Comments:Large Hadron Collider reaches milestone

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Comments on this page were originally made using the LiquidThreads extension, which is no longer supported. It has since been exported to wikitext, but the export process was not perfect so comments may appear slightly oddly.

Start a new discussion

Wow!

Thread summary:

Brianmc and Beer Drinker argue about if all the grand problems in physics are trivially solved. IPs, Mikemoral, and other users randomly comment.

Truly, we are messing with powers beyond our understandin here! 77.250.25.84 (talk) 08:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Erm... 7 lil bugs really isnt that much is it ? :S 92.43.64.69 (talk) 11:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with 77.250.25.84 (great name btw). This reminds me of a Lovecraft story. The one with the cosmic horrors, terrifying vistas, and humans who can barely even begin to comprehend them. Does anyone know which one I'm referring to?--66.110.243.247 (talk) 12:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The amazing thing is that the energy is condensed into a size about a million million times smaller than a mosquito. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

All they will prove, is Einstein's equation E=mc^2, where Time and Distance are perpendicular.

At the origin, the God particle = m

m = E/c^2

c = meters/seconds

m = E/(meters/seconds)

when seconds are = 0, then mass = invisible speck

the Time domain fits inside an invisible speck.

when meters are = 0, then mass=infinity

Infinity * cos(0) = infinty

today the entire universe fits inside an invisible speck.

Infinity * cos(90)= zero

All they will find is a 90 degree angle. BeerDrinker (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

So little optimism.

There is hope these ultra-high energy experiments will get us closer to reconciling relativity and quantum theory. Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Quantumn theory and relativity are simple to reconcile with 3D anamorphic art.

Quantumn theory involves light, E=hf and is vertical.

Relativity involves time and is horizontal.

Frequency = 1/Time

Time and Distance are perpendicular, therefore distance is a frequency and is perpendicular.

Division of two numbers produces a 90 degree phase shift as shown by E=mc^2.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/115/283204027_5247242acb_o.jpg

The shortest distance between two points is a straight line and therefore linear.

The slope of a line = rise/run = y/x

If we take a small slice or derivitive, we get dy/dx

Therefore y/x=dy/dx

ydx=xdy

0=xdy-ydx

If you find the area or integral of an invisible speck, you will get 2Pi*r^2.

This is a double ellipse or a cylinder in a circle.

Also, the contour integral of nothing is 2Pi*i, where i=sqrt(-1).

This is a pole in a circular path. i.e. 90 degree shift producing 3D.

Also, Kepler's equation for planetary orbit has no origin.

r=1/(1+aCos(theta))

The left side of the equation does not equal the right side of the equation at the origin.

This puts the earth in two places at the same time.

There are two equal and opposite proofs to Kepler's equation.

Proof 1: Involves solving the vector r=rr

using a mathematical trick where, r1=bold print r2=italic r3=subscripted

Proof 2: Involves solving the vector r=r/r

This produces a double ellipse and violates the rule of differentiable vectors.

A differentiable vector exists IFF and only IFF it is differentiable over the entire domain.

Also, the second law of thermodynamics says entropy increases going forward in time and decreases going backward in time. If we trace back to the big bang, entropy is zero.

In other words, the universe was already assembled. BeerDrinker (talk) 00:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the idea is that yes, they don't know for certain what will happen, if they did then they wouldnt be spending billions to do it. Also why are the record energies being measured in electron volts? a technical reason or just to make the amount of energy sound even more impressive? :) go science go Mcchino64 (talk) 09:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Check out this video.

http://secretsun.blogspot.com/2009/03/david-sereda-on-nasa-ufos-time-travel.html

The Archimedes spiral explains how the entire universe fits inside an invisible speck.

Sometimes scientists trick themselves by creating rules and then breaking them.

For example, the definition for a Laplace Transform is from zero to infinity.

In Wikipedia, the table of solved transforms for the sine and cosine functions exist on the condition they do not exist at the origin.

This violates the rule of Laplace Transforms.

The Transform of Cosine is s/(s^2+w^2). The numerator has a zero in it.

If we take circular motion of a cosine function, it has a hole in the center.

The Transform of sine function is w/(s^2+w^2). The numerator has no zero.

Because it does not exist at the origin, it also has a hole in it.

This time, the hole is on the outside.

By default, the tangent function, rise/run must be at the origin.

But, it is undefined in Laplace Transforms.

It has to exist between the inside and the outside. BeerDrinker (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

That's what happens in the Hard-on Reactor. HaroldWilson'sWar (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

They pulled a hairy boner as you say. Let's calculate the warp.

http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://farm1.static.flickr.com/146/332024329_f32a3dcd79.jpg&imgrefurl=http://flickr.com/photos/koorkooraneh/332024329/&usg=__WEzS8C6hRyNIqfprf_jyCq01lKg=&h=334&w=500&sz=160&hl=en&start=257&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=a9Bkc6eyGi2zLM:&tbnh=87&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dparticle%2Bcollision%2Bimages%26start%3D240%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26ndsp%3D20%26tbs%3Disch:1

A line that is its own slope is a natural logarithm.

Einstein said space is warped. He did not say it was logarithmic. BeerDrinker (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

BeerDrinker... I think wikinews probably isn't the place to splurge high-level science jargon down everybody's throats lol. It's great that you have such a deep interest in it, but if you've got it all figured out as you say then how come the radiation given out by black holes doesn't have your name on it :p ? 62.189.53.110 (talk) 13:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, shoving things down peopls throats is not the way to go. I have sent e-mails to many institutes and they will not communicate with me.

I have been trying for many years and have come across a wall of silence.

In recent years, I have sent e-mails to Nobel prize winners Steven Hawking, Steven Weinberg, the Perimeter Institute, Nasa etc.

If time and distance are perpendicular, then flying saucers can travel vertical through time. I have researched this for many years and have evidence this is true.

Here is an example I found in the bible:

The prophet Daniel said there will be a seven year peace contract, (Daniel Chapter 9 verses 23-27). The bible says the eighth is also of the seventh.

The Oslo Accord is September 13 1993. If we count forward 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7 years, then we get the exact date of the World Trade Center attack, September 11 2001.

I have found all kinds of data supporting my arguement. I leave myself open to ridicule, but I have many facts. BeerDrinker (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is some more evidence.

http://www.rense.com/general66/solid.htm

If time is circular, we can find man made objects before our evolution from apes.

It even contains an object manufactured in space. Today it can be done in the International Space Station. BeerDrinker (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... They're ignoring you?

Maybe because you spout meaningless technobabble? Brian McNeil (alt. account) /^{'alt-talk • main talk'} 15:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Brian my friend, I hope you are right.

I did get one response from a prominent scientific notary.

He writes a newspaper column.

His exact words were "Ah! Just as I thought."

You know, if I am wrong, then I am wrong.

Why can't they just tell me I am wrong? BeerDrinker (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW: The Hadron collider is techno Babel.

They expect all the mass in the universe fits inside an invisible speck followed by a big bang.

If this is the case, then the entire universe fits inside a man too making the solar system an atom.

http://www.workofthechariot.com/TextFiles/Translations-SeferYetzirah.html

The Book of Creation says the entire universe fits inside a man.

This sounds Ptolemaic to me.

How can the earth orbit the sun if the entire universe fits inside a man walking on the earth?

You see, they do not even need a Hadron collider. BeerDrinker (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you're smoking, but I hear St. John of Patmos was fond of strange mushrooms. Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I suppose he was???

That would explain why the Bible is full of Fibonacci numbers first published in 1202 A.D.

It also contains Blaise Pascal's probability triangle containing Fibonacci numbers.

These were discoveries made in the middle ages and would require strange mushrooms for people to understand such an anachronism. BeerDrinker (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the prophet Daniel also smoked strange stuff when he predicted the exact date for the end of the millennium?

The Oslo Accord September 13 1993 + 2,300 days = December 31 1999.

Daniel 8:14 (New International Version)

He said to me, "It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated."

I have thousands of pieces of information supporting my case. BeerDrinker (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Take the example of the circle produced by the Hadron collider.

The area = pi*r^2

This is a quadratic equation.

The general form for a quadratic equation is ax^2+bx+c=0

If a=0, the equation becomes linear.

bx+c=0

If you take the straight line, you can put it in the center of a circle.

This is proven with the case of 3D anamorphic art.

I will not sway from my stance the Hadron collider is techno Babel.

The dunderheads are trying to connect the dots around the perimeter. The origin is in the center.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadratic_equation

In this case, solving the roots does not allow for a=0 because of the term in the denominator. They are trying to solve (something)/0.

I wish to state again. this is techno Babel. They do not understand high school math. BeerDrinker (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I said this earlier, but it is worth repeating.

All they will find is a 90 degree angle.

High school math says the circle becomes linear at the origin.

The fact they built a Hadron collider tells me they do not know what they are doing. BeerDrinker (talk) 01:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Where did I leave the popcorn?

I'm sure you can do a great presentation of The Time Cube!™

Your brain is obviously composed of the more-common-than-hydrogen element; which is a joke I believe should be attributed to Harlan Eddison, or Frank Zappa. Brian McNeil / ^talk 04:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

*Sighs*

I would go as far as these comments are pretty much "meaningless technobabble." I mean, I don't get this "technobabble" and I am probably safely assuming our writers here don't either.

Brian, care to share some popcorn? Mikemoral♪♫ 04:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

What flavour is the popcorn?

Joseph said the cup is in the corn. BeerDrinker (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The "popcorn" here is someone spouting off repeated bollocks about, say, the bible having special bits in it that relate to cutting-edge science. In reality, some whack-job like the loon who saw a face on Mars, has joined all these genuinely unrelated numbers to fit some spectacular bollocks that desperate people buy (Think those who believe there's some deep meaning in Dan Brown's dross).

The bible, if you go through it, never cites Pi to any real accuracy. It does give the various area formulae about circles, but the number where we'd put pi is stridently asserted to be 3. Even at the time those particular texts were put down on paper, fractions were known and used. If I recall the rule-of-thumb approximation correctly, it would be 22/7; which, if calculated and compared to what we know about the irrational number pi, is at least two orders of magnitude more accurate than 3.

On that basis alone, I would completely dismiss the entire book as devoid of any scientific content or credibility.

Fermat's Last Theorem was a research project worthy of scientists' time, even though it is only alluded to as a margin note in one of his books. Looking for Fibonacci numbers in the bible is like looking for the number 22 bus on the Moon; someone with Photoshop, or, in the numbers case, a plan to make a quick buck on an idiotic book, will come along and tell you not to trust people doing real science.

Really, the bible for deeper answers to scientific questions? Saying the LHC is a waste of money? Asserting that Special Relativity, General Relativity, and Quantum Theory are "trivially" reconciled?

Only a complete fucking moron with no concept of the process of scientific research, the stark difference between a hypothesis and a theory (Hint: The latter is only applied to something provable by substantial evidence and repeatable experimentation; the former, a slightly-wild idea that might form the basis for a new theory).

BeerDrinker has been hoodwinked, conned, and bought a line of crap from charlatans with glossy hardbacks asserting all science is wrong, we're regularly visited by aliens, and that sort of crapola. He's one of those desperately seeking some proof of a deity or an outside guiding hand in human evolution.

• It is highly improbable (to a 0.00000000000000000000000001% sort of probability) there is a divine being who can intervene and interfere with the classical macro-scale physics interactions we've spent more than a hundred years looking at and playing with.
• The "interesting" stuff goes on at the sub-atomic level.
• Doing the "interesting" stuff is, based on our current understanding of the universe, very expensive, and a high-cost, high-energy issue.
• The LHC is waved away as "creating the conditions that existed very shortly after the birth of the universe"; it isn't.
  • It is creating some of the ultra-short-lived particles suspected to have existed at that time.
  • Repeated creation of these particles, and observation of their decay into more normal/classical particles is a prime goal.
  • With a good dataset, various hypotheses can be compared with what we see now in the visible background radiation.
  • Just like evolution, we can look for other ways to get data to work out how a tiny, superhot, young universe became what we see now. That is:
    • Devising repeatable experiments to simulate conditions expected in the rapid expansion period.
    • Using more powerful telescopes, and new observational techniques, to collect more detailed information about the history of the universe, as told by light and other radiation now reaching Earth or satellites & probes within out solar system.

The hoped-for end result is not, as some assert, a "Theory of Everything"; it is for a hypothesis to be promoted to a theory which covers a broader range of the events and interactions we've repeatedly observed in the universe - fixing the "exception clauses" and "special cases" where General Relativity, Special Relativity, and Quantum Theory break down.

Such a long response may seem like BeerDrinker's bollocks, and assertion we have nothing more to learn. If he gives me a phone number I will try and arrange for Richard Dawkins to call and tell him to back away from the bible and seek psychiatric help. Brian McNeil / ^talk 00:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, this single overly long comment was worth more than a general skim over for its comedic purposes. Not a bunch of technobabble that I wouldn't even bother reading because One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich (however one spells that Russian name) is much more interesting.

Oh, and the thing on pi.

"He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it. Below the rim, gourds encircled it - ten to a cubit. The gourds were cast in two rows in one piece with the Sea. The Sea stood on twelve bulls, three facing north, three facing west, three facing south and three facing east. The Sea rested on top of them, and their hindquarters were toward the center. It was a handbreadth in thickness, and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It held two thousand baths."

-I Kings 7:23-26 NIV Mikemoral♪♫ 00:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, I think this is our first long argument type thread using LQT. I'd say the system worked rather well. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes it has. Mikemoral♪♫ 01:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Brian, you write very well. I congratulate you.

The Book of Psalms chapter 119 in the King James version of the Bible has the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet separated by 7 lines 22 times. As you requested 22/7 = pi.

It also contains a Roman Mile. This is 1000 paces of 1.618 British yards. This is the Golden Number Phi=1.618...

Note, they are British yards.

I find British numbers in other calendars too.

The Bible also says there will be signs in the sun moon and stars. The diameter of the moon=2160 British miles.

If we partition it as a dart board, there are 1335 points.

The book of Daniel says happy is he who lives 1335 days.

2160/1335=1.618

The Mayan calendar final Baktun cycle begins in the year 1618

Also Christ calls himself the Alpha and the Omega.

Alpha*Omega=1

This is the Barkhausen condition for oscillation.

i.e. frequency*time=1, or f=1/t

Let's change these symbols to x and y for calculating purposes.

He also presents an everlasting kingdom. i.e. x-y=1

If you solve x*y=1 and x-y=1, we get the Golden Number 1.618.

There is no other solution for perpetual motion.

The radius of the sun is 432,000 British miles.

The Hindu calendar ends after 432,000 years.

In Norse mythology, Valhalla has 540 doors 800 men wide.

540 * 800 = 432,000

The Mayan calendar also contains pi=3.14

If we multiply pi=3.14 * 1000 =3140

Then take the diameter of the earth 7920 miles.

Using Kepler's problem of the earth in two places at the same time, we get 7920 *2 miles.

add these all up 3140 +7920 +7920 =18980

This is the length of the Mayan calendar. BeerDrinker (talk) 02:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the bible is veiled. There is more than one way to encrypt pi.

Just because you don't see it, does not mean it is not there.

Genesis 14:14

When Abram heard that his relative had been taken captive, he called out the 318 trained men born in his household and went in pursuit as far as Dan.

1000/318=3.14

1.Nehemiah 11:6

The descendants of Perez who lived in Jerusalem totaled 468 able men.

468=355+113

355/113=3.1416 BeerDrinker (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

When you start looking for numbers that hard, you can find them in anything. I'll bet π is hidden in Harry Potter if you look hard enough Bawolff ☺☻ 15:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

What you say is true 100%. You are correct.

I have spent over 10 years accumulating data. When the examples are few, as you say, they can be found anywhere. When they start piling up, then it is no longer random.

In my opinion, even a few hundred samples are not enough to convince me they are correct.

For example, The Golden number Phi=1.618 is found when you measure the wall of the al Aqsa mosque.

It is also found in the Parthenon, The great pyramid, Stonehenge, etc.

Solving this number is not simple using Roman Numerals for example, as it requires successive approximation.

Getting more than 1 or 2 decimal places of accuracy is not an easy task. BeerDrinker (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Uhh, could you use more than one sentence per line? It's really spaced out. Paragraph form is a good thing. Mikemoral♪♫ 22:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

>I have spent over 10 years accumulating data. When the examples are few, as you say, they can be >found anywhere. When they start piling up, then it is no longer random.

>In my opinion, even a few hundred samples are not enough to convince me they are correct.

Even cooler is the fact that for every single circle, if measure how long it is around the edge, and then divide that by it diameter, you get the same number every time: π!

Clearly something requiring divine explanation is at hand. Like really what is the chances that will happen EVERY SINGLE TIME ! Bawolff ☺☻ 00:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sir, Have you been drinking tonight? Irunongames•play 23:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form

Thread summary:

Bawolff and BeerDrinker argue about their math skills. Mikemoral joins in.

the force of seven mosquitos? 84.56.30.81 (talk) 08:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Its actually much more impressive then it sounds, since atoms and stuff have very low mass. It takes a very large amount of energy to move something the mass of a mosquito compared to moving something at the same speed if it has a mass of an atom. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want impressive, how about the painter's paradox at the bottom of this article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel%27s_Horn

The inside is bigger than the outside.

If a scientist wants to know how old a tree is, he would have to count the rings outside the bark! BeerDrinker (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well the surface area (infinite) is bigger then the volume, which is a bit different then saying the inside is bigger than the outside. Still weird paradox, however theres lots of weird things when you consider idealized mathamatical objects. (If it existed in real world...) Bawolff ☺☻ 20:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The paradox is based on a portion of the equation Y=1/x, and is infinite as you say.

Check this out.

Man=Man

1=Man*1/Man

Lat Man = x

1=x *1/Man

Lat 1/Man=Y

1=x*y

y=1/x

The infinite surface area fits inside a Man. BeerDrinker (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

wtf is lat in you equation? (not to mention there are several other problems with your reasoning, but I'll start there). Bawolff ☺☻ 15:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, my eyesight is not very good.

Lat is a typo.

It should be 'Let' BeerDrinker (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It is a known fact everything in the universe vibrates.

The Barkhausen condition for oscillation is Y=1/x

Light for example is an oscillation F=1/t

Einstein was searching for a simple universal equation to describe everything in the universe.

Man=Man

Dog=Dog

Apple=Apple

Rock=Rock

...etc. can all be described by the same equation.

If it exists, it oscillates.

Distance is an oscillator.

Relativity says, it is not always the same length. BeerDrinker (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying

Let Man = x

y=1/x

therefore man satisfies the inequality:

$Man\leq 2\pi \int _{1}^{\infty }{\frac {\sqrt {1+{\frac {1}{x^{4}}}}}{x}}\mathrm {d} x:::::::$

?

At best thats a misunderstanding of how math works. (Man is not a function..., well at least not in this sense of the word). (Although i suppose you could argue that an infinite 2 dimensional surface fits inside a 3 dimensional object, [if you fold it well enough i geuss], that seems misleading) Bawolff ☺☻ 23:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I wonder who's the one who should review their high school math... Mikemoral♪♫ 23:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I am using an equation right out of the bible.

In Boolean algebra the 'AND' is for multiplication and the'OR' is used for addition.

Book Revelations Chapter 22

13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

Using Christ's words, Alpha*Omega is a multiplication operation.

Let Alpha=x

Let Omega=y

x*y

Book Zecharia Chapter 14

9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be

one LORD, and his name one.

God=1

Therefore x*y=1

This is a universal equation. Without it, nothing can exist, not even the big bang.

This equation is a prerequisite, the golden number Phi makes it perpetual motion.

Together they are saying the universe was already assembled before the big bang.

This agrees with the second law of thermo dynamics. Entropy increases going forward in time and decreases going backward in time. At the time of the big bang the entropy is zero. The universe already has to be assembled before the bang.

The Hadron collider guys are contradicting physics. BeerDrinker (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Where in the world is your basis for this "logic?" Who said this is Boolean algebra? "And" normally implies the operation of addition.

Mr. Boole lived 1816-1864. The Book of Revelations was written between 95 and 202 AD. I would think a concept not even existence would not take precedence (like my grammar there?).

And because of the idea of the Holy Trinity, you're going to say, "since God = 1 and God = 3, therefore 1 = 3?" Mikemoral♪♫ 22:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I have a background in electrical engineering. Circuits designed with 'AND' gates are multiplication, and 'OR' gates are addition. The point you raise, is the point I am trying to show show you. Exactly when was the bible written? Using known information, we can create a time line. I want to show you several examples as one can be very misleading

Here is just one exmple showing repeating phrases as a method of encryption. This technique of encryption is very common in the bible. Leonardo Fibonacci published his sequense circa 1202 A.D.

1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55,89,144,...

The same phrase is found in Fibonacci chapters 2,3,5,8

Book Song of Songs Chapter 2

7 I charge you, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, ...

Book Song of Songs Chapter 3

5 I charge you, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, ....

Book Song of Songs Chapter 5

8 I charge you, O daughters of Jerusalem, ...

Book Song of Songs Chapter 8

4 I charge you, O daughters of Jerusalem, ...

Pascal's probability triangle also can be used to produce the Fibonacci sequence.

The Fibonacci sequence converges to Phi=1.618...

8/5=1.6

13/8=1.625

21/13=1.615

34/21=1.619

55/34=1.617

89/55=1.618

144/89=1.618

The bible contains Phi directly and indirectly many times. I just gave you one small example. BeerDrinker (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Um, The bible is a collection of books. The books you cite are older than the concept. Have you taken a hint yet? Mikemoral♪♫ 00:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the point I am trying to make. Before the Middle ages was a long period called the Dark ages where there was no bible, or Fibonacci numbers. Books in the hands of people are only as reliable as the people handling these books. As for Brian's other question, if two can be one, why can't three be one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment BeerDrinker (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The fall of Rome was in the late 5th century AD. The Book of Revelations written in 95, well before the start of the Dark Ages. The Dark Ages were the bulk of the Middles Ages, lasting from the 5th century to the 15th century. The Dark Ages is a concept of humanist Petrach. The Bible was composed between the 14th and 5th centuries BC, well before the 5th century AD. The New Testament of the Bible was between 117 AD and 138 AD also before 400 AD. Get your history right. Mikemoral♪♫ 03:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I an trying to get my history right, but there are too many anachronisms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daric

The Daric coin anachronism also contains Blaise Pascal's probability triangle used to derive Fibonacci numbers, hence Phi.

Book 1 Chronicles Chapter 29

7 And gave for the service of the house of God five thousand talents and ten thousand drams of gold, and ten thousand talents of silver, and eighteen thousand talents of bronze, and one hundred thousand talents of iron.

These numbers can produce Blaise Pascal's probability triangle.

1

1 1

1 2 1

1 3 3 1

1 4 6 4 1

Diagonal 1 = 1+1+1+1+1=5

Diagonal 2 = 1+2+3+4=10

Diagonal 3 = 1+3+6=10

Cross (row 2 * center column)= (1+1)*(1+2+6)=18

Diagonal 2 * Diagonal 3 =10*10=100

Multiply everything by 1000

5000, 10000, 10000, 18000, 100000

If the an anachronistic coin can appear in the bible, why can't the anachronistic Hubble telescope or Boolean logic?

Book Acts Chapter 19

35 And when the townclerk had appeased the people, he said, Ye men of

Ephesus, what man is there that knoweth not how that the city of the

Ephesians is a worshipper of the great goddess Diana, and of the

image which fell down from Jupiter?

An image did come down from Jupiter. It was the Shoemaker Levi 9.

This raises the question of when was the bible written? The data I presented so far in these discussions gives us the following points on our time line.

Exact Oslo Accord

Exact Millennium

Exact World Trade Center collapse

Exact Shoemaker Levi 9

Circa Daric coin anachronism

Circa Fibonacci numbers - Leonardo Fibonacci's life time or later

Circa Pascal's triangle - Blaise Pascal's life time or later

Circa Boolean logic - Boole's life time or later

Circa Pi

Circa Phi

People are on the assumption time is linear. If you walk a straight line the simplified equation for distance becomes, s = (1/2) *a*t^2.

If we don't care about acceleration the characteristic of the equation is (t^2)/2. Since time keeps on ticking all around multiply by 2*pi.

This gives us Pi*t^2 which is the area of a circle telling us the horizontal portion of the 3D anamorphic art is the time domain. What goes around comes around. BeerDrinker (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form

Thread summary:

Users laugh.

lol 84.250.158.199 (talk) 11:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I am laughing too. The boys at the Hadron collider don't understand high school math. BeerDrinker (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for you. Maybe you should review your math. Mikemoral♪♫ 00:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I had trouble understanding the Hadron collider logic. I went to the pub and drank six twenty ounce glasses of beer, six glasses of rye and ginger ale, two Beam me up Scotties, three TKO's (Tequila, Kalua and Ouzo), two straight shots of Tequila and sucked on a lemon until things became clear.

They are trying to say Pi is equal to four. The General Assembly of Indiana passed a bill stating Pi was equal to four in the year 1897. If you go back four centuries, Pope Gregory XIII removed ten days from the Gregorian calendar on October 4 1582. The next day was October 15th 1582. Year one was October 4 1583 or 314 years before Pi was changed to four. BeerDrinker (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you even know wth your technobabble means?

Who says pi equals 4? Mikemoral♪♫ 21:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The author David H. Ahl in his book 'The TRS-80 Model 100 and NEC PC-8201 Idea Book, page 60.

By the way, Pi * sqrt(Phi)=4 BeerDrinker (talk) 03:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You have to use 2 decimal place accuracy for Phi=1.62 and Pi=22/7 BeerDrinker (talk) 03:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)