It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Geometry

page: 1
0
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 01:23 AM
Why don't we learn from the geometical understandings of past civilizations. Obiously from the morons that taught me I won't be able to mathimatically do squat. That is why I think we should be teaching geometical figures more thouroughly in schools. Because geometry is the basic learning tool for scientifical understanding of atomic structure. And studing geometry leads to the square root finite solutions which really come in handy. All past civiliztions have shown geometry as a writting system to some exstent. All past civilizations clearly understound phi better than we do if they had numbers like 3.125 clearly shows geometical influence instead of a money based counting system of today.

posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 02:39 PM

Because geometry is the basic learning tool for scientifical understanding of atomic structure

Atomic structure requires quite a bit more than geometry.

clearly shows geometical influence instead of a money based counting system of today.

Wha?

posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 04:43 PM
Ancient geometry is a fascinating subject that leaves me speachless of what to make of its significance. However, anyone enjoying this thread should check out these two sites for further enlightenment:

www.earthmatrix.com...
www.sover.net...

PS-Especially check out the link called, "The Architects Plan" on the second site......very interesting.

posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 11:31 PM
fools geometry is the unified field proof. I know it and am currently developing a refinement of my equations used to define space. That is I'm working on a method to combine four seperate equations into one that allow on to calculate out any really large atomic sturcture interaction in seconds rather than weeks. Obviously you don't understand past civilizations until you can grasp the concept of pi = 3.125 when used in the geometrical equation to find it. Mathematics revolving around dimensions can be down hundreds of ways with the same answer and the method they used is far more ifficent and accurate than never ending numbers like pi today.

posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 09:38 AM

Originally posted by Canopene
fools geometry is the unified field proof. I know it and am currently developing a refinement of my equations used to define space. That is I'm working on a method to combine four seperate equations into one that allow on to calculate out any really large atomic sturcture interaction in seconds rather than weeks. Obviously you don't understand past civilizations until you can grasp the concept of pi = 3.125 when used in the geometrical equation to find it. Mathematics revolving around dimensions can be down hundreds of ways with the same answer and the method they used is far more ifficent and accurate than never ending numbers like pi today.

You'll just love it when you get into vector analysis, non-commutative geometries, cylindrical geometries, and quantum geometries. I'm currently doing Small Worlds research (and particle swarms) and while it's not a laugh a minute, it's interesting. I usually go off and whimper at the Real Mathemeticians to help when I get in that deep.

And then there's the other geometries like edge geometries.

Geometry's solving a lot of computational problems as well, particularly in multidimensional search algorithms.

Although I'm not sure why you'd go back to the geometry of the ancients, since that's a simpler geometry and you'd just have to re-derive milennia of work to get to where you can do multidimensional geometries.

posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 01:16 PM

Originally posted by Canopene
that allow on to calculate out any really large atomic sturcture interaction in seconds rather than weeks.

Is that supposed to be somethign other than gibberish?

Obviously you don't understand past civilizations until you can grasp the concept of pi = 3.125

how is pi supposed to equal 3.125? Its the circumfrence of a circle divided by its radius, how can it equal 3.125 exactly? What circle have you measured in this way?

new topics

top topics

0