Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.



Re: Lawsuit: Archimedes Plutonium vs. Andrew Wiles, Princeton
Posted:
Jun 15, 1996 4:26 PM


In article <4pv67e$8j3@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> In article <31C057C8.1445@math.okstate.edu> > David Ullrich <ullrich@math.okstate.edu> 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 lockstep, 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 lockstep, 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 lockstep. 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.



