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.
Two mathematicians, Kenneth Appel and Wolfgang Haken, at the University of Illinois were striving to prove this theorem. Their work was considered to be of sufficient importance and so they were granted unlimited use of one of the most sophisticated computers in the country. After years of hard work and 1600 hours of computer use, they finally announced a successful conclusion to the project. The October 1977 issue of Scientific American featured an article about this milestone in the history of mathematics. This article included a complex map of hundreds of regions successfully four-colored to illustrate the validity of the theorem. Each of four different colors appeared along the outline of the map a minimum of 12 times, thereby making it a five-color map with the addition of the surrounding region.
I'll point out something. On page 106 of the source you linked to, Joseph Cater draws a map with 4 areas. If you color those 4 areas, plus the border, you will have 5 colors, which would be consistent with the four color theorem.
Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by DJW001
Yeah, I've read it at least 5 times, and I understand it.
I'm just questioning, what is your statement? What are you pointing out, that I don't see?
Yeah, I've read it at least 5 times, and I understand it.
I'm just questioning, what is your statement? What are you pointing out, that I don't see?
he Theory of Evolution is a theory, but guess what? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use.1 That's right, it all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn't believe in evolution because it was "just a theory", they'd probably be a bit puzzled.
In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.
Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law
As FreedomCommander stated here the ideas come from Joseph Cater, and the core issue is that Cater is a person with extreme cognitive deficiencies, otherwise known as a "quack".
Originally posted by roguetechie
All i'm saying is your refutations are taking us down all of these side paths but we're still not addressing the core issues while all the time adding in even more issues which need correction. Maybe it would be best if we narrowed our focus back to trying to iron out one specific portion of your theory of how things work and putting evidence and etc to support just that narrow slice of the big picture.
This lack of experimental data sounds familiar, doesn't it?
...I laughed a lot at some of the ideas presented as fact with no signs of experimental data or study to back them up, lots of his evidence is anecdotal and second hand, fractured and poorly constructed.
There is a caution about some people taking Cater's work too seriously in that review, and I fear that FreedomCommander either didn't see that warning, or did see it and failed to heed it. Or he missed the part that "While his publishers say he is accademically discredited as a quack to hide the truth, the real truth is that he IS a quack." The reviewer seems like a somewhat open minded person but to use Carl Sagan's phrase, it's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out. Some of these Cater ideas are of the "brain falling out" variety as we have seen in this thread.
...I thought initially that the book was a satirical jab at 'alternative' science and conspiracy theories fans, but eventually realised that Cater was serious about everything he writes. While his publishers say he is accademically discredited as a quack to hide the truth, the real truth is that he IS a quack. It is a real shame, as the line between genius and insanity has been crossed, and what otherwise might have been a brilliant scientist has lost his path.
I rate the book two stars. I'd like to give it more and I'd like to give it less. I'd hate to encourage the ignorant to read it, as it might be taken too seriously. I'd give it 1 star as a book for people interested in science and understanding of the universe, for laymen in physics, mathematics chemistry or philosophy. I give 3 stars for gnostics hoping to find hidden truths, some insights gleaned from the depths of madness. I'll rate it 5 stars for conspiracy buffs and for scientifically minded people after a good laugh, it's too crazy for words and must be read for full enjoyment.
But if it's a theorem and proven, why is it called a theorem instead a proof?
Why isn't it called "The four-color proof"?
And yes, because that has been proven, and it's a mathematical law. It's a action/reaction deal, move one point of the triangle, you move the whole triangle's angle, but it'll still be 180 degrees.
Is that a trick question?
Originally posted by FreedomCommander
UFOs use gravity to travel faster than light. To you, how do they travel?
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FreedomCommander
Please google "non-Euclidean geometry." You have much to learn before you take it upon yourself to preach "the Truth" to others.
The claim that there is a "UFO landing strip" in Nazca is probably one of the funniest claims I've ever seen. Why would the flying saucer with it's claimed "anti-gravity" need a landing strip? Even a helicopter doesn't need a landing strip!
Originally posted by FreedomCommander
Proof? Manuscripts from India called the Vaimanika Shastra, and surviving artifacts that can been seen from the air for example, the Nazca plains in Peru.