The dead center cube by D.G Leahy http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-Dead-Center-Cube "He * r^2= 10368" r= 57.6
Yes you are clear. The dead center cube by D.G Leahy http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-Dead-Center-Cube
The more space you have the larger the shapes can be , the better you can understand them Instead of ten centimeters , with not much more space to manifest The form is galactic , at least For example Take all the shapes that can manifest at ten centimeter and then expand these shapes at least galacticly size If you do , you will find new shapes as well
Correct greater (magnification) definition from higher perspectives of multidimensionality. The now moment is essentially the past so because of this all frames before the now can never be congruent to the future. "Probability"
This thread is not about my blog, this tread is meant for the discussion of "The dead center cube" and an investigation of the quantity "10368" some sort of recurring theme...hmm But my blog can provide you with an extended amount of information to get more familiar with the topic. Please do not attempt to troll my thread, how old are you am beginning to suspect you my be a child?
Run along now little guy Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You have been reported now learn to conduct yourself like an adult this is not a place for children if that is your true identity.
The only petty insults I can see here is your attemp to troll my thread if you can add no value to this discussion which you claim to be "numerology" then move on with your wonderful life and resist the urge to demote yourself to the level of trolling.
I think Dr. Toad is wrong: this isn't even numerology, it is worse. Numerologists look for numerical patterns, they don't reject patterns that work because they yield irrational results. That's just stupid. And yes, it is insulting to the other members that this is allowed to remain here. Sometimes I wonder if the moderators are purposely trolling us by allowing this.
Again more trolls at least I am aware that the trolls are of the minority on sciforums either you add value to the discussion or do not post opinions , take the same advice I gave to dr. toad "resist the urge to demote yourself to the level of trolls." If you claim to contain "intelligence" I highly doubt this I spoke to you both in the past I suspect you both to be underage trolls that only know how to state opinions but lack the ability to comprehend deductive logic with an incessant need for attention. Begging the attention of the rest of the members on sciforums especially the moderators to come and stroke your egos and tuck you in at night give you milk in the form of "ignorance" you live on, and tell you there are no monsters under your bed or in your closet. It's either you both are too lazy to read the purpose of the thread or you lack reading comprehension skills from my past experience conversing with the both of you I would have think its the latter. Now I reported you both for trolling take a time out and think of what you have done unlike dr. toad I will not even suggest to the both of you to conduct yourself like adults because sadly I believe you are not adults and it would be unfair of me to expect such an achievement from quoting members with your "boyish" maturity levels now please resume to the likes of bullying ones such as "The Constant Theorist" and who ever else may be in the same intellectual bracket as the both of you, you both have been reportedPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Now if you manage to learn from your mistakes and choose to re-engage in an "intelligent discussion" based on facts and logical deduction like all scientist know how to do then pick up where "sideshowbob" left of put some money down $10,000 us, go back and read the terms we discussed to understand what's going on because am sure you never read it or again lacking comprehension abilities which seem to be a recurring theme with you especially isn't that so mr waters? So do you accept the challenge? We can define everything pragmatically to find even ground and do away with semantics, opinions, religion, as well as philosophy. He will produce a superior predictive calculation of "p1" of any perfect circle that can be constructed with a protractor which is the Doppelganger of the Euclidean circle in the complex plane of Euclidean space this is my claim. This above is my falsifiable claim.
Again more trolls at least I am aware that the trolls are of the minority on sciforums either you add value to the discussion or do not post opinions , take the same advice I gave to dr. toad "resist the urge to demote yourself to the level of trolls." If you claim to contain "intelligence" I highly doubt this I spoke to you both in the past I suspect you both to be underage trolls that only know how to state opinions but lack the ability to comprehend deductive logic with an incessant need for attention. Begging the attention of the rest of the members on sciforums especially the moderators to come and stroke your egos and tuck you in at night give you milk in the form of "ignorance" you live on and tell you there are no monsters under your bed or in your closet. It's either you both are too lazy to read the purpose of the thread or you lack reading comprehension skills from my past experience conversing with the both of you I would have think its the latter. Now I reported you both for trolling take a time out and think of what you have done unlike dr. toad I will not even suggest to the both of you to conduct yourself like adults because sadly I believe you are not adults and it would be unfair of me to expect such an achievement from quoting members with your "boyish" maturity levels now please resume to the likes of bullying ones such as "The Constant Theorist" and who ever else may be in the same intellectual bracket as the both of you, you both have been reportedPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Now if you manage to learn from your mistakes and choose to re-engage in an "intelligent discussion" based on facts and logical deduction like all scientist know how to do then pick up where "sideshowbob" left of put some money down $10,000 us, go back and read the terms we discussed to understand what's going on because am sure you never read it or again lacking comprehension abilities which seem to be a recurring theme with you especially isn't that so mr waters? So do you accept the challenge? We can define everything pragmatically to find even ground and do away with semantics, opinions, religion, as well as philosophy. He will produce a superior predictive calculation of "p1" of any perfect circle that can be constructed with a protractor which is the Doppelganger of the Euclidean circle in the complex plane of Euclidean space this is my claim. This above is my falsifiable claim.