It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
Originally posted by Phage
All whole numbers are rational numbers. Not all rational numbers are whole numbers.
If the rational number in question turned out to be a whole number, which it could, there would be no nonsense involved. So, what you are doing is assuming nonsense instead of reserving judgment.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
I remember Dale Pond making a comment about the importance of whole numbers.
The word "integer" didn't show up in a search at that link, so how can he be talking about an "integer ratio" there?
Originally posted by Mary Rose
Dale Pond states on his website that pi must remain an integer ratio of two whole numbers and never be reduced to a decimal equivalent.
He references a mathematician by the name of John A. Parker, who wrote a book entitled Quadrature of the Circle, published by John Wiley & Sons, NY, 1874, and states that John Keely collaborated with Parker. There are 19 propositions of geometry and 3 sets of axioms that make up Parker's work. Pi is addressed in proposition 12 : "Propositions Demonstrating the Relative Properties of Straight and Curved Lines."edit on 12/21/11 by Mary Rose because: Punctuation
Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur
Here's the page I was paraphrasing from: "SVP Notes - Pi"
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur
Here's the page I was paraphrasing from: "SVP Notes - Pi"
The ratio of two integers in this link only corresponds to PI up to 4 decimal places after the point, and is wrong after that. It takes a moron to postulate that circumference of the circle is NOT what we actually measure, but some value more amenable to his philosophical inclinations.
Mary, if you really believe that value of PI, you might want to stop driving over or under bridges, because I happen to know that civil engineers designing bridges are NOT using that value for PI and using the wrong number for PI would result in the bridge not having the intended design strength. And most bridges are never tested to destruction, so they rely on using correct calculations.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
Dale Pond states on his website that pi must remain an integer ratio of two whole numbers and never be reduced to a decimal equivalent.
Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by Arbitrageur
Don't rule out the right level of resonance. Here's a related topic in the research of magnetic fields:
www.bbc.co.uk...
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by Arbitrageur
Don't rule out the right level of resonance. Here's a related topic in the research of magnetic fields:
www.bbc.co.uk...
Now, what does it have to do with the history of math, its definition and other background related to PI etc?
The article you linked to -- isn't physics marvelous? I mean, the real physics, not the baloney coming from Beardens and Rodins of this world.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by Americanist
Yes, science is man-made, and so is the complete body of mathematics. And within that framework, which describes many aspects of the world we live in, there is a concept of the number PI, which anyone with half a brain and one eye can measure with decent precision, actually. To say that this value is actually something else (because somebody can't wrap their little brain around irrational numbers) is moronic.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
He references a mathematician by the name of John A. Parker, who wrote a book entitled Quadrature of the Circle, published by John Wiley & Sons, NY, 1874, and states that John Keely collaborated with Parker. There are 19 propositions of geometry and 3 sets of axioms that make up Parker's work. Pi is addressed in proposition 12 : "Propositions Demonstrating the Relative Properties of Straight and Curved Lines."
You are correct. Everything is 3D in the real world. But in terms of working in The Matrix people unthinkingly relate to 1D and 2D constructs as though they were real. I never took the time to expand QA into 3D situations but it should be easy to do. Also people tend to focus on LABELS such as "PI". They assume (rote memory) that PI equals an irrational number. But we know PI is NOT an irrational number because irrational (insane) numbers do not exist in reality. PI is a ratio between two incompatible values: straight and curved lines. In the real world, yet to be discovered, PI would be a ratio between the inclosed VOLUME of a 3D polygon and a sphere (what you call a ball). One cannot divide apples by oranges or curved lines by straight lines yet geometers do it all the time not realizing the error any fourth grader could tell them about. One can never escape The Matrix as long as one continues to think in and use Matrix labelings.
Mary posted earlier about Hill's flat sun theory, which was discussed on page 133. If the sun isn't a perfect spherre, and it's not, then pi isn't found exactly even in a natural object like the sun. I'm not aware of natural objects which are perfect circles, are there any? That's what you'd need to find pi in nature.
Originally posted by Americanist
So you would define the Egyptians as morons? What is the source of PI in nature?
Saying science is a branch of Gnosis doesn't make math not man-made, nor do I see the logic or relevance of the rest of that hodge-podge of jumbled thoughts.
Why is the Fibonacci Sequence intimately tied to the Golden Ratio? How it is possible these facets are found embedded in quantum mechanics from an entirely separate model? Science is a branch of Gnosis. Hence, there is nothing man-made with its construct... When referring to personality then you're close to being correct. Our brains are part of the ratios in existence as well as a pervading consciousness... Who's to say you're not the jester in his outfit?
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I'm not aware of natural objects which are perfect circles, are there any? That's what you'd need to find pi in nature.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Mary posted earlier about Hill's flat sun theory, which was discussed on page 133. If the sun isn't a perfect spherre, and it's not, then pi isn't found exactly even in a natural object like the sun. I'm not aware of natural objects which are perfect circles, are there any? That's what you'd need to find pi in nature.
Originally posted by Americanist
So you would define the Egyptians as morons? What is the source of PI in nature?
Saying science is a branch of Gnosis doesn't make math not man-made, nor do I see the logic or relevance of the rest of that hodge-podge of jumbled thoughts.
Why is the Fibonacci Sequence intimately tied to the Golden Ratio? How it is possible these facets are found embedded in quantum mechanics from an entirely separate model? Science is a branch of Gnosis. Hence, there is nothing man-made with its construct... When referring to personality then you're close to being correct. Our brains are part of the ratios in existence as well as a pervading consciousness... Who's to say you're not the jester in his outfit?
Originally posted by Americanist
The math you've cited bewilders principle and law. It also mirrors our current societal structure. Fat chance you're able to glaze over those faults.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Originally posted by Americanist
The math you've cited bewilders principle and law. It also mirrors our current societal structure. Fat chance you're able to glaze over those faults.
The math that deals with PI may well "bewilder", as you say, what is between your ears. Of course it's easy to blame your lack of basic knowledge or smarts on "societal structure". Meh.
What counterpoint?
Originally posted by Americanist
No need proving my counterpoint to BS when you prove it for me...