Quote:
Originally Posted by GregorArturo
Thanks Tone3. It was David's Divine Cosmos that really brought me on board with Torsion physics. Very mind blowing. Otherwise thanks for the sources.
-----------------
I did make a discovery to connect Rodin's work with prime numbers, my current area of focus. In essence I am trying to figure out why some numbers may be more sacred than others in a mathematical sense, such as prime numbers or numbers with high number of factors like 60. Well, taking both of those ideas I came up with this. I am not sure if anyone has every realized the factor relationship with prime numbers before, but I discovered it right after an intense meditation session last night heh.
Number on left is prime number.
1: 1 = 1 (1 factor)
2: 1 x 2 = 2 (2 factors)
3: 1 x 2 x 3 = 6 (4 factors)
5: 1 x 2 x 3 x 5 = 30 (8 factors)
7: 1 x 2 x 3 x 5 x 7 = 210 (16 factors)
11: 1 x 2 x 3 x 5 x 7 x 11 = 2310 (32 factors)
13: 1 x 2 x 3 x 5 x 7 x 11 x 13 = 30030 (64 factors)
17: 1 x 2 x 3 x 5 x 7 x 11 x 13 x 17 = 510510 (128 factors)
19: 1 x 2 x 3 x 5 x 7 x 11 x 13 x 17 x 19 = 9699690 (256 factors)
Then this connects with Rodin's work:
1 = 1
2 = 2
4 = 4
8 = 8
1 + 6 = 7
3 + 2 = 5
6 + 4 = 10, 1 + 0 = 1
1 + 2 + 8 = 11, 1 + 1 = 2
2 + 5 + 6 = 13, 1 + 3 = 4
Note though, one is not considered a prime number. They say a prime is a number only divisible by one and itself. It makes more sense to say a prime is a number that has only two factors. Most numbers have 4 or more even number of factors. Two square numbers have three, and all the other square numbers have an odd set of factors. One is the only number that has one factor. The barrier between prime and non-prime numbers could be more like Prime numbers > Factors of 2. But ya, hopefully not way over your heads.
|
Hi Mike I agree with you in your definition for the view of a prime number having two factors means really that our defining understanding and articulation should in fact have a few that is no longer linear. In support of your research and speculation id suggest an overview of how numbers and their definition can be interpreted with a 'holistic' view of their true functions.
if we dont fuss over the classics' hierarchy then we could proceed with vital creative thought.
here is Walter Russells table of elements
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/8989/russtbl.gif
I believe he and you are on the same path of understanding.
here is his paper on the 'electric universe and 9 harp strings
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/8989/radio.gif
and an overview of some of his work from the University of Physics and Philosophy
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/8989/
Walter Russell is a scientist whose work was used by Ralph Ring (interviewed by project camelot) Ring was able to build a spaceship which levitated -- during the interview Ring discloses how his project was scrapped by the gov.
Hassim Haramein also reflects on Russells work and has developed a new unified field theory which has drawn the attention of Nasa.
http://www.theresonanceproject.org/research.html
papers for peer review
http://www.theresonanceproject.org/pdf/torque_paper.pdf
while these men have in some cases like Newton developed new maths such as calculus-- often their work focused more on theory like Einstein.
I wonder if you may be on your way to developing a new math, understanding of math and applications thereof?
great thread!
day