godalmighty

ahh, a dullard that is veiled

Vorkosigan

Yes. Where, mathematically, did 6812 come from? How is it that you were able to multiply 100 years in days? Which day did you choose, and why? Why did you use miles, and not kilometers? You cannot legally multiply days * miles and get anything rational. It's total nonsense, Godalmighty. It's so stupid when you first posted I thought you were an atheist making a joke.

You can do this with any numbers and any units, Godalmighty. Take my house. In Chinese area measure ping it is 104 ping. That happens to be my age, my wife's age, and the age of my son and daughter all added together. Whoa! It can't be coincidence. But then my daughter had a birthday this week, so we're up 1, but that's ok! A dog died in front of my house yesterday, so I can subtract 1, right? And look! We're back to 104.

These relationships exist only in your own subjectivity. There is no reason or rule that permits you to express a cube as 0.6812. Why didn't you multiply them together? Why not add them? Or divide them? Or mix them up randomly? Even if we accept that the Cube is really mystical and deep, that doesn't help us know how we should treat the numbers. That's the problem with numerology. There are no RULES. They exist only in the form of relationships perceived by the user, that do not make sense to others with different numerological systems. In your system 4 is an important number, 4 gospels and 4 winds....in China, 4 is the unluckiest and least important number, as it sounds like death. Which system is the right one, and how do you know? Only by your own subjectivity.

Vorkosigan

godalmighty

I guess you haven't read TCF (The Creator Formula)

Where did 6812 come from?

What does TCF state?

Why use days in 100 years?

What does TCF state?

Why are miles the correct unit for this formula?

What does TCF state?

Did you read TCG?

NO

A cube is a creation ICON in most religions from ancient egypt to islam.

Express a cube using simple ecludian observation

6 8 12 if you don't know what those numbers are READ TCF

So TCF explained that, why are you asking why if it is explained within TCF

A cube is a major icon in creation mythos SO USE IT

A cube is 6 8 12 Mathematical USE IT

100 years is another creation ICON in many religions creation mythos, TCF explains this

36525 is used in creation mythos as well, it is the same as 100 years, since earth has 36525 orbital rotations in 100 years

So you see as TCF explained two major creation icons in most religions are CUBE and 100 years or 36525 Days

It is said in various religions that 100 years and 36525 days are measuring units to measure the earth SO USE IT

It is said in various religions that earth is a CUBE so USE IT

Does a cube and 100 years create the earths measurements as ancient religious mythos stated it does?

YES

Cube (6 8 12) x 100 years (36525 orbits) = earth (24881)

so the key numbers are 36525/24881 = .6812 (cube)

Why 24881 in miles?

READ TCF

TCF explains how the mile is based on a measuring unit that claims to be the unit of THE GODS

Now, you can look at TCF and see how it is a highly philosophical proof with simple math that does validate ancient mythos about creation

That's all it is meant to do, the real PROOF of TCF was released as PROOF OF TCF or PDF I

That proof shows a purely mathematical relationship between the planets to earth that is in the many billions to 1 probability range

Why don't you read before you ask such asinine questions

Why Why Why

It's in TCF READ IT


:devil3:

Sven

I've no idea why I even answer to this crap... perhaps I'm a little bit masochistic?

No. Judging by what you wrote in this thread, it isn't worth the time.

How about a short answer?

How about a short answer?

Evidence for this?

What's the relevance of creation icons / cubes to astronomy?

You explained these number. You didn't explain anywhere why you simply grouped them together to 6812, instead of
(1) adding them
(2) multiplying them
(3) sorting them by their individual digits: 1268
(4) etc. etc. etc.
You also didn't explain why you ignored the 8 three fold symmetry axes, the 9 twofold symmetry axes, the 6 fourfold symmetry axes, the inversion center, the 6 fourfold mirror-rotating axes, the 8 sixfold mirror-rotating axes and the 9 mirror planes (if you don't know where these numbers come from, look up a character table for the group Oh).
Look, if you include these, you get 1666888912.
Please do the calculations again with this number.

Evidence for this?

As Vorkosigan repeatedly explained: This depends on the type of year and day you use.

And gives what as evidence?

Another point which was brought up at least four times: So what? We have (crude guess) about 100 billion billions of planet systems in the (observable) universe. So even many billions mean nothing.

You also ignored that the "proof" is only "watetight" to two decimals - at best!! - and that the numbers which are used changed all the time since the birth of our solar system.

This will be my only contribution here, if anyone (including lurkers) still didn't get that your "proof" is the most funny crap I've read the last few weeks, they're beyond help.

Vorkosigan

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

mirage

I assume you're talking to me. It's vernacular btw, and we're not taling in vernacular at the moment.

That's good the CAPS LOCK makes you sound much less like a moron. You are not comparing the circumferences (which can't be aligned) or the orbits (which could be). You are comparing numbers formed by arbitrary calculations for which no meaningful units or physical sense can be derived. So these numbers are not ALIGNED.

I'll tell you how to express yourself until such time as you have a clue how to express yourself.

mirage

P.S. Which ancient religion correctly predicted a spheroid earth, since they are all so rife with circumference numbers?

And what in the name of Christ is that 0.4 doing for Mercury? (I haven't bothered looking at the other planets since the first was such bullshit). Mercury isn't accurate to 2 DP or even one (since the ratio is 0.39). It's accurate to none, as that 0.4 fix factor is just stuck in there without comment.

Classical

godalmighty you can argue all these numbers til the cows come home but I won't get it. I am wondering if your number theory is so astonishingly correct and amazing, then what does this mean to us? Read my original post a few pages back.

PS: I hope your horrifying prediction of the end of western civilization doesn't happen in my lifetime.

mirage

To be fair (and to play the Devil's advocate), you can't really apply the anthropic principle to this one. This solar system is the only one we have these sort of measurements for, so if there really were a striking pattern in its structure it would be remarkable.

There just isn't.

Quality

Don't forget the 3 (x,y,z) spacial axes that the cube in on.