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.

# 3 Body Problem

page: 1
0
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2003 @ 07:01 AM
For those out of the loop, the 3 body problem is:

3 magnets in triangulation, cause spin. They spin in a circle. To
apply polarities vertically to this phenomenon causes gyroscoping
of the orbiters. 3 forces + 2 forces = 5 forces in this case. But
3 forces times 2 forces = 6 forces. Six is the number of sides to a cube. (You could also take 5+1=6 in that the fivefold force arcs in
the 3 body problem are added to/as one event. ) Primes are only
divisible by one or themselves remember. If we take a five pointed star and each point traced a line in a sphere, but it made one rotation with each point in succession serving as its top or the top of the star:

You would have 3 traced segments per flip (the sides would begin and end each other's line) times five points which equals fifteen and 5+1=6. However there are six portions or zones within a five pointed star as a pentagram: 5 four sided polygons + 1
pentagon in the middle. Without over complicating this matter would anyone care to do the math on this:

How many segments would the star (regardless of inner lines)
as circles inside the sphere, would the star draw if rotated once as I said in each direction of each point once? Or how many meridians would our sphere have? 15 of course, but I would appreciate it if someone who has some 3D computer art programming skills could create a rotational model of the sphere plus meridian lines. I ask this because it isn't the total I wanted as such but the visual representation in the globe. For, each of the segments would intersect each other at points and I wonder
(intersections should also be 15) what the sphere would appear like rotatable. 15+15=30.....1+5+1+5=12, 1+2=3.....30 divided by 2=15, 1+5=6, 6 times 5 = 30, 6 + 5 = 11, 1+1=2, 2 times 15 = 30.
=15....1=5=6.....

posted on Sep, 20 2003 @ 10:15 AM
I will be glad to work up a 3D for you on this, but it will have to be when I'm logged into my company network. I don't have a stand alone license on SolidWorks.

Just thinking through this without the assistance of art, let's clarify some points. (pun not intended)

Let's place our pentagram standing vertical on the page and the top most point will be 1 and we'll number around clockwise.

So we'll begin with 1 at 0 degrees, 2 at 72 degrees, 3 at 144 degrees, 4 at 216 degrees and 5 at 288 degrees.

If we then make our first rotation about the horizontal axis of the imagined circle that circumvents the five points, we will sweep circles that appears as five lines in 2D as follows (done in paint, so just for demonstration).

next step will be to move 2 to 1's position (72 degree counterclockwise rotation)...correct?

[Edited on 20-9-2003 by Valhall]

posted on Sep, 20 2003 @ 10:40 AM
Okay, so we have point 2 at 0 degrees now and we rotate about the horizontal axis of the circle. We now have

and we index counterclockwise to put point 3 at 0 degrees.

posted on Sep, 20 2003 @ 10:57 AM
Thank yous to all who are inspired and offer assistance. I am deeply grateful. I cannot tell you all how great it is to approach a subject of personal passion with reception to great minds who think alike. I am so used to beer swilling louts who couldn't care less about such matters of higher academia. I can't wait to get my scanner so that I can upload my data and show my progress in completing the basic design formulae for the hypercube. I am also
near creating a G.U.T. formula that was....my God....so simple. It
is easier to put it all together that pull it all apart. Cheers.

posted on Sep, 20 2003 @ 11:04 AM
Okay, now we rotate about the horizontal axis with point 3 at 0 degrees

and index point 4 to 0 degrees.

posted on Sep, 20 2003 @ 11:23 AM
Now we rotate about the horizontal line with point 4 at 0 degrees.

and index point 5 to 0 degrees.

posted on Sep, 20 2003 @ 11:34 AM
And with the last rotation we get the final form:

posted on Sep, 20 2003 @ 12:39 PM
Thank you again all. I have already drawn out the polyhedra and discovered (the star of David-icosahedron) that tetrahedron is fundamental design upon which all polyhedra correlate. I actually
have a books filled with my diagrams, data, designs myself, (although they really demonstrate what I tried to verify in syntax)
I also realized that my models and designs on the fly were dead-on with current phrasings. this pleased me greatly to know that I was barking up the right tree. As of six months ago I had never attempted to even comprehend geometry in any fashion.

I just discvered my knack for visualization and went with it. For about two months in the summer I taught myself geometry with no textbooks, school or such. Gotauma Siddhartha said every man was his own best teacher. I am not being arrogant either it just blows me away that this crap just 'comes' to me. It is as if I was meant to do this. I remember drawing a terahedron for a friend once and saying that I thought that shape defined parametrics in reality and physical law causality. he was astonished and told me what the shape was. At present, i have about 200 pages of research stemming from Kepler, Plancke, Einstein, Penrose, Euclid,
Plato, and a host of others. i have compared my intel with their work and know that I was right in my axioms. I never read or studied these guys and still haven't except to verify models and formulae.

I really want to upload (my mac requires a scanner) where I am at so that I can avoid descriptions and penetrate deeper into the data I have as to show what I have realized and recorded. The only thing beyond that is to work out models that ALWAYS remain
stable. The cube is only entropic as it doesn't really exist without its lack of existence. Paradoxical I know. If we take a cube and divide it into sixty four cubes, then each of them into sixty four respectively, eventually it will (lines of force collapsing and God willing) justify. Then I can prove that its own collapse is motivated by its own expansion. In this model of cubic reduction we see that
the hypercube is divided not only infinitely into itself in proportion but also that curvature eventually occurs. Each sub-cube breaking down and dividing by masses introduced into its entropic design symmetry.

Velocity, force, mass, density, gravity, energy are all divided by the symmetries as well. Their reorganized state does not follow linear congruency however as the physicalities would redistribute in proportion to its organizational construction. As it found division, it would re-iterate equal causalities in all directions each proportionate zone of entropy fractioned into and redistributed by
itself within as outside of... This is the easy part but the hard part is the beginning and the end. How does one find a country inside a cabin?

0