The Voynich Ninja

(04-10-2025, 12:05 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(02-10-2025, 11:10 AM)Kris1212 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This explains why some Voynich cycles span long ritual counts.

What does that mean?
AI/based language models always talk about cycles and ritual, but I have never seen anyone explain what these are.

I think it's like fairies, you just have to believe or they die

When I say “cycles” and “ritual counts,” I’m not being mystical. I’m talking about timed work-segments encoded in the text.

Cycle = a timed segment of work on a plant folio (usually a paragraph). Each segment has an explicit day count derived from the glyph sequence on that paragraph’s lines.

Ritual count = the integer duration of that segment (e.g., 24 days, 53 days). I use “ritual” in the old Renaissance sense of a fixed order of operations (ordo operandi), not a religious ceremony.

How the count is encoded (replicable):

The script uses time markers: o (sunrise), d (noon), n (sunset).

It also uses interval markers: i, ii, iii, iiii (unison, octave, fifth, fourth), and closures like Fixation that mark the end of a stage.

Line by line, those markers yield a Number of Days; the paragraph’s cycle length is the sum of its lines. I publish the line-level CSVs so anyone can check the math.

Example (F1v):

Two cycles: 24 days and 53 days (total 77). Both text blocks are split around the stem (my code = in-situ work), placed on the stem/root continuum (my code = sap/resin channel).

The first (24 d) shows more octave/ii and sunrise/noon → a short, stable “prime the flow” window.

The second (53 d) leans fifth/iii, spreads into sunset, and raises l (lunar potency) → a longer, moister wait for the exudate to set.

Why some cycles are long:
Because some operations aren’t instant. Sap/resin tapping requires waiting—for flow to start, thicken, and set. The manuscript encodes that waiting time as day counts. Same pattern elsewhere:

F1r: total 144 days split 23/22/64/35 (the constitutional schedule).

F2r: 41 + 42 = 83.

F2v: 26 + 27 = 53.

F1v: 24 + 53 = 77.

So “cycles” = timed, reproducible segments you can check against the glyphs; “ritual counts” = the durations of those segments. The page isn’t saying “vibes”—it’s giving a work timetable tied to where the text sits on the plant (which part to use, and whether to work externally or in-situ).

---

(04-10-2025, 12:24 AM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(04-10-2025, 12:05 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(02-10-2025, 11:10 AM)Kris1212 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This explains why some Voynich cycles span long ritual counts.

What does that mean?
AI/based language models always talk about cycles and ritual, but I have never seen anyone explain what these are.

I think it's like fairies, you just have to believe or they die

No belief required, it's not fairies, it's data, arithmetic and placement. I only work with data not fairy stories

(04-10-2025, 12:05 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(02-10-2025, 11:10 AM)Kris1212 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This explains why some Voynich cycles span long ritual counts.

What does that mean?
AI/based language models always talk about cycles and ritual, but I have never seen anyone explain what these are.

I've published the line-level CSVs. Pick any paragraph and run the rule line by line — you should reproduce my totals. If you can’t, tell me exactly where the count breaks and I’ll fix it. It’s testable. The glyphs behave like operators, not letters. You get runs like iiii, eeee, ooooooooo— nonsense as phonetics, perfect as quantities/intervals. I don’t use EVA guesses. I restarted from the raw glyph shapes, one by one (no “compound” glyphs). EVA merged things that aren’t the same,  people keep spinning language stories that don’t explain the counts or the placement logic.
[*]
So, I’m not reading prose. I’m reading a procedure: where to work, how to work, and for how long.
The book was never meant to be read, it was to be looked at, it's a book of procedural symbols.
[*]https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1bWA36RbvCJS-FSM6lNv8d_a04r6Kc0rD?usp=drive_link

(04-10-2025, 08:26 AM)Kris1212 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You should reproduce my totals. If you can’t, tell me exactly where the count breaks and I’ll fix it. It’s testable.
[*]

[*]You see, Kris, you theory is testable in the sense that one can test if it is internally coherent, and I have no doubts it is. But it is not testable in the really important sense: does the VMS represents cycles and rituals as your theory says, or is it something else?

[*]It's the same situation, for instance, with Peltastri's Celtic theory: is it internally coherent? I gladly grant him it is. But does he demonstrates the VMS is a Celtic text, as opposed to, for instance, an instruction book of cycles and rituals? Think of this: let's say we are sure your theory or Peltastri's one is the right one. How can we tell which is which? Here is where testability fails.



[*]Edit: why the editor decided to insert some '[*]' baffles me.

(04-10-2025, 02:50 PM)Mauro Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(04-10-2025, 08:26 AM)Kris1212 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You should reproduce my totals. If you can’t, tell me exactly where the count breaks and I’ll fix it. It’s testable.
[*]

[*]You see, Kris, you theory is testable in the sense that one can test if it is internally coherent, and I have no doubts it is. But it is not testable in the really important sense: does the VMS represents cycles and rituals as your theory says, or is it something else?

[*]There’s no Rosetta Stone for this book and I’m not guessing a language. My code is built from the data—glyphs and text placement—nothing else. It’s repeatable: same rules, same counting, folio after folio. I've published the date repeatedly since I started so anyone can verify. If there’s another theory that produces folio-by-folio, reproducible day totals and placement rules from the manuscript itself, point me to it.

[*]It's the same situation, for instance, with Peltastri's Celtic theory: is it internally coherent? I gladly grant him it is. But does he demonstrates the VMS is a Celtic text, as opposed to, for instance, an instruction book of cycles and rituals? Think of this: let's say we are sure your theory or Peltastri's one is the right one. How can we tell which is which? Here is where testability fails.

[*]“Internally coherent” isn’t the bar. Has Peltastri fully translated a folio, end-to-end, with a stable reading? I haven’t seen one. His code is a language claim; mine isn’t—it’s a book of symbols: each page is a set of specific instructions.


Also: how does a language theory explain runs like eeee, iiii, or ooooooooo? Nonsense as phonetics; perfectly sensible as operators/quantities.

Different claims, different tests: he should produce readable text on unseen pages; I produce reproducible sequences and day totals from the glyphs. No Rosetta Stone—just counts and spreadsheets anyone can audit.


[*]Edit: why the editor decided to insert some '
[*]' baffles me.

[*]
These *** just appeared and I tried to delete them but they wouldn't go!!

Is everyone getting stars in their posts? 

Or Just in this thread?

Test.

Ok first full ID..... F1v - Lemon Tree (Citrus limon L.) You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
more to come!!

I finally understand the blue........and the red, testing throughout all the plant folios, so far, so good but only a third of the way through. It explains why nobody could identify many of the plants, the sequencing of the pages is deliberate, although might be inaccurate and there are some missing. Fully back on this now, as soon as I've checked it properly I'll update, once again...so simple and visual.*

It's a Resonance Language, resonance math. Its a procedural manuscript, a programming language of algorithms based on the Universal Harmonic Math. If you want to see my work on this, let me know. I know programming languages well enough to know the patterns and signs of them. The algo's im getting out of it, I don't know how else I'd manage to pull them out.

(06-10-2025, 11:36 AM)Resonant432 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It's a Resonance Language, resonance math. Its a procedural manuscript, a programming language of algorithms based on the Universal Harmonic Math. If you want to see my work on this, let me know. I know programming languages well enough to know the patterns and signs of them. The algo's im getting out of it, I don't know how else I'd manage to pull them out.

Yes I'd like to look but I am not of the opinion it's a language in anyway, it's all procedural I agree, up to the end of the zodiac radials and the few folios I've done beyond it's all about fertility. It's all very simple and visual, never meant to be read but looked at.