Re: The birth and life of the universe.


"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:f5db4062-c105-42a7-a56e-917fe8584ff6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jan 21, 4:25 pm, "Tom Potter" <tdp1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:7953fd3b-c0a6-4744-930d-fa9ccb2a761b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Jan 21, 2:14 am, "Tom Potter" <tdp1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Eric Gisse" <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:d00d896e-3bd1-40c9-a693-1de1fe5ffaa3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Jan 9, 1:20 am, "Tom Potter" <tdp1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Contiguous things form an environment,
and the environment in turn modulates
the birth and death rates of
the things within the environment.

In a nurturing environment,
a population increases exponentially,
and in a non-nurturing environment,
a population decreases exponentially.

population(generation n+1) = population(generation n) * e^ (k*time)

Euler Formula
e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0

which is best stated as:
e^(i*( circumference / diameter)) + 1 = 0

That is not how pi is defined, idiot. Take a remedial course in
business calculus and try again.

[snip stupidity]

========================

Potter writes:

I am surprised to see that Eric Gisse
who claims to be a high school graduate
does not know that
circumference = diameter * pi

* Again, that is not how pi is defined. Idiot.

It is interesting to see that Eric Gisse,
who claims to be a high school graduate,

objects to my use of "pi"
as the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter,
and redirects his post to his family's private newsgroup.

Hopefully, my high school pal
will address the gestalt of my post (If he comprehends it.)
and explain how this invalidates my post.

It is not how pi is defined. What's so fucking hard about this?

Oh that's right, you are a salesman who was never trained in math or
physics so you have no way of knowing anything more than what was
taught to you when you were a little kid.

What's circumference divided by diameter in Hyperbolic or Elliptic
geometry? Not pi. What's circumference and diameter in sin(pi) = 0?
Why don't you get an education and stop repeating special cases.

Pi is a mathematical constant whose value is the ratio of any circle's circumference to its diameter in Euclidean space,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi

IN EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY. Euclid is wrong so a more general definition
must be devised. Might want to look into the past century and a half
of mathematics to find the answer.


[snip drooling idiocy]

As I indicated ,
Gisse's problem is that he was unable to comprehend
as my post made clear,
that ultimate "being" is a perfect sphere or circle,

and that "becoming" is a change in this condition.

I suggest that Gisse Google "non-linearity" plus "harmonics"
and read a few of the hits to get a feel for this subject.

To help my pal Gisse understand this,
I suggest that he do a "gestalt" experiment
about a perfect wheel rolling along a perfect track,
and BANG, hitting a bump.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/30685

"Topology concerns the properties of objects that are unchanged by continuous
deformation. The wording "simply connected" in the Poincaré conjecture is such a
property: it means that a closed curve can be continuously shrunk to a point.
One can easily visualize doing this on the surface of a two-sphere like the
Earth, but not on a doughnut, where a curve looping round the hole cannot be
shrunk. In two dimensions the sphere is the only surface that is simply
connected, and Poincaré's famous conjecture of 1904 asked whether the same was
true in three dimensions.

As the field of topology developed in the 20th century, reputations were made
and then broken by attempts to prove this conjecture. Finally it was proved in
all higher dimensions, and only Poincaré's original problem was left; it was
clear that there was something special about three dimensions.

The prevailing view of 3D topology changed radically in the 1980s when US mathematician Bill
Thurston showed that many three-manifolds could be systematically broken up into
pieces, each of which had a type of homogeneous geometry. He conjectured that
this procedure should apply much more widely and it is this that Perelman
actually succeeded in proving. It implies the Poincaré conjecture as a special
case (just as Wiles' proof of Fermat's theorem was a special case of the
Shimura-Taniyama- Weil conjecture).

What technique did Perelman use that evaded the other topologists? Not to use
topology! He used instead the "Ricci flow equation" - a geometrical version of
the heat equation pioneered by mathematician Richard Hamilton. Given an
irregular distribution of temperature in a body, the heat equation describes the
temperature at subsequent times. The flow of heat tends to smooth out the
initial irregularities. Perelman's idea was to start with an arbitrary manifold
and "follow the flow", thereby hoping to get something regular and homogeneous
like a sphere or a non-Euclidean geometry. But it does not work like that, as
Hamilton knew, because the solution blows up in finite time. Perelman showed
that when this happens, you can modify the manifold in a controlled way and
start the flow again, then repeat. Eventually you have either cut the space up
into Thurston's pieces or arrived at a homogeneous geometry - simple
connectivity then gives you a sphere.

So when the barbarians have come and gone again,
we will still have a theorem, not a conjecture,
which tells us that a simply connected three-manifold is a sphere."

And Potter's Law # 26 states:
"Forces can change a sphere into a prune, and vice versa."

--
Tom Potter
http://tdp1001.spaces.live.com/
http://www.tompotter.us/misc.html
http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com
http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dingleberry.htm

.

Quantcast