gravity waves found

[gravityblock]

Good grief GB, you really have taken this way too personally. Perhaps it is because at the core you know I am correct. If you do attempt to divide an apple into 3 parts the parts will not be equal unless the total number of smallest parts is divisible by 3, and that is true of any numerical base you choose because it is fundamental to the material being divided. Let me know when you can divide $100 equally 3 ways.

Once again you're taking things out of context (I've been talking about dividing the largest part, and not dividing the smallest parts. There is a difference between the two, and I truly hope you can see this difference). A $100 bill, the bill itself, can be divided equally 3 ways into thirds. Also, 33 1/3 + 33 1/3 + 33 1/3 = $100. If I have a coin, which has a value equal to one-third of a dollar (3 of these coins would equal $1), then I could do it in the way you would like. Just because TPTB hasn't issued this coin, doesn't mean it's impossible (by them choosing to use an ineffecient system, doesn't mean it can't be done). We have quarters, so why can't we have thirds? This just shows you how our society or TBTB has an affinity towards over-complicating things and also proves how narrow-minded people like you really are (can't think outside the box or think outside what they've been taught).

As regards this comment:
"Attention everyone: According to Harvey, dividing 8 people into 2 areas doesn't equal 4 per area.......because the atoms or molecules of each person wasn't divided up properly (one person may have more atoms or molecules than the other person. I hope you can see how you took things way out of context)."

I should be offended by your tone but I understand you have a bit of egg on your face and this is how you react in that case. My apologies for ruffling your feathers.

If your insulted by this, then so be it. It is what it is! I will always fight for what I believe is truth and what I perceive to be correct, regardless of how much egg you may perceive to be on my face. You should look in the mirror.

Just so you know, as a GA pilot I am very well aware of the importance of dividing people properly by weight rather than by number. In some cases it is absolutely necessary to put 3 heavy persons on one side and 5 lighter on the other to balance the plane.

Harvey, I'm sorry, but it doesn't take a GA pilot to be aware of this. This is just common sense, and you're attributing it to personal knowledge from being a pilot.

So, no hard feelings - we can all get along here if we just realize that division involves precision and limits.

In the base 12 system, we could have twelfths, sixths, quarters, thirds, and halves represented as a single decimal place (again, it would be easy to divide that $100 up equally in 3 ways if we had coins to represent those values in the base 12 system). Also it works much better in geometry and in a lot of other areas. The only limit is our imagination, so if we conceive a limit, then what is beyond this limit? We can all get along once this is realized. Nature disregards imaginary enclosures, throughout she behaves as though she were ignorant of Hamilton's calculus and the importance which people attach to formulae. No hard feelings here either, just a little dissappointed in your lack of reasoning skills along with your very limited and narrow views. We all fall short, no big deal, but we shouldn't practice it either, especially after being shown where we fall short.

GB

[Harvey]

Good grief GB, you really have taken this way too personally. Perhaps it is because at the core you know I am correct. If you do attempt to divide an apple into 3 parts the parts will not be equal unless the total number of smallest parts is divisible by 3, and that is true of any numerical base you choose because it is fundamental to the material being divided. Let me know when you can divide $100 equally 3 ways.

As regards this comment:
"Attention everyone: According to Harvey, dividing 8 people into 2 areas doesn't equal 4 per area.......because the atoms or molecules of each person wasn't divided up properly (one person may have more atoms or molecules than the other person. I hope you can see how you took things way out of context)."

I should be offended by your tone but I understand you have a bit of egg on your face and this is how you react in that case. My apologies for ruffling your feathers.

Just so you know, as a GA pilot I am very well aware of the importance of dividing people properly by weight rather than by number. In some cases it is absolutely necessary to put 3 heavy persons on one side and 5 lighter on the other to balance the plane.

So, no hard feelings - we can all get along here if we just realize that division involves precision and limits.

[sucahyo]

Application?

Someone can explain the use of numbers in PMH? To achieve what?

Is it for more experiment idea, something to try or for improving current work?

Sorry, I just can not understand.

[SuperCaviTationIstic]

One-third can be represented in base 12 without the decimal places repeating. A third, in base 12 is exactly (0.4). So, doing calculations in base 10 which has an infinite number of decimal places, such as a third, should be equal to the same calculation in base 12, such as with a third which has no repeating decimals in that base.

Case Closed!

GB

I really like your reasoning, and this example....
If I remember correctly Marko Rodin showed how Pi is calculable in an other base number system, or maybe it was a combination between two base number systems..... maybe I'll dig that up if no one else does

[gravityblock]

One-third can be represented in base 12 without the decimal places repeating. A third, in base 12 is exactly (0.4). So, doing calculations in base 10 which has an infinite number of decimal places, such as a third, should be equal to the same calculation in base 12, such as with a third which has no repeating decimals in that base.

Case Closed!

GB

[gravityblock]

Harvey,

I was talking about dividing 1 apple into 3 equal parts. I never said anything about dividing all of the molecules or atoms which make up the 1 apple into 3 equal parts. Geometry wise, the apple could be divided into 3 equal parts according to degrees. It could also be divided according to weight assuming the weight was equally distributed in the apple (I even stated this in my post). What you fail to realize, the 3 equal pieces divided according to its weight could also be identical in shape and size to the 3 pieces which were divided according to degrees. Also, we've been discussing what the numbers themselves represent, and not if it's practical or possible to perfectly represent those number in the real world. I have never in my entire life seen anyone try to take a simple mathematical equation of dividing one apple into three pieces this far out of context before. If we have 3 pieces, each being one-third of the apple (in a perfect world, just for Harvey), then adding these 3 together (1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 3/3 or 1) the three pieces total 1 apple....but if we convert these pieces into decimals, then add them together (0.33 + 0.33 + 0.33 = 0.99 or 99% of 1) makes the 3 pieces 1% less than the total apple? Even if the decimal places of each piece is carried out to infinity, it will still be less than the one apple according to Solrey. I think not. This is the point in which I have been trying to make, but it appears that this "simple truth" is going over people's heads. Totally unbelievable. God will confuse the wise with the simplist things of this world.

Attention everyone: According to Harvey, dividing 8 people into 2 areas doesn't equal 4 per area.......because the atoms or molecules of each person wasn't divided up properly (one person may have more atoms or molecules than the other person. I hope you can see how you took things way out of context). What a joke, and you say we were mistaken! With all due respect, I'll take Solrey's pathetic argument over yours anyday, whatever that may have been. I can't believe this is being debated here, for a child could understand what I'm saying is correct. If we can't get past these simple, basic, and elementary truths, then how can we move into more complex things such as OU or raising massive stones as if it were a feather. By now, we should be eating meat, but we are still drinking milk as babes do.

Anyways, we should be working in base 12, instead of base 10! Base 10 is the system taught by TPTB, and this is probably the worst base for us to be using. Harvey, which institutions were you educated by? It appears you have lost your common sense and logic like Solrey. My brother lost his after he went to college. It's just something I have observed to be true most of the time. I'm sure there are exceptions, like the ones who question what was being taught to them (Solrey claims this exception, but I find previous statements made by him to be contradictory to what he is now claiming).

GB

[Harvey]

With all due respect to both Solrey and GB on their 1/3 discussion, they are both mistaken.

The question regarding being able to divide an apple (or anything for that matter) into 3 equal parts is a matter of precision. The example of weight was offered, but clearly by applying a scale you have set a limit as to what you accept to be equal. The scale is only accurate to some degree, and you cannot accurately measure the 3 parts beyond that limit. If the scale is accurate to 1/100 of a gram, then any of the 3 parts could have 5/1000 of a gram more or less than the others and the scale would be forced to round it accordingly.

So we get to the question of "what is the smallest part?". The answer for pure minerals is the atom. The answer for compounds is the molecule. But the answer for organics, such as an apple is much more complex. Even a two year old readily notices the differences between the skin, the pulp, the core and the seeds of an apple.

So to truly separate an apple into 3 equal parts would require not only that all of the different cell types have a total equally divisible by 3, but would also require that the average mass of those cell types be equivalent in the 3 parts. Once you divide a cell it is no longer part of the apple. It may be considered a derivative of the apple, but it is no longer identifiable by itself as "apple" without the other parts that make up is structure. Naturally this statement will spawn all types of debates on the level of DNA strands and cellular particulates unique to apples in their composition and I'm sure there is one minimum cell that could be used to clone another apple from, but not after it has been divided 3 ways.

So you set your own limits as to what constitutes an equal division into 3 parts. Of course if you had 3,6,9 or 12 apples then you could divide it into unit quantities. But if I take all the big ones and leave you with the small ones, I have a feeling you would think it is an unequal division.

There are certain numbers that the Egyptians used that even today mathematicians are still work at solving.

David's exercise was to show some relationship between the reflection of the sphere and the infinite permutation of Nonregular Numbers. I'm not certain how that relationship is being addressed, but I get the image in my head of a purely reflective sphere with a photon bouncing around inside where the reflective angle of the sphere is something like the golden angle. The only way the photon could ever find its way back to the precise starting point is if the number of permutations was exactly divisible into the reflective angle (or vice versa ). So, for 3 paths (2 bounces and a return) the reflective angle would have to be the ratio of 1 divided by 3 which is a nonregular number of the type 'repeating decimal'.

This is David's thread and I expect him to help us see the relationship between the spherical reflection and the nonregular numbers.

[thekubiaks]

my re-discovery of this energy [Leedskalnin] goes hand and hand with spin field theory.........david

If you can show me a youtube video of you levitating a 10,000 pound rock with three impartial observers, then your case is proven, and you won't have to debate your discovery with the crowd, just tell us how you did it.

[gravityblock]

Solrey,

We're not in agreement. According to you, 0.999 or (3 * 0.333) carried to infinite decimal places doesn't equal 1 without rounding, but I showed you how it does equal 1 without rounding. There is no confusion in the concept of converting between fractions and decimals. 1/3(one-third) is equal to 0.333 carried to infinite decimal places. I really hope you can see this, for the one form is derived from the other form, so they must be equal. One could argue a ball dropped from a building will never hit the ground, since we could always divide the distance of the ball from the ground in half for infinity, so the ball will never reach the ground according to you. But we do know the ball hits the ground, so all of those infinite divisions by 2 must equal the distance from the top of the building to the ground, for if it didn't, then the ball would never make contact with the ground and would forever be falling.

In regards to your statement about you abhorring institutions, I find this hard to believe when you proudly made the below statement about the education you received by an institution, in reply to Harvey in an earlier post.

Fluid physics was a big part of my aerospace courses so I learned about Archimedes and buoyancy long before Wikipedia was merely an idea in Jimmy Wales' head.

Also, you have 29 posts on this forum, while 28 of them, have been in this thread bashing Dave, while arguing with everyone else. The other post is in Dave's other thread. You followed Dave from the thunderbolt forum, and it's very obvious your only intent on this forum is to troll and harrass him. What a way to be, lol.

GB

[solrey]

gravityblock wrote:
I'll just go ahead and give you the answer. 1 apple can be divided into 3 equal pieces where each piece is 120 degrees of the apple (360 / 3 = 120). Or, if the apple weighed 0.27lbs, and it's weight is equally distributed throughout the apple, we could divide it into 3 equal pieces where each piece weighed 0.09lbs (0.27lbs / 3 = 0.09lbs). We just solved what you contended or implied was impossible by dividing 1 apple into 3 equal pieces (1 / 3 = 0.333... * 3 doesn't exactly equal 1 according to you, but x / 3 = y, while y * 3 = x, and x is equivillent to or equal to 1 apple). So, 0.333... * 3 = 0.999... carried out to infinite decimal places does equal 1 in my book, because other equivillent and more precise solutions will make it exactly 1, without rounding!

Thanks, but not necessary. Why so impatient?
I was merely addressing the question of decimals, not fractions. Interchanging between decimals and fractions isn't logical in your example of dividing an apple into three equal pieces, which can be expressed by the same mathematical expressions you gave, they're the same form as Ohm's law:

x=a/b
or
xb=a

where x describes a wedge of apple as a ratio to the whole, a is 1 whole apple and b is the number of equal pieces. Solving for x in eq. 1 we get: x=1/3 or 1/3=1/3
plugging the fraction x into eq. 2 we get 1/3*3=1

The irony is we're in agreement. Perhaps the confusion is in the concept of conversion between fractions and decimals and I didn't go there for a reason.

Most people who are educated by an institution, tend to lose their common sense and logic. There is a simple explanation for this, however. They allowed others to do their thinking and reasoning for them, without questioning anything.

At the risk of sounding narcissistic:
If you actually knew me you'd know that I agree with that statement, that it doesn't apply to me and that I abhor institutions. I learn from others while thinking for myself and question everything including the things I believe in the most. I'm currently working "behind the scenes" with a group that's challenging conventional cosmology and astrophysics. With a combination of basic physics, primitive building design and modern technology I can show you how to keep a house cool without an air conditioner by using a solar powered attic fan and geothermal heat exchange.

I'm open minded enough that I'm gonna visit David in a couple of days.

cheers

[gravityblock]

my brother Ben has his masters in physics [very skeptical] but now with other data coming in that does not fit the model, one has to wonder....think outside geometry....david

David,

I agree. Just about everything I was ever taught in school, I'm finding out it was either wrong, inaccurate, incomplete, or was a downright lie. 12+ years of education for nothing. I wasted my time, effort, and money on a bunch of trash. TPTB have inverted every truth imaginable to mankind. The rabbit hole runs very deep. Think outside whatever is being taught.

TPTB = "Father of the lie", "Author of confusion", etc.

GB

[david lambright]

Solrey,

Most people who are educated by an institution, tend to lose their common sense and logic. There is a simple explanation for this, however. They allowed others to do their thinking and reasoning for them, without questioning anything.



GB

my brother Ben has his masters in physics [very skeptical] but now with other data coming in that does not fit the model, one has to wonder....think outside geometry....david

[gravityblock]

Solrey,

Most people who are educated by an institution, tend to lose their common sense and logic. There is a simple explanation for this, however. They allowed others to do their thinking and reasoning for them, without questioning anything.



GB

[gravityblock]

Solrey,

I'll just go ahead and give you the answer. 1 apple can be divided into 3 equal pieces where each piece is 120 degrees of the apple (360 / 3 = 120). Or, if the apple weighed 0.27lbs, and it's weight is equally distributed throughout the apple, we could divide it into 3 equal pieces where each piece weighed 0.09lbs (0.27lbs / 3 = 0.09lbs). We just solved what you contended or implied was impossible by dividing 1 apple into 3 equal pieces (1 / 3 = 0.333... * 3 doesn't exactly equal 1 according to you, but x / 3 = y, while y * 3 = x, and x is equivillent to or equal to 1 apple). So, 0.333... * 3 = 0.999... carried out to infinite decimal places does equal 1 in my book, because other equivillent and more precise solutions will make it exactly 1, without rounding!

GB

[david lambright]

lenses

a Fresnel lens is concentric rings....could a lens be cut with a spiral instead? Fibonacci type? like in the Sumerian carvings?...david