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

Groups > sci.physics > #636657 > unrolled thread

The Rule Of 72

Started byThe Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
First post2017-06-16 10:27 -0700
Last post2017-06-18 16:07 -0700
Articles 11 on this page of 31 — 9 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  The Rule Of 72 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-16 10:27 -0700
    Re: The Rule Of 72 William Elliot <marsh@panix.com> - 2017-06-18 00:46 -0700
      Re: The Rule Of 72 Sегgi о <iinvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-18 07:03 -0500
        Re: The Rule Of 72 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-06-18 13:21 +0000
          Re: The Rule Of 72 Jack Fearnley <jack@alcor.concordia.ca> - 2017-06-18 18:42 +0000
            Re: The Rule Of 72 Sегgi о <iinvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-18 14:18 -0500
              Re: The Rule Of 72 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-06-19 12:43 +0000
                Re: The Rule Of 72 Sегgi о <iinvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-19 08:45 -0500
                  Re: The Rule Of 72 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-06-20 12:12 +0000
            Re: The Rule Of 72 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-06-19 12:43 +0000
              Re: The Rule Of 72 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-19 10:46 -0700
                Re: The Rule Of 72 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-19 20:01 -0700
                Re: The Rule Of 72 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-06-20 12:12 +0000
                  Re: The Rule Of 72 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-20 07:28 -0700
                    Re: The Rule Of 72 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-06-21 12:54 +0000
                      Re: The Rule Of 72 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-21 12:19 -0700
                        Re: The Rule Of 72 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-06-22 12:28 +0000
                          Re: The Rule Of 72 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-22 08:58 -0700
                            Re: The Rule Of 72 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-06-23 11:40 +0000
                              Re: The Rule Of 72 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-23 10:11 -0700
                                Re: The Rule Of 72 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-06-24 11:40 +0000
                                  Re: The Rule Of 72 Valok Planek <lkupuu@kwklewan.oo> - 2017-06-24 11:46 +0000
                                    Re: The Rule Of 72 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-06-25 13:50 +0000
                                  Re: The Rule Of 72 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-24 09:12 -0700
                                    Re: The Rule Of 72 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-06-25 13:50 +0000
                  Re: The Rule Of 72 Jack Fearnley <jack@alcor.concordia.ca> - 2017-06-20 14:54 +0000
                    Re: The Rule Of 72 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-06-21 12:54 +0000
      Re: The Rule Of 72 djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2017-06-18 14:07 +0000
        Re: The Rule Of 72 David Bernier <david250@videotron.ca> - 2017-06-18 12:38 -0400
          Re: The Rule Of 72 djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2017-06-18 19:27 +0000
      Re: The Rule Of 72 "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-06-18 16:07 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#637538

Fromjmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com>
Date2017-06-24 11:40 +0000
Message-ID<PM000552B35C30858F@aca40855.ipt.aol.com>
In reply to#637449
The Starmaker wrote:
> jmfbahciv wrote:
>>
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>> > jmfbahciv wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The Starmaker wrote:
>> >> > jmfbahciv wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The Starmaker wrote:
>> >> >> > jmfbahciv wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> [some newsgroups elided]
>> >> >>
>> >> >> <snip>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Well, if that is the case then the speed of light should read:
>> >> 299,792,459
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > somebody must have made a mistake somewhere...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > (i was wondering how that "8" got in there...)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The fact that you didn't read anything I wrote is noted.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> /BAH
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > i think you said it was numerlogy and not an accounting trick,
so...it's
>> all
>> >> about the number "9" in the
>> >> > world of numerology.
>> >>
>> >> That's not what I wrote.  Your flip flopped when it shouldh't have.
>> >>
>> >> <snip nonsense>
>> >>
>> >> /BAH
>> >
>> >
>> > Well, here is what you wrote:
>> >
>> > "I'm not talking about numerology.  I'm talking about real accounting
>> >  and bookkeeping practices."
>>
>> Do you know what the word "not" means?
>>
>> hmmm...perhaps this is the cause of all the confusion you have in
>> your posts.
>>
>> /BAH
>
>
> Well, I wasn't talking about "numerology" beforehand, ...but since You seem
to recognize it as "numerology" then you
> are stating it was ...numerology.

But you were doing numerology in the text which has been elided; it was
a half-assed numerology rendition.

>
>
> I mean...that's How I read it, I don't know How You read it, I can only go
by your words, not your intentions.
>
> But...you're problably a Number person and not a Word person.

No wonder you have problems in this newsgroup's topics.  I'm beginning
to understand how you think.
>
>
> I'm not a Number person...

/BAH

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

#637539

FromValok Planek <lkupuu@kwklewan.oo>
Date2017-06-24 11:46 +0000
Message-ID<oiljdn$id7$2@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#637538
jmfbahciv wrote:

>> But...you're problably a Number person and not a Word person.
> 
> No wonder you have problems in this newsgroup's topics.  I'm beginning
> to understand how you think.
>
>> I'm not a Number person...
> 
> /BAH

You are insulting me by saying /BAH.

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

#637653

Fromjmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com>
Date2017-06-25 13:50 +0000
Message-ID<PM000552C9415A5412@aca403ad.ipt.aol.com>
In reply to#637539
Valok Planek wrote:
> jmfbahciv wrote:
>
>>> But...you're problably a Number person and not a Word person.
>>
>> No wonder you have problems in this newsgroup's topics.  I'm beginning
>> to understand how you think.
>>
>>> I'm not a Number person...
>>
>> /BAH
>
> You are insulting me by saying /BAH.

If you're insulted with this, you need to reexamine your assumptions.

/BAH

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

#637547

FromThe Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Date2017-06-24 09:12 -0700
Message-ID<594E8F6A.6F83@ix.netcom.com>
In reply to#637538
jmfbahciv wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> > jmfbahciv wrote:
> >>
> >> The Starmaker wrote:
> >> > jmfbahciv wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> The Starmaker wrote:
> >> >> > jmfbahciv wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The Starmaker wrote:
> >> >> >> > jmfbahciv wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> [some newsgroups elided]
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> <snip>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Well, if that is the case then the speed of light should read:
> >> >> 299,792,459
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > somebody must have made a mistake somewhere...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > (i was wondering how that "8" got in there...)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The fact that you didn't read anything I wrote is noted.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> /BAH
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > i think you said it was numerlogy and not an accounting trick,
> so...it's
> >> all
> >> >> about the number "9" in the
> >> >> > world of numerology.
> >> >>
> >> >> That's not what I wrote.  Your flip flopped when it shouldh't have.
> >> >>
> >> >> <snip nonsense>
> >> >>
> >> >> /BAH
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Well, here is what you wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "I'm not talking about numerology.  I'm talking about real accounting
> >> >  and bookkeeping practices."
> >>
> >> Do you know what the word "not" means?
> >>
> >> hmmm...perhaps this is the cause of all the confusion you have in
> >> your posts.
> >>
> >> /BAH
> >
> >
> > Well, I wasn't talking about "numerology" beforehand, ...but since You seem
> to recognize it as "numerology" then you
> > are stating it was ...numerology.
> 
> But you were doing numerology in the text which has been elided; it was
> a half-assed numerology rendition.

I wasn't really aware I was doing numerology...I thought I was doing science math highly advanced mathematics!  



> 
> >
> >
> > I mean...that's How I read it, I don't know How You read it, I can only go
> by your words, not your intentions.
> >
> > But...you're problably a Number person and not a Word person.
> 
> No wonder you have problems in this newsgroup's topics.  I'm beginning
> to understand how you think.


I wasn't really aware I was...thinking. 


> >
> >
> > I'm not a Number person...
> 
> /BAH

humbug/

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

#637652

Fromjmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com>
Date2017-06-25 13:50 +0000
Message-ID<PM000552C94BDAFACC@aca403ad.ipt.aol.com>
In reply to#637547
The Starmaker wrote:
> jmfbahciv wrote:


>> > Well, I wasn't talking about "numerology" beforehand, ...but since You
seem
>> to recognize it as "numerology" then you
>> > are stating it was ...numerology.
>>
>> But you were doing numerology in the text which has been elided; it was
>> a half-assed numerology rendition.
>
> I wasn't really aware I was doing numerology...I thought I was doing science
> math highly advanced mathematics!

I'm not aware of any advanced science math which is dependent on counting
the occurrence of numerals in all values.

>> No wonder you have problems in this newsgroup's topics.  I'm beginning
>> to understand how you think.
>
>
> I wasn't really aware I was...thinking.

ROTFLMAO.

>>
>> /BAH
>
> humbug/

A very old worn-out joke.

/BAH

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

#637058

FromJack Fearnley <jack@alcor.concordia.ca>
Date2017-06-20 14:54 +0000
Message-ID<oibcvt$lg1$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#637050
On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 12:12:35 +0000, jmfbahciv wrote:


> 
> I'm not talking about numerology.  I'm talking about real accounting and
> bookkeeping practices.  IIRC, one of the "9" tricks helped a bookkeeper
> figure out if an imbalance was caused by transposing two numbers.  there
> were many more little tricks to figure out mistakes.
> 
> /BAH

This trick is usually called 'casting out nines'.

You can get lots of info if you Google it.

Jack Fearnley

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

#637140

Fromjmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com>
Date2017-06-21 12:54 +0000
Message-ID<PM0005527805FEB550@aca4471d.ipt.aol.com>
In reply to#637058
Jack Fearnley wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 12:12:35 +0000, jmfbahciv wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I'm not talking about numerology.  I'm talking about real accounting and
>> bookkeeping practices.  IIRC, one of the "9" tricks helped a bookkeeper
>> figure out if an imbalance was caused by transposing two numbers.  there
>> were many more little tricks to figure out mistakes.
>>
>> /BAH
>
> This trick is usually called 'casting out nines'.
>
> You can get lots of info if you Google it.

Ah, thank you.  I could not remember what it was called.

/BAH

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

#636832

Fromdjheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
Date2017-06-18 14:07 +0000
Message-ID<orqxvp.1F9D@kithrup.com>
In reply to#636824
In article <Pine.NEB.4.64.1706180046100.4820@panix5.panix.com>,
William Elliot  <marsh@panix.com> wrote:
>What's the rule of 72?
>
>On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, The Starmaker wrote:
>
>> Einstein did not create The Rule Of 72.

The only Rule of 72 I know of appears from time to time in the
"fortune" login message on my UNIX machine.  As follows:

> I'm going through my "I want to go back to New York" phase today.
> Happens every six months or so.  So, I thought, perhaps unwisely,
> that I'd share it with you.

> In New York in the winter it is million degrees below zero and
> the wind travels at a million miles an hour down 5th avenue.
> And in LA it's 72.

> In New York in the summer it is a million degrees and the
> humidity is a million percent.
> And in LA it's 72.

> In New York there are a million interesting people.
> And in LA there are 72.

And no, I don't think Einstein wrote it.

-- 
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

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

#636841

FromDavid Bernier <david250@videotron.ca>
Date2017-06-18 12:38 -0400
Message-ID<oi6a35$ee5$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#636832
On 06/18/2017 10:07 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <Pine.NEB.4.64.1706180046100.4820@panix5.panix.com>,
> William Elliot  <marsh@panix.com> wrote:
>> What's the rule of 72?
>>
>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>>> Einstein did not create The Rule Of 72.
> 
> The only Rule of 72 I know of appears from time to time in the
> "fortune" login message on my UNIX machine.  As follows:
> 
>> I'm going through my "I want to go back to New York" phase today.
>> Happens every six months or so.  So, I thought, perhaps unwisely,
>> that I'd share it with you.
> 
>> In New York in the winter it is million degrees below zero and
>> the wind travels at a million miles an hour down 5th avenue.
>> And in LA it's 72.
> 
>> In New York in the summer it is a million degrees and the
>> humidity is a million percent.
>> And in LA it's 72.
> 
>> In New York there are a million interesting people.
>> And in LA there are 72.
> 
> And no, I don't think Einstein wrote it.
> 

LA: "Less Than Zero" (the novel) is set in Los Angeles ...

ref.: Less Than Zero (Wikipedia),

< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Less_Than_Zero_(novel) > .

David Bernier

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

#636859

Fromdjheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
Date2017-06-18 19:27 +0000
Message-ID<orrCpz.5Mw@kithrup.com>
In reply to#636841
In article <oi6a35$ee5$1@dont-email.me>,
David Bernier  <david250@videotron.ca> wrote:
>On 06/18/2017 10:07 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> In article <Pine.NEB.4.64.1706180046100.4820@panix5.panix.com>,
>> William Elliot  <marsh@panix.com> wrote:
>>> What's the rule of 72?
>>>
>>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>
>>>> Einstein did not create The Rule Of 72.
>> 
>> The only Rule of 72 I know of appears from time to time in the
>> "fortune" login message on my UNIX machine.  As follows:
>> 
>>> I'm going through my "I want to go back to New York" phase today.
>>> Happens every six months or so.  So, I thought, perhaps unwisely,
>>> that I'd share it with you.
>> 
>>> In New York in the winter it is million degrees below zero and
>>> the wind travels at a million miles an hour down 5th avenue.
>>> And in LA it's 72.
>> 
>>> In New York in the summer it is a million degrees and the
>>> humidity is a million percent.
>>> And in LA it's 72.
>> 
>>> In New York there are a million interesting people.
>>> And in LA there are 72.
>> 
>> And no, I don't think Einstein wrote it.
>> 
>
>LA: "Less Than Zero" (the novel) is set in Los Angeles ...
>
>ref.: Less Than Zero (Wikipedia),
>
>< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Less_Than_Zero_(novel) > .

Well, yucch.

-- 
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

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

#636838

From"hanson" <hanson@quick.net>
Date2017-06-18 16:07 -0700
Message-ID<oi68b3$8la$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#636824
"William Elliot" <marsh@panix.com> wrote:
> What's the rule of 72?
> 
> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> the SternKacker  wrote:
>> Einstein did not create The Rule Of 72.
>
hanson wrote:
<http://tinyurl.com/Tears-for-Einsteins-Misery>
who was arrested for wife-beating in 1906, twice,
and AE did not create anything and much less
Rule 72 which is position 69 with 3 people watching.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web