Thread: Vortex math and sacred vortex geometry: Romain Carreno

1. Vortex math and sacred vortex geometry: Romain Carreno

A discussion on the validity of what we identify as our numbers system, brought to you by Romain Carreno interviewed by Peter Van Runt.

A combination of Marko Rodin’s vortex maths and sacred geometry describing reality from the micro to the macro.

Published on Aug 4, 2014

Hello everyone, my name is Roman and I’m a researcher and director of the Math and Sacred Geometry free academy of the New Earth Nation

I always wondered why we live in such a chaotic world, so I studied everything I could until I made an amazing discovery so simple and so profound that it could forever change the perception that we have of our world and civilisation.
What if our decimal system was not exactly right?

As a musician I always wondered why after Do, Re, Mi, Fa Sol, La, Si there was again Do, Re, Mi, Fa Sol, La, Si and again Do, Re, Mi, Fa Sol, La, Si with a harmonic principle, and why after 1,2,3,4,5,,6,7,8,9 there was 10,11,12,13 and so on with no repetition…

I also always wondered why the multiplication principle is considered to be the inverse of the division principle yet it is possible to multiply by 0 by not to divide by 0.

So I started to define a new mathematic paradigm based on 9 and not on 10 and what I discovered was mind blowing. I discovered that numbers are not what we think. The shape, the symbolism, the information encoded into them is much more profound that we can imagine
sacred vortex geometry

Sacred Vortex Geometry 1 The New Paradigm of the Decoded Matrix

Sacred Vortex Geometry 2 : The Golden Ratio Decoded

Sacred Vortex Geometry 3 The Music Resonnance Explained

2. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Delight For This Post:

Ahnung-quay (13th August 2014), Cara (13th August 2014), mojo (3rd March 2017), NoNeedForAName (13th August 2014), noprophet (16th August 2014), ponda (13th August 2014), RawLove (17th April 2017), yelik (12th August 2014)

3. Re: Vortex math and sacred vortex geometry: Romain Carreno

Only watched vid 1 so far, but very interesting analysis. We know that the reality of science and maths has been hidden from society by the elites.

4. The Following User Says Thank You to yelik For This Post:

Delight (12th August 2014)

5. Re: Vortex math and sacred vortex geometry: Romain Carreno

Much of this information I already knew from other research but, had not pulled it together like Romain Carreno does; a brilliant young man. I've watched the first and second videos and I'm looking forward to the third one. Thank you for posting these.

6. The Following User Says Thank You to Ahnung-quay For This Post:

Delight (15th August 2014)

7. Re: Vortex math and sacred vortex geometry: Romain Carreno

The other day I watched bits of those first two videos and paid special attention to those tables for "multiplication and division by 9". And, sorry guys, what I found was no surprise to me: some mistakes in those tables, problems in the "philosophy" of the guy speaking and probably many other minor problems in statements I didn't listen to. Since I didn't give too much thought to these videos, I'll state here some random observations, so each one of you can think about them yourselves.

About philosophy: 2 times 2 is 4 using both our ordinary multiplication or his "multiplication". But 2 and 4 can be represented in others numeric systems. For instance: 2 and 4 are equal to 10 and 100 in binary, respectively. If we don't change his way of "multiplication" for the binary system, then 2 "times" 2 would be "equal" to 1 in binary, for

2 x 2 = 4 "=" 100 and 1 + 0 + 0 = 1.

This shows us that his "multiplication", stated as it is *now*, is dependent of the numeric system in use. But something that really have a philosophical meaning should change its meaning depending on a numeric system? I believe it shouldn't. So, or numbers don't have the meanings we want to give them, or his philosophy have flaws and isn't correct stated to be totally "invariant". I choose the second option just to say.

About the tables: one table should be enough, for, as the guy stated, "multiplication and division by 9" are related in the usual sense: one operation is the inverse of the other. If you pay attention, you'll notice that 1 is an identity for his "multiplication", because 1 "times" any other number in the set M={1,2,...,9} "is" that other number. The inverse of a number r in M is another number s in M such that r "times" s "is" 1. This is the reason that his "multiplication" by 4 is the "same" as "division" by 7, for instance. So, you can read how "division by 9" works directly from the table for "multiplication by 9". More than that: is there any number m in M such that m "times" 3 (or 6 or 9) is "equal" to 1? No. So, 3, 6 and 9 don't have divisors by the "multiplication" of that guy. Now, look at his "division" table. The rows and columns corresponding to 3, 6 and 9 there are filled, right? How is this possible, if such numbers don't have divisors by his operation of "multiplication"? ...

Still about the tables: the "multiplication" of that guy is comutative, that is,

r "times" s is "equal" to s "times" r

in the set M, as our ordinary multiplication is. You can "read" this in his multiplication table noticing it is a symmetric matrix. The natural thought would be: his "division" must be comutative too, because it is the inverse operation of "multiplication by 9" and it can be read from that table. But, hmmm, the "division by 9" table is symmetric? ...

About zero: is really serious that guy said zero don't exist or it is a number without meaning?! That's totally absurd! Zero is "just" a number in a set equipped with a (binary) operation that satisfies a specific property. Loosely speaking: let G and # be such set and operation. Then, an element y in G is called "zero" if

y "operated by #" with x is equal to x (y # x = x) *for all* x in G.

The "multiplication by 9" from that guy doesn't have a "zero" because he defined his operation to do not have one such number. I'm showing you a table that defines a operation similar to his "multiplication by 9" that have a "zero":

(+) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Which number here works as a "zero"? The number 9, for

9 (+) m is equal to m for all m in the set M={1,2,...,9}.

Just to end this post: this operation here denoted by (+) adds the digits of the result of ordinary summation of any two positive integers in the set M, so it is reduced to just a digit in the this same set. The "multiplication by 9" of that guy is just the successive use of the operation (+).

8. The Following User Says Thank You to NoNeedForAName For This Post:

Delight (16th August 2014)

9. Re: Vortex math and sacred vortex geometry: Romain Carreno

Posted by NoNeedForAName (here)
The other day I watched bits of those first two videos and paid special attention to those tables for "multiplication and division by 9". And, sorry guys, what I found was no surprise to me: some mistakes in those tables, problems in the "philosophy" of the guy speaking and probably many other minor problems in statements I didn't listen to.
I was completely lost by your post so I have no idea of what to say except "I am not very math savvy".

Example

2 times 2 is 4 using both our ordinary multiplication or his "multiplication". But 2 and 4 can be represented in others numeric systems. For instance: 2 and 4 are equal to 10 and 100 in binary, respectively.
My reasoning would be that 2 is to 4 as x is to y
In this case if x is 10 why is y 100?
If 4 is twice 2,
how is it that 100 is twice 10?

As I said...not math savvy but I liked his balance ideas and the masculine lines and feminine curves and the graphics of the Marko Rodin type.
I am sure that your further explanations are valuable as I found no one discussing these videos.
Thanks, Maggie

10. The Following User Says Thank You to Delight For This Post:

NoNeedForAName (16th August 2014)

11. Re: Vortex math and sacred vortex geometry: Romain Carreno

Posted by Delight (here)
My reasoning would be that 2 is to 4 as x is to y
In this case if x is 10 why is y 100?
If 4 is twice 2,
how is it that 100 is twice 10?
To answer you this, I have to talk a bit about how a numeric system works. I don't know too much of history of math, but I'm 99% sure it goes as I say below. Sorry about the lengthy explanation.

Let's start with our familiar set of positive integers N={1,2,3,...,9,10,...}. What is it and how to build it?

History tell us that, in its early age, man used little stones, pieces of wood, etc., to represent small quantities. But as these quantities grew, this way of doing things became too impractical. So, he realized a new way to do the same thing that is abstract, because that involved the use of *symbols*:

- man started with a *unit*, which he decided to also call it *one* and represent it by the symbol 1.
- then he took the successor of 1 to represent the next quantity that he intuitively knew was greater than 1 but less than any other quantity. This number he called two and represented it using the symbol 2.
- he did that up to the quantity nine, represented by the symbol 9, and just realized that those were already too many symbols to remember. So he smartly decided to abstractly represent all the others "positive integer quantities" using the same symbols. For this, he introduced just one more *symbol*, a small circle that we call it today zero and wrote it as 0, which had absolutely no purpose to quantify things. It was all about notation. With it he was able to continue his process of building the above set N of numbers, by taking the sucessor of 9 and representing it as 1 followed by 0, or 10, then taking the successor of 10 to be 11, and so on.
- the sucessive use of the operation "take the sucessor of a number" gave birth to ordinary addition and multiplication in the set N.

Eventually, man had to answer this question: if you have two candy bars, eat one and give the other to your friend, how many candy bars are left? He intuitively knew that the answer was the *absence of quantity* and he had to represent that in his current numeric system, preferably without introducing a new symbol (he had short memory). So, among the 10 symbols, 0, 1, 2, ..., 9, which one don't have any meaning? Just the symbol 0. So, man elected it to represent absence of quantity and, what was just a symbol, become a number. But now he had also to extend his operations of summation and multiplication to use this new number. And he did it just naturally: if you add "nothing" to any other quantity, you don't change that quantity. So, zero plus n is equal to n for all n in the set N. And zero times n is equal to zero for all n in the set n, because the operation times is the sucessive use of the operation of summation (in this case, n-1 sucessive additions of zero to zero).

This gives you our decimal numeric system. Notice how the operations of summation and multiplication are intertwined in it. Let's see the binary system now.

At some point in history, man started to complicate things just for his fun. And, in one of these moments, he just decided he would count quantities using no more than two symbols.

- naturally, he started with the symbol 1 to represent a unit.
- and mimicking what he had done with the decimal numeric system, he introduced a symbol to represent the quantity two with the help of the symbol 1 he already have it. Out of creativity, he choose this symbol again as a small circle, 0. Then he set the quantity two (the sucessor of one) to be equal to 10 (1 followed by 0) in this new representation.
- the quantity 3 is the sucessor of 2, which is 10. So it must be 11.
- the quantity 4 is the sucessor of 3, which is 11. So it must be 100. Here man had to introduce on more digit in the representation of numbers, because he had already used all the possibilities of representations with two symbols and up to two digits.
- and so on.

Eventually, this man had to answer that same question about the candy bars, and again, very creatively, used the symbol 0 to also represent absence of quantity in binary. The rest of the history you can guess.

12. The Following User Says Thank You to NoNeedForAName For This Post:

Delight (16th August 2014)

13. Re: Vortex math and sacred vortex geometry: Romain Carreno

Simply explained: "0" is a place holder; it's value is in position, not quantity.

14. Re: Vortex math and sacred vortex geometry: Romain Carreno

In the esoteric number realm, zero is the summation of everything and nothing. It is the oroboros. There is a theory, written about by Bozena Brydlova, that our number symbols were originally derived from drawing them out on a 360 degree circle using 45 degree angles. Applying this theory, all numbers stem from zero. The number one may have originally been written 0- and the number ten may have been written -0. I tend to think that this may be closer to the truth regarding the zero.

Romain is merely using a base 9 system and a method of number reduction. The sequence of the family number groups, 1-4-7 being male, 2-5-8 female and 3-6-9 neutral that Rodin and others have been experimenting with in coils is just about the efficient flow of energy based upon the base none system that is being outlined in the video. The doubling sequences of these numbers, are representative of doubling sequences for light and sound which are responsible for carrying energy and constructing matter.

The binary system can be related to the solar and lunar calendar which can also be related to the base nine system through the twelve (3). The I Ching encodes the binary system and possibly the base nine system. If interested in how this is so, take a look at the work of Stephen E. Franklin, Origins of the Tarot which gives a very clear explanation of the I Ching-binary code relationship.

15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ahnung-quay For This Post:

13th Warrior (20th August 2014), Delight (20th August 2014)

16. Re: Vortex math and sacred vortex geometry: Romain Carreno

Another lovely lesson of vortex math at its basic 1+1 level.

17. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Fanna For This Post:

JRS (3rd March 2017), mojo (3rd March 2017), RawLove (17th April 2017)

Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts