Strange

Have you compiled and run the code? Did it work as you expected?

The logic of this statement:

if (WINTER_TIME < temperature1);

is wrong. It should be:

if (temperature1 < WINTER_TIME)

i.e. "if temperature less than WINTER_TIME"

Also, you don't want the semicolon at the end of the line. That will end the statement meaning that the next line (println) will be unconditional.

You might want to get in the habit of always putting braces around conditional statements. It avoids silly problems when you add extra lines. For example:

if (WINTER_TIME < temperature1) {
    System.out.println("Put on shorts and a light jacket");
}

And you want to sort out your indentation to make your code more readable.

In fact, it seems to be the easiest point in time to calculate the combined effect of the two on the Earth as the two vectors will be aligned so you can simply add the two forces. At any other point, you will have to take into account the angle between the two vectors.

You don't know that great circles are irrelevan to any sub-atomic particles.

And you don't know that the number of vowels in the word is irrelevant.

I have exactly the same amount of evidence for this argument as you do.

 

This is lame atttempt and in no way comparble to what Ive done.

I'm afraid it is exactly the same as what you have done. We have both done some work with things that have no connection to the subject (great circles or number of vowels) and come up with 206. My "proof" is exactly as valid as yours.

 

If you don't understand the concept of rounding higher or lower

Of course I understand the concept of rounding. You suggested that 206 would be "rounded" to 207. There is no reason for rounding an integer to another integer. It is already rounded.

You keep saying you have answered the question of why you are using 206 instead of 206.7682843 (which could be rounded to 207) but I am not able to find any such answer. Please either state which post you answered this in or provide the answer here.

Edit: OK, I see you made a reference to an old comment by Feynman which mentioned 206. Why do you insist on using an out of date and inaccurate value rather than the correct value?

Ok so it is 206. rounded off to 207.

No it isn't 206 rounded to 207. Why on Earth would anyone round 206 to 207?

It is 206.7682843 (which is obviously much closer to 207 than 206). So why are you wasting your time calculating the wrong value using irrelevant methods?

207 is 3x3x23 which is obviously much more important.

I just wanted to make sure that someone reading the thread would not be misled by the word "experience" and get the idea that someone moving at high speed relative to something else (as we are ourselves) would feel time pass differently.

We feel time ticking away normally even though we are stationary with respect to our neighbor, travelling at 15 km/s relative to Voyager and 99%c relative to cosmic rays. It is only from those other frames of reference that our clocks would appear to run slow.

First, once again you have ignored the fact that the ratio is NOT 206.

The value is closer to 207.

You are calculating the wrong value.

You should be calculating 207. Why do you keep ignoring this?

I personall think of anything having to do with how the Universe/Nature/Cosmos is structured, or blueprints or whatever to be in the realm of generalized sceince.

Not really. If I say that the planets are moved around in their orbits by invisible pink flying unicorns, that is not science. But it is exactly equivalent to the numbers you are making up: factually incorrect and with no basis in reality.

Science is about gathering evidence and analysing it. Not making up stories that sound nice.

 

2) if you--- whoever you are ---gave me several gave me several random ways of arriving at 206, i'm sorry that I missed--- did NOT see them( sorry ) --- them because that may be exactly what was hoping for, tho again, I tried to be clear in opening post, not just some adding together of a linear set of arbitrary numbers that do not correlated to anything else, whereas my numbers correlate to specific sets of great circles

The fact that you use great circles is irrelevant and polyhedra is irrelevant as these have nothing to do with muons or electrons.

I use other factors which are equally relevant, therefore you have to agree that my calculations are exactly as significant as yours (i.e. not at all significant).

Here they are again for you:

It is the lowest positive integer (when written in English) to employ all of the vowels once only.

There are exactly 206 different linear forests on five labeled nodes, and exactly 206 regular semigroups of order four up to isomorphism and anti-isomorphism.

There are 206 bones in the typical adult human body.

It is (mass of muon) / (mass of electron) - 1.

(At least that last one has some connection with the physics under discussion.)

1) I've read a statment regarding that once and only once! and I replied in kind. Do I have to go and find my exact words to satisfy inference that I did not answer the "pertintent".

Your answer to my comment that you are calculating the wrong value was to say:

Perhaps but neccessarily. I think you too are too quick to dismiss. This is the speculation catagory and others suggested philosophy and there is a philosophy catagory.

Why are you not calculating 207, which is a closer integer approximation?

Better still, why are you not calculating the correct value?

To me the idea of the so called "Big Bang" theory is just a flawed theory along with many others.

It is true that all theories are flawed but ...

 

How can you have nothing...nothing...nothing... then nothing explodes to create the Universe!!!

I don't know. Why would you ask such a thing. It has nothing to do with the big bang theory.

 

We dont. Red shift is another flawed theory.

No, it is an observation not a theory.

 

As is Dark Matter.

No, it is a hypothesis to explain a number of different observations.

 

If the Universe were expanding and all the stars and planets were racing away from each other, how come the constellations are the same now as in Ancient Egyptian times ??

Because that isn't what the big bang theory says.

 

If you take the view that everything you have been taught is wrong....thats a very good place to begin.

It certainly seems to be true in your case. You don't seem to know anything about the science that you are criticizing.

 

I made up the word quadzillion by the way.

You seem to have made up a lot of other things as well.

I believe a lot of the difficulty here is my own tentativeness and lack of certainty.

...

The conventional wisdom is wrong.

I don't see much lack of certainty in your posts.

I do see a total lack of evidence, rational thinking and knowledge of the subjects your are talking about.

I stated repeatedly, that, I'm not offering a scientific fact that is testable in anyway

So why are you presenting it on a science forum?

 

Like everyone else here, you have not one scenario that does what I have offerred to the group in arriving at the desired 206.

I gave you several random ways of arriving at 206.

But the value you actually want is closer to 207.

Obviously between two observers, one moving at a constant velocity, the other remaining stationary, the one in motion will experience time differently than that of the stationary observer.

A couple of points.

When you say one is moving and the other is stationary, that is purely a relative statement. You could say the first is stationary and the second is moving.

Also, the one who is considered to be moving will not experience time differently. Their time will be seen as different relative to the other observer. (And, because we can consider either as moving, the reverse is true: observer A sees B's clock running slow and B sees A's clock running slow.)

Perhaps but neccessarily. I think you too are too quick to dismiss. This is the speculation catagory and others suggested philosophy and there is a philosophy catagory.

So you are just ignoring the fact that the value you are trying to calculate is not 206? It is not even an integer.

Please show how your method calculates the value 206.7682843.

Other ways of coming up with 206?

It is the lowest positive integer (when written in English) to employ all of the vowels once only.

There are exactly 206 different linear forests on five labeled nodes, and exactly 206 regular semigroups of order four up to isomorphism and anti-isomorphism.

There are 206 bones in the typical adult human body.

It is (mass of muon) / (mass of electron) - 1.

Regarding great circle planes( GrCP's )--- i.e. axi of great tubes imho ---I've arrived at two possible scenarios that add to the desired 206 mass differrence between the electron and the muon electron.

Except the mass ratio is closer to to 207 than 206. Which makes your post meaningless as well as just random numerology.

As this is a science site, here is a reference: http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mmusme

How could a singularity with literally infinite gravity (at the very least, the combined masses of all black holes in existence) explode in a big bang?

There is no evidence that such a thing happened and therefore no reason to believe it happened. It appears you don't know what the big bang theory says. It has nothing to do with "creation" or explosions. It is simply a description of the evolution of the universe from an earlier hot dense state, based on the available evidence. I don't see where faith comes into it.

 

Likewise, how did evolution begin? In our best experiments, we can barely produce s fraction of a protein... And only under perfect conditions... Usually mutually exclusive conditions.... I.e. there must have been an atmosphere to block out the sun, yet there could have been no oxygen or other gases that would have destroyed the proteins. ...yet, it's taken on faith that it must have happened without so much as a theory, let alone evidence for that theory.... Let alone repeatable verifiable falsifiable evidence.

There are a number of hypotheses for the origin of life based on the currently available evidence. There are a great many unanswered questions still. So what? I fail to see where faith comes into it.

 

I'm unaware of such research. I know from experience that just a few generations of insects are sufficient to cause changes in their behavior through selection. But none of these behaviors I've observed can be considered really complex like dam building.

Great. Because you are unaware of the research and you haven't seen it happen, then it is impossible.

 

Let's just say it is an assumption based on my understanding of the people and can't stand unless I'm right.

But you have already shown that your understanding is woefully inadequate. Or, to be generous, highly selective.

 

Modern people wade into an indigenous population who speak a modern language and try to force them to accept a written form of that language. How can this possibly be relevant to the inventors of writing?

Strawman.

 

They don't understand the language

You mean they do understand the language but, oddly, their understanding contradicts your made-up meanings for words.

Just goes to show many of man's inventions are inspired by the mechanisms of nature.

It is a fascinating discovery but I can't help but point out that mechanical gears were obviously not "inspired" by nature as they existed before this was discovered.

On the other hand, many novel developments are being inspired by nature (adhesives based on gecko feet, fibres based on spider silk, etc.)

The big bang theory describes the evolution of the universe from an early hot dense stage. It doesn't describe the origin and it doesn't say the universe came from nothing. There are all sorts of speculations about the earliest period before our models are valid.

The most plausible (to me) explanation is some sort of "big bounce" but, unfortunately, the evidence doesn't currently support that.

There is also "eternal inflation" that suggests that new "big bangs" are continuously happening.

Then there is Poplawski's idea that a black hole can create a new universe.

And on and on ...

 

Samuel Mercer whose intellectual honesty in translating the PT made it possible to crack it using a computer.

What is "it" that has been cracked using a computer? And by whom?

(Again, you might want to read a book on clear communication. An introductory college text on essay writing would probably be a useful start. Pronouns with no antecedents tend to be pretty much meaningless. Maybe English is not your native language, in which case you may need to take a bit more care, or get someone else to help you.)

 

The ancients didn't really communicate in puns but it looks like it to us because of the nature of their language.

In what way do you think the language looks like puns? I am not an expert on the Egyptian language, but is appears be a typical Afroasiatic language.

 

It looks like puns because their language was a natural language like computer code that was based on the logic of the various aspects of nature they studied.

This is very confusing. It sounds as if you are saying that "computer code" is a natural language. But even so, Egyptian is a typical Afroasiatic language which, therefore, bears no relation to any computer code that I am aware of. What computer code are you talking about.

 

The language arose naturally and was probably just an enhancement of whatever animal language proto-humans spoke before the mutation of the speech centers which allowed for complicated language.

Although little is known of the origins of human language it is likely to have been something like 100,000 years before the Egyptian language. Egyptian and hundreds, maybe thousands, of other languages would have developed over the intervening period and spread across the whole world. Why do you think there is something special about Egyptian?

 

But in every case in the PT "tefnut" is the "physical phenomenon of downward" they used this term as a synonym for what we call "weight".

So your entire "theory" is based on making up arbitrary new meanings for words which already have well attested meanings.

 

The pyramids were built by pulling stones up in an ascender one step at a time using counterweights full of water (Seker was the phenomenon of ballast). This is exactly what every single piece of physical evidence points to.

Citation needed: what physical evidence are you referring to?

 

Ramps have been debunked based on evidence.

Citation needed: what evidence are you referring to?

 

The first thing a writing system would record is all the knowledge, oral tradition, and history that existed at the time writing was invented.

That is a ridiculous assumption. For one thing, we know from experience as well as history that when writing is introduced to a culture there has always been a reluctance to write down oral traditions. This is partly because the oral transmission process itself is considered very important and surrounded by many rituals (it has to be, in order to be effective) and also because the stories themselves are considered too important and/or sacred to be "cheapened" by being written down.

Writing is initially used for trade, administration, laws and recording the achievements of the king/ruler.

 

This simply doesn't exist.

The absence of something that no one (who has actually studied the subject) would expect is hardly evidence of anything.

 

To my knowledge there simply is no comprehensible writing between 3200 BC and 2000 BC.

And, as has been repeatedly pointed out, this is not true.

Are you now lying deliberately to try and maintain this fictional history?

 

It seem most communication is clumsy at best.

Yours frequently is, that is for sure. It takes a lot of interpolation and guesswork to understand what you are talking about.

The first writing dates back 1200 years earlier.

 

Some "proto-writing" may be even older.

I know. If you remember, I pointed that out to you. (Although for some reason you rejected that out of hand.)

There are no books that pre-date the invention of writing because, at that time, there was no form of writing. How hard is it to understand that?

If you believe there was then you will need to provide some evidence. But, as you admit, there is no such evidence. Therefore you are just making this up. It is fantasy, not science.

It's not my thread. The topic is essentially whether or not the ancients had a concept or a memory of evolution.

After 4 pages of your made-up stories about ancient writing systems and languages that didn't exist, now you worry about taking the thread off topic?

You have already hijacked the thread. You might as well provide some support for this nonsense.

By the way, there is a very interesting discussion to be had about the psychological and social effects that make societies very reluctant to adapt proto-writing to a full writing system able to fully represent a language. This is one reason why it has always taken a long time to go from proto-writing (lists of goods, accounts, basic calculations, etc) to full writing.

How much have you actually studied historical linguistics or the development and/or decoding of writing systems? I wonder because you make some grand claims (like having read all ancient texts!) that I don't think any expert in the field would make.

There is not a single book or manuscript on paper or papyrus from before 2000 BC anywhere in thwe world. None exist. There are scraps and fragments of paper with a few words on them but no complete sentences. There are no books from before 2500 BC in any form at all. None.

Of course not. This is before the invention of writing.

 

Pretty much the only ancient writing that survives (and the only corpus) was inscribed in something. There were no books. The inscribed words are almost strictly (at least by percentage) incomprehensible gobblety gook.

Well, it is hardly surprising that stone or clay would last longer than vegetable matter.

And, with a few exceptions, they are not incomprehensible.

And the word is gobbledygook. GOBBLEDYGOOK.

 

I don't know what happened to all those books that no longer exist.

Here's an idea: they never existed.

As you have zero evidence that this books existed, then it is hardly surprising that they no longer exist.

I assume the reason that you think evidence would be off topic is because the topic of this thread is "stuff I made up".

 

Now this might be progress.

 

Tell me, what exact books do you have from before 2000 BC?

 

I'm of course willing to accept translations of any such books.

Good grief. That was supposed to be irony, to highlight how hard it is to understand what you are trying to say.

I assume you mean something like: "no books that I think existed before the invention of writing survive". Well, no. Because writing hadn't been invented and so there were no books.

If you are trying to imply that there is a forgotten form of writing that pre-dates known writing systems then why didn't these "ancients" leave any texts on stone or metal as many later civilizations did?

p.s. Am I to assume from your vague references to Egypt, that you are only or mainly concerned with an Egyptian society?

I'll be clearer then. I think much of the religious right in the US has an unhealthy attitude towards sexual relationships, especially ones they can't control, or that run contrary to the way they interpret their religious documents. I think they quite literally see sexual enjoyment as a sin (sometimes, even if they're married). I could see where this might lead some to start using sexual terminology as a form of hate speech.

I'm not sure it can be attributed to the religious right in the US. The change from swearwords being based on blasphemy to sexual words is common to most of the English speaking world. It is more likely due to more relaxed attitudes to religion that means that the old curses are no longer considered taboo.

It doesn't really matter what the subject is; if there are taboo words in a language, then they will be used as expletives. If it was taboo in a society to talk about mortality, for example, then "death!" might be the equivalent of "fuck!".

No books at all survive.

God. It's like pulling teeth. Please stop being so bloody vague and cryptic. Stop talking in generalizations and be specific. It is really hard to know what you are talking about (apart from the fact you are making it all up).

Of course books survive. I have a shelf full of them.

I assume you mean something like: "no books that I think existed before the invention of writing survive". Well, no. Because writing hadn't been invented and so there were no books.

If you are trying to imply that there is a forgotten form of writing that pre-dates known writing systems then why didn't these "ancients" leave any texts on stone or metal as many later civilizations did?

p.s. Am I to assume from your vague references to Egypt, that you are only or mainly concerned with an Egyptian society?

You most assuredly have done no such thing.

 

I can phrase this in many ways but the fact remains exactly the same; there is no comprehensible writing of any sort from before 2000 BC. It's true that some of the gobblety gook looks comprehensible when taken a sentence at a time but it will be contradicted or unsubstantiated.

You said, "there is nothing from before 2000 BC other than what we understand to be "religious writings" and incantations but which make no sense"

I provided evidence of writing 1,000 years older that were NOT "religious writings and incantations".

Also, however little evidence I have provided it is still infinitely more than you.

 

We're told their religion was magic

Their religion was no more or less "magic" than any other religion.

By the way, can you say which religion, culture, language and/or writing system(s) you are talking about? Or does this apply to every form of pre-literate society, every proto-writing, and every language throughout the world?

 

It's true that some of the gobblety gook looks comprehensible

The word is gobbledygook.