The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: Lawsuit: Archimedes Plutonium vs. Andrew Wiles, Princeton
Replies: 1   Last Post: Jun 15, 1996 4:26 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View  
Archimedes Plutonium

Posts: 1,297
Registered: 12/6/04
Re: Lawsuit: Archimedes Plutonium vs. Andrew Wiles, Princeton
Posted: Jun 15, 1996 4:26 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article <4pv67e$> (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

> In article <>
> David Ullrich <> writes:

> > I find myself irresistibly compelled to ask, although I
> > suspect I'll regret it: How do you show that pi and e will
> > change in the future?
> > (I mean, even if I stipulated that pi was irrational
> > because it equals 22/7, as you seem to be suggesting, I don't
> > see how you can know that's going to change in the future.)

> I will regret answering you this, because once a mind is set it is
> pure aggravation to get through. Rational numbers of 22/7 and 19/7 are
> in QM the collapsed Wavefunction. The uncollapsed is transcendental
> numbers. This is the physics definition of a transcendental number. You
> math folks have an idea of what a definition for transcendental is. But
> your idea is a childish, a prententious and inchoate idea of what it
> means for a number to be transcendental. Your idea is that a
> transcendental number is 'not algebraic'. But what the hell does not
> algebraic mean in physical terms, in physical reality. It is at this
> time where you math hair twirlers slink off into your baloney quagmire
> of pseudo intellectualism.
> Let me tell you what transcendental numbers means in physics, in
> physical terms and reality. A transcendental number is a number that is
> growing, it is never held still. Whereas the Rational numbers have
> grown to maturity and you can speak of them in the fullness of what
> they are. Thus you can speak of 22/7 or .5000... or .1177117711... as
> completed numbers. Completed is a good term for them, they have grown
> full and are complete. But a transcendental number in physics is a
> number as compared to complete numbers has yet not grown up to
> maturity. Is a number that grows daily, yearly, by the century, by the
> light years and then when a transcendental number such as pi and e grow
> to maturity are completed, well, it will be a new Atom Totality.
> We have a pi and an e in each atom totality because these two numbers
> are the measurement of how big the universe is and how fast it is
> growing.
> In a PU Atom Totality, the girth, or waist band is a measurement of
> the size of PU Atom and it is the total number of subshells divided by
> shells. We can collapse that into a complete number of 22 s,p,d,f
> subshells in a total of 7 shells, but this escapes the fact that the PU
> Atom is growing by the microsecond and so the number pi cannot be
> written complete. So we see it as "transcendental".
> The same with e. E is the rate at which PU is growing and is a
> reflection of a open logarithmic spiral. Each microsecond a new atom is
> created in the Universe and this new growth has to be reflected in a
> changing and growing e. The number cannot be completed or seen in full
> simply because these two numbers of pi and e are the physics of the
> perimeter of the PU Atom Totality and the growth rate of the log
> spiral.
> That is what it means for a number to be transcendental and not that
> silly bullshit that you hair twirlers pander off to young and innocent
> kids.
> Since the Atom Totality changes from element to the next element means
> that the numerical value of pi and e change also. Pi and E in a Neon
> Atom Totality had altogether different numerical values for pi and e
> inside that Neon space.
> When the Atom Totality goes up beyond the 5f6 of Plutonium, life
> inside there will have a different value of pi and e.
> So you see, physics reigns supreme and mathematics is just a
> subfield of physics.
> I do not expect you or anyone from my generation to understand any of
> the above. Simply because my theories are way ahead of their time. I
> found these theories in a world of dunces and my writings are for
> future generations.
> There should be a physics and a mathematics experiment for the truth
> of my above. The question can be asked that if the above is true would
> imply that pi and e are either growing closer together, or harmonically
> growing in lock-step, or are growing divergently apart. Those three
> possibilities.
> The math people should be able to hint of a answer as to whether pi
> and e are lock-step, growing apart, or growing together. Once they
> answer that. Then the physicist, independent of the math people should
> be able to ascertain from pure physics of plutonium whether the
> expansion of the universe-- the Hubble Constant and the measure of time
> itself whether those two as reflecting pi and e are divergent, going
> together , or in lock-step. If it is discovered that the math answer
> agrees with the physics answer, then that is good proof that all of the
> above is the truth. I suspect all of the above is already known but has
> never been so culled and correlated.

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2017. All Rights Reserved.