[I think out of the box]

This question is geared for those knowledgeable in esoteric astronomy..and or celestial mechanics.

I have been experimenting with a function the predicts feature years in relation to earth and other celestial bodies in this case the planet Uranus and its precession cycles of seasons just like on earth. What it predicts is the Solstice Periods from earth in relation to other celestial body's relative movements in outer space. Yes I know, it uses pure numbers in space as dimensional analysis.


I am wondering if anyone here has heard anything of signification to the earth year of 2018..
I have read some articles about metaphorical beliefs but would really like to hear some input from "astronomers" as I think this relates to the precession of the planet Uranus which looks like it may be in phase with earth, in other words, I think when the planet Uranus is in its solstice and equinox periods, it is very much in phase shifts with earth.... The derivatives of the sequence years start from past 1776, future 2029, and present again in relation to earth year 2018, which is very close to our current time of 2012...off by 2012-2018 = 6 years from now.


Please do not ask what this small function is or where I got the numbers from, trust me, you would not understand I assure you!
Just concentrate on the year reversals and with your knowledge of what you know about cosmology, we all can benefit from something new here.

The main focus here is what the year 2018 in our future time represents and if its true that earth has completed a 26,000 year precession cycle in our current time of 2012.

Thanks!



2*5.01152761345206-1776/10407058172984609000-2029 = -2018.976944773096




when calculating other areas of this relation of the year 2018, the function states that one of the planets Earth or Uranus has completed a 27,000 year precession, I am not sure which one! Do you know anything about planet Uranus?????

1776 X 5.01152761345206 +2029 Y 2.48891403252446e-8 = 1477.5924512112354 miles/years= 1477.5924512112354 <----- RELATIVE CHANGE????????



Here I am still a little unsure if I have used the correct units, but is seems to be fine..

5865696000000 miles/year / 1477.5924512112354 miles/years = 3969765814.1063724 mile

3969765814.1063724 mile = 0.000675288 light year

0.000675288 light year *10e3 = 6.75288 light year

6.75288 mile = 1.148717527e-12 light year

186.000 /1.148717527e-12 light year = 161919702301190.7

161919702301190.7 mile = 27.543803529 light year PRECESSION????????????????????????


I Need some help here from astronomers whom know about the planet Uranus and its precession cycle.

Thanks!

This post has been edited by I think out of the box: 16 January 2012 - 01:38 AM

[Tres Juicy]

I think out of the box, on 16 January 2012 - 01:34 AM, said:

Please do not ask what this small function is or where I got the numbers from, trust me, you would not understand I assure you!

I think you might be underestimating people here

[hypervalent_iodine]

Quote

5865696000000 miles/year / 1477.5924512112354 miles/years = 3969765814.1063724 mile

I didn't read too much into your OP, but I did notice this, which is dimensionally unsound. If you're dividing ^miles/_year by ^miles/_year what you end up with is a dimensionless number. Also, you should try working in SI units.

Quote

Please do not ask what this small function is or where I got the numbers from, trust me, you would not understand I assure you!

I have no doubt that this is quite likely true.

[I think out of the box]

Thanks!
So what you are saying is that I need to turn this in to SI Units:

5865696000000 miles/year / 1477.5924512112354 miles/years = 3969765814.1063724 mile

Into this for example in SI Units:

"G" = 6.67300 x 10^-11 m^3/(kg s^2)

Meaning that I need to include this ---> 10^-11 m^3/(kg s^2)

In my that--->5865696000000 miles/year / 1477.5924512112354 miles/years = 3969765814.1063724 mile

Also, if you can provide me a good link as to how to convert this to SI units, I would be very appreciative..
I have some understanding on SI units, but what confuses me is if I need to add this 10^-11 m^3/(kg s^2)
to the values I personally find...

I assume I am finding something that creates constants because of their dimensionless properties, as in the h constant??


6.62606957(29)×10−34 J·s[1]
4.135667516(91)×10−15 eV·s[1

hypervalent_iodine, on 16 January 2012 - 02:26 PM, said:

I didn't read too much into your OP, but I did notice this, which is dimensionally unsound. If you're dividing ^miles/_year by ^miles/_year what you end up with is a dimensionless number. Also, you should try working in SI units.



I have no doubt that this is quite likely true.

Well give it a try, that's why I placed it up for the benefit of a doubt..

You are more than welcome to add your "chronological" knowledge....
Do you have any input for me?

Tres Juicy, on 16 January 2012 - 12:22 PM, said:

I think you might be underestimating people here

This post has been edited by I think out of the box: 16 January 2012 - 10:28 PM

[Tres Juicy]

I think out of the box, on 16 January 2012 - 10:31 PM, said:

Do you have any input for me?

Well I'd like to know what the point of these threads is...

I'd like you to explain what it is that you're trying to do/prove

Without any explaination of this it's meaningless to anyone but you and that will result in this thread going downhill rapidly

[Ophiolite]

Tres Juicy, on 16 January 2012 - 12:22 PM, said:

I think out of the box said:

Please do not ask what this small function is or where I got the numbers from, trust me, you would not understand I assure you!

I think you might be underestimating people here

I think he might be accurately estimating his powers of explanation.

[I think out of the box]

Tres Juicy, let me ask you an interesting question outside the category of this original posting....


If it is true that the speed of light, gravity and pi ratio represent the forces of nature, then can these "one" day be unusable since the forces of nature change as well????

In other words, can the speed of light, gravity and pi ratio expand such as the universe has been doing for some time now?
And if so, can these one day be "un-usable" by the science world...


Here is an example using a base ten numeral system and infinity empty space, Oh this is copyrighted by the way, just in case I decide to go public....


3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510...

-10.86902388503848+14.01061653862827 = 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510...

3.14159265358979 second = 0.000872665 degree

Feel free to try it out for yourself and please let me know what you found, because I have never calculated this far with such precession.



As you can see if -10.86902388503848 one day feels like changing to -12.86902388503848
It can create big problems, very big problems!


Instead of running to the Guinness Book of World Records, ""I"" rather speak more to the science world about this.


Either participate or stop speculating me and speaking for others whom are not yet present or have not shared their input, until then it is only you speaking here, so please show some respect to others members whom have not yet shared their input.

Tres Juicy, on 16 January 2012 - 10:48 PM, said:

Well I'd like to know what the point of these threads is...

I'd like you to explain what it is that you're trying to do/prove

Without any explaination of this it's meaningless to anyone but you and that will result in this thread going downhill rapidly

This post has been edited by I think out of the box: 17 January 2012 - 01:41 AM

[hypervalent_iodine]

I think out of the box, on 16 January 2012 - 10:31 PM, said:

So what you are saying is that I need to turn this in to SI Units:

5865696000000 miles/year / 1477.5924512112354 miles/years = 3969765814.1063724 mile

Well, for that particular calculation I was saying that your answer is not in the correct units. It shouldn't have any. I then also said that you should try do your work in SI units. You shoul dbe able to find various distance conversion calculators, etc. online.

[I think out of the box]

Very true my calculations take me to the exact origin as in this small example:


3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510...

-10.86902388503848+14.01061653862827 = 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510...

Under-copyright finding, I just want to share this with the science world and get more involved with advanced technology to help our world even so more now than ever..But it seems that I have jumped out of known science LOL....


Thanks!

Ophiolite, on 16 January 2012 - 11:30 PM, said:

I think he might be accurately estimating his powers of explanation.

Ok thanks! gonna check right now...

hypervalent_iodine, on 17 January 2012 - 01:27 AM, said:

Well, for that particular calculation I was saying that your answer is not in the correct units. It shouldn't have any. I then also said that you should try do your work in SI units. You shoul dbe able to find various distance conversion calculators, etc. online.

This post has been edited by I think out of the box: 17 January 2012 - 01:59 AM

[Bignose]

I think out of the box, on 16 January 2012 - 01:34 AM, said:

3969765814.1063724 mile = 0.000675288 light year

0.000675288 light year *10e3 = 6.75288 light year

6.75288 mile = 1.148717527e-12 light year

These steps here are just silly. Ok, you convert a number that you (incorrectly) got in units of miles, to light years, OK.

Then, for some mysterious reason you multiply by 1000.

Then you take the numerical answer in light years, and just decide that that number is in miles again, then then convert to light years once again.

Really?

How is this anything other than just completely and totally random, and any result is just coincidence?

This is the same problem your other thread had. It looks like nothing more than coincidence finding. Really, unless this thread is going to explain how this is anything other than coincidence finding, this thread should be closed until you are ready to explain that your results have any significance other than dumb luck.

[iNow]

[I think out of the box]

that mysterious number of 1000 is


unit of mass equal to 1000 grams

1 newton = 1Kgm/s^2 (kilogram meters per second squared)

This is dimensional analysis in relation to celestial bodies in precession not math, like i said, please do not ask I assure you would not understand.



Why do you follow all my post and accuse me of things?????
Since your such a math expert, let the world see you at your best...

Create a function that = pi ratio to its infinite value!


This is mine below whats yours????


3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510...

-10.86902388503848+14.01061653862827 = 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510...

3.14159265358979 second = 0.000872665 degree

Bignose, on 17 January 2012 - 05:24 AM, said:

These steps here are just silly. Ok, you convert a number that you (incorrectly) got in units of miles, to light years, OK.

Then, for some mysterious reason you multiply by 1000.

Then you take the numerical answer in light years, and just decide that that number is in miles again, then then convert to light years once again.

Really?

How is this anything other than just completely and totally random, and any result is just coincidence?

This is the same problem your other thread had. It looks like nothing more than coincidence finding. Really, unless this thread is going to explain how this is anything other than coincidence finding, this thread should be closed until you are ready to explain that your results have any significance other than dumb luck.

wow I love numerology thanks!

I used to use numbers as a kid and create patterns with them, never knew they also could be patched with dimensional Analysis...

iNow, on 17 January 2012 - 05:29 AM, said:

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=FpVckQ57wcc

This post has been edited by I think out of the box: 17 January 2012 - 08:22 AM

[Tres Juicy]

I think out of the box, on 17 January 2012 - 01:22 AM, said:

please show some respect to others members...

I would ask you to do the same and in my opinion the best way to do that would be to credit them with the intelligence to understand you, rather than say "you wouldn't understand"

Nobody knows what you're trying to acheive in these threads, please give us something to work with

It seems to me that you're just playing with numbers...

This post has been edited by Tres Juicy: 17 January 2012 - 09:03 AM

[Ophiolite]

Bignose, on 17 January 2012 - 05:24 AM, said:

Really, unless this thread is going to explain how this is anything other than coincidence finding, this thread should be closed until you are ready to explain that your results have any significance other than dumb luck.

I would vote to keep it open for its entertainment value. Or do you feel that would be cruel? Perhaps you are right.

[Klaynos]

!

Moderator Note

I think outside the box, answering questions in the speculations forum is not optional.

Please review the rules:

http://www.sciencefo...tion=rules&f=29

Also, haven't we seen you before?

[I think out of the box]

Nobody knows what you're trying to acheive in these threads???

Have you any idea how many people have contacted me and said WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Prove?????? these are your words not mine, please do not put words in my mouth, its my mouth and my life not yours...
I am simply in a discussion here, I do not owe anything to anyone, my ancestors did that for me a long time ago!

If you are aggravated at the fact that you do not understand certain things, then please do so by yourself.
I decided long ago to take on "real" challenges that makes me a thinker not a follower. If they close this thread, they close their minds!

Tres Juicy, on 17 January 2012 - 08:31 AM, said:

I would ask you to do the same and in my opinion the best way to do that would be to credit them with the intelligence to understand you, rather than say "you wouldn't understand"

Nobody knows what you're trying to acheive in these threads, please give us something to work with

It seems to me that you're just playing with numbers...

[Tres Juicy]

Nobody is attacking you here, we are merely trying to understand what is is you're doing in these threads.

Quote

I am simply in a discussion here, I do not owe anything to anyone

A discussion requires information to be shared by all parties involved, when you initiate a discussion you DO owe it to the other people involved to explain the purpose and goal of the discussion

Quote

If you are aggravated at the fact that you do not understand certain things, then please do so by yourself.

If anyone here understands this better than I do, please enlighten me

Quote

If they close this thread, they close their minds!

If this thread is closed it will be as a result of you not giving us any means to discuss it further, not because anyone is closed minded

Quote

Have you any idea how many people have contacted me and said WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe you have given them a little more information than you have provided here?

Quote

Prove?????? these are your words not mine, please do not put words in my mouth, its my mouth and my life not yours...

I'm not putting words in your mouth (or stealing your life!), I am trying to fathom what it is exactly you are trying to do.

If you're not trying to prove something what are you doing??!

This post has been edited by Tres Juicy: 17 January 2012 - 12:41 PM

[Tres Juicy]

Quote

Swansont said:

• You have to back your statements up with evidence.
• Anecdotes are not evidence.
• Being challenged to present evidence is not a personal attack.
• Calling the people in who challenge you "brainwashed" or "stupid" does not further your argument. Neither does throwing a tantrum.
• Published research (peer-reviewed) is more credible than the alternative. But peer-review is not perfect.
• When you have been shown to be wrong, acknowledge it.
• Just because some paper or web site agrees with you does not mean that you are right. You need evidence.
• Just because some paper comes to the same conclusion as you does not mean your hypotheses are the same.
• Provide references when you refer to the work of others. Make sure the work is relevant, and quotes are in the proper context.
• Disagreeing with you does not make someone "closed-minded." "Thinking outside the box" is not a substitute for verifiable experimental data.
• Mainstream science is mainstream because it works, not because of some conspiracy. If you think you have an alternative, you have to cover all the bases - not just one experiment (real or gedanken). One set of experimental results that nobody has been able to reproduce is insufficient.
• Respect is earned. People who are resident experts, mods and administrators have earned those titles.
• Be familiar with that which you are criticizing. Don't make up your own terminology, and know the language of the science. A theory is not a guess.
• If nothing will convince you your viewpoint is wrong, you aren't doing science. That's religion.
• All theories are of limited scope. Just because a theory does not address some point you want it to does not automatically mean it's wrong.
• Not understanding a concept, or discovering that it's counterintuitive, does not make it wrong. Nature is under no obligation to behave the way you want it to.
• You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Science cares very little about your opinion, as it has little relevance to the subject.
• If you want to be taken seriously, you have to address criticism of your viewpoint.

Quote

The Rules say:

• Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure.
• Be civil. As wrong as someone might be, there is no reason to insult them, and there's no reason to get angry if someone points out the flaws in your theory, either.
• Keep it in the Speculations forum. Don't try to use your pet theory to answer questions in the mainstream science forums, and don't hijack other threads to advertise your new theory.

Have fun.

Emphasis mine

This post has been edited by Tres Juicy: 17 January 2012 - 02:52 PM

[I think out of the box]

Still unsure how any of the rules here http://www.sciencefo...tion=rules&f=29 apply to my questions, hence the name of the thread and its intro.


Seen me here before?? Yes I am here now and have been since last year..

Thanks for sharing your concern...

Klaynos, on 17 January 2012 - 10:18 AM, said:

[modnote]I think outside the box, answering questions in the speculations forum is not optional.

Please review the rules:

http://www.sciencefo...tion=rules&f=29

Also, haven't we seen you before?[/modnote]

[Tres Juicy]

I think out of the box, on 17 January 2012 - 05:21 PM, said:

Still unsure how any of the rules here http://www.sciencefo...tion=rules&f=29 apply to my questions

1) If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure.

2) there's no reason to get angry if someone points out the flaws in your theory, either.


To mention just 2, but the red ones above were intended for you

This post has been edited by Tres Juicy: 17 January 2012 - 05:32 PM