by Evgeny Meshkov
The making of the 64 Tetrahedron Grid
After watching Nassim Haramein's (http://resonance.is/) videos on the 64 tetrahedron grid I became curious to learn more about it. I did not quite understand what the grid was at the time. Since it is easier for me to digest information when I experience something myself, I created my own replica of the grid in a 3D software by following Nassim Haramein's path of creating it in one of his lectures. First I created a tetrahedron and then copied it to have a large tetrahedron consisting of 20 such tetrahedrons with vertices snapped to each other.
If you were to place a camera so that it directly faces one of the 4 vertices and then rendered the wire-frame only in Orthographic view, you would get this grid:
Notice the 4 small hexagons generated inside of what could be perceived as a bigger hexagon with The Star of David inside. The small hexagons, the most basic units here, also have 12 lines coming out of their centers. Let's call them just hexagons from now on. On a side note, you might like what this article has to say: http://www.merkabaseminars.com/?page_id=488
Then I grouped these 20 tetrahedrons, copied it, rotated 60 degrees on the x- and y-axes and then 180 degrees on the y-axis to make it 'polarized'. After that you have to lower the copied part down the length of the height of 2 tetrahedrons so that a uniform shape is created. It consists of 20 tetrahedrons.
The rendering of the wire-frame looks like this now:
Notice that there are 7 hexagons total now, with 1 hexagon in the center and 6 remaining around it. You might also have notices that there are other such hexagons further out but they are not complete - some have 1 line missing, while others are missing 4.
Back to the actual 3D shape. You can see that there are 3 openings on each of the protruded peaks. They are of the same proportions as a single tetrahedron and so we plug them up with those. There are 24 such openings in total.
Upon sealing off each gap you get this shape consisting of 64 tetrahedrons - 64 Tetrahedron Grid.
This is the wire-frame rendering that we get from it:
Notice that the hexagons that used to have 1 line missing are now complete, but the others are still 2 lines short.
A different view on the grid.
It may be hard to see from a side, but the 64 Tetrahedron Grid is actually a cube. I rotated it and rendered this image so that it would be easier to see.
You may have noticed that there are 4 inward pyramids on each side. Well, actually they are not pyramids but you could get one if you were to cap the base of the imaginary pyramid with a polygon. In case you are wondering, the dimensions of this bottomless pyramid are not equal to those of The Great Pyramid of Giza.
Now that we have this cube, we could clone it many times snapping each copy to its appropriate vertex, extending this small cube as far as we want to - you could say infinitely, although I don't like using this word because it seems logical that nothing can go on forever; What has a beginning, has to have an end as well.
Now that we have established that the 64 Tetrahedron Grid is a cube and that we could extend this shape in all directions by stacking its copies on each other, it becomes soon apparent that what I jokingly called a bottomless pyramid turns into an octahedron when we place the copied cube on top. The Tetrahedron Grid became The Octahedron Grid.
Octahedron grid.
Before going further I would like to point your attention to the central basic 3D unit located in the center of the 64 Tetrahedron.
What we have got inside is a Cuboctahedron, a shape that, just like a cube, has 6 square faces as well as 8 triangular faces. If you look closely, you will notice that it is a small version of the larger structure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuboctahedron
You can see unfinished octahedrons. In the image below I show the Cuboctahedron and a full octahedron (shown in red) which is generated inside of the 64 Tetrahedron Grid.
We could make these cuboctahedrons our basic 3D unit and grow a larger structure from them by copying them and then stacking on each other. The wire-frame would be just the same.
As you may have realized the wire-frame is the important thing here. Whichever shape you use, it is just a guide with the solid shell that keeps you from getting lost among the multitude of lines interconnecting with each other.
You could use octahedrons just as well to form the the grid. Below I copied the above octahedron and filled with it the rest of the square faced holes (image to the left). And then I extended it filling up the original 64 Tetrahedron Grid.
When you render the wire-frame you are going to get the same hexagons as before.
Octahedron grid in the observable Universe.
Later I found an article on the Universe's structure where this image was shown:
http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Battaner/node48.htmlhttp://www.psychicchildren.co.uk/5-6-OctahedralUniverse.html
As you see it shows that constellations follow strict paths that together make up the octahedron web in 3D space. On one of the pages you can see the same octahedron grid as I showed you earlier. Their version has some octahedrons missing.
Above is the wire-frame that you get with this structure. It differs from the previous in that here the hexagons are bigger and if before they had 12 lines coming out of the center, now each of them has got The Star of David inside. Also if before we were left with unfinished hexagons at the borders, now all of them are complete. Since we are talking about the possible structure of space, more research, as well as astronomical observations, are required to know which grid is the correct one, if any.
Numerology associated with the grid.
As we grow our structure, the wire-frame expands as well. Remember that we had 6 hexagons around the single central one? While I was studying this subject I noticed that as the grid expands you get 6 more hexagons in each other row as you move away from the center.
You could use this formula to calculate how many hexagons there are in a specific row.
H = row * 6
And this is the formula to get the total amount of hexagons from all rows. You add 1 if you want to count the central hexagon as well.
Ht = (row + 1) * 3 * row; Ht = (row + 1) * 3 * row + 1
I have made this table using the above formulae:
While the fields labeled "Row", "Hexagons", and "Hexagons Total" speak for themselves, I should clarify where the rest of the fields come from. First I found out about this technique from this article: http://rense.com/rodinaerodynamics.htm. You get a single number by adding each digit in a number until you are left with only one single digit. For example, the number 396 yields 3+9+6=18 and 1+8=9. I found it interesting that there are only 3 numbers present: 3, 6 and 9. I didn't research much of it but in some circles these numbers are considered to be very significant; that they play the major role in the Universe.
Next I would like to point out the relation of these numbers to the teachings of Jesus Christ and some other passages in the Christian Bible:
Gospel of Thomas. Saying 9: “Jesus said, Look, the sower went out, took a handful [of seeds], and scattered them. Some fell on the road, and the birds came and gathered them. Others fell on rock, and they did not take root in the soil or produce any heads of grain. Others fell among the thorns, and the thorns choked the seeds and worms consumed them. Still others fell on the good soil, and it brought forth a good crop: it yielded sixty per measure and one hundred twenty per measure.”
What captured my attention was the number 60 and 120 mentioned in the last sentence. 60 is the number of hexagons in the 10th row, and 120 is the number of hexagons in the 20th row of the tetrahedron/octahedron grid.
Revelation 12:6 “and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which she is to be nourished for 1,260 days."
Revelation 11:3 “And I will grant authority to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth.”
1260 is the sum of all hexagons in the grid consisting of 20 rows.
If you have read Thiaoouba Prophecy, you know that Jesus came from the planet of the 9th category, which is at the top of the Spiritual scale. The Earth is the planet of the 1st category. Knowing this, it would not surprise me at all if he was referring to the Universal truths when he was saying that parable about 60 and 120.
Unfortunately it's hard to say how much of the original text was changed by the priests. If the message has to do with the Universe, it gets hard to see the real meaning of it. Below is what a 1260 hexagon grid looks like if you use cuboctahedrons to build it:
A dream about the Universe's shape and ether.
It happened after I started studying 64 tetrahedron grid. In the dream the Universe was shown in a shape of a galaxy inside of some field in the shape of a torus. A picture of the seen and mapped, by our scientists, part of the Universe was shown in a preview window coming from a little dot somewhere in the middle of the Universe's radius. (Similar to the location of the Sun in the Milky Way). It was also said that planets travel in the ether.
The dream confirmed my ideas that the Universe's shape was like a galaxy because it's the Universal law that planets, suns and galaxies should rotate around a nucleus in pairs of nine. Thiaoouba Prophecy (page 76):
"You most certainly know that the pattern of the Universe dictates that nine planets revolve around their sun1. It is also the case that these suns revolve around a bigger sun, which is the nucleus for nine such suns, and their nine planets. So it continues, right to the centre of the Universe from where the explosion referred to by the English as the ‘Big Bang’ originated."So it has to be a disk like structure, otherwise you would get chaos when bodies collide with one another all the time. After all, we have got galaxies in the form of a disk, we have solar systems in the same disk shape where planets travel in almost the same plane. So why should the Universe be any different?
The above image was made from an artist concept of the Milky Way galaxy. It represents the Universe inside of a torus. There used to be much, much more spirals in the Universe I saw in my dream. It is just a close approximation of what I saw so that it is easier to understand for you what I mean.
I remember seeing the torus around galaxies in one of Nassim Haramein's lectures. If you are interested in what he has to say about it, you might want to check them out. It is not at all surprising that if the galaxies are just smaller versions of the much larger Universe, they have to have the same fields around them as the Universe has.
It says in Thiaoouba Prophecy, on page 91, that "The smaller planets spiral more rapidly than the larger ones, because their inertial force is less."
It could be due to the ether trough which planets are traveling that the smaller planets spiral more quickly. Also, since the Universe is not expanding in all directions like a balloon, but consists of galaxies and other celestial bodies rotating around its center, we could speculate that red-shift of electromagnetic radiation is caused by the light's movement through the ether and as a result its wavelength stretches out as it travels huge distances.
I found this YouTube channel about ether. You might not agree on all the points mentioned there, but there are many good ideas as well. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyA7M234nykgKUSs_L9AjZQ
This article "backs up" my ideas that the red-shift might occur due to light traveling through ether and not the objects moving away from each other. As it travels through medium, it loses some of its energy and gets red-shifted. The longer it travels the bigger the red-shift.
http://home.claranet.nl/users/benschop/ether.htm
Addendum.
Dispite the data showing celestial bodies following the path that looks like the wireframe of the octahedron grid, it is clear that they must rotate around a center, which is the necleus for 9 such bodies. This pattern goes on to the center of the Universe. So if the grid in the 3D software is static and can go on forever, in the reality it has to end somewhere and then begin again, has it not?
More research is needed in this field. If there are new findings or thoughts to share - there are going to be new versions of this article.
