My Rabbit Hole of Weird Math Randomness.

Someone, I forget who, posted something about how the phrase "the Alpha and the Omega" reminded him/her of the law of the conservation of mass. This is not really a reply to that post, but it is the inspiration to the ramblings that follow.

The phrase "the Alpha and the Omega" can be translated (interpreted may be a better word) into the basic equation of a circle.

For a circle with a center ( H , K ) and a radius R :

( x - H )2 + ( y - K )2 = R2

If we were to translate the term "Alpha" into the domain variable x, then the term "Omega" would designate the range variable y.
Since "Alpha" denotes a beginning and "Omega" denotes an ending, it becomes easy to assume that "Omega" is dependent on "Alpha." If the phrase were being translated into something like a linear function, then this assumption would be OK. A linear function, however would not be able to correlate with the law of the conservation of mass. The best way to incorporate the law of the conservation of mass would be to apply some integral calculus; and since the integral of a linear function is simply a constant, there would be no ratio of proportions to sufficiently conserve mass. The relation between "Alpha" and "Omega," along with a simultaneous correlation with the law of the conservation of mass, would best be described by a conic section, like a circle or ellipse. There is a problem, though. A circle is not a function and therefore cannot be integrated. If the circle were to be split in half, though, then each half, or parabola would then be able to be integrated. In effect, the circle (which is not a function) is divided to create two seperate parabolas (which are functions); with one parabola existing as a function of the other. We now have our conic sections needed for the law of the conservation of mass, but expressed as a linear function with the domain and range variables each consisting of a quadratic function.

So what? Well, now the phrase "the Alpha and the Omega" can be translated into a more suitable linear model without losing any correlation with the law of the conservation of mass, which is inherit within the domain and range variables.
"Alpha and Omega" nonsense..

The quadratic function x2 takes the shape of a parabola when graphed out. The derivative of x2 is the linear function 2x. So then, the function 2x marks the instantaneous rate of change of the function x2.

The quadratic function -y2 takes the shape of a parabola when graphed out. The derivative of -y2 is the linear function -2y. So then, the function -2y marks the instantaneous rate of change of the function -y2.

The vertex of the function x2 is -0 / 2 = 0
The vertex of the function -y2 is -0 / -2 = 0

For a circle with a radius R and a center at (0,0) :

( 0 - x )2 + ( 0 + y )2 + R2

or y2 - x2 = R2

The phrase "Alpha an Omega" is not a circle. We need to split up the two terms into conic sections in order to allow integration and account for the law of conservation of mass. Two parabolas alone, however, do not make a circle. They each keep going in their own direction and lose continuity at the points where they intersect each other.

So the phrase "I am the Alpha and the Omega" is incorrect. This would imply a circle. The correct phrase would be "I am the Alpha and I am the Omega." This now indicates two distinct functions. Basically, it is wrong to translate "Alpha and Omega" into "the beginning and end." It is better translated into "the beginning and the end," or "the positive and the negative." or "the good and the evil," or "the yin and the yang," or "the substance and the emptiness," and so on.


-Alien

A circle is infinite. It has no beginning and no end. But, don't think of it as a circle, think of it as a sphere. You should get into Sacred Geometry if you haven't yet.

very interesting using math to find flaws in biblical text.

What is sacred geometry?

reply to post by Mad_Hatter



There are three basic units of measurement: length, [L]; mass, [M]; and time, [T]; from which all other units are derived.
[L] is measured in meters, [M] in grams, and [T] in seconds.

A circle has 360o. A square has 360o. A straight line has 180o and two straight lines together have 360o.

1 hour = 60 minutes.
60 minutes = 60 seconds.

1 degree = 60 arcminutes.
60 arcminutes = 60 arcseconds.

A circle, a square, and two straight lines all have 360o each.
360o = 21,600 arcminutes = 1,296,000 arcseconds.

Speed = S = [L] / [T].

Velocity = v = the derivative of S ( d / dS ).

If the average speed of an object is (x)[L] / [T], then the instantaneous velocity for any value of x = (d / dx)[L] / [T].

[L] = ( [arcseconds] * [L] ) / ( 1,296,000 arcseconds / 2*pi ).

Looking at just the units: [L] = [arcseconds] * [L] / [arcseconds].
[arcseconds] / [arcseconds] cancels out, leaving [L] = [L] = true.

If an object is rotating on an axis of symmetry, then angular measurements ( usually in arcseconds) are in seconds.
So, for a rotating object, 1 degree = 60 minutes = 3,600 seconds.
360 degrees = 1, 296, 000 seconds.

The average speed of a rotating object = [T] / [T] = 1.
The velocity = d(1) / dS = 1.

Google Sacred Geometry and you will find a starting point into this interesting field. Wikipedia describes Sacred Geometry as:

en.wikipedia.org...
"Sacred geometry is geometry used in the design of sacred architecture and sacred art. The basic belief is that geometry and mathematical ratios, harmonics and proportion are also found in music, light, cosmology. This value system is seen as widespread even in prehistory, a cultural universal of the human condition. It is considered foundational to building sacred structures such as temples, mosques, megaliths, monuments and churches; sacred spaces such as altars, temenoi and tabernacles; meeting places such as sacred groves, village greens and holy wells and the creation of religious art, iconography and using "divine" proportions. Alternatively, sacred geometry based arts may be ephemeral, such as visualization, sandpainting and medicine wheels."

What makes sacred geometry so amazing is that mathmatically,it all works out perfectly.


Mod Note: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 20-5-2008 by Jbird]

reply to post by Alien Abduct



I'm sorry, but I don't see how this pertains to what I said. What are you proving with all this math?

Edit: oh, I see what you're saying. The circle is a sphere because it contains 360 degrees???


[edit on 5/20/2008 by Mad_Hatter]

reply to post by Mad_Hatter


"works out perfectly"

I don't have much yet, but I figure I'd lay down some definitions really quick for anyone interested.

The Aliquot Part of a number is a "proper quotient" of that number.
A "proper quotient" of a number is a whole number and is not equal to the number itself.

example: The Aliquot Parts of the number 10 are 1, 2, and 5.

10 / 10 = 1, 10 / 5 = 2, 10 / 2 = 5

A Perfect Number is a number in which the sum of the Aliquot Parts of that number is equal to that number.

example: 6 is a perfect number: The Aliquot Parts of 6 are 6 / 6 = 1, 6 / 3 = 2, 6 / 2 = 3.

1 + 2 + 3 = 6

Other Perfect Numbers

The number 28:
Aliquot Parts : 1 + 2 + 4 + 7 + 14 = 28

The number 496:
Aliquot Parts : 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + 31 + 62 + 124 + 248 = 496

The number 8128:
Aliquot Parts : 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + 32 + 64 + 127 + 254 + 508 + 1016 + 2032 + 4064 = 8128


So far, we can see that all of these have the number 2 as an Aliquot Part. These could be related somehow to why there are no odd Perfect Numbers.


-Alien

reply to post by Alien Abduct


You are like a friggin calculator. haha. Have you ever looked into Sacred Geometry yourself? it seems like something you could really get into. I've dabbled in it a bit, but I got out of it because I don't have the passion for numbers like that, but I still find it interesting nonetheless. Sacred Geometry is stuff like (JUST AN EXAMLE):

Two overlapping circles form a vesica piscese in the middle and the vesica piscese can fit a perfect circle inside it and it looks like an eye, etc.

Now my example may be infantile to those that know more about the subject, but i don't really claim to be an expert on it.

reply to post by Mad_Hatter



I wasn't going about it in terms of geometry, but in terms of differential and integral calculus.

-Alien