Originally posted by glastonaut
HI. I'm a former physicist and some of those equations near the start are incredibly suspect, with very little explanation of what variables are
being referenced to. However, the diagrams at the end are very detailed and demand a bit of closer scrutiny...
Thanks,
glastonaut, and I am in agreement with regards to the equation.
For those who have not followed the above links, the equation reads as follows:
C - 2 + 14^z = 710Y + 409
It seems awfully suspect, and is preceded by the following "disclaimer" of sorts:
"...this formula serves more as an explanatory tool of the workings of our solar system, compared to a scientific equation for taking
measurements."
Exsqueeze me? Maybe I'm still suffering from a slight case of retroburn after sifting through so much of the Serpo data with a fine-tooth comb...
Anyway, the explanation continues:
C is the magnetic light, in this instance, without considering time and space.
- 2 is the number of planets Earth is away from the center of our Solar System, identified as Z or Jupiter.
+14 z is Jupiter at 14°, the 14 being the magnetic light arc as it travels from the center, Jupiter, to the Earth at a 14° angular. The Z
represents the units of magnetic energy coming from Jupiter to earth.
When the left side of the equation is calculated, it equals 710 units of combustible factors; these factors are multiplied with Y. All of the
combinations of combustible factors result in the production of 409 elements that structure the Universe. Y is the combustible factor of the
elements.
Now, without actually even looking at the
math, can someone in the know please tell me how/why Jupiter is/could be considered the "center of
our solar system?"
Some interesting math-related notes:
1. Y is given as "the combustible factor of the elements."
2. 710 is given as the number of "units of combustable factors."
Fair enough. However, in the above explanation we're also told, "all of the combinations of combustible factors result in the production of 409
elements that structure the Universe."
Well, if there are 710 units of combustible factors, then there are
710!
different ways we can arrange them (permutations). This number is enormous -- so large that my scientific calculator can't even calculate it. To put
the sheer size of this number in perspective, 150! = 5.71 x 10^262. That's 571 followed by
260 zeroes. Now take that number, and multiply it
by 151 x 152 x 153 x ... x 708 x 709 x 710 to arrive at 710!
The number is even larger if we consider the number of possible subsets, i.e., there are 709! posible arrangements of 709 of the 910 "units of
combustible factors," 708! arrangements of 708 of the 710 units, etc.
Please note the above quote explicitly refers to the number of
combinations, not
permutations (does the order of assembly of said
"units" matter?). If, in fact, order does
not matter, then we are only speaking of 1 possible combination using all 710 units. If we use
only 709 of the units, there are 710 possible combinations. However, if we use only 708 units, there are 251, 695 possible combinations, and if only
707 of these units, there are 59,400,020 possible combinations... By the time you consider a subset of only 700 units, there are an astounding 8.42 x
10^21 possible combinations (8,420,000,000,000,000,000,000).
As you can see, no matter how you slice it, it seems as though, if anything, there should be far
more than the 409 elements in the known
universe, which, BTW, is 293 more than the
116 elements known to mankind as of 2005.
Either way, given the number of combinations and permutations, is it
possible an infinitesimally small proportion of the innumerable
combinations or permutations could form any of these "409 elements?" Sure.
That is, of course, provided the rest of the equation even
makes sense. Now, before I devour another Slerpy, I must attend to other facets of
my life, so I'll leave it to Shaggy, Scooby, and the rest of the crew piloting the Mystery Van to dive into this further.
However, I
am curious as to the units of measurement for "C" and "z." Given
z is a unit of measurement of "magnetic energy", are
we to assume it is a measurement of magnetic flux (
maxwells or webers)? Magnetic flux density
(
Gauss or Tesla)? However, I am at a complete loss as to how we measure "magentic light"
(possibly a measurement of photoconductivity?)
Either way, as has been stated, there are plenty of dissectible nuggets for our mutual entertainment and/or intellectual endeavors. I might later
experiment with possible units of measurements to see if I can make any more sense of the equation... and I thank any engineers and/or physicists
(e.g., glastonaut) who can help solve this new riddle...
The diagrams are another story altogether. I saw
Defragger mention a possible link to French physicist Jean-Louis Naudin, along with a link to
his web site (
JLN Labs). It is in fact he who conducted the
reviews posted/linked to on the host web site, which were conducted in 1999. Could these all be his
products? The one problem I have with this theory is if true -- and the goal is to freely disseminate this technology --
why not provide the
actual equations behind the technology, instead of the funky-monkey math that is provided?
Also, I would be awfully curious to hear how a French theoretical physicist became aware of 409 universal elements...