Donovan's Geometry Page.......

[orz]

BTW that's common salt (as in NaCl, the stuff on your 'freedom fries")

Cubic wisdom!

[yesferatu]

...and I almost forgot my all time favorite "alternative science hypothesis": Gene Ray and his Timecube:

http://www.timecube.com/

I saw him speak at MIT but I was way too high to really follow it. I was there with a friend who was stone sober and I think he walked away more confused than me.

I literally have a headache from trying to read the web site. What crap.

I think you were so high you remember him at MIT. I doubt MIT invites loonies to speak, and doubt such a wack job actually spoke at MIT....unless he wandered on campus and started ranting and gathered a crowd....maybe that is what you remember. Within "alternative science hypothesis" there must be some "science"....not just "alternative hypothesis" otherwise MIT needs to start inviting all loonie "alternative hypothesis" proponents who have a web page.

[philipacentaur]

...and I almost forgot my all time favorite "alternative science hypothesis": Gene Ray and his Timecube:

http://www.timecube.com/

I saw him speak at MIT but I was way too high to really follow it. I was there with a friend who was stone sober and I think he walked away more confused than me.

I literally have a headache from trying to read the web site. What crap.

I think you were so high you remember him at MIT. I doubt MIT invites loonies to speak, and doubt such a wack job actually spoke at MIT....unless he wandered on campus and started ranting and gathered a crowd....maybe that is what you remember. Within "alternative science hypothesis" there must be some "science"....not just "alternative hypothesis" otherwise MIT needs to start inviting all loonie "alternative hypothesis" proponents who have a web page.

It's hard to believe, but it happened: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=gene+ray+MIT

It looks like part one is missing, but I don't think it matters. Actually, I know it doesn't.

[orz]

I think you were so high you remember him at MIT. I doubt MIT invites loonies to speak, and doubt such a wack job actually spoke at MIT....unless he wandered on campus and started ranting and gathered a crowd....maybe that is what you remember. Within "alternative science hypothesis" there must be some "science"....not just "alternative hypothesis" otherwise MIT needs to start inviting all loonie "alternative hypothesis" proponents who have a web page.

Haha i find this irate response pretty amusing, firstly as it's very clear that Wombaticus Rex posted the time cube link as a joke to point out exactly what you just said, and secondly as he REALLY DID speak at MIT.

I doubt MIT invites loonies to speak

No, but MIT students do, given the chance, invite hillarious internet-famous loonies to speak.

I love Timecube, if you read it as some kind of Burroughs style rant poetry it's acutally really good. I mean, you can't beat sentances like "WORD ANIMALS WILL FEEL THE WRATH OF CUBIC CURSE!" in giant red text

As an "alternative science hypothesis" of course it makes NO sense. He doesn't have any actual followers as far as i can tell, because how can you follow a theory when it's unclear what the theory even is? His whole fanbase is college internet geeks who kind of humour him for 'the lulz' as it were.

Donovan's stuff i've read so far doesn't strike me as being a lot more sensible than timecube, but also lacks the deranged flair and energy of Gene Ray's writings, so is no fun either way really.

[yesferatu]

I think you were so high you remember him at MIT. I doubt MIT invites loonies to speak, and doubt such a wack job actually spoke at MIT....unless he wandered on campus and started ranting and gathered a crowd....maybe that is what you remember. Within "alternative science hypothesis" there must be some "science"....not just "alternative hypothesis" otherwise MIT needs to start inviting all loonie "alternative hypothesis" proponents who have a web page.

Haha i find this irate response pretty amusing, firstly as it's very clear that Wombaticus Rex posted the time cube link as a joke to point out exactly what you just said, and secondly as he REALLY DID speak at MIT.

I doubt MIT invites loonies to speak

No, but MIT students do, given the chance, invite hillarious internet-famous loonies to speak.

I love Timecube, if you read it as some kind of Burroughs style rant poetry it's acutally really good. I mean, you can't beat sentances like "WORD ANIMALS WILL FEEL THE WRATH OF CUBIC CURSE!" in giant red text

As an "alternative science hypothesis" of course it makes NO sense. He doesn't have any actual followers as far as i can tell, because how can you follow a theory when it's unclear what the theory even is? His whole fanbase is college internet geeks who kind of humour him for 'the lulz' as it were.

Donovan's stuff i've read so far doesn't strike me as being a lot more sensible than timecube, but also lacks the deranged flair and energy of Gene Ray's writings, so is no fun either way really.

Why would you think I'm irate? Cuz no smiley face?? Pretty obvious I was jesting about being high and his memory of the event. This dependency on fucking smiley faces must end!!! The tyranny MUST END!!! See? That is irate.

Timecube is a joke. If MIT students (ever hear of this thing called National Lampoon?) puts an entertainment show together like they did with this guy, it is not the same as lecturing at MIT. If he thought he was "lecturing at MIT", then the entertainment value for the students was even better.

[orz]

Haha ok, point taken... it's just because you seemed to be disagreeing with him even tho you actually agreed, which often seems to happen seriously, and i failed to tell the difference!

[Donovan]

This is in reply to jingofever. He quotes me and replys. My new replies to him will be noted by DONOVAN in capital.
Quote:
(donovan) Pi is the ratio of across to around.


(jingofever )Actually that is not how pi is defined if you are not allowing the existence of circles (and you want around to across, or circumference to diameter, anyway). Pi is an actual number independent of your geometry. But you say:

Quote:
(donovan)You have entered a geometry where circles and spheres are limits, which can be approached but never obtained.


(jingofever)_So here we can approach pi (and define it this way), since the sequence of ever more refined circles will be such that the ratio of circumference to diameter will converge to pi. But then:

Quote:
(donovan) And where pi, in any situation, would be a ratio of two whole real numbers, always.


(jingofever )No, pi will never be the ratio of two whole nor two real numbers. All you will have is a ratio that does not equal pi. But no worry, I cannot tell what that pi digression was even supposed to illustrate. As far as I know, the rest of your system still stands, because that is the end of any 'math' until Pascal's triangle at the bottom.

(DONOVAN) reply. Pi will ALWAYS be in ratio of whole real numbers. In this geometry we are dealing with 3-d objects, balls. The flattest you can make them is say on a table. Adding balls around a center ball you always have two numbers, the shortest number across (must be as object a whole real number). To the shortest number around as you add around (again a number of balls, solid objects) So you have two whole real numbers. The division of which would give an answer , of course, may be not be.

Quote:
(donovan) This relates to the study of quarks. After galagabytes of calculus and balding men in white coats scratching their heads in laboratories with fancy names, they came to the conclusion that there is a very strong limit in nature: a limit of twelve types of quarks; that there can be no more. They are right.


(jingofever ) Except that there are only six types of quarks. Although technically you can say 12 is a limit of 6, it is still absurd in any situation, this one especially.

Edit: I am wrong here, you cannot say 12 is a limit of 6. I was thinking of upper bounds.

DONOVAN, first six, then a shadow of that, limit seemed 12, Then another group, confusing , seemed different, another seven for a total of 19. And in that sequence also easier to ‘see’, calculate. And if you play with the balls you will see the ‘understanding’ follow that exact sequence. Easy, with pennies, to see six fit exactly around one on a table. 12 around one harder. (the balls easier). In the plates, seeing plates made first you can see the seven, far more difficult to see the 12 as they are in pairs, defined by if our not the centers can touch the center ball.

Quote:
(donovan) Second, we know that time is denser near the effect and slower near the cause. In other words, if you were to hang very sensitive clocks along a big spring or rubber band that you nailed to the wall, and that you pull the other end of the rubber band by walking away with it: that the clocks closer to the wall will run progressively faster. Therefore time is less dense (runs slower) near the cause of an event, and is more dense (runs faster) as it approaches the effect.


(jingofever) All of that is just wrong. I can only assume you are misunderstanding gravitational time dilation.

DONOVAN: No that would be standard relativity and would relate to motion, speed. These clocks are static, not in motion. These studies were done by Nicoli Koserev.
First he made some general observations about time. Stated that it was not simply a sequence of events but a sequence of irreversible events, that in the manner that a reverse movie of a person coming out of a swimming pool and landing on a diving board would be absurd.
Using sensitive atomic clocks he first noted that they seemed to run faster in summer than in winter. Again no movement (speed) was involved in this. He questioned if or not the increase of ‘life’ around them So he placed people around the clocks and yes, they ran slightly faster. Again no motion.

The next step, for me the biggest, he wondered if type of mental activity, the people could change speed. It was seen that if a person started a very mental activity, working algebra etc , the clock took a jump. And if an artistic activity, took another jump. That was astounding because those are a known emotional sequence taught in cabala. None of the other, that I know of, were added. But enough for me to make the assumption that it would.

Last edited by jingofever on Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:52 pm; edited 1 time in total

DONOVAN: In the next post you go off on Lorentz. Again motion was not a part. But while you are there remember that Einstein borrowed that of necessity but went on to state that the next biggest jump must be a change in our understanding of geometry.
The effort here seems more to attack me. Some of the shorter posts brought to mind someone most way through their six pack building themselves up with stupid flaming. Here we are at least discussing the math.
On that there was another picky slam, the picture of a salt crystal. When I said pyrite I went right ahead and assumed something one could notice or think of. So I did use pyrite over salt, as there one would not need a microscope to get concept. Just wanted to prompt the observation that normally, say quartz, the crystals seem to take non-Cartesian shapes.

And another un-thoughtful slam regarding refraction/ defraction and X-Ray. The process is defraction (spelling?). The picture resulting is the one from refraction. Imagine X-rays passing through a material: defraction. Part will be refracted, bounced off at an angle. Those that pass all the way through, for sake of picture, do not count. Of course, they are not making the picture.
As the process was developed soon after X-ray discovered they saw that the patterns of bouncing off was not regular and gave a concept of the ‘plates’ or stella of crystal within. Therefore, by noting pattern, could differ one type of material from another.
Already known was the crystal symmetry limit, called that because of the classification that came into use. And easier to understand. But those in the early work, (Again Roetgen, Peck, Cowan) they did for a time become curious if or not the patterns were indicating another type of geometry. It was too difficult to pursue, or at any rate for some reason not pursued. It is easier to think in 2-D and make those matches. .

If you wish to start on something look at my proof of Great Pyramid slope. It is now fairly accepted that those slopes do produce odd anomalies of physics. Cardboard pyramids of this shape lined up would even re-sharpen the older high iron content razor blades. A Czech even received a patent on that. You do not need to explain how something works to get a patent, just that it is useful and non-obvious.

Now that is on my site: www.midcoast.com/~michael1 for the checking. Any decent drawing program such as Corel Draw would suffice and measure the angles quite well.

If I wanted to reproduce Pavlita’s work I suppose I could in time but would need much help. Even prior to any engineering would need help of a real good calculist and someone well versed in numeric progression. (I did have a wiz on geometric progressions working with me, Shel Yapelli, who died outside of China Lake Naval Weapons station about five years ago).

So on the ring device I am assuming it would do the same thing as the Great Pyramid shape only work harder. ID angles would need be very precise. Making a prototype would be as expensive as making a full mold, 24 pieces identical.

Too expensive for me now. And feel already done at top, go more to my area of knowlege, the relationships with known metaphysical systems.

[yesferatu]

I am fascinated by this, Mr. Donovan.
"Letters Upon The Mast" - good lord! I think I grok it.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention here!

[philipacentaur]

The effort here seems more to attack me. Some of the shorter posts brought to mind someone most way through their six pack building themselves up with stupid flaming. Here we are at least discussing the math.

Everyone who disagrees with you is drunk. I fucking wish.

[Wombaticus Rex]

Actually, Donovan, I think people are all working through different areas of your -- admittedly massively dense -- posts and coming to the same conclusion I did: there's not a lot of actual meat to it, just a lot of words.

I hope you're at least entertaining yourself, man.

[jingofever]

I googled Nicoli Koserev and there is exactly ONE result. It is a message from an email discussion group, and it is written by someone who has recently started posting on this board. Everyone can guess who the author might be. I'll just add that the venerable Koserev is not making it easy to evaluate his work.

first six, then a shadow of that, limit seemed 12, Then another group, confusing , seemed different, another seven for a total of 19. And in that sequence also easier to ‘see’, calculate. And if you play with the balls you will see the ‘understanding’ follow that exact sequence. Easy, with pennies, to see six fit exactly around one on a table. 12 around one harder. (the balls easier). In the plates, seeing plates made first you can see the seven, far more difficult to see the 12 as they are in pairs, defined by if our not the centers can touch the center ball.

I highlighted the only word that made sense to me. Maybe we are not talking about the same quarks? The ones from particle physics? Help me out here.

Second, we know that time is denser near the effect and slower near the cause. In other words, if you were to hang very sensitive clocks along a big spring or rubber band that you nailed to the wall, and that you pull the other end of the rubber band by walking away with it: that the clocks closer to the wall will run progressively faster. Therefore time is less dense (runs slower) near the cause of an event, and is more dense (runs faster) as it approaches the effect.

This is still wrong. Stretching a rubber band with a clock will do nothing to make it run faster or slower. Or maybe you should publish this result or maybe I should staple a rubber band to my back to stay young.

Pi will ALWAYS be in ratio of whole real numbers. In this geometry we are dealing with 3-d objects, balls. The flattest you can make them is say on a table. Adding balls around a center ball you always have two numbers, the shortest number across (must be as object a whole real number). To the shortest number around as you add around (again a number of balls, solid objects) So you have two whole real numbers. The division of which would give an answer , of course, may be not be.

Note that I made another mistake in saying that pi will never be a ratio of two real numbers. Apparently my math is a bit rusty. BUT it will never be a ratio of two whole numbers. I just cannot figure out for sure which type of number you intend. I think it is whole, aka natural number. In that case you are definitely wrong as pi is irrational, that is, not a rational, not a ratio (of integers/naturals/wholes).

And I did not make the next post. I am not sure if the 'you' refers to me or to Black Hole Kid. Either way, I cannot respond to it.

[Wombaticus Rex]

^^Nikolai Kozyrev. We did a Brainsturbator Salute to him early on, you can read it here:

http://www.brainsturbator.com/index.php ... rev_mania/

Also, wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Al ... ch_Kozyrev

[yesferatu]

Sound will become increasingly important in science.

http://www.physorg.com/news88249076.html

It's funny. People on this board who believe material reductionist faux-skepticism is the same as rigorous intuition.

Or that rigorous intuition = unteachable hostility.

I will take from all and any. If it is being given.

But western-programmed minds who have an over riding fear of being seen or thought by their "rationalist" peers as gullible? To me that is the mental equivalent of a hetero person being sexually unconfident if they happen to get approached by a gay person. What happens in such circumstances? Hostility.

The rigorous intuition attitude is to learn. If something does not fit, question and argue.
Hostility is just bullshit.
Has Mr. Donovan asked for money, followers, praise? If not, afford him some dignity for fucks sake.

[philipacentaur]

The diatonic is rife through the crop circle formations

That's a function of their method of construction and design, which Donovan probably won't like because it involves compasses. I don't know if all crop circle formations are man-made, but I know for a fact that at least some of them are, and most of the "researchers" suffer from painfully obvious confirmation bias.

It's funny. People on this board who believe material reductionist faux-skepticism is the same as rigorous intuition.

Or that rigorous intuition = unteachable hostility.

I will take from all and any. If it is being given.

I honestly tried to understand what this guy is saying, but it really doesn't make much sense. How am I supposed to take this crackpot seriously if he keeps reposting the same gigantic chunks of text repeatedly every time someone posts something he doesn't seem to like (and doesn't seem to want anyone to pay attention to)?

[Wombaticus Rex]

yesferatu -- if he's wrong he benefits from that feedback

if I'm wrong I benefit from that feedback

I definitely need to work on reining in my hostility and barely concealed contempt