Probably best to just put it out there, to begin. Like I put up my numerals for the fine-structure constants, a few months ago. For one thing, the numerals haven't changed, and, for another, to ostensively establish their origin.Originally Posted by unowme
A month ago, I started to review a bit of my work on the periodic table of elements. But, before I really got into it, another simple calculation seemed to take off. I tried to determined the number of thus elements for a six-dimensional universe. As I explained, before, the underlying numerical connection between 4, and, 6, and, so, to take things from a four-dimensional universe, to one with six.
Simplistically speaking, it was my position all along that our universe's periodic table has 290 possible elements because of the calculation, 17^2 = 289 plus element-0, for 290 elements. Which follows from a few already established facts, about the periodic table, to do with the numerals, 137, 172, and, the so-called "nuclear magic numbers". Anyway, the calculation for the six dimensions led me to 290 plus element-0, and, 1029 elements plus element-0. Note that 290 = 29*10, which contains the same digits as the numeral, 1029. Furthermore, the numeral, 153, fits in perfectly well, then, in addition to 137, etc, as above.
And, few more tentative calculations, from last evening, might indicate a few more numerologically striking underlying thus connections. Of the following four equations, in their raw form, the fourth didn't quite work out, on appearance, but, it was too darn close to outright dismiss.
#1. [17^2 + (002 - 01) + 0^0] = 290/291, read 1721 with 290/291,
#2. [12^3 + (-700 + 01) + 0^0] = 1029/1030, read as 1271 with 1029/1030,
#3. [19^2 - (00060 + 10) + 0^0] = 290/291, read as 1961 with 290/291, and
#4. [16^3 - (03000 + 10) + 4 + 0^0] = 1089/1090, read as 1691 with 1089/1090, depending on 0^0 = 1, in the quantum realm (of "mathematical" limits, about infinity), or, 0^0 = 0, in our realm.
The 1721, and 1961, along with a few others, historically speaking, contain my underlying go-to digits, with 2 = ᘖ rotating to 7 = ᘔ. Say, if look closely, the ᘔᘖ contains a 69.
Note, other than the same general form, for one of a few very curious things, that the 002 rotates to 700, and, the 00060 rotates to 09000 ---> [√9][000] = 3000. And, that 1090 = [10][3^2][0] ---> 1030. Usually what further happens with the 3's, and 9's - the 2's, and 7's, aren't thus relatable.
It seems that that out-of-place 4 has to do with 4 = (01 + 03) to go to the left side of equation #4, with 1090, to obtain 1090 ---> 1030 with (03 + 01) ---> 1030_0301, as if to signify both sides of the number of periodic table elements, ie, our's with the anti-matter universe's. And, if do the same with the other 3 equations, then equation #1 shifts 1, to [17^2 + (002 - 01) - 0^0] = 290/291, read 1721 with 290/291, with 0^0, so that all of the signs alternate in the first two equations, but, not in the last two equations. In other words, equations #1, and #4, are a bit off, but, #2, and #3, are a bit on.
The 0, 1, 2, and 9, digits seemed to thus stick out also in the bit more that I posted up about the fine-structure constants.
1Hit1der
1Hit1der is online now
Gold
1Hit1der's Avatar
Join Date
Nov 2023
Posts
196 ---> (10*9 + 6 + 100) ---> 1961
43 = (40 + √9) ---> 49 = 7^2 ---> 7/2, or July 2
Reply With Quote