pantheory Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 (edited) The Light Barrier, ...So why should it make any difference to you as how I found this pi twin?????? One thing that many students do not understand is that nowadays with computer programs one can put in all the observations ever done in any particular domain and come up with relative ease, a formulation to predict all new observations in the same range of that domain. With programming it is no longer difficult. For instance, such a mathematical reformulation for gravity (no programming) is called MOND, which is an acronym for Modified Newtonian Dynamics. This formula works very well for the Milky Way but physicists in general are not impressed because there is no accepted justification for this formulation, or why it does not work for the rotation velocities of all spiral galaxies or why it does not work for galaxies in a cluster. The point for me telling you this is that formulations or constants even if they somehow have value, also need to show justification for their formulation. So if you find something of value mathematically you need to show justification for deriving it mathematical or otherwise. For Einstein it was the concept of the Warping/curvature of Space-time concept, whether right of wrong. The curvature accordingly is, in turn, caused by the energy-momentum of matter. An analogy is that spacetime tells matter how to move and matter tells spacetime how to curve. Another example is that Quantum Mechanics has a very long history of observations so formulations of it are certain, only the degree of accuracy might be improved. So you need to explain the basis for any conclusion/formulation/constant you make once that you have provided strong evidence that you have something of value to offer. // If gravity has a twin then how would that improve our ability to calculate something? All you seem to be offering are constants. Why do you think these "numbers" have value of some kind and how might these "constants" be used to improve present calculations? After all, the primary reason for all formulations or constants in physics (if not the only reason), is to make usable predictions. // Edited October 17, 2011 by pantheory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringer Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 Are you saying you don't believe that pi is a ratio between the circumference and diameter of a circle? That was explained, you can test it on any circle you like and it will always come out the same. So, since that was given to you, the ball is in your court to explain where your number came from. No one will 'steal your math', science isn't exactly a place you can steal ideas expect to make loads of money and become famous. If someone steals your idea and it's dead wrong they wasted a lot of time and effort. Since the majority of amateur ideas are wrong, not saying it's bad to come up with ideas, the odds of theft being any more than loss isn't worth any thief's time. If someone were to try, it would be fairly easy to resolve. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 My ratio represents the opposite of pi ratio. Opposite how? 1/pi ? 1-pi? 100%-pi? What's "OPPOSITE"? You want to do theoretical mathematics, and you don't seem to speak the terms for us to understand what it is you're doing. The only thing I can say is treat the number I found as if it were pi ratio. Until I get an article that will "show the math" then I will disclose this information as per previously advised from other " sources" please don't ask. The ball is in your court, if you would like to see how I found this then help me get this out in a "published article and get credit as the person whom will re-define the math for me, into the standard "traditional mainstream ways." "As if it were pi ratio" -- and yet it's not the pi ratio. It's not even remotely CLOSE to being pi ratio. The ball is far from my court, my friend, as far as we're concerned, this is a madeup huge number you pulled out of your hat. You make the claim, the burden of proof is on you. It's not on us. We can't tell you how you found it. We have no way of showing YOU the math YOU need to show us. This is ridiculous. You're no longer being misunderstood and vague, you're starting to disregard our rules here. Go over them again, please. And please read that post I referenced, it was not for decoration. The fact we're criticizing the methodology you're taking doesn't count as a personal offense. You wanted to know if your theory is scientific, you should be ready to accept a no. Work on the details and get back to us. I learn from history here. If you would not like to, then I respect that. Thank You For Your Time, WOW! I feel somewhat honered really I do. Science doesn't work like that. I know the field of entertainment and fame trust me, been there done that. Can't get back into this loop again, if I had my math stolen then this would be three strikes against my produced music that "too" was stolen. I just cannot bare anymore losses...sorry..Plus I want to enjoy life too I guess we're done, here, then. ~mooey Are you saying you don't believe that pi is a ratio between the circumference and diameter of a circle? That was explained, you can test it on any circle you like and it will always come out the same. So, since that was given to you, the ball is in your court to explain where your number came from. No one will 'steal your math', science isn't exactly a place you can steal ideas expect to make loads of money and become famous. If someone steals your idea and it's dead wrong they wasted a lot of time and effort. Since the majority of amateur ideas are wrong, not saying it's bad to come up with ideas, the odds of theft being any more than loss isn't worth any thief's time. If someone were to try, it would be fairly easy to resolve. And in any case NO publication will accept this without having a FULL mathematical account of everything, and have that mathematical account be *reviewed* (read analyzed and repeated) by others. There's no escaping this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Light Barrier Posted October 17, 2011 Author Share Posted October 17, 2011 (edited) Good someone whom thinks! Yes this is exactly what I am saying pi ratio is not the circumference to a diameter it represents the "radians" of the number you multiply this with!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Its a super pseudo vector!!!!!!!!Now I am talking too much... For instance 2x + delta x / delta x = some derivative right? What really is going to boggle your mind is this.... The co-secant line and secant line are this 2x deal, their position vectors are what ever their values are on the y and x axis in relation to the "slope." When divided by delta x, you thus take the derivative from these two, secant and co secant lines put together. When divided by delta x you thus then are using a different method for pi ratio. THUS! [co-secant+secant] = vector = magnitude , velocity or etc! It was already there to begin with! Look, the same works with my number accept I take the derivative of pi ratio itself and end up with the negative of pi ratio, here it is found in the exponent of 14. The number 8 here is an arbitrary number " I pulled out of my hat. 3.14*8 = 25.12 Same method only now we replace 3.14 with my number of: 94277083333321 94277083333321*8 = 754216666666568 25.12/754216666666568 = 3.33060791549775e-14<--------THERE IS 3. 14. Thus pi ratio is the number 3 to the 14th power! Notice in my number of 94277083333321, there is no tenths place, making this a "free number." But of coarse its cloaked for now. Again the regular pi ratio is a number 3 to the 14th power, it is compleatly backwards! Mine is not, but I still need help understanding what it is in relation to the main stream physics world. Hmmmmmm.... Notice the triples of 333? Could Max Planck known all this too?? Let us use some numerology now to see if this could be the case shall we: PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE 'YEAR' 1.986! 6.626e-33 / 3.33 = 1.98978978978979e-33 1989 / 6.626e-33 = 3.00181104738907 1 / 3.00181104738907 = 0.33313222724987 6.626e-33*299.792458 = 1.986424826708 1.989-1.986 = 0.003 1 / 0.003 = 333.3333333333333 1986-1989 = -3 Even works like this too: 6.626e-33 / 3e14 = 2.20866666666667e-47 33-47 = -14 But of coarse let us remember that numerology has no merit in main stream science.....HEY! 1986 was the Southern Summer Solstice Position Of Uranus! Look Here! :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus Winter solstice1902, 1986 Summer solstice Are you saying you don't believe that pi is a ratio between the circumference and diameter of a circle? That was explained, you can test it on any circle you like and it will always come out the same. So, since that was given to you, the ball is in your court to explain where your number came from. No one will 'steal your math', science isn't exactly a place you can steal ideas expect to make loads of money and become famous. If someone steals your idea and it's dead wrong they wasted a lot of time and effort. Since the majority of amateur ideas are wrong, not saying it's bad to come up with ideas, the odds of theft being any more than loss isn't worth any thief's time. If someone were to try, it would be fairly easy to resolve. Edited October 17, 2011 by The Light Barrier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 Right. I wanted to start answering but it seems I would just be repeating everything I already said. You want to create math without understanding what mathematics is, and you want to create physics without really understanding current physics. We all know what pi is. You learn that at school; you even test it at school, and later, and you keep verifying exactly what it is. The origin of the Pi ratio was never a problem. This thread is not just unproductive, it's starting to get annoying. You are ignoring what people tell you and you skip questions you feel like skipping. Discussions don't work like that, and guess what? Neither does science. I really think that if you are serious about finding the backing for this "theory" (sorry, it's not even a theory yet, so far it's a wild hypothesis without backing, and even that I'm not quite sure is the proper description) then you need to pause the "I KNOW BETTAH THAN EVERYONE ELSE!" attitude and sit down to read a little bit about what the current mathematical models *actually say*. You want to argue against them, the only fair thing is to first know what they say. From what you state throughout this thread it's clear that you don't know what the current models are, you're not entirely sure what the field equation actually represents (which it seems is why you are replacing PI with random numbers) and what "vectors" are. For that matter, you don't seem to know what "derivatives" mean, since you want us to take a derivative of a constant and claim that will give us another constant. It's frustrating, I don't even know where to start. So I won't. You seem to be a tad too energetic on the expense of clarity and scientific methodology. We're not here to rub your ego and tell you what a great idea you have. We're here to do science. You ain't doin' it. You have some reading to do. ~mooey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 ! Moderator Note Numerology is not accepted science. It has no useful predictive power and borders on superstition. You started this thread to find someone who would verify your math for publication and I think the answer is clear. Your math has been falsified and no one is interested in putting their name on your paper. I'll leave this thread open until Wednesday, then it will be closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 And as a shameless promotion to an SFN user's blog (in SFN blogs, incidentally) that is completely on-point, and, I suspect, was written as a result of this thread (or partially at least), this is an excellent account of why numerology is not science. Regardless of where this thread is ending up, this is a relevant and good read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 This thread is not just unproductive, it's starting to get annoying. Starting to get annoying?! Your patience and diligence here have been outstanding. Respect for your diplomacy prevents me from saying what I am thinking about The Light Barrier's 'theory'. I know you are smart enough to imagine it. Job well done, let him sink without a trace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 And as a shameless promotion to an SFN user's blog (in SFN blogs, incidentally) that is completely on-point, and, I suspect, was written as a result of this thread (or partially at least), this is an excellent account of why numerology is not science. In part, there has been other threads that are closer to numerology than science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantheory Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 (edited) The Light Barrier, It's OK to play with numbers to come up with something of value. Instead of calling it numerology, an occult word, maybe instead you should call it algorithms (a type of trial and error math). But the most important thing that you need to explain is why your constant(s) has any value in the first place. This you have not done to my understanding. Even if you think this constant has something to do with gravity, you need to explain how this constant should be applied? or how a constant can produce an equation? or why two sets of GR equations are better than one? DOES ANYONE KNOW WHERE THE ORIGINAL PI RATIO CAME FROM??? WHY DOES NOT ANYONE ASK ABOUT THAT? WHY DO THEY USE IT AND NEVER QUESTION ITS ORIGINS????? Oh, I forget, it just works. The history of the estimation of Pi goes back thousands of years. The first estimates probably go back to the earliest circular constructions at the times of the first civilizations of Mesopotamian, Egypt, and the early Chinese, etc. The first known recordings of such estimations date back about 3,000 years. The first quite accurate known estimate of Pi was done by Archemedes about 240 BC. Using his method he seemingly could have made his estimate as accurate as he wanted. With today's computers there would seem to be no limit to the accuracy of pi if greater accuracy were needed somehow. http://physics.weber...chimedes/pi.htm // Edited October 18, 2011 by pantheory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Light Barrier Posted October 18, 2011 Author Share Posted October 18, 2011 (edited) THANKS mooeypoo And as a shameless promotion to an SFN user's blog (in SFN blogs, incidentally) that is completely on-point, and, I suspect, was written as a result of this thread (or partially at least), this is an excellent account of why numerology is not science. Regardless of where this thread is ending up, this is a relevant and good read. And as a shameless promotion to an SFN user's blog (in SFN blogs, incidentally) that is completely on-point, and, I suspect, was written as a result of this thread (or partially at least), this is an excellent account of why numerology is not science. Regardless of where this thread is ending up, this is a relevant and good read. Edited October 18, 2011 by The Light Barrier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringer Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 You aren't doing anything except pulling numbers out and relating them through meaningless arithmetic. Our years have absolutely nothing to due with any universal constant, finding any relationship with a certain year and anything else is just coincidence. You also can't move decimal points around to get the number you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Light Barrier Posted October 18, 2011 Author Share Posted October 18, 2011 (edited) Your math has been falsified? I beg your pardon? This is very bold you! Especially in a public forum.... If it has been falsified, then why not sue me then?????? If you ever get a chance to read what I just explained to mooeypoo another staff here, then I am sure I will receive an apology from you on behalf of your accusations towards me. If I do not, then I will leave and take my story to another forum..-----> how about that! You see this is why "humans" never advance to higher levels, its because of your ego! and this is why "your" world is what it is today, no math, science, nor intrigals, pure empirical observationb of your world! ! Moderator Note Numerology is not accepted science. It has no useful predictive power and borders on superstition. You started this thread to find someone who would verify your math for publication and I think the answer is clear. Your math has been falsified and no one is interested in putting their name on your paper. I'll leave this thread open until Wednesday, then it will be closed. The Light Barrier, It's OK to play with numbers to come up with something of value. Instead of calling it numerology, an occult word, maybe instead you should call it algorithms (a type of trial and error math). But the most important thing that you need to explain is why your constant(s) has any value in the first place. This you have not done to my understanding. Even if you think this constant has something to do with gravity, you need to explain how this constant should be applied? or how a constant can produce an equation? or why two sets of GR equations are better than one? The history of the estimation of Pi goes back thousands of years. The first estimates probably go back to the earliest circular constructions at the times of the first civilizations of Mesopotamian, Egypt, and the early Chinese, etc. The first known recordings of such estimations date back about 3,000 years. The first quite accurate known estimate of Pi was done by Archemedes about 240 BC. Using his method he seemingly could have made his estimate as accurate as he wanted. With today's computers there would seem to be no limit to the accuracy of pi if greater accuracy were needed somehow. http://physics.weber...chimedes/pi.htm // Edited October 18, 2011 by The Light Barrier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Your math has been falsified? I beg your pardon? This is very bold you! Especially in a public forum.... 1+22.2+135=158.2 is not a mathematical formula. It's not "doing science", it's making a calculation. If you don't know what 1, 22.2 and 135 MEAN and where they came from, and why it's 22.2 and not, say, 22.32 or 22.12, then this entire exercise is simply meaningless. Let me sum this exercise up, in big font, so to make sure you read it (since you seem to be skipping points you dislike): You are not a scientist, that's fine, I'm not an artist. If I were to come to you and tell you how art works, and then insist you listen to me and publish me as an artist, you would get as frustrated with me as we are with you. The only difference between us on this case is that I admit I am not an authority on how art works. You seem to insist you know how science works despite how many times we repeat that you don't. I think you should take a step back and learn a little about how science works. You have the wrong concept about that. Case in point: If it has been falsified, then why not sue me then?????? If you ever get a chance to read what I just explained to mooeypoo another staff here, then I am sure I will receive an apology from you on behalf of your accusations towards me. Because it's not the way science works. (One more time, with feeling.) Also, I wouldn't hold my breath on that apology. If I do not, then I will leave and take my story to another forum..-----> how about that! Please do. You'll get the same answers. Actually, you might get kicked out sooner. I've been very patient. You see this is why "humans" never advance to higher levels, its because of your ego! and this is why "your" world is what it is today, no math, science, nor intrigals, pure empirical observationb of your world! Because they don't take the time to study what they claim? I agree. Good luck, friend. Do let us know when another science forum hails your theory as true and sends you off for publication. Now, please, unless you have anything of value to your theory to add, do stop this mocking attitude. You tried, you failed, move on. ~mooey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 ! Moderator Note Preaching is not acceptable, if you are queried, prove you are right, do NOT just repeat yourself. I would also like to echo those who have gone before and implore you to investigate the scientific method and how modern physics works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Light Barrier Posted October 18, 2011 Author Share Posted October 18, 2011 (edited) Preaching ????? I thought that ""metaphysical realms or occultic subjects""" were not allowed here. Seems now you are breaking your own rules, but then again that's how "leader-ships in today's world seem to work lately." Preaching to my knowledge stands for someone whom is speaking on the behalf of a higher celestial entitie's fantastic rules on humanity....Don't even try, you went there too! I have already admited that I need help understanding this, I did not pull those numbers out of nowhere, because obviously this thread has had the most replies in probably any other thread here....I may be confused on my finds, but I am not dumb and neither are any of you. I am onto to something incredible. TEST , my number out on something, use it as a delta x, look at the results and tell me what you think about what you found. This is give and take here, I'm not going to do all the work!!!!!!!! DON'T BE SELFISH!!!!!!!!! ! Moderator Note Preaching is not acceptable, if you are queried, prove you are right, do NOT just repeat yourself. I would also like to echo those who have gone before and implore you to investigate the scientific method and how modern physics works. Edited October 18, 2011 by The Light Barrier -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Enough. Thread closed, as promised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts