Jump to content



Recommended Posts

My birthday; 8/28/82


8 + 2 + 8 + 2 + 8 = 28...


My mother had me at the age of 28


in Berkeley (8 Letters) California (10 letters).


My mother was born 7/15/54


7 + 1 + 5 + 5 + 4 = 22


She was born when her mother was 28....


My fathers was born 7/27/51


7 + 2 + 7 + 5 + 1 = 22


My grandmother was born 4/20/28


now heres where it gets complicated.


Ethier way;


2 x 4 = 8, or, 8 x 2 = 16,


or 4 + 2 + 0 + 2 + 8 = 16. which adds up to 7.


My father died at the age of 31, and my grandfather died at the age of 62, double that of 31.


which ethier add up to 12 or 1 or 3 depending on how you look at it.


So 3 is my magic number, or perhaps its 28 but ethier way I look at it these numbers make sense.


Then theres area codes.


I grew up in area code 510, where I lived for 15 years, I moved to 603 where I've lived for 9 years, I'm about to move.


Perhaps these numbers coincide with how long I spend in any particular place but I'm not quite sure.


I still have other things to work out but these numbers make sense for some reason, and I have recently felt this strange abillity, like I know what people are going to say before they say it, as if they were following some protocol that is already locked deep inside my subconscience.


Life is a matter of perception and if my life is less coincidental than previously thought, like one big conspiracy, though people may lie to me about this or that, and certain things will drive me to change or adapt,


the numbers won't lie.


Do the math.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

funny, ive done something similar myself.


i was born on 8/1/81 the same day mtv was born btw :)


my mother was born 3/6/63. i tied to associate letters for the corresponding numbers, so 3/6/63= C/F/FC, cf happens to be my initials, and my fathers initials. it got me thinking, then i did mine, it came up HA HA. i still dont know what to think about that.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

You See the Future,




You showed precisely the problem with numerology. In the beginning of your post you numeralized using the short date system to arrive at numbers that you find to be significant. Had you used the long date system, putting the "19" back into the year, you don't get the same result. What you originally point out as being a correlation of some sort no longer correlates.


Later in the post you switch methods and use the long date format and then numeralize the result to arrive at something that you find significant.


If there is any validity in some statistical result - whether its numeralizing seemingly random data such as dates or looking at temperature gradients in some system - your statistical testing model has to be consistent. You have to run the exact same test, using the exact same method on every experiment. Otherwise all you're doing is making the data fit a desired result.


What significance did you draw from your model? What is it supposed to predict about future results? What if you decided to use a calendar system other than Pope Gregory's calendar (pre-Christian Roman calendar, Jewish calendar, Chinese calendar, etc.)? What if you changed from base-10 to some other number system, say base-8 or Roman Numerals? Would the result in some other number system have any significance? Shouldn't some "universal truth" be a universal truth no matter what number system that you choose?



Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I added the numbers, The reason I did not add 19 is because it is not significant, and when I add other factors into the equation such as leap years and daylight savings time, It reminds me that some things just make sense where as others just don't.


In my post about time travel you decidedly replied with "zzzzzzz"....


I do not appreciate the wasted space and time that you so cleverly added to my post.


I've been thinking about these numbers for at least 12 years.


I do not believe in coincendence.


"Matters of great concern, should be taken lightly." - Lord Naoshige....


"Matters of little concern, should be taken seriously." - Master Itte....


I take these seemingly insignificant numbers and add them up untill I find something interesting, then I take those numbers and look at them along side other numbers I find to be significant in some form or fashion.


We adapt as things change, but I still find the numbers to be significant.


perhaps if you take a look at your own numbers and add them up or break them down you to will find something worth while or interesting.


I'm not here to argue, I'm here to discuss.


Thank you for your reply.


Sincerely, Vincenzo.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

one time i read a book about chakras, and it taught me to add the numbers up like that, but i forgot why.


i find this very interesting, because i have done similar things, and the results were mind blowing at times.


good luck with this, and i hope you reach some conclusion. i did :)



Link to comment
Share on other sites

I See the Future,


The reason I did not add 19 is because it is not significant, and when I add other factors into the equation such as leap years and daylight savings time,

Again, there's the rub. Why isn't the "19" significant in the early part of the post but is significant in the latter part of the post?Why is daylight savings significant? Not all states used daylight savings during the period covered by your statistical study. During the period covered there were even states where some counties within that state used daylight savings while others didn't. The day that daylight savings took effect even varied among the states that did use it. At least one state still doesn't use daylight savings. And this makes the system just an American instutution. There are only a handful of nations worldwide (fewer than 100) that even use daylight savings.


What is the significance of leap years? Yes, it changes the Gregorian Calendar date based on the Tropical (Solar) year. But Tropical years, Sidereal years and Julian years and are among several arbitrary references to differing criteria to fix what one group calls a "year" versus some other group calls a "year". These differing definitions of what a year is aren't all 365.25636042 Earth based days. There's nothing particilarly fundamental about any of the definitions any more than seconds, minutes, hours, feet or meters express anything particularly fundamental about the universe.


If you arbitrarily change the length of a meter (or foot) or duration of a second you change the date. Nothing fundamental about the universe itself changes but the "numbers" in the numerology do change. Could that arbitrary change be made? Sure it could. We measure meters based based on the average human (European) stride. We could have stayed with "palm" system as the basic unit of measure - 9 palms being about 2.25'. If we did that and then made one second based on, not meters, but "palms" the duration of one second would be different - thus the length of a year - in order to set leap years - would be different.


This is the problem with numerology of this sort. Its based on a set of arbitrary numbers in one system to make "fundamental" predictions about the future that no longer apply if another equally arbitrary number/date system is applied.



Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Create New...