Ant wrote:
So 14 Pythagorean Triangles for each square wave in sets of 2 representing a magnified dot sounds reasonable to me.
U?
Ant
hehehe. Well, now that you ask, nope. Your math is too esoteric, Ant. Since forces add diagonally it is a fantastic tool to know the sum of the squares of the legs of a right triangle equal the square of the hypotenuse. The hypotenuse is equal to the diagonal movement of those two forces if they are complementary. If they aren't you can still manage to figure out their course with some construction lines.
I think assigning a constant to the areas of the legs or hypotenuse is arbitrary. There is nothing intrinsic in an area that would lead one to conclude a specific constant.
Also when I consider the information in a constant of an area I see none. I see no information that would have any correlation to a mass or its movement; specifically the energy we're all in search of.
For the life of me I can't understand how you went from your theory to an actual mechanism. I'm kind of thinking if I lived for ever I still might not see it but I do think I understand your mechanism.
It seems to me the scissor jack moves horizontally and slightly down at the top then resets with a whipping action retracing that movement at the bottom. It seems the end where the scissors are smallest have a complementary movement to the lateral movement of the arm. Is that correct?
Esoteric is putting it mildly! I ask for an explanation of what all these numbers play in layman's terms, and all I get is more numbers!
This thread is obviously over my head so I am out of here.
Ant, I wish you luck and hopefully in the near future you will be able to show us something that people like me can look upon in the physical world and say "Oh so that is what he meant"
So 14 Pythagorean Triangles for each square wave in sets of 2 representing a magnified dot sounds reasonable to me.
U?
Ant
hehehe. Well, now that you ask, nope. Your math is too esoteric, Ant. Since forces add diagonally it is a fantastic tool to know the sum of the squares of the legs of a right triangle equal the square of the hypotenuse. The hypotenuse is equal to the diagonal movement of those two forces if they are complementary. If they aren't you can still manage to figure out their course with some construction lines.
I think assigning a constant to the areas of the legs or hypotenuse is arbitrary.
The number of triangles as layered weights is the
2 3
4 5
all squares reduce to a 2^2.
The incrementing or decreasing squares are based on the energy line in the Pythagorean triangle.
There is nothing intrinsic in an area that would lead one to conclude a specific constant.
Also when I consider the information in a constant of an area I see none. I see no information that would have any correlation to a mass or its movement; specifically the energy we're all in search of.
For the life of me I can't understand how you went from your theory to an actual mechanism. I'm kind of thinking if I lived for ever I still might not see it but I do think I understand your mechanism.
It seems to me the scissor jack moves horizontally and slightly down at the top then resets with a whipping action retracing that movement at the bottom. It seems the end where the scissors are smallest have a complementary movement to the lateral movement of the arm. Is that correct?
I'm not sure what you mean...
But I think this answers it...
The theory is
The weight of now 7 drops causing the square wave to open on the right (clockwise)by gravity. This causes the square wave to open from 3 to 5 - relative to the length of the closed square wave equals 3. The peacks beak(also 7 thick) moves 90 degrees displacing weight.
When the beak and weight drops so does the square wave.
G being the 7th letter of the alphabet really suits my agenda
rlortie wrote:Esoteric is putting it mildly! I ask for an explanation of what all these numbers play in layman's terms, and all I get is more numbers!
This thread is obviously over my head so I am out of here.
Ant, I wish you luck and hopefully in the near future you will be able to show us something that people like me can look upon in the physical world and say "Oh so that is what he meant"
Ralph
All I am saying is each square wave has two sets of weights, one each end.
I make the weights from MDF as layered Pythagorean triangles 7 thick.
I've always been a firm advocate of the elasticated pecker design.
I still don't see a relationship between energy or power and the information in a magic square. Also the arbitrarily assigned constants manipulate this lack with no apparent reasoning. That further muddies the waters.
If the photon had a small rest mass, the SI definition of the metre would become meaningless because the speed of light would change as a function of its wavelength.
There could be some usefulness in taking observation then assuming the opposite to see where that goes. We have non-euclidean geometries where the assumption is two parallel lines eventually intersect.
The assumption with speed of propagation and frequency is that observed frequency varies as distance varies between the observer and the source. In other words you can know a train is moving at a certain speed with a horn vibrating at a specific frequency but as you observe that train pass it appears there is a variation in the frequency of the horn.
It seems you're proposing the train could change its speed of propagation by varying the frequency of its horn. hummm...
