ToeQuest - Your TOE Theory

Science-Based Discussion "2147483647... Did you know the Messianic meaning of this number?"

humanbydefault — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 15:17:30 GMT

I think you better click here guys... Don't let anyone confuse you:

In 1814, Peter Barlow, not anticipating future interest in prime numbers, wrote (in A New Mathematical and Philosophical Dictionary):

Euler ascertained that 231 − 1 = 2147483647 is a prime number; and this is the greatest at present known to be such, and consequently the last of the above perfect numbers [i.e., 230(231 − 1)], which depends upon this, is the greatest perfect number known at present, and probably the greatest that ever will be discovered; for as they are merely curious, without being useful, it is not likely that any person will attempt to find one beyond it.” (End of quote)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2147483647

It is such important number that it deserves an entire blog just for it!

2147483647 is another evidence that my system of interpreting numbers under a Physical lens actually...WORKS!

Let's separate it according to "Mirror Analysis making sense"...

(214) (7) [48] (34) (6) (7) Done!

Now let's add up the numbers after properly being converted an EVEN number of times:

[7] [7] [7] [7] [6] [7]

Cancelling out the [7]s that repeat... [6] [7] = 13!

Bad luck... Eh? I love this number!

Science-Based Discussion "...nobody!"

humanbydefault — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 00:27:34 GMT

�The questions no mathematician could answer today and every single kid will be able to ten years from now��

Which one is the only number that achieves perfect symmetry with the completion of one complete cycle of ten?

What are E.R.Ps. and do they transmit the same message as calculation progress?

What is the empirical connection between the inherent perturbation of our Reality and the Plank�s constant?

I�ll answer those questions in just a moment I just had a thought I�d like to share with all of you:

It is conceivable that our existence could be shared with others like ours borrowing the same space but separated by cycles within a �Quantum of Reality� at least that�s the way I figure it out. Sometimes I wonder if those questions have been already answered long time ago in any of the many possible parallel existences besides ours�

First question first!

The answer is 7! (Seven!) Let�s see the demonstration:

The following is a list of results obtained from multiplying each fundamental number (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9) by their own ten times! (One cycle elapses after 10, still remember the �Maya�s number theory I brought into our forum not long ago?).

1 x 1 (ten times) = 1!
2 x 2 (ten times) = 2048 *No symmetry*
3 x 3 (ten times) = 177 147 *No symmetry*
4 x 4 (ten times) = 419 4 304 *No symmetry*
5 x 5 (ten times) = 488 28 125 *No symmetry*
6 x 6 (ten times) = 362 797 056 *No symmetry*

Take a look at this one!

7 x 7 (ten times) = 197 73 267 43!

Allow me to rearrange it for you:

197 (73) 264 (73) � I will cut away for a moment 73 in both sides to simplify the operation�

197 264 >>>> what you see is obvious by now. 7 is the �image� of 2, 9 is the �image� of 4 and finally 6 is the �image� of 1.

142 214 but having to convert them an odd number of times the result changes signs into negative (-)

7 >< 7 (half-cycle ahead in time). = -14! Where 1/14= 0.0 714 285 (71)�
As you can see the �lucky trios� are once again present, but let�s continue with the rest of the numbers left:

8 x 8 (ten times) 383 458 040 *No symmetry*
9 x 9 (ten times) 313 810 596 *No symmetry*
0 x 0 (ten times) = 0 *No symmetry*

First question has been answered and proved with numbers.
Second question:

What are the E.R.P.s? They are the smallest numerical representation carrying a repetitive message. They are a common numerical phenomenon in every single irrational number (Alpha, Golden Ratio, Fermat numbers, Fibonacci constant, Pi and the Square Root of 2 to mention just some).

The second part of the same question will be demonstrated numerically next:

I will take number 2 (arbitrarily) as an example. I will multiply 2 by itself ten times, twenty times and finally thirty times where I will finally achieve perfect symmetry. Then I will divide both �wings� and multiply each of them (separately) ten more times and check if symmetry is still holding or not.

2 x 2 (ten times) 20 48
2 x 2 (twenty times) 209 7 152
2 x 2 (thirty times) 214748 >< 3648!!!

Let�s rearrange those numbers so you can see the symmetry:

(21) (47) 48 >< 3648
(2 + 1) (4 + 2) 48 >< 3648
3648 >< 3648! See it now?

So! I will respect the original numerical configuration of both �wings� and continue performing a (by 2) multiplication on both separately:

214748 x 2 (ten more times) = 219901952!

3648 x 2 (ten more times) = 219901952!

Incredible! This means that along the calculation there is a point where two separately �forming� E.R.P.s joined in a synchronized manner to continue carrying the same �information� across time.
A similar parallel was presented for the first time in history of science to you when I made the same demonstration in posted blogs earlier on.

(will continue)

Science-Based Discussion "the periodic table of the elements under the lens of physimatics"

humanbydefault — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 15:40:49 GMT

“Empirical analysis of the ‘Periodic Table of the Elements’ under Physimatics”
The following are the consecutive numbers (from 1-14) divided by 7:

1/7 = 0. 142 857 8/7 = 1. 142 857 (1)

2/7 = 0. 285 714 (2) 9/7 = 1. 285 714 (2)

3/7 = 0. 428 571 (4) 10/7 = 1. 428 571 (4)

4/7 = 0. 571 428 (5) 11/7 = 1. 571 428 (5)

5/7 = 0. 714 285 (7) 12/7 = 1. 714 285 (7)

6/7 = 0. 857 142 [8] 13/7 = 1. 857 142 [8]

7/7 = 1 14/7 = 2

The following are the groups of ‘Elements’ from the ‘Periodic Table’. All I did was adding up the total value of “Z” according to each group:

Group 1: 213 where 213/7 = 30. 428 571

Group 2: 218 where 218/7 = 31. 142 857

Group 3: 234 where 234/7 = 33. 428 571

Group 4: 238 where 238/7 = 34

Group 5: 242 where 242/7 = 34. 571 428

Group 6: 246 where 246/7 = 35. 142 857

Group 7: 250 where 250/7 = 35. 714 285

Group 8: 254 where 254/7 = 36. 285 714

Group 9: 258 where 258/7 = 36. 857 142

Group 10: 262 where 262/7 = 37. 428 571

Group 11: 266 where 266/7 = 38

Group 12: 270 where 270/7 = 38. 571 428

Group 13: 292 where 292/7 = 41. 714 285

Group 14: 298 where 298/7 = 42. 571 428

Group 15: 304 where 304/7 = 43. 428 571

Group 16: 310 where 310/7 = 44. 285 714

Group 17: 316 where 316/7 = 45. 142 857

Group 18: 324 where 324/7 = 46. 285 714

I believe that there are too many similarities with “the real world” in the field of Chemistry to simply disregard these two tables as irrelevant from each other. (I wish a Chemistry Professor could take a close look at these similarities one day…)

The first Table on top gives us an idea of the “Status of the cycle” within a ‘Quantum of Reality’. The second Table below supplies the connection of those cycles by just looking at the commonalities regarding the fractional configuration presented in both Tables.

Let’s make a simple example of those similarities I was referring earlier:
We know that Oxygen is classified in Group 16. We also know that it combines with atoms capable of supplying two electrons to ‘fulfill’ the imbalance present in its last sub-shell.

If we take a look at Group 16 it shows a result = 44. 285 714!

If you simply go to the Table of the cycles and check out [2/7] and [9/7] you’ll find the same fractional configuration that corresponds to the Group where Oxygen belongs and a (2) too. (The (2) was a result of the calculation and has nothing to do with me adding it arbitrarily). Also if you add up [4 + 4] = [8] which corresponds to the reduced version of the representation for the Periodic Table.

Thank you.

Science-Based Discussion "call me luckiest numerologist in the whole universe!" damn it! I was right!

humanbydefault — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 02:31:00 GMT

“Call me the luckiest numerologist in the ‘Physical’ World!”
You won’t believe your own eyes when you see it!
This is the exact (literal) copy of the square root of 2 from Wikipedia:

1.41421 35623 73095 04880 16887 24209 69807 85696 71875 37694 80731 76679 73799.... No kidding!

Check that out at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_root_of_2

I will separate each E.R.P.s (fractions made up equal number of decimals representing a secret code for Reality) just as they were presented on the official site:

(41421) (35623) (73095) (04880) (16887) (24209) (69807) (85696) (71875) (37694) (80731) (76679) and… (73799)!

Let’s calculate the “Mirror Value” according to my ‘Object-Image’ conversion procedure:

(41421) = (4 + 1 + 4 + 2 + 1) = 12!
(35623) = (3 + 0 + 1 + 2 + 3) = 9!
(73095) = (2 + 3 + 0 + 4 + 0) = 9!
(04880) = (0 + 4 + 3 + 3 + 0) = 10!
(16887) = (1 + 1 + 3 + 3 + 2) = 10!
(24209) = (2 + 4 + 2 + 0 + 4) = 12!
(69807) = (1 + 4 + 3 + 0 + 2) = 10!
(85696) = (3 + 0 + 1 + 4 + 1) = 9!
(71875) = (2 + 1 + 3 + 2 + 0) = 8!
(37694) = (3 + 2 + 1 + 4 + 4) = 14!
(80731) = (3 + 0 + 2 + 3 + 1) = 9!
(76679) = (2 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 4) = 10!
(73799) = (2 + 3 + 2 + 4 + 4) = 15!

Now! Pay attention to the result obtained by a simple arithmetical addition:

12 + 9 + 9 + 10 + 10 + 12 + 10 + 9 + 8 + 14 + 9 + 10 + 15 = 137!!!!!!!!!

GOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLL!
GOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLL!

I DID IT BEFORE AND I DO IT AGAIN! IF YOU RECALL FROM MY BASIC MODEL OF REALITY I SUCCEDED FINDING ALPHA BY ADDING UP THE ‘SETS OF COORDINATES’ OBTAINED WHILE MULTIPLYING THE SQUARE ROOT OF 2 BY CONSECUTIVE NUMBERS (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 AND 0) AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PROCEDURE UNDER A PURELY EMPIRICAL LENS. THIS TIME I TOOK THE ‘OFFICIAL’ NUMBERS POSTED FOR PUBLIC RECORDS BY THE MOST POPULAR AND VISITED SITE IN THE WHOLE WORLD [THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE INTERNET] AND I FOUND WHAT “NO MEN HAS FOUND BEFORE!”
IF YOU WAS NOT CONVINCED OF MY NUMERICAL SYSTEM BEFORE I THINK IT’S TIME TO RECONSIDER YOUR POSITION BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE…

MIGUEL DE ZAYAS_AUTHOR OF THE BOOK “PHYSIMATICS” (Speaking the Language of Numbers).

GOD BLESS YOU.

Science-Based Discussion gravity and theory of everything

Username is valid and not — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 10:09:04 GMT

It�s only velocity

Velocity is infinite and unidirectional.

When two infinitely large velocities collide at any angle other than a zero angle, a disturbance is created. Forces of attraction or repulsion do not exist and the only result is the interaction between the two velocities.

The disturbance can exist in two states; creation and destruction.

The disturbance will be subject to a gradual degradation once the interaction between the colliding velocities slows down and transfers to its surroundings.

The disturbance can have an infinite amount of shapes, can be infinitely small and have an infinitely large velocity, can be infinitely large and infinitely slow but can never be static. Every velocity, energy and mass is relative.

A stream of energy contains a directional mass of disturbance. The smaller the combined disturbance, the greater the velocity of the stream. The greater the disturbance, the smaller velocity of the stream.

The disturbances are a basic product, all of the observed effects arise as a consequence of the colliding masses within a stream of disturbance in space.

Pawel Kraszewski

Unified Discussion "ancient mysteries int the search for the square root of 2" [reality...?]

humanbydefault — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 18:07:45 GMT

�GUYS! THE AMAZING RESULTS JUST KEEP ON COMING!!!�
Take another close look at the representation of the square root of 2:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_root_of_2
577/408! *The Ancient Indian Aproximation.
Does it ring a bell? Please guys go to my latest blog �Did you just say�?� and see the Egyptian Fraction once again!
5/121 = 1/25 + 1/757� (!) 757 = 577!
Then 408 = 4 + 0 + 8 = 12! And 1 + 2 = 3! Also 4 + 3 = 7! (5) �Half-cycle ahead in time�.
Let�s operate on the first: 577/408, shall we?
577 = 19! So�
19/408 = 0.0465686! = 35! 3 (5).
However
577 = 5 + 2 + 2 = 9! Where 9/408 = 0.0220588 = 25! = 2 (5) as you can see I just deducted one complete cycle (5) + (5) from 19 into 9 by converting both 7s into their own �object configurations�.
Let�s continue�
Assuming 408 = 12! Then:
9/12 = 0.75 where 7 (5)! Or also 9/3 = 3!
Let�s take the original 557/408 = 1.414215686
(1414215686) = (1 + 4) + (1 + 4) + (2 + 1) + (5) + (6 + 8 + 6)
(5) + (5) + (3) + (5) + (1 + 3 + 1) = (3) + (20)! Where 20 according to the Mayan numerical system and mine equals 2 complete cycles!
Then look on top where you find this quote:
The quick approximation 99/70for the square root of two is most frequently used. Despite having a denominator of only 70, it differs from the correct value by less than 1/10,000.� (Wikipedia)
99 = 18! And 0.257142� or the same message over and over again:
2 (5) and 7 (1 + 4) and 2� 2 (5) = -7! 7 (5) = -7! And 2 obviously changing sign as the consequence of the following E.R.P.s!
This is one more evidence that my system works and that Reality does have its own language differing a great deal from the way mathematicians are dealing in modern times� I often wonder myself if ancient civilizations used a similar approach considered for some as �pure numerology�?
What do you think?

Unified Discussion Simple common sense

THoR — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 23:16:38 GMT

The TOE is obviously a quest for the answer to two enigmatic questions: How was the universe created and when did it begin?

Conventional wisdom has concluded the Universe must have come from somewhere, and the idea that it was ushered into existence by some primordial nascent event appeals seductively to human intuition.

But consider this: Only things that exist can act or be acted upon - change or be changed.

On the surface, this simple assertion seems to be an unnecessary iteration of basic common sense, but in fact, it challenges a primary doctrine of contemporary scientific and theological wisdom. It implies that change (aka cause and effect) is derived from the phenomenon of existence. No phenomenon can be derived from its own subordinate derivative, so the reverse cannot be true. It means the Universe was not "created" and it never had a "beginning" - not with Genesis and not with a Big Bang. Unless the assertion is wrong, the only logical conclusion is that the existence of the cosmos isn't temporal in nature.

(Authors Note: If you didn't just experience an Epiphany, then your Epiphone is out of order and you should immediately call for repair.)

The premise of creation resolves into an endless redundancy:

The process of change involves two basic elements: a cause and an effect. You can't have one without the other, so if the cosmos was created, it must have been caused by something. But the inference of any progenitor violates the initial contention that nothing pre-existed the process of creation. And even if you ignore this glaring discrepancy, if everything that exists was created, then whatever sired the Universe must, too, have been the product of some predecessor, which, in turn, must have been predated by an eternal procession of ancestry. The endless cycle of chicken-and-the-egg redundancy that results from any cause and effect approach to the enigma of existence implies no logical beginning.

Suspending the laws of nature is contrary to logic:

There are, of course, those who would suggest that whatever created the cosmos wasn't subject to the laws of nature. Most popular theories of Universal origin begin with a timeless, featureless primal void because the existence of 'nothing' would ostensibly require no justification. Theologians profess an omnipotent deity created the heavens and the Earth in an act of divine inspiration. Contemporary cosmologists tout the progressive red-shift of light from distant galaxies as proof that a Big Bang Universe is still spewing from the bowels of some spontaneously spawned singularity in a process not governed by the canons of physics as we know them today.

You may freely choose to repeal the laws of nature in favor of whatever belief system you might wish to embrace, but thereafter and forevermore don't try to profess that your argument is rational. Once logic and reason are suspended anything is possible, even the absurd. And if one exemption can be conceded, why shouldn't everything in the cosmos be allowed the same concession?

So how do you explain the physical presence of the cosmos?

Cause and effect (change) is a process. Processes are governed by fundamental laws of nature called principles. If existence engenders cause and effect, then it logically follows that the architecture of existence must be based upon a principle instead of a process.

And such a principle does; indeed, exist. It is the prevailing dynamic that governs the domain of cause and effect. It is found at the heart and soul of every equation. It is a familiar axiom, universally known and accepted. Its influence is ubiquitous, yet since the advent of scientific inquiry, its real significance has been overlooked and undiscovered.

Ironically, the answer to the enigma of existence lies hidden in plain sight.

(Sorry - too long to post): http://www.theory-of-reciprocity.com/existence.htm