientation given a scalar rotating base of time
naturally brings one to unity as a function of time.

Potential knowledge is ignorance.

Ignorance is potential knowledge. Knowing one knows not (all) is ever-potent.

Not not belief is a double negative. Negative times a negative is a positive. Etc. All examples of double negation.

"not to" is an orientation, not a negation.
To know not... is a knowledge (tree)
not to... is an orientation
believe... is a tree.

And I am a literal yoga master. It does not result in all knowing awareness.

I know not to believe that LOL.

False, nothing can be proven or disproven as there is no standard definition as to what proof consists of....it is relative.

Much can be proven/disproven, no "standard definition" (whatever that may be) is needed.

Strawman. I said what you state as truth is not proven, as a matter of fact it can be negated.

I endeavor not to prove anything 'true', rather let the truth speak for itself.

Your work? I thought it existed beyond you and did not need you?

The truth doesn't need me, it's always there in plain sight.
I don't consider what comes to me as "mine", though my efforts
to put it in a format such to establish an orientation system
for "believers" who know not why they are suffering
to ever-cease their own suffering from within themselves
and live life in joy and bliss, rather than fear and hatred.

And non beleif in atheism has resulted in worse numbers..."ass"...someone has a touched nerve

Are you borrowing my rhetoric again? It's okay, you can play with it.
It is interesting to me to witness how people deal with enmity.

Atheism is a negation of beleif in a higher entity.

In its place, the belief there is viable basis upon which to assert there is a god.
I may assert there is no god to believe in, yet neither be a theist nor atheist.

There goes the projection.

I'll take that as a 'yes'. I understand it is all you have.

And this state of being is humanity itself.

And humanity is suffering, hence CKIIT addressing 'from whence human suffering?'.

False, the numbers prove atheism as more threatening than Islam. You keep bringing Islam up as if you have some magic theory that somehow negates Islam and will cause the world to change. In reality the theory is a response to Islam and Beliefs.

What numbers? You keep saying "the numbers" as if its deity. I see no numbers.

If you "believe" atheism is more threatening than Islam, you are delusional.
Islam is the global root of Nazism/fascism/socialism. Hitler was/is as the archetypal dictator warlord
who used political subversion and subjugation to establish a military state which perpetually
wages holy war "jihad" against "unbelievers" until the entire world is ruled by only Islam.
This is "globalism" and the Muslim Brotherhood controls just about all media. The key:
Islam is rooted in the Canaanite mentality of scapegoating their own crimes onto "Jews"
thus by studying the substance of the accusations Muhammdans make against Jews, one may find
that the substance of those accusations are actually owing to the House of Islam.
This includes the COVID-19 retaliation against China for declaring Islam an infection illness (=true).
Thus the Muslim Brotherhood/Khazarian Mafia blames the U.S. and Jews for their own crimes against humanity.

I know the origins of the Qur'an, Islam and an accurate account of the historical "Muhammad".
I know that what Muslims are being indoctrinated to "believe"by their own leaders is
both egregiously false and incredibly divisive/destructive "us vs. them".

How many Muslims know Mecca did not exist in the time of Muhammad - that they are being lied to by their own leaders?
All mosques' qiblas constructed ~100 years after the death of Muhammad are facing Petra and not Mecca. How many Muslims know that?
How many Muslims know the Qur'an is evolved from Syriac (not Arabic) Christian (not Islamic) strophic hymns (not "revelations")?
What is the gravity of "believing" a single (man-made) book, a single (dead) man, a single "belief"-based ideology is/are the most supreme objects?

The gravity of their ignorance is contained in the shahada - a necessarily false witness.
"BELIEVER vs. UNBELIEVER"
If: shahada=True, conflict=perpetual
If: shahada=False, conflict=not perpetual

Your pointing fingers at others is not going to derail the focus:
no other ideological state on the planet (including "atheism")
has done anywhere near the damage Islam has done to humanity.

False, that which is imagined is real as imagined. Considering consciousness is real all imagined entities take on some form of truth value as extensions of said consciousness.