Doing the Numbers on No. 1

Michael 345 said:
Not sure of which term you are referring to sorry
Click to expand...
Don't we use terms like bacteria recognizing and becoming immune to antibacterials?

It sounded so natural to me. But I may be wrong.......:smile:
If the universe recognizes

Use of the if word, to me, indicates the Universe has a choice, ie the ability to not recognise, ie sentient

:)
Click to expand...
Ahh..., no, not choice, just the mathematical ability to experientially interact in this particular form of information or not. A magnet will resist the merging of two equally charged poles. Turn 'em around and bingo, the opposite poles clang together as if welded, but the magnet has no choice in the matter, it physically recognizes if the potentials are mathematically attractive or repulsive, the rest is a mathematically defined magnetism.
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
Don't we use terms like bacteria recognizing and becoming immune to antibacterials?
Click to expand...
Some might, and most would (including me) go along with the convention in every day speech

Better word(s) to use, instead of recognizing, would be react (in a chemical / biological fashion and adapt

Short cut recognise

Guess here I am pedantic as I try to increase my logical thinking :), not act as a linguistic policeman

:)
 
Entanglement is independent of space......
yodajpeg-jpg.2387
 

Attachments

  • Yodajpeg.jpg
    Yodajpeg.jpg
    27 KB · Views: 49
Last edited:
Write4U said:
Something seems to work at Planck scale, but we can see it, or even describe it accurately.
Click to expand...

The examples of the OP were not in the Planck scale, not individual wood fibres, but the whole macro plank. grabbing. grasping it with all 10 fingers thumbs. , the next bigger actually 10 meters. water equivalent of atmospheric pressure. 10 meter squared 1G acceleration.
 
Write4U said:
Something seems to work at Planck scale, but we cannot see it, or even describe it accurately.
Click to expand...
Sorry for the incorrect spelling. That should have read "cannot".
nebel said:
The examples of the OP were not in the Planck scale, not individual wood fibres, but the whole macro plank, grabbing, grasping it with all 10 fingers thumbs. The next bigger actually 10 meters. water equivalent of atmospheric pressure. 10 meter squared 1G acceleration.
Click to expand...

I believe you are overstating the case for earth. According to Hazen any planet within a reasonable temperate orbital zone, which has air, water, and rocks (clay) will conduct its own experiment of increasing complexity through chemical interactions of the basic elements which are abundant in the universe, creating the mineral species on earth. (note: it is estimated that there are some 1500 as yet undiscovered mineral species on earth).

In order to understand the mathematics of natural self-organization and increasing complexity, we must descend to nano scale as a foundation for any subsequent mathematical expressions of "values" and "functions".

All the numbers you quoted were invented by humans as arbitrary symbols identifying those values and functions.
But whatever we "discover" is already present universally, long before humans even could count.

IMO the universe itself is a dynamic mathematical construct.

Actually, almost all living organisms can count in the sense of discerning "more" from "less".
Lemurs can tell different relative quantities as well as humans and sometimes even faster.
Slime-molds have a sense of time.
A Paramecium is able to purposely navigate to avoid obstacles.

These proto-mathematical abilities are present at extremely small scales. Therefore must be included in any consideration of planetary mathematics.

1,2,3,4......etc. are relatively unimportant symbols (the important values they represent can be expressed in many different ways)

4/3 = 1.333333333... (base 10)
4/3 = 1.010101010... (base 2)
4/3 = 1.111111111... (base 4)
4/3 = 1.131313131... (base 5)
etc.

The values and functions on earth are not that different from values on other planets.
The mathematics for processes values and functions remain the same here on earth as on all other universal objects. Everything is ordered in accordance with universal imperatives.
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
All the numbers you quoted were invented by humans as arbitrary symbols identifying those values and functions.
Click to expand...
Many of the 1/10 000, 1000, 10, are ratios that would appear no matter what unit invented by humans , like the position in the Bode series, the fraction of the speed of light, the water to atmospheric pressure comparison. of course it has to harmonise with the mathematics, laws of the total universe, but going from macro to planck scale, you have near infinite possibilities for cherry picking.
No other planet so far discovered bears it's tens with such certainty. Saturn perhaps with 100.
 
nebel said:
Many of the 1/10 000, 1000, 10, are ratios that would appear no matter what unit invented by humans , like the position in the Bode series, the fraction of the speed of light, the water to atmospheric pressure comparison. of course it has to harmonise with the mathematics, laws of the total universe, but going from macro to planck scale, you have near infinite possibilities for cherry picking.
No other planet so far discovered bears it's tens with such certainty. Saturn perhaps with 100.
Click to expand...
I agree with you on the recognition of natural relative (rational) values without the need for symbolic representation.

But I am not so sure about the exclusivity of earthly conditions in the greater universe. If a mathematical form of value or function is displayed as a pattern all sorts of inferences can be drawn in all kinds of mathematical statistics.
As the link demonstrates, it depends often on the scale or numerical base to gain an accurate perspective of a mathematical pattern.
i.e. from Planck to Mt. Everest

That is the beauty of our recognition and ability to codify this inherent universal potential, an evolutionary emergent mathematical order becoming eventually expressed as regular familiar physical patterns which we have given symbolic names.
"pull up a chair"........:)
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
Planck to Mt. Everest
Click to expand...
I like that ascendency. It could be from the many possibilities at the base, our planet for now, might be the pinnacle of the universe, to know. to show itself, The No. 1 of the OP, within our horizon anyway, and the numbers show it.
 
nebel said:
I like that ascendency. It could be from the many possibilities at the base, our planet for now, might be the pinnacle of the universe, to know. to show itself, The No. 1 of the OP, within our horizon anyway, and the numbers show it.
Click to expand...
Fortunately we have proof. No one would ever have believed us if we told these stories to others.
 
just noticed:
If you deduct the retrograde noontime rotational velocity of Jupiter, the big influencer: 12.6 km/sec. , from it's prograde orbital velocity of 13.07 km/se. , you have an effective value of ,47 km/sec, as seen from the Sun/ Earth.
The Earth's equator rotational velocity is .47 km/sc. too, (as compared to the "stationary" poles)
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
Fortunately we have proof. No one would ever have believed us if we told these stories to others.
Click to expand...

Here is a pseudo-science play with planetary numbers:
Take Earth's Bode position 10, multiply (10 times), it gives you Saturn position 100, then
take the Earth -Moon distance and find an hypothetical Moon there, Calculate it's orbital velocity. what it is close to?
w4u, you guessed it. ~ 10 km/sec

Saturn's Moons - ER - NASA

https://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/RWR_5_8_lesson2_saturns_moons.pdf

that moon like Rhea, would have a matching retro velocity at noon, perihelion, to make it a candidate for a post on the
"Jupiter velocities cancel thread" .
 
Last edited:
origin said:
You shouldn't refer to yourself as a nut case, you are just a little gullible and confused.
Click to expand...
bold added

Here is another confusing Bode/ Earth No. 10, but really No. 1 connection:
upload_2019-5-21_9-46-30.jpeg
Nasa images of the Hexagon at Saturn's north pole. so,
what is the Bode, No.1 connection?
The Bode sequence, with Earth at 10 is based on a doubling of orbit spacings with a lower limit of 3 (.3 AU)* and upper limit of 96 (9.6 AU)**.
The 6st such spacing (the last doubling) gets you to Saturn. The pole apparently hex-shaped to mark that.
Hexagons are the easiest to make, with a compass, then just project the Radius on the circumference.
Very common in the Cosmos, Lagrangians, Trojan asteroids.
The compass opening used in measuring of the this Saturn hexagon (radius and sides), would be the Earth, the diameter, of No. 1.
Looks like a nice stamp of approval. Another amazing co - incident.
* The ~ Mercury to Venus to Earth distances
** The Saturn to Uranus to Neptune to Pluto distances
 
Last edited:
nebel said:
bold added

Here is another confusing Bode/ Earth No. 10, but really No. 1 connection:
View attachment 2567
Nasa images of the Hexagon at Saturn's north pole. so,
what is the Bode, No.1 connection?
The Bode sequence, with Earth at 10 is based on a doubling of orbit spacings with a lower limit of 3 (.3 AU)* and upper limit of 96 (9.6 AU)**.
The 6st such spacing (the last doubling) gets you to Saturn. The pole apparently hex-shaped to mark that.
Hexagons are the easiest to make, with a compass, then just project the Radius on the circumference.
Very common in the Cosmos, Lagrangians, Trojan asteroids.
The compass opening used in measuring of the this Saturn hexagon (radius and sides), would be the Earth, the diameter, of No. 1.
Looks like a nice stamp of approval. Another amazing co - incident.
* The ~ Mercury to Venus to Earth distances
** The Saturn to Uranus to Neptune to Pluto distances
Click to expand...

I think you'll find that most planetary systems display mathematical regularities both individually and collectively.
 
Michael 345 said:
You worked all this out by yourself?
Click to expand...

admittedly, all these ratios, involving 10 s were not the result of nebel's own seminal research, but became to be known from work by better brains. But here is one I just read*, knew before, -- just did not connect with this curiosity thread:

A pendulum swings at ~ 1.0 seconds per cycle if it is 1.0 meter, 10 decimetres long. 1 meter, 10 of which , as a water column, are the atmosphere's pressure. 10 ---
* Bob Berman; "Zoom"
 
here is another far fetched one:
Mars orbit length is ~ 10 times Earth orbit radius. within 4%
Inner solar system orbit ratios of various kinds show: we are entangled in a tight web, thankfully.
 
From post#150

Write4U said: ↑
Planck to Mt. Everest
Click to expand...


nebel said:
I like that ascendency. It could be from the many possibilities at the base, our planet for now, might be the pinnacle of the universe, to know. to show itself, The No. 1 of the OP, within our horizon anyway, and the numbers show it.
Click to expand...

Highlighted

Not a chance .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top