Time to head back to also the mathematical numerolgy site, which I mentioned here, earlier. A fun little site, if you want to help "keep the music alive" in you.
If Dan will allow me to register as Garnabby, what I started out as on these such forums, I shall put up the old-new theory of everything, along the way, beginning in a few months. And, hopefully, attract some decent math/physics, and mathematical numerology, posters.
Mathematical numerology is an oxymoron Bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garnabby
I'd say the last thing needed here is more number tards. One is too many.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garnabby
Good luck with that, OneHit
Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplay
Quote:
Other uses of the term
In science
Scientific theories are sometimes labeled "numerology" if their primary inspiration appears to be a set of patterns rather than scientific observations. This colloquial use of the term is quite common within the scientific community and it is mostly used to dismiss a theory as questionable science.
The best known example of "numerology" in science involves the coincidental resemblance of certain large numbers that intrigued such eminent men as mathematical physicist Paul Dirac, mathematician Hermann Weyl and astronomer Arthur Stanley Eddington. These numerical coincidences refer to such quantities as the ratio of the age of the universe to the atomic unit of time, the number of electrons in the universe, and the difference in strengths between gravity and the electric force for the electron and proton. "Is the Universe Fine Tuned for Us?", Stenger, V.J., page 3.
The discovery of atomic triads, an early attempt to sort the elements into some logical order by their physical properties, was once considered a form of numerology, and yet ultimately led to the construction of the periodic table. Here the atomic weight of the lightest element and the heaviest are summed, and averaged, and the average is found to be very close to that of the intermediate weight element. This didn't work with every triplet in the same group, but worked often enough to allow later workers to create generalizations.
Large number co-incidences continue to fascinate many mathematical physicists. For instance, James G. Gilson has constructed a "Quantum Theory of Gravity" based loosely on Dirac's large number hypothesis.
Wolfgang Pauli was also fascinated by the appearance of certain numbers, including 137, in physics.
British mathematician I. J. Good wrote:
In gamblingQuote:
There have been a few examples of numerology that have led to theories that transformed society: see the mention of Kirchhoff and Balmer in Good (1962, p. 316) ... and one can well include Kepler on account of his third law. It would be fair enough to say that numerology was the origin of the theories of electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, gravitation.... So I intend no disparagement when I describe a formula as numerological.
When a numerological formula is proposed, then we may ask whether it is correct. ... I think an appropriate definition of correctness is that the formula has a good explanation, in a Platonic sense, that is, the explanation could be based on a good theory that is not yet known but ‘exists’ in the universe of possible reasonable ideas.
Main article: Gambler's fallacy
Some players apply methods that are sometimes called numerological in games which involve numbers but no skill, such as bingo, roulette, keno, or lotteries. Although no strategy can be applied to increase odds in such games, players may employ "lucky numbers" to find what they think will help them. There is no evidence that any such "numerological strategy" yields a better outcome than pure chance, but the methods are sometimes encouraged, e.g. by casino owners.
Quote:
Irving John Good (9 December 1916 – 5 April 2009) was a British mathematician who worked as a cryptologist at Bletchley Park with Alan Turing. After the Second World War, Good continued to work with Turing on the design of computers and Bayesian statistics at the University of Manchester. Good moved to the United States where he was professor at Virginia Tech.
Quote:
The Dirac large numbers hypothesis (LNH) is an observation made by Paul Dirac in 1937 relating ratios of size scales in the Universe to that of force scales. The ratios constitute very large, dimensionless numbers: some 40 orders of magnitude in the present cosmological epoch. According to Dirac's hypothesis, the apparent similarity of these ratios might not be a mere coincidence but instead could imply a cosmology with these unusual features:
The strength of gravity, as represented by the gravitational constant, is inversely proportional to the age of the universe;
The mass of the universe is proportional to the square of the universe's age.
Physical constants are actually not constant. Their values depend on the age of the Universe.
Of course, no one knows, for sure, the age of the universe. It may be anything older than about 13.8 billion years. As for the remainder of this stuff, well, I came upon it later in life. I was vaguely aware of such numbers and interests, but, until a couple of years ago when it started to appear here on its own, I, never, tried to work any of it into my theory of everything.Quote:
In physics
Since the early 1900s, physicists have postulated that the number could lie at the heart of a grand unified theory, relating theories of electromagnetism, quantum mechanics and, especially, gravity.
The fine structure constant, a dimensionless physical constant, is approximately 1/137, and the astronomer Arthur Eddington conjectured in 1929 that its reciprocal was in fact precisely the integer 137, which he claimed could be "obtained by pure deduction". This conjecture was not widely adopted, and by the 1940s, the experimental values for the constant were clearly inconsistent with it (i.e. closer to 137.036).
Physicist Leon M. Lederman numbered his home near Fermilab 137 based on the significance of the number to those in his profession. Lederman expounded on the significance of the number in his book The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?, noting that not only was it the inverse of the fine-structure constant, but was also related to the probability that an electron will emit or absorb a photon—i.e., Feynman's conjecture.[n 1] He added that it also "contains the crux of electromagnetism (the electron), relativity (the velocity of light), and quantum theory (Planck's constant). It would be less unsettling if the relationship between all these important concepts turned out to be one or three or maybe a multiple of pi. But 137?" The number 137, according to Lederman, "shows up naked all over the place", meaning that scientists on any planet in the universe using whatever units they have for charge or speed, and whatever their version of Planck's constant may be, will all come up with 137, because it is a pure number. Lederman recalled that Richard Feynman had even suggested that all physicists put a sign in their offices with the number 137 to remind them of just how much they do not know.
In the Bohr model, the innermost electron of an atom with Z = 137 would be orbiting (just below) the speed of light, and the next element (Z = 138) would be "impossible". Since the Bohr model does not include either quantum mechanics or special relativity, the fact that it breaks down in this regime is not unexpected. However, such large atoms (if their nuclei were stable) could be expected to behave rather differently from a naive extrapolation of trends in the periodic table. For a finite nuclear volume, the limit is raised to about Z = 172.
Wolfgang Pauli, a pioneer of quantum physics, died in a hospital room numbered 137, a coincidence that disturbed him.
In esoterism
The fine structure constant of physics continues to convince esotericists that the universe has numerological fine tuning:[11] for example the age of the universe could be considered as roughly 13.7 times 1 billion years, though newer estimates put this value at 13.8.
The Hebrew word קבלה (Kabbalah) has a Gematria (numerical value) of 137. In Modern Hebrew, the root of Kabbalah ק-ב-ל can mean either "receiving" or "parallel". Kabbalah is generally taken to mean "the received tradition", which conveys the continuity of a tradition that has been passed down from generation to generation. Nevertheless, the earlier nuance of meaning is seen in the first appearances of its root in the Torah (Exodus 26:5 and 36:12), where it means "parallel" or "corresponding" rather than "receiving". It is used to describe the "corresponding loops", which, when clasped together, enjoined the two sections of the Tabernacle's ceiling. These loops were suspended directly over the veil that divided the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies. Symbolically, this is the threshold between the physical dimension and the utterly spiritual dimension. In other words, at the boundary line of the physical world, the number 137 emerges. The wisdom of Kabbalah is to find correspondences between the mundane and spiritual levels of reality.
I have the answer to my earlier question of what handle you were planning to use once LMR was banned from VCT Bill. The answer being Garnabby. Your original answer to that question was that you would have no other handles since you weren't planning to post here anymore, but of course that answer was false.
I'm just glad the cookie monster number tard character seemingly has vacated the premises.Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplay
Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplay
Looks like there was no next username, from me, as I went with an old one. More of a previous instance of. Nothing to think up, let alone one for a "sock". Good thing that I hadn't, already, used the Garnabby username here. Maybe, the dodo bird stuff was a bit of foreshadowing, on my part. Anyway, as I've pointed out to you, a few times now, there is always an infinite number of ways to interpret the non-literal.Quote:
Originally Posted by LMRThere won't be a next. I don't think I could find anything else to thusly write about, anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplay
Again, we all go the way of the dodo bird. The idea is to accept it, from the start, to be able to incorporate it into one's life, and thinking.
Certainly, I didn't specifically write that I wasn't coming back in no shape or form. I did note that I didn't think I could find anything else to thusly write about. After I did cover the "numerology" stuff here pretty good, in an attempt to develop my own style of such "interpretations", before heading back to the forum devoted to such "numbers". No, I'm not back to get into any more debates about gambling, and the like.
Things worked out as "well" with the LMR departure. You and old Mickey really knew how to make these "numbers" work, for me. Maybe, old Micky let something slip, maybe, he thinks that he owns this forum. Who knows. Funny thing, this forum, how the handles, etc, here, seemed to fall into place.
Perhaps, I should go with one of those funky avatars of RS__.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPen
I meant with respect to VCT. I'm not surprised that you want to pretend you didn't mean you weren't going to post anymore given the type of person you are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garnabby
Indeed. The avatar of Garnabby should be a dunce cap.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPen
This next song is dedicated to Mickey, TablePlay, and Monet. TablePlay seems to be quite the little ringleader instigator. My wayward sons. With Mickey the black sheep of the "family", ha. Say, I don't recall when TablePlay made his first post here. Maybe, it was quite the zinger. Who knows.
way·ward
Adjective, difficult to control or predict because of unusual or perverse behavior.
Look, the whole point of the group discussion function is to moderate your own group. I think that you have to log in, first, and, then, go to the option under the Community tab, at the top of the forums here. I'm in the process of setting one up for Garnabby. This is where I will put the serious stuff, to do with my theory of everything. I had one under LMR that I experimented with. I have to admit that it was refreshing, to say the least, to compose a first entry to it, the one above here, about mathematical numerology. I will move it over there, when I have some more free time. Refreshing not only in the "protected" sense, but also in the sense that it's something with some permanency, and craft. One place to document its further review, and progress. The one thing about my theory is that its totally original quality material. Say, this might have been the preferred way for old Mickey to have gone with his genealogy, and, shit hole pictures in his casino diaries, here.
Some other loose ends. It's good to see Accountinquestion keep the cucktards at bay in the regular part of this site. Running circles around them. Lol.
Another thing, today. I saw something about a server attack on the WoV. Well, here's one for Dan. https://anagram-solver.net/shut%20it...f?partial=true
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5ZJui3aPoQ
.......................
Quote from Garnabby:
"The Hebrew word קבלה (Kabbalah) has a Gematria (numerical value) of 137. In Modern Hebrew, the root of Kabbalah ק-ב-ל can mean either "receiving" or "parallel". Kabbalah is generally taken to mean "the received tradition", which conveys the continuity of a tradition that has been passed down from generation to generation. Nevertheless, the earlier nuance of meaning is seen in the first appearances of its root in the Torah (Exodus 26:5 and 36:12), where it means "parallel" or "corresponding" rather than "receiving". It is used to describe the "corresponding loops", which, when clasped together, enjoined the two sections of the Tabernacle's ceiling. These loops were suspended directly over the veil that divided the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies. Symbolically, this is the threshold between the physical dimension and the utterly spiritual dimension. In other words, at the boundary line of the physical world, the number 137 emerges. The wisdom of Kabbalah is to find correspondences between the mundane and spiritual levels of reality."
from the movie Pi - great movie BTW
no, I am not a believer in numerology. but I believe there are many things out there that mathematicians and physicists do not yet have answers for. neither do the numerologists
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcN2i9GKsFQ
I couldn't get the above video link to work, so, googled this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Half Smoke
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vi7043z6tI
Yes, the numbers 144, 233, and 377 are consecutively part of the Fibonacci sequence. I wasn't sure of the part about the words, mother, father, and child, together, amounting to mother plus father taken separately. Anyway, there must be lots of such coincidences. The other day, I read that, in terms of letters, something about "one plus twelve" = "two plus eleven", = 13. Wouldn't it be something were there, on some level, a way to generalize such observations?
Thanks for also your other comments. Some, including Stephen Hawking, said/say that philosophy is dead, so, what hope for numerology, another sort and degree of study in general, as opposed to some specific and tangible area of science? Others, well, aren't so sure about the state of philosophy.
Of course, we can not know and understand many things. If evolution plays itself out to the very end of the survivable universe, maybe, then we can and will know it all. History unpacked, from big crunch/bang, to big freeze, over the sort and degree of infinity, of space and time, that naturally cancels itself out as not to encounter the usual paradoxes, say, of never quite getting to/from one end, or the other, of the cycle. Specifically, my model involves a double inverted or inside-out expansion. More into also this bit, the more that I cover more of the basic arguments involved with a theory of everything, itself.
Just as it makes no sense that a theory of everything really and actually entails full knowledge and understanding of all historical events, past and future, well, it makes all sense that were a theory of everything quickly related to the average person of average intelligence, such a person could write it down, the gist of it, and, then, hand it off to anyone who wanted to delve into it further. By the former, I mean that if a theory of everything happens only on the very end of evolution, then what would be the point of it? By the latter, I mean that there would anything of such a theory that couldn't be at least dictated in plain English or whatever to the average person. So, in a sense, technologically speaking, at least in concept, we have already progressed beyond a theory of everything. Finer arguments can be made regarding this bit, too, but, again, later on, given more basic such tools, and, along with some more overall conclusions about what a theory of everything, itself, really and actually can and does entails. Lots of paradoxes, along the way, to do with each of these bits, not, only with terms such as infinity.
My approach, early on, was to start with something comprehensive as with no implicit limitations, say, as with allowing for an infinite "number" of dimensions. An actual model to be to worked on from all directions, and, from all points within. Another consideration was to try to start with a correct model of a theory of everything, and, then, try to work backward, from decent mathematical and physical observations, while working forward, from the shell of a correct model of. It's possible to make some good guesses about extremes of where the mathematics and physics will end up.
I don't think much, in terms of game theory per se, any more, but, this was my main approach to the model, early on. Now that I write about it, well, I recall that I tried to model also game theory, itself, in a recursive manner, from an initial strategy that was assumed to be optimally correct. This didn't work out, for me, but, now I wonder that it's an old idea that may be reworked. The point I want to make with it now is that it's not easy to try to find decent meaning from something that starts out as a shell of some form of correctness. It took me many years just to, in plain English, get a "handle" on what I was trying to do. For sure, nor can a universe, itself, know, ahead of time, and along the way, what the heck it's supposed to be thusly doing. After all, reality favors neither side anything, however, nor, all/no sides together/apart respectively. Simply put, such a theory can't be more about one equation, method, etc, than any other.
As far as game theory goes, eg, consider an electron as playing a game of poker, in which it tries to, at a distance, cover, by the optimal strategy, the nucleus of an atom. In simple terms, an electron can't be everywhere at once. It has to bluff, some of the time, to cover where it isn't so that an atom retains outer physical integrity, in the sense that you can't stick a pencil through the top of a table. Yes, bluffing is the optimal strategy, to be all that one can be. In the case of an electron, the abstract or pretend mathematical set-up of its bluffing leads to a more stable atom, in the same sense that strength poker "hands" can cover for far weaker "hands" as openings in one's game.
So, the essentially empty shell of a model of what it means to be a theory of everything, itself, may be iterated along with extrapolations of the currently available mathematics and physics. Hopefully, to meet somewhere in the middle. Such a theory involves iteration also within, as specific iteration. As well, in the present, somewhere in the middle, there are current mathematical and physical observations to work with, eg, for confirmation of key parts of the theory, eg, with the known elements of the periodic table. Given such a theory, finally, how might it, too, become unpacked, unless in a way and manner that requires ever-superior mind-power, and physical capability? Is mind, too, written into the "fabric" of things, like an expanding space-time of its own? How could it not be?
So, to begin with, the underlying idea, purpose, or whatever, of such a theory isn't to try to become the smartest person on the face of the planet. Logically speaking, this isn't what such a theory can even be about. There will always be ever smarter persons, and, ever more powerful particle accelerators, say, to build ever larger atoms, although not always on an exponentially greater scale. History can't unfold without unfolding in all of the usual ways to the usual degrees. We can't end up doing the same things, over and over.
Well, here's another weird one.
You guys didn't like my previous avatar, so, I tried out the pop-tart cat one that old RS__ used, at the Wizard's. Well, the gif thing didn't move here, like it did at the Wizard's, until it didn't work there, either.
Anyway, the first place I googled about avatars, to try to find another one, had a bunch of useless looking avatars on the first page, so, I thought to cut to the chase - you know how they always tell you to check the last place, first - and, just went to the last page, which still had the same black and white useless looking comic book -like avatars. Except for the crazy interesting one I put up now. Maybe, the only different looking avatar there, of over 6,000 pages of avatars.
https://avatars.alphacoders.com/avat...ated?page=6727
This avatar was on page, 6,727 = 7*31^2 = (1 + 30)*7*31 ---> 13731, and, this avatar, itself, involves the inverted numbers 7, 0, 14 (= 13 + 1) as the A = ace, and 3 ---> 13731. Go figure, the same six digits in both to represent 137 on its reverse. And, the same 0 in both.
What are the odd's? Looks like another keeper. I would have gone with the old Cookie Monster, again, had it not been for all the flack about it. Ha, I guess that I can, still, use it, but, instead for my profile picture. Now I wonder what the odds are of finding just an avatar like this one, with the number 137 expressed in this way, with playing cards? Damn.
A tiny bit of an update. Already, the new avatar moved to page, 6,728, which could explain the hidden 1, under the ace, in the word, love. As in 6,727 +1 to go with love + 1. Come to think of it, ace may count as 1, or 14. I like the endings of these numbers, 6,727 and 6,728, with the 27 = 3*3*3 moving to 27 + 1 = 28, as with the word, wizard, numbers I posed up, earlier. Incidentally, because of these ongoing changes, I saved a screenshot of these pages.
While I'm at it, here are a few numerical properties for the number, 67.
Quote:
67 has a unique representation as a sum of three squares: 67 = 3^2 + 3^2 + 7^2.
67 is the largest prime that is not the sum of distinct squares.
67 is the maximum number of regions into which 11 lines divide a plane.
67 is the only number such that the common alphabetical value of its Roman representation (LXVII) is equal to its reversal: 12 + 24 + 22 + 9 + 9 = 76.
67 is the smallest prime that contains all 10 digits when raised to the 10th power: 67^10 = 1,822,837,804,551,761,449. [One 0, 3, 6, 9; two 2's, 5's, 7's; and three 1's, 4's, and 8's. Note also that the 5 = 7 - 2, and, that it's somewhat invertible to 2, and hence to 7. The 0 = 9 - 6 - 3; the 3 = 9 - 6, and, the 6, and 9 have an 0-part to them. The old numerical split between between the 6's and 9's, and, the 2's and 7's. Does this split in digits turn up everywhere? And, with the 1's on both, or neither side?]
The chemical element holmliun has the atomic number 67.
As well, 67 ---> 76 = 2*38 = 2*(1 + 37), and, 67 = 66 + 1 = (1 + 1)^0 + 6*11 ---> 11611.Quote:
67 is:
- the 19th prime number (the next is 71).
- an irregular prime.
- a lucky prime.
- the sum of five consecutive primes (7 + 11 + 13 + 17 + 19).
- a Heegner number.
- a Pillai prime since 18! + 1 is divisible by 67, but 67 is not one more than a multiple of 18.
- palindromic in the consecutive bases 5 (2325) and 6 (1516).