Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #373398 > unrolled thread

Mandelbrot Universe (4pi*10^-7)/((2pi/101)/49500) = 0.9999

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Mandelbrot Universe (4pi*10^-7)/((2pi/101)/49500) = 0.9999 David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-06 05:59 -0800
    Mandelbrot Universe (4pi*10^-7)/((2pi/101)/49500) = 0.9999 David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-06 06:00 -0800
      Mandelbrot Universe (4pi*10^-7)/((2pi/101)/49500) = 0.9999 David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-06 12:36 -0800
        Re: Mandelbrot Universe (4pi*10^-7)/((2pi/101)/49500) = 0.9999 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-06 14:01 -0800
          Re: Mandelbrot Universe (4pi*10^-7)/((2pi/101)/49500) = 0.9999 David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-06 21:05 -0800
            Re: Mandelbrot Universe (4pi*10^-7)/((2pi/101)/49500) = 0.9999 David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-07 10:40 -0800
          Re: Mandelbrot Universe (4pi*10^-7)/((2pi/101)/49500) = 0.9999 David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-07 10:42 -0800
            Re: Mandelbrot Universe (4pi*10^-7)/((2pi/101)/49500) = 0.9999 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-07 12:17 -0800
              Re: Mandelbrot Universe (4pi*10^-7)/((2pi/101)/49500) = 0.9999 David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-07 16:53 -0800
                Re: Mandelbrot Universe (4pi*10^-7)/((2pi/101)/49500) = 0.9999 Sebastian Krüger <SebastianKruger@ih3hghjgb.org> - 2016-01-08 01:03 +0000
                  Re: Mandelbrot Universe (4pi*10^-7)/((2pi/101)/49500) = 0.9999 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-07 22:27 -0800
                    Re: Mandelbrot Universe (4pi*10^-7)/((2pi/101)/49500) = 0.9999 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-09 11:58 -0800
                Re: Mandelbrot Universe (4pi*10^-7)/((2pi/101)/49500) = 0.9999 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-07 22:31 -0800
                  Re: Mandelbrot Universe (4pi*10^-7)/((2pi/101)/49500) = 0.9999 David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-08 08:40 -0800
      Re: Mandelbrot Universe (4pi*10^-7)/((2pi/101)/49500) = 0.9999 David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-08 11:06 -0800
    Re: Mandelbrot Universe (4pi*10^-7)/((2pi/101)/49500) = 0.9999 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-08 14:15 +1100
      Re: Mandelbrot Universe (4pi*10^-7)/((2pi/101)/49500) = 0.9999 David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-08 08:32 -0800
      Re: Mandelbrot Universe (4pi*10^-7)/((2pi/101)/49500) = 0.9999 David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-08 08:39 -0800
        Re: Mandelbrot Universe (4pi*10^-7)/((2pi/101)/49500) = 0.9999 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-09 11:11 +1100
          Re: Mandelbrot Universe (4pi*10^-7)/((2pi/101)/49500) = 0.9999 David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-10 22:33 -0800
            Re: Mandelbrot Universe (4pi*10^-7)/((2pi/101)/49500) = 0.9999 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-11 19:08 +1100
              Re: Mandelbrot Universe (4pi*10^-7)/((2pi/101)/49500) = 0.9999 David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-11 10:45 -0800
                Re: Mandelbrot Universe (4pi*10^-7)/((2pi/101)/49500) = 0.9999 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-12 09:59 +1100
                  Re: Mandelbrot Universe (4pi*10^-7)/((2pi/101)/49500) = 0.9999 David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-11 17:39 -0800
                    Re: Mandelbrot Universe (4pi*10^-7)/((2pi/101)/49500) = 0.9999 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-12 13:28 +1100
                      Re: Mandelbrot Universe (4pi*10^-7)/((2pi/101)/49500) = 0.9999 David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-12 07:29 -0800
                        Re: Mandelbrot Universe (4pi*10^-7)/((2pi/101)/49500) = 0.9999 David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-12 07:50 -0800
                      Re: Mandelbrot Universe (4pi*10^-7)/((2pi/101)/49500) = 0.9999 Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-01-12 18:26 +0100
                        Re: Mandelbrot Universe (4pi*10^-7)/((2pi/101)/49500) = 0.9999 David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-12 12:29 -0800
                          Re: Mandelbrot Universe (4pi*10^-7)/((2pi/101)/49500) = 0.9999 David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-12 17:11 -0800
                            Re: Mandelbrot Universe (4pi*10^-7)/((2pi/101)/49500) = 0.9999 David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-13 10:42 -0800
                        Re: Mandelbrot Universe (4pi*10^-7)/((2pi/101)/49500) = 0.9999 David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-12 13:42 -0800
      Re: Mandelbrot Universe (4pi*10^-7)/((2pi/101)/49500) = 0.9999 David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-08 09:08 -0800
    Re: Mandelbrot Universe (4pi*10^-7)/((2pi/101)/49500) = 0.9999 David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-08 12:55 -0800

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#373666

On 11/01/2016 5:33 PM, David Fuller wrote:
>
> On 9/01/2016 3:39 AM, David Fuller wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 9:15:32 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 7/01/2016 12:59 AM, David Fuller wrote:
>>>> (4pi*10^-7)/((2pi/101)/49500) = 0.9999
>>>>
>>>
>>> The pi cancel. What's the point of including them in the first place?
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>>
>>
>> 4pi is included because c can be derived from 4pi*10^-7 if the (impedance of the vacuum^2) is considered as an invariant constant
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permeability_(electromagnetism)
>>
>
> That µ0 is 4pi * 10^-7 is just a matter of definition. Nothing of
> significance turns on it, and certainly nothing can meaningfully be
> derived from it.
>
> Sylvia.
>
> No .....
> I have been following this newsgroup for 15 years
>
> The implied impedance of the vacuum is always treated as an invariant constant
> NIST says it is a constant
> NIST says u0 & e0 are constants.
> If all mass and energy was deleted from the vacuum of space time it would still be treated as having the same specified impedance.
>
µ0 derives from the definition of the Amp, which in turn was arbitrary, 
and chosen for convenience. It follows that µ0 is also arbitrary. ε0 is 
then a correspondingly arbitrary value derived from µ0 and the speed of 
light (which is also now a defined constant).

The conclusion remains the same: there is no deep significance to the 
value 4pi * 10^-7, not matter how much you'd like the converse to be true.

> You seem to be being purposefully intellectually deceptive and dishonest.
>

It only seems that way to you because you don't understand the origin of 
these constants.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373704

> You seem to be being purposefully intellectually deceptive and dishonest. 
> 

It only seems that way to you because you don't understand the origin of 
these constants. 

Sylvia. 

No ....

Either the impedance of the vacuum causes and sets the consistency of the speed of light to c
Or the speed of light is completely arbitrary and c is only "observed" as c by things of MASS as a requirement caused exclusively by Mass  

If the Higgs field is a neutrally (Counter balanced) charged truncated octahedral tessellation, in a Big Crunch, every unit of mass such collide with "8" copies of itself @ c

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373724

On 12/01/2016 5:45 AM, David Fuller wrote:
>> You seem to be being purposefully intellectually deceptive and dishonest.
>>
>
> It only seems that way to you because you don't understand the origin of
> these constants.
>
> Sylvia.
>
> No ....
>
> Either the impedance of the vacuum causes and sets the consistency of the speed of light to c
> Or the speed of light is completely arbitrary and c is only "observed" as c by things of MASS as a requirement caused exclusively by Mass
>
> If the Higgs field is a neutrally (Counter balanced) charged truncated octahedral tessellation, in a Big Crunch, every unit of mass such collide with "8" copies of itself @ c
>

I think you're conflating universal properties, such as the speed of 
light, with their numerical values. The former are determined by the 
universe itself. The latter depend on our choice of units. The values c, 
µ0 and ε0 all depend on the units used to represent them.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373729

- show quoted text -
I think you're conflating universal properties, such as the speed of 
light, with their numerical values. The former are determined by the 
universe itself. The latter depend on our choice of units. The values c, 
µ0 and ε0 all depend on the units used to represent them. 

Sylvia. 

Tired of your flim flam 

Either c is c or it is not. 

A locality of higher gravitation will have a lower vacuum impedance causing the appearance of a gravitational shift towards that locality. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373730

On 12/01/2016 12:39 PM, David Fuller wrote:
> - show quoted text -
> I think you're conflating universal properties, such as the speed of
> light, with their numerical values. The former are determined by the
> universe itself. The latter depend on our choice of units. The values c,
> µ0 and ε0 all depend on the units used to represent them.
>
> Sylvia.
>
> Tired of your flim flam
>
> Either c is c or it is not.
>
> A locality of higher gravitation will have a lower vacuum impedance causing the appearance of a gravitational shift towards that locality.
>

I take it you're determined to attach significance to 4 * pi * 10^-7, 
and won't hear anything against it.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373757

1/(√(50) - 7 ) -14

√(50)-7 = 0.071067 = 1/14.071067

50/((1/14 +7)^2) = 9800/9801

9801/9999 = 99/101

9800/9801 = 0.999897

(1 / (c * 50)) / G = 0.999580752 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373759

In order for em & G to follow & utilize 1/radius^2
They must be perpendicular to one another 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373775

Op 12-jan-2016 om 03:28 schreef Sylvia Else:
> On 12/01/2016 12:39 PM, David Fuller wrote:
>> - show quoted text -
>> I think you're conflating universal properties, such as the speed of
>> light, with their numerical values. The former are determined by the
>> universe itself. The latter depend on our choice of units. The values c,
>> µ0 and ε0 all depend on the units used to represent them.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>>
>> Tired of your flim flam
>>
>> Either c is c or it is not.
>>
>> A locality of higher gravitation will have a lower vacuum impedance
>> causing the appearance of a gravitational shift towards that locality.
>>
>
> I take it you're determined to attach significance to 4 * pi * 10^-7,
> and won't hear anything against it.

You should probably take it that you are trying to
communicate with one of our more extreme cases of autism.
Doesn't work.

Dirk Vdm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373796

Interesting how octahedral tessellation has 14 axis 

Eat shit dirk-tard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373804

On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 2:29:41 PM UTC-6, David Fuller wrote:
> Interesting how octahedral tessellation has 14 axis 
> 
> Eat shit dirk-tard


sqrt(50) / (7 + (1 / 14)) = 0.99994898349

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373838

On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 7:11:46 PM UTC-6, David Fuller wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 2:29:41 PM UTC-6, David Fuller wrote:
> > Interesting how octahedral tessellation has 14 axis 
> > 
> > Eat shit dirk-tard
> 
> 
> sqrt(50) / (7 + (1 / 14)) = 0.99994898349

(1 / (72 000 ((m / s) / Mpc))) / 4.2856633e+17 = 1 second


((4.2856633e+17^2) * (1.710464 * (10^(-35)))) / pi = 1


(1.710464 * (10^(-35))) / (5.70549377 * (10^(-44))) = 299792457.753

The most important value to the universe's age and size. namely, unit (km / h) / MPC ==> km / (s * MPC) ==> km / (s * 3e19 km) ==> 1 / 3e19 p == > 3.24-20 / s as simplification, the distance disappears, it becomes the universe's expansion coefficient in the second. possible to find temporal distance from the moment of creation of the universe's expansion coefficient. Hubble Space Telescope and WMAP measurements at 72 (km / h) / MPC we use the expansion coefficient measured: 72 * 3:24-20 / p ==> 2.3333611 A-18 / S: the universe is expanding every second of it. Taking the width of the existing one, we might ask how soon it expanded: 1 / 2.3333611 A-18E / s ==> A + 4.2856633 17s, the age of the universe. Let expressed in years rather than seconds (one year = 365 days and six hours x day = 24 hours x one hour = 60 minutes x one minute = 60 seconds): 4.2856633 to + 17 / (365.25 * 24 * 60 * 60) == > 4.2856633 to + 17/31557600 ==> 13580447499.2 year. So what is it: about 13.6 billion years ago, in the middle of November (today, the 3rd day of February, to 0.2 years back day- -73) (okay man, engineer joke work) were in the same place everything in the universe, the big bang in the center. The mixed model with 13.772 billion year age of the universe (with a margin of error of 60 million years) as estimated. As we have seen, it is very close to a value with full results does not give the Hubble constant can be calculated. observed it (--dopp the effect of starlight nedeniyle-- redshift ratio) is calculated when the sense of convergence is that we are not wrong in their cosmology theories describing the universe that emerged with the universe, a huge explosion That is the evidence. old, it should not be so as the book does not contain scientific information.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373802

DORK Van de moortel

8 / ((c^2) / (14^14)) = 0.989102001

Pretty much Damn near an octave of c^2

http://i65.tinypic.com/2r2qfsl.jpg

1/(c*50)
50 * 2
99^2 = 9801
Mandelbrot 
Pi/200 with a multiplier of 51
99+100=200

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373526

On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 9:15:32 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 7/01/2016 12:59 AM, David Fuller wrote:
> > (4pi*10^-7)/((2pi/101)/49500) = 0.9999
> >
> 
> The pi cancel. What's the point of including them in the first place?
> 
> Sylvia.

https://youtu.be/qhbuKbxJsk8?t=9m39s 

pi / (pi - (pi * 0.9999)) = 10000

((2 * pi) / 200) / (pi - (pi * 0.9999)) =  10^2


modulo 200
https://youtu.be/qhbuKbxJsk8?t=8m54s

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373536

On Wednesday, January 6, 2016 at 7:59:13 AM UTC-6, David Fuller wrote:
> (4pi*10^-7)/((2pi/101)/49500) = 0.9999


http://oi68.tinypic.com/2djuph0.jpg

1 / ((15 - 1) / 4) = 0.28571428571

(2 * pi) / (6 + (1 / ((15 - 1) / 4))) = 0.9995976625

pi / (22/7) = 0.9995976625

pi / (2 + (8 / (8 - 1))) = 0.9995976625

2 / ((1 - sqrt((((44 / 7) / 15)^2) - ((((44 / 7) / 15) / 2)^2))) * pi) = 0.99925545672

600 000 000 / ((1 - sqrt((((44 / 7) / 15)^2) - ((((44 / 7) / 15) / 2)^2))) * pi) = 299776637.017

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web