"Lay on, MacDuff, and damned be him who first cries ‘Hold! Enough!”
-Macbeth, William Shakespeare
…them’s fighting words?
Sounds more like poke'r to me.
(I Am my Father's daughter and, like Him, I, too, believe that Gaming is the only sport where you lose as soon as you sit down to play it, and in order to make real money You just gotta Earn it (as in work for it and not simply rely on the luck of the draw)).
When the question was first posed over 15 years ago, my naiveté would only permit the following response;
"Duh--like I don’t know…”
But in retrospect the answer is more than likely, “Practically the entire human populace because I had to be the one to break it to them that for all their pageantry and eons of human evolution, they still haven’t figured out how to have sex—they go around big-footing it all over the world when the men can’t even make a conquest in their own bedrooms, being easily duped into believing otherwise; and their women have it in for me since, (apparently even Dr. Ruth did not venture into this uncharted territory), there are juicy signs as torrential as the Great Flood, and now the jig is up and they can’t fake it any more (like in the diner scene in the movie When Harry Met Sally--and unlike that film Producer's Mom in that same scene I Don't Want What She's Having!)."
(What does everybody think Rain songs on the Radio are all about—the weather? For that we have the meteorological forecast.)
...and, speaking of Meteo-rites, an alien take on their solar system...
أَفَلَمْ يَرَوْا إِلَى مَا بَيْنَ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَمَا خَلْفَهُم مِّنَ السَّمَاء وَالْأَرْضِ
إِن نَّشَأْ نَخْسِفْ بِهِمُ الْأَرْضَ أَوْ نُسْقِطْ عَلَيْهِمْ كِسَفًا مِّنَ السَّمَاء
إِنَّ فِي ذَلِكَ لَآيَةً لِّكُلِّ عَبْدٍ مُّنِيبٍ 34:9
34:9 Do they not see how much lies (open) between their hands and how much is (lies) hidden in the Heavens and Earth...(in other words, how little they see of what lies open and hidden in Heaven and Earth?); if We Willed We Eclipse/Cleave the Earth with them or Drop pieces of the Sky over them; Truly (Indeed), in these Signs (are) Every Servant (of God) Foretells/Predicts/Calculates/Is Penitent/Remorseful.
Penitent and Remorseful, sound a lot like Sad to me, and while it is True that '...you can get addicted to a certain kind of sadness (Song Lyrics from 'Somebody That I Used To Know') I, for one, do not enjoy being sad...but I should have figured out there was a problem much sooner, at the first hint that my friends thought they saw me coming in Orange when I know I was Blue.
But Colors are another subject altogether, it's much easier to just stick with the numbers..
"I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people."
--Isaac Newton
Sign 34:9, taken as a simple ratio is 3.77777777....or Three (3) + (7/9). Nine we all know is 3^2.
The fraction or decimal portion when dividing by 9 always given by a single repeating numeral; 1/9=0.11111...; 2/9=0.22222....; 3/9=0.333333...;...and 13/9=1.44444.....
In this case MOD(34, 9)=7, ie. 7/9 or a repeating decimal of 0.7777777...
 |
| Relationship Between Solar System Planets/Objects With Respect to Mercury@ 1AU vs Earth@1AU and the Lemniscate Constant |
This was used as a first order approximation since the Lemniscate ties in well with orbits/space/time and the pattern emerged readily.
Using the conventional standard Earth mean distance at 1AU, then Mercury =0.387 AU x 2.6225 (the Lemniscate constant)= 1.015AU (giving the Earth Mean Distance by this convention, and about what it takes to make Mercury the convention for 1AU, http://www.solargeometry.com/).
Since this also corresponded roughly to the mean distance of the Earth @ 1 AU, the way the table developed it turned out to be the 3rd object from Mercury, while still being the 3rd Planet from the Sun (ie., compare distances in column O_n vs column C_(n+3) vs D_n ).
The next outer planet Venus mean distance wrt Earth=1AU then follows from 0.7224AU (wrt Earth=1AU) x (2.6225)= 1.866 AU (Venus mean distance wrt Mercury=1AU). The expectation being a value close to 1.9 AU should correspond to some planet/object y for this pattern to hold in Column C Row 7.
Then to keep an even distribution and give Mars as the 3rd planet from 'something (phi= j)' between Mercury and Venus is expected to be near 1-1/3 AU (wrt Mercury @ 1AU s.t. the mean distance wrt Earth @ 1AU in C3 is (1.33../2.58..) approx. 0.516 AU x (2.6225)= 1.3533 (a mean distance that roughly corresponds to Mars mean distance in Column C Row 6, according to this pattern (distance in O3 vs C6)).
The 1-1/3 value was not selected at random (refer to the Lusona lesson). The idea was to keep the distribution about as even as possible and keep as much symmetry in the distribution as possible.
Since a rough estimate for the mean distance to a Kuiper Belt object was taken as a round number, 50 AU wrt Earth @ 1 AU, worked out to approximately 129.17 AR wrt Mercury @ 1 AU and when 50*the Lemniscate constant worked out to 131, a number close enough to 133 to keep the symmetry given the breadth of the field of such objects, this was in good enough keeping (both in the progression and geometry) to guess something 'phi' at 1.3333 AU (in Column C Row 3). It also didn't hurt that 133/7 = 19 (see further down the post).
(I hope You are reeling with awe regarding the shallow depth of Knowledge I have in Astrophysics; but, since I can't even do simple math or hold a number in my head longer than a femtosecond, this is what I can manage).
Pursuing this method, objects/planetoids were expected at locations j= x, y, z, aa, and bb. The pattern that emerged simply using the Lemniscate constant as a multiplier holds at least up to mean distance of Kuiper Belt objects from the Sun.
Unlike the finesse required for Rocket Science, ever the tactful one, this is more of a bludgeon approach to introduce an 'error' (j, x, y, z...) and check for 'ringing' kind of engine.ear.ring---(Where Can I Go to See What You *(all) Got?).
The idea is to keep some constant multiplier (in this case 2.6225...that would give the next outer planet/object approximate mean distance in an orderly fashion, and keep percent errors as close to 0 as possible for known planets/objects/'guesstimates'.
The idea is to keep some constant multiplier (in this case 2.6225...that would give the next outer planet/object approximate mean distance in an orderly fashion, and keep percent errors as close to 0 as possible for known planets/objects/'guesstimates'.
--What's the use? There ain't no use, if it's gonna hit, it'll hit--this is simply a pain-coping mechanism short of resorting to illicit drugs.
 |
| Flatlander Fred's Encounter With A Sphere |
A Meaty-ORE from RealmSpace is About to Hit Flatlander Fred ’s Humble Home.
But, as You (ALL) can see, that's not really what a 3-D sphere looks like to 2-D Fred the Flatlander.
To Fred sitting in his living room one day, getting an unexpected visit from the sphere from ’outer space’, looks like it passes through the air right before his eyes.
To him, it will appear as if a circle came out of nowhere and materialized right before his eyes.
It expands rapidly, and Fred fears that its going to devour him and his house with him.
But to his relief, its growth slows down, then stops, then the circle starts to recede (shrink) again, but slowly. Then it starts to shrink faster and faster until it quickly disappears.
(Drawings and Text from Higher Dimensions. Find even More skillfully executed drawings and adventures of Fred, Emily, and Bob at Higher Dimensions.)
 |
| Mean Planetary Distance From the Sun vs Quotient of 19 |
For a second approximation, choose to represent each planet/object mean distance from the Sun as a quotient of 19, the farthest column shows the percent error between the quotient (calculated) and the apparent mean distance for each planet/object.
Well, why 19?---one finds themselves asking.
The easy answer is 'cuz the source under consideration says so...See?--Right here (Sign 74:30).
Well, why 19?---one finds themselves asking.
The easy answer is 'cuz the source under consideration says so...See?--Right here (Sign 74:30).
There are other more pragmatic reasons for choosing to represent each distance as a quotient of 19.
- Most cases divide by 19 gives an irreducible fraction or a repeating decimal of period 18.
- 19 in binary form is 10011_2
- 19 and 17 form twin prime pairs.
- 19 is the exponent for the Mersenne prime 2^19 -1=524 287, associated associated with the perfect number 137438691328 = (2^19 -1) (2^19 -1).
- 524 287 binary form representation is 1111111111111111111_2. (presumably 1400++ years ago there were no computers at the Prophet's disposal, but now that we have some laying around maybe the binary form is of some interest and may give some interesting insights.)
Note: Pertaining to 17 as a twin prime to 19, an inner planet/object distance wrt Mercury @ 1AU x (17/9)=1.8888... holds a similar pattern as when using that planet/object's mean distance wrt Earth @ 1AU x the Lemniscate constant in the previous table; such that Mercury @ 1 AU x 1.88 = 1.88 (approx. Venus (1.86) wrt Mercury at 1AU); x @ 1.33 x 1.888...=2.52 approx. Earth (2.53) wrt Mercury at 1AU; Venus @ 1.86 x (17/9) = 3.5 (near Mars (3.9) wrt Mercury @ 1AU; Mars @ 3.9 AU x (17/9) = 4. 87 (about what is expected at location y (5 AU wrt Mercury at 1AU, etc.). The table is not shown in full in the interest of conserving space and since those values can be readily generated, simply using 19 as the multiplier, (ie., 133/7, but since that is a factor of 10 too high 19/10 x mean distance wrt Mercury at 1 AU, would be the equivalent multiplier).
 |
| Using the Magic Angle M(theta) as an Iteration for Mean Distance Formula of Solar System Objects |
qM
The formula in column H is mean distance in (column E_n/2.1)/(8+ACOS(1/Ö3)). This gives values for mean distance of each planet/object as a function of (8+qM .).
Each mean distance in H is given by the numerator of the mean distance expressed as a quotient of 19 (Column E) divided by 2.1*(8+qM .).
The magic angle is typically given by Sec^-1 (Ö3) (for more on religious/spiritual/Masonic associations pertaining to Ö3) refer to Vesica Piscis (now We know what that Lost Bunny of the Apocalypse and Guam has been on about these past few weeks in the Prickly City Comic Strip).
While Arc_secant is typically an inverse trigonometric function used in the States, elsewhere it is simply expressed as the inverse cosine function Arcos (1/Ö3), (ie, 54.740 degrees or 0.9553166 radians; 54 degrees, 44 arc minutes, 24 arc seconds; or RA 3 h: 38 min: 58 sec).
A finagle factor (divide by 2.09, 2.1 or 1.5), while serving as a simple multiplier to approximate the mean distance relative to the magic angle, is a number that also relates to the packing density for body-centered and/or face-centered/or simple-cubic lattices.
While at first appearing to be quite random, this factor of 2.1, is really nothing other than 19/9 = 2.11111....(see twin primes 17 and 19 above, the ratio of each to 3^2 , the Gee_ometry of the Solar System, and how they relate to each other here).
("So What?" You Say, "I can find some relationship between any 2 somethings!" While this is true, it is more difficult to find and keep relationships between sets of somethings that make sense Math-wise--that can only happen by Design and when done right it can be made to look like an Accident--See Lie Groups, Quotient or Factor Group, symmetry, continuous transformation isomorphic/homomorphic/kernel--->pre-image_null space+zero point field)
Euler's number was expected to emerge as well, when finding ways to set Mercury to 1AU, so wherever possible, it was attempted to work e into the formulas, but it didn't seem to fit naturally until resolving Kuiper Belt objects with this approach.
Sure we can do what Newton and Einstein and all the other highly respected physicists did, and we are familiar with their work, but can they predict what is coming out of nowhere based on their models?
So, since God is Perfect and the News is All Good, just for kicks, a perfect Solar System should be well represented Mathematically without resorting to all the mind bending physics rigmarole, because I once was a highly developed thinker, but now I am retarded--especially after the recent 3-day 'migraine' layover--I think my brain is now Duck Soup, suited to simple tasks-- like shopping.
What's of interest here, is that in order for the pattern using prime square roots (Ö2, Ö3, Ö5, Ö7...), j, p and e to work, the Kuiper belt objects were refined to a mean distance of about 127.7(002)... which kept the percent error between the mean formula distance and that mean object distance as close to 0% as possible with a rather simple relationship that followed from using j^8 * e; and the number 127.7(02) also fit the pattern using p as a formula mean distance wrt Earth @1AU, which worked out to 8425/(21p)=127.702.
The root formulas had led to finding the magic angle relationship f(Ö3) in the previous table which bolstered guess-timating something of interest in the area of the Kuiper Belt objects close to the 127.7 AU wrt Mercury@1AU (or about 49.438 AU wrt Earth @ 1AU).
For the purposes of this exercise that distance for a Kuiper Belt object was revised from the first approximation of 133 AU to 127.702 AU (hopefully a refinement).
__________________________________________
It's especially exciting to see that p/4 (or (4/p)^2 ) since this intuitively means we are dealing with solid angles...wait while I check because I don't remember exactly why I thought this to be so exciting...
I even remember thinking seeing this (4/ p)^2 to be elegant at one point....
_________________________________________
The Lemniscate is an inverse curve of a hyperbola ( the Lemniscate of Bernoulli or 'pendent ribbon' being the familiar case---> sideways figure 8, a special case of the Cassinin Oval), so where 2 branches of a curve would asymptotically fly off to infinity as in the hyperbolic case, the Lemniscate as the inverse of such a hyperbola 'knots' or 'ties' the two ends together (so to speak, see reference heavens/knitting/intertwined/woven paths) 'binding' it to a closed path where it may 'curve' back on itself.
Other inverse curves of the hyperbola include the limaçon, and the strophoid (or 'belt with a loop', of which there are two types, the oblique strophoid or the right strophoid--similar in shape to the early Christian symbol Icthus). The right strophoid or foliate curve is also called the logocycle curve properties include: forming the basis for deriving logarithms, is its own inverse curve, and has a total area A=4a^2 (the square of the semi-major? axis of the parabola), normals to the parabola are equal like radii are equal for a circle.
That the logocycle curve is called just that probably stems from its utility in deriving logs (logarithms), since the word logos originates from the Greek verb 'to count.' And it probably is no mere coincidence that the early Christian symbol Icthys (the fish) is the shape of the logocycle curve. (He wonders why I try so hard when i know i am not even connected to the internet---but, did you hear what's playing on the radio, see what's on TV, listen to what they're preaching from the pulpit?--go ahead, keep trying to make me die (again) laughing).
Early Biblical translations of the nature of Jesus reflected in their understanding of 'In the Beginning there was the Word (Logos), and the Word (Logos) was with God, and the Word (Logos) was God.' An attempt to understand a difficult concept about dualism.
More about the possible connection between Logos, Logocycle Curve, and the Transfiguration/Crusifixion/Resurrection of Jesus (http://apageinthelife.blogspot.com/p/logocycle-and-transfiguration-of-jesus.html).
In 'Real World' terms this would imply that Time, while understood to be infinite, has a nature by which it can and does 'curve' back onto itself (The Equation of Time), and its 2 ends meet in some manner, much the same way a hyperbola inverts to a Lemniscate. (And yes, in someways just like the Tide washes in and out).
Or, how a simple harmonic wraps around or projects from a developmental surface, such as a cylinder or cone, to form such curves.
This further implies that Time's asymptosy (too tempting not to use such a word given its definition, Asymptosy: A useful yet endangered word, found rarely outside the confines of the Oxford English Dictionary) is in fact not a direct 'one-way arrow' as we are led to believe by our limited faculties and life experience, but rather that it approaches the 'ideal' final limit, or its 'asymptote' arbitrarily closely without ever meeting or crossing it, according to the very definition of what it is to display asymptotic behaviour.
This asymptosy or arbitrary, random walk (like the shopping ducks appear to be doing unless someone notices they use the crosswalk), verging on the threshold (the ceiling, or boundary) is what we would call a 'meandering' path'...a paradox about the infinite in finite space-time similar in scope to the Diagonoal (Coastline) Paradox.
{The etymology for asymptotic from New Latin *asymptotus, and Greek asymptōtos; a- not + sympiptein to meet, ie., not meeting, And from a- "not" + syn "with" + ptotos "fallen," verbal adj. from piptein "to fall", ie., not falling together. More to the point here is 'petition' as derived from 'piptein' ; "a supplication or prayer, especially to a deity," from O.Fr. peticiun (12c.), from L. petitionem (nom. petitio) "a request, solicitation," noun of action from petere "to require, seek, go forward," also "to rush at, attack," ult. from PIE base *pet-/*pte- "to rush, to fly" (cf. Skt. patram "wing, feather, leaf," patara- "flying, fleeting;" Hittite pittar "wing;" Gk. piptein "to fall," potamos "rushing water," pteryx "wing;" O.E. feðer "feather;" L. penna "feather, wing;" O.C.S. pero "feather;" O.Welsh eterin "bird"). Meaning "formal written request to a superior (earthly, but in my case Not).
(Michael, I know 1992 was a spoiler alert and I don't even have to pack, I just need to go and seeing how SomeOne grounded me for these last 2012-1996/1997 number of years, I Respectfully Request that You Bring the 'Car' Around and Collect Both Me and My Daughter, I Know my Son has indeed Gone On Ahead of Us--I'm not trying to be funny here).
The Quranic reference for norms (normals, ridges) at 7:46, 7:48, 7:89, (for the return; 7:168, 7:169, 7:174...35:4...
Now for Sedna...
The formula in column H is mean distance in (column E_n/2.1)/(8+ACOS(1/Ö3)). This gives values for mean distance of each planet/object as a function of (8+qM .).
Each mean distance in H is given by the numerator of the mean distance expressed as a quotient of 19 (Column E) divided by 2.1*(8+qM .).
The magic angle is typically given by Sec^-1 (Ö3) (for more on religious/spiritual/Masonic associations pertaining to Ö3) refer to Vesica Piscis (now We know what that Lost Bunny of the Apocalypse and Guam has been on about these past few weeks in the Prickly City Comic Strip).
While Arc_secant is typically an inverse trigonometric function used in the States, elsewhere it is simply expressed as the inverse cosine function Arcos (1/Ö3), (ie, 54.740 degrees or 0.9553166 radians; 54 degrees, 44 arc minutes, 24 arc seconds; or RA 3 h: 38 min: 58 sec).
A finagle factor (divide by 2.09, 2.1 or 1.5), while serving as a simple multiplier to approximate the mean distance relative to the magic angle, is a number that also relates to the packing density for body-centered and/or face-centered/or simple-cubic lattices.
While at first appearing to be quite random, this factor of 2.1, is really nothing other than 19/9 = 2.11111....(see twin primes 17 and 19 above, the ratio of each to 3^2 , the Gee_ometry of the Solar System, and how they relate to each other here).
("So What?" You Say, "I can find some relationship between any 2 somethings!" While this is true, it is more difficult to find and keep relationships between sets of somethings that make sense Math-wise--that can only happen by Design and when done right it can be made to look like an Accident--See Lie Groups, Quotient or Factor Group, symmetry, continuous transformation isomorphic/homomorphic/kernel--->pre-image_null space+zero point field)
 |
| Solar System Planetary Distance From the Sun vs Root Approximations |
The mean distances are represented as approximate roots and what emerged was interesting in that the golden mean (j) figured in some of them and more to the point was the fact that p/4 (ie. 4/p, or specifically (4/p)^2 ) also emerged as a convenient way to represent the mean distance of known planets and objects in the Solar system.
Euler's number was expected to emerge as well, when finding ways to set Mercury to 1AU, so wherever possible, it was attempted to work e into the formulas, but it didn't seem to fit naturally until resolving Kuiper Belt objects with this approach.
Sure we can do what Newton and Einstein and all the other highly respected physicists did, and we are familiar with their work, but can they predict what is coming out of nowhere based on their models?
 |
| Ducks Window Shopping Along the Boulevard Venice, CA Feb 26, 2012 Reported to have Obeyed Traffic Rules, Crossed The Street Using The Crosswalk |
What's of interest here, is that in order for the pattern using prime square roots (Ö2, Ö3, Ö5, Ö7...), j, p and e to work, the Kuiper belt objects were refined to a mean distance of about 127.7(002)... which kept the percent error between the mean formula distance and that mean object distance as close to 0% as possible with a rather simple relationship that followed from using j^8 * e; and the number 127.7(02) also fit the pattern using p as a formula mean distance wrt Earth @1AU, which worked out to 8425/(21p)=127.702.
The root formulas had led to finding the magic angle relationship f(Ö3) in the previous table which bolstered guess-timating something of interest in the area of the Kuiper Belt objects close to the 127.7 AU wrt Mercury@1AU (or about 49.438 AU wrt Earth @ 1AU).
For the purposes of this exercise that distance for a Kuiper Belt object was revised from the first approximation of 133 AU to 127.702 AU (hopefully a refinement).
__________________________________________
It's especially exciting to see that p/4 (or (4/p)^2 ) since this intuitively means we are dealing with solid angles...wait while I check because I don't remember exactly why I thought this to be so exciting...
I even remember thinking seeing this (4/ p)^2 to be elegant at one point....
_________________________________________
The Lemniscate is an inverse curve of a hyperbola ( the Lemniscate of Bernoulli or 'pendent ribbon' being the familiar case---> sideways figure 8, a special case of the Cassinin Oval), so where 2 branches of a curve would asymptotically fly off to infinity as in the hyperbolic case, the Lemniscate as the inverse of such a hyperbola 'knots' or 'ties' the two ends together (so to speak, see reference heavens/knitting/intertwined/woven paths) 'binding' it to a closed path where it may 'curve' back on itself.
Other inverse curves of the hyperbola include the limaçon, and the strophoid (or 'belt with a loop', of which there are two types, the oblique strophoid or the right strophoid--similar in shape to the early Christian symbol Icthus). The right strophoid or foliate curve is also called the logocycle curve properties include: forming the basis for deriving logarithms, is its own inverse curve, and has a total area A=4a^2 (the square of the semi-major? axis of the parabola), normals to the parabola are equal like radii are equal for a circle.
That the logocycle curve is called just that probably stems from its utility in deriving logs (logarithms), since the word logos originates from the Greek verb 'to count.' And it probably is no mere coincidence that the early Christian symbol Icthys (the fish) is the shape of the logocycle curve. (He wonders why I try so hard when i know i am not even connected to the internet---but, did you hear what's playing on the radio, see what's on TV, listen to what they're preaching from the pulpit?--go ahead, keep trying to make me die (again) laughing).
Early Biblical translations of the nature of Jesus reflected in their understanding of 'In the Beginning there was the Word (Logos), and the Word (Logos) was with God, and the Word (Logos) was God.' An attempt to understand a difficult concept about dualism.
More about the possible connection between Logos, Logocycle Curve, and the Transfiguration/Crusifixion/Resurrection of Jesus (http://apageinthelife.blogspot.com/p/logocycle-and-transfiguration-of-jesus.html).
In 'Real World' terms this would imply that Time, while understood to be infinite, has a nature by which it can and does 'curve' back onto itself (The Equation of Time), and its 2 ends meet in some manner, much the same way a hyperbola inverts to a Lemniscate. (And yes, in someways just like the Tide washes in and out).
Or, how a simple harmonic wraps around or projects from a developmental surface, such as a cylinder or cone, to form such curves.
This further implies that Time's asymptosy (too tempting not to use such a word given its definition, Asymptosy: A useful yet endangered word, found rarely outside the confines of the Oxford English Dictionary) is in fact not a direct 'one-way arrow' as we are led to believe by our limited faculties and life experience, but rather that it approaches the 'ideal' final limit, or its 'asymptote' arbitrarily closely without ever meeting or crossing it, according to the very definition of what it is to display asymptotic behaviour.
This asymptosy or arbitrary, random walk (like the shopping ducks appear to be doing unless someone notices they use the crosswalk), verging on the threshold (the ceiling, or boundary) is what we would call a 'meandering' path'...a paradox about the infinite in finite space-time similar in scope to the Diagonoal (Coastline) Paradox.
{The etymology for asymptotic from New Latin *asymptotus, and Greek asymptōtos; a- not + sympiptein to meet, ie., not meeting, And from a- "not" + syn "with" + ptotos "fallen," verbal adj. from piptein "to fall", ie., not falling together. More to the point here is 'petition' as derived from 'piptein' ; "a supplication or prayer, especially to a deity," from O.Fr. peticiun (12c.), from L. petitionem (nom. petitio) "a request, solicitation," noun of action from petere "to require, seek, go forward," also "to rush at, attack," ult. from PIE base *pet-/*pte- "to rush, to fly" (cf. Skt. patram "wing, feather, leaf," patara- "flying, fleeting;" Hittite pittar "wing;" Gk. piptein "to fall," potamos "rushing water," pteryx "wing;" O.E. feðer "feather;" L. penna "feather, wing;" O.C.S. pero "feather;" O.Welsh eterin "bird"). Meaning "formal written request to a superior (earthly, but in my case Not).
 |
| The Argyle Sweater 02.13.2012 Scott Hilburn "Get The 'L' Outta Here!" |
And as such serves as the premise for this Letter from Multiple Earths--a supplication to God to get me the L out of here (it was some time ago that I got the hint that prayer is no longer necessary, I guess I reached a point where it won't do any more good so I figure it shouldn't hurt to just ask, again) because we did not fall together And I stand by my claim that We did land together, but He ditched me--on more than one occasion, without any explanation or good reason.
But if I have to be the one to come up with a reason (read Excuse) for this (hurtful) behaviour, it may have everything to do with asymptotic direction after such a 'landing'-- one in which the normal curvature is zero. Such that a point on an asymptotic curve (or line), is in a plane which bears both the curve's tangent and the surface's normal (perpendicular) at that point. The curve (or line) of intersection of the plane and the surface will have zero curvature at that point.
But if I have to be the one to come up with a reason (read Excuse) for this (hurtful) behaviour, it may have everything to do with asymptotic direction after such a 'landing'-- one in which the normal curvature is zero. Such that a point on an asymptotic curve (or line), is in a plane which bears both the curve's tangent and the surface's normal (perpendicular) at that point. The curve (or line) of intersection of the plane and the surface will have zero curvature at that point.
Asymptotic directions can only occur when the Gaussian curvature is negative (saddle) or zero (flat).
In the case of negative Gaussian curvature (the saddle), there will be 2 asymptotic directions and these directions are bisected by the principal directions; {which could explain Our Parting of the Ways.}
In the case of negative Gaussian curvature (the saddle), there will be 2 asymptotic directions and these directions are bisected by the principal directions; {which could explain Our Parting of the Ways.}
 |
| Asymptotic directions at a Saddle Point (Gaussian Curvature is Negative) are Bisected by the Principal Directions |
(Michael, I know 1992 was a spoiler alert and I don't even have to pack, I just need to go and seeing how SomeOne grounded me for these last 2012-1996/1997 number of years, I Respectfully Request that You Bring the 'Car' Around and Collect Both Me and My Daughter, I Know my Son has indeed Gone On Ahead of Us--I'm not trying to be funny here).
The Quranic reference for norms (normals, ridges) at 7:46, 7:48, 7:89, (for the return; 7:168, 7:169, 7:174...35:4...
Now for Sedna...
 |
| Mean Distance Planets/Objects in the Solar System vs. 19 vs. Sedna I don't have an exact equation for the orbit of Sedna, presumably someOne else has already figured that one out. But working with area graphs based on the emerging pattern developed when dividing mean distances by 19, it is expected that someThing of interest will occur (if it hasn't already) at approximately 375 AU (wrt Mercury at 1 AU) when Sedna is about 54 to 55 years (c 2130 ) past its Perihelion (which is supposed to be c 2075), refer to Column P row 18 in the Table above. From the above table mean Distances in Column D are a function of Distances in Columns O & P, in that the second outer Planet/Object is a function f(inner planet/object) s.t. D_n relates to D_n+2 directly. So, with this 'squishy' predictive algorithm it points to something (in the gap/Mah) in Column D 13 ~ 37.4 AU is related to some trans-Neptunian object ~ 72 AU wrt , and that there may be something related to this at a distance approximately 131 AU, (ie., between Kuiper Belt objects (~127 AU) and where Sedna orbits c. 2008/2012 (~224.5 AU - 250 AU), (average distances given wrt Mercury @ 1AU),---go Figure! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This post started off with a quote from Shakespeare's Macbeth, a play about a Scottish Thane, and appropriately so, as the History of the Christian Church in Scotland is consequent to the works of Saint Columba (one of the 12 Apostles of Ireland whose name, closely affiliated with the Scott Clan Malcolm aka MacCallum, derived from 'Colum Cille,' from Gaelic/Erse for 'Dove of the Church').
The Arabic for MacCallum sounds like , مكلم , 'm.k.l.m' which carries the meaning of having been 'Spoken To' and the understanding is that 'God Spoke To' one of them; and if God Spoke and Malcolm/MacCallum listened to Him that would make them Isma'3liya and would explain how these two Clan names are affiliated to each other.
{I'm certain God Met with better Success Speaking to Malcolm than I did with the Malcolm I tried to speak to recently, who was conflicted whether to 'break the ice?' or 'not break the ice?' So, I went waaaayyyy out of my comfort zone to make it easy for him and he let me know that he just didn't want to be bothered, (maybe it was his bad back talking, but I'll not be doing that again any time soon---hmmm, something intriguing about these cranky 'old' men 'though (read 'men of Olde')).
Both the Biblical names Jonah and Jonas share a Hebrew etymology for Dove, as does the Pleiades star cluster, 7 or more stars visible to the naked eye, that are associated with Sailing probably due to the onset of Navigation season upon their Helical Rising. This narration, about the connection between the Scottish Clan Malcolm (derives from 'shaven head,' or 'priest') and MacCallum, Saint Columba, the Early Christian Church, the Dove, Sacred Geometry, Architecture, and other Symbols related to Hidden Knowledge (The Occult) is all the more curious given Heraldry's deep ties to Scottish Shields and Crests (Coats of Arms) and the emphasis Freemasons place on such Symbols/Signs/Representations. To tie things up, the significant connectivity between the various threads of surface elements gleaned from this cursory study reveals some interesting details as to how they are intertwined. There is no telling what Revelation may be had from a comprehensive examination of just the elements mentioned here, if one were inclined to dig a little deeper into the Mystery (like, 'Where'd they go?!') |
No comments:
Post a Comment