Acme

So if we accept your proclamations that language is universally inadequate, your use of it is just as useless as it is for the rest of us. But I guess you acceded to this when you replied to my pot-calls-kettle-black with , 'we all do it'. By your judgment, while we're all just pissing, you win because you're pissing into the wind.

Pot calls kettle black. Again, it doesn't matter one way or the other; get over it.

The Fibonacci sequence is found in biology, most familiarly to me in botany where it underlies phyllotaxis. This underpinning of math-in-nature exists and has existed with no regard to humans' conception of it.

I don't think so. These folks rely on all manner of products and resources they can't produce. They also can't produce many parts to fix those products, such as ball bearings and the like. Again I don't think so. Were it true, the quote from millennia ago that I gave from 1 Timothy wouldn't exist. That is to say, folks back then were using money to raise and equip armies and pay soldiers, as well as common folk using money to pay for having things built such as boats or houses. People came up with the idea of money because as I first said, it is convenient. If you raise cattle then you may have meat and milk to trade but not everyone that has something you want necessarily wants or needs meat or milk. Suppose that person who doesn't need meat and milk makes nails and you want nails, then you have to find what that person wants in trade for nails and go about finding some chain of trades that gets you what the nail-maker wants so you can make that trade. Money cuts out all the intermediate trading which consumes not only resources but consumes time, and as we hear, time is money. Money is not the skill of the tool, but the measure of the rule.

Nonsense. You can give no citation to support such a claim. Again, you cannot support the claim that conservatives are in the majority. I say that you use illogical thinking. I made no such argument nor implied it. Again your reasoning is sloppy. I am arguing that you have associated yourself with folks that scientific studies have shown to have deficits in reasoning and that is why -along with your own demonstrations- you are perceived here as having reasoning deficits. Here as in numerous other threads you persist even when your errors have been pointed out. Moreover, the more errors pointed out to you, the more persistent you get. (I forget the name of the folks that studied this type of behavior; perhaps someone will interject on that.) As I have no expectation that you will not continue with your political gish gallops, I'll excuse myself until there's something worthwhile to respond to.

But you said -and I quote- 'One of the reasons it is hard for me to take your raves against the republicans, and WASPS and males and people that live in the suburbs and the military and the CIA and big oil and religious people and the like, is because I associate with those groups.' That isn't everybody. I think you only responded to respond. Makes no difference what is said, you have to continue to spin your wheels to paraphrase your words in another recent thread. Facts be damned and full speed ahead. Good grief.

More sloppy reasoning. If you didn't participate or read the thread, you're in no position to pass judgment on it. Your post reads as incomprehensible babbling.

Absolutely nothing, say it again y'all...

This is a prime example of sloppy reasoning. The study I cited is objective and were it the liberals with all the defects that's what the study results would show. No such showing emerged. Someone here even started a thread 'Are liberals mildly insane' (or something to that effect) and no such scientific evidence such as for conservatives was forthcoming there.

Just to note after seeing 2 misquotes, the quote is 'For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.'*, not money itself is the root of evil. *1 Timothy 6:10

No, I'm suggesting it might be a defect -to use your word- that you associate with some of those folk. In this regard you personally may not be able to take an objective view, but that doesn't mean others cannot. We covered considerable evidence on the defective aspects of conservative thinking in this thread: >> Discussions on Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition. (Split requested by Phi for All) I'll cite a germane bit from post #40 TheThe Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer You said your track record was fair game and without giving a specific example, you have a track record of being challenged for sloppy reasoning. On a final note, your suggesting the shooter in Colorado should have just been killed by the cops is contrary to the law and shows you to think yourself qualified as judge, jury, and executioner. Were we to get some of the terrorists to stop killing people long enough to be surveyed I suspect we'd find a fair number of high RWAs.

The Ass and his Purchaser by Æsop

Have you or other decipherers identified or claim(ed) to have identified or located the stars? If so, has anyone compared such an ID to actual star surveys? Hidden in plain view? I think it's jumping to a concoction.

The good of money is that it's a convenient and efficient medium of exchange.

Yep. And as you might intuit, I have been drinking coffee. Acknowledged. I have read some of the objections to Gödel as well and that discussion would merit a tangled thread of its own.

Let's see if I can help without further muddying of the waters. The fact that Euclidean math does not always apply in no way diminishes the fact that it sometimes applies. Same for the non-Euclidian mathematical constructs/systems. It's all still math. In a stricter pure math sense -as alluded to by Andrew- , Gödel's incompleteness theorems prove this inasmuch as any well formed system is incomplete and any complete system is not well formed. That's a paraphrase, but I hope it gets the idea across. If you're not familiar with this you can read a rigorous examination here at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: >> Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems I'm happy to see you agree that whatever the truth of the debate is -if there is or even can be such a truth- that it has no bearing on how math is done or used by people or how math operates in the universe. (Sorry I can't find & quote where you seemed to imply so. ) As to Daedalus' question about why all the fuss, the point of this discussion strikes me as simply an exercise in argument, or discussion if you will. In vulgar terms, a perpetual philosophical pissing contest.

None of which contradicts what I was saying about the structure in regard to the OP. Thanks anyway.

Yep. After all, the Palenque lid of the OP is a Mayan artifact from Palenque. Palenque @ Wiki I also recall some claims to codes hidden in other artifacts such as a jade mask, and they also used very elaborate multi-step overlays to [attempt to] make the case. Inasmuch as the conclusion drawn for the elaborate rearranging in the OP's second link is in regard to interstellar travel*, I take it as rather wishful thinking. One could concoct any message they wanted from any image with a suitable set of josslings. * PS Here's the Palenque mask jiggle. >> The Mosaic Mak of Palenque, Transformer The author is Maurice Cotterell, and he does these 'decoding' rearrangements with a lot of Mayan imagery, including the Palenque lid of the OP. Here's his main page: >>The Works of Maurice Cotterell Bestselling Author, Engineer and Scientist Cotterell says of his decoding:

Well, Bose calls them waveguides today. It's constructive interference by any other name(s). Edit: Waveguide(acoustics) @ Wiki

Well, a waveguide is as a waveguide does and I can't speak for Bose as to the frequency tuning. Seems I may have got the specific arrangement wrong, as least for the system layout illustrated by Bose here: >> Acoustic Waveguide® speaker technology @ Bose

This backward motion and the sound it makes is what some Bose speakers employ for their 'enhanced' sound. The speaker is sandwiched between 2 wave guides, one of which is twice as long as the other which puts the backward motion in phase with the forward motion at the plane of the wave guide's termination, i.e. where the sound comes out.

Just a cursory search of Mayan symbolism returns the following link which gives the meaning 'to manifest' to the x shape. The symbols are writing, and IIRC different Mayan artists embellish the symbols in the same manner we use different fonts. Mayan Symbols As you note, the same x-shape appears in the OP's image and there is no reason to suppose it is other than writing there as well. The elaborate rearranging to get a symmetrical pattern seems to me no more sensible than rearranging this post to make a symmetrical arrangement of my uses of the word 'the'.

Something new on the scene Ophi. Earths Geomagnetic Field Intensity is Double the Historical Average

Roger Sciwiz. I tend to agree that it's objective, but as I said, it doesn't count one whit of difference whether math is invented, discovered, or any other nuanced or diced appellation folks care to apply. IIRC correctly I entered the fray on the subject of animals counting and gave evidence that they do. As there is no indication the yammering isn't over on that or the invention/discovery meme, I'll excuse myself until or unless some other factual error or baseless claim is introduced. (Or the mood strikes me of course. ) Yammer on!

If you mean the exact opposite of what I just wrote, then I don't see it in what you wrote. Moreover, for all the yammering it doesn't make one whit of difference in either how math is done or applied, or in how the universe operates.