Robittybob1

Did I read that right: dreams are a byproduct of the brain restoring its glycogen reserves? The link on glycogen in the brain had nothing about "dreams", so how did you make the linkage? What was the purpose of giving us that paper to read?

One day I'll pluck up courage and look at non-Euclidian geometry.

Up till now whenever I see the word "Non-Euclidean" I switch off. I have not even attempted to master that yet. Have you understood it fully?

The title of that page is a clue: "Inscribed and Circumscribed Circles of a Regular Hexagon". To you the circle seems to be the area within it, but to me the circle is just a special line. You could be right, maybe I should say "boundary of the circle" e.g "draw a circle" should be "draw the boundary of a circle". Interesting.

To think in these terms is very different than anything I've struck before. I'm not the quickest on uptake but if someone else could comment I might get it. I have not consciously said "that a hexagon is circular or that pi is 3". A regular hexagon inscribes a circle. That hexagon has sides equal to the radius of the circle. That is what I have said. Note "inscribes" is not the same word as "describes" as used in the title of the thread.

Have you ever tried to convert the images in your dreams into colloquial sayings. I found that was the language of my dream interpretation. So it would be like charades, where your subconscious mind was trying to communicate to your conscious mind using pictures (scenes, stories) that expressed these sayings.

The way I was suggesting they don't need to know pi, they just measure the total length of the sides of the inscribing polygon (hexagon) which is in this case 6 times radius a process I've provisionally called "compassing" (for I don't know what else to call it) but from there the words describing that action are derived e.g encompass. Google definition. Even the concept of the "radius" rather than just the diameter had to be developed. Today we would describe a hemisphere by its radius and all the rest can be worked out from that.

Do you understand what I was suggesting using the regular hexagon for? You can define any circle by the max. sized regular hexagon that fits exactly within it. The points of the hexagon must share 6 points with the circle. http://www.mathopenref.com/constinhexagon.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumscribed_circle explains the special nature of the circumscribed hexagon. Here is a historical based reference: http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~huberty/math5337/groupe/overview.html

You might have to explain that a bit more. Are you using "round" as in the original quote? I take that to mean it was hemispherical.

Yes, the hexagon that fits exactly in the circle, one defines the size of the other. The length of the side of the regular hexagon is exactly the radius of the circle. It is a very special case.

I don't understand that at all sorry. If I finally understand you correctly, the "regular hexagon" method of measuring a circle would not be useful in all situations, as in your planet example. But at the beginning measurements were made using dimensions found on the body e.g "a foot 12 inches, a yard the length of a stride, for there was no standardised rulers etc.

It came up in another thread where this ancient text did not describe Pi adequately, but in my research on how to calculate Pi I could see there was an alternative way of describing a circle, and most of us would have done this where the circumference can be marked divided by the radius 6 equal times using a compass. Steps: Using the compass to draw the circle. Using the same compass place the point on the circumference and draw a section onto the circle. move the point to where the section intersects the circle and repeat 6 times. There will be 6 points on the circle evenly spaced by the radius. Isn't this what is being described here? Some translate "did compass it round about" that as "circumference" but could it be describing the use of a compass to go around it? Then it would be correct as per the diagram. http://sveta-geometrija.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/1616.jpg The straight line distance between each point on the circle is equal to the radius (6 times 5 = 30).

Thanks Janus. You always surprise me with your extensive knowledge on the subject. Could you tell us what you do/did to be so clued up? @ Mods - are we allowed to continue discussing how the GPS system works? [i recall a lot of it revolves around need to understand time dilation.]

OK so what was the point of mentioning Pi? It went back to fractions but where did fractions come from in the discussion on Abraham? Do I have to scroll up? Bad maths in the Old Testament that's right. I just read the summary of Abraham's life story http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Abraham.aspx and none of it seems PC for today.

Some were getting close Is that 3 and 1/8th? When was Abraham supposed to have been around? http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Abraham.aspx Did he need Pi to count the stars? He might have needed it to calculate the percentage of the sampled area to the globe. I assume he knew that the stars appear to travel across the sky so that new stars rise in the East as the night wears on. If he counted the stars in a 1 degree arc would he have known to multiply that by 360? Did the ancients have quick measure for degrees e.g the thickness of your thumb at arms length is how many degrees? Here is a guide: I don't think Abraham even bothered counting them. He knew there were thousands and that was enough for him. That's that second bit "Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness....." Had he started to count he would have been blasted for doing that. But irrespective of that, now that we have counted the stars, what does that do to the promise given to Abram? It is hard to imagine how one person could get 10^29 "offspring".

I'm thinking if it has the ratio of being exactly half the Earth's radius above the mean radius of the Earth and having the exact time dilation factor of the geoid it struck me as being a good orbit to have a GPS type system but it isn't being used. Why wouldn't someone use it? Are we missing something about these time dilations? I realise if we had two synchronous clocks and put one in a satellite and put that satellite into orbit at that radius the times would not stay the same during the journey, but even so they could then be reset if needed.

OK you taught me something there. What other fractions were in common use in the OT e.g a quarter or a third? Pi being not a defined fraction maybe was a bit more difficult to express (not for God for the value of Pi is very consistent in nature) as the laws of physics seem to be built into the Universe. No one (that I'm aware of) can really explain the origin of the laws of physics. It depends on the advancement of math and science, that has allowed us to talk in such complicated numbers such as Pi. The way we express ourselves has evolved over the years.

I tried Googling it once before and only got 1 result, and that was just confirming the height. I was stuck on the search terms to use that might help me with the search. There doesn't seem to be a name for this particular orbit. I'll try again tomorrow. Thanks.

What I was trying to understand is whether at the height 9558 km where the two effects cancel and at the geoid time runs at the same rate. If the overall dilation rate at both places is zero does that mean also they run at the same rate? Do you know of any satellite that has taken advantage of this effect at this orbital radius?

The apparent error could quite easily be explained by the thickness of the sides or the places where the measurements were made from. Did they have parts of a cubit in those days? 31.41593 cubits?? Show me an example where they describe a fraction of a cubit please.

Since at this radius [math] r= \frac{3r_e}{2}[/math] the absolute value of the gravitational time dilation (GTD) equals the absolute value of the velocity dependent Time dilation (VTD) time on this satellite will still be different than at the surface of the Earth (geoid). I think previously I may have thought just because they cancelled each other out they may have been the same as on the geoid. What can we say about the time dilation at the geoid? We are moving and we are in a gravitational field, they may not be equal but I have no idea how we could calculate that. Do we just add these [math]\sqrt{1-\frac{3GM}{rc^2}} and \sqrt{1-\frac{2GM}{r_e c^2}}[/math] where [math]{r} = {r_e} [/math] ?

That is possible, but I took it in more from the perspective of "God" who should have known how many stars there actually were. This 10^29 is still only a rough estimate, it hasn't been an actual count. It wasn't a matter of Abraham being right about the number. "No sorry Ab, you were one out". I find it hard enough to count animals let alone count the stars. With these verses of scripture there never seems to be any time limit, so if Abraham didn't do it one of his descendents could complete the job but the promise is suppose to always hold. Like Abraham wasn't told to "count the stars right now (there and then) for that is going to determine the number of your descendents". 1.58456E+29 =2^97 (96 rather than 69). 2910 years, it clearly didn't happen. Or did you take into account the generations that had passed on? If we Include the past generations as well as the current. 3.96141E+28 = total living breeding descendants, 95 generations, 2850 years, 1.18842E+29 = total living and "non breeding" descendants. That was my surprising conclusion too, but will that happen? I think we have a little way to go but it isn't totally out of the question any more. Either that or there is some real bad math in the OT. For a little further on Abraham is told his descendents will be enslaved etc, obviously referring to the Hebrews being enslaved by Egypt. When I looked at how many arrive and how many leave they had to multiply, not just at the power of 2, but the power of 120 per couple per generation and that defied all my imagination. Either that or I got my maths wrong too.

Do you think it is impossible? Why ask such a question?

Have you ever named a child? It never felt like a fact to me. It was more like a random event in my experience, any name was possible. Until someone said I choose this one.

Now you have reverted to preaching when you should be producing facts. You have been given time to repent.