432 shows harmony of Sun, Moon, Earth Design

[Paul]

I said the same thing when they laughed at my plans to create a race of mutant atomic supermen. Fools! I'll destroy them all!

Mutant atomic supermen, pa!, I laugh in their stupid glowy mutant faces, ha, aha ha ha, and pa! again.

Now, if we're talking giant flying atomic robot ninjas, that's a different story.

 

[ReligionStudent]

From Jiri: What makes you think so? I got the image from a scientific periodical, where it was published by Lwoff. The image is the result of hard work by French scientists. It's alleged that they used a variety of methods, such as taking plaster impressions, or high resolution photographs under different lighting conditions, etc. The intelligent results I got indicate that the image is sufficiently close to the original, and in my opinion, the results will only get more interesting with increasing adherence to the original.

Let me just say this, you need to actually see and physically measure the origional. While their are some ways to effectivally measure from pictures, they still require some sort of physically measured reference, and to do real work you should handle and see the item you are working with. Beyond this, you are showing us a drawing, not a photo. If you are going to do work like this, you cannot use a hand drawn image, gol out and learn the basics of archaeological, historical, and scholarly methods before attempting to present a theory you make up.

 

[ReligionStudent]

I should also mention that if you are going to present this as a real grand theory, you need multiple examples.

To gain credit you should actually write this up and submit it to peer reviewed journals. They will help you improve your work and show you where you have made errors.

 

[Paul]

We started this discussion with the Frame, a fairly simple and straightforward issue, and we're not yet done with it,

We're done with it, it's just that you don't see why an arbitrary set of lines enclosing an image of unknown accuracy is not at all special.

That's why I had started by telling people here about the Frame only, so we could concentrate on one thing at a time.

There's no need to concentrate on the frame, it is meaningless.

The Frame has the advantage that it deals in numbers rather than shapes, which makes it easier to discuss.

What part of 'your frame is an artificial construct of meaningless arbitrary lines to which you have attached unfounded mathematical significance' are you having trouble with?

The criticism leveled at it over here on this forum was so far very weak and escapist, all talk, but no detailed analysis.

There is no substance to analyse, are you getting it yet?

I am not impressed.

Funny, because you appear to be incredibly easy to impress.

 

[jsfisher]

I propose a contest:

I think it is really unfair that Jiri and Davidjayjordan get to have all the fun uncovering great coincidence truths in numbers. So, ...

Who can come up with the bizarre numerological linkage of people, places, and things?


Winners will receive their choice of a garden spot in Heaven, a reserved space in Hell over by the heater, or a hearty "congratulations!"

 

[bruto]

I propose a contest:

I think it is really unfair that Jiri and Davidjayjordan get to have all the fun uncovering great coincidence truths in numbers. So, ...

Who can come up with the bizarre numerological linkage of people, places, and things?


Winners will receive their choice of a garden spot in Heaven, a reserved space in Hell over by the heater, or a hearty "congratulations!"

How about a posthumous award?

 

[Jiri]

How about a posthumous award?

Sorry, I don't accept awards from dead people. Is your pending doom really so inevitable?

 

[Hokulele]

How about a posthumous award?

Sorry, I don't accept awards from dead people. Is your pending doom really so inevitable?

Just so you know, a posthumous award is presented to a dead person, not by a dead person. Bruto offered a link to a cartoonist who recently passed away (a darn funny one too!), and since you didn't click the link, you didn't get the joke. I would recommend clicking that link, it really is funny in the context of this thread (DJJ's posts mainly).

 

[Jiri]

Just so you know, a posthumous award is presented to a dead person, not by a dead person. Bruto offered a link to a cartoonist who recently passed away (a darn funny one too!), and since you didn't click the link, you didn't get the joke. I would recommend clicking that link, it really is funny in the context of this thread (DJJ's posts mainly).

I was beginning to think that I had a reward coming from a brain-dead person, the only logical explanation not having to deal with the supernatural. Well, off to clicking..

 

[Jiri]

I bet you coundn't come up with a number for the following..

I propose a contest:

I think it is really unfair that Jiri and Davidjayjordan get to have all the fun uncovering great coincidence truths in numbers. So, ...

Who can come up with the bizarre numerological linkage of people, places, and things?


Winners will receive their choice of a garden spot in Heaven, a reserved space in Hell over by the heater, or a hearty "congratulations!"

Back to our discussion, I bet you couldn't come up with a number for the following: the number of sets of thirteen numbers in the range of 16 to 175.
Each number can appear more than once, and the order matters as well. Eliminate all the sets totalling less than a 1000, and more than 1452 (a realistic range for engraving sizes). I'm sure you can put it into numbers, but not words, since you probably don't know the name of that particular astronomical number.
This all has to do with speaking of preconceived ideas, which I make fit into the ancient images, do you mean that I had the Frame before applying it? Or do I desperately take the measurements, and .. and.. and... and.. and.. and.. and what next? I am stumped as to how you would actually present your scenario in details.
This is all relevant, because I put forth the case for the Frame being the best possible choice for what it does. If I should be wrong than there must be an astronomical mass of better suitable combinations like the Frame.
So, why not try that rather than organizing numerological circus?
Come up with a better Frame, using all your professional resources, or watch yourself lose to someone you consider a primitive caveman. Knowing the Frame, the smart money bet is on the caveman

 

[JonnyFive]

One semi-circle suffices, and we have the makings of at once two Golden Rectangles, so you are indeed right. The diagonal of the 2:1 rectangle will be the circle's radius (2.236..).
When we swing it to the left, for example, the resulting distance is now divided into 1 and 1.236. The extension of the square's base gives Phi with the height of the rectangle - they represent two sides of a Golden Rectangle.
2 / 1.236.. = 1.618..

Swing it to the right (Square dancing to get 1 + 2.236 = 3.236.. Now, the height of the old rectangle (2) forms the short side of a Golden Rectangle with the new distance of 3.236.. - two sides of four needed for a Golden rectangle. To see this done in the context of the engraving's square:
http://www.vejprty.com/seat3.htm

Add, or subtract a square from any Golden Rectangle, get a new Golden Rectangle. Repeating the process will lead to a spiral. But, you still did not get around to constructing a 36 degree angle from this position, not to mention construction of the regular 5-pointed star.
More steps would be needed. So, your small example doesn't work. It does not take you past the simple repetitive and decorative stage at best as the intention of the artist.

Why would you do this unless you're trying to force golden ratios to appear? That web page fails to clearly explain why you chose to do any of this. You planning to answer my various questions posted here, or are you just one of those people that wants us all to accept what you say without question?

Please let me know if you are, so I can stop wasting my time with trying to get a serious answer out of you.

Back to our discussion, I bet you couldn't come up with a number for the following: the number of sets of thirteen numbers in the range of 16 to 175.

I can:

You care to refine your definition of "numbers" a little more? You want to know the number of unique sets of 13 natural numbers using the whole numbers 16 to 175, including both 16 and 175 and allowing for repetition?

Therefore you're looking for all possible sets of 13, drawing from a possible source of 160 unique numbers.

Number of permutations with repetition is

where n is the number of possible "things" (natural numbers) and k is the number put into the set.

If I do my math correctly (or, rather, if Excel does its math correctly), it should be:

45,035,996,273,705,000,000,000,000,000.

Eliminate all the sets totalling less than a 1000, and more than 1452 (a realistic range for engraving sizes). I'm sure you can put it into numbers, but not words, since you probably don't know the name of that particular astronomical number.

The easiest way to eliminate that range would probably be through computer simulation. You're looking to eliminate everything where the average value is less than about 77, and more than about 111, but it isn't that simple because those are average values, so a permutation using, say, 91, is fine as long as the other values pull the average down to that range.

It would probably be simplest to program a computer to just check all the values, as it could do it quickly and without having to develop some god-awful formula for the problem.

Since the number is going to be less than 45 octillion (because you're restricting the problem further), I think naming it would be no problem.

But as you didn't say natural numbers, the answer is still infinity.

If you'd like to refine further, that would be fine.

 

[ReligionStudent]

Back to our discussion, I bet you couldn't come up with a number for the following: the number of sets of thirteen numbers in the range of 16 to 175.
Each number can appear more than once, and the order matters as well. Eliminate all the sets totalling less than a 1000, and more than 1452 (a realistic range for engraving sizes). I'm sure you can put it into numbers, but not words, since you probably don't know the name of that particular astronomical number.

First where do you get the satement "a realistic range for engraving sizes"? What science, study, or example to you have to support this or is this just something you pulled from your assumptions (and what exactly is the range 1000 to 1452 pixels?, inches? and is this a side length or the area? How does it define the picture?)

The number of sets by the way, is clearly infinite

Set 1. 77 repeated 13 times
Set 2 77 repeated 12 times followed by 77.1
Set 3 77 Repeated 12 times followed by 77.11
Set 4 77 Repeated 12 times followed by 77.111

Well I demonstrate it obviously with my example, but I think I can do a real proof here:

Any Set of 13 numbers containing {77,77,77,77,77,77,77,77,77,77,77,77,77} Has a sum greater than 1000 but less than 1452. ====> 77 * 12+ 77 = 1001

Any Set of 13 numbers containing {77,77,77,77,77,77,77,77,77,77,77,77,78} in any order has a sum greater than 1000 but less than 1452======> 77*12+78=1002

Their are infinate numbers X, where 77<=x<=78

Therefore there are infinite lists containting {77,77,77,77,77,77,77,77,77,77,77,77,X} where 1001<=77*12+X<=1002

Therefore there are infinite lists of 13 numbers where the sum of the numbers greater than 1000 and less than 1425

QED
​

Now maybe you meant whole real numbers, but I would just say any measurment you make would likely not consist of such numbers. If all your measurments were somehow comming out to such miracoulous numbers, it would still be on you to verify this by actually using the real object instead of measuring a copy which in and of itself makes your work less acurate.

 

[JonnyFive]

The number of sets by the way, is clearly infinite

That's what I'm saying! All you need to do is drop on another decimal point. It's like magic .

And his claim that, even given only natural numbers (which, as you pointed out, is unrealistic), we can't figure out the number of sets and can't even name such an astronomical number is incorrect.

 

[ReligionStudent]

That's what I'm saying! All you need to do is drop on another decimal point. It's like magic .

And his claim that, even given only natural numbers (which, as you pointed out, is unrealistic), we can't figure out the number of sets and can't even name such an astronomical number is incorrect.

That number is definatly calculatable (not a word probably), but unfortunatly my computer with progarmming stuff is in the basement in storage right now.

I also fail to see why the number has to be between 16 and 175, the difference between 16 and say 15 is small, and could certainly be taken into a set which meets the range of sumation

 

[JonnyFive]

That number is definatly calculatable (not a word probably), but unfortunatly my computer with progarmming stuff is in the basement in storage right now.

I also fail to see why the number has to be between 16 and 175, the difference between 16 and say 15 is small, and could certainly be taken into a set which meets the range of sumation

Of course. The number of combinations without his stupid limit on the sum is easy to figure with only a calculator with sufficient decimals or a copy of a spreadsheet program, and the code would be simple enough to follow his innane limits (why 1452? Why 1000?).

However, I'm not going to put any effort into that unless Jiri can explain more coherently why any of this has any meaning. So far, not so good.

I don't know why he (presumption on my part: might be a "she") chose those numbers.

ETA: ZOMG! Neither 1452, 1000, nor 175 are Osiris numbers! Jiri, you're slipping! I suggest you choose 16 and 180 as your range of numbers, and accept 1080 and 1758 as your limits! That will make your numbers look more magical more harmonious.

 

[jsfisher]

ETA: ZOMG! Neither 1452, 1000, nor 175 are Osiris numbers! Jiri, you're slipping! I suggest you choose 16 and 180 as your range of numbers, and accept 1080 and 1758 as your limits! That will make your numbers look more magical more harmonious.

Not every number needs to be an Osiris number. Come on, you are missing the obvious. For example, the number, 1452, is extremely significant in its own right. It is the year of Leonardo Da Vinci's birth. I leave it as an exercise for the interested reader to uncover the deeper meaninglessness of the other numbers.

 

[JonnyFive]

Not every number needs to be an Osiris number. Come on, you are missing the obvious. For example, the number, 1452, is extremely significant in its own right. It is the year of Leonardo Da Vinci's birth. I leave it as an exercise for the interested reader to uncover the deeper meaninglessness of the other numbers.

Oh, I thought we were still playing the Osiris number game, since Jiri won't answer direct questions or anything.

 

[bruto]

Of course. The number of combinations without his stupid limit on the sum is easy to figure with only a calculator with sufficient decimals or a copy of a spreadsheet program, and the code would be simple enough to follow his innane limits (why 1452? Why 1000?).

However, I'm not going to put any effort into that unless Jiri can explain more coherently why any of this has any meaning. So far, not so good.

I don't know why he (presumption on my part: might be a "she") chose those numbers.

ETA: ZOMG! Neither 1452, 1000, nor 175 are Osiris numbers! Jiri, you're slipping! I suggest you choose 16 and 180 as your range of numbers, and accept 1080 and 1758 as your limits! That will make your numbers look more magical more harmonious.

Jiri also specifies that "order matters as well," making for an unusual definition for a set.

 

[JonnyFive]

Jiri also specifies that "order matters as well," making for an unusual definition for a set.

It is kind of unusual, unless he's explicitly talking about a specific-case set where order is important for some definite reason...

You would find a similar condition with, say, a computer password, where the order of the elements of the set is important as well as the values.

Kind of weird in this case, but what about it isn't?

The formula I listed finds all possible permutations of 13 numbers out of the pool of 160 (including duplicates), so it does in fact take into account that "order matters as well."

 

[ReligionStudent]

Currently running the program... May take a while did not get fancy with math so there are just 13 loops and two if statments with lots of itterations.