Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
separation distance at poles of sphere is 1*10^-603 and at equator is approx 6*10^-603 #1303 Correcting Math 3rd ed
15 views
Skip to first unread message
Archimedes Plutonium
Nov 19, 2012, 2:48:29 AM11/19/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Alright, let us do some construction, paper construction. I forgotten
what it is called-- perhaps origami.
We cannot take a perfect square and yield a sphere out of it.
We cannot do that because the empty space in between points of a
square are a constant number 1*10^-603 whereas the empty space between
successive points in the sphere are a variable number and the
separation distance at the poles is at a minimum 1*10^-603.
Now, by the time two successive points reach the equator of the sphere
the separation distance must be approx 2(pi)*10^-603, or approx 6
times larger of a separation distance.
Now we can take a quick check up on whether that number is correct or
near correct by looking at a globe of the earth and measuring the
distance of separation of two successive longitude lines near the pole
and on my globe it is about 0.6cm and the separation distance of those
same two longitude lines at the equator which is about 4 cm. So those
agree fairly well.
So now with that paper folding, if we take a square and fold it so the
4 corners touch, we begin to form a sphere, but is not going to be
round because the lines that form the square in a grid line pattern
||||| those lines have a constant separation distance. If we could
somehow wedge those lines further apart to a maximum of 2(pi) in the
middle of the lines to form a equator we would also transform the
folded square into a sphere surface.
So the difference between Euclidean geometry and Elliptic geometry is
that Euclidean has a constant separation distance of successive points
of 1*10^-603 whereas Elliptic geometry has a progressively larger
separation distance from pole to equator which reaches a maximum of
2(pi)*10^-603. Now Hyperbolic is the inside surface of a hollow sphere
and follows everything of Elliptic geometry, except we delete the
poles and the equator and the numbers are negative numbers, such as
the 3rd quadrant, whereas Elliptic is all positive numbers such as the
1st quadrant. Euclidean can be all 4 quadrants.
So, one way of defining Elliptic geometry from Euclidean is that given
a line and a point not on the line, there are 0
lines parallel to the given line. But another way, which is far more
insightful, is that Elliptic geometry has a progressively larger empty
space between successive points of the geometry rather than a constant
value of separation of points.
Now that is very useful for physics, because our current means of
determining whether the Universe is a Elliptic geometry and not
Euclidean is to travel in one direction and if Elliptic we return to
the same spot many light years from now. We see that such a experiment
is near impossible to conduct. However, the property of Elliptic
geometry being a progressively larger portions of empty space is a
more easily measurable phenomenon since we only have to look at where
matter is concentrated and measure the voids in between the
concentrations. If we see a progressively increase in size and amount
of voids, would tell us that Space is Elliptic geometry.
The last time I looked at the atlas of galaxies:
http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/nearsc.html
http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/wnearsc.gif
http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~mjuric/universe/all100.gif
http://www.astro.princeton.edu/universe/
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/papers/LSS/
The voids seem to be piling up and growing larger the further away
from the Milky Way.
Google's New-Newsgroups censors AP posts but Drexel's Math Forum does
not and my posts in archive form is seen here:
http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986
Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
what it is called-- perhaps origami.
We cannot take a perfect square and yield a sphere out of it.
We cannot do that because the empty space in between points of a
square are a constant number 1*10^-603 whereas the empty space between
successive points in the sphere are a variable number and the
separation distance at the poles is at a minimum 1*10^-603.
Now, by the time two successive points reach the equator of the sphere
the separation distance must be approx 2(pi)*10^-603, or approx 6
times larger of a separation distance.
Now we can take a quick check up on whether that number is correct or
near correct by looking at a globe of the earth and measuring the
distance of separation of two successive longitude lines near the pole
and on my globe it is about 0.6cm and the separation distance of those
same two longitude lines at the equator which is about 4 cm. So those
agree fairly well.
So now with that paper folding, if we take a square and fold it so the
4 corners touch, we begin to form a sphere, but is not going to be
round because the lines that form the square in a grid line pattern
||||| those lines have a constant separation distance. If we could
somehow wedge those lines further apart to a maximum of 2(pi) in the
middle of the lines to form a equator we would also transform the
folded square into a sphere surface.
So the difference between Euclidean geometry and Elliptic geometry is
that Euclidean has a constant separation distance of successive points
of 1*10^-603 whereas Elliptic geometry has a progressively larger
separation distance from pole to equator which reaches a maximum of
2(pi)*10^-603. Now Hyperbolic is the inside surface of a hollow sphere
and follows everything of Elliptic geometry, except we delete the
poles and the equator and the numbers are negative numbers, such as
the 3rd quadrant, whereas Elliptic is all positive numbers such as the
1st quadrant. Euclidean can be all 4 quadrants.
So, one way of defining Elliptic geometry from Euclidean is that given
a line and a point not on the line, there are 0
lines parallel to the given line. But another way, which is far more
insightful, is that Elliptic geometry has a progressively larger empty
space between successive points of the geometry rather than a constant
value of separation of points.
Now that is very useful for physics, because our current means of
determining whether the Universe is a Elliptic geometry and not
Euclidean is to travel in one direction and if Elliptic we return to
the same spot many light years from now. We see that such a experiment
is near impossible to conduct. However, the property of Elliptic
geometry being a progressively larger portions of empty space is a
more easily measurable phenomenon since we only have to look at where
matter is concentrated and measure the voids in between the
concentrations. If we see a progressively increase in size and amount
of voids, would tell us that Space is Elliptic geometry.
The last time I looked at the atlas of galaxies:
http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/nearsc.html
http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/wnearsc.gif
http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~mjuric/universe/all100.gif
http://www.astro.princeton.edu/universe/
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/papers/LSS/
The voids seem to be piling up and growing larger the further away
from the Milky Way.
Google's New-Newsgroups censors AP posts but Drexel's Math Forum does
not and my posts in archive form is seen here:
http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986
Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
mus...@att.ne
Nov 19, 2012, 3:49:29 AM11/19/12
to
On Monday, November 19, 2012 2:48:29 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Alright, let us do some construction, paper construction. I forgotten
>
> what it is called-- perhaps origami.
>
>
>
> We cannot take a perfect square and yield a sphere out of it.
>
> We cannot do that because the empty space in between points of a
>
> square are a constant number 1*10^-603 whereas the empty space between
>
> successive points in the sphere are a variable number and the
>
> separation distance at the poles is at a minimum 1*10^-603.
>
>
>
> Now, by the time two successive points reach the equator of the sphere
>
> the separation distance must be approx 2(pi)*10^-603, or approx 6
>
> times larger of a separation distance.
How can pi be in your system, if all numbers are multiples of 10^603, and pi is not?
> Alright, let us do some construction, paper construction. I forgotten
>
> what it is called-- perhaps origami.
>
>
>
> We cannot take a perfect square and yield a sphere out of it.
>
> We cannot do that because the empty space in between points of a
>
> square are a constant number 1*10^-603 whereas the empty space between
>
> successive points in the sphere are a variable number and the
>
> separation distance at the poles is at a minimum 1*10^-603.
>
>
>
> Now, by the time two successive points reach the equator of the sphere
>
> the separation distance must be approx 2(pi)*10^-603, or approx 6
>
> times larger of a separation distance.
>
>
>
> Now we can take a quick check up on whether that number is correct or
>
> near correct by looking at a globe of the earth and measuring the
>
> distance of separation of two successive longitude lines near the pole
>
> and on my globe it is about 0.6cm and the separation distance of those
>
> same two longitude lines at the equator which is about 4 cm. So those
>
> agree fairly well.
Archimedes Plutonium
Nov 19, 2012, 6:00:36 AM11/19/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Nov 19, 2:49 am, musa...@att.ne wrote:
> On Monday, November 19, 2012 2:48:29 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> How can pi be in your system, if all numbers are multiples of 10^603, and pi is not?
>
>
actually the borderline is root(pi)*10^603 and its inverse is actually
> On Monday, November 19, 2012 2:48:29 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> How can pi be in your system, if all numbers are multiples of 10^603, and pi is not?
>
>
1/root(pi)*10^603. I just use 10^603 and 10^-603 as abbreviations.
>
> > Now we can take a quick check up on whether that number is correct or
>
> > near correct by looking at a globe of the earth and measuring the
>
> > distance of separation of two successive longitude lines near the pole
>
> > and on my globe it is about 0.6cm and the separation distance of those
>
> > same two longitude lines at the equator which is about 4 cm. So those
>
> > agree fairly well.
>
> But 0.6 is not a multiple of 1/10^603 ?
>
Or, you expecting my eyes to see two lines separated by a space of
10^-603 apart.
Keep this up and I will play a Hughes joke on you. Driftwood has to be
good for something, even if it is a laugh.
AP
mus...@att.ne
Nov 19, 2012, 6:12:56 AM11/19/12
to
something incredibly-stupid and deceitful in your reply? So , what's new, you do that
every day. Why not , instead, surprise us all by posting something
smart for once? I bet half the NG will be stunned for days.
0 new messages