Higgs scientific discovery

[Heyesey]

Originally Posted by Druidoak

Use the net, use a library the information is out there. I will give you a starting point though. Read "The Jesus Mystery" by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy and no it's not a dogma laden book trying to promote the Christian religion. It is a good stepping stone to further knowledge.

How many equations are in it?

[Druidoak]

Originally Posted by Heyesey

How many equations are in it?

That is for me to know and you to find out.

[Heyesey]

Originally Posted by Druidoak

That is for me to know and you to find out.

Why would I waste my time reading something when even the guy who is recommending it, doesn't rate it highly enough to answer one simple question?

[Druidoak]

Originally Posted by Heyesey

Why would I waste my time reading something when even the guy who is recommending it, doesn't rate it highly enough to answer one simple question?

If your unwilling to put forth the effort to learn, that is your loss not mine.

[deviousdave]

The Jesus mystery

Jesus Mysteries thesis

Freke and Gandy base the Jesus Mysteries thesis partly on a series of parallels between their suggested biography of Osiris-Dionysus and the biography of Jesus drawn from the four canonical gospels. Their suggested reconstruction of the myth of Osiris-Dionysus, compiled from the myths of ancient dying and resurrected "godmen," bears a striking resemblance to the gospel accounts. The authors give a short list of parallels at the beginning of the book:
Osiris-Dionysus is God made flesh, the savior and "Son of God."
His father is God and his mother is a mortal virgin, 7 month pregnancy.
He is born in a cave or humble cowshed on December 25 before three shepherds.
He offers his followers the chance to be born again through the rites of baptism.
He miraculously turns water into wine at a marriage ceremony.
He rides triumphantly into town on a donkey while people wave palm leaves to honor him.
He dies at Eastertime as a sacrifice for the sins of the world.
After his death he descends to hell, then on the third day he rises from the dead and ascends to heaven in glory.
His followers await his return as the judge during the Last Days.
His death and resurrection are celebrated by a ritual meal of bread and wine, which symbolize his body and blood.[2]
Later chapters add further parallels, including Mary's 7 month pregnancy.
According to The Jesus Mysteries, Christianity originated as a Judaized version of the pagan mystery religions. Hellenized Jews wrote a version of the godman myth incorporating Jewish elements. Initiates learned the myth and its allegorical meanings through the Outer and Inner Mysteries. (A similar pattern of "Lesser" and "Greater" Mysteries was part of the pagan Eleusinian Mysteries. Mithraism was structured around seven serial initiations.) They suggest that, at some point, groups of Christians who had only experienced the Outer Mysteries were split off from the elders of the religion and forgot that there had ever been a second initiation, and that, later, when they encountered groups who had retained the Inner Mysteries, the "Literalist Christians" attacked the "Gnostics" for claiming what the Literalists saw as false knowledge and false initiations. They claim that the Literalists won out when the emperor Constantine saw the political merit of 'one empire, one emperor, one god', nearly exterminating the Gnostics, and became the Roman Catholic Church and its modern descendants.


Reception

Chris Forbes, an ancient historian and senior lecturer at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia, has criticised the work noting that Freke and Gandy are "not real scholars, they are popularisers.” He notes that their arguments about Jesus are "grossly misconceived, and their attempt to draw links between Jesus and various pagan god-men is completely muddled. It looks impressive because of the sheer mass of the material, but when you break it down and look at it point by point, it really comes to pieces.”[3]
Paul Barnett, a New Testament scholar who has authored several books on the historical Jesus, argues that a good proportion of the citations are out of date. "Like the Gnostics, Freke and Gandy have a mystical mindset and therefore oppose Christianity as grounded in history," he wrote. "They hate the idea that the incarnation of the Son of God and his resurrection could have been a matter of actual flesh and blood and time and place."[4]
When the BBC approached N. T. Wright, asking him to debate Freke and Gandy concerning their thesis in The Jesus Mysteries, Wright replied that "this was like asking a professional astronomer to debate with the authors of a book claiming the moon was made of green cheese."[5]
Bart Ehrman, in an interview with the Fortean Times, was similarly asked for his views on the work of Freke and Gandy. He responded by saying, "This is an old argument, even though it shows up every 10 years or so. This current craze that Christianity was a mystery religion like these other mystery religions-the people who are saying this are almost always people who know nothing about the mystery religions; they've read a few popular books, but they're not scholars of mystery religions. The reality is, we know very little about mystery religions-the whole point of mystery religions is that they're secret! So I think it's crazy to build on ignorance in order to make a claim like this.[6]
David Allan Dodson, a reviewer for CNN, found the book to be interesting, he stated that "while the authors discuss many examples of elements of Osiris/Dionysus in the Jesus story, they virtually ignore the more direct ties to Jewish tradition and prophecy. This oversight undermines the credibility of many of their arguments, and could have the tendency to mislead the novice reader in this subject".[7] However, while Dodson wasn't fully convinced by the authors that Jesus was completely fictional, he did end his review with the following supportive remarks: "The Jesus Mysteries left this reviewer more convinced than ever that the life of Jesus as we know it is filled with mythological, political, and even polemical elements. Freke and Gandy succeed in bringing some important points about Christianity to the public in a readable, compelling book. Perhaps their willingness to state 'the unthinkable thought' will lead to more objective thinking about religion and tolerance. If so, The Jesus Mysteries is a worthy effort indeed".

It's a book examining the evidence for whether Jesus was a pagan god. The fact that you would even compare it to modern science is an insult to be honest.

[Druidoak]

Originally Posted by deviousdave

The Jesus mystery




It's a book examining the evidence for whether Jesus was a pagan god. The fact that you would even compare it to modern science is an insult to be honest.

LOL! Really, do you even know who the first "scientist" were? Do you know who the first "astrologers" were? Do you know who the first "doctors" were? Do you know who the first "mathematicians" were?

I know, I know the information is so very hard to find. You can thank the Catholic church, for that and their dark ages, where they destroyed most of scientific work prior to their domination. But not all was burned. A lot has been recovered. The book I recommended has documented a lot of the teachings that were around 500 years before the supposed birth of Jesus. The connectivity of everything which is called "String Theory" today, was taught as fact by Pythagoras.

As for the synopsis of the "Jesus Mystery" and the review, you better check the sites ownership and the reviewers religious affiliations.

By the way, you did not answer my questions.

[deviousdave]

Originally Posted by Druidoak

LOL! Really, do you even know who the first "scientist" were? Do you know who the first "astrologers" were? Do you know who the first "doctors" were? Do you know who the first "mathematicians" were?

I know, I know the information is so very hard to find. You can thank the Catholic church, for that and their dark ages, where they destroyed most of scientific work prior to their domination. But not all was burned. A lot has been recovered. The book I recommended has documented a lot of the teachings that were around 500 years before the supposed birth of Jesus. The connectivity of everything which is called "String Theory" today, was taught as fact by Pythagoras.

As for the synopsis of the "Jesus Mystery" and the review, you better check the sites ownership and the reviewers religious affiliations.

By the way, you did not answer my questions.

Could you explain string theory to me, the way in which Pythagoras taught it. I am genuinely interested to hear.

[Whitey44]

Originally Posted by deviousdave

Lets not forget that CERN invented the World Wide Web. Without them, you wouldn't even be here having this discussion.

And how much money has the web generated? Think globalisation, think online purchasing, think research. The information age has dramatically changed the planet and created trillions of dollars worth of industry. Certainly enough to fund all of science at its most extreme for centuries. CERN gave it to the world for free.

CERN is cool, and did start the world wide web, but without these below, you still wouldn't be having this "conversation".

Charles Babbit invented the first computing machine circa 1900.
Lee DeForrest invented the first vacuum tube amplifier circa 1900.
Bell Labs invented the first solid state transistors circa 1950.
A military engineer invented pac.ket switching networks circa 1965
Intel invented the first integrated circuits which included a CPU on a chip circa 1970.
IBM sort of invented the first PC circa 1975.
Apple invented the first user friendly computers. circa 1980.
Microsoft invented Windows circa 1985.
Amateur radio operators applied switching networks to communications with with wireless computer networks in the 1980s.
Finally, enter CERN with the invention of the internet in 1990, or so.

[Whitey44]

Originally Posted by deviousdave

Could you explain string theory to me, the way in which Pythagoras taught it. I am genuinely interested to hear.

String theory has not been validated experimentally. It is a mathematical development. It is not likely the stuff of real physics.

Quantum field theory and QED were based on experiments.

[deviousdave]

Originally Posted by Whitey44

CERN is cool, and did start the world wide web, but without these below, you still wouldn't be having this "conversation".

Charles Babbit invented the first computing machine circa 1900.
Lee DeForrest invented the first vacuum tube amplifier circa 1900.
Bell Labs invented the first solid state transistors circa 1950.
A military engineer invented pac.ket switching networks circa 1965
Intel invented the first integrated circuits which included a CPU on a chip circa 1970.
IBM sort of invented the first PC circa 1975.
Apple invented the first user friendly computers. circa 1980.
Microsoft invented Windows circa 1985.
Amateur radio operators applied switching networks to communications with with wireless computer networks in the 1980s.
Finally, enter CERN with the invention of the internet in 1990, or so.

I'm not sure on the point that you are trying to make. Or how it in any way refutes my point on the importance of particle physics.

The vacuum tube amplifier would not have been possible without the early study of particle physics, such as the experiments done by the likes of William Crookes amongst others in discovering the electron. All the following inventions are based on transistors, which were invented based on our knowledge of Quantum mechanics, our best understanding of the atomic world.

[deviousdave]

Originally Posted by Whitey44

String theory has not been validated experimentally. It is a mathematical development. It is not likely the stuff of real physics.

Quantum field theory and QED were based on experiments.

The difference between mathematics and physics is merely application. Maths is the most important tool of the physicist and String theory is series of mathematical solutions to a question about nature. It is therefore physics.

For the record I know what string theory is, and how it was derived. What I want to know is the string theory that Pythagoras taught as fact.

[deviousdave]

Originally Posted by Whitey44

Charles Babbit invented the first computing machine circa 1900.

Charles Babbage*

[Heyesey]

Originally Posted by deviousdave

For the record I know what string theory is, and how it was derived. What I want to know is the string theory that Pythagoras taught as fact.

I can tell you that. Pythagoras believed, and taught, that everything was connected, and that everything in the universe was made up of numbers.

He had no evidence, no experimental validation, and no good reason for believing any of it; he just did. Claiming that he had insight into some great physical truth, is on a par with claiming that the Vikings understood the astrophysics behind stellar evolution because their beliefs included the end of the world underneat a Sun turned red. It's a good argument for placing the believer in a lunatic asylum, but nothing else.


Druidoak knows damn well that Pythagoras did not have any understanding of particle physics, which is why he's refusing to answer any of my questions about this book despite claiming that it's so vitally important.

[Druidoak]

Originally Posted by Heyesey

I can tell you that. Pythagoras believed, and taught, that everything was connected, and that everything in the universe was made up of numbers.

He had no evidence, no experimental validation, and no good reason for believing any of it; he just did. Claiming that he had insight into some great physical truth, is on a par with claiming that the Vikings understood the astrophysics behind stellar evolution because their beliefs included the end of the world underneat a Sun turned red. It's a good argument for placing the believer in a lunatic asylum, but nothing else.


Druidoak knows damn well that Pythagoras did not have any understanding of particle physics, which is why he's refusing to answer any of my questions about this book despite claiming that it's so vitally important.

Thanks for answering Dave's question for me!

How Pythagoras knew is besides the point, he knew! I'm still studying, still trying to rediscover what has been lost. I only used Pythagoras as an example because his name is better known than his contemporaries.

[Heyesey]

Originally Posted by Druidoak

How Pythagoras knew is besides the point, he knew! .

No he didn't. He had not one shred of evidence to support his position.

[deviousdave]

And in what way does it reconcile Quantum Mechanics with General relativity?
How many dimensions does the theory indicate?
How does it describe what a particle actually is, and how does it differentiate particles from one another.

While on the subject of Pythagoras, How did he feel about the square root of 2?

[Druidoak]

Originally Posted by Heyesey

No he didn't. He had not one shred of evidence to support his position.

LOL, keep telling yourself that. Do you have to know how a computer works, to use one?

[Heyesey]

Originally Posted by Druidoak

LOL, keep telling yourself that.

The point is that I'm telling you, but you're far too stupid to tell the difference between a position backed by evidence and a madman saying "I DECLARE IT TO BE TRUE SO YOU MUST BELIEVE."


At least, though, everyone else can see how utterly stupid your position is and will avoid being taken in by it. That's something.

[clarise]

You guys are funny.

Pythagoras likely did not invent the Pythagorean theorem. It is falsely attributed to the Pythagorean school of mystics in Elements. What little we do know of Pythagoras comes from Euclid-- not because "much was lost," but because Pythagoras was a poor mathematician and in fact little more than a numerologist (i.e., a fortune teller who used numbers for thaumaturgy).

We do, however, know virtually the whole of Greek mathematics, up and to the time of Euclid, for whom the Pythagorean Theorem was already ancient.

Oddly enough, neither Euclid nor Pythagoras could possibly have brought the world string theory, because they did not even have algebra. The Pythagorean theorem as defined in Elements does not even use numbers, much less algebraic variables. That is, Euclid could not have known how to express "h = (x^2 + y^2)^0.5" symbolically. He did not have the means to do so. Instead, it is conveyed geometrically, with shapes, as a completion of squares.

Euclid is also credited with quadratic formulas, but erroneously. There again, his rules were geometrically conveyed, and since Euclid had knowledge neither of zero nor of negative numbers, he could not have resolved curves with quadratics (i.e., second degree polynomials).

In fact Euclid could not even prove that parallel lines never touch. He plugged the assertion into Elements as a postulate and never proved it. Over the centuries mathematicians tried and failed to prove it. This seemingly simple and intuitive "fact" was not proved until the nineteenth century, by Lobachevsky, who proved it for vector spaces having negative, zero, and positive curvature. The latter possibility, positive curvature, is the basis of Riemannian geometry, without which it is impossible to describe spacetime in terms of partial differential equations and without which Einstein could not have developed the tensor formulas for general relativity. (The point being, millions of baby steps were being made, toward Einstein, even through the "dark ages," when Druidoak would have us believe that "all was lost.")

Even Archimedes, arguably one of the best applied mathematicians in history prior to the nineteenth century, could not calculate second degree polynomials symbolically, but instead completed squares geometrically, using straightedge and compass in the Euclidean style.

The first incidence of symbolic handling of polynomials in Greek history occurs with Diophantus, but he could work only with rational numbers (i.e., numbers that are expressible as quotients of integers); hence the term "Diophantine Equations" today.

The first use of zero and negative numbers known to Western science occurs with the Arabs, but "zero" is falsely attributed to them. They only used "zero" as a placeholder, and they likely inherited the idea from the Hindus. At any rate, the Arab Al-Khwarizimi gave Europe his "compendious book of calculation and completion, the Kitab al mukhtasar fi hisab al-jabr w'al-muqabala, from which we get the world "algebra" (al-jabr).

Yet even Al-Khwarizimi's book did not contain algebra as high school students know it today. It consisted for the most part of word problems and spread through Europe due to its novel use of the decimal placeholder system (10's, 100's, etc.).

One cannot do string theory without complex numbers, i.e., numbers for which (-1)^0.5 is defined. Mankind did not have complex numbers, which are attributed to Bombelli in the 16th century but were not fully developed until the 19th century. In fact there is much that we are still learning about the complex number field (and even the real number field, for that matter).

Anyway, what are we harping about? Isn't Druidoak just some kind of Jolieteque troll?

[deviousdave]

Originally Posted by clarise

You guys are funny.

Pythagoras likely did not invent the Pythagorean theorem. It is falsely attributed to the Pythagorean school of mystics in Elements. What little we do know of Pythagoras comes from Euclid-- not because "much was lost," but because Pythagoras was a poor mathematician and in fact little more than a numerologist (i.e., a fortune teller who used numbers for thaumaturgy).

We do, however, know virtually the whole of Greek mathematics, up and to the time of Euclid, for whom the Pythagorean Theorem was already ancient.

Oddly enough, neither Euclid nor Pythagoras could possibly have brought the world string theory, because they did not even have algebra. The Pythagorean theorem as defined in Elements does not even use numbers, much less algebraic variables. That is, Euclid could not have known how to express "h = (x^2 + y^2)^0.5" symbolically. He did not have the means to do so. Instead, it is conveyed geometrically, with shapes, as a completion of squares.

Euclid is also credited with quadratic formulas, but erroneously. There again, his rules were geometrically conveyed, and since Euclid had knowledge neither of zero nor of negative numbers, he could not have resolved curves with quadratics (i.e., second degree polynomials).

In fact Euclid could not even prove that parallel lines never touch. He plugged the assertion into Elements as a postulate and never proved it. Over the centuries mathematicians tried and failed to prove it. This seemingly simple and intuitive "fact" was not proved until the nineteenth century, by Lobachevsky, who proved it for vector spaces having negative, zero, and positive curvature. The latter possibility, positive curvature, is the basis of Riemannian geometry, without which it is impossible to describe spacetime in terms of partial differential equations and without which Einstein could not have developed the tensor formulas for general relativity. (The point being, millions of baby steps were being made, toward Einstein, even through the "dark ages," when Druidoak would have us believe that "all was lost.")

Even Archimedes, arguably one of the best applied mathematicians in history prior to the nineteenth century, could not calculate second degree polynomials symbolically, but instead completed squares geometrically, using straightedge and compass in the Euclidean style.

The first incidence of symbolic handling of polynomials in Greek history occurs with Diophantus, but he could work only with rational numbers (i.e., numbers that are expressible as quotients of integers); hence the term "Diophantine Equations" today.

The first use of zero and negative numbers known to Western science occurs with the Arabs, but "zero" is falsely attributed to them. They only used "zero" as a placeholder, and they likely inherited the idea from the Hindus. At any rate, the Arab Al-Khwarizimi gave Europe his "compendious book of calculation and completion, the Kitab al mukhtasar fi hisab al-jabr w'al-muqabala, from which we get the world "algebra" (al-jabr).

Yet even Al-Khwarizimi's book did not contain algebra as high school students know it today. It consisted for the most part of word problems and spread through Europe due to its novel use of the decimal placeholder system (10's, 100's, etc.).

One cannot do string theory without complex numbers, i.e., numbers for which (-1)^0.5 is defined. Mankind did not have complex numbers, which are attributed to Bombelli in the 16th century but were not fully developed until the 19th century. In fact there is much that we are still learning about the complex number field (and even the real number field, for that matter).

Anyway, what are we harping about? Isn't Druidoak just some kind of Jolieteque troll?

I haven't been this turned on in a while

[Druidoak]

Originally Posted by Heyesey

The point is that I'm telling you, but you're far too stupid to tell the difference between a position backed by evidence and a madman saying "I DECLARE IT TO BE TRUE SO YOU MUST BELIEVE."


At least, though, everyone else can see how utterly stupid your position is and will avoid being taken in by it. That's something.

Originally Posted by clarise

You guys are funny.

Anyway, what are we harping about? Isn't Druidoak just some kind of Jolieteque troll?

Name calling, tisk, tisk. The final refuge of the desperate.

[Heyesey]

Originally Posted by Druidoak

Name calling, tisk, tisk. The final refuge of the desperate.

Sometimes. Other times it's all there is left to do when someone continues to repeat the same old rubbish despite it having been comprehensively refuted; all that's left to do is call him a fuckwit and move on.

[clarise]

Originally Posted by Druidoak

Name calling, tisk, tisk. The final refuge of the desperate.

Tisk is spelled tsk.

Well, if you're not a zaney intern-style troll, what are you doing? I've read the whole thread. You sound like a dweeb, and you haven't made a single attempt to refute a single thing a single person has said to you.

And speaking of name calling, that would be like in the circumcision thread, when you called a former lover "Suzy Rotten Crotch," right? Sheesh. You're a good Christian, aren't you? If you've ever had a girl. Has it ever occurred to you that the female scent could repel you because you're a homo? There would be nothing wrong with that, you know. Homosexuality is nothing to be ashamed of.

Oh, and by the way? I have the Gospel of Thomas on my shelf, too, and I've actually read it. So, did J.C. really say, "If God did not intend for you to have it, you would not have been born with it?" Jesus said that? Really? (giggles) What a stupid little dweeb.

[Druidoak]

Originally Posted by clarise

Tisk is spelled tsk.

Well, if you're not a zaney intern-style troll, what are you doing? I've read the whole thread. You sound like a dweeb, and you haven't made a single attempt to refute a single thing a single person has said to you.

And speaking of name calling, that would be like in the circumcision thread, when you called a former lover "Suzy Rotten Crotch," right? Sheesh. You're a good Christian, aren't you? If you've ever had a girl. Has it ever occurred to you that the female scent could repel you because you're a homo? There would be nothing wrong with that, you know. Homosexuality is nothing to be ashamed of.

Oh, and by the way? I have the Gospel of Thomas on my shelf, too, and I've actually read it. So, did J.C. really say, "If God did not intend for you to have it, you would not have been born with it?" Jesus said that? Really? (giggles) What a stupid little dweeb.

Little Suzy Rotten Crotch is a discription with a military connection. Ask a jarhead if you don't believe me. If I was gay I would freely admit to it, hell I admitted to following the Druid path 4 years ago when I joined this site. LOL Little I am not, old, fat and gray I am. You don't believe that my verification pic is on page#5 Knock yourself out.

[clarise]

Originally Posted by Druidoak

Little Suzy Rotten Crotch is a discription with a military connection. Ask a jarhead if you don't believe me. If I was gay I would freely admit to it, hell I admitted to following the Druid path 4 years ago when I joined this site. LOL Little I am not, old, fat and gray I am. You don't believe that my verification pic is on page#5 Knock yourself out.

I believe you. That the term is military slang somehow legitimizes it?

Troll is a discription with a porn forum connection. Ask a pervert if you don't believe me.

Doesn't matter how big or small you are, dweeb. Trolls come in all shapes and sizes. (As do gays, for that matter.)

Out of curiosity... you went out of your way to be a Druid. Given that you seem not to know anything about anything (except a few potty words), has it ever occurred to you that turning your life upside-down might have been an ill-advised and ill-informed move?

[smcaaphd]

Crikey - this is not a thread you can skim over and 'get the gist of'. I'm going to have to put some serious time aside to read this.

Unless some kind person gives me a summary?

[deviousdave]

Originally Posted by smcaaphd

Crikey - this is not a thread you can skim over and 'get the gist of'. I'm going to have to put some serious time aside to read this.

Unless some kind person gives me a summary?

Scientists doing physics experiment in big tunnel in Switzerland found what they were looking for. Validated 50 year old theory.

Nuclear fusion is the world's get out of jail free card

Druids don't know anything about String Theory.

[smcaaphd]

Originally Posted by deviousdave

Scientists doing physics experiment in big tunnel in Switzerland found what they were looking for. Validated a 50 year old theory.

Nuclear fusion is the world's get out of jail free card

Druids don't know anything about String Theory.

Ah right - string theory is something I know about *nods*

That is, both ends of the string are the same distance apart, right?

Thanks, Devious - if you have any, and I mean any questions about sheep, just give me a nudge

[deviousdave]

Originally Posted by smcaaphd

Ah right - string theory is something I know about *nods*

That is, both ends of the string are the same distance apart, right?

Thanks, Devious - if you have any, and I mean any questions about sheep, just give me a nudge

Yes. Unless it is accelerating or decelerating relative to the person measuring it, where one end of the string is further away, then the answer is no.

What's a sheep?

[smcaaphd]

Originally Posted by deviousdave

Yes. Unless it is accelerating or decelerating relative to the person measuring it, where one end of the string is further away, then the answer is no.

What's a sheep?

Surely it's dependent upon how fast a person is driving *impressively knowledgeable*

For some, a sheep by it's very definition is a sex-toy...think woolly pocket-pussy

[deviousdave]

Here is a genuine math paper on a Zombie attack.

I figure most of the science nerds are around on this thread, Enjoy :P

http://mysite.science.uottawa.ca/rsmith43/Zombies.pdf

[Druidoak]

Originally Posted by deviousdave

Scientists doing physics experiment in big tunnel in Switzerland found what they were looking for. Validated 50 year old theory.

Nuclear fusion is the world's get out of jail free card

Druids don't know anything about String Theory.

Works for me


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

[clarise]

Originally Posted by deviousdave

Here is a genuine math paper on a Zombie attack.

I figure most of the science nerds are around on this thread, Enjoy :P

http://mysite.science.uottawa.ca/rsmith43/Zombies.pdf

Shout-out to DeviousDave and anyone else out there who either knows what a fractal is or gets turned on by my avatar:

Check my new rockin' book cover! Designed by my very good friend and editor, Ariana Pearce. One of the main characters is a mathematician (hence the fractals), and the cover is to some tiny extent inspired by my avatar. Anyway, the book is in final editing and will be going up on Amazon in a few weeks.

Here's the pic. Even DruidOak ought to like it. Lots of trees.

[Tightcuntlover]

Originally Posted by clarise

Shout-out to DeviousDave and anyone else out there who either knows what a fractal is or gets turned on by my avatar:

Check my new rockin' book cover! Designed by my very good friend and editor, Ariana Pearce. One of the main characters is a mathematician (hence the fractals), and the cover is to some tiny extent inspired by my avatar. Anyway, the book is in final editing and will be going up on Amazon in a few weeks.

Here's the pic. Even DruidOak ought to like it. Lots of trees.

Hmmm.....interesting.

I wonder what you might do with my attention now that you have it.

You need to be quick though....I'm going to bed quite shortly!


PS Is, or could there be, such a thing as a fractal fuck?

What sort of integers would that involve?

[clarise]

Originally Posted by Tightcuntlover

Hmmm.....interesting.

I wonder what you might do with my attention now that you have it.

You need to be quick though....I'm going to bed quite shortly!

Alas, I am not attempting to shill the book. I really am just showing off the cool cover. Not very many people actually like my novels. (Crappy writer.) I do not actively promote them. Thanks for the interest/attention, though.

[deviousdave]

Originally Posted by clarise

Shout-out to DeviousDave and anyone else out there who either knows what a fractal is or gets turned on by my avatar:

Check my new rockin' book cover! Designed by my very good friend and editor, Ariana Pearce. One of the main characters is a mathematician (hence the fractals), and the cover is to some tiny extent inspired by my avatar. Anyway, the book is in final editing and will be going up on Amazon in a few weeks.

Here's the pic. Even DruidOak ought to like it. Lots of trees.

I love your avatar. But I am somewhat of a nerd :P, love the book cover too !

[Tightcuntlover]

Originally Posted by clarise

Alas, I am not attempting to shill the book. I really am just showing off the cool cover. Not very many people actually like my novels. (Crappy writer.) I do not actively promote them. Thanks for the interest/attention, though.

It's a very cool cover.

No doubt on that score.

[deviousdave]

I think while we are talking about maths (or math ¬_¬ ), I shall try and spread an agenda. Maths has been made by an unnecessarily complex by a stupid constant. Pi, we are taught in maths in high school some of the applications of Pi, and how useful it is. Bollocks, We should use Tau.
Here are some examples of why we should change our ways.

[Tightcuntlover]

Originally Posted by deviousdave

I think while we are talking about maths (or math ¬_¬ ), I shall try and spread an agenda. Maths has been made by an unnecessarily complex by a stupid constant. Pi, we are taught in maths in high school some of the applications of Pi, and how useful it is. Bollocks, We should use Tau.
Here are some examples of why we should change our ways.

Sorry mate....but you just can't go around saying that Pi...which is basically infinity..... is a stupid concept.

Where would your place in the universe be without it?

[deviousdave]

Originally Posted by Tightcuntlover

Sorry mate....but you just can't go around saying that Pi...which is basically infinity..... is a stupid concept.

Where would your place in the universe be without it?

I don't understand. Pi is not infinity. Pi is the relationship between the diameter of a circle and the circumference. Tau on the other hand is the relationship between the radius and the circumference, which is a more elegant way of working things out. Tau makes everything mathematically beautiful, Pi makes things messy and overly complicated.

[Tightcuntlover]

Originally Posted by deviousdave

I don't understand. Pi is not infinity. Pi is the relationship between the diameter of a circle and the circumference. Tau on the other hand is the relationship between the radius and the circumference, which is a more elegant way of working things out. Tau makes everything mathematically beautiful, Pi makes things messy and overly complicated.

I'm sorry.....you are wrong.....

Pi is the mathematical epitome of infinity....

Tau is just the 19th letter in an alphabet that very few people speak.

[deviousdave]

Originally Posted by Tightcuntlover

I'm sorry.....you are wrong.....

Pi is the mathematical epitome of infinity....

Tau is just the 19th letter in an alphabet that very few people speak.

No no no. You are wrong. Pi is not the epitome of infinity in sense of the meaning of the word. Pi is an irrational number, meaning it cannot be expressed as a ratio of 2 numbers, which as a consequence means it cannot be expressed with a finite number of decimal places. There are loads of irrational numbers and constants. Including Tau.

[Old Tool]

Originally Posted by Tightcuntlover

Sorry mate....but you just can't go around saying that Pi...which is basically infinity..... is a stupid concept.

Where would your place in the universe be without it?

Originally Posted by Tightcuntlover

I'm sorry.....you are wrong.....

Pi is the mathematical epitome of infinity....

Tau is just the 19th letter in an alphabet that very few people speak.

You are a comedy genius.



I hope you meant to sound like a troll, trying to rile up the math nerds hereabouts, and that you weren't really trying to discuss concepts of which you obviously have no grasp, right? Right?

[deviousdave]

Originally Posted by Old Tool

You are a comedy genius.



I hope you meant to sound like a troll, trying to rile up the math nerds hereabouts, and that you weren't really trying to discuss concepts of which you obviously have no grasp, right? Right?

Have I been had ?

Thank You OT

[Old Tool]

Originally Posted by deviousdave

Have I been had ?

Thank You OT

no worries, it's his schtick . . . had you pressed him any further to explain his belief that π = ∞ , he would have wandered off into some nonsensical quasi-metaphysical, faux-socratic sequence of non sequiturs and wasted a good 45 minutes of your precious time.

[RandyKnight]

Originally Posted by deviousdave

I think while we are talking about maths (or math ¬_¬ ), I shall try and spread an agenda. Maths has been made by an unnecessarily complex by a stupid constant. Pi, we are taught in maths in high school some of the applications of Pi, and how useful it is. Bollocks, We should use Tau.
Here are some examples of why we should change our ways.

The golden ratio?

[deviousdave]

Originally Posted by RandyKnight

The golden ratio?

Tau has been used for that. But Phi φ is the typical constant for the golden ratio

[RandyKnight]

Originally Posted by deviousdave

Tao has been used for that. But Phi φ is the typical constant for the golden ratio

Which is why I posted to the brief discussion of Pi..

[clarise]

Originally Posted by deviousdave

Tau has been used for that. But Phi φ is the typical constant for the golden ratio

TCL went to bed a few hours ago, so I can safely say he is wrong: Tao is not a letter. Tao is the name of an expert on harmonics who won the Fields Medal a couple years ago. (At a young age, too. I think he was 35 or thereabouts.)

By the way, you nerdy Brits will be interested to hear that I met the true inventor of the Web (and Chair of the W3C) a few weeks ago: Sir Tim Berners-Lee. Brilliant man, but an atrocious public speaker. Takes air in three minute gulps and talks on-and-off-point like a jittery chipmunk!

[deviousdave]

Originally Posted by clarise

TCL went to bed a few hours ago, so I can safely say he is wrong: Tao is not a letter. Tao is the name of an expert on harmonics who won the Fields Medal a couple years ago. (At a young age, too. I think he was 35 or thereabouts.)

By the way, you nerdy Brits will be interested to hear that I met the true inventor of the Web (and Chair of the W3C) a few weeks ago: Sir Tim Berners-Lee. Brilliant man, but an atrocious public speaker. Takes air in three minute gulps and talks on-and-off-point like a jittery chipmunk!

We all do that. It's a Brit thing. :D