EU Meetup May 1st, 2018

By Foteini Tyraski*  

When I first watched a TV program, referring to the Greek Language Code, it was a revelation for me. Everything I heard, was so familiar, not because it was about my language, but because all this knowledge I’ve collected through my field of study, all this knowledge that connects Art with Nature, sprang alive in front of my eyes. All of a sudden, the letters have been converted to «ideograms», that not only they had (according to the Code) a univocal meaning-interpretation, but also their graph emitted this significance and there could not be another shape for each, in order to confirm their sense.

At this point, I should give you some examples: When we want to define a space, even “by gesture”, we make a circle. If you exclude our modern times that people lack of contact with Nature, the ancient settlements, the primitive huts, our planet (as home), even the human sense for space, «from one’s mother’s womb», have the shape of a circle.

So, the letter that could better describe space is Ο(Omicron), which, according to the Greek Language Code, means a particular space or area of all sizes.

Another letter, relative to as a graph, is Φ(Phi). Letter Φ describes a space (Ο), that is «bisected» by a vertical line. So, before we decode Φ, we’ll have a look on this line, which is a Ι(Iota). A vertical line as an optical symbolism in Art-Nature field, is a line of action and motion, considering also the fact, that the human eye “reads” in its optical field from top to bottom. . According to the Greek Language Code, Ι describes the descent of a small quantity of force, light or radiation that constantly supplies… …

So, if we complete our phrase in order to understand the letter Φ, we’ll say: (Ι) the descent of a small quantity of force, light or radiation that constantly supplies (Ο) a space. This is exactly the code meaning of light, as, according to Dr Simaioforos, Φ means the Light.

The letter Ρ(Rho) represents a space Ο, from which the radiation of an Ι (Iota) is “flowing”, so Ρ, rightly, means the flow (Ρ = flowing of energy, radiation, liquid).

When children draw the sun, they make a circle with rays (just like the shapes below):

ELLIN LOGOS - Foteini Tyraski

The letter that exactly expresses the Solar radiation, is Λ(Lambda), and it is defined so, by the Greek Alphabet Code, as Λ = Solar radiation and liquids in Nature (when referring to forces on Earth). When we close the shape of Λ (Λ-Δ) we create a triangle, just like a dynamic energy field and the letter Δ (Delta) is created, which, according to the Code, expresses Δ = Power-Force that constructs and creates.

The letter Α (Alpha) means the Primary Force and schematically it is a complex letter, as Λ and Δ are embedded. This shows that we perceive this Primary Force through Solar radiation.

The letter Ε(Epsilon), by Code, expresses the sense of Motion-Movement-Course-Expansion and it’s easy to comprehend it, if we consider that when we call somebody from afar, we use it, (Hey… you! Hey Alex…). So, when phonetically using Ε… and sometimes, along with a tense of our hands towards someone, shows the effort of our existence to expand and communicate with the person that is away.

As for Μ (Mu), in shape, shows two Lambda (ΛΛ) united, which corresponds to the following information: Double amount of solar radiation leads to such condensation of matter, so that we can see things and creatures. Indeed, according the Greek Alphabet Code, Μ is the Visible Nature.

According to the philosophy of this Code, the consonants are divided in two groups, the celestials and the earthly (see related tables in www.ramafa.gr). This helps us separate, conceptually, the actions and properties of letters.

The letter Τ (Tau), according to the Code, means Τ = Consolidation, Firmament of force-radiation so, as an earthly consonant, its horizontal line refers to the ground level. All the force that governs this letter, acts under the surface of the earth, but because of the concentration of the earthen material, this force is consolidated.

Π (Pi), according to the Code is a celestial consonant, so its horizontal line refers to the sky-heaven level. The two vertical lines are the energy suppliers and surround all that is “under His protection”. The letter Π, means primarily Father God and secondarily Fire – the first element of Creation.

The letter Θ (Theta) describes a space (Ο) bisected by an horizontal line. This line expresses a level (for example: the horizon).

If we look to the horizon through a telescope we see a Θ, where Θ, according to the Code, means Viewing.

Ζ (Zeta), by shape, describes the power of thunderbolt that is charging earth and according to Dr Simaioforos’ Code, Ζ is Life and Heat-Warmth.

Τhe letter Υ (Upsilon), with its shape like funnel, expresses Υ = Concentration, Accumulation of radiation-energy, by its Code meaning.

The letter Η (Eta) is two Ι iota united (Ι+Ι), so in this case we exclude the information following: Since Ι describes the descent of a small quantity of force, light or radiation that constantly supplies… when this small quantity becomes greater, it becomes also visible.

According to the Greek Alphabet Code, Η means Appearance-Revelation.

Taking under consideration that language is a living organism, we could imagine that it has “flesh and bones”. This part of “bones”, which is the main structure of a word and the basis of its meaning, is played by the consonants. So the part of the “flesh”, which is the voice and the light of the word, is played by the vowels. The Greek Language has more vowels than any other language, so, when talking in Greek, we emit more light, using all range of 7 colors. We hear 7 musical notes, we see 7 colours, we have 7 energy centers and the vowels of the Greek Alphabet are 7.

Counting the human spine, we realize that the cervical vertebrae corresponding to the vocal chords are 7 (as many as the vowels of the Greek Alphabet), while the thoracic and lumbar vertebrae are 17 (just as many as the consonants…). The human body has the same ratio of water to Earth, while the number of days of the year is 10 times more than humans’ temperature (measured in Celsius scale).

The human body is structured according to Nature and the physical Laws of our planet. So when we consciously use a language that reflects and obeys these Laws, we live in better terms with each other and our environment, we become cleverer, and we walk the highway of Philosophy, mother of all sciences, no matter what’s the educational level of each, which is a road to improvement of a person, from human to “Anthropos”.

In my opinion, Greek Language is the Solar Language that enlightens people’s minds. You don’t need to be a Greek citizen or to have been born in a country called Greece, to be EΛΛHN. Every seeker of the Truth on this planet, using his logic, has the potential to become ΕΛΛΗΝ.

By the word itself, we can learn what ΕΛΛΗΝ means, which is “the Enlighted Mind-Intellect”.

After decoding the letters, using the Greek Language Code, the meaning of the word is revealed:

Ε = Motion-Movement-Course-Expansion of

ΛΛ = a double (great) quantity of Solar radiation (enlightment)

Η = that is revealed

Ν = into the Mind and by Law.

We are the blessed generation of people, that are able to use the Wisdom of our ancestors, not only the inheritance of 2.500 years old, but also all very ancient –way back in time- scriptures, myths, names and words, that secretly keep cosmogonic philosophic, theological and scientific Knowledge-information, travelling in time, left hidden for us to discover…

Frashokereti

to Neil
These are great - btw:

Qu. 16. When a Man in the dark presses either corner of his Eye with his Finger, and turns his Eye away from his Finger, he will see a Circle of Colours like those in the Feather of a Peacock's Tail. If the Eye and the Finger remain quiet these Colours vanish in a second Minute of Time, but if the Finger be moved with a quavering Motion they appear again. Do not these Colours arise from such Motions excited in the bottom of the Eye by the Pressure and Motion of the Finger, as, at other times are excited there by Light for causing Vision? And do not the Motions once excited continue about a Second of Time before they cease? And when a Man by a stroke upon his Eye sees a flash of Light, are not the like Motions excited in the Retina by the stroke? And when a Coal of Fire moved nimbly in the circumference of a Circle, makes the whole circumference appear like a Circle of Fire; is it not because the Motions excited in the bottom of the Eye by the Rays of Light are of a lasting nature, and continue till the Coal of Fire in going round returns to its former place? And considering the lastingness of the Motions excited in the bottom of the Eye by Light, are they not of a vibrating nature?

http://inters.org/newton-opticks-queries

© Houston Zoo/Stephanie Adams

From Juan Calsiano

On 18 April 2018 at 02:08, Jim Weninger <jwen1@yahoo.com> wrote:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.05722.pdf

Interesting. Yes, you told me about this before.
 I hope you guys can see that this “ self-healing” or “self reconstructing” property, is one of the most important aspects of a Bessel Gaussian filament.
Indeed. It is a quality typical (to a greater or lesser extent) of all homeostatic / autopoietic units in a very wide range of domains, not just plasma filaments.

   It’s the only way we can argue for catastrophic changes in the solar system, and also recurring cycles on all scales, over vast periods of time.

Absolutely the only way? I wouldn't say that. Quite a dangerous thing to say, in general. But one way, indeed, that should be considered in catastrophic reconstruction.

  The significance is not that a Bessel function filament merely returns to another Bessel function filament after a disruption, but resolves to nearly The same Bessel function filament.
Various articles will state  things like “ a packet traveling along such a filament will restore itself to the same spatial-temporal profile” or “the same intensity profile”, etc.

Cool, yes.

There is overwhelming evidence for things like the 41,000 year obliquity cycle to show up also in climate or fossil records.  Yet there is also overwhelming evidence for catastrophic changes in the past.  This is not a paradox, once you accept that our solar system propagates along a Bessel Gaussian beam.
But specifically a “self- healing, self restoring” Bessel Gaussian beam.

That is one possible causative factor that should be carefully assessed and compared to the other various mechanisms that have already been posed to explain catastrophic observations (e.g. see Cardona, van der Sluijs, Cook, etc.), and the other currently unknown mechanisms that have not been considered yet. Catastrophic reconstruction is still at its infancy, relatively speaking. You can only progress so far without the whole community working in a synergistic fashion to find out what happened. First we need to fix the scientific engine, only then there is a chance to get such details right.

From Jim Weninger Wed, April 18, 2018

An excellent topic, and anyone can email me ahead of time with questions, insights,data,pet theories, etc

Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 18, 2018, at 5:52 AM, Edo Kael <edwinkaal00@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Y'all,

 
Would "formation and life cycle of the stars" be an option as a topic?
 
Edo

From Edo

Hi Y'all,

Just to throw in my two cents and not even sure what this is all about (yet) but my eye feel on the idea of finding "gold" in science.
That is something is think is for real and there is in my mind lots of gems, gold and other stuff to be found still. lots!
 
Re: "1) How will the system "choose" between different mavericks, each having a different take on the same topic? I mean, if you go to the NPA archives for example, you will notice a whole lot of people arguing for different conclusions about the same topic (redshift, nature of atoms, gravity, etc.)." 
 
I noticed this quite a bit... My thinking is that in the end it comes down to this:
- most if not all are wrong, (lots of ego, which is normal)
- most if not all are working on fixed ideas (also unconsciously),
- those pioneers free of this do not agree because in reality there is too much we do not know and we have no clue about the fundamentals of our reality.
- and...  that which is true should be able to resist the fire! meaning all the others will decide what is true and what is not. in the end the truth (realistic or not) is what we accept as truth. A scientific model is not going to be completed any time soon me thinks and we handle uncertainty very poorly. We need to fill in the blanks it seems, even if it is not correct.
 
Until that time comes we will argue, fight, roll-over, and bug each other. And that is not so bad to be honest, i dread the idea that there would be nothing to discover...
Fortunately this universe is so big, complex and seemingly unlimited, we would not have enough time anyhow before we go into the big unknown.......
---------------------------------------------------
From Jim
to Juan, Chris, dj
 
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.05722.pdf

I hope you guys can see that this “ self-healing” or “self reconstructing” property, is one of the most important aspects of a Bessel Gaussian filament.
It’s the only way we can argue for catastrophic changes in the solar system, and also recurring cycles on all scales, over vast periods of time.
The significance is not that a Bessel function filament merely returns to another Bessel function filament after a disruption, but resolves to nearly The same Bessel function filament.
Various articles will state  things like “ a packet traveling along such a filament will restore itself to the same spatial-temporal profile” or “the same intensity profile”, etc.

There is overwhelming evidence for things like the 41,000 year obliquity cycle to show up also in climate or fossil records.  Yet there is also overwhelming evidence for catastrophic changes in the past.  This is not a paradox, once you accept that our solar system propagates along a Bessel Gaussian beam.
But specifically a “self- healing, self restoring” Bessel Gaussian beam.

 
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Jim Weninger

7:53 PM (3 hours ago)

 
to ChrisJuanDavid
 
The question I have, is how to get around the language barrier between disciplines.

  You may already know the similarities between the biologist’s “bilayers”, the astrophysicist’s “ionization fronts”, the plasma physicist’s “double layers”, etc.
  Yet while there are multiple tools to translate, for example, a German word into Spanish or English, it is difficult to find a translator that can show the near equivalence of these simple terms.
  So you end up with molecular biologists studying “spherically concentric bilayers composed of alternating layers of opposite charge”, and the stellar astrophysicists studying “ spherically concentric ionization fronts” again with alternating charged layers, and very few realizing they are talking about the same structure, just on a different scale.
   How do we get around that?
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 17, 2018, at 6:17 PM, Chris Reeve <plasmasrevenge@yahoo.com> wrote:

 
Re: "1) How will the system "choose" between different mavericks, each having a different take on the same topic? I mean, if you go to the NPA archives for example, you will notice a whole lot of people arguing for different conclusions about the same topic (redshift, nature of atoms, gravity, etc.)."
 
The point of the system is not so much to judge, but rather to frame the debate in a manner which convinces people to start tracking it.  Consensus is not as important as participation and engagement.  The public today has no interest in learning about controversial science.  Part of the objective is to change that.
 
That said, I think the failure to coalesce results from the absence of a system for sharing archetypal critiques.  It's like if nobody identified Shakespeare or the other many historical authors, but then carried on trying to reason about literature.  The way we have been taught science does not value these best critiques, and I would argue that this deprives these groups of their ability to come to agreement on how modern science is dysfunctional.  My hope is that making the controversy cards available as annotations will induce more consensus over time.  It's part of the intent.
 
Re: "2) How will you make sure that "maverick thought leaders" will understand the basics of controversial discourse before starting to grind their axes? In other words, how to make sure that they will not grind their axis at all, but instead they will think as scientists ought to think, i.e. unemotionally going wherever evidence and logic leads them, no matter how invested they are in their maverick ideas?"
 
Everybody is at all times at different stages of development.  The point of the infrastructure is to set into motion certain beneficial processes which will be guided by benevolent dictators.  One of these processes is necessarily educational.  The premise is that people will learn as they participate.  The idea takes my observations of the Thunderbolts Group's existing communications, and adds some things into the mix which I perceive as both missing and needed.  At certain times, moderators have to take decisive actions (and not everybody will agree about it).  But, if the participants agree that the community is generally worth their time, they will continue to participate even if the system is imperfect.
 
Re: "3) Exactly how will the system moderate for the activities of the hordes of status quo defenders who will undoubtedly try to destroy the endeavor? Whatever is done regarding this, it should be extremely effective. They are a lot, and they can be nasty."
 
There can be different ground rules for the worldview and model levels.  Experts can rule their own model-level turf, but then those special powers might not do them any favors when it comes to clashes of worldviews.  When we are designing the system, we have a lot of power over how the system functions.  The infrastructure is there to skew matters into the right direction, but a process for scaling these processes should be built in.  Burning Man is sort of a model for how this can work, even though it is not an app.
 
chris
On Tuesday, April 17, 2018, 4:09:21 PM PDT, Juan Calsiano <juancalsiano@gmail.com> wrote:
 
 
Chris,

You know well that you are a league on your own regarding these matters. You are thinking about your project at a level that is impossible to completely follow you. Even if I've been following your project for a while already, I am unable to fully imagine the whole system in my mind by just reading your description of its main features. From what I can understand and visualize, however, it really does seem to have the potential to change things.

Anyway, I think I will need to start using it a bit before being able to provide much feedback, yet you are wisely asking feedback now, so that doesn't help.

Well, let's start with some basic questions:
 
1) How will the system "choose" between different mavericks, each having a different take on the same topic? I mean, if you go to the NPA archives for example, you will notice a whole lot of people arguing for different conclusions about the same topic (redshift, nature of atoms, gravity, etc.). Let's assume that they all want to join the website and have their own "twitter clone". How to choose the "thought leader" on each topic? Once chosen, how to know if later the spot should be given to a different "thought leader"? If you will have multiple "thought leaders" on each topic, how you will avoid the chaos of ideas that will possibly ensue?
 
2) How will you make sure that "maverick thought leaders" will understand the basics of controversial discourse before starting to grind their axes? In other words, how to make sure that they will not grind their axis at all, but instead they will think as scientists ought to think, i.e. unemotionally going wherever evidence and logic leads them, no matter how invested they are in their maverick ideas?

3) Exactly how will the system moderate for the activities of the hordes of status quo defenders who will undoubtedly try to destroy the endeavor? Whatever is done regarding this, it should be extremely effective. They are a lot, and they can be nasty.
 
By the way, "Science Collective" is a great choice.


On 16 April 2018 at 14:30, Chris Reeve <plasmasrevenge@yahoo.com> wrote:

Here is my current thinking on what needs to be done with the Controversies of Science site in order to transform it into a participatory social network where controversies are mapped out over time.  I try to identify the long-term vision before deciding priorities (some of these ideas would take decades to complete).  I'd love any feedback that people might have about it, if you can spare the time to read and think about this.  There are huge advantages to getting this right as early as possible, so I'll be keeping my mind open to feedback for as long as possible, even if I begin some of the setup and merging of these two codebases right now.
 
 
chris
 
 
Becoming Borealis 2018