I wonder about something in my life. Around the age of 16 I started playing with numbers in a similar fashion, it was almost feverish or manic one could say. I would play on my calculator in class and try all sorts of things. I was most fascinated with 9 and its properties. Then I started falling behind in class and I had to concentrate on what was being taught. This kind of exploration fell away. Watching this video has reminded me of that time and so many questions arose as to how dumbed down and limited my education was. It was a distraction to something that was natural in its expression in my growth. I feel sad not having stuck with it.
Thank you. Another category of numbers is this 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, - 3,6,9 =142857. This 0,142857142857 = 1/7 repeating. 2/7 = 0,285714. 3/7 = 0,428571. 4/7 = 0,571428. 5/7 . 5/7 = 0,7142857 and the last 6/7 = 0,857142. All repeating. 7/7 is ofcourse 1. So these are the numbers of the musical octaaf.
Excellent presentation! It is interesting how the length of the digit sequences in the POS start to resemble double vortexes and the toroidal field in their 2d representation. Looking forward to the rest of the series.🤙🏼😊
Pretty sure I have tried to mention Tony Mazzotti's Musical Wave of Time (as designed by Robert Edward Grant and his Precise Temperament Tuning) but I will again.
How does the musical scale shift to the right or left based on the change in order of magnitude of the template? I don't quite understand why that would shift the notes 4 to the left or right.
You need to explain how this is useful at all. There are many games you can play with numbers like this, but what is the purpose / meaning / application in the real world? I am genuinely curious, not trying to knock your explorations.
"What is the mass of the sun? What is the diameter? What is it's distance from earth?" Are all questions whose answers I have to take on faith. I'd love to see a video on how they know all of these things, not to be snooty or skeptical or cool 😎. But just to know. I personally cannot measure the diameter of the sun relative to anything besides stars and the planet and the moon. If it were 100 miles over my head floating like a balloon I honestly would not know the difference
Well I’d wager math just like what he presented here was used to come up those values in the first place. If one were inclined to investigate their accuracy, it would be an interesting endeavor to simply apply this formula in the reverse. Is it possible a lesser value was increased in this way so it would still retain its true value? Don’t know, but an interesting question.
@@kristimcgowandarkoscellard3126 Have you ever used a magnifying glass off of the sun? To burn stuff? I tried doing it with a fire. It doesn't work at all oddly enough! I thought it would be cool to light a fire, stand 10 feet away, and concentrate the heat of the fire with a lens to start another fire. it does not focus small enough though, don't know why. But that is the only way I could think t measure its distance
@@fasted8468 Could be, and that is a very interesting observation about the fire! I think our world actually functions very differently than what we have been told and is also much easier to understand than what we have been led to believe. In my opinion the electric universe model is correct and the only thing that actually makes any sense. Great minds such as Viktor Schauberger were figuring this stuff out and trying to share that knowledge a hundred years ago, but alas their discoveries were difficult to meter and therefore not profitable for those seeking to control such technologies, so their inventions and information were buried or destroyed. I find it extremely exciting that such minds are amongst us again and are actively seeking to return this knowledge to humanity as whole where it belongs.
@@fasted8468 Ok, it appears the RUclips ministry of truth deleted my comment and I really didn’t say much of anything, so…. I will try and respond again. I think your idea of how to measure and your observation of the fire’s properties is interesting. From what I can tell it seems our world may just be easier to understand & actually function a bit differently than what we have been led to believe. A hundred years ago very intelligent individuals such as Viktor Schauberger were studying such things and trying to share their knowledge. In this case it is exciting to see history repeating itself. 😁
So if a given number is to be counted as significant because it equals the diameter of the sun in miles, would this imply that the ‘mile’ is not an arbitrary length? If so what are we to make of the use of different length measures in various civilisations - such as the cubit, which has been recently argued to be related to the metric system?
Your musical scale makes more sense than any others, but the choice for 12 (half)notes per octave still feels arbitrary. I've been thinking about it a bit, and am very curious to hae a test with a dynamic scare, that derives itself from the NOW. A note is played, and it reverbarates. A second note is chosen to accompany or follow it, with a specific relative frequency (relationship) to it. Say, 1/3 higher frequency to have them be 3:4. Then a third note is played that make it a triny, a chord, whatever, and it's chosen to resonate/rhyme with both the previous, say a 3.5 which resonates like 6:7:8. If we keep the first note playing, we remain bound to it mathemically. When we replace it, we might venture into math where the original note would be "false". And that's fine. It's OK for the new chord to have a different quality, live on a different scale. Maybe it's like planes. We need 3 points in space to form a plane that reaches into infinity. When we remove the hoot to one point, we can angle to another and have a new plane, having a line scar reminding of the chord passed. This dynamic scale might well work on a piano or other instrument, but it may not necessary be 12 notes to the octave, because it depends. The key on the piano would be tuned just as it's about to be played, to harmonize with the piece being played. When we let do of the key, and others are played, the frequency associated with the key will shift a bit to harmonize in potentiality with the notes there. In this dynamic model, there would be no false notes, is my theory. How to sing this, or how to play it on a fretless guitar or trombone? Perhaps the way the music flows, it works automatically. I've hear dof musicians intentionally playing flat or sharp for the occasion the note arrives on, might this be for the same reasons I am trying to devise this dynamic scale? Perhaps the A note remains the A, but it becomes a slightly flat or sharp version of itself, depending on the music present. At this stage I can't be certain notes would not end up wandering along the piano keyboard, due to the keys required to be pressed to obtain the frequency chosen, and perhaps shifting the scale a half note from where it started. And that as well, is fine. In a dynamic scale, you'd want a keyboard that's mounted to the piano case like a track to a tank. I'm becoming less and less convinced that music needs to be anchored to any note, but starting with an inherently harmonious one frequency, might birth a large number of notes, which all remain resonant to some level, and offer a short path back to that core note. The knight in chess can reach any square, even near one, but it may take a few steps.
Hats off to you for actually caring and trying for yourself. It's quite amazing to see the music as opposed to hearing it. Music is a way to visualize the magic of life. 🌀
Hi, if you understand this stuff, you might be interested on Robert Edward Grant´s work on tuning. Check his "Precise Temperament Tuning" playlist if you can get anything out of it (He has good graphic explanation in last video on that playlist for 5min). He is great modern polymath
You represent the "base numbers" in terms of n^2 and n^3, but then say don't worry about what 2 and 3 is because "its rarely used in harmonic maths", even though those quanta are literally how its defined. reeeeeee
Hey brother so I'm curious in your opinion the best frequency to drive these fractal moments can be derived from the P.U.M? It seems the most likely...
The 864 correlation stated in the video only works if you believe there's some fundamental connection between the units humans arbitrarily chose for distance, temperature, and time. I don't ever see/hear such a connection explained. Also the sun is much closer to 865,000 miles in diameter than it is to 864,000 miles.
@@gazerbeam73 that only works because we've defined the duration of 1 second to be what it is, and because miles are the unit of measurement chosen. It doesn't work if you count seconds differently or use a different unit of measurement. Also, even if you do use miles, the sun is not 864,000 miles. It doesn't even round to 864,000. It's approximately (not exactly) 864,938 which rounds to 865,000
@jacoby6000 you are talking about a margin of error of 0.00716763% even on the earth one arc second in navigation is one nautical mile. Yes you can argue the second is arbitrary, you can live in that world. if you go about your life expecting the 7/100000ths of error isn't accurate enough, then kiss goodbye all modern conventional technology as practically nothing is engineered with that kind of accuracy.
@@gazerbeam73 the error rate is 0.109% for the 864,000 number. The number you cited is the error rate you get when you round correctly (up to 865,000) Seems the only reason to introduce *more* error is to maybe make a nice coincidence of numbers 🤔 Or I suppose we could be wrong about the diameter of the sun. Not like anybody has been there. Maybe 864,000 is right and modern tech is kinda bad at measuring celestial bodies. I kinda doubt it, but it's possible Maybe we should look up the origin of the second as a unit of time to see why we measure a second the way we do.
I love this stuff. My only worry about the numbers in their relation to decimals zeroes and how they add up is that you can add a decimal quite arbitrarily to square up any number, and it's harder to test. Let's say I measure a distance and it comes out to 10 feet. But I want it to be divisible by 3, so I fudge a bit and quickly surmise that it is actually 10.2 feet. Or even worse, I simply add a .00002, and now it's 10.00002 a a number perfectly divisible by 3. Or I measure it completely accurately: 10. 0017325242 feet Now I have a miracle, it's a number divisible by 2 because it ends in 2, And it's odd when I shorten it to 10.0017, at which point it is divisible by 3. The solution is equally simple though, So the consecutive nature of the numbers, the presence of decimals, and how you per it yourself to round them MUST also factor into the "sacredness" of the number
A simple example: What is the slope of the Giza pyramid? In whole numbers: 51 Divisible by 3. To the first decimal: 51.4 Not divisible by 3 It very well may be: 51.4000000002 Divisible by 3 again. At it could be: 51.40000000021 And that's all the exact same number just rounded differently. That is why the numbers must be either whole or consecutive
Sorry some of you are so smart 😮.... Us dummies need this basic information...if it is too basic for you I'm sure there are other videos you can look at.
I've never been able to construct a proper argument for it, but I've long suspected that the reason Vortex based or just MOD9 seems to work so well, is due to the mix of 10 and 9 in the same system. We count to 9 and write out to 10. Intuitively I feel this creates a self confirming relationship, like the math game we played in school where we let someone pick a number, multiply and divide and in the end, we know they're at this number which amazing them. How did we know? Well, we took the secret number out of the equation. This 10 and 9 stuff is more intricate for sure, and I may well have this relationship the wrong way around. That 10 makes the 9 numbers work their magic. I would like a case to be made why not a greter or smaller base.
Alternate bases always possible. They do not change proportionality. All numbers that are a multiple of 9, the sum of the numerals is divisible by 9, keep "going down" you reach nine. More interestingly, any number system base n, if the number is divisible by n-1, then the sum of the numerals is also divisible by n-1, and if you keep adding the numerals going to the next one, you will reach n-1. It's an easily provable theory. Only n-1 seems to have such properties. India has long used base ten, so playing with 9 (10 - 1) would be logical.
If 4:3:2 is why the TSG works, how to route inlet and exhaust to get hydrogen out, with which node ratios? Would the product if successful be hot hydrogen or cold hydrogen? Now we can run some cylinders or a separate engine on the hydrogen and get more energy out. How do we make the hydrogen engine spit out hydrocarbons again? How much mass is lost when we come back the same composition: hydrocarbons, we started with? Might be neglible. And depending on the step in the process, we'd see cooling or heating as a side effect? What else can we do with hydrocarbon fuels? Near normal air seems a nice enough output, but there would be vastly larger volume of air out, methinks, considering the hydrocarbon mass burned?
If impoding/exploding numbers can't even be explained to YOU...we need experiments to assert whether we can even tell them apart from their behavior. There is a possibility of over-complicating, or narrowly missing the real point. It's happened in science since the beginning of time, I'm sure.
I wonder about something in my life. Around the age of 16 I started playing with numbers in a similar fashion, it was almost feverish or manic one could say. I would play on my calculator in class and try all sorts of things. I was most fascinated with 9 and its properties. Then I started falling behind in class and I had to concentrate on what was being taught. This kind of exploration fell away.
Watching this video has reminded me of that time and so many questions arose as to how dumbed down and limited my education was. It was a distraction to something that was natural in its expression in my growth. I feel sad not having stuck with it.
Thank you. Another category of numbers is this 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, - 3,6,9 =142857. This 0,142857142857 = 1/7 repeating.
2/7 = 0,285714. 3/7 = 0,428571. 4/7 = 0,571428. 5/7 . 5/7 = 0,7142857 and the last 6/7 = 0,857142. All repeating. 7/7 is ofcourse 1. So these are the numbers of the musical octaaf.
Excellent presentation! It is interesting how the length of the digit sequences in the POS start to resemble double vortexes and the toroidal field in their 2d representation. Looking forward to the rest of the series.🤙🏼😊
Pretty sure I have tried to mention Tony Mazzotti's Musical Wave of Time (as designed by Robert Edward Grant and his Precise Temperament Tuning) but I will again.
great stuff
How does the musical scale shift to the right or left based on the change in order of magnitude of the template? I don't quite understand why that would shift the notes 4 to the left or right.
You need to explain how this is useful at all. There are many games you can play with numbers like this, but what is the purpose / meaning / application in the real world? I am genuinely curious, not trying to knock your explorations.
Nice one Jordon thanks man 🙂🤙
"What is the mass of the sun? What is the diameter? What is it's distance from earth?"
Are all questions whose answers I have to take on faith.
I'd love to see a video on how they know all of these things, not to be snooty or skeptical or cool 😎. But just to know.
I personally cannot measure the diameter of the sun relative to anything besides stars and the planet and the moon. If it were 100 miles over my head floating like a balloon I honestly would not know the difference
Well I’d wager math just like what he presented here was used to come up those values in the first place. If one were inclined to investigate their accuracy, it would be an interesting endeavor to simply apply this formula in the reverse. Is it possible a lesser value was increased in this way so it would still retain its true value? Don’t know, but an interesting question.
@@kristimcgowandarkoscellard3126 Have you ever used a magnifying glass off of the sun? To burn stuff?
I tried doing it with a fire. It doesn't work at all oddly enough! I thought it would be cool to light a fire, stand 10 feet away, and concentrate the heat of the fire with a lens to start another fire. it does not focus small enough though, don't know why.
But that is the only way I could think t measure its distance
@@fasted8468
Could be, and that is a very interesting observation about the fire! I think our world actually functions very differently than what we have been told and is also much easier to understand than what we have been led to believe. In my opinion the electric universe model is correct and the only thing that actually makes any sense. Great minds such as Viktor Schauberger were figuring this stuff out and trying to share that knowledge a hundred years ago, but alas their discoveries were difficult to meter and therefore not profitable for those seeking to control such technologies, so their inventions and information were buried or destroyed. I find it extremely exciting that such minds are amongst us again and are actively seeking to return this knowledge to humanity as whole where it belongs.
@@fasted8468
Ok, it appears the RUclips ministry of truth deleted my comment and I really didn’t say much of anything, so…. I will try and respond again. I think your idea of how to measure and your observation of the fire’s properties is interesting. From what I can tell it seems our world may just be easier to understand & actually function a bit differently than what we have been led to believe. A hundred years ago very intelligent individuals such as Viktor Schauberger were studying such things and trying to share their knowledge. In this case it is exciting to see history repeating itself. 😁
Thanks!
Pythagoras' name in the original Greek spelling: Πυθαγόρας - 80 + 400 + 9 + 1 + 3 + 70 + 100 + 1 + 200 = 864
On the topic of ancient mathematics and numbers, have you looked into magic squares at all?
So if a given number is to be counted as significant because it equals the diameter of the sun in miles, would this imply that the ‘mile’ is not an arbitrary length? If so what are we to make of the use of different length measures in various civilisations - such as the cubit, which has been recently argued to be related to the metric system?
Thank you great talk 👋👋
Your musical scale makes more sense than any others, but the choice for 12 (half)notes per octave still feels arbitrary.
I've been thinking about it a bit, and am very curious to hae a test with a dynamic scare, that derives itself from the NOW.
A note is played, and it reverbarates. A second note is chosen to accompany or follow it, with a specific relative frequency (relationship) to it. Say, 1/3 higher frequency to have them be 3:4. Then a third note is played that make it a triny, a chord, whatever, and it's chosen to resonate/rhyme with both the previous, say a 3.5 which resonates like 6:7:8. If we keep the first note playing, we remain bound to it mathemically. When we replace it, we might venture into math where the original note would be "false". And that's fine. It's OK for the new chord to have a different quality, live on a different scale. Maybe it's like planes. We need 3 points in space to form a plane that reaches into infinity. When we remove the hoot to one point, we can angle to another and have a new plane, having a line scar reminding of the chord passed.
This dynamic scale might well work on a piano or other instrument, but it may not necessary be 12 notes to the octave, because it depends. The key on the piano would be tuned just as it's about to be played, to harmonize with the piece being played. When we let do of the key, and others are played, the frequency associated with the key will shift a bit to harmonize in potentiality with the notes there. In this dynamic model, there would be no false notes, is my theory. How to sing this, or how to play it on a fretless guitar or trombone? Perhaps the way the music flows, it works automatically. I've hear dof musicians intentionally playing flat or sharp for the occasion the note arrives on, might this be for the same reasons I am trying to devise this dynamic scale? Perhaps the A note remains the A, but it becomes a slightly flat or sharp version of itself, depending on the music present. At this stage I can't be certain notes would not end up wandering along the piano keyboard, due to the keys required to be pressed to obtain the frequency chosen, and perhaps shifting the scale a half note from where it started. And that as well, is fine. In a dynamic scale, you'd want a keyboard that's mounted to the piano case like a track to a tank. I'm becoming less and less convinced that music needs to be anchored to any note, but starting with an inherently harmonious one frequency, might birth a large number of notes, which all remain resonant to some level, and offer a short path back to that core note. The knight in chess can reach any square, even near one, but it may take a few steps.
Hats off to you for actually caring and trying for yourself. It's quite amazing to see the music as opposed to hearing it. Music is a way to visualize the magic of life. 🌀
Hi, if you understand this stuff, you might be interested on Robert Edward Grant´s work on tuning. Check his "Precise Temperament Tuning" playlist if you can get anything out of it (He has good graphic explanation in last video on that playlist for 5min). He is great modern polymath
O mi new branch needed for me, im 55 and love all this stuff
Does anyone know does old words have hidden stuff
Where does Malcolm come in with the zero point energy and vortex and so on?
Thanks
864,000 miles is the diameter of the sun? Is there a way to measure it at home?
You represent the "base numbers" in terms of n^2 and n^3, but then say don't worry about what 2 and 3 is because "its rarely used in harmonic maths", even though those quanta are literally how its defined.
reeeeeee
What about quasi crystals?
Hey brother so I'm curious in your opinion the best frequency to drive these fractal moments can be derived from the P.U.M? It seems the most likely...
The sun has a diameter of 865,370 mi not 864,000
The 864 correlation stated in the video only works if you believe there's some fundamental connection between the units humans arbitrarily chose for distance, temperature, and time. I don't ever see/hear such a connection explained.
Also the sun is much closer to 865,000 miles in diameter than it is to 864,000 miles.
number of seconds in a day. the diameter of the sun
@@gazerbeam73 that only works because we've defined the duration of 1 second to be what it is, and because miles are the unit of measurement chosen. It doesn't work if you count seconds differently or use a different unit of measurement.
Also, even if you do use miles, the sun is not 864,000 miles. It doesn't even round to 864,000. It's approximately (not exactly) 864,938 which rounds to 865,000
@jacoby6000 you are talking about a margin of error of 0.00716763% even on the earth one arc second in navigation is one nautical mile. Yes you can argue the second is arbitrary, you can live in that world. if you go about your life expecting the 7/100000ths of error isn't accurate enough, then kiss goodbye all modern conventional technology as practically nothing is engineered with that kind of accuracy.
@@gazerbeam73 the error rate is 0.109% for the 864,000 number. The number you cited is the error rate you get when you round correctly (up to 865,000)
Seems the only reason to introduce *more* error is to maybe make a nice coincidence of numbers 🤔
Or I suppose we could be wrong about the diameter of the sun. Not like anybody has been there. Maybe 864,000 is right and modern tech is kinda bad at measuring celestial bodies. I kinda doubt it, but it's possible
Maybe we should look up the origin of the second as a unit of time to see why we measure a second the way we do.
@@jacoby6000 even so it's a 1/1000th error, and what is actually considered the absolute surface of the Sun from where this measurement comes from?
Nice to see someone taking this further.
Volume of a composit works only when composite of 3 digits, I guess. Or rounding to 3 numbers.
I love this stuff. My only worry about the numbers in their relation to decimals zeroes and how they add up is that you can add a decimal quite arbitrarily to square up any number, and it's harder to test.
Let's say I measure a distance and it comes out to 10 feet.
But I want it to be divisible by 3, so I fudge a bit and quickly surmise that it is actually 10.2 feet.
Or even worse, I simply add a .00002, and now it's 10.00002 a a number perfectly divisible by 3.
Or I measure it completely accurately:
10. 0017325242 feet
Now I have a miracle, it's a number divisible by 2 because it ends in 2,
And it's odd when I shorten it to 10.0017, at which point it is divisible by 3.
The solution is equally simple though,
So the consecutive nature of the numbers, the presence of decimals, and how you per it yourself to round them MUST also factor into the "sacredness" of the number
A simple example:
What is the slope of the Giza pyramid?
In whole numbers: 51
Divisible by 3.
To the first decimal: 51.4
Not divisible by 3
It very well may be: 51.4000000002
Divisible by 3 again.
At it could be: 51.40000000021
And that's all the exact same number just rounded differently.
That is why the numbers must be either whole or consecutive
Sorry some of you are so smart 😮.... Us dummies need this basic information...if it is too basic for you I'm sure there are other videos you can look at.
I've never been able to construct a proper argument for it, but I've long suspected that the reason Vortex based or just MOD9 seems to work so well, is due to the mix of 10 and 9 in the same system. We count to 9 and write out to 10. Intuitively I feel this creates a self confirming relationship, like the math game we played in school where we let someone pick a number, multiply and divide and in the end, we know they're at this number which amazing them. How did we know? Well, we took the secret number out of the equation. This 10 and 9 stuff is more intricate for sure, and I may well have this relationship the wrong way around. That 10 makes the 9 numbers work their magic. I would like a case to be made why not a greter or smaller base.
Alternate bases always possible. They do not change proportionality.
All numbers that are a multiple of 9, the sum of the numerals is divisible by 9, keep "going down" you reach nine.
More interestingly, any number system base n, if the number is divisible by n-1, then the sum of the numerals is also divisible by n-1, and if you keep adding the numerals going to the next one, you will reach n-1. It's an easily provable theory.
Only n-1 seems to have such properties. India has long used base ten, so playing with 9 (10 - 1) would be logical.
Im not understanding the significance
🔥 #11
hey mate where abouts in aus are you ?
More: These numbers are repeating itself in the same sequence except for the first digit! !
444?
If 4:3:2 is why the TSG works, how to route inlet and exhaust to get hydrogen out, with which node ratios? Would the product if successful be hot hydrogen or cold hydrogen? Now we can run some cylinders or a separate engine on the hydrogen and get more energy out. How do we make the hydrogen engine spit out hydrocarbons again? How much mass is lost when we come back the same composition: hydrocarbons, we started with? Might be neglible. And depending on the step in the process, we'd see cooling or heating as a side effect?
What else can we do with hydrocarbon fuels? Near normal air seems a nice enough output, but there would be vastly larger volume of air out, methinks, considering the hydrocarbon mass burned?
Sounds like jibberish.
If impoding/exploding numbers can't even be explained to YOU...we need experiments to assert whether we can even tell them apart from their behavior. There is a possibility of over-complicating, or narrowly missing the real point. It's happened in science since the beginning of time, I'm sure.
Experiment always has the final say.
Learn GEOMETRIC ALGEBRA to step ta Game up ! Da video is Too basic ! Also apply GA to Physics & engineering anything !
What
@@Findmylimit Goto Sudgylacmoe & BiVector channel fa GA ! Step ya game up