Clouds In The Sky & Ideas In The Mind

Clouds in the sky are made of tiny droplets of water.

Ideas in the mind have to be made of tiny droplets of water mixed with bodily chemicals along with how pictures are created by electromagnetic pulses. Why? Well, let’s just say that the brain really, really loves water and electricity. When we go to sleep, that world you see is produced by 99% water. This 99% water comes in a form called Melatonin, which comes from Serotonin. Serotonin is produced by - drum roll please! - amoebas. The point of excretion when it comes to our human body is the pineal gland. The pineal gland which allows us to have this “imagination”, also creates the world we “dream”. Our brain bathes in cerebral spinal fluid.

  • Edit: Cerebellum concept was debunked.

That being said, now that we know that a very magnificent chemical is able to replicate a physical tool of the brain that is made from 99% water, let me explain why water is the only thing that makes sense when it comes to dreams, pictures and ideas. Water reflects… Let me repeat that, just in case your brain cells were too busy ramming heads. Water “reflects”. There is a very mandatory trait to this Universe, and that can be found in our eyes, in cameras, in mirrors and in water. We are able to see ourselves and capture ourselves because our physical body is not unique to the relativity of the rest of the Universe. That is why our voice can be drowned out by other noises - we’re not unique to the Universe’s aspects physical and non-physical. Therefore, it would only make sense that water is also allowing us to see what we see because our brain plays back the appearances of the world on the surface of these droplets inside of the brain which creates what is a projection and a projector via water and electricity on a very complicated level that truly deserves a more detailed explanation. But the fundamental data is right here in conjunction with the rest I’ve said, therefore there’s no need to complicate what is already simplified.

So now that I explained to you the advanced knowledge of water, electricity, brain, chemicals and dreams, let’s take all of this and put it together!

The clouds in the sky are either calm or stormy.

The ideas in our mind are either calm or stormy.

There are times when the sky is clear; there are times when the sky is filled.

There are times when our mind is clear; there are times when the mind is filled.

The clouds when electrically modified according to nature’s wrath, creates an electrical storm.

The ideas when electrically modified according to nature’s wrath, creates an electrical storm.

When the clouds are not electrically active, they are boring and stale.

When our minds are not electrically active, they are boring and stale.

When the clouds grow dark, they release tension to give us rain.

When our minds grow dark, they release tension to give us tears.

When a cloud does not release its tension, it… tends to… uhh… bind with other clouds that don’t release their tension, which leads to… destruction after calm before the storm.

When an idea does not release its tension, it… tends to… uhh… bind with other people’s ideas that don’t release their tension, which leads to… destruction after calm before the storm.

One more thing to take into consideration. Observe a jellyfish: snag.gy/BCHFK.jpg (As you can see, not only does the mushroom look like the shape of a jellyfish, but these mushrooms look like our fingers. Furthermore, if we did evolve from this mushroom in some strange universal way, these mushrooms are “young”, which means they are recent and so are we. If you don’t see how our fingers are like mushrooms, here let me help you. Get on all fours you slave, see? Your fingers are now on the ground and where do mushrooms grow again? Lastly, if you still don’t see it. I will give you one last piece of the puzzle then you figure it out because I did all of the work already. Our fingers are connected to our entire body, meaning doctors can tell every disease by our fingers alone - get this, mushrooms are connected to the entire forest channel as well). So as you can see, our brain, mushrooms and jellyfishes have a lot in common - too much in common. It’s almost as if the every creature in this world is a part of some strange universal mix of personality, like the Elvis Presley tranny fish wearing make-up like women do or how humans wash their hands like a fly.

Interestingly enough, if you take out clouds from the sky, there will be no rain, no storm, no creation/destruction. If you took out the ideas from the mind, there will be no emotion, no storm, no creation/destruction.

Coincidence?

Yes. If you take 2 incidences and compare them, they are co-incidental. Realize not giving proper justice , therefore will come back to it at a later time. Interesting and well done analogy, though.

It’s not apophenia (a.k.a correlation =/= causation).

I am the first person on this planet to shut down C =/= C immediately.

I hate making false connections more than anyone.

If this was apophenia, Science wouldn’t be its friend.

I have Science backing me up.

Science? This?

Let’s see how many end up feeding the troll before he gets noticed as one :evilfun:

It’s 100% Science.

My theory on ideas/clouds is no different than the proceeding information.

Look at this picture: snag.gy/uBRG7.jpg

Now apply that wisdom to these pictures: snag.gy/wpONw.jpg

Still skeptical? The photo receptors scientifically proven to reside within our eyes emerged from this Universe billions of years ago before stars emerged to capture our experiences today. What does this galaxy look like to you: snag.gy/1ark8.jpg

Now I hope your brain’s stem is between your membranes after your snarky response. You couldn’t be anymore universally illiterate.

I wonder if people think we’re joking when we say we’re the universe experiencing itself. The eye alone should tell them something, let alone the brain cells and cell birth/creation.

It’s the micro to macro.

I can understand why the majority can’t. They’re living in dead space - no information - no knowledge - no transcendence - no tension - no evolution - no progress - nothing. Ignorance is legitimately “dark matter” on a human scale. Can’t say the Universe is experiencing itself, when people are below fecal matter in productivity - at least fecal matter serves as a fertilizer. What good are excuses, lies and exaggerations? Oh yeah, nothing.

I’m sure that it has been 100% peer reviewed then! Give me the linky to the peer reviewed research paper!

So I guess you’re also one of those people that thinks stuff like “evil” = “live” backwards is of cosmic significance.

Or worse, you think of such people as loonies while engaging in same selective thinking yourself, which would be just precious :laughing:

I’m already familiar with such similarities, but you’re just jumping to conclusions.

EDIT: Isn’t it a little ironic how I’m the first one to actually fall into his troll trap and try to reason with him after what I said :-k

Evil and live are words. They have no physical connection to the universal laws of nature. They’re just sounds we created to represent an idea.

My data consists of mathematical design and physical evidence backed up by Science.

The fact that you compared my consensus to something like live/evil, really shows the capacity of your comprehension.

If by that you mean vague similarities, yes.

The fact that you jump to conclusions with such certainty shows the capacity of YOUR comprehension.

I asked for a link to the peer reviewed scientific paper, since you claim it is “100% scientific”. If you fail to provide it again I know just how seriously I should take you from now on.

Math is not a vague similarity. Math is legitimately how the Universe works on a subatomic level. Hence: Fibonacci Sequence [“f” represents numbers from the Fibonacci Sequence]:

Practical Implication - 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55? and 89?

Planetary Implication - 0 (Moonless Mercury) 1 (Moonless Venus) 1 2 (Earth & Mars) 5 (Pluto) 14(?) (5+8f=13/Neptune) 27 (14+13f=27/Uranus) 62 (27+14+21f=62/Saturn) 70 (Jupiter)

The “Solar System Was Shuffled Between Earth, Mars and Pluto For A Reason” Theory: 70 - 62 = 8. 1 + 2 + 5 = 8. The Solar System was Shuffled, that is why the planet’s moons are in a weird order. When you put the planets in order of having least moons to having most moons, you will see that this theory is connecting the Planet System to the Fibonacci Sequence. Not only that, but the two are “intertwined”.

You don’t even understand 1% of this genius work. You just call it nothing because YOUR BRAIN can’t make the connections. You calling it nothing when you can’t comprehend it is equivalent to a child going to a museum and calling art nothing, because this kid’s brain has NO VALUE IN RELATION TO ART. So I would leave immediately, before you dig your hole more. I will not tolerate your will to ignorance and your need to bring people down despite you having zero comprehension of THEIR WORK that they spent YEARS PIECING TOGETHER, just so you can go up to a kid’s amazing sand castle and ruin it because YOU can’t BUILD ANYTHING REMOTELY CLOSE TO IT.

Go play Minecraft you pathetic griefer.

Still no link to the peer reviewed scientific research to your topic. Only amateurish mistakes and misconceptions coupled by a high degree of condescending insults and arrogance. Perhaps worse of all, you misrepresent the other person’s argument and put words in their mouth.

I gave you the chance to prove you’re more than a trollish, liar ignorant of basic logic. You wasted it, and you wasted more than enough of my time.

You’re the first one I’ve added to my ignore list in a long time. Enjoy your stay.

Number of moons per planet, arranged from least to most:

0, 0, 1, 2, 5, 14, 27, 62, 67

( Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Pluto, Neptune, Uranus, Saturn, Jupiter )

Actual Fibonacci sequence:
0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34…

Conclusion: your theory is wrong.

I call bullshit.

*Additionally, the real reason planets have different numbers of moons is connected to their size and location relative to each other: the sun would strip away any moon from Mercury or Venus, while Saturn and Jupiter are so massive they collect many moons in their gravity. Also they are out by the asteroid belt, collecting plenty of things into their orbit over billions of years, and incidentally keeping the inner solar system more free of random asteroids.

Let’s look at number of moons per planet with respect to planetary gravity/mass (since you like math and numerical comparisons so much)–

Mass of planets smallest to largest:

1.3x10^22 (Pluto)
3.3x10^23 (Mercury)
6.42x10^23 (Mars)
4.87x10^24 (Venus)
5.98x10^24 (Earth)
8.68x10^25 (Uranus)
1.02x10^26 (Neptune)
5.69x10^26 (Saturn)
1.9x10^27 (Jupiter)

Oh look, a loose correlation between planet mass and the number of its moons. How strange.

Sigh, look at this picture:

This explains how you properly write the formula.

It’s not just moon count alone, as you wrote it. It’s the moon count intertwined with the Fibonacci Sequence.

So it’s more like this (f represents cross-formulating): 0 1 1 2 3(f) 5 8(f) 13 21(f) 34… Everything that sits next to “(f)” means the number was cross-related to the Fibonacci Sequence, hence why the formulas look like this: 0 (Moonless Mercury) 1 (Moonless Venus) 1 2 (Earth & Mars) 5 (Pluto) 14(?) (5+8f=13/Neptune) 27 (14+13f=27/Uranus) 62 (27+14+21f=62/Saturn).

As you can see, there are numbers that belong to both the planet count and the Fibonacci sequence in chronological order (this means I couldn’t pull a random number out of any part of the sequence; I pulled numbers in order of which each number came per planet moon count and Fibonacci number, which makes my formula 100% legit).

The formula I provided allows you to come up with a sum which coincidentally equals the next planet’s moon count. That’s genius work. If you don’t want to be patient, you’re not fit to understand genius work which is built entirely on patience, passion and omni-reverence. Your loss, not mine. I have a formula that works on a universal scale - you don’t even have an argument.

That makes no sense at all. If you are actually trying to explain something, you need to take a step back and start from a rational base. For instance, explain that graphic, and what “cross-referencing” means, specifically. Maybe in your mind this makes sense, but no one else has any idea what you are trying to say.

I will choose to assume you are interested in helping others understand what you are saying because, well, if you aren’t then this is all a huge waste of your time. In which case, and to be honest, you seem not very good at explaining yourself. Either I am not capable of understanding you, or you are confused and spouting nonsense connections that are meaningless, or you just don’t know how to communicate your ideas very well.

Since I know it isn’t the first option, it must be one of the latter two. I’ll reserve judgment, of course, because you do seem like you have something to say.

So let’s start from scratch, at least you and I. ILP is a cesspool and almost nothing significant ever arises here, so I am going to ignore everything else and just give you what I do not understand at this point, so you can see exactly where I am and, if you choose to, you can educate me:

I do not understand that image of numbers and connecting lines that you posted - an explanation or a link I can read would be nice. For instance, why does 16 connect to 5? Why does 64 connect to 21? 10 to 3? Etc.

I also do not know what you mean by cross-referencing some of the numbers - what is being “referenced” and why only some of the Fibonacci sequence are referenced in that way but not others?

Maybe if you put effort into the formula and the graph, you’d realize just how simple this Universe really is! You aren’t making the connections because you’re not trying. You need to stop being a stubborn wad of existential ignorance and grow up, expand, evolve from your current state. Your attitude is not very desiring and your approach is hasty, inconsiderate and spiteful because YOU can’t comprehend the work I put on the TABLE for you to see for yourself. I’m sorry, but handing a child the solutions to the trigonometry questions they tried to answer isn’t going to help them understand the formulas any better. You need the right field of knowledge to understand how it all works. Answers don’t show you how it works, it’s just showing the end result. If you can’t connect Point A to Point Z, then you do not have the capacity to be telling me what I don’t know.

So all I can do is answer what questions you throw at me, so I’ll do that because I WANT to teach you, but you need to let go of your childish stimuli and stop holding yourself back because YOU assume because YOU can’t understand something, it’s the other person’s fault, when it’s really not… For genius works like this, not even intellectual people can catch on that well, but they do over a quicker span of time, thus you can learn, but first you must acknowledge that you have room to learn. In other words, an empty glass is a future for any beverage - a full glass has no room for other beverages. The brain is the same way. You’re going to have to ask me deep questions on this subject - questions one can only ask when they truly are aware of their own lack of knowledge.

So for now: 16 connects to 5 because the difference is 9. Are you familiar with “3, 6 and 9”? Research Nikola Tesla, he was obsessed with it.

Look on the right side where the lines connect to other relation points after 20 - 40 > 17. What is the difference here? 27. What did I say above? 9. Now look, 9, 18, 27.

Keep going up-right down the relation points until you hit 17 - 52 - 104. What is the difference of 52 and 17? 35. 9, 18, 27, 36. 1 off from 35. I suspect the reason why the damn numbers are SLIGHTLY off, is because space is not mathematically “whole” - it has “decimal” points, hence the “golden ratio” and “pi”. So in reality, there are “negative” numbers behind the whole numbers which eventually kicks up one of the numbers, hence why it’s 1 off, not 12 off, 25 off, 5 off - only 1. My formula is demonstrating the same “1 off” complex, which has to be the decimals behind the whole numbers. Riemann’s Hypothesis is evidence that the Universe is using both “whole” numbers and “fraction” numbers, or “phantom” numbers.

Do you understand the graph now? This graph is demonstrating my planet theory, an advanced version of the Fibonacci Sequence, how space bends the numbers, how there are decimals behind the whole numbers, and how the numbers are following a “2x multiplication” and a “9” system. Also, the numbers that break down instead of double are divided by 1/3. Keep in mind about the formula 1, 4 7; 2, 5 8; 3, 6 9. They are all in 3’s. The golden ratio is a “triangle”, a.k.a three sides. The positioning of the moon and our planet is mathematically designed as a “triangle”. The Universe, really, really, loves 3’s.

The difference between 16 and 5 is 11.

Also, but not to get too far ahead, you didn’t address my question about what you mean by “cross-formulating” and why only some of the Fibonacci numbers are cross-formulated but others are not.

That is a HUGE mistake. I’m blushing right now, how embarrassing! I forgot the grand finale of that part of my post for some reason! Yes, of course, it’s 11. What I forgot to say, again for some reason… Is that the Universe may seem like it goes over “10”, but it’s not. It’s simply multiplications of single digit numbers, a.k.a 1~9. That’s what I was meaning to say. 11 is actually 1 + 1 (there is no 10). 2 minus 11 = 9. You have to keep in mind that the Universe in that graph is following a (-) and (+) system, which is why the numbers were subtracted on one side and added on another. That’s why it’s not 11 + 13, but 11 - 2. It’s all cross-referential. The unique mathematical systems are intertwined. Ugh, again, I apologize. That rarely happens, but I was talking to someone while writing that and I think I said that part very loud in my head instead of typing it out.

Cross-formulating is based on understanding that when you reach a dead end, if you look at the other mathematical systems in chronological order, the number - the very number that you need, is in chronological order, while every other number before and after does not fit the formula, meaning there is a mathematical tie to the planet’s moons, how my theory of rearranging the planets makes sense, the Fibonacci Sequence, the graph, the design behind the graph via the many different functions of the numbers and why they result in the next numbers, so on.

Ok that is very cool. Give me some time to think on all this.

In this sequence in the picture, 21-42-84-168… why does 84 not split off rightward to 28 starting a new chain 28-56-112, then with 112 splitting into 37 rightward and continuing to double on…? Splitting off by 1/3 always occurs when the division leaves a remainder of 1, is the answer; immediately forming an odd number which subsequently immediately doubles to become even, then continues the even chain upward until splitting off again by [(x-1)/3], starting it all over.

So where is Fibonacci in this?

Each number n in the Fibonacci is actually doubling to get to its n+1, just as numbers in your picture are doubling, except for the formula is then leaving a likewise remainder subtracted out but a remainder now equal, not to 1, but to exactly the value of the number n-2 in that Fibonacci. 144 doubles but its n+1 is actually 288-55 (55 being the n-2 of 144) to = 233. So Fibonacci correlates to the process going on in your picture in that each is a serial process of doubling with a given remainder value each time, except that Fibonacci limits itself to its previous series as its remainder is always the n-2 of that series n, so Fibonacci is “limited” or bound and self-bound; also in your picture you illustrate the continuing doubling lines even after the process splits off. Technically the same formulation of Fibonacci would look like a similar “wheel” with 1 at the center, 1,2,3,5,8,… but where would it split off to expand beyond the linear development? it has defined its remainder minus the doubling-value as its own n-2, so in fact it cannot “split off” at all, it would merely copy itself ad infinitum.

So I guess the question at this point would be, why the remainder of 1? What is significant about setting the remainder value of 1 for causing the doubling process to split off from itself forming a new doubling series chain?