NOTEPAD for RANDOM IDEAS

[Paul S.]

OK kids, I've gone through all the responses to Richard Hull's postings, and I've gathered my thoughts on the various subjects.

The points that Richard raised, and the way you all responded, speaks directly to what I have to do with the next draft of the book.

So I've posted a rather lengthy essay on the subject in the "Second Draft" section. Yes, that means the responses will have to be moderated, but when you've read what I've written there, I think you'll appreciate the need to keep the discussion focused.

viewtopic.php?p=16049#p16049

It almost reads like a new chapter. For Victoria's sake, I wish it was a Thursday. Well, close enough...

--PS

[Paul S.]

Many have wondered which came first. Adamskis sighting or Dads design. I think actually the jury may still be out on that one. Linda

Yeah, that's exactly what I thought, too. Jury's out... or trapped somewhere in the Omniplasma Continuum.

Or the Chrono-Synclastic Infundibulum.

Look it up, Stony Stevenson.

--PS

[htmagic]

We need to make a call to Wonder Woman and she can tell us of her airplane.

Think she has a rest room on board?

Mikado

Mikado,

You crack me up. I think the Cartoon Network did that very spoof on Wonder Woman that she was sitting on her (invisible) commode! LOL!

I want to ride but not in the restroom!

MagicBill

[Victoria Steele]

Heck with Wonder Womans plane. I want her lariat... you know, rope someone and he has to tell you the truth? And perhaps I want her bustline and waist too while we are at it. Victoria

[Mikado14]

The points that Richard raised, and the way you all responded, speaks directly to what I have to do with the next draft of the book.

So I've posted a rather lengthy essay on the subject in the "Second Draft" section. Yes, that means the responses will have to be moderated, but when you've read what I've written there, I think you'll appreciate the need to keep the discussion focused.


--PS

From my perspective he spoke the truth, however, a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine...er, reality, go down.

Perhaps you should give the name "Enforcer" to him for he did so ever not so genteel. I do hope his "truth" is with open eyes and not blinders on. Nothing like kicking a puppy...or rabbit.

I will not post where I will be "moderated" or "edited".

Mikado

[Victoria Steele]

Hows this for a Morganistic thought Paul.

You seem worried that after all of this traipsing around in the rabbit hole that you might discover that there is no rabbit. Hows this? What if you discover that YOU are the rabbit. Victoria

[FM No Static At All]

Hows this for a Morganistic thought Paul.

You seem worried that after all of this traipsing around in the rabbit hole that you might discover that there is no rabbit. Hows this? What if you discover that YOU are the rabbit. Victoria

And I am the Walrus, goo goo ga joob!

[Trickfox]

Mr. Hull
The most important thing I will say about your comments is that perhaps the Caroline group has succeeded in performing it's duty, and that perhaps you are the victim of "biased observational error".
The sad part is that perhaps you will never know for sure.

I understand your point completely because I understand the math and physics well enough to see your point of view, however if you look carefully and try to find ANYONE in the world of "Paranormal debunking" who can support your observations and conclusions regarding T.T. Brown (specifically) . I think you will find that Thomas Townsend Brown has never been implicated in any fraudulent activities whatsoever. Missunderstood, Missinterpreted perhaps,.. but "Fraudulent".... NEVER. You may verify this with James Randi and CSICOP if you wish.

Like yourself perhaps, I happen to believe that witnessing a demonstration of any phenomena which violates the laws of physics is not enough proof to come to the conclusion that such a demonstration is proof of a totally new discovery. The proof comes when the demonstration itself is explained in terms of the Math and Physics which contain non-conflicting axioms and are the natural extensions of existing well known principles. Only when this happens are the laws of physics "changed" to reflect the newly accepted proof. Even then, it usually takes several years for the mainstream scientific community to accept the proof.

If such proof should even find it's way into the shadowy world of "Restricted Data" you would probably never be able to find it alone and without the blessing of "the powers that be", and if you should, you certainly would never comment about it in a public chat forum. (unless, of course you completely disregard the consequences)

Now I'm quite sure you are NOT aware of EVERY advanced classified scientific
projects under development by various nations on Earth. Perhaps the science math and physics in some of these projects are beyond your capacity to understand and accept because you have focused on one or two areas of science and thus perhaps you have been carefully biased to observe the world as you do now.

So... Let's look at the FACTS shall we?

You are "probably NOT" the world's leading authority in "High Potential" science and physics (despite your extensive research on ancient works by Tesla).

You are "probably not" in possession of the security clearance necessary to know and understand the most important and dangerous scientific knowledge on Earth.

You are "probably not" well enough equipped to explore or even work on the most modern and revolutionary technology on earth (take "nanotechnology" as an example to begin with).

Am I wrong about these conclusions?

Forgive me, but all I see is a man who thinks he's wasted his time chasing a dream and now tries to justify this by implying that in the end it was intellectually satisfying.

Sorry but I don't buy it.

I think you have simply concluded that it was all self delusion.

So.... In the end, All I can say is....

Go forth and continue your declarations if you wish, however you shall never influence me personally.

Like Paul S. Perhaps I am not ready to throw out the baby with the bathwater just yet.

Trickfox

[Trickfox]

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/080 ... 0090v2.pdf

The above PDF file is scientific information which is only pertinent to a FEW forum members who have a great deal of "Math" knowledge. Funny thing is..... Beau was right about this stuff a long time ago.

It's exciting to see the proof may finally see the light on day.
How appropriate and timely this information is to me personally is just beyond normal comprehension a this point!!!

Trickfox

[FM No Static At All]

Beau was right about this stuff a long time ago.

It's exciting to see the proof may finally see the light on day.
How appropriate and timely this information is to me personally is just beyond normal comprehension a this point!!!

For those of us lacking a PHD in advanced Calculus, could you give us a brief explanation in 50 words or less? One that we can chew on and not chew through our bottom lip?

[Trickfox]

The Riemann Zeta Function is a "number Theorem" about the distribution of non-trivial zero distribution in prime numbers. I posted the above specifically for AM2 and those forum members and Lurkers who understand this and how it relates to Kitselman's work. I cannot possibly explain this to anyone in 50 words or less. The reason it relates to Kitselman's work is because of the phenomena known as "convergence to zero".

Here is another analogy you might better understand.

In Mathematics there are patterns of numbers and their appearances in a series of equations which follow or describe the behaviour of complex "systems".

Do you recognize this series of digits? 3.14159265....(continues to change without repeating any digit)

The digits which make up "PI" are a specific series of digits which never repeat and never end (so it is said). Despite this when the 3.1415...... shows up in any kind of equation, we immediatly realize that this series of digits represents a known value we call "pi".

If I understood ALL the math in that Riemann Hypothesis paper completely I suspect my search for mathematical truth and complete understanding of the mysteries of science would be that much closer towards completion.

The only thing I do understand is the basic concepts of the Riemann Hypothesis. It is exciting news to me because I believe it supports to some degree the propositions I have made on my website regarding the convergence of an Asymptote beyond the limits of a closed system. This function also happens to be used in some of Kitselman's equations.

.....SO......in nearly 50 words or less here is an analogy......

The Riemann Hypothesis is completely different than "PI" of course, however I will use the "pi" analogy to tell you that this hypothesis a bit like saying "the last significant digit of "PI" cannot be "3" because the first digit of "pi" IS "3" and if the complete series does eventually loop beyond the closed system, then, -by inference, -we can state that -because no digits of "pi" EVER repeat, the last significat digit of "PI" must be any OTHER digit BUT "3". We still have not found the last digit of "pi" but we have now developed "a theory" to propose the possibility that if there is a "last digit" in "pi" It "should not be "3". Since we already know that the convergence of "pi" towards a complete string of numbers is impossible in Euclidean Geometrics -then we shall never know WHAT the theoretical last digit really is because we LIVE in Euclidean Geometrics.

We have no real answers about "pi" as such. We have only developed a theory to propose "what" the last digit cannot be. Of course all this is true in the ANALOG domain of Euclidean Geometrics at least, -Look up Eugene Salamin and you will see that "number theorem" is a WHOLE LOT more complex that ANYONE can imagine.

I hope this is enough to satisfy your curiousity FM, Sorry to to have created another confusing overly complex post (again) however I was only trying to spread the news to those people who understand the significance but may not be able to comment about it in public.

"They" are watching us anyhow....

If you or anyone else feels that my speculation is unwaranted, unnecessary, or simply a bunch of "name dropping" nonesense, then PLEASE TELL ME and I will forever stop posting ANY speculative mathematical ideas that come to me, and all of you can continue to toss around your conspiracy theories without my continuing to punctuate any kind of logical points.

The TRUTH is: That Rieman Hypothesis paper was published YESTERDAY, and a whole lot of very knowledgeable people will appreciate it very much. DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE HOW MANY OF THOSE PEOPLE ACTUALLY VISIT OUR LITTLE FORUM.

Trickfox

[Mikado14]

If you or anyone else feels that my speculation is unwaranted, unnecessary, or simply a bunch of "name dropping" nonesense, then PLEASE TELL ME and I will forever stop posting ANY speculative mathematical ideas that come to me, and all of you can continue to toss around your conspiracy theories without my continuing to punctuate any kind of logical points.

No, it is warranted....toss away all you wish.

Mikado

[FM No Static At All]

I hope this is enough to satisfy your curiousity FM, Sorry to to have created another confusing overly complex post (again) however I was only trying to spread the news to those people who understand the significance but may not be able to comment about it in public.

"They" are watching us anyhow....

If you or anyone else feels that my speculation is unwaranted, unnecessary, or simply a bunch of "name dropping" nonesense, then PLEASE TELL ME and I will forever stop posting ANY speculative mathematical ideas that come to me, and all of you can continue to toss around your conspiracy theories without my continuing to punctuate any kind of logical points.

No, it is warranted....toss away all you wish.

Yes, for my curiosity is satisfied in your explanation. As I can understand the context of infinite "pi" and as Mr. Kevin B. has made me aware of the sequence of Fibonacci, and as I myself, while having not the mathematical expertise that you and others have, have developed a theory of math of my own. My theory is based on a trinary system, but not 0,1,2 as the digits. since computers are based on binary it did occur to me that there exists tri-states of logic. It is not always on or off, but can be positive and negative. since zero represents "off" and one is "on" there must be a state for less than "off" which I theorize as the negative state as in electrical theory. Positive and negative charges and a state in which there is no change or neutral can be represented by a trinary based number system. In theory I was attempting to create an equalization of scale.

In regards to you offering your explanations, I am certainly good with them, and would query what you say if there is something I do not understand or require further elaboration upon to grasp. I have not felt ridiculed or talked down to by any of your posts, so I thank you for taking the time to explain such things to those of us that lack such formal training. I appreciate that very must and respect you for offering it in such manner.

[Mikado14]

My theory is based on a trinary system, but not 0,1,2 as the digits. since computers are based on binary it did occur to me that there exists tri-states of logic. It is not always on or off, but can be positive and negative. since zero represents "off" and one is "on" there must be a state for less than "off" which I theorize as the negative state as in electrical theory. Positive and negative charges and a state in which there is no change or neutral can be represented by a trinary based number system. In theory I was attempting to create an equalization of scale.

.

FM, there are tri-state logic devices and they have been around for quite sometime and you can account for them as a logic state when working with Boolean.

Mikado

[FM No Static At All]

FM, there are tri-state logic devices and they have been around for quite sometime and you can account for them as a logic state when working with Boolean.

Mikado

Yes, that I know, but we are still dealing with 1's and 0's and in the context of time, there needs to be a representation (a la Kozyerv et. al.) to describe negative time and positive time as well as present time. Boolean expressions are fine for computer systems and programming. I have written code in the past and understand what you are saying. AND, OR, NAND, XOR, etc. (gated logic) Maybe I am not explaining this very well, but it is the best that I can do at the present. Excuse me if I seem a bit vague or unsure. I can visualize it but don't quite have the words to explain it yet.