"Sophism and Ignorance together: Make the Wrong Mix"

[humanbydefault]

“SOPHISM AND IGNORANCE TOGETHER, A WRONG COMBINATION INDEED”

“The significance of alpha was first spelled out in 1915 by a physicist named Arnold Sommerfeld — at the time, measurement errors made the value closer to 136 — and physics ever since has been littered with efforts to explain it. The most famous attempt was that of Sir Arthur Eddington, a prominent astronomer who believed that such constants could be used to produce a theory of the universe. He built a huge 16-dimensional equation full of these constants and claimed that alpha could be calculated from the number of terms: (162 - 16) / 2 + 16 = 136.
Unfortunately, experiments quickly showed that alpha was really closer to 137. Plucky Arthur Eddington was not dismayed. He said he had forgotten to add one more factor — alpha itself — and made the value 137. For thus, Punch magazine dubbed him Sir Arthur Adding-One. But Eddington was not deterred. Proudly he proclaimed that the firmament contains exactly (137 - 1) x 2256 protons. Of course, the old man may have been right; nobody has yet been able to count them all…” (Charles C. Man)

Punch’s people may start asking themselves ‘where in hell I got 36 three times...


“According to the physics and Mathematics of Alpha it was said to be: “The result of the square of the electron charge divided by the reduced Plank’s constant times the speed of light” Let’s see what I have found all these days according to that statement:

a) I found that e = 14!

b) Both the „reduced‟ and the „regular‟ versions for the Planks constant was equal to 17!

c) “c‟ is more or less 3! Let's begin, shall we? 142 = 196! Where e = 14 (electron charge) with exponential 2 equals 14 x 14 = 196. 17 x 3 = 51!

(It is a very familiar number, isn’t it?) Plank was 17 times 3 ("c") = 51.

According to the formula we must divide the square of "e" (196) by the product of Plank's 17 times 3 =51 196/51 = (3.) (843) 137 (254)...

Here you go! Let's ad those E.R.P.s between parenthesis: (8 + 4 + 3) = 15! (2 + 5 + 4) = 11!

Now let's divide both... 15/11 = 1.363636363636... !

Pay attention to this: The 3 to the left of the decimal point 'tells us' to multiply 36 three times to obtain 137...”(Fragment quoted from my latest book “Seven Reloaded!”)

This seems pretty ‘empirical’ to me, don’t you agree?

Sir Arthur Eddington was among Britain’s greatest mind in Physics of all times and having to read what a bunch of ‘people’ that neither do their ‘homework’ trying to understand Physics nor behave with an atom of respect toward their own countryman was too much to stay quiet...

I admit that I’m a proud American Citizen (With some English blood running on my veins by the way) and also someone with a lack of finesse and refined British manners so allow me to publish my opinion in my own terms:

“Why don’t ya... take those 36s... and stick it up you British Accent!”

(The more the better!)

You know...? I’m definitely not God! But if I were God...

I gave those guys who disgraced Sir Arthur Eddington in such humiliated ways to chose between:

A) Releasing a public apology or...

B) Start counting all the protons and electrons in the universe.

Who knows? Maybe the ‘old man’ was right on that one too and you will have to come up again with a second apology...

"I believe there are 15, 747, 724, 136, 275 ,002, 577, 605, 653, 961, 181, 555, 468, 044, 717, 914, 527, 116, 709, 366, 231, 425, 076, 185, 631, 031, 296 protons in the universe and the same number of electrons." (Sir Arthur Eddington)

Oh! My name is Miguel De Zayas and I’m the author of this article!
Thank you.

[humanbydefault]

The following is the EMPIRICAL mathematical calculation that results in 1/137 or what's the same as -137 (Alpha) by multiplying 36 by itself 3 times as the whole number 3 implies in this number: (3.) (843) 137 (254)...

So let's do it!

One time: 36 x 36 = 1296
two times: 1296 x 36 = 46656
third and last time: 46656 x 36 = 1679616!!! What is equal to say:

(1) + (67) + (9616) = (1) (1 + 2) (4 + 1 + 1 + 1) = (1) (3) (7) but because numbers had to be converted into their corresponding 'object configuration" [Referred to "0" or the beginning of Reality's Cycle]

A change of sign results in... -137! or 1/137!!!

Thank you!

ANY QUESTION?

[humanbydefault]

I got ya! You didn't like the conversion of numbers resulting in 1/137 did ya?

You "Punch People" probably thought that I got those numbers from the bottom of a Magician Hat using "our numbers" in some arbitrary ways, did you guys?

Well... You're darn wrong!

I have a picture to show you… An old Eastern proverb says that it worth a thousand words so let’s see it:

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

(Click on top of it! Since this site does not allows the inclusion of pictures from Wikipedia directly I decided to use the source instead but don’t hesitate and do it.)

See it now? See the (5) right below (0) and (10)? …The beginning of Reality’s Cycle and half-cycle ahead in time?

See the similarities between what I called “Object numbers” and their corresponding “Images”? 1 and 6, 2 and 7, 3 and 8, and 4 and 9?

These guys were able to predict 2012! These guys (In case you didn’t know) were “erased” from our planet and “Existence” altogether around 900 years before Christ!

Do you want a better mathematics than that? We can’t even predict the precession of Mercury with 100% accuracy for God sake!

Some "experts" will call all this "NUMEROLOGY"... after all, changes are always unconfortable for many... The STATUS QUO must be kept for the sake of convinience... Right?

[Bogie]

You have a way with numbers and I know you enjoy it. Whether there is some invariant law that you can detect by number sequences or natural observations being equated with numbers, I don't know; you would be in a better position to speak on that. However, in my philosophy there is acknowledgment that there are contemplative individuals who seek confirmation of the existence of a transcendent immanence as I put it. Some of us see acknowledgment of the presence of God or some invariant force that is non-algorithmic and you may very will get that acknowledgment in terms of numbers.