Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
janesix

Giza as Geographic marker, and harmonic math

175 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Kenemet
11 hours ago, janesix said:

Pay attention. The canon numbers are the design. In reality they are not exact. Do you understand?

If we use the canon numbers, then the answers aren't the ones you are trying to indicate.

Canonical numbers are, by definition, very very exact.  If you're using them then you have to use the exact ones.  Rounded up or down or averaged isn't a correct number.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
jmccr8
13 hours ago, janesix said:

Pay attention. The canon numbers are the design. In reality they are not exact. Do you understand?

Hi Jane

Oddly enough I told the taxation people the same thing.

jmccr8

  • Like 1
  • Haha 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom1200
Posted (edited)
On 3/8/2021 at 11:50 PM, Swede said:

If that site is correctly reporting Brucie's claims, then it's clear he knows nothing about science, physics or reality and we can safely ignore everything he presents.

Equations MUST balance dimensionally.  What does that mean? 

There are seven base dimensions (physical_quantities).  Many common quantities can be expressed in terms of just three: length [L], mass [M] and time [T].

e.g. area is length x length, so [L2], volume is [L3].  Velocity is [L/T], written as [LT-1], acceleration: [LT-2], momentum: [MLT-1], force: [MLT-2], energy: [ML2T-2], density: [ML-3], pressure: [ML-1T-2]

(We only need three dimensions to debunk Brucie's nonsense, but more complex physics must include others, such as electric current to describe electrical quantities like voltage, resistance and capacitance.)

Brucie starts with Einstein's E = mc2.  This equation is dimensionally correct: E is energy, so [ML2T-2].  m x c x c is mass x velocity x velocity, so [M] x [LT-1] x [LT-1], so also [ML2T-2]  (It's reassuring to see Einstein got that bit right!)

He then proposes a substitution, using m = c + √(1 / c).  Sorry Brucie (and Jane) - NO.  Can't do that.  Doesn't work. 

That doesn't balance, therefore it is not a valid scientific equation.  He might as well have written iPod = octopus + √(1 / octopus), for all the sense it makes.  

His next equation E = (c + √(1 / c)) c^2 is just as bad.  To claim he 'discovered' this is like saying you've 'discovered' that deciduous Ming vases taste like orphaned contraflows.  It's not enough for the individual words to have meaning if, when put together, they are total nonsense.  (Unless your name is O*******, or C*******, or z*****, or M*******, or x****, or s***************, or ...)

Edited by Tom1200
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
On 3/8/2021 at 5:58 PM, janesix said:

Why is that? 

Dear Jane... 

It's because nothing of value is being accomplished. Many posts have responded with sarc and ridicule. :cry:

Can't learn much there.:no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
janesix
On 3/8/2021 at 3:50 PM, Swede said:

By all appearances, one of the primary "sources" would be the following:

https://www.occultphysics.com/bruce-cathie.html

You are, of course, allowed to come to your own conclusions (!).

.

I ABSOLUTELY credited Bruce Cathie in my opening post. He was a genius and my inspiration. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
janesix
On 3/8/2021 at 3:28 PM, DingoLingo said:

ok.. now here is what your not grasping.. 

If the moon was the size you said.. and if the sun is the size you said than you maybe.. just maybe might have something.. but.. its not.. 

for example.. your saying the moon is 2160 miles in diameter.. when its 2159.2.. by your math the moon is a little closer to the earth and by the correct math is a little bit further away.. unless your canon math is stretching the distance between the two in some wibbly wobbly timey whimey kind of way.. 

same as the way you say canon math 1111 x (6x6) = 39999 (which it isnt) 

I think you have seen a wiki or something on canon math.. read it .. did not understand it and thought it was brilliant.. 

As stated, I credited Bruce Cathie in my opening post. The 1111 km per 10 degrees is MY OWN conclusion. In the mean time, I have redone the math and came up with 1111.33 per ten degrees, using 40008 km as polar diameter. 1111.33 is interesting as well, being a harmonic of the Earth to moon relationship (11:3)

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
On 3/3/2021 at 6:56 AM, janesix said:

The Creator created all measuring systems, at least the ones I know of. They are interwoven for different purposes.

Did he also create the market value for buying and selling slaves?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
janesix
5 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Did he also create the market value for buying and selling slaves?

We can begin to understand the Creator by looking at the laws of nature. There is one thing we can deduce about the Creator, that he is a mathematician.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
Just now, janesix said:

We can begin to understand the Creator by looking at the laws of nature. There is one thing we can deduce about the Creator, that he is a mathematician.

Just as well we invented it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
janesix
6 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Just as well we invented it.

We discovered it. With guidance.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom1200
55 minutes ago, janesix said:

I ABSOLUTELY credited Bruce Cathie in my opening post. He was a genius and my inspiration. 

He was a prat.  Read my post #153.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
janesix
2 minutes ago, Tom1200 said:

He was a prat.  Read my post #153.

153

Jesus and the 153 fish

The vesica piscis, the bladder of the fish 153/265 and the square root of three

These are your clues now go do your homework

 

 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Tom1200
1 minute ago, janesix said:

153

Jesus and the 153 fish

The vesica piscis, the bladder of the fish 153/265 and the square root of three

These are your clues now go do your homework

Anyone can make up garbage and dress it up as meaningful.  That's all folks like Brucie did.  L Ron Hubbard's another one who wrote utter nonsense but passed it off as science.  They're wrong, no matter how hard they try to convince you otherwise.  Most of them know they're wrong too, but don't care as long as gullible sheep keep buying their books.

Brucie's equations are gibberish.  They don't mean anything.  Everything based on his 'discoveries' and 'insights' is wrong.  Try picking a non-fiction book next, and reading something real.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
6 hours ago, janesix said:

153

Jesus and the 153 fish

The vesica piscis, the bladder of the fish 153/265 and the square root of three

These are your clues now go do your homework

 

 

The square root of three is 1.7320508076.

153/265 is 0.5773584906.

Jesus had 2 fish and fed 5000 men. It was a parable to say that though he walked as a lowly man, he was capable of Godly things. Also, it‘s stunningly sexist by our perspective as it doesn’t say how many women were present, just the number of men. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hyperionxvii
1 minute ago, President Wearer of Hats said:

The square root of three is 1.7320508076.

153/265 is 0.5773584906.

Jesus had 2 fish and fed 5000 men. It was a parable to say that though he walked as a lowly man, he was capable of Godly things. Also, it‘s stunningly sexist by our perspective as it doesn’t say how many women were present, just the number of men. 

The women were not present of course, because they were all chained to the cooking stove, just like in present day America. 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
1 hour ago, Hyperionxvii said:

The women were not present of course, because they were all chained to the cooking stove, just like in present day America. 

And thus, the miracle of sushi came to pass.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede
11 hours ago, Tom1200 said:

If that site is correctly reporting Brucie's claims, then it's clear he knows nothing about science, physics or reality and we can safely ignore everything he presents.

Equations MUST balance dimensionally.  What does that mean? 

There are seven base dimensions (physical_quantities).  Many common quantities can be expressed in terms of just three: length [L], mass [M] and time [T].

e.g. area is length x length, so [L2], volume is [L3].  Velocity is [L/T], written as [LT-1], acceleration: [LT-2], momentum: [MLT-1], force: [MLT-2], energy: [ML2T-2], density: [ML-3], pressure: [ML-1T-2]

(We only need three dimensions to debunk Brucie's nonsense, but more complex physics must include others, such as electric current to describe electrical quantities like voltage, resistance and capacitance.)

Brucie starts with Einstein's E = mc2.  This equation is dimensionally correct: E is energy, so [ML2T-2].  m x c x c is mass x velocity x velocity, so [M] x [LT-1] x [LT-1], so also [ML2T-2]  (It's reassuring to see Einstein got that bit right!)

He then proposes a substitution, using m = c + √(1 / c).  Sorry Brucie (and Jane) - NO.  Can't do that.  Doesn't work. 

That doesn't balance, therefore it is not a valid scientific equation.  He might as well have written iPod = octopus + √(1 / octopus), for all the sense it makes.  

His next equation E = (c + √(1 / c)) c^2 is just as bad.  To claim he 'discovered' this is like saying you've 'discovered' that deciduous Ming vases taste like orphaned contraflows.  It's not enough for the individual words to have meaning if, when put together, they are total nonsense.  (Unless your name is O*******, or C*******, or z*****, or M*******, or x****, or s***************, or ...)

Chuckle! Quite so. We were having fun with Cathie's "math" earlier in this topic. He is an exceeding poor individual to align one's self with.

.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede
8 hours ago, janesix said:

I ABSOLUTELY credited Bruce Cathie in my opening post. He was a genius and my inspiration

You have my sympathy.

.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hyperionxvii
6 minutes ago, Swede said:

Chuckle! Quite so. We were having fun with Cathie's "math" earlier in this topic. He is an exceeding poor individual to align one's self with.

.

That type of math you're all about is racist, Swede, we need a new math that's not racist. 

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan
7 hours ago, janesix said:

153

Jesus and the 153 fish

The vesica piscis, the bladder of the fish 153/265 and the square root of three

These are your clues now go do your homework

 

 

No, no, no,   It's the liver of the monkey 345/112   And the cubed root of four.

Anyone can see that!    That's why nuclear bombs can go off even in places where the Sun is not exactly positioned relative to the harmionic resonace of the thrid vector.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
8 hours ago, janesix said:

153

Jesus and the 153 fish

The vesica piscis, the bladder of the fish 153/265 and the square root of three

These are your clues now go do your homework

 

 

That's the Mandorla Effect

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom1200
12 hours ago, Swede said:

Chuckle! Quite so. We were having fun with Cathie's "math" earlier in this topic. He is an exceeding poor individual to align one's self with.

I must confess to not taking a huge interest in the details of which numbers are 'canon' or what that even means.  As with so many deluded contributors here, if the whole concept is wrong what's the point in arguing over the trivial details? 

So one person might argue that the pyramids were built using rotting blue whales as cement.  Do you go into excruciating calculations showing there never could have been enough blue whales in the Med to achieve this?  Do you trawl through the ancient records to show there is no evidence of trans-Saharan trade in blue whales?  Do you counter that position by suggesting they used mackerel instead?

In this thread we have a claim that something is significant, based on something based on something wrong.  Brucie's entire logic, maths and - well, everything - is wrong.  Not just irrelevant, but wrong.  

 

Meanwhile: last night my mate Barry was abducted by ultra-intelligent time-travelling dinosaurs from the Cretaceous1.  They told him that a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, some complex prime numbers evolved and developed sentience1.  They now travel the universe looking for non-theoretical species to eliminate: that's what UFOs are1.  Humanity will achieve a detectable level of conspicuousness by the year 20431, so we only have until then to convince these superior beings we deserve to be left alone.  That's why throughout history a secret organisation has tried to communicate our mathematical skills by building huge geometric shapes as signs1: the Pyramids1, the Pentagon2, the great Stellated Dodecahedron of Atlantis1, the Great Wall of China (originally a straight line)3, Wyoming1, etc.  We must complete the set by bombing Sri Lanka into a perfect triangle1.

Which makes as much sense as Brucie's ramblings.

 

100% accurate and true 'cos that's what the dinosaurs told Barry.

Some debate about this - some people claim it was designed as a circle but they added in corners to send naughty soldiers to.

Did you know the Chinese used sardine paste as cement for the Great Wall1?

 

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
20 hours ago, President Wearer of Hats said:

The square root of three is 1.7320508076.

153/265 is 0.5773584906.

Jesus had 2 fish and fed 5000 men. It was a parable to say that though he walked as a lowly man, he was capable of Godly things. Also, it‘s stunningly sexist by our perspective as it doesn’t say how many women were present, just the number of men. 

I thought the same thing and then thought I'd better check.  So I looked it up. 

The 153 comes from John 21:11 So Simon Peter went aboard and dragged the net to the shore. There were 153 large fish, and yet the net hadn't torn.

This is from the section after the resurrection where Jesus appears to the disciples (for the third time.)

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
3 hours ago, Kenemet said:

I thought the same thing and then thought I'd better check.  So I looked it up. 

The 153 comes from John 21:11 So Simon Peter went aboard and dragged the net to the shore. There were 153 large fish, and yet the net hadn't torn.

This is from the section after the resurrection where Jesus appears to the disciples (for the third time.)

Which, given the level of metaphor that part of the Bible is operating upon, probsbly meant that at time of writing, there were 153 members (or member locations) of the Christ Sect of Judaism. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Sir Wearer of Hats
22 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

That's the Mandorla Effect

Is that where the guy wearing the cool armour in a space spaghetti westerns keeps getting over shadowed by a muppet?

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.