# Genesis Mathematical Equations Reveal Our Playbook through Tesla's Key?



## Bunnyman (Oct 19, 2020)

Over at World-Mysteries a blog by Charles Marcello shows the author revealing all supposed geological and cosmological ages through mathematical equations using the numbers 3-6-9-. Do I hear Nicola Tesla?



> > If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
> 
> 
> – Nikola Tesla


Now math has never been my forte but, even I can follow the authors calculations and subtract the implications. And if this all makes sense to you fellows as well, this seems a pretty big nail to be. And what would that leave us with?

I gather that, as many topics here have indicated, we have been led by the nose (noose) on about everything mainstream narrative. It would not surprise me if all pushed scriptures, and this is no undisputed terrain, are from Pandora's toolbox.

The page content is to rich too include here, so please refer to the linkage below for the full text.


Creation matches Geology, What the.... How?
Maybe I should have added a more enticing intro.....



> *Does the Creation Story from the Bible match Geology?*
> _by Charles Marcello_
> 
> Just about everyone has heard of the creation story, well how many people do you think have turned that creation story into a mathematical equation?
> ...





> Note: This OP was recovered from the Sh.org archive.





> Note: Archived Sh.org replies to this OP are included in this thread.


----------



## Whitewave (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: whitewaveDate: 2020-02-09 22:39:39Reaction Score: 0


Interesting math but the site itself is poorly laid out. Much of the exact same information repeats throughout making it hard to follow in a linear flow. Had to re-read it a few times when I knew where to scroll past the redundant paragraphs in order to follow his line of thinking. Also, I'm not sure what all it's supposed to prove. I've got a book on my shelf about cool math tricks and, for all I know, his work may be one of those. Math is not my forte either. Maybe (probably) I'm just dense but I didn't really get what he was trying to convey . Could you explain it in " math-for-dummies" terms? TIA.


----------



## Dirigible (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: DirigibleDate: 2020-02-09 23:30:40Reaction Score: 0


Have to agree _@whitewave_... He does a good job of explaining the math... He does a poor job of summarizing and concluding.... Or I missed it.


----------



## Bunnyman (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: BunnymanDate: 2020-02-10 04:36:01Reaction Score: 1


Yes, I too agree to the point of a poor presentation. But do we require slickness for it to reveal that it sure looks like he has more than a find here. seems he uses 3-6-9- and I do not know if that would be a "trick" to ascribe the astonishing matches with the official narratives.

I for one wonder why we should question about all the prescribed historical script, but somehow expect that TPTB left the scriptures unblemished from their fancy finger work? And I think the author asks the reader to draw its own conclusions and that seems only fair to me as this one touches on a possible foundation stone of our western society. Not a small thing to wrap your tentacles around.
I have to say that I really find it gratifying to read the findings and ideas of others on this platform. It seems most here have a rational and down-to-earth mentality. Showing respect for other's opinions and findings. So a great bunch. I am thankful to have found this forum as I sometimes feel like I am the only one in this realm who is a fool.

I am pushing this thread because I am a bit surprised that there seems to be little interest from others to have a bite of this topic. Whether affirmative to the argumentative findings below or dismissive. But *silence is usually a big red flag* for me. So "what is going on here" echoes through my mind.

Biblical characters and narrative are interwoven in a fair share of our topics and threads. Isn't it fair to have a close look at the basis in order for us to determine if that base is worthy of acceptance for any linear derivative narrative? 

I know there are some "smart cookies" here and I ask you to please have a stroll through this and reflect your thoughts on the material in the link. If you think it's not worth discussing, please say so.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: AnthemOfChaoDate: 2020-03-19 21:49:46Reaction Score: 1


Wow. Well his math checks out for the most part. It's not 100% accurate, but when you're dealing in "billions" of years you can't quite expect it to be accurate to a decimal point. What he did expose is extremely interesting. I'd be interested in seeing if the same thing can be replicated across different religious groups creation myths. I think he might be onto a exposure of our system being a lie. Definitely something I'll be thinking on and worth ruminating on, however, it doesn't feel 100% stable though that might be how he jumped straight into the math without having a point by point explanation of why he was using the numbers and the significance of each number in between problems. It's harder to follow when we have 6 equations and then that's followed by a small explanation. 

Good find mate. Well done.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: PairAllelesDate: 2020-03-20 07:01:12Reaction Score: 0


this does not seem any more real than anything else presented. especially with dates described. there may be some value but in carbon age 666 it is kinda known. and you-wish name for god might be 216? if someone was programming?


----------



## Rhayader (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: RhayaderDate: 2020-03-20 09:44:13Reaction Score: 1


After reading the article I'm also confused why it reaches such little traction. He mentions himself how both geologists and religious folk pretty much ignored him, you would think it would warrant a closer look at anthropogeny in anyone. I feel he has stumbled upon the key which was used to come up with the numbers we have for things throughout history and science. I would love to see if it works with Hindu cosmology.


----------



## Worsaae (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: WorsaaeDate: 2020-03-20 12:42:36Reaction Score: 1


You can find patterns with math where there is none. It's an interesting read but consider me a skeptic. 

Consider the symbolic nature of 3 6 9. 
33 is a famous one. If we digitsum 33 we get 3+3 = 6. The balanced number. 3 6 9.

If we keep the balance the same but change the number, the result might surprise you! 
42 = 4 + 2 = 6. 
42-33 = 9. 

51 = 5+1 = 6. 
51-42 = 9. 

24=2+4=6. 
33-24 = 9

15=1+5=6
24-15=9

There is a perfect balance between the numbers. Magic.


----------



## Bunnyman (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: BunnymanDate: 2020-03-21 13:54:37Reaction Score: 1


Thanks for the replies. It seems not many have a taste for such a potentially paradigm shattering quake. 

My math is, as said, likely not that good. But yes, I was thought that 3x3=9. I innerstand that all is symbolic gematria. But that is a little beyond the point of the topic here I think. The numbers in question are the ones shoved down our throats and are the BASIS of our supposed evolution of our realm. Take that down and we are really floating in emptiness.

I am perfectly happy if some one can point out to me that those equations are just silly tricks. A display of number gymnastics doesn't do it for me I am afraid.



> There is a perfect balance between the numbers. Magic.


Agreed a perfect balance can be achieved. Mag(net)ic. The electro-magnetic torus net that is and it is organized and coerced by number masters.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: MusashiDate: 2020-04-14 18:21:56Reaction Score: 1




> After reading the article I'm also confused why it reaches such little traction. He mentions himself how both geologists and religious folk pretty much ignored him, you would think it would warrant a closer look at anthropogeny in anyone.


Possibly because the article is a total mess. I may be wrong (i struggled to uncross my eyes long enough to skim more than once) but he also seems to have missed out a bunch of genesis days which didnt fit. 

Its possibly also because the run of the mill empiricists or religious devouts already have their neurons and top level beliefs pretty much fixed. 

They dont want anything that smells like numerological woo tainting their explanations, which this certainly does at casual glance, without the requisite world view and being grounded in some kind of model. 

Its worth a closer look, but I am not very paradigm shattered since I am of the view a lot of myth is allegory for numerical / physical processes, so Genesis being such, sure, why not. Hard point of view to get decent traction for though - or even discuss - because of the overwhelming woo and quality of work. 

Fwiw, I think Tesla would have a good chuckle at how the 369 is bandied about now.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: Len BairdDate: 2020-05-03 11:32:28Reaction Score: 1


I think he says that it predicts a range, from the minimum to maximum age of the galaxy(or universe?)..  So, since even if we don't know it, the galaxy would seemingly have an actual age not a range.  So this says to me someone took these numbers and made up a history of the galaxy using them.
Or, someone wrote these numbers into the bible to reflect what scientists have said.  Whichever came first was copied into the other.


----------

