Posts Tagged ‘stone’

Reversing Orbit Folding Distance Awareness

To reverse a distant and consequential lattice of vertical awareness, one may consider folding an orbital distance onto itself. A lattice may sometimes divide consciousness into a vertical and horizontal plane, unless a substantial vertical awareness of orbit, distance, and the process of folding is initially perceived. This almost always tends to reverse consciously perceived distances, especially when basic measurements are used. The following composed series of numbers clarifies some of the orbital distances when reversals are not desired: 1, 29, 938, 32, and 48 (in base 2). 29 distance measurements can be factored into a perceived lattice, when the effect of the numbers 32 and 938 begin to wane. Then 48 (base 2) orbital measurements are required for such a computation to be evaluated. Reviewing the following helps focus the innate measurements:

Unsubstantiated vertical awareness: orbital distance
Divided consciousness: initial perception
Folding process: 1, 29, 938 (disregard 32 and 48)

When distance awareness begins to orbit, timing may be essential. To try to focus perception at a given time requires some values of concentration. For example, to perceive a timer precisely when its counting reaches “zero” requires a measure of focus; one might think the odds are greater to perceive the timer just before it reaches zero. Wait too long, and the calculation extends past zero. This may be important news to some, but an analogy might be to find a stick drawing done with stone bark and throw it into the air — at what point does it stop rising and start falling? To assign a time to that precise event could require a modicum of timing. Too fast, it’s still rising. Too slow, it has started descent. Hence the need to assign vertical awareness of a lattice (consequential) to fold the orbital timing into the non-perceived distance.


Stick Drawing on Stone Bark

Today, this blog may be awarded a silvery golden star with shiny multiparticle beams radiating from the center. Some people imagine “points” when they think of a star; however, I think of a sphere emanating radiant light waves in all directions. In the sky at night, more than 35 stars may be perceived. During the day, however, there may be as many as 50, 100, or even more than 200 stars. Multiply 200 times an infinite number of “points” and the resultant number can be articulated as a “simply bigger-than-countable number.” A handheld calculator is sometimes useful for many calculations. If one award is issued today, two awards issued tomorrow, there will be at least three awards issued, total, within a calendrical week. The multiparticle beams appear to radiate from the center, only if measured properly (with, or without points). Therefore a sum, divided by an eminence (such as from radiating light), can confound the simplest methods, ergo the stick drawing on stone-bark story. The story goes that 400 years ago, a paragraph was inscribed on an old piece of bark which had fallen from a tree. Multiparticle beams radiated towards the bark, and only a vivid imagination would ascertain a number of points on the bark (akin to a referenced star). The piece of bark was later found by a being on some sort of a mission. Carrying out such a mission always resulted in a summation, a calculation of sorts, where the end result was always a sphere. In conclusion, the stone-bark always was found where it was supposed to be. Allegories such as this are almost always of some interest.