Robittybob1

 

Dreams are products of brain stimuli, filtered (interpreted) as physical/material experience. This brain stimulus, which is neither physical nor material, is a byproduct of our brain acting to restore its glycogen reserves ..... I welcome your thoughts.

 

Did I read that right: dreams are a byproduct of the brain restoring its glycogen reserves?

The link on glycogen in the brain had nothing about "dreams", so how did you make the linkage?

What was the purpose of giving us that paper to read?

One day I'll pluck up courage and look at non-Euclidian geometry.

 

 

This is an example of non-Euclidean geometry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_geometry

Up till now whenever I see the word "Non-Euclidean" I switch off. I have not even attempted to master that yet. Have you understood it fully?

The hexagon does not go round the circle- it goes through it and crops bits off.

To go round it you would need to use the hexagon that circumscribes a circle.

That's rather bigger

 

http://geometryatlas.com/entries/190

The title of that page is a clue: "Inscribed and Circumscribed Circles of a Regular Hexagon". To you the circle seems to be the area within it, but to me the circle is just a special line.

You could be right, maybe I should say "boundary of the circle" e.g "draw a circle" should be "draw the boundary of a circle". Interesting.

It's nothing to do with the units.

Imagine a planet where one hemisphere is sea and the other is land.

To go round the sea you have to sail round the circumference.

To sail in a "straight" line across the sea from one point on the coast to the furthest point you have to sail half the circumference (taking a shorter route would need a submarine).

So, for this sea the ratio of the circumference to the diameter is 2.

In that world, "pi" is two for a big enough circle.

For a small circle the sea is approximately flat so "pi" would be 3.14159.....

Somewhere in between, there is a size of circular sea where the "diameter" is exactly a third of the circumference.

 

If you wanted to, you could calculate the size of the sea that meets this criterion (in terms of the radius of the planet).

 

And it would still be just as pointless as pretending that a hexagon is circular or that pi is 3..

To think in these terms is very different than anything I've struck before. I'm not the quickest on uptake but if someone else could comment I might get it.

I have not consciously said "that a hexagon is circular or that pi is 3". A regular hexagon inscribes a circle. That hexagon has sides equal to the radius of the circle. That is what I have said.

Note "inscribes" is not the same word as "describes" as used in the title of the thread.

i do not think that dreams mean anything because whenever I read the meaning behind dreams it docent fit my dreams. if they meant something then one dream should mean the same thing to everyone that has it. so having a drem to balance out emotions makes a lot more sense to me. they cant exist for no reason. it also says here that most dreaming occurs in deep sleep http://psychcentral.com/lib/stages-of-sleep/ i also wonder what makes you remember a dream. I dont remember most of mine, i get one every once in a while but my parents have a dream they remember every night. they love to wake up and tell me what it is. i do remember alot more nightmares when i was younger but my beat friend made e watch all these scary movies like the ring and when a stranger calls and most of my nightmares were about those movies. i bet that if i watched them again i wolud get scary dreams. I also got a nightmare from bugs crawling in real life i was getting a nightmare that the bugs were eating me and when i woke up i had bug bites all over my legs, so they were kind of showing reality. another weird thing is i never had talking in any of my dreams or nightmares, its always either sounds or gestures.

Have you ever tried to convert the images in your dreams into colloquial sayings. I found that was the language of my dream interpretation. So it would be like charades, where your subconscious mind was trying to communicate to your conscious mind using pictures (scenes, stories) that expressed these sayings.

 

That has already been said (including in the other thread). Which is part of the reason why the Bibles statement that pi=3 is especially nonsensical. There was better information available. (I suppose that story could be even older than Babylonian mathematics.)

The way I was suggesting they don't need to know pi, they just measure the total length of the sides of the inscribing polygon (hexagon) which is in this case 6 times radius a process I've provisionally called "compassing" (for I don't know what else to call it) but from there the words describing that action are derived e.g encompass. Google definition.

verb

1.

surround and have or hold within..

 

Even the concept of the "radius" rather than just the diameter had to be developed.

Today we would describe a hemisphere by its radius and all the rest can be worked out from that.

 

 

So, not a hexagon.

Do you understand what I was suggesting using the regular hexagon for? You can define any circle by the max. sized regular hexagon that fits exactly within it. The points of the hexagon must share 6 points with the circle.

http://www.mathopenref.com/constinhexagon.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumscribed_circle explains the special nature of the circumscribed hexagon.

Here is a historical based reference: http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~huberty/math5337/groupe/overview.html

 

The ancient Babylonians knew of the existence of pi - the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of any circle. The constant they obtained, 3.125, made use of their knowledge that the perimeter of a regular hexagon inscribed in a circle equals six times the radius of the circle. By using this perimeter of the inscribed hexagon as a lower bound for the circumference of the circle, they were able to come up with their remarkably close approximation for pi circa 2000 B.C. [2, p.21].

It may be a special case, but it isn't a circle or "round".

You might have to explain that a bit more. Are you using "round" as in the original quote?

"it was round all about"

 

I take that to mean it was hemispherical.

 

 

You are describing a hexagon, not a circle.

Yes, the hexagon that fits exactly in the circle, one defines the size of the other. The length of the side of the regular hexagon is exactly the radius of the circle. It is a very special case.

Another pointless exercise would be to calculate the size of a planet here the distance (measured on the bulging surface of the sea) would be 10 units and the circumference was 30 units.

I don't understand that at all sorry.

If I finally understand you correctly, the "regular hexagon" method of measuring a circle would not be useful in all situations, as in your planet example. But at the beginning measurements were made using dimensions found on the body e.g "a foot 12 inches, a yard the length of a stride, for there was no standardised rulers etc.

It came up in another thread where this ancient text did not describe Pi adequately, but in my research on how to calculate Pi I could see there was an alternative way of describing a circle, and most of us would have done this where the circumference can be marked divided by the radius 6 equal times using a compass.

Steps:

Using the compass to draw the circle.

Using the same compass place the point on the circumference and draw a section onto the circle.

move the point to where the section intersects the circle and repeat 6 times.

There will be 6 points on the circle evenly spaced by the radius.

Isn't this what is being described here?

 

 

1 Kings 7:23King James Version (KJV)

23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

Some translate "did compass it round about" that as "circumference" but could it be describing the use of a compass to go around it? Then it would be correct as per the diagram. http://sveta-geometrija.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/1616.jpg

The straight line distance between each point on the circle is equal to the radius (6 times 5 = 30).

Thanks Janus. You always surprise me with your extensive knowledge on the subject. Could you tell us what you do/did to be so clued up?

@ Mods - are we allowed to continue discussing how the GPS system works? [i recall a lot of it revolves around need to understand time dilation.]

 

 

You have a totally extraordinary ability to miss the point. It is amazing. If there were Olympics in missing the point, you would get Gold.

OK so what was the point of mentioning Pi? It went back to fractions but where did fractions come from in the discussion on Abraham? Do I have to scroll up? Bad maths in the Old Testament that's right.

I just read the summary of Abraham's life story http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Abraham.aspx and none of it seems PC for today.

 

The Babylonians and Egyptians expressed better approximations of pi a thousand years before the old testament was written.

Some were getting close

 

One Babylonian tablet (ca. 1900–1680 BC) indicates a value of 3.125 for pi, which is a closer approximation.

Is that 3 and 1/8th? When was Abraham supposed to have been around? http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Abraham.aspx

 

 

Abraham

The patriarch Abraham (c. 1996 BC-1821 BC) started with humble beginnings as a son of Ur. Abraham is now regarded as one of the most influential people in all of history. The world's three largest monotheistic religions—in fact possibly monotheism itself—found their beginnings with him. Over 3 billion people in the modern world cite Abraham as the "father" of their religion. Abraham was promised by his God descendants as numerous as the stars of the sky, but today two branches of his family, the Jews and the Muslims, continue to battle for his birthright.

Did he need Pi to count the stars? He might have needed it to calculate the percentage of the sampled area to the globe. I assume he knew that the stars appear to travel across the sky so that new stars rise in the East as the night wears on. If he counted the stars in a 1 degree arc would he have known to multiply that by 360? Did the ancients have quick measure for degrees e.g the thickness of your thumb at arms length is how many degrees? Here is a guide:

 

The width of your little finger at arm’s length is 1 degree - See more at: http://oneminuteastronomer.com/860/measuring-sky/#sthash.Suu4D2RG.dpuf

^"....5 He took him outside and said, “Look up at the sky and count the stars—if indeed you can count them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring^[a] be.”

⁶ Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness....."

 

Wait a moment... The creator of the stars asked that guy to count the stars ? Died before finishing ? And the count was after pencil and paper were created; or was it chisel and stone ?

I don't think Abraham even bothered counting them. He knew there were thousands and that was enough for him. That's that second bit "Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness....."

Had he started to count he would have been blasted for doing that. But irrespective of that, now that we have counted the stars, what does that do to the promise given to Abram? It is hard to imagine how one person could get 10^29 "offspring".

 

Not as far as I can tell. A quick look at a table of satellites shows only a couple of satellites with semi-major axes even close (ie within a couple of thousand km). There are lots of low eath orbit with figures in the 1400 and below and lots of mid earth orbits over 20,00km; but only a handful in between - none close to your figure

I'm thinking if it has the ratio of being exactly half the Earth's radius above the mean radius of the Earth and having the exact time dilation factor of the geoid it struck me as being a good orbit to have a GPS type system but it isn't being used.

Why wouldn't someone use it? Are we missing something about these time dilations?

I realise if we had two synchronous clocks and put one in a satellite and put that satellite into orbit at that radius the times would not stay the same during the journey, but even so they could then be reset if needed.

 

 

You think God can't do fractions? But he is omnipotent!

 

"This opening was round, and with its basework it measured a cubit and a half."

1 Kings 7:31

(Among many others.)

OK you taught me something there. What other fractions were in common use in the OT e.g a quarter or a third? Pi being not a defined fraction maybe was a bit more difficult to express (not for God for the value of Pi is very consistent in nature) as the laws of physics seem to be built into the Universe. No one (that I'm aware of) can really explain the origin of the laws of physics.

It depends on the advancement of math and science, that has allowed us to talk in such complicated numbers such as Pi.

The way we express ourselves has evolved over the years.

That's precisely what it means. There is no net time dilation. Time in each frame will run at the same rate.

 

 

 

I'm not aware of any. Google might know.

I tried Googling it once before and only got 1 result, and that was just confirming the height. I was stuck on the search terms to use that might help me with the search. There doesn't seem to be a name for this particular orbit. I'll try again tomorrow. Thanks.

The overall dilation value on the geoid is taken to be zero, as that is the reference point. We only care what the total effect is on a satellite, because that's what affects the clock reading.

What I was trying to understand is whether at the height 9558 km where the two effects cancel and at the geoid time runs at the same rate. If the overall dilation rate at both places is zero does that mean also they run at the same rate?

Do you know of any satellite that has taken advantage of this effect at this orbital radius?

The Abrahamic god doesn't even know the value of pi. I wouldn't count on him for maths lessons.

The apparent error could quite easily be explained by the thickness of the sides or the places where the measurements were made from.

 

23 Then he made the sea of cast metal. It was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference.

Did they have parts of a cubit in those days? 31.41593 cubits?? Show me an example where they describe a fraction of a cubit please.

You're looking for the situation where

 

[math]\sqrt{1-\frac{3GM}{rc^2}} = \sqrt{1-\frac{2GM}{r_e c^2}}[/math]

 

[math]1-\frac{3GM}{rc^2} = 1-\frac{2GM}{r_e c^2}[/math]

 

[math]-\frac{3GM}{rc^2} = -\frac{2GM}{r_e c^2}[/math]

 

[math]\frac{3}{r} = -\frac{2}{r_e}[/math]

 

[math] r= \frac{3r_e}{2}[/math]

 

Where r is the radius of the orbit and r_e is the radius of the Earth.

Since at this radius [math] r= \frac{3r_e}{2}[/math] the absolute value of the gravitational time dilation (GTD) equals the absolute value of the velocity dependent Time dilation (VTD) time on this satellite will still be different than at the surface of the Earth (geoid). I think previously I may have thought just because they cancelled each other out they may have been the same as on the geoid.

What can we say about the time dilation at the geoid? We are moving and we are in a gravitational field, they may not be equal but I have no idea how we could calculate that. Do we just add these [math]\sqrt{1-\frac{3GM}{rc^2}} and \sqrt{1-\frac{2GM}{r_e c^2}}[/math] where [math]{r} = {r_e} [/math] ?

Since they didn't know about all the stars, I suspect people thought the two were one and the same back then.

That is possible, but I took it in more from the perspective of "God" who should have known how many stars there actually were.

This 10^29 is still only a rough estimate, it hasn't been an actual count. It wasn't a matter of Abraham being right about the number. "No sorry Ab, you were one out". I find it hard enough to count animals let alone count the stars. With these verses of scripture there never seems to be any time limit, so if Abraham didn't do it one of his descendents could complete the job but the promise is suppose to always hold.

Like Abraham wasn't told to "count the stars right now (there and then) for that is going to determine the number of your descendents".

Lets say, for simplicity, that the population increases by a factor of 2 at each generation. Then it would take about 69 generations for the population to increase by 10²⁹. If we allow about 30 years per generation, then that is about 2000 years. Clearly, this would require the population to spread rapidly to new planets to have enough spaces and resources.

 

(These numbers seem quite small but I think that is because population growth doesn't really work like that, rather than I have made a gross error. Although that is entirely possible, as well.)

1.58456E+29 =2^97 (96 rather than 69). 2910 years, it clearly didn't happen. Or did you take into account the generations that had passed on?

If we Include the past generations as well as the current.

3.96141E+28 = total living breeding descendants, 95 generations, 2850 years, 1.18842E+29 = total living and "non breeding" descendants.

 

Clearly, this would require the population to spread rapidly to new planets to have enough spaces and resources.

That was my surprising conclusion too, but will that happen? I think we have a little way to go but it isn't totally out of the question any more.

Either that or there is some real bad math in the OT.

For a little further on Abraham is told his descendents will be enslaved etc, obviously referring to the Hebrews being enslaved by Egypt.

When I looked at how many arrive and how many leave they had to multiply, not just at the power of 2, but the power of 120 per couple per generation and that defied all my imagination. Either that or I got my maths wrong too.

 

...

 

I didn't ask for forms or adjectives. The noun, logic. Define it. One definition. Per person. One endorsement per definition.

Do you think it is impossible? Why ask such a question?

Just because you tell me your name doesn't make it fact. But it is fact.

Have you ever named a child? It never felt like a fact to me. It was more like a random event in my experience, any name was possible. Until someone said I choose this one.

I've stated severally, "If modern science has contributed its claims to modern man, then let science hold sway. But if God, then let the church of the Hawaiian Islands rock the world." You yoursel(ves) have stated that the scientific community is "steely cold but unified." I highly doubt that. Your "unity" will fall because you reject the living God, Jesus of Nazareth. He's given you time to repent.

Now you have reverted to preaching when you should be producing facts. You have been given time to repent.