"physimatics" is now a reality... Be there or be square!

[humanbydefault]

“As far as the laws of Mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality”

- Albert Einstein

Obviously (at least it was to me) Albert Einstein was referring to an inherent ‘probabilistic faith’ every single Physical Observation of Reality was condemned to endure under the ‘poor design’ of our scientific language i.e. Mathematics.

I can’t say I could blame him for that…Hell! Have you ever been in a desperate situation when you are trying to ‘articulate’ something important at an equally important moment and suddenly you feel impotent and depressingly dumb (on the inside) because no intelligent word crossed you mind at that point?

It has happened to me and I’m sure to you too whether you are or not willing to admit it!
This is the problem we’re facing with our mathematics today.

One word about “the laws of mathematics” as Einstein referred in his famous quote?
Of course! What else could it be? The notoriously unpredictable Law of Probabilities!

But you already know my position about that law and if not, please goggle my name and read my articles in the internet… I’m sure you’ll be able to find less than a hundred talking about the same subject!

Today I want to talk about the numbers. Have you ever asked yourselves this silly question?
Would it be possible to conceive mathematics without numbers?

I’m sure you CAN’T so why then is mathematics so ‘obtuse’ and ‘abstract’ most of the time?
I have an answer to that in my latest book titled “PHYSIMATICS” [Speaking the language of numbers] recently published in LULU and Createspace.com (just last night!) and I’m sure it will be LIFE and BRIGHT in Amazon.com with all the credits and features in about… Oh... 6 weeks or so!

HERE’S THE THING:

Let’s say that you plan to build a house for you and your family. Since you plan to actually reside in it you won’t risk having the roof fall on top of your loved ones so you try to hire a good architect to come up with a nice and safety design… right?

Now! This ‘guy’ shows you a complex drawing where he happened to mix meters with feet and centimeters with inches and he says “-It’s Ok with me, Sr.!” But you argue with him that there is no ‘compatibility’ in any of that and guess what he response was…

“-It ain’t a problem dude! I’ve been in this business forever and I build a house for you in less than a month!”

If you have a little bit of ‘brain left’ you will go ahead and hire a different “architect” if not for you at least for the sake of your loved ones.

Well… The same thing is happening right now with an indiscriminate use of mixed references using our ten characters as well.

We see a figure like this 1849553900278… for example and we accept (a priori) that this weird number is ‘totally OK”! Then we take it from whatever calculation it came from and continue carrying it in the next and in the next and in the next after that!

No wonder Einstein was so depressed with mathematics but listen what another wise man had to say about the ‘artists dealing with those ‘referenceless’ (my new word!) numbers:

“I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning”
- Plato

What’s wrong with the picture? Anyone? Hey! Guys?

Everything! What you just witnessed in the scene with the hypothetically ‘dumbest architect’ in the entire World is a common practice among Mathematicians every single day!

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!

Miguel De Zayas_Author

[labelwench]

I thank you for an interesting thread start, Miguel.

Debating the content shall have to be left to the forum members whose forte is Mathematics and the expression thereof, a discussion which I shall observe with interest.

Kind regards,

LW

P.S. - You are obviously not the only one taking this route of exploration. I have not read this yet, but it looks interesting, and so I post the link for others who may also be interested.

http://www.vixra.org/pdf/1005.0009v1.pdf

[humanbydefault]

Thank you for your comment and the posted link as well. I have seen the URL before, it seems that someone in Germany came up with the name combo before I did... who knows maybe the word existed even before it. The name for the concept is totally irrelevant and I prove it to you.

Today Einstein's General Relativity is accepted as the best shot we've got to describe the origins of Gravity, however long before Einstein was born, the concept of GRAVITY was already there and everyone involved in Physics had written, talked and argued about it.

The logical outcome for such a Theory (PHYSIMATICS) had to include Physics and numbers which obviously comes down to physimatics... Mathephysics would have been dumb and definetely wrong since we're trying to fix math instead of Physics... Does it sound more logical to you?

On the other side what you read on that PDF essay is "more of the same bla bla bla" in a great English translation to say the least. Why? I tell you why:

1) At some point in the article you read that probability is a factor that will affect the effectiveness of "their physimatics" since they treated as a legitimate and integral part of our Reality. (Hell the Law of Probability has been with us almost forever...)

2) The author of the article offers NOTHING to work with in the first place. Rethorical nonsense is not going to convinve anyone and certainly not a bunch of mathematicians that must be laughing at these pages saying to themselves "- Is there any equation, numerical conclusion or theorem offered by that "Physimatician"...?

Of course the answer is NON of the above! No numbers, no predictions of any kind, no algebra although He has been spelling the concept since the beginnings of the article...

But back into the Laws of Probabilities... Why do you think that I dedicated more than one complete chapter to discuss it in my first book "Lex Parsimoniae"?

If you hope to change mathematics (and Physics) the way it is today while it still enjoys its abstract and disconected nature with Reality, you have to hit it where "it hurts the most!"!

I have published a method to prove (based on public records) that the Law of Probabilities was violated. I even predicted a "Cash 3" (lottery) result with 30 days in advance. If you take a close look at the winning numbers, frecuency of the drawing days, total "Mirror Values" of the winning numbers and relationship 'object-image' according to the way they were drawn you won't believe your eyes!

It's no secret. I even published those results in this site not long ago.Go to:

http://integrallife.com/member/migue...-my-prediction

Why do you think I got so lucky interpreting what was going on with the square root of 2 and the model of Reality (as I have proposed in my books)?

CASH 3 PATTERNS AND THEIR DAILY ANALYSIS FOR YEARS IN A ROW... No kiiding!

All I need is a serious group of mathematicians or physicists to take a close look at my findings...that's all. If I'm wrong I accept it but you will have to explain it to me with numbers! You will have to "unconvince me" about the tens of results obtained in the most sacred constants where the number seven (7) has been a repetitive factor. You will have to explain to me why was I able to come up with 137 so many times using different mathematical approaches without tricks of any sort.
You will have to prove me wrong in every single (succesfull) results obtained in the ways I de-encrypted some ancient fractions and their hidden "Mirror values"... etc, etc.

If you can do all that... not only that you would convince me that I was wrong but I will erase all by books from existence and shut my mouth up.

But remember one thing though... WITH NUMBERS! PROVE ME WRONG WITH NUMBERS AND I STOP SEARCHING FOR THE TRUTH I BEGAN LONG TIME AGO.

After publishing my books (obviously with an intentionally arrogant and challenging tone IN THEIR DESCRIPTIONS) almost defying everyone involved in the "field" to come up saying:

Like this one: http://www.amazon.com/Seven-Numbers-...7411301&sr=1-1

"-You are wrong, dude!" Your numbers don't ad up!

However ...so far non of that has happened yet and no one has said a single word against my numbers... No one.

You know why? Because as I said many times before "Numbers don't lie because they don't have free will as we do".

Go to that link I provided you above and read the description of all my books to convince yourself about my latest statement. It's probably too soon to that (maybe). However the fight has just started... and I'm getting warm to the battle.

However as long as those description are published in one of the most popular and visited sites in the Internet, it is a challenge to those who support orthodox theories whether they like it or not.

Thank you again and God bless you! The long-talk was not "redirectted" against your comments or words... I'm deeply honored that you answered my post and I hope you continue doing so.

God bless you!

[SteveA]

I thank you for an interesting thread start, Miguel.

Debating the content shall have to be left to the forum members whose forte is Mathematics and the expression thereof, a discussion which I shall observe with interest.

Kind regards,

LW

P.S. - You are obviously not the only one taking this route of exploration. I have not read this yet, but it looks interesting, and so I post the link for others who may also be interested.

http://www.vixra.org/pdf/1005.0009v1.pdf

Thank you for the link. I enjoyed the read and enough of those thoughts are close enough to my own that I wonder if (s)he might have read something here.

On the other side what you read on that PDF essay is "more of the same bla bla bla" in a great English translation to say the least. Why? I tell you why:

1) At some point in the article you read that probability is a factor that will affect the effectiveness of "their physimatics" since they treated as a legitimate and integral part of our Reality. (Hell the Law of Probability has been with us almost forever...)

2) The author of the article offers NOTHING to work with in the first place. Rethorical nonsense is not going to convinve anyone and certainly not a bunch of mathematicians that must be laughing at these pages saying to themselves "- Is there any equation, numerical conclusion or theorem offered by that "Physimatician"...?

Of course the answer is NON of the above! No numbers, no predictions of any kind, no algebra although He has been spelling the concept since the beginnings of the article...

But back into the Laws of Probabilities... Why do you think that I dedicated more than one complete chapter to discuss it in my first book "Lex Parsimoniae"?

Actually, I think the author made some great comments. There are things that appear inexplicable in terms of conventional logic - the perception of time and change is a big one.

Notice that you yourself have to resort to probabilities in your descriptions. Well, what confines a probabilistic mechanism to only making selections from within a specific set of possibilities? If something is truly random and uncaused, then it need no confine its influences to only making selections from within a specific set of possibilities, but instead can alter what those possibilities are as well.

If this is suppose to instead be an entirely deterministic system without any randomness, then in theory we should be able to describe it as a Universal Turing Machine (or anything capable of Universal Computation), but in that case we still have the problem of describing how anything can change itself (even an observational perspective should remain the same) and why couldn't such change not simply influence the "program" but any component of this process?

I have a feeling there are no conventional explanations and that there exists a creative influence that figuratively doesn't just modify the software, but can alter the hardware as well.

The reason why there's little mathematics in his post is because there isn't necessarily any specific mathematics to describe such a possibility, though we could use a lot of mathematics to describe, after the fact observations (but that's really been done sufficiently well, IMO - Time is something qualitatively different. Notice that any computation or mathematical equation could be described by a Universal Turing Machine. Now consider that such a machine is already assumed to be capable of making informational changes over time - I don't believe there would be any form of computation it could do to compute how it's able to perform these computations and make these changes, nor could any specific result prove that these alterations occured solely due to a preexisting program, but instead a result could also arise from having used a variety of otherwise incompatible programs and having the hardware altered instead and it may be impossible to prove, by simply looking at inputs and outputs, what all the properties of the hardware are, and most especially if the hardware itself is alterable, in which case we'd not only have the possibility of conventional statistical mechanics but a statistical alteration of the mechanical properties themselves, and that would still not allow us to determine why, or even how those specific selections from those possibilities are made).

The author of that article is simply trying to address some of the paradoxes and inconsistencies that arise from more conventional attempts at piecing things together. It's quite interesting to see how pervasive an influence observations of time and change are, yet it appears to be something basically taken for granted with no logical explanation as to how time can exist - it's just assumed to exist and empiric/probabilistic samples are taken over time of phenomenon with few people looking at how change is logically possible to begin with or a mechanism by which time can be made to appear (I don't think there's any explanation possible by conventional logic and something beyond that needs to be considered).

[humanbydefault]

SteveA thanks for your participation and you comment. Your words are those of a born Philosopher and I realized that I posted my first sentence about Physimatics in a place where numbers and facts have to be subject to more "antological scrutinies" than I expected.

As I said before Physimatics is a concept upon those trying to fix the current problems in Math will place their bets. I read your post and I read many times references to the Turing Machine... I know who He was and the roll played by his programs during the War too however as a Philosopher it is regretable to rely on a machine or its programs to fundament universal concepts.

I'm aware of some definitions of time from the different schools of thought since five years ago when I wrote my first book I dedicated a great deal of time in that search myself but the problem with numbers won't find solution if we loose ourselves into such 'abstract avenues of thinking'.

Let's be concrete for a change (please) and let's put our feet on the ground for a moment.

It's not EVERYDAY that you find that someone publish a book and articles (free to read) in the Net claiming that (he) found EMPIRICALLY the Plank's constant. Just think about it for a minute... Please. Especially if that 'someone' presents numbers to support his claims...

As for TIME well I like Plato's philosophical image of time when he said :

"Time is the image of eternity"

Thank you for your comments.

[SteveA]

I apologize that my reply was not very related to your original post. You do have a very good comment in that comparisons between quantities should be made in the same units. If we have 3 inches and 3 feet, we obviously couldn't subtract them 3-3 and assume that this means there is no distance between the points. We'd really be subtracting an equivalent of 3x-3y, and this can't be reduced unless we know the relationship between x and y.

There should be a fundamental unit of experience by which we experience everything as connected into a coherent picture and I assume this to be a unit of change/contrast/time though accumulated into numbers via memory/space (I have a bit more precise idea of what this unit should be, but I don't have it completely nailed down and it appears to be something that is inherently subjective, as what is detectable as change/difference or available to be compared in memory/space is something that at its finest scale is not shared - for example, no two people see the world from identical places and times).

Once such units are precisely measurable, then yes, we can use mathematics and these units lie in a single dimension/property and we can find physimatics, but without the precise "ruler" or manner of measuring these, then the units aren't comparable and are often multidimensional with room for "statistical free play".

As for TIME well I like Plato's philosophical image of time when he said :

"Time is the image of eternity"

Not a bad descrption. One of my views is that time is what allows for more than logic to exist as even things that would otherwise be paradoxes can exist in time ... a ball can be both red and green (we simply repaint it ).

Enjoy,
Steve

[humanbydefault]

“It couldn’t get more ‘empirical’ than this…”

Follow the steps one by one and you’ll open your mind to the secrets of our Reality. No need for complex mathematical formulations in this PROOF… I take you can Ad! That’s all you need to know to see how I connect the simplest numerical calculation ever to the origins of my physical Model for Reality based solely on the “Square Root of 2”.
First step. We will multiply each consecutive number by its own value and divide it in two cycles (From 1-5 and from 6-0).
(1) x (1) = (1)
(2) x (2) = (4)
(3) x (3) = (9)
(4) x (4) = (16) and
(5) x (5) = (25)!
This will be our first half-cycle. The second one will begin where this ended:
(6) x (6) = (36)
(7) x (7) = (49)
[8] x [8] = (64) *8 can’t be enclosed in () because it becomes a “guy with sun glasses” J
(9) x (9) = (81)
(0) x (0) = (0)!
Second Step: We are going to ad up the corresponding results for each half-cycle…
First half-cycle:
1 + 4 + 9 + 16 + 25 = 55!
Second half-cycle:
36 + 49 + 81 + 0 = 166
So far so good! I need you to keep with me on this because it’s going to get more complex as we begin to make parallels between different measurements… Ok? Good!
First analysis will consist in dividing 166/56 to get a notion about the ratio between both cycles:
55/166 = 331325 = (331) (32) (5) = (7) (5) (5) = (7) (10)!

Second analysis will be to understand the meaning of Alpha (137):
The shortest version of Alpha is 137.03597 So, let’s separate the first “trio” (137) and calculate its inverse:

1/137 = 0.00729927! You could do the same calculation in your cell phone or pocket calculator to verify my results…I’m not going to be upset for that (J).

Wait! Let’s place my mirror in the middle of that result…

(729) >< (927) What do you see? You see the perfect image of one in the other side of the “looking glass” what means that it cancels out.
Now let’s continue with the rest of the fractional part, shall we?

.03597… If we added up those digits we obtained 3 + 5 + 9 + 7 = 14!
*Converting 9 into 4 and 7 into 2.

Let’s calculate the inverse of 035:

1/.035 = 28.5714285… Of course I will arrange these numbers for you:
28. (5) (714) (285)… Take a look at both lucky trios at the end!

(714) = (214) = (7) half-cycle ahead in time.

(285) = (10) (5) one complete cycle (10) and half cycle (5).

28 = (2 + 8] = 10! A complete cycle and (5) indicates that the trios are referred to half-cycle ahead in time within the Quantum of Reality.
So! What do we have so far…

a) Empirically speaking we have operated on basic fundamental numbers to obtain a couple of “dudes” that seem to be embedded in Alpha too. What small World, isn’t it?

Now I’m going to move to prime numbers. You may or may not heard but 33 equal to 137… The 33rd prime is 137. So I decided to see how 33 responds when I calculate its inverse and its square root:

Inverse >>> 1/33 = 0.030303030… Interesting! When we calculated the inverse of 137 (1/137) we obtained 0.00(72)(9)(9)(27) or (9)(9)(9)(9).

Let’s see the square root now:

√ 33= 5.744562646! Adding 4 + 4 = 8 and converting 7 into 2…

5.(285) (624) (66) = (285) (174) (12) = (285) (174) (10) + (2)!

Here are the ‘lucky trios’ hidden inside the result once again.
Let’s move to Geometry for a second!

Let’s assume that half-cycle corresponds to 90 degree angle and we are going to divide 90 by both results obtained empirically at the beginnings of this calculation:

90/55= 1.63636363... (9) (9) (9)... Just the same result as the one obtained by 1/137!

90/166 = 0.5421686! Transforming it a little bit:

(5) (421) (686) = (421) (5) (8] (6 + 6) or (1 + 1) [into their corresponding ‘objects’] (471) and (825) half-cycle ahead in time. See…

One of the 6s balanced the conversion from 2 to 7 but the second conversion introduced the (5) imbalance that means that the whole result is now forward half-cycle ahead in time.

Resuming:
By dividing 90/55 we obtained the same results obtained earlier by dividing 1/137 (Alpha's whole part).

By dividing 90/166 (the second half-cycle) we obtained the same results as 1/.035 which corresponds to the decimal part of Alpha.

This means that Alpha constant was empirically obtained by operating cyclically on basic elemental numbers!!!

(Will continue...)



God bless you!

[SteveA]

I admit I consider it an interesting coincidence that one of the closest approximations to the fine structure constant I saw appeared to have a structure similar to using Newton's Method to computing a square root of 10 and I can see some possible correlations with this at the very beginning of you post, but then, I must admit I don't understand why much of the rest should naturally follow.

The way I look at these numerological methods is in terms of information content. If we assume Occam's Razor applies, then we should expect the simplest explanation to be most likely. The more "natural" (and that can be subjective) the information is, the less we're trying to "coax" the numbers - for example, if there was some physical or logical reason why should expect some specific quantity or operation to be performed, then we're not massaging things much, but the more quantities and types of operations we use, the less informative the results are.

For example, at the beginning, I could picture it possible we have some form of 10 way process that has a splitting of these into a binary pair (and you didn't appear to select this division very arbitrarily either), so there's not a large quantity of "massaging" done yet, IMO, at that point.

And we then have a squaring operation ... ok, that's something not to unexpected either and there could be physical processes that could perform this as well.

Then we have the division - that could be a natural way to recombine these halves together and so still nothing major.

But then we take this representation of division, base 10, and extra selected digits and this appears to be something that would require quite a complex physical process to implement.

Basically these are extracting the equivalent, where the ratio is x:

10000x mod 1000 (for the first 3 digits) and
10000000x mod 1000 (for the second 3 digits)

We could potentially reduce the complexity of this into:

y=10x
a=10^3 (or 10^3=10*10*10=1000)

And then these two values become

x*a^2 mod a
x*a^3 mod a

Which appear to require less "information" to describe, but things are still beginning to get quite complex and then the next "mapping" of these I don't really know how complex it is, but overall things appear to become more arbitrary after this and there's not much elegance to this, except the recurring decimal theme. It could be quite possible that there is something particularly applicable with a base 10 representation, but if so, it's not very obvious as to why and there are other approximations that I've seen that appear to be more likely correlated with processes that could physically occur (for example, one appeared similar to a description of a recursive fractal diffusion into a high dimensional space and this would make a lot of sense if we have the fine structure constant represent a coupling coefficient in which it's determining the density of a communicative field between particles - so such a diffusion could show the number of dimensions in which this communication is occuring).

Anyway, I've enjoyed trying to find a good match to the fine structure constant myself and have come up with some interesting approximations that appears to match possible physical processes, but nothing that appears precise enough to meet the tolerance stated in the CODATA information.

If you can come up with something that appears it could be a simple, natural process and it closely matches the fine structure constant, I'm all ears and would enjoy seeing it, but I don't see the correlation in the information you showed, though feel free to suggest some ways in which your computations could be physically performed.

For example, one of the approximations I found that was interesting was looking at function mappings for particle interactions that would conserve information in 3 dimensional representations (there are a lot of physical correlations here). In this case if we combine two "particles" that are in one of 3 states (the minimum number to convey binary information + time) we have a pairing of these ternary values and that gives us 9 possible input states. For our result, we'd also have 1 of 3 possible states for each one of these 9 possible input states.

If we want this mapping to conserve information (basically imagine space as a network of all possible functions and that the pathways that we see as persistent are those that retain information and do not mask/block/destroy it), then we need a uniform distribution of these 3 states to these 9 input combinations.

We can compute what the probability is of a randomly selected "pathway" or function mapping would be of generating such a uniform distribution of those ternary values and it comes out to be (I'm computing the number of valid combinations which is the number of information conserving assignments 9!/(3!^3)=1680 http://www.mathlesstraveled.com/?tag...ial-identities versus the total possible ways to assign them, which is 3^(3^2)=19683)

(3^2)!/((3!^3)*(3^(3^2)))~=1/11.716...

So this shows the probability that a pair of (ternary) particles interactions via. a random (ternary) function that can potentially conserve information, but we really need to construct a pair of these functions, otherwise we're compressing 2 particles into 1 and so we'd need to square this probability to find a pair of such functions that can conserve information:

(3^2)!/((3!^3)*(3^(3^2)))^2~=1/137.266...

That was an interesting correlation, especially considering that I happened to be trying to construct a physical model using such ternary representations and there's another approximation that extended this into what appeared to be a 5 dimensional torus that brought the difference down to something like 1 part in a million. I don't remember what it was exactly and I haven't figured out how to wrap these strings into such a form, but I was mostly just trying to give you a better idea of the types of numerological clues that can be used.

There should be a manner in which a physical correlation can be made with the approximation, otherwise it's hard to imagine that it could be representative of a physical process.

Thanks for your time,
Steve

[humanbydefault]

The next calculation has to do with a new method of calculating Alpha (1/137) using my “Mirror values” instead of the official value of the physical constants like the “electric charge of the electron”, “c” (the speed of light) and the reduced Plank’s constant.

I calculated in my previous articles that “e” = 14. [It’s that simple!]

Then the reduced Plank’s constant was 14.

The speed of light “c” will be 3 (of course!).

Now according to the formula Alpha equals the square of “e” divided by the reduced Plank’s constant times “c”…right?

14 x 14 = 196! Then 14 x 3 = 42! Where 196/42 = 4.6666

As I have explained in earlier examples, the meaning of 4 [the whole number to the left of the decimal point] means how many times we have to multiply the fractions to obtain the correct result:


64 or 6 x 6 x 6 x 6 = 7776! = (2 + 2 + 7 + 6) = 17! Or (10) + (7)!


It means Physically that Alpha is (7) after the conclusion of a complete cycle.

Let’s see the inverse of “my Alpha” based on the “mirror value” of 14:

1/14 = 0.0714285!!! Our ‘lucky trios’ once again! (714) and (825)

What do they mean? Simple! (825) = (3+ 2 + 5) = 10! A complete cycle.

(714) = (2 + 1 + 4) = 7! Half a cycle ahead in time! No wonder!


If you go back to my articles regarding Alpha-calculating you will see how I obtained Alpha = (7) referred to half-cycle ahead in time.

One last detail that connects all those calculations with my Model for Reality:


Pay close attention to it!


The square root of 2 = 1.414213562… So let’s take it apart:


(1414213562) Now let’s extract one complete cycle from it as we have observed before in previous cases… (1414) (213562) = (10) (5) (14)!


A different arrangement makes (141) (421) (352) (6) where (141) and (6) = (10) + (2) and our ‘lucky trios’ (421) and (352) once again. We know that 2 is the object of 7 and after those conversions 2 becomes 7 half-cycle ahead in time. That results mimic the same found on 1/14 or 1/137 (Alpha).


Taking 14 twice as the complete cycle of Reality:


1/28 (14 x 14 = 28] = 0.0357142 or (357) and (142) Our ‘lucky trio’ once again!

These are NUMBERS and these are CONCRETE RESULTS which will make a little hard for those who has planned to prove me wrong.

I wish you luck in any case! J

(end of posting) I had to cut in two the calculations due to a last minute editing.
A numerical mistake was made and the proper correction was needed. Thank you for your understanding and sorry about it.

[humanbydefault]

Did you read my article I titled "137 through the looking glass"...? I understand that you have your own personal views about this type of approach based on a rather numerical method to deal with physical entities (Numerology?) That's fine with me if you ask... Look what an honor for me to be "classified" among those following the same numerological path... May I remind you that Albert Einstein was one of them? I guess you already know that, do you?

On the other side.. I want to take you word on an issue that you happen to mention in your previous comment: Alpha calculating and the CODATA acceptance for a given magnitude.

My point about you reading what I published on that specific article mentioned earlier was that I succeded on proving (with numbers) that the results obtained by Dr. Gilson (emeritus professor in England) by using his prime number equation, the last CODATA numbers and the one calculated using a completely different machine here on Earth were exactly THE SAME! Was numerology capable of clarifying something unknown by the rest of the scientific community? Well it happens to be the case and it happens also to be proved using my (numerological) "Mirror Analysis" in the process.

As for the so-called G.U.T. (Grand Unified Tamale) I don't think is a good idea either to start with. You see I'm trying to find the other G.U.T. (Great Universal Theory) that does not implies the addition of incomplete and inexact theories in one but the creation of "THE ONE" from scratch... At least that is the end of my "tunnel" whether I find the exit or not will depend on how sooner I get help with my system.

So far I succeded in representing Music and its nature inside my Model. Light colors just as Music by empirically proving where and why colors are mixed at the borders just as Goethe once said (and was also ignored by others like Heisenberg) and also the why number SEVEN is an inherent solution to our Reality cycles.

A pretty good beginning I may say especially for someone without credentials to begin with.

Thanks for you your time and God bless you all!