Page 20 of 23

Reich's Light.....

PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:44 am
by dragon
Donovan writes:"...that light would draw every Dr. Pervert there was."

Well, yeah. The brighter the light, the more bugs that it attracts. Just look at all the bugs the subject has attracted here!


Nothing un-real exists.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:02 am
by Wombaticus Rex
^^It's interesting to me, Dragon, that you speak of yourself as being attacked by the arrogant and ignorant.

As for arrogance, I have only seen you use condescending and offensive metaphors for anyone who disagrees with you -- we're hypnotized, we're larvae, we're unevolved, we're afraid, we're bugs.

As for ignorance, an increasing number of people are picking apart your claims and finding they have no basis in fact.

Bugging out

PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:07 am
by TooStoned
Light does attract bugs

But so does Bullshit, and that's a much more apt metaphor to describe Dragon and Donovan's posts.

Light illuminates, but nothing about Clodbusting is meant to illuminate; all of it serves to fascinate the foolish.

Bullshit stinks, is mushy and so once you've stepped in it it is really hard to get the crap from between your threads.

But it is good for compost, and Dragon and Donovan's posts serve as primers to understanding the games and tricks played by charlatans and conmen for millenia...

PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:03 am
by Et in Arcadia ego
Donovan wrote:But these threads are precious.

I agree. That's why they're about to get their very own sandbox to live in.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:10 am
by Donovan
There is something about math proofs. They are or they are not. Many know the Great Pyramid shape has some special effects, these have been tested. I was never into the testing, was more into the math. I have been successful with my claim that I am the first (modern) to find the Great Pyramid slope by the simple compass and rule method. And yes, I used line and points.
(Oh, in case this need to be cleared up, I am not advocating hurting geometry teachers. I was attempting to use humor to make a point.)
I used lines and points only after I understood the problem in a new geometry, a geometry of only 3-D objects, equal sized balls. And that was why I was able to solve it. That proof at
This can be tested. You can come close with a compass and rule and fairly large sheet of paper but it becomes very clear with a draw program such as Corel Draw wherein the angles can be measured very accurately.
A very simple problem was shown, how to see pi another way. Someone had trouble with that. Not because they were not smart enough, but almost like chemtrails, a bunch of pennies on a table seemed ‘less real’ than a figment of imagination (lines and points) ONLY because that was what was taught and accepted. I think that was near my attempted joke regarding geometry teachers in which either my humor has failed or the humor of others. Was trying to make light of it as to not insult.
So that is right there to demonstrate if it is bullshit or not.

Without ever testing my material people here would just give me slam after slam which I ignored.

For a time, (when I was getting this claim out about a year ago), I was on about every yahoo math group there was. Some I stayed with a bit. Math theory is an odd subject because it is mostly considered useless. In a practical sense today a calculist is mostly useless. Everything is plug-in formula so they end up doing the only thing they can do: teach. The Russians once dominated theory. Now much seems to be coming out of the Middle East. I even joked that one almost needs to speak Arabic or Farsi. And these were groups wherein all would give names and addresses. What seems here, what is being demonstrated, is what so many foriegners are now saying about American’s. They are rude.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:13 am
by philipacentaur
Without ever testing my material people here would just give me slam after slam which I ignored.

I was slamming your supporting "facts", as were several other people. You are not the new messiah of geometry. Get over yourself.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:49 am
by Wombaticus Rex
Donovan wrote:There is something about math proofs. They are or they are not.

Without ever testing my material people here would just give me slam after slam which I ignored.

Those "slams" were your material failing the test, Donovan, again and again and again. You never address anyone's points, you just ramble more, and inevitably make more points which someone else will point out the painfully obvious errors you made.

Until you can achieve enough self-reflection to admit that you see this, I can only assume you have a cognitive malfunction. I will leave you alone from now on.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:38 pm
by Donovan
My proof is posted.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:54 pm
by marykmusic
Donovan, Dragon has been reading your site, a small bite at a time, for a while. It's a lot to digest.

Don't expect rude people to actually be interested in math proofs. They haven't the education, or more important, the patience.

I barely made it through College Algebra (required for my BA.) I know I haven't the education to read proofs. But my instructor at NAU would probably have a blast; he's a real math guy.

Me, I only understand enough math to have respect for it, and use it as a musician every day. Intervals. Harmonics. Frequencies. Fractions. Bell curves/quadratics.

I am enough of a storyteller to recognize a story when I hear one, too. --MaryK

PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:17 pm
by Telexx
Light does attract bugs

But so does Bullshit...

LOL :lol: :lol: :lol:



More Bullshit from the Bullshiters

PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:05 pm
by TooStoned
Some might believe calling a conman on his bullshit is rude, but anyone with half a brain knows it neccesary to maintain the truth and keep the uninformed from being taken advantage of.

I'd much rather called rude by hucksters, than to be taken in or let someone else be by their snake oil schemes.

Donovan your page is nothing like the mathematical proofs I learned in school or can be found in peer reviewed math journals. Call it whatever you want, it still doesn't make it a mathematical proof and byclaiming that your metaphysical/math mush is proof all you prove is you're full of stinky crap.

Here's a primer for you on proofs:

But of course your vastly superior intellect doesn't need to lower itself to scummy rules of "low class math" protocols...

PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:21 am
by Donovan
The proof was double checked with radians.
go and disprove it. It is there

Donny Baby

PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 12:33 pm
by TooStoned
Double checked with radians?

HOOOBoy, really. That sounds definitive. Too bad you nothing on your page has anything remotely resembeling a proof. Mostly a jumble of metaphysics really.

I also noted that your page is down, hmmm.

Why don't you cut off all the dross and just publish the proof; mathematical proofs don't take up that much space for the most part and we wouldn't have to deal with all the other crap you have (had) on that page.

In the interest of demonstrating what a "proof" looks like check out this

Fermat's Little Theorem.
Let p be a prime which does not divide the integer a, then ap-1 = 1 (mod p).
It is so easy to calculate ap-1 that most elementary primality tests are built using a version of Fermat's Little Theorem rather than Wilson's Theorem.
As usual Fermat did not provide a proof (this time saying "I would send you the demonstration, if I did not fear its being too long" [Burton80, p79]). Euler first published a proof in 1736, but Leibniz left virtually the same proof in an unpublished manuscript from sometime before 1683.

Start by listing the first p-1 positive multiples of a:
a, 2a, 3a, ... (p -1)a
Suppose that ra and sa are the same modulo p, then we have r = s (mod p), so the p-1 multiples of a above are distinct and nonzero; that is, they must be congruent to 1, 2, 3, ..., p-1 in some order. Multiply all these congruences together and we find
a.2a.3a.....(p-1)a = 1.2.3.....(p-1) (mod p)
or better, a(p-1)(p-1)! = (p-1)! (mod p). Divide both side by (p-1)! to complete the proof.
Sometimes Fermat's Little Theorem is presented in the following form:
Let p be a prime and a any integer, then ap = a (mod p).

The result is trival (both sides are zero) if p divides a. If p does not divide a, then we need only multiply the congruence in Fermat's Little Theorem by a to complete the proof.

PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:30 pm
by Donovan
The page is up. Proof there. Proof in normal plane geometry.
It is the proof that I am first modern to show slope of Great Pyramid with simple compass and rule method. Radians was one of the checks. Or can check by following problem. With a draw program you can get the angle very accuratly. But I was able to do that because I saw it in the new geometry.
Just able to copy directions from site, not down. Here:
Great Pyramid Slope By Construction
See Graphic. A check was done in radians. The links work, if you are rusty you can go to others to check.
Directions copies below from site that works.

These are directions for the proof of angle using simple rule and compass. However, because we are dealing with parts of degrees between 51 and 52 degrees a drawing or CAD program will be needed.

This explanation assumes the rest of the site is digested, which was the which is now down.

So it must be understood that we are dealing in a 3-D geometry of equal sized balls, and because there are no lines or points a sphere by definition is impossible. However, to understand what is going on at times you must refer to concepts of plane geometry. We do here as it give a construction proof of the Great Pyramid Slope in a manner which is easy to understand as it is visual, not formulas. A ping pong ball model using 13 ping pong balls in the manner shown (there are two ways this works) would be helpful for the overall feeling, but not needed for this proof. At any rate you must first understand from 'book' (Letters Upon The Mast) four of the seven angles that the construction is sliced through, these are the four planes of the tetrahedron also. If the centers of the outside balls are connected, and lines are also drawn to the center of the center ball there are six pyramids and eight tetrahedrons exactly fitting together around a center. They must be understood as separate. A slope of each of the six pyramids shares a slope with four tetrahedrons. And this proof shows what happens when the sides of the six pyramids increase out (the slope is sixty degrees - is the pyramid's increase out that slope would decrease).

In other words all six pyramids are increasing in volume and the eight tetrahedrons are decreasing until they disappear. What then is the shape of EACH of the six pyramids? Will Show it is the exact Great Pyramid shape.

If you have trouble seeing the four rings, and how they would create the six sixty degree four sided slope pyramids and eight tetrahedrons (60 degrees also) around look perhaps also at the rings of the generator.

As you are creating this 'feel' the six pyramids expanding until the eight tetras disappear.

Though measurements here need to be exact, we can go directly to setting up a few exact ones to start. This makes the rest easy.

From experimentation I have discovered the right size to work this, too much accuracy is confusing, not enough does not give a picture.

Here we go:

Set the ruler to pixels. Make a hairline 6000 pixels high. This measurement and one sixth of it, 1000 pixels, are the critical measurements. I am assuming you are zooming and getting exact. Place this 6000 pixel line on a zero guideline. (be exact). Construct two angled guidelines, one of 60 and one of 120 degrees. Have them intersect with the top of the 6000 pixel line. Be exact. If the line is set at 'hairline' as it should be the width should still be almost a pixel. So have the lines cross in the middle. There is some zooming in and out quite a bit at the start. The 60 and 120 degree lines should now make an equilateral triangle. Use bezier tool and 'snap to guidelines' to make that shape. REMEMBER the lines are in the center of these guidelines. We will be measuring angles from the top of this triangle. You might make a crosshair very small at top. Something to show you that the very top of the shape is not the top, see where the centers of the lines meet. Now you need make a circle close to what the triangle would fit into if tip and center and two sides touching the circle. This does not need to be as exact. Get it close as you can. You can spend extra time getting it very exact but it will not buy you much. However, when placing over so that the top of triangle is in center and two bottom corners touch the circle, make sure the left side of the parts that touch the circle, (bottom left), is exact. Remembering again that the real center of the line is inside the approx. 3/4 of a pixel thick line understand that the sharp corner of the triangle will stick out a bit from the circle.

'Group' the work above or set in a layer so it does not come apart.

Now one more exact measure. This is 1/ 6th of the original 6000 pixel line. But we make it with a circle, showing various angles with this, so make a circle with an exact 2000 pixel diameter, and you may even want to put small crossshairs in the center. 'Group' this. Move this smaller circle, green in the diagram so that it sits direct on the center of where triangle crosses the greater circle. And when exact, group the entire thing. All the exact work is now done. So you have ballpark understanding, set, one at a time, four lines through the top of the pyramid. First do the 51.84444~ which I did in red. In yellow I did the parameters for understanding, I set one at 52 exact degrees and another at 52 exact degrees and did this in yellow. Also a darker yellow 52.73 degrees. Notice how the circle (smaller circle) cuts twice through the red, but about 51.73 at the greater circle.

Now for explanation:

1- As the six pyramids begin to move into, "eat up" the eight tetrahedrons, how for does each face of the pyramid move. It does not move to the center because there are five other moving as well. Each face need only move at 1/6th, the measurement of the radius of the lessor circle. The big triangle is the shape of the face of the six pyramids. It is also the shape of the base of the tetra exactly. So every face of each of the six pyramids moves from on side toward a tip. So the distance it moves is across, not one of the sides.

2- Notice that if it is considered that the base is the first move here, it is about 51.73.

3- However, we have the distance the face will move, 1000 pixels, but not the exact direction. As the pyramids are 'filling' up the tetras are decreasing. Therefore the angle that the bottom of the face moves is to be considered. The greater arc is the obvious limit. As they are all moving the other limit is half the 6000., 3000. Place lines of 3000 and 6000 so that they go from the corner of the pyramid to the arc. (I don't think the bottom blue line of 3000 comes through. However this angle is bisected which is the angle of second blue line. And you can see where that intersects the 51.84444~ given. Understand that the 51.844444, given by Taylor first is a formula based and theoretical. A visual of this concept has not yet been given except here.

Anyone who does this with a construction of 13 ping pong balls in hand will feel it as well as understand it.

This visual came up as I was working on my book Message Of The Crop Circles. A great portion of the crop circles point to this new geometry. The book is about 70 percent complete with many illustrations. I do not as yet have a publisher.

If you pass this around please credit me, and my site,
My address is 39 Megunticook Street, Camden ME, 04843.
Email is
Phone is (207) 236 6508.
Though a math concept cannot of course be copyrighted, my words, drawings, etc. are.
Michael Donovan
Why Too Stoned chose Fermat I don’t know. But is interesting that those arguments, Fermat, Pascal etc. in France in 1600s do show more how certain conventions can be formed and they stick as if the only way to do something. The 1600s were a very heady time in math, that and Decarte/ Newton in 1720. Above all there is Kepler.

Oh donny boy, the bs the bs is pile-ing

PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 2:10 pm
by TooStoned
1)FYI when I click the hyperlink to your page I'm getting the "HttP 404 error" so you might want to check with your hosting service :)

2) Yeah I read that bit about ping pong balls etc. but as I demonstrated with my link to the Fermat's theorem proof your "description" is not a "mathematical proof" by any stretch of the imagination.

3) item 2 above points to my big problem with the material you post here; namely you appropriate scientific terms that have highly specific, and functional, definitions for you're ideas. A mathematical proof is a proof is a proof, and claiming any part of your webpage is a proof is misleading.

4) Picking up where item 3 left of:
But is interesting that those arguments, Fermat, Pascal etc. in France in 1600s do show more how certain conventions can be formed and they stick as if the only way to do something.

Actually Fermat's theorem remained "un-proven" until just 1994. The Mathematicians who proved Fermat's theorem are Andrew Wiles, Nick Katz, and Richard Taylor. For the full story start here:
I'm certain you make dissmissive statements about established scientific fact and protocols to hoodwink the gullible into believing there is subsantive to what you write. To impress upon the un-informed that you are a "genuis".
Nothing could be further from the truth, and I promise you my ABD in O-chem/Pharmacognasy will blow away all your attempts to expropriate scientific jargon used to find "marks"

Just keep posting your crap Donovan, and I'll keep blowing it away with my scientific jargon shotgun. :twisted: