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.

# "Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 151
39
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 12:49 AM

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.

A rational number will not be a whole number if it's between two integers. Pi is between two integers. I believe PI has been proven to be transcendental.

Anyway, the proof is right here.

posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 06:52 AM

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I remember Dale Pond making a comment about the importance of whole numbers.

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

posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 09:52 AM

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
The word "integer" didn't show up in a search at that link, so how can he be talking about an "integer ratio" there?

Or did you forget to include another link where he talks about an integer ratio?

posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 10:07 AM

Here's the page I was paraphrasing from: "SVP Notes - Pi"

posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 10:20 AM

Originally posted by Mary Rose

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.

posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 10:53 AM

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Mary Rose

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.

Is it 4 or 5 decimal places after the decimal point?

Either way, the estimate may actually precede estimates in the "dark ages" from the 5th to the 15th centuries AD:

en.wikipedia.org...
That' s a pretty archaic estimate. However it may give us a correct placement of the evolutionary state of Dale Pond's mind in the context of historical advancements in science and mathematics.

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.
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.

Fortunately for me, I know that Dale Pond is wrong so I can drive over or under new bridges with confidence. I might worry a little about older bridges if they aren't maintained due to budget cuts or negligence, but that's not a design issue.

posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 10:59 AM

You are right, I typed in a rush -- that's the ratio

20612/6561
3.14159426916628562719

...which is not PI, of course.

posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 01:57 PM

Don't rule out the right level of resonance. Here's a related topic in the research of magnetic fields:

www.bbc.co.uk...

posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 02:15 PM

Originally posted by Americanist

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.

posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 02:24 PM

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Americanist

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.

Or the core properties of a multitude of planets, allowing for magnetic fields to develop whether studied or not, are still present. The history of mathematics you reference is man-made. Put me in touch with "The Man" that made our Universe then... I have a couple of quick questions which specifically bypass your stifled intellect.

posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 02:38 PM

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.

posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 03:37 PM

Originally posted by buddhasystem

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.

So you would define the Egyptians as morons? What is the source of PI in nature? 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?

posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 05:05 PM

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."

Continuing regarding Dale Pond on pi,
"Escaping The Matrix" :

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.

"QA" must be "Quantum Arithmetic."

posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 05:16 PM

Originally posted by Americanist
So you would define the Egyptians as morons? What is the source of PI in nature?
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.

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?
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.

posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 08:24 PM

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.

Well, nothing is perfect, and, it's not too hard to find a circular object which you can measure to up to 5 decimal places precision, won't you think?

When you are at it, consider a drop of water falling into a pool -- I wonder if that would be close to perfect. Finally, there can be diffraction patterns that are pretty damn spherical/circular in shape. The latter would do it.

I would agree that with PI being an irrational number, any kind of physical phenomenon used to demo it will eventually diverge from it due to one correction or another -- it can be in the 5th decimal place or guess what -- in 15th. If you do observe a diffraction pattern, your optics are liable to be imprecise. Just like you can't manufacture a perfect circle. However in math, you can have an abstraction of same.

edit on 21-12-2011 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 08:40 PM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Americanist
So you would define the Egyptians as morons? What is the source of PI in nature?
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.

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?
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.

No need proving my counterpoint to BS when you prove it for me... I'd refer you even further back inside this thread to mention of the Platonic Solids (accurately circumscribed by a sphere).

To reiterate... 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.

posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 09:25 PM

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.

posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 10:18 PM

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.

Fortunately, I'm able to go with the flow and straight through obstacles similar to your fronts. As CERN runs circles around you, so does the foundation for science around the whole. Helical trajectories and logarithmic spirals evolved well before your brain kicked in. Anything you can think of has already been placed well ahead of time. Moral of the story... Don't fool yourself.

posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 08:10 AM

That pretty much echoes my thoughts on the topic, whether there's a divergence at the 5th or the 15th decimal place from the mathematical ideal, observations in nature probably don't match the mathematical ideal PI we calculate out to 100 decimal places or more, though I don't know of any reason they couldn't. Spin or rotation of stars seems to upset spherical symmetry but as large as the universe is, there may be some stars with little or no spin that are more spherical than our sun.

A star that doesn't spin or rotate has got to get pretty close to a perfect sphere.

Originally posted by Americanist
No need proving my counterpoint to BS when you prove it for me...
What counterpoint?
I don't even understand your point much less a counterpoint.

posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 08:36 AM
With a rope and peg it would be possible to make quite an accurate circle, even in the time of Egyptians. Maybe in that time there already was a desire to describe reality in a more pleasing way than it actually is, resulting in the 256/81 from Egyptian scripture. But it could as well be that the approximation was sufficient for its application and was chosen to reduce the complexity of the calculations, while a much more precise value was also known. It could also be that the measuring devices they used were just not accurate enough. Just speculating here, my main point is that you can not compare ancient Egypt with our current technological status. Their error in pi could have had a whole bunch of practical reasons that today would no longer be of any significance.
edit on 22-12-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

top topics

39