David Wilcock interview w Pete Peterson - base 6 number system

As I'm on my iPad, this will be short.

DW's latest show has Peterson claiming we are hamstrung (on purpose) using base 10 math. He claims that transcendental numbers such as Pi, e, phi are rational and thus precise in base 6. This was done during the building of the Tower of Babel. He claims that ETs found on the ships in Antarctica had 3 fingers on each hand.

Number rationality is extremely important. I'm trying to verify this statement, but have not as yet.

Peterson is pretty irascible in this session and seems to have slowed down a bit in terms of clear explanations.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dumpster Diver

He claims that transcendental numbers such as Pi, e, phi are rational and thus precise in base 6.

---

Are you familiar with Marko Rodin's vortex math?

I kept thinking about that as Pete Peterson was talking.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by KeepTrying

Are you familiar with Marko Rodin's vortex math?

I kept thinking about that as Pete Peterson was talking.

---

Only somewhat. Reading up on it now, thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dumpster Diver

Only somewhat. Reading up on it now, thanks.

---

My understanding is that Marko Rodin really was on to something with his work. Several years ago he was endorsed by Tom Bearden, who I believe I've heard David Wilcock reference in Wisdom Teachings.

I remember a statement from Tom Bearden that Rodin seems to intuitively understand how to tap the energy that permeates every square inch of the universe and turn it into usable power, both for propulsion and healing. (That's my paraphrase.)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by KeepTrying

My understanding is that Marko Rodin really was on to something with his work.

---

I started a thread about vortex math on another forum. There was a great deal of ridicule about Rodin and his unorthodox theory posted.

One of the mystifying assertions that Rodin makes is that pi is actually a whole number. I tried to make sense out of that by emailing people who supported Rodin's work, but couldn't, and the thread ended up getting closed after much acrimony.

It's hard to discuss these things.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by KeepTrying

One of the mystifying assertions that Rodin makes is that pi is actually a whole number.

---

There's another guy with an unorthodox theory about pi. This guy I would describe as a brilliant curmudgeon: Miles Mathis. He is an artist who is self-taught in physics and he starts from scratch analyzing anything he comes across. He writes papers and posts them on the internet. One of the papers is " A Simple Experiment Proves π = 4."

There is a Dutch engineer who takes Mathis's work seriously, and he posted this video:

Quote:

---

Published on Sep 21, 2016

PI is not what you are used to for things in motion.

Experiment that shows that, while Pi as a distance is 3.14, Pi as a distance/time is 4.

Based on the paper "The extinction of Pi" by Miles Mathis.

Links to the papers on Pi by Miles Mathis:
http://milesmathis.com/pi.html
http://milesmathis.com/pi2.html
http://milesmathis.com/pi3.html
http://milesmathis.com/pi7.pdf


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhuvUSS3KAE

---

Perhaps this is the "mistake in the equations"?

Years ago, when I was working on ground-to-air missile modeling, I found an error in the 17th place of an arcsin function (using double precision floating point format). The code I wrote did thousands of loops per fly-out minute solving differential equations and after a few minutes of what amounted to about a million loops using the arcsin function, I found the missile always missed the target by some 200 feet on the low side. I reported the problem and was laughed at. A year later, the compiler was updated and the arcsin function was reportedly fixed.

So, to put it in spacecraft terms: if you are in space trying to hit a space (area around another planet, for example) billions of miles away and you have such inaccuracies in your numbering system, you always miss your objection due the the errors piling up.

Now, Pi is a number you can never quite fix as it is irrational in the base 10 number system. i.e. it will always be inaccurate digitally to some extent. In base six, this problem does not occur as Pi is a rational number. To boot, I'm finding that computers can be constructed to directly count in base six rather than using base 2 and then converting to base 10 and back like we do with computers today. In other words, our broken numbering system built on base 10 is incompatible with digital computers especially when it comes to astrogation.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dumpster Diver

I reported the problem and was laughed at.

---

If we humans can just stop doing that, we could have a better world. :victorious:

My brother tries to laugh and ridicule any chance he gets. And it's most certainly a conversation stopper. And that's why he does it. He doesn't like others to know things he doesn't. When people stop working with their egos at the forefront, then we'll make some progress. But that's going to take a lot of time, imo.

I'm fascinated by this base 6 thing. But I have trouble not thinking in base ten.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dumpster Diver

He claims that ETs found on the ships in Antarctica had 3 fingers on each hand.

---

Remember what he said about the importance of threes in the universe? I believe he used the word "trinity."

Rodin talked about three polar number pairs; 1 and 8, 2 and 7, 4 and 5.

Here is a link to his work, housed on Jeff Rense's website: RodinAerodynamics.org featuring the Rodin Coil

The laughing I could take, but there was absolutely no way to fix the problem short of building my own arcsin function. But the office I was in closed due to a base wide reorganization and thus the problem "went away."

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dreamtimer

But I have trouble not thinking in base ten.

---

Me, too!

It seems counter-intuitive, and I guess that's the significance of the number of fingers.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by KeepTrying

Me, too!

It seems counter-intuitive, and I guess that's the significance of the number of fingers.

---

When I was young, I built base 8, 12, and 16 slide rules (8 and 16 as they are offshoots of binary, for computers). The base 12 was because it was shown to be superior to base 10, but nobody mentioned base 6. I tried to calculate in base 12 and had the hardest time with it. I think this is the whole idea, once you have ingrained a certain base number system, it is very hard to go back. Sez Deep State Bad Guyz: "give 'em a broken numbering system, drill 'em hard on it, they will never go back and they certainly can't use it for anything useful like getting into space."

It's like Christianity, another broken system. Raise 'em up in it, and they will never shake it.

Dumpster did you miss post #11?